13 Seconds (Video 2003) Poster

(2003 Video)

User Reviews

Add a Review
109 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE!!! So bad it's not even funny, literally.
drdray6614 January 2006
Do not listen to anything that someone who has given this movie a positive review has to say: they are lying to you, literally. It is pretty common knowledge amongst the posters of this movie that there is a conspiracy to improve this movies image on IMDb.com. If you look at the rating percentages, there are next to no 8's and 9's, which is a very good and reasonable score for a movie that is as good as some say it is. No, the only significant positive rating that is given is a 10, which makes no sense. Look at the rating history, look at who has commented on it, and look at their post/rating/comment history. It is quite amusing indeed.

As for the movie itself, it's supporters have one thing right: it's pretty hard to make a movie on the budget that they must have had to make "13 Seconds" (which I'm guessing is in the neighborhood of $100). First, it is not at all scary. At no point am I scared, "creeped out," on edge, nervous, or even disgusted. It only affects the viewer's emotion in one way; it makes the viewer angry, angry for having spent the money to have seen it, and angry that you wasted an hour and a half of your life on it. The special effects are very distracting (no, we cannot fault the film makers for this, but it certainly does hinder your watching experience). The acting is horrendous (I'd say bad by high school theater standards). The plot is mediocre at best. And the dialogue is painfully terrible (lines like "I found this book."--"is it old?" and many others make you rewind it to see if you heard what you actually heard). I can, in all honesty and with absolutely no exaggeration, say that this is the worst movie that I have ever seen.

I am this strongly critiquing this movie not because I have a grudge against its creators (although I'm not happy about losing 90 minutes and $4). I am critiquing it so that no one else is fooled by what others are posting on this website. This is a terrible movie and is only worth watching if both a)you get it for free (or, even better, are getting paid to see it), and b)you do not value your time at all. No, on second thought, even if those two conditions are met, there are still better things to do. Steer clear, friends. Steer clear.
17 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I wanted to like this. I really really did.
lingh0e12 May 2006
but after watching it I just have to know... who the hell are these poor poor mislead souls that are giving this movie such high praise!? 13 Seconds was a god-awful piece of crap. Even the best reviews on this site mention the bad acting and the (obvious) low budget, but try to say that those aspects of the film are simply something a "low budget" or "indie" film maker must deal with and the writer/director/actor should be commended for dealing with such shortcomings and still finishing the production. This is patently untrue, and I take such comments as a highly offensive slap in the face to the REAL independent, low budget film makers who can not only deliver on a clever story (which I will admit, 13 Seconds had), but they can also get something close to a decent performance out of their actors, better sound and editing... hell, everything involved in making a movie. And I do mean EVERYTHING.

To put it into terms that most people can relate to, 13 Seconds equates to a very low-budget Halloween season haunted house. The scares are cheap and ineffective and the actors hired to pull off those scares are almost as talented as my cat. At least my cat makes me jump on occasion.

The bad acting only makes the awful dialog even more unbearable. Add on top of that the total lack of effort put into the dubbing and you have the perfect formula for a movie that even Ed Wood would find abhorrent.

Even the argument that "well at least he went out and made a movie" doesn't hold water. One of the main reasons I have not gotten my own production off the ground is because of movies like this. Watching this movie made me remember that I didn't have to settle for whatever actors I could scrape out of a trailer park, a DP who had no experience outside of a Polaroid camera and sound recorded on an answering machine while the freaking actors phone it in. Sorry, but I'll hold out until I can find people that, when placed in a soggy paper bag and told to act, would be able to find their way back into the light.

To sum up: remember kids, just because you CAN make a movie does not mean you SHOULD.
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Absolutely, A Top 3 Worst Movie Ever
Chris Cooper12 December 2006
I saw this at the video store and it caught my eye. Ooooh I told myself, look at these awards, this could be a low budget B-movie worth watching. Boy was I wrong.

This film was written bad, the actors did a bad job, the story was... well how can I put this...LAME!!

I couldn't believe how boring and how bad the acting and story was all at the same time. Do not waste your time with this movie.

If you are watching this for horror, don't bother. If you just want something bad to laugh at, this may be for you that is if you don't fall asleep.

Directing - F; writing - F; Acting - F; story - D; Over all movie F-
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Crap + Crap = Crap
drosz2224 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Well... it was very convenient of IMDb.com to erase my last comment that I posted in regards to this steaming pile of a movie. So... where do I begin? If ANYBODY can find anything that this movie can offer in regards to a positive critique... I'll eat my hat. The movie sucks on so many different levels, that it's hard to explain. I thought I had won when I shut it off after 20 minutes, but then my wife got home and she wanted to watch it... just when I think I am out... they pull me back in!!! I work in the Indie film industry here in Detroit (where writer / director Jeff Thomas filmed this and is from) and he is the laughing stock of the industry around these parts. He made crap and then DUPES people into believing that this crap won some sort of awards... the awards are FAKE!!! There is NO Detroit International Horror Film Festival!!!! Steer clear away from this garbage or you will be sorely sorry!!!! SUCKS!!!!!!!!
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Are you F****ing kidding me?
sativa41725 June 2005
By far the worst movie I've ever seen. I actually enjoy watching bad movies. I can find ways to enjoys movies most people think are pure ****, but this movie is an all-time low. As I said, it's the worst movie I've ever seen, so far. I always hate it when I see people that say this about a movie, since with all the movies in the world, I find it hard to believe that so and so could be the worst movie ever made, but honestly, I promise you, believe me, for the love of God listen to me, this is the worst movie I have ever seen. This movie makes Plan 9 from Outer Space look like Casablanca. The acting is garbage. I don't know how they pulled it off, but the acting is actually far worse than that of the films and videos from my past art classes. I didn't think you could act this bad if you tried, but they somehow managed to pull it off. The script is incoherent gibberish, just God awful. The direction is crap. How many close ups do you need? I do have to commend the "director/writer" for being able to dupe people into seeing it, since I found it in Blockbuster that means he was able to make some money off the movie. As for that, I am impressed. As for the movie, I had more fun with a scorching case of syphilis.
19 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
if i could give this a lower rating, i would
parabellum9x19mm7 June 2005
although i've used IMDb as a resource for years i've never felt the need to chime in as a reviewer or post on the message boards, in this case i felt absolutely compelled to, especially after reading the false glowing reviews posted by others...which is just as fraudulent as this movie winning any recognition, a DVD distribution deal...any of that. i felt completely ripped off and i felt like a sucker after trying to watch this garbage. the mere fact that anyone could give this film 3 stars, much less 10 out of 10 is a complete farce.

i watch pretty much EVERY horror movie that comes out that i can get my hands on (which explains why i rented 13 Seconds i guess) and i have never seen a movie so atrocious and completely unwatchable.

low budget movies are not a problem with me....as long as there is good writing, good acting, good direction. this film is devoid of any of that and there is nothing "creepy" or "scary" about this trash.

the only thing scary to me about this movie is that not all of it landed on the cutting room floor.

i haven't been so angry after trying to watch a movie ever. i'll watch a Hollywood crapfest festival of Hudson Hawk followed by Gili followed by Showgirls back to back before i'll watch 10 minutes of this movie again.

i want my money and the 30 minutes of my life that i wasted BACK!
19 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
bussell-131 December 2005
Anyone, and I mean anyone, who writes that this movie is any better than a 1, was watching a different movie when they were told they were watching this movie. The B.S. about good camera shots/angles for low money is a good joke. My two year old cousin could shoot better angles than this movie.

It had a good concept but the ending doesn't make the movie better, it makes it about 48 times worse. The only chance this movie had a chance to be even a 2 was is if it lasted 13 seconds, and that is including the credits. This movie is so terrible, I think it gave me cancer! I would rather repeatedly jab a knife into my arms and legs than to ever, and I do mean ever, sit through this horrible excuse of a movie again. And the independent excuse doesn't work for me. How this won any awards besides crappiest movie ever made is beyond me.
13 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Painful to watch
jjaanneett2345610 March 2008
This movie is an embarrassment! It is so atrociously bad that it even makes you angry while watching it. I couldn't even tell you what it is about since I only watch 5 minutes, and my husband, thinking it would get better, watched 10 minutes of it. But, anyhow, I couldn't care less. I cant believe I rented it! It made me so angry that I almost went to blockbuster right away to get my money back. I should have, since it is a rip off they have that kind of "movies" to rent. I makes me angry the fact I made the director a bit richer by renting it!!! DO NOT WATCH this movie unless you want to waste 5 min of your life (I say 5 minutes since you wont get further than that). It is the worst movie I have ever seen. It looked like those videos the teachers used to make us watch at school to learn Spanish. Do not trust the first reviews of this movie. They are probably written by the actor's (If you can call them that...) family, friends or even themselves...
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Blasphemy is just so damned convenient.
Andy (film-critic)25 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Oh, horrid film, where did you go wrong? I hope I have enough fingers to count the ways. There is a point during film-making when a director or producer can simply say "Stop". There is no harm in that, nor is there any shame. This should have been one of those films that somebody, anybody, should have said, "we need to stop now". From the uninteresting characters, to the lackluster story, to the very poor production, the lines between avant-garde horror cinema and cheaply made movies became hazy.

There are three ways to completely destroy the power of a film without touching the story and those are through sound, sight, and mind. If a movie sounds great, you have captured some of your audience. If it looks good as well, you have captured even more and finally, if you can keep them mentally involved than you, as a director, should have most to all of the audience in your hands. Sadly, 13 Seconds did none of the above. The sound was horrendous. Synchronizing your actor's voices to match what they were saying when filming and the emotions they were feeling is not hard. Apparently, director Jeff Thomas decided robots could make this English spoken poorly dubbed in English feature. There was no emotion behind anyone talking, even our main character Davis. I found myself laughing whenever anyone opened their mouth. I couldn't tell if anyone was actually interested in what was happening, or if the amount of beer drinking that occurred before the dubbing was finally taking effect. Second, the sight of this film was just as bad as the voices. No apparent acting classes were needed from any of the actors or from the demons. There needs to be some level of class with the both the actors and demons, but in this film there were not. Davis, Jeff Thomas, was trying hard to be exactly like Bruce Campbell, which only lowered this film further into the pit of disgust. Everyone else seemed like they were going through the actions that were given to them that minute and trying to remember what exactly they were doing. There were no genuine moments in this film visually, just non-actors remembering to be robots. Finally, the mental involvement is key. I am not talking about just story here, because you can have a bad story but still keep people guessing for more. I am talking about just the apparent want to see what happens. Does your audience want to see what is going to happen next? In this film, my answer would be "no". The ending does provide a moment of shock, but you need to force your way through an hour and a half of sludge just to see it … and it really isn't that grandiose.

With these three elements lacking considerably, you may be thinking what is the value of this film? I was amazed to see that it had won some awards in the horror circuit because, to me, it showed the poorest of the poor. While I would agree, that the ending (without giving it away) was creative and inventive, what filmmakers need to realize that you need to have a complete film to blow us away. Do not just pride yourself on the ending because you are going to have upset people like myself that could tell that you spent more on that then you did the rest of the film. I have heard other critics say that this is like a low-budget The Sixth Sense, but for me it was not even in the same ballpark. Half the fun of The Sixth Sense was the action leading up to the surprising ending (which wasn't even that shocking), and that is where 13 Seconds suffers. Thomas' film has nothing to offer in the middle except for a very muddled story in which you nearly need a PhD in pagan culture to fully understand. I think I would have been more impressed by the ending of this film if there was a meaty center instead of all that gristle and grime.

Was this the worst film I have seen this year? After a day of thinking about it I can say "no", but would I be truthful to myself? There were some interesting scenes, which did showcase some of Thomas' potential, but the blatant disrespect for everything else just hurt those good points. I had trouble coping with the voices and the constant clichés that Thomas tried to repetitively use. There just seemed to be too much running into rooms and shadows lurking in the darkness instead of character development and understanding. I needed to know who these people were and a better explanation of the immediate story. Thomas seemed and felt unfocused in this film giving us not enough in one area, while completely destroying another. Inconsistency is what hurt this film, but what destroyed it for me were the small bits that could have easily been changed to construct a decent film. I wasn't happy, and I don't think many will be with the final results that 13 Seconds has to offer.

Grade: ** out of *****
13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
ham-javelin25 August 2005
Wow what a steaming pile of dung.

While I enjoy low-budget gore as much as the next guy, this one was almost unbearable to watch. This was mainly due to the acting, if you can call it that. Every person in this flick had the same monotone voice coming from the same expressionless face. For a horror film there was a decided lack of screaming. I would expect some screams when one is getting hacked in half, or their chest ripped open, but I think there were a total of 4 screams in the entire film.

I can't believe this thing won awards. It must have been the only entry.

Can I have 90 minutes of my life back please?
11 out of 15 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