The opening sequence draws you into the movie. It is tense and suspenseful, and anyone who was bullied as a child will be able to relate to the plight of the outcast, the kid who is picked-on and pushed to the limit by four "tough" "cool" kids. I'm not kidding when I say that this sequence is really well done and it left me pumped to see the rest of the movie play out. What will be the consequences of this horrible event? What will happen to these kids when they get older? I've seen "I Know What You Did Last Summer," I know it's not a good idea to cover up things like this, and I can't wait to see the rest of the movie.

And then I watched the rest of the movie. Um... did they get different people to make the opening sequence of this movie? Because it seems to me that whoever made that had knowledge of tension, suspense, an emotional appeal to keep the audience interested in what was happening onscreen, just the right skills to make an engaging movie. Whoever made the rest of the movie looks like they were trying to make a really long Disco music video. Now don't go thinking that I'm judging this movie too harshly because I don't "get it," that I'm reacting to the outdated clothes and over-the-top performances and not getting into the "spirit" of the 80s slasher. After all, I just referenced "I Know What You Did Last Summer" in a fairly positive light, right? That means that I'm of the ADD generation who like fast cuts and flashy, glossy movies with young, hip actors, and I just won't connect with a movie from a different era. Don't even go there. First of all, "I Know What You Did Last Summer" is based on Young Adult novel that came out in the 70s and whatever you think of the movie, it's a great improvement on the book, which is why I liked it in spite of its flaws. I read the novel long before I saw the movie, and it ingrained in my mind the idea that covering up past evil only causes said evil to grow in power until it comes back to kill your ass later in life.

Too bad she does very little actual "battling" in this movie. Mostly she wanders around being clueless and looking bored, as do all the other actors, when they're not dancing to bad disco music and running from a lame-ass killer whose identity is so poorly disguised that I figured out who it was within the first ten minutes of the movie. The people who made this movie weren't interested in following even the most rudimentary slasher prototype, the cool opening sequence feels tacked onto the rest of the movie, a "backstory" that promises depth and revenge and retribution that never really happens. All we get in the rest of the movie are a whiny and annoying killer, a few lame kills, a lot of grating music, bad acting from people who should know better, a "mystery" that anyone over the age of eight should figure out easily before the film hits the 30 minute mark, and a stupid conclusion with a kill scene so fake looking that it made me want to pelt the screen with bricks. Most slashers tack on some kind of explanation for why the killer is killing people. I know that. But most movies also do a better job of attaching the "tacked-on" story to the rest of the movie

In this movie it felt like an afterthought; like the movie execs in charge of green lighting the project saw the movie and said "Hey, this movie sucks terribly, people will walk out of the theater early and demand their money back if it's this bad from the beginning, you'd better shoot an opening sequence and make it actually GOOD so we can keep asses in the seats." I can excuse a lot of bad acting and plot and music and story if the movie has an ending that keeps me engaged, but I'm usually pissed off the the OPENING engages me and then the rest of the movie fails to deliver, and that's what happens here. Why make a great opening sequence like that and then assault us with a terrible movie like this? There's seriously nothing I can find to like about the rest of the movie, so why make us think the movie is going to be good? Why trick us like this? The "bait and switch" aspect pisses me off more than it would have if the movie were just bad, that I can handle, but when you prove to me that you know how to make a good movie and you set it up well and then you run around like a toddler with a camera making the most inept movie possible because you know you will cash in even if it's bad because slasher fans will go to see it, that is inexcusable.

I don't care if it happened almost 30 years ago and I should be over my anger by now. I don't care if this movie appeared in the midst of a deluge of other bad slasher movies wanting to cash in on the trend, I've seen a great deal of the 80s slashers and I like most of them even when they're bad because you can't help it, they're endearing in their terrible glory, and they couldn't have been any better than they were. This movie could have been good
and ended up being shit. Bring on the remake. With this movie, there's nowhere to go but up.

• Contributor Brian Pittman's Number One Revenge film of all time.