Vulgar

I have the stomach for the more brutal scenes in this movie (they're not too far removed from the "Zed's basement" scene in Pulp Fiction, after all), but definitely not for the shabby plot and the weak supporting actors (OK, also the headliners). I wanted to see this movie out of morbid curiosity, and expected little other satisfaction than that from it. I was not disappointed in the depth of my disappointment. I support the effort that went into attempting what must have semed like an interesting story, but more effort was needed and better actors. AND MORE REWRITES.

OK, specifics. "William/Flappy" is simply unbelieveable in his reaction to his attack, as is his friend's reaction to his recounting of it. Except we were primed for this lack of credibility early in the movie when "William/Flappy" got the whole transvestite clown idea in the first place.

Also, there are completely unnecessary distractions throughout the movie. Examples: the abrasive waitress, the abusive drunks, William's overacting bitch of a mother (her bit of scene chewing was more appropriate for an early John Waters movie, and even he wouldn't suffer such silliness now). The erstwhile TV host who interviews Flappy is completely miscast, and would have been better served as one of the supernumerary homeless guys laced throughout the movie.

The movie made me angry, for wasting my time and for being so ill-conceived in its plot that even Raelians couldn't suspend disbelief long enough to take it half-seriously. Perhaps every moviemaker has a "Vulgar" in their background.

OTOH - I'm not recommending against anyone renting "Vulgar," but I am guaranteeing you a bad time when you do. Some people want to see everything Kevin Smith has touched/been affiliated with. They should rent Vulgar. The DVD has a bonus feature on the fecal meteorology unleashed upon "Dogma," while it was being made so, to paraphrase Carl the groundskeeper, "It's got that going for it." I would be interested to know if anyone else has noted the persistent lack of synchronization between this movie's sound and picture - something that made an unpleasant viewing that more "memorable."

I just finished a movie that took me a long time to finally see. I had wanted to see if for a while, but due to many disturbing reviews I backed off. Until tonight when I popped it in and decided to see for myself how messed up this movie would be. There is no mistaken it, this movie is Vulgar and what you will and will not see is disturbing. Maybe it's because my mind prepared me for the worst case scenario, but it was not as grossest as I thought it would be. Don't get me wrong the invasion and rape of Brian O'Halloran's character is very hard to watch at times. They do a good job of not only making this messed up storyline, but actually building a real storyline with substance.

This movie is not for everyone. That is for damn sure. Most View Askew fans will probably check it out just because they want to see the old familiar gang in yet another movie. We get to see the useless existence of a man who is a kid's clown. He lives in a run down home in a beat up neighborhood. He wants to make something of himself, when he comes up with a scheme. It goes terribly wrong and his life is flipped upside down. We get to see him pull his life together again and make something of himself, when slowly the skeletons leak out of the closet and the madness begins. Even Kevin Smith and Jason Mewes show up in this movie.

Inclosing, if you think you can deal with a movie exploring topics like rape and violence then check out this movie. If you don't have a stomach for that, you might just want to take a pass.

by Dane Youssef

Bryan Johnson shows amazing talent and depth as a first-time greenhorn filmmaker. There's more than just one worthwhile film here. There's two.

"Vulgar" plays out like a scrappy, slapped-together little campy comedy and then shifts wildly into much darker territory. And then back again. And back...

Johnson seems to have a natural wild indie touch and while it has touches of some of the darkest nature ever uncovered on the screen, it also has some nice Jersey-blue collar comedy.

Now here's a movie Tarantino would enjoy. It's kinda like a soup. It plays out like a stew of movies, styles and ideas. European avant-garde cinema, indie film and campy, low-budget comedy. It's a shame this movie didn't play in Europe and France. Or college kids. This is the kind of thing they all gobble up.

I'm glad I bought a copy. It gives me hope as an aspiring filmmaker... and joy and thrills as a movie-lover who loves off-kilter stuff.

Brian O' Halloran is touchingly determined and vulnerable as the clown. He scrapes out a meager existence as a "party whore" and lives in his hovel of a home, living on s**t-wages, barely making ends meet. His landlord is understanding and sympathetic and lets him "mow the lawn or do some maintenance" and knocks off a few.

Ethan Suplee and Matt Mawer are effective and creepy as his inbred and mentally-retarded sons who seem to have been phoned right out of "Deliverence."

Jerry Lewkowitz is just plain frightening and disturbing as Ed Fanelli. With his portly beer-belly, bug-eyes, raspy voice and bad wig that looks like a little boy's hair. I heard that the inspiration for this character was Dennis Hopper in "Blue Velvet," one of the scariest villains (or any kind of characters) to pop up on any kind of cinema in history.

The rape sequence with Will is just horrifying. It outdoes the whole scene in "Blue Velvet" and literally makes you BELIEVE and FEEL what this poor guy who just wants to entertain little kids is feeling.

The morning after where he has his emotional breakdown is just as strong. Will confides in Syd about the whole evening and Syd begs him to go to the cops, but Will swears him to secrecy. These scenes all shows strength, talent and feeling with both O' Halloran's acting and Johnson's directing.

Johnson himself, like Tarantino and producer Kevin Smith, once jockeyed in a video store. He gives the movie the flavor of a lot of low-budget films and masters past. He gives some "Kevin Smith" flavor in the dialouge and the juice of other great filmmakers', but he also gives it his own signature style. You'd have to see it to know what I mean.

Johnson has never been within 200 miles of a film school, so he seems to have gotten all of whatever film education and knowledge from Smith and Mosier.

You can tell Johnson is emulating Smith as a filmmaker, like the film's dialouge has an overwritten, over-articulate Kevin Smith-ness to it. Not to mention Smith's one-shot camera set-up. Still, there are moments that generate pain beyond words and conversation that Smith has never shown us.

And anyway, this is NOT a Kevin Smith film. I love the man, but this is another cup of tea altogether. Many will see because of the "Kevin Smith" name on the marquee. Which means they;ll be in for some serious shock and disappointment.

Johnson's only real mistake, in my opinion (and this is one that hurts the movie more than anything else) is his decision to act in it as the clown's only friend. You see why Smith only gave him bit-parts as Steve-Dave. He's no actor. He tends to mumble a lot of the time.

Look, read the other "user reviews" on IMDb about Johnson's "Vulgar." Listen to them describe it. YOU know if it's the movie for you. It all depends on your taste. Go to the site's OFFICIAL WEB PAGE and read the interview with Johnson. After hearing him, does it sound like your type of movie?

All in all, this is a hell of a debut. I liked Johnson's different stories and juggling them all at once. Comedy, drama, horror, working-class stories...

And at the center of it all, View Askew's poster boy--Flappy the Clown.

Have you ever wondered the real story about that clown? Here it is...

Don't see this because Kevin Smith produced it. See it because this is your taste. Read the reviews. Does this sound like your brand of poison? You know who you are.

SPECIAL NOTE: Jerry Lewkowitz deserves particularly special acclaim. Speaking as someone who has seen far more than his share of movies, Lewkowitz is the most frightening villain I've ever seen.

And as Ed Fanelli, he should be placed next to Michael Rooker in "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" and Charlize Theron in "Monster." His role as the horrifying Ed Fanelli will stay with you to the grave...

--A Vulgar Movie Fan, Dane Youssef

I was warned before watching this movie not to expect the comedy style seen in previous View Askew movies. What I wasn't told was not to expect the same level of writing, acting, directing or camera work. This was a painfully inept movie to watch. Bad lighting, horrible dialogue, and just atrocious acting. The rape scene was more than a little disturbing and dragged on and on, much like the film as a whole. I would recommend this film only to people interested in never getting 90 minutes of their life back. It's no wonder the documentary "In Defense of Dogma" was included on the DVD. It's the only part worth viewing.

This would have to be one of the more disturbing movies i've ever seen, but, i liked it. I mean of course I didn't like the raping sequences but the plot was pretty good, and it starred Dante from Clerks, and it has some funny lines in it. Yes, it's not my favorite movie, probably not top 50, but it was still pretty good. Not for children.