IMDb > Brutal (2007) (V) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Brutal (V) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 19 reviews in total 

26 out of 33 people found the following review useful:

Peeee Yew!

Author: dvd123 from United States
18 July 2007

This is a real stinker.

For some reason I thought this was actually going to be a real movie. It was within the top 30 pre-leases on Amazon for the week it came out AND it starred one of my all time favorite actors- Jeffrey Coombs.

I had hopes. Hopes that were dashed against a stone within the first five minutes. Jeffrey and the villain had marginally believable characters, but just about everyone else made Denise Richards look like Laurence Oliver. They were just horrible. And not very pretty either. It wasn't like they sacrificed acting ability for looks. I've seen a LOT of bad acting- community theater, Troma movies, high school productions. This ranks below just about all of it.

Like the other reviewer stated, this is definitely an F movie.

The story is a joke as well, although you're so busy being amazed by how bad the acting is, it's hard to scrutinize the plot that closely.

On a happier note, this movie helped me to realize how good most of the stuff I watch is. After this, I'm much more appreciative of actors and their craft. Most actors, that is. Definitely not these.

As far as my fondness for Jeffrey Coombs goes... it's still pretty far up there, but not quite as high as it was.

Was the above review useful to you?

25 out of 38 people found the following review useful:

This movie is a Must NOT see..... Trust me

Author: wal_mar_2000 from Canada
11 July 2007

OK so I have seen 'B' before, well I would class this as an 'F' movie. I have never seen a movie this bad, it was like a school kids first try at a film project. The acting was nasty, I cant even tell you how bad the camera work was... If you have nothing else to watch, and this is at the video store, well... Go home and have a nap, you dreams will be better quality. I rated it a 1, there was no 0!!! Basical it an attempt at a thriller mystery, but I have never see a movie that lets you know who the killer is throughout the whole move. I gory scenes a poorly done, you could do a better job at home with a bottle of Hinze and a plastic knife. I honesty wonder how movies like this actually make it to DVD.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

additional "why this movie failed" comments

Author: Doc Button from Sweden
20 July 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie is poorly made. Hate the scene when two people makes love on (with the red fabric). The girl makes a good attempt at it but the guy just lie there with open eyes and a silly smile, like he never done it before.

Following that scene the girl dump the guy into a SUV and when closing the door killer stand being with some tool looking silly. I have never been so NOT scared in my life.

Another thing I noticed is the camera shaking in many scenes. It is clear that the camera is hand-held. The photo besides that is not entirely bad, just very low budget.

It annoys me more that the lightning is very poor or non-existent which takes down the quality of the camera mans work. Lightning seems to limit itself to silly light from below to create "scary" effects.

The killer and the male sheriff manage to do some really bad acting. It really sucks, because the people that appear in the most of the scenes should be the best. Even with a poor script a good director could have saved the picture by helping the actors through the scene. Actors cannot watch their own acting and need the support of the talented director. Some of the actors did have potential.

The guy to blame for the end result is the writer and director which happens to be the same man. What a coincidence! As a producer I would never give him another work again.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

The Golden Section

Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
6 April 2008

In a small town, a serial killer mutilates the bodies of his victims and leaves a flower on the corpses. The efficient Sheriff's Deputy Zoe Adams (Sarah Thompson) and her political chief and lover Sheriff Jimmy Fleck (Jeffrey Combs) investigate the murders but the proximity to the elections makes Jimmy not informing the menace to the local population. Zoe finds many clues and teams up with the autistic trainer of hounds Leroy Calhoun (Michael Berryman), disclosing the identity of the killer.

"Brutal" is a reasonable slasher thriller with a fake marketing on the cover of the DVD, where it is written the atrocity "Hostel Meets The Silence of the Lambs". The story does not work well because of the awful character Jimmy Fleck and his romance with Zoe Adams, and Jeffrey Combs has the worst performance I have ever seen, maybe a side effect of his character. There are moments of black comedy, lots of gore, the killer is hilarious but the the movie is only average. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): Not Available

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

To Watch or Not to Watch

Author: lorieshow from United States
16 July 2007

This movie is promoted on the DVD cover as "Hostel Meets The Silence of The Lambs"....all I can say is.... that is a stretch of proportionate means, however, it holds your interest due to its campiness. It would've been better had the movies taglines matched its content. The female deputy detects clues that a elementary school kid could've figured out.

Alfred Hitchcock once said a viewer must develop empathy with the characters to care about what happens to them. When watching this movie, you know who's next and you really don't care.

But, while the movie leaves a lot to be desired, I think the makers must've realized, one hopes, the lemon that they were handed and attempted to turn it into lemonade, but without the sugar. Think campy when/if you watch and its like watching Fargo over and over again. At first you're horrified, then all you can do is laugh. Don't expect it to be clever and you won't be so disappointed.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Serial killer porn?

Author: AnimaMundi from Sweden
8 September 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie was terrible. I couldn't even get myself to watch it to the end so if anyone wants to discredit my comment for that reason go ahead. I rarely, even when it's bad, actually turn a movie off.

The scenes the actors and the settings along with the props and lights all made you associate it to porn - low budget porn.

In a small town, small enough to only have two policemen, what are the chances of 2 women wearing mini-skirts and offer you sexual services spontaneously as well as one lesbian couple making out in a pub and offer an uptight biology teacher a "free show"? The scene build-up to the killings where all with the build up to sex in a classical porn manner - but instead of sex you get people being brutally murdered or hacked to bits with a chainsaw.

I like horror, I don't mind slasher movies, I don't mind brutal content but this movie wasn't even bad in a funny way this movie is nothing but porn for serial killers. The plot is bad, acting is bad, lines are bad and poorly delivered the build ups are silly and unrealistic to lead up to the climax - murder.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Oh Boy .....

Author: rls0812
17 August 2011

If I learned one thing from this movie, it is never judge a film by it's cover art, or critic blurbs.

The depicted killer looks like he would be cool to watch hacking and slashing his way threw his victims.

One problem. The killer on the cover is not in the movie. Another problem is the blurb reading ""Hostel meets the Silence of the Lambs in this Horrific Murder Mystery"".

I hate to break it to the reviewer, Stuart Alson, but this movie is no were close to the aforementioned films, is definitely not much of a horror film, and is not a murder mystery.

For me personally, this movie was very boring. It kept dragging on and on.

There was no mystery, they show exactly who the killer is from kill #1, and he is not the kind of person I would associate with a hack - and - slash film.

The kills were not creative at all. Very little was actually shown, and the blood & gore was minimalistic.

The acting was not so good. Some characters acted odd at times, while others gave a wooden performance.

Sound was OK for the most part, but the mics at times picked up the wind, and background noise ( air conditioners, traffic, e.t.c. ).

The lighting as I mentioned before, was not very well done, sometimes making it so dark it was hard to make out what was happening.

The special effects were limited to very basic stuff.

Over all this movie is not worth the time. I payed $3 for it new, but I feel like I was overcharged.

You know your in for a not so good movie when the opining cinematic for the companies, "Barnholtz" and "Wiseacre" are horrendous.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Wow! So bad!

Author: p-stepien from United Kingdom
24 August 2009

The plot? Sexy horny chicks, who apparently like giving and getting some, get morbidly murdered, then have flowers placed next to their corpses. The local sheriff Jimmy Fleck (Jeffrey Combs), incompetent and focused on getting reelected, isn't really up to the case. Actually he's more interested in getting into bed with hottie deputy Zoe Adams (Sarah Thompson). With the election on Tuesday, sexy bodies turning up all over the place and Zoe getting all envious about his wife and children the sheriff is getting really nervous. Zoe trying to get her mind of her affair focuses on the serial killings. Unfortunately there seems to be no shortage of horny, young chicks in this small town...

Despite the above description it is not a porno movie, although the script and lines suggests it may have as well been. Just add some sex scenes and you have yourself a porn flick. Essential gorno with bad dialogue and atrocious acting. Nothing inventive, new in any manner and even solutions are clear rip-offs.

The only reason I don't give this a 1 is Michael Berryman as Leroy Calhoun, who plays an autistic bloodhound trainer. May not be Shakespeare, but its good to see him in a role, where he is not the bad guy.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

" It's not safe for you to be out here all by yourself "

Author: thinker1691 from USA
26 March 2009

I've always been amazed with bad guy roles in movies such as this one. The film is called " Brutal " and that's what is inflicted on most of the eviscerated victims in the story. The role of the heavy is often a formula. He is efficient, methodical and clearly a danger to be feared. For nearly 3/4 of the film, the heavy is quite capable, fast, agile, dangerously adroit and highly proficient. Yet when he get's around to the leading lady, he suddenly can't seem to find his head with both hands. He's slow, sloppy and such a bungling artist, one wonders how he managed to become such a dark, lethal entity. There is much interest in this film as the star is none other than noted thespian of stage and screen, Jeffery Combs. His presence alone should have taken this B-Picture and made it into a classic. But as he draws second banana to Sarah Thompson, a sexy and slinky deputy sheriff, in tight fit clothes, his role is relegated to that of a corrupt, woman chasing, political candidate, bent on re-election. Combs plays Sheriff Jimmy Fleck, a married and mostly ambivalent lawman who's more interested in his image, than finding the maniacal killer in his town. That job falls to his deputy who's own emotions lead her to pursue her boss like a love-struck teen. So the task is left to Eric Lange, the town reporter and Leroy Calhoun (Michael Berryman) an autistic man with a team of lack-luster tracking dogs. If we try not to criticize this film too much, then the blood, the gore, the nudity and the mangled bodies, should keep one interested.**

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Cheesy, but sort of boring

Author: allgood_2000 from Abingdon, VA
6 September 2008

The box has a quote that says, "Hostel meets Silence of the Lambs in this horrific murder mystery." The movie throws in a couple of "Hostel" style kills during the first fifteen minutes, and the rest of the murders are just routine slasher movie killings. I don't really see the resemblance to Silence of the Lambs, other than that a female is working to catch a serial killer.

This movie seems like an unused episode of a generic network crime drama. That said, the script and acting would suffice for 45-minute TV show episode, but the plot ended up being too simplistic to carry a 90-minute movie. The movie isn't entirely bad; there's some pretty campy b-movie humor if you're into that sort of thing, but there's also a lot of boredom that fills the gaps between the cheesy goodness.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Parents Guide Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history