erostew

I tried to watch it but I don't think I made it halfway. I didn't check reviews or watch the trailer before watching. That was my big mistake. Because the trailer is kind of horrible and I would never have made the mistake of wasting time on this.

It's like one of those Lifetime movies that pretend to be "ripped from the headlines". Faux social commentary at it's worst. Pretending to be about disadvantaged young women but everybody is pretty and clean and kinda fashionable. The acting is bad. Writing and direction are horrible. Costumes and set decoration are unconvincing at best. Honestly can't think of anything that was worth commending.

So my simple recommendation is this: Watch the trailer. If that doesn't make you want to hurl then there is at least a chance you will enjoy it. If you actually like the trailer then there is also a chance you will enjoy it. Maybe even a good chance.

I wish I had watched the trailer before watching this. I also wish I had that 40 or so minutes back cuz life is too short to watch 3/10 movies.

I don't know exactly what this is but it certainly isn't a movie. At least not in any traditional sense of the word. And calling it "experimental film" is not accurate either. What it is, is an example of an art piece as provocation.

I'll tell you right now that if you are easily offended by nudity then you will be extremely unlikely to enjoy this. Hell I'm not offended by nudity whatsoever and I didn't enjoy it either.

If you are the sort of person who is outraged that their local municipality or whatever spent money on a work of art that doesn't conform to classical standards then you will certainly be outraged by this piece.

If you are bothered by explicit gore then you are also not going to enjoy a lot of this.

The main "character" spends a lot of time as a naked corpse and things happen to that naked corpse that should be disturbing to most sane people. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

To summarize: Most people will be disturbed by at least some of this piece. Many will be offended. And I think that most will not enjoy it. So watch at your own risk. If you take the chance I hope you do enjoy it.

I did not like this art piece. But I gave it a 6 out of 10 simply because the attempt was made.

This is just another one of the many films that gets remade over and over again. The remakes never get any better, in fact often the reverse. And this film fulfills that formula perfectly. It's dumbed down, unsexy and uninteresting.

There is no chemistry between the two titular characters whatsoever and the acting is no very good. I didn't particularly hate the performances but I also didn't find them in the least believable.

The writing was pretty terrible. It seemed as though they wanted to have somebody be the "bad guy" but they just weren't sure about who to make it. Direction was poor. Too concerned with the surface appearances and ignoring the substance. The set and costuming were basically BBC average.

Like man Netflix "originals" they are scared of offending anyone and spend so much time and effort on avoiding that offense that the end product is as bland and tasteless as cafeteria food.

Well there isn't a huge amount to say about this movie really. Nobody you ever heard of starred in it and it won't ever win any awards. That said I did enjoy it and laughed quite a bit. The comedy is on the gross-out/stupid side. Think Trailer Park Boys and you won't be too far off. Definitely lowbrow humour. It really isn't shocking or overly adult themed. There's some underwear but no nudity or sex scenes and there isn't a huge amount of foul language. Not really suitable for children.

The other reviews for this movie are kind of weird and probably written by shills who know the cast or crew or actually worked on it . There is no way on earth this deserves a 10/10 and I'm honestly being pretty generous giving it a 7. That doesn't mean I didn't like it because I did. But I liked it in spite of it's shortcomings, not because of them.

The writing and direction are a bit rough. Cinematography, editing and sound are pretty good. You can tell the budget was lower than a snail's belly but at least they lived within that budget and did okay. Acting was pretty decent if also kind of amateurish.

Basically recommended with a warning. If you have a problem with stupid/gross you're really gonna hate this. It isn't PC and it isn't "woke" so if those things are important to you should go watch whatever that movie was that won that award that time. Or maybe that movie where the short senior citizen pretends to be a fighter pilot.

I quite honestly hated every character in this movie. If they weren't straight up miserable then they were ridiculously shallow. The main character is a drab failed author who only cares about her cat. She seriously lacks morals and decides to commit fraud because she can't make a living as a writer. I guess we're supposed to feel sympathy because her cat is sick or something.

She isn't homeless or disadvantaged by education or upbringing. She hasn't been discriminated against. She just lacks talent. And fraud is not a victimless crime. That didn't leave much for me to sympathize with.

Basically this is another case of people thinking that all you have to do to be the next great actor is play a part in "ugly" makeup. It's film-making at it's laziest.

So yeah, I started watching this and somehow or other I ended up watching the credits roll. That already puts it ahead of most movies. Partly I was just sort of fascinated, like watching a car wreck. Kind of wondering what would happen next I suppose. But at the same time I was genuinely entertained.

The dialogue is quite intelligent and very well delivered. And the story is interesting although tricky to follow if you don't speak the language and are depending on subtitles. Some very good acting by basically everyone. It's very fast paced which probably keeps you from being overwhelmed. You just don't get a chance to get mired in trying to figure out wtf is going on. I think there is a message behind this madness but I'm not sure I understand it.

Which brings us to Experimental. It is a very non-linear film at times. The story doesn't start at the beginning but it does end with an ending, more or less. There are many many many jump cuts. With dialogue split at times between several different actors and even the crew stands in at times. The crew/camera is sometimes visible filming the scene, as if it's a movie about making a movie. Sometimes a scene is split between 2 different locations with the actors being in a different state of appearance and cutting back and forth between the two quite rapidly. I could probably say more here. But I won't.

And that leaves Exploitation. And boy oh boy is there a lot of naked flesh on display! Both male and female full nudity with a few closeups. There is some implied homosexual content. There is a lot of swearing.

There is so much nudity that at first it seems like it's purely for titillation. But it isn't just young and attractive people. There are mature and less perfect bodies as well. Quite strangely there is no actual sex in the film. It is mentioned and one girl describes her molestation in somewhat disturbing detail. But there is no actual sex scene. So the nudity is mainly non-sexual in nature. Nonetheless, there are many times when the actors could have worn clothing or even underwear - but they don't. Some scenes seem to be simply included for effect. So yeah there's exploitation.

To bring this to a close: Should you watch this? Certainly! But you will need an open mind. And don't let your children watch it unless you are there to answer their questions.

Everything about this movie is lower tier. The actresses are of merely average attractiveness. The script is absolutely stupid. For some reason all of the characters are named Bob and Frank and Janet despite being an Italian film featuring Italian actors.

An example of the poor script can be seen in the very first scene: Bob is in the shower and starts berating his wife "Janet" for being in front of the mirror when he needs to brush his teeth. Bob keeps showering and Janet looks at herself in the mirror followed by implied masturbation (she is only shown from the neck up). At no point does Bob leave the shower and brush his teeth and the couple are not even on screen at the same time.

The sex scenes and nudity are mildly titillating at best and are not particularly well lit or shot. I've got nothing at all against erotica and sexploitation but this just doesn't deliver much of anything on any level. Not worth the time it takes to watch.

I didn't have very high hopes for this one but I was pleasantly surprised. It has a sweetly twisted story and some black humour. There isn't a huge amount of depth given to the limited backstory but it works well enough.

Acting was good. I believed the sighted Jona was blind in the scenes where she was pretending to be blind. The writing is a bit off kilter but not in a bad way. It's kind of twisted at an angle to the real world. Not a very large angle but it's there.

Two things I was a bit put off by. The titular Ugly guy isn't really ugly. Wouldn't call him handsome but he's a long way from making people run away in terror. Secondly, the villain is a bit too villainous. He seems to be malicious for no real reason. The ugly/not ugly part isn't that important to the film really. I mean only a total narcissist never has doubts about their appearance so it's at least understandable. But the lackluster villain does hurt things a bit.

Conclusion: Recommended.

Just a quick little review for this enjoyable little film. It's a rather strange hybrid of an Italian sex comedy. The cast is quite international with quite a large French complement and it was a France/Italy co-production. This perhaps explains some of the differences to other films in the genre.

The sets and costumes are marvelous and authentic. Lovely cinematography. The writing is terrific. Very light and funny with some slapstick and farcical elements. Plenty of sexy spice in there as well.

The cast is quite talented with a lovely female contingent and the men are good at adding comic relief without trying to hog the spotlight. The male lead is pretty perfect casting. Young and appealing enough to make a believable young "Don Juan" rather than the usual aging Lothario.

This movie is funny and sexy without being sleazy. It's the kind of movie that I would like to see more of. In the current Disney dominated Hollywood sex is expected to be hidden away in case it corrupts our morals. The people who do "erotic" films today have to work with a low budget and seem to think sex on film has to be dirty and shocking and explicit to make an impression. Some of those "dirty" movies are quite good but mostly they're just bad.

Ok rant over. I can honestly recommend this movie to anybody that doesn't think sex is bad and who likes to laugh.

To be honest I thought this was going to be some kind of lesbian vampire movie. Just goes to show what relying on a very brief summary and a few keywords can get you. On the other hand I probably liked this movie much better than what I was expecting. It's quite a well done murder mystery with plenty of twists and turns.

The writing is top notch and very believable. It took a long time for the killer to be identified and it wasn't an obvious character. There were also things that did not happen that I was expecting. The relationships of those involved were also interwoven into the story and added to it rather than subtracting.

The direction and editing are quite well done and it moves along at a good pace. Some fast cuts but to good effect, making the pace frantic at times. The cinematography and lighting are excellent. Conveyed chaos without making me get motion sickness.

The acting was very good. No real standout performances for me but that's fine. They were all believable in the parts that they played and there wasn't anyone who did poorly and detracted from the whole.

Conclusion: There is some very strong content, especially at the beginning, that more sensitive viewers may wish to avoid. It is also very much not suitable for younger viewers. That said it is a good movie that is well worth watching.

I just watched this and I have no real idea what it was that I watched. I don't know if it's some kind of allegory or a morality play or just a big stick to poke the audience with. There really isn't any insight provided into the motives for what these 2 parents have done to their children. Or why they have done it in such twisted fashion. I think we all just have to come to our own conclusions.

Definitely the weirdest story I have ever seen put into a movie. It's like they put reality into a blender and tapped the pulse button a couple of times. What came out still has some similarity to the world we live in but most of it is sort of mixed together in random and strange combinations.

The cinematography and direction are spot on. The film exudes a sort of claustrophobic but powerful energy that is wrapped in the tightest chains. But you can tell that it's only a matter of time before those chains are going to shatter.

The acting is nothing short of brilliant. Especially the sisters. Everything from the way they move to the way they say the strange things that they do is completely i sync with the way they have supposedly been raised. The father somehow manages to not seem completely hateful or evil and that takes some real work.

You'll notice that I haven't mentioned anything at all about the events in the film. That's because anything I say would spoil something that you should really discover for yourself. I suggest going in with an open mind and not trying to fit this into the context of the real world. Because it just doesn't mesh.

As much as I really like this film I probably won't be eager to watch it again. There are some parts that are genuinely hard to watch. So if you don't make it all the way through it's understandable but you should definitely try.

This movie is a throwback to the avante garde experimental cinema of the 70s. As such it feels quite a lot older than it's actual age. There is no coherent story and the narrative jumps around to different times and viewpoints. Every time I got interested in what was going on it was spoiled by overblown histrionics and general stupidity.

You can see that it is talking about many themes. They're all in there: God, Religion, Insanity, Death, Guilt, Loss, Sex, Sexual Identity, Fate, Self Harm, Suicide, etc. It's obvious that there is an attempt being made to say something on these themes but it's as muddled and muddied as the sound. And speaking of the sound: It sucks! Mostly some muffled noises and some vocal overdubbing with no sound effects. Vocals are often completely out of sync with the visuals.

I can't really comment on the acting or direction because I just don't know what was actually meant to be conveyed. The lighting was very dark for the most part and the camera work was... uninspired.

Conclusion: Not worth the effort of watching this and trying to understand the message. If there even was a message. Not recommended.

After watching this film I can't quite decide how I feel about it. Jean-Claude Brisseau might be a genius. Or he might be a flawed old pervert like some of his controversies would suggest. Regardless of reality there isn't much of the perverse in this one at all. The nudity isn't there to shock and there isn't nearly as much as some of his other films.

The whole thing is equal part's old man's fantasy and a hopeful wish for some meaning to existence. Or at least that's what I came away with. I think every man who knows he is past the time when he can easily attract the attentions of a young beauty has had at least a fleeting fantasy of a relationship suddenly appearing. Maybe it's platonic or maybe it's not. That would depend on the one doing the fantasizing.

At any rate this particular relationship is platonic, which makes it more believable. Virginie Legeay does an admirable job of making us believe that she really cares for the old man of letters. And the director, Claude Brisseau, does an admirable job of portraying a man who feels that he is nearing the end of his cycle.

My indecision comes from feeling some irritation with the meandering philosophical discussion while at the same time feeling somewhat uplifted. I do think it is a very good film on balance.

Basically I think you should watch it for yourself. I can't predict how you will feel about it but I think it's worth the time to find out.

This movie was obviously a very low budget endeavor but it works. Destroyed buildings don't cost anything and the same goes for destroyed cars. Both are entirely appropriate in a post-apocalyptic world and it gives a realism to the movie that no artfully created sets ever could. There was some very minimal special effects work done to show a building half buried in a desert but that's about it.

The whole film is basically done without dialogue because for some reason nobody can speak. Why? We don't really know because the necessary expositional dialogue for us to find out is missing. There are only two words spoken. Well actually it's one word and is spoken by two different characters.

This is a very simple but quite brilliant device which makes us come up with our own theory. At the same time it's incredibly difficult to pull off. The whole thing would have fallen apart if we were left looking at meaningless wandering about and fighting. Instead we are shown people with personalities but left to wonder at their stories and their motives. It works.

Camera and direction are perfect. The sound also adds a very important element. The score is appropriately minimal. The acting is quite marvelous. None of the exaggeration that you might expect.

In short: Well worth seeing. It isn't cut and dried and there are no rainbows or happy endings. So if you can think for yourself you will enjoy it.

Pretty much what the title of this review says.

The writing is pretty formulaic and there aren't really any surprises to be had. The usual "who's really the villain" sub-plot is present. Nonetheless it moves along at a good pace and there is a bit of humor.

Can't say anything about the direction except that it seemed to be competent. The editing was pretty well done. No real wtf moments so that's good.

Lighting and cinematography are only so-so. Camera is not too shaky and at least things are in focus but there was nothing special. Lighting was mainly poor. They relied a bit too much on post-processing I think.

Special effects and prosthetics were strictly low-budget amateur quality. Relied mainly on massive amounts of fake blood.

Acting was... decent. No standout talent displayed but there were no performances that were really bad enough to bring you out of the moment.

So basically that's it. A somewhat better than average low budget zombie flick.

So yeah. I have no idea why they used Carmilla as the "basis" for this film. It trades the baggage of eroticism and exploitation from many previous films and tames it down into a feminist lesbian love story. I'm not saying that a feminist lesbian love story is a bad thing or that it shouldn't be told. Everyone has a right to be heard.

I came into this cold merely because of the title and to say the least I was left underwhelmed. Maybe the filmmakers had the purest of motives I. E. "We shall take this gothic novel and rehabilitate it to remove the stigma of exploitation and objectification". But it ends up seeming like a cynical exploitation of those previous films just for the purpose of making money.

There are some redeeming qualities to this film. It looks absolutely stunning. A real visual treat. The acting is not bad. The score isn't terrible.

But what it doesn't really have is a heart. The "love story" is rather banal and honestly boring. Direction is very stiff. The writing is honestly bland and uninspiring. There isn't anything to make me feel any emotion except irritation. A perfect example of style over substance.

In short it's much too tame and contrived. In fact there isn't really much vampire in this vampire movie. I think what they were trying to say had something to do with "Carmilla was persecuted for being a lesbian". But who knows? The exact same ending could be the work of someone trying to say lesbianism is evil.

Read the book many years ago but somehow never saw the movie until today. I was not disappointed.

Peter Sellers is perfect in all 3 roles. He has a knack of portraying absolutely earnest absurdity. The great thing is that he actually plays three different characters with different quirks and mannerisms. The Prime Minister is oily and somewhat menacing under his aristocratic exterior. The Duchess is a slightly confused and gentle person with a backbone. And Tully the hereditary Field Marshall is a deceptively mellow fellow that you can really believe would be able to capture the heart of the lovely scientist's daughter played by Jean Seberg.

Speaking of Jean Seberg, she is perfectly on point and puts in a rather subtle performance. I found myself quite entranced. Only about 20 years old, and having been critically savaged in her previous roles, she shows real talent and is a perfectly suitable foil for Sellers.

The other cast is quite solid and even includes William Hartnell. Many will of course recognize the name of the actor who was the 1st Doctor.

A definite highlight is the score. Music is almost another character in the movie and there are little bits such as a silent movie Villain style theme for the Prime Minister as he creeps about the castle.

The script itself is quite darkly humorous. It has a very much anti-war theme that is camouflaged under broad satire. It is not respectful of any government of the time but avoids any bashing.

Just as much "Ban the Bomb" as Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove but done much more subtly. At the same time it is a very funny film. Funnier than Dr. Strangelove and you could argue that this film is actually better than Strangelove in general.

A big hit when it was released it did much to rehabilitate the career of Jean Seberg and it launched Peter Sellers further into international stardom. Two people with rather tragic futures came together to make this a delight to watch.

This movie clocks in at over 6 hours and it's alternatingly fascinating and frustrating. Some content is quite intense. Even shocking.

First off it looks absolutely authentic for the period and locale that it is set in. The clothes look absolutely correct down to the smallest detail and so does everything else. There is some rather whimsical set construction/decoration but it fits perfectly with the story. Basically it feels like a Science institute in Moscow in 1968 COULD have been. I can't say whether it is authentic to any "real world" location but that's kind of beside the point.

The "actors" are in the main very believable in their roles but it's hard to really call them actors. What I understand of things is that this is one installment of a quite gigantic project that is more of a gigantic roleplay where people actually lived as the characters that they are portraying inside a huge set.

The "plot" is where things get tricky. There are parts that I really just could not get interested in. At the same time there were parts that really grabbed me. Some was very uncomfortable to watch indeed. Some just felt like dramatic spectacle that was thrown in for looks. It was hard to really understand a lot of what was presented because there is a lot that isn't in this film that probably has a bearing on things that are in it. I'm unsure how much (if any) was scripted and how much of it is "seat of the pants".

Conclusion - It's worth a look but you may find yourself fast-forwarding and you may very well hate some parts. There is however some gold to be found. Basically it isn't anything else you've ever seen or even close to it.

I really wanted to like this movie. I watched it all the way through hoping it would get better. It didn't.

It wasn't all bad. In fact there were even some brief flashes of brilliance. But not near enough to make this movie come together as a worthwhile story. In fact the story is what stands head and shoulders above the other problems as the real culprit of a failed effort. I kind of doubted that there was even a script at times.

The whole idea is basically "Texas" wants to secede from the Union so they decide to hold New York hostage so that the US Congress will let them go. But here's the thing: It isn't exactly Texas. The soldier that gets interrogated to provide the info says he is from Kentucky. He also lists 6 or 7 states that are "with us". Strangely none of the states he lists is Kentucky! And then he is supposed to be a mercenary. But claims he was just following orders. And the reason that these guys dressed like SWAT teams are shooting everyone on sight is because Bushwick has so many guns and people are fighting back. And well that just shouldn't have happened because "guns are illegal here". So they got orders to shoot to kill. And apparently they are just invading this one neighbourhood in New York.

That pile of crap is what you get from the one short scene that is supposed to explain what is happening. And of course it contradicts an earlier scene in the movie that says that they also "invaded" Washington, Chicago and a few other cities. Not to mention a scene of most of New York in flames. On the other hand the character that informed us of the invasion of those cities apparently forgot that as soon as he said it because he was the one that was interrogating the "mercenary" to find out what was going on. It's glaringly obvious that there were rewrites and changes with a complete lack of effort at continuity. I could go on and on about the gaping plot holes but it's basically all hole and no plot.

The acting isn't the worst that I have seen. Nothing great but then the actor's didn't have anything to work with so it's not really fair to judge them too harshly.

Special effects you ask? Well don't go expecting a bunch of impressive CGI effects because there aren't any. What there is, is mainly some plumes of smoke and some flames. Non-CGI effects included some quite decent pyrotechnics work that worked pretty well. Most of the explosions and such are actually off screen. Basically a loud boom, camera shake and maybe the lights flicker. And there were some helicopters.

The camera work was decent. Quite competent and at times even impressive. There were a lot of scenes that went for quite a while without a cut and it seemed that most if not all of the movie was shot with one hand-held camera. With a better story to tell it could have been very effective.

The sound was not great. Dialogue wasn't always clear. It was often hard to tell if the bangs were guns or explosions or what. In fact it seemed like they used the exact same explosion effect about 80% of the time. The music was pretty awful and in many cases just did not go with what was on screen.

Direction? What direction? The movie basically looks like the directors gave some very basic instruction and then went and smoked weed in the corner. Many of the scenes end up being very flat and one- dimensional. Probably because the actors are putting most of their attention into where they are going physically in the extended and sometimes complex scenes.

The concept I think was pretty good. If they had pulled it off it would have been a very realistic real-time thrill-ride. But they did NOT pull it off. It appears that they tried to fix things by shooting a new ending or something. The last 5 minutes are jarringly different in look from the rest of the movie and the ending fails on many levels. I won't get into that.

So: Might be worth a look if you are bored and non-judgmental. If you are more of a stickler for a coherent and logical story you will hate it. A lot. My honest recommendation would be to watch the trailer and then NOT watch the movie. That way you might get a little enjoyment and you will miss the aggravation and disappointment.

I actually like a lot of Troma films. Low budget comedy isn't always a bad thing but it does have to have at least a sense of humour and some decent casting. This film has neither.

Unfunny script and no-talent actors in their 30s playing college kids is a recipe for a disaster and that certainly holds true for this "movie". Add the total lack of meaningful production values and you have a steaming pile of crap trying to be the next Van Wilder.

They spent about $5 on the opening titles--all 20 seconds of them-- and maybe $7.50 on the score. The background music is so horrible that I almost turned the movie off after the first 30 seconds. Most amateur efforts on YouTube have better music.

Then there is the setting. A dorm room (I guess) with a couple of thirty something college kids eating what is supposed to be a high class meal. There's a chocolate cake and some cheap looking wine on the table. The movie is supposed to be in Las Vegas so they segue to some stock footage of a fountain that I guess is the Bellagio and then you see some guys talking on a generic looking street.

After that I just quit watching. I didn't laugh and in fact I didn't even crack a smile during what was probably less than 10 minutes. But it felt like a couple of hours of torture. I didn't even manage to stick around to see Lloyd Kaufman who I usually enjoy. It just wasn't worth it.

So you can discount my review and hope that it gets better after I quit watching but I really strongly doubt it.

Avoid at all costs unless you have a relative in this movie. That's probably the reason that the rating is 6 point something. There are only about 250 ratings at the time I write this so I'm certain that most of those ratings came from cast, crew and relatives!

This probably was not Sam Fuller's lowest budget movie. In fact, if the information here on IMDb is correct, it had a fairly decent budget. But I suspect that makes no difference at all to his style or the movie that he made. There is no CGI, no jump cuts and no shaky-cam. He got his actors to act and made effective use of pyrotechnics and extras to put realistic and horrifying battle on film.

I am not a prolific reviewer, in fact I probably average 2 or 3 reviews a year. That's because I normally only bother when a movie makes me feel something (or it really makes me mad). It might be laughter or it might be horror but to me a worthwhile movie has to make you react. And this movie certainly does that.

The story is worth telling but like most of Fuller's work the focus is really on the people and not on glory. The acting is superb and supremely believable. The actors in this movie aren't really known for award quality work but they really impress here. Samuel Fuller ignores the usual formulaic tropes and tells the story his way. There's an unneeded intro and a bombastic outro that I suspect were added by the studio but it starts where it starts and ends where it ends. No attempts to make a neat little package.

The story is gripping and Fuller makes you feel like you have a personal interest in the outcome. His writing is top notch and tight with no filler. There is no obligatory love interest in this movie and no cheesy flashbacks either. It's relentless and often grim but always effective. I'm not a historian but I feel that it captures the essence of the real life battles.

His direction is masterful. From the claustrophobic to the panoramic he makes the land itself an important character in the film. And he gets amazingly good performances from his actors. You can feel their pain and exhaustion.

Jeff Chandler is more believable than in any other role that I can think of him playing. Most people have likely forgotten that he was nominated for an Academy Award for his portrayal of Cochise in Broken Arrow. That was over-shadowed by the the fact that most of his roles were in B and C-grade pictures. Personally I would rate most of his work as competent but not impressive. However I was very impressed by his portrayal of General Merrill. Sadly this was his last film. He died of complications from back surgery before it was released.

One other stand out was Claude Akins. A very competent character actor who really shines in his role as Sergeant Kolowicz. There is a scene with him and a young native boy and an old woman that blew me away. Not a word of dialogue but he makes you feel his pain and it made me tear up in sympathy.

The only bad part about this movie is the knowledge that we will never see it's like again. Give one of today's hotshot directors 500 times the budget and he will probably spend 200 million on CGI that will be impressive as heck but won't really make you feel anything at a visceral level. I suspect that it's a difference in life experience. Sam Fuller and most of the actors in this movie actually lived and fought through the Second World War.

**Spoilers are pretty minor in nature and don't mention the ending.

Apparently this was Mike Clattenburg's last visit to the Trailer Park. I don't know exactly what went on behind the scenes but the 3 main characters apparently bought out Clattenburg and Barrie Dunn and will be in control from Season 8 forwards. And that's probably a good thing because Clattenburg and Dunn made a bit of a mess of this movie.

The camaraderie from the previous efforts is not much in evidence and some of it just seems plain mean spirited. The boys aren't getting along and Bubbles is in pretty rough shape. There is no way that the old Ricky and Julian would let Bubbles be reduced to living under J-Roc's deck.

On top of that it isn't even set in a "trailer park"! The supposed park is new and clean with a bunch of new and clean looking "manufactured homes". It's like they spent no time at all making things look right. At least Rick still had his New Yorker.

Overall there were some funny scenes; John Dunsworth and Robb Wells and Mike Smith did their usual great job. For some bizarre reason Pat Roach was given a Justin Bieber hairstyle that just wasn't funny and rode around on a Segway. And John Paul Tremblay didn't seem like he could really get into his role. I suspect he might have been less than happy with being made into the Merchant of P*ss. Maybe he did something to get Mike Clattenburg and Barrie Dunn particularly angry with him.

I think the actors did their best but the writing just wasn't up to snuff. It almost feels like Clattenburg and Dunn were doing their best to torpedo any future for the Boys. Luckily the strength of the series has always been the characters and their respective actors. So it's worth watching for fans but if you aren't a fan don't bother. Luckily I found TPB Season 8 to be a lot better than this movie and it looks a lot more like the series used to be than this movie.

Even though this is NOT a Trailer Park Boys movie it IS a Trailer Park Boys movie. The 3 stars of the cult favourite TV series and many of the supporting cast members play "themselves" in this movie about setting up their own TV network so that they won't have to put up with any more censorship. Apparently they REALLY like swearing!

The boys kind of play the same characters that they do in the TPB series but with some differences. For instance "Mike Smith" is a violent, drug and booze fuelled party monster. Pretty much the polar opposite to Bubbles. John Dunsworth shows absolutely nothing of Jim Lahey. Pat Roach is a real hoot as Swearman although "Dickman" might be a more accurate name. He has a pretty good sized role in this and does a good job. Tom Green and Carrot Top are kind of blah in their parts. Tom has an obsession with handing out key-chains and Carrot Top kind of reminds me of the late Joan Rivers in a Ronald McDonald wig. Insert bad plastic surgery joke here.

Over all a darn good movie. It isn't going to win an Oscar but then have you actually watched some of the crap that HAS won an Oscar? If dick jokes, weed, booze and F-bombs turn you off then turn this off. Likewise if you hate the Trailer Park Boys you will hate this. If you like the TPBs then you will like this.

I give it a solid 8 out of 10

Okay, let me say this right now: I don't think this movie is about neurotic society or Hollywood narcissism or anything else in that vein. Of course I can't say what the writer and director were intending. Perhaps it was actually meant to be about those things. But it's really a story about some weird damn people living weird damn lives. A sort of freak show I suppose you could say. David Cronenberg has always liked strange tales so it isn't surprising that he is the director.

There's some really good acting in this. Mia Wasikowska does a phenomenal job and John Cusack is brilliant. His character oozes a kind of malevolent charm and you can see the rage that is barely held in check. I've always liked John Cusack but I was honestly surprised that he could act this well. Kiara Glasco and Sarah Gadon both turned in solidly good performances. I'm not a Robert Pattinson fan at all and I didn't see anything in this movie to make me change my mind. He wasn't bad but there are probably thousands of actors that could have done as good or better in his role. Julianne Moore proves that her talents have not faded with her looks (Not that I'm saying she isn't still beautiful). She gives a great performance as the sad and vulnerable fading actress. I have to admit that I actually watched As The World Turns back in the 80s just because she was in it. I was unemployed and sitting at home flipping through the channels when I just happened to catch her in that soap and I've been a fan ever since. The only performance I really couldn't stand was Evan Bird as Benji Weiss. I hated his character in the Killing and that has probably coloured my judgement when it comes to his performance here.

David Cronenberg does a good job of keeping things moving and the script is pretty solid. I didn't have any of the WTF? moments that I have had with so many recent movies. Certainly this film deserves a better score than the 6.3 it currently has. I suspect that some of the low rating is due to the scene with the penis and the taboo secret behind the Weiss marriage. A major plus for me is that I actually watched the whole movie at one sitting. I haven't done much of that lately. At all.

Over all a very very good movie with great acting and some of the Cronenberg weirdness. 9 out of 10.

I ended up hating it.

I saw the low ratings and decided to give it a shot anyway. It's the kind of movie that has the potential to give us situational horror instead of just another gore-fest. I like character driven movies if they can deliver compelling characters and an interesting story. Sadly Dead Within just doesn't deliver. On any front.

As another reviewer mentions: It isn't a Zombie flick. He's right. It is the result of somebody having the idea to make a Zombie movie but not having any real cash to spend. Basically: "We can't afford the costs of having a horde of Zombies in our movie so we will basically shoot most of it in one small set with only 2 actors, and the story will be about the people trying to survive and not about the Zombies."

Unfortunately the creators of this micro-budgeted waste of time make the same mistakes as so many other low-budget filmmakers: They seem to have hired actors because they would work cheap instead of hiring them because they can act.

I don't want to mislead you into thinking that the acting is the only bad component of this movie though. The direction and editing are lousy too. Camera-work is not terrible but it certainly doesn't add anything to the viewing experience. It's shaky and hand-held low-budget stuff. The writing, if you can call it that is unoriginal and tells a disjointed story with way too many flashbacks. The ending is pretty much NOT a surprise. Despite having four credited writers, two of them being the lead actors, it feels mostly improvised. There isn't much in the way of special effects and what there is is pretty amateur. The "Zombies" are basically people with black contacts. Those contacts, some gauze and some black "blood" that looks like used motor oil are the majority of the makeup effects.

The only bright light in the whole sorry effort is the sound. It SOUNDS creepy.

2 out of 10