Yes, as per previous comments, this movie was somewhat disjointed and definitely some of the things the silly girl did, did not make sense (but since when do the victims/heroines of a horror movie ever do the SMART thing anyway?) - but it wasn't as bad as all that.
*Spoilers Ensue*
Alright, the writer establishes from the get-go that this is a seriously sheltered young woman from a small town in Nowhere, TX. She has probably never worked a day in her life and even when she runs off with her boyfriend in a bid to be 'free' and 'live dangerously' - she has some seriously unrealistic expectations. So, that she is too lazy to walk the 60 miles to the next services, is to be expected. Naturally, she thinks, Jess (or somebody) will show up to rescue her.
I think the 'little princess' background more than makes up for a lot of the stupid things she does in the movie (or, more specifically - does not do). A brief & incomplete list : not defending herself, waiting for help instead of actively seeking it, giving up after one 'distress call' on the ranger's radio, not taking the cop's gun immediately, not bashing her way into the camper... the list goes on.
The actress bugged me as much as she did some other posters, but I don't think she was terrible at what she did. I would prefer to imagine that the writer intended Nicole to be hard to feel empathy for, and that maybe we weren't supposed to really like or root for her. I could be wrong, but I know that from the beginning, I didn't like the character.
I think the writer gave his audience a little bit of credit (maybe too much, if the other comments are any indication) for drawing our own conclusions about certain things. The girl in the janitor's closet (Tracy), the cop (Deacon?) and then Nicole herself in the closet - were not actually there. They were ghosts, or reflections of the past, or at the very least something lending a supernatural tone to the movie. I felt that this was pretty obvious and didn't question for an instant that the filmmakers were just that dumb and 'forgot' about it. Especially given Nicole's dialog after each appearance/disappearance (not to mention the missing poster for Tracy was dated 1971).
What I found much more frustrating was the complete lack of development of the villain. Tracy says he's not human, and certainly he is one sick puppy - but aside from the miraculous regeneration of his truck, what evidence is there that he isn't just a perverted killer from the backwoods near the Cali-Nevada line?
What I found even more frustrating was the bizarro family in the camper and how they had (apparently) no actual influence on events. Either they were involved (which might explain why they failed to help Nicole at the start) or they weren't (suggested by the brutal murders in the DVD bonus material). The movie never really gives us any clues on them, except that they're strange, transient and super-religious (or cultists or something). Why didn't they open the door for her when she pounded the first (or second) time? Why did they take her in eventually? Why did they manage to drop her off back at the very same Rest Stop after driving around for awhile?
Still, despite all the faults - and there are many - this movie was better than an enormous slew of D-rated horror flicks I've had the misfortune to watch. The Zodiac Killer, Camp Slaughter, Bone Sickness, Blood Ranch, Aunt Rose... I could go on. All were terrible, all had horrifically bad production values. This one had a decent soundtrack, some pretty good gore, a couple cheap scares and several Hostel-style shocks.
Given the pure volume of utter trash that is out there these days, I can't see failing acknowledge the commendable qualities of Rest Stop and I definitely can't see giving it the low scores I've seen above - which probably should be reserved for the truly pathetic garbage out there... My 2 cents, at any rate.
*Spoilers Ensue*
Alright, the writer establishes from the get-go that this is a seriously sheltered young woman from a small town in Nowhere, TX. She has probably never worked a day in her life and even when she runs off with her boyfriend in a bid to be 'free' and 'live dangerously' - she has some seriously unrealistic expectations. So, that she is too lazy to walk the 60 miles to the next services, is to be expected. Naturally, she thinks, Jess (or somebody) will show up to rescue her.
I think the 'little princess' background more than makes up for a lot of the stupid things she does in the movie (or, more specifically - does not do). A brief & incomplete list : not defending herself, waiting for help instead of actively seeking it, giving up after one 'distress call' on the ranger's radio, not taking the cop's gun immediately, not bashing her way into the camper... the list goes on.
The actress bugged me as much as she did some other posters, but I don't think she was terrible at what she did. I would prefer to imagine that the writer intended Nicole to be hard to feel empathy for, and that maybe we weren't supposed to really like or root for her. I could be wrong, but I know that from the beginning, I didn't like the character.
I think the writer gave his audience a little bit of credit (maybe too much, if the other comments are any indication) for drawing our own conclusions about certain things. The girl in the janitor's closet (Tracy), the cop (Deacon?) and then Nicole herself in the closet - were not actually there. They were ghosts, or reflections of the past, or at the very least something lending a supernatural tone to the movie. I felt that this was pretty obvious and didn't question for an instant that the filmmakers were just that dumb and 'forgot' about it. Especially given Nicole's dialog after each appearance/disappearance (not to mention the missing poster for Tracy was dated 1971).
What I found much more frustrating was the complete lack of development of the villain. Tracy says he's not human, and certainly he is one sick puppy - but aside from the miraculous regeneration of his truck, what evidence is there that he isn't just a perverted killer from the backwoods near the Cali-Nevada line?
What I found even more frustrating was the bizarro family in the camper and how they had (apparently) no actual influence on events. Either they were involved (which might explain why they failed to help Nicole at the start) or they weren't (suggested by the brutal murders in the DVD bonus material). The movie never really gives us any clues on them, except that they're strange, transient and super-religious (or cultists or something). Why didn't they open the door for her when she pounded the first (or second) time? Why did they take her in eventually? Why did they manage to drop her off back at the very same Rest Stop after driving around for awhile?
Still, despite all the faults - and there are many - this movie was better than an enormous slew of D-rated horror flicks I've had the misfortune to watch. The Zodiac Killer, Camp Slaughter, Bone Sickness, Blood Ranch, Aunt Rose... I could go on. All were terrible, all had horrifically bad production values. This one had a decent soundtrack, some pretty good gore, a couple cheap scares and several Hostel-style shocks.
Given the pure volume of utter trash that is out there these days, I can't see failing acknowledge the commendable qualities of Rest Stop and I definitely can't see giving it the low scores I've seen above - which probably should be reserved for the truly pathetic garbage out there... My 2 cents, at any rate.