Scarlet Fry’s Nightmare Alley (Pretorious Productions, 2010)

Scarlet Fry’s Nightmare Alley (Pretorious Productions, 2010)

Greetings, readers. I received this film as a screener for Radiation-Scarred Reviews, the other place where my writing can be found, and Wes asked me to cover it for The Blood Sprayer as well.  Now, as I reiterate damn near every article, I’m a man for crap cinema.  Crap, cheese, schlock, kitsch, camp, B…I’m a man who has watched MANOS, THE HANDS OF FATE, more than once, without Joel and the Bots commenting.  WEASELS RIP MY FLESH, ATOM AGE VAMPIRE, NIGHT OF THE BLOODY APES, THE ROBOT VERSUS THE AZTEC MUMMY…I pride myself, deeply, on being able to sit through anything.  No matter how “bad” a film may be, I will see it through to the bitter end.  Sometimes, this is truly a curse upon my soul.  SCARLET FRY’S NIGHTMARE ALLEY, however, shook me to my very core, and made me take a long, hard look into my soul, searching for an answer to the question, “Why do I do this to myself?”

Clocking in at 88 minutes, NIGHTMARE ALLEY is an anthology film in the vein of CREEPSHOW or TRICK ‘R TREAT.  However, unlike these films, NIGHTMARE ALLEY has seven (eight, counting the pre-credit skit of a homeless man giving a comic book to ungrateful teenagers in exchange for a cigarette) short tales of terror and imagination.  Terror and imagination? Mindless gore and hack jokes born from the depths of a marijuana binge, I mean.  And don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against mindless gore.  But it can’t carry a film like this.

How does it cram eight story vignettes AND wrap-around segments featuring a Bargain Basement Caligari spouting one-liners rejected by the Cryptkeeper? By keeping every story under 10 minutes (and two of them under 5!) and sacrificing anything resembling narrative coherence and character development.  Each “story” has the depth and wit of a first-season episode of South Park.

However, I do try to maintain a positive outlook on films, and so I do have one or two nice things to say.

The second segment, “Rebellion,” is the story of a man who buys a toy rat at a Halloween close-out store, despite the clerk’s warning of the rubber rodent’s Satanic history.  When the man gets the rat home, it begins to speak to him, forcing him to kidnap and murder young women so that the rat may feast on their souls.  With each soul consumed, the rat grows larger, intent on reaching a size that will allow it to conquer the world.  I actually enjoyed this segment, and it marked the only time I laughed during the entire film.  The rat was voiced in a manner reminiscent of the Imp in SORORITY BABES IN THE SLIMEBALL BOWL-O-RAMA, one of my all-time favorite cheeseball films, and the dialogue between the man and the clerk is actually decently written.

If I had to say one thing to the people behind SCARLET FRY’S NIGHTMARE ALLEY, it would be this: Focus! NIGHTMARE ALLEY could have been a much, much stronger, more enjoyable film if they’d concentrated on, say, four stories instead of forcing in eight.  Take just four stories, write them out coherently, and give the characters some dimension beyond “fat guy wearing nothing but daisy dukes” and “guy with mustache.”  That would lift this film out of the muck it’s made for itself, and maybe make it genuinely worth watching.  There’s been some really great films to come out of independent horror filmmakers, but as it stands, SCARLET FRY’S NIGHTMARE ALLEY is not one of them.

I’m left to wonder…there’s a quote on the cover from Herschell Gordon Lewis, the man behind TWO THOUSAND MANIACS, BLOOD FEAST, and COLOR ME BLOOD RED.  Was he taken out of context?


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Author's Quick Review
There was potential. Just, potential that was drowned in willful mediocrity and laziness.

Written by: | Visit Website

Bill Adcock likes long walks off short piers and eating endangered species. In addition to his work for the Blood Sprayer, his writing can also be found at his personal site, Radiation-Scarred Reviews, which he's maintained since 2008. Bill has also contributed, as of this writing, to GRINDHOUSE PURGATORY issues 2 and 3, and CINEMA SEWER issue 27.

59 Responses to “Scarlet Fry’s Nightmare Alley (Pretorious Productions, 2010)”

  1. I commend you for writing not one but two reviews for this heaping pile of dung. I too wonder about the HG Lewis quote. Regardless, steer clear of this one people!

  2. I think its inmature to post your opinion as a writer you reviewed this movie allready, so now you have to bud in and go on other sites that the filmakers sent there movie to and post your opinion not cool, yes thats what comments are for but your a writer your supposed to be a little more profesional. The film has recieved good reviews on other sites and obviously people listen to you as seen on the same comment you posted on radiation scarred reviews, people are thanking you for your review and the film and are not going to buy it because of your bad reviews they say so in their comment but you continue to spread your dont buy this movie onto every website you can? and you claim to wrap yourself in the
    i support indie horror flag but i see thru you!

    • Walter,

      I think it is only fair that you explain that you had a part to play in this film- producer is it? And that is why you are so angry at this review. Bill writes for the Blood Sprayer and Wes who is one of the editors asked him to review it. Sorry you don’t agree with his review, but it stands.

      We will always allow filmmakers/producers to comment on our reviews, and we thank you for reading and commenting.

  3. If anything convinced me not to buy this, it was the anonymous coward who cried that his movie got a bad review.

  4. First of all, thanks to Bill I will never have to bother with this drivel.

    Secondly, in regards to the comment from “Annonymous”:

    Misspellings? Check.
    Run-on sentences? Check
    Extremely poor grammar? Check.
    Grudge-holding butthead? Check.
    Oh, and learn how to spell anonymous, would you?
    That whole paragraph was painful to read.

  5. we dont care about getting bad reviews we think there funny, herschell g lewis, bands like kiss all the greats got bad reviews ya think we care about that hahaha we just dont like when jerkslike cortez gotta go on every site a comment on how bad it is, it would be one thing if he was a random comment but he writes for both sites he commented on after the fact he already reviewed it besides im not a comt nerd i dont WORRY BOUT CAPS and spell chks and all the othe reasons you see fit to gang up on us you losers, maybee ill write an article on my blog about people like cortez

  6. post this go fuck yourselfs you lames ass homos your reviewers fav film is sorrority babes at the slime ball bowlarama give me a break you airent qualified to review my piss.

  7. I just love funny exit lines, Annonymous.

    Good write-up, Bill!

  8. I really don’t understand what the fuss is all about. Honestly, who in their right minds would take someone else’s opinion on a film that they reviewed. He says its bad. Ok….I for one am not that conforming to a film reviewers two cents. If anything, it makes me want to see it more. Btw, “Annonymous” (thats how it’s spelled!) Your hate remarks and deragatory slanders are probably the main reason people would not want to see this film. Its a huge turn-off, especially from someone in the entertainment business. Critiscisms come with the territory. You mentioned H.G. Lewis and KISS….you honestly believe H.G. went around calling people homos because no one liked his gigs? Take some cues from a professional. FOCKER OUT.

  9. I’ll sit through just about anything and watch it too but if something’s horrible then it’s horrible. If a review says something is absolutely terrible I would probably watch it anyway just because that’s the kind of guy I am. What makes me not want to watch this film is the fact that this assclown is getting his panties in a bunch over bad reviews and he feels the need to call people names over them. With the illiteracy of his posts I hope he wasn’t the one to write the script, lol. Like Ray said, if you don’t like bad reviews and criticism then get out of the industry or take some cues from the professionals and be “professional” about it.

  10. I’m not going to even get into it anymore as you can go to my blog and read this idiots incoherent, ignorant rants. But you bet your dollar to donuts I’ll post on as many sites as I can when a film is THIS bad. Its not on Netflix. It looks like its currently on VOD for $6 and assuming purchase price of the DVD, that’s probably $15-20. With so many other films that are worthy of our time and attention, again, I’ll let everyone know just how terrible this is so that they steer clear and spend their hard earned money elsewhere.

    This public service announcement brought to you by The Bloodsprayer and Planet of Terror.

  11. I too have an affinity for bad movies, and after this review (without which I wouldn’t have heard of this movie at all), I was actually interested in trying to see it.

    That all changed as soon as that guy associated with the movie started posting… Calm down man. People are much more forgiving of a person making a poor quality low-budget film than they are of a person who’s a cocky asshole who doesn’t bother with spell-check.

  12. Wow, very unprofessional. Earlier this year I reviewed “The Wild Man of the Navidad” and gave it a bad review. (On a technical level, it was an impressive film. The cinematography and editing and camerawork were all top notch. However, the story and the characters in the film were poorly constructed.) Not only did the film makers thank me for the review, but they joined my website’s Facebook page.

    Sheesh… you really hit a nerve with these guys Bill. Be sure to check the backseat of your Radiation Roadster before you get it; they may be waiting for you!

  13. Cortez keeps saying its not on netflix hahaha First of all it is on netflix go check and also who cares if it on netflix, i know one thing if somebody is going to cry whether a movie is on netflix or not i mean who the idiot now, and as far a speal check please, this is a blog run by some oh wait if i say something it might get reported, or used as an excuse to call me more names, this whole thing was never about a review its cause we wanna meet cortez come on boy what festival you going to be at next we wanna talk in person..besides its all good publicity hmm lets see miss katie where shall we go now

  14. *To the person involved with the atrocious Nightmare Alley anthology*

    Hey illiterate…yeah you…learn to fucking spell too while you are at it. Way to look like a professional when you can’t even distinguish the difference between “there” and “their”. It’s your level of illiteracy and shallow thinking that is ruining the low budget indy horror scene. not a discerning viewer who knows enough about film craft to know that yours is amateurish AT BEST.

    Make a piece of shit = learn to deal with reviews that expose the quality of your work.

    Sean "The Butcher" Smithson August 31, 2010 at 3:55 PM
  15. sean i know what there and their means i just dont care and if you had a brain you would know this is not about a bad review when will you fags i said fags get it thru your head, this is only between me and cortez, it has nothing to do with the bloodsprayer review, it has to do with cortez and his unprofesionalism which in turn made us look like idiots, it that unprofesionalism that brings out the jerks in all of us, you jerks stop wasting your time talking about whether or not i .can spell and shut up your making us wanna cry whaaaa

  16. My apologies, originally it was not on Netflix. Congrats to you for suckering someone.

    Resorting now to veiled threats? Wow. Just wow.

  17. I beginning to become highly suspect as to whether this person is who we all “assumed” him to be. I don’t care how obnoxious a person can be but it is highly doubtful someone can be this brutally cutthroat. Maybe they were an extra or low-key actor. They tend to get their panties in a bunch exponentially more.

  18. I really cannot believe that a filmmaker or a producer would go to such lengths to write hate speak about anyone. We all deal with criticism on a daily basis, especially being a part of this genre. But you know what? you need to learn from it, respect opinions and MOVE ON. Grow up and grow as a filmmaker. Stop acting like a child.

  19. What is with all this talk about “professionalism”? What’s next, hosting talk shows on mTV? The last thing I want to see is another “professional” horror movie. Or more brats who think they are professional film critics. I’ve seen plenty of D.I.Y. VIDEOS (emphasis on video) and I would never think to compare them with the Industry. If someone reviewed my band and plainly didn’t ‘get it’, gave it a “1.5” out of 10, and then became the toxic avenger on my ass when I said something to them because for pretending like their single review counts for more than 1 just because they have more web-sites… I’d be pissed but I would just chalk them up to the scene whore they probably are.

    …fucking sell-outs, seriously: “it’s not even on Netflix” – oh my. Way to show your true colors. Keep it up long enough and you might just have the chance to write for some trendy ass magazine. Annonymous may be an ass, but if you want professionalism stop rating unprofessional movies. As for me, I like being a part of a culture where you can be creative and independent, unprofessional and experimental, and do it yourself. I say, when there critics start rolling in… that’s when you know it is all going down hill. First the bad reviews, then the petty disputes, then the corporate advertising, and finally a picture from your show is on baby diapers.

    • Hi, Thanks so much for taking the time to respond on your friends behalf. I noticed from your Facebook page that you’re an artist. Are you saying that your art shouldn’t be reviewed critically because you’re technically not a professional artist? No offense but your friend Walter sent the dvd for review which means he wanted it critiqued…

      • That’s an interesting question, actually. I am an artist and not a professional one (I don’t live off of my artwork). But, I suppose it depends on what you mean by criticism. Instructional Criticism, like at the end of this review (“FOCUS! Make 3-4 shorts” or whatever) is fine. On the other hand, the sort of criticism that is less peer-review, more fashion-show I am absolutely disgusted by …coming from an anarchist, counter-cultural, diy perspective. I don’t know exactly what to call that sort of criticism, or critical review but it creates a culture of status that is exactly what I want to get away from.

        Walter’s movie is a part of our local counter-culture here and the cast are other artists involved creatively in the culture. This dimension of his work is actually really significant (especially in his previous two films) because it creates sets the context from which his work emerges from. When you are making a movie with a bunch of punk artists, professionalism is simply not the goal. Survival is another story and I am sure every artist wants to be able to live off of what they love doing. But this sort of review (above) is a type of journalism that essentially boils down to setting yourself up as an authority on what is good art, gaining popularity to increase that authority, and in effect taking a position of power over artists who feel the need to appeal to them for recognition.

        So – yeah, Walter is responsible for sending his film to be reviewed and he has a different perspective than I do. But his perspective is similar. Seeing someone (the critic) using their resources to multiply the power they have over the distribution of art pisses me off just as much as Walter. There is descriptive reviewing which is what zines I like use to discuss new bands and their music, which is fine since it doesn’t create this sort of power-dynamic. That represents an appropriate model for reviewing art in an independent, counter-cultural, do-it-yourself context.

        Walter has a good point regardless of the way he expresses it. I see no difference between this sort of parasitism (the critic gaining power over artists and from artists) and the parasitism of the Museum or Gallery system profiting off the artwork and cultures it comes from by gaining “vogue” status. I guess this isn’t a common perspective and people are willing to accept movies like Walter’s as mere commodities to be consumed. But I believe the cultural function of artwork is far more authentic than the role of artwork as a commodity on the market.

        It is the same with the world of the Academy, the control over the production of knowledge that happens through centralized reviewing and funding boards that gain authority over academic work, and thus mediate the exchange of ideas that are the source of knowledge production.

        So yes – I appreciate some criticism but detest the specialization of critical review and the dynamics it creates. I believe it ultimately leads to a form of disenfranchisement of artists by setting up normative standards for artwork, a situation conducive to conformity (and hostile to experimentation and the “abnormal”), and the minority who “come out on top” become celebrities while the rest set against each other in their shadows.

  20. Love Craptian, regarding my comment around Netflix, presumably he wants his work viewed by others hence the sending of multiple screeners to multiple outlets. Outside of Video on Demand and purchasing the DVD, how else would one go about viewing the film? I was simply stating that, at the time I posted my own review, it was not available on Netflix (and now it appears to be) and in my view, the film warranted no reason for anyone to go out and buy it. Just my opinion but of course, people are free to make up their own minds regarding what they choose to support and what they do not.

    You may not put ‘art’ out there for consumption but it’s obvious that Walter has. I don’t see how this review amounts to anything more than someone sends a screener and someone posts their opinion. Brutally honest, yes? Fostering a sense of ‘normative’ standards and some sort of need for ‘conformity’ while shifting a balance of power? Now that is just a stretch.

    Walter has a ‘good point regardless of how he expresses it?’ Did you READ his comments? Apparently you are in support of being unconstructive, incoherent, and ultimately, derogatory. And the fact that you mention ‘anonymous’ and then go on to talk about Walter just confirms what we’ve ‘suspected’ all along.

    • I’m not sure what you suspected? That point was vague on me. You are saying I support how he expresses it when I state I am supporting the basic idea behind it. If I supported incoherent, deconstructive, and derogatory dialogue – I would be using it. Btu that is beside my main point.

      Privilege is blind. You don’t see it as anything more than “someone sending in a screener and someone posts their opinion” because you are in a structurally powerful position. There is an obvious readership, the site describes itself as “all the filth that’s fit to publish…”, and you play a central role in determining what is “fit” to publish. Your opinion is subjective and anyone with half a brain knows that. But you, in a journalistic position, in determining what the standards are for a film of value (norms), are indeed contributing to a division of power that because of its basis in normative value judgments… leads to pressures of conformity.

      Here’s an example of a norm that you accept, and promote in this review:

      “Terror and imagination? Mindless gore and hack jokes born from the depths of a marijuana binge”

      “sacrificing anything resembling narrative coherence and character development”

      “has the depth and wit of a first-season episode of South Park”

      In just three lines you subscribe to norms of good humor, narrative coherence, strong character development, plot depth, and dialogue wit. While those are your brutally honest opinions, those are also valuations of what makes a movie worth watching. Those are norms you are promoting. That is just a fact and you can surely agree that you support those norms. So accordingly, your “fit to publish” values are based on the normative standards listed above. That is your review, it is plainly a comparison of specific qualities of the movie to a set of norms (and main stream ones at that)… standards that films “fit to publish” ought to live up to (prescriptive). And while it may seem innocuous from your perspective, that is part of maintaining established normative standards that independent movies ought to live up to: conformity.

      You may have a minor role compared to other reviewers, and I wouldn’t know. Walter may want to distribute his movie. But it is the institutionalization of normative standards like these that create homogeneous culture. It helps establish an orthodoxy and you fall in line.

  21. Basically – I think it is self-defeating to accept that sort of criticism if you are part of a cultural movement breaking away from main stream culture. Economically, it is yet another way that art movements, etc. get screwed. Instead of a broad (counter)culture that produces, directs, watches, exchanges, etc. independent horror movies and a love for them… it becomes a fractured, competitive, and hierarchical movement that inevitably either breaks into the main stream or is obliterated by its own obscurantism.

    The history of artists using video technology began with groups like Fluxus and others who were able to share the technology and produce their art, publicize their work through reviews that were mutually-constructive, and build up the economy of their culture by avoiding the pit-falls of celebrity-worship and such. If as artists, we want to build any sort of community that doesn’t benefit a minority at the expense of the majority, the best way to go is to create mutual, constructive relationships with each other and promote each other. Artists are a social class and really, the more we focus on individualistic self-aggrandizement, the worse our overall situation is for being able to live off of our work.

  22. I’m totally out of the loop here, but I don’t think it’s immature at all to review films multiple times. Now if the reviewer has some kind of strange grudge against a flick, then I could see how it could be offensive. But that obviously isn’t Bill’s intention here. At the same time, hell, I’ve watched the same crap multiple times merely because I can’t quite get a peg on why I like or don’t like a particular movie. In turn, I’ve written about the same movies multiple times in the past. Not to bash or prop them up as something they aren’t to fool others, but because of what I said.

    Many writers write just for the joy of writing and as a means of ironing thoughts out in their own heads. So it’s not immature or unprofessional to write about the same crap over-and-over or to change one’s opinion. It’s a function of the creative mind trying to understand the “personal” qualities in something that’s totally subjective.

    Also I think we have a great stable of well-rounded staff in terms of delivering a good gauge on the horror genre. Take that or leave it.

  23. Jayson – I understand what you are saying. There are a number of points I’m making and how many times a movie is reviewed is not the subject of any of them. I am first making a point on the contradiction of applying main stream, “professional” norms to independent films. This is a contradiction in my opinion because of the antithetical stance “independent” culture definitively has towards “professional” culture. I am making this point by demonstrating the normative standards this film is being held to in the review. I am making a second point on the effects of this style of review on independent communities. Not of this one or two reviewers power in particular, but of the culture of conformity the style these reviewers are writing in share with similar power-dynamics in other independent cultures: that they may not be the top of a hierarchy, but are writing in a style that is in line with that hierarchy. My third point is that these particular writers are, apparently in a relative position of power (enough to effect our local independent culture) and that this is damaging to the independent horror culture generally when done over and over with other movies that don’t fit their normative standards.

    I haven’t argued why I think those norms are inappropriate as norms (which I don’t think they are for “professional” films), but I do think they are inappropriate for the goals of creating a flourishing independent culture in horror movies. If you are curious why I think those standards are inappropriate, I can elaborate. But at this point why bother?

    Last, I am under the impression that this commentor is bent on disseminating the basic opinion of this review as much as possible. Maybe they are fronting, but that is a dick move and not a good thing for a community I am a part of. So it’s a critique of the review style and the apparent intentions of the reviewers. I hope it is constructive and that the dumb feud doesn’t further detriment a community I am part of.

  24. The fact of the matter is, that no matter where the review appears or how many times it appears, everyone is able to make up their own minds. We are part of one of the most diverse communities out there and every horror fan is very vocal in their opinions. To talk about the idea of “norms” in the horror genre is laughable and to criticize our sites tagline about “all the filth that’s fits to publish” is ridiculous.

    The fact of the matter is that our editor gives us free reign over what we choose to publish and Bill chose to review the film again on this site. Every one of us has different tastes and opinions and there have been plenty of films covered on this site that others loved that I absolutely HATED.

    I am a filmmaker by trade and I put my product out for everyone to see all the time knowing that I am going to receive all sorts of criticism and yes, sometimes that criticism is overly harsh (which I by no means feel the above review is) but I have to deal with it. I have NEVER lashed out at a critic no matter how upset I was or attacked I felt.

    Can I claim that I have experienced this same situation? No. But I understand it and the fact remains that it was the wrong way for Walter to discuss the review and reviewer.

    What is art if its not meant to be seen? It is, however, the job of the artist to hold themselves with dignity, use tact and take criticism and use it to improve oneself. There will be people who will like this film and Walter has effectively let the opinions of a few people hurt him enough to lash out. It’s bad form and at no point was harm done by The Blood Sprayer.

  25. Mike D.

    No doubt people will make up their own minds. And, Walters behavior dug a hole deeper and deeper – I’m sure he realizes it. I’m glad you have such a high opinion of the ethical fiber of the horror genre, that you somehow think there aren’t any norms. But to use the term “horror genre” and “norms” in the same sentence as a refutation is ironic. The capacity to classify something into a genre has to definitively make use of norms. Not all norms are homogeneous, there can be a standard for heterodoxy (which is what I think you are trying too say the horror community has), but no norms would roughly mean no real ability to be spoken of coherently. Some writers have written about the patriarchal norms in horror films (which I totally disagree with), others break down the taxonomy of movie genres even further beyond Horror and into B-Horror, Classic Horror, Gore, etc. This also requires norms to define what movie meets the criteria for fitting into those categories. I am discussing norms that effect independent arts generally, and specifically in the horror movie milieu. So they are there, and they can be argued about.

    Art is made to be seen, heard, felt, experienced – yes. But there is a norm in independent art circles to not only value the product, but also the process. This norm defined punk for a long time, it defines the situationist movement, and it has it’s rightful place in movies as well: Walter’s movie focuses on the process of guerrilla shooting, using local artists (with an interest in horror) as cast, and some other things which this review doesn’t touch on. There is a reason why this norm has developed in these cultures: they wanted their art to be living, growing, and liberating. Artists realized that the process was just as important as the outcome for separating themselves from mere commodity producers. Art also serves a social function with criticism and in depicting cultural narratives experienced or intuited by the artists.

    Art has changed since the ability to mass produce mechanically. But artists, agreeably, do have responsibilities and I’ll give you that your criticism of Walter holds on that note. But journalists have responsibilities as well, and I would expect an understanding of normative judgments would help in that area, especially for journalists claiming to be supporting an independent art community.

    To follow up on the prior examples of artists who focused on process as an essential part of their art: we know well what killed those communities. The norms changed the more they became popular art(genres) and they changed the culture of the communities those end-products came from. Rather than a community of people authentically working together and creating these arts, they became communities divided into consumers and producers (fans and celebrities). It’s a worthy tendency to be aware of if your art form is rooted in a community that aims for independence from that particularly alienating situation.

    Anyway – this has gotten beyond the point of reasonable discussion. I obviously have a different perspective on art and the role of art criticism (in various situations) than you do. My perspective works for the community I am a part of, and apparently your perspective is working out for you just fine as well. Reality is reality, people make up their own minds, communities emerge from the mediocrity of main stream culture to create new forms of art and then are submerged back into that mediocrity they sought out to combat, people write reviews and the normal response to a bad review from a film maker is to be diligent, and whether or not someone decides to flame a movie as much as possible (from a seat of authority or not) – it is how the world turds. I’ll keep fighting against domination that is a lot more pressing, and you can go on making presumably decent films.

  26. This is so funny, i really need to clarify, i keep reading peoples comments on, this issue and everybody seems to think, there was anger at this review or the reviewer and thats simply not the case, walter is not upset with Bloodsprayers review or the reviewer Bill, this is what walter is upset about, about 2 months ago walter submitted Nightmare alley to Planet terror where it was reviewed by Cortez the killer, (he gave it a bad review) ok times goes by and about 2 months later Walter sent his film to be reviewed to two different blogs/websites 1.radiation scarred reviews and 2. The bloodspayer he noticed while his films were in route that Cortez the killer had written for both of these sites so he kindly asked since he allready reviewed the film to have a new person review it, they agreed, so what do they do they have Bill review it twice who just so happens to write for both sites, then they Have Cortez the killer who writes for all three sites comment on how bad the film is, Thats unprofessional sorry and thats why walter was upset, believe me walter can take a bad review.

  27. @Kristy as the writer and Moderator of who knows How many sites you of all people should now they have screen names and anonymous for a reason so for you to go on facebook or use your moderation privliges to try and expose peoples names like jared or walter is Highly unprofessional and possibly illeagal slander

    • Walter, I’m not going to entertain you any longer. My last remark is you threatened physical violence. That is actually criminal and illegal. You can stop embarrassing yourself right now or we will proceed with taking action. The choice is yours.

  28. You know, I’ve been sitting back watching this all play out over the last few days. It’s gotten to be an unnecessarily hostile conversation that has gone completely off the rails. Having said that, I think this open forum for people to discuss how the horror community evolves is exactly what we should be looking for. Granted, I think that several things got waaaay too serious in this conversation, but that’s perfectly acceptable. People get passionate when they talk about art. They get especially passionate when they discuss their own art. Was Walter’s reaction wrong? In many ways, yes. Making personal attacks is out of line and has nothing to do with the matter at hand. But, we’re still talking about this movie. It’s bringing attention to the film. And truly, if anyone is at fault for anything here, it’s me. I asked Bill to review the film. I was very busy dealing with some business end things pertaining to the Blood Sprayer and didn’t have the proper amount of time if would require to put into a proper review. So, for this I take responsibility. Were we asked to have “someone else review the film”? NO, we absolutely were not. And if Walter believes he sent that email, then it was sent to the incorrect email address, because I NEVER got anything asking me to do this. And as far as Cortez commenting on the reviews, who cares? He never claimed to be the definitive, be-all end-all authority on Nightmare Alley. He merely made a comment on a review…like everyone else here is doing. Alot of the things that went on on this thread were emotionally-based and had little to do with the film. Walter, you made a movie…you made a fucking movie! You know how many blowhard assholes talk about “making a flick” and never do it?! A lot…right there, you’ve exceeded what most folks only dream of accomplishing. Naturally, you’re personally attached to it and want to defend your film. But making physical threats and using derrogatory insults is beneath someone who made a feature length film. Kristy, Cortez, Bill, Jayson, Mike,and everyone who works at this site, despite what your friend thinks, strives to be passionate about their writing in the same way you and your friend do with film and art. Their writing is their art. In the same way you fought to defend this film, they’re fighting to defend their writing. It ends up a difference in opinions, but should’ve never lead to what unfolded on here. I am always going to defend my writers and their ability to say what they want to say, in whatever manner they choose to say it, so long as it isn’t libelous or unnecessarily hateful. I don’t like or agree with everything that goes up on this site, but does it make it wrong? Nope. It simply makes it there opinion. I’m not one to get too invloved in this sort of thing, but I feel like a lot of hurtful things played out in this thread that didn’t need to. If there was ever a time to move past this, it’d be now. As much as the other gentleman posting on here tried to pick apart and tear down how we “review” films, the truth of the matter is, there are a lot of hardworking people at this site, and I feel we DO give an honest, heartfelt viewpoint on indie horror. We take the the time to watch a lot of movies and put our hearts into covering them properly. This goes back to my point of why I didn’t review Nightmare Alley (personally) in the first place. I knew I wouldn’t have the correct amount of time to watch the film and give it a worthwhile review. So, I asked Bill to cover it, not knowing that this is how this would all transpire. At this point, it’s time to movie forward and lay this whole thing to bed.
    The only other thing I feel compelled to address is the comment regarding Kristy’s hand in a lot of different sites. Every writer here has their hands in several different pots. That’s how we know who they are. What’s even crazier about this? They do most of this WITHOUT compensation!!! They’re doing it because they love horror and are passionate about writing, plain and simple. That’s why we’re ALL here…passion. Let’s not let our passion cause us to be reactionary and spiteful any longer. Our opinions will vary, our ideas will differ, but this shouldn’t be cause for hate speak.

  29. No offense, but this comments section has well exceeded Nightmare Alley or Bill’s review on the grounds of interest. 😛

  30. AHH THREATEND WITH VIOLENCE WHERE DO YOU GET THAT SAYING YOU WANNA MEET SOMEONE IS NOT A THREAT SO DO WHATEVER YOU THINK YOU CAN..

  31. @KATIE HERES WHAT YOU CALL A THREAT WERE IS THERE ANY MENTION OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE? iM IN A WHEELCHAIR HOW COULD I HURT ANYBODY? I BELIEVE MY STATEMENT SAID TALK TO?
    (we wanna meet cortez come on boy what festival you going to be at next we wanna talk in person..besides its all good publicity hmm lets see miss katie where shall we go now)
    BY THE WAY SALES HAVE INCREASED THANKS BLOODSPRAYER IF YOU WERE SMART YOUD BLOCK MY IP ADRESS AND DELETE THE ARTICLE CAUSE REALLY THATS YOUR ONLY OPTION AND YOUR THREATS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT DO NOT SCARE ME ONE BIT I DIDNT BREAK ANY LAWS

  32. IM NEVER GOING TO VISIT THIS COMMENT SECTION AGAIN OR ANY OF YOUR SITES , OBVIOUSLY YOUR ALL STUCK ON WHAT YOU WANNA SEE AND NOT THE REAL ISSUE, AND FURTHER MORE IM NOT WALTER, HES ABOVE ALL THIS. AND IS LAUGHING AS WE SPEAK. BUT HE THANKS YOU FOR THE CONTRAVERSY AND THE BOOST IN SALES, WE GOT A GREAT PR DEPT GOTTA HAND IT TO EM, THIS WAS ALL PLANNED HAHAHAHA THANKS GUYS OR SHALL I SAY

    • @Walter- Jokes on you, this promotion you got yourself by responding like a buffoon got you some awesome results. Like if you google Scarlet Fry’s Nightmare Alley for example, this page is the first one that comes up! Since you’re not ashamed at your actions then you won’t mind that this is the first thing people see when they look you up! Great job! Best of luck with your next project

  33. YOUR ALL A BUNCH OF CRY BABIES

    • And every time you or one of your friends visits this page, that’s just the longer it will remain atop Google results…then again I’m sure your PR department told you that….

      Even More Anonymous! September 2, 2010 at 9:18 PM
  34. YEA WELL IT WILL SOON BE FORGOTTEN AND WHO SAID I WAS WALTER ID LIKE FOR YOU TO DESCRIBE TO YOUR READERS HOW YOU DETERMINED THAT ANNONYMOUS IS WALTER WITHOT BREAKING THE PERSONS ANONIMITY, IF ANYONE HAS ANY LEGAL STANDING IT WOULD BE WALTER, AND AS FAR AS REACTING LIKE A BOOFOON YOU PEOPLE NEVER ONCE ACTUALY ADRESSED THE ISSUE IN A MATURE MANNER AS TO WHY THE FILMAKER WALTER WAS UPSET IN THE FIRST PLACE. ALL YOU DID WAS BASH HIM OVER AND OVER, AND ATTACK HIM FOR BEING UPSET WITH A REVIEW WHEN IN FACT THAT WAS NEVER THE CASE, I CAN SHOW YOU 10 DIF WORST REVIEWS OF NIGHTMARE ALLEY THEN YOURS THAT THE FILMAKERS NEVER ONCE COMMENTED ON, THE ISSUE IS WHAT YOU PEOPLE DID ON PURPOSE TO PISS HIM OFF AND THAT WAS NOT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CONTENT OF THE REVIEW, SHALL I EXPLAIN IT ONE MORE TIME?

  35. Walter,

    Our readers have read all of the comments and can deduce who is writing the same jagged responses. Please move on to your next project. Best of luck to you.

    -Kristy (not Katie)

  36. Cortez does not write for RSR

  37. Additionally, writing for another site does not make someone run the site. Move On.

  38. YOU PURPOSLEY WHEN ASKED TO NOT HAVE CORTEZ DO THE REVIEW TWICE AND YOU AGREED HAD PURPOSLY HAD SOMEONE ELSE REVIEW IT TWICE THEN YOU HAD CORTEZ COME IN WITH HIS COMMENTS, THAT WAS ALL DONE BY YOU TO PURPOSLY TO PISS WALTER OFF WHY DONT YOU JUST ADMITT IT AND SAY SORRY INSTEAD OF ACTING LIKE JERKS, YOUR ALL ASSHOLES!

    • Walter,

      For the last time you are causing yourself such bad publicity and embarrassment right now. Cortez has the right to comment how ever he would like, just as any of us can comment how ever we like. We did nothing to purposefully harm you with reviews or with that comment. Go back and read my first comment to you, I never said anything to purposefully harm you. I am done with this. Good luck with your next project. My apologies for any hurt feelings.

  39. You can’t moderate the truth of G-D!

  40. We’re all assholes? I believe you’re the only one who’s been vulgar and rude. By the way, does it help to type everything in caps?

  41. bad publicity REALLY and caps too , YOU REALLY GIVE YOURSELVES TO MUCH CREDIT how many people ya think are gonna REad this oh and Kristy or katie or whatever ya name is you wanna send me a list of all the sites your involved with so we dont send out screeners to them, or is that list just too tall please make sure you iclude the sites jaded veiwer cortez and all your other coharts write for im curious to see it, wow you guys must get a lot of screeners, you keep saying your done you keep replying to every comment?

  42. Brain Damage has NEVER and I repeat NEVER released any film worth a shit. Attacking a reviewer for speaking their mind on your movie is priceless.And the crack against Kristy ha not going to send screeners to sites she’s involved with. SO basically all the major horror sites, I’m sure they will mourn the chance of viewing a bullshit grade Z horribly written, poorly acted, half assed special FX, Brain damage film. It’s studios like yours that give low budget horror a bad name. Congrats on proving as a whole your company is homophobic,have minute IQs, and are unable to handle critics which is something in this industry you need to be able to handle. Good game guys at becoming a laughing stock and over what? one bad review something you get plenty of if you look around the web.

  43. On behalf of everbody on the nightmare alley staff we apologize for everything that happend here, personaly like to apologize to cortez, k.jett and anyone else effected by this, unfortunatly it was blown way out of poportion, we at nightmare alley support the bloodsprayer!

  44. we at Nightmare alley take back our last statement , really we dislike you people very much thank you.

  45. HA HA! wow. how’s that dead horse?

  46. This commentary is an SNL sketch waiting to happen (would prefer it to be on the State, but ce la vie!).

    I apologize for not commenting on this thread sooner… no wait… I take that back… I do not apologize and believe it my right to take my time in responding to literary criticism…
    … no wait, I rescind that last statement and apologize and respond and applaud… and withdraw said apology only to applaud my indecision.

    I can only hope to have my work reviewed so honestly some day… if I had work to review.

  47. To Anonymous- This review now has the highest number of hits on a Google search. You have made yourself look like a complete clown, and the level of animosity you’ve shown indicates that you are closely tied with this film’s production, thus negating your anonymous status. As a result all you have served to do is to bring down your own credibility while creating good publicity for Saucerman here. Good job sir!

  48. Its all good I can always change my name…
    Im actualy suprised that this has remained in popular posts for 6 months and on your Homepage, so that means everyone who goes on your site that decides not to read this thread will just think youve been promoting us all this time LOL Thanks jizzsprayer.

  49. At this point it’s hard to believe people won’t notice the comments since they are 3 times the length of the review. In any event, we’re so happy to have you back Walter! Every time we worry you’ve died, there you are again!

    Besides, people would read the review first anyways, so you’re still not helping your cause. Do you troll your good reviews the way you troll your bad reviews?

Leave a Reply

To get your own thumbnail image, go to gravatar.com