Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaThe Chancelor family gets into an accident. Mother Maggie and son Cole are taken in by farmer Lukas Walton, never seen again by the father. Eight years later, someone claiming to be Cole con... Leggi tuttoThe Chancelor family gets into an accident. Mother Maggie and son Cole are taken in by farmer Lukas Walton, never seen again by the father. Eight years later, someone claiming to be Cole contacts the father.The Chancelor family gets into an accident. Mother Maggie and son Cole are taken in by farmer Lukas Walton, never seen again by the father. Eight years later, someone claiming to be Cole contacts the father.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
Laura L. Cottrel
- Maggie Chancelor
- (as Laura Lynn Cottrel)
Recensioni in evidenza
I was at the screening on Saturday night and the one thing everyone has forgotten is that Chris Grillo specifically asked for no reviews at this time! Buddy Hill's review was up before the screening and his is the ONLY legit review and I agree with everything he said, the cast and the film are great. I'm glad sin-a-man's review was removed because he was just a hater. I disagree with incognito-3145. Buddy Hill was right, Tom Detrik was amazing and if his performance was reminiscent of a villain from a bad comic book remake, DUH! That's what the character was so that means he did it right and did everyone forget that Carmela Hayslett just won an award for her performance in BOOLEY so that should tell you about her craft. I'm pretty sure that review is just the bitter ramblings of the wife of one of the actors in the film but I won't make accusations without proof. All I can say for myself is if you get a chance to see this film do it you won't be disappointed.
This movie was very low budget, and it shows. The acting was mediocre (even the appearances from Doug Bradley and Ernie Hudson couldn't save it) and the camera work was below average too. Some of the scenes seemed disjointed and the plot was all over the place. As for the story itself, yeah it had it's moments but I felt that the script was written in a hurry as it didn't flow at all. I also felt that the editing could have been better too as the film was too long, (some of the scenes could have been shorter) it could have been cut down to 85 minutes or so instead of the tedious 102 minutes that it ended up as. In the end I couldn't wait until it was over. So all I can give this film is a 2 out of 10 (only because I liked Doug Bradley in this).
Don't be fooled by the fake 10/10 reviews, this is absolutely awful.
Low budget doesn't mean guaranteed poor movie. It certainly increases the possibility and this film shows it.
Awful acting.
Terrible "script".
Unimaginative characters, typical hillbilly stereotyping.
There may be hidden low budget gems out there, this isn't one of them, its complete rubbish. Cant think of one redeeming quality.
I rarely switch a movie off, and in this case didn't, but came very close.
Avoid.
Low budget doesn't mean guaranteed poor movie. It certainly increases the possibility and this film shows it.
Awful acting.
Terrible "script".
Unimaginative characters, typical hillbilly stereotyping.
There may be hidden low budget gems out there, this isn't one of them, its complete rubbish. Cant think of one redeeming quality.
I rarely switch a movie off, and in this case didn't, but came very close.
Avoid.
I watched Deer Crossing tonight. I am not a movie critic or a film Major. I am just a guy who loves movies.
I watch 2 movies a day minimum and Stumbled across Deer crossing. I have spent way more time on way less Movies. The acting was a bit weak but show promise. There are a few in the cast that have potential. The writing was on the weak side. The directing was pretty good. Sound and music was weak. Overall it was watchable and definitely gets them a second chance. I think that this type film just needs a certain type person to appreciate it. I don't want to spoil anything.I hope you enjoy the movie and my review helped.
I watch 2 movies a day minimum and Stumbled across Deer crossing. I have spent way more time on way less Movies. The acting was a bit weak but show promise. There are a few in the cast that have potential. The writing was on the weak side. The directing was pretty good. Sound and music was weak. Overall it was watchable and definitely gets them a second chance. I think that this type film just needs a certain type person to appreciate it. I don't want to spoil anything.I hope you enjoy the movie and my review helped.
There have been times in history when people have sacrificed themselves to save their fellow men from evil. If I ever attain sainthood, it will be because I watched this film so that others will not have to.
In a word, this movie is pathetic. If, for some masochistic reason, you still think you should give it a try, then watch the scene that introduces the movie. If you think you want to see more of the same, or even more depraved, nonsense, then feel free to continue. Also, consider checking yourself into a psychiatric hospital, because you need serious help.
This is a C movie that strives, but fails, to be a B movie. The acting is so bad, it's laughable, which is why the film got a 2 instead of a 1. The director, who is not worth naming, must have been vaguely inspired by David Lynch's, Blue Velvet. There are Frank-like moments, actors, dialogues, and scenes that those who know the film will recognize. But this is like comparing Dr. Dre to a neurosurgeon.
Though many in this movie could be nominated for worst actor, my vote goes to the girl who plays the psychiatrist. How low is your budget if this is what you have to settle for? I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that this is the director's girlfriend. If that's the case, then there is justice in this world.
In a word, this movie is pathetic. If, for some masochistic reason, you still think you should give it a try, then watch the scene that introduces the movie. If you think you want to see more of the same, or even more depraved, nonsense, then feel free to continue. Also, consider checking yourself into a psychiatric hospital, because you need serious help.
This is a C movie that strives, but fails, to be a B movie. The acting is so bad, it's laughable, which is why the film got a 2 instead of a 1. The director, who is not worth naming, must have been vaguely inspired by David Lynch's, Blue Velvet. There are Frank-like moments, actors, dialogues, and scenes that those who know the film will recognize. But this is like comparing Dr. Dre to a neurosurgeon.
Though many in this movie could be nominated for worst actor, my vote goes to the girl who plays the psychiatrist. How low is your budget if this is what you have to settle for? I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that this is the director's girlfriend. If that's the case, then there is justice in this world.
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Wasteland
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 50.000 USD (previsto)
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 45min(105 min)
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 1.78 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti