CheerupSilver Very Cool!!!

Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

Ortiz Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

cricket crockett Now that the 1900s are over and done with, everyone seems to be on the bandwagon to come up with the newest past-ploitation idea covering that era. THE SCENESTERS does this quite consciously with its voice-overs (for instance, it mentions the "Black Dahlia" murder; however, it does not single out or show this victim's residential hotel by name, which is unfortunate, since that site was in the news this week due to the female-corpse-in-the-rooftop-water-tank\black water scandal). It also gets quite complicated, with so many sets of different videographers implausibly crowding serial killer crime scenes that it's not too hard to lose track of who's filming who. But the idea of someone competing with Night Stalker killer Richard Ramirez for the title of L.A.'s most prolific human snuffer also echoes several headlines in this month's news, with citizens being arrested left and right for threatening to make this or that mass murder or serial killing look like "child's play" (and Ramirez also performed some of his deadly handiwork in the rooftop-tank-corpse-water hotel). Just as GONE WITH THE WIND tried to recall the exciting times of the 1800s, THE SCENESTERS tries to echo the mayhem of the 1900s (only in a contemporary setting).

horacep Very few people have reviewed this movie probably because it's not very good (no offense to those who liked it). I saw the movie on one of the premium TV channels and almost stopped after the first 15 minutes. I decided to keep watching to see if it could possibly get better, but unfortunately I wasted my time. I won't try to describe the movie, look at other reviews for that, but essentially, this looks like an attempt by film class students at making a movie. Most of it is shot with the appearance of amateur home movies. It's rated R because of language, adult content and some violence. The IMDb has placed it in the following Genre: Comedy, Crime, Mystery, and I agree. It is humorous at times, but really is more a pathetic attempt at humor most of the time. I really tried to give it the benefit of the doubt so I watched the entire film. In the end I was debating whether to give it a rating of 2, 3, or 4 on a scale of 10. I decided to be generous and give it a 3/10. It isn't the worst film I've ever seen but is certainly in the bottom 5% of the thousands of films I've seen. I would not recommend it and if you are interested in an in offbeat film to pass the time, I'd suggest the movie "11:14" which is 100 times better.

secondtake The Scenesters (2009)A series of murders are being committed and it seems the killer is among a group of associates and friends in L.A. who all have a hand in investigating. Some of these people are filmmakers who have decided to film the scenes from the inside, and so there is both the omniscient footage of the overall situation and the footage being shot by the film (video) crew itself. Then there is added footage from other sources, like a training video for crime scene cleaners and the ongoing excerpts of a trial in a courtroom where the main characters appear to talk about the events in retrospect.So what "The Scenesters" is first of all is complex, an interwoven and sometimes surprising tossed salad of points of view and styles. Some viewers will find it sloppy and annoying, or just confusing enough to give up, but in fact it makes pretty good sense, and the dumbed down acting can be forgiven or absorbed as intentional. Because these are meant to be regular people who happen to be caught on camera.It's impossible and senseless to talk about plot here, beyond the step by stop procedure of finding another victim and getting more clues and false leads. It's only gruesome in small doses--this isn't a slasher film by any means. If anything it's a little too hip--a film made by young people for young people (people in their 20s, let's say). But that's also what keeps it current and fresh.It's so much about how it's made you ought to at least try to watch it. I see that the IMDb rating is really low, under five stars, and yet the few actual written reviews give it nine or even ten stars each. That's revealing: people who are into movies and how they are made and really want to work at enjoying them (and who take the time to write reviews) got more out of the this movie. It doesn't mean it's flawless, not a bit, but it's very very interesting, one of the more intriguing movies I've seen in awhile.

barbthomp150 I loved this film. I saw it first at the Austin Film Festival and then saw it again when it hit the Chicago Film Festival. The second time I saw it, I got even more out of it. It has gotten some critical acclaim including Best Comedy at the Hollywood Film Festival, Best Director at the Edmunton Film Festival, and, I think it got Most Interesting Film at the SlamDance Film Festival. I know it got other awards, too, but I'm not sure of all of them. The deliberate change from black & white to color and back again has significance, and it it fun to see it all played out. The film has been cast well and includes some very funny lines and scenes. If you like mystery and spoofs, you would find this film quite entertaining. I definitely recommend this film.