Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

PlatinumRead Just so...so bad

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Bessie Smyth Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

homecoming8 "Scar" was also released in 3D. I just saw the 'normal' 2D version and have no idea why it was released in 3D. (I can only think of one shot where you see a knife go into the mouth of some chick, filmed from within her mouth). So I don't think I really missed out on the effects of 3D here. (back in 2007/2008 3D was also not yet the 'hot new thing'). "Scar" is yet another low-budget version of the popular "Saw" and "Hostel" franchises. But "Scar" is not that surprising and it lacks tension and unexpected twists. It's entertaining but the story could have been a lot better with much more tension. the cast if fairly unknown but certainly OK.Luckely the second part of the movie is better where you really start to question the identity of the killer. From that point, the torture scenes are graphic and right-in-your-face. Especially the last half hour has some brutal moments, that are right up there with the "Hostel" movies.If you love those movies, this will certainly please you. It hasn't the same quality but it's certainly worth a look. I give it 6 out of 10.

Coventry This umpteenth entry in the successful trend of Torture Porn cinema definitely succeeds in being one of the most nauseating, stomach-upsetting and sickening pieces of trash I've ever seen, but – as expected – it's also very little else than that. I presume the creators were so focused on surpassing the gore level of "Hostel" and "Saw" that they simply didn't have any time left to put some thoughts into the script. The story is mundane and predictable; with a laughably implausible finale and certain plot holes so gigantic you could drive a bobsled through them. Still, "Scar" is nonetheless a fast-paced and occasionally very unsettling thriller and – as said – the accomplishments in the gore department most certainly justify at least the price of a rental DVD. Angela Bettis, the oddly attractive horror starlet of "May" and "Toolbox Murders", stars as a mentally and physically scarred woman who returns to her hometown to celebrate the graduation of her niece. She left the place, understandably, after she narrowly survived an encounter with a deranged serial killer at the tender age of seventeen. The psychopath ran the local funeral home and practiced his sickest fantasies on Joan and her best friend; who didn't survive the ordeal. Now, all these years later, the little town is once again faced with a series of brutal murders and the police assume Joan's return isn't coincidental. Has she really become a copycat killer of her own assailant or has the original killer risen from the grave? While the plot of the new serial killer unfolds, we gradually learn about Joan's grueling experience as a teenager through short but powerfully morbid flashbacks. These flashbacks are undoubtedly the highlight sequences of the film, since they feature Ben Cotton as the lunatic mortician and a whole series of truly nasty & engrossing images of torture and mutilation. Some of this stuff is even really difficult to look at – whether with or without 3D goggles – like the tongue removal or the toe-cutting scene. Obviously this is a very derivative and highly unoriginal movie, as you've seen this at least two dozen times before in only the past five years or so, but that's hardly a reason why you should check "Scar" out to begin with. The gore is astounding and, admittedly, there are some nice and unexpected positive details in the script. For example, the present day teenage characters, most notably Joan's niece Olympia and her closest friends, are surprisingly likable and non-stereotypical girls that you don't like to see butchered.

kosmasp I just realize that my title/summary could be confused with my rating. It wasn't my intention. Originally I would've given the movie a 5/10, but in the end (of the movie), I was more disappointed by the opportunities it missed, than the not so bad 3-D things it had (although once you watch a 3-D movie in an IMAX theater, there's nothing that can compare to that experience).The movie is standard horror fare, so to speak, with some nice actors (some beautiful, some talented). I even liked the fact, that the movie didn't try to squeeze a big 3-D moment from every scene. It would have annoyed me. On the other hand, I heard people complain, that it didn't really make much of it's 3-D. So there you go, two sides of a coin. Depends on which side you will look then.

Fegisje I saw the 3D version of this movie in a Belgian theater last week. I did not expect anything special of this movie, but it was 3D, and the last time I experienced that, was in Eurodisney. So I thought it would be cool. Unfortunately the 3D didn't work out very well. Maybe the glasses weren't good enough. Anyway.The movie has some cool new gore effects. Some effects that are really nasty to watch and twisted to even think of. The girls are nice to watch but unfortunately, this film is just another Hostel inspired teen movie. At the end there are some typical "no-one believes me" and "I did it because of blah blah blah". I don't know why this movie is shown in theaters. It's descent enough for straight to DVD.To bad. This had potential