Murder-Set-Pieces

Murder Set pieces is a good horror/exploitation movie (but, by no means its "the most visceral movie" or whatever...). Its a psycho movie with torture, sex (good amount), naked chicks ( a lot and very hot babes), and a good amount of blood (but not a lot of gore). Its entertaining, the soundtrack is cool, the photography is a highlight compared to other movies of its kind (MSP is shot on 35 mm film) but its not a classic. I believe its a movie horror fans can enjoy if the expectations aren't too high ( a lot of hype surrounded this movie). 6/10 (i ve seen the "Unrated" version not the "R" that its now worldwide(?) released)

In Las Vegas, a sadistic and psychopath Nazi photographer (Sven Garrett) has sex and takes pictures of naked prostitutes first and then he kills his victims. His girlfriend Charlotte (Valerie Baber) does not suspect that he is a serial-killer, but her younger sister Jade (Jade Risser) is afraid of him.

"Murder-Set-Pieces" is an extremely violent movie with free sadism and brutality. Unfortunately there are practically only lots of gore and many naked women in erotic scenes in the plot. The bold director and writer Nick Palumbo does not spare even children from being murdered by the insane killer, but the flawed sick story does not develop the characters well and seems to have the only concern of showing graphic violence. Further, in spite of the murders, the police never chase the killer. There is only a cameo of Cerina Vincent and Tony Todd to give their names to the credit and lure the viewers. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Estripador de Las Vegas" ("Las Vegas Reaper")

Let me set the record straight, first and foremost—I am an enormous fan of the horror genre. I have never had more fun with any other type of film. There is nothing that I enjoy more than kicking back with a good scary movie.

I'll be honest. When I first heard about "M-S-P," I was a bit apprehensive about seeing it. Some of the reviews I'd read on its graphic content made me wonder if this was a film I should sit through. After all, this *was* the film titled the most "graphic and disturbing horror film ever made." I finally got my hands on an uncut copy a few months ago. I sat back with a good friend of mine and popped the disc in. As the film progressed, the two of us began to chuckle. Those small, child-like giggles soon turned into full on hysterical laughter. "M-S-P" is a film so laughably bad, the two of us couldn't believe our eyes.

What is called the most graphic and disturbing horror film ever made is nothing more than gore for the sake of gore, violence for the sake of violence, and vicious bloodshed for the sake of vicious bloodshed. That's not what the two of us found so funny. What we found so incredibly hilarious was the fact that this film was ever made in the first place. Who could've possibly been behind this pathetic drivel? Then, I stumbled upon the homepage and MySpace of writer/director Nick Palumbo. Oy vey. Where to begin? This is a man so positively hellbent on making a name for himself, it's actually downright sad and most of all, pathetic. Most of the hype around the film comes from him himself. *He* is the one calling this film shocking, disturbing, graphic, violent, terrifying. *He* is the one responsible for the public's knowledge about the film's content. *He* is the one claiming film labs refused to print it and the set was intruded upon by uniformed officers brandishing rifles and guns. He *wants* more than anything to go down in the books as the most controversial horror director in history.

If those are your aspirations, fine. If you have the talent to back it up, wonderful. Sadly, he does not. What he presents the audience with is a weak script that goes basically nowhere. There is no story arc, there is no character development, there is nothing but bloodshed. Most of the dialogue in the film makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is an incredibly poorly written script that must've been only about twenty pages long upon its completion. Mr. Palumbo does not care about story. He does not care about dialogue. He does not care about creating characters an audience can identify or even sympathize with. When a new character is presented, he or she (mostly she) is simply killed off. That's it. Time to move on to the next scene of vicious bloodshed. I felt absolutely no remorse for any of the characters getting the axe because they simply were not believable. This film contains some of the stiffest, forced performances I've ever seen, most of which came from Sven Garrett.

I read an incredibly poignant, smart, and honest review by film critic John Fallon that perceived the film as a "'Look at me, look at me! 9-11 footage! Look at me!' opus." Very true. Mr. Palumbo desperately wants you to look at him. He wants you to believe the film is all of the aforementioned adjectives. He wants you to believe he himself is sick and depraved. He is not. The film is not. It's just another pathetic film that tries way too hard and simply does not deliver.

I love horror movies and this was just terrible. It was ridiculous and an insult to the genre (and the audience). There weren't any good "jumpy" moments and the laughs we had were because of the things we whispered to each other because it was so bad. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't expecting this movie to change my life but I didn't think it would be awful- and it really was. I know reading a bad review of a horror movie wouldn't stop me from seeing one but after seeing this, I feel compelled to try. It was pretty bloody, but you didn't see a lot of the murders. There was a lot of badly implied violence and a lot of blood. I can't write a real critique about the movie because I don't really think of it as a real movie. The plot holes were enormous, the acting was terrible, blah blah, blah. I guess there is something to say about the fact that this managed to be a monotonous, boring slasher film. I have seen stupid slasher films- but not one that was so repetitive and yes- boring. I also agree with the other review that it was gross for it's own sake and shocking as well. Some of the things that I am sure are controversial (people murdered and images in his dreams)seem to just be there because they can be or to try and prove something. I don't think they worked at all and I was mad that he would use them in such a cheap way. Normally, I think any film that makes you feel anything this strongly has to have something redeeming in it. Not this one, it was 2 hours of my life completely wasted.

The good: So much hate and disgust amongst reviews and comments. The quality of this film's gore is beautiful, so much so it's actually unrealistic. To truly cause trauma you must be more realistic, this film got so carried away (I've been a Paramedic for most my life, believe me nobody bleeds this much). The acting was sound, camera quality was great, lighting did justice in all aspects, clearly the "quality" of the film was excellent.

Where the film fell short There is literally no plot. In 5 sentences (or less) I could explain everything that the film depicts / offers. When a film goes through the effort to cross as many lines as this, and dares to approach certain taboos, a purpose is quite necessary. After an hour I found myself checking how much time was left becusae I was bored. (Though I am left wondering, did the director actually expose an infant to the graphic scenery/treatment that was depicted? Movie or not, those cries seemed quite authentic.) Also the music production team couldn't have done a worse job.

If you went through the trouble of seeking this out, as I did, you must be a fan of extreme horror. Which this film certainly is. If this isn't your style, go back to your Hollywood horror or another genre you can stomach. But really, with the cover artwork and plot as described, what did you expect?

6/10