SummaryA beautiful young woman returns from her tour of duty in Iraq. Her lust for blood having been allowed to run rampant during war can only be quenched by further psychotic mayhem. When she takes a 14 yr-old boy prisoner, he develops a dangerous attachment to her.
SummaryA beautiful young woman returns from her tour of duty in Iraq. Her lust for blood having been allowed to run rampant during war can only be quenched by further psychotic mayhem. When she takes a 14 yr-old boy prisoner, he develops a dangerous attachment to her.
The script is often ludicrous (gratuitous digs at feminism; muddled commentary on war and the military), the sets look like sets, and the acting-aside from Helsham and Plunkett-doesn't even rise to the level of student films.
AMAZING movie! a genuinely crazy idea, but brilliantly executed by director Rick Lancaster and written by no less a person than Stephen Ryder (L.I.E.). There was a lot I didn't understand, and my husband and I were arguing about it all the way home. But worth seeing just to make your own judgement. Spooky locations, vibrant color cinematography, very low-key acting, which seemed quite real as a result.
critics seem to despise this movie, so I went to see it because of that. Must be because it is very politically incorrect - way anti-feminist! It's about a really dangerous, crazy, murderous woman who kidnaps a boy at gunpoint. Which seems silly cause she's so HOT (23-24 yr old blonde) its not like she'd need a gun at all. but its sad, funny, scary, interesting and very suspenseful. well directed and photographed, really good sound and effects. see it - ignore the critics
If Ed Wood had directed "The Silence of the Lambs," it might have been as unintentionally hilarious as the goofball would-be thriller The Abduction of Zack Butterfield.
A sometimes funny, always creepy and suspensful film about a crazy woman who kidnaps a boy. It's sort of like the newspaper stories we are reading everyday about teachers doing their boy students. Sexy, crazy, unique, definitely should be seen.
An interesting and beautifully filmed movie about something the movies don't seem to want to deal with. Female sexual predators. Really good cinematography, good directing,
Mainstream critics have a tendency to rate things along the lines of social acceptance and political correctness. This film is meticulously photographed, earnestly performed and unflinchingly politically incorrect. It is thought-provoking and unusual, and apparently produced for less than the catering budget of most Hollywood films. for a first-time director with an all-amateur cast it is an able attempt that should be seen.
This is the creepiest thing I have ever seen. Oh no, not the movie, that was just boring garbage. What I'm talking about is the fact that all the positive reviews come from people who only reviewed this movie. That has to be one of the most disturbing things I have seen in a long time. Maybe is was several film producers who wanted to promote the film or perhaps it was one person who was really passionate about the movie. Nevertheless he or she probable liked April 2, 2012 a lot. Speaking of being disturbed, this movie's plot is cringe worthy. It is really hard to about what happens in this movie without offending someone. I think that was probably the ultimate goal of this film. The writer and director wanted to offend as many people as possible. Actually, the film was probably created as someone's sick fetish movie. This is the only movie to come from Thunder Hill Pictures- a production company more sketch than the "people" giving this a positive review. I feel like there are three people who actually like this film, and they are part of some strange wizard cult. All I can say is don't drink the Kool-Aid.
Notice how all the people giving the film '10' have never reviewed any other films and all write the same. None use caps in their names. Gee, I wonder if it's all the same person? Pathetic.