Septic Man

I cannot for the life of me fathom some of negative reviews. I guess people don't go for something this far out of the horror mainstream, or something. I *loved* this movie. I see it as like a giallo film, but an especially brilliant one. Yes, it has its flaws, points where they don't even bother to try to hide the artifice, and the ending was probably its weakest point (except perhaps for that totally unnecessary first scene, which seems completely tacked- on and should just be fast-forwarded through.) It doesn't matter. Every horror movie that has ever had artistic aspirations has just been blown out of the water. This is like the "Delicatessen" or "City Of Lost Children" of horror movies. It's absurd and surreal and artificial in places and stretches the boundaries of credulity here and again and is above all pretty unique, which is fitting considering it was the same writer as "Pontypool", another flawed but extraordinary gem that is similarly unique and creative enough to be well worth seeing despite some of the weak spots.

Needless to say that I had never actually heard about this 2013 movie titled "Septic Man" prior to sitting down to watch it. And from the movie's synopsis, I believed that I was in for a horror movie here. And thus, of course I opted to watch what writer Tony Burgess and director Jesse Thomas Cook had to offer.

The storyline in the movie was bizarre and rather out there, making "Septic Man" a somewhat acquired taste. Personally I found the movie's script and storyline to be a tad too boring, because there wasn't really a whole lot happening throughout the course of the 87 minutes that the movie ran for, except for the slow deterioration of Jack, as he was trapped in the septic tank. And that, for me personally, just wasn't sufficient contents to carry a movie. So writer Tony Burgess didn't really manage to conjure up something that fell into my taste of movies.

While the movie didn't exactly have a big cast ensemble, I was only familiar with actors Julian Richings and Stephen McHattie. The acting performances in the movie were fair, when taking into consideration the limitations imposed by the script and storyline.

The effects in the movie are good, and I do like the way that the deterioration of Jack was shown on the screen. But the effects were hardly enough to carry the movie.

And now that I have watched the movie, I can tick it off as watched, and I will never return to watch the movie a second time. The movie just simply didn't have enough contents to support more than one viewing, as it was struggling with contents for the first viewing by itself.

My rating of "Septic Man", from director Jesse Thomas Cook, lands on a three out of ten stars.

Before I begin, I am not connected to this movie in any way (check my other 100 or so reviews and you'll see) but I need to make that clear before I give it the review Im about to (in case Im accused of that).

Firstly, this film has got nothing to do with The Toxic Avenger which another reviewer here seems to think it should have been (?), Im really not sure why that is. Maybe he just reads a movie title and decides what its going to be about by that, but I really don't think thats a smart way to approach cinema and I (for one) am so glad it wasn't some terrible flick by the cheesemongers at Troma as its miles above their output in terms of quality.

The film opens with an outbreak of a water-born disease where a sewage system worker (hes known as the septic man as its a logo on his van) is approached to find the source and deal with it given an offer of a large sum of money. He enters the underground tunnels soon after, and quickly finds himself locked into a tank underground, where his problems really begin.

While the singular elements of Septic Man may not be original on their own, what is original and fresh is how they're strung together. Be advised that this is NOT a horror comedy, in fact its quite dark, twisted, and disturbing at times, with a grim harsh plot running most of the way through. Its written by Tony Burgess, who also wrote the fantastic Pontypool (2008) and its likely if you found that slow going then this movie might not suit you either. Luckily many horror fans have progressed beyond watching a man in a mask chase teens through a forest however so we welcome anything with a modicum of the different. And I loved this film, in fact its quickly moved into my top ten horror films of the year along with the likes of Under The Skin, Found, The Borderlands, Dead Snow 2 etc.

I suggest you go into Septic man not thinking you know what its about, and if you have the ability to watch a film while enjoying a build up in tension and story without it all being laid on a plate for you I think you'll love it. I have to say I was very pleasantly surprised. There have been so many mediocre horror films this year (Lord of Tears, Cross Bearer, The Cemetery etc) that its great when something comes along you thought might just be another. Septic Man is indeed a great new horror film that's an asset to the genre and one long standing horror fans (30yrs for me) will enjoy.

I liked it and give it good marks for originality story wise. It's got a low score on IMDb but I think thats mostly because of people expecting something else out of it like a serious version of "The Toxic Avenger" or a horror/comedy. Overall I enjoyed the movie although it could have been so much more. It's played a little slow and it's a very drab and depressing scenario. Don't go into it expecting a wild ride or a terrifying revenge flick. Over all I liked it but thought it fell a little short of what it could have been. It's the kind of movie some will love and others will claim was a waste of time. Definitely worth a watch.

The effects were good. You could almost smell the sewer. Some comedic moments were appreciated - the teeth sharpening scene and when the guy was talking to his ear. I was disappointed he didn't develop any super powers.

He would make a comic book character. I think boys especially would appreciate the constant references to bodily waste. It would also satisfy their questions about what happens when something / someone gets flushed down the toilet.

The final scene appeared to be an afterthought, and could have been added earlier in the storyline.

This movie is way more watchable than Terry Gilliam's Tideland, which is disturbing, to say the least.