Black Ribbon (2007) User Reviews

Debbie D fans will like it. Others... not so much

[troywhigham · 4/10 · 8 September 2012]

First off, let me say that it's not easy playing a victim. Everyone cheers for the hero or the villain, so when you add in playing a victim, then playing the victim for most of the movie, and then playing a naked victim for most of the movie, you start to wonder how Debbie D hasn't been crowned a Scream Queen award winner yet by the people in the business who know how hard it is to do it.

Second, the acting by just about everyone is terrible, particularly the supporting characters. I almost got the feeling I was watching a student film, but I've seen student films that are much better. I've even seen porn films with a paper-thin plot that had better acting. And it's not the sort of "so bad it's good" acting, either, so you lose out on the cheese factor. I caught myself thinking, "WTF? They should've given me the budget to do this. I'd do it right!" Then I checked the actors' credits and noticed that they also served as production crew on the film. So, I'm guessing that it was a case of "hey, if you help me make my film I'll let you have a role in it. A speaking role!" Third, the initial premise is solid - writer buys inanimate object that possesses him. Stop. OK, if done right you can take this idea and leave the viewer wondering if the writer really was possessed, or just crazy. "The Shining" is a great example of this in execution. You just need to write it along those lines.

Fourth, what's with the retarded assistant? Comic relief? Luis de Jesus as "Ralphus" in "Bloodsucking Freaks" is the epitome of how to do the assistant to a madman. Funny yet creepy at the same time. In this one, the assistant is just a waste of space.

Fifth, if you knock out your meddlesome wife and tie her up in the basement so you can perform satanic rituals with a sacrificial victim, why not add her in as a bonus sacrifice? Or at least strip her naked and paint a pentagram on her belly, too. Maybe Lucifer prefers blondes. But wait, that's right, she's the script supervisor and probably conveniently discarded the page that talks about her clothing be removed.

Sixth (because this is a horror movie and the number "six" has evil connotations), what exactly was Gesner's role in the scheme? Nothing important, other than the fact that the actress that played her was a boom operator and script supervisor, which takes us back to the "hey, if you work on my movie I'll let you have a role" point I made earlier.

In all, this has the feel of a bunch of people with nothing to do deciding to make a movie on a long weekend and somehow roping Debbie D into being in it. Naked. For most of the film.

Someone needs to hand her an award.

what a waste of money and time.... seriously.

[emlouise · 2/10 · 24 August 2008]

Where do i begin with this movie?

It was bad,really bad,laughable at some points..it felt like they were reading from scripts and one actor was waiting for the last one who had lines to finish before he or she would begin,it didn't flow....at all!! I just didn't get it.. I'm one of these people that will watch a movie regardless of what reviews it's had,I honestly wish I hadn't.

There is one scene in the movie where a girl gets kidnapped and is being used as a "pet",she goes to the house where she is being held to welcome the new couple to the community,she says that her and her partner moved there last summer,as I said she gets kidnapped and is being held as a "pet".. where was her partner? why didn't he come looking for her? The police do finally go looking and knock at the house where she is being held,she makes a noise and the police are told its a cat,they don't ask to look around!!.. that wouldn't happen,it just wasn't believable at all,and what was with the end?? what was that all about?? I gave this a 2,only cos like i said it made me laugh at how bad the acting became at some points.

Could have been so much better.

[theofficialmaxine · 1/10 · 31 August 2008]

This movie was SO poor, and the initial reviews so inaccurate (I do wonder how many have been written by friends of the cast/production team) that I finally gave in and went through the IMDb registration process just to rant about it.

I was looking for some slightly cheesy horror, so the premise of this movie, sounded rather good - innocent writer is possessed by an evil spirit haunting his typewriter - excellent start! Black Ribbon, on the other hand wasn't 'so bad it's good' but just plain bad.

I have some sympathy for the actors. The flaws in this film start with the script and work outwards. Kenneth Richardson as a character does not invite sympathy. Rather than the nice guy afflicted by evil spirits, the opening dialogue with his wife portrays him as an insensitive ass with no social skills, and he merely gets ruder and more self-centred throughout the film. Also the writer is clearly too lazy to bother even with basic research. According to the film, the sadistic killer Blackwood died in 1856, whereas the Underwood typewriter company, who supposedly made his typewriter wasn't even formed until 1874. That wasn't necessarily the death of the film though. With good acting and direction, even the poor script could have been rescued. However, the film opens with the least convincing 'attack' I have ever seen outside of student film, and fails to improve.

Tony Rugnetta is abysmal as Mr. Richardson. The faces he pulls when he is 'possessed' belong only in comedy, and his only method of emoting is to turn up the volume. Even schlock horror should be played with a straight face, and this guy just cannot cut it. He and his 'wife' together make the least convincing couple I have ever seen. There is no touching, no eye contact, no emotion between them at all, and her acting in solo scenes is as bad as his (and who the hell reads a website aloud to themselves anyway? Fine, it was a plot device, but it could so easily have been a phone conversation...). The pair of them come across through the entire film as though they are reading a train timetable under duress, and getting rather fed up with it.

The only ray of light in terms of acting ability in this entire movie is the housekeeper, of whom there is sadly little. The scenes of 'torture' are laughable, the supposedly two century-old props look suspiciously like modern creations, and the sound track, whilst not actually awful, is edited in with a lack of subtlety that reminds me of the earliest episodes of Star Trek.

Yes, there is nudity, but frankly, if you're watching this for kicks you'd be better off with Baywatch, and for emotional intensity - try some amateur porn.

The only reason I watched this film all the way through was in an attempt to find something good to say about it. Sadly, I failed.

Hilarious in all the wrong ways

[movieman_kev · 6/10 · 25 August 2008]

Ken Richardson (Tony Rugnetta of "Requim for a Vampire" which this movie even name drops) is a writer who buys a typewriter that belonged to a demonic man, whom he gets fascinated with in the extremely low budget film. He soon befriends a mentally challenged young man who's more then willing to help him in his new unholy endeavors. Wow where do I start with this film? It has plot lines that literally go nowhere and whole characters appear and disappear from the movie without a second thought. It's extremely disjointed and seems to have been cobbled together with no rhyme nor reason. But be that as it may, at points the film is (unintentualy) hilarious and provided me with enough drunken amusement to at least warrant a recommendation. The acting is supremely awful and beer or hard liquor is pretty much a prerequisite. As a matter of fact if I were to rate this film purely on it's merit I'd likely give it a D-, but instead i'm rating it on it's hilarity.

Eye Candy: Debbie D is fully nude for most of her scenes

My Grade: B

DVD Extras: Slide show; Bloopers; Cast interviews; auditions; deleted scenes (wth more nudity from Debbie); and trailers for this film, as well as "Clean" (with still more nudity), "Dr. Shock's Grindhouse of Horrors", & "the Innocent"

Good film by Orrichio. Debbie D oozes BDSM lovers

[brooklyn-de-106-924826 · 10/10 · 9 March 2014]

First, this is a low budget horror film but still worth to watch. The concept of Type writer is new to thriller movie fans. The film has all sorts of suspense, thrill, nudity (bondage) and sex (not explicit). Everyone did a great job. One promising thing for BDSM lovers is screaming queen Debbie D taken for sadistic ritual victim role. In the entire film, Debbie wears clothes only 5-7 mins and for rest of the scenes full nudity this includes some 10 mins of naked bondage scenes exposing her busty body in different angles. In 2008, Orrichio films released DVD version with unrated scenes. I have no idea about 2008 version.

Black Ribbon is a Twisted, Dark Treat!!

[nobtis5 · 10/10 · 19 August 2008]

I saw "Black Ribbon" for the 1st time a few months ago. It's basically about a man who purchases an old typewriter which is possessed and it doesn't take long where it starts affecting him. He does some really sick, Satanic things which is both shocking and entertaining. This is a fun movie to watch if you're into true horror and it was refreshing to see so many Indie actors in it whom I've seen before in other Indie films. Give "Black Ribbon" a try... I think you'll really enjoy it like I have. It's refreshing to see a director make a film who's not afraid to push the envelope and not worry about showing really intense scenes that Hollywood would never show (not even NC-17). 10 out of 10!!!

Debbie D ROCKS

[johnnyo-5 · 10/10 · 19 August 2008]

If you're a fan of Debbie D, you'll love this film. It turns out that she's a very good actor. Some of her other films don't feature her in speaking roles. I liked the movie. Some of the scenes are a little shocking and disturbing even for a avid horror fan. Pace is quick and tight, no filler, just non stop action once it gets cranking. The beginning seems a little slow, only because I think the director wants you to know the characters, but when Debbie D's character falls into the clutches of this madman, played by Tony Rugnetta, all bets are off. I liked the soundtrack too. Sounded like a real orchestra, something most don't expect in a low budget flick. Overall, I enjoyed it.

I enjoyed the film....

[mortgoldstein · 10/10 · 19 August 2008]

Another refreshing Thriller from John Orrichio. The movie has good character development, good plot, acting and some very strange twists. Tony Rugnetta, New Jersey actor, who was in a few Soprano episodes and a film with Frank Sinatra way back when plays a writer who becomes possessed by the spirit of sadist when he buys a haunted typewriter. As for comments made by reviewers like Strazdamonas who claim to edit better, do everything better, one has to ask If he can do all of this, why doesn't he have any films in distribution? If his only claim to fame is a youtube video, maybe he does watch paint dry. Ignore posts by ignorant wannabes and watch it for yourself. Joe Franklin appears in a brief role as Tony's father. If you enjoyed watching him on TV as I did growing up, you'll get a kick out of seeing him again. Still the same old Joe.

Very, very cool film

[annastevens2233 · 10/10 · 19 August 2008]

Interesting film! I heard that a new film was being released by the guy who made Requiem for a Vampire. I think I either read it on FilmThreat.com or in Fango. Anyway, I noticed it was coming out on August 5th so I found it on Amazon.com and pre-ordered it. I must say that it was a little shocking to see what that poor girl Emily, played by Debbie D goes through. I love the guy who plays Willie in the film (S. Feddor) I've seen him on TV, I believe in the HBO series OZ. What a hunk. I watched it with a few friends and I think it was the first movie in a long time that no one got up and went to the bathroom or to get something to eat. It kept us glued to the screen because you never knew what was coming up next. Very cool movie. I see that he's working on a film now about a strange town called Process. Can't wait. Looks like a few of the same actors are involved. Buy it or rent it. There is a lot of nudity (full frontal) and some weird bondage stuff, so just be aware it's for a mature audience. Like I said, It's very interesting. Cool ending.

Great Movie!

[DaveInPhilly · 10/10 · 1 September 2008]

Aside from the negative feedback of some on here, I decided to watch this movie anyway. Not sure why people are complaining, but I thought it was very good. It was different than a lot of the horror films out there and I thought the actors/actresses did a great job. Interesting ending! It seems as though the movies that are good have low ratings which is why I decided to watch this. I generally don't even comment on here, but I felt this one deserved it. Another independent film I recently watched and thought it was pretty good is "The Cellar Door". It has a low rating as well. In my opinion, people don't appreciate good quality independent film.

Not so bad as user reviews indicate

[danielmartinx · 21 September 2011]

The acting was terrible in the early scenes. The punk and his rather Junoesque girlfriend beating up the black retarded guy, for instance, that was unforgivably bad. And when the main character and his wife speak to each other, it was terrible. However, it's a surreal and unreal horror film, and once the unreality of it became more pronounced, I was able to follow the story.

Problems with the story? Narrative problems? Yes, totally. But the main character's descent into sadistic cruelty was kind of shocking, perhaps more shocking after all of the jokey scenes preceding it.

I enjoyed the development and remain in shock that one of the characters was totally naked for the entire final half of the film. The nudism, plus the sadism, plus the rape, plus the murder, plus the Satanism -- it kind of creeps up on you and creeps you out. At least it did me.

Would I recommend this? Yes, watch it. But go in with open eyes and expect some campy horror scenes. Not method acting, but delivering lines in order to make the story go forward.