I got home yesterday to an empty house. I like horror films but no one in the house will watch anything with even a remote scare in it so I rare get to indulge myself in this. It was the day before Halloween so I figured it was an appropriate time to sit down to some horror. I had a small window of opportunity so I flipped on Netflix to see what was available in the genre. As you've seen from previous reviews I like the Paranormal Activity movies so when I saw this I thought it would be something I would enjoy.

This thing was utter thievery from the title on down. It is essentially PA with a spirit who prefers rape (and who doesn't) to murder. It's the same setup: a suburban house with night vision cameras set up in each room and a handheld for one main character. I really have never seen a movie that is in such lockstep with a movie that came before it and is not considered a Part II. PA should have sued.

It seems the entire movie was set up only to show the healthy chested young (in her 20s) woman in undies (it was particularly strange given that she was walking around in them in front of her brother of a similar age). It was hillarious in the end when she is shown laying on her back making her Hollywood boob job completely obvious with a deformed nip and a completely noticeable ridge line to the implant.

Anyway, not worth the effort. The director/writer/star also sucked which is too bad coming from the Van Dyke family of funnymen.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

You're like a perverted Roger Ebert - which would have been a good mult.

_________________
You know me like that.

I have to admit that I laughed at this portion of the review as well. With the perfect avatar of Ebert this could have
been a big win.

_________________
Flew too close to the sun on wings of pastrami

I think there was an SNL skit like that.

This is what I had in mind.... or something better if it can be found.

_________________
Flew too close to the sun on wings of pastrami

The writer/director just made it so obvious that it was about the woman and that he was going to shoehorn some low budget nudity into the film. The casting couch must have been something like "find me a girl like Katie Featherstone, but with bigger boobs because we are going to be exploiting those things".

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

With that avatar, his posts would be"_________________________________________________________________________"

_________________
-- source

Two Thumbs In ?

_________________
Flew too close to the sun on wings of pastrami

@ GD for falling for a mockbuster. you know those are made for people who don't know how to speak english and/or live in trailer parks?

Though we didn't get to see them nude, I thought Featherstone's rack in the original was outstanding.

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.

That's about right.

like I said, small window of opportunity and it looked interesting from the title on Netflix. I know that pretty much is the story of anyone who watches an Asylum movie.

It really wasn't a mockbuster as it didn't mock or even attempt to mock. That concept would have been funny. This was more a cheap 3rd world knock off of the original, like when you see a little kid in a Bulls jersey spelled with only one L in a commercial looking for donations for an african aid.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

well, as much as you don't agree with the term, that's exactly what they're called. i guess maybe we could petition for them to call them "fauxtion pictures" but i don't know...they're using "mock" as in "mock up", rather than parody.

rule of thumb: if it's a new release on netflix and it has a familiar title and it's put out by asylum, it's a mockbuster.