100 Ghost Street: The Return of Richard Speck (2012)

Sadly Over-hyped

Good start, but then it gets ruined

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Read the reviews, and while this isn't the best movie, I think the cast did well. As an actor, I think they did well with what they had. I've seen much , much worse acting. In bigger budget films. Is this movie scary? Yes. Is this movie entertaining? Yes. I think this is a good low budget horror movie, with a talented cast. Which is rare. Usually they have maybe two or three good actors, and the rest are painful in real inde movies. This just isn't the case here. Everyone was good. My biggest complaint here was that it didn't make sense at some key parts. First of all, OK, if this was ah real ghost hunting team, they would have been losing their minds with the first tap on the wall. They would have been in ghost chasing heaven , k? So this Ghost Hunting team, instead of attributing all of these obvious paranormal responses runs around going " weird." "That was a draft, guys!" " that's pipes. That happens. It's not possible for that to be a ghost, guys." "You don't know how many people are in prison for murder, that's all we are facing here " and that's after they saw the ghost and got their neck sliced by air! The other thing that bugged was after the first girl was attacked , they gave her a sleeping pill and yelled at her like she was a loser for getting attacked. OK, if this was a real ghost hunting team, they would have sent that girl home, right away and probably stopped the entire investigation. So having skeptics and slut shame-rs be the main protagonists sucked.. Ruined it for me. But there were some real frightening and creepy moments , esp at the end. I think if I didn't know as much about ghost hunting , this would have really scared me!!

Re: "Silouhette Noticed" review posted on June 4, 2013-- Below is the original review quoted--*--*---*-*--*-*--*--*-*--*-*--*-*--*--*-*-*-*---*--*---*---*--*"While watching this flick with some family members we noticed something interesting at 56 minutes into the movie. Was the point when one of the cast members went to get the remote control car. On the right hand side of the screen a shadowed silhouette of what looks like a man hanging appears out of nowhere. Just something I have not found mentioned on the web so far."*--*---*-*---*-*--*--*-*--*---*--*--*---*----*---*---*---*---* This is the only place I, too have seen that this specific discussion, re: silouhette, absolutely does appear at the 56:12 minute mark and is clearly visible for the following 10+seconds until the 56:23 minute mark.. This silouhette is so well defined that you can actually see the "hanging man silouhette" actually move, as in appearing to turn just like how a body would do while suspended, hanging from a rope, and suspended up in the air, unable to touch the ground, yet fully able to freely spin/turn when left suspended in a hangman's position.For more than 10 full seconds this silouhette of what very much appears to be of a body, hung from a noose type rope around their neck.. The silouhette initially appears very unremarkable and even hard to spot..but within the first two seconds the silhouette quickly becomes very dark in color/contrast and becomes near impossible to miss its being there for more than 10 full seconds of the scene beginning at MM 56:12.. As it darkens becoming much more clear and apparent..it also begins to actually move the exact way one sees when observing a body hung from a noose around the neck, while suspended in mid air unable to touch the ground.. Slightly turning and making even more apparent that the silhouette is there and in a hangman's position with the person hanging's legs very much being noticeable, and even the slight, to good bit of clarity, that the legs are well defined and are dangling apart from each other..And just to be clear on what scene this silouhette can be clearly seen.. Its the scene that begins, straight up on the 56:00min mark when cameraman, Jim enters into the eating room(the area which very much appeared to serve as the team's base camp) and Jim retrieves the remote camera equipment named, Clyde, to send it into the crawl space above the ceiling to look for Adam's body.. This scene 56:00-56:23 is filmed from the POV of it being an immobile, stationary surveillance cam covering this specific angle of base camp/the area in which they had eaten moments earlier in the movie...By 56:12-14 the silhouette is remarkably clear and very apparent.. It seems to almost appear from nowhere at 56:12 and only becomes just that much more clear and well defined within 10+seconds of this scene..Would love to hear others thoughts on this observation from around the 56:00minute mark, and continuing to the 56:23minute mark of the film, "100th Ghost Street: The Return of Richard Speck"

The first rule of reviewing 'found footage' horror films is to take them for what they are. So, I review this in the context of the sub-genre only and not in the wider context of film generally.The found footage genre is massively over-saturated with poor quality films. When done right, these films are fantastically scary (Blair Witch etc). I have watched over 30 of these films and, bearing in mind this film is only a year old, my only reaction is 'why was this film even made?'. It offers absolutely nothing new whatsoever, and trots out the same clichés as most other of these films (scary abandoned property, investigated at night, shaky camera work, annoying characters etc etc). Although it is no worse than many other found footage films, those other films came first and so it is up to newer films to expand on and develop the genre - this film totally fails to do that. The one positive for me was that I thought the acting was a lot better than usual. I'm not talking about great acting as such, just appropriate acting for this type of film. Yet another poor addition to the pool, for die-hard found footage fans only, and even those people will wonder why they bothered watching.

Minor quibbles: Richard Speck didn't rape and kill the student nurses in a hospital, he raped and killed them at their apartment. I don't know why this bothers me so much, but it does. The Asylum have a habit of altering history in their other films when the truth would work just as well--their Amityville film and the Anneliese Michel picture are both good examples of this, though at least the Amityville film is so bad that it crosses the line from suck into awesome. As an aside; for whatever reason I get offended when the stories they choose to tell are about real people. Just write your lousy dung about characters that you bothered to make up using your imagination. Impossible I know, since they have none. Or write your story with this in mind and then change the names to protect the innocent or whatever. File off the serial numbers. If I were a member of the families of the murdered girls, this movie would work my nerves even more than it already does. Same thing with the Anneliese Michel movie. Instead of scaring me, all I could feel was annoyance that they couldn't let this poor person rest in peace. Richard Speck was a piece of garbage, why do I have to watch a movie where his ghost rapes some chick? How sanctimonious of me, I know.On to the review. Not much to say, to be honest. The movie is boring. Nothing good to say about it at all. Kills are ripped off from better films like REC and we even get a low-budget Entity callback. If you want a fun found footage film done on the cheap, go watch Grave Encounters, which is also a piece of crap but does have a sort of interesting premise.Mostly, the Asylum pisses me off because they actually make money on these awful films. However, I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm totally envious of them for that very reason, so there you go. They suck, this movie is awful, they make money, I am jealous. The end.