So many plot holes, horrible acting, and some of the worst cinematography I've seen! The horror and beautiful women are the only good things which I think is unfortunate. Feels like the style of a porn cinematographer in the worst way possible! Such a dreadful experience I wouldn't recommend Bloody Mary to anyone.
19 Reviews
enough pointless nudity already
queen_amneris1 July 2007
I saw a preview of this movie and thought it looked very good. I watch horror movies quite frequently. This one was absolutely filled with scenes of superfluous naked girls. There was actually a clip of one girl in the shower that had nothing to do with anything. It was just an excuse to show boobs.
Second of all - this was some of the worst acting I've ever seen, not to mention completely unrealistic. The way the mental hospital was run just made me laugh. Severely ill mental patients are never left alone to wander the halls, and unqualified teenagers are not hired to work there. The clique of girls was something out of a junior high drama: the bitch, the shy girl, the nice girl, and the one with the boyfriend.
It was just garbage. I can't believe anyone would like it.
Second of all - this was some of the worst acting I've ever seen, not to mention completely unrealistic. The way the mental hospital was run just made me laugh. Severely ill mental patients are never left alone to wander the halls, and unqualified teenagers are not hired to work there. The clique of girls was something out of a junior high drama: the bitch, the shy girl, the nice girl, and the one with the boyfriend.
It was just garbage. I can't believe anyone would like it.
Did i see the same film?!
alr1262 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I had to give this film a 2. I could not see it earning any higher a score.
Let's start with the story, totally contrived and predictable The acting, fair and that's being generous. The "leader" or the little group, very stereotypical of an "evildoer" or evil person in this type of movie.
The characters, another film with shallow predictable characters. Some of this can be attributed to the actors themselves, part to the writers and part to the story itself.
Even in the asylum, how stereotypical, the guy dragging a leg with his arm curled, the guy in the catatonic state, the nutty girl that screams and finally the bad guy, not Mary herself, or the leader, but the head nut case.
Don't even bother renting this unless you want a schlock flick. Not scary, not gory, just plenty of schlock.
Let's start with the story, totally contrived and predictable The acting, fair and that's being generous. The "leader" or the little group, very stereotypical of an "evildoer" or evil person in this type of movie.
The characters, another film with shallow predictable characters. Some of this can be attributed to the actors themselves, part to the writers and part to the story itself.
Even in the asylum, how stereotypical, the guy dragging a leg with his arm curled, the guy in the catatonic state, the nutty girl that screams and finally the bad guy, not Mary herself, or the leader, but the head nut case.
Don't even bother renting this unless you want a schlock flick. Not scary, not gory, just plenty of schlock.
Dead Ends Galore!
mrball01429 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was awful; It wasn't just plain stupid. It felt like the director just forgot to tell his own story. Who is the locked-up guy with all the face-sores who goes to Mary's "den" at the end? Mary's mediary or what? Did he have something to do with patient Mary's time in the hospital years before? Why were the nurses even working for or worshipping Mary? For what? Why did the good doctor suddenly become all weird and attack the cop? The eyeballs Mary brought to him to put in his unlocked, open locker? What was the point of that stupidness? If the director had at least said they were doing it for eternal beauty or something and said something about the face-sore guy, I'd upgrade this movie to STUPID instead of AWFUL, CONFUSING, and MISSING three quarters of the plot. I'll never get these two hours of my life back :(
Holy COW!!!
unmannedmission10 September 2007
I can't believe, reading back over peoples' posts about this movie that some actually liked it. I rarely respond to comments on here... but the thought that ANYONE would say that the caliber of acting in this film was "excellent." I couldn't get through more than 35 minutes of it without having to turn it off in HORROR. It felt like a music video from some unheard of color me badd single that was filmed in 1991. The camera angles were trying to be "cool" and "shaky" with the documentary style, at points anyway. The blood and gore was sub par to what you can find teenage kids from the suburbs filming on the weekends and posting on youtube. Please, if you have any sense at ALL... stay away.
no great shakes
disdressed127 October 2007
i guess this movie is OK.it isn't scary,but it does have a creepiness vibe going at times.it's low budget,and it has a gritty look to it.there's not a lot of realism in this movie.by that,i don't mean the supernatural ghostly aspect,because of course that is far fetched(at least i hope so).rather,the lack of realism is in how the characters behave.it just doesn't ring true.at least,i don't think so.i didn't find a problem with the acting.i mean,it wasn't stellar,but i've seen a lot worse.if you're a gore hound,this movie should satisfy you.there's lots of blood,though the movie isn't as graphic as it could have been.there's a fair amount of nudity,some of it pointless.well,all of it, really.and if you're looking for originality,you might want to look elsewhere.this movie has been done before,and the setting is nothing new.overall,i guess i'm indifferent to the movie.as a result,i give Bloody Mary a 5/10
Tepid
vethraxx11 January 2010
After diving through the $3.00 DVD bin at Biglots, I discovered this 'gem'. I have to say having lived through the gore-fest of the 80s and loving every moment of it... this movie is flat. The female lead can't act, the 'cop' can't act. The head of the institution can't act... see the trend? Extreme lighting and scary music are not enough to pull a viewer into caring about what happens to the characters. The movie "FROGS" had better character actors.
Back in the day, you'd see the fingers go in and pull the eyes out, now it's just a camera cut, some blood splatter, and then a cut back post fact. The horror has left the decade.
Like most of the direct to video horror movies these days. It's just an excuse to get girls topless. No style, no class, no budget.
Back in the day, you'd see the fingers go in and pull the eyes out, now it's just a camera cut, some blood splatter, and then a cut back post fact. The horror has left the decade.
Like most of the direct to video horror movies these days. It's just an excuse to get girls topless. No style, no class, no budget.
Skip It
MaskedRobin20 July 2010
My expectations were understandably low upon slipping Bloody Mary into my DVD player. I knew the acting would be terrible, I knew the story wouldn't be anything groundbreaking, and I knew the effects would look even more low-budget than they probably were. I knew to expect the worst, and that is exactly what I found in this brutal train wreck of a film.
Bloody Mary is about a group of psychiatric hospital nurses who spend their nights going into a tunnel below the hospital, stripping completely naked, and chanting "I believe in Bloody Mary" to an old mirror. One of the young women goes missing, and her big sister arrives to investigate her disappearance. Around this point I began asking myself, "Does this movie actually have anything to do with Mary Tudor?" No, of course not! Turns out Bloody Mary was really a psychiatric patient who became so obsessed with her reflection that she killed a nurse, escaped into the tunnels under the hospital, and stared at herself in a mirror until she starved to death. Who knew? It was also at this point that I was tricked into believing that this movie was actually doing something right. Instead of explaining in the entire plot in a bought of exposition diarrhea, the important details are gradually revealed as the main character discovers them throughout her investigation. There's just one problem with this: over half of the plot is left unexplained! By the time the credits started to roll, I was left with more questions than answers.
What is Bloody Mary's motivation for killing people and how is it that she's able to emerge from the mirror to strike? What exactly did the nurses hope to accomplish by summoning her? Who on Earth were those characters that movie introduced and dropped with no rhyme or reason? Bloody Mary fails on all levels. The acting and cinematography were painful to watch, subplots lasted about ten seconds apiece before vanishing, story and dialogue alike were confusing and awkward, and overall...it was just boring. There was nothing engaging or interesting. There was a lot of pointless nudity...was that supposed to be entertaining? There was some blood that looked like water with food coloring thrown in at the last second...was that supposed to be scary? I suppose, as with any other questions I had about this movie, these will simply have to go unanswered.
This isn't one of those movies where "it's so bad, it's good!" It's just plain awful. I couldn't find anything enjoyable or redeeming about Bloody Mary, and believe me, I was looking! There are many "bad" movies that I love; my favorite film is a piece of cinematic dreck. My point being, if anyone was willing to be sympathetic toward this movie, it was me. And I paid for this with ninety-three minutes of my life that I'll never get back.
Bloody Mary is about a group of psychiatric hospital nurses who spend their nights going into a tunnel below the hospital, stripping completely naked, and chanting "I believe in Bloody Mary" to an old mirror. One of the young women goes missing, and her big sister arrives to investigate her disappearance. Around this point I began asking myself, "Does this movie actually have anything to do with Mary Tudor?" No, of course not! Turns out Bloody Mary was really a psychiatric patient who became so obsessed with her reflection that she killed a nurse, escaped into the tunnels under the hospital, and stared at herself in a mirror until she starved to death. Who knew? It was also at this point that I was tricked into believing that this movie was actually doing something right. Instead of explaining in the entire plot in a bought of exposition diarrhea, the important details are gradually revealed as the main character discovers them throughout her investigation. There's just one problem with this: over half of the plot is left unexplained! By the time the credits started to roll, I was left with more questions than answers.
What is Bloody Mary's motivation for killing people and how is it that she's able to emerge from the mirror to strike? What exactly did the nurses hope to accomplish by summoning her? Who on Earth were those characters that movie introduced and dropped with no rhyme or reason? Bloody Mary fails on all levels. The acting and cinematography were painful to watch, subplots lasted about ten seconds apiece before vanishing, story and dialogue alike were confusing and awkward, and overall...it was just boring. There was nothing engaging or interesting. There was a lot of pointless nudity...was that supposed to be entertaining? There was some blood that looked like water with food coloring thrown in at the last second...was that supposed to be scary? I suppose, as with any other questions I had about this movie, these will simply have to go unanswered.
This isn't one of those movies where "it's so bad, it's good!" It's just plain awful. I couldn't find anything enjoyable or redeeming about Bloody Mary, and believe me, I was looking! There are many "bad" movies that I love; my favorite film is a piece of cinematic dreck. My point being, if anyone was willing to be sympathetic toward this movie, it was me. And I paid for this with ninety-three minutes of my life that I'll never get back.
Kinda Lame...
MetalGeek25 July 2010
I'd never even heard of "Bloody Mary" till I recently picked up a 4-movie "Horror Collection" DVD that included it along with three other B-Movie wonders for the low, low price of only $5.99. I figured even if only one of the movies on the DVD was any good, then it was worth the money. Well, unfortunately "Bloody Mary" was not very good. It had the potential to be a cool, compact, creepy little ghost story but eventually fell apart due to a blend of bad acting and a confused script that tries to cram in too many unneeded elements into the final act. "Bloody Mary" is more or less a bad blend of bits borrowed from numerous (better) movies, including "Candyman," "The Ring," "I Know What You Did Last Summer," and what the hell, even "Heathers!" Our story begins at a State Psychiatric Hospital, where a group of young nursing students dare one of their group to play "the Mirror Game," in which you descend into the dark tunnels beneath the building, go to a dark room with a mirror in it, and summon the legendary "Bloody Mary," (some sort of malevolent witch/spirit), with the repeated chant "I believe in Bloody Mary, I believe in Bloody Mary." The girl obediently goes down there and performs the ritual, but something unseen snatches her away before she can come back out again. Needless to say, the others have to cover it up and pretend nothing ever happened. We will learn later on that this not the first time they've had to do this; a previous participant in "the game" has gone from being a nurse to a patient in the hospital, after suffering a complete mental breakdown.
Eventually the missing girl's sister, a true crime writer/reporter, comes to the hospital and starts poking around, much to the "Mean Girls'" chagrin. She eventually gets to the bottom of the urban legend surrounding "Bloody Mary," but not before a few more people end up victimized and killed by the vengeful spirit. Somewhere in the mix we are introduced to a mysterious, Hannibal Lecter type prisoner who's kept chained up in the bowels of the hospital and seems to be "in on" the Bloody Mary business with the nurses, though who he is and how exactly he fits into the story is never really made clear. For that matter, we never learn exactly what the nurses were hoping to gain by messing with "Bloody Mary" in the first place, either. Oh, and as an extra bonus there's a doctor in the hospital who seems nice enough till he reveals his true self late in the movie, but his subplot has no apparent connection to the rest of the story, therefore the "revelation" comes out of nowhere and makes little sense. Seriously, this movie has way too much going on and it definitely could've used a better editor and/or a continuity guy!! On the "pro" side, even though most of the girls in "Bloody Mary" can't act worth a lick, they're all quite attractive and spend quite a bit of time in various states of undress, which quite frankly was about the only thing keeping me interested as the film became more convoluted. There's a few decent dollops of gore and some nice spooky atmosphere in the "tunnel" scenes, but overall the movie suffers from a cheap, shot-on-video look that gives it the feel of a made-for-TV movie.
"Bloody Mary" is not quite bad enough to be total crap, but not quite good enough to be a passable horror entry either. Worth a look if it turns up on late night TV as long as you keep your expectations low.
Eventually the missing girl's sister, a true crime writer/reporter, comes to the hospital and starts poking around, much to the "Mean Girls'" chagrin. She eventually gets to the bottom of the urban legend surrounding "Bloody Mary," but not before a few more people end up victimized and killed by the vengeful spirit. Somewhere in the mix we are introduced to a mysterious, Hannibal Lecter type prisoner who's kept chained up in the bowels of the hospital and seems to be "in on" the Bloody Mary business with the nurses, though who he is and how exactly he fits into the story is never really made clear. For that matter, we never learn exactly what the nurses were hoping to gain by messing with "Bloody Mary" in the first place, either. Oh, and as an extra bonus there's a doctor in the hospital who seems nice enough till he reveals his true self late in the movie, but his subplot has no apparent connection to the rest of the story, therefore the "revelation" comes out of nowhere and makes little sense. Seriously, this movie has way too much going on and it definitely could've used a better editor and/or a continuity guy!! On the "pro" side, even though most of the girls in "Bloody Mary" can't act worth a lick, they're all quite attractive and spend quite a bit of time in various states of undress, which quite frankly was about the only thing keeping me interested as the film became more convoluted. There's a few decent dollops of gore and some nice spooky atmosphere in the "tunnel" scenes, but overall the movie suffers from a cheap, shot-on-video look that gives it the feel of a made-for-TV movie.
"Bloody Mary" is not quite bad enough to be total crap, but not quite good enough to be a passable horror entry either. Worth a look if it turns up on late night TV as long as you keep your expectations low.
College Campus or Hospital??
dbs630-697-95279421 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
The movie starts out with what appears to be a "hazing" of a sorority but turns out to be a bunch of co-workers who apparently have some sort of cult based on a former patient dubbed "Bloody Mary" who apparently isn't really dead or is dead but haunts the place? Nobody really knows as this isn't really established. The story is weak and not told very well however the acting wasn't too terribly bad and the editing was solid. Some of the visual effects were done well and the location was creepy. At least some of the actresses get naked, that was a distraction from the horribly explained story. Great for a six pack and late night of TV!
Its a good movie, scary, no budget (the best kind), has boobs, but the ending is just plain awful
Jeb-CiscoWarrior20 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I got this movie in a 4 pack for 5 bucks, so I wasn't expecting much. Heck, I was surprised it was even a full length film. The premise is pretty simple, a typical "this monster has killed my family member now I'm going to go on a big quest to find out more about it and(stop reading if you don't want to know the ending" in the end I will kill it" pretty standard stuff. so, when I popped it into my lap top, I had no expectations what so ever. I was completely shocked when it actually showed potential. the deaths were kind of cool, the acting was better than some big budget crap, and hey (spoiler) you get to see some glee (I think) star die painfully. Oh, and there are boobs. I put and emphasis on that because, it seems like in every bloody Mary scene, someones naked. An interesting twist on a classic myth, but hey, apparently that works for some people, as in they actually see something in the mirror trying the movies method, so to each his own I suppose. in the end, I have three complaints about the movie (spoiler alert!) 1. YOU NEVER SEE BLOODY MARY! well, her face at least. If my memory is correct (which it may not), her face is always hidden. Whats up with that? 2. The ending sucks. basically all it is (spoiler alert): Main character smashes the mirror. Thats it. Well, most of it at least, some other crap happens also, but thats the gist. and 3 (really major spoiler): What the h*** is with the creepy dude who serves Mary? I just didn't get it. But, all in all, its a good movie, pretty scary, has some really good moments (the opening is freaking awesome), and all in all, is worth buying.
The David Eckstein of Horror Movies/// spoilers
BloodTheTelepathicDog6 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
By the summary quote I mean that this film is not a stellar piece of cinema, but merely serviceable. Much like Candyman, if a person stands in front of a mirror and utters the name of Bloody Mary - actually saying "I believe in Bloody Mary" - a number of times, then the titled hag makes her appearance. Rather then a man with a hook for a hand, Bloody Mary is ten times scarier than Tony Todd - without the deep, hollow voice, mind you.
Director Richard Valentine obviously has a sense for frights, as he uses lighting and creepy makeup effects to administer fear. Bloody Mary was scary throughout, much creepier than Candyman, and Valentine is the person to laud for this.
The story centers on an asylum where a beautiful nameless woman (Bloody Mary) was beaten and escaped from several decades ago. In the present time, a group of nurses play the game of Bloody Mary with one becoming obsessed with the charade while the others girls grow weary. When Jessica Lous is attacked by Bloody Mary and subsequently labeled as missing, her sister Kim Tyler begins her own investigation.
VIOLENCE: $$$ (There is plenty of violence in this film, but not of the gratuitous variety. Bloody Mary has a thing for gouging out a person's eyes, and Valentine shows us this on several occasions - although not on par with the terrible and tasteless stuff of Eli Roth).
NUDITY: $$$$ (Although the gore isn't of the gratuitous variety, the nudity sure is. When a girl calls on Bloody Mary in the mirror, she must be stark naked in the process. This plot detail allows the viewer looks at Jessica Lous and Danni Hamilton. Actress/producer Kim Tyler steps out of a shower for no other reason but for a shot of breasts. There is even a backside shot of a male artist who gets killed by Bloody Mary, while he paints in the buff).
STORY: $$ (The weakest part of this film is the story. The way the asylum is operated was handled quite weakly by Valentine. The dialogue wasn't very good either and the character building wasn't very strong. Valentine failed to create a character that we could pull for, as Kim Tyler was hard to like).
ACTING: $$ (Not very strong either. Valentine's direction is the saving grace to this film, but Danni Hamilton shows promise as an up and coming actress. She clearly outshines the rest of the cast with her demented-deceiving character. The two actor/producers, Kim Tyler and Matt Borlenghi, aren't that great of thespians. Jessica Lous did an adequate job as the naive little sister of Kim Tyler's character, but she was the first to die at the hands of Bloody Mary).
Director Richard Valentine obviously has a sense for frights, as he uses lighting and creepy makeup effects to administer fear. Bloody Mary was scary throughout, much creepier than Candyman, and Valentine is the person to laud for this.
The story centers on an asylum where a beautiful nameless woman (Bloody Mary) was beaten and escaped from several decades ago. In the present time, a group of nurses play the game of Bloody Mary with one becoming obsessed with the charade while the others girls grow weary. When Jessica Lous is attacked by Bloody Mary and subsequently labeled as missing, her sister Kim Tyler begins her own investigation.
VIOLENCE: $$$ (There is plenty of violence in this film, but not of the gratuitous variety. Bloody Mary has a thing for gouging out a person's eyes, and Valentine shows us this on several occasions - although not on par with the terrible and tasteless stuff of Eli Roth).
NUDITY: $$$$ (Although the gore isn't of the gratuitous variety, the nudity sure is. When a girl calls on Bloody Mary in the mirror, she must be stark naked in the process. This plot detail allows the viewer looks at Jessica Lous and Danni Hamilton. Actress/producer Kim Tyler steps out of a shower for no other reason but for a shot of breasts. There is even a backside shot of a male artist who gets killed by Bloody Mary, while he paints in the buff).
STORY: $$ (The weakest part of this film is the story. The way the asylum is operated was handled quite weakly by Valentine. The dialogue wasn't very good either and the character building wasn't very strong. Valentine failed to create a character that we could pull for, as Kim Tyler was hard to like).
ACTING: $$ (Not very strong either. Valentine's direction is the saving grace to this film, but Danni Hamilton shows promise as an up and coming actress. She clearly outshines the rest of the cast with her demented-deceiving character. The two actor/producers, Kim Tyler and Matt Borlenghi, aren't that great of thespians. Jessica Lous did an adequate job as the naive little sister of Kim Tyler's character, but she was the first to die at the hands of Bloody Mary).
Low budget Bloody Mary movie not all bad
Aaron137514 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I was expecting a much worse film when I sat down to watch it. I figured the scene at the beginning would be the best scene as a naked girl wanders through some tunnels and finds a mirror. It was, but the rest of the film holds up pretty good considering the low budget. However, it prevented itself from being a good movie by setting up a few things that are never resolved leaving one to wander just where were they going with it. I do not know if it was the film makers intent to create a sequel, but the way it ended made me not care for the movie as much as I would have, had they simply tied up a few loose ends.
The story has a bevy of nurse who have been playing something they called the mirror game. What is the reason for them playing this game, you ask? I have no idea...one of the unresolved issues. I just know the main nurse and all around bad girl is obsessed with this game and it's changing her body. No word on why it is doing these things or what she is getting out of it. Well a girl is taken and killed by Mary and soon the victim's sister is there to try and find her sister who at the start is presumed missing. It all ties back to the psychiatric institution her sister and the other nurses work at. It may also have something to do with one of the doctors and a patient seems to be really deep in it...once again though there is nothing in the end that tells you why the doctor is doing what he is doing or what the relationship between Mary and the one patient is. They seemed to want to set up a lot of stuff, but they fail to deliver a payoff. Heck, I am not even sure why Mary was doing her thing.
So the film was going pretty good, but the ending kind of derailed this film from being an okay horror film, to a not good and not bad one. There is some nice nudity, the acting is not great, but considering there are no actors in this one it is not horrid either. It moved at a nice pace and at times it had good atmosphere. I just wish they would have revealed some stuff at the end rather than revealing virtually nothing at the end!
The story has a bevy of nurse who have been playing something they called the mirror game. What is the reason for them playing this game, you ask? I have no idea...one of the unresolved issues. I just know the main nurse and all around bad girl is obsessed with this game and it's changing her body. No word on why it is doing these things or what she is getting out of it. Well a girl is taken and killed by Mary and soon the victim's sister is there to try and find her sister who at the start is presumed missing. It all ties back to the psychiatric institution her sister and the other nurses work at. It may also have something to do with one of the doctors and a patient seems to be really deep in it...once again though there is nothing in the end that tells you why the doctor is doing what he is doing or what the relationship between Mary and the one patient is. They seemed to want to set up a lot of stuff, but they fail to deliver a payoff. Heck, I am not even sure why Mary was doing her thing.
So the film was going pretty good, but the ending kind of derailed this film from being an okay horror film, to a not good and not bad one. There is some nice nudity, the acting is not great, but considering there are no actors in this one it is not horrid either. It moved at a nice pace and at times it had good atmosphere. I just wish they would have revealed some stuff at the end rather than revealing virtually nothing at the end!
Moldy cheese
brandonjohnreekie8 July 2022
This movie looked ok, then got cheesy. I'm thinking ok, cheesy movies can get good tasting cheesy. This got moldy really fast. Acting blah, plot blah, horror blah, everything just blah. I gave it a try and this cheese sucked!!
truly scary horror flick
demyanov.fury220722 February 2007
Bloody Mary (2006)
easily the best horror film in the last couple of years. no hype around it, fraction of a decent budget, but truly scary and definitely outperforming bigger budget features of the recent releases. not necessarily very original in the choice of monster/scare factor, the film has plenty of little terrifying things that will make you jump up in your seat quite a few times. solid cast (thankgawd no familiar faces), confident directing, decent and justified editing, good soundtrack - overall I just loved it, may even watch it again and absolutely recommend it to any fans of the genre.
respect to the makers. we need more stuff like this - done professionally.
easily the best horror film in the last couple of years. no hype around it, fraction of a decent budget, but truly scary and definitely outperforming bigger budget features of the recent releases. not necessarily very original in the choice of monster/scare factor, the film has plenty of little terrifying things that will make you jump up in your seat quite a few times. solid cast (thankgawd no familiar faces), confident directing, decent and justified editing, good soundtrack - overall I just loved it, may even watch it again and absolutely recommend it to any fans of the genre.
respect to the makers. we need more stuff like this - done professionally.
Surprisingly effective horror film!
fritzlang25 March 2007
I tried to go in watching the movie with as much unbiased attitude as I can (considering this sounded like a rehash of Candyman meets the Ring this was not easy). Imagine my surprise when I found myself engrossed in an extremely well done horror film! I was never bored for one second, and there were quite a few times I was genuinely scared. This says a lot. In fact I think I enjoyed this film more than some of the big budget horror films of recent years.
The team did a really impressive job of working with an unknown case with a very limited budget. The acting caliber was very high and the special effects were used sparingly but effectively.
No, this is not 'reinventing the genre'. It is just a nice little film that is eerie, has an interesting plot, decent acting and some real good scares.
check it out!
The team did a really impressive job of working with an unknown case with a very limited budget. The acting caliber was very high and the special effects were used sparingly but effectively.
No, this is not 'reinventing the genre'. It is just a nice little film that is eerie, has an interesting plot, decent acting and some real good scares.
check it out!
Gem in the Rough
PrinceFiyer019 May 2008
This movie, by no means is a gem for it's acting talent, however some of that is due to poor writing. I mean, let's be honest, it's hard to be convincing and real when the script you're working with isn't real. But the story is fantastic! It's loosely based in fiction enough that the supernatural aspects of the film flow without a hitch. The exposition is well paced so that there is mystery, back story, and the joy of all those puzzle pieces falling together. The production aspect is rockin'. That mirror looks great, and it's creepy but real. Looking at that set, I could believe that that actually exists. I have to say all in all that this movie rocks! This is one of those horror films thats original, and fun. Well made for something independent, and it is fun to watch... grab a bowl of pop corn, and some licorice and plenty of soda and enjoy. Just take it with a grain of salt... and get ready to laugh some :-p
Nifty horror shocker
Woodyanders23 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
A group of psychiatric nurses invoke the deadly and murderous spirit of a vicious madwoman known as Bloody Mary. Of course, said spirit embarks on a killing spree in the hospital. Writer/director Richard Valentine relates the absorbing story at a steady pace, does an able of creating and maintaining both a spooky atmosphere and a good deal of tension, makes good use of the dark and bleak hospital setting, delivers a generous helping of graphic bloodshed (Mary gouges out her victims' eyes and places them in jars), and tops everything off with a sizable smattering of tasty gratuitous female nudity. The competent acting by the able cast rates as another substantial asset: Kim Tyler makes for a strong and sympathetic hero as determined crime writer heroine Natalie Fitzgerald, Jaason Simmons does well as kindly and helpful shrink Dr. Daniels, Danni Ravden gives a terrifically wicked performance as ruthless bitch head nurse Jenna, Troy Tori makes your skin crawl with his intense portrayal of crazed inmate Johnny, plus there are sound contributions from Matthew Borlenghi as the skeptical Bobby, Amber Borycki as the feisty Amber, Eero Johnson as the unhinged Ricky "Railroad" Reynolds, Anna Pippus as the scared and fragile Hilary, Brianne Wigeland as the guilt-ridden Shelby, and Jessica Von as the naive Nicole. Mary sizes up as a truly frightening boogey lady figure. The slick'n'shadowy cinematography by Bill Summers gives the picture an appropriately eerie look. Richard Tyler's ominous score does the brooding ooga-booga trick. A neat little flick.
Gr
halierox29 June 2016
If people are wanting to make a movie about the story of bloody Mary, they could at least tell the story on its history or something. By the way, the story originated where I live, in Lincoln NE. The house she lived in is no longer there but the location is still there... it is now an archery range for boy scouts. Some people have gone there and experienced creepy things. For other ideas for movies, there supposedly was a witch who use to live in Lincoln.. In wilderness Park in a cabin. She apparently killed children. Locals found out and hung her with a chain on a tree. Then later wrapped her up in the chain and buried her somewhere out in wilderness park. They say her cabin is still out there somewhere, and that if you find a random chain.. do not follow it, because she may be waiting at the other end of it for revenge.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
