Claustrophobia

Lauren (Melanie Lynskey) is house sitting in a quiet, wealthy neighborhood and decides to throw a slumber party for her officemates. Unfortunately, only two show up: her spunky friend, Gina (Sheeri Rappaport), and the quiet new girl, Grace (Mary Lynn Rajskub). Could the lack of party guests be due to the well-known fact that there is a crossbow-wielding rooftop-loitering serial killer on the loose in the area? Unfortunately, they spend too much time discussing this, and they hear footsteps coming from above.

This film has finally received a DVD release in the US. The title change was changed from the appropriate Claustrophobia to the misleading Serial Slayer. The packaging, which features an evil Vin Diesel lookalike with a crossbow standing by a dark and creepy house, is also misleading. This film is actually an attempted subverison of the slasher genre. The terror is mostly psychological and not the type you would see in an ordinary slasher: the film takes place entirely during the day, there are only a few characters in an enclosed space, the perspective of the killer is never shown, and there is little on-screen violence and gore. Unfortunately, this interesting concept is poorly executed. The film obviously was made in a short period time on little-to-no budget, so it is understandable, but it is hardly an effective thriller.

The main problem with Serial Slayer is the unbelievable plot. A rooftop serial killer who draws his victims out of their homes so he can shoot them with a crossbow is a great premise. Having a slasher film set during the day, so that the killer cannot lurk in the darkness, is also a neat idea. Combining these two concepts does not work, at least in the context that is set up in this story. According to a radio announcement at the beginning of the film, this serial killer has already claimed a handful of victims. So it makes sense that the neighborhood is a little empty, as most people would probably go elsewhere until the killer is caught. However, apparently nobody drives through this neighborhood (including cops, who should probably be patroling the area), because nobody notices a guy on the roof in broad daylight.

But more importantly, why the hell would you have a slumber party in an area where everyone knows there is a killer on the loose? Early-on, there are some funny conversations (I'm assuming this is why it is listed as a "comedy" on IMDb--but this is no horror/comedy!) between the girls about serial killer hysteria and the chances of being a victim, which would be acceptable in any other context, but it just sounds ridiculous here. They also discuss how the past victims were all killed outside of their homes, which apparently brings them a sense of safety...even though none of the windows are locked, these women seem 100% convinced that the murderer is not going to break-in and kill them. There are several laughable instances where the characters try to draw the attention of the neighbors that make absolutely no sense. If you can get past some of these ridiculous premises, then some scenes in this movie could probably be really suspenseful.

The acting in Serial Slayer is unfortunate. All three lead women have proved in the past that they are damn fine actresses. Probably due to lack of time, good direction, and horrible dialogue, their performances here are really low-key and their fear is not at all believable. Some of the interactions between the characters are amusing and you wish the film would become the character piece that it is so obviously striving to be.

Another huge problem with the movie is the ending. After watching the film, I skipped around the director's commentary and was shocked that I completely misinterpreted the ending. Sadly, the way I saw the ending was much more exciting and made much more sense than what the ending actually turned out to be. It isn't meant to be ambiguous and open to interpretation, it is just poorly done.

On a side note, the movie also features a small "comeback" performance by Judith O'Dea (Barbara in the original Night of the Living Dead), but it is nothing to write home about. As I said before, this movie is extremely low-budget (made with hand-held digital video) and I'm sure the cast and crew worked extremely hard to get it done in time, so I hate to rag on it. It has a cool concept and a little bit of suspense, if you can get past the non-sensical behavior of the lead characters. But it is really not a well made film. Rent Slumber Party Massacre instead.

My Rating: 2.5/10

Having enjoyed writer/director Mark Tapio Kines's debut film FOREIGN CORRESPONDENTS, I was ready for something in the same vein -- haunting, sardonic, even lyrical. Fortunately these qualities are evident enough in CLAUSTROPHOBIA to confirm that it's the same creative mind at work. What the film truly delivers, however, is pure and simple paranoia -- an intelligent and very creepy thriller that inventively plays with genre conventions. All of the basic ingredients are there: a house with three cute young women trapped inside (Mary Lynn Raskjub is the most watchable for my money), a faceless killer with a signature weapon, a couple of unfortunate bystanders. It's what Kines does with the material that gives the movie its hard edge. The action plays out in real time, in the suburban neighborhood next door, and -- a counter-intuitive but surprisingly effective move -- almost entirely in daylight. The pacing favors slow terror over shocks, remorselessly closing the walls in around the characters (hence the title). There are no "rules" governing who lives or dies: as in real life, the violence is jagged, haphazard, and mutely disturbing. The surprise ending is a "banality of evil" twist worthy of Gus Van Sant's ELEPHANT or Terence Malick's BADLANDS. Altogether a fine journeyman outing from a filmmaker who gives spooky detachment a good name.

Claustrophobia (2003)

** (out of 4)

A small neighborhood in Los Angeles is struck in terror when a maniac starts climbing on people's roofs and shooting them with a crossbow pistol. The town is in a panic and the police don't have a clue to what's going on because the killer doesn't have a motive and no clues were left at the crime scenes. Thankfully three girls decide to throw a slumber party and the killer just happens to show up. With the darkness falling, the three girls must find a way out of the house.

You might remember this movie under its original titles of Claustrophobia but no matter the title the film really isn't worth troubling yourself with, although there are a few interesting aspect that die-hard horror fans might want to check out. The most interesting thing is that actress Judith O'Dea makes her first screen appearance since her role as Barbara in George Romero's Night of the Living Dead. It's somewhat shocking she didn't do any films between these two but here she is in case you want to know what she looks like today.

The rest of the film really doesn't have enough interesting aspect to get any sort of recommendation but I do think director Mark Tapio Kines could make a good movie given a good cast and a higher budget. The film was shot digital and to me this is a death kiss to many low budget films because it's very hard to build any atmosphere and that's a problem here. Another issue is the actual look of digital and for a low budget horror movie, the graininess and ugliness of video can always make for a more interesting movie but again, this here is lost when you're shooting digital.

Outside of that, the basic story isn't anything new and you'd be better off renting the campy The Nailgun Massacre or the cult favorite The Slumber Party Massacre since both films serve the genre a lot better. I'm sure while making these types of films the directors are aware of previous low budget films that made their debut on VHS back during the 1980's. With that in mind, why on Earth are these direct to DVD titles coming out so lame? Fans of those 80's classics enjoy them because while the stories aren't the greatest, the film at least gives you some good gore and pretty girls taking their clothes off. I'm going to guess Scream made nudity politically incorrect but this film here isn't going to be opening in two-thousand theaters. To make up for the budget perhaps these directors should start delivering the goods.

The performances are expected to be bad but the ones here are even worse than you'd expect from this type of film. None of the characters are written good enough to where you actually care for them so it becomes rather boring watching them talk and trying to survive when in fact you're hoping they'll quickly be bumped off. Another issue is that they don't say anything interesting. Apparently the director (who was also the screenwriter) was trying to build up suspense in their talk but this doesn't come through because the girls say nothing interesting. Throughout most of the film they simply say did you hear that? which gets old.

Even with all of that, I'd almost recommend the film due to the director being able to capture a few jump scenes. I won't give the scenes away but there's one involving a window that made me jump and that isn't too easy to do. Another highlight of the film is the sound effects of the killer walking on the roof. This is a very simple effect but the director makes the most of it and it does manage to be a bit creepy. There's really nothing new or original in this flick but I respect some of the effects the director was able to create.

There is no word terrible enough to describe this movie. Every single solitary aspect of it was pitiful and completely senseless. The acting was of the worst of I've ever seen, the directing was the official worst I've seen and don't even get me started on the script writers. On the cover of the DVD case I got out I read one review that said "The best straight to video movie of the year" well for the sake of movie lovers everywhere I severely, severely hope this was not the case. I mean you can't tell me NONE of these obviously middle class, decent job occupying, love to talk women have a cell phone. I honestly reckon I could sit here for around 3 hours typing up problems with this movie movie but I won't bother because it wasn't worth it. All I'll say is please, please for future movies sake DO NOT GET THIS FILM OUT!!!

I don't know from where to start: the film is amateurish. The acting is terrible, the plot is poor even the usage of camera is childish. A serial killer using arrows to kill his victims... The making of the film took less than two days, the script took less than three days I think. If it took more then something is wrong with the cast. No I did not like this film at all it's more bad than ''Decoys'' or ''quiet kill''. It is a surprise to me that 61 people voted for it and it has an average rating of 5. I suppose there were some friendly votes. I cannot believe that people actually paid to watch this movie or the ''actors'' got paid to participate.