input: This really is the most dreadful film I have ever seen. I simply have no idea how anyone has the audacity to put this on release.

The production standards are atrocious. There is no pretence here at cinematography. The camera work, scripting, acting and sound are unbelievably crass. I think there is a plot, but it could have been done in 10 minutes sparing us the time to watch it. The hysterical neurotic girls at the centre of this piece have no credibility whatsoever.

I would urge anyone to avoid spending any time or money on this Title. It is truly atrocious.

JDD - 14 December 2008

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I absolutely love this show, but I saw the second episode first. After watching the first episode I could see why people were turned off at first. The first episode's humor is not the best, and they struggle to properly start the series. However, I still like the light and humorous attitude of the show. The characters develop much more after the episode and become truly enjoyable characters. As a first episode, it really doesn't accurately represent the rest of the show which is really quite good. The episode is not bad by any means, but as the show progresses it becomes better and better, so watch more episodes before passing any judgement on the quality of the show.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Murders are occurring in a Texas desert town. Who is responsible? Slight novelties of mystery and racial tensions (the latter really doesn't fit), but otherwise strictly for slasher fans, who will appreciate the gore and nudity, which are two conventional elements for these films.

Dana Kimmell (of FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 3 infamy) stars as the bratty quasi-detective teen.

*1/2 out of ****

MPAA: Rated R for violence and gore, nudity, and some language.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This movie was made-for-TV, so taking that into account, I'm not going to rip into it as hard as I would a feature film. The script is sub-par, but it does succeed in being mildly humorous in spots, whether it means to be or not. The acting is mostly over-the-top, but that is true for many lower-budget movies.

The aspect of this movie that I really hated, though, was that 90-95% of it is shot on film, but in random places, there will be 5-10 seconds where the footage is shot on video. You can tell because there is less contrast, the colors are less vivid, and the footage is clearly 30 frames per second instead of film's 24 frames per second. I'm not sure if maybe these scenes had to be shot later and at that time they didn't have the money to shoot on film (I assume this is why, anyway), but it is disorienting and really makes the film look shoddier than it had to look.

Anyway, I've definitely seen worse movies, but I definitely wouldn't say that I enjoyed this movie and I can't recommend that anyone see it.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative