Years after a terrible tragedy, a woman returning to teach at her home- town finds the little boy her and her friends accidentally killed is still alive and hunting them one-by-one, forcing her to deal with the deranged killer again.Overall this one was quite a disappointment and had very little going for it. One of the biggest elements working against this one is the complete and utter confusion generated over practically everything that happens here. The initial killing spree is a big one here, as the off- screen death is supposedly done to ensure the last friend makes it yet not only would he not know she would be coming but is also done so that she would stay when he had no knowledge of her going there to begin with, and all the different manners of going after the friends themselves just make no sense once they're around as well. His back- story is even worse, given no basis for being credible in a realistic manner other than to have a killer in the film, his resurrection is never explained at all and his purpose for doing this is never given despite the implication of hunting them down for killing him yet they themselves were never to blame for that incident anyway which is completely confusing and really seems to further damage the story here. The ideas of trying to be suspenseful early on here are probably even worse as it seems to place a serious credence on the clicking-cards-in- bicycle-spokes as the main source of fear within here yet that never brings up any kind of credible tension as the overblown hysteria and panic over the obviously child-friendly trick is simply laughable, the yellow rain-slicker is little better and the constantly feeble whispering grows tiresome and lame the more times it goes for the only- she-hears-them route despite being around others capable of hearing the neebish whimpers. Then it comes to the body-count, so weak and uninspired that there's hardly any room to kill anyone off in here as there's way too much time dealing with her torment over returning that the film doesn't boast so much as any on-screen kills with a potential resource at hand with the group of childhood-friends this one sets up only to waste one death off-screen and several others completely scattershot in feeble editing and jarring camera-work when they are on- screen. Combined with a total joke of a killer that looks to be quite easily over-powered himself considering his stature and constant whining, this one seems to fail at a lot of it's horror tendencies and comes off looking that much weaker against the few small, scattered remnants of enjoyment left in here. The final confrontation in the house is suitably enjoyable with the large layout and numerous rooms being utilized to decent effect as there's a large setting used for some decent chasing and stalking that includes sending them up into the attic and down into the basement where the bridal suite is utilized to great effect here in generating some nice action and a few chilling moments waiting for the knocked-out killer to come back. As well, the mystery over who's been tormenting her as she continues on with her life in town is handled nicely with a few decent moments, but overall the flaws here are just too much.Rated R:: Violence and Language.

"Milo" is a film that undeniably has a lot of reasons not to take it seriously, and would make a lot of people dismiss it after the first 30 minutes. I belong to a small crowd of people who love this movie and accept it for what it is, leaving the flaws on the side. The budget is low, there is technical and directing sloppiness and there are a lot of script irregularities. All these things spell "bad movie" in capital letters, but in some way, "Milo" works well and not in a patronizing way. I find the story to be rather dark, as it features some genuinely disturbing scenes, and the villain is pretty distinctive and creepy.The story begins with a group of little girls meeting a strange boy named Milo Jeeder. The girls go to Milo's house, which is also his father's office, a sinister gynecologist who performs clandestine abortions. The strange boy is playing "the doctor" with the girls and he inexplicably stabs one of them to death.About 20 years later, one of the girls who survived the tragedy appears as an apathetic substitute teacher named Claire Mullins, who lives a very lonely life and her only "friend" is her goldfish pet (for real). Claire gets a wedding invitation from Ruth, one of her childhood friends, and she unwillingly returns to her hometown to assist the ceremony. When Claire arrives, she is informed that Ruth passed away in a car accident, but she stays in town anyway, where she gets to reconnect with her two childhood friends, Abby and Marian (sure, why the hell not?).Though we find out that Milo supposedly drowned many years ago, Claire believes she has seen him on the street and still looking like a young boy. Abby and Marian assume that Claire is having hallucinations because she's back in her childhood town, but the truth is that Milo really is alive and out to get them. Hopeless and desperate, Claire tries to find someone who believes her, but everyone presumes that she is insane, and in the meantime, her friends start to vanish inexplicably.My main concern with "Milo" is that there are some script irregularities that leave a bunch of things unclear, and it is evident that the lack of details to explain certain things are the result of lazy writing, rather than a deliberate attempt to leave some mystery for the benefit of the story. The idea behind "Milo" is very good, but the script is not very consistent, as there are a lot of things that don't make sense, mostly concerning the characters' nature, which are poorly written in many scenes. The dialogs are silly and artificial (which I can overlook in a slasher film), but the main problem is that the characters' actions are incomprehensible sometimes. For example: why does Milo suddenly decide to reappear after 20 years and start murdering his childhood acquaintances? Should we just assume that he is mad because one of them is getting married, which pushes him over the edge? How come the girls seem so well after their friend's death? I mean, first, we see Marian and Abby telling Claire that Ruth passed away and in the next scene, we see them laughing and remembering the old times? I didn't expect a tear-fest, but they seemed pretty okay with the idea of Ruth being dead, kind of like "Poor Ruth… but we might as well just make the best of this reunion, right? Let's have a few drinks!" I don't find this very coherent, especially because these girls are otherwise portrayed as caring and sensitive characters."Milo" features almost no gore, since most of the murders are very subtle, and some of them are even off-screen. I don't necessarily expect gore in every horror film as a rule, but "Milo" belongs to the slasher sub-genre and in films like this, some gore is required. The lack of gore is balanced by disturbing imagery, mostly featuring Milo and his father, in their dark house, in which we get to see an antique cabinet full of jars containing fetuses and stillborns, and an embalmed body in the basement.The acting is mostly good. The late Vincent Schiavelli gave a solid performance as Milo's dad, partly because of his physique du rol, but also because of his intentional deadness in his mannerisms and the sinister look in his eyes. As for Jennifer Jostyn, I like her a lot and even though he acting is mostly okay, a little bit more energy and strength would have been fine. What I like the most about this film is basically the character of Milo, which is an interesting villain. The fact that he looks the same throughout a period of 20 years makes us wonder what is wrong with him and though we never really get an explanation, one can only imagine that Milo's lack of growth is due to the fact that he was brought back to life by his father after his alleged death, which somehow affected his normal development. Once again, this is another reason to complain about the weak script, because honestly this should have been clearer.I admit it, "Milo" is a faulted film, but a very entertaining one and it seems like there are a lot of people who either take it for what it is and love it, and in the same way, there's a lot of people who latch on to the obvious oversights to oust the film. I try not to let the imperfections bother me and enjoy the movie for what it is: a slasher about a weird zombie child using a yellow raincoat (even if it's not raining), who wants to kill his childhood friends and keeps their embalmed bodies and dress them in wedding gowns. I certainly don't think it deserves the 4/10 rating that it got on IMDb.

Four young grade-school girls witness the murder of one of their classmates during what they thought was just an innocent game. The killer is a strange young boy named Milo Jeeder. Sixteen years later, the four survivors of the event re-unite under happier circumstances in the same town where it happened. They believe that Milo drowned in a river shortly after the murder, but soon learn that the demonic killer Milo has also returned, still a young boy, unchanged even after almost two decades.The cover for this movie makes it look really cool (yet I still expected a bad movie to come out of it). When I pop in the DVD into my player, the menu comes up and makes the film still look cool. Sadly, this movie isn't all that it got my excited about. The movie is your average attempt at a slasher film and when I say average, I mean just like all those other small-budget slasher movies that have never been welcomed with open arms into most members of the horror community (I'm talking about you, the horror fan). In other words, you could walk up to any horror fan and the majority of responses would be "this sucks".What mistakes did the movie make? First of all, the DVD cover art makes Milo look really dark but they blow it all by showing his face in the movie in many different scenes. He had the potential of being a very freaky character. Secondly, the back of the cover art tells Freddy, Jason, Chucky etc to pack their bags and move on out because Milo is so much better... why in the hell would you want to say something like that when it comes to a no-name, low-budget slasher film that has obviously failed? I mean, it just raises your expectations of the movie, making it harder to impress itself upon you. In a last ditch effort to attract attention, it says (in very big letters) "From the creator of Anaconda". Just shows you how low they're going to get as much attention as possible for the movie.The gore in the movie sucks, the director gives you some hideous angles when Milo attacks someone. The music isn't all that bad and I never once fell asleep during the movie (congratulations). I'm still trying to figure out what Milo actually is. My best bet would be that he is a zombie, if anyone else knows, tell me. Rest assured, I won't be losing any sleep over thinking about it.

This movie sucked sooo bad, I couldn't even watch the ending. Milo's voice was too low and I couldn't understand what he said as well as some of Kendra's lines. Also, where did he get all these wedding dresses from; it was very impractical. The movie failed to elaborate on Milo's drowning and how it made people ridicule Dr. Jeter and his practice. Overall, I was disappointed that I was unable to give this movie a rating of zero because by grading this movie as a one, I felt I was giving it undeserved praise.