Mar
20

Review: My Super Psycho Sweet 16 Part 3

2 Comments

A Super Boring Made-For-TV Horror Movie Part 3

First, I should make it clear that I’ve seen far worse films than this. It may seem like I come down hard on it, and I may, but that’s because I feel it’s a bit of a disappointment. It does nothing special, and the fact that it was specifically made to air on cable television limited its potential. I often feel censorship–as much as I dislike it–brings an interesting challenge to the genre, and that the challenge shouldn’t be seen as, “Can we make a slasher film work within the confines of a TV-14 rating?” but rather, “What can we do to make this movie stand out?” Shows like Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, and really, every other movie on the Syfy Channel are “edgier” than this film, and the fact that it doesn’t try anything unconventional given the limitations its imposed with from the start is a real shame.

It’s not all bad, however. The lead actress, Lauren McKnight, has real potential in the genre. She’s a strong heroine, and any up-and-coming horror director looking for a potential break-out star would do well to cast her. As Skye Rotter, she’s limited by the mediocre script and by-the-numbers direction, but in the right hands, she could be something special.

 

Tags: , , ,

Posted in Movies
2 Comments Posted by Don Allen

2 Responses to "Review: My Super Psycho Sweet 16 Part 3"

  • laststop2006 says:
    03/20/2012 at 3:03 pm

    Keep in mind MTV’s audience for these movies are 13-17 year old girls. To say that the movie didn’t even try is a laugh. The filmmakers worked very hard to give the fans exactly what they wanted using the same template from the last two movies. To use Breaking Bad and Walking Dead two ADULT geared shows where you are given much more room to push the envelope is a pretty unfair comparison. These movies were never ment to reinvent the slasher horror wheel nor will they satisfy true horror geeks. There is also a whole STANDARDS dept MTV must have all of their movies go through which pretty much tell you what you can and can not get away with. Watch the other two movies which I’m sure you havent and you will see it’s all the same but yet are successful for some reason..hmmm..While you may hate the films by calling them extreamly boring there are thousands of fans who love these movies and that’s all that counts. Can;’t please everyone.

    • admin says:
      03/20/2012 at 4:10 pm

      Well, my review is geared towards–and coming from–the perspective of a long-time horror fan. The movie really didn’t try, it was content in playing it safe, and that’s where I was disappointed.

      Standards shouldn’t exist, there’s a rating system to let people know what’s up, but ignoring that, the lack of creativity is the real shame here. The fact is that because these movies are popular, sponsors latch onto them and sell products to its influential audience–as well as MTV with their own stuff–and they’re really only interested in having a product that’s “good enough.” That’s fine, but it doesn’t mean I can’t also be disappointed in what I feel is a missed opportunity for some creativity. This was the third entry in a franchise that had already seen its killer offed and had quite literally set its audience up to be ready for anything, and a copycat killer was the best they could do.

      And this movie was competing for peoples’ attention at 10pm, an adult timeslot which includes shows like Breaking Bad, so I don’t think the comparison I made is unfair at all. I realize there are legions of people that love these movies, and that’s great! I genuinely am glad they enjoy the films, but this one didn’t keep me entertained, not because I’m not a 15 year-old girl, but because it’s just not a very good movie.

      Regardless, thank you for commenting.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.