Match.Dead

Why does everyone think they have to make movies? Seriously, why does every hack from here to Tennessee believe making a movie is a great idea. So, this filmmaker, if you want to call him that decided that he needed a single location in the high desert to pull off one of the most boring, worst paced, pathetic attempts at film-making in the history of movies. First of all, there is nothing knew as far as story. Secondly, scenes transitions are horrible. Thirdly, the nature of the story is predictably boring. First rule of screen writing; VOICE OVER is used when you can't tell your story visually because you lack the proper skills. FLASHBACKS are the sign of someone with no idea when it comes to storytelling. I really feel for this guy and his team because I'm sure they worked hard on it, but it wasn't the right movie to make. Single location films pop up everywhere when someone wants to tell a crappy movie because of budget concerns, but when you add poor acting, crappy writing, bad editing, bad directing, and bad everything else, all you have is mediocrity.

Why does everyone think they have to make movies? Seriously, why does every hack from here to Tennessee believe making a movie is a great idea. So, this filmmaker, if you want to call him that decided that he needed a single location in the high desert to pull off one of the most boring, worst paced, pathetic attempts at film-making in the history of movies.

First of all, there is nothing knew as far as story. Secondly, scenes transitions are horrible. Thirdly, the nature of the story is predictably boring. First rule of screen writing; VOICE OVER is used when you can't tell your story visually because you lack the proper skills. FLASHBACKS are the sign of someone with no idea when it comes to storytelling. DREAM SEQUENCES are used in the first person, with that character being seen? It should always, always be POV. Also, SHAKY CAMERA junior high sh*t is from "the Office." Which, was first used in a 1990 Levis ad. Are you that stupid to follow the Office? What has happen to America? Single location films pop up everywhere when someone wants to tell a crappy movie because of budget concerns, but when you add poor acting, crappy writing, bad editing, bad directing, and bad everything else, all you have is mediocrity.

Watch the scenes with NO difference in depth of field. It will hurt your eyes. HDDV blows. This is not art. This is NOT film. Watch this movie, then tell me I'm wrong.

Match.Dead is in Germany called Naked Fear 2 and you can find it in a very cheap box but while Naked Fear (2007) was rather enjoyable this here is a real turkey. It is as boring as it can get.

We do have an abducted girl (Valora) but nothing really happens. It's all talking and talking until the final 1à minutes, then things really start. But face it, it's too late by then. And the psychopath (Ridley)was unbelievable.

The problem is really that nothing happens. He do torture the girl but there's nothing to see and yes, she dreams about stabbing him in the eye, off-camera. The last 10 minutes brings in the red stuff but on a low value. There wasn't even any nudity and with a title like Naked Fear 2 it should have some.

This was one of those flicks that keep you reach for the fast forward button, what a waste of time.

Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 1/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5

I would watch this one again. Don't let the first few minutes scare you off. This isn't Saw, and it isn't I Spit On Your Grave. It's low budget for sure, but the quality was pretty good (and doesn't detract too much overall, mostly just transitions). I don't like torture films, so I was leery (and the title is cheesy), but this one was heavy on the story, not the torture (kind of like Touristas). One issue where you definitely need to suspend your disbelief: how did a strong woman like this get duped into meeting a creep like that at a secluded location? Seriously, even in the rural desert I don't think that happens. Get past that point and you're fine.

A bit formulaic, but well executed. In short, I've seen a lot worse movies of this type with much larger budgets. Give this one a chance. It won't blow you away, but it is a decent horror flick.

There's nothing new to anyone who's into this sort of low-budget bloodsport. After the first ten minutes, the viewer can tell exactly what is going to happen, so it becomes not about the story but how it's executed. The whole thing relies on the psychopath bad guy being menacing, which does not quite work because of the predictability, weak dialog and slow pace. None of the actors do a terrible job, but the trouble is that none of them do a particularly good one either. I guess some people will be happy with the number of body parts severed and people shot. I was bored. See Wolf Creek (2005) if you want to see kidnapped people properly tortured.