5/10
Too many scary filmmakers making scary movies that make fun of scary movies.
22 September 2000
As a former film student the setting for the film had some appeal. Film students after the coveted Hitchcock Award strive to make the film that will secure them a spot in Hollywood, just like the honored alumni before them. Unfortunately the power of greed has someone taking out the competition.

It begins with an obvious film-within-a-film cliché to introduce us to all the principal characters/victims of the film. The cast, a slew of nobodies, lacks any true depth and continually stumbles through forced 21st dialogue. The only recognizable face, Joey Lawrence of Blossom fame, has matured in looks but not so much in talent. In fact, the most entertaining parts of the film are when the killer `urbanizes' his victims making the viewer happy to see them go.

The entire story is weak and too many standard horror movie conventions are tossed into the mix. Bumps in the dark, shadows in the background and masked characters that appear out of nowhere are tired repeats of films in our past. As expected, every character is given a reason to be the killer until the very next scene when they are exonerated because another character seems more deserving.

With many veiled references to Alfred Hitchcock's films, the filmmakers may have thought they were honoring the great director but in reality the idea is so poorly done that they only come across as cheap rip-offs. Stair climbing in a tower ala Vertigo and a weak wheelchair scene ala Rear Window are two that come to mind.

The whole scary movie genre was given life by Scream and now it ought to be put out of its misery with one swift swing of the ax.

2 1/2 out of 5
15 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed