Lost After Dark

Pros: Robert Patrick is getting work

Cons: unoriginal, so dark you can't see most of it, generic, can't decide if it's meta, trying to be 80s with zero charm, cannot care about the characters, generic stereotypes, music is bad.

It was an okay cheap horror film. Nothing great and nothing new to see. I won't spoil it, but the first death was shocking; I didn't expect that. The kills were okay. Even though Toby wasn't the main character, I was surprised he turned out to be so likable. They don't usually make a character the audience will care about in these types of movies.\ Robert Patrick's character was silly. I don't know if he was hurting for money, or he just wanted to be in a horror film.

The bad guy was stupid. You've seen his sort of "can't die bad guy" in multiple cheap horror films.

I gave this a 4-star rating. If you must watch all the slasher films out there, give this a viewing, but don't expect much. However, there are horror films that are far worse than this.

The director is competent, the actors are mostly doing a fair enough job and the gore effects are probably what you would expect from a low-budget slasher referencing the 80s. But the script is bad enough to outweigh the good, significantly.

It seems that people are nowadays so used to movies being constructed by formula, retelling the same old crap, over and over, that they immediately consider a movie "smart" when it does something a little different from the others. Yes, the movie does have a few minor surprises. But other than that, most of the tiring clichés and overused tropes are still there. None of the "victims" do anything intelligent or reasonable. The killer could be no more generic, the story no less interesting.

There are a few well shot and creepy visuals, but those were, unfortunately, not the focus of the movie and thus were neglected in favor of uninspired slasher action.

Capitalizing on 80's slasher genre can work as a premise of satiric horror, but it doesn't excuse outdated delivery such as stiff acting and poor pacing. The idea is to put myriad of old horror antics in attempt to create gore as well as slight comedy. Unfortunately, it's not even better than actual 80's cheap movie.

Plot is as simple as they come, a group of students venture to the woods in the most dire condition possible, then meets a psycho killer. It'd be a decent popcorn flick if not for, mostly, the jarring acting. The movie goes on a way to depict stereotypes, making the actors spew nonsense in incredibly overly dramatic way. Some of the scenes resemble blooper of actual classic slasher or cheesy commercial. Audience already knows that it's a throwback, so there's no reason to force every smirk or gasp to be ridiculous.

The entire thing looks plastic, down to the script which not only sounds random but incredibly pretentious. So, when the characters talk about fate or other serious issue, it's far from believable. Not to mention the movie spends quite some time for these characters, especially on first half, to make audience invest of stale personalities. Granted, one or two might be relatable, but as they interact with other characters the shallow performance underwhelms any distinct trait.

At the very least, it does partially deliver the expected gore. There are a few timidly shocking moments, but even those are simple stabbing or head crushing, certainly nothing you haven't seen before. For fans it may be mildly amusing, casual viewer might not be so lenient.

Lost After Dark tries to give a homage, or cheap imitation of classic slasher, however it only trips and falls to the same flaws from three decades ago.

I pretty much agree with the others here (4 so far) The director did a nice job of setting up the characters and the general feeling of the era pretty well, but ultimately and unfortunately there really just wasn't much of a story to go along with it.

The ironic thing is that usually it is SPECIFICALLY the acting itself that is so atrocious in these low-budget Horror films and many times completely ruins what could have been a good story (please see my review of the recent Gawd-Awful 'HONEYMOON' for example) But... in this case, the characters and the acting itself were just fine for the type of film it is, BUT everything else just didn't really add up to much. So, in this case it turned out kind of backwards from the way many other films seem to go...

As mentioned by others, Robert Patrick was good in his role and the girl's Dad was just about right. Too bad... because almost ALWAYS, it is precisely the terrible acting or characters that are so grating in films like this, but these ones here are actually fairly decent compared to most. So, it leaves you feeling that you really would have liked to see them in the context of a much better story, but that is just the way it seemed to turn out, in my lowly and wretched opinion.

Heh... I kind of feel that my REVIEW is rather shallow too, but quite honestly, there just isn't much more to say. I gave it a '5' only because I thought the setting, characters, and actors were pretty decent, otherwise the story overall would have gotten less...

So, basically.... move along home... nothing to see here...