Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Memorable, crazy movie

just watch it!

Just so...so bad

This movie is being made somewhat interesting and watchable due to the approach it is taking. It's taking a realistic approach and completely tells the movie from the view point of an hand held camera, who is recording the killings and capturing the philosophies of a serial killer.But still, the movie is really far from a great one. The movie tries to make things seem as if they are all real. You could say that the movie tries to play out as a snuff movie but in that regard this movie is simply far from a convincing one. It could had worked out, if only the movie didn't had such a slick look and actually had some decent actors in it as well. It especially becomes apparent during the actual killings that the actors in this movie just aren't among the most talented ones.Also from a movie with a concept such as this one has, you are perhaps expecting some more blood and gore. But it's quite a tame movie, that often cuts away or moves the camera when a killing is occurring. The concept itself also gets quite tiresome after a while, since the movie is basically more of the same constantly. It's a real short movie but it just doesn't hold your interest completely throughout.The movie also tries to have a some sort of message and deeper meaning to it all but quite frankly it really isn't clever enough for that to make a real point about anything.Guess it's still all good enough to watch, maybe just once.5/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

The Last Horror Movie is a 2003 horror, the premise of which is that you the viewer have rented a "video nasty" from your local Choices, only to find that a serial killer has recorded over it with some of his sadistic killings.That's right: in 2003, you haven't made the switch to DVD yet.It might seem like a minor gripe, but it highlights the larger problem with The Last Horror Movie - that it graces us with its social commentary roughly 20 years too late. The theme of viewer-as-passive-participant is one that's been knocking around the horror genre for decades now, and whether or not it's still interesting, it's works best when it sneaks up on you. Subtext without the "sub-" leaves the audience feeling lectured, patronised and preached at. The Last Horror Movie takes this once-intriguing idea, waits til 2003, and then proceeds to bludgeon you over the head with. You're on the receiving end of a darned good telling-off for taking vicarious thrills in the suffering of others before you've even dunked your first hobnob. And that's the problem. The horror fan is being framed for a crime that, for the most part, he does not actually commit. The idea that anyone who watches a murder is on some level a wannabe murderer is older than Freud and as hamfistedly simplistic as the moral outrage leveled at The Simpsons back in the day for failing to provide good role models (seriously kids, that actually happened!). Of course, our protagonist only tells us to ask (incredibly leading) questions about ourselves, rather than outright calling us sickos. But there might as well be a banner reading "WE ARE DEALING WITH ISSUES, GUYS" scrolling along the bottom of the screen the whole time for all the nuance in this. It's ironic really that, of all the genres that might actually deserve this kind of treatment, it's horror that gets it. Horror has always had to fight to justify itself, sometimes with good cause. As a result, there's probably been more academic analysis of the genre than any other, and it _does_ filter through to the film-maker and to the viewer. Most serious horror fans (and those are probably the only people likely to "rent" this "video") at least have some inkling as to why they watch horror movies. Despite our intrepid serial killer host's assertions, it is a self-aware genre loved by a self-aware audience. A movie in which a trite Jennifer Aniston romcom is cut off after ten minutes by the twin video diaries of a couple who are horrifically mismatched and incapable of articulating even their most basic of feelings to one another might have been a much more interesting prospect, and possibly a lot more frightening.All postmodern ramblings aside, what really undermines the movie is not the trite, misguided social commentary or the lazy misjudgment of its likely core audience, but the fact that, really, it's not a very good horror film. The real art behind even the most lunkheadedly depraved "torture porn" is to repulse just enough to fascinate - to have the viewer peering out from behind his fingers. The fact that The Last Horror Movie is intentionally written to be watched on video just highlights how very very easy it is to stop watching the movie, long before the first smug "if you don't like it, why are you watching?" comment from the protagonist. But then, given the analysis of the horror fan on display, they probably thought that just half-showing some murders was enough. After all, you like watching murders, right? =D The short version is that this is a movie which is hampered by an implausible and dated premise from the word "go", and which does very little to redeem itself. If you want a tortuous unappealing slog through the ill-conceived mind of the serial killer, you could watch The Poughkeepsie Tapes. At least that guy knew how to point a camera.

I saw this film last night and i really like it. For me is just a unique horror film with a very particular style. i know that a lot of people put here that this film was just a copy of a Belgian film: Man Bites Dog (1992) but i can tell you that is not, just the fact that both are about a film of a serial killer but both have diferents points and different style. So like Quentin Tarantino said one time: "i take ideas from other great films just like every other great filmmaker", because i'm pretty sure that Julian Richards (director) watch Man Bites Dog and he love it.Well about the plot and the cast:The way the film starts with a scene of the original film that you supposedly buy and later Max (Kevin Howarth) start to talk with you is nothing but great. The plot is about Max (who works as a wedding video grapher), a psycho who wants to make an "interesting" real horror film about his own murderers. The plot is a little repetitive but you also can see the relation of Max with his assistant, his grandma, sister, his nephews and some of his friends. Is great because Max doesn't look like a psycho and because you and his assistant are the unique persons who knows about Max's horror film.And finally the idea of the tape is nothing but great.So for me this is an excellent horror film with a lot of great ideas that make it unique.The Cast is just great, Kevin Howart (Max) is really a great actor and for the low budget the visual part of the film is amazing.About the DVD: I buy recent the DVD of this excellent film for a very good price: $3.4, this film is not very famous in Mexico so i think that the unique reason because this film was release in DVD was that have the "Fangoria presents", for me was great because it was a really good price and i could watch this film. The region 4 DVD have some good bonus material like delete scenes , a documentary about the film and interviews with the director, the producer and with Kevin Howart. Excellent for my collection.PS: the Spanish title for this film is "Diario De Un Psicopata" that in English means "Diary of a Psychopath"

The is one of the most boring films I've EVER seen! Its got a good premise and would probably have been mildly entertaining in a shorter format (would have made an okay episode of Urban Gothic) but as it is its just one yawn-some killing after another. Max is one of the most unlikeable characters I've ever encountered (even for a serial killer obviously). The 'twist' is heavily signposted throughout and can be figured out by about fifteen minutes in. Max's speech implying that we the viewers are as bad as him because we have watched the killings didn't really seem relevant when we had been talking through most of them they were so dull.