Tss5078 It's possible for a film to have a cool title, cover, and even preview, but still be a complete waste of time, enter Cyrus: Mind of A Serial Killer. In a remote Midwestern community, over a hundred women have disappeared over the last twenty years. Not wanting to create a panic, the local authorities have explained away most as accidents and isolated incidents, while they search for the truth. The cover up has worked until a local reported is contacted by a man who claims to not only know the truth, but know who the killer is. The film is laid out in a flashback, as this mysterious man tells the life story of this man, Cyrus, and what created him, what he did, how he did it, and why. Just one problem, it's boring! This film is supposed to be an inside look at a serial killer and what makes him tick, how he operates, but not only does it move as slow as molasses, but you really don't even see much of anything! This is an independent film about a serial killer!? Where's the gore, blood, insanity? It's more like watching a documentary on the History channel. As for the cast, Brian Krause isn't a bad actor, but certainly not someone I would ever think of as a serial killer, he's just very quiet and emotionless throughout, in other words, boring. The old man, Lance Hendriksen, sits in a chair and tells a story the whole time, also boring. The producers of this film built it up to be this huge thing, an inside look at a serial killer the likes of which we've never seen before, and they were right, I've never been so bored watching a horror thriller in my entire life!

trashgang This flick isn't that bad but on the other hand isn't that good too. The good part lays in the way the killings were presented, the blood do run often and there are gory moments even as they are mostly done off-camera. The bad part is the way the film is presented. We do follow some reporters who wants to make a short on serial killers. By doing so they also interview specialists and it's that part that doesn't bring anything towards this flick.It's even so that once another serial killer is being interviewed and one survivor this tears the believability of this flick down. You just want to know what is going on with the 3 girls and Cyrus the killer.It do has two icons in the lead, Danielle Hariss as the reporter and Lance Henrikson as the person who wants to tell the story about Cyrus. It's rather weird to see Danielle playing a role being dressed up. Nevertheless, it do has Tiffany Shepis in it and that means nudity and I was rather surprised that it contained a few boob shots from almost all girls involved.It's never frightening but it's worth picking up if you won't be bothered with the interference of the interviews.Gore 1/5 Nudity 1,5/5 Effects 3/5 Story 2,5/5 Comedy 0/5

suite92 Cinematography: 7/10 Usually fine, but sometimes too dark, or out of focus, or nearly mono color. Perhaps this was for artistic effect, but I find that irritating without any sort of recompense.Sound: 8/10 Usually well done.Acting: 7/10 Harris, Krause, and Henriksen were credible. The other actors were a full level less skilled. Krause still seems to be trying to break out of typecasting from his long stint on the television series Charmed. I liked his performance here, though, better than in some of his earlier bad guy horror film roles.Screenplay: 8/10 Mosaic films can be awfully bad, but this one was well written, even if the content is disgusting. The flashbacks (the mother) and four interview streams (with Emmett, with the two medical experts, with the prison interviewees) are well meshed. The harsh ending makes sense once one gets there.

mgmwi Making the film fest circus-circuit in 2010-11 is this sophomoric attempt at lashing out at...(surprise) mostly sophomore co-eds (with copious, bounteous, bouncing breasts thrown in for TIT-ilation, but hardly good measure-ments, or taste!).The slogan should read: "Schocking, Schoddy Schlasher Schlock!" (but vibrantly filmed..."In Color", as they used to say in '60s television shows). And the claim that it is "Based on a True Story"? Really? What "true story" is that?A promising if rather predictable start quickly degrades into bloody foot chase scenes with a Sweeney Todd-(un)inspired meat sales counter display (yuck-yuck!...biggest "Raccoon Steak" on a platter that I've ever seen though--that sucker must have come in at 400 lbs!).Ten to fifteen minutes (and I'm being Gandhi-like in my generosity here) into this master(bater)piece, however, it it quickly degrades (if that is possible) into a tedious and almost-but-not-quite-nor-intentional comical (or is it insulting?) Karo syrup slopping. My friends and I lost interest and walked out at the 20 minute mark (following the "20 Minute Rule"--if the movie can't stand up in the first 20 minutes, it's likely that it won't redeem itself in the last 20 minutes). If it would have been presented in a tongue-in-cheek "Cannibal"-style musical, it might possibly have been at least marginally entertaining (if not another copy of slasher parody/scary movie films). As it stands, however, I'd rather chew aluminum foil than sit through this "schtinker" to the very end!SCHKIP IT!!!