The streets of Los Angeles are filled with filthy whores and one man, Grahm, is taking them down one by one. One night at the bar he meets a girl who tries to avoid him. We follow him and this girl as he stalks her.
Let's start name-dropping so you know which sort of film we are dealing with. Think of the really dirty classics such as "Maniac" and "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer". They're probably the two most obvious titles to mention but I think doing so helps you know exactly what sort of movie tries to be. Not really the teen slasher film, but more the closer look at a serial killer. I could also say a film like "Murder-Set-Pieces", which is hated everywhere but it does the same thing. Personally I think it's entertaining because of the over-the-top, borderline-silly-amount of violence. "The Los Angeles Ripper" gets nowhere near either of these films. It's not a perfect depiction of a serial killer as the two first mentioned, nor is it over-the-top to the point of violence being the only point to watch it as the latter (I say that as a positive thing here because that still means there's a reason to watch the film). For "The Los Angeles Ripper" there's nothing that draws you in.
A young girl is going to L.A. and she spends here time there with friends, and goes to singing classes. That's all she does, really. But then one night at the bar she meets this creepy guy. We already know from the first part of the movie that this guy is a serial killer (he strangled a whore), but of course she doesn't. He begins to stalk her and show up at the beach one day. After a long, awkward chat she and her friend leave because of the weirdo. This isn't the last time she meets him, obviously. We see a few kills from the maniac, some meh sex scenes, and finally the big climax scene where our lead lady is kidnapped by him and his buddy. It's not more complex than that, and it shouldn't be. This isn't the problem at all!
The problem lies in almost everything else. The only thing I actually did enjoy with this movie was the lead girl and one of the props used in a kill. I like the girl because she was cute and her acting in awkward situations was so silly it entertained me. She didn't really do a bad job, it's just how her character was that was funny to watch whenever she met the maniac. The FX prop I liked was one of a girl with the top of her head off. Now, I thought it was ridiculous how it got chopped off (started with her getting scalped by a knife in a terrible, terrible FX scene, then an axe), but the end result looked pretty good and would've been great in any other film. Why? Because this movie was way too bright and had ridiculous color contrasts that seemed liked they were yelling at me. It's the epitome of modern crap films and how they look. Had it been in a darker movie, the entire scene could've worked. Especially the prop.
In the middle of what seemed like a serious movie it felt like the entire cast stopped caring and it just became some awkward comedy, only to later on get slightly serious again. I just couldn't get into this movie in any way, whether it's to laugh, to be disgusted, to be entertained, or if it's for the story. Neither level worked for me at all.
There are people around the net giving this film some praise and that's fine, they might love it. It just didn't work for me. There was too much for me to get annoyed by. The randomness of some scenes, the bad music (some actual songs, mixed in with some terrible choirs), the annoying maniac character, the shitty look of the film, and even smaller facts like how a normal camera made sounds of a polaroid camera and produced a polaroid picture. Kudos to the director for making this movie, but hot damn I didn't like it. Maybe the problem lies with me since I don't seem to enjoy similar films either such as the work of Eric Stanze or Ron Atkins. It's mostly just shit to me, yet I'll support a film like "Burial Ground" to no ends. Ahhhh, "Burial Ground" and Peter Bark, I adore you.