Muck

Muck is a lot of things... poorly lit... lacking plot... full of character dialogue that's trying way too hard to be Whedonesque... a shameless means to show various women naked.

The one thing Muck is not is a good movie. In fact, it's barely a movie.

We are thrown into a story mid-way with a cast of characters we get no introduction to. What little dialogue they have before they get killed doesn't do much to endear us to them, so why care about them being killed? Instead of characterization and backstory, Muck gives you extended scenes of a woman showering and a woman who apparently keeps a Victoria's Secret inventory in her purse putting on a one woman lingerie fashion show in a dive bar bathroom.

But wait, the movie has Kane Hodder! Surely that must give it some cred, right? Not as such. Kane Hodder as Hatchet under a ton of make up? Scary. Kane Hodder under a hockey mask? Scary? A shirtless, aging Kane Hodder splashing around having what is essentially a wrestling match in the climax of the movie? Not so scary. Kind of sad actually.

Muck wants to be Cabin in the Woods, but it's not funny or invention enough. Muck wants to be a softcore porn, but the movie's lighting is so bad you are better off watching scrambled porn channels. Muck wants to be a horror movie gorefest, but most of the kills happen JUST off camera and we're shown, instead, the killer or a nearby witness just getting karo syrup tossed on them.

Muck wants to be a movie but it isn't. If the excuse is "Well, it's the middle part of a trilogy released first," then that shows the director/writer/guy who clearly likes boobs had no original idea other than "Let's just show the movies out of order to confuse people."

The biggest spoiler I can mention about this film is that the Director, Steve Wolsh, is a graduate of Georgetown University with a major in marketing and management.

So his concept went like this: 'What does a horror flick need to sell?'

Now veterans of the horror genre would say story, story, story.

Steve's answer: Tits and Ass.

Apparently the film was funded via Kickstarter. All I can say to potential contributors for the 2nd round of funding for this series is: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T. This man doesn't deserve your money. Mr Wolsh doesn't have the necessary skill set to make movies - nor will he ever have.

Well, perhaps only ones that don't need plot, sensible dialogue or actors that can actually act. Ones that come out of the San Fernando valley.

Hey Steve, I hear there's a lot of money to be made exploiting women in that particular genre!

If I could give this film a negative rating I would.

I'm not sure what the hell I just watched...but I liked it. It's hard to review, mainly because it's part of a larger story. (Or so they say). I'd recommend, but I do have two small issues: one, too much time is spent showing off the camera and what it could do, and two, enough with the women in various states of undress. In small doses you tend to expect it in these types of movies to be sure. Unfortunately the amount here is akin to Cinemax soft core porn.

I wish I could say more, but I honestly have no idea what I just watched.

I can't wait for the sequels!

Normally I only review slasher movies but I just finished watching this and I feel an obligation to the horror genre to expose this director's work as the fraudulent attempt that it is.

First off, this is not a horror movie. In fact, it's not even a movie at all. I've complained about story in the past many times, or lack there of, but nothing, and I mean 'nothing' comes even remotely close to this on absence of story. We're thrown into the middle of something happening and not only do they not tells us what's happening, they choose to develop their characters by making them pose in front of mirrors. Don't get me wrong, I'm no prude, but this was just lame. Nudity comes 'after' you set up the story and characters. This just felt like I was watching some sixth-grader's wet dream after he stayed up too late watching QT and Rodriguez's "Grindhouse."

And when I talk about exposing the fraud here, I'm talking about two things. One, this is not a horror film. This has no right calling itself a horror film. It's like Kanye West trying to call his last album "metal." This is a stylized action movie reject written and directed by person with the mind of a child who has an embarrassingly overactive sex-drive. And secondly, the back of the movie says "Muck is packed with old-school gore effects and brutal stunts without any CGI or apologies." It may not contain CGI, but it most certainly does 'not' contain "Old-school gore." The kills were lame as f#$%. You don't see anything except for a little blood spraying here and there. Very, very cheap gore effects. I can honestly say that I have officially seen a movie that has absolutely nothing to offer. And why should it contain something that would interest me, it's not even a horror movie. This is the kind of "movie" that makes you want to go back through all your old reviews and raise the ratings up.

Keep my ten bucks, Steve Wolsh. Something tells me you're gonna need it.

0/0 F- (fail) two thumbs down

So many films where portraying naked girls, running around screaming and then getting killed are being produced and don't these producers and directors know that it is getting old, mundane and just totally stupid.

I watch a film for its good plot, fine acting and some shocks here and there but this movie fails in everything a film should be. The girls seem like dumb bimbos, the lighting is too dark and you get to see many off them scream and run around like chooks without heads trying to escape some madman. It is one of these senseless films where there is poor dialogue and the acting could be so much better.

I feel a little ill knowing there are people who love watching half naked girls getting slaughtered and if this is to their taste, so be it, but I would be embarrassed releasing this sort of garbage.

No talent here!