Muck

There is so much wrong with this movie I don't even know where to begin. You're dropped in the middle of a story, and meet up with boring two-dimensional characters who are not developed even a little bit during the movie. Something else that was awful was the camera work, shaky is a big understatement. The lighting for the movie is also terrible, it's actually absent. This movie is supposed to be the 2nd in a trilogy, I don't know why you would make the 2nd movie first, but i'm really not looking forward to the prequel or the sequel. I'm excited to put this movie on the back of my shelf and forget about it. The marketing for the movie was really exciting and this is for sure one of those cases where something is hyped up and made to look watchable and when it comes out it's unbearable. The final complaint is going to be the fact that the director decided that putting a pair of breasts every 40 seconds in the movie might redeem it from being bashed online but that's not the case whatsoever.

Normally I only review slasher movies but I just finished watching this and I feel an obligation to the horror genre to expose this director's work as the fraudulent attempt that it is.

First off, this is not a horror movie. In fact, it's not even a movie at all. I've complained about story in the past many times, or lack there of, but nothing, and I mean 'nothing' comes even remotely close to this on absence of story. We're thrown into the middle of something happening and not only do they not tells us what's happening, they choose to develop their characters by making them pose in front of mirrors. Don't get me wrong, I'm no prude, but this was just lame. Nudity comes 'after' you set up the story and characters. This just felt like I was watching some sixth-grader's wet dream after he stayed up too late watching QT and Rodriguez's "Grindhouse."

And when I talk about exposing the fraud here, I'm talking about two things. One, this is not a horror film. This has no right calling itself a horror film. It's like Kanye West trying to call his last album "metal." This is a stylized action movie reject written and directed by person with the mind of a child who has an embarrassingly overactive sex-drive. And secondly, the back of the movie says "Muck is packed with old-school gore effects and brutal stunts without any CGI or apologies." It may not contain CGI, but it most certainly does 'not' contain "Old-school gore." The kills were lame as f#$%. You don't see anything except for a little blood spraying here and there. Very, very cheap gore effects. I can honestly say that I have officially seen a movie that has absolutely nothing to offer. And why should it contain something that would interest me, it's not even a horror movie. This is the kind of "movie" that makes you want to go back through all your old reviews and raise the ratings up.

Keep my ten bucks, Steve Wolsh. Something tells me you're gonna need it.

0/0 F- (fail) two thumbs down

I'm not sure what the hell I just watched...but I liked it. It's hard to review, mainly because it's part of a larger story. (Or so they say). I'd recommend, but I do have two small issues: one, too much time is spent showing off the camera and what it could do, and two, enough with the women in various states of undress. In small doses you tend to expect it in these types of movies to be sure. Unfortunately the amount here is akin to Cinemax soft core porn.

I wish I could say more, but I honestly have no idea what I just watched.

I can't wait for the sequels!

Muck is a lot of things... poorly lit... lacking plot... full of character dialogue that's trying way too hard to be Whedonesque... a shameless means to show various women naked.

The one thing Muck is not is a good movie. In fact, it's barely a movie.

We are thrown into a story mid-way with a cast of characters we get no introduction to. What little dialogue they have before they get killed doesn't do much to endear us to them, so why care about them being killed? Instead of characterization and backstory, Muck gives you extended scenes of a woman showering and a woman who apparently keeps a Victoria's Secret inventory in her purse putting on a one woman lingerie fashion show in a dive bar bathroom.

But wait, the movie has Kane Hodder! Surely that must give it some cred, right? Not as such. Kane Hodder as Hatchet under a ton of make up? Scary. Kane Hodder under a hockey mask? Scary? A shirtless, aging Kane Hodder splashing around having what is essentially a wrestling match in the climax of the movie? Not so scary. Kind of sad actually.

Muck wants to be Cabin in the Woods, but it's not funny or invention enough. Muck wants to be a softcore porn, but the movie's lighting is so bad you are better off watching scrambled porn channels. Muck wants to be a horror movie gorefest, but most of the kills happen JUST off camera and we're shown, instead, the killer or a nearby witness just getting karo syrup tossed on them.

Muck wants to be a movie but it isn't. If the excuse is "Well, it's the middle part of a trilogy released first," then that shows the director/writer/guy who clearly likes boobs had no original idea other than "Let's just show the movies out of order to confuse people."

I was so excited for this film. I really wanted it to be good. Billed as a "love letter" to the slasher genre. Not at all, it was an insult. I think other reviewers have summed up what's wrong with this film. No need to repeat how bad the flow or acting was. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's the second part of a trilogy. We get it, this film starts in the middle. We are smart enough to deal with that. It was just bad on every level. It wasn't poking fun at the genre or even "so bad it's good". It was just bad. Period. Even bad or cheaply made horror films can still be good or lots of fun. This was neither. Also, the nudity wasn't an issue for me. It's a staple of old school slasher/horror films. Yet somehow even they "mucked" that up too.