Nobody Gets Out Alive

Chompcrc here. The technical specs state this was shot on a Red One. I've never seen such limited dynamic range in a movie. There's no way this was shot on anything other than an RCA vhs recorder. Having said that, low budget horror hardly hinges on picture quality, and the sound is up to par, so if you can get past the expected flaws concerning story, formula, motivations, etc, I say an indie horror fan should check it out. As for the camera, they are either lying, or shot the movie so morbidly exposed that there was no way to save it in post. My vote is for the former, because the latter would negate the built-in levels that the Red One possesses to deter such exposure issues.

I found this movie for about $2 in the local secondhand DVD store, although the DVD cover is carrying "Punishment" as the title. Being a lifelong horror fanatic I bought the movie without having any prior knowledge about the movie or story.

The story was, well, lets just be fully honest and say unfathomably stupid. A man watch a his daughter is killed by a drunk driver, and then he disappears for years and people starts to be killed in the forest. Right, so because his daughter was killed by a drunk driver, the man decides to go on a killing spree and kill everyone who drinks. Right... Very plausible.

While this movie does have a few elements from the forerunners of the slasher genre, then "Nobody Gets Out Alive" will never become a noteworthy participant in the slasher genre. The killer just had no edge, nor any characteristic trademark like Jason, Freddy or Michael.

The kills were, well, not impressive. Sounds bizarre saying that, but in a slasher movie you want to see blood and gore in spectacular kills. This movie just didn't have that to offer.

One thing that was good in this less-than-mediocre-slasher-movie was the acting. People were doing good jobs with their given roles and characters. But it didn't do much to salvage the movie.

If you enjoy horror and slasher movies, then your time and money is better spent elsewhere.

Look if you're expecting high production values, this ain't the movie you watch. Open minded Horror fans watch these really extremely low budget films in the hope of seeing the stars of the years to come, new talented directors to keep an eye out for, cheap thrills, blood and maybe some good looking Women being chased around by maniacs. This movie has some of that, not a lot, but enough to make the movie a decent night's viewing. It's shot and lit very well. It doesn't make you think the crew don't know what they're doing or where to point the camera (a good example is The Zombie Diaries, awful awful film). The breakout star of this film is Jen Dance, who is really beautiful in this and well cast as the timid sweet city girl out in the enclosed tense setting of a creepy looking forest.

Views seemed to be polarized. I don't care, I liked it.

5/10

A group of college students escape their troubled lives but only to find themselves fighting for their lives from a revenge seeking mad man.

First let me call out Lauren Palmer, who did the special effects. Not only did she do a poor (or perhaps adequate, if we are being generous) job on the effects, but then she decides to go on IMDb, rate the film a 10 and review it as having the best special effects. Really mature, Ms. Palmer. You could have had your friends write rave reviews, but instead you went out and did it yourself. I may as well just title this review "the best review ever" (when, in fact, I know it will only be adequate).

Next, I will have to say that the use of Clint Howard was either genius or foolish. Genius because it caught the attention of horror fans who have loved him in many films ("Ticks", "Ice Cream Man") and may get them to give this one a try. Foolish because he has roughly 30 seconds as a doctor, which is a throwaway role. Make him memorable. Even if you only have him on set one day, do not have him deliver pointless dialogue that any extra could have done.

Apparently, Victor Miller was of some guidance on this film. And that makes sense, because the direct inspiration is obviously "Friday the 13th" (young adults go in the woods and get killed). But what could Miller have possibly suggested? Did he advise them to throw in a newer version of Crazy Ralph? There is nothing in here that could not have been thought up and written in fifteen minutes.

The film even has a special thanks for such people as Edgar Wright, Stanley Kubrick, Quentin Tarantino... which is insulting to those great directors. There is a difference between "I watch Kubrick movies" and "I am influenced by Kubrick movies", and clearly the difference is lost on these folks. If you have seen everything Kubrick ever made and still cannot have one original (or even inventive) camera shot, you were not influenced and Kubrick does not need your thanks.

The marketing on this one was smart. The Last Reel (a little-known blog) is quoted as saying it is a "solid scare that's worth the trip". But they also wrote that "some of these characters (sic) were underwritten and it seemed as though their sole purpose (sic) was just to up the body count." Poor spelling aside (and that shows how hard they had to look for a positive review), this is a key point. The only interesting character in the whole film is Jared, whose background is never explored... he is just the weird guy with too little screen time. The actor, Chris Ready, also appeared in the better independent horror film (despite the bad title) "Bloodlust Zombies".

Dread Central -- a respected name in horror -- says the film is "an homage to some of the great slasher films of the 70s and 80s." In fact, their review is quite positive down the line, only really taking issue with the editing. They gave it 3 out of 5. I have to strongly disagree with them on this and wonder what movie they were watching. I especially take issue with the claim that director Jason Christopher did "an admirable job of creating a compelling, straightforward look at the torment of one man and how it manifests through his murderous acts". His daughter was hit by a drunk driver -- while she was playing in the road in front of her inattentive father. I get that he is in pain, but how do we feel sympathy when he murders people without justification? Mrs. Voorhees at least had a specific target demographic...

I hate to be rude to young filmmakers, but there is a glut of independent film in this world, and independent horror in particular. Some of it (such as John Pata's "Dead Weight") is among the best out there. And then there is this film... no original idea, no decent acting, no decent plot, poor lighting, characters I give less than two figs about... how it found a distributor is beyond me.

As I was sitting through this "flick", as Jason Christopher likes to call it, I couldn't help but notice something: this movie is bad. I have seen my fair share of bad horror movies, and this is right up there with the worst of them.

In the horror genre, there is a line that a movie can cross over where bad becomes funny, and when this happens the movie becomes somewhat enjoyable. Unfortunately for Jason Christopher, his flick sits just behind this line, causing it to be completely unwatchable. Everything from acting to camera work to lighting was terrible. Multiple shots, excuse me, most shots, in this movie were either under or over exposed, making it hard to see what was going on. The score was almost non- existent, but when it was, it hardly fit the mood of the scene. It seems that Mr. Christopher spent the majority of the budget on Clint Howard's paycheck, which was a complete waste of a role. The screenplay itself was horrible, so I can't blame Jason Christopher for making a bad flick. But actually, he is to blame because he wrote it. With characters that are completely generic, a killer that wears size 7 boots (very intimidating), and dialogue that doesn't make any sense, do yourself a favor and spend your night looking at a wall, it will be more enjoyable.