The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

There is a lot to admire here, mainly a great lead performance by Amy Seimetz as the alcoholic ex-girlfriend of a serial killer trying to re-establish a normal life. Also it's tough to pull off a naturalistic arthouse horror flick, and this attempt does better than most. For most of its running time this plays more as a drama (that happens to involve a serial killer) than as horror. But two elements nearly wreck the film. One, mentioned by many other reviews here, is the constant close-ups with a jerky handheld camera. A little of this would be fine but it never lets up, this movie is 87 minutes of random close-ups with a camera that won't hold still. It's too much and becomes a constant distraction. Second, there is a very ill-judged twist five minutes before the end that effectively undoes much of the naturalistic appeal the movie had until that point. I won't reveal it here, but will just say it was wholly unconvincing to me. Even with these serious flaws, I found this to be worth watching for Seimetz's performance and for the unhurried, reflective storytelling. What's good here will stay with me, which makes the misjudgments that much more frustrating.

Unfortunately, I couldn't watch this film due to the shaky camera..I turned it off after 10 minutes. I like this genre, but that horrible SHAKE makes me too dizzy and bordering on nausea. I've missed a lot of good (looking) movies because of the awful camera work..

A serial killer does his usually stchick on unsuspecting characters after he escapes from jail. His ex-girl friend is in hiding and under witness protection because she testified against him.But, the cinematography was so bad, it was hard to follow the story.I think the director got a string of Christmas lights and decided to use them in an out of focus foreground for a 'anxiety' effect. Really? A very poorly conceived decision. 'Shaky cam' was used on Blair Witch and a few others. You might try a tight story line, good actors, and scenes and presto a movie and a tripod.Rather than move you into the story, such techniques take you out of the story since you are very aware of the effects and fail to follow the story. But maybe the cinematographer had the d'ts'Pulp Fiction had very little 'artsy out of focus lights' as an effect to get the audience in a tipsy mood.Story line wasn't bad, but ruined by the constant use of out of focus lights and jumpy camera work. Did you not have access to a pair of sticks?Plot at the end was good though and should have been extended instead of endless AA meetings.

Billing itself as a realistic portrayal of insanity in the mind of a serial killer, I was left bitterly disappointed. Expecting something like "Tony : London Serial Killer" what I got was a very disappointing and shallow look at a movie that wants to be more than it is. There are many problems. One of them being the irritating way that the film has been shot. Being a very shaky cam, at first I liked it and appreciated it for being different and gave it realism, but after a while it began to become a distraction. Deliberate out of focus shots were also contributing to the irritating value that the movie was rapidly growing. The fact is, you never feel like you are getting into the mind of this killer. You simply feel as though you are following him. Neither investing time in anything he is doing. You know he is a bad guy because he kills people, but any depth to this killer as a person, is non existent. The acting was fine and there were some genuine decent moments, but the film wants realism, and the biggest killer to the realism is in the ending. I am not going to spoil it, but I thought "no way, this is basic horror movie stuff". I thought that it was a cheap way to end what was a film that was lacking the positives that made films like "Henry" and "Tony" the films that they are in the Serial Killer sub genre.If you want a good serial killer movie, check out the films I just mentioned. You could probably give this one a miss!