Despiser (2003 Video) User Reviews

Horrible, but endearing

[I_saw_it_happen · 4/10 · 18 June 2007]

Make no mistake--- this movie is awful in many, many ways. The acting is wretched, the plot is full of holes, and the 'special effects' are the most impressive part of the whole production. And oh, what special effects they are.

But Despiser is also something meaningful. However mangled it's substance is, it has something to say. And while the 'something' it has to say may not even be all that brilliant, the fact that it wasn't just another standard sci-fi romance horror adventure buddy-flick with pseudo spiritual themes actually counts for something. Yes, Despiser is a bad movie, and one cannot excuse it's badness on 'budget' (as many have) since it relies so heavily on effects when it really isn't necessary. I enjoyed this movie quite a bit, and have watched it many times, and have concluded that it is an amazing and inspiring piece of film, not because of how good it is (because it's horrible)but because it at least suggests what bad movies could be. It makes you appreciate failure in a whole new way that is somewhat moving.

*SPOILERS* There are lots of bad movies out there, and they find their way into major movie rental outlets because there is a pretty significant market for bad movies. Lots of people who have no ability to produce a film enjoy watching movies that were poorly made and conceived, not only because the films themselves turn out to be entertaining, but because it's somewhat akin to living vicariously through someone else. Some bad movies, I watch and think to myself 'Man, if I had a camera and these actors available, I could have done better'. Watching bad movies, knowing they are bad movies, is somewhat interactive. You're aware that you're critiquing and evaluating the film the whole time, in a way that you wouldn't spend watching a 'good movie'. You wind up learning more about film as a media by watching it's failures than it's successes.

But Despiser is different. Within the first minute of the film, you already know that it's going to be awful, and you'll probably start preparing for the worst. You have a Samuel-Jackson impersonator delivering Biblical verses before he kills 'bad dudes'. You have the whole 'evil vampiric alien zombie in a church' thing going on. And a magic bullet. It's all done without remorse, all done very seriously, as if this film might actually change the world if people see it. And you'll think 'I could've done this. Hell, I could've done better...' But as the film goes on, you realize that in fact, Despiser is something you would have never been able to spend so much time on. For instance, there are dozens and dozens of scenes where firearms are used, and in each case, a small burst of 'fire' and smoke come out of the barrel, and a bullet casing flies out and hits the ground. And all that smoke, fire and the bullet casings were added as CGI, individually, one by one. And there is a lot of gunfire in this movie. That alone is mind-blowing. The sheer amount of time and energy that was put into creating this film are what carry it. Nothing else. there's not much you could even generously refer to as 'quality' in this film, but the dedication that was put into it could put any Hollywood blockbuster to shame. There is one scene in particular, where our protagonist 'Gordon' camps out next to a lake for a night, which is almost enough to break your heart and make you feel like someone really put their soul into this movie. The whole scene is CGI but for Gordon, and has an odd surrealistic quality mixed with the trashiest sort of New-Mexico style art, all too bright and pastel and swirly to be seen as anything tasteful, but by this point in the film, you're in awe at how much the film-maker cared about this project.

*END OF SPOILERS* I rated Despiser fairly low, because in good conscience I couldn't say it really deserves more than a '4'. But I'd recommend it nonetheless, especially if you enjoy bad movies. Despiser is the strange exception to 'what makes bad movies'. Usually, it's the laziness and lack of effort exercised by the film-makers. In this case, however, it's sheer obsession and excess, dedication even in the face of laughable failure that make this film wondrous to behold. It fails horribly as a movie, but it succeeds at making us wish it hadn't so we could take it more seriously. It's like hoping a kid with a bad stuttering problem will win the spelling bee. You know this kid's a good speller, and they spent so much time studying that you really want them to win--- but in the end, they stutter and don't even qualify. And really, the best you can do is assure the kid that it all meant something, even if the world will never know.

"What Dreams May Come" meets "Robot Bastard"?

[DrGoot · 4/10 · 13 July 2003]

No, the effects are not "stylized." Stylized means you did it on purpose. Having effects that look like they were made in Lightwave on an Amiga is likely NOT intentional.

That said, I was cringing going into this movie, but found it hard to hate it. The villains have about as much depth as your typical Disney villain, and the cowboy and kamikaze characters are so hackneyed I wanted to punch them, but apart from that, it's not terrible.

Superior Silliness

[vic-232 · 19 June 2008]

Ham acting, cheesy computer-game graphics, and some of the worst dialog since "Titanic" combine to yield a surprisingly entertaining movie -- provided you're willing to suspend your good taste for a while. You can tell this movie was, well, if not exactly a labor of love, then a collaboration that was a lot of fun for the filmmakers -- most of whom take on two or three jobs, according to the credits.

Despite its super-low-budget production values and garbled symbolism, and despite the fact that the filmmakers never really seem to decide whether their film is serious or farcical, a lot of imagination went into the making of "Despiser" -- enough to make it worth watching if you get the chance.

This is as bad as it gets

[joewasik · 1/10 · 26 November 2005]

Quite possibly, worst movie ever made. This was somebody's idea of a joke. They're at a party and someone said "Hey, let's make a movie now". Unfortunately, IMDb wants me to keep writing before I can tell you about this. So here I go. This movie sucks. This movie is an abomination. You couldn't find a worse one if you tried. Quite possibly, worst movie ever made. This was somebody's idea of a joke. They're at a party and someone said "Hey, let's make a movie now". Unfortunately, IMDb wants me to keep writing before I can tell you about this. So here I go. This movie sucks. This movie is an abomination. You couldn't find a worse one if you tried.

Just a terrible, terrible film.

[wan2bbrucelee · 1/10 · 25 December 2006]

I imagine that if your looking at the IMDb site for this film, you've either already seen it (I'm so sorry) or you saw it at Blockbuster, and came here to see if it was worth the 2$ or whatever. This movie is AWFUL! As you can imagine, the acting is sub-par, childish even. I mean really, its like watching a play at an elementary school. The "special effects" are truly embarrassing. Literally, I got embarrassed when I saw the little crab like creature running around. But the worst part of the film, the aspect that makes it entirely unwatchable, is the plot. An alien caught in Limbo? COME ON! I still can't believe it. Who would be so stupid as to make a sci-fi film with this low of a budget that included, what I guess was an attempt at, a religious message? The creators of this film apparently were. Just don't see this film. Really, don't waste the time. Spend some time doing something more fun, like throwing rocks at something.

One of the poorest movie watching experiences ever!

[yougotrealugly · 2/10 · 13 April 2003]

One of the nicest things that can be said about "Despiser" is that any aspiring film makers who partake in it will feel empowered to create their own opus on a hundred dollar budget. There are bad movies that are fun because of their badness, and enjoyable in spite of everything that the director did wrong, but this isn't one of them. Ignore the bold tag on the front of the movie's box, declaring it "The Best Special Effects of the Year"; "Despiser" looks like a computer game that would run off a floppy disc. The dialogue, and even the overall feel of the film, comes right from the old horror soap opera "Dark Shadows". "Despiser"'s biggest failing is the plot, which is not only convoluted, but also suffers from the director ignoring logic and flow in order to add as many computer drawn car chases and nuclear explosions as possible. Avoid "Despiser" at all costs, or you'll spend close to two hours wishing you were anywhere else.

Horrible. Not art. Just horrible. HORRIBLE.

[bjv2 · 1/10 · 10 January 2007]

This movie is by far one of the worst I have ever seen. I believed this movie was a joke when I first saw it, much in the same way that I saw all of these positive reviews as jokes.

For starters, the plot can be described as "full of holes" at best. Of course, at best would probably only be when the viewer is drunk, not picky, and optimistic. I could rip this movie apart in so many ways based on storyline alone, but I don't want to waste my time. It's horrible. Horrible. Horrible. It's original maybe, but that does not make it good.

The story is completely degrading to every religion that has any sense of an afterlife. {SPOILERS}Purgatory is not a nuclear wasteland full of men wearing rags, ruled by a giant lizard-thing who is digging up nuclear warheads to blow everyone there back to the 'living'. You heard correct. And it's not even done well.

The story, as it happens, is also (I think) degrading to the Japanese. "OOOH You are Samurai".

Now, for those who care about visuals. Let me just put it this way. The cars, campfires, flashlights, roads, trees, buildings, and in some cases the main characters, were all second rate CGI the MAJORITY of the time. Obviously, it's low budget. But if you're going to buy a car for your movie, then use it on camera. The cars they used were CG'ed versions of real cars that appeared in the movie. But it's poorly done. This movie has some of the highest amount of CG animation in any movie I have seen save maybe Toy Story, but most of it is around the quality of low budget video games; from a decade ago. I cannot stress how horrible it is, and how horrible the wipes and live action to CG transitions were. It's laughable. There are so many problems, inconsistencies and bad transitions that it makes me think they just kept telling themselves, "we'll fix it in post-production" and then they forgot about it.

A lot of people are saying this movie is art. If this is art, then so is poo smeared on a wall. To sum up; a movie is not good just because it's story is loosely about Purgatory. Just because it has some sort of imagination behind it does not mean it's good. If the story and graphics are bad, the movie is bad. Period. On the plus side, if you like to rent bad movies to have a good laugh, I recommend getting this movie offline for like $5. It's worth it.

this is a test or a project, not a movie

[monkeyblood · 1/10 · 29 August 2003]

to me, this isn't really a movie. it cheapens the word "movie", it's like calling tic-tac-toe a sport. some topical complaints are, the acting: the wife is the only one that doesn't talk like she's just been handed a piece of paper with some words on it. and the effects are toy guns and the "cgi" was actually made from your neighbors 12 year old daughter, Jenny.

the idea of an alien accidentally getting stuck in limbo, and human souls there trying to get rid of it isn't horrible. if you read the plot on the back of the package and think you'll like it, go read a comic book because its probably been done to death, and all a lot better.

this is why movies suck. just because people play around with their computer and get a few neighbors to play limbo-spacecowboys whats really scary is how many votes it got for "10". some pig in a suit somewhere is going to see that, and think to himself "well if people pay for crap like that at the rental store then they'll pay for crap at the cinema too. and we do. i do.

you should rent ANYTHING ELSE, not renting this junk will help make better movies at the theater and 'direct-to-video' movies too.. and it would do less damage to your soul.

Despiser not Despised

[Grianan · 7/10 · 22 August 2003]

I saw this thing and thought, ";Hmmm. People trapped in Purgatory. Have to fight demons to get out. COOL!"; Well, I took it home and watched it. It was a genuinely decent film. Now, I know there are some draw backs that will effect people in a negative way. In fact, this is why I rated it lower on the stars ratio. The story itself: Good. The acting: Good if not Great. If this had been a Stephen King film or Clive Barker even, it might have gotten a budget it deserved. As I watched it, I kept waiting for a commercial as it looked like something I'd watch on FOX some evening. If you're a horror/action fan, it's a decent flick worthy of seeing at least once on a night you have nothing better to do.

The bottom of the pit

[robertfulda · 1/10 · 3 August 2007]

I haven't seen a movie worse than this one in a very long time. It's a devastating piece of junk. The action is childish, the plot is just perfect to entertain a person with an IQ of 40 and the special effects made me think of the Mario video game, which I've played when I was 10. After 25 minutes, I've regretted the 30 cents I've spent renting this crap. I could have bought a mug of cheap ale... Folks, please do not waste your time seeing this movie, it's by far worse than those stupid cartoons, Cow and Chicken, altogether made by people with an astronomical lack of talent and with a huge lack of respect for the viewer. I can only be sorry that "1" is the lowest vote someone could click. For movies like this, the voting system must be adjusted to -20.

This is not mainstream Hollywood -- but still a fun view!

[darkharvey123 · 8/10 · 3 February 2007]

I was cruising the sell-through bin at Hollywood Video. You know the one? Pickup a previewed movie for a few bucks? So I see this one with a CG beast on the cover called DESPISER. It's about purgatory. Okay, I'll bite. How bad can it be considering the price I paid? Well … first let me say this is not mainstream Hollywood. This is a little no-budget picture shot in 1998 before the advent of SIN CITY, SKY CAPTAIN and other hi-budget fare. So, needless to say, it's a bit crude by that standard. However, considering its budget, it's really quite impressive. Mind you, it needs a bit of suspension of disbelief, but it has heart and it has soul. It concerns the quest of an artist (Mark Redfield) who travels to purgatory to rescue his wife from despotic forces. He encounters a band of men and women from different times -- I'm reminded of the Piers Anthony story with a similar conceit. He teams up with these folks (Doug Brown, Michael Weitz, Frank Smith, and Tara Bilkins) and they head out on a CG adventure to face down the Despiser -- a CG critter who's holding the hero's wife in his "bad guy" castle. All in all, it's a bit juvenile. But hey, what fantasy ultimately isn't? I enjoyed the film. I got into it. I suspended disbelief. I wanted Gordon to succeed. I was sad when the hero's hit the fan.

Somehow this picture seem to invite love/hate reviews! Wow. What's with that? Chill out folks. For six bucks, it's a fun view. I liked it. If you have a heart for fantasy, then perhaps you may like DESPISER too.

A great value for fantasy fans

[talbots2010 · 7/10 · 3 December 2005]

I don't understand some of the bitterness posted here concerning this film. Granted, DESPISER is extremely low budget, but that didn't diminish by appreciation for its concept or story. This is an intriguing little title--the story of one mans' journey to the afterlife to rescue his estranged wife. I liked the characters and scenario--very imaginative and stylized. Yes, it would have been nice to see this story made with state of the art animation. However, the picture's impressive particularly since it preceded SIN CITY and SKY CAPTAIN by four years and had one-thousandth their budget. Alpha Video's release of DESPISER is a great value for fantasy fans. Definitely check out the extras. I think it will add to your appreciation of this film made outside of the Hollywood system on a micro budget. Four stars.

For God NO

[loukosrotten · 1/10 · 3 May 2009]

I often see that short of b-movies for fun. They are exciting the plot is easy to follow and you laugh a lot with amusing deaths. Yet this one is something more than a b-movie. It is surprisingly bad. Can only be described as a physical and mental torture with symptoms including exhaustion, headaches, slight/major paranoia, depression, and so forth. Me and my friends often use it as a zero level in a climax for movie quality but also as a threat in case of misbehaving! Even deathstalker was superior than this one. You should definitely watch it just to be able to say you have watched the worst movie ever. I think a level zero should be created to rate this movie..... Top line of the movie: I will inflict such misery...................

very fun and inventive

[tylerrabbit · 29 June 2004]

Despiser gets a bad rap on this board for being so low budget, but if you watch the 'making of 'stuff on the DVD you realize that this is made by a guy who isn't connected to Hollywood geographically or otherwise ( Phillip Cook). The actors are mostly friends and obviously aren't Hollywood types- I find that refreshing. While people complain about the extensive use of low-end CGI effects, I find the effects to be one of the elements that makes Despiser such a charming experience. The effects don't try to fool you, they serve the overall look and ingenuity of the production. Hollywood effects often cost millions of dollars and are created on extremely expensive workstations but usually don't fool you either so this makes the effects in Despiser feel more honest and artistic. .This film is a very large and ambitious vision pulled off for very VERY little money, with a decent video camera, home computers, and sets built from stuff purchased at the home depot. In spite of it's home-made feel I don't consider this to be amateur or naiive cinema because it actually consists of a well thought out story and production. I totally admire this films gusto and ingenuity. 9 out of 10 stars.

Its nice to have friends to pad your movie rating

[kirachloe · 1/10 · 4 April 2024]

I probably don't have to say anything, just read the other reviews yourself. All the limitations of a no-budget movie, but I'm going to give it a 10??? Really? Man, doesn't James Cameron feel stupid. He spent over $200M on Avatar and he is still short of a 8 star rating. You would think Despiser is PHENOMINAL? ... or the friends and robots are just phenomenal at padding the freak out of IMDB.

Well the other reviews were right, this is a really no-budget film. And sadly, the things that are essentially FREE when you are a low/no budget film, this crew could not get right, like a good script and decent directing and scene setup. Please, I might have given a 2 star, if just for the effort. But for all those that pad up, we have to have a few that pad down.

Unbelievable indie fantasy

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 3 May 2018]

DESPISER is one of those films that you sit through and when wonder just what on earth you watched. It's an indie fantasy adventure flick, ridiculously cheap and quite unbelievable from beginning to end. The main characters are a bunch of ordinary guys who are sent to purgatory and decide to fight back by battling the dark lord ruler of the realm. There's some bad CGI throughout, but this is mostly made up of chit chat and fakery.

Impressive tour-de-force on a micro-budget

[Vomitron_G · 7/10 · 27 March 2007]

If you're not really an open-minded person towards low-budget fantasy/horror movies, you'll probably have some difficulties understanding me giving this Philip J. Cook movie a rating this high. Let me try to explain why DESPISER really is worth seeing and certainly is a much better movie than its poor rating here in IMDb might lead you to believe.

The only other movie of him as a director I've seen is INVADER (1992), an offbeat sci-fi flick about an alien invasion (starting by taking over the American military), and I must say I even liked that one to some extend. For one thing, it's fun, doesn't take itself too seriously, contains some decent action and shows us nifty-looking special effects. Now, DESPISER has a much, much more ambitious plot, but it never gets pretentious in any way. I could even say the plot was too ambitious for the budget it was made with. It deals with people, deceased or on the verge of dying, being transported to an alternate universe. There they must choose sides to take part in the ever on-going battle between good and evil. Of course, the Evil Ones have a plan to enter our reality, bringing humanity to an apocalyptic ending. A lot more different ingredients are thrown in the mix (basically anything a decent plot has to offer) and they are all well-dosed with good timing.

Despiser showed us in 2003 already, on some levels, a new way of film-making (later done on a big budget in films like SIN CITY, for example). There are very few real sets used. Somewhat like 75% of all sets, visuals (and even some shots of human characters) are made out of CGI. And I must say, even with a small budget like this, it's very pleasant eye-candy and even not that bad at all. It sometimes looks a lot like film-sequences from a video-game. The few sets that were build, indeed look a little fake, but they still blend in nicely with all the CGI. None of the actors are very good, but you can see that they tried really hard. And the film-makers put a lot of heart into this flick. I applaud all that; appreciate and respect it. And more important, I started caring about the characters as the movie progressed, so you tend to forget that those aren't portrayed by first-rate actors and the so-so acting wasn't even an issue anymore after I'd gotten to know the characters. Plus: The movie is pretty fast-paced, never becomes boring, and the story's entertaining.

There will most certainly be visuals that stick with you, like the landscapes, the rather exiting car-chase on the long bridge in a lake of fire, and the fortress of the Über-Evil-Creature, the Despiser, near the end. Philip J. Cook even plays his cards right by showing us only glimpses of the Despiser wrapped in shadows throughout the movie, only to reveal him in his full glory at the end. Yes, of course, he's a CGI creation, and he's not exactly made out of LORD OF THE RINGS-material. But it's a fierce-looking creature nevertheless.

I had a good time with DESPISER and I'd say to anyone it's worth checking out, except if you hate CGI or don't like a no-name cast in a low-budget film. I hope Mr. Cook keeps making movies, 'cause I'll sure watch 'em. And someone, any producer out there: Please give this guy some more money. He's got good ideas and skills. All he needs is a decent budget.

It sure beats most low budget horror video releases

[Sirgurd2003 · 10/10 · 3 May 2003]

I thoroughly enjoyed Despiser. I was impressed with the overall look and feel of the movie. Doug Brown was well cast as Nimbus. It was imaginative and original for a micro-budget feature. I loved the colors and innovative action. The explosive finale is quite impressive for what it must of cost. It does remind of the Wizard of Oz-stylized and dreamlike. It sure beats most low budget horror video releases that feature the usual pretty teenagers, rubber monsters, bloody massacres and derative storylines. I give Despiser a thumbs up for creativity, thrift and imagination.

A Micro-Budgeted Miracle

[getjiggy2010 · 10/10 · 21 September 2005]

I just rented DESPISER and was quite impressed. First let me put this film in context--it was apparently made for just $35,000. With that in perspective, DESPISER is a remarkable achievement of execution let alone one of sheer imagination. It's a contemporary fantasy--an artist's nightmare whose story follows the exploits of its protagonist in the stylized worlds of purgatory. Mind you "stylized" is the key word here because DESPISER is close kin to the hyper- visual sensibilities of SIN CITY and SKY CAPTAIN IN THE WORLD OF TOMORROW. I.e. blue screen actors placed in computer-generated realms. Yet DESPISER preceded both films by three years. Its effects aren't real so much as imaginative. They suit the film's visual style much in the same way as SIN CITY. The story moves at a brisk pace and the actors do a competent job dealing with their outrageous circumstances of monsters, hordes of the damn and nuclear fireballs. Solid performances from Doug Brown, Gage Sheridan and Mark Redfield enhance this micro budgeted effort.

Is this a film of the same technical caliber as SPY KIDS 3 or SIN CITY? No. But it's not far off particularly considering it was made years earlier. Thematically, however, it's just as effective--even more so, considering you could make over a thousand DESPISER's for the cost of a single SIN CITY. As a fan of dark fantasy, I enjoyed DESPISER very much.

Fun Visit to Purgatory

[wilmafasbinder · 8/10 · 19 April 2003]

Okay, it's a little different. No, it doesn't have a gazillion dollar budget. But this film has a lot of heart and pizazz. DESPISER is obviously a labor of love. It's not for everybody; but it's creative. A fantasy artist wrecks his car and finds himself in purgatory. I dug its visual creativity. Watching this film was like peaking into someone's dreamlike fantasies. You know . those surreal, twilight fun dangerous kinda of dreams. It's very stylized. Like a painting. Like an artist's interpretation of reality. Like what I imagine was going on in Phil Cook's (Director/Writer/EFX dude) I mean Gordon Hauge's imagination. It moves. It's visual. It's got cool action. It's got monsters! Stylized? Yeah. Like opera. Over the top. I enjoyed it. Thumbs up from me and for little pictures like this that strive for big things.

Despiser isn't perfect, but it is a pleasure to watch.

[sunsister · 22 April 2003]

Despiser definitely has a few logic flaws (where did the canned food in Purgatory come from, a crashed grocery truck?), but there are some very unique and clever moments, especially in the dialogue. I believe, unlike one reviewer, that the subtle humor is quite intentional and wry (the troll had us rolling in our seats). The special effects were a pleasure to watch-- very vivid and surreal, appropriately dream like. Good Job, Philip Cook.

Amazing Achievement

[BigHarvey · 10/10 · 5 January 2007]

Writer and director Philip J. Cook must have had an imagination overload when he conceived DESPISER. It's so positively unique and bizarre, what with its awe-inspiring sets and backdrops, not to mention the smooth merging between the numerous genre styles in the story and photography. This movie is part science fiction, a dab of horror, a pinch of fantasy, and a sprinkle of hardcore action with a touch of romance added for even more flavor. It never lets up either. From the first scene on, it just keeps offering more and more visual delights and plot twists, and all of them are presented in an intensely creative and passionate manner that leaves the viewer dazzled.

The story is difficult to explain, mainly because in doing so a lot of plot elements that need to be witnessed firsthand could be exposed. Suffice it to say that the plot centers on a man named Gordon Hauge, who suffers through a miserable day. He first gets fired at work and then comes home to find his wife leaving him. As if that isn't enough, he's then killed in a car accident later that night. But, believe it or not, that's just the beginning. Gordon wakes up to find himself in an unearthly, hostile purgatory. He ends up fighting demons and creatures, while traveling through surreal landscapes that can alter from beautifully pastoral to downright ghastly within seconds. During all this he feverishly attempts to somehow return to the real world and get his wife back.

Operating as the writer, director, editor, cinematographer, and visual effects producer, Cook deserves a lion's share of the praise for bringing such an extraordinary vision to the screen. He uses photo-realistic computer animation, all kinds of matte paintings and miniatures, what looks like some stop-action photography, plus a bunch of pyrotechnics to provide a rainbow of nonstop images in an otherworldly reality. The effects have their problems in some scenes, as the mattes sometimes reveal outlines or a faded look emanates from the superimposed visuals. However, for the most part, the animations and effects are top quality, especially for a cost efficient SOV movie. I was impressed with the overall look and clarity Cook managed to obtain from even the story's strangest moments, though none of it really called to attention that everything was shot on DV. Some of this seemed to be accomplished by the light sources, which were not unlike what one would see in scenes set up for film. The expert color timing and dark tones also help compensate for any technical shortcomings as well. I need to note that Cook wisely considered the sound quality of his movie. There are no off-mike problems (which often plagues SOV productions) and the post work is top shelf.

Not only are the effects fascinating and the attention to detail impressive, but DESPISER also contains a good amount of violence and action. There are plenty of shootouts and Cook handles most of them aggressively. The car chases are exciting and oftentimes take place on hellish highways or deserted roads that seem to lead into an abyss. Actually, the car chases are particularly interesting in that Cook switches back and forth from real cars and actors to computer generated animation. It works surprisingly well, though it's something the viewer needs a couple minutes to get used to. One has to think that when the technology is advanced even further, it will allow low to modest budgeted movies the opportunity to stage wild pursuits anywhere the director wishes without having to actually batter the cars or endanger the actors. I'm not saying that filmmakers aren't already doing these kinds of things, but they're seldom done so professionally for this kind of budget, particularly within the SOV market.

Cook's script is involved, but the plot is easy to follow and moves at a fast pace. Though the story sometimes has some holes in it, the movie is so much fun that the few structural inconsistencies here and there don't really matter. Even more impressive is that Cook didn't shortchange the relationships between the characters all that much in an effort to solely display his talent for inventing startling images. For example, the romance between Gordon and his wife work nicely, and the pay-off in the end is heartfelt and satisfying. Also intriguing is the group of eccentric freedom fighters that first rescue Gordon, and then later need rescuing by Gordon. I came to like this eclectic band of heroes (all from different periods of history) and truly wanted them to find their way out of the confinement of purgatory.

One of my biggest gripes about most SOV movies is the acting. However, here the lead roles are performed with believability and sincerity. Mark Redfield is convincing as Gordon Hauge, a sort of 'everyman' trapped in a place that Cook calls an "abandoned halfway house north of hell and south of heaven." Equally effective is lovely Gage Sheridan as Maggie, Gordon's confused and frustrated wife. My favorite performance comes from Doug Brown, who plays Carl Nimbus, the Bible quoting leader of the freedom fighters. Brown gives his role a combination of wisdom and machismo with some well-meaning heart, causing his character to transcend its supporting role status.

No movie can please everyone. I'm sure there are those who will see DESPISER and wonder what the big deal is. That said, an accomplishment such as this one is worth noting because it's riding on the crest of a wave of the future. It's one thing to provide refreshing special effects on the screen, but here Cook does it while maximizing every production dollar to its fullest. On top of that, he still gives the viewer a story and characters that are interesting and entertaining. I highly recommend this SOV project to anyone that appreciates a work capable of meshing film genres while providing a large supply of cinematic imagination.

Cult Cuts Magazine -- Review by Craig Hamann

I got it and I liked DESPISER!

[lucy_kriemhild · 10/10 · 16 May 2003]

DESPISER is different--different in the way MOULIN ROUGE or TRON are stylized in their own unique looks. It's an arty genre film that rises above the ghetto of most direct to video horror releases. First impression, based on the cover art, you think it's a creature film. But it's much more-it's a dark imaginative fantasy. For a low budget video-flick, I found it refreshing, ambitious and original in its hyper-stylized look and computer generated imagery. The film is presented in broad strokes, exaggerated and operatic in audacity. The colors are brilliant; the action exaggerated; the pace brisk; the acting competent; the premise and sense of quest intriguing. Based on some the other comments I've read on the IMDB, perhaps it's just not cynical enough to appeal to today's jaded audience weened on hundred million pieces of entertainment. For me it had something to say that was presented in a unique way. It had a soul. I got it and I liked DESPISER.

Original premise, artistry and creativity make DESPISER a lot of fun!!!

[layninnyhaha · 2 May 2003]

OK, right up front, obviously extremely low budget. However, accepting, and forgiving that, this is an extremely well made and entertaining film. A good example of what artistic and creative filmakers can do, even without a big hollywood studio behind them.

I mean, what a unique and fresh premise!!! What would happen to aliens who died on Earth? That's what got me interested. I especially enjoyed the fantastic pergatory and the collection of heroes from various times. Great, original idea, with alot of potential!

The overall look reminded me of Babylon 5, with all the CGI, but it also conveyed this weird Wizard of OZ surreal, dreamlike feeling. I found it very intriguing. The pace moved quickly, the dialogue was witty and often funny and the plot was pretty simple to follow.

Although some may be turned off by low budget indie productions, I highly recommend DESPISER. It's just fun to watch, and that's what it's all about.

An imaginative and cool fantasy!

[lucy_kriemhild · 10/10 · 10 August 2004]

DESPISER is a wild little film. Made for almost nothing, I found it refreshing and innovative for its budget. I could easily have seen this as a main stream Hollywood flick with some star power and money behind it -- an imaginative and cool fantasy. It's certainly better than most of the shot on video features that liter the shelves of rental stores.

There is undeniably a lot to enjoy in Despiser. It's an ambitious project … Given its budget, it achieves much… I'd like to see what Phil Cook could do with some Hollywood resources or even some decent indie financial backing. If you like a fantasy adventure that's not cynical, has a lot of action and an fairly original storyline, check it out. If your in it just for T&A and blood and an gore, it won't be your cup of tea.