Septic Man (2013) User Reviews

This is a crappy film.

[P3n-E-W1s3 · 3/10 · 4 March 2017]

This film is a missed opportunity. The writer should have sped up Jack's transformation into the Septic Man, then let him loose on the township. However what you have is a meandering story of Jack who gets trapped in a water treatment plant where two maniacal killers are using one of the sluices as a dumping ground for body parts, which is causing mass contamination of a township's water supply, and his transformation... along with an awful amount of vomit.

I watched this film as I had previously viewed Pontypool, which was written by the same writer. That was an original horror movie based on a noise created virus affecting people. On that, I took a chance on this.

... and wish I hadn't. The two movies are similar in a couple of ways, as that they basically revolve around one man. In Pontypool, it's the DJ in his booth, Stephen McHattie (who gives a cameo in Septic Man as the Mayor), who gives a believable performance and is helped with tight direction.

In Septic man, Jack, portrayed badly and unbelievably by Jason David Brown, is hindered with bad direction and strange and implausible characters, especially the killer brothers. Even Molly Dunsworth gives a lacklustre interpretation of Jacks dowdy, browbeaten, pregnant wife; I've seen her in other roles, such as Haven, and she can do so much better. And genre regular, Julian Richings, feels like he's turned up on site and read his lines. It's nice to hear his original English accent.

This is a dull and boring film, for the most time, though the special effects when Septic Man starts to become are pretty nice and gruesome - respect to The Brothers Gore. The scene where Jack peels back the skin on his arm is cringe-making.

There is so much of Troma's Toxic Avenger in this movie. By the end of the movie, Septic Man looks like a more up-to-date, bigger budget, Toxi. Regrettably, it's not as good.

Total waste of time

[PatrickP · 1/10 · 15 August 2014]

Well, one thing can be said: it starts with an explosive bang! The first couple of minutes are disturbingly graphic (but fun if you like graphic like I do) but then....nothing. An hour in, and the guy hasn't left the septic tank he's found himself trapped in. Padding the running time are characters with unknown and confusing purposes, and not much else. Add to this a muddled ending, and you get one big disappointment. Honestly I'm not sure what the filmmakers were trying to do here. I was expecting a yuck fest along the lines of the Toxic Avenger, and all I got was a boring story with no nothing going on. (Although it can be said they do try a little in the last twenty minutes when it comes to the gore, but by then it has already worn out its welcome) Seriously, avoid like the plague.

And god, don't get me started on the song.

Worst I've seen in a while

[Leofwine_draca · 1/10 · 19 November 2020]

One of the worst low budget horror flicks I've seen in a long time, SEPTIC MAN is a story that literally tells the fate of a sewage worker who finds himself trapped in a septic tank and gradually transforms into a hideous beast. That's literally the entire film, with 90% of the running time taking place inside a dark and filthy set. I knew this would be junk from that impossible opening sequence and so it proves. No plot, no characters, dumb dialogue, random gore and endless gross-outs do not a proper film make.

Septic Man Review

[keithlovesmovies · 2/10 · 23 September 2015]

While trying to solve a town's water supply contamination problems, a sewage worker named Jack (Jason David Brown) slips and falls into a septic tank and over time begins to undergo a hideous transformation. He must also team up with a gentle giant (Robert Maillet) in order to confront his crazy murderer brother known as Lord Auch (Tim Burd). I'm just going to poot it out there and say that this film isn't very good. I wouldn't think one's expectations would be very high considering the film is called "Septic Man". Just to lighten things up, I will now to try to use as many toilet-related puns as possible in my review (I made one already if you didn't notice). Now just don't get the impression that you'll know what the film will be about after the first scene because it is just gratuitous in it's grossness, it just takes it down to gutter levels, and it just doesn't make any sense on its own. Don't expect any kind of plot or character development either. It's like the filmmakers flushed it down the toilet, never to be seen again. What you do end up seeing makes little to no sense and is hard to follow (at least I couldn't). They tried to introduce a subplot about some conspiracy being responsible for the contamination problem but they never really explored that. Also the scale of the crisis was only mentioned but never shown. Maybe they could have plunged those out. I thought the pacing of the film needed a few stool softeners as well so don't expect too much excitement either since most of the film occurs within said septic tank. With all that's been mentioned so far, it would not come as much of a surprise that the acting isn't too great either. It just started off bad and got worse as the film went on as the dialogue was laughably bad more often than not and the lead actor, Jason David Brown, was never able to convey a sense of danger that being trapped in a septic tank should have created. At least the makeup work done on Jack after the transformation, albeit exaggerated because I doubt it would have happened that way, was decent. If you thought the beginning was bad, trust me the end is even worse. It isn't too long either so you won't need too much toilet paper. This film is advertised as a horror film but I did not find it scary at all because I happen to be regular I do enjoy watching bad films on occasion just so I can enjoy their badness (as many do). This one was just a little too bad for my taste. Score: #2/10

Trying too hard to be vulgar

[SusieSalmonLikeTheFish · 1/10 · 23 April 2017]

I'm a huge fan of British-Canadian character actor Julian Richings, hence the reason I ever bought 'Septic Man' in the first place, and I've seen a lot of weird films in my time but I feel like this one was just pushing the offensive language, crass quotes and disgusting imagery to the extreme for lazy shock value, without really developing the story past gore and, yup, you guessed right by the title, raw sewage. I've never heard the word "sh!t" so much in a film since I first saw a Troma movie. And some of it just made no sense. We have a sewage treatment plant worker for example, the main character (Jack), approached by a total stranger by the name of Phil Prosser. This stranger who has never even met him before then proceeds to randomly insult him with odd comments, the weirdest being "I'll bet your wife smells sh!t on you every time she f*cks you". What the hell? Is that supposed to be humorous or something? I mean, I wouldn't mind the crude humour so much if there was actually a half-decent story behind it, but there's really not, which is too bad because there are a lot of talented actors and actresses who appear in this film (most of them either look disgusted to even be present, they look bored or they look like they're just doing it for some extra cash). I don't know, I just didn't see the point. Some people have compared it to 'The Toxic Avenger' (1984), but at least ol' Toxie had a good plot standing behind him when he was mutating! 'Septic Man' really doesn't. It's just a lot of toilet jokes coupled with a guy covered in cr@p. Where's the punchline? Bottom line: if you like any of the featured actors/actresses, it's worth checking out perhaps, but otherwise I wouldn't even bother with it. I think even the biggest fans of vulgar jokes and low-budget horror will be turned off not by its gross-out factor, but by its sheer dullness.

High marks for originality and tone.

[michaelchandler45 · 7/10 · 14 September 2014]

I liked it and give it good marks for originality story wise. It's got a low score on IMDb but I think thats mostly because of people expecting something else out of it like a serious version of "The Toxic Avenger" or a horror/comedy. Overall I enjoyed the movie although it could have been so much more. It's played a little slow and it's a very drab and depressing scenario. Don't go into it expecting a wild ride or a terrifying revenge flick. Over all I liked it but thought it fell a little short of what it could have been. It's the kind of movie some will love and others will claim was a waste of time. Definitely worth a watch.

Surprisingly good!

[horizon2008 · 10/10 · 24 August 2014]

Before I begin, I am not connected to this movie in any way (check my other 100 or so reviews and you'll see) but I need to make that clear before I give it the review Im about to (in case Im accused of that).

Firstly, this film has got nothing to do with The Toxic Avenger which another reviewer here seems to think it should have been (?), Im really not sure why that is. Maybe he just reads a movie title and decides what its going to be about by that, but I really don't think thats a smart way to approach cinema and I (for one) am so glad it wasn't some terrible flick by the cheesemongers at Troma as its miles above their output in terms of quality.

The film opens with an outbreak of a water-born disease where a sewage system worker (hes known as the septic man as its a logo on his van) is approached to find the source and deal with it given an offer of a large sum of money. He enters the underground tunnels soon after, and quickly finds himself locked into a tank underground, where his problems really begin.

While the singular elements of Septic Man may not be original on their own, what is original and fresh is how they're strung together. Be advised that this is NOT a horror comedy, in fact its quite dark, twisted, and disturbing at times, with a grim harsh plot running most of the way through. Its written by Tony Burgess, who also wrote the fantastic Pontypool (2008) and its likely if you found that slow going then this movie might not suit you either. Luckily many horror fans have progressed beyond watching a man in a mask chase teens through a forest however so we welcome anything with a modicum of the different. And I loved this film, in fact its quickly moved into my top ten horror films of the year along with the likes of Under The Skin, Found, The Borderlands, Dead Snow 2 etc.

I suggest you go into Septic man not thinking you know what its about, and if you have the ability to watch a film while enjoying a build up in tension and story without it all being laid on a plate for you I think you'll love it. I have to say I was very pleasantly surprised. There have been so many mediocre horror films this year (Lord of Tears, Cross Bearer, The Cemetery etc) that its great when something comes along you thought might just be another. Septic Man is indeed a great new horror film that's an asset to the genre and one long standing horror fans (30yrs for me) will enjoy.

Not the worst movie I've seen.

[susanhayward-18620 · 7/10 · 26 September 2023]

The effects were good. You could almost smell the sewer. Some comedic moments were appreciated - the teeth sharpening scene and when the guy was talking to his ear. I was disappointed he didn't develop any super powers.

He would make a comic book character. I think boys especially would appreciate the constant references to bodily waste. It would also satisfy their questions about what happens when something / someone gets flushed down the toilet.

The final scene appeared to be an afterthought, and could have been added earlier in the storyline.

This movie is way more watchable than Terry Gilliam's Tideland, which is disturbing, to say the least.

A unique, flawed masterpiece. Likely to become a cult favorite.

[Hal_Opinot-Pepper · 9/10 · 25 October 2015]

I cannot for the life of me fathom some of negative reviews. I guess people don't go for something this far out of the horror mainstream, or something. I *loved* this movie. I see it as like a giallo film, but an especially brilliant one. Yes, it has its flaws, points where they don't even bother to try to hide the artifice, and the ending was probably its weakest point (except perhaps for that totally unnecessary first scene, which seems completely tacked- on and should just be fast-forwarded through.) It doesn't matter. Every horror movie that has ever had artistic aspirations has just been blown out of the water. This is like the "Delicatessen" or "City Of Lost Children" of horror movies. It's absurd and surreal and artificial in places and stretches the boundaries of credulity here and again and is above all pretty unique, which is fitting considering it was the same writer as "Pontypool", another flawed but extraordinary gem that is similarly unique and creative enough to be well worth seeing despite some of the weak spots.