Dorathen
Better Late Then Never
TeenzTen
An action-packed slog
Stoutor
It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.
Guillelmina
The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.
trashgang
First of all, on the DVD sleeve it was written, in the style of Blair Witch project. I haven't seen anything in that style. secondly, it was filed here in shops as horror but it's more one of those flicks that has not that much to do with horror but more with flicks about drugs and hallucinations.If you have seen the flop Someone's Knocking At The Door (2009) then you know exactly what I mean. But that flick did had some creepy moments but Cookers never satisfied me. Maybe I didn't get it after all but for me it was all about talking and taking drugs. Once things go wrong with the house their in you will see for example a CGI hand coming to grap the girl's hair. Not for everybody, that's a fact and be it that I didn't like it, maybe the sentence Blair Witch tricked me and fooled me. Gore 1/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 2/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5
slake09
Most low budget horror movies are pretty bad, hence the desire to watch a lot of them hoping to find the gem that publicity has overlooked. This is that gem.The storyline deals with a crew of methampetamine cookers who hole up in an old house to make drugs. Since this is a horror movie, the house must be haunted, and of course it is. That the plot is predictable doesn't take away from the entertainment; you might know what's coming, but the way it's presented is the enjoyable part here.The pacing, the story, the acting - all good. The way that tension was gradually ratcheted up throughout the film speaks well of the director. I especially enjoyed the brief hints that the people were not alone in the house, somewhat reminiscent of The Grudge, but not as blatant.You'll know how it's going to end, of course, and that's OK. Again, knowing doesn't detract from the movie in any way. The humor is understated, the horror is creepy, and the cast is entirely believable.
yen-kha
I see what the director was trying to do but he missed the mark. The main actor was really good but the editing around his moments takes you out of it. The camera work, ie lighting and exposer is kind of amateur which I could forgive if the direction was more fluent but it wasn't. The sound was a bit off and that takes you out of the film as well. I see could see this director doing a little bit better in the future so not a total right off but don't expect a dv movie nearly as good as 28 days later or anything, keep your expectations low and you'll get more out of it. At least it was only an hour and a half. Oh yeah and other than the lead the acting was pretty bad if you ask me. But I'm a movie snob so take that for what that's worth.
drunkmothableep
I wanted to like this movie, but many elements ruined it for me. The use of a fisheye lens throughout and choppy editing did not give me a sense of being in the world of the meth head, but it did make me think I was watching MTV for a few short moments. The movie never did seem to go anywhere and the acting was truly an excellent example of over acting. I love movies that give us a glimpse into the seedy underworld, but this film couldn't decide if it was a bad horror film or an even worse serious commentary on the horrors of addiction.
