My quick rating - 3.8/10. Well, that delivered exactly what you'd expect from a low-budget horror flick, and then some. Let's start with the obvious: the acting. "Horrible" doesn't quite cover it—this is the kind of wooden, disjointed performance that makes you question if the cast was pulled off the street five minutes before the cameras rolled. The fake car driving? A disaster. I mean, how hard is it to pretend you're driving? Even that felt like a bad afterthought. And don't even get me started on the camerawork—no, phone work. It seriously looks like a toddler took charge of the shots, creating a chaotic, shaky mess. But—yes, there's a but—the movie has a few redeeming qualities, specifically in the creativity of its gore. For a film with seemingly no budget, the splatter effects are surprisingly inventive. It’s clear they poured what little resources they had into making the bloodshed memorable, and in that department, they actually succeeded. This is where the movie shines, even if it’s in the most brutal of ways. And then there’s one scene, the infamous sex scene. Worth the price of admission? Maybe not quite, but pretty damn close and unexpectedly well done in an otherwise messy film. There’s something so absurd about a bunch of people partying in a slaughterhouse, as if any audience isn’t already shouting “What could possibly go wrong?!” from the first frame. Spoiler alert: it all goes wrong, and not just because of the script. In the end, this flick is a prime example of a so-bad-it’s-almost-good horror film. It's a masterclass in how not to make a movie, but if you're in it for the creative kills and the ridiculousness of the whole thing, you might find yourself enjoying the chaos. I am seriously curious what this crew does when they get an inkling of a budget.
top of page
bottom of page
Comments