VividSimon Simply Perfect

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Bluesman THE SLEEPER is a low-budget horror movie with a very basic plot about a serial killer who stalks a bunch of (female) college students. Yes, there are hundreds of movies with plots just like that but the fact that the movie is set in the 1980s is unusual for a low-budget production. The movie is actually not as bad as many of the negative reviews might suggest, but you have to keep in mind that this is a $30,000 production with mostly unexperienced actors. I guess most people who rated this movie low had their expectations set too high. They probably expected more of a plot, which is not really that important of an element in this movie. It's the way the story is presented effectively and evocatively on a very limited budget and with a cast of amateur actors that is intriguing.Director Justin Russell and his crew did get a lot of things right to make this look like a typical 1980s horror flick. The pre-credit scenes and the opening titles in particular look like they could be straight out of a vintage slasher. The look of the rest of the movie falls short in a way, though, which can be attributed to the fact that it wasn't shot on film. THE SLEEPER could probably pretty much look like a movie from the decade it tries to recreate if they had shot it on real film stock instead of digital cameras. Ti West shot THE HOUSE OF THE DEVIL (2009), which also takes place in the early 1980s, on 16 mm film and he managed to make it look exactly like a film from that period. If the producers of THE SLEEPER could have afforded to shoot on film, this movie would look a lot better and the vibe would be completely different. This digital footage just looks too clean and not film- like, which is not right for the time period. Therefore, you never really can fully appreciate the images shown in this movie because the look of the digital footage is quite distracting in many scenes. Nevertheless, they did the best they could with the very limited budget, I guess. Maybe the look could have been improved with the right filters, but I don't know about that.A number actors from the cast are quite good even though they seem to be amateurs who do not pursue acting as a career. It's nice to see real-looking people in a movie for a change. I'd like to see more acting performances from these people, but for many of them this is the only movie they've done so far. I especially liked Jenna Fournier's performance. She is mainly a musician and painter, it seems, but I think she should act more. She has talent.All in all, this is an enjoyable movie for fans of 1980s slasher movies. It has a good cast and most of the killing scenes are quite inventive and well done with nice practical effects. Yes, the movie is lacking an elaborate plot, and, yes, the movie should have a different, more film-like look, but if you can see over those issues and keep the limitations of low-budget productions in mind, you have an ambitious horror movie that was clearly made by fans of the genre for fans of the genre.

mevanston1967 First, I will give the director credit for making this film genuinely look and feel like it was from 1981. I actually found it hard to believe its a 2012 movie. So, kudos to him for that. However, I am sorry to say that this movie was NOT at all scary. It was actually pretty dull and nothing original. No character building, no explanation for anything that was happening. I can forgive low budget movies if there is actual suspense and scary scenes, but there was none to be found here. I think if this really was 1981, I may have enjoyed this film immensely, but having seen thousands of horror movies over the years, I guess I have really raised my standards.

trashgang So many haters and lovers for this return to the original slashers, the heydays beginning in the eighties. Please stop complaining about the way it was filmed and no scratches on the reel and ugly women and no story at all. Let me say this, I enjoyed it and I grew up with the slashers coming out on daily base and I have so many laying here on VHS that never were released and aren't even worth watching but this does. Maybe I agree that the look of the film wasn't really eighties by which I mean, no scratches at all and no too dark passages or bad sound. Face it, if it was filmed in 1981 (the year this flick took place) then it surely would have that look but cameras and technique do progress and it's all HD and DV cams nowadays so to make it look 'old' isn't that simple or you have to add fake scratches afterwards when you are colourgrading or in post production. At least he didn't use to much extra lighting.But back to the flick, it do has all items a slasher should have, it do has a score with equipment outdated made by Gremlin, sounds close to the old Argento giallo's with Goblin, hahaha. That's already an ode to that era. It do has POV shots from the killer, there is a heroin, there is the so needed nudity, everything counts. The acting won't win a BAFTA or an Oscar but the main lead Amy (Brittany Belland) was in her first role and she did well. Maybe the talking at the party is a bit of a wooden acting but overall I do dig it. As I said earlier here and in other reviews, there is more terrible acting out there...To come back on the nudity. I guess reviewers reacting that she was ugly, well, at least it wasn't a two a penny fake tits wannabee, I think the hoi polloi nowadays are used to see C or D cups as fake as it could be. Back in the original eighties fake breasts didn't exist, whatever. It is out there to see and she's do has a normal look, nothing fake here. Someone complaining on the plastic used when one girl is being smashed, for a ultra low budget it was nicely done (editing) and there's a lot of red stuff in it. Not that it is gory but still it works. The killer itself isn't explained why he does the killing and who he is and what is wrong with his eyes. But there are more slashers out without any explanation. I came across this flick because I still searching OOP ex rental exploitation and horror flicks on VHS. The limited package that is available has a VHS (NTSC) and DVD coming in a box that will give old school buffs a hard on. With a trailer, really made old school for a non existing horror.A nice slasher with all elements included to make it a slasher. it isn't perfect but it is above average. And no, I have nothing to do with this flick. I just review in a honest way, I even don't live in the US. Pick it up today.Gore 3/5 Nudity 1/5 Effects 3/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5

jtmorehead55 You know the expression "they don't the make em' like they used to"? Well, that's not entirely true in this case. I am an an avid horror fan, and I adore the 80's slasher genre. Many films attempt to emulate the look and vibe of this genre, yet fall so far in their attempts. Justin Russell and his GammaKnife films production crew absolutely nailed almost every element of what an 80's slasher embodied. The look, tone, dialogue, and music. The killer "The Sleeper " was brilliantly portrayed. The gore was fantastic!There were flaws and questions left unanswered ... but in almost every slasher from that time period this seemed to be the case. If you're a horror fan, you need to own "The Sleeper" in your collection.