The Off Season (2004) User Reviews

A young couple try to get away from their hectic life.

[michaelRokeefe · 2/10 · 16 August 2005]

This is a low budget, indie horror film that takes a downward spiral from the start. This is a haunting tale, but the scares are pretty weak. A writer(Don Wood)and his girlfriend(Christina Campenella)leave the dog-eat-dog days of New York City for a quieter location...Maine. The couple check into a dingy motel and settle down in Room #13. Strange things begin to happen in the one-room apartment and there is no place to run. Having writer's block is nothing compared to unwelcome spirits of former murdered guests of Room #13. Warning...the cover art of the DVD is very misleading and the movie inside is less interesting. Others in the cast: Larry Fessenden, Jamie Sneider and Angus Scrimm.

At the bottom of the bottom

[daooat · 2/10 · 21 April 2006]

My wife and I love horror movies and bad ones at that, but this is failure on all levels.

It starts with bad cinematography, as we see the "happy couple" looking for the hotel. The whole exchange is shot from behind each actors shoulder. And throughout the couples check and initial dialogue with the neighbor we hardly get a clear shot of the actors faces, except in the hotel mirror.

The first half of the film amounts to a bad retelling on the shining. Jerk of a boyfriend has writers block and becomes a drunk, while the girlfriend supports them both (we see no emotional connection in the actors or reason for us to believe they are even sleeping together, let alone in a relationship). Vaguely odd things happen, a purple coolaid stain on the bed (which we are to believe is blood) comes and goes, the "writer" sees ghosts, and we discover the "writer" isn't really writing.

At this point the girlfriend gets sick and so does the plot. The bf freaks out and leaves, and the gf, jobless (because she has been sick for so long), is left to face the supposed evil of the room alone. In the only successful jump scene of the move the gf takes a shower only to find a dirty, gray-haired hippy squatting in the shower behind her.

The climatic scene of the film is little more than the ghost of the gf's mother telling her to leave alternated with another ghost telling her to stay and the gf pacing or rolling on the floors.

I feel this film is victim of a singular lack of vision on the part of the writer/director/editor. It seems that a lot of promising elements were here, but they failed to be developed by either the writer, the director, or the editor.

Don't waste your money on this film.

[kahfess · 2/10 · 15 January 2006]

I picked up this movie in the hopes that it was a good suspenseful ghost story. That is not what I got.

This movie must have been produced on a shoe string of a budget, from the odd camera angles to the meandering around the plot, this movie was a big disappointment.

I do believe it had the right ingredients, but just needed more direction and some better actors. The only thing that kept me from turning it off is my curiosity of just how bad this movie could get.

The ending was abrupt, leaving all sorts of questions in the viewers mind. Much like this review.

I do not recommend this flick.

Man, oh man

[drownsoda90 · 1/10 · 25 April 2006]

I think this one goes down as the worst horror film of all time, if not the worst film of all time. And I'm really not kidding.

I was misled into watching this piece of garbage when I spotted the cover at a local Hollywood Video rental store. The cover looked promising, and I was thinking this would be a millennial indie horror spin on "The Shining" but I was so very wrong (note: I later noticed that on the cover, a critic (must've been a dumb one at that) quoted this "The scariest horror film since The Shinning". Yes, "The SHINNING").

This film is basically about a couple who move into a cracker jack box hotel room at some cheap seaside hotel, and they begin to see weird stuff in their ten-foot by ten-foot room that is somehow related to the hotel's past.

The only thing remotely memorable about this film is Angus Scrimm's performance (well known as The Tall Man from "Phantasm"), but other than that, the rest of the film is just complete and utter trash. I will say this film created a sense of claustrophobia considering 99% of it took place in that tiny hotel room, but it was just plain awful. If it was trying to be an exercise in claustrophobic horror, it failed miserable. If it was trying to be an exercise in horror at all, it also failed miserably. Terrible acting, extremely weak script, nothing scary at all, really bad cinematography, etc. I'd say this is even way below your average B-horror film. Avoid at all costs, unless you want to laugh and make jokes for 90 minutes. Even then, I don't think sitting through it is even worth the laughter. 1/10.

hahahahahahahah the funniest not scary movie i have ever seen

[chia_pita_tita2 · 1/10 · 28 October 2005]

This movie was the worst movie I have ever seen. Besides not being scary it had bad writing and directing. I won't even get started on the soundtrack. The scariest part of the movie was when I knew there was going to be a ghost in the shower, that guy was freaking creepy looking. Me and my roommate laughed through the whole thing, so funny I am glad I started with this movie. It wasn't a complete waste of time I got a lot of laughs and lot of smart ass lines that I will use on my roommates. (You you you you you you) Alright what is with the blackouts they just didn't feel like writing that part. "The Making Of The Off Season" "Well we went to this small town in the middle of BFE and I had my sister's hand held camera and I handed my friends the napkins I had wrote the play on and we had a pizza and some beer and by the next morning I had a movie." Finally, I will leave this movie alone on this last note, please tell me that they aren't making a sequel and they just left the end like that for the hell of it. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. GO TO THE STORE FIND THIS MOVIE AND THROW IT AT THE OWNER FOR EVEN HAVING THIS MOVIE IN HIS STORE.

A Really Low Rent Movie

[vghb95a · 1/10 · 20 August 2005]

To say this movie is low budgeted is an overstatement. If you like the quality, the production value, and the acting of a poorly done student film, you will love this one.

The story: Two people decided to hole up in a small room at a rundown motel so he could write his next great play while his girlfriend works at a menial job in town to supporting him. Right off, strange things begin to happen in this cramp room. As the day gone by, things become worst and worst.

The good: the first two minutes of the movie, when I thought this is going to be a reality style horror movie shot on video instead of film.

The bad: The next 83 minutes of the movie. First of all, the surroundings of this movie doesn't promote any scariness nor creepiness. The motel room the haunting is suppose to take place is not big enough to fit two people along with a ghost. I mean, if a ghost wants to haunt the room they are in, one person needs to leave the room first. The directing is amateurish and so is the camera work, especially halfway thorogh the movie when the camera-person decided to play with the zoom lens. The sound is hard to heard. The male lead is a poster boy of over-acting. Nothing in this movie is remotely scary for a ghost story. I am very glad that I only rented this movie instead.

Worst movie ever!

[jackc-6 · 1/10 · 18 September 2005]

If you have time to waste, and I MEAN WASTE, then by all means this is the movie for you. The only half decent actress is the lead, Christina Campenella, the rest must have been hired from the unemployment line. The story seems to me an extremely low budget version of "The Shining" and takes place MOSTLY in a cheap motel room. A couple leave New York city to move in a half star motel room in Maine( for some reason, I just thought of the actors) so the guy ( Don Wood) can write his best selling novel, while his girlfriend works in a library. After they move in, strange things start happening. The feeble attempts to scare you are laughable, if not sad. Of course, the room number is 13, which must have required a great deal of thought for the writer to come up with something so original, and is haunted by a woman who had a relationship with a minister. This movie has a real crappy soundtrack that sounds like a propeller plane, which is really annoying! This film is true proof that they will put anything on DVD. The movie is written, produced and directed by the same guy, and believe me it shows. I can honestly say this is the worst movie, by far, I have ever seen. I have the movie on DVD, which in one way is a good thing, it's a perfect cure for my insomnia. This film is truly a horror, it's horrible! Take my word for it, don't pay to see this movie, they should pay you to see it!

a couple moves into this motel and they are put in room 13, which is supposedly haunted

[hannahchristine · 1/10 · 21 October 2005]

by far thee worst movie i have ever seen in my life! i would rather watch teletubbies over this movie! i am telling you this was a waste of time and money! -bad acting! -bad, cheesy music! -bad filming! it looks more like teenagers taped it for a project.. which they got an F on!

me & my mom were at the video store looking for a good, scary movie.. i came across this one and the cover made it look like a great one. so i thought what the heck.. it looks good so let's get it.. well we just watched it and we couldn't wait for it to be over with.. we gave it a chance and didn't stop watching.. but it was dumb! sorry to any of you who may like this movie.. for some odd reason.. but this is my opinion.. and a bunch of others too so if you like scary movies.. Don't LET THE CASE FOOL YOU!!! THIS IS NOT A GOOD HORROR MOVIE AT ALL!!

Worst movie ever

[eaglemafia · 1/10 · 28 October 2005]

My roommate and I rented three movies and this was one of them...We should have saved it for last so that we could watch something funny before we went to bed. It was the funniest thing I've seen in a long time.

What was the director thinking? This story has been done over and over and over again. And what's with the jumping around so much? It's annoying and...just plain annoying! AND they left room for sequel! WHY?

I think my roommate and I are going to throw it out the window. Or maybe we'll just play Frisbee with it. I haven't decided yet. Either way, I'll get some entertainment out of it.

Funniest "scary" movie ever.

crap

[mostwanted123 · 1/10 · 17 April 2006]

This movie is garbage. It looked interesting and scary so I rented it from Rogers. What also drew me to see it was the comment that it is the scariest movie since The Shining. Yeah right. This movie is TERRIBLE. I am not even exaggerating. It is the worst film I have ever seen, and I really question why ANYBODY would give this movie anything higher than a 2/10 rating. First off, the plot is pathetic and it is extremely boring. There were rarely any moments that the movie was scary at all. The editing was horrible as well. Something would happen in the movie, then all of a sudden it will cut to another scene and never carry on what happened. It's like they just stuck it in there for no apparent reason. The story is very hard to follow in the sense that it makes NO SENSE AT ALL. Don't waste your money or time with this film. Not even halfway through the movie, my mom and I started laughing because it was just so pathetic to the point that it turned into a comedy. Whoever said it was the scariest movie since The Shining should be ashamed. It is an utter disgrace to compare such garbage with The Shining! I actually got scared watching the Shining and had nightmares! I was a little young when I watched it, but still, it was entertaining.

Decent bang for their buck

[madwomansattic · 8/10 · 2 September 2005]

First off, allow me to address some of the complaints other reviewers have had about this film. A film is not a piece of crap just because it has a microscopic budget. And for those who think the production values on this film were crap, they obviously don't realize how much bang the equally microscopic crew got out of their buck. Honestly, if this is the worst film you've ever seen, you need to stop being wowed by the smoke and mirrors of Hollywood and start looking at how well this film achieved what it wanted to achieve with the resources it had. Get some perspective, folks! The Off Season itself is a nice bit of a well-executed ghost story. It is a story, first and foremost. If you're not into watching a story with effectively drawn and well-layered characters, or into listening carefully to important dialogue, or watching subtle actions unfold, this is not the story for you.

And it is a ghost story, not in the Gothic vein with overt monsters and shock horror, but rather in a 21st Century version of master ghost-story-writer JS LeFanu. (If you don't know who he is and consider yourself educated in the history of horror, you need to go further back than The Shining.) The events of the story can be interpreted many ways— as supernatural influence, as psychological manifestations, or as a combination of the two. The Off Season is quiet to the point of being eerie and the focus is not on the source of the horror, but rather on the effects of evil on two people struggling to figure out their lives.

The Off Season also requires viewers to be somewhat literate in listening and observing details of performances. Woven into the mundane daily actions of the characters are a lot of clues about their descent into evil. But a viewer has to watch and listen carefully. The two central actors do a convincing job of keeping those clues clear without beating the viewer over the head with them. And they nail their pivotal scenes. It is in those details, combined with the occasional injection of the supernatural that keeps it moving steadily to its satisfying conclusion. Add to that the charming and compassionate performances of veterans Angus Scrimm and Ruth Kulerman and you have a fine sense of variation and pacing.

My only significant story complaint after my first viewing is that the back story of the ghostly evil came late in the film and unfolded a little too fast for me to keep up. But on a second viewing, it was all there.

If the Off Season wanted to be a well-written and nicely executed ghost story that doesn't condescend or insult the viewer's intelligence, it succeeded— even on a micro-budget. If you like your micro-budget horror with lots of jump scenes and obvious, overblown effects. . . this isn't the film for you. But if you like your horror more internal and with some actual substance, give The Off Season a fair shake.

And, yes. . the box art doesn't reflect the story or style of this film at all.

If you've seen all the other ghost stories on the rental shelf....pick it up

[KFear · 6/10 · 20 August 2005]

Maybe 6/10 is a just a little bit kind. This movie is very poorly edited and not very well directed by any means. There is no gore...no nudity...and not really much of a story. So why the 6/10??? once you notice somewhat of a mysterious plot unfolding you get caught up in some of the drama and the one or two ghostly encounters. The film itself is so raw it's like watching everyday life up close and personal. It gives a different feel to your regular ghost story. So are the ghosts creepy??? sometimes...but my pants are still dry. sometimes the ghost scenes aren't very affective at all just because the editing and overall direction seemed to be rushed in almost every scene. The 6/10 is for the leading roll...i liked her...and by like, i mean i have a hardcore crush on her. ahhhh :). the 6/10 is also because it's somewhat of a different area for a ghost story to head to. Enough so that it should keep your interest. In the end i think only true ghost/horror fans can walk away from this movie being able to enjoy it to a certain extent. It was a good effort to make an old plot seem like something new...on a budget that was probably next to nothing.

Ohhhh yeah...this takes the cake for worst ending. But if you are a true horror fan...you really won't give a hoot about the ending. For us, getting there is all the fun.

[e-mail]

Pretty awful

[dalto · 19 November 2005]

Shot on video...and not very well. Amateur acting. Did not use Scrimm very well. Director has no sense of pacing. Shot over ten days and looks it. Scares not scary. Motel location is extremely colorless. Too ordinary. Camera work is languid, lighting too harsh. Probably cost nest to nothing nothing to make. So all in all, this another shot on video waste of time that show a complete lack of talent on the director's part. The actors seem to struggle with the dialog. Only Scrimm seems to stand out, but the director does not cover him effectively. Premise of the script has merit and could be utilized well in a more expensive production, but is let down by the threadbare production values of this film.

Some decent scares

[dorotka24 · 5/10 · 23 October 2007]

I must agree that low budget does not automatically mean a movie is bad. There is plenty of talent in the world and much of it does not have the funding of a wealthy, big time production company in tow.

Just after watching The Off Season, I was disappointed. The low budget was glaringly obvious in the overall quality of the film and in the acting. One particular plot turn I found to be VERY unconvincing, thus lessening the credibility of the movie. It felt way too forced in order to move the story along, or maybe an actor backed out (or was fired) half way through.

After some thought, I found there were many redeeming qualities to the movie. The atmosphere was surprisingly creepy for such a simple and generic setting (dingy hotel room). And such a small space gave a disturbingly claustrophobic aura to the film, while affecting the characters in negative and understandable ways.

It was interesting to see Angus Scrimm acting with dialog instead of merely presence (ala Phantasm), and he certainly did an acceptable job even though the writing was less than great. Last but not least, there were a few decidedly potent scares via some of the supernatural shenanigans. One particular scene involving a phone call made my skin crawl, and that scene alone practically made the film worth watching in my opinion.

In terms of horror, one can do better, but one could also do a lot worse. If you are a horror fan with an open mind, then Off Season may be just what you are looking for.

This is the worst horror film EVER

[quiteatravesty · 31 October 2005]

Awful. AWFUL!!! My best friend rented this because it had a scary cover and we watched it tonight for halloween. THIS MOVIE is SO BORING. IT IS A WASTE OF LIFE. It should be called The off season a story of the most boring couple ever. I diddn't remember seeing any ghosts. It is so terrible it looks like someone filmed it on their camera phone. The woman in the movie sees blood in her bed but she doesn't care until halfway through the movie! HOW STUPID!! Oh my god I hate this movie so much. Blockbuster is being silly...how could they put this out to the public. Some movies are so bad its funny but this was just so dull, if anything scary was about to happen it jumped to nothing just banal every day living of a boring ass couple who don't make love, watch TV, go out, or do anything interesting except SIT IN A CHEAP MOTEL ROOM and have an answering machine talk to them from time to time. What a silly movie! I guess it was so bad that it was slightly funny and did not succeed in ruining my halloween.

Not THAT bad....

[onosideboard · 5/10 · 19 December 2006]

Rick and Catherine move from New York City to a run-down motel (room 13, of course) in a tourist town in Maine during the winter, so Rick can have some quiet time to work on his writing "career." It rains all the time, the only other guests at the motel are weird old people, and there's something wrong with room 13. A VERY kind comparison would be: it's like The Shining, in a motel. (Seriously, don't expect The Shining, that's a classic, this is not.) The acting was pretty terrible and the production value was low, lending this movie a "film school project" feel. That said, it's one of the better film school projects I've seen. The guy playing Rick was downright awful, but the actress playing Catherine was sometimes decent. My favorite character/actor was old man Ted. He was a great loony old codger. The cinematography wasn't exactly inspired, but there were a couple of interesting shots and the editor didn't try to do anything stupid or annoying cutting the film. It was easily watchable.

I actually thought the story was interesting and fairly fresh. A run-down motel in a deserted little Maine town is a creepy setting. There were enough weird characters to keep the atmosphere going throughout. The plot moved along nicely, and although the resolution seemed sudden and wasn't exactly satisfying, I was okay with it.

All in all, worth a see if it's on TV or you've got a free rental at your local video store. I wouldn't pay to see it, but I don't want my time back, either.

Horror in a motel

[stoneford1-1 · 1/10 · 12 June 2006]

The movie has a horror category.It justifies its horror category via use of dumb dialog, and acting that must be a deliberate spoof,characterization that borders on moronic. The references to the living accommodations were for an apartment but it looked like a motel room.I can't identify one redeeming feature of this movie. If I paid full theater price for this waste of film I would never go to another movie.Watching cartoons would be preferable.I was lucky because the DVD I rented was defective and only about fifty percent of it was viewable. Save your money by not bothering with this piece of junk. Does anyone with movie making knowledge approve of a piece of work before it is released?

The Off Season belongs Off Broadway

[Robert_duder · 5/10 · 6 September 2005]

The Off Season, I suspected, was gonna be a killer horror film with a Stephen King style feel to it. I waited anxiously (our local video store never had any in stock.) I should have continued waiting. Not that The Off Season was unredeemable and if this film had been an on stage play it probably would have been awesome but it was a film lacking all things that a film should have including special effects.

The Off Season is low budget...like we're talking LOOOWWW budget. Right off the bat I was a little saddened to see that it was filmed in an amateur camera type situation. But I got over that. The story line is good enough...although needed to be broadened. Husband and wife, husband is a writer, wants inspiration by moving to a small town in New England. They check into a hotel where they rent a long term room during "The Off Season." The acting is not bad...that's the one redeemable quality to the film. Both lead actors who plays the young couple Christina Campenella, and Don Wood do an alright job. Both of them are fairly new to the screen and tend to involve themselves in low budget productions. Nonetheless they behave like good stage actors which is okay. The so called big name to the film is horror veteran Angus Scrimm (Phantasm Series.) He's not in it a lot but he adds that touch of class to the film.

The film relies heavily on the setting, being all about a hotel room (#13) which is haunted by a the girlfriend of a former minister, and a man who ruined their lives. On top of that the room holds in feelings of guilt and hurt from past residents. The scares in the film are fairly surface. There is little to NO special effects in the film and everything relies on the quick glances of the ghosts and the eerie atmosphere. The story is a bit slow and despite the decent character progression it just feels like it belongs on the stage. The Off Season is TOO low budget and needs some backing with some decent special effects and a slightly better story. I suppose if you're a big horror fan it won't be the worst thing you've seen but for the most part it's forgettable and avoidable. 5/10

It is difficult to put into words just how reaaaally bad this movie is!

[knb53 · 1/10 · 23 October 2005]

I have never felt moved to write a movie review before... but this was so bad and such a total waste of time that I feel obligated to warn others... just as I would if I knew the plague was headed our way...

The plot (well, what plot, really?) was insipid, the acting was horrid, the dialogue inane... And it wasn't in the least bit scary, save for a few (very few) momentary snatches of startle reflex. About the only good thing I can say about this movie (and it is a stretch) is that there are parts that are so bad that the campiness of the scene or character sticks in one's mind... but unfortunately rather like a fish bone in one's throat! The only reason I even finished watching the movie is that I have some issues with OCD in certain venues, and one of the weirder (and in this case maddeningly inconvenient) manifestations of this is that once I start a movie, I feel compelled to finish it... although, on this one I almost threw in the towel. My wife had the good sense to roll over and fall asleep after the first 15 minutes, the fact of which I am certainly envious.

Avoid this movie! Seriously, it has nothing remotely worth your time to offer... My wife and I wanted to see it in part because we just returned from our yearly vacation in Maine, and we hoped to see some Maine scenes in addition to watching a good New England horror flick around Halloween. But dear reader, trust me when I tell you that this movie is one fat BUST and if you decide to waste your time and dollars on it, you can't say you haven't been forewarned!

Painful To Watch

[bobbieleeandrews01 · 1/10 · 15 October 2006]

This movie was by far the worst movie I have ever watched. The acting was horrific, the story was absolutely painful. The plot was lacking in every aspect. the majority of this movie consisted of "small talk" between two seemingly unexperienced actors with what appeared to be an extensive amount of extremely bad "Ad Lib". Lets put it this way, when I returned this movie one of the employees gave me a free rental after "Over" apologizing for allowing me to rent it in the fist place. Don't waste your precious life watching this movie. If you already have I feel for ya! Get together with your buddies, have way too much to drink, grab a pen and paper, a video camera and by morning you'll have a film ten times better then this one.

Awful Awful Movie

[dmurph41 · 1/10 · 17 February 2006]

This movie is one of the worst movies to be put on film since The Blair Witch Project. The Actor who plays Ted could barely walk let alone act. Listening to the back and fourth dialog was as good as torture and the actors couldn't have landed a role in a elementary school play. Not only was the writing poor but the plot has more holes in it then a homeless mans shirt. The ending could go down in history as one of the worst ever. It was a pathetic attempt to create a modern day "Shining" It failed worse than Tom Greens attempt to do a late night talk show. You're better off spending five dollars on an uncooked burger from Arbys than rent this movie. Two words to sum up this movie "Putrid Misery".

Books are now, more then just for reading :)

[user-3229 · 2/10 · 23 June 2006]

To get the Summary ... Watch the movie?

This movie to sum it up is ... low budget like you wouldn't believe

*goes into story* On a cold winter morn there i was With my movie rentals in a horror state of mind thinking HEY this movie sounds awesome but i was sadly mistaken ... It seems to be the answer for the horror urge i needed but yet again i was sadly mistaken so i sit there watching ... waiting with anticipation switching positions to avoid the cursed limbs falling asleep syndrome but to my despair it was nothing of what i hoped it was far from it

Now ill admit i did jump at one part i was playing with my kittens and BAM LADY and i jumped ... but to find out what i mean about the book and the lady watch it ... if your into that whole student film craze if not ... avoid!

Sorry, folks, I actually enjoyed it.

[bababear · 8/10 · 1 July 2006]

There are numerous postings in here about how THE OFF SEASON isn't scary and it's the worst horror movie ever made. Maybe that's because it's not a horror movie and doesn't try to be scary.

This should have been on the Drama shelf. Whoever designed the box cover for the DVD either hadn't seen THE OFF SEASON or was trying to sell it for something it wasn't. It shows an arm thrust up out of a grave in a cemetery just outside an establishment that looks suspiciously like the Bates Motel.

A young couple from New York goes to a small town in Maine so that the man can do some Serious Writing (looks like we're headed into the same territory as THE SHINING, but there's no further connection). One of the things I most enjoyed was the opening titles as they're driving into the town. We see the almost deserted streets of the town on a cold, rainy day. Very nice atmosphere and, since this is shot on video using a hand-held camera shooting through the windshield, we know it didn't cost the producers anything more than the gas to drive a few bucks.

They move into a motel that offers lower rates during the off season and meet the strange and primarily elderly people who will be their neighbors.

Angus Scrimm, the Tall Man from the PHANTASM movies, finally gets to play a sympathetic character after some thirty years in the business. He's Ted, their next door neighbor who's in the story primarily to provide exposition to move the story along.

The narrative unfolds in what is essentially a series of duet acting scenes. In the vast majority of the film there are only two characters on screen at a time, and after a while you realize that this could have been done very effectively on stage as there are no special effects or monsters.

With the exception of a short coda at a Borders Bookstore in New York City the whole story takes place in the small town in Maine, with the action pretty well restricted to the motel and the town library.

I have no idea why this was given a PG-13 rating. The rating cites disturbing images (old bloodstains on fabric, some creepy looking characters, and a filthy bathroom) and language (one use of the 's' word) and "some thematic material" (I have no earthly idea). No gore, no violence, no sex, no nudity. Go figure.

It would be good to see writer/director James Felix McKenney take on a project with a larger budget that could either provide him with better actors or give him the time to coax better performances out of the ones he has.

As is this was a pleasant surprise, like seeing a really good production at a community theatre. But they shouldn't try to sell it as a horror film, because that's not what they made.

A slow beginning film that soon ends with a bang...

[britishasian2011 · 7/10 · 17 August 2005]

This movie takes place in the rural part of Maine in a small, run down motel called Viking Motel. When Rick and Kathryn decide to try and begin a new release from their big city lifestyle, they were not ready for such a twisted turn to their life. Upon first arriving, they are assigned to a second floor room. Upon discovering that the bathroom is covered with feces, they are moved to the bottom level Room 13. At the beginning, Kathryn discovers a blood stain on her side of the bed, but to not raise any fuss about it, covers it up quickly. That night she has a horrible dream, and so begins the strange happenings of the motel. Such include strange visits from previous guests, creepy men hanging around their room as well as unexplainable phone calls. Kathryn soon gets a job working as an assistant at a local library. Rick begins his writing, but soon there after begins to favor frequenting the local bar with Phil, the creepy man that spies on them. Their relationship soon takes a turn for the worse when following Kathryn becoming sick, Rick, after coming home drunk the night before, leaves Kathryn to go live in LA with Phil. He was supposedly going to write for a TV show. That left Kathryn living alone in her room. One night, Kathryn is attacked by a spirit, which left her incapacitate for about a week. That also left her jobless and in need of medical attention. Upon relaxing and moving on, the landlord, Mrs. Farthing, tells her the tale about the room as well as gives Kathryn a stack of books to read through. Following those excursions, while taking a shower, Kathryn is scared by a spirit and flees frantically from her room. It all ends up that the old man next door, Ted, starts to take interest in Kathryn. That also happens to be when the spirits do likewise. As it turns out, the spirit that attacked Kathryn in the shower used to be a friend of Teds. His name was Kurt, and he had killed himself following the release of the book that Kathryn was reading. Upon further investigation, Kathryn learns about Nora Green, a mother that was involved with a scandal a while back, and also killed herself and her child. Despite all of this, Kathryns mother speaks from the grave and tries to both help as well as sabotage Kathryn. After uttering the words, "I love you" to her mother, Kathryn is taken by Nora. Later on, Kathryn continues on to write a book with the same intent as Walter. To show the truth...

Are you for serious??

[souza8792 · 1/10 · 29 January 2007]

The Off Season...sounds like what the director was thinking before he started this production because this is not something I would want on my professional resume. In two words...it sucked. It had its comedic moments, Who says Poo-Poo these days? and a drunk guy who seemed to flip some lady a bird for the better part of 10 minutes. Was there nothing else to pitch to the production company? Oh wait the production company probably gave them a budget smaller than the amount I got for milk money in grade school. I can't believe this movie lasted close to two hours since I personally didn't believe there was 32 seconds of useful material in this horrid farce of a movie. I just threw up a little in my mouth. Nope here comes the rest of it I gotta go.