It was obvious to me when I rented this that it was a no-budget film. I'm often attracted to the cheapies merely BECAUSE they have no budget -- a lot of them seem to try harder to make up for lack of money. Every now and then I'll stumble on gold ("Evil Cult," for example) but this is not one of those instances. That said...
The story (if you want to call it that) revolves around a novelist who's writing a book titled "Serial Killer." We soon learn that he's being interviewing killers and one is sending him videos of his victims. It could have been interesting, but instead it goes off in an entirely different direction. There is a twist ending (which is basically given away on the back of the video box), but by the end one hardly cares anymore -- and it's not particularly shocking.
The sole purpose of this film seems to be to showcase a variety of women nude and tied up in X-rated positions. That wouldn't bother me if it were particularly erotic -- but it's not erotic in the least. Instead, it's dull, tedious and downright inane (one of the nude women is laughing through her supposedly terror-filled dialogue). Which brings me to the acting (again, if you want to call it that). The lead serial killer is passable, and might even be a good b-movie actor if he toned it down a notch. Save for two or three women who are seen for a few seconds, the rest of the acting is completely atrocious. Quite frankly, I've seen better acting in bad '70s sexploitation films. I was oblivious to Joel Wynkoop's status as a b-movie actor until I read another comment here, which would explain why his scene seems to drag on endlessly, but I hardly understand why he has any status.
My biggest complaint about the film is one that most people probably wouldn't give much thought to. The novelist gives an autograph that reads "YOUR DEAD." Now, any published writer would know that "your" is possessive and the correct spelling of that would be "you're." Had they not drawn attention to that note (twice) it wouldn't have bothered me so much, but I was already irritated that I'd shelled out a few bucks to rent it and found that grammatical error added insult to injury.
Bottom line: avoid this pointless home movie unless you want to see a bunch of women naked. Even then, I wouldn't recommend it (I'd be quicker to point you towards quasi-redeemable trash like "The Cheerleaders" or any Nazi Hellcamp flicks).
The story (if you want to call it that) revolves around a novelist who's writing a book titled "Serial Killer." We soon learn that he's being interviewing killers and one is sending him videos of his victims. It could have been interesting, but instead it goes off in an entirely different direction. There is a twist ending (which is basically given away on the back of the video box), but by the end one hardly cares anymore -- and it's not particularly shocking.
The sole purpose of this film seems to be to showcase a variety of women nude and tied up in X-rated positions. That wouldn't bother me if it were particularly erotic -- but it's not erotic in the least. Instead, it's dull, tedious and downright inane (one of the nude women is laughing through her supposedly terror-filled dialogue). Which brings me to the acting (again, if you want to call it that). The lead serial killer is passable, and might even be a good b-movie actor if he toned it down a notch. Save for two or three women who are seen for a few seconds, the rest of the acting is completely atrocious. Quite frankly, I've seen better acting in bad '70s sexploitation films. I was oblivious to Joel Wynkoop's status as a b-movie actor until I read another comment here, which would explain why his scene seems to drag on endlessly, but I hardly understand why he has any status.
My biggest complaint about the film is one that most people probably wouldn't give much thought to. The novelist gives an autograph that reads "YOUR DEAD." Now, any published writer would know that "your" is possessive and the correct spelling of that would be "you're." Had they not drawn attention to that note (twice) it wouldn't have bothered me so much, but I was already irritated that I'd shelled out a few bucks to rent it and found that grammatical error added insult to injury.
Bottom line: avoid this pointless home movie unless you want to see a bunch of women naked. Even then, I wouldn't recommend it (I'd be quicker to point you towards quasi-redeemable trash like "The Cheerleaders" or any Nazi Hellcamp flicks).