Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Orla Zuniga It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

sol- Unsuccessful in killing an outspoken television reporter, a cleaner continues to stalk his victim in hospital in this thriller from Canada. The film begins well, full of voyeuristic hand-held camera-work that places us in his shoes, eerily sharp sounding record and moody music. The attack at lead actress Lee Grant's house is effectively drawn out too as we experience her terror for minutes on end. Subsequent scenes also come with bite as he pretends to be a hospital orderly and even a surgeon, yet the film derails in its final hour as focus awkwardly shifts away from Grant's overwhelming fear and paranoia. Michael Ironside as her stalker ultimately gets more screen time. He is sinister enough, but it is not a juicy enough character to sustain the film alone. Linda Purl as Grant's nurse gets more screen time than her too. Again, this seems great since she is fantastic and has quite a complex character in between raising two kids while in a lesbian relationship. The fact that Ironside suddenly takes to stalking her rather than Grant never makes sense though; same goes for all the others he kills since he actually has a reason for wanting Grant! That said, everything culminates in a fantastic silent, protracted face-off between Grant and Ironside and the film remains atmospheric even when the plot derails. This is, however, a film for which the promotional poster is arguably better than the movie itself.

BA_Harrison After a vicious knife attack by misogynistic psycho Colt Hawker (Michael Ironside), feminist TV reporter Deborah Ballin (Lee Grant) is taken to hospital where the maniac repeatedly tries to finish the job by posing as members of staff.I vividly remember this film's cinematic release back in '82; the advert was on TV at the same time as I was in hospital with a broken leg and, rather unsurprisingly, it struck a nerve. The film clearly struck a nerve with the BBFC as well, the censors later adding it to the UK official video nasty list thanks to the killer's disturbing brand of misogyny and sadistic violence: as slasher villains go, Ironside's Hawker is particularly cruel, the character primarily targeting females, delighting in their fear and pain, teasing them with his switchblade and taking photos of them as they die.However, as memorably nasty as Ironside's psycho undoubtedly is, the film doesn't quite live up to its potential; there is a notable lack of gore (a mainstay of the genre), and the pacing is rather weak, with matters tending to drag after Hawker's initial assault on Ballin. At 105 min long, this means a lot of boring padding, Ironside skulking around corridors and failing to get near his intended victim until the inevitable final showdown in the now surprisingly deserted hospital. We also get pointless filler in the form of William Shatner's concerned TV producer, who does nothing to further the plot, Linda Purl's single parent nurse, whose primary job is to look cute in her uniform, and lots of cheap scares (including one from a parrot!).With more grisly killings and tighter pacing, this could have been one of the genuinely great slashers of the 80s, especially given the intensity of Ironside's performance; sadly, it only qualifies as essential viewing to those determined to see all of the video nasties.

merklekranz This is a very frustrating movie. It has it's moments of suspense, a relentless killer well played by Michael Ironside, a couple effective jump scares, a script that upgrades the slasher genre by cleverly including some character development, and all of the above I like. Unfortunately offsetting the good is a very unsympathetic, unlikable heroine news reporter played by Lee Grant, at least a bunch of logic sinkholes that swallow all believability, William Shatner appearing in a non essential supporting role that goes absolutely nowhere, and an overlong run time for such an obvious story. Overall, "Visiting Hours" is watchable for Ironside's creepy performance, but just barely. - MERK

tomgillespie2002 With the Leveson inquiry displaying the inherent underhanded practices of journalist, ironically in the media at the moment, it seemed quite apt to watch this early 1980's thriller about a stalker attempting to kill a TV journalist, Deborah Ballin (Lee Grant). Admittedly, this particular spewer-of-the-news has not hacked into any phone of celebrity or grieving family. Instead, Colt Hawker (the always sinister looking Michael Ironside) dislikes Ballin's ultra-feminist views, which are shown in an early interview. Her producer, Gary Baylor (the always exaggerated ham, William Shatner), expresses his concern, believing that her outspoken views could attract violence. Inevitably Colt attacks at her apartment that night, but unknowingly only injures her, landing her in hospital.On discovering his failure, he attempts attacking her in the hospital. This is pretty pedestrian storytelling. It is often placed within the sub-genre of slasher films. However, Visiting Hours has none of the signifier's associated with films such as Halloween (1978) or Friday the 13th (1980): No point-of-view from the killers perspective; no puritanical equation of sex and death; no supernatural being and undead icon (Freddy Krueger/Jason Voorhees/Michael Myers). Instead of stylistic verve, it often feels like a contemporary TV movie, which is exacerbated by the music (although there are moments of brilliance in the score). As Colt's attempts to get to the guarded journalist become too difficult, he moves onto a young nurse, Sheila Munroe (Linda Purl).Colt Hawker is evidently a misogynist. Whilst we occasionally see flashbacks of the abuse he and his mother suffered at the hands of his father, we are never really furnished with the ability to dig any further - we can perhaps only surmise that it is simply feminism itself, the changing power-balance of genders, that he is attacking. After all, the women he stalks or kills are evidently independent, working women. A strange entry into the Video Nasties list, this is a film that bores more that it creates suspense. The main saving grace is that powerful, contorting face of Ironside. I swear that whenever he gets angry on film, his face looks like it will explode (I know we did see that in Scanners (1982), but he does it in nearly all of his films).www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com