The Last Horror Movie (2003) User Reviews

An interesting addition to the serial killer genre.

[BA_Harrison · 7/10 · 6 June 2006]

Smooth talking serial killer and amateur film-maker Max Parry has made a fly-on-the-wall documentary about murder. By copying his movie onto a rental tape at his local video shop, he gets people to unwittingly start watching his opus, in which he delivers a snuff showcase of his greatest 'hits', whilst glibly commenting about the nature of killing.

Despite borrowing heavily from Belgian movie 'Man Bites Dog', the classic 'Henry: Portrait of a Seial Killer' and 'American Psycho', and ending with a gimmick which is reminiscent of Japanese ghost movie Ringu, director Julian Richards manages to deliver a grisly film that succeeds in being genuinely disturbing. The catalogue of stabbings, beatings and strangulations are filmed with a gritty authenticity that will shock all but the most desensitised; but despite all of the nastiness, there is a knowing sense of ridiculousness which will appeal to those with a very dark sense of humour. Kevin Howarth's Max is both chilling yet comic; he claims to be sane, and talks intelligently about his project and his reasons for killing, yet he is clearly a few sandwiches short of a picnic. At times he is logical, calm and collected whilst going about his business, but we see just enough glimpses of his completely wacko side to know that he is far from 'mentally balanced'.

A sharp script, impressive hand-held video work and some gruesome effects (try watching the burning scene without wincing) add to the realism of the film. The Last Horror Movie is a brave plunge into the dark world of an unhinged individual. Unashamedly violent and unflinchingly graphic, it is not a movie for the easily offended.

Interesting and original

[Sparklemotion128 · 7/10 · 28 November 2004]

The Last Horror Movie is an interesting idea well executed. The basic idea for the film is that the viewer has rented out a video named The Last Horror Movie from their local videostore, and 2 minutes into a normal and quite lame horror movie, they find that the film has been taped over by a mad psychopath named Max. Max informs the viewer of who he is, and that he is a mass murderer, and then shows the viewer some murders that he has committed.

The movie itself is a cross between Peeping Tom and Man Bites dog, in that it is a fake home-made documentary of someone filming himself committing murders, so if you rented the movie without knowing what it is, you will be afraid that once it comes to an end, so will you as you will be nervously afraid that Max will knock on your door.

I watched this movie at a special preview in Brighton with a Q&A (What meat was it really?) session with the director and the actor who played Max. Although the idea of it means it should play extremely well on video to an unsuspecting viewer, it also plays well on the big screen, except with the added releaf that it is just a movie after all.

So why are you still watching?

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 11 October 2013]

From writer James Handel and director Julian Richards comes this reasonably interesting look at the life of a serial killer who decides that he'll document his actions, with the help of a troubled cameraman / assistant (Mark Stevenson), in his attempt to "write the final word on what constitutes horror." Its execution isn't exactly fresh, nor is it ever particularly insightful, but Richards manages to keep it entertaining and watchable. (Even if one isn't impressed, they only have to stick it out for 76 minutes.) It does have some grim, graphic, and uncomfortable scenes, but the main attraction is a charismatic central performance by Kevin Howarth as Max. Howarth is almost the whole show as he sits down and chats us up, asking us what we think of him and assuming that we're condemning his actions. He raises certain moral issues, while passing commentary on the whole idea of voyeurism.

Gore and effects work are good; in particular, the immolation scene is impressive. It may be hard for some viewers to take this film as it doesn't shy away from showing imperiled people suffering and pleading for their lives. And all the time Max is maintaining his amused sense of detachment. He is an intriguing bugger, to be sure, as we see him interacting with other people in his life and keeping up the facade of being a more or less "normal", if somewhat eccentric, person on the surface. Where the film really gets more interesting is when Max is encouraging the assistant to increase his level of participation. Not surprisingly, the assistant is too bothered by conscience to be able to sink to Maxs' level of depravity.

At least Handel and Richards come up with one entertaining gag, presenting their film as the home movies that Max and his buddy have recorded over the horror film on a videocassette.

Overall, this is good but definitely not great stuff that should warrant a look for fans of the genre, even if it's naturally not in the same league as movies that came before it or may have inspired it such as "Peeping Tom" and "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer".

Seven out of 10.

Interesting idea thats been done before

[diggler302 · 10 December 2004]

The Last Horror Movie is a cinema verite film. Done obviously on a low budget and this does show. But this really does just add to the authenticy that the film is trying to portray, a home made documentary about a serial killers life.

Starring Kevin Howarth as Max, a seemingly normal, intelligent and suave gentleman who works as a freelance wedding photographer. The problem with Max is the fact he is also a cunning, evil and cannibalistic serial killer.

This film does borrow heavily from the great Belgian film "Man Bites Dog" and even seems to have even gone so far as to steal a couple of lines of dialogue from the above mentioned movie.

This film does hold up on it's own merits. It has some very cringe worthy scenes of extreme violence. Even I, who on the whole part am quite jaded had a chill down my spine on a few occasions. Though it is not a murder fest with every scene yet another depiction of ultra violence.

Overall it has been done before, but is still a refreshing film due to the intelligence of the script and amazingly scary portrayal of Max by Kevin Howarth.

If you are into more mindless violence it really deserves a out 5 of 10

If you like a bit of story and character interaction then this gets a 7 out of 10

Good in the right circumstances...

[MikesIDhasbeentaken · 7/10 · 3 April 2014]

And by that I mean if the last scene freaks you out or not depends on how your watching the film... For me, I had walked to blockbuster one evening and browsed the horror films available, chose this one from reading the back of it, and walked to a friends house that night and we watched it around midnight, I then had to walk home alone...

if you've seen the film, you might appreciate that this is a far more scarier way to watch this than watching now where you'll either download or order online, or watch on TV, which kind of kills the films ending.

Not sure how I'd feel had I seen under different conditions, but as a teenager and with the above circumstances, had me looking over my shoulder a little bit...

Patronising, Smug, Naive, Bland.

[shadowbox_nz · 2/10 · 8 September 2008]

I've been a fan of horror movies and thrillers since I was a child. I'd like to think I know a little about the way they work, having studied film at university (not that that makes me an expert, mind you). In the post-modern world we live in now, there is a glut of cinema verite in our televisual entertainment, what with the plethora of reality TV shows and so on. Horror movies seem to have moved in a similar direction in some ways: witness The Blair Witch Project, Rec, Cloverfield etc. There is also an emphasis on taking the horror to its "logical" extreme by exposing the viewer to total violence and sadistic torture - note for instance the current trend of torture porn with films like Hostel and Saw. All these movies aim to place us in the action and make it seem more "real".

Taking this theme of placing-the-viewer-in-reality, the writer of The Last Horror Movie would like to think he is being desperately clever, but the script in this film is so patronising and transparent it can't even pass as "art".

The lead actor is just plain awful - his performance is incredibly affected and bland, with almost no nuance. Others give good performances however, especially the Assistant.

The serial killer constantly looks at the camera intensely and asks us "insightful" questions like "why are you still watching?" and "don't you want to see what happened?" and so on. Utterly tedious. We KNOW why we watch horror - we don't need to be lectured about it. Horror performs a sort of ritual of exorcism for our daily lives - it enables us to live vicariously through the fictional suffering of others, knowing we would never do it ourselves (and hoping that it will never happen to us). This sort of thematic material was explored with so much more finesse and artfulness in Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer (which is truly shocking in its coldness), Pasolini's incredible Salo (the end sequence where we are looking through binoculars at soundless torture scenes), Belgium's excellent "Man Bites Dog" (which was ahead of its time) and even less graphic movies like Hitchcock's Rear Window and the excellent "Peeping Tom" from the early 60s. Voyeurism being explored in film is nothing new. The premise of The Last Horror Movie therefore appears incredibly naive to me, with nothing new to say. The murders are rather silly, and the whole "I followed you from the video store" line just tacky. It's one thing to take the tack of "the viewer is complicit in this murder" theme, it's quite another to shove it down their throats.

Too Bad The Surprise Twist Ending Is Written On The Box Cover!

[BraveHawk · 6/10 · 25 February 2005]

The Last Horror Movie is about a psychopathic killer who is otherwise normal named Max (Kevin Howarth). Max seems to have an obsession with video cameras because he is either at his day job, filming wedding, or is being followed around with a camera or filming what seems to be a documentary.

Max and his assistant (Mark Stevenson) are pretty much just filming murders, which Max commits. You never get to know more about the assistant. He is mostly just behind the camera but does have a few scenes in front of the camera, but you never do learn his name, just a bit of background to make the story make sense. With the documentary look to it, this movie reminds me of Two Days (the movie in which the actor is documenting his own suicide). The difference being that movie was documenting suicide and this one is documenting murders, in many various shapes and forms. Along the way, Max makes some interesting points and raises some interesting questions.

In the end, as much as I hate to say this, I was mostly bored. The ending was pretty good (it actually makes you think about it for a second to make sense and assure yourself) but it was marred by the boredom that the rest of the movie partakes in. Other than some brief killing scenes, there is not much to see. Overall, I think this could have been marketed better so as not to give most of the end away, but it still surprises you for a bit. Even so, it could have been a little better, but I've seen worse. 6 of 10.

Horror movie tells its audience off for watching horror movie. In 2003.

[n-town-smash · 3/10 · 7 September 2010]

The Last Horror Movie is a 2003 horror, the premise of which is that you the viewer have rented a "video nasty" from your local Choices, only to find that a serial killer has recorded over it with some of his sadistic killings.

That's right: in 2003, you haven't made the switch to DVD yet.

It might seem like a minor gripe, but it highlights the larger problem with The Last Horror Movie - that it graces us with its social commentary roughly 20 years too late. The theme of viewer-as-passive-participant is one that's been knocking around the horror genre for decades now, and whether or not it's still interesting, it's works best when it sneaks up on you. Subtext without the "sub-" leaves the audience feeling lectured, patronised and preached at.

The Last Horror Movie takes this once-intriguing idea, waits til 2003, and then proceeds to bludgeon you over the head with. You're on the receiving end of a darned good telling-off for taking vicarious thrills in the suffering of others before you've even dunked your first hobnob.

And that's the problem. The horror fan is being framed for a crime that, for the most part, he does not actually commit. The idea that anyone who watches a murder is on some level a wannabe murderer is older than Freud and as hamfistedly simplistic as the moral outrage leveled at The Simpsons back in the day for failing to provide good role models (seriously kids, that actually happened!). Of course, our protagonist only tells us to ask (incredibly leading) questions about ourselves, rather than outright calling us sickos. But there might as well be a banner reading "WE ARE DEALING WITH ISSUES, GUYS" scrolling along the bottom of the screen the whole time for all the nuance in this.

It's ironic really that, of all the genres that might actually deserve this kind of treatment, it's horror that gets it. Horror has always had to fight to justify itself, sometimes with good cause. As a result, there's probably been more academic analysis of the genre than any other, and it _does_ filter through to the film-maker and to the viewer. Most serious horror fans (and those are probably the only people likely to "rent" this "video") at least have some inkling as to why they watch horror movies. Despite our intrepid serial killer host's assertions, it is a self-aware genre loved by a self-aware audience. A movie in which a trite Jennifer Aniston romcom is cut off after ten minutes by the twin video diaries of a couple who are horrifically mismatched and incapable of articulating even their most basic of feelings to one another might have been a much more interesting prospect, and possibly a lot more frightening.

All postmodern ramblings aside, what really undermines the movie is not the trite, misguided social commentary or the lazy misjudgment of its likely core audience, but the fact that, really, it's not a very good horror film. The real art behind even the most lunkheadedly depraved "torture porn" is to repulse just enough to fascinate - to have the viewer peering out from behind his fingers. The fact that The Last Horror Movie is intentionally written to be watched on video just highlights how very very easy it is to stop watching the movie, long before the first smug "if you don't like it, why are you watching?" comment from the protagonist. But then, given the analysis of the horror fan on display, they probably thought that just half-showing some murders was enough. After all, you like watching murders, right? =D

The short version is that this is a movie which is hampered by an implausible and dated premise from the word "go", and which does very little to redeem itself. If you want a tortuous unappealing slog through the ill-conceived mind of the serial killer, you could watch The Poughkeepsie Tapes. At least that guy knew how to point a camera.

Deserves to be huge

[nymus2004 · 10/10 · 26 January 2004]

ames Handel's brilliant script for The Last Horror Movie has a lot to say and does it without preaching or getting heavy handed. It's an uncomfortable film, but a compelling one and that modern day rarity, a horror film that makes you think while scaring the hell out of you. Howarth takes centre stage throughout and is simply amazing as the unreadable Max - he himself admits that he's not mad, but offers no motivation for why he commits his appalling crimes other than that he wants to create the "last horror movie you'll ever see." The Last Horror Movie will work even better on video and DVD than it does on the big screen though one has to wonder what its prospects will be. With no big name stars and the still unshakeable stigma attached to British horror films, this could go unwatched by many who would love its perverse charm and uncompromising violence. And that would be a shame as this is one genre film that deserves to be huge.

messing with your head....

[vane_yamileth · 6/10 · 18 February 2005]

This movie is not scary in the normal sense, but it does mess with your head psychologically. It's disturbing because you get in the killer's head. The ending is pretty freaky. The beginning is kind of boring but by the end I was thankful I had downloaded it and didn't rent it on VHS. (If you haven't seen this movie yet, rent it on VHS if you can, it's so much more effective.) However, the ending could have been better because all the people watching the movie were watching by themselves and who rents a horror movie to watch by themselves? Still, I checked to make sure my door was locked before I went to bed just in case. If you want something different and aren't satisfied with mainstream horror movies, give this a shot.

decent plot ruined by annoying acting, little talent

[flygirl-on-the-roof · 1/10 · 29 January 2005]

When I saw Fangoria listed on the cover of this DVD, I thought for sure it would be interesting and fun to watch. I'm a big horror fan. It's my favorite genre and I can easily find entertainment value in most horror flicks -- even if they are truly bad, they're usually good for a laugh or two...

NOT this one. I watched the first 30 minutes with genuine interest and curiosity, wondering what was going to happen next, and even thinking that this movie was promising, very different from most that I have seen. Soon after, the substandard acting and repetitive dialogue pushed me far past boring to extremely annoyed. Obviously the writers thought the audience's interest would be piqued, judging by Max's constant comments to the effect of, "I know you're wondering," "You must want to see," "I'll bet you want to know..." By the end of the film I honestly couldn't care less what happened and I just wanted it to be over. The bad acting completely obliterated the integrity of the characters and the storyline and I couldn't break past it to believe in it anymore... I couldn't see the characters anymore, just a bunch of really bad actors.

My opinion clearly differs with the majority of people who have commented so far, but I have to note it's very rare that I don't like a film. I am NOT one of the people who nitpick a movie to death and complain about every other movie that's released. Nine out of ten movies I see have true merit, whether it's in the writing, the acting, the cinematography, the styling, etc. As hard as I tried, I couldn't find any in this one. A complete waste of time and rental fees. Four thumbs down from these two very disappointed viewers...

I am soo surprised

[ffej117 · 10/10 · 18 April 2005]

After checking the vote history on this movie I am very surprised it the votes on this movie in my age range for males is so low.

Let me explain; I am a male that grew up on the slasher and crap flicks of the eighties and still enjoy them for their cheese factor. Do not get me wrong. I enjoy a good jump in the seat as well as anyone.

on with it then; this movie is brilliant {my opinion}. This movie is exactly what a low budget movie is suppose to be. It is not a movie that will scare you right now but will stay with you and make you look at people in society different knowing that this movie hits home because these people are out there. Let me say it again this people exist. That revelation alone should send shivers down your spine.

The lead in this is perfect, and I hope he is in for a long career and will look for him in the future. The secondary characters including the victims are as real life as it is possible to do with film.

I am not one for giving away parts of movies, so you will have to check it out to see what I am talking about. Just know that if you are looking for Freddy, Jason or Michael you will be disappointed. If you are looking for a film that will stay with you for a long time this is your flick.

I really look forward to seeing more from the parties involved with this film as much as people looked forward to Tobe Hoopers future products.

Enjoy this film.

Very Strange

[trinity082482 · 6/10 · 3 September 2005]

My boy friend rented this movie last night. I thought it was a documentary about real life murders. At first we didn't know if it was all real. We figured well if its being sold at Blockbuster it must be fake. Right? Was it based on a true story? Or was it all fun and entertainment? I don't know, but it was disturbing. I give this movie 6/10. I watched the entire thing but it wasn't that good. I hated the ending. Believe me. This movie makes you think about some pretty messed up stuff! And even though I'm adult, I am sadden to say it really did give me troubles sleeping. Oh my god am I a looser or what. This was the cheesiest movie of the year.

Bringing nothing new to the party

[deheor · 2/10 · 13 July 2005]

After having this movie be recommended highly by someone I respected, I settled in for the night to view it.

Yikes, what a tremendous disappointment.

This movie can only be enjoyed by people who have spent the last 20 years in a cave and missed out on the many better films that clearly inspired it. The premise is quite simple, A killer tapes his murders while discussing his motives and questioning his viewers. After listening to his smug delivery of grade 10 level psych theories you will start to wish another serial killer with their own film crew would meet up with him in a alley. Of course it does not help that he keeps making the same points over and over. What starts out as mildly interesting turns to annoying real fast.

If you read the premise and the film sounds good I recommend "Man bites dog" a much better version of this story. I guess if you watch this with very low expectations you can receive some enjoyment but I am afraid that this film falls very, very short of the challenging film that the premise promised.

British filmmaking with an unnerving edge

[a-f-beeton · 29 March 2004]

Though the title of this film might suggest conventional horror forthcomings, don't despair. The last Horror Movie is a unique cinematic exploration in to the mind of a serial killer. Wedding filmmaker Max Parry [Kevin Howarth] is a London bachelor who enjoys looking after his sisters' kids, entertaining friends and honing the art of murder. He decides to make his own horror film in order to help him discover his victim's attitudes to death. The commonsensical style of this movie is its real charm. It lacks the sardonic comedy that makes Rémy Belvauxs' Belgian film Man Bites Dog an obvious fiction, but henceforth the horror becomes much more feasible. Howarth conceivably becomes someone we could know, and like. His charismatic portrayal of Parry makes us open to his rational debates of art vs. humanity. The last horror movie takes the horror genre and turns it on its head; it pushes the viewer to challenge why they enjoy purveying murder and brutal senseless acts of killing. It forces us to consider the value of a human life and then contradicts our opinion with the general antipathy shown for human life in the third world. It tries to make us believe that murder is in essence a force of nature. The protection and reassurance of your own home is no longer a safe haven but a fruitful opportunity to gratify the predator among us. If you can stomach horror and gore then go and see this film. It's a powerful piece of British filmmaking with an unnerving edge. Director Julian Richards commented that the real horror of this film starts when you leave the cinema, a concept that entertained me, as I lay awake, convincing myself that the squeaking floorboards below were not as innocent as they sounded.

some parts are gruesome but the narration fails

[trashgang · 6/10 · 12 November 2013]

By watching this flick about some found footage of a serial killer, that idea was original, it reminded me of course of Henry Portrait Of A Serial Killer (1986) and Man Bites Dog (1992). Those surely have given people the creeps. This one doesn't although there are a few scene's that are not for the easily offended.

It starts rather well with a normal flick about a serial killer but suddenly the movie is interrupted by Max (Kevin Howarth) telling that he has put his murder spree over a flick so you are the only one watching his life and the bad things he has done. I must say that indeed some of those deeds were gruesome but the combination of narrating and showing his abilities didn't work like in for example the earlier mentioned Man Bites Dog. Here also the crew slowly got involved and it do look like a rip-off of Man Bites Dog but the brutality of that film we never do see here.

The idea is in fact original and towards the end when Max is referring to the viewer it do works but it has it flows and it didn't give me goosebumps like the two other flicks did. Still, not recommended for easily offended people.

Gore 1/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 3/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5

Unoriginal and disappointing

[p_nallen · 3/10 · 29 September 2005]

This film seems to be trying hard to grip the imagination of the viewer but my tolerance for its knowing tricksiness and didactic attitude could only have lasted as long as I found it compelling, which was no time at all. The idea of a serial killer making his own personal film or having one made about him was executed to far better effect, both more entertaining and more chilling, in the Belgian film Man Bites Dog. In The Last Horror Movie the film-makers try to challenge our moral position vis a vis violence as entertainment, but this is done in such an unsubtle and hectoring tone that interest wanes very quickly. In Man Bites Dog, this was genuinely achieved through skillful and subtle film-making rather than preaching pseudo-philosophical student claptrap at the audience. It thinks that through its "post-modern" trickery that it includes and involves the viewer directly, just as the killer attempts to "include" his victims in the "project" but the end result for me was bored, irritated alienation. The performances are acceptable but nothing special and Kevin Howarth as Max has his work cut out delivering leaden text to us in tedious video-diary-style scenes, of which there are too many. If you want to see a film with this kind of theme, rent Man Bites Dog and let your conscience lecture you, not some self-regarding film student.

Hit and miss factors, but A+ for effort

[drfrancisgross-1 · 6/10 · 29 August 2005]

The problem with this movie lies in its unevenness, As it is supposed to be "real", some of the characters are completely believable whereas others are just bad actors, most of the victims are great, and Max's assistant is spot on as a troubled man in WAY over his head. Kevin Howarths performance is chilling enough, but, as others have stated, we are never convinced of his problems, seeing as he appears to be a psychopath, a sociopath, a cannibal, neurotic, narcissistic and an awesome chef. The writing for the character seems a bit "throw EVERY psycho cliché we can and see what sticks" On the plus side, the murders are frighteningly realistic, and at times make very uncomfortable viewing, Max really has NO compassion for human life, and demonstrates this to great effect time and time again, with scenes of brutality that I have found quite hard to shake from my head. The scene with the art student in particular I found very distressing, as the terrified girl sits, pretty much waiting for her inevitable death, whilst Max whines at his assistants inability to sink to the depths of depravity that comes so naturally to himself.

There is some good writing, some blacker than black comedy and Max makes reasonable arguments about morality. The wedding scenes are great, and feature some truly obnoxious people, come to think of it, most of Maxs friends are far more obnoxious than he is, I guess thats the point.

The ending is fun, as long as you try not to take it too seriously, view it as you would a William Castle gimmicky horror and you'll have a great time, but viewed as an intelligent, arty, oh so clever film and you may be disappointed.

The last horror movie is a good step for all involved and for indie British films in general, it deserves to be seen by everyone who can stomach its lo-fi violence and cod philosophy.

D minus. D-rivative.

[frozengreenz · 2/10 · 31 May 2005]

This is an objectionable film. Not because its shocking, or depicts anything that hasn't been seen before. But because it believes its saying something important. I keep reading that this film makes us think, makes us examine our own reactions / feelings about watching violence. That simply won't do. Post-Iraq any of us can download real life executions in the space of a few minutes - all of which would incalculably exceed the horror depicted here. Some of us do - usually to profoundly regret it. The premise of this film, or at least of the protagonist / anti-hero of this piece seems wrong. I really doubt people who rent horror movies secretly want to see real life murder; or that if they were to happen upon a film like this they would share any moral culpability for watching what was playing right in front of their noses. Then there's the notion that this rather unlikely not to mention very middle class serial killer thinks that what he is doing is art. Again, I don't object to the idea - I'm really looking forward to reading the Art of Murder by Somoza as soon as I can get hold of it - but this just doesn't make the grade. Besides all serial killers are arse-holes. None of them have anything to say and neither do films about them.

An excellent movie, just make sure you watch it alone :)

[maurice_k_69 · 10/10 · 21 June 2006]

I really enjoyed this movie and how it all came together at the end. Good original movie with great acting. I also love how there is only one copy of the movie in ever video store. When i went to watch it i had never herd about it and i just found this random R rated horror movie. My family was staying at the cost at that time and i just bought 5 or 6 to watch to kill the nights. I was all alone in the house when i watched this movie (recomended) and it messes with your mind at the end. The circumstances i found it in added a lot to it and you literally find yourself at the end locking doors and windows :P, great movie, i can highly recommend it

Flawed, but nice experimental horror flick

[The_Void · 6/10 · 28 August 2005]

Within the first ten minutes of The Last Horror Movie, I could see that I wasn't going to enjoy it. Films that try to be clever by turning the media form on it's head usually only succeed in annoying me, and the way that Kevin Howarth's patronising dialogue at the beginning introduces the film made it look like The Last Horror Movie would be the latest in a long line of films that get on my nerves. You can imagine my surprise, then, when the film reached it's conclusion and what I'd just seen was actually quite good! I'm not saying that this is a masterpiece, or even a total success; but it's tried to do something different and made good of it. You can't ask much more than that. The film takes the same stance as the hit 80's flick, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, in that it puts the audience in the position of having to answer the moral question "why are you watching this?" The plot is similar to Henry in that it follows a serial killer, killing random people without motive. What distances it from that film, however, is the fact that it's self-consciously a movie. Taking influence from the success of most documentaries that have been released lately; The Last Horror Movie is a mock-documentary (or 'Mockumentary') about the 'work' of a deranged psychopath.

Unlike other 'realistic' horror movies such as The Blair Witch Project, this one manages to remain interesting throughout. The interest is achieved both through the despicable crimes that our protagonist commits and the implications that his actions have on both his and our moralities. The lead character gives us a running commentary throughout. This adds to the shock value of the movie during the parts in which he explains how to inconspicuously get rid of a body, and where he completely disregards the effect that what he has done has on the people who knew his victims. The dialogue also allows our protagonist to help the thought-provoking element of the film, in parts such as when he gives the audience a choice between saving starving Africans, and giving up their TV. When the lead actor, Kevin Howarth, came on screen, I didn't think he would be able to make good of the role. The way he talks to the camera is irritating, and he seemed a bit too clean cut to be a psychopath. However, these thoughts soon subsided as the film gets going - this guy brings just the right amount of class and sleaze to the role, and the fact that he doesn't look like a serial killer only adds to the film's potency. At times, it gets a little bit silly; but on the whole, this is a successful experiment and one that is well worth seeing!

Not the First, Not the Last

[ghoulieguru · 4/10 · 29 January 2005]

The Last Horror Movie is a pretty pretentious title. The way I see it, with a title like that it better be good or it will fall under the category of: bad movie with a really pretentious title. Like The Last Action Hero.

The truth is, it's not bad as far as serial killer flicks go, but it also doesn't quite live up to its name. There is a distinct lack of originality in the story. Despite what the title suggests, this is not the first time (or the last time probably) that this movie has been made.

Shot as a fake documentary, the movie follows a sociopath who hires someone to follow him around with a video camera as he terrorizes the streets of London. The actor who played the killer is pretty convincing, and definitely not someone that I would want to date. There are some genuinely disturbing scenes, but in the end it felt like a British remake of Man Bites Dog with elements of American Psycho thrown in for flavor. So, it's a British remake of a French film with American undertones. With that title, I expected a little more than a rehashing of other movies.

Still, it does entertain, so I gave it 6 out of 10 stars. It's a decent, if unoriginal movie with an unfortunate title.

A fresh take on the serial killer genre

[DVD_Connoisseur · 8/10 · 8 April 2007]

"The Last Horror Movie" is an effective film that could be described as a British "Man Bites Dog". Unpredictable, witty and thought-provoking, Julian Richards' film rises above the limitations of its budget and the result is a haunting production that is difficult to forget.

The film's star and narrator, Kevin Howarth, is superb as the psychopathic wedding video organiser, Max. Howarth's performance is right on the mark. Like Bret Easton Ellis' "American Psycho" Patrick Bateman, Max reveals the thought-processes that go through his disturbed mind.

The film has the ability to put the viewer in an uncomfortable place and some scenes have a genuinely surprising outcome. This won't appeal to viewers expecting an "August Underground"-style gore-fest but it does have moments where the visual effects are excellent.

An ingenious film, this is worthy of a viewing. Unlike most films, "The Last Horror Story" works best on VHS or DVD rather than the big screen.

8 out of 10.

We have Man Bites Dog at home

[cgearheart · 6/10 · 10 February 2023]

I'm currently sifting through a list of 100+ cynical/nihilistic movies that I found on the website rate your music. For years, I've hailed this list as the most accurate list for movies that fall into that category. This film was among one of them, and I must say, it definitely earned its spot. It's persistently bleak, misanthropic, and biting. I definitely wasn't bored by any of it, thanks to an incredible lead performance. However, it was a shameless carbon copy of the much superior Man Bites Dog. Hell, one could even call this a remake of that film. The only thing that set it apart was the commentary and addition of horror films and rentals.

C+

Really Bad Movie!

[holly_sa · 1/10 · 10 October 2008]

Major disappointment! I thought it was going to be a typical horror movie but with a bit of originality. I was wrong. The originality that the movie was trying to achieve was over-done and therefore didn't make any impression on me. In the end it's just another low budget movie, done in a reality-TV kinda way, similar to "Blair-witch-Project" in terms of VERY little action and WAY too much talking. It feels like it was not edited at all. Surely that makes it seem more real, but we all know it's not. It also wasn't entertaining. I honestly had to stop myself from falling asleep several times...it was awfully boring and a waste of time. If you expect to see a scary movie, it's just not it.