Nobody Gets Out Alive (2012) User Reviews

Erm,not that great...

[jorgen-broms · 3/10 · 30 January 2013]

The last reviewer, who gave it a ten out of ten, for some reason was written by someone who has the same name as the person who actually did the special effects for this low-budget horror. Although they were actually decent, the film has nothing we haven't seen before. It suffered quite heavily from slow pacing and some of the dumbest decisions I've ever seen people do in a movie.

Example: Wounded girl gets into car after running from crazy killer. Wounded girl tells driver (bloody and hysterical btw): Whatever you do don't stop, just drive. Driver says: There's someone on the road. I'm just gonna pull over...

I mean, really?

Us horror buffs may accept a lot of stupid decisions (going into dark basements etc) but some of the things people do in this movie is just taking it a bit far, yes?

Only reason it gets a three is because there a couple of creative kills that I enjoyed. You may fast forward some in between the goodies though...

In these woods Nobody Gets out Alive

[rgblakey · 3/10 · 2 March 2013]

There are horror films coming out all the time, but when it comes to the slasher genre there are multiple elements that are a must for it to work. You have to have a great kills, a cool story, and above all else a memorable killer. The latest to try their hand at the genre is Nobody Gets Out Alive that attempts to deliver homage to 80's slasher flicks, but does it work?

Nobody Gets Out Alive follows a group of partying teenagers who head out to the woods for a weekend of camping fun. But when each of them is slowly killed off they believe that the legend of the town lunatic might prove to be more than just a story. This film has almost everything it needed to become a memorable hit, but sadly is missing one of the biggest parts which is the cool killer. The story works fine, but the killer itself lacks anything to really bring the fear level up to anything other than bland. This plays more like a thriller featuring some slashing as opposed to a full on slasher flick. The performances are pretty bad, with a few that deliver average at best, but that's pretty normal for a lot of these films, but you make up for it with the great kills and nudity, but not so much here. There are some decent kills that are fun to watch, but it still plays it too safe to deliver the goods.

This is one of those slasher flicks that had every element it needed to work, but missed the mark. Even the average killer had a decent back story to create the legend, but still struggles to do anything. It takes a long time for anything to start happening and by the time it does you may have already lost interest.

"Nobody Gets Out Alive" tries its hardest to be an honorable homage to classic slasher films but bores viewers in the process

[ersinkdotcom · 3/10 · 8 March 2013]

If there's one thing I can't stand it's when I watch a movie, hate it, and then view the "making of" featurette and gain respect and a different perspective on it. That's how I felt after watching the special features for "Nobody Gets Out Alive." Can a bad film be saved by the pure motivations and sincerity of the filmmakers? I say no, but you can definitely feel for them and try to give them credit where credit is due.

It's the same set-up we always get with any of the countless "Friday the 13th" or "Sleepaway Camp" movies we've all seen over the years. A group of young adults head out into the woods for a weekend of camping, partying, revelry, and debauchery. You know, "What happens in the woods stays in the woods." Unfortunately, that's all too true thanks to a killer who takes his tragic loss out on any and everyone who dares enter his territory.

"Nobody Gets Out Alive" is an hour and seventeen minutes long. That's exactly one hour too long in my opinion. There's absolutely nothing original about this movie. Sure, the killing scenes are a bit more graphic than what we get with the standard "Scream" or "I Know What You Did Last Summer" fare. I'll admit that I did find a couple of them painful to watch. However, it doesn't make up for the tedious retread we suffer through here.

Producer Deven Lobascio and writer / director / producer Jason Christopher set out to make an homage to the movies they grew up watching, and if you look at it strictly from that point of view, they were successful. It mimics everything from those movies. We've got the crazy killer; the sexually promiscuous couple who both die horrific deaths; the handicapped kid who you feel sorry for when he gets axed; and the virgin who survives at the end. The carnage never really ends, does it?

One of the elements about slasher films that I love is the mystery of who the killer is. Movies like "Scream," "Urban Legend," "Prom Night," and even the newer "Sorority Row" come to mind. I probably would've given "Nobody Gets Out Alive" another star if the filmmakers kept this element a surprise here. Instead, they reveal who the killer is about 30 minutes into the film. To add insult to injury, it's exactly who you would think it is. I would warn this is a spoiler, but it isn't considering how the movie was made.

In the usual fashion of these types of indie horror films, we get a five-minute cameo from a familiar face in the genre. This time we get Clint Howard playing a doctor at the beginning of the movie before disappearing completely.

As it stands, "Nobody Gets Out Alive" is an hour and seventeen minutes of your life you'll never get back. You would've been better served re- watching any of the great slashers you were introduced to in your youth. All we get here is a carbon copy of everything done before that will leave you wanting the real deal.

One of the worst movies I've ever seen.

[tharkin123 · 1/10 · 18 March 2013]

First, let's talk about the acting: it sucks. Jen Dance is annoying. Shaun Paul Costello doesn't ever actually act. Chelsey Garner just runs around. David Bonner is over the top at times and a little unbelievable in the role he is given, and that makes Brian Gallagher WAY over the top (a killer in hunting boots...OH NO). Chris Ready gives an average (key word is average) performance. Nikki Bell doesn't belong in ANY movie EVER because she can't act and is also good to laugh at. Seriously, I don't even think she could be in an adult movie where you don't even need to act. And Matt Nadu just stands around looking pretty.

Next, let's talk about the special effects: laughable. Was that tomato sauce or ketchup? I like Lauren Palmer's review below (evidently she did the effects). Her work is about as good as her grammar and command of the English language, which is to say VERY BAD. Next time you give your own movie a 10/10, make up a fake name or something.

Then, let's talk about the editing: Who did this? I especially like the "party scene" where the same footage is just played over and over again. It's day. Then it's night. Then, it's day. Then, it's morning. Then, we skip day. Then, it's night again. I CAN'T KEEP TRACK.

It's 77 minutes long. And 77 minutes too long if you ask me. It's boring. And I laughed through most of it, which you aren't supposed to do in a horror movie. I especially laughed when Brian Gallagher delivers his never ending speech that belongs in some classroom, not in a movie.

The blooper reel is proof none of these people should be making movies, and it's sad that they said this was their "best shot" because then you know they are really bad at this.

Decent flick considering its extremely low budget

[KnockKnock1 · 19 January 2016]

Look if you're expecting high production values, this ain't the movie you watch. Open minded Horror fans watch these really extremely low budget films in the hope of seeing the stars of the years to come, new talented directors to keep an eye out for, cheap thrills, blood and maybe some good looking Women being chased around by maniacs. This movie has some of that, not a lot, but enough to make the movie a decent night's viewing. It's shot and lit very well. It doesn't make you think the crew don't know what they're doing or where to point the camera (a good example is The Zombie Diaries, awful awful film). The breakout star of this film is Jen Dance, who is really beautiful in this and well cast as the timid sweet city girl out in the enclosed tense setting of a creepy looking forest.

Views seemed to be polarized. I don't care, I liked it.

5/10

Unfortunately, I got out alive

[jayoaK4 · 1/10 · 17 March 2013]

As I was sitting through this "flick", as Jason Christopher likes to call it, I couldn't help but notice something: this movie is bad. I have seen my fair share of bad horror movies, and this is right up there with the worst of them.

In the horror genre, there is a line that a movie can cross over where bad becomes funny, and when this happens the movie becomes somewhat enjoyable. Unfortunately for Jason Christopher, his flick sits just behind this line, causing it to be completely unwatchable. Everything from acting to camera work to lighting was terrible. Multiple shots, excuse me, most shots, in this movie were either under or over exposed, making it hard to see what was going on. The score was almost non- existent, but when it was, it hardly fit the mood of the scene. It seems that Mr. Christopher spent the majority of the budget on Clint Howard's paycheck, which was a complete waste of a role. The screenplay itself was horrible, so I can't blame Jason Christopher for making a bad flick. But actually, he is to blame because he wrote it. With characters that are completely generic, a killer that wears size 7 boots (very intimidating), and dialogue that doesn't make any sense, do yourself a favor and spend your night looking at a wall, it will be more enjoyable.

Imitation is not flattery when done like this...its awful

[Robert_duder · 3/10 · 8 April 2013]

I swear that I will not watch anymore low budget horror but I always get sucked in. The thing that sucked me in on this one was that it proclaimed to be an homage to the slasher flicks of 70's and 80's. An homage? Hardly. It is cookie cutter amateur shlock that tries to literally copy Friday the 13th. Rumour has it that Victor Miller (screenwriter of Friday the 13th) gave his blessing and advice on this script and if that is true, Miller must have been drugged or drunk when he read it. The script is atrocious. Most of the time I wondered if there was even a script at all and if the characters didn't just try to make their own "cool" "slang" dialogue because it was so incredibly bad. The characters sounded awkward filling in every other word with the "F" word like they were struggling to make sense of the script. The back story on the killer is so insanely stupid and to top it all off near the end of the film he gets a sappy soliloquy that makes no sense and breaks the entire feel of the movie. Now, I will say this that the latter half of the film...when the killer is stalking and eliminating the victims (thank goodness) actually was better than the first half. And I will also say that the special effects for an incredibly low budget, very poor movie were actually very well done. The killing scenes were far better than the movie itself and one particularly disturbing scene of a nail being hammered into someones skull was impressive. At this point I will do what another reviewer did and call out Lauren Palmer who did the special effects for shamelessly reviewing her own movie and her own work and giving it a 10/10 on IMDb. Seriously...very very poor taste. And that's unfortunate Ms. Palmer because your work was the ONLY redeemable part of this crapfest.

The acting was truly atrocious. The main cast was bad but the supporting cast was even worse. And why in the HELL did Clint Howard get involved in this and why even more does he get a listing on the cover of the movie. Clint Howard doesn't sell movies and if that's your star power...you REALLY are in trouble. The man has a 30 second role, and two lines and is completely pointless. I also have to give a dishonourable mention to Diane Bakos and Luis Pacheco who play "Jenn's parents." I sincerely think they must be friends of the cast or parents of one of the cast because both of them were excruciatingly awful on screen. Jen Dance, who gets the most back story and is supposed to be our "scream queen" is so wooden and broody and while she shows the most emotion, it isn't good. Shaun Paul Costello is so awful...I can't even explain. He is the number one perpetrator of spewing pointless obscenities and dialogue that is torture to listen to. Nikki Bell plays the slutty girl who sleeps with her guy and then gets killed. She can't even do that right because she is awful and beyond cookie cutter. It was like they said to her...okay you're the slutty girl, now go. They even make reference to her as being exactly that and then feel they need to explain her purpose. No one else is worth mentioning because they are that bad. But the rest of the cast is spared from being truly awful because they barely have a pulse on screen. Brian Gallagher might be the only one who actually seems to have any talent at all but the script is so bad that it gives him nothing to work with and his serial killer is so mundane and pointless.

Big shocker here...Jason Christopher in his first feature film writes and directs the movie. He clearly enjoys horror movies and thought he could do it just as well by copying Friday the 13th. He is a terrible writer, and a barely mediocre director. I say mediocre because some of the kill scenes and chase scenes were actually decently done but only barely. This was literally like watching little kids "play" Friday the 13th in their front lawns. I don't understand it because I know for a fact that there are really good amateur writers out there and they should be given the right to create their stuff because it has to be better than this crap. Low budget imitation crap with good special effects as weird as that sounds. This one is a total miss. 3/10

One of the Worst Films of 2013 (So Far)

[gavin6942 · 3/10 · 2 March 2013]

A group of college students escape their troubled lives but only to find themselves fighting for their lives from a revenge seeking mad man.

First let me call out Lauren Palmer, who did the special effects. Not only did she do a poor (or perhaps adequate, if we are being generous) job on the effects, but then she decides to go on IMDb, rate the film a 10 and review it as having the best special effects. Really mature, Ms. Palmer. You could have had your friends write rave reviews, but instead you went out and did it yourself. I may as well just title this review "the best review ever" (when, in fact, I know it will only be adequate).

Next, I will have to say that the use of Clint Howard was either genius or foolish. Genius because it caught the attention of horror fans who have loved him in many films ("Ticks", "Ice Cream Man") and may get them to give this one a try. Foolish because he has roughly 30 seconds as a doctor, which is a throwaway role. Make him memorable. Even if you only have him on set one day, do not have him deliver pointless dialogue that any extra could have done.

Apparently, Victor Miller was of some guidance on this film. And that makes sense, because the direct inspiration is obviously "Friday the 13th" (young adults go in the woods and get killed). But what could Miller have possibly suggested? Did he advise them to throw in a newer version of Crazy Ralph? There is nothing in here that could not have been thought up and written in fifteen minutes.

The film even has a special thanks for such people as Edgar Wright, Stanley Kubrick, Quentin Tarantino... which is insulting to those great directors. There is a difference between "I watch Kubrick movies" and "I am influenced by Kubrick movies", and clearly the difference is lost on these folks. If you have seen everything Kubrick ever made and still cannot have one original (or even inventive) camera shot, you were not influenced and Kubrick does not need your thanks.

The marketing on this one was smart. The Last Reel (a little-known blog) is quoted as saying it is a "solid scare that's worth the trip". But they also wrote that "some of these characters (sic) were underwritten and it seemed as though their sole purpose (sic) was just to up the body count." Poor spelling aside (and that shows how hard they had to look for a positive review), this is a key point. The only interesting character in the whole film is Jared, whose background is never explored... he is just the weird guy with too little screen time. The actor, Chris Ready, also appeared in the better independent horror film (despite the bad title) "Bloodlust Zombies".

Dread Central -- a respected name in horror -- says the film is "an homage to some of the great slasher films of the 70s and 80s." In fact, their review is quite positive down the line, only really taking issue with the editing. They gave it 3 out of 5. I have to strongly disagree with them on this and wonder what movie they were watching. I especially take issue with the claim that director Jason Christopher did "an admirable job of creating a compelling, straightforward look at the torment of one man and how it manifests through his murderous acts". His daughter was hit by a drunk driver -- while she was playing in the road in front of her inattentive father. I get that he is in pain, but how do we feel sympathy when he murders people without justification? Mrs. Voorhees at least had a specific target demographic...

I hate to be rude to young filmmakers, but there is a glut of independent film in this world, and independent horror in particular. Some of it (such as John Pata's "Dead Weight") is among the best out there. And then there is this film... no original idea, no decent acting, no decent plot, poor lighting, characters I give less than two figs about... how it found a distributor is beyond me.

I don't know if this film is brilliant or...

[lucasprett · 5/10 · 2 April 2013]

This movie has so many horror movie clichés that for a moment - actually, a great part of the film - I thought they were going for a "Cabin in The Woods" kind of thing. Making fun of its own genre. I mean, the cellphone signal, the car that doesn't start, the woman that trips when tries to run, the stereotypical characters, the usual lack of character depth, and on and on. Frankly, I don't know if this film is brilliant or just another stupid exploitation movie that on the five - I counted - scenes it looks original, if loses you with boredom. Or maybe I just don't want to believe that a movie can be that bad. So I'll give it a 5.

Who plays hopscotch in the street?

[Youshouldntsaythat · 4/10 · 18 January 2014]

The movie starts with Hunter's (Brain Gallagher) daughter being killed by a drunk driver as she plays hopscotch on a two lane road in front of her house even though they had a drive way; Hunter witnesses his daughter's death, and now he seeks revenge. Well its not hard to figure out who the killer is, and why he is killing they give that away in the first 30mins. Since "Nobody Gets Out Alive" was not suspenseful, the movie should have had a brilliant plot, fantastic killing scenes, and decent acting...right; Wrong!

The plot had a few holes in it; for example, how the Hunter's daughter was killed, very stupid. Also I did not make a connection to the main character, Jen. I actually was more attached to Jared, who sadly played a small roll.

Out of all the death scenes, I only liked one, and the rest were very plain. The killer would of been better off using a gun; yes it was that bad. Not only were the death scenes plain, but they looked fake. The special effects were horrible.

The acting was okay at times, but it was terrible when it counted the most, for instance, during the death scenes and when they were being chased.

I rated this movie a 4 because it had potential, it was easy to follow, and some what entertaining. If the acting was more believable, and the death scenes a bit more unique it could have raise the score 3 to 4 points.

~Was watched alone in the dark~

The only frightening thing about the film is its poor quality

[The_Swedish_Reviewer · 1/10 · 30 March 2014]

What's the deal with American youth who always have to go camping, drinking beers, smoking weed, telling scary stories to each other and being murdered? The plot of the film is yet another hackneyed remake of Friday the 13th without a retarded village idiot as the serial murderer though.

Absolutely nothing in this movie appealed to me, it simply follows the B-horror movie Form A1. Poor direction, poor acting, poor effects, poor plot, poor everything. And wasn't it a busy intersection in the background where the girl went along the track.. in the opposite direction seeking for help... Don't waste your time watching this movie.

Best Special Effects!

[ladyofdesign · 10/10 · 12 January 2012]

Down the Road shows every film maker trying to make it that it is possible. Real Talent can make a movie on any shoe string budget. The flow of this movie is great and acting is superb. Not to mention the special effects and makeup in the film are fantastic. Pretty scary how real they look. This Philly film crew has what it takes to make it big and the talents to compete with any big budget crew out there! Go out find where Down the Road is screening and go see it!!!! You won't regret the amazing experience. This film wins awards at every festival it is submitted in. Best Feature Film amongst the list!!! Support artist, watch this film!!

Waste of time

[dadofseven · 1/10 · 28 February 2022]

If I wanted to watch Friday the 13th, I'd have watched Friday the 13th. Writer/Director just steals from everything that came before this and then calls it a "homage". Let's just hope a sequel is never made. Actors did their best with what little they were given as far as story/character development or lack thereof. Blame rests solely on the shoulders of the "writer"/director. Go watch paint dry. I promise you, it'll be more original.

The writers should be embarrassed about this movie

[eprusulis · 1/10 · 13 January 2021]

The people who wrote this movie should be embarrassed on how they wrote this script you make the victims in this movie make every horror mistake they possibly can make by the time the movie was over I was like well they deserve to die because there were so many occasions that they could have killed the villain who was the worst actress of all time and instead they either dropped the frying pan or let her go and then want some of the victims would stop to mourn their dead friend but meanwhile they're being chased they deserve to die. Script writers in the future don't be lazy write a better script write a more realistic movie then maybe you'll have a good movie under your belt instead of a piece of garbage.

Fairly generic and non-thrilling...

[paul_haakonsen · 4/10 · 22 December 2015]

I found this movie for about $2 in the local secondhand DVD store, although the DVD cover is carrying "Punishment" as the title. Being a lifelong horror fanatic I bought the movie without having any prior knowledge about the movie or story.

The story was, well, lets just be fully honest and say unfathomably stupid. A man watch a his daughter is killed by a drunk driver, and then he disappears for years and people starts to be killed in the forest. Right, so because his daughter was killed by a drunk driver, the man decides to go on a killing spree and kill everyone who drinks. Right... Very plausible.

While this movie does have a few elements from the forerunners of the slasher genre, then "Nobody Gets Out Alive" will never become a noteworthy participant in the slasher genre. The killer just had no edge, nor any characteristic trademark like Jason, Freddy or Michael.

The kills were, well, not impressive. Sounds bizarre saying that, but in a slasher movie you want to see blood and gore in spectacular kills. This movie just didn't have that to offer.

One thing that was good in this less-than-mediocre-slasher-movie was the acting. People were doing good jobs with their given roles and characters. But it didn't do much to salvage the movie.

If you enjoy horror and slasher movies, then your time and money is better spent elsewhere.

Down the pan

[mcvanden · 1/10 · 20 May 2013]

This so called horror movie as to be one of the worst movies of the last decade, absolutely dreadful from start to finish, the only good point is that you only have to, if you can, put up for it for 70 odd minutes, everything about this film is done very badly the acting, the plot as been done a thousand times before and much better, the so called special effects, my 13 year old daughter could do much better, I have noticed that the special effects creator as written a revue, and she is that bad her grammar sucks just like her so called special effects, she is sorry to say but have to be honest stupid, she even put her real name to the 10 star revue, what a plonker . for your own good stay well clear of this turkey

Nifty backwoods slasher outing

[Woodyanders · 8/10 · 4 March 2013]

A group of young folks go on a weekend camping trip in the woods. They run afoul of a vicious madman (a frightening portrayal by Brian Gallagher) whose notorious exploits are the stuff of local urban legend. Writer/director Jason Christopher relates the absorbing story at a quick pace, makes good use of the isolated sylvan setting, generates a considerable amount of tension, and delivers the grisly goods with the jolting moments of bloody'n'brutal violence. Christopher warrants extra kudos for giving the psycho a tragic and touching back story that makes him fairly sympathetic instead of completely hateful. Moreover, it's acted with zest by a game no-name cast, with especially praiseworthy work by Jen Dance as the troubled Jenn, David J. Bonner as the decent Deron, Chelsey Garner as the spunky Michele, Matthew Nadu as the jerky Danny, and Nikki Bell as the foxy Angie. Clint Howard pops up in a nice minor part as a doctor. The make-up effects are quite gruesome and impressive. Joseph Hennigan's crisp cinematography gives the picture a pleasing slick look while the constantly moving camera adds plenty of raw crackling energy. Gene Micofsky's shuddery score hits the bone-ratting spot. The tight 77 minute running time ensures that this movie never becomes tedious or overstays its welcome. Recommended viewing for slice'n'dice flick fans.

Red One Camera? I doubt it.

[charliecoffell · 11 January 2022]

Chompcrc here. The technical specs state this was shot on a Red One. I've never seen such limited dynamic range in a movie. There's no way this was shot on anything other than an RCA vhs recorder. Having said that, low budget horror hardly hinges on picture quality, and the sound is up to par, so if you can get past the expected flaws concerning story, formula, motivations, etc, I say an indie horror fan should check it out. As for the camera, they are either lying, or shot the movie so morbidly exposed that there was no way to save it in post. My vote is for the former, because the latter would negate the built-in levels that the Red One possesses to deter such exposure issues.