Carver (2008 Video) User Reviews

Bloody... But Unoriginal.

[terrible2 · 4/10 · 7 December 2008]

Decent gore hampered by an unoriginal, over-done, seen it all before, becoming quite redundant, for the love of God... Story.

This is a real shame, because I truly enjoyed everything else about "Carver". It's shot well, the acting is solid and for the most part it is a strong contender to be a stand out horror film. But, instead follows the same olé' boring formulas of a thousand other (better) movies. Director Franklin Guerrero has the eye to make a real name for himself in the business, but first he must trust his "Own" abilities and stop trying to remake other peoples work. And as far as the whole "Based on a true story" (Crap) is concerned, it's just that, and no-one is buying it anymore so you can leave it off the packaging. I look forward to seeing what Mr. Guerrero can do with a story that he writes himself, and not after watching "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" followed by "The Hills Have Eyes" as a double feature with "Hostel" and then going to his neighbor's house to watch "Vacancy" and "Wrong Turn"....

Originality is a key element in this genre... Try it, you might be surprised.

Junk

[sugerfoot · 3/10 · 2 July 2008]

This movie offers nothing more than most other sub par horror movies being shot in the woods behind a 7/11. Are 50% of all horror movies going to copy SAW now? Nothing original left? Oh wait! There was an exploding testicle. I've never seen that one before. And a huge over use of the song "Turkey in the Straw", which I will admit was creepy.

Even though it was a fairly short movie it was a large waste of time. The acting was horrible, not once do you feel anything for most of these cardboard characters, maybe with the exception of the two brothers, who were o.k. The story even more so, and the film would go from gritty to smooth constantly. I wouldn't recommend it unless you like junk horror movies...if you do, enjoy!

Real Bad

[safinahmed · 3/10 · 5 April 2008]

This type of movies is getting old, I mean real old. Every movie is the same, they don't even add new things, it's just the same recipe over and over.

This one is no exception, the movie is bad, the plot is the same, the actors are bad, the image is bad. The only thing positive in this movie is that is violent, everything else is bad.

And is it my imagination or the kids in this movie are getting dumber (if that was possible)?

Have you seen Texas Chainsaw Massacre? House of 1000 Corpses? The Devil's Rejects? The Hills Have Eyes? etc etc? Then don't watch this one, it's the same.

If you haven't seen any of the above, pick one of them so you don't have to watch this one.

A Steaming Pile Of....

[geminate7 · 2/10 · 12 March 2008]

Hey look a movie with no plot, no actors, no story, no background, no kidding. Well that's nothing new but this one was especially vacuous.

Everybody dies. Nobody cares. When does the movie start?

It's all about gore, fake, silly, ridiculous gore. Gore without meaning, without purpose, gore to show off really low quality makeup and phony blood effects...yawn.

Point of the movie? No point! Surprise? No, disappointment.

What it is, worthless rubbish to be burned. What it could have been, perhaps anything, had someone with a mind worked in this production.

Recommend this? HA! Not on your life, literally.

Typical genre dross...

[natashabowiepinky · 4/10 · 10 March 2015]

Apart from in horror movies, is there EVER a willingness for teens to go on camping trips, in the middle of nowhere, these days? Because if there is, I'm not hearing about it. Nor do I see the appeal. You're submitting yourself to perhaps the most miserable vacation ever, with no modern amenities nearby other than a pub run by a weirdo who has a retarded serial killer as his assistant. Madness.

On arriving, our intrepid group discover a room filled with what they think are fake, old snuff movies. Anyone watching these horrific films on a projector for a few minutes would be able to tell you they're the Real McCoy. But being slasher flick teens, they discount all warnings... And end up paying for it in dismembering and torture. Serves them right for choosing The Great Boring Outdoors, when Florida was calling...

Carver is by no means a great film... In fact, it's almost as far from that status as is possible. But you HAVE to admire a movie which goes as far with it's gore as it does here... To the point where you're almost willing to discount the complete lack of plot or common sense of any of the characters (One of the girls traipses around outside AT NIGHT in literally, just her underwear to find her boyfriend. Seriously.) to revel in all the carnage.

ALMOST. But not quite. Still, as the old 'backhanded compliment' goes: I've seen worse... 4/10

My Review

[joemamaohio · 3/10 · 9 July 2008]

Take a little "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," sprinkle in a dash of "Hostel" and finish it off with just a pinch of "Saw," and you've got "Carver," another in a long line of 'torture horror' films.

This time it's some "teenagers" (a.k.a. actors in their twenties) who stumble upon a cabin thanks to a weird man who wants their help. They uncover a series of films that they think are simply homemade horror films (like this one!) but in reality are videos shot by the hillbilly people doing the killing.

They soon discover the truth as they become the stars of the latest film, and one-by-one they succumb to grisly and gruesome deaths (including the classic 'guy getting his you know whats removed' scene). Nothing that hasn't been done before, and definitely not better..."Carver" is just an attempt to make girls squirm watching it, and test the strength of the men watching it.

Not worth the time or effort...

[paul_haakonsen · 3/10 · 24 January 2016]

I had expected so much more from this movie, especially since the DVD cover brandished 'you will scream your head off' and because it is allegedly based on real events. Right, well there was no screaming, and there was no enjoyment for me in this movie at all. It was an incredibly slow paced movie with very little happening. And I ended up giving up on it out of sheer boredom. I managed to stick with it just short of an hour, then I felt carved into several pieces of boredom.

The story is about a group of young people who travel through a remote area where they find themselves at the mercy of a relentless slasher.

Right, a storyline which has been used and used again in so many movies of similar concept and idea. And while it does work out well enough most of the time, then director Franklin Guerrero Jr. just failed to establish any hold on the audience with this 2008 movie.

The acting in "Carver" was mediocre, to be bluntly honest. Although most of the acting was adequate, I have to point out that David G. Holland (playing Billy Hall Carver) as being the one who put on the most memorable performance. The cast were doing adequate jobs with the script and storyline, but they had restrictions imposed on them by the script and the direction.

There were some nice enough torture scenes which did have some brutality to them. And that was actually, morbidly enough, the best part of "Carver".

If you enjoy slasher movies, then you should not really waste your money, time or effort on "Carver", because there is nothing unique or memorable about it. And there are far better slasher movies available in abundance.

If you LOVE horror/violence/gore - see it. If you just like it - it could be pretty unpleasant.

[LG-Thorell · 7/10 · 25 February 2008]

It's unfortunate, yet very fun that this is the first comment I have ever written on a Movie on IMDb. The earlier movies I wanted to comment already had everything said by others. But this film I have to praise for many things, yet hate it for others. You will probably know what I mean when you see it - but I can say so much without spoiling anything, that the only saver for this film (reason for not totally hating it) is that it is "based on a true story". Sure, it is probably as "based on a true story" as Texas chainsaw Massacre, but still. This is the most violent movie I have ever seen, and it is so well-made, that I got the worst chills down my spine I ever gotten watching a movie. And I'm a fan of ultra-violence movies, so far the films which I can compare to this is The Hills have Eyes and Hostel. Even though I found those two movies pretty violent, Carver just kicks those two down pretty far on the list of hardly-watchable violence.

I have to say that it is the best "special effects" I have ever seen, when it comes to violence. I base the following on absolutely solely the movie itself, but I think the CG in this movie is absolutely minimal. It all looks so real, it all has to be a masterpiece in latex/mask effects. And I might add, that I really despise 3D implements in horror movies. And I say that even though that myself is an 3D animator, which maybe explains a little better my opinion of the quality of this film.

I'm sorry for miss-spelling and such, I don't very often write in English. Enjoy the film!

Could have been so much better - but wasn't!!

[goodshots · 3/10 · 1 July 2008]

I just watched the Unrated version, which was pretty damn shocking.

Some of the violence was much worse than Hostel & Hostel II [2 of my personal favorites] but the poor acting and low production values really let the film down. The overuse of blood spray made things even more ridiculous.

The main killer, himself, moved so slowly that I was really surprised that none of the victims could out run him - even if they were injured. I've seen paint dry faster than the speed in which the 'Carver' moved!!

Despite the negatives, the final 5-10 minutes were really gruesome. I strongly advise caution - do not watch the Unrated version on a full stomach, your food may be coming up again later!!

Worthy of a rental

[ozlifter · 8/10 · 6 March 2008]

Brutal. Scary. Filled with tension.

I rarely use those words to describe a movie, especially one that's Straight-to-Video, but they're fitting here. I rented the Unrated *grisly edition* from Netflix. Boy was I in for a surprise.

The premise is rather typical: A group of campers meets up with some nasty company in the woods. But it's the movie's delivery that's not so typical. This film was extremely gruesome. Some of the violence was so realistic and so graphic, that I had to turn my head away from the screen at times. I'm not really a huge fan of scenes of torture, but if they're well done, I can appreciate them. I think the level of brutality in Carver blows both Hostel films away by far.

The dialog was snappy and fresh. The acting was passable. I did however, think the cheap/grainy camera used to film the movie was a bit of a distraction. It looked really cheap. This movie could have been excellent on a bigger budget.

If you like movies like Wolf Creek, Hostel, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, or Wrong Turn -- and if you can appreciate independent horror made on a low budget -- you'll really love this.

Pretty sick stuff really

[bryan_stott · 7/10 · 25 February 2008]

Im not gonna leave a massive comment about this as im not sure how yet, this is my first ever comment on a title... this film, which i did enjoy for the most part, is an excercise in filming torture graphically, if you have a weak stomach i cant say i recommend it but if you like extreme violence and have a perverse liking for watching others in agony then this might just be your thing!!! the acting is a little weak, the story is as usual very loosely "based on a true story" the maniac is pretty good and believable and the violence is extreme,the scene in the outhouse still haunts me-is that a spoiler? if you liked hostel then you'll probably like this i guess

Carver

[Scarecrow-88 · 3/10 · 4 July 2009]

Friends, on a camping trip in some backwoods area off the beaten path, fall prey to a sadistic wacko hillbilly in overalls who likes to record his handiwork so that he can enjoy future viewings on his projector. There's a twist at the end(..it's HAND HELD!)that won't surprise anyone unless you are the most naive dolt on the planet.

The killer, Bobby Shaw(Erik Fones), assaults his victims with a number of tools and the results are often unpleasant. One victim's head is taken off at the neck by a hacksaw. One victim is trapped in an outhouse, his leg smashed with a toilet;it's hinted that Shaw used a wrench to castrate him. One victim is pummeled several times with a sledgehammer. One is stabbed multiple times. One victim has nails hammered into her leg and forehead. And, there's still room for a hacksaw to be buried into the face of a victim, while another's eye is gouged in by a hook. Shaw's older brother runs a beer joint and seems a bit off himself.

There's no real style and the violence is carefully executed with director Franklin Guerrero Jr.(..who also wrote this)often cutting away perhaps due to budget restraints. Oh, there's still plenty of blood shed, don't get me wrong, but Guerrero Jr. relies on what we imagine as much as what is presented on screen. For instance, a victim blows her brains out with a shot gun..not seen, but we get the general idea, although the decision to do so, even if your friend was murdered, seems a bit odd. Another scene has Shaw finishing off a victim he had been punishing with the sledgehammer, with a face crushing that's never visible either. This is a common occurrence that infuriates slasher fans, but the film is presented in such a cold, mean-spirited manner(..the way real killers work)that I wonder if the audience would enjoy CARVER anyway, perhaps they would. It's fairly obvious from the production values that the movie was low budgeted, and I never felt Franklin Guerrero Jr. was skilled enough to rise above his limitations. Others might think otherwise, but CARVER, to me, never rises above the countless direct-to-video slasher clones..it's just this one is about a cold-blooded, deranged killer hunting folks in some godforsaken warehouse in the backwoods of rural America. I would go into detail regarding the cast but they all support the film as lambs to the slaughter, nothing more or less. Sick, ugly film that will fade from memory I think not long after you watch it.

Noteworthy low-budget splatter flick

[TonyDood · 23 September 2011]

There's very little territory to mine in the "mad slasher" genre...it was all done in the 80's, re-done in the 90's and has been "retro" done again ever since. A recent trend has been to drop the pretense of any "mystery" about who the killer is or what he/she wants and just aim directly for the nearest artery, and open it...on screen, with an unflinching camera. This has resulted in scads of thoroughly unpleasant low budget shocker flicks commonly labeled "torture porn." The genre itself is nothing new...Herschell Gordon Lewis mined the viscera field until there was nary an eyeball left to be stepped on in the late 60's. The 70's are ripe with truly unpleasant, mean-spirited, ugly little films that exist solely for lovers of human suffering and unrelenting grue to whack their puds to. And then of course there are "motion pictures" like the "guinea pig" series from Japan that take things to the furthest extremes imaginable...just because someone had to do it.

Somewhere in the middle of all this is an efficient little direct-to-the-home-market piece of sludge called "Carver" that I found exceptional for a number of reasons. I resisted it at first...as I have grown up I'm no longer as interested in watching people suffer as I was as a teenager glued to pay-cable. But, like many fans I know, I'm always looking for something a little different than what the genre usually offers. By the time I saw this one I already knew about the infamous "outhouse scene" and was prepared for the worst. What I didn't expect was that the scene in question, and pretty much all the splatter, was the least interesting thing to me in the movie. I've found myself watching it on "Crackle" in its edited/censored form while doing other things around my place, because it makes good background distraction. Huh? My suspicion is that Franklin Guerrero Jr. is actually a competent and enthusiastic film director who is aware of the time-honored tradition of breaking into professional film directing via the low-budget genre. And as such, he also knows that the bar MUST be raised in order for a film to get noticed. So make a film that ups the ante on the disgust-o-meter and you're likely to at LEAST get a chance to make another film, as it seems Guerrero has done.

"Carver" is nothing new, in fact it's old as the hills: stupid kids make the "mistake" of camping in a place where there's a vicious killer who then proceeds to kill them on-screen for, essentially, our edification. "Carver" adds a clever twist by incorporating the idea of voyeurism-via-film as part of the killer's motive, but that is, of course, beside the point. The "point" is blood, and much blood is spilled and yes, it is rather satisfying in a visceral, sick way when a film doesn't hold back (and the effects are reasonably well done). It IS disgusting, but as Helen Mirren said of her role in "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife And Her Lover," "It's all theater, darling..."

But kudos to the stunningly attractive Ursula Taherian, who seems to be a very credible actress and deserves more work, beyond low budget horror. Cheers also to Neil Kubath--the director was smart to have him carry the film...he's got an interesting face that wears a look of confused disgust with the world around him that I know very well from having had a similar little brother myself. His delivery is unusual and his position in the movie perplexing (he's not a hero, not an anti-hero, he simply exists, until he doesn't anymore). But the presence of Kubath, Taherian and some of the others, the gore and the premise (and yes, That Scene) anchor what would otherwise be an utterly forgettable entry into the genre and make this one, in fact, at least to this viewer, rather memorable.

Boring, unoriginal and spectacularly cliché.

[church_of_no_return · 1/10 · 28 February 2008]

When I first saw the title for this film, I was a bit excited, I was also excited by the fact it was "based on a true story".I am quite jaded when it comes these sort of films and it takes a lot to impress. Not only was this film disappointing in terms of acting, but in general survival skills, research and over-all packaging.

For starters, the characters survival skills are terrible. Sometimes, characters not knowing "the rules" can be a positive in a horror film, if done correctly, it can add suspense, mystery, pant-wetting scariness. This film epically failed at this objective. However, I will say - the will to survive in the final three characters is fairly good. Until she blows her brains out.

Not only that, but these "killers" seemed to lack any kind of representation (personality, location or otherwise) of what could be a "true story", and at first, I was hoping for something along the lines of Henry, but I guess it failed at that too.

The acting is terrible and wooden and not even the killer is convincing (seriously, who can survive being stabbed a few times and being shot) nor is the ending. It's too convenient, it's almost like the writers were thinking: "Well I can't be bothered writing any more, can you?" "No, so we'll just kill every one off in really stupid death scenes"

Save your money. If you want gore and brutality, you'd be better off watching the nightly news than this tripe.

Bottom of the Barel slasher.

[compguybri · 3/10 · 22 February 2008]

I consider myself some what of a horror fanatic. I've seen countless slasher films, and this is a low budget Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Just Before Dawn, Wrong Turn, Jeepers Creepers, House of 1000 Corpses, etc. etc...) rip-off if I've ever seen one. Except not as well done as any of those films. It's like a bug on the win-shield of the "Kids went down the wrong road", slasher genre. First let me say what I thought was positive about this movie: 1)I liked the camera work. Nice angles, wide shots, and camera movement. 2)The film had two pretty original death scenes. One involving pliers and poop and another involving nails and a hammer. Other than those 2 positives, I can't find another good thing about this film. Now for the bad. And there's a lot more bad than good. 1)The dialog felt like who ever wrote it was trying just a little too hard to make it real and snappy. So much so, that instead of being realistic it just seems really canned and scripted. 2)The characters suck. I hated them all so much that I found myself rooting for the slasher to kill them asap so I could get on with another film. 3)There was nothing "scary" about this movie. Lots of gore, but no tension and no jump out of your seat moments. 4)The cheap quality camera. While the camera WORK was good, the quality of what ever camera they used to film this thing looked about like my $300 Panasonic. It was not gritty, but just cheap looking. Yea, I know, I know, It was low budget, but just how low are we talking? 5)The first 45 minutes of the movie sucked. They show you who the killer is in the first 2 minutes, so that kind of wipes any kind of surprise element there might be later on. Also the entire first 45 minutes of the movie feel a lot more like filler than setup. You could easily edit the first 45 minutes down to about 5 minutes, and nothing from the story would be lost, in fact, the movie would be much better. 6)To much daylight. The first half of the movie is filmed in complete sunny daylight, which to me, is not scary at all. 7)There are two really crappy songs in the first half of the movie that sound like some generic Nirvana wanna-be crap that just doesn't fit in this movie at all. It's almost like someone in the cast or crew was friends with this crappy band and got to use their music for free in this movie. It may seem minor, but music does a lot to set atmosphere and these songs just did not fit at all.

If your looking for a good "Kids go down the wrong road" kind of slasher, don't bother with this. The Idea has been done 1000 times before, and this is one of the worst of the bunch. If your a horror nut and have to see every slasher movie made, save yourself some time and start watching from the 45 minute mark, as that is when anything resembling something "good" happens. I'm giving it a 3 out of 10, only because of the 2 fairly original death scenes. Without those It would have probably been a 1 or a 2 for me.

not impressed

[andcomewhatmay · 5/10 · 27 February 2008]

It feels like I've seen this movie a dozen times.....that's because it's another rip off of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. A bunch of kids go out in the middle of nowhere and get killed off. The only real positive feedback I can give is the death scenes are pretty good especially for it being low budget. It has decent level of gore, but nothing spectacular; movies like House of 1,000 Corpses has it beat. Not only has this been done to death, the acting in this movie is really really bad. The characters themselves are far from believable, they're morons. The plot is predictable from start to finish and not scary in the least. Unless you can't get enough of this particular sub-genre of horror, it's not worth it.

Worst Horror movie ever

[dvdhaven-1 · 3/10 · 25 February 2008]

Horror movies are interesting when the suspense is kept until the end by not revealing details about what exactly happens. In the case of Carver, the contrary is true. The "whodunnit" element is clear from the start as there is no doubt about who are the bad guys. An additional thing that spoils the suspense is that the ugly details are shown extremely explicitly such that it simply becomes disgusting to watch them. Horror is not to get people disgusted, it is to create a sense of fear followed by relief of it and the buildup of a new cycle of fear and relief. This movie does nothing like that. Moreover, the acting is weak on all fronts as the acting is very amateurish. The storyline very thin and predictable as well. Granted, this is supposedly based on real facts, but that does not necessarily mean that staying true to them is 100% required and makes a good movie. All in all, this is a more than forgettable movie not worth spending your time on. Three points for the effort and for making me watch it until the end.

Typical

[ryan_novak · 1/10 · 24 February 2008]

Wow, this movie really blew. The music for one was atrocious, other than the opening scene that is. The movie lacked originality. Yes it was based on "Actual Events" but it was just so typical for the horrible horror movies put out recently. It was very predictable, some parts did not make sense at all (When Kate gets out of the car and realizes who she hit, there's no way he could be able to walk around after what happened to him before, let alone find clothes to dress up for a prank), don't forget the blonde bimbo stereotype. "Don't go in the woods alone looking for your boyfriend, who does that? no one" but she is the dumb blonde so obviously she goes anyways, oh i wonder what happens then? The "killer" is not scary at all and is a Horrible actor. Not much of a movie here. Watching it for the first time will feel like you have watched it 20 times, it's that predictable. 2 out of 10 and thats pushing it!

Oh the blood!!!

[icemanc4 · 7/10 · 7 March 2008]

Carver delivers a breath-taking gut wrenching bloodbath from the get-go. This film really tries to make a new name for the Porn-Horror genre.

From the first scene to the last the gore is gruesome, The boobs are large, The murder scenes vivid, and the tools for the killing simple. The main character really holds this one together. Bryan (petes bro) almost made this movie not worthwhile. The killer in this film is that of a typical hillbilly redneck mentally ill killer, like that of Texas Chainsaw Massacre etc. He has no feelings for anything whatsoever and loves the blood.

Overall this film delivers what it was meant to, a blood soaked close your eyes don't look gore fest. If you want to watch a movie that will tie your stomach in a knot and make you not want to go camping in the backcountry, this is the movie.

In the future I believe Franklin Guerrero should lay off the gore a bit and develop the characters a bit better, but for Carver he did just fine. If you liked Hostel this is your film.

wow...

[kikin_ass_chris234 · 1/10 · 2 March 2008]

The rating I gave it says it all... awful... every body part that was cut into or nailed into or sawed off looked unrealistic.. the camera work was very sloppy and it was hard to keep up to.. by about one hour I was excited for the closing credits..the story is a typical horror movie... friends disappear..friends killed... so on and so forth..some of the accents used by the actors were done horribly and were obviously fake... Not all of the actors were terrible in it.. some made it actually believable that they were in a real movie and not some high school video project made for a project.. music got a little irritating at time but wasn't completely horrible... overall I do not think this was a very good movie at all and wasn't worth the 350 bucks used to make it... I feel bad that I made the friend I watched this with watch it and would not recommend this to anyone...

oodles of gory goodness

[inkslug · 9/10 · 24 February 2008]

This is touted as a true story. I certainly hope that's only the marketing department saying that, coz make no mistake this is a gory gruesome tale.

It's your standard teen horror with a bunch of campers falling foul in hicksville. The film doesn't do much different to all the others out there apart from wallowing in the gore and torture. I've seen hundreds of films like this and either laugh at the kills or shout at the screen at the character's stupidity. There are very few I find unsettling and that make my hands damp and my heart beat faster but this was one of them, along with the original Texas Chainsaw. I can't quite account for why I felt this way and still do now 15 minutes after it's finished.

Maybe it's the oodles of blood and gore, maybe it's the possibility that this really happened, maybe the writer and director just did a better job than normal, or maybe it's this innocent song that keeps playing throughout the film whenever there is violence. Not since Carpenter's Halloween music has any been so effective in a slasher.

This film is certainly not perfect, but by god it's a league above the usual stuff.

Overall, slow start, but highly recommended and hard to criticise, my nerves are still jarred.

Texas Chain Saw Hostel Camp

[steve-1570 · 7/10 · 24 February 2008]

This film has a number of similarities with The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, plus some of the more gruesome elements of Saw and Hostel.

A group of people in their twenties are on a camping holiday in the American backwoods.

They agree to do some work for somebody and find a few reels of film and a projector in a barn.

They watch the films, which feature some disturbing images from what they assume are home-made horror movies.

The films look pretty realistic for home-made horror movies.

Nearby lives a large, demented, psychopath who happens to appear in the aforementioned films.

Need I say more?

Do not be fooled by the positive reviews - this one is hot garbage

[skdennard · 1/10 · 7 March 2008]

When I came across Carver, I did what most people probably do when they stumble upon an unknown film -- look it up on IMDb. But I always scroll immediately down to the comments to see what real people had to say about it and decide from there whether or not it's worth my time.

I gotta say, I felt like someone pulled a fast one on me by the first page of comments talking about how great this film is aside from it being low budget. It wasn't until I was 45 minutes into the film that my brain cells starting firing again and I was going, where's all the great stuff those people were talking about? I thought for a moment that I might be watching the wrong movie. So I go back to IMDb but this time make it pages 2 and 3 of the comments and that's when I realized the 45 minutes I just wasted was my own fault for not having been a good girl and reading all of the comments. Had I done so, I would have gotten to the accurate comments that warn you how bad the movie is.

And it's bad people. Seriously, there were probably about 2 or 3 original or relatively "redeeming" moments (and I'm being very generous when I use the term "redeeming") but aside from those fleeting moments, the acting was horrible, the killer was someone who might be more believable playing a pedophile than an aspiring "Thomas Hewitt" -- I mean, how in the world can two seemingly fit, young, athletic guys let a fat, slobbish, overall-wearing hick get the jump on them?! And can we just stop for a moment and acknowledge the transition shots of the farmhouse? Yes, let's. Cause it's pretty darn noticeable that they're just still shots used to transition from one meaningless scene to the next meaningless scene, which might not have been so bad or noticeable, had the editor not decided to have some sort of leave of absence while on the job and leave them in for more than 5 seconds. That might not seem like a long time, but when you count out loud, One one-thousand, Two one-thousand, etc...it is enough time for you to examine the scene and realize that NOTHING IS MOVING!!!! And it happens more than once which makes it even more noticeable. Sadly though, the transition shot issue is not the biggest problem the film has -- there are certainly others. But I didn't come here to leave a laundry list of the reasons why you shouldn't watch this movie. If you do your due diligence and read ALL OF THE COMMENTS on ALL OF THE PAGES, you will find those reasons and even a concise and accurate summary of the film. My main objective for commenting is to simply have an accurate, albeit, negative, review show up amongst all of those misleading positive reviews in hopes that the next person trying decide whether or not to watch this movie will be spared the 90 or so minutes it takes to painfully get through this.

Gore And Bore

[mukesh-smartshot · 1/10 · 1 January 2009]

I cannot believe the plot of this movie, simply because there is no plot. The movie simply counts on gore, gore and more gore.And to add to the miseries, the murders just are disgusting rather than horrifying.

The music though was very good, which has kept the movie alive. Very poor characters, no chemistry between them whatsoever. And why isn't there any reason for the murders?? Its just another plot hole. And what to say about the climax, it is just another mess. And the villain doesn't even come close to leather face who was much more scary. And please don't compare this with hostel or saw.

If you love gore and don't care about the reasons, even the most basic reasons, then watch it