Scream Park

If you can believe it. This movie was filmed on a budget of $40,000 raised through kickstarter. Donations were mostly made by friends and family members in the same way you buy a few boxes of Girl Scout cookies from your friend's daughter. With kickstarter, this sense of "social guilt" was somehow thick enough to raise quite a bite of money--too bad it was all squandered.

This movie isn't worth reviewing. The other IMDb review, although overwhelmingly negative, was much too long and almost gives the film legitimacy. It makes the mistake of giving this hastily put together "film school thing" credit as a film.

It's not a movie; it barely has a plot, the acting is terrible, it's not scary, it's not gory, the special effects are almost nonexistent, the sound and lighting are not even intentionally managed, and there is no cinematography. Most of all, and to summarize, there's simply no point. Cary wasted 40,000 dollars on...something? I can't tell where it went.

As a low budget movie, I rate the movie as a 5. As for being filmed at Conneaut Lake Park and the theme of the movie tying in so well, I rate the movie a 10.

Sadly, Conneaut Lake Park has finally permanently closed this year (2022). This movie is all I have left to remember Conneaut Lake Park. Scream Park has now become my favorite movie!

Scream Park: Written and directed by Cary Hill

Oh Scream Park. I feel a little bad for you. It's clear from this viewing experience that you tried. You wanted to have an old school slasher movie that had all the necessary elements and worked. You wanted it so badly right from the pit of your very core. It was a mission statement that you simply could not reach.

This was a rough sit. It lacked some filmmaking 101 bits. The color kept changing scene to scene. It was distracting. The light outside kept changing. One minute it was dead of night, the next it was early morning and then it was day for night. This happened during several of the same scenes. Was no one paying attention on set or during the editing process? I found it very difficult to pay attention to the story.

I also had a hard time figuring out what time period this is in. They have a punk rocker character in the film straight out of the early 80s who has a muscle car and a tape playing boom box. No one has cell phones and everything looks so old. I think they were trying to go for an 80s vibe but it was fuddled in the execution.

Now they're building to a shocking twist. The problem with this twist is it is spoiled in the description for the movie. The amusement park owner hires these sick yokels to murder his employees. The movie is clearly trying to have this be shocking and blind siding you. It doesn't because you already knew about this before the movie even started. Who's job was it and how quick should they be fired?

This was just a cheap and lame hack job of a slasher flick. I know some people like to grade super low budget movies on a curve but I can't do that. I don't view this film on a different plane just because it lacked money. There are a ton of great films that were made with little money that weren't this blatant in their ability to be lame. There are also a ton of awful movies with serious cash behind them. So forget about this one. I give it an F.

But for me, I already own this movie 15 times. Being in an amusement park doesn't set it aside enough to make me care about the characters or plot. The plot is weak and most of the characters are paper thin. The one thing all indie films should EXCEL at is a great script. This film does not deliver.

Almost every character is so bland that I couldn't find myself invested in any of them.

That's not to take anything away from some of the actors. The two leads (Wendy Wygant and Steve Rudzinski) both excel at the roles they're supposed to play. Wendy is a very capable lead, making me believe in being frail but badass while Steve is perfect as a really nice weasel. Doug Bradley does great in his five minute cameo, as should be expected from one of the greats. Nivek Ogre also certainly brought his character to life in a great way, I hope he keeps doing more films as he was a perfect maniacal killer.

The rest of the acting is an extreme range though. On the GREAT end you have Alicia Marie Marcucci and Kyle Riordan, both were a joy on screen. On the HORRIBLE end you have Kailey Marie Harris and Tyler Kale, who seemed to have gotten their parts based on their looks alone and never went through an actual audition. To round out the kids we have both Nicole Beattie and Dean Jacobs, neither of whom are bad but are seen so little that they never get a chance to show off who the characters are.

"So that's all well and good Andy, but what about the rest of the movie?" Well since the biggest issue I have is with plot and characters I'll keep everything else to a minimum.

The movie is a combination of great looking and poorly shot. There aren't many "bad" shots, just that often times there's a chance for great establishing shots in a terrific park that we never get, too much of the camera is right up in character's faces. This is purely subjective, but the best shots in the movie were things like the wide establishing shot of a killer on the other end of a body of water or a victim on a carousel. Great mood setters that were too few between.

Pacing in general is fine except for a painful Act 1. Never before have I wanted to kill a character we never meet more than Blake, as he is the entire focus point of all of Act 1. Which is even worse given that the pay off is really a let down. Otherwise Act 2 and 3 move along nice and brisk. I appreciated that the killing is also sprinkled throughout a good chunk of the film, as opposed to being all in the end (some indie slashers suffer from this).

The kills as a whole are okay. Some look great, some look bland. The best was by far the one with the axe you don't see coming until it's too late. Body count is a grand total of 9. For most people this will be plenty, for me I felt like I wanted more.

The music in the movie is great. It was wonderfully creepy and well done.

Editing is also for the most part really good. There are definitely times when there's some poor shot usage or off scenes, but I've seen enough movies to know that there's only so much an editor can do sometimes with what he has. Although in the copy I had, there were full blown unfinished effects in a surveillance room. Marking tape was clearly visible where footage was supposed to be, footage that would appear randomly. I really hope this is a case of it being an early copy and not what will end up being released.

The killers are good, but I can't help but feel I'm giving them a pass due to Ogre's amazing performance. I think it's more than possible that anyone less great than Ogre would have made the killers really bland. BUT, since Ogre is in fact in the movie and his performance is in fact amazing, I do like the killers in the movie. Both are just different enough and the outfits are pretty interesting.

So would I recommend this? No. To be fair, this isn't a BAD movie. Objectively it's pretty average, I should score it a 5/10. But personally, I just didn't like it. Especially since it really seems like they had a lot of money to make this (the actors and location), yet I've seen plenty of movies made for under $5000 that were better. That shouldn't happen, Scream Park should have been better. That alone, for me, is enough to knock off that extra star for it to be a 4/10.

For the average slasher fan you may very well enjoy the movie. It has a great location, a few great kills, and a few great actors. But personally, I just didn't like this.

There's certainly potential and I do look forward to what comes next from the writer/director. Hopefully Cary Hill can learn from the mistakes he made and the next film he makes will be even better!

This movie pays homage to horror movies from the past. Though it's not entirely sure which decade it really is looking up to (70s or 80s, which is something the trailer also mixes up when it compares it to some of the films back then). But being slithery to a point one can not pin you down to something specific, does not mean it's something bad. But if you copy something from the past, try to distill the best from it.

Budget wasn't that high I reckon (I saw 40.000 as a number somewhere, not sure if that's true), but the movie has a lot of issues. The location isn't one of them. The framing and the cinematography on the other hand combined with the lack (or absence) of acting ... That's something you feel. The effects are decent ... by 70s standards. Same tricks from back then are being used, maybe even the 60s. Not a selling point either. And the ending is rather predictable ... or if you're nice, is being pointed out throughout the whole film. And how many times can one mask be used for jump scares? Way more than one too many in this one ...