Serial Killer

This is the second film I've watched from 4th Floor Pictures. While the first one was understandable rough, they should have fixed those problems by now. A lot of the plot elements seem pointless or are just unconvincing.

The primary serial killer (Vic Badger) is shown almost always watching a rather intense S&M porn movie, and a porn print-out is hung on the wall behind him. Why? While its true that many actual killers had a sexual bend towards their actions, there was a reason. These scenes and those involving tied up topless women don't really add anything to the plot. It just seemed like they were added for a T&A factor and hopefully generate some sales.

The writer (Adam Berasi) is only really convincing in one scene. He stops a jogger running past his house. She is just as oblivious to why he does this as anyone who watches this movie is. We only know that its really creepy to stop random women in the street to flirt with them, and Berasi does creepy well. While this scene is one that actually advances the plot line, many scenes don't. It's like the director just invented scenes as they went along with no real goal in mind.

All in all it's not an atrocious film, but it's not a good one either. Watch it if you want to, just don't pay for it.

Serial Killer is film #5 and the second by Ryan Cavalline in the Decrepit Crypt of Nightmares box set. This is his debut feature and while having better sound than Demon Slaughter isn't nearly as much fun. It starts with the blood-covered boobs of a woman being filmed, she's wearing a cross though to keep those who feel shame from getting aroused by this image. The film is about a writer writing about serial killers who has a dark secret. It isn't hard to figure out. He erroneously states that serial killers are mostly "White, heterosexual males" which hasn't been true since at least 1990 with a certain other group always punching above their weight since at least 1900 in such sordid deeds. Most likely director Cavalline was unaware as this vile, blood libel has been pushed by the media, Hollywood and television industry for as long as I can remember.

The film mostly involves interviews with serial killers and video footage of bound women who are always topless and sometimes with their crotches on full display. Joel D. Wynkoop has a small but welcome appearance enthusiastically describing his murderous acts. There's some gore here, ample nudity including a woman with very large and very fake breasts having an extended shower scene. This is an attempt to probe into the mind of serial killers and the only way it tries to break the stereotypical mold of the White male serial killer is by including one female killer, White of course. Not awful as far as this sort of thing goes and not a total waste of 72 minutes.

This movie is the definition of inept film-making at it's absolute worst!! Another totally unoriginal and uninspired backyard home video made by a bunch of people who have no business ever being in front of or behind a camera. The director of this film has no talent and he seems all too proud to prove that fact with this "serial killer film". The film is supposed to be creepy and scary but it's neither thanks to his awful "direction" and his garbage script. The actors are every bit as wretched as the director in that none of them deliver a performance at all worth remembering. I also have no idea why so many directors insist on throwing Joel Wynkoop into their movie's because he's probably the worst actor ever put on video.

The problem with these type of films is that they actually manage to get released. People then buy them expecting a semi professional piece of work which is not at all what we get. The people who insist on making garbage like this should stick to trading copies with their friends because it's a complete rip off to charge people for this crap.

I've seen four of Ryan Cavalline's films now and this by far the worst. The others (Dead Body Man, Demon Slaughter, and Day of the Axe) were just as cheaply made but were much better. This plot (what there is of it) is obvious and seems tacked on. I love nudity as much as the next guy but this does seem very tacky, exploitational, and unnecessary in this movie. And it takes up far too much of the movie. The acting is credible even at these dime-store rates, the music is great, the direction is good as always, but there's just too little story here. I seek out Mr. Cavalline's films wherever I can find them and this was my first disappointment. He's far too exciting and insightful of a director to settle for what was mostly exploitation.

It was obvious to me when I rented this that it was a no-budget film. I'm often attracted to the cheapies merely BECAUSE they have no budget -- a lot of them seem to try harder to make up for lack of money. Every now and then I'll stumble on gold ("Evil Cult," for example) but this is not one of those instances. That said...

The story (if you want to call it that) revolves around a novelist who's writing a book titled "Serial Killer." We soon learn that he's being interviewing killers and one is sending him videos of his victims. It could have been interesting, but instead it goes off in an entirely different direction. There is a twist ending (which is basically given away on the back of the video box), but by the end one hardly cares anymore -- and it's not particularly shocking.

The sole purpose of this film seems to be to showcase a variety of women nude and tied up in X-rated positions. That wouldn't bother me if it were particularly erotic -- but it's not erotic in the least. Instead, it's dull, tedious and downright inane (one of the nude women is laughing through her supposedly terror-filled dialogue). Which brings me to the acting (again, if you want to call it that). The lead serial killer is passable, and might even be a good b-movie actor if he toned it down a notch. Save for two or three women who are seen for a few seconds, the rest of the acting is completely atrocious. Quite frankly, I've seen better acting in bad '70s sexploitation films. I was oblivious to Joel Wynkoop's status as a b-movie actor until I read another comment here, which would explain why his scene seems to drag on endlessly, but I hardly understand why he has any status.

My biggest complaint about the film is one that most people probably wouldn't give much thought to. The novelist gives an autograph that reads "YOUR DEAD." Now, any published writer would know that "your" is possessive and the correct spelling of that would be "you're." Had they not drawn attention to that note (twice) it wouldn't have bothered me so much, but I was already irritated that I'd shelled out a few bucks to rent it and found that grammatical error added insult to injury.

Bottom line: avoid this pointless home movie unless you want to see a bunch of women naked. Even then, I wouldn't recommend it (I'd be quicker to point you towards quasi-redeemable trash like "The Cheerleaders" or any Nazi Hellcamp flicks).