Down the Road

As I was sitting through this "flick", as Jason Christopher likes to call it, I couldn't help but notice something: this movie is bad. I have seen my fair share of bad horror movies, and this is right up there with the worst of them.

In the horror genre, there is a line that a movie can cross over where bad becomes funny, and when this happens the movie becomes somewhat enjoyable. Unfortunately for Jason Christopher, his flick sits just behind this line, causing it to be completely unwatchable. Everything from acting to camera work to lighting was terrible. Multiple shots, excuse me, most shots, in this movie were either under or over exposed, making it hard to see what was going on. The score was almost non- existent, but when it was, it hardly fit the mood of the scene. It seems that Mr. Christopher spent the majority of the budget on Clint Howard's paycheck, which was a complete waste of a role. The screenplay itself was horrible, so I can't blame Jason Christopher for making a bad flick. But actually, he is to blame because he wrote it. With characters that are completely generic, a killer that wears size 7 boots (very intimidating), and dialogue that doesn't make any sense, do yourself a favor and spend your night looking at a wall, it will be more enjoyable.

First, let's talk about the acting: it sucks. Jen Dance is annoying. Shaun Paul Costello doesn't ever actually act. Chelsey Garner just runs around. David Bonner is over the top at times and a little unbelievable in the role he is given, and that makes Brian Gallagher WAY over the top (a killer in hunting boots...OH NO). Chris Ready gives an average (key word is average) performance. Nikki Bell doesn't belong in ANY movie EVER because she can't act and is also good to laugh at. Seriously, I don't even think she could be in an adult movie where you don't even need to act. And Matt Nadu just stands around looking pretty.

Next, let's talk about the special effects: laughable. Was that tomato sauce or ketchup? I like Lauren Palmer's review below (evidently she did the effects). Her work is about as good as her grammar and command of the English language, which is to say VERY BAD. Next time you give your own movie a 10/10, make up a fake name or something.

Then, let's talk about the editing: Who did this? I especially like the "party scene" where the same footage is just played over and over again. It's day. Then it's night. Then, it's day. Then, it's morning. Then, we skip day. Then, it's night again. I CAN'T KEEP TRACK.

It's 77 minutes long. And 77 minutes too long if you ask me. It's boring. And I laughed through most of it, which you aren't supposed to do in a horror movie. I especially laughed when Brian Gallagher delivers his never ending speech that belongs in some classroom, not in a movie.

The blooper reel is proof none of these people should be making movies, and it's sad that they said this was their "best shot" because then you know they are really bad at this.

I found this movie for about $2 in the local secondhand DVD store, although the DVD cover is carrying "Punishment" as the title. Being a lifelong horror fanatic I bought the movie without having any prior knowledge about the movie or story.

The story was, well, lets just be fully honest and say unfathomably stupid. A man watch a his daughter is killed by a drunk driver, and then he disappears for years and people starts to be killed in the forest. Right, so because his daughter was killed by a drunk driver, the man decides to go on a killing spree and kill everyone who drinks. Right... Very plausible.

While this movie does have a few elements from the forerunners of the slasher genre, then "Nobody Gets Out Alive" will never become a noteworthy participant in the slasher genre. The killer just had no edge, nor any characteristic trademark like Jason, Freddy or Michael.

The kills were, well, not impressive. Sounds bizarre saying that, but in a slasher movie you want to see blood and gore in spectacular kills. This movie just didn't have that to offer.

One thing that was good in this less-than-mediocre-slasher-movie was the acting. People were doing good jobs with their given roles and characters. But it didn't do much to salvage the movie.

If you enjoy horror and slasher movies, then your time and money is better spent elsewhere.

If I wanted to watch Friday the 13th, I'd have watched Friday the 13th. Writer/Director just steals from everything that came before this and then calls it a "homage". Let's just hope a sequel is never made. Actors did their best with what little they were given as far as story/character development or lack thereof. Blame rests solely on the shoulders of the "writer"/director. Go watch paint dry. I promise you, it'll be more original.

Chompcrc here. The technical specs state this was shot on a Red One. I've never seen such limited dynamic range in a movie. There's no way this was shot on anything other than an RCA vhs recorder. Having said that, low budget horror hardly hinges on picture quality, and the sound is up to par, so if you can get past the expected flaws concerning story, formula, motivations, etc, I say an indie horror fan should check it out. As for the camera, they are either lying, or shot the movie so morbidly exposed that there was no way to save it in post. My vote is for the former, because the latter would negate the built-in levels that the Red One possesses to deter such exposure issues.