This is one of the most laughably bad films I've ever seen. I cannot believe whoever wrote the review above was serious. Perhaps he was connected with making it. It doesn't have anything going for it. There is no suspense, the acting is dire, the direction hopeless. The music score (?) is three trite notes played ad nauseam. The plot (?) must have taken all of five minutes to write. The dialogue is what a 10-year-old would come up with if asked to do a homework project. The only (slightly) redeeming feature is the actor playing the psycho himself, who grimaces, trembles and gurns magnificently and thus is amusing at times. The only reason you would be on the edge of your seat would be if you were suffering from a weak bladder. Don't waste your time.
Add a Review
-
starla5179212 October 2006go get your camcorder, your little brother, and the disturbing neighbor next door who throws boiling water on raccoons; and you got yourself a film! well, that's what these guys thought anyway. it was so bad i can't even remember the majority of it except for flashbacks comparable to someone who toured in 'Nam. despite the really corny title, the horrible quality, the terrible actors, and the cliché writing, i think this movie isn't the worst i've ever seen. i'm saving that slot for everything with steven seagal, chuck norris and jean-claude van dam. anyhow, if you are out of options when it comes to finding new "horror" films that you haven't seen 1,000 times already, (as i was) and you are debating this one, i would still skip this. it had absolutely no redeeming qualities. this mock serial killer thriller was a weak, puny attempt at an even B film. if they're really lucky it might make the wal-mart $4.50 bin. but, i highly doubt it.
-
juliankennedy2322 October 2006San Franpyscho: 1 out of 10: So you want to make a serial killer movie. But your budget is non-existent, your camera equipment is elderly and your stars are Joe Estevez (Martin Sheen's younger brother and a staple in really bad movies) and Todd Bridges from Different Strokes. There are probably ways to pull of at least a watchable film. The Quiroz brothers have no clue.
First of all much of the cast seems to have been chosen in a desperate attempt to make Bridges and Estevez look like Oscar caliber thespians. Really how hard is it to play a priest or an overbearing mother? Certainly a city the size of San Francisco has a few professional actors willing to work for a few bucks and a screen credit. Clearly Chris Angelo and Bonnie Steiger who play these roles have other talents such as landscaper or waitress they ought to be fine tuning.
Joe Rosete as the killer (yes the serial killer is simply known as "The Killer") is also pretty awful in a mentally ill method kind of way but I am almost willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as his character is written with zero style or personality. A boring almost laughable serial killer is a problem for a serial killer movie.
In addition the Quiroz brothers seem to have originally planned this as an ABC Family movie of the week. There is no nudity or violence to speak of and the R rating clearly is for the adult style pacing. This move meanders like an 85 year old woman driving with wraparound sunglasses and her turn signal on. The only occasional horror comes from lighting Estevez's face with a glare that makes it look like his lower jaw was removed.
I wasn't expecting a great film when I rented San Franpyscho but I wasn't expecting mind numbing boredom either. -
This film was about a psycho, a psycho in Miami! No, just kidding, of course it is in San Francisco. A very cheaply made movie that features two 'stars' of note, Joe Estevez whose main claim to fame is that he looks a lot like his more famous brother Martin Sheen and Todd Bridges from the sitcom Different Strokes! So no real star power and some kills and the most disinterested news anchor ever!
The story, a killer is on the loose! No, not Brandon Flowers, though I am sure he is out there too, but most likely he does not strangle and stab people! This one does as he kills and sends not so cryptic letters to the disinterested news anchor. Joe Estevez is an investigator and a bad one at that. Never before has the killer had so easy a time committing murders and committing multiple home invasions despite all Joe's efforts, like putting one cop in a car at the front of the house. Not like there are multiple entrances to houses and even alleyways ya know? Joe gets a priest to help and soon he figures out that he has to stop the killer from using an insanity plea! Though I am sure more than a few dead people would have rather he worked on actually capturing the killer than worrying about the trial...
As I said, Joe Estevez and Todd Bridges are the only stars of note, though it would not surprise me if the killer in this one wrestled or something. Looks like he'd be a good heel. The newscaster is totally out acted by Joe and Todd and that is not a good thing. Then there is Barry, Joe's partner and the priest...I swear that they look like they are all related or something, possibly brothers!
So, this thing was bad; however, it held me interest a bit as I kept wondering how the cops who were doing everything wrong were going to catch the killer. Then the ending comes and he gets away while the police think someone else did it. Surprised me, but it probably should not have because the police were worried about that impending trial, seemingly forgetting that they had to capture the killer first. Heck, if they actually put more than one officer at the house to protect the woman, they may of shot and killed the psycho and there would not have even been a trial! -
The movie was pretty bad. It's not so much a script problem. It's just that the movie is really boring in terms of pacing. The movie just seems to plod along at a slow, agonizing rate. The story in San Franpsycho is that there's a serial killer on the loose who is killing morally corrupt individuals (maybe I read too much into it, but hey, it's my nature apparently) after The San Franpsycho kills a pair of people under the Golden Gate Bridge we're introduced to one of the main characters of the film: Joe Estevez (brother of Martin Sheen) as a curmudgeony cop named Bill Culp. Bill is currently trying to hunt down the killer (seriously he doesn't have a name, he's just The Killer), and he is trying to coerce a local news reporter named Rita to help him with his investigation, Bill is the stereotypical hard-edged cop and he threatens Rita to throw her in jail for obstruction of justice. Anyway a few scenes pass by and suddenly Rita finds a letter left by the psychopath (He's a cold blooded psychopath!) and she has a change of heart and tells Bill and his partner Joe about it and help them with the investigation.
The movie tries to be a taut murder-thriller, but sort of just fails at that. It's much like the movie The Black Dahlia it tries to be tense but it just is unbelievable in terms of that. The movie tries to be serious throughout, but it has scenes like where The Killer masturbates (obviously a fan of gore porn what with lines like: "ooh blood on her" or something to that effect) and Joe Estevez hitting the table going: "He's a cold blooded murderer!" I admit to chuckling more than once at the movie, even though I'm sure it was intended to be a deadly serious movie.
One of the only positive points the movie has going for it is the fact that I didn't pay money to see it (huzzah netflix). And it's sad because I could see some good in their movies after watching The Damned. Sure the movie had its fair share of flaws, but it was enjoyable. Sadly though San Franpsycho has nothing going for it. Granted it has an okay script it's nothing too grand, but it could've been interesting. Instead what you get is a murder thriller that fails to thrill or have even vaguely enjoyable deaths. Also the other reviews claim that the movie has "a great twist ending that's shocking" apparently I was watching a different movie because by about the one hour mark I sort of figured out what was going to happen. The ending didn't shock me in the least bit. I would go on insulting this wreck of a movie but I don't think I will. Long story short this movie is a boring uninspired thriller (I use that term loosely) that fails to have the "Hitchcockian thrills" that another reviewer claims to have a predictable ending, bland deaths, acting with all of the emotion of a plank of wood, and a decent soundtrack.
I'm sure others will try to defend this with the usual: It was a low budget movie, they did the best they could with such a low budget, and all that other nonsense. But when you get right down to it there was very little that they could've really spent that budget on, there was very little special effects work, the soundtrack sounds like it might've been recycled from Hood of the Living Dead or The Damned, and it's the same damn crew from those two films. This movie really reminds me a lot of another low budget flick that was no good, and it was called Mr. Jingles, the two are about the same quality, they fail to deliver anything close to enjoyment and should fade quickly into obscurity. -
wolfhell8813 February 2021When a huge guy who behaves like a real weirdo with a look on his face that tells you he will kill everyone getting close to him follows you on the street/into the subway/to an elevator and no alarm bells ring in your head than you know you're in a real bad movie like this one. That's the way he kills his victims and they did not have the slightest suspicion when he gets close to them. How weird is that? It gets even weirder when the psycho killer has a masturbation scene (what for?).
Joe Estevez as police detective who is after the killer gets lots of screentime and he has some good scenes in here, Todd Bridges is second billed but has only two short scenes in a police car. It's clear that the scenes with him and the interaction from the reporter Rita to him were shot in two different nights with two different camcorders because these scenes don't match. Even Joe Estevez' scenes are out of focus sometimes. Learn how to use your equipment, kids!
Some of the actors are really bad, especially the killer, the priest and Rita's mother for example. Joe Estevez really deserves better films! -
Leofwine_draca19 September 2017ZODIAC: SAN FRANPSYCHO is another laughable serial killer flick shot on an indie budget. The ZODIAC was added to the original title after the success of the David Fincher movie. Once again the cheap cameraman follows a serial killer through the city as he goes about his work, but those looking for another MANIAC should be aware that there's no gore here and no suspense either. It's just a mess of wooden acting and bad camera-work, all shot within an ultra-slow narrative. It's more police procedural than horror.
-
frankcontreras419 October 2006Direct to video movies are usually pretty lame, but I was pleasantly surprised by this picture. I loved the title when I saw it at my local Hollywood video store, so I picked it up. I read the back and it sounded interesting. So I rented it. I wasn't expecting much, because as I said earlier, most direct to video movies are lame. The movie had me entertained throughout. I thought the killer was actually very believable. I don't know about everyone else, but in my opinion a huge hulking man overpowering another person and taking their life is much more believable than some tiny old guy or some skinny little dude that they usually portray as serial killers in movies. I'll put it to you like this, if I ran into this killer in a dark alley, I'd be pretty friggin scared. Anyway, on with the review. You can read the synopsis to know what the story's about, so I'll just tell you that it was a good late night popcorn flick. And I don't think it was trying to be anything more. I enjoyed it and my wife enjoyed it. It had good acting. Especially by Joe Estevez and the Killer. I thought the music was good. It had that sort of industrial Nine Inch Nails vibe to it and the ending was cool. Not your typical Hollywood type ending. Really good for an independent release. It had me wondering how good these filmmakers could do with a budget in the millions. All in all, I liked it enough to add it to my collection of horror movies. Trust me, rent it, sit back and enjoy yourself.
-
yankees-rule125 October 2006two cops on the hunt for a guy who looks like he'll snap your neck first then ask questions later. the movie was a bit long and could have made the same IMPACT if it were a little shorter. the acting was good and the psycho guy was good. but WHAT THE HELL was todd bridges doing in this movie? i haven't seen him in years and i have nothing against the guy but he was just kinda "there", ya know? and i have a problem with the cops and this psycho not even sharing the screen at all. the best thing that could have happened in this movie is to have the psycho go after and kill the partner. and the girl should have lived. even though the twist still worked and i liked how it ended, it could have just used more of the psycho guy leaving more dead bodies. he was one mean looking sicko. it was good that they didn't use too much fake blood because it ruins a movie but i guess that's how it is when you have no money. still liked it though, just should have been SHORTER.
-
woodbridgevaplaya13 October 2006This was a pretty good rent. Well worth a slot on my Netflix account. I really like the introduction of the Psychotic Killer, he takes out a couple people under the Golden Gate Bridge and roams the streets of San Francisco looking for more victims. Later on in the movie you find out he's been doing this for years in other major US cities. He loves to take pictures of his victims and has a folders with different cities. I think I saw Seattle and Las Vegas or something. Anyhow, two detectives are hot on his trail when all of a sudden a news reported starts releasing info that only the killer would know. The cops, played very well by Joe Estevez and Victor Zaragosa confront the reporter who is now being stalked by the killer herself. A bumbling priest is brought along to help decipher the killer's creepy letters and after the 12 or so bodies, we come to a twisted end. I won't ruin it for you but just do the math, it's not a happily ever after ending.
-
eighties12 October 2006The title and cover instantly got my attention. I managed to find the trailer on you-tube and it looked very interesting. Off I went to Hollywood video and I found the last copy. They had two rows for it and they were all gone, I guess other people are curious about it as well. Anyhow, I was pleasantly surprised. A decent score, acting, storyline and ending that catches you by surprise. These people don't take the typical Hollywood approach with this ending. The movie starts off with one of the craziest looking hulking man I have ever seen strangling a woman and suffocating her with a bag. As she slowly succumbs to her death we see the beautiful City By The Bay in the background. The story continues as two detectives and a priest try to stop the sadistic killer who is stalking a well known reporter. He sends her mysterious, religious themed letters that try and explain his madness. After a few Hitchcockian thrills and Halloweenish kills we find ourselves in the climactic end. I won't tell you who lives and who doesn't but I didn't see it coming. This isn't one of those cheesy by the dozen low budget horrors you find at most stores these days. This is a well crafted, beautifully shot bloody thriller of a movie. And that's my two cents.
-
redrobincoupons18 October 2006What a creepy place, San Francisco. What a creepy score, tech-no. What a creepy killer who kills sinners committing dirty sins. But the creepiest thing in the whole movie is when you have to hear this guy talk. He sounds like he's a baby boy in a hulking man's body...what a lunatic. This is the best horror movie, this year, period. It has everything. It has great characters. The acting was so good. Everyone in the cast was great. It takes you for a ride leaving you wondering what's going to happen next. Body after body, victim after victim. Thank you for putting so much into your characters. A lot of filmmakers either don't know how, don't care, or just don't come through with good character development to carry you through the movie. Good Job. Be careful, the San Franpsycho is still out there.
-
somethingtee18 October 2006I lived in San Francisco until I was twelve years old. The only thing that really scared me was the thought of ever ending up in Alcatraz. Now the thought of a psycho walking the streets could scare anyone anywhere. I thought the title was catchy but had a really bad feeling about the actual movie. Never really seen any movies with Joe Estevez, but I'll get to him later. When you watch a low end budget/quality type of film you pretty much know what your getting. I'm not one to get into what other reviewers think or say but I don't know what movie they were watching. I've loved watching horror films since I was a kid and all I have to say is how many horribly made garbage can you see? And no, this isn't a horror film, it's a thriller and a very well made one. I really liked the fact that they went that extra mile to make a "movie" which was more of a motion picture attempt, rather than some recycled crap that keeps getting made over and over and over. San Franpsycho introduces two detectives on the trail of a man killing people for his own sick pleasure. A news reporter finds herself being at the top of his list as far as someone he goes out of his way for, risking getting caught. Joe Estevez really played his role well for me seeing him for the first time. He has that old school charisma going for him. He really stood out as should your lead character. The rest of the cast I have mixed feeling about. The psycho himself really needed to be on the screen more. I really liked the performance but there wasn't enough of him. I think the insight in that was to tease the audience with him but not over do it with him. But one of my complaints of the film was to have this guy more involved and produce more of a back story. I see him looking at pictures from other cities but the audience doesn't see them? I don't understand that. I think that would have added a little more gore, even if it's just coming from a picture. The smaller roles seemed to be throw ins. The other cop complimented Estevez very well. You have an older/younger thing going as well as them being different races. The reporter is the actual lead role in the story. The priest character was one of the better moves in this story. They have a priest get involved knowing no one will expect him to get killed. And that's one of the more disturbing parts of the film. But believe me when I tell you that this film has it's share of problems. Like I said, the smaller roles didn't do it for me. The one thing I think most horror/thriller filmmakers don't get is that your victims need to be where your better performances need to come from. If those actors are weak, the performances are weak and it ruins those moments of excitement that these kinds of movies strive on. The killings good enough but you need the actors in these roles to come through a lot more. Some time could have been taken off of this movie. I really liked the fact that someone took the chance and made a dialogue/character driven story but you can only have so much explaining and talking period. If you want a good thriller to watch, watch San Franpsycho. Good movie.
-
central_99925 November 2006I have been patiently waiting for the new "Zodiac" to be released early next year. And I've done the other two Zodiac released films that were released direct to video. Seeing this one on the shelf made me very curious but I was expecting a big let down. With this being a lower budget film I thought for sure it would suck. It kept my interest and I thought one of the cops were going to die for sure. I actually thought the reporter was going to turn into a psycho herself and kill the boyfriend. I expected a twist like that. Even though things didn't go the way I thought or would have liked it was still a good movie. I can appreciate a low budget movie that tries and San Franpsycho worked for me. I like to see movies succeed the way this one did. Rent it if you like good acting on a low budget level or just wait for "Zodiac" if you're spoiled with big budget Hollywood stuff. I can appreciate both.