Playing like a bad mix of 'House on Haunted Hill' and 'Halloween: Resurrection' (yes, worse than 'Halloween: Resurrection'), we follow the story of three couples (including a couple football players, an emo lesbian, and a porn star. . . seriously) who are invited to the former home of amateur mountain climber & psychotic murderer Sean McIntyre (which might be the lamest name for a killer in the history of horror). Why? Because some rich guy (who looks like the prickish lovechild of Eli Roth and Colin Farrell) promised them $5,000 if they'd participate in his live-stream webcast at the haunted house. As expected, the ghost of McIntyre is brought back during a séance (why do I even bother?) and begins to stalk down his house guests.
Well, what's there to say? I wasn't expecting much here, and I got what I was expecting. This simply is not a good film. The premise isn't awful, I suppose. Worse ideas have made better films. But, though it's said too much: The execution was just plain bad. The writing was stale, clunky, and chock-full of clichés; and it wasn't helped by the laughably bad acting. Sadly, unlike many other modern straight-to-video horrors, the cast that kept their clothes on isn't even attractive enough to make up for their lack of talent. I will give the film one compliment: the gore FX were pretty good. . . even though the violence was unrealistic (I mean, severing a head with a kitchen knife? C'mon). The direction (by someone who'd previously been into 'Sesame Street' videos) isn't terrible, but it seemed he didn't know which way he wanted to go with it, as it blends hand-held, steadicam, and realistic video. . . then there are jumping camera effects (including some little girl with cataracts or something) in only one scene that never show their face again. One style would've done better. . . at least we could've depended on SOMETHING in the film.
Beyond some good gore/violence, there really isn't much else to see in this amateurish film. There's better gore and better violence in better films. No need to bother with this one.
Final Verdict: 2/10.
'Death on Demand' hits shelves July 8th.
-AP3-
Well, what's there to say? I wasn't expecting much here, and I got what I was expecting. This simply is not a good film. The premise isn't awful, I suppose. Worse ideas have made better films. But, though it's said too much: The execution was just plain bad. The writing was stale, clunky, and chock-full of clichés; and it wasn't helped by the laughably bad acting. Sadly, unlike many other modern straight-to-video horrors, the cast that kept their clothes on isn't even attractive enough to make up for their lack of talent. I will give the film one compliment: the gore FX were pretty good. . . even though the violence was unrealistic (I mean, severing a head with a kitchen knife? C'mon). The direction (by someone who'd previously been into 'Sesame Street' videos) isn't terrible, but it seemed he didn't know which way he wanted to go with it, as it blends hand-held, steadicam, and realistic video. . . then there are jumping camera effects (including some little girl with cataracts or something) in only one scene that never show their face again. One style would've done better. . . at least we could've depended on SOMETHING in the film.
Beyond some good gore/violence, there really isn't much else to see in this amateurish film. There's better gore and better violence in better films. No need to bother with this one.
Final Verdict: 2/10.
'Death on Demand' hits shelves July 8th.
-AP3-