Milo (1998) Poster


User Reviews

Add a Review
34 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
nsugrad0020 October 2001
I consider myself a huge horror movie fan. One night I wanted to just rent some newer horror movies to make fun of. Then, I rented Milo. I was so surprised by this movie. It scared the hell outta me. That's not something I can say very often. Usually Halloween only scares me.

Two other friends watched it with me, and were left with a disturbed feeling. A good feeling, if you ask me, after watching a horror movie. If you are unaffected, then what's the point.

This movie was original. It didn't follow the normal guidelines of a horror movie. That's why movies like Valentine bombed for me.

Of course, many are left with unanswered questions, as most horror movies do. It is worth the rent though.
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Could be worth your time....
lilxgaborxgirl24 October 2011
A lot of people on here are leaving bad reviews about Milo. Personally, I didn't think it was all that bad. The idea behind was somewhat original and the movie over all was creepy. It left me and my friend feeling a bit disturbed after watching it.

The bad points though? The acting is pretty bad. Also, as most of the other reviews have already stated, there are a lot of holes in the plot line. You have to really pay attention to every single little thing to try and put things together yourself. I only watched it once though and picked up on most of what was going on.

All in all though, it all depends on what you're into. If you have to have everything explained to you and have everything make sense, then this movie definitely isn't for you. I would also stay away from it if you have a weak stomach. I would recommend it to you though if you like movies that are a bit out of the ordinary, and leave you with a disturbed feeling.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Little to recommend it
Ed Uthman12 August 1999
Except for fans of "That 70s Show" who get to see Mila Kunis as a child actress in an uncredited role, and "Providence" fans who get to see Paula Cale in a supporting role, I can't think of any reason to view MILO. The plot is formula all the way, with no twists or surprises. Production values are bargain-basement. The acting is competent, but no one performance stands out. Even aficionados of graphic gore and gratuitous nudity will get nothing out of this flick. Normally I cut these low-budget potboilers some slack, but even graded by their own standards, MILO is a failure.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An amazing demonstration of not to make a film
mvanz999916 May 2002
This movie was crap. The script is so full of holes; I can't see how the producers agreed to finance it.

We are never given an explanation of ANYTHING. The acting is horrible. The plot sucks. This movie was obviously written for those 8 and under.

I have to say this: why are the high school classes only 2 minutes long? Teacher walks in, finds a frog in the desk, or drawing on the chalkboard, and 30 seconds later, the bell rings, class is over. The kids haven't even opened their books. Can we have at least a little continuity?

Oh, the dialogue. Milo Jeter is the re-incarnated, aborted fetus, zombie thing. Do we really need the line, "This is Dr. Jeter's office. Dr. Jeter, Milo's father." Thanks for the tip; I could never put that together myself. It never gets any better.

Why does Milo talk the way he does, even in the beginning? Was Milo ever `real'. Or was he never real, just always what he currently is? And if it was always that way, why the unexplained `accident' Milo had?

Besides "What is Milo?", what are all the unresolved items for? We see all these contraptions in his father's medical office, and are never given an explanation of what they are for, or what they have to do with the story. What are the injections for? What about the aquarium contraption? They obviously aren't needed. (See the movie, it'll make sense). And what does this medication do to anyone? Apparently nothing, since it has no effect on the lead actress.

This movie is a very, very bad rip off of all the other slasher movies. It's a really awful Friday the 13th/Halloween slopped together by a 10-year old writer. It's not cheesy enough to laugh at, it's just an incredibly frustrating bore.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Worst movie I've seen in ages!
Daniela-220 October 1998
This was the worst movie I have seen this year. The acting was horrible, the story-line was contrived and somewhat vague. This was definitely a low budget not worth spending $2.75 to see it movie. Don't waste your money nor your time!
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Could've Been Scary, Ended Up Dumb
Kashmirgrey3 May 2007
If it wasn't for the very attractive Jennifer Jostyn in the lead role, I would have turned "Milo" off after the first 30 minutes. However, as easy on the eyes as she is, she's not enough to save this film, not by a long shot.

Milo starts off with a group of young girls accompanying an "assumed young boy" in a yellow slicker to a house in the woods where he shows them embryos in jars. Apparently, the deal was that if he showed them the jars, ol' Milo gets to conduct a gynecologist exam on each in return. One of the group volunteers to be Milo's "first patient" and he leads her behind closed doors. Moments later blood flows from under the door and we are whisked into present day. Enter the lovely Jostyn who plays one of the girls all grown up in present day. A substitute teacher with shallow confidence whose closest friend appears to be a goldfish, she receives an invitation to return home for a friend's wedding. Yep! You guessed it. Return to Miloville. Milo, who allegedly drowned years ago, seems to be having a dilemma staying dead and begins terrorizing and murdering the girls he failed to "examine" all those years ago.

Milo, the character, reminded me of one of the mutants from Cronenberg's "The Brood." He could have been scary, but just how scary can a villain be who wears a yellow raincoat? The plot confuses even itself and the conclusion left me wanting my 90 minutes back. I'm sending Milo, an inept slasher film, to stand in the corner!
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Almost Interesting
LePiu11 May 1999
Plot? What of it there was: Girl moves back to home town. Girl starts teaching at her old grade school (in place of her already "murdered" friend). Girl gets stalked by ghost from past. Ghost gets all of girl's friends. Girl must clear her name. Girl becomes entangled in a wild web of deception and spookiness. Does she get away in the end??? I could tell you, but...

The real complaint I had with this movie was that the plot kept slowing down enough to cause me to lose interest. I did like seeing Huggy Bear (Fargas) in a non-pimp role (he does have to pimp slap the bad guy a little at the end just for good measure). The story had little glints of something interesting and the final twist was gory enough, but the slowness of not only the plot but the characters proved a little aggravating. Okay, so I had more than one complaint...and my final complaint was the ending. One of those "The End?" ending that makes you cringe. All in all, decently bizarre and Jostyn reminded me pleasantly of one of *my* teachers from grade school (wink, wink).
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
There is something about this movie that makes me love it, even if it's filled with imperfections
Milo-Jeeder5 April 2015
"Milo" is a film that undeniably has a lot of reasons not to take it seriously, and would make a lot of people dismiss it after the first 30 minutes. I belong to a small crowd of people who love this movie and accept it for what it is, leaving the flaws on the side. The budget is low, there is technical and directing sloppiness and there are a lot of script irregularities. All these things spell "bad movie" in capital letters, but in some way, "Milo" works well and not in a patronizing way. I find the story to be rather dark, as it features some genuinely disturbing scenes, and the villain is pretty distinctive and creepy.

The story begins with a group of little girls meeting a strange boy named Milo Jeeder. The girls go to Milo's house, which is also his father's office, a sinister gynecologist who performs clandestine abortions. The strange boy is playing "the doctor" with the girls and he inexplicably stabs one of them to death.

About 20 years later, one of the girls who survived the tragedy appears as an apathetic substitute teacher named Claire Mullins, who lives a very lonely life and her only "friend" is her goldfish pet (for real). Claire gets a wedding invitation from Ruth, one of her childhood friends, and she unwillingly returns to her hometown to assist the ceremony. When Claire arrives, she is informed that Ruth passed away in a car accident, but she stays in town anyway, where she gets to reconnect with her two childhood friends, Abby and Marian (sure, why the hell not?).

Though we find out that Milo supposedly drowned many years ago, Claire believes she has seen him on the street and still looking like a young boy. Abby and Marian assume that Claire is having hallucinations because she's back in her childhood town, but the truth is that Milo really is alive and out to get them. Hopeless and desperate, Claire tries to find someone who believes her, but everyone presumes that she is insane, and in the meantime, her friends start to vanish inexplicably.

My main concern with "Milo" is that there are some script irregularities that leave a bunch of things unclear, and it is evident that the lack of details to explain certain things are the result of lazy writing, rather than a deliberate attempt to leave some mystery for the benefit of the story. The idea behind "Milo" is very good, but the script is not very consistent, as there are a lot of things that don't make sense, mostly concerning the characters' nature, which are poorly written in many scenes. The dialogs are silly and artificial (which I can overlook in a slasher film), but the main problem is that the characters' actions are incomprehensible sometimes. For example: why does Milo suddenly decide to reappear after 20 years and start murdering his childhood acquaintances? Should we just assume that he is mad because one of them is getting married, which pushes him over the edge? How come the girls seem so well after their friend's death? I mean, first, we see Marian and Abby telling Claire that Ruth passed away and in the next scene, we see them laughing and remembering the old times? I didn't expect a tear-fest, but they seemed pretty okay with the idea of Ruth being dead, kind of like "Poor Ruth… but we might as well just make the best of this reunion, right? Let's have a few drinks!" I don't find this very coherent, especially because these girls are otherwise portrayed as caring and sensitive characters.

"Milo" features almost no gore, since most of the murders are very subtle, and some of them are even off-screen. I don't necessarily expect gore in every horror film as a rule, but "Milo" belongs to the slasher sub-genre and in films like this, some gore is required. The lack of gore is balanced by disturbing imagery, mostly featuring Milo and his father, in their dark house, in which we get to see an antique cabinet full of jars containing fetuses and stillborns, and an embalmed body in the basement.

The acting is mostly good. The late Vincent Schiavelli gave a solid performance as Milo's dad, partly because of his physique du rol, but also because of his intentional deadness in his mannerisms and the sinister look in his eyes. As for Jennifer Jostyn, I like her a lot and even though he acting is mostly okay, a little bit more energy and strength would have been fine. What I like the most about this film is basically the character of Milo, which is an interesting villain. The fact that he looks the same throughout a period of 20 years makes us wonder what is wrong with him and though we never really get an explanation, one can only imagine that Milo's lack of growth is due to the fact that he was brought back to life by his father after his alleged death, which somehow affected his normal development. Once again, this is another reason to complain about the weak script, because honestly this should have been clearer.

I admit it, "Milo" is a faulted film, but a very entertaining one and it seems like there are a lot of people who either take it for what it is and love it, and in the same way, there's a lot of people who latch on to the obvious oversights to oust the film. I try not to let the imperfections bother me and enjoy the movie for what it is: a slasher about a weird zombie child using a yellow raincoat (even if it's not raining), who wants to kill his childhood friends and keeps their embalmed bodies and dress them in wedding gowns. I certainly don't think it deserves the 4/10 rating that it got on IMDb.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Nice try.
mylimbo12 September 2005
In a quiet town a couple of girls witness the murder of one of their friends to a strange young boy named Milo, who lives on the other side of town. After the murder, his body is found in a river and his pronounced dead. So sixteen years later a weddings draws the girls back to their childhood town and Claire a school teacher becomes obsessed that Milo hasn't died as she has recurring visions of him and her friends are dying one by one and no one believes her when she claims Milo is apart of it. So now, she sets off to find out the horrifying truth.

When I came across this film, I was pretty sceptical about it, especially when it had "From the creators of Anaconda" on the front cover, but reading the odd little plot outline on the back of the video case, it sounded alright and rather refreshing for a change. Well, guess what? I thought it was a good idea at the time, but it was a totally different story when it came to watching the film. It just seemed to try to hard to be smart and very psychological based, but that latter element didn't come off that well for me and it was basically a prolonged and mostly unconvincing thriller. Hey, I'll admit it had its moments, but hardly enough to make it neither effectively chilling, or memorable. But, a bravo to the filmmakers, at least the story isn't a rehash of those slasher imitators that followed "Scream" and shock horror, there's no self-referential humour evident… actually there isn't even a HINT of humour. Although, maybe it was too serious? Especially, since the plot is rather absurd, but that's not its main problem. What a disjointed plot we get, I didn't know about to much that was going on, as it seems to skim a lot stuff in favour for some supposedly shocking and disturbing sequences. No! More like irrelevant scenes and yawn inducing clichés that we see from time to time. Also you can see some influences from some "good" 70's horror films, one being "Don't Look Now". This when our main character keeps on seeing the figure of her past in a slicker. The other would have to be one of my favourites "Alice, Sweet Alice" with the person causing the trouble wearing a yellow slicker and committing grisly deaths. Interesting idea but it comes across quite shallow and too many faults pop up. I liked it more when the scenes dealt with the character's childhood, as the performances and circumstances had something creepy about it, but when it leans into their adulthood its tired and uneventful for most part and the performances weren't awful, but incredibly mundane and hardly involving is a good way of putting it. Most of the dialogue had me groaning in disbelief at how contrived and awkward it was. You'll be yelling "no duh!" at the screen, because you just can't believe what you're hearing. The police detective gets the brunt of it!

Quality wise - the film isn't bad, actually it's better then your usual straight to video I would say. Very slick stuff. With some inventive and prominent camera angles and a faint score that works reasonably well. Another factor that stood out and was a key to building on the moody atmosphere was the creeping sound effects and that bicycle bell does leave a ringing sensation in your ears. The setting of a quiet elementary school was well done and rest of the action takes place in a house. But, just don't be expecting any real suspense or surprises as the execution of these are non-existent. The deaths aren't pleasant and they're mildly bloody and it's more the aftermath to what happens to these bodies, which tries to disturb you. The villain in this piece, the mean-spirited child Milo Jeeder was mildly unnerving, well that voice and yellow slicker does make an imprint to begin with, but it does seem to lose its effect when we come to the films conclusion. The cheesy tag lines on the video compare him to (move over) Jason, (watch out) Freddy and (this isn't child's play) Chucky, but you got to be kidding me! Right? He's labelled "The New face of evil", yeah sure. All he needs is to be taught some manners and problem solved. Overall, the film just left me with a sour taste, as I've could've gone without seeing it. I probably wished I did.

Just don't expect too much in this blur of a film. Or, even better just skip it, as you won't be missing out on much, really.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Pretty Good..Worth the rental.
CARPS1 July 1999
I've read so many bad reviews about this film..and not much's not really that bad of a film. I enjoyed it. It wasn't a hit with me or a great movie..but a good movie worth seeing. The plot is creepy( 10 year old boy who never grows up is tormenting women 16 years after a horrifying experience has scarred their lives), the horror is scary enough, and the movies main song is chilling. The only thing bad about this movie is the acting. The main character's frightening expressions and screams didn't really make me think she was in trouble. She is an okay actress besides that..and a very beautiful one I might add. Milo was very creepy but needed work on his expression. He was very scary when it was dark and had his raincoat on. The only person that I thought gave a good performance was the janitor, Mr. Kelso. So forget the bad reviews and don't even look for good ones either(chances are you might not find any) and see it for yourselves. I think you'll like it. 7 out of 10
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Horrible Acting - Terrible Movie
patriciacline5216 December 2012
This is the worst acted movie that I have ever seen. I was surprised to find that several of these actors have actually been in other, more respectable, movies because this acting is worse than a grade school play. The plot is the standard 'B-Movie' "horror" plot, nothing special. Having said that, I did watch the entire movie with morbid curiosity to see exactly how bad it is. I even paused and rewound to verify I didn't miss anything. I certainly would not pay to watch this movie, but it is one of the free movies on my cable channel so I gave it a whirl. Of course, if you believe that 'Chopping Mall' and 'April Fools Day' are cinematic genius then you will love this movie.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
cookiedough25321 July 2002
This movie is really warped..the acting is okay and it lives up to a true horror movie (plenty of deaths, a few twists) however it is pretty sick and twisted, made me feel a bit sick but I guess if that's your sort of thing. I wouldn't recommend it, but if you are really bored it's kind of interesting and entertaining even though as I said it can make someone with a weak stomach feel kind of sick especially at the end. It isn't a very good horror movie and I have seen much better as it's pretty slow and takes things too far a bit too much in parts. But yeah I'd give it a 3 maybe out of 10.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
busta220030 June 2002
Stay away from this movie at all costs. I was suckered into watching this movie in a bet to see which one of us knew the t "worst movie of all time". Needless to say this one won hands down. It is long and drawn out, and has no purpose or plot from what I can gather. A movie about a killer kid raised from a fetus that was grown outside the womb just has no place inside your vcr. If you are extremely bored and have no life watch this movie. But if you rather keep your sanity, stay AWAY.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
really good story for a horror movie.
bird-1311 December 1998
this was a get up and go horror movie with an intelligent cast and a director with great vision to really capture the mood of the story i highly recommend this movie
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Suppose to be scary but in reality the funniest film ever made
russellcooley19 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Milo is a complete rip off of the 1992 slasher flick Mikey, if you actually check it up both films have the same tagline!But if you want to watch an incredibly funny film with absolutely no plot whatsoever......well then this is the film for you.The acting is terrible and the flashback scenes are overwhelmingly confusing. The story behind this atrocity is simple Milo Jeeder is a kid with serious family problems,his father is an abortion doctor who keeps unborn feoutus's in a jar (NICE!) and was desperate for a child of his own, he figured out a way to bring one of these aborted children to life and he named him............. MILO!!!!!

Aside from all the Bad Acting,Terrible directing,annoying sound of Milo's voice and the ear piercing sound of the bell on his bike ,if you take away all that badness its still a bad but funny attempt at a film.

I'll give it a bank busting 1 out of 10
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The people that made this film must hate making movies.
Frankly9 October 1999
This movie was so weak that it couldn't even come up with good cliches to rip off. I love horror movies and will see practically anything, but if I had it to do over again I would have skipped this one entirely. You may think that I'm exaggerating, but I challenge anyone to find anything even remotely satisfying or interesting about this piece of garbage. Not scary, not funny, not curious, not worth it.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
i would seriously expect better from 10 monkeys with a cam-corder.
jubjub052725 July 2000
This movie was by far the worst movie I've ever had to endure. I couldn't believe that they tried to pass it off as a serious movie, it was so bad I couldn't even laugh at it's pathetic attempt to entertain me. If you want cheesy horror that you can laugh at, rent Dr. Giggles instead.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Freddy, Jason and all the other horror icons are safe from this puppy.
Crazyfarts3 June 2006
Four young grade-school girls witness the murder of one of their classmates during what they thought was just an innocent game. The killer is a strange young boy named Milo Jeeder. Sixteen years later, the four survivors of the event re-unite under happier circumstances in the same town where it happened. They believe that Milo drowned in a river shortly after the murder, but soon learn that the demonic killer Milo has also returned, still a young boy, unchanged even after almost two decades.

The cover for this movie makes it look really cool (yet I still expected a bad movie to come out of it). When I pop in the DVD into my player, the menu comes up and makes the film still look cool. Sadly, this movie isn't all that it got my excited about. The movie is your average attempt at a slasher film and when I say average, I mean just like all those other small-budget slasher movies that have never been welcomed with open arms into most members of the horror community (I'm talking about you, the horror fan). In other words, you could walk up to any horror fan and the majority of responses would be "this sucks".

What mistakes did the movie make? First of all, the DVD cover art makes Milo look really dark but they blow it all by showing his face in the movie in many different scenes. He had the potential of being a very freaky character. Secondly, the back of the cover art tells Freddy, Jason, Chucky etc to pack their bags and move on out because Milo is so much better... why in the hell would you want to say something like that when it comes to a no-name, low-budget slasher film that has obviously failed? I mean, it just raises your expectations of the movie, making it harder to impress itself upon you. In a last ditch effort to attract attention, it says (in very big letters) "From the creator of Anaconda". Just shows you how low they're going to get as much attention as possible for the movie.

The gore in the movie sucks, the director gives you some hideous angles when Milo attacks someone. The music isn't all that bad and I never once fell asleep during the movie (congratulations). I'm still trying to figure out what Milo actually is. My best bet would be that he is a zombie, if anyone else knows, tell me. Rest assured, I won't be losing any sleep over thinking about it.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Simple Horror, Classic horror
LT-104 July 2001
This film is not at all as bad as some people on here are saying. I think it has got a decent horror plot and the acting seem normal to me. People are way over-exagerating what was wrong with this. It is simply classic horror, the type without a plot that we have to think about forever and forever. We can just sit back, relax, and be scared.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Disappointing and quite dull
GL8419 June 2015
Years after a terrible tragedy, a woman returning to teach at her home- town finds the little boy her and her friends accidentally killed is still alive and hunting them one-by-one, forcing her to deal with the deranged killer again.

Overall this one was quite a disappointment and had very little going for it. One of the biggest elements working against this one is the complete and utter confusion generated over practically everything that happens here. The initial killing spree is a big one here, as the off- screen death is supposedly done to ensure the last friend makes it yet not only would he not know she would be coming but is also done so that she would stay when he had no knowledge of her going there to begin with, and all the different manners of going after the friends themselves just make no sense once they're around as well. His back- story is even worse, given no basis for being credible in a realistic manner other than to have a killer in the film, his resurrection is never explained at all and his purpose for doing this is never given despite the implication of hunting them down for killing him yet they themselves were never to blame for that incident anyway which is completely confusing and really seems to further damage the story here. The ideas of trying to be suspenseful early on here are probably even worse as it seems to place a serious credence on the clicking-cards-in- bicycle-spokes as the main source of fear within here yet that never brings up any kind of credible tension as the overblown hysteria and panic over the obviously child-friendly trick is simply laughable, the yellow rain-slicker is little better and the constantly feeble whispering grows tiresome and lame the more times it goes for the only- she-hears-them route despite being around others capable of hearing the neebish whimpers. Then it comes to the body-count, so weak and uninspired that there's hardly any room to kill anyone off in here as there's way too much time dealing with her torment over returning that the film doesn't boast so much as any on-screen kills with a potential resource at hand with the group of childhood-friends this one sets up only to waste one death off-screen and several others completely scattershot in feeble editing and jarring camera-work when they are on- screen. Combined with a total joke of a killer that looks to be quite easily over-powered himself considering his stature and constant whining, this one seems to fail at a lot of it's horror tendencies and comes off looking that much weaker against the few small, scattered remnants of enjoyment left in here. The final confrontation in the house is suitably enjoyable with the large layout and numerous rooms being utilized to decent effect as there's a large setting used for some decent chasing and stalking that includes sending them up into the attic and down into the basement where the bridal suite is utilized to great effect here in generating some nice action and a few chilling moments waiting for the knocked-out killer to come back. As well, the mystery over who's been tormenting her as she continues on with her life in town is handled nicely with a few decent moments, but overall the flaws here are just too much.

Rated R:: Violence and Language.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The tag line got me
Nywildcat14 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
"Remember, Freddy and Jason were kids once too". With a tag line like that, how could one resist? Unfortunately, what you get is formulaic and derivative. The plot goes something like this: A young girl witnesses a vicious murder performed by another kid and gets attacked herself. Killer kid supposedly drowns in a river. Flashforward: the girl is now an adult and moves back to the town where the murder took place. She sees the killer kid everywhere and her friends start disappearing one by one. Local cops think she's gone crazy and she's the one responsible. She sets out to prove them wrong, insert twist ending. Sound familiar? We've seen it a hundred times before. The only difference is that the killer is slaughtering adults and not teens.

Here's my thing, if you're going to reference Freddy and Jason, you better deliver. The movie is predictable, the kill scenes are few and far between and pretty much bloodless.The lead character saw Milo everywhere, all the time, that it was hard to believe that no else did. Also the kid, was never actually a kid (he was at least 29 at the time of the first murder and 45 in the present day). Though they hint that he was born through some scientific experiment, no reason was given as to why he still looks like a child.

At the end of the day, though I was disappointed, it was mildly entertaining. I've seen a lot worse. Had it had a bigger budget, a few rewrites and casting changes, it could have been a nice entry in the slasher genre.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Huggy Bear gone weird
Lee Eisenberg27 May 2008
Typical story of an evil kid going after people. I suspect that Antonio Fargas (Huggy Bear on "Starsky and Hutch") and Vincent Schiavelli didn't want to stress this junk on their resumes (actually, Schiavelli left this life with a mostly good resume). Sometimes I wish that the killers in these movies would just go after the idiots who decide that we need a new one of these movies every other month (note: that comment is not to be taken seriously; I just think that slashers have lost their touch).

Anyway, this is one movie that you'll do best to avoid. It's ninety minutes to two hours that I'll never get back.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
way below standards
xrellerx6 October 2002
There was more potential in this thriller, but we're left behind with the results of bad acting, no creative twists or story layers and weak dialogues. The musical score does lift some scenes up though and the overall look from MILO has a certain flaw to it due to the independent character (a "US" independent character). I've seen worse, but it's not worth your time unless you're a real fan of teenage slashers and the likes.

0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
* out of 4.
brandonsites198110 September 2002
Very grim film not even worth the price of a video rental is about a young woman who is haunted by witnessing a friends murder as a child. As her wedding day approaches, she begins to see the murderer lurking on the streets and then everyone starts to turn up dead. Very confusing film has little logic and just gets more tiresome as it goes along. Rated R.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews