The Off Season (2004)

That was an excellent one.

Perfect cast and a good story

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

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Rick and Catherine move from New York City to a run-down motel (room 13, of course) in a tourist town in Maine during the winter, so Rick can have some quiet time to work on his writing "career." It rains all the time, the only other guests at the motel are weird old people, and there's something wrong with room 13. A VERY kind comparison would be: it's like The Shining, in a motel. (Seriously, don't expect The Shining, that's a classic, this is not.) The acting was pretty terrible and the production value was low, lending this movie a "film school project" feel. That said, it's one of the better film school projects I've seen. The guy playing Rick was downright awful, but the actress playing Catherine was sometimes decent. My favorite character/actor was old man Ted. He was a great loony old codger. The cinematography wasn't exactly inspired, but there were a couple of interesting shots and the editor didn't try to do anything stupid or annoying cutting the film. It was easily watchable.I actually thought the story was interesting and fairly fresh. A run-down motel in a deserted little Maine town is a creepy setting. There were enough weird characters to keep the atmosphere going throughout. The plot moved along nicely, and although the resolution seemed sudden and wasn't exactly satisfying, I was okay with it.All in all, worth a see if it's on TV or you've got a free rental at your local video store. I wouldn't pay to see it, but I don't want my time back, either.

The movie has a horror category.It justifies its horror category via use of dumb dialog, and acting that must be a deliberate spoof,characterization that borders on moronic. The references to the living accommodations were for an apartment but it looked like a motel room.I can't identify one redeeming feature of this movie. If I paid full theater price for this waste of film I would never go to another movie.Watching cartoons would be preferable.I was lucky because the DVD I rented was defective and only about fifty percent of it was viewable. Save your money by not bothering with this piece of junk. Does anyone with movie making knowledge approve of a piece of work before it is released?

I picked up this movie in the hopes that it was a good suspenseful ghost story. That is not what I got.This movie must have been produced on a shoe string of a budget, from the odd camera angles to the meandering around the plot, this movie was a big disappointment.I do believe it had the right ingredients, but just needed more direction and some better actors. The only thing that kept me from turning it off is my curiosity of just how bad this movie could get.The ending was abrupt, leaving all sorts of questions in the viewers mind. Much like this review.I do not recommend this flick.

Shot on video...and not very well. Amateur acting. Did not use Scrimm very well. Director has no sense of pacing. Shot over ten days and looks it. Scares not scary. Motel location is extremely colorless. Too ordinary. Camera work is languid, lighting too harsh. Probably cost nest to nothing nothing to make. So all in all, this another shot on video waste of time that show a complete lack of talent on the director's part. The actors seem to struggle with the dialog. Only Scrimm seems to stand out, but the director does not cover him effectively. Premise of the script has merit and could be utilized well in a more expensive production, but is let down by the threadbare production values of this film.