The Reverend

I thought this was reasonably well done For a B film. Acting was passable on the whole, with some exceptions. Production value was not terrible but could have been better.

I was assuming that Rutger Hauer was going to be the lead in this, but instead he got 2 minutes of screentime along horror icons Doug Bradley and John Morgen (who also deserved more screen time). However, I didn't think The Reverend was all that bad. It's based on a graphic novel that I have no knowledge of, but it does seem there is a lot missing here in the film medium that could have this make more sense and enrich the story. This is basically a reverend that becomes a vampire and uses his powers to clean up the town vigilante style. The flick delivers on blood and gorgeous big breasted women. The fella that played The Reverend did a good job and I think the acting was pretty decent to good as a whole. It seems that to this is pretty hated in the reviews here. I would not put this over as a classic, but for B grade horror, The Reverend is a decent watch.

Let's start off with Rutger Hauer ... and not mention him again after that! It's funny if you an actor to play for the first couple of minutes just to market your movie with him. But there is also Doug Bradley (Pinhead to his friends) and Tamer Hassan. Both not really that much in the movie either, so if you're a fan of either it might not make sense watching the movie because of those two. Tamer also plays a cardboard cutout, that is so bad, you wonder where he left his charisma? With the check at home I reckon.

You also have Emily Boobs ... I mean Booth of course. A funny woman in person, but not blessed (sorry for the pun) with her character/role here. Her physical appearance obviously very blessed, but playing a weak character like that, especially after an even weaker introduction, given lines that make you cringe? A waste. As is one scene with her and her "boss", that seems to go on for hours (actually couple of minutes) and should have been cut altogether. There is also a blonde lady that is involved with the inciting incident (Russian I think), that seems to have learned her lines phonetically. Not helping the movie either ... Conclusion: Waste of time

3 on a scale of 1 to ten is low right? I won't grade it a 2 but surely nothing more than 3 and I'll give you all the info you need: the camera work is amateur and cheap; the acting is seriously bad from half the characters at least, especially that Steven Seagal lookalike; the effects are somewhat acceptable, few, nothing pretentious, nothing spectacular; the plot itself, bad; even Rutger Hauer's appearance was nothing more than a Shakespearian rap battle.

I'm telling you, don't get impressed by other positive reviews, as they are either fake or coming from people who seriously have little contact with horror. It is a very weak movie that will annoy, disappoint and let down everyone standing in front of it for a view. Pass it, if you that much into modern religious horror movies try either "Heretic" tho it is also quite bad but not as this one or "The borderlands", the last one being the found footage type and much better in my opinion. Then again, keep in mind, much better than a 3, is not much either.

I'm gonna leave you with a warning, careful with this one, the chances that you might actually enjoy it or consider it a good time waster are very close to an "impossible!".

Cheers!

As an Australian I find this offensive, based on stereotypes from decades ago that I thought we had moved past.

If you think in anyway this is based on anything in Australia it's absolute ridiculous stereotype of Australians living in rural unpopulated towns with no resources, not to mention the fact we don't really have "reverends" in Australia as a primarily catholic and Christian community.

Maybe try better acting and not such a stereotypical version of "layed back beachbtowns" that have no access to the rest of the world" not a realistic approach to Australia.

Just disappointing to say the least.