This is my first review on IMDb and I hope to do justice to myself. The movie is basically set in Hollywood, California where a guy has 2 girlfriends who are both sisters. He has a baby with one and one day plans o go a vacation with the other sis, but in a bizarre turn of events all of them are killed at different time-lines of the movie by a masked torturer. There really isn't a convincing storyline here and the movie really is funny and parody at times on some of the other serious well made torture movies made. The movie has lot of illogical moments and makes you want to question the director in every scene. The movie is filled with gore and blood with human body parts thrown around in the torturer's basement. For a 2013 movie, this is really bad. Other than the graphics of gore, everything else is boring. For a horror movie it only scares you in few seconds in the first few minutes, and the rest of the movie is just going to test your patience. The writer lacks creativity and also the low budget is visible all around. Dear horror genre connoisseurs - Stay away.

FINALLY! A horror movie that delivers. Kudos to Dean Jones for a well-done outing. On a par with The Collector but not quite as good as Martyrs or Frontiers. Slasher films are generally done for laughs - it's pure entertainment to watch people with little critical thinking or self-defense skills get whacked in creative ways. A good horror film should be a least a bit twisted to be other than that and this one does hit the mark. I am so outright sick of the mind-numbingly boring and jaded 'found film' cheese genre I could wretch. I'll spare you the details of the plot as you can find those in the lame reviewers' opinions who have dominated this movie so far (they obviously think Insidious or The Grudge is quality). If you like a good, true horror flick; you will like this. If you like Hollywood mainstream bovine excrement, you won't. Nuff said.

This is about a serial killer connected to some gruesome Hollywood murders in the 1950's and in the present day. The movie begins in black and white in 1958. First we see some burial places and a newspaper on the ground sensationalizing a Hollywood murder. Then a Bogart-like cliché or simulation in trench coat and hat (whose face we never see clearly) lights up a cigarette in the dark to cool jazz. He starts walking down a dark alley, makes a left, there is a white flash and he's now on Hollywood and Vine at night, present day, and the film switches to color. Heading in the opposite direction he passes a young woman (Model?) who the camera is following from behind. The hottie pauses looking somewhat confused, then turns around to find that Trench Coat has disappeared. She continues on her way while Trench Coat, who has reappeared, watches her.After her sister is brutally murdered a woman is kidnapped (From a police car!) by a man in a trench coat and crude black mask with eye holes and mouth hole. He takes her to an abandoned building and locks her up in a large cage with bars like a jail. At this point the movie starts to chronicle each day that passes. You know, "Day 1", "Day 2", and so on. Each day and number is accompanied by a short burst of old black and white pictures of murders and documentation. What for? -I dunno.The killer never did anything to the kidnapped woman that CLEARLY explained to me why he kidnapped her. It seems it had something to do with her baby. Perhaps too, he wanted an audience? I say this because from where she was being kept she could see him when he hauled in another victim. As well, she could see his well lit "work area" with all it's frighteningly crude instruments of dismemberment, evisceration, and decapitation. This was conveniently also the kitchen area. I know because at one point (after Day 13 when she was capturing and eating cockroaches) he offered his captive SOMETHING fried up in a skillet. We know what that was. Thigh of girl. Still alive, by the way, as he cuts portions for cooking. Nevertheless, it had to be a step up from the cockroaches, I say. Maybe I'm grossing you out, Reader. But if you had to choose? In this movie some scenes, performances, and genre seemed incongruous. At one point, for example, the killer cuts off a woman's hand. Then directly after, we see him disposing of a dismembered "foot" in a furnace. I, and you, would have expected to see the hand he just cut off. Because of the bad acting on the part of the key players and bizarre story the movie came across as a "dark comedy". This includes the kidnapped woman, the killer, and the unconvincing police detectives. The guy playing the cop who had to tell the woman about her sister did a first-rate job of acting, though. So much so that I had to wonder what he was doing in this thing. Bruce Dern appears later as a "captive ghost" high on religion whom the kidnapped woman must help liberate along with a little ghost girl. Bottom line: Do I recommend it? Well if you're a film student and you want to learn what not to do, I say "yes". As well, if you're one of those eclectic "movie nerds" you might wish to add this to your collection. The rest of you I gather have lives so I say "no". Love, Boloxxxi.

Where to start with this one? The story. Well there really doesn't seem to be one, it is just a hotch potch of gore, (The gore is pretty nasty - I'll give it that.The acting, well 1 out 10 for that too, pretty bad really, none of the actors had any character, probably didn't help that the plot, script etc. was terrible.The more I watched, the worse it got, it is just a mess really, I cannot imagine why anyone would think that this was worth making into a movie in the first place.Give it a wide berth, not worth wasting 90 minutes of your life on.