troywhigham First off, let me say that it's not easy playing a victim. Everyone cheers for the hero or the villain, so when you add in playing a victim, then playing the victim for most of the movie, and then playing a naked victim for most of the movie, you start to wonder how Debbie D hasn't been crowned a Scream Queen award winner yet by the people in the business who know how hard it is to do it.Second, the acting by just about everyone is terrible, particularly the supporting characters. I almost got the feeling I was watching a student film, but I've seen student films that are much better. I've even seen porn films with a paper-thin plot that had better acting. And it's not the sort of "so bad it's good" acting, either, so you lose out on the cheese factor. I caught myself thinking, "WTF? They should've given me the budget to do this. I'd do it right!" Then I checked the actors' credits and noticed that they also served as production crew on the film. So, I'm guessing that it was a case of "hey, if you help me make my film I'll let you have a role in it. A speaking role!" Third, the initial premise is solid - writer buys inanimate object that possesses him. Stop. OK, if done right you can take this idea and leave the viewer wondering if the writer really was possessed, or just crazy. "The Shining" is a great example of this in execution. You just need to write it along those lines.Fourth, what's with the retarded assistant? Comic relief? Luis de Jesus as "Ralphus" in "Bloodsucking Freaks" is the epitome of how to do the assistant to a madman. Funny yet creepy at the same time. In this one, the assistant is just a waste of space.Fifth, if you knock out your meddlesome wife and tie her up in the basement so you can perform satanic rituals with a sacrificial victim, why not add her in as a bonus sacrifice? Or at least strip her naked and paint a pentagram on her belly, too. Maybe Lucifer prefers blondes. But wait, that's right, she's the script supervisor and probably conveniently discarded the page that talks about her clothing be removed.Sixth (because this is a horror movie and the number "six" has evil connotations), what exactly was Gesner's role in the scheme? Nothing important, other than the fact that the actress that played her was a boom operator and script supervisor, which takes us back to the "hey, if you work on my movie I'll let you have a role" point I made earlier.In all, this has the feel of a bunch of people with nothing to do deciding to make a movie on a long weekend and somehow roping Debbie D into being in it. Naked. For most of the film.Someone needs to hand her an award.

danielmartinx The acting was terrible in the early scenes. The punk and his rather Junoesque girlfriend beating up the black retarded guy, for instance, that was unforgivably bad. And when the main character and his wife speak to each other, it was terrible. However, it's a surreal and unreal horror film, and once the unreality of it became more pronounced, I was able to follow the story.Problems with the story? Narrative problems? Yes, totally. But the main character's descent into sadistic cruelty was kind of shocking, perhaps more shocking after all of the jokey scenes preceding it.I enjoyed the development and remain in shock that one of the characters was totally naked for the entire final half of the film. The nudism, plus the sadism, plus the rape, plus the murder, plus the Satanism -- it kind of creeps up on you and creeps you out. At least it did me.Would I recommend this? Yes, watch it. But go in with open eyes and expect some campy horror scenes. Not method acting, but delivering lines in order to make the story go forward.

movieman_kev Ken Richardson (Tony Rugnetta of "Requim for a Vampire" which this movie even name drops) is a writer who buys a typewriter that belonged to a demonic man, whom he gets fascinated with in the extremely low budget film. He soon befriends a mentally challenged young man who's more then willing to help him in his new unholy endeavors. Wow where do I start with this film? It has plot lines that literally go nowhere and whole characters appear and disappear from the movie without a second thought. It's extremely disjointed and seems to have been cobbled together with no rhyme nor reason. But be that as it may, at points the film is (unintentualy) hilarious and provided me with enough drunken amusement to at least warrant a recommendation. The acting is supremely awful and beer or hard liquor is pretty much a prerequisite. As a matter of fact if I were to rate this film purely on it's merit I'd likely give it a D-, but instead i'm rating it on it's hilarity.Eye Candy: Debbie D is fully nude for most of her scenesMy Grade: BDVD Extras: Slide show; Bloopers; Cast interviews; auditions; deleted scenes (wth more nudity from Debbie); and trailers for this film, as well as "Clean" (with still more nudity), "Dr. Shock's Grindhouse of Horrors", & "the Innocent"

emlouise Where do i begin with this movie?It was bad,really bad,laughable at some points..it felt like they were reading from scripts and one actor was waiting for the last one who had lines to finish before he or she would begin,it didn't flow....at all!! I just didn't get it.. I'm one of these people that will watch a movie regardless of what reviews it's had,I honestly wish I hadn't.There is one scene in the movie where a girl gets kidnapped and is being used as a "pet",she goes to the house where she is being held to welcome the new couple to the community,she says that her and her partner moved there last summer,as I said she gets kidnapped and is being held as a "pet".. where was her partner? why didn't he come looking for her? The police do finally go looking and knock at the house where she is being held,she makes a noise and the police are told its a cat,they don't ask to look around!!.. that wouldn't happen,it just wasn't believable at all,and what was with the end?? what was that all about?? I gave this a 2,only cos like i said it made me laugh at how bad the acting became at some points.