The Demolisher

Going ballistic might never have felt better for some, but it also might have never felt worse. Putting on an angry face and venting is not "acting" enough to convey emotions of an extreme caliber like that. If you're willing to cut the movie some slack on that, you might have more to be entertained with, but the overall notion of low quality acting, will not help its cause.

Especially when trying to be complex, while keeping it simple. The stunts are pretty decent for a low budget movie, but it seems to go nowhere. The ending will just enhance that dreadful feeling you already had. And not in a good way either. Maybe the filmmakers can come up with something good in the future, this right here, will not cut it for most people

Just the thought that they compared the director to John Carpenter, Michael Mann and Walter Hill is almost criminal. The dialogue and slow motion scenes are laughable at best. I would not recommend this film at all!!!! The people who gave this movie great reviews shod have their heads examined. I am one of the biggest supporters of indie film and this movie does nothing but make me mad. I wish I could "Demolish" the film negative so nobody has to sit through the longest 85 minutes of my life. I can't believe how many times they used slow motion for all their fighting scenes!!! The shots of Downtown Toronto were just so amateurish and I have never questioned so many scenes in a movie like "Why is he doing this?" or "Why the hell did that happen?". The funniest part is the acting in this movie and I'm pretty sure this was never intended to be comedic in any way. You know a movie is headed for trouble when the audience openly laughs at a physically challenged character crawling to their loved one who just tried to kill an innocent woman...

The camera work is impressive in some areas, capturing unique perspectives, but that's not the problem with this film. The problems, actually, are what follows.

Where did all these reviews plastered on the poster come from? Are you kidding me? Who needs dialogue when you have long (to the point of awkward) actors and actresses staring off into nothing? We didn't need a plot, because: REASONS Nothing really made sense in this film, outside the fact that the lead antagonist was clearly insane.

The "violence" and "brutality" of this movie was very boring and simple. No real structure to the action, so it's selling itself as a boring trip.

If you want to see what a slow burning thriller should be like, watch A History of Violence. This film seems to attempt that kind of portrayal of a vigilante, but really, it's a failure of a horror film, shot in a way to show the perspectives of both cat and mouse, and boy are they both dull.

I gave it a 2 for the camera work being impressive, like I said, but I'd rather regurgitate a full grown cat than watch this again.

Perhaps the worst movie ever made.

If you can avoid wasting a precious hour and a half of your life watching this horrible piece of garbage please do so.

There are many art films that include violence, and this pretends to be of that ilk but it fails miserably.

Nothing realistic. Nothing resembling reality in this universe.

Done as a B-movie. Presented as a series of vignettes, sometimes with art movie overtones. Extremely violent towards the end.

The direction of the film felt a little amateurish. Did not splice the two story lines in a convincing way. The violence was over the top. The dialogue was disappointing. That said, the cinematography was good.

A policewoman is crippled after she intervenes in a ritual sacrifice. Her husband is deeply disturbed by her anguish and frequent nightmares. He dresses up in riot police armour, stalks and brutally beats the gang members.

In the end, he is so traumatized by the violence that he goes berserk. Does not end well.

It was unfortunate that the editor put in an up-beat ending. Quite unnecessary. Cannot recommend the film.