A writer buys a typewriter which brings out his deepest and darkest desires.A writer buys a typewriter which brings out his deepest and darkest desires.A writer buys a typewriter which brings out his deepest and darkest desires.
Dody Goodman
- Aunt Gayle
- (scenes deleted)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
If you're a fan of Debbie D, you'll love this film. It turns out that she's a very good actor. Some of her other films don't feature her in speaking roles. I liked the movie. Some of the scenes are a little shocking and disturbing even for a avid horror fan. Pace is quick and tight, no filler, just non stop action once it gets cranking. The beginning seems a little slow, only because I think the director wants you to know the characters, but when Debbie D's character falls into the clutches of this madman, played by Tony Rugnetta, all bets are off. I liked the soundtrack too. Sounded like a real orchestra, something most don't expect in a low budget flick. Overall, I enjoyed it.
Another refreshing Thriller from John Orrichio. The movie has good character development, good plot, acting and some very strange twists. Tony Rugnetta, New Jersey actor, who was in a few Soprano episodes and a film with Frank Sinatra way back when plays a writer who becomes possessed by the spirit of sadist when he buys a haunted typewriter. As for comments made by reviewers like Strazdamonas who claim to edit better, do everything better, one has to ask If he can do all of this, why doesn't he have any films in distribution? If his only claim to fame is a youtube video, maybe he does watch paint dry. Ignore posts by ignorant wannabes and watch it for yourself. Joe Franklin appears in a brief role as Tony's father. If you enjoyed watching him on TV as I did growing up, you'll get a kick out of seeing him again. Still the same old Joe.
The acting was terrible in the early scenes. The punk and his rather Junoesque girlfriend beating up the black retarded guy, for instance, that was unforgivably bad. And when the main character and his wife speak to each other, it was terrible. However, it's a surreal and unreal horror film, and once the unreality of it became more pronounced, I was able to follow the story.
Problems with the story? Narrative problems? Yes, totally. But the main character's descent into sadistic cruelty was kind of shocking, perhaps more shocking after all of the jokey scenes preceding it.
I enjoyed the development and remain in shock that one of the characters was totally naked for the entire final half of the film. The nudism, plus the sadism, plus the rape, plus the murder, plus the Satanism -- it kind of creeps up on you and creeps you out. At least it did me.
Would I recommend this? Yes, watch it. But go in with open eyes and expect some campy horror scenes. Not method acting, but delivering lines in order to make the story go forward.
Problems with the story? Narrative problems? Yes, totally. But the main character's descent into sadistic cruelty was kind of shocking, perhaps more shocking after all of the jokey scenes preceding it.
I enjoyed the development and remain in shock that one of the characters was totally naked for the entire final half of the film. The nudism, plus the sadism, plus the rape, plus the murder, plus the Satanism -- it kind of creeps up on you and creeps you out. At least it did me.
Would I recommend this? Yes, watch it. But go in with open eyes and expect some campy horror scenes. Not method acting, but delivering lines in order to make the story go forward.
First off, let me say that it's not easy playing a victim. Everyone cheers for the hero or the villain, so when you add in playing a victim, then playing the victim for most of the movie, and then playing a naked victim for most of the movie, you start to wonder how Debbie D hasn't been crowned a Scream Queen award winner yet by the people in the business who know how hard it is to do it.
Second, the acting by just about everyone is terrible, particularly the supporting characters. I almost got the feeling I was watching a student film, but I've seen student films that are much better. I've even seen porn films with a paper-thin plot that had better acting. And it's not the sort of "so bad it's good" acting, either, so you lose out on the cheese factor. I caught myself thinking, "WTF? They should've given me the budget to do this. I'd do it right!" Then I checked the actors' credits and noticed that they also served as production crew on the film. So, I'm guessing that it was a case of "hey, if you help me make my film I'll let you have a role in it. A speaking role!" Third, the initial premise is solid - writer buys inanimate object that possesses him. Stop. OK, if done right you can take this idea and leave the viewer wondering if the writer really was possessed, or just crazy. "The Shining" is a great example of this in execution. You just need to write it along those lines.
Fourth, what's with the retarded assistant? Comic relief? Luis de Jesus as "Ralphus" in "Bloodsucking Freaks" is the epitome of how to do the assistant to a madman. Funny yet creepy at the same time. In this one, the assistant is just a waste of space.
Fifth, if you knock out your meddlesome wife and tie her up in the basement so you can perform satanic rituals with a sacrificial victim, why not add her in as a bonus sacrifice? Or at least strip her naked and paint a pentagram on her belly, too. Maybe Lucifer prefers blondes. But wait, that's right, she's the script supervisor and probably conveniently discarded the page that talks about her clothing be removed.
Sixth (because this is a horror movie and the number "six" has evil connotations), what exactly was Gesner's role in the scheme? Nothing important, other than the fact that the actress that played her was a boom operator and script supervisor, which takes us back to the "hey, if you work on my movie I'll let you have a role" point I made earlier.
In all, this has the feel of a bunch of people with nothing to do deciding to make a movie on a long weekend and somehow roping Debbie D into being in it. Naked. For most of the film.
Someone needs to hand her an award.
Second, the acting by just about everyone is terrible, particularly the supporting characters. I almost got the feeling I was watching a student film, but I've seen student films that are much better. I've even seen porn films with a paper-thin plot that had better acting. And it's not the sort of "so bad it's good" acting, either, so you lose out on the cheese factor. I caught myself thinking, "WTF? They should've given me the budget to do this. I'd do it right!" Then I checked the actors' credits and noticed that they also served as production crew on the film. So, I'm guessing that it was a case of "hey, if you help me make my film I'll let you have a role in it. A speaking role!" Third, the initial premise is solid - writer buys inanimate object that possesses him. Stop. OK, if done right you can take this idea and leave the viewer wondering if the writer really was possessed, or just crazy. "The Shining" is a great example of this in execution. You just need to write it along those lines.
Fourth, what's with the retarded assistant? Comic relief? Luis de Jesus as "Ralphus" in "Bloodsucking Freaks" is the epitome of how to do the assistant to a madman. Funny yet creepy at the same time. In this one, the assistant is just a waste of space.
Fifth, if you knock out your meddlesome wife and tie her up in the basement so you can perform satanic rituals with a sacrificial victim, why not add her in as a bonus sacrifice? Or at least strip her naked and paint a pentagram on her belly, too. Maybe Lucifer prefers blondes. But wait, that's right, she's the script supervisor and probably conveniently discarded the page that talks about her clothing be removed.
Sixth (because this is a horror movie and the number "six" has evil connotations), what exactly was Gesner's role in the scheme? Nothing important, other than the fact that the actress that played her was a boom operator and script supervisor, which takes us back to the "hey, if you work on my movie I'll let you have a role" point I made earlier.
In all, this has the feel of a bunch of people with nothing to do deciding to make a movie on a long weekend and somehow roping Debbie D into being in it. Naked. For most of the film.
Someone needs to hand her an award.
Aside from the negative feedback of some on here, I decided to watch this movie anyway. Not sure why people are complaining, but I thought it was very good. It was different than a lot of the horror films out there and I thought the actors/actresses did a great job. Interesting ending! It seems as though the movies that are good have low ratings which is why I decided to watch this. I generally don't even comment on here, but I felt this one deserved it. Another independent film I recently watched and thought it was pretty good is "The Cellar Door". It has a low rating as well. In my opinion, people don't appreciate good quality independent film.
Did you know
- TriviaDebbie D pee scene and naked torture scenes are confirmed to be real by film makers..more extra scenes are in uncut DVD version..
- GoofsDebbie D appears completely nude about 90% of her appearance in the movie. When Debbie was put on table, you can see her hands are not tightly tied, she can easily escape from the satanic ritual. It appears She simply puts her hands above head and pretends to be her hands are tied.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Dead Collections (2012)
- SoundtracksLava Lamp of Love
Written by Jim Baker and John Orrichio
Performed by John Orrichio and Cathy Loch
Courtesy of John Orrichio Productions
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $500,000 (estimated)
- Runtime
- 1h 47m(107 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.33 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content