Fear of Clowns

Hey,

I've seen a lot of posts where you defend the hell out of this flick, but I've got to tell you, you can't blame shoddy writing and extremely poor directing on a lack of budget. I was on board to see a movie that looked like crap but had all the basic elements OK, because that's what a low-low budget film normally has. But this "film" is a piece of crap.

Here's the complaints:

ON WRITING: You claim to have a definitive love of horror films, specifically Halloween and Alien, yet you completely ignore the structure of these scripts. Each great horror film has its foundation in a strong psychological subtext (I.E. repression and return of the repressed, male/female archetypes and the overthrow of such, infiltration of boundaries, etc.). Your film has people talking in circles with crap lines like "Have you ever been spanked by a clown?". If childhood trauma were at the heart of the film, why not draw us more into it? Instead, you do what every other hack in this business does: you write B.S. dialogue that makes no sense because you don't have the first clue as to who your characters are.

In addition, the reason that this film is not scary is because you explain EVERYTHING. What's scarier: a psycho-killer who walks around in a mask killing for no reason and with no remorse or a psycho-killer who sits around saying, " Get BETTER, Get BETTER."? This is why Carpenter, Craven and Scott are geniuses, and well, you have this as your crowning achievement.

ON DIRECTING: Have you ever heard of the 180 degree line? You jump all over the place with mismatched reverse shots, and ever-changing screen direction, leaving us as an audience unable to settle. And since you've asked repeatedly why the editing is bad, I have one question: Do either you or your editor know what a beat is? There are no dramatic moments in this film because you are constantly cutting away from them. What could have been a nice introductory scene between your two protagonists becomes a confusing mess because you cut the living daylights out of it.

This "film" has no sense of mood or character whatsoever. I think the character that actually went deepest was Shivers, and that should say something about where your focus was. In your extremely self-important and self-indulgent "making of" segment, I found your attitude toward your actors appalling. First of all, DO NOT DIRECT A RESULT! This is the first rule of working with actors, taught in the most basic of classes. When you stood there and said to Mark something like, "I want to see a mixture of agitated and hungry" or something to that effect, my heart broke for all of the people who had to work under such conditions. And at one point you were yelling at people, and saying to the actors, "I just want to finish this f--- ing scene and go home." What does that say to them about your level of support, when they're the ones bleeding on film for you. Shame on you, my friend, shame on you. And on a sidenote: if the makers of the camera that you shot with won't let you release their name or logo in your "making of", doesn't that say something about the film?

Rent the movie "Overnight". You might learn a thing or two about the path you are traveling. That is, if you ever do get a shot, which I highly doubt. You should go into another field, or at least take some classes on writing, directing and working with actors.

this was one of those movies that you go out and take a chance in the video store. You see a b-movie that you've never heard of with a cool box and cool title. Then you get home, hoping you've found yourself a gem, but when you pop it in your DVD player you realize you have to reach for the Ben & Jerry's to stave off the depression. From the novice acting, to the bad writing to the cheesy special effects... everything was just plain bad. Even right down to something I never even notice... the editing. There are some downright noticeably bad cuts that boggle the mind. I listened to a little of the audio commentary and the director kept talking about how much attention they paid to the audio, but I never once heard him voice his production concerns about any visual aspects i.e. poor lighting, amateur camera angles. Stay away from this one.

The entire storyline is entirely ridiculous. BUT, if one must make a serious horror movie out of such a dumb premise, well, I tip my hat. My problem with this movie is many. First of all, the script is just plain bad, everyone sounds quasi retarded. Secondly, the acting is very very poor on almost all counts. The detective is pretty good, and there are a few hammy performances, but the leads are just plain wooden and boring, there's no one of interest here, even the killer clown is bland. Having said all of these nasty things, there are some redeeming points to be made, the screenplay isn't awful, some good camera work for digital, and the overall production doesn't feel completely cheap. Still, this felt an awful lot like amateur hour at the carnival.

More properly my fear of a sequel to this pretty damn dire little flick. It's the film only a mother could love, and indeed by the outpourings of the shills here it seems the film has more than a few apologists. Sorry guys, I'm sure you all love Mr Kangas, maybe even have vested interest in his career, but get a grip please. Here's a recommendation; if you liked "Snapped" you will probably like this. At times, yes it verges towards the so bad it's OK for what it is. It is however painfully overlong at that, and to be utterly frank comes off as the work of enthusiastic people reaching way, way beyond their abilities. Oh, and failing, because they don't have any real talent and they are somehow unaware of this stark fact. The guy that plays Shivers did a better job than the rest of the cast, and luckily as he was in make-up, it may not be the end of his career. The other actors were bad, and unfortunately are made to look EVEN WORSE by the awful direction. The scenes in the multiplex at the end were admittedly pretty comical for just this reason. Suspense and urgency had obviously been temporarily removed from the dictionary when those scenes were shot. All that said, I sat through it till the long awaited end. (Did I mention it was painfully drawn out?) I don't believe the director is a horror fan for a moment, but as one myself, and a fan of bad horror at that...I give it a 3.5/10 considering budget etc. There must be much more talented people out there for Lion's Gate to invest in though, so do them a favour Kevin, and go and do something you're good at. Making films is not what you were born for.

This is one of those rare movies where absolutely NOTHING was good!! Usually I can always point to one good thing (I.E. An actor who stood out, a particular shot, editing, something)I can't believe the director is actually brain dead enough to try and defend this embarrassment of a film.

The acting is junk, there's no effects (I.E. gore,awesome killings,NOTHING!!) The script/story is junk and I swear the guy who plays Tuck will NEVER get a role in any project not featuring this incompetent director!! He was FAR AND AWAY the worst actor in this movie.

I'm mad as hell at myself for not having turned off this dogs*it movie that seems like it was made by someone who rode the small bus to school...I usually don't try to be cruel but to actually try and defend this pathetic attempt to make a film just makes me sick!! There's NO WAY the director and just about everyone else involved in making this trash don't know how bad this is!! And that by trying to defend this speaks volumes on their mental capacity (Or lack of)

There's not enough minus stars to give this pile of crap your best bet is to avoid it!! It'll bore you to tears within the first 5 minutes.