ThiefHott Too much of everything

Frances Chung Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Blake Rivera If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

LeonLouisRicci Crossing Over from Her Highly Successful Career as a Still Photographer, Cindy Sherman Directed this Lifeless, Lame, and Limp Horror Parody that is Boring and Bland and Except for a Couple of Interesting Scenes, Utterly Unwatchable.A Doctoral Thesis could be Written, maybe it has, about the Similarities and Differences between Still Photography and Cinematography. After All, Film is Literally "Moving" Pictures, thats why Initially they were Called "Moving Pictures".But what Sherman has done here is Demonstrate that it is a Different Aesthetic. It is Quite Surprising that a Renowned Photographer could make such a Murky Looking, Uninspired, Movie. It just Appears Flat and Vacuous. The Color Schemes are Dull, the Lighting Cloudy, and for the Most Part it is Styleless. The Acting is All Over the Place with Each Actor Giving a Performance that is Unconnected to the Other Players and the Film Itself. No One Seems to have any Direction and are Left to Their Own Devices. The Girl Scouts are Unsettling and Aside from the Opening Credits is just about the Only Time the Movie Rises Above Awful.

Formdis The first question that would come to mind would be whether Carol Kane could play a psycho successfully. And after seeing this film, I would have to say I still don't know because the very tame screenplay didn't allow her to be a well developed psychotic, nor did it allow any other sort of development for any other aspect of this film.The storyline here is very typical. It involves Carol Kane (with very odd penciled in eyebrows) as an awkwardly mousy, hardworking magazine editor in a drab and depressing looking office building where she gets picked on daily. Then, without any time wasted, the inevitable psycho switch gets flipped and she starts killing off her coworkers.I know that may sound to most like your typical fun slasher, but in fact, it can't even be considered a slasher. Actually, I really don't know what genre to categorize this film in because it dips it's toes in a couple different sub-genres without ever fully concentrating on any one area, therein lying the problem. The resulting film just doesn't quite work. At the start, it seemed to be heading into satire territory with office politics and such, but quickly falls flat because of a major lack of humor. As it went on, it then seemed I was in for a slasher, but all of the murders take place off screen, giving us no chase sequences, creative deaths or gore. Then I expected it to take a turn into suspense, but was left with no tension or any sort of character development whatsoever, so I never cared for anyone or anything enough to ever get involved in the storyline. The writers just didn't seem to know what they really wanted, which kind of left the final product in limbo. And it's pretty disappointing because the photographer turned director, Cindy Sherman, seemed to have talent and would have benefited greatly if it were a straight up thriller.So what were we meant to feel during this film? It wasn't smart, funny, thrilling or even bloody. Were we supposed to hate and fear Kane? Or were we supposed to root for her? The whole film felt just as awkward as she looked and felt just as drab and boring as the office building looked, which leaves us with no reason to ever want to visit. I would compare this to later films, such as Love Object and the Willard remake, both of which used the same plot techniques, yet executed them in a much more entertaining fashion. Office Killer isn't a terrible film. I give the director and cast credit for trying. But it's just so lifeless that I can't recommend you wasting your time with it.

stephan-9 I'd say this film was poorly directed, except I'm not sure any attempt was made to actually direct it.Cindy Sherman is a good photographer, and as such the shots which are framed as moving photographs are well art-directed (in particular, the David Lynch rip-off psychedelic gathering of the souls of the victims), but that (and the Marc Ribot style song over the closing credits) is about the only good thing about this film. Otherwise, technically as well as artistically, this film is deeply flawed.Carol Kane's performance is at times overwrought and at times dull, while the rest of the cast phones-in the expected flat, B-grade horror film acting job. None of the lead characters are at all engaging, and the attempt at garnering sympathy for the horrendously pathetic Dorine is a failure in light of how successful the film is at making her both despicable and irritating. The emotionally charged scenes are so awkward as to immediately break any momentum the film had managed to gain and leave you feeling embarrassed for the filmmakers.All in all, this film went direct to video for a very good reason, and unless you're doing a "Bad Horror Movie Marathon" I'd say it's best left collecting dust at your local video shop...

Dfredsparks i am a generous grader but this might be the worst movie i have ever seen, and i often like bad horror movies. story, acting, direction all terrible. AWFUL AWFUL movie with no redeeming quality. the master should be burned