CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
5.0/10
4.5 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Diez años después del secuestro de Martin Bristol, unos ladrones de bancos se esconden en una aislada granja rural donde acecha un asesino en serie.Diez años después del secuestro de Martin Bristol, unos ladrones de bancos se esconden en una aislada granja rural donde acecha un asesino en serie.Diez años después del secuestro de Martin Bristol, unos ladrones de bancos se esconden en una aislada granja rural donde acecha un asesino en serie.
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Elenco
- Premios
- 2 premios ganados en total
R. Brandon Johnson
- Julian
- (as Brandon Johnson)
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
After a bank robbery doesn't go as planned, the criminals seek refuge in an isolated abandoned house. Soon the robbers and their two hostages find themselves terrorized by a madman. This movie is like a combination of two other horrors released around the same time: "Dead Birds" and "Toolbox Murders." Unfortunately, it isn't as effective as either of those films. The director and many reviewers have claimed this is a return to the gritty 70s style of horror film-making, but I found this to be more like your average 80s slasher. However, it doesn't have that ambiance that a film could only have by being created in the 80s. It isn't nearly as entertaining. I watched parts of the Director's commentary, and all of the things he pointed out as "homages" are things that have been done so many times that they most fans would probably take them as genre clichés and not homages. The most irritating part about this movie (besides the average acting) is the musical score. For the most part, it is eerie and subtle. However, whenever something scary happens, someone goes wild with the Casio, and the effects are grating. While "Malevolence" isn't a terrible movie, I'd honestly rather sit through an 80s slasher than a modern film that tries too hard to recapture that era.
I've been wanting to check this out since learning that it won Best Feature at the 2003 NYC Horror Film Festival. Now after watching it I'm guessing every other film it was competing against must've REALLY sucked.
Malevolence is in no way a bad film, yet it's just not that good either. The concept of mixing a robbery-gone-wrong story with a slasher film is pretty original, but this only makes it's heavy use of slasher clichés drag it down into mediocrity. What would be perfectly acceptable idiotic behavior from stupid teenagers in a fun slasher film, becomes unbearably frustrating because one would expect more from the unconventional characters portrayed here.
As the film stumbles forward through all the usual "scares" of the genre, I only became more and more frustrated by how a good idea is just thrown out the window in order to fall back on things that have been done to death (and much better) 25 years ago. All this is topped off by a soundtrack that was obviously intended to be "old-school" yet comes off as just really annoying and repetitive.
Still, as far as low-budget indie horror flicks go, Malevolence is decently shot, and while it does bring in a new mix to the formula, it immediately waters it down by simply not doing anything worth-while with it.
Malevolence is in no way a bad film, yet it's just not that good either. The concept of mixing a robbery-gone-wrong story with a slasher film is pretty original, but this only makes it's heavy use of slasher clichés drag it down into mediocrity. What would be perfectly acceptable idiotic behavior from stupid teenagers in a fun slasher film, becomes unbearably frustrating because one would expect more from the unconventional characters portrayed here.
As the film stumbles forward through all the usual "scares" of the genre, I only became more and more frustrated by how a good idea is just thrown out the window in order to fall back on things that have been done to death (and much better) 25 years ago. All this is topped off by a soundtrack that was obviously intended to be "old-school" yet comes off as just really annoying and repetitive.
Still, as far as low-budget indie horror flicks go, Malevolence is decently shot, and while it does bring in a new mix to the formula, it immediately waters it down by simply not doing anything worth-while with it.
I understand it's an homage, I understand what it tries to do, but...if your way to homage some bad acting in old films is just replicating that, you will get...bad acting. The best way to do it would be to put some comic layer to it, but nop, it's just shockingky bad acting, and I'm not surprised that no one from this cast is currently a great actor.
Liked the score and the killer was alright, but the story is totally all over the place and the film is just not that interesting.
Liked the score and the killer was alright, but the story is totally all over the place and the film is just not that interesting.
I just enjoyed this flick. However, having read the other reviews, I'm seriously wondering if viewers may have been on crack or are close friends with the director? Are they serious? No, seriously? I think that the best aspect of the movie is the fact that the director imbued it with so many MAJOR components of 80's B slasher flicks - the really bad synth music, the twisted ankle, the incessant screaming, the double twist ending - but without a hint of irony, which is rather difficult to do I would imagine! The tone is extremely deadpan. If someone had told me I was watching a horror movie made in 1988, I would have completely believed it - and is a very significant statement coming from someone like me by the way. Whether intentional or unintended, the movie works for both thrills and chills. Fun stuff - no second coming like a few other critics declare. An addendum to this story. My good friend left several messages recently for me indicating that she wanted to go to "Male Violence" - yes, several times she told me that we simply must see "Male Violence"? I asked her to spell it for me..."M- A-L-E-V-O-L-E-N-C-E"...."you haven't heard about Male Violence"? So in thanks to this movie I learned that my friend can't spell or really speak...wow.
Trusting some good reviews here I went ahead and watched Malevolence not expecting anything great but just looking for some entertaining slasher movie. If you add some imagination the very beginning of the movie might be quite intriguing, but once the actual plot develops it just annoys the hell out of you. The acting is miserable, the storyline is so predictable and shallow that there were some parts when I thought well?...maybe it's supposed to seem predictable and there's going to be some cool and unexpected twist now...Uh.Okay. Perhaps now?..No?..So I naively kept expecting and kept being constantly disappointed. Oh, and I must say I did jump out of my seat a few times - but not because I was scared, it was because of the music effects that can give you a serious headache. All in all, could have been an OK movie if it wasn't for pathetically poor acting and a storyline a ten year old kid could write.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaStevan Mena announced following the film's release that this was actually the middle film in a planned trilogy. The preceding chapter was eventually told in Malevolencia 2: bereavement (2010), with the finale Malevolence 3: Killer (2018) released 14 years after the first film.
- ConexionesFollowed by Malevolencia 2: bereavement (2010)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Malevolence?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 200,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 127,287
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 13,445
- 12 sep 2004
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 258,782
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 30 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.33 : 1(original ratio)
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
By what name was Malevolencia (2003) officially released in India in English?
Responda