I saw this movie at the video store the other day and couldn't resist. The first five minutes of the movie do a great job of confusing the hell out of the viewer, which is an awesome start, but the editing nightmare is just beginning. The whole movie appears to be shot with a cheap camera with a "fisheye" lens effect. Also, the characters in the movie are so bafflingly stupid that one wishes for a shotgun with which to shoot the DVD. For example, there's a scene where the two protagonists are locked inside a room with the killer clown trying to break in. There is a fire extinguisher RIGHT BY the damn door, but what does the idiot boyfriend do? Picks up A MOP HANDLE! Yeah.... like a mop handle is going to be effective against a muscle-bound mental patient in clown make-up. Couple this with agonizingly bad acting, some of the worst camera work I've ever seen, completely fake reactions of the characters, and shoddy editing, and you have the masterpiece known as "Fear of Clowns."
44 Reviews
Not in the league of Killer Klowns.
3-D15 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
As a fan of killer clowns, I've seen pretty much every movie as such that's out there, including Clownhouse, Killjoy, and of course, Killer Klowns From Outer Space. A low budget movie has been added to the mix, entitled Fear of Clowns.
Unfortunately, I did not really enjoy this movie. First of all, 90% of the death scenes you don't see, since it always cuts-away right before each one. This is a big disappointment for horror fans, as seeing the carnage makes for more enjoyable horror. I mean, it's like renting a porno that cuts away to a different scene right before Ron Jeremy pulls his pants down.
The acting was really bad, particularly that of the token black policeman. He had such a small role in the film, yet his acting in those few minutes he had was so bad, it became the most memorable part of the film. Never have I wanted to kick somebody in the teeth so hard in my life.
The clown himself wasn't scary, at all. He was just some buff, shirtless man with a grease paint covered bald head, and Limp Bizkit eyes. That's not intimidating at all, but even if it had just one shred of horror, that becomes completely diminished when you hear him speak. I'm sorry, but a Vin Diesel clone in clown paint who sounds like a drunken wizard couldn't even scare a newborn baby with caulrophobia.
It's also funny how a half-naked clown holding King Arthur's axe casually walks around town and cuts people's heads off (although his body never gets stained with blood), and nobody notices. Unless they have a local circus in town whose clowns do double shifts as jousters at a Medieval Times restaurant, I'm pretty sure this guy would definitely warrant some concern with the citizens.
In a nutshell, this movie is not good at all. It's not because of the fact that it was low budget. The story was bad, leaving many loose ends and much nonsense. I'll give this movie 4 stars, but only because the camp value may keep you somewhat entertained. View this movie as a comedy, and not as a horror/thriller.
Unfortunately, I did not really enjoy this movie. First of all, 90% of the death scenes you don't see, since it always cuts-away right before each one. This is a big disappointment for horror fans, as seeing the carnage makes for more enjoyable horror. I mean, it's like renting a porno that cuts away to a different scene right before Ron Jeremy pulls his pants down.
The acting was really bad, particularly that of the token black policeman. He had such a small role in the film, yet his acting in those few minutes he had was so bad, it became the most memorable part of the film. Never have I wanted to kick somebody in the teeth so hard in my life.
The clown himself wasn't scary, at all. He was just some buff, shirtless man with a grease paint covered bald head, and Limp Bizkit eyes. That's not intimidating at all, but even if it had just one shred of horror, that becomes completely diminished when you hear him speak. I'm sorry, but a Vin Diesel clone in clown paint who sounds like a drunken wizard couldn't even scare a newborn baby with caulrophobia.
It's also funny how a half-naked clown holding King Arthur's axe casually walks around town and cuts people's heads off (although his body never gets stained with blood), and nobody notices. Unless they have a local circus in town whose clowns do double shifts as jousters at a Medieval Times restaurant, I'm pretty sure this guy would definitely warrant some concern with the citizens.
In a nutshell, this movie is not good at all. It's not because of the fact that it was low budget. The story was bad, leaving many loose ends and much nonsense. I'll give this movie 4 stars, but only because the camp value may keep you somewhat entertained. View this movie as a comedy, and not as a horror/thriller.
Fear of Fear of Clowns
druquzdog7 March 2006
More properly my fear of a sequel to this pretty damn dire little flick. It's the film only a mother could love, and indeed by the outpourings of the shills here it seems the film has more than a few apologists. Sorry guys, I'm sure you all love Mr Kangas, maybe even have vested interest in his career, but get a grip please. Here's a recommendation; if you liked "Snapped" you will probably like this. At times, yes it verges towards the so bad it's OK for what it is. It is however painfully overlong at that, and to be utterly frank comes off as the work of enthusiastic people reaching way, way beyond their abilities. Oh, and failing, because they don't have any real talent and they are somehow unaware of this stark fact. The guy that plays Shivers did a better job than the rest of the cast, and luckily as he was in make-up, it may not be the end of his career. The other actors were bad, and unfortunately are made to look EVEN WORSE by the awful direction. The scenes in the multiplex at the end were admittedly pretty comical for just this reason. Suspense and urgency had obviously been temporarily removed from the dictionary when those scenes were shot. All that said, I sat through it till the long awaited end. (Did I mention it was painfully drawn out?) I don't believe the director is a horror fan for a moment, but as one myself, and a fan of bad horror at that...I give it a 3.5/10 considering budget etc. There must be much more talented people out there for Lion's Gate to invest in though, so do them a favour Kevin, and go and do something you're good at. Making films is not what you were born for.
A Review of the Director for the Director
Tremonti8116 April 2006
Hey,
I've seen a lot of posts where you defend the hell out of this flick, but I've got to tell you, you can't blame shoddy writing and extremely poor directing on a lack of budget. I was on board to see a movie that looked like crap but had all the basic elements OK, because that's what a low-low budget film normally has. But this "film" is a piece of crap.
Here's the complaints:
ON WRITING: You claim to have a definitive love of horror films, specifically Halloween and Alien, yet you completely ignore the structure of these scripts. Each great horror film has its foundation in a strong psychological subtext (I.E. repression and return of the repressed, male/female archetypes and the overthrow of such, infiltration of boundaries, etc.). Your film has people talking in circles with crap lines like "Have you ever been spanked by a clown?". If childhood trauma were at the heart of the film, why not draw us more into it? Instead, you do what every other hack in this business does: you write B.S. dialogue that makes no sense because you don't have the first clue as to who your characters are.
In addition, the reason that this film is not scary is because you explain EVERYTHING. What's scarier: a psycho-killer who walks around in a mask killing for no reason and with no remorse or a psycho-killer who sits around saying, " Get BETTER, Get BETTER."? This is why Carpenter, Craven and Scott are geniuses, and well, you have this as your crowning achievement.
ON DIRECTING: Have you ever heard of the 180 degree line? You jump all over the place with mismatched reverse shots, and ever-changing screen direction, leaving us as an audience unable to settle. And since you've asked repeatedly why the editing is bad, I have one question: Do either you or your editor know what a beat is? There are no dramatic moments in this film because you are constantly cutting away from them. What could have been a nice introductory scene between your two protagonists becomes a confusing mess because you cut the living daylights out of it.
This "film" has no sense of mood or character whatsoever. I think the character that actually went deepest was Shivers, and that should say something about where your focus was. In your extremely self-important and self-indulgent "making of" segment, I found your attitude toward your actors appalling. First of all, DO NOT DIRECT A RESULT! This is the first rule of working with actors, taught in the most basic of classes. When you stood there and said to Mark something like, "I want to see a mixture of agitated and hungry" or something to that effect, my heart broke for all of the people who had to work under such conditions. And at one point you were yelling at people, and saying to the actors, "I just want to finish this f--- ing scene and go home." What does that say to them about your level of support, when they're the ones bleeding on film for you. Shame on you, my friend, shame on you. And on a sidenote: if the makers of the camera that you shot with won't let you release their name or logo in your "making of", doesn't that say something about the film?
Rent the movie "Overnight". You might learn a thing or two about the path you are traveling. That is, if you ever do get a shot, which I highly doubt. You should go into another field, or at least take some classes on writing, directing and working with actors.
I've seen a lot of posts where you defend the hell out of this flick, but I've got to tell you, you can't blame shoddy writing and extremely poor directing on a lack of budget. I was on board to see a movie that looked like crap but had all the basic elements OK, because that's what a low-low budget film normally has. But this "film" is a piece of crap.
Here's the complaints:
ON WRITING: You claim to have a definitive love of horror films, specifically Halloween and Alien, yet you completely ignore the structure of these scripts. Each great horror film has its foundation in a strong psychological subtext (I.E. repression and return of the repressed, male/female archetypes and the overthrow of such, infiltration of boundaries, etc.). Your film has people talking in circles with crap lines like "Have you ever been spanked by a clown?". If childhood trauma were at the heart of the film, why not draw us more into it? Instead, you do what every other hack in this business does: you write B.S. dialogue that makes no sense because you don't have the first clue as to who your characters are.
In addition, the reason that this film is not scary is because you explain EVERYTHING. What's scarier: a psycho-killer who walks around in a mask killing for no reason and with no remorse or a psycho-killer who sits around saying, " Get BETTER, Get BETTER."? This is why Carpenter, Craven and Scott are geniuses, and well, you have this as your crowning achievement.
ON DIRECTING: Have you ever heard of the 180 degree line? You jump all over the place with mismatched reverse shots, and ever-changing screen direction, leaving us as an audience unable to settle. And since you've asked repeatedly why the editing is bad, I have one question: Do either you or your editor know what a beat is? There are no dramatic moments in this film because you are constantly cutting away from them. What could have been a nice introductory scene between your two protagonists becomes a confusing mess because you cut the living daylights out of it.
This "film" has no sense of mood or character whatsoever. I think the character that actually went deepest was Shivers, and that should say something about where your focus was. In your extremely self-important and self-indulgent "making of" segment, I found your attitude toward your actors appalling. First of all, DO NOT DIRECT A RESULT! This is the first rule of working with actors, taught in the most basic of classes. When you stood there and said to Mark something like, "I want to see a mixture of agitated and hungry" or something to that effect, my heart broke for all of the people who had to work under such conditions. And at one point you were yelling at people, and saying to the actors, "I just want to finish this f--- ing scene and go home." What does that say to them about your level of support, when they're the ones bleeding on film for you. Shame on you, my friend, shame on you. And on a sidenote: if the makers of the camera that you shot with won't let you release their name or logo in your "making of", doesn't that say something about the film?
Rent the movie "Overnight". You might learn a thing or two about the path you are traveling. That is, if you ever do get a shot, which I highly doubt. You should go into another field, or at least take some classes on writing, directing and working with actors.
What the hell?
insomniaklad5 March 2006
I've seen some bad movies in my time, but this, for the love of everything that's holy, is definitely in my top 10 most horrid movies of all time. From the god-awful acting, to the choppy camera work, this movie can't even be classified as a "B Grade horror movie".
The constant chopping of camera angles made me feel as though I was watching an episode of "24", and the acting made me feel as though I was watching some trained dolphins do interpretive dance about their feelings. The upstanding performance by the "Detective" was played more like a 40's gumshoe than someone from (apparently) the 90's. The lead actress has two emotions - uninterested and confused. The clown, well, he was semi-cool. Not overly scary, but cool. He made me want to giggle, and poke him.
I can't emphasise the horrific acting enough. There are not words in my vocabulary to describe how pathetic and transparent it was. The single saving point for the movie is the story, which could have been made into a decent movie had some rational thought been injected into it.
All in all, don't waste your time unless you're a fan of pathetic acting.
If you want a similar experience, paint a wall and try to teach it to act. Even that will be more fulfilling.
The constant chopping of camera angles made me feel as though I was watching an episode of "24", and the acting made me feel as though I was watching some trained dolphins do interpretive dance about their feelings. The upstanding performance by the "Detective" was played more like a 40's gumshoe than someone from (apparently) the 90's. The lead actress has two emotions - uninterested and confused. The clown, well, he was semi-cool. Not overly scary, but cool. He made me want to giggle, and poke him.
I can't emphasise the horrific acting enough. There are not words in my vocabulary to describe how pathetic and transparent it was. The single saving point for the movie is the story, which could have been made into a decent movie had some rational thought been injected into it.
All in all, don't waste your time unless you're a fan of pathetic acting.
If you want a similar experience, paint a wall and try to teach it to act. Even that will be more fulfilling.
The most laughable POS in history?
Routine10 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Have you ever seen the director of a movie insult the viewers on IMDb for voicing their opinion? Well, this might be a first folks. This absolute, unredeemable piece of trash is by far the worst film you will ever see, period. A seemingly sweeping statement maybe, but if you're unfortunate enough to have seen this you will know what I'm talking about. Sadly the director and a handful of other wannabes have resorted to insulting their audience's opinions on the message board for this flick. The whole idea of these message boards is for movie fans/buffs to have their voice heard and to either recommend a film if they enjoyed it, or warn others off if they didn't. This movie, make no mistake, is amongst the worst films ever made. Truly laughable acting, awful script, stultifyingly stupid plot and an ending straight out of a retarded 9 year old's imagination. The mind boggles as to how this person got the 50 or 60 dollars budget this film appears to have had spent on it. Don't take my word for it. Watch the first five minutes and you will be rolling about on the floor laughing. Then, please oh please come back and let the director know that he is in the wrong business and plead with him never to make another. Ever. His buddies who are also insulting the movie-going public on these threads have nailed their colours to the wrong mast. This movie is honestly very possibly the worst film of all time. Seriously. 1/10
Amateur Nonsense
amycrd6 March 2006
The acting in this film was diabolical: more wooden than a school play. It was so bad it had no comedy value either.
The detective character was the worst of all, and all these people should seriously consider a career change. This film had a feel about it that said that the director had just gathered a group of his mates together to act out a poorly written play for a laugh.
I confess that I cannot say whether this film had a good ending as I had to switch it off well before I got to the halfway stage even - it was THAT bad! I have never failed to watch a film all the way through, no matter how bad, before.
The clown was about as scary as a hippo. And what was with the weird speeded up part where he was chopping wood?
The camera techniques were all over the place and in a word this film was amateurish.
The detective character was the worst of all, and all these people should seriously consider a career change. This film had a feel about it that said that the director had just gathered a group of his mates together to act out a poorly written play for a laugh.
I confess that I cannot say whether this film had a good ending as I had to switch it off well before I got to the halfway stage even - it was THAT bad! I have never failed to watch a film all the way through, no matter how bad, before.
The clown was about as scary as a hippo. And what was with the weird speeded up part where he was chopping wood?
The camera techniques were all over the place and in a word this film was amateurish.
Not great even for a frat house with a camcorder
mike-294525 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
At this time there were 37 reviews, almost all have to be from cast or parents of the cast because no one could stand the painful 45 minutes it takes to watch this trite even in fast-forward.
Please don't waste your time with this and instead take a neighbor up on their offer to watch their Grand Canyon vacation video - it will serve up more entertainment.
The most anguishing prospect is that there are hints of a sequel, or at least an opening. Could I do better? Probably not, unless you've seen my Grand Canyon vacation video.
For those who would like a quick summary, here it is: Girl stalked by killer clown. People around her die. Showdown with girl and new boyfriend. Both survive and cops come in at last second. Arrest clown, who suddenly has a lucid sane moment and gives up. Late phone call saying clown escaped. Fade to Black. Roll Credits.
There, I saved you 45-90 minutes of your precious time on Earth.
Please don't waste your time with this and instead take a neighbor up on their offer to watch their Grand Canyon vacation video - it will serve up more entertainment.
The most anguishing prospect is that there are hints of a sequel, or at least an opening. Could I do better? Probably not, unless you've seen my Grand Canyon vacation video.
For those who would like a quick summary, here it is: Girl stalked by killer clown. People around her die. Showdown with girl and new boyfriend. Both survive and cops come in at last second. Arrest clown, who suddenly has a lucid sane moment and gives up. Late phone call saying clown escaped. Fade to Black. Roll Credits.
There, I saved you 45-90 minutes of your precious time on Earth.
poorly done
toadcream7 November 2006
this was one of those movies that you go out and take a chance in the video store. You see a b-movie that you've never heard of with a cool box and cool title. Then you get home, hoping you've found yourself a gem, but when you pop it in your DVD player you realize you have to reach for the Ben & Jerry's to stave off the depression. From the novice acting, to the bad writing to the cheesy special effects... everything was just plain bad. Even right down to something I never even notice... the editing. There are some downright noticeably bad cuts that boggle the mind. I listened to a little of the audio commentary and the director kept talking about how much attention they paid to the audio, but I never once heard him voice his production concerns about any visual aspects i.e. poor lighting, amateur camera angles. Stay away from this one.
Easiest way to put it...THIS WAS A BAD, HORRIBLE MOVIE!!!
Honest_Movie_Reviews7 June 2006
This is one of those rare movies where absolutely NOTHING was good!! Usually I can always point to one good thing (I.E. An actor who stood out, a particular shot, editing, something)I can't believe the director is actually brain dead enough to try and defend this embarrassment of a film.
The acting is junk, there's no effects (I.E. gore,awesome killings,NOTHING!!) The script/story is junk and I swear the guy who plays Tuck will NEVER get a role in any project not featuring this incompetent director!! He was FAR AND AWAY the worst actor in this movie.
I'm mad as hell at myself for not having turned off this dogs*it movie that seems like it was made by someone who rode the small bus to school...I usually don't try to be cruel but to actually try and defend this pathetic attempt to make a film just makes me sick!! There's NO WAY the director and just about everyone else involved in making this trash don't know how bad this is!! And that by trying to defend this speaks volumes on their mental capacity (Or lack of)
There's not enough minus stars to give this pile of crap your best bet is to avoid it!! It'll bore you to tears within the first 5 minutes.
The acting is junk, there's no effects (I.E. gore,awesome killings,NOTHING!!) The script/story is junk and I swear the guy who plays Tuck will NEVER get a role in any project not featuring this incompetent director!! He was FAR AND AWAY the worst actor in this movie.
I'm mad as hell at myself for not having turned off this dogs*it movie that seems like it was made by someone who rode the small bus to school...I usually don't try to be cruel but to actually try and defend this pathetic attempt to make a film just makes me sick!! There's NO WAY the director and just about everyone else involved in making this trash don't know how bad this is!! And that by trying to defend this speaks volumes on their mental capacity (Or lack of)
There's not enough minus stars to give this pile of crap your best bet is to avoid it!! It'll bore you to tears within the first 5 minutes.
Interesting little indy flick
MikeStefancik2 November 2004
Caught the premiere of this flick last week and really liked it, though it ain't the movie it appears to be if you watch the teaser. I was set up to see a gorefest with clowns running amok but there's more story and really only the one big clown who turns out to be more than scary enough.
It's about a woman suffering from fear of clowns--she's found an interesting outlet for her phobia by painting terrifying clown images. When a clown who looks a lot like one of the ones from her paintings shows up and begins killing off her friends, well, that's where the movie really starts. There's other stuff I can't really mention without giving away important details.
Obviously shot on a very low budget, it's got some good performances and some bad. The lead woman is very good and the clown also(and boy is it weird meeting him right after the premiere...he looked so different) but some of the secondary actors are clearly amateurs.
It's got some gore, some nudity, and some story so if you like B movie horror you'll probably have a good time with this one.
It's about a woman suffering from fear of clowns--she's found an interesting outlet for her phobia by painting terrifying clown images. When a clown who looks a lot like one of the ones from her paintings shows up and begins killing off her friends, well, that's where the movie really starts. There's other stuff I can't really mention without giving away important details.
Obviously shot on a very low budget, it's got some good performances and some bad. The lead woman is very good and the clown also(and boy is it weird meeting him right after the premiere...he looked so different) but some of the secondary actors are clearly amateurs.
It's got some gore, some nudity, and some story so if you like B movie horror you'll probably have a good time with this one.
It was a lot better than I thought it would be
JustinPaul113 May 2006
Honestly, it wasn't half bad. A few scenes here and there were a little shaky and sketchy but the plot was more interesting than the title. The title might make you think it is boring and lousy however if you take the time to watch it as i did, you;d be very surprised. The actors were really not bad except for the goof that played the owner of the gallery. it might have seemed a little less interesting to me due to the fact they filmed where i live but it still kept me in it. i didn't fall asleep while watching it but i also wasn't covering my face with a pillow if you get my point. the special effects were pretty cool considering this was a low budget film and the music played at good times for added suspense. some flaws took place in the angles of the camera and a few shaky spots but overall i was highly impressed with this film and look forward to the sequel.
The reason I watched this comedy...i mean horror film...
funcaligab22 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I am one of those people who love bad horror films. This wasn't as good as lets say "Detour" or "Blood Gnome" but it came pretty damn close. So this film was great because the acting was so bad, and the camera was like a home digital camera that made everyones nose look enormous. That was good fun to laugh at. There is some nudity, unfortunately it was the fat chick of the film. The killer clown was the only reason I kept watching it...he was so hot. His body = 10 this movie = 7. And I will leave with my favorite quote from the movie...
Clown: Should I take the murder van? Clown's Boss: No, take the following van.
Lol...there are two vans...wtf
Clown: Should I take the murder van? Clown's Boss: No, take the following van.
Lol...there are two vans...wtf
Pennywise this is not.
Ky-D5 March 2006
Clowns are damn creepy, everyone knows that. The mere sight of a clown is enough to make many people uncomfortable, myself included. So, in theory using a clown as your villain should make for some easy scares. Eh, no.
A young girl is terrorized by visions of a murderous clown, one that resembles a figure she has painted before. She passes it off as dementia until people start dying and the clown turns out to be very real.
For a film trying to be a slasher there isn't a whole lot of slashing. It's 30+ minutes of boring dialogue, sloppy acting and dull plot development before any one dies, and even then it's a lame death followed by even more lengthy segment of boredom before anything else remotely interesting happens. To top off the whole package the film clocks in at over 100 hefty minutes; slasher movies are not meant to run that long.
On the plus side, the film does start turning out some decent deaths and enough blood and gore later in the film to keep itself from falling apart and the clown himself is rather unsettling to look at.
Sadly, this is nothing more that another unremarkable entry in the modern DtV horror scene.
5/10
A young girl is terrorized by visions of a murderous clown, one that resembles a figure she has painted before. She passes it off as dementia until people start dying and the clown turns out to be very real.
For a film trying to be a slasher there isn't a whole lot of slashing. It's 30+ minutes of boring dialogue, sloppy acting and dull plot development before any one dies, and even then it's a lame death followed by even more lengthy segment of boredom before anything else remotely interesting happens. To top off the whole package the film clocks in at over 100 hefty minutes; slasher movies are not meant to run that long.
On the plus side, the film does start turning out some decent deaths and enough blood and gore later in the film to keep itself from falling apart and the clown himself is rather unsettling to look at.
Sadly, this is nothing more that another unremarkable entry in the modern DtV horror scene.
5/10
Fear The Film But Laugh At The Clown!
weblists-115 July 2006
Oh my god! I should have read the reviews here first but I got lazy. Well, I got well and truly punished for it! I wish the clown would have killed me first so I would have not seen this "movie".
DIRECTOR: If you ever release a sequel, please put me in the FIRST death scene and chop me up for real so I don't see the sequel by mistake because I could never forgive myself and would probably commit suicide anyway.
After watching this movie you will become suicidal, believe me. I had to rate it a generous 1 because I could not find the -55 in the selection.
The people who made this squid need to change jobs, maybe shoe shining or set sweepers!
DIRECTOR: If you ever release a sequel, please put me in the FIRST death scene and chop me up for real so I don't see the sequel by mistake because I could never forgive myself and would probably commit suicide anyway.
After watching this movie you will become suicidal, believe me. I had to rate it a generous 1 because I could not find the -55 in the selection.
The people who made this squid need to change jobs, maybe shoe shining or set sweepers!
wtf...horror version of Brokeback Mountain
hawaiian_babe313 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, well......this movie is rated r for really gay. 1.) did you notice how many flaming homos there were??? Everyone in the movie (except the kid, the mom and her boyfriend) were gay. 2.) A killer clown...(who kills mostly men)...without a shirt...speaking for itself there. 3.)He kills a naked woman and doesn't do anything about it...come on...common sense would have told you to rape her or something... 4.)It wasn't the bad acting that got me ("token black cop")...okay, maybe it was... 5.)Oh, lets be a bad parent and leave our kid with a serial killer...how dumb can you be...honestly?? 6.)Might as well be the horror version of Brokeback Mountain with all its flaming homosexual innuendos... ....and thats just the start.... Basically this movie doesn't even deserve a 1...and I'm terrified of clowns...but this just.....yeah...terrible....
Fear of this movie
vegeta39866 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
(sigh) Lionsgate is just plain bad. i've seen over 10 independent horror movies from Lionsgate and NONE of them have been good. This one is no exception. i really think Lion needs to preview these movies before they decide to distribute them. Because fear of clowns is more than another crapfest.
The movie starts out. Some woman paints paintings of a clowns. evil clowns. she gets them put on display at an art museum by the most horribly acted art director in the history of movies. She finds out her neighbors were brutally murdered to which she surreptitiously raises an eyebrow as she talks to a young detective who often appears as if he was on his way to the beach and got called in for work. She shows her feelings and caring with such great dialogue as "sorry, but i have to get to work, here's my card" proving once again that you don't have to show emotion to be an actor.
An older man wants to pay the girl to draw a painting of his father who was a clown in a good light showing him happy. he offers her 10,000 dollars but she declines. Because after all, she doesn't paint clowns. she paints EVIL clowns. big difference. but eventually she concedes when he offers her double that amount and she goes off to paint. Oh, there's also a side story with evil moustache man (her ex-husband) who has his stick-in-butt lawyer tell her he wants everything, and might just get it too during the divorce including custody of a child who's in the movie for exactly 35 seconds.
Of course though, snidely whiplash hires an assassin to kill her and believe me when i tell you, this guy's the worst assassin i've ever seen in my life. he opens the door (no gloves), waits for her to look around the house a bit, turns to face her when she's across the hallway and begins to monologue. wow. can i hire this guy? apparently not because the painting lady has a new stalker boyfriend who jumps the killer and she picks up the gun and after he surrenders, shoots him. good job! you ruined your lead of figuring out who hired him and took a life! yay life lessons! but oh, thank heavens, the assassin's conversations with the husband were recorded by the assassin for...some...reason and they have enough to arrest him. but uh oh, the ex-husband also releases a dangerous clown to kill everyone around her to get to her (i know. it doesn't make any sense) including the woman's clone, the art director (thank god), and a random Asian policeman (the only good kill in the movie by the way).
the shirtless clown who carries a horrible plastic axe eventually tracks her down to a movie theater who no one happens to be in but 3 people, kills them all, and then chases the two main characters around the theater like an episode of scooby doo. the policeman catches up and the clown, who had been psychotic up until this point, surrenders and goes with the police calmly. best ending ever.
The movie is awful and i mean awful. The plot is retarded, the killer doesn't make any sense, it's incredibly boring, and pointless. low budget does not excuse this crapfest. i could write a much better script than this. the characters were dull, lifeless, and made you wish for their early demise. On the other hand, some of the characters you knew so briefly you didn't get a CHANCE to hate them. But anyway, stay away from this movie unless you enjoy losing brain cells. and your money. and your time.
Fear of Clowns gets 1 snidely whiplash impersonator, out of 10.
The movie starts out. Some woman paints paintings of a clowns. evil clowns. she gets them put on display at an art museum by the most horribly acted art director in the history of movies. She finds out her neighbors were brutally murdered to which she surreptitiously raises an eyebrow as she talks to a young detective who often appears as if he was on his way to the beach and got called in for work. She shows her feelings and caring with such great dialogue as "sorry, but i have to get to work, here's my card" proving once again that you don't have to show emotion to be an actor.
An older man wants to pay the girl to draw a painting of his father who was a clown in a good light showing him happy. he offers her 10,000 dollars but she declines. Because after all, she doesn't paint clowns. she paints EVIL clowns. big difference. but eventually she concedes when he offers her double that amount and she goes off to paint. Oh, there's also a side story with evil moustache man (her ex-husband) who has his stick-in-butt lawyer tell her he wants everything, and might just get it too during the divorce including custody of a child who's in the movie for exactly 35 seconds.
Of course though, snidely whiplash hires an assassin to kill her and believe me when i tell you, this guy's the worst assassin i've ever seen in my life. he opens the door (no gloves), waits for her to look around the house a bit, turns to face her when she's across the hallway and begins to monologue. wow. can i hire this guy? apparently not because the painting lady has a new stalker boyfriend who jumps the killer and she picks up the gun and after he surrenders, shoots him. good job! you ruined your lead of figuring out who hired him and took a life! yay life lessons! but oh, thank heavens, the assassin's conversations with the husband were recorded by the assassin for...some...reason and they have enough to arrest him. but uh oh, the ex-husband also releases a dangerous clown to kill everyone around her to get to her (i know. it doesn't make any sense) including the woman's clone, the art director (thank god), and a random Asian policeman (the only good kill in the movie by the way).
the shirtless clown who carries a horrible plastic axe eventually tracks her down to a movie theater who no one happens to be in but 3 people, kills them all, and then chases the two main characters around the theater like an episode of scooby doo. the policeman catches up and the clown, who had been psychotic up until this point, surrenders and goes with the police calmly. best ending ever.
The movie is awful and i mean awful. The plot is retarded, the killer doesn't make any sense, it's incredibly boring, and pointless. low budget does not excuse this crapfest. i could write a much better script than this. the characters were dull, lifeless, and made you wish for their early demise. On the other hand, some of the characters you knew so briefly you didn't get a CHANCE to hate them. But anyway, stay away from this movie unless you enjoy losing brain cells. and your money. and your time.
Fear of Clowns gets 1 snidely whiplash impersonator, out of 10.
Could Be A lot Worse
catlin_massier21 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
When I started to watch this movie, it seems pretty good at first, but the acting was sort of bad so I kept saying to myself "this seems likes a student film" with the lack of background music in some needed areas, this movie was not the greatest movie i have ever seen but defiantly not the worst, my friend came over and I showed him a a scene and he made the comment "what's the budget for this movie? 100$" .. I gave it a 5 cause it was kinda creepy at parts and because it had female nudity in it! I right now am Addicted to horror movies, and really I appreciate the film because, its low budget, and they did what they had to do to make it work. If you are looking for a hit GREAT movie, this is not the one, but if your bored, and wanna watch something somewhat entertaining this may do it, it my opinion.
Turd Burger
brusty114 May 2006
This movie was bad enough to be pretty funny, but terrible acting, empty dialogue, slow pacing & a bad ending ruined most of it. I was surprised by how some of it was shot, which was somewhat impressive for a director with a small budget, but the director definitely needs a script supervisor because some of the choices the characters made were just plain dumb. This film, like many before it, takes itself way too seriously at times and that detracts from the hilarity of everything that occurs.
Watch this film while drinking or on several various intoxicants, but expect to interact with the film and get several wtf's and gut laughs along the way.
Watch this film while drinking or on several various intoxicants, but expect to interact with the film and get several wtf's and gut laughs along the way.
A solid 3 out of 10 stars
mwold22 December 2005
The entire storyline is entirely ridiculous. BUT, if one must make a serious horror movie out of such a dumb premise, well, I tip my hat. My problem with this movie is many. First of all, the script is just plain bad, everyone sounds quasi retarded. Secondly, the acting is very very poor on almost all counts. The detective is pretty good, and there are a few hammy performances, but the leads are just plain wooden and boring, there's no one of interest here, even the killer clown is bland. Having said all of these nasty things, there are some redeeming points to be made, the screenplay isn't awful, some good camera work for digital, and the overall production doesn't feel completely cheap. Still, this felt an awful lot like amateur hour at the carnival.
Tasteless, boring and pathetic.
notokay1927 June 2007
"Fear of Clowns" should be about someone with a fear of clowns. It really isn't. The main character claims that she's not afraid of them, and that's as far as the movie takes it.
There is a back story involving the main character and clowns. It is never explained, nor is it ever attempted.
The characters in this film are boring and stupid. They don't know when to run and hide, and they don't have any interesting personality traits. They are completely lifeless, and might as well be killed by a crazy man in clown make-up.
The acting is some of the worst I've ever seen. There are moments when you and I would shriek in terror, but these actors do nothing more than look at each other. They don't make worried faces, or breathe deeply, they just stare.
The villain isn't scary, the storyline is pathetic, the camera work is beyond contemptible, the "scary moments" aren't even close to scary, the special effects look fake, the direction is bad, the actors blow, the characters are boring, and at every moment where something good or scary could've happened, the Director urinated all over it.
This movie should not be in existence. It is wretched, God-awful crap. The Director says that his favorite horror movie is "Halloween", and that he was going for the same thing. By saying that, he might just destroy the reputation of John Carpenter's masterpiece.
And to all those critics that said it was "suspensful" and "frightening", I have a simple question: How much did the director pay you to say that?
There is a back story involving the main character and clowns. It is never explained, nor is it ever attempted.
The characters in this film are boring and stupid. They don't know when to run and hide, and they don't have any interesting personality traits. They are completely lifeless, and might as well be killed by a crazy man in clown make-up.
The acting is some of the worst I've ever seen. There are moments when you and I would shriek in terror, but these actors do nothing more than look at each other. They don't make worried faces, or breathe deeply, they just stare.
The villain isn't scary, the storyline is pathetic, the camera work is beyond contemptible, the "scary moments" aren't even close to scary, the special effects look fake, the direction is bad, the actors blow, the characters are boring, and at every moment where something good or scary could've happened, the Director urinated all over it.
This movie should not be in existence. It is wretched, God-awful crap. The Director says that his favorite horror movie is "Halloween", and that he was going for the same thing. By saying that, he might just destroy the reputation of John Carpenter's masterpiece.
And to all those critics that said it was "suspensful" and "frightening", I have a simple question: How much did the director pay you to say that?
A solid 8.
Maleficent_md29 October 2004
A suspenseful, sometimes frightening movie with just enough cheeky humour thrown in to take off the edge. Although my "fear of clowns" wasn't enough to keep me from seeing this film, it was brought to the surface many times over. A tidy story with decent special effects for an independent film. It plays out smoothly with the aid of some really solid directing. At times I felt the lighting was a bit "dark", but that also added to the suspense, wondering just what the camera was going to reveal next. The performances of Jacky Reres (Lynn), Mark Lassise (Shivers the clown) and Rick Ganz (Tuck) brought much to this film, but I found Frank Lama's (Detective Peters) to be most enjoyable. His character was, by far, my favorite. For Kangas' second film, I would say that it's outstanding. He really has a great eye and who's to say what he can do with more financial backing? Check it out. You won't be disappointed, but you MIGHT just walk away with a...Fear of Clowns.
Good low budget
MikeStefancik24 February 2006
Just saw this movie last night at a local screening. Read the reviews here n this it's just great to see every idiot pushing their opinion as fact like they know what their talking about.
The guy who gives the film 3 out of 10 says this in the review: "First of all, the script is just plain bad..." and then a few sentences later says: "Having said all of these nasty things, there are some redeeming points to be made, the screenplay isn't awful".
Okay, anyone who doesn't know that the script and the screenplay are th same thing needs to keep their opinions about movies to themselves.
The movie is more a suspense flick than a horror movie even though it has some cool horror parts to it. Yea the acting is uneven throughout(par for the course on low budget flicks) but the standout is the clown, who is one scary badboy. I'd love to see him square off against Jason or Michael Myers.
I gave it high marks because of its low budget origins. If you're not giving any points for being low budget it's probably a 7.
The guy who gives the film 3 out of 10 says this in the review: "First of all, the script is just plain bad..." and then a few sentences later says: "Having said all of these nasty things, there are some redeeming points to be made, the screenplay isn't awful".
Okay, anyone who doesn't know that the script and the screenplay are th same thing needs to keep their opinions about movies to themselves.
The movie is more a suspense flick than a horror movie even though it has some cool horror parts to it. Yea the acting is uneven throughout(par for the course on low budget flicks) but the standout is the clown, who is one scary badboy. I'd love to see him square off against Jason or Michael Myers.
I gave it high marks because of its low budget origins. If you're not giving any points for being low budget it's probably a 7.
I didn't think it was that bad, underrated movie
lagriff0516 June 2007
(written December 2006)
This movie was quite good, better then I expected. Nobody seems able to make a good clown horror film, but this one's not too bad at all. It's got some good scares in here, and the acting's not as bad as I expected out of a B film like this. The characters are genuinely interesting, and I don't find myself looking back on this film with any contempt. It's a solid movie. Nothing really unpleasant or glaringly awful about it. I wouldn't even call this a B-film necessarily, it feels a bit more polished then that, not as messy and unprofessional.
I do have to point out, however, that this film never really grabs you by the throat and goes full-throttle either. It's good, but it had the potential to really pull out some huge shocks, and thrill you like a top-class movie would. It never climaxes, never reaches a high point. It does stay on a good level of quality all the way through, but it never rises above 'good' at all, unfortunately.
The ending was very good, too.
Recommended to horror fans only.
This movie was quite good, better then I expected. Nobody seems able to make a good clown horror film, but this one's not too bad at all. It's got some good scares in here, and the acting's not as bad as I expected out of a B film like this. The characters are genuinely interesting, and I don't find myself looking back on this film with any contempt. It's a solid movie. Nothing really unpleasant or glaringly awful about it. I wouldn't even call this a B-film necessarily, it feels a bit more polished then that, not as messy and unprofessional.
I do have to point out, however, that this film never really grabs you by the throat and goes full-throttle either. It's good, but it had the potential to really pull out some huge shocks, and thrill you like a top-class movie would. It never climaxes, never reaches a high point. It does stay on a good level of quality all the way through, but it never rises above 'good' at all, unfortunately.
The ending was very good, too.
Recommended to horror fans only.
Stay Away
artpf19 December 2011
This may be one of the worst films ever made -- and not in a good way.
It completely sucks.
No script.
No story.
Bad acting.
No special effects.
Nothing.
It's a movie where the victims stare at the clown for 5 full minutes before reacting. Uh, ever hear the term, "feets don't fail me now?"
The funniest thing in the movie is that the boring clown -- who has zero personality -- uses a GIANT medieval axe to kill people! Why? But then again, why do I expect that to make sense when nothing else does?
It completely sucks.
No script.
No story.
Bad acting.
No special effects.
Nothing.
It's a movie where the victims stare at the clown for 5 full minutes before reacting. Uh, ever hear the term, "feets don't fail me now?"
The funniest thing in the movie is that the boring clown -- who has zero personality -- uses a GIANT medieval axe to kill people! Why? But then again, why do I expect that to make sense when nothing else does?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
