paul-ayres-60784
If you don't try to look for logic or a fluid storyline this movie is very enjoyable. It doesn't really have a plot, a beginning or even an ending but that's partly why I enjoyed it.
I've read reviews that criticise the acting but I don't agree. It is very stylized and the comic acting is intentional. It's not pretending to reflect real life situations or characters.
Yes, there is plenty of nudity but I thought it was done very sexily without being pornographic.
To me this film has the potential to become a cult classic. It wouldn't make good reading but visually it is a lot of fun. If you are looking for a good story or a mystery then don't bother. If you just want comic book style entertainment this movie hits the spot.
l-connelly93
So I decided to watch this whilst ill in bed because for some reason horror movies make me feel better. However this was a horror movie in a whole new sense of the word. As many other reviews have been quick to point out this film is essentially a soft core porno. But I don't feel like that it s the biggest issue, the plot makes little to no sense, characters are seemingly built up of low budget production clichés. Perhaps it's only redeeming quality is one of the main guys is almost self aware of the fact he's starring in a terrible horror film.Some of the shots are appetizing but as for everything else it is just a horrible mess of boobs and incoherent plot.
Matt_Layden
A girl is dying in the arms of her lover. Dying Girl: "Everyone is...dead"Dude: "Everyone?"Dying Girl: "I think"*silence*Dude: "Billy?"Dying Girl: "Yeah"Girl dies. Is this a horror film or a porno? Muck is a 2015 "horror" film in which a group of people are stuck in the middle of nowhere, being terrorized by some sort of tribe of men painted white, carrying torches and who love to impale people with axes. As I write this review, the film is still playing in my bluray player, yet I had to go to wikipedia to find a plot description because I have no idea what the hell is going on. While I wikipedia I see that it had its premiere at the Playboy Mansion....some things are starting to make sense now.The film consists of 1/3 horror, while the rest are shots of woman, in their underwear, staring at themselves in the mirror for 5 minutes. Looking at their breasts, their perfectly toned stomachs, then their asses in thongs. The scene then usually ends with them getting naked, having a 5 minute shower in slow motion while soft core porn music plays, trying to get out of the shower and tripping....cause that happens all the time, then getting killed. One character spends the entire film in her underwear. She looks amazing, don't me wrong, but if I want to see her in her underwear, or even naked for that matter, I've got this little thing called the internet. The opening credit sequence if unbelievably long. Maybe they didn't have enough footage to be qualified as a feature film, so they drag this sequence out to reach that running time. It also consists of one girl running around, dripping wet, topless. In one of the more laughable "horror" scenes. The same lead girl sneaks around a barn, then is attacked by one of the pale men with a pitch fork. He misses stabbing her, by a mile, instead of removing the pitchfork to stab her again, he leaves it and tries to drag her away. She is way too wet, so he can't get a hold of her. She then grabs the pitch fork and points it up. It is at this time that the pale man decides to jump on her, thus impaling himself on the forks. The sequence is so disastrously slow and un-choreographed that it seems like a parody. I assure you, it is not. The scene then ends with the woman, covered in blood, standing in front of a sprinkler for 2 minutes, getting soaking wet. When people are attacked, the director choose to focus on their breasts in slow motion, then their ass. All the pale men seem insistent on tearing their clothes away, only the women though, the men seem to be immune to their hatred of clothes. This film is so bad, that I honestly think it could be a comedy. Yet, nothing about it appears to be so. Characters are killed and people mourn for them for about 10 seconds before they have mundane conversations about shoes and going to the bathroom. They talk about this while standing right over the dead girlfriend of one character. The direction, the dialogue, the editing...everything about this film is so terribly, offensively, bad. A true gem of horrible filmmaking. One that should and will make a list of terrible movies. Is there anything redeeming about the film? Well, it opened interestingly enough. The characters are already being terrorized. It seems to jump in at the end of some other film, where our leads have been chased around already. I thought that was an interesting choice, to just drop us in like this. Also, the film tells the story from different perspectives at times, which replays the same situations from a different POV.I'm currently debating about finishing the film, there is about fifteen minutes left. Which means there is probably ten minutes of credits.
Jon Robertson
I wanted to see a scary story, brief nudity, and teens/young adults in danger. The bonus was Kane Hodder. The movie gave me what I wanted. It's not Oscar-worthy, but interesting enough to make me want to see the prequel. Like most movies with new directors, especially if they are the writer, there was not enough edited out. Seeing every detail of Troit called for a ride and his uninteresting interactions with his girlfriend, bartender, and another girl (who didn't need to be present at all) slowed the whole movie down. Same for Noah going to a bar for help, which he didn't seem to do. There were several scenes that could have been cut completely, but I assume the director just wanted to get several people into the movie. OK, so they have their SAG cards now, hopefully this won't be the case in the prequel.
