User Reviews

Travis Simon (David Rountree, writer, director, producer) introduces the film with a narration claiming "This is not that kind of film." Travis works in a warehouse that supplies film makers with cameras and equipment. Lane (David Banks writer ,producer) in on parole for beating up a prostitute, his favorite pastime. Lane works with Travis as we wonder why Travis tolerates Lane's erratic outbursts and behavior.

Travis gets an idea to make a film of their own where they scare people. He has a script. Lane wants to wing it by setting up cameras around the warehouse and film stuff that way. Travis goes along as Lane turns to killing and Travis films it.

The film was okay while it tries to be different. It includes cameos by Suze Lanier-Bramlett (These Hills Have Eyes I and II) and Gabrielle Stone (daughter of Dee Wallace), but nothing to write home about. You watch a film that basically is "Faces of Death" while it tells us "Any idiot with a camera can be a film maker." Hmmm. David Rountree should have stayed behind the camera.

Nothing more than a rental. Soft 3 stars.

Guide: F-bomb, sex, brief rear nudity. Some blood, killing and violence. Nothing terribly graphic.

MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS (although not intentionally or explicitly): A clumsy horror film, treading the lines between spoof, self-aware and "oh my god it's not a film!" realms not very successfully. The main problem is tone - the writing is overly obvious and overdone: Lane is in no way a realistic character or human, easily committing 3 faux pas/insulting acts in the first 10 minutes that would have gotten him fired, no matter his "friend" is his supervisor.

Casting your plot in a film equipment rental house is a potentially good idea to set up your "killer with a camera" idea but since this has been done a dozen times already (Shatter Studios, The Last Showing, Hollywood Kills, etc) one must do it smarter or better, not worse and more amateur-ish. I'm not talking about the low-budget look, I'm talking about the sloppy plotting and "motivation" of the characters. Rountree and Banks' script gets to "snuff" territory and stops thinking completely.

Also, clearly, the 10-star reviews are ringers. Claiming "nuance" and "intelligence" and wondering why the hate, clearly they've been tasked with balancing the rating here on IMDb (and all from Feb 2015, it looks like). Very suspicious as this is no Scream, this is no Babadook, this is no Chronicle. Maybe the filmmakers and producers should have spent more time on their script and fleshing out their ideas, not gaming IMDb.

This is junk.

I watched this movie not really knowing what to expect. I checked some of the reviews which seem up and down, but there were several comments about the bad reviews were by those only watching for a little bit and not seeing it all the way through. This peeked my curiosity.

I can see both sides as the first 30 minutes or so seemed to be just kind of following a journey without a clear cut path. It wasn't that it was bad, I just didn't know where it was going. I think that if I stopped there, I probably would not have liked it either. After seeing it all the way through, the path became clear and I see why it went that route.

After the first death, the entire tone of the movie changes from a frat-boyish/bullying comedy to something much more dark and serious. I think this may be the problem with some people not liking this movie because they did not quite get this far in. It is a movie within a movie, but also seems to be a comedy that gets covered up by a dark drama.

In the opening scene, there is a guy shown in the booth who we know is some kind of bad guy and then we see him drag someone off. As this happens, the voice over narrates about how a serial killer can be anyone and there are some great images of "death tools." After that, we sort of forget that part existed, which I think must have been intentional since it came back to play later.

We learn what a jerk Lane is because he is violent and against all authority. I think the acting was pretty good. Maybe a bit over the top during a few moments early on, but still believable and well done. Lane likes to hear himself talk and doesn't care who he offends. We are meant to hate Lane and I think the actor does a good job of making that happen.

"Brenda" from the original Hills Have Eyes is in it as herself, which is cool for the horror world, but I haven't seen the original film yet. The comments they make in the movie about that movie do make me want to see it though.

The girls are all attractive and all do a pretty good job with the acting too. The locations are fairly simple so they probably didn't spend a lot of money but it doesn't scream low budget at all. Most everything seemed fairly appropriate.

A few cool visual effects look pretty good too including one with a guy getting hit by a truck and Lane almost getting hit by a train. For me, this is where the movie started to pick up and really engage my interest. I wanted to see more of the deaths happen on screen, but figured they didn't show for budget reasons.

Part of the film is wondering if karma would come back to get Lane, which plays into the twist at the end. I honestly did not think this film was going to be smart enough to have any kind of twist, which is why when it hit, I was caught off-guard (even though I had read there was one). The movie instantly became so much smarter than I ever imagined and everything made sense, including the way the deaths were filmed.

I probably would have rated this film a 5, but the ending hit me so hard that it brought everything together and actually made me smile. If you are looking to see a straight up horror movie, it's not this one, but if you want to see something sneakily smarter, you may enjoy it. I give it a 7. Not a perfect movie, but a good one and worth a look.

Well, there really isn't much to say about this movie except it is awful.

Awful acting form the first scene. Some guy trying to be some kind of deranged head case - more like someone who failed acting school - the other guy's acting was OK.

It got so bad I didn't see more than 20 minutes of the movie. Once the nice blonde at the beginning was out of the scene I lost interest very, very rapidly.

In the 'good 'ol days' this would have gone straight to VHS and stuck on some dusty back shelf somewhere - or straight into a charity shop.

At the start, we are introduced to two main characters. One, an ex-con on probation for crimes of violence is working in a film makers supply warehouse. The other (Travis) seems to be in charge, but the business is set to close in a couple of weeks. Travis wants to make a film where people are deliberately scared, and it has to be on the cheap. So they drive around finding people to menace. It gives them more and more thrills. Travis decides to set up a scenario on a set, and gets a homeless man to menace a woman prostitute. It goes too far, and the woman winds up with her throat slit, putting a scare into both of them. While they are waiting to take the body away, a security guard approaches the truck, asking why they were not listed as working late. The guard recognizes Travis, so they get away. That adds more thrill to what they are doing, and they toss the body into the ocean. Once a murder is done, is seems easy to keep doing it, and adds realism to their proposed movie. But how will it end? The movie is nicely crafted, and it is clearly on a low budget.