Crippled Creek

Three friends go to a cabin and encounter more than they bargained for.

This film looks like it was recorded on a mobile phone, not a new phone a prototype of the original camera phones. The 'acting' is non-existent, except maybe for Ashley Totin who at least has a modicum of talent, it's like the rest of the cast were just picked up in the nearest town and told they were starring in a movie. The dialogue is inane and excruciating and boy is there plenty of it and the sound quality is appalling. The soundtrack is inappropriately used including one hilarious scene when a song is being played when there is a lengthy talking scene. Why??

You could spend all day knocking this film but I do like to try and take at least some positives from any film. You do at least get to know the principle characters even if they are a pretty vacuous and unlikeable lot. The film does pick up after about an hour and there are one or two tense scenes.

This is an awful film but at least it kept me watching and was strangely fascinating if not always for the right reasons. Thanks mainly to the fact it improves considerably in the second half, I will give it a probably generous 5 but i'd never watch it again.

it was so beautiful, every shot was taking as if it was filmed by Michelangelo, the nude scenes were perfectly censored, with perfect agility. i suggest this film to any intelligent human being. the other person that commented on it must not have taste in flawless, beautiful film making, he should be shunned for the rest of his known life. for a low budget film it is a shining glory film that every man woman and child should watch millions of times. -ps- you are my hero Hans Hartman!!! he looks like drew Carey!! :)-pss- there are many high glamorous quailities in this ORIGINAL blockbuster hit that make me want to pee my pants in excitement, this film is so good, i can not say it again but man it is so good.

I went into this movie for 2 reasons :

1) Hopes that Paul Logan would have a nude scene 2) I have high tolerance for low-budget slashers

Even with low expectations and standards, these 90 minutes were interminable. The movie opens with an off-camera murder, then introduces a trio of talentless Thelma & Louise & Louise going to spend the night into the woods for fun, booze and female bonding. They're warned by the local policeman that they should not venture too far into the woods, as there's a mad family there. They thank him then shrug like whatever, and start boozing it up with a couple of guys they meet there for ONE HOUR of character exposure. One hour of character exposure is a very bad idea for a 90-minute slasher with a cast of 6 no-talent local talents. They drink, they cavort, they drink, they have arguments, they walk, even have turds in a tree stump. Then they drink. Has anybody seen "The Prey" ? This is like a homage to this very similarly disabled slasher from the early 80's.

Absolutely nothing happens for most of the duration, then it lamely picks up at the last 5 minutes for revelation of the killer. The nudity mentioned by other reviewers is anecdotal and certainly not titillating. Paul Logan never gets nude. There's a total of one slash in the movie. You can't hear anything. This is a very crippled crock.

HORRENDOUS! Avoid like the plague. I would rate this in the top 10 worst movies ever. Special effects, acting, mood, sound, etc. appear to be done by day care students...wait, I have seen programs better than this. Opens like a soft porn show with a blurred nude female doing a shower scene then goes bad from there. Good nude scenes, but that is it. Sound and light problems were persistent throughout the movie. At times I would swear I could hear the roaring of the camera motors. YIKES! I would like to see another movie on this story, but done by different people. This batch of actors and crew need more acting and movie making lessons. Voted 1 out of 10.

I'm not saying that because the production values were so low, but because it was filmed terribly. That shot of the girl washing her hair in the creek? Did we really need to sit there for an overlong shot and watch her do that for 5 minutes in the same spot? It was terrible, the lighting was just plain bad. You could barely see anything and when the characters were talking, you could barely hear what they were saying. Did I watch the whole movie? Of course not I skipped through most of it, and I don't want to hear anyone say I need to watch the whole thing first to judge it. This film was so poorly done and executed that even by independent and low budget standards it's just plain terrible. Awful movie...don't waste any time on it unless you want a good laugh, but even then it's not because of the actors "funny" lines, it's because of how painstakingly bad the production is.