Vulgar

When I first saw this movie I thought the same as many others, "oh wow it's View Askew it has to be funny!" Boy was I wrong... The beginning of the movie was amusing but it quickly turned dark and twisted. The plot line was intriguing and unique. The actors were wonderful, they portrayed their characters so well. No one else could have played Flappy the Clown, he was so realistic ^_^. The emotion in this movie was so raw and deep, you wanted to reach out and kill some of the characters. It was interesting and it held your attention the whole time, I rather enjoyed it, beyond the scariness. Very well done, the atmosphere, the characters, the plot line, all air tight and fantastic.

This movie was the worse thing I had ever seen.. Not only very disturbing but no plot to it and the actors were of no talent.. A huge waste of money and time. There was nothing to hold our interest.We didn't even finish the movie.. Going to work was more appealing than being home watching this.

Vulgar is just that. A cheap, nasty but reasonbly watchable exploitation movie of the type that was being made in the late 70's. Sort of a less existential "Driller Killer". The film also has the sort of flatness and flabbiness that characterised much of this type of film.

The sorry tale of Flappy the clown and his treatment at the hands of a bunch of sickos isn't the greatest of stories and there are some agonisingly boring scenes but it is enthusiastically made with a caustic misanthropic eye.

The greatest controversy will doubtlessly be about the rape scene and its perpetrators. These three guys aren't gay - the father is shown as married with a kid and it is his two sons he commits his terrible crimes with. These are a family of psychopaths who delight in homophobic cruelty. "Lets make hate" Dad says as he begins his abuse of Flappy. For a viewer to automatically label the twisted protagonists gay is wrong. They are psychopathic rapists not gays.

The film raises some interesting questions but it just doesn't have the panache to answer them. Unlike "Happiness" and "Contre Seul Tout" there doesn't seem to be much thought behind the provocative nature of the film and certainly the filmmaking isn't as accomplished. A possible cult item of the future but far from an essential view

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."

I was warned before watching this movie not to expect the comedy style seen in previous View Askew movies. What I wasn't told was not to expect the same level of writing, acting, directing or camera work. This was a painfully inept movie to watch. Bad lighting, horrible dialogue, and just atrocious acting. The rape scene was more than a little disturbing and dragged on and on, much like the film as a whole. I would recommend this film only to people interested in never getting 90 minutes of their life back. It's no wonder the documentary "In Defense of Dogma" was included on the DVD. It's the only part worth viewing.