Punishment

Chompcrc here. The technical specs state this was shot on a Red One. I've never seen such limited dynamic range in a movie. There's no way this was shot on anything other than an RCA vhs recorder. Having said that, low budget horror hardly hinges on picture quality, and the sound is up to par, so if you can get past the expected flaws concerning story, formula, motivations, etc, I say an indie horror fan should check it out. As for the camera, they are either lying, or shot the movie so morbidly exposed that there was no way to save it in post. My vote is for the former, because the latter would negate the built-in levels that the Red One possesses to deter such exposure issues.

As I was sitting through this "flick", as Jason Christopher likes to call it, I couldn't help but notice something: this movie is bad. I have seen my fair share of bad horror movies, and this is right up there with the worst of them.

In the horror genre, there is a line that a movie can cross over where bad becomes funny, and when this happens the movie becomes somewhat enjoyable. Unfortunately for Jason Christopher, his flick sits just behind this line, causing it to be completely unwatchable. Everything from acting to camera work to lighting was terrible. Multiple shots, excuse me, most shots, in this movie were either under or over exposed, making it hard to see what was going on. The score was almost non- existent, but when it was, it hardly fit the mood of the scene. It seems that Mr. Christopher spent the majority of the budget on Clint Howard's paycheck, which was a complete waste of a role. The screenplay itself was horrible, so I can't blame Jason Christopher for making a bad flick. But actually, he is to blame because he wrote it. With characters that are completely generic, a killer that wears size 7 boots (very intimidating), and dialogue that doesn't make any sense, do yourself a favor and spend your night looking at a wall, it will be more enjoyable.

This movie has so many horror movie clichés that for a moment - actually, a great part of the film - I thought they were going for a "Cabin in The Woods" kind of thing. Making fun of its own genre. I mean, the cellphone signal, the car that doesn't start, the woman that trips when tries to run, the stereotypical characters, the usual lack of character depth, and on and on. Frankly, I don't know if this film is brilliant or just another stupid exploitation movie that on the five - I counted - scenes it looks original, if loses you with boredom. Or maybe I just don't want to believe that a movie can be that bad. So I'll give it a 5.

First, let's talk about the acting: it sucks. Jen Dance is annoying. Shaun Paul Costello doesn't ever actually act. Chelsey Garner just runs around. David Bonner is over the top at times and a little unbelievable in the role he is given, and that makes Brian Gallagher WAY over the top (a killer in hunting boots...OH NO). Chris Ready gives an average (key word is average) performance. Nikki Bell doesn't belong in ANY movie EVER because she can't act and is also good to laugh at. Seriously, I don't even think she could be in an adult movie where you don't even need to act. And Matt Nadu just stands around looking pretty.

Next, let's talk about the special effects: laughable. Was that tomato sauce or ketchup? I like Lauren Palmer's review below (evidently she did the effects). Her work is about as good as her grammar and command of the English language, which is to say VERY BAD. Next time you give your own movie a 10/10, make up a fake name or something.

Then, let's talk about the editing: Who did this? I especially like the "party scene" where the same footage is just played over and over again. It's day. Then it's night. Then, it's day. Then, it's morning. Then, we skip day. Then, it's night again. I CAN'T KEEP TRACK.

It's 77 minutes long. And 77 minutes too long if you ask me. It's boring. And I laughed through most of it, which you aren't supposed to do in a horror movie. I especially laughed when Brian Gallagher delivers his never ending speech that belongs in some classroom, not in a movie.

The blooper reel is proof none of these people should be making movies, and it's sad that they said this was their "best shot" because then you know they are really bad at this.

There are horror films coming out all the time, but when it comes to the slasher genre there are multiple elements that are a must for it to work. You have to have a great kills, a cool story, and above all else a memorable killer. The latest to try their hand at the genre is Nobody Gets Out Alive that attempts to deliver homage to 80's slasher flicks, but does it work?

Nobody Gets Out Alive follows a group of partying teenagers who head out to the woods for a weekend of camping fun. But when each of them is slowly killed off they believe that the legend of the town lunatic might prove to be more than just a story. This film has almost everything it needed to become a memorable hit, but sadly is missing one of the biggest parts which is the cool killer. The story works fine, but the killer itself lacks anything to really bring the fear level up to anything other than bland. This plays more like a thriller featuring some slashing as opposed to a full on slasher flick. The performances are pretty bad, with a few that deliver average at best, but that's pretty normal for a lot of these films, but you make up for it with the great kills and nudity, but not so much here. There are some decent kills that are fun to watch, but it still plays it too safe to deliver the goods.

This is one of those slasher flicks that had every element it needed to work, but missed the mark. Even the average killer had a decent back story to create the legend, but still struggles to do anything. It takes a long time for anything to start happening and by the time it does you may have already lost interest.