Brutal

This movie is promoted on the DVD cover as "Hostel Meets The Silence of The Lambs"....all I can say is.... that is a stretch of proportionate means, however, it holds your interest due to its campiness. It would've been better had the movies taglines matched its content. The female deputy detects clues that a elementary school kid could've figured out.

Alfred Hitchcock once said a viewer must develop empathy with the characters to care about what happens to them. When watching this movie, you know who's next and you really don't care.

But, while the movie leaves a lot to be desired, I think the makers must've realized, one hopes, the lemon that they were handed and attempted to turn it into lemonade, but without the sugar. Think campy when/if you watch and its like watching Fargo over and over again. At first you're horrified, then all you can do is laugh. Don't expect it to be clever and you won't be so disappointed.

I've always been amazed with bad guy roles in movies such as this one. The film is called " Brutal " and that's what is inflicted on most of the eviscerated victims in the story. The role of the heavy is often a formula. He is efficient, methodical and clearly a danger to be feared. For nearly 3/4 of the film, the heavy is quite capable, fast, agile, dangerously adroit and highly proficient. Yet when he get's around to the leading lady, he suddenly can't seem to find his head with both hands. He's slow, sloppy and such a bungling artist, one wonders how he managed to become such a dark, lethal entity. There is much interest in this film as the star is none other than noted thespian of stage and screen, Jeffery Combs. His presence alone should have taken this B-Picture and made it into a classic. But as he draws second banana to Sarah Thompson, a sexy and slinky deputy sheriff, in tight fit clothes, his role is relegated to that of a corrupt, woman chasing, political candidate, bent on re-election. Combs plays Sheriff Jimmy Fleck, a married and mostly ambivalent lawman who's more interested in his image, than finding the maniacal killer in his town. That job falls to his deputy who's own emotions lead her to pursue her boss like a love-struck teen. So the task is left to Eric Lange, the town reporter and Leroy Calhoun (Michael Berryman) an autistic man with a team of lack-luster tracking dogs. If we try not to criticize this film too much, then the blood, the gore, the nudity and the mangled bodies, should keep one interested.**

well it ain't bad but ain't that good either - not a film i'm going to watch again thats for sure. if was expecting more of it since i heard that it should be quite good but naaa, think there's to many bad actress in this film, and it starts out showing who the " bad " guy is.the story isn't well told , after my opinion it jumps of the story if you know what i mean ....the basic story could be a very well movie, but i don't think the director has put it correctly together, it seems like he just wanted to make a movie fast and then get the money and then split out of business. it needs some that makes you bit you're nails of pure exiting , but in my case he didn't manage to do that. i don't see this film for a horror , but more like a horrorfest movie .....or u know a first timer

If I learned one thing from this movie, it is never judge a film by it's cover art, or critic blurbs.

The depicted killer looks like he would be cool to watch hacking and slashing his way threw his victims.

One problem. The killer on the cover is not in the movie. Another problem is the blurb reading ""Hostel meets the Silence of the Lambs in this Horrific Murder Mystery"".

I hate to break it to the reviewer, Stuart Alson, but this movie is no were close to the aforementioned films, is definitely not much of a horror film, and is not a murder mystery.

For me personally, this movie was very boring. It kept dragging on and on.

There was no mystery, they show exactly who the killer is from kill #1, and he is not the kind of person I would associate with a hack - and - slash film.

The kills were not creative at all. Very little was actually shown, and the blood & gore was minimalistic.

The acting was not so good. Some characters acted odd at times, while others gave a wooden performance.

Sound was OK for the most part, but the mics at times picked up the wind, and background noise ( air conditioners, traffic, e.t.c. ).

The lighting as I mentioned before, was not very well done, sometimes making it so dark it was hard to make out what was happening.

The special effects were limited to very basic stuff.

Over all this movie is not worth the time. I payed $3 for it new, but I feel like I was overcharged.

You know your in for a not so good movie when the opining cinematic for the companies, "Barnholtz" and "Wiseacre" are horrendous.

This is a real stinker.

For some reason I thought this was actually going to be a real movie. It was within the top 30 pre-leases on Amazon for the week it came out AND it starred one of my all time favorite actors- Jeffrey Coombs.

I had hopes. Hopes that were dashed against a stone within the first five minutes. Jeffrey and the villain had marginally believable characters, but just about everyone else made Denise Richards look like Laurence Oliver. They were just horrible. And not very pretty either. It wasn't like they sacrificed acting ability for looks. I've seen a LOT of bad acting- community theater, Troma movies, high school productions. This ranks below just about all of it.

Like the other reviewer stated, this is definitely an F movie.

The story is a joke as well, although you're so busy being amazed by how bad the acting is, it's hard to scrutinize the plot that closely.

On a happier note, this movie helped me to realize how good most of the stuff I watch is. After this, I'm much more appreciative of actors and their craft. Most actors, that is. Definitely not these.

As far as my fondness for Jeffrey Coombs goes... it's still pretty far up there, but not quite as high as it was.