Avis des utilisateurs

Thought i well let people know (Warn) about Strippers v Werewolves, as i went to the premiere last night in London. The UK is brilliant at making Horror Comedies (Think Dog Soldiers & Shaun of the dead) However this isn't one of them. This film has 3 good points - A couple of great cameos (Alan Ford & Robert Englund) The nerdy vampire killer boyfriend (Hillarious at the end) and the end scene as the 4 strippers in stockings and suspenders dressed as little red riding hood. But even these 3 great point aren't enough to save this shocking(ly bad) film.

Let me start by saying what annoyed me the most, The soundtrack. I think it was supposed to be a new take on 80's new romantic era, but it was just awful. The cinema was full of cast and friends of friends, I can only assume the soundtrack was done by one of these as a favour. As i said earlier, it is build as a horror comedy, Although it had a few laughs, i cant remember one moment that i actually jumped (unlike Dog Soldiers) Cheesy lines, horrific acting in places & and some strippers that weren't even that good looking. I was hoping for a UK version of Zombie Strippers and got something that wouldn't be a miss on one of those free to air horror channels on sky.

Ali Bastian was decent in it, However i feel it probably won't do much for her career (Maybe she just had some bills to pay) Adele Silva actually looked better in person than on film, where she just looked like a bulldog sucking on a thistle. The make up was so bad, i can only assume it was done by make up students learning they're trait. The funniest point of the night was the end of the film when everyone applauded, thats when the lights came up and i realised everyone except me had a cameo in the film! Wait until it gets shown on channel 4 at 1am some when and try to stay awake for Robert Englund's 10 minute cameo. 4/10.

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

A very British, ultra low budget film with a sprinkling of famous faces - albeit most are from UK soap operas. Directed by Jonathan Glendening and written by Pat Higgins and Phillip Baron, this 2012 film is rated 15 and has a runtime of 93 minutes. It is rated as Action, Comedy and Crime but also borders on supernatural horror too.

The plot is simple but conceivable, in a weird kind of way anyway; a stripper accidently kills a werewolf with a silver fountain pen. His friends, the rest of the pack, want their revenge. It is up to colleagues, friends, and clientele of the stripper to fight off the bloodthirsty werewolves.

I am not going to mess around and try and jazz this film up, I knew what I was getting myself into with this film, and the title of the film also set my expectations too, but this film, well - it was just bad. I usually like bad b-movies, but even by that standard this is really really bad. The acting is terrible; the script and dialogue is cringy; the make-up, effects and prosthetics are cheap; the soundtrack was awful; it wasn't funny (and it was supposed to be); the pacing was terrible... wait, I've used that descriptive word before... let's go with the pace was on par with a bumpy, pot hole covered road that was only partially built and required detours for no reason. What I am ultimately getting at, in case it was not obvious, is that this is a poor film.

With how bad the film was I was surprised at some of the faces that are in it, some from UK soap opera, some from the world of film. Ali Bastian, Adele Silva, Martin Compston, and Billy Murray all have experience in various soap operas. Martin Kemp, Alan Ford, Steven Berkoff, Lysette Anthony, and Robert Englund all have big film experience. With a cast this rich I was really expecting to see something a lot better than I got to experience. This felt like a cheap rip-off of 2008's "Zombie Strippers", which is pity because Britain is usually a strong player in the comedy-horror market with some really great tongue in cheek blood splatter films. This, unfortunately, had very few redeeming qualities and I can see this being quickly forgotten by audiences and probably the cast themselves too. I am not basing my review on a single viewing; I watched this in 2012 when it came out, and I have re-watched it in 2020 when I wrote this review. The film stunk almost ten years ago, and its fragrance has not improved since then.

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.

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.

I am a big fan of independent cinema and bought this film straight away. I was impressed by similar style films such as the Robert Englund staring Zombie Strippers but this film lacks in every way. The scene at the start of the film showing a night club has some of the worst cgi lighting effects ever put on film. The cinematography is appalling the film looks like it was shot on camcorders in a drama room of a college. In the modern day and age of dslr cameras and colour treating software this is inexcusable. The editing makes the established actors look like they are reading from scripts. The named stars of the film are in it for a few Min's probably collecting a pay cheque whilst attending a film convention. The makeup effects are cheap looking. The girl who is in shock at the killing of Martin Kemps character possibly gives the worst performance ever recorded in film. The pacing of the film is all over the place. it drags and attempts to be funny but fails miserably. So what is good about the film? The opening credits. they look great. If you want to see how a good British film in the same style is done watch Doghouse or Severance or even Lesbian Vampire Killers. Black and Blue films could be the saviour of British horror but if the upcoming films are as bad as this they will become Britain's answer to Full Moon.

I won't beat around the bush. The acting is horrible, the script risible, the makeup and prosthetics are dire and probably the least said about the plot the better. With the number of ex-soap actors in it, perhaps it's not surprising that the film seems to derive much of it's inspiration and ethos from Crossroads and El Dorado. Put simply, it's bad. I guessed that from the title. What surprised me is that it manages to cross that line from 'bad' to 'so bad it's good'. I'll admit I didn't know it was supposed to be a comedy when I watched it and I wouldn't have guessed they were trying to be intentionally funny, but looking on it as a (bad) horror - it was hilarious. I nearly gave it an 8.

It takes a special kind of talent, to take a concept so simple, and do nothing good with it. Those who say you can't expect much from a film with a title like "strippers vs werewolves"... why not? Why can't I expect a film to deliver quality regardless of it's premise? There is no character here to be found, and that is where the film is doomed from the very beginning. We can't get emotionally invested or attached to anyone. What infuriates me the most is the number of positive reviews, that having now looked at more closely, were probably friendly in some way with the production. When will people learn that fabricating opinions to get viewers to watch something you know to be bad, will only create negativity towards your work? Every aspect of this production, from the fake reviews, to the famous faces cameos, reeks of "get people to pay to see it, worry about the quality later". That is unacceptable. Respect your audience, or face the consequences. Don't hide behind the title as some sort of defence for being able to lower the bar. You didn't lower the bar. You put the bar on the floor.

From the title alone it's safe to say that one will have low expectations, but low-grade schlock still has plentiful promise for cheeky, ridiculous entertainment if there's enough wit and earnest effort behind it. I don't think that this is the case with this movie, however. The concept is delightful. There are a handful of recognizable names and faces in the cast, and I trust that those of less renown would prove themselves if given the chance. Very, very rarely, irregularly and infrequently, the film can claim slivers of cleverness, almost eliciting a laugh. The basic hair and makeup work is swell, and any tangible blood and gore look good. This, unfortunately, is where my praise of 'Strippers vs werewolves' ends.

Too much of the attempted humor specifically, and the writing generally, is pointlessly crude and cheap, if not puerile, obnoxious, and empty-headed. There is little to no tact or nuance to be found anywhere in this picture - at best, so minimal as to be effectively meaningless - and wide swaths of it are emphatically overdone, glaring to the point of blowing past any novelty and being altogether painful. The latter word applies above all to the deeply imbalanced sound design, and slightly less to the production values at large. Yet the sheer gawky, club-footed inelegance and artlessness pervade this feature down to every last aspect: editing, cinematography, direction, sound effects, production design, art direction, props, costume design, special makeup, post-production effects and graphics, acting, lighting, music, dialogue, characters, scene writing, narrative, plot development, pacing, and so on, and so on. Even just the broad vibes that this tries to inculcate, those of comedy, horror, action, or eroticism, fall absolutely flat.

All this rottenness might theoretically be baseline acceptable were 'Strippers vs werewolves' not just a horror-comedy, but an abject parody thereof. Yet, again, we return to the problem of this being nowhere near smart enough, or cunning enough, to achieve any measurable value. As if to illustrate the point, I don't think I so much as cracked a smile beyond the first third of these oafishly long ninety minutes. In fairness to the cast and crew, no doubt their contributions (not least the look of the lycanthropes) were shaped by the intent and design of the director, writers, and producers; they did their jobs well, I trust, within the bounds that were set for them. If that's true, though, then it only means that those overseeing the production are to be condemned all the more for forcing their participants into such small, tawdry, worthless corners. So utterly scarce is any trace of fun herein that the end result can only be described as hopelessly tedious.

I'd rather completely hate a movie than be completely bored by it. I am bored by 'Strippers vs werewolves.' The most that I can say for it is that it had a chance of being genuinely enjoyable, and there are ideas scattered sparsely throughout the runtime that represent a fleeting spark of ingenuity. For such possibility, I want to say I like this more than I do. For lack of vibrancy, however, and discretion, and intelligence, I'm probably already being too kind in my assessment. Whatever it is you think you're going to get out of this, I regret to inform that you're mistaken. There are many other films you could be watching instead, so please save yourself the trouble of this one.

More like a London gangster film than a horror movie. 'Underworld' gave us Dominatrixes vs. Werewolves presented rather solemnly. Here we get dirtier talk (naturally), brighter colours, frenetic pacing (including lot of flashy burst-wipes), sixties-style split screen, and a sense of fun.

It does rather go on, and strippers dressed as schoolgirls are a poor substitute for Kate Beckinsale in PVC. But the cast is game and for those of us with fond memories of Sarah Douglas as the evil Ursa in 'Superman III' it's good to see her back playing the film's resident Queen Bee.

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

I recently watched Strippers versus Werewolves (2013) on Tubi. The plot revolves around a strip club where a werewolf is killed, prompting his pack's vengeful arrival. Can the strippers, responsible for the initial werewolf's demise, handle his pack?

Directed by Jonathan Glendening (Summer Rain), the film stars Martin Compston (Line of Duty), Ali Bastian (Who is Alice), Billy Murray (The Bill), Barbara Nedeljakova (Hostel), and Sarah Douglas (Superman).

The movie's highlights include cameos by Robert Englund (A Nightmare on Elm Street) and Alan Ford (Snatch). However, aside from copious topless scenes, there's little redeeming about this film. The werewolves appear absurd, the kills lack excitement, and the humor often falls flat. There's not much substance to appreciate here.

In conclusion, Strippers versus Werewolves is a disappointing addition to the horror genre, primarily noteworthy for its gratuitous nudity. I would give it a 2/10 and recommend skipping it.

Strippers vs Werewolves (2012)

** (out of 4)

British mix of comedy and horror about a stripper who kills a werewolf whose colony then comes from revenge. This means that the entire strip club must stick together to try and destroy the hairy beasts. STRIPPERS VS WEREWOLVES was obviously influenced by ZOMBIE STRIPPERS but unlike that film this one here doesn't seem to know what it wants to do. The story itself is pretty stupid from start to finish and I must admit that quite often it just seemed to go off the rails on things that just weren't all that interesting. I'd also say the movie doesn't work in regards to the laughs or the horror elements. Most of the jokes are aimed around dead bodies and their erections towards the strippers. It was funny the first or second time but after that the joke just gets boring. The horror elements are decent but nothing overly memorable. This includes the werewolves and their looks. The special effects are good but they're certainly far from memorable. Those looking for a lot of exploitation are probably also going to be disappointed because there's really not as much nudity or naughty bits as you might expect. All of this leads me to wonder what the point of the movie was. There's certainly moments where the film is taking itself way too serious but then at other times it seems like it just wants to be goofy fun. Overall the thing is mildly entertaining but there's no question that it's highly uneven. The performances are pretty much what you'd expect, although Robert Englund does show up for a brief spot.

I bought this on DVD for £2 at some high street store. I guess it's one of those flicks that didn't make the grade. Now although, there have been some good British horror flicks such as Creep, The Descent, the classic Dracula movies from Hammer films.

But Strippers v Werewolves? What the hell did I just see? Bad acting, bad script, bad plot, bad everything..

It looks so cheap and tacky.. I guess the only thing that was keeping this movie up was the actors that ranges from Sarah Douglas (Superman 2, Conan the Destroyer), Alan Ford (The Squeeze, Snatch) and Billy Murray (Rise of the FootSoldier) just to name a few..

Well, to be honest.. This was a waste of time, money and effort (to the filmmakers) to come up with this pappy-show!

No, I didn't like this flick, so the DVD went to charity.. which by now, it may've found itself a new home.

I've seen better movies than this tripe. No wonder it just took £38 at the box office. Not my cup of tea! Thumbs down!

The title was a give-away as to what to expect, which was potential guilty pleasure fun but not a masterpiece of film-making. So this wasn't the case of expectations being too high. The cast though seemed decent, which was the main reason for watching. There are three things that made Strippers vs. Werewolves more bearable than it was, a pulsating soundtrack that ranged from eerie to catchy, the hilarious Red Riding Hood-like scene and Sarah Douglas who is good value. The acting generally was a case of a decent cast on paper who act terribly on film. Very few bring life to their roles, even the soap-opera stars(though Ali Bastian is pretty, shame that she has little to work with) and Steven Berkoff and Robert Englund, who'd you'd expect to redeem things, are barely in it and have very little opportunity to shine as a result. As bad as the actors are it's not entirely their fault. Risible is the best way to describe the script, very childish- the worst of it is just cringe-worthy- and not always coherent either, and the characters suffer from lacking any kind of believability or development, so it's very difficult to root for them in any way. The story is also a mess and that's when there is one and when it doesn't feel like a badly done spoof(that probably was the intent but even at that Strippers vs. Werewolves does it badly). As a comedy and a horror Strippers vs. Werewolves fails at both, the comedy isn't funny and the horror is certainly not scary, if anything it's silly and laughably fake. There's also a lot of erotic-like elements that are done very awkwardly. Strippers vs. Werewolves is also one of those movies where you are not sure who it's aiming at, because adults will find it too childish and if a kid tried to watch it- and strictly speaking because of the age rating they shouldn't be in the first place- the content will fly right over their heads. Even teenagers may be puzzling over if the movie is for them or whether it has anything for them to maintain interest. Visually also it's an eyesore. The costumes and settings are basic as expected, while the atmosphere is too childishly and awkwardly conveyed to be creepy or seedy. The split-screen photography comes off worst, the technique is distracting and used far too much and the photography actually looks as though the camera-man was drunk which will make anybody feel sea-sick or nauseous. Strippers vs. Werewolves should also come with a warning for those suffering from epilepsy, not saying that something will happen but there is a risk(and to stop the risk of being insensitive I'm an epilepsy sufferer myself and did feel ill after watching). And the make-up and prosthetics look so awful and cheap, the werewolves actually look like giant rats. Overall, not as irredeemable as it's made out but what it seemed to be trying to do was done really badly. 3/10 Bethany Cox

Britain leads the world when it comes to tongue in cheek horror SHAUN OF THE DEAD started a sub-genre of comedy horror movies both sides of the Atlantic , one of which was STRIPPERS VS WEREWOLVES , a horror comedy done with a nod to Guy Ritchie and a film that made £38 on the first week of its release

£38 !!! Let me see now if my arithmetic is right then even one cinema showing this in the entire United Kingdom only received a grand total of between four to eight paying patrons ! Surely this must be either some mistake or some type of record . Surely no film can be bad enough to receive such low box office ?

To be blunt STRIPPERS VS WEREWOLVES is trash comedy horror but didn't we know that from the title ? In its defence it does contain a lot of well known faces from British soap operas and it does have a mentalist plot featuring a gang of werewolves on a revenge mission against a group of strippers who killed one of their number in a club . This is the type of movie that will win Movie Of The Month in FHM

In its ambition to fuse comedy , horror and Guy Ritchie it fails to do any of them justice and the story meanders all over the place , so much so that one thinks the title is merely to remind the audience of what the story is about . There's also a very irritating technique of using split screen by director Johnathan Glenedening which doesn't work and shows that there's only one Guy Ritchie

Alright, so, the pacing was godawful - but it's actually not that terrible a film. My speedy summary: it puts both the cheap AND the cheerful in "cheap and cheerful".

I love Raspberry films - films so bad they actually become pretty good - and this is definitely a Raspberry. Admittedly, not on Raspberry-par as "Megapirahna", but up there. There's some lovely bits of humour scattered throughout too, thought it might not be the sort the US is used to; snippets of self-depreciating humour, and I do so appreciate that. (Unlike the plain awfulness of the "scary movie" series. Ughh.)

Very enjoyable - I certainly don't feel I wasted my time, lemme put it that way - would watch a sequel.

I'm a huge movie buff. and I would definitely watch this again. My name for a movie like this is a "sh*tgore". They're obviously not meant to be high budget or good but I'd much rather watch this than something like Insidious or the try hard and fail horror movies like today. This isn't a horror, or even scary, as I said it's just meant to be funny with some cheap gore. Typically, I don't like British films, British gore or anything but this was actually pretty funny. It's cheap and gimmicky in all the right ways. I think they did a really good job for it to be what it was, if you're expecting something like scorsese you should just walk away. The intro was really good, my favorite part. The soundtrack is pretty cool, I've actually added a few songs to my playlist. It's cheesy but really funny,and it's just fun to watch and laugh at the cheap acting. Although the cinematography was actually really good. I'd give it a 8/10 for the genre that I classify it in, something like killer klowns would be a 10. Anyhow, if you like funny horrible movies, this is a good one.

Okay, I wasn't expecting a film with the calibre of The Godfather. I kind of knew what I was getting when watching a film entitled 'Strippers vs Werewolves.' However, I was at least hoping for some stupid, cheesy fun with plenty of gore and chuckles.

Unfortunately, this film doesn't deliver on any of it. I had at least reasonably high hopes, based on watching another couple of similarly-themed films: 'Zombie Strippers' and 'Strippers vs Zombies.' Neither of them were exactly Shakespeare, but they were at least entertaining in a totally dumbed down way (which was all I was expecting). However, Britain's attempt to cash in on this B-movie genre really doesn't take off.

For a start, the acting is bad. Yes, it's a low budget horror B-movie, but I was still hoping for a little less wooden performances. Secondly, the werewolves are about as scary as a dog you'd see hanging out of Paris Hilton's handbag. Thirdly, it's just not particularly funny. Fourthly, you won't give a damn about a single character and, finally, there's not that much gore (or at least for about ninety per cent of the movie).

In all, it's a film trying to get people to see it, based on its blatantly cheesy name. If you look this film up on the internet, you'll notice that it only took £38 at the UK box office. I'm guessing that was one person who watched the film and who bought about £30 worth of popcorn and sweets.

Is there no film that Billy Murray won't star in?