Estripador de Las Vegas

Murder Set pieces is a good horror/exploitation movie (but, by no means its "the most visceral movie" or whatever...). Its a psycho movie with torture, sex (good amount), naked chicks ( a lot and very hot babes), and a good amount of blood (but not a lot of gore). Its entertaining, the soundtrack is cool, the photography is a highlight compared to other movies of its kind (MSP is shot on 35 mm film) but its not a classic. I believe its a movie horror fans can enjoy if the expectations aren't too high ( a lot of hype surrounded this movie). 6/10 (i ve seen the "Unrated" version not the "R" that its now worldwide(?) released)

Let me set the record straight, first and foremost—I am an enormous fan of the horror genre. I have never had more fun with any other type of film. There is nothing that I enjoy more than kicking back with a good scary movie.

I'll be honest. When I first heard about "M-S-P," I was a bit apprehensive about seeing it. Some of the reviews I'd read on its graphic content made me wonder if this was a film I should sit through. After all, this *was* the film titled the most "graphic and disturbing horror film ever made." I finally got my hands on an uncut copy a few months ago. I sat back with a good friend of mine and popped the disc in. As the film progressed, the two of us began to chuckle. Those small, child-like giggles soon turned into full on hysterical laughter. "M-S-P" is a film so laughably bad, the two of us couldn't believe our eyes.

What is called the most graphic and disturbing horror film ever made is nothing more than gore for the sake of gore, violence for the sake of violence, and vicious bloodshed for the sake of vicious bloodshed. That's not what the two of us found so funny. What we found so incredibly hilarious was the fact that this film was ever made in the first place. Who could've possibly been behind this pathetic drivel? Then, I stumbled upon the homepage and MySpace of writer/director Nick Palumbo. Oy vey. Where to begin? This is a man so positively hellbent on making a name for himself, it's actually downright sad and most of all, pathetic. Most of the hype around the film comes from him himself. *He* is the one calling this film shocking, disturbing, graphic, violent, terrifying. *He* is the one responsible for the public's knowledge about the film's content. *He* is the one claiming film labs refused to print it and the set was intruded upon by uniformed officers brandishing rifles and guns. He *wants* more than anything to go down in the books as the most controversial horror director in history.

If those are your aspirations, fine. If you have the talent to back it up, wonderful. Sadly, he does not. What he presents the audience with is a weak script that goes basically nowhere. There is no story arc, there is no character development, there is nothing but bloodshed. Most of the dialogue in the film makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is an incredibly poorly written script that must've been only about twenty pages long upon its completion. Mr. Palumbo does not care about story. He does not care about dialogue. He does not care about creating characters an audience can identify or even sympathize with. When a new character is presented, he or she (mostly she) is simply killed off. That's it. Time to move on to the next scene of vicious bloodshed. I felt absolutely no remorse for any of the characters getting the axe because they simply were not believable. This film contains some of the stiffest, forced performances I've ever seen, most of which came from Sven Garrett.

I read an incredibly poignant, smart, and honest review by film critic John Fallon that perceived the film as a "'Look at me, look at me! 9-11 footage! Look at me!' opus." Very true. Mr. Palumbo desperately wants you to look at him. He wants you to believe the film is all of the aforementioned adjectives. He wants you to believe he himself is sick and depraved. He is not. The film is not. It's just another pathetic film that tries way too hard and simply does not deliver.

Here's my review of the "controversial" MURDER SET PIECES:

Story: beefy German-speaking serial killer murders tons of naked women in Las Vegas. For 90 minutes, we see various naked women getting killed by the serial killer. The women are tortured, sliced, diced, chainsawed, etc, to death.

That's it.

There's very little attempt to create suspense or understanding into the few characters populating this claustrophobic flick. It's all surface. No depth whatsoever. And any level of realism in MSP was thrown out of the window because the abysmal acting, certainly from all the bimbos. I mean, we are talking HG Lewis level of acting here.

The main actor, Sven Garrett, was OK but he's definitely not a seasoned pro. He looked more like he belonged in the WWE than a horror film. The lack of coaching or practice, which is standard in low budget films, was evident with Garrett. For instance, he was totally unconvincing as a photographer. I'm sure he never held a 35mm camera in his entire life before making the film. He should have spent a bit more time researching for his role than doing weights at the gym. Oddly enough though, the casting of Garrett is one of the few "original" aspects about MSP. Garrett is a somewhat good-looking, somewhat Neantherdal looking (depending on which angle he's shot from). Unlike MANIAC or DON'T GO IN THE HOUSE type of films, where the psycho is always homely, the director probably thought having a hunky serial killer would make sense due to the humongous amount of women murdered in MSP. His presence and the director's intent to show off his physique are the only things that contrast with the plethora of naked girls in the film. This includes the pointless scene with Garrett in a swimsuit and having visions of 9/11.

The serial killer's psychosis is confused and, like the rest of the movie, hopelessly muddled and badly written. Why does he kill all these women? Because is grandfather was a Nazi? In one scene, you see him chew on a corpse. Is he a cannibal? Is he a Neo-Nazi cannibal? He also has sex with his victims while he kills and tortures them. Does this mean he can't get it up without blood or violence? Is he a an impotent Neo-Nazi cannibal?

If it wasn't for the really bad acting on the women's part, the movie and the level of violence towards women seen in it would have been impossible to watch. The ONLY truly "disturbing" aspect of MSP is the unrelenting violence made towards women, which is numbing. The women all blend together and I couldn't tell who he was killing after a while. Just look at the film's credit to see the number of anonymously named women written for this flick: Basement Girl #2, Hooker #3, High Chair Girl #1, Tree Girl #2, Dildo Girl #1, etc. Because the violence made towards women is so unrelenting (I've lost count after 20 minutes into the movie...) but also because of what is left out of the landscape: we basically only see the beefy psycho killing naked, screaming women. We see almost nothing else. Are there any other people out there? Whatever happened to the scene with the medium/card reader seen in the trailer? This somewhat minimalist approach to the "story", more to do with the director's complete inability to come up with any other idea than killing naked women, accidentally creates the film's only distinctive quality, and indirectly, the film's unrelenting violence shown towards women became more and more disturbing as it went along. Disturbing because I suddenly realized that what I was watching was something clearly made by people with, hmmm, a *lot* of issues.

The direction is stilted and awkward. You can really see that the director was "influenced" by films like "Texas chainsaw Massacre" (the film starts with flashbulbs illuminating a corpse of a naked woman...) or HALLOWEEN, and a lot of nights spent at strip clubs trying to woo investors. Oddly enough, the look and direction of MSP reminded me more of THE BOOGEYMAN (1980), Ulli Lommel's horror opus. The filmmaker has no vision or understanding of what horror is. He just used clichéd aspects of horror movies (gore, naked girls, Nazies, chainsaws, naked girls, Halloween, etc) and tried to make something shocking. The director's inexperienced is obvious throughout the film and seeing him try to combine heavy subjects like serial killings, sex, violence and 9/11 was the only true entertaining aspect of MSP. Watching all these missteps was fascinating, to say the least, and the reason I gave this 3 stars instead of 1.

Here's a question I have for the director: Would the film have been more effective if, let's say, the women actually had kept their clothes on? Probably. Because the nudity is so gratuitous (and, in the end, unrealistic) that the only thing I got out of watching MSP is the number of "actresses" out there who are willing to take their clothes off for a few bucks for roles in a low-budget film; how many of them actually had sex with the producers; and how "interesting" the casting sessions must have been ("Can you scream but with your clothes off?"). Scenes of the Photographer taking pictures of two naked 'playmate' women against a tree were included only to titillate the male audience. It's eye candy, for sure, but in the end it's more of a disservice to the film's 'realism' than anything else.

MURDER SET PIECES suffers from the fact that it's too trashy to be seen as a serious "shocking" portrait of a killer and it's not fun enough to be seen as great exploitation.

I love horror movies and this was just terrible. It was ridiculous and an insult to the genre (and the audience). There weren't any good "jumpy" moments and the laughs we had were because of the things we whispered to each other because it was so bad. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't expecting this movie to change my life but I didn't think it would be awful- and it really was. I know reading a bad review of a horror movie wouldn't stop me from seeing one but after seeing this, I feel compelled to try. It was pretty bloody, but you didn't see a lot of the murders. There was a lot of badly implied violence and a lot of blood. I can't write a real critique about the movie because I don't really think of it as a real movie. The plot holes were enormous, the acting was terrible, blah blah, blah. I guess there is something to say about the fact that this managed to be a monotonous, boring slasher film. I have seen stupid slasher films- but not one that was so repetitive and yes- boring. I also agree with the other review that it was gross for it's own sake and shocking as well. Some of the things that I am sure are controversial (people murdered and images in his dreams)seem to just be there because they can be or to try and prove something. I don't think they worked at all and I was mad that he would use them in such a cheap way. Normally, I think any film that makes you feel anything this strongly has to have something redeeming in it. Not this one, it was 2 hours of my life completely wasted.

I've read the hype. I've anticipated checking it out for myself. I was even a little hopeful that the negative feedback about this flick (both here on IMDb and EVERYWHERE ELSE on the web) was just backlash. I guess I should have known.

The fact of the matter is, MURDER SET-PIECES is a giant steaming pile of crap. Unimaginative crap. Boring crap. Poorly acted crap. Unbelievabley BAD crap. An acquaintance of mine had ordered the unrated/original cut off the MSP website, and knowing that the R-rated Lions Gate version was about to drop, I asked to borrow his to check out this so-called "masterpiece of horror". What a joke. I'm so glad I haven't bothered to try and buy a copy myself. Here's a few takes on this gigantic misfire:

THE ACTING - horrid. The lead is a joke, a hulking boring one-dimensional lug who looks like he was dragged out of the gym - unwillingly - to mutter poor dialogue. When he slipped into German, I couldn't help but stifle laughter.

THE DIALOGUE - atrocious. Come on Nick, give us SOMETHING. I'll say this, the dialogue matches the acting-- flat and poorly done.

THE GORE - well you'd think that at least the film's saving grace would be the gore fx, right? WELLLLLL... sorry to say, no. In fact, there is VERY LITTLE GORE in this film. I have to think that the Lion's Gate cut version must have concentrated more on cutting-out nudity than gore. Sure, there's blood. Whoop-dee-doo. Guess what, I can go to a costume shop and get a gallon of fake blood too. So if you're anxious to see splats of blood hitting walls/floors, this movie is for you. If you actually want GORE EFFECTS, look elsewhere. The ToeTag team have done much better work in the A.Underground films (which I wasn't too keen on, but have to admit the FX were stunningly well conceived).

THE NUDITY - yeah, there's a great number of nekkid ladies in this film. If you're under 15 years old and don't have an internet connection, than this movie will really pop your corn. Otherwise... *yawn*. When there's NO CONTEXT, then naked bloody ladies just don't have any affect on the viewer (especially a seasoned horror fan). It's pointless... just like this whole film. Oh, speaking of pointless...

THE 9/11 FOOTAGE - tacky, tasteless and downright unnecessary. Just like this whole film.

It's downright hilarious that the director thinks he's made a masterpiece here. I suggest he start watching the horror-titles he constantly throws-around and take some lessons from REAL film-makers, because he just isn't anywhere CLOSE to their league or level of talent.

The only "disturbing!" thing about this film is the giant waste of money and resources this poor-excuse-for-a-horror-flick represents. Apparently the budget was approx. 2-million, and it was (as the director will quickly point-out) shot on 35mm. Big bloody deal. It still ends-up being a giant wasteful dump of a movie with no characterization, no plot, no FX, and no reason for existing. Some of the best horror-films were shot on a shoestring budget on 16mm. Go figure.

Avoid this at all costs.