Cross Bearer (2013)

Excellent, smart action film.

It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Heather (Natalie jean) is broke. She has a soul sucking job as a stripper. Her live-in girlfriend Victoria has a baby and a coke problem. Her boss Harry is an abusive maniac. Life cannot get much worse... or so she thought.This film is spoiled by rather weak performances and an almost non-existent plot. But we quickly get the impression that acting and plot were not really concerns for those involved. Rue Morgue says the film "was a huge hit with the underground horror community" and used copies were selling for $100 before a second run. Those who dropped the cash surely did not get their money's worth.We have some staples of Doug Sakmann and Backseat Conceptions: the excessive amount of naked women and the excellent gore (Sakmann tends to run in the same circles as the Suicide Girls and adult stars like Joanna Angel). Pretty sure I saw "XXX-orcist" in the background at one point.As a bonus, I learned the term "the High Five" which had somehow previously escaped me.

I dunno why exactly, but I gave this one a 4! Usually I don't do this with such bad movies, but it had some good parts in it. Now, even before beginning to explain myself, I'm gonna say one thing: I do NOT recommend Cross Bearer! To no one!So, the acting was not as bad as I expected, usually you get much worse than this. The gore was kinda OK I guess for such a low budget horror, nudity fully present, some natural acts, good decisions, interesting "mask" design and a plot that ties itself in the middle of the movie. The camera work is actually better than most such productions, so all in all, there are some good things here, but if you see it, you'll understand why this should be avoided. It still is a bad production, weak plot, horrible main actor, well the killer that is, annoying at its best.Therefore, Cross Bearer will remain a No-No, hope you people will trust the reviews and stay away from this one. If not, you're only going to waste time.Cheers!

I enjoyed some of Cross Bearer because I'm a fan of practical make-up effects, but other than that? I waited a long time to see a real dud of a film.There are times I'm fooled by a movie with some cool looking art-I admit it. I saw Cross Bearer's cover art, and I said "I have to see this". So I waited, waited, waited, and finally I was able to see it. What a disappointment. Not only is the acting cold and wooden, the writing is just bad. This is a typical horror film, and if you've seen enough horror you know this is just a rehash of so many other better films which were executed at a higher level than this. Even as far as slashers go, this is just weak. Like I said, there are some effects worth seeing, even a little decent cinematography at times, the look and feel of it, but you can't go for all style over substance, you just can't! This is not old school horror, this is also nothing new- I don't recommend seeing this. At least not if you have something more promising to watch. If you want to see another run-of- the-mill slasher, the same thing you've seen time and time again, then go ahead. I give it a 2 out of 10, only because some of the effects were enjoyable, and I also liked how they didn't go for something too ridiculous for a mask; it was a simple look, and I kind of dug it. Other than that? Skip it.

Where can one begin ? With this pile of pus, anywhere.What a load of tripe. This isn't dark, gritty and sleazy, it's dumb, gross and stupid.Acting - zero.Story - zero.Believability - zero.Camera steadiness - 1.Lighting - surprisingly, good.Corny Crappiness - gazillion.No originality, no skill, no interest, tired, clichéd, done a million times before with much better effect. Scratch that, with ANY effect.Another example of why digital cameras should be sold with a license and a public listing as to where to serve the budding film-maker with a writ for wasting our precious time.If you want to make films, make a name for yourself, be a director, *source talent*, starting with yourself, including script, story, acting and above all else, grab the audience and make the film something *memorable*, but with bloody orginality, not with a ridiculous script and hammy actors. Serving up excreta and expecting the public to make you a household name just gives the public a reason (and the right) to sling the poop right back at you.No matter how small the budget, there is no excuse for a crap product and if you want to go somewhere & be somebody, put in some effort and TALENT, rise about the efforts of a 7 year old with school friends, a towel, and some tomato sauce, making a film in mummy & daddy's backyard.That goes tenfold for anyone that writes gushing meretricious drivel, praising a thimble of flea dung as the next "Michaelangelo of Movies", in order to hoodwink some poor fool into watching 90 minutes of dross for some hidden reasons, like you were an extra on the film, know the friend of someone who once knew someone who went to school with one of the make-up girls, or were promised $10 if you write a good review for pure puke.Tosser.