User Reviews (38)

Add a Review

  • I love all kind of B movies, everything from a B-Zombie film to a B-Horror film. But this one.... It was so bad, i just want my money back. The acting was bad, and not like OK bad, it was like watching some elementary kids giving out the lines. The the "plot" was very predictable and well.. just bad. I wont spoil anything but the whole movie is filmed in a studio, behind a big, fat blue screen. The opening sceen is showing some young adults driving around in the nowhere. But guess what, it's filmed in blue screen. They just had to use the Bluescreen to every scene in the whole movie.

    After seeing this i just wanna punch myself in the face for renting it, but i had some good laugh (due the bad acting) and because of that i rate it 2/10. And i apologize for bad spelling.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Small Town Folk is set in England where Jon (Greg Martin) & his wife Susan (Hannah Flint) are driving along on an 'adventure' (this is as much as the film can be bothered to specify or come up with) & come across an area called Grockleton, they quickly become lost & head for Beesley's Manor to ask for a room for the night. It quickly turns out that the landlord (Chris R. Wright) & his brother's are all inbred freaks who like to murder anyone who ends up in Grockleton, obviously Jon & Susan decide leaving is the best course of action but with all the petrol syphoned out of their jeep they don't make it very far. With the inbred mutants right behind them Jon manages to escape but Susan is kidnapped for breeding purposes so the family line of freaks can continue. It's up to Jon to save Susan but he has to come up with a plan first...

    This seemingly home-made amateur British production was edited, written, co-produced & directed by Peter Stanley-Ward who also played one of the Scarecrow brother things the same few names keep popping up during the opening & closing credits signifying that a small group of people did multiple jobs to get the thing finished, apparently filmed over a period of four years on a budget of about £4000 which was totally funded by cast & crew you have to admire their determination & commitment but that doesn't guarantee a good film & doesn't mean I want to see any old crap they end up with & certainly doesn't mean they or this rubbishy film is exempt from criticism. First of all the script is just various ideas & themes culled from other much better horror films, it appears that the makers wanted to make a backwoods horror film in the style of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) & Wrong Turn (2003) but only set in England rather than the US & it fails horribly on every count. For a start I assume that the supposed attempts at comedy were intentional but even if they were they are just not funny in the slightest (a crossbow that fires Horse shoes?), the horror is lame with nothing more than the usual slightly mutated dirty freaks chasing a couple of people through some sort of isolated location , there's zero atmosphere or tension as it looks like it was filmed in about three fields (how can you just run into someone who wants to kill you in the middle of an open field exactly?) & the plot is as thin as any film I have watched. Basically a group of killers want to kill a guy & use his wife for breeding purposes (why didn't they use any of the other two young pretty girls killed earlier on?) & that's it, no that really is it as there are no sub-plots or diversions away from this one single plot thread. Boring is the word I would describe Small Town Folk, even at just over 80 minutes it feels like a lot longer & the dialogue is terrible, the character's barely say anything let alone get anything approaching character development & the whole reason Jon & Susan are there in the first place is because they wanted an adventure, yeah right that makes sense.

    As often mentioned it seems that Small Town Folk was shot largely against a green-screen & really fake comic book style backgrounds were added in post production & although distinctive it's also distracting & really cheap looking. Apparently Small Town Folk started out as a short feature but grew into a full film & I wonder if the scenes with Jon & Susan (a lot of their scenes are green-screen) were added to bump the time up as the scenes with them & Marcus look & feel different & I am thinking that maybe director Ward started filming with his brother but then expanded things later on. The gore is tame, there's some blood splatter, a few sickles through people's bodies, a stabbing & a decapitation but nothing memorable & the effects are pretty poor. There's no nudity either. The climax seems to rip-off Indiana Jones but with less than a tenth of the excitement (how can Small Town Folk & Indiana Jones get mentioned in the same review?).

    Shot here in Hampshire (I've been there...) in the UK the production values are rock bottom with poor effects, bad cinematography (overlit scenes, out of focus scenes...) & a really raw amateur look & feel about the whole thing. The acting is uniformly bad & is Jon really meant to be that laid back or is it simply actor Greg Martin doesn't do emotion of any kind?

    Small Town Folk looks like it was an achievement to get made by a group of dedicated & enthusiastic friends but that doesn't meant I want to watch it or want to spend my money on it, lots of films have been made this way before (The Evil Dead (1982), Bad Taste (1987)) & not been this bad. Nice DVD cover, horrible film inside.
  • Jon and Susan are on their way to a holiday vacation when they get lost and find themselves in the small town of Grockleton despite two peculiar brothers the couple stops to ask directions from warn them against it. While there, the Beesley clan led by the sinister Landlord wish to keep the family name going, but they need a female to accomplish that. Enter the hapless couple who decide to spend the night at Beesley Manor on the hill. Elsewhere, Marcus (teased with the nickname helmet because of the ever-present helmet on his head) seeks out to become an unlikely hero. Oh yeah and the Beesley's also kill guy and kidnap any woman who dares set foot on their land in this low-budget horror/comedy/fantasy film.

    The film is slightly likable enough if it's story is fairly generic, but the humor, which is of the hit or miss variety, is slightly more of the latter. Many of the people involved with the earlier and better "Freak Out" are involved in this one, i'd recommend you seek out that film instead as it's more fully realized and funnier. Although this one does have it's moments as well, as few and far between as those might be. Further the sheer abundance of green-screen in the movie became a tad of an eyesore before too long.

    My Grade: C-

    DVD Extras: Commentary by cast & crew; 'Folk Tales' a making-of featurette with bonus music video (30 minutes); and trailers for Kitchen Privileges, Ghost Son, Snoop Dogg's Hood of Horror, & Blood Ranch
  • ttapola27 August 2011
    This is a transgression. Not only is this movie stupid, but the people who made it are too, and *I can prove it*. Read on.

    At the time of writing, there are *nine* 10/10 reviews. There's just the fact SIX of them are totally fake, two of them are possibly fake and the ninth, unless fake, is completely wrong. The proof? Well, out of the group of six fakes, there are *three* from UK, submitted between 27 Jun 2008 and 4 Jul 2008, and the other *three* from US, submitted between 7 Apr 2011 and 4 May 2011. ALL SIX reviewers have reviewed *only* this movie. That amounts to just too much convenient "coincidental" timing to be believable, the logical conclusion being that these six reviews are written by people affiliated with this "production". Occam's Razor, people! Of the two possibly fake reviews, one reviewer has only three reviews on IMDb and the other one has six. The ninth reviewer has 30 reviews, but then again, they may not understand the concept of a review. My question to the group of six (or three with two IMDb accounts each) reviewers is: How stupid do you think people are?

    OK, I now actually get to do the review proper, but it will be short. The "script" is primary school grade. The "acting" is primary school grade. The term "directing" doesn't even apply here. The "cinematography" is just a crime against all proper cinematographers and the almost omnipresent blue-screen work is atrocious. It's so incredibly horrible that at least once a minute one has to watch away before it becomes unbearable, since the "editing" is so sluggish it offers no variety. As someone who doesn't judge anyone hastily, I did indeed endure this "movie" from start to finish. If you haven't, for your sanity's sake, please avoid this garbage. A rare *true* 1/10 "movie", with no redeeming values whatsoever. Watch Bad Taste instead to see how Classic ultra-low budget horror comedy is made.
  • youlking12 February 2015
    This is truly awful film, genuinely torturous viewing. A bona fide 1 out of 10 film and that's only because '0' isn't an option. I won't describe the plot again, plenty have done that already and I don't want to think about this film more than I have to.

    The comedy aspects aren't remotely funny, there is no tension, no suspense, no excitement, pants cgi, poor production values, I could go on.

    It's not even so bad it's good, it's so bad it's painful.

    There is nothing redeeming about this film.

    I will allow the film 1 out of 10 because the film-makers,on a low budget, at least had a go at it - they failed.

    I was the only person that managed to sit through it until the end - the other viewers left my lounge - it didn't even have enough about it for them to watch and ridicule how bad it was!

    I am now two hours closer to the end of my life and these film-makers are responsible for that wasted time.

    Possibly the worst film I have ever seen and I generally enjoy watching B-Movie junk. How anyone can give this anything other than 2/10 I can't comprehend - I can only assume that they have suffered a traumatic head injury or a lobotomy.
  • This will be one of the biggest wastes of time, it will annoy you and you will regret your decision. I can't think of another reason someone would produce this pile of s--- unless they were just sadistic, talentless freaks with too much money or time on their hands.

    I kept waiting for some kind of twist or plot development that would make it worth watching and it never happened.

    It's starts out with some promise, or inklings that their may be something good coming.. BUT IT NEVER HAPPENS.

    It gets worse and worse and worse as the movie goes, right up until the end when you realize you will never get the time back that you lost watching it.

    There is NOTHING REDEEMING ABOUT THIS MOVIE.
  • In the original release of this film, was it in 3D? Because if it wasn't, then the use of CG in this film is an abortion. I LOVE bad horror flicks, but this one so far is just freaking lame. I was obviously tricked by cleaver marketing folks at Blockbuster, because all over the box it was billed how this film was some kind of visionary masterpiece, but it is far from it. The parts that are supposed to be funny, aren't even that.

    Trust me, I am not someone who takes these films too seriously, after all, 'Troll 2' is one of my fav films. But this film isn't even bad enough to be "so bad it's good"

    BOOOOOO this title!!!!!
  • I love B movies and respect them for what they are, so it's rare for me to be so disappointed! And being a hardcore fan of horror movies only made me feel worse.

    The opening credits are nice and a good promise they break as soon as the movie begins. The acting is terrible, the blue screen is irritating, the dialogue is stupid and the plot would be enjoyable (not smart, but good enough) if it was well handled. This is so poorly filmed that made my eyes hurt. Never felt this before, not even watching "Boo" which was my least favorite movie ever before this crossed my way!

    But if you want to laugh and don't have sensitive eyes, go for it!
  • miraquin7 December 2011
    This movie was one of the worst I have ever seen. The acting is bad, storyline is terrible, I nearly fell asleep several times watching this boring movie. Nothing scary about it besides the blue screen used throughout the movie. Don't waste your time with this movie. The cover may look enticing, but don't be fooled. I would go into detail about the storyline but this movie has wasted enough of my time...the only comment my friend had to say after watching it with me was "I actually feel stupider watching that movie."

    After all that being said, the movie was a total waste of a movie night. I love horror movies and my favorites are the titles nobody has heard about. This movie obviously fell into that category, the cover art is actually not bad and gives off the feeling of a potential winner. After watching 5 minutes of it I knew it was going to be bad. Throughout the movie it switches from the blue screen to footage so, needless to say it gets very irritating. So please don't be like me and be fooled by the cover art of this film.
  • They said this movie would be the absurdity that is Terry Gilliam if he took acid and wrote a horror movie. I'm saddened to say that this movie doesn't quite feel like that, and that's probably a punch in the gut to me considering the review came from Canada. This is the kind of movie that is more like... if Benny Hill took cocaine, filmed a pornography, and let Quentin Tarantino swap parts of the filming arrangements with Uwe Boll. From here, it would be vomited on and possibly shat on with several homeless people in the editing room, where they spliced themselves into it.

    To be honest, I don't know what the hell is going on with this movie. It's supposed to be a British version of 'The Crazies' with some 'Hills Have Eyes' and some Rob Zombie sprinkled on, but in the end, I see nothing funny or scary.

    If these people want to make a horror movie, I suggest you go back to school and learn something. Because this is pretty stupid.
  • I'm writing this review to warn my fellow human beings. This is in all honesty the absolute worst film I have ever seen in my entire life.

    I am all for cheesy horror flicks and B-movies, but come on, there has to be drawn a line somewhere, and that line is LONG before this movie.

    The acting is really horrible, but the thing that bothers me the most is the overall quality of the production. first of all, the music. It's almost none existent for the exception of a couple of tunes now and then. the sets, if you can call them sets are a bunch of green-screen footage, were you can literally see the lines, its so bad. Even scenes from inside the house is green screened.

    Whatever you do, do not waste your time watching this horrible piece of film making. Save your money.

    1/10, if I could I'd give it a 0/10.
  • This isn't your average 'scare' flick. If you like dark and sinister, you'll love this. It has a great script that, although minimalistic, delivers a realistic account of 3 characters that stray from the public highway. It has a strong but strange aura that makes you feel like you've got yourself dirty whilst watching, its great when you get a flick that changes how you feel as you get into it. The character lineup is all about being local, so it has that Texas Chainsaw Massacre feel, but this is a different style. Top class acting skills shine through to keep a limited plot interesting, I don't mean any detriment to the plot as it is supposed to be that way, but the script writers must have seen this and knew there would be no concern as the quality of the acting would be more than adequate to pull this through to the end. Great use of amateur green screening too, nothing too overboard, just the right amount for the content of the script and its shot digitally which looks great, fairly reminiscent of Big Fish. Thoroughly enjoyed this overall, definitely the best amateur attempt in the dark, horror shock genre i've seen to date, with a promising future from the production company to go on and produce further quality and more original titles.
  • OK lets get real. It was made for about the same amount of money that the average Brit spends in a weekend and lets face it the team behind "Small Town Folk" have done a great job on the minor budget. Warwick Davis (Leprechaun) stars and adds some star quality but aside from him a bunch of unknowns deliver well. The story is simple enough to follow and flows very easily. The character build up is great and the special effects are OK average but exceptional considering the £9 budget ha ha. Not a Saturday night horror fest but maybe more a Sunday afternoon chiller!. I recently watched Prom Night, The new US version of the classic horror..Its budget was millions and it has nothing on the chills and charm of this British nugget!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I have seen some bad movies in my life but this movie are one of the worst movies ever made. how some people can say it cult status movie are really shocking. it difficult to describe how awful this movie truly are.

    The plot were just horrific and the acting were horrendous. Small-town folk must have the worst fight scenes ever in a movie.

    The hero of this disgraceful movie nicknamed helmet are the worst actor on earth. He were absolutely useless in this movie. He are one of those actor born without any acting abilities The villains are just pathetic.

    Save your money and your mental heath and don't watch this movie.
  • This movie was so awful I went on my laptop ten minutes in to write this review. The acting was bad, the plot was bad, and the footage is nothing but killers running after victims while making confusing comments in between.

    The first half hour is nothing but close-ups of their face. The camera is practically shoved into their face. Even in a conversation, they'd have nothing but shots of their face. Even if they were running, they'd have shots of their face, a 2 second shot of their back, then back again to freakishly close shots of their face.

    You can't even rely on the gore in the movie, because most of it isn't shown, and if it is, it looks so fake, there's no way you can get scared.

    In the first part of the film, it was so obvious they used green screen. The lines were blurred, the scenes looked fake, it was like I was watching a Disney movie. Except I would have rather watched a Disney.

    An hour in, and the movie was still playing. By this time, no one was watching except me so I can make an accurate review. At this point, it's nothing but running, violence that's not really violence, screaming and hitting.

    You'd have to completely pay attention to this movie in order to understand what it's about but it's hard to even watch it for ten minutes.

    This movie was so bad, I would have called it a comedy if not for the fact that it was put in the horror section of the movie rentals. Except, even the humour sucked so either way, it's a bad comedy and a bad horror film.
  • I hired this movie last night after a terrible trip back from work hoping it would be entertaining enough to relax me but my god what a load of garbage. Im from England and reside in South Africa and this movie was a disgrace not only to Britain but to the movie industry as a whole. Do not even rent this movie, I switched it off after the first half an hour and found myself even more agitated. I did not even find the quotes funny and it looked like the movie was shot in a studio half the time. What more can I say - this movie was an utter disgrace and not only a waste of precious time but a waste of money as well, do not spend more than two cents on this movie or you are being ripped off. I know one place where this movie would do well and thats in the garbage can. I have warned you so hire or buy at your own risk.
  • A friend and I chose this movie for a regular horror night. We love horror movies from the blockbusters to the b-movies and obscure ones that never get much notice.

    We were at a loss to think of a movie we can remember seeing that was worse than this. It was so bad that 15 minutes into it we had to stop watching it and have a beer instead. It continued to play in the background and all I was left with from watching it was a dumbfounded look on my face.

    Horrible acting, confused story line and the "small town folks"... was hoping for some freaky inbreds but all there was consisted of more bad acting and some slightly wonky silver teeth..

    Decided to write this today in the hope it will save at least one person an hour of their life. I can sit through some pretty rubbish movies but this one took the cake. Its not even worth a 1, I'd give it a half and thats only because it somehow made it to film.
  • I watched this movie last evening. I could believe if someone can make a movie so bad as this one. there was no story at all! I bet a 10 year old child can do better acting than those actors. For instance in one scene the girl was being stabbed and his friend or rather admirer just stood there watching her die with absolutely no expression on his face. later he challenged the killer "come on !" How sensible is this? if some one is being killed and you just stand there watch him dies if it was something very ordinary and usual !!! scenes like this make the whole movie which can give you a decent idea what kind of film this could be.

    many people mentioned on this page that this was a small budget movie so we shouldn't compare it with gladiator or matrix. OK I'm not comparing it with gladiator but it can be compared with "the others" of Nicole kidman which also isn't a big budget movie either but has the gripping element and sound acting throughout the movie.

    Small budget is no excuse for a making a bad movie, worst direction, poor camera work and wooden acting.
  • While driving his red truck through the countryside seeking adventure, Jon (Greg Martin) and his wife Susan (Hannah Flint) realize that they are lost. They find two rednecks on the road that give the directions and advise them to keep away from the "road of light". However, Jon decides to risk and gets the lonely road, trying to find an inn to spend the night. They reach the Beesley's Manor in Grockleton, and they are welcomed by the weird Landlord (Chris R. Wright) that provides a room for the couple. Meanwhile, the friends Ric (James Ford), Shaz (Tamaryn Payne), Heather (Sophie Rundle) and Marcus "Helmet" (Simon Stanley-Ward) comes to Grockleton to hike in the woods; however, they are hunted by abnormal rednecks and only the clumsy Marcus survives. When the Landlord discovers that Susan is pregnant, he decides to spare her life to perpetuate this family. But Jon escapes and together with Marcus, they plot a plan to rescue Susan from the bizarre and dysfunctional family.

    "Small Town Folks" is one of the weirdest movies I have recently seen. The stylized cinematography gives a bizarre atmosphere to the dark tale, but unfortunately the black humor of the strange story does not work very well and is annoying in many moments. First the slow villains are too stupid and the gags are based in their stupidity and not in witty situations; the acting in general is only reasonable; and Simon Stanley-Ward is weak and not funny enough to perform the lead role of the "anti-hero" Marcus. Despite my remarks, this movie is practically the debut of the whole team (director, writers, cast and crew) and they show potential in the beginning of their careers. My vote is five.

    Title (Brazil): "Cidade Maldita" ("Damned City")
  • I'm a big fan of the so-called horror/cult sub genre of "Rednecksploitation". This was another typically 70's cinema phenomenon, primarily popularized by the huge success of "Deliverance" and including some glorious titles like "Poor Pretty Eddie", "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre", "Two Thousand Maniacs!" and "Just Before Dawn". These disturbingly demented movies are by definition set in small Southern American communities where the local (and usually inbred) population doesn't care too much about dental hygiene, copulate with barn animals, dance to hideous banjo music and – naturally – rape & kill all the civilized persons passing through their territory. Genuine "Rednecksploitation" movies like that simply cannot be made nowadays anymore, because they're filthy, discriminating, rough and extremely women-unfriendly. When coincidentally stumbling upon "Small Town Folk", I secretly hoped this would be the long-awaited return of hillbilly-horror, or at least a competent enough homage to the good old days. And this miniature British production surely had a lot of things going for it. The British as well have their very own cinematic Rednecksploitation classic ("Straw Dogs"), the film was entirely put together by a group of friends (which usually means fewer restrictions) and the cover promisingly depicts black-teethed & crazy-eyed posing with scythes and axes! Unfortunately the film isn't nearly as good as it looks, but still I can't bring myself at writing overly negative stuff. After all, there's a lot of obvious goodwill and ambition present in this, just the execution and eventual outcome is somewhat unsatisfying. For some reason, maybe to make the film more accessible for wider audiences, the digital filming style and narrative structure makes "Small Town Folk" look like a fantasy-tale as much as like a horror film. The fantasy and comedy aspects inevitably undercut the horror ideas and eventually the film becomes too silly to pass for a full-blooded horror film and yet too grim & bloody to pass for a fantasy flick to watch with the whole family. The story is standard, with a young couple driving their Jeep through isolated British landscapes and hopelessly getting lost. Two Knackermen – whatever the hell that may be – advise the couple to stay far away from a little place called Grockleton, but naturally that's exactly where they stop to spend the night. The hideous locals are very interested in Susan, since there's a severe shortage of women in Grockleton, but her hubby Rick fights back and he gets some welcome support from a teenage biker armed with a Polaroid camera and a helmet. The Grockleton hicks outwardly live up to the all known stereotypes, but unfortunately none of them gives a convincing performance. The main redneck characters (Landlord, Dobbin…) all severely overact and lack something essentially petrifying. Actually, the only truly menacing-looking ones were those whose faces were covered and didn't talk much, like the scarecrow-brothers and the horseshoe-archer. There are some nice bits and pieces of gore, including a couple of sickle-killings, but "Small Town Folk" never fully feels like the brutal backwoods horror film it ought to have been. Warwick Davis of "Willard"-fame and numerous "Leprechaun" movies makes a small appearance, but few of the stuff he says makes any sense and I seriously have no idea what a Knackerman does for a living. It's not a great film, but if Peter Stanley-Ward and his circle of pals decide to make more films, I won't hesitate to check them out.
  • You want to shut it of after 2 minutes, that bad it start , but dont give up just yet , after you simply slide in to how this low budget B movie taste like, it start to be charming also ,,, its good acting and script is total ok , you can slow watch it a rainy hangover sunday.
  • For some strange reason some people have commented on this site, slating the film as if it were some kind of box office flop that was funded with millions and starred long-term professional actors like De Niro or something.

    It's really not that hard to comprehend the difference between an amateur film by first time movie makers with no budget, and a film that was made in Hollywood with a few hundred million behind it.

    For what these guys had, they did pretty damned good! I'd like to see anyone else (especially the people with the negative comments) pick up a couple of cameras, get some mates together, and with no money make a film like this.

    Why can't people distinguish between film types, No it's not the Matrix or Gladiator, or any other film like it, it's a completely different animal and should be viewed, and rated as such.

    People really are dumb!
  • It's true, I have quite the inclination for b-movies. Just like every genre or budget, there are the gems and the duds. 'Small Town Folk' falls in the former... It's true I just can't get enough. I actually bought this film just because of the box, I know - never judge a book by it's cover, and have watched it 3 times already. 'Small Town Folk' is bad... but it's so bad that its good... not just bad, bad - which I know makes a lot of sense to some of you.

    What makes this film so intriguing is the characters, the costumes, and believe it or not the cinematography... Yes it's actually done quite well. The acting is, of course, atrocious... but if the movie took itself seriously then we wouldn't have ourselves a shining little diamond in the rough, a cult classic if you will.

    The premise is simple and fun... Two lovers on holiday are looking for an adventure... Of course the find it, in a small village that no one would want to be stranded in. When the small town folk find out that the female is pregnant, they take much interest because the baby would mean another edition into their blood thirsty, dirty hick stricken village... And who wouldn't want that?

    A lot of people will hate this film, but those who have a deep appreciation for the bad will see 'Small Town Folk' for what it is... A bloody & entertaining ride into the deep depths of terrible cinema.
  • tinataylor28 June 2008
    Small Town Folk may have a small budget, but it is a big film. This film just has that something special about it, hundreds of films are made and are good films, and then there is the odd one every now and again that just has that special spark in it to light you up. This is it Small Town Folk is the real McCoy , you can watch it once and think thats a good film, the second time you watch it its a great film, watch it again and its a masterpiece. films like that are rare , Small Town Folks is a gem just waiting to be uncovered. Well done to all involved in the film and the best of luck for the future, which i'm sure will be something special.
  • I came to see this film with almost no knowledge of what it was about; I heard about it in Total Film and, having always loved independent films, decided to roll the dice and take a chance. To an extent I am glad I did, the film is a good first film, the filmmakers showing good understanding of their genre and providing some decent set pieces considering there no-budget approach and the effects were reasonably impressive for the budget the makers had to work with. The story is standard horror movie fare; a young couple drive into a small town called Grockleton despite being emphatically warned not to by no less than Warwick Davies. It is written and executed by a team who have obvious love for this type of film and delivers enough pace and humour to get it through its rougher patches. However what is unforgivable is the performance of a few of the key actors. Dan Palmer who plays Dobbin is atrocious delivering an awful tongue in bottom lip performance that an eight year old would give be ashamed of, he is irritating and distracting and as believable as Barney the Dinosaur. Jon Nicholas who plays Pooch is equally poor, crossing his eyes and gurning his way through the entire movie and looking to all the world as though he has had the wind change on him while pulling a funny face. Simon Stanley-Ward isn't bad as Marcus though he is so quiet as to be considered inaudible for a goodly portion of his lines, obviously in some attempt to give gravitas to his teenage tones. Beyond these performances though the film was good, solid and above all enjoyable fare from some promising young filmmakers.
An error has occured. Please try again.