Cut (2000) Reviews

• Autralian version of the slasher film--and not bad

  preppy-32007-09-08

  A horror movie is being shot and things aren't going well. It's about a masked killer. The director tells off the killer in front of the cast and crew. He goes crazy and kills two people. He's killed himself and the film is never finished. Twelve years later a bunch of film students decide to try and finish it--but there's a curse. People who try and finish it are killed themselves. The students ignore that. Guess what happens next? The plot is old hat but this isn't bad...for what it is (a low budget slasher film). It's well-made with a young and fairly talented young cast. No one is great but no one is terrible either. It also avoids the obligatory (and needless) female nude scenes. It moves quickly, the gore is nice and bloody and the script doesn't insult your intelligence. Also Molly Ringwald is in this having the time of her life playing a bitchy faded actress. No great shakes but not bad at all. I give it a 7.

• Entertaining, though unoriginal.

  gridoon2003-07-25

  The idea of a film crew being butchered while shooting a horror film has been done before (in the obscure 1986 flick "Return To Horror High", and probably some other time even before that). The idea of teens making "hip" references to other horror films of the past has been done before (in "Scream"). And so on...Yet, "Cut" is overall an entertaining movie, and if you don't pay more than a dollar to see it, you'll get your money's worth. In the first 20 minutes in particular the filmmakers seem to be onto something different, but then the movie gets increasingly derivative. Still, the special effects are good and Molly Ringwald is perfectly cast as the washed-up ex-B-movie queen. (**1/2)

• Fun

  benjaminconvey2001-08-14

  It isn't the worst film ever made, the actors aren't apalling and the script and director are not completely inept. It isn't the best film ever made, the actors aren't excellent and the script and director are not completely brilliant. It falls somewhere in the middle. A fun somewhere. An enjoyable, well constructed somewhere. No need to say "don't take it seriously" or "so bad its good" or "it wasn't scary". None of these comments are relevant. Cut has atmosphere. It's that atmosphere which is actually very unique, and the one really original aspect of the movie, which personally is what makes the film, for me.

• The Film Within

  tedg2001-06-18

  Spoilers herein. We've had four slasher films in a year which use the plot device of a film within a film. Three are ordinary: `Cut,' `Scream 3,' and `Urban Legend: Final Cut.' One, the recent `Hamlet,' is different. This comment covers the three traditional slashers. Each of the three slashers uses the inside film as a device for a relatively sophisticated distance for humor: they try to scare using established formulae, but at the same time poking fun at the genre, the watchers and the scares themselves. Cut, Urban and Hamlet are by first-time directors: and incidentally the characters are film students. The lead in Urban is made up to look like Julia Stiles, the Ophelia in Hamlet. The lead in Cut is made up to look like Courtney Cox of Scream. Scream has the highest production values, Urban the lowest. Cut is the deepest self-referentially: the monster is brought into the real world by the film -- the magic is in the viewing, which makes the audience cocreators of horror. The monster is destroyed when the film is. Plus, Cut has Molly Ringwald playing Bette Midler. She probably knows she's being made fun of as a bag that once was fun, just like the genre. Urban is the most schoolish in the number of films it references cinematically. Lots of Hitchcock here, some too blatant to be honorable. It makes the most fun of the actors: the bogus film within is really bad and the film crew are bozos; but the `real' film is worth killing for, sort of a `D.O.A' plot. Scream has the dumbest story; Urban and Scream have scooby-doo plot ends: the bad guy in the costume really is just a bad guy in a costume and we get the detective-story-like explanation. Scream uses the film within poorly. It is just a place of work: the only clever device is that each `real' character has a pretend one. But this isn't used at all except for a brief shadowing of Gale Weathers. Wes Craven knows better. He used this same notion in the last Nightmare movie where he played himself writing the film. Pretty good actually. Urban uses the film within only by reference (along with all of the other films that are referenced). Instead, the use has more to do with the making of the film and the trappings of filmmaking -- except for the end where the film within merges with the `real' action. Cut uses the film within more creatively. By placing the real people in the action of the old film, thus bringing the killer of the old film to them. None of this stuff is scary any more. When you go, you go for fun. If you were only going to see only one of these 3 films, you should make it Cut.

• Not that bad

  Sum Boddy2003-08-01

  CUT is called an Australian Scream. This mainly has to due to the characters mentioning movies during the entire thing. I enjoyed it myself until the last 15 minutes where everything started to jumble. Parts I enjoyed though were: The killer's weapon (Which reminded me of over-the-top 80s B-Movies), Molly Ringwald (Of Course), and the cameo by Kylie Minogue. Some cliches, some gore, and some entertainment. 5/10.