FrightFest

Didnt expect much of this one and that was exactly what I got. The 10 year old girl was the best thing in it. Overly long and dragged - an 80 minute movie that felt like an eternity.

The cute kiddy was good.

The gore effects were pretty good.

Everything else... well, let's just set fire to it and move on.

I walked out,inever walk out of movies,went shopping...nuff said

I agree that the kid was the best thing in it - and even her I found annoying. Seemed like Joey Evans thought the low-budget grindhouse trend was an excuse to make an all round bad film. It looked and sounded terrible but not in the old school way he intended. If he had used the time he spent on all the self-inflicted cigarette burns and kitch advert breaks on improving the non-existent plot it might have been vaguely enjoyable. As it was it was an over indulgence on his part and he would have needed a hell of a lot more vision and intelligence to pull it off.

I can't believe he cashed in his savings and retirement fund to make it. Guess it goes without saying that his kid isn't going to college. Gutted.

My only walkout. When they started ripping off the music from 28 Days Later (you know, the piece that's taken over from the Requiem for a Dream as the soundtrack to every freaking trailer) I'd had more than enough.

Didnt even bother with this one...went for Thai food...it was nice!

For me this was indeed one of the worst

I'm quite a fan of the very low budget looking films but this just turned me off from the story. Hang on a mo, what was the plot again! It just felt like the ambling zombies featured in the movie, all over the place with no real direction

In particular the walk from the Chili Parlor to the Jeep to then drive back to the Chili Parlor was excruiating. was it really only 80 minutes long?!?

It can't be a good movie when your best moment was the utterance of the Bruce campbell line "give me some sugar baby!"

Sorry

Worst of the weekend for me too. Poorly shot, paced edited and acted, apart from Audrey the little girl.
Talking about it afterwards some of us were convinced that it was only to spare her feelings that we didn't all tear into the director during the Q and A.
He should have spent the 11,000 dollars on a short instead.

It seemed like they'd tried to go for the "endearing amateur" slant by making it look as cheap as possible, but it didn't work at all - horrible and fuzzy visuals, muffled sound, awful acting and some crap generic zombie storyline.

Not so much "endearing amateur" as "appalingly awful"

Only Fear(s) Of The Dark beats this as worst of the weekend.

2/10

Really really bad and not in a good way.

Just dreadful. I left 15 mins before the end and I never walk out of films.

Giving a film a grainy scratched look only works if it was shot on a decent camera in the first place.
Terrible script, bad acting and no worthy production values to speak of.

Am a little bemused as to why this was in the festival. I love the variety of FF and the fact some of us love the films that others hate and the fact that we get to see new director's first efforts but this looked like it was made by school kids.

It was sponsered by Zone Horror so maybe there was no choice as to whether it went in, don't know how the whole sponsor thing works.

Though I can agree this wasn't a good film... I still liked it. Despite all the problems with plot, sound, pacing and performances, it charmed me. There was clearly a lot of passion and love that had driven the making of it and it was that that won me over ultimately.

The ending did seem to last for about 5 years though...

Just to rub a bit more salt into wounds... particular raspberries for whoever:

a) decided to play loud background music over dialogue, and

b) decided that 'dirtying up the film' was a good idea. Tarantino tried that to general derision... it's baffling that anyone else would pull the same stunt.

jonbly wrote:Just to rub a bit more salt into wounds... particular raspberries for whoever:

a) decided to play loud background music over dialogue, and

b) decided that 'dirtying up the film' was a good idea. Tarantino tried that to general derision... it's baffling that anyone else would pull the same stunt.

On point b. I agree completely. It seemed especially stupid as the video source had resulted in an image so pixilated that it was never in a million years going to look like it was shot on film.

it wasn't the best but not the worst. I can see what they were trying to do, but budget issues held them back. Also really nice people and I hope the next one they make is better.