Budget: $70,000: The Stitcher (2007) 90 min - Horror | Thriller
Next up...
4,463
The Stitcher
Storyline
Something strange is happening in this eerie backwoods town.
Inspired by true events , a group of friends must survive the weekend in order to escape the terror that is beyond their imagination. Desperate and fearing for their lives, the horror surges when a legendary killer wants something they all possess. They soon find out the town is not what it seems, and with no hope of rescue, they must find their way out before they fall victim to the Stitcher's obsession. This blood curdling story will make you never want to wear certain pieces of clothing again.
The trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNR1NF00g9U
The free film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHNGbLm9SYE
Useful review remarks #1:
http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/stitcher.php
"If this synopsis sounds generic and derivative it's because the movie's generic and derivative. While not quite horrible or unwatchable, director Darla Enlow's spin on the slasher genre fails to differentiate itself from the slew of similarly slashstastic thrillers vying for your valuable time. Basically, it's a serviceable entry into the crowded genre, ultra low-budget and sporting that home-grown look so common to straight-to-DVD horror releases.
The acting is passable, with a cast of no-names really giving it the old college try. Some fare better than others (the protagonists are significantly less intrusive to the viewing experience than some of their other cohorts, particularly those tasked with generating comic relief), but really all you're looking for here is a group of people willing to be coated in fake blood and laying down a decent shriek or two. In that regard, everyone delivers."
Useful review remarks #2:
http://moviemet.com/review/stitcher-dvd-review#.UhWFy5LVB8E
"While "The Stitcher" is a fairly amateurish, standard-issue slasher film, you have to hand it to Ms. Enlow for at least injecting a little new life into the old genre, despite the budgetary limitations. Her camera work is reasonably inventive, her pacing is relatively quick and smooth, her minimal make-up techniques are crude but minimally effective, and her largely first-time actors put in largely yeoman work. So what if the results resemble a student production; it only serves to make the movie that much more fun."
Useful review remarks #3:
http://www.gutmunchers.com/TheStitcher.html
"I recommend that anyone interested in making a short independent movie take the time to watch the Stitcher. It is an excellent illustration of the mistakes that you will want to avoid.
First of all if you are going to shoot at night or shoot a lot of dark interiors then you need to know how to handle the lighting. There are so many scenes in this movie where you can’t see a damn thing. Seriously the entire screen is black with some noises on it. Kind of makes it hard to watch and know what is going on.
Secondly loud alternative rock music isn’t appropriate for every goddamn scene. Just because you have friends that are in a band doesn’t mean their crappy music has to be blaring behind and sometimes over the dialogue. Not that hearing the dialogue would have helped, but I digress.
Thirdly shooting footage isn’t enough, you need to have someone that knows how to edit. Characters seem to appear out of nowhere, vehicles move by themselves, and the transitions between some of the scenes are awful. This is all because your editor didn’t keep the movie cohesive. Though to be fair I’m assuming that the editor cut the scenes establishing the first two and not that the director just didn’t shoot them.
Finally if you are going to make a slasher flick you need to have some blood and boobs. Not trying to be crude, but that is what these movies are about. The Stitcher has no good kills scenes and all the violence happens off screen. All we get to see are people lying on the ground covered in fake blood. Not a single knife or axe hitting flesh at all! The movie doesn’t even make up for it by giving us any nudity. In fact the only nudity comes in what is clearly an insert shot that has nothing to do with the cast. I’m thinking someone must have asked for it or suggested it to spice things up. Sadly it didn’t’ work."
Ouch! The editor is also the writer and director and DP!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1141274/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm
I dunno how you get more culpable than that.
These IMDB User reviews are very consistent with the critics and continue to define WHAT NOT TO DO in our own lo/no budget films:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1141274/reviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt
What I find interesting in the reviews is that this does appear to be regarded as at least two layers above the absolute bottom of the barrel cr@pfest many lo/no budget films are criticized.
It's amateur - with heart!
But it's not complete cr@p.
Well... the absence of nudity is p!sing off a lotta folks. (I'm surprised, really. I didn't know tits were the cure to sh!t filmmaking. Who knew?!)
And the off camera gore/action got flagged repeatedly. Good to know.
Bonus! The director's first feature film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORR133P-IFI Budget: $30,000
Bonus! The director's second feature film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHNGbLm9SYE unknown budget
AWWWWWW!!!!!
F##########CK!!!!!!!
MEEEEEEEEE!!!!
I did all that [expletive] homework on the wrong [expletive] film!
F##########CKIN
MUTHER
F#######CKER!!!!!!!
Dammit!
Whatever.
Anyways...
Watch 'Branded'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHNGbLm9SYE
IDK what the budget was - yeah, I did search but came up with bumpkus.
However, since the writer/director's first film 'Toe Tags' (2003) was $30k and her third film 'The Stitcher' (2007) was $70k, and the first two films look an awful lot like what we can see in the trailer for the third film I think it's safe to infer that the budget for 'Branded' (2006) is somewhere in the ballpark between those two budget points.
There's really not a lot of reviews for 'Branded'
This one here looks a lot like those for 'The Stitcher':
http://www.moviesmademe.com/movie/review/959
The two IMDB User reviews peg it juuuust below 'The Stitcher' in quality - but still pretty poor.
The biggest problem with this movie was that i didn't know what genre this movie was going for. it wasn't really a horror...it wasn't gory, it wasn't psychological....it was....just THERE. um... so it's hard to really despise a movie where you don't know what they were going for. So i'm just going to go with saying it was pointless. That's the word for this movie. Pointless. The motivation was nonsensical, the acting for a lot of the actors was pretty meh, and the attempt at vision artistry just confused me more than anything. While it isn't the worst movie i've seen on this set so far, I hope to GOD it won't be the best.
I feel sorry for this poor sucker:
The script is fool, nonsense and goes to nowhere. The acting seems very amateur and the production is just terrible. I think that even FILMING STUDENTS would have done a better job - by far - . I'm really disappointed with myself for buying this title!. I mean, I paid almost USD$40 for it, now I can't just throw it out to the trash can, and giving it as a gift to anyone would be just EMBARRASSING.
$40?! Goodness. Whattamoron. Dumb@ss.
Okay, what do I think?
All the classical mistakes amateur filmmakers make.
Seriously, I can't really peg a big production difference between $3,500 '
Thankskilling' and 'Branded' which I'm going to guess from the budget of the director's other two films probably was ten times that amount.
Maybe it all went to pay for 5.1 surround sound audio mix. I dunno.
Still bad camerawork with what I'm going to assume is at least a decent camera.
Surprisingly poor audio - I won't even guess as to what they used.
Frankly, after watching some of all three of these films, it appears the director knows marketing best (
although an interview* with her indicates she feels otherwise) and she hasn't really learned how to collect good images or audio.
And she still can't write a good story fer sh!t.
* FWIW, this is a decent enough interview that most any of us should be proud to have produced anything that would warrant such ourselves.
It contains a lot of the writer/director/producer's experiences which just reinforce a lot about the things we routinely discuss around here.
It's not a comprehensive interview and answer session, but somewhat worthwhile.
I respect her business-mindedness MUCH more than her filmmaking.
I don't know how much her prod co makes in revenue, but I hope she's at least making enough to keep the lights on after expenses.
Some more gem comments here by Captain Insanity!
http://www.amazon.com/Branded-Jamie-Sworski/dp/B000HXDWQO
"Oh, Cover Art ......How I Loathe you. February 11, 2008
By Captain Insanity VINE VOICE
Ok before I start bashing this film,
let me just list everything that was entertaining about this experience.
- The art on the cover of the DVD...................
That is all.
It's a movie about a corny rock band,
staying at a managers cabin, where murders start taking place.
That's it.
Nothing deeper or more profound.
The flashbacks into the lead singers past do little to enrich the already hopelessly mundane story.
And the uninspired story being the only grace that COULD have saved this flick, falls desperately flat.
The dialogue seemed like it sort of wanted to be witty, (I guess)
but when jokes are being delivered by meat-puppets,
no ones laughin'.
You ever watch a movie that felt more like a trial in self-masochism than entertainment?
You ever curse yourself for not turning a movie off?
Waiting forever for that one redeeming death scene that you know has to be coming.
The glorious scene that will make the unbearable wait worth the effort.
But before it ever arrives,
the credits roll.
And frustration burns it's way deep into your scalp?
Essentially;
If I were to put a handful of razors on my tongue,
duct-tape my mouth shut,
pour boiling water on my face,
and bite down, to ease the pain,
it would pretty much be the be equivalent of watching 20 minutes,
none the less, a feature length film of this mind-numbing, brutally-amateur, souless effort.
Amateur porn actually has better production values than this horror flick did.
I can't believe I had to type that.
The acting is sooooooooooo bad,
(the leading man is the worst actor I've seen, in my soon to be short life)
it actually takes you out of the film.
You are very aware that you are watching people "try" to "act".
And I use that term loosely.
This movie, if little else, has created a new term for me,
"Murphys Horror"
"Everything that could be wrong WAS wrong with this movie."
Just a thought:
I've noticed,
The best low-budget horror movies, are the ones that are wildly over the top.
The ones that are acutely aware of their low-budget,
and instead of letting that be their limitation,
they use it to their advantage,
to instead focus on other aspects of a movie that are regularly absent from bigger budget horror flicks
(ie: Oh, I don't know.........Style, Soul).
Usually the best ones are horror-comedies, but that's not always the case.
They're usually unique in scope,
And now-a-days, more often than not, unique means wildy bizarre, or viciously hilarious.
MORAL OF THE STORY:
Have a suicide counselor on speed dial, if you actually bought flick."
Re the bolded part, I believe I may have made similar observations and remarks myself.