What is really disturbing about this film is that it was made into a film. The acting, if that is what you could call it, was the worse acting I have ever seen in my life. Pity too, because the lighting and camera work was quite good, the scripting was almost adequate, the music was pretty cool ... but the story is the same old crappy story of a thousand other hack films and there was not one person in the film that could act their way into a vintage Mickey Mouse cartoon.The cast was attractive, though many of the males come off as gay guys pretending to be straight ... and the killer actually wears a black pull-over that says "Prisoner" on the back. Like we couldn't have guessed that from the trail of bodies left behind.All in all ... this is a real stinker of a film that should never have made it to your local grocery store's bargain bin ... it belongs in a land fill ... right next to Jimmy Hoffa! Which is probably the only place that was never searched for the man! I give this film a one star rating because IMDb doesn't allow anything less!

The main element of this movie that "disturbed" me is the vocalized thoughts. Although the dialogue is impressive, the monologues (when you hear the characters describe in detail what they are looking for, why they are anxious, etc.) are insulting. My guess is the actors were told to ad lib those scenes--given plot and motivational guidelines--and nearly every word spoken was then deemed worthy to leave in the final cut. But the dialogue, as has already been commented by another, is believably "teen." Not only the lingo, but the attitude and pace of the modern high school conversation is well captured. Outshining the other cast members was Alex Aldridge, whose downplayed character stands in sharp contrast to others who are somewhat "over the top."

Shot on video horror film about a killer who gets out of death row and goes looking for revenge and runs into a family and party of teens. This reminded me very much of the odd black and white chillers of the 1960's, specifically of the sort that played in the drive ins. The acting is fair; there are goofy moments and the plot pure schlock. Of course there is a bump up in violence and graphic gore. Unfortunately there two problems, first we've been here before. The plot is nothing that hasn't been seen several dozen times since the mad killer films really started in the late fifties. The other problem is that having 50 years of dust and quaintness stripped away from a thriller of this sort and this plays like many of the original films played in their day, poorly. Perhaps if the acting had been better this might have worked better but as it stands now it just sort of lays there. I went from watching the film to doing other things pretty fast. Give it a point or two that I left it on but take one or two away because to be honest I really didn't care. If you must wait for cable

First, a warning: Disturbed appears to be one of the lowest budget films I've ever seen actually distributed. This first becomes apparent before the movie begins when the opening credits reveal that half of the cast is related. If you are not someone who can be patient with the inherent flaws that come along with a no-budget film then you should just move right along. Having said that...if your still with me, this film is actually not half bad. The movie harbors a fairly strong story and I can honestly admit that it never lost my interest. The acting is better than you would expect and the dialogue outshines that of most larger budget films. Someone who actually appears to know how young people think/act may have just entered the film world? I'd love to see what this group could do with a little more money backing them. As is, the film struggles with MANY visual glitches and poor volume levels. One I'd recommend only to pure low budget film fans. -PGDGM-