Reviews

I came across The Killing of a Sacred Deer again, recently, and decided to give it another viewing and a review. The first time I saw it I was really put off by the stilted performances and the odd, often times illogical plot (one of the key plot premises in particular). At that time I was fully aware that these aspects of it were really its strength and not a fault. A completely logical plot premise has NOTHING to do with making this movie effective, while the stilted acting was deliberately done to highlight the story's true premises... the hollowness of many people's lives... the lies they built their existence and reputations on... the facade of honor and respectability adopted by certain people (etc).

Even at that time I liked the concept, and I appreciated the strange delivery as a directorial choice, but it still left me cold. On the second viewing I even noticed subtle camera use and setting choices that indicated story teling mastery and artistic vision, and I became somewhat more engrossed in the dilemmas of the family members quivering beneath their flat and dead fish exteriors, but it still left me cold.

But that is still the point. The characters are generally cold--cold and dead, and it is hard to get drawn into what should be their emotionally charged conflicts. Their true human reactions are strangled and stillborn in most cases... more going though the motions than genuine most of the time. If they can manage any emotion at all it is generally impotent rage. Their crisis in the story is horrific in a way and should solicit empathy and sympathy, but they themselves, are even more horrific albeit in a pathetic and innocuous way. So when I find the story leaves me hollow and unfulfilled... that the drama which unfolds on the screen at best makes me feel angry and frustrated, well, then, kudos. The movie has done its job. Some stories just are not heroic, pleasant, or even really human., even if they are about a family in the most difficult situation they could ever have to confront. Some stories show sides of humanity most directors don't want to look at... and so it is with The Killing of a Sacred Deer.

Like him or not, Lovecraft has been one of the greatest contributors to horror of all time. Even the great Stephen King has borrored generously from his work, and many movies have been spawned from his legacy. By far the most have been more indirect references, while only a few have been direct adaptations. While many of them (as is par for the course in all genres, but in horror in particular) were not at all that good, many of them were very well done and have inspired, scared, and delighted moviegoers for decades to varying degrees. Movies like Midnight Meat Train, The Void, In the Mouth Of Madness, Reanimator, It, and even Hellboy owe a great deal, if not all, their inspiration to Lovecraft's work.

For all this amassed body of work, few movie makers ever try to stay very close to the actual Lovecraft work, and there are arguably some good reasons to do so. To depict madness inducing multidimensional realities, largely atmospheric details based far more on feelings and descriptions than on actual monsters and events... to try to capture in image form DREAD which is far better imagined than shown, is a task that is daunting at the very least.

I must say though, while definitely not strictly adhering to the original text in making a modern version of The Color Out of Space, this version is one of the truest adaptations of any Lovecraft tale I have yet to see, and easily one of the best. It has enough flash and modern context to bring new viewers to the Lovecraftian ethos, while still keeping the core atmosphere and subject matter of the story alive. It is delightful to see such a reverent interpretation of a story that I, in absolute truth, cut my teeth on at the beginning of my lifelong enjoyment of horror. it is also great to hear the director, Richard Stanley, is planning on tackling more Lovecraft tales soon.

This story in particular was a memorable one for me as a kid... and I am glad to see it given its due. Only one other adaptation is better in my opinion... and if you liked this version and would chance to see an even more direct (albeit also a slightly more artistically abstract) version, I would HIGHLY recommend you see Die Farbe (aka The Color), which is a German version from 2010.

Happy viewing.

(PS, I know of an Italian version as well that i have yet to see. I hear it is also quite good, and I will see it. Maybe you too will seek it out and watch it. if you do, good luck :) )

If you want a badly acted amateur flick about flesh eaters then this is the flick for you. The team tries to make a production with some credibility as a historical account, but the acting is absolutely flat and poor, and presented with such terrible and inconsistent accents, that you are constantly reminded this movie was made by people with no real acting experience or training. Nor is there a sense that they had a whole lot of knowledge of the era they are supposed to be depicting, although historically speaking they weren't completely off either. There are a couple moment where we see some acting, most notably from the cannibal leader, but these moments are usually measurable in seconds so overall I can't applaud the performances. The story is fraught with other unfortunate things as well. The director rather jarringly jumps eras to further try to support the idea that it is a historical account (and to set up a rather conspicuous ''twist''), there is a largely (IMO) unneeded narrator exposition aspect, the horror elements are clumsy and overdone, the action sequences are terribly staged and executed, the cinematography is choppy and plagued with problems, the sound is a bit problematic at times, the built sets are at times waaaay too obviously cheap, and, well, pretty much everything about it was the epitome of amateur. I did go into it expecting that though, and to its credit I didn't turn it off so that is something.

But in my header I alluded to it having ''a bit of something'', so what does it have?

It had some comedic value... albeit more unintentionally than it probably wanted, and it had some fairly authentic costumes and props (I suspect a lot of historical reenactment people were involved there), but it wasn't any of these things that kind of impressed me.

It was the concept. They really tried to flesh out (if you will forgive the pun) the cannibals in a way that I found interesting, and I think in that hands of a professional crew with a large budget this movie could actually be a really dark and horrific tale. I won't say that I recommend this movie, but it does have a bit of something so there are worse things you could watch.

Okay, so truly appreciate the majestic horror of Camp Blood 8 you really need to see numbers 1-7.

Just kidding... I don't even know if there is a 1-7, but if there is I would fully expect them to be much the same as 8... schlock, pure and simple. Terrible acting, effects, plot, cinematography, lighting, costumes, sound effects, characters, really badly done gore, cheap boob shots in the spirit of pure exploitation, all set in run of the mill roadside green strips and living rooms... a truly B-Grade flick all the way. But that is completely what it sets out to be, so even as I give it a generous 2 rating as a movie experience, if you want a truly terrible B Grade flick (which to be honest is what I expected when I watched it... I mean come on... CAMP BLOOD... 8???), then you might give it a 5 for what it is.

As a trash B title it deserves a 5, I suppose. It isn't uproariously funny but it is ridiculous enough to be worth a laugh here and there... often for more unintentional reasons that intended ones. Even for B movie fans this one might be too much of a weak showing, but different strokes for different folks as the saying goes. Maybe it is the B flick for you. If you are looking for a good movie, though, steer far away from it. But I am sure I don't have to tell you that though.

I mean come on... CAMP BLOOD... 8???

I will admit I have a weakness for horror movies that are set in different time frames. I find that using period themes gives enjoyably unique flavors to them. But it isn't for that reason alone I give this movie a pretty high rank... being a western in this case is also more than just a gimmick which some period pieces are. The historicity of the western theme is explored well, and the nature of the characters... in some cases pretty monstrous in their own right, is a whole secondary theme that is woven through the tale. Add to this deeper subtext a solid story with compelling motivations for the characters, some nice cinematography, some pretty well done effects depicting the monsters of the tale, a good monster concept, enough action for those who need that, and some excellent acting, and you have a well crafted tale that gives you no reason to regret seeing it through. It is a solid, well crafted, grim and gritty movie, and is, to me, just what a realistic western themed monster movie should be.

First off, I can't believe I didn't ever see this movie before. It would have been the sort of movie I would have sought out back in the day (but then my parents wouldn't have approved of me seeing it... even though it is actually VERY wholesome, especially by today's standards).

So yeah, a wholesome classic 80's ghost story, complete with terrible green screening, unneeded but still appreciated comic characters and scenes, atmospheric set pieces that are a bit over the top and which are themselves a throwback to the early days of movie making, and an ending that, while easily foreseeable to a large degree, still satisfies and wraps everything up... no allusions to sequels... no last moment eyes opening or hand moving suggesting that it isn't REALLY over, and no grimly fatalistic and nihilistic ending here.

Just a genuinely good natured horror one could watch with the whole family, of the kind that is not so commonly seen much these days. Don't get me wrong... I am a horror fan and love my gore and darkness even more than most, but there is something to be said for being reminded that while existence can be a terrifying and dark place, it is also sometimes okay to put light at the end of that tunnel.

I had to wait for a while to see this, and during my wait, urged on by generally positive reviews, my anticipation built. That may have done me something of a disservice, because had I gone in with no expectations I would likely have been very impressed and may have given it an 8(.5) (which in my books is very high praise indeed). As it is, having too long to wait made me be less impressed, making me tempted to give it a 6 (still good by my reckoning... I am not prone to gush over movies-- when you have seen as many as I have (horror and sci fi in particular (numbering well into the thousands) you get pretty high standards). I have decided that, in fairness with maybe a touch of generosity, it deserves a solid 7 at least... definitely one of the better horror flicks to come out of the year.

The strength of the film lies in the directing acting, and cinematography, all of which come together to convey a nice feeling of desperation and claustrophobia, lending validity to the plight of the characters. One sequence in particular (without giving too much away) where the lead lady goes out into the blizzard to seek help, was, to me, pretty exceptional, while many other scenes outlining the wearing down of the lead character also stood out as merit worthy. You would think with these solid performances and artistic choices my first anticipated 8.5 would be warranted, but the movie is not without problems. The main problem with the movie lies in the premise itself.

The theme is a struggle with sanity, and we are given some key background to lend plausibility to the lead's plight, but it doesn't really seem like it is enough to justify what happens to be honest... not for the given time frame in which the story elapses. Also, the cause of the dilemma... the conflict with the children (again struggling to not give anything away), seems rather implausible in how it plays out-- or rather in how far it goes. But I can forgive these things. It can be difficult to give all the background needed for a story to be fully plausibly explained... you are after all making a movie not a full biographical series. In the end the only thing I had a problem with was just that-- the end. It isn't the outcome I struggle with... it is the delivery of it. It seemed... hurried and somewhat underdone for the build up. Overall a very worthwhile movie, but that ending just left me...

So I am not sure if my wait and anticipation did me a disservice, or if it allowed me to more objectively see what I might have missed had I seen it while the expectations were absent. In the end I have no regrets about having watched it. It deserves credit, and if you enjoy an atmospheric movie about isolation and the stress that brings, then this will definitely be at least a 7 for you too.

Okay, so the zombie/Evil Dead thing is such a saturated market that it really is hard to make a mark in it, and taking a purely comical meta approach to the genre is no less so. I think this film tried to be a bit innovative, but mostly fails at it. Despite this, solid enough performances (for what they are worth in a film with 2 dimensional comedic characters), gags that are numerous even if definitely low brow, and a steady pace of action and gore, will most likely satisfy fans of the genre, even if it doesn't really break any new ground. If you and some friends want to sit back and be amused with some pretty mindless fun, most likely with some alcohol involved, this is a movie that can fill that purpose. Don't expect much and you won't be disappointed.

I won't claim that the plot is original... it isn't, but it manages to take a reasonably new direction with the already almost overused sinister imaginary friend theme. I won't claim the movie hits the highest of notes in developing a horror atmosphere... it doesn't, but it does manage a couple good scares, takes well considered and reasonably surprising directions a couple times, and it makes a real effort at creating a sufficient creepiness throughout. It has solid acting, effects, and directing, and doesn't try too hard to capitalize on jump scares generally preferring to let suspense carry it. In the final measure, while I can't exactly highly praise this movie overall, I WILL say that in this day and age, where horror movies abound and manage to hit both the highest of levels and the lowest, this movie does manage to be a solid, enjoyable flick. I am stingy with praise, so consider it a full endorsement when I say that while I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it again, if it crossed my path again I wouldn't turn it off.

Well... I am sure I can add nothing new to comments which preceded mine, so I guess I will just reiterate. Rather lifeless attempt at a cliche possession genre horror. It evidently had some budget... enough to give it the gloss of a real movie, with pretty competent acting and cinematography, but it really breaks no new ground at all in plot, scripting, or anything really. In fact, it has some points where it gets pretty absurd... disappointingly mostly (but not exclusively) right near the end so that after you have endured all the (admittedly weak) buildup you get left with a poorly put together climax and a feeling of having lost some valuable time from your life. I suppose, the best i could say about it is, maybe, if you REALLY have nothing better to do with your time, you could watch it... maybe while washing the dishes.

I reserve 1 scores for the very worst of the worst, and while this isn't that, it comes close. I am okay with low budget films, and amateur films, but they still have to be somewhat good. This movie fails at that. It has mostly pretty terrible acting, plot, script, character development, directing, lighting, continuity, and, well, just everything. As a ''horror'' it fails so badly at creating suspense and believable peril that at best our emotions drift to boredom, and as a drama, which is what I think it secretly wants to be, it is dragged down by such bad acting it fails there too. It doesn't even stoop so low as to become a satire of itself, so we are even cheated of any possible humorous cult value.

I don't want to be completely down on it. I ALMOST wanted to give it a three. I feel it was taken somewhat seriously by the participants, and for a couple of the characters... the two younger female leads, and one male cast member, there are brief glimmers that with a lot more effort and a much better project they MIGHT one day shine. Regrettably that day still seems very distant.

Oddly, they got a pretty good score for the opening and closing sequences... this was a surprise, and along with the establishing sequence, even gave, for the first few minutes, a brief hope that I was going to find a diamond in the rough. In the end, though, it was not a diamond, or even an agate: it was just the worst kind of rough.

I will not try to dress this up as anything more or less than it is... this is not a full length feature per se and can't really be judged by that. It is an anthology of 10 (yes 10) shorts, many of which might be perfect and worthy for YouTube. But this is not an insult. Anyone who peruses horror shorts on YouTube and who is a horror fan will know that there is some quality stuff released there and, in fact, many shorts found there have far more merit than many full length features that get green lit, and these days many of rising talents are using YouTube to get exposure.

Having 10 shorts means that their lengths are not long-- even shorter than what is found in most anthologies, so one can't expect long character development scenes or extensive explanations and plot development. Like many shorts they just take a scene or concept and give it credit for what it is, cutting to the chase and leaving the extended details for the viewer to fill in with their imaginations. Such is the case here... an assemblage of competent little mini stories, generally well crafted and acted. Of course, as with all anthologies, not every one will be a gem... I found one in particular to be quite bad, and a couple to be well done but too basic, but overall the viewing experience was worthwhile.

Note: they are not going for excessive gore or a lot of jump scares... while those can have their place this is not often that place. If that is what you look for exclusively this movie is not for you, but if you want some well crafted little horror shorts that have a bit of effort and love put into them, then you might find some of these tales to your liking.

I also was tempted to give this show a 6 instead of a 7... but I felt it deserved a bit more generosity than a lot of other reviewers might want to give it.

Despite my thousands of movies under my belt and my enthusiasm for horror in particular, my brief stint of offering critiques was short lived and I have offered no public reviews for years... until this horror of a movie crossed my path.

My header says it all. I was tempted to give this movie a one star but to be honest, there are actually even worse movies out there. The shocking thing is that while this movie would fit in as a direct to video release in the 80's, it is actually a new release. It has the sound quality, lighting, effects, scripting, and acting of those 80's films we watch to be appalled at and laugh at how bad they were, but this one doesn't even try to make itself satirical. It seems to be a sincere attempt to make a horror movie... a sincere attempt that failed oh so miserably. Everything is wrong with it... and rather than break all that wrongness down (and I would love to do so but it would take longer to write every terrible thing down than the crew actually spent on filming it) I will keep things short, and just say that you have a million better things to do with your time... even getting a lobotomy or a serious case of jaundice would be a more unique and interesting way to spend some time.

I will only say one good thing about it. You and several friends might enjoy getting very drunk and ripping it apart... it certainly invites it, but it might even get dull doing that.

We have seen the story before... trapped in a mine, a group of people struggle to survive. Yes, we have seen it and similar stories more than a few times before, but seldom so well. Solid acting quite effectively conveying fear, despair, and madness; a crescendo of well paced action, a VERY claustrophobic setting, a compelling twist of the unexplained, all blended together to make a real movie out of something that could have just ended up a clone of many others. I say this even admitting that I am not usually a big fan of movies with premises like this. I really liked descent (the comparison is, in some ways, inevitable), but didn't love it as much as some, and yet I put both these movies on par and rate them highly (for me a 7 is high... the mark of a movie well worth watching). If you are one of those people who loves this type of movie, I suspect you will rate it even more highly than I did.

If it could be faulted it is that the mystery madness (without giving too much away) is never thoroughly explained, and this contributes to a rather notable question mark at the end. It did not bother me... I find the mystery compels us to feel confusion in a way similar to the characters themselves, but for some viewers it will stick in their craw and they will cry foul because the director didn't spell it out for them. But this is a character and survival piece more than anything, so it can be forgiven if it defies leading us by the nose through a neatly sewn up narrative.

With that said, make what you will of it. Sit back with the big screen and good surround sound if you have it, and a significant other maybe, and enjoy.

So I thought I might get some laughs tonight and check out a horror comedy... disappointingly I got not much more than a handful of slight grins from this dull piece of work. While the acting is good, the effects are passable without evidently requiring much of a budget (if they had a real budget then shame on them), and the characters are not bad, it just doesn't have anything special to offer. In fact, the whole thing is stock... run of the mill... ho hum. Plot, dialog, pretty much everything is clichéd, but not in that meta sense where it is playing off of it for irony or even... gasp, humor. Therein lies the biggest disappointment, and I already said it once but I will repeat it... it just isn't very funny.

Nor is it a really good horror. It does succeed in setting up a few creepy scenes... not really scary scenes, just creepy, but they, as stated, are not innovative. It has some okay deaths, although, again, they are not innovative. It has a basic plot with only the slightest variance from what we have pretty much seen a hundred times before. You would think with all the effort it takes to get the funding this movie must have needed, and to get the decent cast it has, someone might have really taken the time to have a better script.

It is not a terrible movie by any means... there is a bit of skill involved here. If you don't expect anything going into it you might find it mildly entertaining. A mindless way to pass some minutes away. But if you go into it with any higher hopes than that, well...

As you can tell by my opening line I am NOT a fan of found footage films. To me it is a gimmick, not a genre as people keep asserting it to be, and more often than not used to pass talentless schlock which can't get any funding off to the public. Despite this I HAVE seen many, and I always watch whatever I start to the very end, even if I find the experience painful.

With that said I will admit that Mr. Jones pulled it off for me. The plot is a little off beat, the acting is decent even if not brilliant, and the setting and atmosphere move solidly into the realm of creepy quite successfully. It uses found footage in a plausible way... the protagonists making a movie for a legitimate reason just as Mr. Jones does what he does for a legitimate reason. What started as a simple documentary turns surreal also for a legitimate reason. People who, as a rule, really enjoy the majority of found footage films, might not like it, and judging by the mixed reviews I would say this is so, but I think it is because it does defy conventional found footage stereotypes. There is not a lot of running around and screaming, and people frantically looking into the camera and blubbering. There are no scenes of what is happening in their rooms while the people sleep, which I think is the allure this gimmick offers to the fans of it. The 'watch what happens when no one is looking' appeal... 'it could also be happening to YOU!!!' It actually offers a surreal Hollywood ready story, with all its narrative elements boldly displayed on the surface, in a found footage format... and while I don't always love Hollywood either, in this case it was a relief to get a half decently crafted tale instead of the... you know... usual.

Having seen and quite enjoyed the Spanish original I was a bit concerned about seeing it remade. My concerns were unfounded though as it turns out since, while the director did use the general idea of the original, he did not so much do a remake as a spin off. The setting, characters, general plot, and ending all very significantly deviate from the original, and there is even a detailed back story added which creates, if not sympathy, at least comprehension for the acts this family does.

The movie itself is beautifully developed to create both a very plausible realism and very well defined characters. It is these characters that are the goal, and the movie does not resort to needless gore to satisfy cruder appetites. The acting is carried off quite flawlessly, and we do find ourselves at least rooting for the children to some degree. All in all it was well worth the watch.

Would I say it is better than the original? Well, given that they are both very different it would be unfair to pit them against each other directly. I will say I did prefer the original overall as it was first, so it took some of the novelty out of the second, and the original made it more of a sort of very twisted coming of age tale than the second movie did, and I really liked that dimension of it. But if I look at them more as apples and oranges, I would say they both are very well done and each earns its place as a highly recommended piece of work.

First off, you should know I am not prone to high scores. To me, a 2 or 3 is watchable, a 4-6 is a movie that is well done enough to entertain but does not overly impress, a 7-8 is a tight and well done movie that has no real flaws and stands above many others, a 9 is for those that are brilliant and a 10 is perfection... of which almost none exist. So when I give this an 8 I am promising a compelling movie with a solid script, great acting, well thought out plot, and original enough to not just be a rehash with more flash. Open grave delivers, and I have almost no criticisms of it. The only thing negative I can say is that I was, in most cases, able to predict the twist elements before they happened... but only just before, and generally not in their entirety. The director plays his cards quite tightly and while he does not manage to keep every play a secret, he holds the secrets he must well and reveals them only when it is impossible to keep them unknown any longer. In short, it has excellent pacing... each thing in its time. The plot takes a fairly fresh perspective on a done to death theme, and doses of action are administered just often enough to keep it lively without making it something it wasn't intended to be. It is a suspense horror, and does not need to be an action horror too.

There were not many movies in this genre I would rate as highly as this, and seeing something this good is like my reward for wading through as much garbage as we often are forced to do. So sit back and enjoy.

Not bad for a man hunt movie... but not really good either. It was a bit too drawn out and the acting was weak although not abysmal. But the protagonist had a motivation other than just surviving because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and although at times he was kind of stupid he was not just a clueless twit like so many 'victims' are in such movies. The "bad guy" was fairly well played, and at one point when he is injured, he plays it consistently which is nice. There is also one of the neatest little minor characters about half way through which i enjoyed. If you watch the movie you will know what I mean. In fact I didn't see any completely unforgivable incongruities, so all in all I say give it a watch if you have the time and nothing better to do.

Having read the other reviews here I don't have much to add, or anything to change, so I will keep it very brief. This is an incredibly low budget movie which puts almost all the big budget zombie flicks to shame. To even call it a zombie flick really sells its virtues short. Really, it is a zombie flick only in that it has zombies, but it is pretty much exclusively a character study in a survival setting (which, I guess is what most zombie flicks become). However, this one REALLY carries it off. The characters are convincingly portrayed, well rounded, and endearing. They surprise you with their humanity which, at times, borders on the absurd and hilarious. You watch people deal with despair in the way most people do... one day at a time, by whatever means needed. That's it... like I said, brief. My hat is in the ring with the rest... now go watch it.

Honestly it is not as original as some people make it out to be. Movies with supernatural forces which enter the mind and alter perception are commonplace enough... haunted objects which become obsessions to their victims also commonplace enough, but in this day and age to dismiss a tale because it lacks originality is unfair. There are few if any really original things under the sun anymore... at least not in conventional narratives. With that said I will chip in with the masses and say the tale is artfully told. The background is well set up, the way the realities/memories collide visually and work on the character's minds catches the imagination, and the acting is convincing and compelling so you can be carried along into the tale more easily. Cinematography is cleanly done, it does not rely on cheap gimmicks and jump scares, atmosphere is well maintained throughout, and all in all it was well worth the watch. In a year where good movies seem a little sparse it actually shines by comparison. But don't be too swept up by the hype. Certain elements of the "haunting" were much more predictable than I would have liked and the general ending was given away too easily from near the very start. Do watch it, but if you go in expecting a mind blowing movie you will likely be disappointed. Expect a decent movie and you should be happily surprised.

Unimaginative and flat characters and concept, terrible acting but not so much as to be good, no plot (but it's a slasher flick right, so oh well), but worst of all, one of the most terribly done killers in the history of horror films. I mean really, the hunchback of Notre Dame who sways side to side like a drunken monkey, and who occasionally does a flip for no other reason apparently that that he can. Plus he has a cheesy sickle that was intended to be cool but looks like some kid threw it together in an afternoon metal shop class. There are also the most ridiculous scenes where the villain taunts the victim... you know, those sorts of scenes where you have to ask "how did no one see him". And the acting... let's get back to the acting... accents that are all over the place, cheesy monologues, utter emotional/moral inconsistency, the list goes on. Still, will I say it is the worst movie ever? No. The first few minutes I thought it might be a decent 80s flick tribute, and in a way it still is. It has a bit of a campy retro feel. It has an okay setting and bad, but not the worst, effects (for the few there are). I would never recommend it, but I would buy it for $1... not more... just $1.

Passable acting, passable action, passable script. Plot... well, it is a predatory animal in the forest survival horror, and how much of a plot would you usually expect? As usual the heroes (fodder) are a little on the dim side, forgoing (as is too often the case) arming themselves and trusting far too much in defense, defense, DEFENSE as they get picked off, but while there is nothing exceptional here there is also nothing that is a total deal breaker for the genre. The only really redeeming thing is there is a decent job of effects. Considering the low budget they did not do a bad job with that. All in all it is worthy of a watch if you are bored and have nothing better to do, but don't take that as a recommendation either... in the end it is still just passable.

While this movie had more budget than many of the recent movies (especially the found footage movies) usually do, and thus could have had some benefit from that, I can honestly say that it was money well wasted. The acting is some of the worst I have ever seen, the characters epitomize flat, the premise is weak and given no real development, and the building of suspense is nonexistent. The gore is amateur and funny at best-- but not really funny in a good way. What makes it worse is just how terrible the characters are... for a bunch of successful young adults to just arbitrarily decide, without a second thought, to go onto private property and absentmindedly vandalize a home, even if abandoned, is absurd... it is like the story is written by a barely pubescent teen imagining what adults would do, and things just go downhill from there(note this is not really a spoiler, it happens almost immediately and is not really any more important than anything else in this sad charade of a plot). Of course, as always, watch it if you want to. It is not the very worst movie I have seen by any means, but it comes close, and given the variety of better options out there (including the option of replaying something you have seen before but enjoyed) you might save yourself some time and skip this poor attempt at a slasher flick.