Strippers vs Werewolves

Well, the title of this film might lead you to think that this is either really cool in a postmodern ironic sort of way or truly dire. It's worth watching just so you can make your mind up.

For me, it almost worked. Although some of the acting is poor, there are some good performances in here: Martin Compston (Red Road, Sweet 16, True North) is particularly good. Ali Bastian (Hollyoaks), Sarah Douglas (Superman), Charlie Bond (GBH) and Steven Berkoff (Clockwork Orange and about 100 things since) are all worth watching.

The soundtrack is spectacular: 20 original tracks with an 80s vibe from Sodajerker. That's not a Swedish band, it's a pair of guys from Liverpool whose work deserves to be in something more mainstream that this.

The plot actually makes sense, if you can follow it. A stripper manages to kill a werewolf with a silver fountain pen. His mates want revenge. Her colleagues put up a fight. Obviously there's a bit more to it than that.

The technical side is quite good, even though the pacing is all wrong. There's blood, nudity, some good lines. Above all it's very British. Reminded me of Shaun of the Dead. Not quite as good overall. But if it had been produced properly it would not have been far off.

And that title is brilliant.

There have been some really zany over the top horror comedies come along over the last few years bust most focused on the zombie craze with films like Shaun of the Dead, Zombieland, and Zombie Strippers, but finally someone has decided to bring in the werewolves in Strippers vs. Werewolves. Is there any chance that this will work or fall along the lines of the so many other failed horror films?

Strippers vs. Werewolves follow a pack of werewolves seeking revenge for the death of one of their own at a strip club. This is a silly movie, but not in a bad way. Is it good of course not, but it is fun. The reason this one works well is that while they are delivering a dark comedy, they manage to take themselves seriously for most of the film. This aspect makes the movie work a bit better than its title would lead you to believe. It's really not until the end confrontation in the film that things get a bit sillier. You get the feeling this was the silly nature it was headed towards which thanks to not going full on silly for most of the film makes it welcome, but could easily through some off. Most of the acting was pretty bad, but in this sort of movie you don't expect too much. They delivered the blood and gore horror fans want, but not near as much nudity as you would have expect, especially for a movie involving a strip club.

This is a bit of a silly movie, but if you can just sit back and have some fun it becomes just that, fun. Filled with some genre centric actors including Sarah Douglas (Superman 2), Barbara Nedeljiakova (Hostel series), and Robert Englund (Nightmare on Elm Street series) but don't be fooled, Englund is barely in the movie and serves little purpose other than his name recognition.

http://www.examiner.com/movie-in-dallas/bobby-blakey

This movie stinks on so many levels that you will be aghast at how it got made...

First the plot is so childish that I thought I was watching an episode of those creepy Chuckle Brothers with boobs and arse thrown in for good measure...

Next was the acting, considering that these actors were not complete amateurs and some have played some really good roles in both TV and film it was pitiful to see them floundering around in this film like kids in a school play with all the lack of context and amateurish line delivery of an 8 year old...

One of the things that makes good comedy is getting the timing right, one of the things about great comedy is getting the timing perfect, this film managed to deliver its gags (if you can call such ridiculous schoolboy humour gags) without any timing at all and the gags were too childish to be funny to adults and too filled with sexual meaning for kids to get them so I wonder who the target audience was supposed to be?

The effects were ridiculous, the script was ridiculous, the acting was well below par for those who took part, the direction was the only joke in this film (Except the joke at the paying audiences expense), the split screen cinematography was just bloody annoying and as for the trendy comic book images flashed up in place of action well the less said about that the better...

All in all this film failed both as a comedy, it certainly failed as a horror, in fact the only thing it succeeded in was as a documentary on how not to make a film...

I have just donated my time to something... A movie well I don't know that you could call it that... It was more like a 9 year old's fantasy. Not funny at all just embarrassing. I can't not put the word film in with the movie. I am sure the actors did their stuff well. I can't think of anyone who would have come out of this movie with any credibility. Dusk till Dawn its not. Buy some paint and watch it dry it's much, much more entertaining. The script is lame. There could have been some mileage in this piece. Maybe it ran out of budget. even the effects, bits of limbs, blood gore are like some one made them in school art class. They were neither realistic or silly enough to be funny. I am sure someone had fun when they made it. Its just the audience won't.

The versus movies in general got quite a high (though still no Gremlins versus Critters movie - or the other way around alphabetically or maybe even liking like) - and there are also a lot of movies with Strippers fighting of evil creatures too. Or bite back? Well I reckon you can make a lot of jokes and most of them are probably better than the ones in the movie.

Still there is fun to be had (and nudity and blood if you don't count them as fun in general) and this does not try to fool you into thinking it being something different than it actually is