A dysfunctional groups of friends go hiking in isolated, mountainous woodland and find themselves being hunted by a mysterious psychopath.
And that's about it, plot-wise, for Pitfall.
The Hunter (Randy Couture) has no apparent motive or technique for this cruel and murderous behaviour, which really should have been rule number one for writer Victor Rose and director James Kondelik. Even Michael Myers - the least interesting and most overhyped slasher in cinema history - has a clear motive and backstory.
Meanwhile, our protagonists are a generally unlikable quintet of barely two-dimensional walking clichés making a series of dumb decisions that leads to a number of them dying horribly and some surviving more by luck than judgement.
Scott (Marshall Williams) and Ashley (Alexandra Essoe) are estranged brother and sister, having fallen out over a car crash that led to the death of their parents, in which Scott chose to rescue Ashley instead of their mum.
The siblings have brought their partners with them - Gwen (Jordan Claire Robbins) and Charlie (Matt Hamilton), who presents himself a bit of an outdoorsman.
Also along for the fun and frolics in Scott's old friend Lars (Richard Harmon), who starts off as a bit of a dick, but actually develops into the closest this film has to a decent character.
After probably hours of driving, they get to the parking area in the forest, disembark and then have all the 'getting to know you' conversations that real people would have had on the journey there.
This was an immediate red flag to Paul and I, watching the DVD as one of our 'film night' specials, that this film was not going to go well.
In fact, as it went on we were constructing our own story, with twists and tricks we thought the filmmakers might be using to make Pitfall something special. But it turned out we were giving it way too much credit.
And that's about it, plot-wise, for Pitfall.
The Hunter (Randy Couture) has no apparent motive or technique for this cruel and murderous behaviour, which really should have been rule number one for writer Victor Rose and director James Kondelik. Even Michael Myers - the least interesting and most overhyped slasher in cinema history - has a clear motive and backstory.
Meanwhile, our protagonists are a generally unlikable quintet of barely two-dimensional walking clichés making a series of dumb decisions that leads to a number of them dying horribly and some surviving more by luck than judgement.
Scott (Marshall Williams) and Ashley (Alexandra Essoe) are estranged brother and sister, having fallen out over a car crash that led to the death of their parents, in which Scott chose to rescue Ashley instead of their mum.
The siblings have brought their partners with them - Gwen (Jordan Claire Robbins) and Charlie (Matt Hamilton), who presents himself a bit of an outdoorsman.
Also along for the fun and frolics in Scott's old friend Lars (Richard Harmon), who starts off as a bit of a dick, but actually develops into the closest this film has to a decent character.
After probably hours of driving, they get to the parking area in the forest, disembark and then have all the 'getting to know you' conversations that real people would have had on the journey there.
This was an immediate red flag to Paul and I, watching the DVD as one of our 'film night' specials, that this film was not going to go well.
In fact, as it went on we were constructing our own story, with twists and tricks we thought the filmmakers might be using to make Pitfall something special. But it turned out we were giving it way too much credit.
The first evening our 'heroes' are camping, Scott and Charlie go off to catch some fish or something, but then get distracted - and a bit lost - on the way back to camp and end up getting chased by hungry wolves (did anyone research this area before deciding to go camping there?)
I have to point out here, the wolf chase was hilarious as there was clearly no way these blokes were going to outrun the wolves - at one point a wolf is about two or three feet behind one of the runners and logically it should have all come to a grisly end moments later.
But this bizarre temporal logic was nothing compared to the central flashback scene of the death of the siblings' parents, which for inexplicable reasons played out like a gag from a Naked Gun movie.
In thick fog, their car had crashed on a country road after a deer sprang out of the woodland and smashed through the windscreen.
Scott managed to free himself, but noticed a truck barrelling down on them. Remember the thick fog? The lorry must have been close enough for Scott to see it, yet he still has time to try and free his sister (who is, apparently, blinded by shock and can't operate the seatbelt), then try and rescue his mum, who is stuck because of the caved in passenger-side door.
His mum then has time to deliver a really lengthy monologue on why he should rescue his sister. Then he goes to do just that. And throughout all this, the camera keeps cutting back to the lorry driving hell for leather towards them (and yet, seemingly, not actually getting any closer).
But I digress - back to the slow-wolves: Scott gets separated from Charlie and falls down a classic Dungeons & Dragons ten foot pit, with punji stakes at the bottom. One of which impales Scott's leg, trapping him there.
Now, jumping sideways to The Hunter's motivation again: these pits - and there are several scattered around the forest, as Lars had nearly fallen in one earlier - must have taken a hell of an effort to dig out on his own (and dispose of 10 cubic foot of soil each time).
Overthinking this - and at one stage Paul and I, thanks to the often perplexing direction, felt that The Hunter was in two places at once - we were convinced that there were two Hunters.
Meanwhile, as all this is going on, there are a couple of other random hottie hikers being chased by The Hunter. This pair eventually come into contact with our heroes only to be reduced to characterless meatsacks for The Hunter to squish to keep the film's protagonists alive, while still upping the gore quotient.
I think Scott stuck in the pit is supposed to be a central part of the movie, but because he can't just talk to himself when the focus shifts back to him, he has to start hallucinating and that's when the film gets even more ridiculous.
Beyond the killer's motivation - or seemingly lack thereof - there's so much in Pitfall that just doesn't work. It seems that days are passing, from the glimpses of daylight between the "more atmospheric" nights, but there's no real sense of the passage of time.
There are moments including a secondary character (a small girl, who is actually a boy) that may be a decade or so earlier. Only by later looking at the captions under the pictures in the IMDB listing for the Pitfall did I realise that he was a boy (Chance Orion Wood) and had grown up to be the bearded Hunter.
Although, we had suspected this, it wasn't clear at all in the material we were presented with onscreen. Especially as we'd both just taken the child to be a young girl.
Given the frequent shots, early on, that obscure the face of The Hunter, one of the twists that Paul and I had - incorrectly - predicted was that the Hunter was, in fact, a woman (the "girl" all grown up).
Although, Pitfall opens in media res with a woman and her child being forced into a punji trap by a her husband, a hunter, in the woods, it's never explained what's actually going on with the young kid and why they turn into the character who stalks random people in the forest for years.
For what it's worth, both Paul and I have degrees in Scriptwriting for Film & TV and had we been analysing Pitfall back in the day, as part of the course, I reckon we could have each written books on what's wrong - or isn't adequately explained - in this movie.
Often unintentionally funny, confusingly directed, and with generic protagonists and antagonist, there's ultimately little to recommend Pitfall except for its suitability as some kind of drinking game.
