Scream Park

There's something charming about committing to making a movie without any prior experience, and on a shoestring budget. However it turns out, whatever one's opinion, one has to admire the gumption. There's no mistaking that 'Scream park' looks and feels like the small-time production that it is, including pacing that could perhaps generously be described as "difficult," and the inexperience of those involved does shine through. Earnestness goes a long way, however: the effort is there, and while far below the standards of major studio fare, I don't think anything here is done poorly. So long as one is open to the level this is operating, I think it's pretty good!

Though restricted by low production values and a consequent struggle with authenticity, this is classic slasher fare, including the narrative, scene writing, characters, and dialogue. The blood and gore looks fairly decent, and any violence generally, though again at a lower level. I find no especial fault with the cast's performances beyond the noted limitations, with Wendy Wygant standing out in what is effectively the lead role. Filmmaker Cary Hill's direction strikes me as no less capable than his writing, and even Nathan W. Fullerton's cinematography seems unexpectedly adept. From top to bottom the nature of the feature is "as plain as day," as the saying goes, but so is the love and care that went into it.

The difference between 'Scream park' and a home video made among friends isn't all that great; the flow of the film from A to B is less than perfectly fluid. Yet everyone involved puts in the work, with palpable heart and sincerity, and the result is frankly better than it has any right to be. There are no real surprises here, and like most slashers this is built for grisly entertainment more than any major thrills, but that's just part and parcel of the horror genre. Of course I had mixed expectations when I sat to watch; however, I've seen plenty of movies from first-time filmmakers, or that had emphatically minimal resources, but still came out astonishingly well. And so it is again: what 'Scream Park' lacks in polish, it makes up for with passion and honesty. It's up to each individual viewer to decide if that's enough for them, but I for one really like this!

Scream Park claims to pay homage to 80's slasher flicks and it really does do that, sadly it's not very good though.

It tells the story of a group of amusement park staff who after closing up come under attack from a pair of masked psychopaths. One with a plague doctor mask and the other a potato sack they get picked off one by one in the traditional genre style.

I liked the setting, but it wasn't really taken advantage of. The kills would have been okay, but they were all cutaway. And the cast, well actually I can't complain about that as they were well above par. Even Pinhead himself is present (Briefly) and demonstrates that he doesn't need to be that iconic character to deliver a fantastic performance.

As the movie goes on and things start getting explained things get a bit silly, ultimately the true concept and motivation is more than a little eyebrow raising and did the movie absolutely no favours.

A sequel is coming, it has no release year and a budget of about 10% of this so I'll keep my expectations low however will certainly give it a chance.

Scream Park does pay homage to the slasher originals, but some bad cinematography and some questionable writing ruin it.

The Good:

Doug Bradley

The Bad:

Cutaway deaths

That ones girls teeth

Enough with the Night of the Living Dead footage already

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Having an interesting setting but not exploring it makes perfect sense

Metal fences can only be climbed once per movie

Guys in their 30's (And look it) need ID for booze

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 ...

I picked up this movie at Best Buy on a lark...

It was obviously made by non-Hollywood types who really love 80s horror movies.

I think they nailed just about every trope of the 80s slasher spot-on (prepare your checklist). They even had an awesome cameo by Doug Bradley in there! (how did they score that?!?!)

The production values are definitely not top notch and the acting ran from non-existent to totally over-the-top. But that's what made this movie fun!

Have some beers, bring your film-school friends and have fun imagining that it was you and your friends making a movie in really scary-looking run-down amusement park. I enjoyed the occasional glimmers of awesome amid the not-great sound (but great sound track!) and the sometimes slow pacing gave me time to make wise cracks.

Just don't sit down and seriously expect that this $9 DVD (made for $40K total according to IMDb) is the next Citizen Kane. It's just fun. :-)

Bonus fun: Do a shot every time someone asks about Blake. :-) You won't be disappointed!

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.