THE SLEEPER is a low-budget horror movie with a very basic plot about a serial killer who stalks a bunch of (female) college students. Yes, there are hundreds of movies with plots just like that but the fact that the movie is set in the 1980s is unusual for a low-budget production. The movie is actually not as bad as many of the negative reviews might suggest, but you have to keep in mind that this is a $30,000 production with mostly unexperienced actors. I guess most people who rated this movie low had their expectations set too high. They probably expected more of a plot, which is not really that important of an element in this movie. It's the way the story is presented effectively and evocatively on a very limited budget and with a cast of amateur actors that is intriguing.Director Justin Russell and his crew did get a lot of things right to make this look like a typical 1980s horror flick. The pre-credit scenes and the opening titles in particular look like they could be straight out of a vintage slasher. The look of the rest of the movie falls short in a way, though, which can be attributed to the fact that it wasn't shot on film. THE SLEEPER could probably pretty much look like a movie from the decade it tries to recreate if they had shot it on real film stock instead of digital cameras. Ti West shot THE HOUSE OF THE DEVIL (2009), which also takes place in the early 1980s, on 16 mm film and he managed to make it look exactly like a film from that period. If the producers of THE SLEEPER could have afforded to shoot on film, this movie would look a lot better and the vibe would be completely different. This digital footage just looks too clean and not film- like, which is not right for the time period. Therefore, you never really can fully appreciate the images shown in this movie because the look of the digital footage is quite distracting in many scenes. Nevertheless, they did the best they could with the very limited budget, I guess. Maybe the look could have been improved with the right filters, but I don't know about that.A number actors from the cast are quite good even though they seem to be amateurs who do not pursue acting as a career. It's nice to see real-looking people in a movie for a change. I'd like to see more acting performances from these people, but for many of them this is the only movie they've done so far. I especially liked Jenna Fournier's performance. She is mainly a musician and painter, it seems, but I think she should act more. She has talent.All in all, this is an enjoyable movie for fans of 1980s slasher movies. It has a good cast and most of the killing scenes are quite inventive and well done with nice practical effects. Yes, the movie is lacking an elaborate plot, and, yes, the movie should have a different, more film-like look, but if you can see over those issues and keep the limitations of low-budget productions in mind, you have an ambitious horror movie that was clearly made by fans of the genre for fans of the genre.

First, I will give the director credit for making this film genuinely look and feel like it was from 1981. I actually found it hard to believe its a 2012 movie. So, kudos to him for that. However, I am sorry to say that this movie was NOT at all scary. It was actually pretty dull and nothing original. No character building, no explanation for anything that was happening. I can forgive low budget movies if there is actual suspense and scary scenes, but there was none to be found here. I think if this really was 1981, I may have enjoyed this film immensely, but having seen thousands of horror movies over the years, I guess I have really raised my standards.

The Sleeper is one of the WORST movies I've ever seen! Everything about is horrible ...... lame acting, bad script, non-existent explanations. It's almost as if some child wrote the script and directed the movie! Even if it was a low budget movie, it's no excuse for it to be so awful. A lot of girls and boys die, but no one in the community even discovers any of the bodies even if some of them are in public places. There's not even a single bit of info on the killer's past or why he kills. There is no redeeming feature in the movie at all. If you watch it till the end, you might even feel like throwing rotten tomatoes or rotten eggs at the screen! Giving even 1/10 is an act of mercy.

The Sleeper wanted to strongly look and feel like an early 80's film and in my view failed to achieve this for the reasons below: The opening shot/credit scene was actually well done and had some added visual noise effects and this in turn DID give the film the look and feel of something I would have seen on VHS back in those early days of the 80's. However, after the main credits are over it changes and not for the better. One reviewer summed it up in saying the film quality looks too "polished". It clearly was shot on some sort of digital film and no further noise or "grindhouse" look was added. In turn what this did is present the film in the era and style that this strongly gives the impression of—an early 1990s indie feature. Everything from the shot setups and angles to the acting screamed of 1990s indie. This is not entirely a bad thing mind you, but clearly a long shot from the 80's feel this wanted to be. In fact had the opening cue card read "1991" instead of "1981" it would have worked better. The director/writers also blatantly have a strong love for the 1970's film Black Christmas (as do I), as many similar shots, scenery and score music are almost copied from that filmIn the end I cannot say this is the worst thing I have seen, but definitely far from the best and far from what I was hoping it would be. The film is screaming for a fan edit as some of the subtle changes that you could do would fix the film immensely (such as never showing the killer's face, it would have been much better had his face been hiding in the shadows or even wearing a mask), etc and so on.I think what is actually working for the film is the nice DVD and VHS combo package they offer. The cover art is great and just for that fact alone might be worth the purchase for those VHS collectors still out thereUPDATE::::A short time back I had written a review for this film (which you just read above). I also bought the DVD/VHS combo box for it. At that time I had not watched the VHS version and I just want to say now I wish I did.Most of the issues aside from the script and such revolved around the film looking too polished and clean. It was obvious that going by the DVD/VHS combo box art work as well as the opening credits for the film that they wanted the viewer to have that "old film on VHS look". This is where that tape comes in. The VHS tape version that comes with this is BEAUITFULLY rendered and amazingly emulates an old VHS tape. This is not grindhouse type of effects, but rather actual old analog tape noise and wear that you would normally see on older/highly rented VHS tape. From the slight color bleeding to the white lines that go across the screen, as well as the pan/scan picture that you could tell came from a widescreen print. THIS IS HOW the intent of what they were trying to do really came across and it did not detract from the film, but rather added to it. I enjoyed the film much more than before. In fact it was done so well that you could no longer tell the movie was shot on digital, but more so resembles actual film. That format view works very well for the overall presentation. Also (and ironically) switching the sound from hi-fi stereo to mono really made the levels jump (usually it is the opposite) and it blended in everything perfectly.WHY OH WHY the makers of the film did not choose to release this as the final version for the DVD is beyond me. The perfect looking clean cut that is used for the DVD really does no justice for the film at all. It was more so like a pre-final release and the VHS version being what the film should have been. So if you did not like the film, but do have access to the VHS version, I would say give the film another chance and watch that edition instead. It really makes a wonderful jump in the end and for the better