Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueWhen the remains of several dismembered corpses are discovered, a sheriff and his beautiful, young deputy begin a frantic search for the brutal murderer.When the remains of several dismembered corpses are discovered, a sheriff and his beautiful, young deputy begin a frantic search for the brutal murderer.When the remains of several dismembered corpses are discovered, a sheriff and his beautiful, young deputy begin a frantic search for the brutal murderer.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Photos
India Dupré
- Taffy
- (as India Dupre)
Avis à la une
(2007) Brutal
HORROR
Co-produced, written and directed by Ethan Wiley directing another conventional straight-to-rental serial killer film occurring on a very small town that holds two deputies on it's district, and the murders which has something to do with flowers being planted on it's victims with their hearts taken out. When at the same time Jeffrey Combs as Sheriff Jimmy tries to make attempts to devoid the situation altogether, since he's trying to elect himself to a bigger and better position as D. A.!
Low budget and unique with obvious acting and budget problems, but it's nice to see well known baddie and bald actor, Michael Berryman, who stands out the most of the lunatic characters in Wes Craven's original of "The Hills Have Eyes" playing a good guy role "once" in awhile as he plays Leroy whose autistic, and who manages dogs for missing people!
Co-produced, written and directed by Ethan Wiley directing another conventional straight-to-rental serial killer film occurring on a very small town that holds two deputies on it's district, and the murders which has something to do with flowers being planted on it's victims with their hearts taken out. When at the same time Jeffrey Combs as Sheriff Jimmy tries to make attempts to devoid the situation altogether, since he's trying to elect himself to a bigger and better position as D. A.!
Low budget and unique with obvious acting and budget problems, but it's nice to see well known baddie and bald actor, Michael Berryman, who stands out the most of the lunatic characters in Wes Craven's original of "The Hills Have Eyes" playing a good guy role "once" in awhile as he plays Leroy whose autistic, and who manages dogs for missing people!
well it ain't bad but ain't that good either - not a film i'm going to watch again thats for sure. if was expecting more of it since i heard that it should be quite good but naaa, think there's to many bad actress in this film, and it starts out showing who the " bad " guy is.the story isn't well told , after my opinion it jumps of the story if you know what i mean ....the basic story could be a very well movie, but i don't think the director has put it correctly together, it seems like he just wanted to make a movie fast and then get the money and then split out of business. it needs some that makes you bit you're nails of pure exiting , but in my case he didn't manage to do that. i don't see this film for a horror , but more like a horrorfest movie .....or u know a first timer
OK so I have seen 'B' before, well I would class this as an 'F' movie. I have never seen a movie this bad, it was like a school kids first try at a film project. The acting was nasty, I cant even tell you how bad the camera work was... If you have nothing else to watch, and this is at the video store, well... Go home and have a nap, you dreams will be better quality. I rated it a 1, there was no 0!!! Basical it an attempt at a thriller mystery, but I have never see a movie that lets you know who the killer is throughout the whole move. I gory scenes a poorly done, you could do a better job at home with a bottle of Hinze and a plastic knife. I honesty wonder how movies like this actually make it to DVD.
If I learned one thing from this movie, it is never judge a film by it's cover art, or critic blurbs.
The depicted killer looks like he would be cool to watch hacking and slashing his way threw his victims.
One problem. The killer on the cover is not in the movie. Another problem is the blurb reading ""Hostel meets the Silence of the Lambs in this Horrific Murder Mystery"".
I hate to break it to the reviewer, Stuart Alson, but this movie is no were close to the aforementioned films, is definitely not much of a horror film, and is not a murder mystery.
For me personally, this movie was very boring. It kept dragging on and on.
There was no mystery, they show exactly who the killer is from kill #1, and he is not the kind of person I would associate with a hack - and - slash film.
The kills were not creative at all. Very little was actually shown, and the blood & gore was minimalistic.
The acting was not so good. Some characters acted odd at times, while others gave a wooden performance.
Sound was OK for the most part, but the mics at times picked up the wind, and background noise ( air conditioners, traffic, e.t.c. ).
The lighting as I mentioned before, was not very well done, sometimes making it so dark it was hard to make out what was happening.
The special effects were limited to very basic stuff.
Over all this movie is not worth the time. I payed $3 for it new, but I feel like I was overcharged.
You know your in for a not so good movie when the opining cinematic for the companies, "Barnholtz" and "Wiseacre" are horrendous.
The depicted killer looks like he would be cool to watch hacking and slashing his way threw his victims.
One problem. The killer on the cover is not in the movie. Another problem is the blurb reading ""Hostel meets the Silence of the Lambs in this Horrific Murder Mystery"".
I hate to break it to the reviewer, Stuart Alson, but this movie is no were close to the aforementioned films, is definitely not much of a horror film, and is not a murder mystery.
For me personally, this movie was very boring. It kept dragging on and on.
There was no mystery, they show exactly who the killer is from kill #1, and he is not the kind of person I would associate with a hack - and - slash film.
The kills were not creative at all. Very little was actually shown, and the blood & gore was minimalistic.
The acting was not so good. Some characters acted odd at times, while others gave a wooden performance.
Sound was OK for the most part, but the mics at times picked up the wind, and background noise ( air conditioners, traffic, e.t.c. ).
The lighting as I mentioned before, was not very well done, sometimes making it so dark it was hard to make out what was happening.
The special effects were limited to very basic stuff.
Over all this movie is not worth the time. I payed $3 for it new, but I feel like I was overcharged.
You know your in for a not so good movie when the opining cinematic for the companies, "Barnholtz" and "Wiseacre" are horrendous.
This is a real stinker.
For some reason I thought this was actually going to be a real movie. It was within the top 30 pre-leases on Amazon for the week it came out AND it starred one of my all time favorite actors- Jeffrey Coombs.
I had hopes. Hopes that were dashed against a stone within the first five minutes. Jeffrey and the villain had marginally believable characters, but just about everyone else made Denise Richards look like Laurence Oliver. They were just horrible. And not very pretty either. It wasn't like they sacrificed acting ability for looks. I've seen a LOT of bad acting- community theater, Troma movies, high school productions. This ranks below just about all of it.
Like the other reviewer stated, this is definitely an F movie.
The story is a joke as well, although you're so busy being amazed by how bad the acting is, it's hard to scrutinize the plot that closely.
On a happier note, this movie helped me to realize how good most of the stuff I watch is. After this, I'm much more appreciative of actors and their craft. Most actors, that is. Definitely not these.
As far as my fondness for Jeffrey Coombs goes... it's still pretty far up there, but not quite as high as it was.
For some reason I thought this was actually going to be a real movie. It was within the top 30 pre-leases on Amazon for the week it came out AND it starred one of my all time favorite actors- Jeffrey Coombs.
I had hopes. Hopes that were dashed against a stone within the first five minutes. Jeffrey and the villain had marginally believable characters, but just about everyone else made Denise Richards look like Laurence Oliver. They were just horrible. And not very pretty either. It wasn't like they sacrificed acting ability for looks. I've seen a LOT of bad acting- community theater, Troma movies, high school productions. This ranks below just about all of it.
Like the other reviewer stated, this is definitely an F movie.
The story is a joke as well, although you're so busy being amazed by how bad the acting is, it's hard to scrutinize the plot that closely.
On a happier note, this movie helped me to realize how good most of the stuff I watch is. After this, I'm much more appreciative of actors and their craft. Most actors, that is. Definitely not these.
As far as my fondness for Jeffrey Coombs goes... it's still pretty far up there, but not quite as high as it was.
Le saviez-vous
- GaffesAn aster flower has more than 21 petals so it does not fit in with the pattern of "the golden section". (Aster is the name of the street that Zoe lives on)
- Versions alternativesGerman rental version is cut by ca. 34 seconds to secure a light SPIO/JK approval. The retail version is cut by ca. 87 seconds and was rated "Not under 16" by the FSK (nonetheless the DVD has a "Not under 18" rating due some bonus trailers included).
- ConnexionsReferences The Oprah Winfrey Show (1986)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Durée1 heure 31 minutes
- Couleur
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant