August Underground

I am not sure this would be classified as a 'true' horror movie. Instead, the horror in this movie lies in the fact that it is something 'new'; the somewhat of a shock you get because everything is so unexpected. For example, you are afraid of bugs, they are ugly and disgusting – Now imagine this bug in a different form. Maybe it has a different color and makes weird noises. You will remember this bug because it is so different, and the difference from other bugs you are used to makes it even more disgusting. This is how I would describe this movie.

The two main protagonists seem to consider themselves to be at the top of the food chain; the world is their playground and the people in it are there solely to be used for entertainment. The protagonists do everything in a really nonchalant way, and regardless of how friendly others are towards them, they always see them as objects rather than people. This is the biggest reason why I raised my eyebrows, and questions like 'What are they doing, and why?' popped up in my head.

At first, I was not really sure I wanted to watch this movie, because of what people said about it and how extreme it is. In all honesty, the movie is not that brutal and chaotic as I expected. The pure violence portrayed in this movie is not as out of this world as someone might expect. We are so desensitized to this type of extreme violence nowadays that we get to see hammers, chainsaws and axes being used to chop off this and that even in mainstream Hollywood movies. It is not the visual violence that is disturbing in August Underground, but the concept of it and the atmosphere. It is more connected to the real world than in other movies, and the fact that this actually can happen (and probably has) in the real world, together with the previously mentioned attributes makes this movie quite unique and disturbing in a way we rarely see.

OK, I heard about this series of films a while back, and read up on the director, the production company, what they have done since etc.etc. I don't really have a strong stomach for violence, but i do like to be shocked. And, to be honest, it took me a while to get round to picking this ( the trilogy ) up and preparing myself for what i'd heard was a pretty shocking ride. I was quite cautious putting it on, and expected to either turn it off or fast forward at some point. well, what a let down. Granted, it is pretty vicious, but not in a way that is going to disturb anyone, at least anyone of a reasonable disposition. I can only see anyone really enjoying this if they are using this purely as a means to fulfil some sort of need for pointless aggression, which is just what this film is, pointless. I have given it 3 stars, and that is purely down to some of the dialogue being, and i am sure many will disagree, quite witty, and i am sure it was not scripted at all. i can't believe there was a script involved in this full stop. Also, the apparent lack of motivation for any of the events in the film could be considered interesting if it were handled in a more professional fashion. I believe the director quotes 'Henry; as one of his prime influences, more precisely the home invasion scene. Well, that scene, and film in fact, is pretty shocking, and i'd recommend that over this a thousandfold. I can't quite work out what the director was aiming to achieve with this, because a certain connection with the situation, or characters, is required to engage the audience enough to care about what happens, and this just isn't the case. you don't care, you are just waiting for the next shocking thing to happen to see if it repulses you, and quite frankly it doesn't do that. I started to watch the sequel, which appears to have a far more sexual motivation, but had to stop due to having something better to do, and i don't think i'll bother watching the rest.

I don't think vogel is totally talentless. He can't direct, clearly can't script a film and his acting sucks ( there seems to be a pre-occupation with ridiculing victims because of their weight, when none are anywhere near as fat as he is, which is quite unfathomable ) but put him with a team of competent, talented film makers and i reckon you might get something really good out of him. Having said that, avoid this unless you really feel the need to watch it, i expect the reasons that most people would want to see it are because of the supposedly shocking and outrageous violence. Well, it isn't shocking, and neither is the sequel ( of what i have seen ), only a bit sad and misguided.

This is one of the more "famous" exploitation films of the new century. Too bad it sucks.

It's about a psychopath serial killer who is followed by his friend with a bad video camera, filming his every move. There is no plot - we just see Peter, the killer, roam around and act like a jerk and sometimes kill people.

The most shocking part of this movie is the first 15 minutes, when we see a girl who has been tied up and tortured. Her dead boyfriend is in a bathtub in the next room. It's a fairly effective use of gory special effects and a chilling example of the hidden lives of serial killers.

Once they leave their house for the first time, however, the movie falls apart. After that, they just turn into stereotypical frat boys who wander around and do immature pranks and annoy people. The script is stupid and unrealistic. I have never seen a movie go from disturbing to boring quicker than this one.

The acting is terrible. Peter, the main character, has a super annoying laugh that I guess is supposed to be psychotic, but just makes me want to turn the volume down. We never see the guy holding the video camera, which is good because he mostly just makes bad jokes and acts like he has low self-esteem. They are more believable as pathetic losers than hardened killers.

The lesson of this movie is that psychopaths are actually lonely frat boys who are desperate for friends.

Only the very hardest viewers need apply to this indie. It is the absolute closest thing to genuine snuff you will ever see. Far more unsettling and realistic than the over hyped Guinea Pig series. Obviously without the use of a simple tripod August Underground assaults the senses from the first minute to the last. The movie comes off as something found stowed away in the recesses of a twisted serial killer's private collection of home videos because the basic plot is two college aged psychos tape their carnage. The acting is amazingly real, the effects are nightmarish. What makes it so realistic is the amateur way it comes off, ironically. With bad blips of home editing, camera shots up in the air and unsteady and the absence of any opening credits it's hard to believe what you are seeing is a full fledged movie. The camera person never makes an appearance but his sick laughing at his victims along with childish banter with the one killer we do see makes this feel like a homemade episode of Jackass that enters the zone of murder.

This is not a movie that most people would be able to handle. It takes a strong stomach and a numbed mind for this truly is one of the most extreme and violent pieces ever to make it to video.

The "story" in this annoying little movie consists of home movies shot by one of two serial killers. The camera follows them around as they indulge in all manner of disgusting deeds, whether they're putting human victims through pure hell or just raising trouble in general. (For example, they act out inside a convenience store.)

Prefiguring the "torture porn" genre began by movies like "Saw" and "Hostel", "August Underground" works like a mash-up of "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" and "The Blair Witch Project", except that it *really* ups the ante in terms of extreme human depravity, and that it lacks any sort of craftsmanship whatsoever. It may be one of the most disgusting movies that this viewer has ever seen. Its fans may argue for its sense of immediacy, or the fact that it's so vivid and so committed to portraying filth on film. But it's still impossible to want to spend time with the characters here. Apparently, the movie *does* have some sort of script, by Allen Peters and director Fred Vogel, but it feels like it was ad libbed for its interminable 71 minute run time. The effects are plenty tacky, but still have the power to thoroughly distress an audience.

If one really wants to see a serial killer epic based in some sort of reality, they're much better off watching or revisiting "Henry".

Three out of 10.