PUNTUACIÓN EN IMDb
4,8/10
2,4 mil
TU PUNTUACIÓN
Añade un argumento en tu idiomaIn this clever homage to '80s slasher films, a group of teenagers looking to party get stranded when their ride breaks down and end up being stalked by a cannibalistic killer.In this clever homage to '80s slasher films, a group of teenagers looking to party get stranded when their ride breaks down and end up being stalked by a cannibalistic killer.In this clever homage to '80s slasher films, a group of teenagers looking to party get stranded when their ride breaks down and end up being stalked by a cannibalistic killer.
- Premios
- 4 nominaciones en total
Michael Vincent Dagostino
- Deputy
- (as Mike Dagostino)
Reseñas destacadas
I've got to say, as someone who grew up in the 80's watching almost every horror movie that came out (BIIIG thank you to sharing a room with my sister, who was 7 years older...) when I saw that they were calling this an homage to those movies I was very leery. One hour in I decided to, after years of using IMDb, make an account just to review the movie!! From the cheesy cliché characters to the cliché plot line.. Totally brought me back to those awful movies my sister would force me to watch growing up. The only thing I didn't really like was the overly played 'Nam vet (yes, also an awesome cliché!!!) Mr.C played by the sadly underused Robert Patrick! All in all, actually not to bad of a movie
A throwback slasher movie that is reminiscent of the 70s but especially the 80s. Grindhouse is sort of back, because of people who loved the movies back then, bringing them back to life (if you'll excuse the pun). With all the little things and flaws that made those movies ... what they are. Like bad lightning or missing reels (an inside joke sort of, though might be confusing for some who never had that experience with a movie before) and things like that.
The special (blood) effects are pretty decent for a low budget movie, the characters as shallow as you'd expect (also very bad choices, but that's to be expected to). You can have fun with this, if you feel nostalgic or if you're generally a fan of slasher movies
The special (blood) effects are pretty decent for a low budget movie, the characters as shallow as you'd expect (also very bad choices, but that's to be expected to). You can have fun with this, if you feel nostalgic or if you're generally a fan of slasher movies
Pros: Robert Patrick is getting work
Cons: unoriginal, so dark you can't see most of it, generic, can't decide if it's meta, trying to be 80s with zero charm, cannot care about the characters, generic stereotypes, music is bad.
Cons: unoriginal, so dark you can't see most of it, generic, can't decide if it's meta, trying to be 80s with zero charm, cannot care about the characters, generic stereotypes, music is bad.
Capitalizing on 80's slasher genre can work as a premise of satiric horror, but it doesn't excuse outdated delivery such as stiff acting and poor pacing. The idea is to put myriad of old horror antics in attempt to create gore as well as slight comedy. Unfortunately, it's not even better than actual 80's cheap movie.
Plot is as simple as they come, a group of students venture to the woods in the most dire condition possible, then meets a psycho killer. It'd be a decent popcorn flick if not for, mostly, the jarring acting. The movie goes on a way to depict stereotypes, making the actors spew nonsense in incredibly overly dramatic way. Some of the scenes resemble blooper of actual classic slasher or cheesy commercial. Audience already knows that it's a throwback, so there's no reason to force every smirk or gasp to be ridiculous.
The entire thing looks plastic, down to the script which not only sounds random but incredibly pretentious. So, when the characters talk about fate or other serious issue, it's far from believable. Not to mention the movie spends quite some time for these characters, especially on first half, to make audience invest of stale personalities. Granted, one or two might be relatable, but as they interact with other characters the shallow performance underwhelms any distinct trait.
At the very least, it does partially deliver the expected gore. There are a few timidly shocking moments, but even those are simple stabbing or head crushing, certainly nothing you haven't seen before. For fans it may be mildly amusing, casual viewer might not be so lenient.
Lost After Dark tries to give a homage, or cheap imitation of classic slasher, however it only trips and falls to the same flaws from three decades ago.
Plot is as simple as they come, a group of students venture to the woods in the most dire condition possible, then meets a psycho killer. It'd be a decent popcorn flick if not for, mostly, the jarring acting. The movie goes on a way to depict stereotypes, making the actors spew nonsense in incredibly overly dramatic way. Some of the scenes resemble blooper of actual classic slasher or cheesy commercial. Audience already knows that it's a throwback, so there's no reason to force every smirk or gasp to be ridiculous.
The entire thing looks plastic, down to the script which not only sounds random but incredibly pretentious. So, when the characters talk about fate or other serious issue, it's far from believable. Not to mention the movie spends quite some time for these characters, especially on first half, to make audience invest of stale personalities. Granted, one or two might be relatable, but as they interact with other characters the shallow performance underwhelms any distinct trait.
At the very least, it does partially deliver the expected gore. There are a few timidly shocking moments, but even those are simple stabbing or head crushing, certainly nothing you haven't seen before. For fans it may be mildly amusing, casual viewer might not be so lenient.
Lost After Dark tries to give a homage, or cheap imitation of classic slasher, however it only trips and falls to the same flaws from three decades ago.
I pretty much agree with the others here (4 so far) The director did a nice job of setting up the characters and the general feeling of the era pretty well, but ultimately and unfortunately there really just wasn't much of a story to go along with it.
The ironic thing is that usually it is SPECIFICALLY the acting itself that is so atrocious in these low-budget Horror films and many times completely ruins what could have been a good story (please see my review of the recent Gawd-Awful 'HONEYMOON' for example) But... in this case, the characters and the acting itself were just fine for the type of film it is, BUT everything else just didn't really add up to much. So, in this case it turned out kind of backwards from the way many other films seem to go...
As mentioned by others, Robert Patrick was good in his role and the girl's Dad was just about right. Too bad... because almost ALWAYS, it is precisely the terrible acting or characters that are so grating in films like this, but these ones here are actually fairly decent compared to most. So, it leaves you feeling that you really would have liked to see them in the context of a much better story, but that is just the way it seemed to turn out, in my lowly and wretched opinion.
Heh... I kind of feel that my REVIEW is rather shallow too, but quite honestly, there just isn't much more to say. I gave it a '5' only because I thought the setting, characters, and actors were pretty decent, otherwise the story overall would have gotten less...
So, basically.... move along home... nothing to see here...
The ironic thing is that usually it is SPECIFICALLY the acting itself that is so atrocious in these low-budget Horror films and many times completely ruins what could have been a good story (please see my review of the recent Gawd-Awful 'HONEYMOON' for example) But... in this case, the characters and the acting itself were just fine for the type of film it is, BUT everything else just didn't really add up to much. So, in this case it turned out kind of backwards from the way many other films seem to go...
As mentioned by others, Robert Patrick was good in his role and the girl's Dad was just about right. Too bad... because almost ALWAYS, it is precisely the terrible acting or characters that are so grating in films like this, but these ones here are actually fairly decent compared to most. So, it leaves you feeling that you really would have liked to see them in the context of a much better story, but that is just the way it seemed to turn out, in my lowly and wretched opinion.
Heh... I kind of feel that my REVIEW is rather shallow too, but quite honestly, there just isn't much more to say. I gave it a '5' only because I thought the setting, characters, and actors were pretty decent, otherwise the story overall would have gotten less...
So, basically.... move along home... nothing to see here...
¿Sabías que...?
- CuriosidadesEvery male victim is named after a slasher film director (i.e. - Wes 'Craven', Johnnie 'Carpenter', Tobe 'Hooper', Sean 'Cunningham'). Every female is named after a final girl actress from the classics (Heather 'Lagenkamp', Jamie 'Lee Curtis', Marilyn 'Burns', Adrienne 'King').
- PifiasOn the bus when Wesley switches cassette tapes and puts a rap one in, he actually puts in a copy of Mr. Big's "Lean Into It." It's a rock album, and even if Wes recorded over it with rap music, it still doesn't take into effect that Lean Into It came out in 1991, almost 7 years after this movie took place.
- Créditos adicionalesThere is a scene after the ending credits.
- ConexionesReferences La guerra de las galaxias (1977)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y añadir a tu lista para recibir recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Lost After Dark?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
Taquilla
- Recaudación en todo el mundo
- 5562 US$
- Duración
- 1h 29min(89 min)
- Color
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugerir un cambio o añadir el contenido que falta