Ehirerapp Waste of time

Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Spoonixel Amateur movie with Big budget

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

troywhigham First off, let me say that it's not easy playing a victim. Everyone cheers for the hero or the villain, so when you add in playing a victim, then playing the victim for most of the movie, and then playing a naked victim for most of the movie, you start to wonder how Debbie D hasn't been crowned a Scream Queen award winner yet by the people in the business who know how hard it is to do it.Second, the acting by just about everyone is terrible, particularly the supporting characters. I almost got the feeling I was watching a student film, but I've seen student films that are much better. I've even seen porn films with a paper-thin plot that had better acting. And it's not the sort of "so bad it's good" acting, either, so you lose out on the cheese factor. I caught myself thinking, "WTF? They should've given me the budget to do this. I'd do it right!" Then I checked the actors' credits and noticed that they also served as production crew on the film. So, I'm guessing that it was a case of "hey, if you help me make my film I'll let you have a role in it. A speaking role!" Third, the initial premise is solid - writer buys inanimate object that possesses him. Stop. OK, if done right you can take this idea and leave the viewer wondering if the writer really was possessed, or just crazy. "The Shining" is a great example of this in execution. You just need to write it along those lines.Fourth, what's with the retarded assistant? Comic relief? Luis de Jesus as "Ralphus" in "Bloodsucking Freaks" is the epitome of how to do the assistant to a madman. Funny yet creepy at the same time. In this one, the assistant is just a waste of space.Fifth, if you knock out your meddlesome wife and tie her up in the basement so you can perform satanic rituals with a sacrificial victim, why not add her in as a bonus sacrifice? Or at least strip her naked and paint a pentagram on her belly, too. Maybe Lucifer prefers blondes. But wait, that's right, she's the script supervisor and probably conveniently discarded the page that talks about her clothing be removed.Sixth (because this is a horror movie and the number "six" has evil connotations), what exactly was Gesner's role in the scheme? Nothing important, other than the fact that the actress that played her was a boom operator and script supervisor, which takes us back to the "hey, if you work on my movie I'll let you have a role" point I made earlier.In all, this has the feel of a bunch of people with nothing to do deciding to make a movie on a long weekend and somehow roping Debbie D into being in it. Naked. For most of the film.Someone needs to hand her an award.

DaveInPhilly Aside from the negative feedback of some on here, I decided to watch this movie anyway. Not sure why people are complaining, but I thought it was very good. It was different than a lot of the horror films out there and I thought the actors/actresses did a great job. Interesting ending! It seems as though the movies that are good have low ratings which is why I decided to watch this. I generally don't even comment on here, but I felt this one deserved it. Another independent film I recently watched and thought it was pretty good is "The Cellar Door". It has a low rating as well. In my opinion, people don't appreciate good quality independent film.

Maxine Green This movie was SO poor, and the initial reviews so inaccurate (I do wonder how many have been written by friends of the cast/production team) that I finally gave in and went through the IMDb registration process just to rant about it.I was looking for some slightly cheesy horror, so the premise of this movie, sounded rather good - innocent writer is possessed by an evil spirit haunting his typewriter - excellent start! Black Ribbon, on the other hand wasn't 'so bad it's good' but just plain bad. I have some sympathy for the actors. The flaws in this film start with the script and work outwards. Kenneth Richardson as a character does not invite sympathy. Rather than the nice guy afflicted by evil spirits, the opening dialogue with his wife portrays him as an insensitive ass with no social skills, and he merely gets ruder and more self-centred throughout the film. Also the writer is clearly too lazy to bother even with basic research. According to the film, the sadistic killer Blackwood died in 1856, whereas the Underwood typewriter company, who supposedly made his typewriter wasn't even formed until 1874. That wasn't necessarily the death of the film though. With good acting and direction, even the poor script could have been rescued. However, the film opens with the least convincing 'attack' I have ever seen outside of student film, and fails to improve. Tony Rugnetta is abysmal as Mr. Richardson. The faces he pulls when he is 'possessed' belong only in comedy, and his only method of emoting is to turn up the volume. Even schlock horror should be played with a straight face, and this guy just cannot cut it. He and his 'wife' together make the least convincing couple I have ever seen. There is no touching, no eye contact, no emotion between them at all, and her acting in solo scenes is as bad as his (and who the hell reads a website aloud to themselves anyway? Fine, it was a plot device, but it could so easily have been a phone conversation...). The pair of them come across through the entire film as though they are reading a train timetable under duress, and getting rather fed up with it. The only ray of light in terms of acting ability in this entire movie is the housekeeper, of whom there is sadly little. The scenes of 'torture' are laughable, the supposedly two century-old props look suspiciously like modern creations, and the sound track, whilst not actually awful, is edited in with a lack of subtlety that reminds me of the earliest episodes of Star Trek. Yes, there is nudity, but frankly, if you're watching this for kicks you'd be better off with Baywatch, and for emotional intensity - try some amateur porn. The only reason I watched this film all the way through was in an attempt to find something good to say about it. Sadly, I failed.

movieman_kev Ken Richardson (Tony Rugnetta of "Requim for a Vampire" which this movie even name drops) is a writer who buys a typewriter that belonged to a demonic man, whom he gets fascinated with in the extremely low budget film. He soon befriends a mentally challenged young man who's more then willing to help him in his new unholy endeavors. Wow where do I start with this film? It has plot lines that literally go nowhere and whole characters appear and disappear from the movie without a second thought. It's extremely disjointed and seems to have been cobbled together with no rhyme nor reason. But be that as it may, at points the film is (unintentualy) hilarious and provided me with enough drunken amusement to at least warrant a recommendation. The acting is supremely awful and beer or hard liquor is pretty much a prerequisite. As a matter of fact if I were to rate this film purely on it's merit I'd likely give it a D-, but instead i'm rating it on it's hilarity.Eye Candy: Debbie D is fully nude for most of her scenesMy Grade: BDVD Extras: Slide show; Bloopers; Cast interviews; auditions; deleted scenes (wth more nudity from Debbie); and trailers for this film, as well as "Clean" (with still more nudity), "Dr. Shock's Grindhouse of Horrors", & "the Innocent"