Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Perfect cast and a good story

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

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Have you ever read or heard about the story "The World's Most Dangerous Game"? Well, Naked Fear could have been titled "The World's Most Dangerous Naked Game". And when it focuses on the nudity, it's trashy, vulgar fun. When the clothes go on, however, it's an amateurish disaster.The main story involves a pretty redhead named Diana Kelper (Danielle De Luca) who winds up stuck as a stripper in a New Mexico town, the victim of a half assed white slavery scam. Diana eventually winds up kidnapped by a psycho who drops her, buck naked, in the middle of the New Mexico wilderness so he can hunt her like she's a deer with boobs. While that's going on, there's also this other story about a new sheriff's deputy named Dwight Terry (Arron Shiver) who never really does anything important in the movie. There's something about him butting heads with the local sheriff (Joe Mantegna) and something about Dwight losing his job in California because he tried to arrest the local mayor for drunk driving and something about Dwight looking for redemption, but…again, he never really does anything important in the movie. It's like some producer told screenwriter Christine Vasquez that her script needed a male lead, so she wrote one it without bothering to give him anything to do.When Danielle De Luca is totally nude and being chased by the psycho for about a half hour in the middle of this film, Naked Fear does generate some cheap, prurient interest. The combination of De Luca's beautiful body and the utter vulnerability of her character has an almost irresistible appeal. As soon as Diana finds an old shirt in the woods and puts it on, that appeal disappears. What's left behind is a ponderous and ugly glop of bad plotting, terrible dialog, awful acting and bizarrely horrible editing.The evidence that director Thom Eberhardt has no idea what he's doing is all over this movie. Exhibit A would be the casting of swarthy Italian-American Joe Mantegna as a good ol' boy sheriff. Mantegna is a very good actor, but he's probably given better performances on the toilet while having a particularly difficult bowel movement than he gives in Naked Fear. If you didn't know better, you'd think Mantegna got the role because he's a bookie one of the producers owed money to. He's so out of place, Nathan Lane would be more believable playing a dirt farming redneck from rural Alabama.Exhibit B in Eberhardt's incompetence would be the way shots of New Mexico scenery and stuffed animal heads mounted on a wall just pop up as the film goes along. It's not even like the images serve as some sort of segue in the story. They simply show up and then are gone, like a form of visual Tourette's Syndrome.Naked Fear is a completely crappy movie that manages, by going right at the lowest common denominators of fear and lust, to actually hold your attention for a bit. The second it tries to be anything more than crude and exploitative, the barrage of pathetic acting, imbecilic writing and just plain odd direction makes it impossible to sit through. If you want to see a lot of female nudity but have a moral objection to pornography, this film was made for you. It doesn't have near enough to offer to the rest of us.

Naked Fear is one that sat on my Netflix Instant Queue for almost two months. Which I was shocked because when I first heard of it, I wanted to see it immediately, but couldn't find time. The only thing that drew attention to me was it read "Available until September 22, 2010" in big red letters. So I knew I had to watch it sooner rather than later. The thing I was fond of was for much of the second half of the movie it turns almost to a perspective Horror film. One I mentioned when reviewing Devil is hard thing to do. Films like Open Water utilize the perspective Horror feel to the fullest of capabilities. Without imaging yourself as the victim(s) in the movie the effect is small and you won't respond well to it most likely. Put yourself in the shoes (in this case our lead wears none) of the victim in this movie. How would you feel? That is the question.While having some impressive shots of landscape and open wood areas, the crew did one huge no-no when making this movie. Why in the holy hell did they use CGI for some of the scenery shots and airplane shot? It looks incredibly fake and just ruins the overall feel. I loved watching our victim run around helplessly in the very atmospheric, radiant, and breathtaking scenery we have in this film, but why did the creators choose CGI for somethings? I've spoke many times on CGI and say the same quote; "Excessive CGI is excessive. Well done excessive CGI is fluent and adds to the film." In this case the CGI isn't excessive (Thank God), but it's extremely unnecessary and embarrassing. They were in an open area. Where was the extreme full shot of the scenery? Why couldn't we get a unique aerial view of the landscape? Maybe because the plane was too CGI? The plot of the movie involves a stripper in a sleepy New Mexico town where various strippers are disappearing without a trace. The police department is perplexed and leads come at a molasses pace. New-coming stripper and protagonist Diana (Danielle De Luca) finally gets her turn at the deadly cat and mouse game after being kidnapped and stranded out in the middle of nowhere, naked, and desperate. She finds a man who she believes will help her, but he's the cat in this twisted game. A cat with a sniper who's goal is to kill Diana in the deserted area.It's a humble film. No big name stars or to my knowledge even had a mainstream release. So this movie is definitely an underrated gem. Plot wise it's amazing. I love the overall feel and the perspective Horror genre is utilized extremely well here. The only downside which I marked the movie off a full star rating was the God awful use of CGI. I've always hated to keep bringing up something I've said before, but it's just so unnecessary and almost docks the film halfway from four stars. While a majority of the film is made up by great acting and suspenseful scenes (which have some intense synth music by the way), some scenes can be picked out that I would call mediocre. Some scenes capture intensity better than others as well.Naked Fear combines a good plot with very well done acting and some amazing scenery when it's real. The portion of the film, unlike the film I reviewed recently Devil, takes place in an open field rather than half out of the setting, half back in town. Unlike Devil, the film takes place in most of the setting where the predator and prey are. In Devil we go in and out of the elevator frequently. All in all, Naked Fear is an interesting and very up and down movie as it is. Some parts made the movie and others just screwed the movie, but hey, I've gone into the CGI enough.Starring: Danielle De Luca and J.D. Garfield. Directed by: Thom Eberhardt.

I avidly support all the positive comments posted here and add my admiration for how incredibly well both Danielle De Luca and director Eberhart manage the nearly impossible task of threading a needle -- deftly avoiding all the pitfalls inherent in this notoriously salacious genre. The way this movie begins by promising to be "just like all the rest" turns out to be either an intentional setup to later catch us off guard by its uniqueness, or a testament to an unanticipated epiphany that suddenly swept this project off its feet part-way through and caused a quantum leap to "A" Movie quality that even manages to transcend the gratuitous non sequiturs required to keep it going for the expected feature-movie length.To my mind, "Naked Fear" succeeds by actually committing a consummate taboo: rendering the plot almost irrelevant by causing the viewer to become more intrigued by its direction, cinematography, and most of all, the riveting performance and physiognomy of its star performer. Assuming that Danielle De Luca is no "Meryl Streep" (and I'd love for her to prove me wrong), the only other explanation for this performance is that she has played "herself" -- as if she were in the same situation as her character; and that Eberhart has either cast her for that very reason or at least realized early on what she was delivering and went with it full bore.If anyone were to tell me that I was going to watch a movie in which a beautiful dame was going to display full-frontal nudity for most of it, the last thing I'd assume would be that my "little head" would hardly ever be provoked by it; and yet, this is precisely what De Luca's nudity accomplished. Being a highly sexual, straight male, my limbic brain was constantly scanning her lovely anatomy throughout, but to my surprise her nakedness demanded a strict emphasis on "loveliness" instead of "sexiness," as if in homage to the instinctual understanding that this was "a good girl" and not one of those I'd like to tear up with monkey love.As added emphasis of this, every time I've since come across this flick when surfing through the movie channels, I've always found myself hanging on a while to re-appreciate her flawlessly-packaged performance anew; and I suspect that females will also be attracted to it, as well, and for the same reasons."Naked Fear" is no "Gone with the Wind" to be sure; but it sure as hell deserved a cult following, of which I count myself a proud member.

Along with the mindset of the Dangerous Game it also reminded me of an old movie called Naked Prey. The naked runner scenes didn't hurt to keep attention-span while the plot developed, they were done well and didn't make it a back room movie. There are a few spots of twist and it wasn't totally predictable. Aside from just her looks, Danielle De Luca did a really good job and the landscape scenery was nice. Don't know why they put Joe Mantegna in a bit part though.The ending seemed a bit out of place but I guess they wanted to try to change her role as not defenseless.All in all, worth a watch.