Muck (2015)

If you don't try to look for logic or a fluid storyline this movie is very enjoyable. It doesn't really have a plot, a beginning or even an ending but that's partly why I enjoyed it. I've read reviews that criticise the acting but I don't agree. It is very stylized and the comic acting is intentional. It's not pretending to reflect real life situations or characters. Yes, there is plenty of nudity but I thought it was done very sexily without being pornographic. To me this film has the potential to become a cult classic. It wouldn't make good reading but visually it is a lot of fun. If you are looking for a good story or a mystery then don't bother. If you just want comic book style entertainment this movie hits the spot.

This is dreadful. A 'skin-flick' laced with sardonic dialogue and crazy, horny teens for whom taking selfies is a way of life and every line is a sexual innuendo. Classy it isn't, but even as a soft-core film, it lacks the courage to provide anything in the way of titillation that isn't 'cleverly' masked by shadows, shower curtains or foliage. Here is a world where everyone aspires to look and act in exactly the same way and casually roll off identical low-brow dialogue.Perhaps it is novel for a film featuring such cutesy smart-arses to begin when the youngsters have already suffered some unspeakable horror and are searching through the night for sanctuary, because that is how this kicks off. We don't know why the scantily-clad youngsters are in the middle of a woodland (even though it transpires they are actually seconds away from suburbia) or what manner of jeopardy they have suffered. Who cares? Not the people behind this bore-fest. After finding an empty house in which to shower and continue to drink (clearly these are priorities), the second male of their number (I'm not sure they even have names, although I heard one called Billy at some point) heads to a bar five minutes away to call for help, but gets side-tracked by yet more rampant girl teens.A joke is attempted. When one teen says to another he's 'At Wes Craven (the name of the bar, I think)', his friend says, 'Wes Craven? Used to be cool but now … eeeeeeewww.' Apparently this is a spoof of 1980's horror 'flicks'. But it really isn't. There's nothing remotely funny here, there's no concept of story, no reasoning for anything, no pretence at the first level of making the viewer want to continue watching beyond the repeated lame nudity teases. It's the worst film I've seen for a very long while and just exists to fill the running time with no discernible lack of talent on display (and yet it appears to be adequately budgeted and directed.Couldn't the money have been spent on something else?) Even the special effects, never called on to do much, fail to convince, with only gurgling sound effects laid over the soundtrack to let us know that a gore scene is being attempted. More fulfilling to simply watch some straightforward pornography and miss out on the stilted, unfunny drivel in between repeated cleavage shots. Awful.

MUCK is an appropriate title indeed for this cheap, mucky, no-budget horror wannabe. The film starts off as if it's halfway through the plot of a different film, with a group of survivors escaping through the swamps and being pursued by some nameless evil. What follows on is more of the same: characters bickering, exchanging insults and profanities, and being killed one by one by some weirdo types.Oh, and I forgot to mention the nudity. With at least a couple of Playboy Playmates in the cast, this is a film all about the nudity. Random characters parade in front of mirrors and strip out of their bras at regular intervals. The sheer scuzziness of it has to be seen to be believed. It gives the film a really sleazy feel which is about the only thing it does have going for it.Elsewhere, it's a poorly-edited and misconceived monstrosity, wasting the talents of an effective-looking Kane Hodder playing one of the villains. Hodder enlivened the likes of the HATCHET trilogy but is sorely wasted here, although he's the only actor I liked in the whole thing. Cheap gore effects and incessant action only serve to induce a headache in the viewer.

First off, having read the majority of the previous reviews for this film, it's obviously not everybody's cup of tea. That said, I thought I'd give it a go anyway & have to say that I'm glad I did. I struggle to understand how this film has such a low rating from so many reviews?!?! The film is full of clichés & gratuitous nudity & to be fair it does feel as though the first 20 minutes of the film are missing. But it didn't take me long to pick up what was happening & I thought the mix of comedic moments & gratuitous gore/nudity were great. It's a fun, tongue in cheek, horror film. If you want serious horror, it's not for you. If you're going to sit there & ask yourself why a man whose friends have been brutally murdered has stopped at a bar for a drink, or to perv on a half naked woman whilst he's searching for help, it's not for you. If you want a silly, over the top, blood/gore/T&A fest, give it a go. You won't be disappointed. Personally, I loved it & eagerly await a sequel.