Prowler

I wanted to like this. As someone enjoys micro budget filmmaking some of the strong points here were very strong. The locations were great and the photography was excellent. The main areas where this film suffered though are quite inexcusable - script and sound. The story made zero sense at times and left the actors with no where to go and nothing to do, and the sound was woeful. Was there any sound recording at some of exterior locations? I'm not sure. Got to applaud the ambition here and the work that it takes to get a film made, but get the fundamentals right and the rest will follow.

I have just watched this film and found the ending confusing and disappointing. Could vampinshape or acisclos tell me why they gave it 10/10. I do want to learn something.

In contrast to other reviewers here, I was happy to see this film. You do not always need action, guns and the usual stuff to create a thrilling plot. PROWLER has a certain contained style, but in this style lies the thrill of this film. Also good acting and well filmed. I highly recommend this film to everybody who is interested to see an off the beaten track-thriller.

Watch first 2 minutes, 2 in the middle and skip to the end. You will save yourself an hour or so and a vacuous script. Actually the acting was so bad it made the script look better. This is a plot formula which has been used on numerous occasions. The director had a dream, no not Martin Luther King's, no he thought he was Hitchcock. He isn't. There are reviews disparaging others' views. Surely comments should be about films seen and not other reviewers comments?