I agree with everything previous critiques said. The plot is the biggest failure here, running neck and neck with the visual quality of the film.
I did not understand how "everyone knew who was responsible" when there wasn't any real backstory on the camp yet, other than "accidents" that plagued the camp for years. Which makes no sense, because even in the 70s & 80s, a camp THAT notorious would've been closed down easily.
Add to that the visual quality I mentioned, I don't know what that was about. Is he trying to make the actors look younger with a failed soft focus technique? Is he trying to make it look like a movie from the early 90s (which would've been shot on film and not on video)? If so, color correcting it to look like an older movie and adding noise and a film effect overlay might've gone a lot further and wouldn't have been super expensive.
Instead, we have a movie that looks like the director just discovered this thing called depth of field, and manhandled the technique throughout the feature. Instead of being interesting or helping the movie look old, it only serves to distract.
It's too bad, too, because low budget doesn't guarantee a bad movie. Lack of imagination and poor filming choices sure will, though.
