Amateur Porn Star Killer (2006) User Reviews

Even worse than you think

[slake09 · 2/10 · 6 March 2009]

A psycho runs around killing skanky girls during the filming of amateur pornography. It's a decent idea for a horror movie, but this film just doesn't do much with it. If you're seeing a lot of good reviews that's because the director's friends and family are contributing.

If you're a fan of black and white, really bad camera work, choppy editing, and senseless plots, this movie is for you! Despite the promise of sex and horror in the title, the camera work is so bad that the movie never really delivers. Picture the Blair Witch Project with uglier people, worse camera work, in black and white with terrible editing - that's about how it goes in Amateur Porn Star Killer.

There is some fairly graphic sex; but again, the camera work and editing are so bad that you won't be able to see much.

The black and white filming really take away from the movie, too. It just points up the fact that the camera work would look even worse in color. The premise, I suppose, is that psycho killers film in black and white. I have to think that even psycho killers can afford a color camcorder these days.

The editing is so choppy that everything flashes by without any development; that is supposed to be a substitute for a decent plot, but isn't.

There are three of these movies, and they're all about the same. I watched all three because I was hoping they would capitalize on the idea and benefit from the practice to make a good horror/sleaze movie, but that didn't happen. What did happen was that the girls got even more skanky, the camera work got even worse, and the editing just went right out the window.

This same type of film was done a lot better in the August Underground series. Those are in color!

Doesn't use the 'found footage' concept well

[jtindahouse · 3/10 · 20 July 2016]

'Amateur Porn Star Killer' leaves you with a bit of a "what did I just watch?" feeling. I'm pretty sure I understand what they were going for, trying to take the 'found footage' genre to another level with extreme amateurism, but sadly I don't think it worked. 'Found footage' can be incredibly effective at making the audience feel like they are watching actual footage, and thus bringing a whole other level of reality to proceedings. The problem with going a step further and making the picture grainy and the dialogue often inaudible and seemingly unscripted, is that it has the opposite of the intended effect and takes you out of the picture. It's distracting and just leaves you thinking "why am I watching this?"

There was an idea here that I think could work if executed properly. Snuff films are indeed a scary prospect and can be used very effectively as a film topic. 'Found footage' would also be the way to go about it and I feel like a skillful filmmaker could really do something with this concept. Sadly 'Amateur Porn Star Killer' is a poor attempt at pulling it off and is one to miss.

I wish I could give it less than one star

[StudioLAX · 1/10 · 30 June 2008]

Boy, I could not wait to come on the internet and complain about this rubbish, I simply can't believe anyone who watched more than five minutes of this poorly executed rubbish would distribute it on DVD.

This is basically a five minute (and that's being generous) short film needlessly stretched into a 70 odd minute feature, its excruciatingly boring (I couldn't help but skip through it) with no humour, violence/gore or even decent pornography to make it worth watching.

It looks like it was edited in Windows Moviemaker or imovie judging by the extremely poor use of sepia tinting and old movie look, which I suppose is to add realism but simply detracts and annoys. To make this film realistic, cold hard ungraded digital video should have been used.

The soundtrack of lame emo & cheap sound effects also serve to annoy and betrays the film makers lack of confidence in his material.

I normally try to be supportive of films of this type as I myself am a no budget film maker, but there is simply nothing here that I can be positive about, especially as it will be taking up space in a DVD shop where my and other honest film makers work could be sitting.

amateur is the right word

[jhammond59 · 1/10 · 12 February 2008]

Absolute trash. The hand-held, bad lighting, shifting camera positions wouldn't even make it on the Internet. Amateur camera work it might be trying to portray, but this was almost unwatchable. It was only momentarily helped by fast-forwarding. The sound quality was OK, but the music was uninspired although it didn't jar with what was on the screen. I won't even discuss the script, or lack thereof, and the plotting lacked any real sense of dramatic pacing. And did we have to have a shot of Shane peeing? To be fair, Shane did act like some posters doing Internet porn, and there was some semblance to reality. Michiko played the role of an innocent quite well, but the whole sequence went on far to long. Avoid this one like the plague.

Pretentious crap

[Hans-56 · 1/10 · 5 August 2009]

This movie pretends to retell a story from the 70's. A madman is stalking girls and lures one into making a porn movie. It is stated she's 13, but actually looks pretty much like 20. Little does she know his final aim is to make a snuff movie. So he kills her in the end.

Now this could be turned into a decent horror movie, porn movie or documentary. But the maker takes another approach. He makes the entire movie look like shot with a 8mm camera. So the entire movie consists of flickering images, regularly off colour. When the camera is moved, the film continues to roll, so we can witness the moving of the camera. Drives you nuts. And this people in the 70's with an 8 mm camera would never do: the film was quite expensive.

Some people have commented the editing was bad. Well, actually it is not. This really looks as a bunch of home made 8 mm movies tied together in the 70's. But it doesn't grasp the atmosphere of the '70's. Not even the clothing comes close. As far as one can tell the acting is not extremely bad, but given the obscure lightning and the bad camera-work you will not see much acting really.

Mind you this is not porn. There is quite a lot of nudity, but certainly no hard core scenes are shown. This is not horror. The actual killing is suggested, but not shown. This is not a documentary, because it doesn't teach you anything. Besides this movie is not funny, not exciting or thrilling.

Maybe the maker had good intentions. But he failed completely. This movie only makes you dizzy and it bores you to death. Maybe one day this will be considered camp, but I really doubt it will ever be a success even then.

After watching this piece of junk you realize how brilliantly the Ed Wood movies were made. And oh boy: they stink. But at least you could laugh about some of them. This movie only irritates and baffles you.

Better surf you-tube

[nomercy007 · 1/10 · 23 March 2008]

My friend told me it is bad but I wanted to see it anyway. I wish I had listened to him. Two homemade sex movies are merged together with little effects you can find on any average camera. I don't think even I heard someone speaking in this movie--I remembered why, the player was on fast-play. Video cameras are cheap nowadays and many think they can make a movie. Believe me, this film could have been filmed by a mobile camera. When I first watched it, I thought someone had replaced the DVD because no nobody can sell such a low quality movie but it turned out to be what the character did as claimed !!! I can't believe some people liked this movie. Just because it looks real!! What's the unreal thing in a couple having violent sex and being filmed. I think the actress was in a desperate need for money to be involved. Don't waste your time on this movie.

I can't give it less than 1/10 otherwise I did

Beware Amazon's truncated version

[Leofwine_draca · 1/10 · 12 May 2017]

AMATEUR PORN STAR KILLER has shown up on Amazon Prime in a severely edited version, running at approximately 50 minutes. As such, there's no sexual or violent content in the production whatsoever; the viewer is left with a bunch of bedroom scenes in which a young teenage girl is interviewed via a POV cameraman. It's an absolute piece of trash as a film, with no artistic merit whatsoever, and it feels very much like a 5 minute short stretched out to feature length.

Does not qualify as "a movie" IMO

[Stay_away_from_the_Metropol · 1/10 · 30 April 2021]

This is one of the only "movies" I have ever seen in which I don't think I can classify it as "a movie". The fact that the director managed to get ANY sort of distribution for this is mind-boggling. The fact that he or anyone else felt driven to make TWO sequels after creating this is also mind-boggling. It truly feels like a guy who really loves porn wishes he could make porn but can't (for some reason), so he made this instead, which literally follows the exact same formula as an amateur porn scene would, except the awkward dialogue which would normally lead up to the sex lasts for OVER AN HOUR, then you get like five minutes of poorly simulated sex, and a minute of poorly simulated murder - and THAT'S THE WHOLE "MOVIE". Yes, it's truly over an hour of awkward "So, where you from? Maybe we could get you out of those pants at some point" type dialogue for the entire length. But, hey, he put a couple quotes about snuff films at the beginning and added a really cheap looking "old film" filter over the entire movie, so, maybe, some people...will think...it's art?

I only watched because a friend borrowed it to me and asked me to watch it, because they wanted to know what I thought. Well, this is it.

50 Minutes of nothing, followed by 21 of even less!

[junkasaisuperfan · 1/10 · 12 July 2017]

I am a fan of found footage & snuff fantasy films, so I was more than excited when I discovered this film. This is the worst example of either I have ever wasted my time on. The more I watched this film, the more uncomfortable it made me feel, due to the fact that the victim was portrayed to be 13 years of age. Lucifer Valentine & Fred Vogel can both rest assured that their works are vastly superior to this garbage. No payoff whatsoever. Very little nudity(which I was thankful for) & no gore at all. How did this movie even get an (X) rating anyway? If I was making a snuff film, & this was the result of what I made, I'd just throw it in the trash & get a job delivering pizzas!

Worth Seeking Out

[Michael_Elliott · 25 February 2008]

Amateur Porn Star Killer (2007)

*** (out of 4)

Each and every year horror fans start hyping up a film saying it's one of the best of the genre and so on. The skies usually falls down as these hyped movies turn out to be bad but that's not the case here. I had never even heard of this movie until I got bored and kept walking around the video store and noticed the naked woman on the DVD cover. I read the mini-reviews scattered across the front and back cover so I decided to give the film a shot and it was certainly worth it. The film is more psychological drama than horror but no matter which genre the film works.

A man (Shane Ryan) lures a 13-year-old girl (Michiko Jimenez) to a hotel room for what she thinks is to make an amateur porn movie but soon, as she begins to feel uncomfortable, she knows something else is going on. The set up is simple but the style is what really pushes this film over the edge. This is another film that tries to be a snuff movie and it actually works here but I'm sure a lot will blow their brains out. The whole style of the film is that the movie looks like a real, low budget movie with splices on the print, the darkness goes up and down, tape rolls and other things. This will annoy most but it does work in making the film look and feel like a real snuff movie. It's ugly to look at and sometimes the audio is hard to hear but this just captures what a real snuff film would probably look like. The film is meant to be a warning to women about going places with men that they don't know and this simple idea works very well. The film runs 71-minutes and 68-minutes of that time is shot in "real time" as we see the two enter the room, start talking, slowly taking their clothes off and so on. There's a real oral sex scene and the film isn't shy about the nudity but all of it is done in a grungy way, just like what we'd expect the snuff film to be.

The film runs very short but with the lack of any real editing it just adds to the movie. Apparently this was shot in a couple hours for $45 and it looks it. That's not a bad thing either. The film opens with a small scene in the car and then we hit the hotel room where we get a forty-minute scene done without any edits and then another thirty-minute scene without edits. The film plays very smoothly and you really get the feeling that you're watching a real video that's uncut. Star and director Ryan does a very good job in both departments and his acting was pretty damn good. He does a great job at playing this creep who starts off like a girl's dream but slowly turns to the psychopath that he is. Jimenez gives a terrific performance as the young virgin who gets in over her head. I was rather shocked at how great she was and considering there aren't any edits or double takes, the fact that she was able to stay in character and go with the story ranks this performance as one of the best I've seen in 2007. Shane, the director, does a terrific job with the visual style, although again, the bad quality will probably bug some. If we're going to call this a horror movie then it's one of the best I've seen in a very long time and like the films of the 70s, its point is to shock you and that it does very well.

far better than its IMDb rating would suggest

[christopher-underwood · 8/10 · 20 November 2008]

Firstly, none of the photos on the DVD box are from the film and secondly this is far better than its IMDb rating would suggest. Difficult to watch both physically and emotionally, the picture continually flickers and the sound becomes barely audible at times whilst the power of what is before you titillates and truly horrifies at the same time. What is more, as well as the convincingly way this is presented, so that we believe what we are seeing is 'real', this rough footage is intercut and occasionally superimposed with more rationally shot porn. This footage is a million miles from the 'real' footage and helps reinforce the belief that this is 'real'. It also provides more titillation to further confuse and distract from the rape and murder of a young girl. Having recently been to an exhibition of early Warhol movies, I am prompted to suggest that Ryan shares with Warhol the understanding that 'boring' bits, seeming, 'incoherent' bits are not an obstacle to a believable film, quite the contrary, life's like that.

Amateur Hour.

[morrison-dylan-fan · 1/10 · 28 October 2015]

Listing a number of DVDs for a friend on Eaby,I spotted that one of the discs had a number of fingerprints on it.Wanting to find out if the disc was sell-able ,a decided that it was time to take a look at this "amateur" production.

The plot:

After killing two women,serial killer Brandon searches round a new victim.Running into Stacy,Brandon invites Stacey back to his place.As he gets set to make her the star of his latest snuff film,Brandon discovers that Stacey is 13 years old.

View on the film:

Designed to look like an urban legend "snuff" film,co-writer/ (along with Michiko Jimenez)actor/co-cinematographer (along with Jimenez)/editor/director Shane Ryan breaks his own rules by covering the "amateur" film with overlapping,flickering images,and a rumbling Rock soundtrack. Stumbling along for 71 minutes,the screenplay by lead actors Ryan & Jimenez chucks Brandon & Stacy in a room, (which is likely what the $45 budget was spent on!)and leaves them there doing that is either horrifically terrifying or erotically thrilling.Focusing on just 2 characters,the film completely misses the opportunity to explore the mind of a killer and a victim,by having Stacey & Brandon talking in an inane, repetitive manner,which leads to this being a painfully dull am-dram production.

Was the budget $45?

[owjan-45979 · 1/10 · 12 October 2020]

Ingredients for NOT making a movie: No story, No idea what you doing, No taste, No talent, No actors/actress, No Money and Basically any idiot could do it.

Above average pseudo-snuff flick

[Rapeman13 · 22 April 2007]

Here's another shot-on-video pseudo-snuff flick, this one comes from Shane Ryan who up until now has worked predominantly in the short film and music video format.

The film opens with a quote regarding snuff films from Paul Schrader director of Hardcore ('79) & Auto Focus and screenwriter for Taxi Driver & Raging Bull. We then see some of what looks like homemade porn footage followed by some more text explaining how snuff has generally been put down to urban legend as no one has ever actually seen one. Right away this gives you an idea of what you're about to witness.

Shot from amateur pornographer / serial killer Brandon's (played by director Shane Ryan) point of view, we see him cruising the streets with his camera and eventually pick up a girl, Stacey (Michiko Jimenez) who he convinces to come back to his hotel room. From here on out the action is confined to the claustrophobic setting of a hotel room. Brandon constantly films Stacey, asking her questions - ie: how old she is, what does she do, etc. (she mentions she is eighteen and that she lives with at home with her Mother) after a lotta chit-chat & probing questions - scenes which are intercut with footage of Brandon f****** an earlier victim - he soon manages to convince her to strip down to her bra and panties, she uncomfortably does so. On seeing her lolita-esquire figure Brandon presses her further on her age and she shyly reveals she is actually thirteen, which doesn't bother him in the least.

Things quickly become a little more tense as Brandon becomes more confrontational, verbally intimidating her (but in a creepy smooth way) and persuading her to give him a blowjob. Afterward she seems visibly shaken, her nervous laughter and flirtatious smiles gone, she seems to know what's coming next. He lays on top of her on the bed and attempts to smother her with a pillow, when that doesn't work he brutally beats her to death (off screen). The end credits explain how Brandon goes to video shops and swaps their rental tapes for tapes of his crimes a la The Last Horror Movie.

I honestly wasn't expecting much from this film, I figured here's yet another SOV wannabe "extreme'' fake-snuff flick, ho hum, but I enjoyed it immensely. Even though APSK has not one drop of blood I found it to be far more disconcerting and unpleasant than say the August Underground films or Slaughtered Vomit Dolls because it felt a lot more realistic - I mean yeah, I enjoyed those flicks for their gore, nastiness and overall nihilism and its always good to have controversial boundary-pushers but they're just not disturbing to me. While watching APSK you actually feel quite uncomfortable, like a voyeur witnessing something you're not meant to be (I guess the age thing has something to do with it too). Then again, empty-headed gorehounds would probably be bored outta their skulls. Another one of the elements which make this film work is the superb acting of Michiko Jimenez, she is completely believable as a nervous young girl, giggling shyly, constantly fidgeting, uneasily scanning the room, not making eye contact, etc.

Although a couple of things that brought this down a few notches for me was the visual effect used which tries to make it look like the film was shot on old 16MM film stock with grain, scratches and a jumpy picture even though its obviously set in recent times and shot on DV. Also the stylized way it is shot combined with the infrequent red-hued visual effects often work to blur and conceal some of the graphic nudity. The other irritating thing was that it had a soundtrack (which often drowns out the actors lines), it would've seemed a lot more credible if there was no soundtrack at all. Apart from those minor flaws, an excellent feature film debut from Shane Ryan. 7/10

What a load of garbage.

[BA_Harrison · 1/10 · 21 December 2019]

I'm a bit confused about the title for this zero budget piece of sleazy shot-on-video trash: is it the porn star who is the amateur or the killer? One thing that I am sure about, Shane Ryan, the director of this worthless cack, is definitely an amateur, his film having zero artistic or technical merit. The only reason that I can see for this film to exist is for Ryan to have a visual record of his deviant sexual activity to whack off to at a later date, although his inability to frame an image in focus means even that is a futile exercise.

Over the course of 71 excruciatingly dull minutes, Ryan's character, Brandon, cajoles an underage girl, Stacy (Michiko Jimenez), into stripping off and having sex, before smothering her with a pillow and repeatedly punching her. The end credits explain that Brandon proceeded to hide his snuff films in video boxes returned to rental stores, and that the killer has never been caught. It's totally inept nonsense, not in the least bit shocking, and has no redeeming quality whatsoever. One has to wonder what was in it for Jimenez. Did she owe Ryan money?

Interesting and Haunting but flawed

[RobertLThorpe · 5/10 · 23 October 2013]

This film has 3 major faults, the first two are filmed in 3D which is pointless and completely removes the viewer from getting into the film. Nothing happens in 3D to make you go, that was cool. 2nd, the random overlays of a couple having sex are again a poor choice the director chose to include in this film along with the small in screen box of the same. Again, as a story teller you need to make decisions that enhance your film. The 3rd and most important, we never learn anything about our characters. Who they are, where they been and where they want to go. The film is a moment in time captured without substance. In life, this happens, but in films, we need substance, we need to feel for our protagonist, we want her to survive and get out of this situation but she has no story. So in the end, we don't really care.

The third I mentioned is what ultimately dooms this film because I loved the voyeur aspect, the sepia, the raw street type, gorilla film making that is used. The little glitch as if it is film is annoying because NO FILM does it that much. However, you grow used to it and after a bit you don't see it. The film is haunting, the score is beautiful. The performance of our young girl is wonderful and refreshingly innocent but playing a 13 year old is a stretch, should have kept it at 16 as that is more believable. The constant sounds of the camera hitting something and movement again are poor choices. This film could have been a classic film in the style of Lynch or Kubrick if a few choices that the film maker made were not made. I guess that is what separates the greats from the average. The choices we make as film makers.

This film is still good, worth checking out as it touches a subject that is fresh and will always be fresh.

Agitating, Infuriating completely horrible BS

[tkaine3 · 1/10 · 31 December 2018]

Atleast the majority of people who have seen or reviewed this film have enough sense to call BS when they see it but damn for people to compare this with "Irreversible" or "The bunny Game" are completely out of their F'n Mind. This slow boring off camera trash I just watched had no sense being on a list for disturbing movies. Yes it felt very awkward watching a creep trying to carry on a conversation with an incredibly shy teenage girl who definitely should of stuck with 16 yrs. Old and not 13 which was a joke and very non-believable but saying that the fake 8mm camera effect that runs through the whole movie on a loop that you could set a clock too, made it more realistic is insane. The film is characterized as a rape and snuff film with a legitimate oral sex scene is completely false. The camera footage uses some sort of red tint overlay completely blocking any sexual intercourse from being seen. If this was a rape she never made a sound except for coughing some odd times not sure if she had a cold or just needed a glass of water but not once did she scream or call out for him to stop. He smothers her face with a pillow and after 10 seconds jumps up as if she would be dead that quick after she pops back up and is alive she rolls off the bed out of the cameras view point and while we have a perfect view of a dresser, lamp and the wall he is supposedly attacking her off screen using slow-motion and a voice effect making him sound like a demon or an evil person possessed with rage. We never see the girl again, his hands are not bloody or bruised and for the finale he grabs a blanket off the bed and supposedly wraps her in it while carrying her out of the room. This film was a complete fail and utterly non-believable it really irks me to the point I will never waste my time to even view part 2 and 3. the idiots who support this garbage are the reason these untalented film makers keep popping up and wasting disturbing movie seekers time and patience showcasing horrendous features.

A zero star review here

[moviebuff72-223-265524 · 1/10 · 29 June 2023]

I guess with a title like Amateur Pornstar Killer they put that title out there to sell videos of it. Let's start with why it's no good. The actress playing the victim should have demanded that the guy at least lick her yssup. It's only fair. You have to turn the brightness all the way up to see her give the director oral stimulation. Guess if you direct the movie it's only expected that you are on the receiving end. The guy isn't even believable as a serial killer. The actress here really could been the victim of a serial killer. She did actually allow herself to be filmed giving oral. The movie has no redeeming qualities. It's about a guy who coerces a young female to have sex and kill her.

Skip it and watch a true porno like Deep Throat. The Devil in Miss Jones or Behind the green door. They don't have porno in the title but I guarantee you they are the real deal.

Disgusting and accurate break down of a real-ish rape

[a_marie_p · 9/10 · 11 July 2020]

That's about all that there is to this film, but that's exactly all that it needs. Rarely does Hollywood portray rape in any way that resembles realism. This seems to be the film's sole purpose, and it nails it over the head. It feels real in every sense, aside from maybe adding the music and visual grit to the picture, but that seemed to be an approach to pull you in more into the mental state of the situation, which seems to be a common theme in the work of this filmmaker; realness mixed with artsy stuff which fits the mood of the disgusting reality you're facing.

moment by moment brilliance

[janie_m · 10/10 · 26 September 2008]

moment by moment brilliance this movie captures the little details in no way ever done before. it can be slow and boring but the point was to capture this real situation moment by moment 100% non Hollywood style, and it accomplished that in the way Hollywood would never be able to.

it didn't matter that there was no blood, that the murder was off camera, that you couldn't see that moment of explicit sex, because it obviously was not made for that reason. it was made to make us question why we even would want to see that sort of thing (esp when thinking about the victim's age).

10 out of 10, it couldn't have been better (except for part 2, in a much different way though)

Wow, what an amazing film! If you don't get it, look closer.

[bustedbuster · 10/10 · 16 February 2008]

Hey Shane, great job buddy! Can't say this film is an enjoyable experience but holly crap man it's intense like you wouldn't believe! It's surely an amazing film and one for the books! How the hell do you do it? It feels so real I feel I should be calling the cops. Even though it presents itself as a film with character names, music, etc., that doesn't matter, it's so realistic I don't believe it's just a movie no matter how much I know it's not real. I do like the added effects though, they make it a nice blend of art and realism. Can't wait for Part 2! Glad to be a part of this new wave of film-making, man! Wow, what an amazing film! If you don't get it, look closer.