User Reviews (54)

Add a Review

  • I was not expecting much but the coming to theaters March 3rd post gave me some hope and I also thought it would be kind of like "The Ring", but this is just another DTV ball of crap. The acting was harsh and the characters were so random and extremely hard to care for. Half the time I could barely even recognize who was getting offed so the empathy scale is a 0. So many questions are left unanswered and plot points unexplained. The adding of Christian Slater's character just cheapened the entire film, when is the last time one of his movies hit the big screen? I really usually love & enjoy horror/thrillers but this one seemed really forced with very little thought in the direction area. Of course the ending is just another cheap horror cliché, with their intent for a sequel already primed I'm sure. If you have nothing to do go for it , but I warned you. This is a VERY generous 5/10

    Just to be fair, movies I watch on the net I add a extra point to just to put things in the right prospective.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    "Playback" is a horror film that crams in all the current popular subgenres, namely dead teenagers, technology, demonic possession, and found footage, with just a hint of historical fiction thrown in for good measure. Perhaps it's precisely because of this mash-up that the film never seems to know what it's about. Structurally, all one can glean from this film is an idea that was never completely brought to fruition; we muddle our way through scenes that strain mightily to connect to one another via a back story, but somehow the harder it tries, the less sense it ultimately makes. Thematically, there's nothing more or less at work than an excuse for gore, violence, death, and even a moment or two of nudity. Some audiences live for this kind of filmmaking. I'm not one of them.

    The story begins in 1994 in what I suspect is somewhere in the Midwest. Through a combination of an omniscient camera and hand-held footage, we watch as a teenager named Harlan Diehl (Luke Bonczyk) wanders through his house in the middle of the night holding a camcorder. His parents have already been murdered; we see their slashed bodies in various rooms of the house. His sister (Jana Veldheer) is bloody but alive, crawling on the floor, frantically screaming at Harlan to not hurt her baby, who lies innocently in a crib in an upstairs bedroom. Harlan sets up the camera in front of the baby before going down to the basement and activating his makeshift editing center, where a TV set shows live footage of the baby's room. But before anything can happen, the police arrive, and everyone but the baby is dead.

    Flash forward fifteen years. A high school student named Julian (Johnny Pacar) is taking a journalism class, in which the current assignment is to rediscover forgotten chapters of local history. He chooses the Harlan Diehl case. He recruits his project partner, Riley (Ambyr Childers), and his three friends as actors for a video reenactment of the murder scene. Ostensibly, this is because it gives him the perfect opportunity to indulge in his real passion, filmmaking, and produce a gory slasher film. All the necessary recording equipment is loaned to him by Quinn (Toby Hemingway), a teen who works at the local news station cataloging cassettes all day long. He's one of those creepy kids that wears all black, resists long-winded conversations, avoids most people, and gets high by sniffing a rag soaked with what I think is paint thinner.

    Julian asks Quinn if he could hook him up with news tapes related to the Harlan Diehl murders. Quinn locates a cassette, inserts it into the station's VCR, and sees raw footage of Diehl's body being wheeled by stretcher into an ambulance. But it seems he wasn't dead just yet; he lunges at the camera and screams, at which point we see split-second intercut images of static and what appears to be an old photograph. Quinn is knocked out of his chair. The logistics are a little fuzzy, but it seems Diehl passed something into the camera, which then imprinted itself on the tape, which was then unleashed into Quinn's body when he inserted the tape into VCR and hit play. As the film progresses, his body will deteriorate. No reason is given for this, but then again, I guess one isn't needed.

    And from here, the story gets increasingly silly and perplexing. We learn (in a hilariously convenient scene of exposition) about a nineteenth century French man named Louis Le Prince, supposedly the real father of cinema, and about how he captured footage of his family. Each member was murdered shortly thereafter because, supposedly, Le Prince was possessed. Of course, if all his family was murdered, then there would be no way for there to be a bloodline, which factors prominently into the present-day portions of the story. Anyway, Julian and Riley are determined to dig deeper into the story and figure out the identity of Diehl baby, who no one seems to know anything about. Julian's mother (Dorien Davies) urges him to not pursue this any further, although she doesn't want to tell him why.

    As horrendous as I found the plot and the characters, who are essentially disposable teenage typecasts, two specific elements of "Playback" do the most damage. One is a completely unnecessary subplot starring Christian Slater as a perverted cop who pays Quinn to set up spy cameras in the girls' locker room and in the bedrooms of two of Julian's friends, who are hot sisters. The other is a plot twist manhandled by the filmmakers into an indecipherable mess. Part of the problem is that, even though no real effort is made to hide it, no one bothers to confirm or deny what the audience already knows. The rest of it just doesn't make sense, given the characters involved and their relationship to one another. And is it just me, or is there far too much transferring of evil from TV screen to camera to body, along with victims staring helplessly at camera lenses? Perhaps the real lesson here is, quite simply, to look away.

    -- Chris Pandolfi (www.atatheaternearyou.net)
  • First pet peeve with movies like this is 30 year olds playing teenagers. C'mon! Furthermore, don't get fooled by the reviews written by people of the production company or "friends of the director", this movie really isn't worth anything more than a 4 to 5.

    A federal law should prevent any more Japanese style horror movies. It's done! Go sit in the corner with the found footage films and the creature features and if you ask me, the highschool road movie.

    So here it goes again. Mundane, predictable, the copy of the copy of the copy. It might be nice as a background movie while you are cleaning your fridge don't spend a Saturday night on it.
  • The only thing great about this movie is probably the over rated movie poster. The movie itself was absolute crap with glitter wrapping on it. i hope to never ever come across another load of crap again. The plot was none existent, the characters where incredibly watered down to the point where you will find yourself not caring about them at any level and the scares where just loud noises like a loud truck or dog suddenly barking. This is not even a movie you consider if you where bored. Majority of the time i found myself looking away from screen and just wondering how the directors can get away with releasing movie like this. At the end of it i felt i had wasted over 1:30 minutes of my life for no reason. Do your self a favor and don't bother watching this crap.
  • On 21 October 1994, the deranged Harlan Diehl (Luke Bonczyk) kills his family in their farm and only a baby survives. In the present days, the teenager Julian Miller (Johnny Pacar) borrows a camera, tripod and other equipment from his friend Quinn (Toby Hemingway) that works in a TV studio to make an amateurish film about the infamous Harlan Diehl with his girlfriend Riley (Ambyr Childers) and their classmates DeeDee Baker (Jennifer Missoni), Nate (Jonathan Keltz) and Brianna Baker (Alessandra Torresani).

    Quinn sells footages of DeeDee and Brianna in the change room in the high school to the sick police officer Frank Lyons (Christian Slater). When Julian inadvertently unleashes evil through the playback of videotapes, Quinn is possessed by Harlan Diehl and begins a violent crime spree.

    "Playback" is a noisy, lame and messy horror movie recently released straight on DVD in Brazil. I am a fan of the genre, but this film is a complete waste of time, with a terrible and senseless story. My vote is one.

    Title (Brazil): "De Volta ao Terror" ("Back to Terror")
  • When a group of film students attempt to document the brutal history of their town's past, they unleash the evil spirit which inspired the rampage and must stop it's current rampage before it exposes the secret behind it's existence.

    This is overall a pretty lame and barely worthwhile effort. The only true sense of credit that this one really has is it's plot line about the body-hopping spirit that can only be transfered through video, which is pretty creepy and doesn't get used often-enough as a concept since it generates some really impressive moments here and there of the possessed beings out and about with their unknowing victims. Otherwise, this here is a gory, low-budget boring mess that seems to fling itself around in ten different directions without any sort of inner compass to determine what it wants to do, a low-budget feel that never lets it's full scope become apparent despite the feel it's going for and a laid-back pace that rarely lets on it's a horror film and never really goes for any sort of excitement or enjoyability. A true let-down and not really worth it.

    Rated R: Graphic Language, Graphic Violence, Nudity and underage drinking.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    What a heap of crap! That should be enough of a review as their are no redeeming features to this mess.

    The worst thing of all is how it's marketed to suck you in to see it in the first place, I mean IMDb's description 'A cop investigates the case of a missing local teen.....' is very misleading - yes a cop does investigate - for about 5 minutes of the movie. In fact the only reason this description is used is because the cop in question is played by Christian Slater, and of course it's Slater's name that carries the movie, the only reason why you might want to watch this.

    That being said, Slater's role is very minimal, he basically plays a sick pervert cop for a very brief part of the movie - yup, not the impression the description would have you believe.

    The story is predictable from the start, contains only 'jump' scares and well.........nothing more to say really, this really is crap. What happened to your career Slater?
  • foxtrot_yankee13 February 2012
    Avoid this movie at all costs.

    On watching the trailer, I thought this might be decent. I was wrong. About 5 minutes in I felt a burning sensation in my nostrils. About 10 minutes in, I realised the foul stench was emanating from my screen. I had to throw the screen in the trash, such was the damage incurred.

    The synopsis for this movie at the top of this page is all wrong.

    The cop, played by Christian Slater, isn't investigating anything at all. In fact, he's a full blown paedophile and, creepily, he plays it well.

    The same can't be said for the rest of the cast. They're supposed to be portraying teenagers, yet they're all in their thirties. It must be only so they can get away with showing a bit of boob.

    In conclusion, this movie stinks.
  • Ill start off by saying,if your the kind of person that's always looking for connections in movies(Most people on IMDb who think their intelligent, but just young) then you may not like this one, but if your old school like me and have seen everything already and don't care too much if movies draw slim similarities to others as long as they're good then I would say have at it.

    There's some great gore, naked girls, and a twisted little story line that doesn't steal 'too' much from other movies, but taking just enough to get the troll's panties in a bunch. The similarities are sparse, trust me.

    What really bugs me is not one of the fake reviewers, the "Changed my life" review along with the griper who yells at people with fake reviews(due to only one review history) when he himself is a shill. And thats the flaw in IMDb voting system. The fact that any nitwit can make multiple accounts and trash any movie before it even has a chance to get out there. This makes even more stupid people run around saying, "Oh yeah I heard that movie sucked!"

    Well, I actually SAW this last night, I was expecting nothing good after reading reviews here. I have to say was surprised with the movie's pace, acting, and GORE! Storyline, Basically 15 years ago a kid murders his family. Fast forward to today and another kid decides to unravel the mystery for a school paper. Yes it has that familiar sound, but no this is no "The Ring part whatever". This borrows from a few movies while keeping its own individual style. We have Christian Slater playing an "interesting" part to say the least along with a creepy kid who likes to go through old film in his spare time. Again sounds like Chinese Ghost stuff, but this actually has Gore, Nudity, things Chinese cinema lacks. Basically it earns its R rating which means a lot to me in Horror.

    I for one will admit that this will win no awards, nor will it become a big block buster. Its a genre movie aimed at genre fans. Nothing too great, but not bad at all either..

    I gave it 7 out of 10 because of the sh%*storm of idiots who will undoubtedly ruin the rating/reviews of this movie(as they do to so many) all because one person left a good review before everyone else did so everyone assumes there part of the crew and its their duty to make 3 accounts and post fake reviews..how sad peoples lives must be. In reality this movie is a Solid 6.

    Another thing, don't run out and buy this, wait till its on cable or Netflix.Its worth a watch when you put it up against the crap that true Horror fans have to sift through to get a decent watch, but its not a must see.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I expected a really crappy movie, but ultimately it wasn't so bad.

    Not very original and classifiable under the teen-horror movies (Friday the 13th and associates) in which teenagers doggedly continue what they are doing without following good advice and thus get into trouble. And this mixed with a kind of "The Ring" phenomenon. Slater also appears as some sick peeping pervert. I guess he has a shortage of money since he's joining a lot of low-budget movies lately.

    Eventually I thought the story was very vague. Something about filming persons after which their souls are being absorbed. And then they come up with that "Le Prince" figure .... duh ... I don't think I'm going to watch this again so I could find the deeper meaning of it. But ultimately I didn't fall asleep while watching this horror.

    A few nice horror images but a total lack of scares.

    In other words, a moderate horror that won't make you shiver.
  • I went into this movie expecting to be a bit disappointed. I'm truly a stickler when it comes to horrors and thrillers. I will say that the only reason I even went was because one of my closest friends practically forced me into it.

    What I found was that I could not be happier with a movie. After his work in the batman franchise, Christian Slater did a wonderful job keeping me on the edge of my seat. In fact, if I had to guess, I'd say his work in this film might be the most realistic, believable acting job in recent history, far surpassing Christian's former costar, Heath Ledger's performance in The Dark Knight.

    My only beef about the film was that it was sometimes hard to follow the intricate movements of the actor's index fingers, although I suppose its not fair to deduct points for something that I assume is a rare fetish that is only shared by complete sociopaths and a large percentage of field mice.
  • If you read some of the reviews for Playback, you may notice it receives more than its fair share of negativity. In some ways it deserves it, in others it doesn't. A lot of the criticism comes from how it's been sold. If you read the blurb, you'll see it mentions an 'ex cop (played by Christian Slater) investigating a mysterious killer.' This is simply not true. For a start, Christian Slater's part in this film is little more than an extended cameo and it seems to be a blatant attempt by the studio/promoters to do their best at cashing in on the one and only (semi) big name attached to the project.

    The film is actually about a group of teenagers who are trying to make their own horror film when they stumble on a particularly nasty supernatural force that links back to their town's past. In many ways, Playback is little more than a (supernatural) slasher film that loosely borrows from superior works like The Ring. You may even forget that Christian Slater is in the film because his character has so little to do.

    Playback is okay. If you can ignore its miss-selling and are just looking for a run-of-the-mill horror to fill an hour and a half, then this one will probably do. Yes, there are a fair few unexplained bits that may leave you with a question mark or two over your head, but, like I say, it's far from perfect, but it just about makes the grade.

    http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/
  • Playback – TRASH IT (C) Playback is a horror film with very little potential. The whole story of devil transforming from generation to generation via screen is little too much even for this indie horror. First thing first I still cannot believe that Christian Slater will take a role of pedophile in a C graded movie. It's better to not do anything rather than shaming his name (whatever is left after "Alone in the Drak") into dirt. It stars some of the not very famous yet good looking tween stars Toby Hemingway, Jonahtan Keltz, Johnny Pacar, Jennifer Missoni, Luke Bonczyk, Alessandra Torresani and Ambyr Childers. Overall, it's a gruesome time passer but bad lighting and not very impressive story and performance makes you bore. Simply ignore this one.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This is one boring movie. Maybe it's just me, but thirty minutes in, I feel as if I'm still waiting for the movie to start. Let me see if I can understand it (and this is debatable): A Satanist in the 1900s made a film that allowed him to steal the souls of his actors in the footage, and after a brutal murder scene in the Late 90s, he now jumps from film footage into other the bodies of others, sometimes more than one person at once. In recent years, he possesses a young filmmaker and tries to recapture his power with modern video equipment. There are some murders, some pointless sexuality and Christian Slater completely wasted in a role as a porn-addicted cop buying covert footage from inside the girls locker school from the pre-possessed filmmaker. Did I get it right? What do I win? Filmed partially in a pseudo-documentary style, the script has uneven amounts of sex, gore and suspense, but it never gets scary nor does it ever really clarify itself. I can see the story that that the writer is trying to make, but there's too many layers and exposition to get there. The only other recognizable name is Alessandra Torresani ("An American Horror Movie"), but she's barely given anything to do before her character is killed off. Over all, the idea is there, but it's lost under a lot of details and in the execution.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Movie equals sh*t, let's get that out of the way. Now the main event : this movie mentions Louis Le Prince as the originator of film. The legend in the film is that Le Prince was the Devil and he used the film to steal souls; its sort of an extended version of the Native American myth that when one has their picture taken the camera steals part of their spirit. That should be the f*cking movie! Not a bunch of teenage highschoolers in modern America! Why wouldn't you make the far-out period piece about the Devil stealing souls with the world's first movie camera? That movie, that movie would creep people out, that would be a real horror movie, this movie, Playback, no bueno. Its called writing, when used well it can reinvent reality itself, when used poorly hey you get this and like the tens of thousands of other boring wasted movies.
  • Sarsman9 February 2013
    First - with regards to the previous reviews. Lets try and get one thing straight. The Christian is Christian Slater - not Bale. Mel Gibson was in PAYBACK not this film. Robert Downey Junior was not in this film. Some of the reviews seem to have their films mixed up. JJ Abrams had nothing to do with this film. If you are going to leave a review at least get the film right, the actors right and the story line right! There is no gay janitor!

    Now - for this film. Well, it's slow, only one true jump moment, very little killing, poor storyline, weird random storyline involving Christian Slater and generally bad acting. I've seen scarier adverts than this film. There are so many scenes which added nothing to the storyline and were pointless. The camera action was lazy and thoughtless. Character development was non existent, no relationship or connection was created. You just don't care about the characters. Overall don't waste your time - there really is nothing going for this!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    First the good news I did not pay for the film it was free on Sky, when I say free I mean apart from the exorbitant monthly subscription. Now the bad news I was robbed. The story line a man who we get to know very little about in the early part of the 20th century made a cameo film so he could steal the souls of the people in the footage.

    Then jump forward to I think 1994 and deranged Harlan Diehl (Luke Bonczyk) kills his family in their farm and only a baby survives. We then get to the present day and a group of replaceable teenager Americans who look more middle to late twenties than teenagers (Toby Hemingway,Jonahtan Keltz, Johnny Pacar, Jennifer Missoni, Luke Bonczyk, Alessandra Torresani and Ambyr Childer) All hell breaks out murder a bit of flesh and a bit of gore.

    Now how far must your career sink when appearing in this mess seems like a good idea? Christian Slater wanders bored as a porn-addicted cop buying covert footage from inside the girls locker school from the pre-possessed filmmaker.

    Writing that it seems more exciting then it is the acting is appalling, the script has no thought, the plot messy. On a Saturday we like to get a Chinese takeaway and my cat tried a prawn cracker about an hour in to the film which he surprisingly enjoyed, my cat eating a prawn cracker was like the making of Citizen Kane compared to this film. Avoid like the plague and if anyone bumps into Christian Slater ask him what the hell he was thinking.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I agree with the other reviews. It's a cluster f*** of other movies mashed together, you don't feel for the characters, and overall the acting was not so great. *SPOILER* Here is why I felt the need to write a review. The premise is that the devil invented cinema in order to steal souls, and the Le Prince family gets possessed by him each generation. OK so that is like 5 or 10 souls every 15 to 20 years, seems like the devil would work on a bigger scale but whatever. The real kicker for me is he can't take your soul without the camera. The fu**ing devil is possessing someone (not just a demon THE DEVIL), but he can't get ya if you just close your eyes or look away from the camera. WTF. I can't believe this didn't land in any other reviews, but just this fact alone makes the movie 100% laughable. I was waiting for them to be like "I closed my eyes devil ya can't get me ooooh, home base, I'm safe". It's not the worst thing ever, but it is an hour and a half you won't get back.
  • I don't usually do this, but some of you might stumble upon a review by IMDb username tlsmith-569-716188 as the visible review on this film's page. Aside from mistaking Christian Slater for Christian Bale, it's obviously biased and written by either someone who took part in the making of this film, or someone to related to such a person. Do your part and click "no". We deserve more integrity.

    Having said that, let's get back to "Playback". I must say that while I did enjoy watching it, I couldn't help but finding the screenplay and story lacking. The idea is nice while not all that original (The Ring has already given us "evil from a videotape" and this was simply too similar), but the twist was too obvious and predictable. A good plot twist is one where the balance between the hints given and the element of surprise upon the discovery is kept. In this case - the hints were too thick, and the surprise was gone. That might be because I'm a Horror freak and have watched many Horror and Thriller films, but I can't help but expect more.

    The second thing, which was really sad for me, was Christian Slater's roll. Oh my, how the great ones have fallen and been humbled to a shady background role of a semi-pedophile creep. I'd hate to think that after his illustrious career Slater has been degraded to his role here. Depressing.

    However, while not being the best film ever, Playback is far from being bad. The effects and cinematography were very impressive, the original indie-rock soundtrack was great and is in my opinion good enough to purchase if available, and the way some of the scenes shot by the kids in the movie end up realized by the killer was very nice. But the best thing about this film is for sure Toby Hemingway's acting (and a great job by the make-up department). Hemingway was superb, and I look forward to seeing him in other films!

    All in all, like I've mentioned, Playback wasn't the best film ever, nor the worst. It had its moment, and while it could have been a lot better - it could have been a lot worse too. I personally rate it a 6, but recommend that you give it a shot.
  • This is my first review here on IMDb,

    I saw this movie yesterday and it was so stupid but so stupid! It was full of clichés and a predictable story! Some things didn't even make sense. I won't spoil anything if you want to see it, one thing that made me want to watch this movie was slater but not even him could save this movie! Seriously I knew how the movie was going to end when they started doing investigation.

    And they changed the camera angles from some shots when they showed them a second time, you'll see what I mean towards the end. If you see it try to catch all the clichés... I actually wished that I would have decided not to see it! There is actually one part on the movie that he is supposed to be filming with his phone and the screen turns black and he just keeps going.

    The only good thing about this movie is the girls that's why I gave it a 2/10. I'm 19 years old...
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The movie opens in Oct.21, 1994 in classic horror/slasher style. The killer has an unhealthy "Ring" like connection to his TV. He also has a hand held camera to film his killings. The film is grainy, a woman is screaming, there is blood, and a dog is barking. Good horror stuff. By the time it is all over, cops show up and everyone is dead. The opening includes a great leaping stab.

    In today's time Julian (Johnny Pacar) is making a movie of the event as a class project. He also seeks some stock footage from the local news station. In this horror film we are given the gratuitous nude shots of the young girls as they are being secretly filmed by Quinn (Toby Hemingway) the teen who works at the news station. Quinn in turn sells these thumb drive films to a local admirer (policeman Christian Slater) of the female form. As expected the "Ring" aspect we saw earlier enters the film.

    I liked the discussion of the "hand-held" camera technique. The maker of the film claims it gives the movie "energy" while the viewer describes it as giving him "a headache." Toby Hemingway plays a good moody psychotic teen. Decent sound track.

    F-bomb, No sex, Nudity (Jana Veldheer, locker room extras)
  • I'm a humongous horror fan. Hostel and Saw are amazing. So when I saw this at family video, I thought why not? I absolutely love Johnny Pacar, so I knew it had to be decent, right?

    Right I was! The acting is solid, the gore is realistic, and the plot twists are believable. I read all the reviews beforehand and expected a stinker, but do NOT read most of the reviews. They're either making fun or they were expecting something else.

    Yes, there are plot holes. Yes, the ending is predictable. But it's fun, it made me jump a couple times, and the gore doesn't look ridiculously fake like most B movies!

    Will I watch it again? Heck yeah! Will I buy it? Possibly. Do I recommend it? Absolutely.
  • The whole time watching this movie, I was wondering how they got Christian Slater is take part of this. Not that I'm a fan of his work, I just thought he still had a tab bit of dignity in him. The plot sounds like it came straight from a Japanese horror film, the only problem is that this film doesn't even bother to attempt to elicit any scares. To me, it was just a cheap excuse to have bare breast and gore. The acting and writing in this film is quite poor. I was disappointed with this film due to the fact that this film was released by Magnet, who have released good films such as Rubber, Hobo With A Shotgun, Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie, Outrage, and so on. By the time the film got to the plot twist, I was already unengaged with this film. This film is worth no one's time. Even if you like Christian Slater (I'm not sure if anyone still does), just avoid this at all cost.
  • svenrikken-436-38768429 July 2012
    5/10
    mwah
    Warning: Spoilers
    hello, i have watched this movie a few days ago and i almost forget it because i didn't like it much... this movie is having not a good but also not a bad story. it was kind of weird what was going on in this movie things like a guy that is recording people and if he touches the TV while he is watching them they fly back and a few secs. later he can control them. but the movie was a little fun to watch because it was a bit original. nowadays you have always the same type of horror movies i mean you see much horror movies with teens that get killed and things like that but this movie was different. and there is also one other crazy thing and that is the end...i ain't gonna tell how it ends...if you wanna know how it ends just watch the movie. or on youtube ;-) greets Sven
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Didn't watch the whole movie, after 30 minutes I had had it. It is a shame that Christian Slater took a role in this movie.

    Christian Slater's only real role in the movie is to get spy cam footage of teen girls undressing in locker rooms from one of the main teens in the movie who works at the local news station. Slater is in maybe 3 or 4 scenes in the movie and has no importance whatsoever in the movie.

    Playback begins with several high school friends who are shooting a film project for a journalism class assignment. Their film is based on a local legend; a teenager who murdered his family. But this plot simply makes "Playback" really boring. It's just another sucking teenagers-horror movie.
An error has occured. Please try again.