I have the stomach for the more brutal scenes in this movie (they're not too far removed from the "Zed's basement" scene in Pulp Fiction, after all), but definitely not for the shabby plot and the weak supporting actors (OK, also the headliners). I wanted to see this movie out of morbid curiosity, and expected little other satisfaction than that from it. I was not disappointed in the depth of my disappointment. I support the effort that went into attempting what must have semed like an interesting story, but more effort was needed and better actors. AND MORE REWRITES.
OK, specifics. "William/Flappy" is simply unbelieveable in his reaction to his attack, as is his friend's reaction to his recounting of it. Except we were primed for this lack of credibility early in the movie when "William/Flappy" got the whole transvestite clown idea in the first place.
Also, there are completely unnecessary distractions throughout the movie. Examples: the abrasive waitress, the abusive drunks, William's overacting bitch of a mother (her bit of scene chewing was more appropriate for an early John Waters movie, and even he wouldn't suffer such silliness now). The erstwhile TV host who interviews Flappy is completely miscast, and would have been better served as one of the supernumerary homeless guys laced throughout the movie.
The movie made me angry, for wasting my time and for being so ill-conceived in its plot that even Raelians couldn't suspend disbelief long enough to take it half-seriously. Perhaps every moviemaker has a "Vulgar" in their background.
OTOH - I'm not recommending against anyone renting "Vulgar," but I am guaranteeing you a bad time when you do. Some people want to see everything Kevin Smith has touched/been affiliated with. They should rent Vulgar. The DVD has a bonus feature on the fecal meteorology unleashed upon "Dogma," while it was being made so, to paraphrase Carl the groundskeeper, "It's got that going for it." I would be interested to know if anyone else has noted the persistent lack of synchronization between this movie's sound and picture - something that made an unpleasant viewing that more "memorable."
OK, specifics. "William/Flappy" is simply unbelieveable in his reaction to his attack, as is his friend's reaction to his recounting of it. Except we were primed for this lack of credibility early in the movie when "William/Flappy" got the whole transvestite clown idea in the first place.
Also, there are completely unnecessary distractions throughout the movie. Examples: the abrasive waitress, the abusive drunks, William's overacting bitch of a mother (her bit of scene chewing was more appropriate for an early John Waters movie, and even he wouldn't suffer such silliness now). The erstwhile TV host who interviews Flappy is completely miscast, and would have been better served as one of the supernumerary homeless guys laced throughout the movie.
The movie made me angry, for wasting my time and for being so ill-conceived in its plot that even Raelians couldn't suspend disbelief long enough to take it half-seriously. Perhaps every moviemaker has a "Vulgar" in their background.
OTOH - I'm not recommending against anyone renting "Vulgar," but I am guaranteeing you a bad time when you do. Some people want to see everything Kevin Smith has touched/been affiliated with. They should rent Vulgar. The DVD has a bonus feature on the fecal meteorology unleashed upon "Dogma," while it was being made so, to paraphrase Carl the groundskeeper, "It's got that going for it." I would be interested to know if anyone else has noted the persistent lack of synchronization between this movie's sound and picture - something that made an unpleasant viewing that more "memorable."