13 Seconds (2003 Video) User Reviews

STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE!!! So bad it's not even funny, literally.

[drdray66 · 1/10 · 14 January 2006]

Do not listen to anything that someone who has given this movie a positive review has to say: they are lying to you, literally. It is pretty common knowledge amongst the posters of this movie that there is a conspiracy to improve this movies image on IMDb.com. If you look at the rating percentages, there are next to no 8's and 9's, which is a very good and reasonable score for a movie that is as good as some say it is. No, the only significant positive rating that is given is a 10, which makes no sense. Look at the rating history, look at who has commented on it, and look at their post/rating/comment history. It is quite amusing indeed.

As for the movie itself, it's supporters have one thing right: it's pretty hard to make a movie on the budget that they must have had to make "13 Seconds" (which I'm guessing is in the neighborhood of $100). First, it is not at all scary. At no point am I scared, "creeped out," on edge, nervous, or even disgusted. It only affects the viewer's emotion in one way; it makes the viewer angry, angry for having spent the money to have seen it, and angry that you wasted an hour and a half of your life on it. The special effects are very distracting (no, we cannot fault the film makers for this, but it certainly does hinder your watching experience). The acting is horrendous (I'd say bad by high school theater standards). The plot is mediocre at best. And the dialogue is painfully terrible (lines like "I found this book."--"is it old?" and many others make you rewind it to see if you heard what you actually heard). I can, in all honesty and with absolutely no exaggeration, say that this is the worst movie that I have ever seen.

I am this strongly critiquing this movie not because I have a grudge against its creators (although I'm not happy about losing 90 minutes and $4). I am critiquing it so that no one else is fooled by what others are posting on this website. This is a terrible movie and is only worth watching if both a)you get it for free (or, even better, are getting paid to see it), and b)you do not value your time at all. No, on second thought, even if those two conditions are met, there are still better things to do. Steer clear, friends. Steer clear.

I wanted to like this. I really really did.

[lingh0e · 1/10 · 12 May 2006]

but after watching it I just have to know... who the hell are these poor poor mislead souls that are giving this movie such high praise!? 13 Seconds was a god-awful piece of crap. Even the best reviews on this site mention the bad acting and the (obvious) low budget, but try to say that those aspects of the film are simply something a "low budget" or "indie" film maker must deal with and the writer/director/actor should be commended for dealing with such shortcomings and still finishing the production. This is patently untrue, and I take such comments as a highly offensive slap in the face to the REAL independent, low budget film makers who can not only deliver on a clever story (which I will admit, 13 Seconds had), but they can also get something close to a decent performance out of their actors, better sound and editing... hell, everything involved in making a movie. And I do mean EVERYTHING.

To put it into terms that most people can relate to, 13 Seconds equates to a very low-budget Halloween season haunted house. The scares are cheap and ineffective and the actors hired to pull off those scares are almost as talented as my cat. At least my cat makes me jump on occasion.

The bad acting only makes the awful dialog even more unbearable. Add on top of that the total lack of effort put into the dubbing and you have the perfect formula for a movie that even Ed Wood would find abhorrent.

Even the argument that "well at least he went out and made a movie" doesn't hold water. One of the main reasons I have not gotten my own production off the ground is because of movies like this. Watching this movie made me remember that I didn't have to settle for whatever actors I could scrape out of a trailer park, a DP who had no experience outside of a Polaroid camera and sound recorded on an answering machine while the freaking actors phone it in. Sorry, but I'll hold out until I can find people that, when placed in a soggy paper bag and told to act, would be able to find their way back into the light.

To sum up: remember kids, just because you CAN make a movie does not mean you SHOULD.

Painful to watch

[jjaanneett23456 · 1/10 · 10 March 2008]

This movie is an embarrassment! It is so atrociously bad that it even makes you angry while watching it. I couldn't even tell you what it is about since I only watch 5 minutes, and my husband, thinking it would get better, watched 10 minutes of it. But, anyhow, I couldn't care less. I cant believe I rented it! It made me so angry that I almost went to blockbuster right away to get my money back. I should have, since it is a rip off they have that kind of "movies" to rent. I makes me angry the fact I made the director a bit richer by renting it!!! DO NOT WATCH this movie unless you want to waste 5 min of your life (I say 5 minutes since you wont get further than that). It is the worst movie I have ever seen. It looked like those videos the teachers used to make us watch at school to learn Spanish. Do not trust the first reviews of this movie. They are probably written by the actor's (If you can call them that...) family, friends or even themselves...

Horrible...

[krodje · 1/10 · 12 December 2008]

... horrible, horrible. I made the mistake of picking up this movie at my local rental store based on its cover alone. Big mistake. '13 seconds' sucks on all fronts: the acting, the story, the sound, the camera-work - all sink below any standards I can recall having ever seen on this side of my father's home videos from the 1980's. I'm usually a fan of low budget and independent horror, but in this case there's no redemption possible. The combination of absolutely no talent and next to no budget calls for disastrous results. The only thing scary about this movie is that it actually manages to strike up some positive reviews... truly horrifying!

I actually tried to claw out my own eyes.

[badgerbadger104 · 1/10 · 9 June 2011]

I do not do movie reviews. Ever. Before this. I am of the same camp of those that found that this movie actually made you angry. So angry that I created this account so that I might warn others away from this horrible waste of how ever many minutes long this was. The cover graphic should have those bad smell lines coming up off of it. The only enjoyable part of having seen this movie? Reading other's reviews. I know that most people end up just picking this up as a rental, having never seen it before. I'm sorry. You are now a part of the sad secret club. Those that have watched this movie. What has been seen cannot be unseen. It's akin to warning others of a pending zombie attack; you have the disbelievers ("oh really now, I'm sure that you're exaggerating"), the rubber neckers ("are you sure? let's just go have a look then."), and the survivors. Chances are, if you are here and reading this, you are one of the battle weary, slightly shell shocked survivors. Welcome, brothers. You are among friends. There will be punch and pie.

I have been sitting here for about half an hour, trying to quantify the amount of displeasure I feel for having been subjected to this movie. To do this without the use of profanity is especially challenging.

There is not a single redeeming thing about this movie.

Someone HAD to have lost a bet. This HAD to have been a wager to see who could create the most overwhelmingly awful movie, covering all aspects. Bad lighting? CHECK. Bad audio? CHECK. Crappy script? CHECK. Special effects that really suck? CHECK. Did we beat all of the cast members with the ugly stick? CHECK. Did you get the girls twice? CHECK. Did we get the dude that thinks he's Emilio Estevez? CHECK. Did all cast members destroy the part of the brain that even allows you to PRETEND to act? CHECK.

Speculation on my part, but I am guessing they blew the entire budget on the straight jacket and the corn syrup for fake blood. The horror teeth look like they came from those coin toy machines just inside the grocery store. The make up looks like papier mache and shoe polish. Or maybe oatmeal. ...And shoe polish. I can't be sure. I didn't care about it enough to look that closely.

WTF - I am really hoping that everyone in this was included because they were all friends; you don't PAY people to do this.

Seriously.

This movie made me want to punch babies. Twice. Who ever provided the funds for this needs to be relieved of all fiscal responsibility. STAT. I even can't think of a suitable punishment for those involved in this film. Something with eggs and toilet paper and warm weather comes to mind. And bitey bugs. Or maybe papier mache... And shoe polish. I can only hope that SOMEONE learned a lesson. But probably not.

To all those responsible for this horrible waste of plastic in the manufacture of this turd, please please PLEASE find something else to occupy your time. Being forced to eat a flaming pineapple with my butt while being maced repeatedly in the face would have been better use of my time. I kept waiting for someone to come up and squeeze a lemon in my eye. Seriously. My cat has taken dumps that were not only scarier, but more expressive. If you really feel the need to watch this cinematic horror, which it truly is, perhaps I can save you the rental fee in my suggesting that you simply stand next to an overfilled restaurant dumpster after a day of rain, in the summertime heat and just stomp the squishy rotting things in your socks. Or as a deterrent, hit yourself in the face with a frying pan. ...It works in cartoons.

To borrow a line from Venture Bros' Dean: "You should see a doctor, it smells like you pounded garbage into your butt!"

tldr; I wish I could unsee this.

Absolutely, A Top 3 Worst Movie Ever

[cooper417 · 1/10 · 12 December 2006]

I saw this at the video store and it caught my eye. Ooooh I told myself, look at these awards, this could be a low budget B-movie worth watching. Boy was I wrong.

This film was written bad, the actors did a bad job, the story was... well how can I put this...LAME!!

I couldn't believe how boring and how bad the acting and story was all at the same time. Do not waste your time with this movie.

If you are watching this for horror, don't bother. If you just want something bad to laugh at, this may be for you that is if you don't fall asleep.

Directing - F; writing - F; Acting - F; story - D; Over all movie F-

Crap + Crap = Crap

[drosz22 · 24 November 2005]

Well... it was very convenient of IMDb.com to erase my last comment that I posted in regards to this steaming pile of a movie. So... where do I begin? If ANYBODY can find anything that this movie can offer in regards to a positive critique... I'll eat my hat. The movie sucks on so many different levels, that it's hard to explain. I thought I had won when I shut it off after 20 minutes, but then my wife got home and she wanted to watch it... just when I think I am out... they pull me back in!!! I work in the Indie film industry here in Detroit (where writer / director Jeff Thomas filmed this and is from) and he is the laughing stock of the industry around these parts. He made crap and then DUPES people into believing that this crap won some sort of awards... the awards are FAKE!!! There is NO Detroit International Horror Film Festival!!!! Steer clear away from this garbage or you will be sorely sorry!!!! SUCKS!!!!!!!!

Are you F****ing kidding me?

[sativa417 · 1/10 · 25 June 2005]

By far the worst movie I've ever seen. I actually enjoy watching bad movies. I can find ways to enjoys movies most people think are pure ****, but this movie is an all-time low. As I said, it's the worst movie I've ever seen, so far. I always hate it when I see people that say this about a movie, since with all the movies in the world, I find it hard to believe that so and so could be the worst movie ever made, but honestly, I promise you, believe me, for the love of God listen to me, this is the worst movie I have ever seen. This movie makes Plan 9 from Outer Space look like Casablanca. The acting is garbage. I don't know how they pulled it off, but the acting is actually far worse than that of the films and videos from my past art classes. I didn't think you could act this bad if you tried, but they somehow managed to pull it off. The script is incoherent gibberish, just God awful. The direction is crap. How many close ups do you need? I do have to commend the "director/writer" for being able to dupe people into seeing it, since I found it in Blockbuster that means he was able to make some money off the movie. As for that, I am impressed. As for the movie, I had more fun with a scorching case of syphilis.

Horrible

[bussell-1 · 1/10 · 31 December 2005]

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who writes that this movie is any better than a 1, was watching a different movie when they were told they were watching this movie. The B.S. about good camera shots/angles for low money is a good joke. My two year old cousin could shoot better angles than this movie.

It had a good concept but the ending doesn't make the movie better, it makes it about 48 times worse. The only chance this movie had a chance to be even a 2 was is if it lasted 13 seconds, and that is including the credits. This movie is so terrible, I think it gave me cancer! I would rather repeatedly jab a knife into my arms and legs than to ever, and I do mean ever, sit through this horrible excuse of a movie again. And the independent excuse doesn't work for me. How this won any awards besides crappiest movie ever made is beyond me.

Blasphemy is just so damned convenient.

[film-critic · 2/10 · 25 March 2005]

Oh, horrid film, where did you go wrong? I hope I have enough fingers to count the ways. There is a point during film-making when a director or producer can simply say "Stop". There is no harm in that, nor is there any shame. This should have been one of those films that somebody, anybody, should have said, "we need to stop now". From the uninteresting characters, to the lackluster story, to the very poor production, the lines between avant-garde horror cinema and cheaply made movies became hazy.

There are three ways to completely destroy the power of a film without touching the story and those are through sound, sight, and mind. If a movie sounds great, you have captured some of your audience. If it looks good as well, you have captured even more and finally, if you can keep them mentally involved than you, as a director, should have most to all of the audience in your hands. Sadly, 13 Seconds did none of the above. The sound was horrendous. Synchronizing your actor's voices to match what they were saying when filming and the emotions they were feeling is not hard. Apparently, director Jeff Thomas decided robots could make this English spoken poorly dubbed in English feature. There was no emotion behind anyone talking, even our main character Davis. I found myself laughing whenever anyone opened their mouth. I couldn't tell if anyone was actually interested in what was happening, or if the amount of beer drinking that occurred before the dubbing was finally taking effect. Second, the sight of this film was just as bad as the voices. No apparent acting classes were needed from any of the actors or from the demons. There needs to be some level of class with the both the actors and demons, but in this film there were not. Davis, Jeff Thomas, was trying hard to be exactly like Bruce Campbell, which only lowered this film further into the pit of disgust. Everyone else seemed like they were going through the actions that were given to them that minute and trying to remember what exactly they were doing. There were no genuine moments in this film visually, just non-actors remembering to be robots. Finally, the mental involvement is key. I am not talking about just story here, because you can have a bad story but still keep people guessing for more. I am talking about just the apparent want to see what happens. Does your audience want to see what is going to happen next? In this film, my answer would be "no". The ending does provide a moment of shock, but you need to force your way through an hour and a half of sludge just to see it … and it really isn't that grandiose.

With these three elements lacking considerably, you may be thinking what is the value of this film? I was amazed to see that it had won some awards in the horror circuit because, to me, it showed the poorest of the poor. While I would agree, that the ending (without giving it away) was creative and inventive, what filmmakers need to realize that you need to have a complete film to blow us away. Do not just pride yourself on the ending because you are going to have upset people like myself that could tell that you spent more on that then you did the rest of the film. I have heard other critics say that this is like a low-budget The Sixth Sense, but for me it was not even in the same ballpark. Half the fun of The Sixth Sense was the action leading up to the surprising ending (which wasn't even that shocking), and that is where 13 Seconds suffers. Thomas' film has nothing to offer in the middle except for a very muddled story in which you nearly need a PhD in pagan culture to fully understand. I think I would have been more impressed by the ending of this film if there was a meaty center instead of all that gristle and grime.

Was this the worst film I have seen this year? After a day of thinking about it I can say "no", but would I be truthful to myself? There were some interesting scenes, which did showcase some of Thomas' potential, but the blatant disrespect for everything else just hurt those good points. I had trouble coping with the voices and the constant clichés that Thomas tried to repetitively use. There just seemed to be too much running into rooms and shadows lurking in the darkness instead of character development and understanding. I needed to know who these people were and a better explanation of the immediate story. Thomas seemed and felt unfocused in this film giving us not enough in one area, while completely destroying another. Inconsistency is what hurt this film, but what destroyed it for me were the small bits that could have easily been changed to construct a decent film. I wasn't happy, and I don't think many will be with the final results that 13 Seconds has to offer.

Grade: ** out of *****

if i could give this a lower rating, i would

[parabellum9x19mm · 1/10 · 7 June 2005]

although i've used IMDb as a resource for years i've never felt the need to chime in as a reviewer or post on the message boards, in this case i felt absolutely compelled to, especially after reading the false glowing reviews posted by others...which is just as fraudulent as this movie winning any recognition, a DVD distribution deal...any of that. i felt completely ripped off and i felt like a sucker after trying to watch this garbage. the mere fact that anyone could give this film 3 stars, much less 10 out of 10 is a complete farce.

i watch pretty much EVERY horror movie that comes out that i can get my hands on (which explains why i rented 13 Seconds i guess) and i have never seen a movie so atrocious and completely unwatchable.

low budget movies are not a problem with me....as long as there is good writing, good acting, good direction. this film is devoid of any of that and there is nothing "creepy" or "scary" about this trash.

the only thing scary to me about this movie is that not all of it landed on the cutting room floor.

i haven't been so angry after trying to watch a movie ever. i'll watch a Hollywood crapfest festival of Hudson Hawk followed by Gili followed by Showgirls back to back before i'll watch 10 minutes of this movie again.

i want my money and the 30 minutes of my life that i wasted BACK!

DVDemonic Fun

[squirmshine · 8/10 · 10 December 2003]

What I thought would be another lapse into sub-par American grade-Z independent horror quickly became one of the biggest surprises of a recent indie film fest. Typically, I look forward to festival screenings to catch the latest and most cutting edge dramas, but rarely ever horror, for those I can wait for home video. However, I was intrigued by the press materials for this film. The poster, the quotes, and most importantly for me, the awards "13 Seconds" has received caught my attention. Although, at first, I must admit I was somewhat skeptical. The movie unfolds at a decent enough pace that makes sparing use of dialogue, but the acting is stilted (more on that later). Not that this necessarily detracts from the overall story, because here is where the real strength of the film is. At what first appears to be a mindless action orientated narrative that piles one set piece upon set piece (you have to love and admire the cell phone and ghoul under the sheet scenes), quietly and very subtlety transforms into something much deeper. Not that the movie grinds any gears. In fact, it is in this movement from violent gore and death to surreal psychological scares that "13 Seconds" reveals its true motive that has always been staring the audience right in the face along. Here is where the twist ending manifests, and what a surprise it is. The best mysteries work when the ending is a logical conclusion that the audience does not grasp onto immediately. And

this movie does just that while staying true to its narrative form, structure, and characters. And now more about that. Clearly, the under acting method is employed as an integral part of the story telling process-to varying degrees of success. Because once the conclusion is reached, every method evoked makes perfect sense, just getting there was somewhat questionable since every motive is not crystal clear. Still, solid scares and jolts are provided and the set pieces are original and always entertaining. Originally when I walked into this screening, I really wanted to tear this movie apart. But I must admit that I became caught up in the story and I played right into the movie's gimmicks (special praise to the artist that created the disturbing paintings). But again, what really makes "13 Seconds" is the final act where all the pieces fit perfectly together into a powerful and satisfying finale.

13 Seconds new and unusual

[mistermonster1954 · 7/10 · 16 May 2005]

I feel that Director Jeff Thomas did a great job on his film ; I certainly could compare it to " Dawn of the Dead " and " The Last Man on Earth " , combined . 13 Seconds is it's OWN film and kind of falls into that category. Some people who saw the film compare it to " Jacob's Ladder " or " Hellraiser " , but I feel this is unfair . I had a closed - in , claustrophobic feeling during most of the film and found the shock ending delightful ! Independent filmmakers are just that - independent - and so I always expect their films to be of a certain degree . Being a Horror - writer and reviewer , as well as affection-ado of the genre , I am able to say , truthfully, that this film DID deliver the goods and shocks that I expected ! " Dawn of the Dead " and " Last Man on Earth " had their moments , but so does " 13 Seconds ".

Bleech!

[ham-javelin · 2/10 · 25 August 2005]

Wow what a steaming pile of dung.

While I enjoy low-budget gore as much as the next guy, this one was almost unbearable to watch. This was mainly due to the acting, if you can call it that. Every person in this flick had the same monotone voice coming from the same expressionless face. For a horror film there was a decided lack of screaming. I would expect some screams when one is getting hacked in half, or their chest ripped open, but I think there were a total of 4 screams in the entire film.

I can't believe this thing won awards. It must have been the only entry.

Can I have 90 minutes of my life back please?

Run away, away from this movie, QUICKLY!!!

[spastik_kitty · 1/10 · 25 April 2007]

I am still trying to wrap my brain around the awards this film has won. Yes, it's budget must have been low, yes, the cast and crew must have been classmates, yes a flashlight worked for lighting in Blair Witch... but none of this works here. The acting is beyond atrocious, so bad I was glad the sound wasn't synced. The special effects were... appalling, the script was painful, but the worst of all this horrid, make-shift "film" would be the lighting. It was beyond irritating, it was like using a cheese grater on your knees. It's really clear that the rest of this groups classmates or whatnot have tried desperately to upgrade this bowel movement beyond it's actual potential. It deserves to be flushed, never be seen again.

Worse Movie Ever!!!!! Honestly!

[movies0022 · 1/10 · 17 July 2008]

I'm a big fan of horror movies especially zombie or vampire movies. So I've seen a lot of horror movies and non-horror movies, too. Out of all the movies I have seen in my lifetime, this movie by far is the worse movie I have ever seen. It is so bad in every aspect you could ever imagine. How this movie even got into a blockbuster I will never know.

I've seen some really bad zombie or vampire movies in my time, but this movie ousted those movies by far. Don't get the wrong impression this is not a zombie or vampire movie. It's some dumb plot of a dumb band going to an abandoned art gallery to shoot a video or something!!??? Like come on why???? I mean sure horror movies does have some weird or stupid plot lines but come on this was just retarded.

The camera shots are so awful. Every time someone talked it zoomed into the person's face so the whole movie you see the camera on someones face as they talk no clever camera angles. The actors honestly could have shot the movie anywhere. All they had to do is look directly into a camera a read their lines and an editor just cut and splices their lines to make a conversation. The lighting of the movie is horrible. Like i said all you see the whole movie is the actors faces but majority of the time you only see half their face because the other half is just black or dark. If Jeff Thomas thought that was a cool thing to do he's just a retarded nerd. There are some scenes where its just all black and you really can't make out anything. Bad shots and lighting doesn't even compare to how bad the acting is. You could pick random people off the street and get better acting. These people in this film aren't just normal or bad actors. They're like super anti-acting sucking. Honestly, you couldn't even act to act as bad as these actors were. Their tones are monotone the whole movie and the script is so unnatural and awkardward (yeah it's misspelled this horrible movie must have killed my brain cells).

Although I do come on this site a lot to check things out I never ever registered for an account, but after watching this movie I made an account just so that I could post this comment. If I can get just one person to read my comment and save them from watching this movie, I can know that I truly made this world a better place. Honestly, DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! SAVE YOURSELF!!! YOU WILL NEVER BE THE SAME!!! If there was a movie out there that could make people commit suicide, this would be the movie. I never actually said this before in my life and truly meant it but, Jeff Thomas should be shot if he makes another movie and there should be laws enacted to prevent this guy from making movies especially if he decides to be the main character. What's worse Jeff Thomas's movies or his acting????? By now you actually might want to see the movie just from curiosity of how really bad could it be, but DON'T!. Worse movie ever. Some things are better left unknown don't let curiosity overcome you. STAY AWAY.

This movie should be the worse rated movie on IMDb, but it seems like jeff thomas and his friends came on here made random accounts and posted up fake comments and ratings for this movie so people could be mislead to watch this horrible movie. There are comments who gave this movie ten stars!!!!! get the $%#@ out of here. Those are fake. Any comment with more then 2 stars is definitely a fake comment to trick people and boost it's ratings up so it wouldn't be the worst rated movie on IMDb.

One of the worst movies of all time.

[williambbb · 1/10 · 13 November 2007]

This movie had none of the attributes of a successful horror movie. The dialog was terrible, the acting was atrocious, and the story and set design were none existent. If the objective was to make the worst movie of all time then this movie is indeed a success. At least the title was somewhat accurate since this bomb of a movie could only hold your attention for 13 seconds. I hope the budget for this stinker was kept at under $100; if not then the producers of this garbage should sue the filmmakers for their money back. I would suggest instead of watching this abomination that you wash your dog, go to the dentist, or have a colonoscopy, which would all be preferable to watching this movie.

This movie should be banned for being so dull and bad

[silverbuggy27 · 1/10 · 1 February 2008]

I have no clue how this movie managed to win 4 awards, especially not a Highly Commended award? The whole movie is laughable, and the acting is so horrible it makes the cast of 7th Heaven look like veterans who've won many Academy Awards (yeah, it's that bad). Save yourself the money and rent other cheesy 80's horror flicks instead of this uninspired "award winning" garbage feast. It lacks subplots and doesn't really seem to know where it wants to go and again the acting is so horrible it overshadows whatever, if any, could have been good. The start is just confusing and doesn't seem to belong to the same movie. The only reason I'd recommend this is to witness what horrible material gets the go-ahead sometimes...

A movie with a decent story, sucky acting, and confusing times

[dawnmsweeney · 3/10 · 27 May 2007]

My father in law bought some kind of stock in this movie. (I think he made a bad investment.) That is how I came across it. At first, the story is confusing and you are wondering what in the world is going on. They do not explain anything at all in the beginning. On several occasions, I was about to shut this movie off but do not. The story only gets better with time. More secrets are revealed Later in the movie. They movie is choppy with the scenes and is very hard to follow. The acting killed the movie. It was the worst acting I have ever seen. The characters talk in the same tone even when someone is ripped open right in front of them. This is definitely a low budget film. The only good things are the surprises and the gore. It could have been a good movie with decent acting and a bigger budget.

Grades: Acting: D- (This would be an F but Jeff Thomas does a decent job as the lead) Suspense: C- Sometimes this movie was too slow sometimes it was too fast Gore: B- This was the best part Story: C It sucked at first but revealed a lot in the end Characters: D You had no clue who was a main character or if they were dead Overall: C- had the potential to be good but nothing was explained well Do not buy this movie! If you see it on a shelf at blockbuster, rent it along with some other horror flicks you never heard of and compare them. This movie is not worth five bucks to own. The acting is one reason to see this movie. ( IT is so horrible it is worth more than the movie itself.

Artwork on cover = by far the best part of the movie

[eavan_masters · 1/10 · 1 May 2008]

Please listen to the post claiming it's literally so bad it's not funny. I can usually find the silver lining in a terrible horror movie, but this movie, this is really something special. Usually a movie this god awful would be so bad it's in some way amusing, nope. This movie is so bad it took me 3 watches until I could finish it without falling asleep. Unfortunately I'm one of those people who has to watch a movie in it's entirety before forming an opinion. Somehow this middle school project waste of time ended up on a Blockbuster shelf with a cool cover. Someone posted a review defending the acting and calling this a good new independent horror film. That poster should make it clear that they're directly related to the absurdly inept director of this movie. I'm a pacifist in general, but this movie was so bad I actually became furious with everyone involved in this inane venture. Absolute trash.

worst film ever made

[luis691991 · 1/10 · 13 February 2011]

this film is shocking.bad acting bad directing and i would say bad plot but there wasn't one. i cant put into words how bad this is.who on earth funded this. why on earth did they fund this steaming pile of cat Pooh. this DVD needs to be confiscated from all shops trying to rent or sell this no good shocker.here are some of my points. 1.acting i have never witnessed such bad acting in my life.i don't know where they got the cast from but none of them can act.i mean none of them. 2.directing. it is impossible to comment without going into a four letter rant.but i imagine your starting to get the picture. 3.sound never have i watched a movie when the cast's voices are out of sync.this does these already awful actors no favours at all. 4.plot ?

if your looking for a horror this is not for you..STAY WELL AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A Rhapsody in Grue

[reaper1800 · 2 June 2004]

The horror genre in general tends to be cyclical in nature. For the last few years I, for one, have been waiting with baited breath to see who will be the next Craven, the next Carpenter, the next Romero or Hooper. Who will bring the next wave of horror to this generation? The answer can easily be found in 13 Seconds, the first full-length feature video release by Jeff Thomas.

The story, which seems secondary until the end, revolves around 'Night Gallery', a rock band, who makes the poor decision to record in an abandoned private school. Before we even get a chance to question the character's logic the movie keeps rolling into a miasma of disembodied voices, bizarre shadows roaming the hallway, and other gruesome surprises. The plot continues to move along at a pace where by the time we think we've figured out what is going on something new is thrown at us at a nightmarish, disjointed pace. Sure, the plot contains a few inconsistencies but by the time we've noticed them we're moving along to the next nasty surprise. By the time the credits roll the plot has wrapped itself up into a nice, tight, unusually satisfying finale that does what few modern mainstream efforts force us to do: Think. During those final credits I sat stunned knowing that I had seen the beginning of the next wave of modern horror.

That being said, this film isn't perfect. The acting does tend toward the wooden side. At times when I would have been s***ting my pants, crying like a little girl, and creating a large Reaper sized hole in the brick wall the characters tend to accept their fate in a surprisingly calm manner. But that's easy to forgive when you're immersed in an authentically creepy world filled with fog, shadows, and a lot of, lot of, lot of blood being splattered against the walls, dripping on the floor, and pouring out of the more unfortunate characters. In fact, if the acting is wooden the photography is absolutely double jointed.

Director and star Jeff Thomas knows what he wants to see and I loved it! The atmosphere is perfect and each shot is like viewing a gallery of grande guingol artwork piece by piece. At worst the shots are interesting and at best they are absolutely terrifying. From a technical standpoint 13 Seconds delivers in a way not seen since the heyday of Mario Bava. The light and art design is secondary to the way that Thomas utilizes those devices in a way that caresses every separate frame creating some of the creepiest imagery ever captured on film. Every scene is shot in a way that enraptures the audience and dares them to look away from the screen.

A film like 13 Seconds has been a long time coming as the nostalgia for the films of twenty years ago spring forth a new generation of horror. When asking whom the next John Carpenter is, the next West Craven is, the next George Romero is I honestly cannot answer. However, ask me who the next great horror filmmaker will be and I will, without hesitation answer Jeff Thomas. While Freddy brings the laughs, Jason brings the muscle, and Leatherface brings the intensity, there is a young director out there who will bring the nightmares for many more years to come. 13 Seconds is brilliant, beautiful, and mindblowing. Welcome to the new age of horror!

13 Seconds DVD

[firstcyclonelady · 8/10 · 16 May 2005]

This is one hell of a good movie. I was just browsing in Hollywood video and I decided to rent it, and which turned out to be an excellent choice. I made the mistake of watching the movie alone, and now I am terrified of what may be under my bed. This will defiantly be a class horror movie in the future, one that's like not other. I see that people are saying it's a low budge film, but remember that's how star wars stared; all good things have to start somewhere, any one who likes good classic horror needs to be sure to pick up a copy of 13 Seconds. I hope to see new movies written and directed by Jeff Thomas. You deserve every award you won for this film

Scary as Hell

[Silvermist350 · 7/10 · 16 May 2005]

I bought 13 Seconds at Wal-mart, and I thought the film one of the most terrifying films I've seen in years, the writer, director, and actor Jeff Thomas really knows how to scare the life out of someone. I highly recommend 13 Seconds.Anyone who is out for a great thriller needs to pick up 13 seconds there is just one flaw to th movie that i forgot to mention , do not watch with the lights off . The special effects are the scariest i have ever seen and if you are not a brave person be prepared to pay a larger power bill as you will have every light in your house on every night for quite sometime . Keep up the great work Jeff Thomas and hope to see more movies in the near future Thanks

The Worst Movie Ever

[Townicus-1 · 1/10 · 8 June 2005]

My roommate is an avid fan of horror movies and spied this anti-gem whilst browsing through Blockbuster. The movie is about a band that decides to practice or record their music in a forgotten school house. First off, the acting. It is obvious that the actors/actresses are friends of Jeff Thomas. I would be surprised if one of these people had acting experience outside of high school. With the exception of home movies and porn, it is impossible for a television screen to display worse acting. Every participant reads through their lines without emotion, as if they are reading them from a teleprompt. The acting provided my friends and I with an element of inadverdent comedy that had us rolling on the floor. I doubt Jeff was striving for laughter. The writing. I cannot honestly say that the plot is any less hapless than several other horror movies you could pluck off of the shelves of your nearest rental store. However, the dialogue sure as hell is. At one point, a girlfriend attempting to calm an argument actually says, with utmost seriousness, "Can't we all just get along?" WTF? If one character is addressing another for the first time, the introductory word is the character's first name. It is simply unrealistic and unnatural. If you were in an alternate universe, you might expect people to converse in such a way. Nothing else in this movie really matters. The setting is an old school house yet the furniture is in great condition without any dust. The beds have clean linens. Someone even remembered to pay the electric bills. Gotta love the hospitality of evil demons. The music is a joke. Casio keyboard style suspense music will play during an "intense" scene and just cut out at any moment. Whether it fits or not. The mouse squeak is the official mascot sound of this movie. My final mouse squeak count ended at 1,142.

I suggest you rent this movie because it could motivate you. How? Once you see this used toilet paper square of a movie, you will know that even you can a get film on the shelves at Blockbuster.