Septic Man

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.

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.

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.

While trying to solve a town's water supply contamination problems, a sewage worker named Jack (Jason David Brown) slips and falls into a septic tank and over time begins to undergo a hideous transformation. He must also team up with a gentle giant (Robert Maillet) in order to confront his crazy murderer brother known as Lord Auch (Tim Burd). I'm just going to poot it out there and say that this film isn't very good. I wouldn't think one's expectations would be very high considering the film is called "Septic Man". Just to lighten things up, I will now to try to use as many toilet-related puns as possible in my review (I made one already if you didn't notice). Now just don't get the impression that you'll know what the film will be about after the first scene because it is just gratuitous in it's grossness, it just takes it down to gutter levels, and it just doesn't make any sense on its own. Don't expect any kind of plot or character development either. It's like the filmmakers flushed it down the toilet, never to be seen again. What you do end up seeing makes little to no sense and is hard to follow (at least I couldn't). They tried to introduce a subplot about some conspiracy being responsible for the contamination problem but they never really explored that. Also the scale of the crisis was only mentioned but never shown. Maybe they could have plunged those out. I thought the pacing of the film needed a few stool softeners as well so don't expect too much excitement either since most of the film occurs within said septic tank. With all that's been mentioned so far, it would not come as much of a surprise that the acting isn't too great either. It just started off bad and got worse as the film went on as the dialogue was laughably bad more often than not and the lead actor, Jason David Brown, was never able to convey a sense of danger that being trapped in a septic tank should have created. At least the makeup work done on Jack after the transformation, albeit exaggerated because I doubt it would have happened that way, was decent. If you thought the beginning was bad, trust me the end is even worse. It isn't too long either so you won't need too much toilet paper. This film is advertised as a horror film but I did not find it scary at all because I happen to be regular I do enjoy watching bad films on occasion just so I can enjoy their badness (as many do). This one was just a little too bad for my taste. Score: #2/10

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.