input: I thought this was a sequel of some sorts, and it is meant to be to the original from 1983. But a sequel is not taking the original plot and destroying it.

I actually had very little expectations to this movie, but I just wasted 95 minutes of life. No suspense - I actually feel clairvoyant, poor acting, and so filled with technical errors, so I as a computer geek just couldn't believe it. They have tried to make it a mix between a generic war movie and 24 hours. But this is not even worthy of a low budget TV movie.

Do not see this movie, this is a complete waste of time. Instead get the original. The theme is still valid. Don't let to much power into a machine. And the acting and plot is far more exiting and compelling.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Jim McKay has made one of the best films you will see all year.The quiet simplicity of this film draws you in from the opening shot and never lets go.There is not one false note in the entire film.Not one.Everything works.The hand-held camera is never distracting and always where it should be.The three young ladies whose lives we follow are always real.There isn't a single beat where the audience is reminded we are looking at actresses performing a role.These are just real girls trying to find themselves.There is no political agenda,hidden or otherwise.This is cinema at its most basic,and although it will probably only be seen by a handful of movie-goers,it deserves a much wider release.A special hats off to Hugh Hefner for providing the film-makers with the grant money needed to get this important film made.I can't wait to see what Mr. McKay does next.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I saw this movie originally in the theater, when I was 10. Even at that age the 'humor' was mildly insulting to my adolescent intelligence.

In the past, whenever I would see Ed Begley Jr. or jeff Goldblum I would cringe and start to feel very uncomfortable and even slightly sad. Until I was reminded of the existence of this movie today, I was unsure why I felt that way. Apparently I blocked my memory of this movie yet my negative feelings towards two of the perpetrators remained. Apparently I forgot that I saw this movie but subconsciously mourned the pieces of my soul that had been stolen, nay EATEN by the creators of this inhuman work.

I haven't been brave enough to try watching it as an adult. I imagine that as part of the healing process that I should probably look at confronting this childhood fear so that I can *truly* put it behind me. Some regression therapy and / or hypnosis might not be a bad idea either.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Devin Hamilton is probably better known as the new name in legendary Full Moon entertainment. Sadly, his arrival to this independent studio happened in a time when budget and production values are at its lowest in years. However, in his short career Hamilton has established himself as a creative director that manages to make inventive and original stories. Now, this doesn't mean that his movies are good, but at least they are different to the usual in the horror genre.

In his debut, "Bleed", Hamilton presents us a creative twist on the slasher sub genre. Maddy (Debbie Rochon) is a young woman that finally gets the job of her dreams. Not only that, but it seems that she has also found a boyfriend in Shaun (Danny Wolske), it seems that life finally smiles for Maddy after many sad events. Until on a party with Shaun's friends, they tell her that they created a "club" where members have to kill somebody to enter.

Obviously they are joking, but Maddy wants desperately to fit in, that she actually murders someone. After that event, someone starts to kill the rest of the members of the "club" one by one. it is up to Maddy to figure out what is going on as anybody could be the killer, including her.

Maddy is a very interesting character wonderfully played by the beautiful Debbie Rochon. It is a very interesting twist on the genre to have the lead actress as part of the suspects. The concept is so original and Rochon's performance is so good that it is a real shame that Hamilton didn't develop the whole story a little bit better. The movie feels quite slow at times and overall the feeling is the one of a good idea wasted on a bad movie.

The rest of the cast is weird in the sense that all the female cast is very good, while the male cast is painfully bad. Danny Wolske is terribly wooden and his performance as a yuppie is quite stereotypical. Julie Strain, Brinke Stevens & Lloyd Kaufman appear in small cameos and are wonderful in their small roles. Also, there is lots of nudity (both male & female) and the cast is very good looking, so it is really a plus.

The low-budget hurts the film in the effects department, as there are very few gory scenes and are not really graphic (probably because they would look bad); nevertheless, considering the budget, the film at least looks good.

Hamilton's more recent effort, the sexploitational venture "Delta Delta Die!", is a better crafted and overall funnier film. While this one is not as bad as other better known films, it still has a lot of flaws and may be interesting only for fans of Debbie Rochon or fans of independent no-budget films. 4/10

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative