Laikals The greatest movie ever made..!

ScoobyWell Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Wuchak RELEASED IN 2007, "A Brush with Death" is a horror/slasher about five cheerleaders on retreat at a vacation home in the country of California. There's an abandoned house nearby that has an infamous history and the girls are intrigued by it. Meanwhile a couple local guys come sniffing around the girls.There are three basic types of film: Grade A films are professionally-made theatrically released films, which includes everything from moderate-budget to blockbuster; Grade B films are low-budget movies that are either made-for-TV or direct-to-video and these include independent films or indies; Grade C movies are everything below this, which means they have micro-budgets or no-budgets and have an amateurish vibe to them; they'll often strike you as more of a student movie than a legitimate one. "A Brush with Death" (2007) is definitely a Grade C film.Sometimes Grade B films can be Grade A at heart because of the hard work and professionalism of the filmmakers and cast, like 2010's "Monsters," which only cost around $800,000 but was so well-made that it came across as a Grade A film (which doesn't mean you'll like it, of course). I point this out because sometimes Grade C movies can theoretically be Grade B films at heart, or possibly even Grade A (albeit unlikely). "Another Kind" (2013) is a good example. It only cost $120,000, but it smacks of a modest-budget theatrical release.I point all this out because, even though "A Brush with Death" is a Grade C film, it doesn't mean it HAS to be a stinker. With a budget of 200,000 the creators had considerably more resources than "Another Kind." So I viewed it with an open mind in the hope that it would rise beyond its limitations. Unfortunately, it didn't. I'm very merciful when it comes to acting. I don't care how no-name the cast members are, if the acting is satisfactory it'll be convincing; if not, it won't. A lot of the acting in "A Brush with Death" is just unconvincing; not all of it, but too much of it. And some of it is downright laughable. Especially when the gas station man abducts & kills a girl and takes loads of pictures of her and, later, when the five protagonists break down on a country road and the man from the gas stations stops by to offer help. These were the first bad signs and the movie never really recovers from this low-level of filmmaking.The only reasons I'm NOT giving "A Brush with Death" an F is because there's (barely) enough filmmaking talent here that the story moderately kept my attention for the first 50 minutes or so; plus there are some quality visuals, like the haunted house at night, and a few of the actors aren't bad (like the mentally challenged guy); moreover, a few of the girls are decent: Ali Thurlow as Candice, Nikki Cordell as Hillary and Seanna McDonald as Amber. Blonde Candice is easily the most beautiful, but she's inexplicably gone by the 25-minute mark. The script was really lame in parts and it clearly needed more time to work out the kinks and flush out its potential, like George Romero did with "Night of the Living Dead" (1968). Unfortunately, it was rushed and this shows in the finished product. The flick should have never been released to video because it's that poor of a Grade C "film."THE MOVIE RUNS 81 minutes and was shot in San Joaquin Valley, which is just east of the Bay Area in Northern California.GRADE: D (2.5/10)

zoetroph2006 About 32 minutes into this film, the scene where the guy comes over to hang out with the 5 cheerleaders, and 2 of the girls lay on the floor and try to flip the other over in some kind of cheerleader move, anyway as they get up, and the camera stays on them, if you look screen left you will see an overweight camera man on his knees crouched at the end of the couch. At first I thought it was Hillbilly Wayne the auto mechanic with his camera, but rewind shows otherwise.The continuity in this film was possibly the worse I have ever tried to follow in a B movie. Flashbacks, fast forwards, trying to tell a story, but it is so disjointed it really makes it hard to follow. Cute if not entirely predictable ending.I have to say it still puzzles me why 5 girls would want to party in a dilapidated old house. Especially these 5 who seemed like they walked out of a Teen Glamour shoot and would not be caught dead (pardon the pun) in a run down :haunted: mansion.I don't think the movie is a total loss, I still enjoyed it for what it was. Since I cannot make a movie I don't feel I should be critiquing others so harshly. Small budgets sometimes are the blame,other times it's the writing or the acting. In this case, probably a little of all three.

johannes2000-1 This movie is like a rocky boat that sets off boldly but soon makes water and in the end sadly sinks like a stone.The ingredients are OK: five pretty girls, high on hormones, who go out partying in this luxurious remote villa; some creepy locals (one lecherous, one retarded); a mysterious but hunky bachelor boy-next-door who flirts with the girls; and an abandoned haunted house in the vicinity. But it's like the pieces of a potentially good puzzle that are put together in the wrong way, they just don't fit.First of all: these five girls all are more or less interchangeable, there's no character-description or development whatsoever, so you have hardly any reason to sympathize with anyone of them. Are they really cheerleaders? They never once talk about it. What in the world makes them go to that remote place?! There's absolutely nothing to party at all, just a house and a pool, so that's all they seem to do: swim, sunbathe, sleep. No (visible) boozing, no drugs, no wild music and dance, no nothing. Then they are supposed to be sassy, but all they do to prove this is that they play some lame version of truth or dare that could have passed censorship in a catholic convent, even though they're in their underwear and in the company of the hunky boy-next-door. That's the next improbability that made me suspect him from the start. Here you (young and handsome stud) are in the company of a bunch of partying young girls that circle around you in their flimsy bikini's and underwear and you have nothing on but your baggy wet shorts and then you behave like you're someone's little baby brother?!? Every other self-respecting horror-flick should have come-up at this point with some hot scenes of making out and bare boobs, but not here.The other ingredients of the story don't ever seem to blend during the bulk of the movie, they're only tied together in the end as if the writer suddenly thought that there shouldn't be any loose ends when the audience goes home. The lecherous mechanic from the beginning of the movie doesn't play any role in the rest of it, we just find him back in the end as a corpse. The flash back of him butchering some other lost kids is totally superfluous to the story. The weird man in the haunted house, who's kept hidden for some time as the mysterious force that's responsible for the disappearance and killing of some of the girls, come's totally out-off the blue, it's no-one we've seen before, so how can we relate to his presence and actions? Movies like this traditionally have to have a last grand twist, that should make you jump up just before the lights go on again, and they DO give it a try here, but I saw it coming from the beginning and I'm mostly the last to know things like that.The only decent thing in this movie is the flash backs to the kid-brothers, where the vicious one plays "prove how much you love me!" and really causes some chills on your spine. But the rest of the supposed horror was lost on me. We never see a real graphic kill, and the victims just hang around a table in some sort of comatose way while being drained of their blood (what's the use of THAT??). The acting and the direction are mediocre at best, it's like no-one really believed in the whole thing and just went through the motions the director asked them to.But hey, I DID like the house (the neat villa, not the haunted one). It deserved a better movie.

datvmanlife OK so I went out to the videoshop one night and decided to get a b movie cause i hadn't seen one in a while. I thought the name of this had a nice ring to it and i the blurb at the back was a good movie idea. i didn't expect a lot as it was a b movie. boy im surprised i was hoping for a stinker but this should be playing in cinemas around the world. from start which is sick itself to finish which still makes me shudder dear god that concept freakyness evil evil. I now own a copy of this movie i bought one the next day after renting. There is no nudity or on screen brutal gore but who cares the only bit you need to care about is that ending. people have been giving it bad reviews? wtf im shocked this wasn't at the movies. a must for all. if you don't like it than tough for you. to finish off the acting was great, script was great and the direction was great and the score was great i cant find a flaw in this movie after 3 times watching it. enjoy this beautiful movie. the only flaw i can find is that the movie description isn't correct but who cares once you get into the film you don't care