Vulgar

Will Carlson is a birthday clown who is having some troubles. He can't pay the rent, his mom hates him, and everybody gives him a difficult time. He gets the idea of being an adult entertainer party clown. On his first job he is tortured and raped by an insane father and his two sons. He is too embarrassed to call the authorities, so he keeps the entire incident a secret. Some time later, he saves the life of a little girl who is held hostage by her father and becomes famous and gets his own show. Finally, his dream has come true. He gets a call from the family of rapists who had videotaped his performance and tell him to give them a share of his money. He does, but then they also want a repeat reenactment of that fateful night or they will leak the tape to the press. This film doesn't try to be special. It isn't stylized, or done artfully or tastefully. It can be considered many things, but one thing the film can't be criticized for is being pretentious. This is, to put it properly, an old-school exploitation grindhouse style picture. This film is very effective and quite shocking. It certainly is not a film for everybody. It is a hell of an experience. The film is ugly, rough, grainy, and dimly lit. The acting is very intense and the characters are often quite abrasive. The plot of the film is quite realistic to an extent. The rape scenes are pretty horrific and brutal, some of the roughest I've seen in fact. The spends enough time getting us to sympathize and feel sorry for the character of Will Carlson. His roommate(Bryan Johnson, the director of VULGAR) is probably the best character in the film. Ethan Suplee and Matthew Maher are both pretty creepy as the two rapists, Jerry Lewkowitz is quite nasty as the father, and Brian O'Halloran gives a pretty strong performance. In fact, the only serious issue I had with this film is that it tries to be a comedy at times. Ultimately, the attempts at humor come off really poorly. The humor in this film feels out of place and is distracting at times when it shouldn't be. I guess I could call this a black comedy, but the film is actually really disturbing and difficult to watch. Maybe the comedy element was added to make the whole film seem even more wrong. As it is, it's a merciless film and is nasty. If you are a fan of exploitation you will probably love this film. For others, you could probably do with this film.

Pros: -very engaging and moving at times -decent acting -well established dark tone -intense -a guilty pleasure

Cons: -unneeded humor -graphic violence, rape, and sexual torture may be too much for a lot of viewers -bad marketing

This would have to be one of the more disturbing movies i've ever seen, but, i liked it. I mean of course I didn't like the raping sequences but the plot was pretty good, and it starred Dante from Clerks, and it has some funny lines in it. Yes, it's not my favorite movie, probably not top 50, but it was still pretty good. Not for children.

This movie was the worse thing I had ever seen.. Not only very disturbing but no plot to it and the actors were of no talent.. A huge waste of money and time. There was nothing to hold our interest.We didn't even finish the movie.. Going to work was more appealing than being home watching this.

I was warned before watching this movie not to expect the comedy style seen in previous View Askew movies. What I wasn't told was not to expect the same level of writing, acting, directing or camera work. This was a painfully inept movie to watch. Bad lighting, horrible dialogue, and just atrocious acting. The rape scene was more than a little disturbing and dragged on and on, much like the film as a whole. I would recommend this film only to people interested in never getting 90 minutes of their life back. It's no wonder the documentary "In Defense of Dogma" was included on the DVD. It's the only part worth viewing.

I have the stomach for the more brutal scenes in this movie (they're not too far removed from the "Zed's basement" scene in Pulp Fiction, after all), but definitely not for the shabby plot and the weak supporting actors (OK, also the headliners). I wanted to see this movie out of morbid curiosity, and expected little other satisfaction than that from it. I was not disappointed in the depth of my disappointment. I support the effort that went into attempting what must have semed like an interesting story, but more effort was needed and better actors. AND MORE REWRITES.

OK, specifics. "William/Flappy" is simply unbelieveable in his reaction to his attack, as is his friend's reaction to his recounting of it. Except we were primed for this lack of credibility early in the movie when "William/Flappy" got the whole transvestite clown idea in the first place.

Also, there are completely unnecessary distractions throughout the movie. Examples: the abrasive waitress, the abusive drunks, William's overacting bitch of a mother (her bit of scene chewing was more appropriate for an early John Waters movie, and even he wouldn't suffer such silliness now). The erstwhile TV host who interviews Flappy is completely miscast, and would have been better served as one of the supernumerary homeless guys laced throughout the movie.

The movie made me angry, for wasting my time and for being so ill-conceived in its plot that even Raelians couldn't suspend disbelief long enough to take it half-seriously. Perhaps every moviemaker has a "Vulgar" in their background.

OTOH - I'm not recommending against anyone renting "Vulgar," but I am guaranteeing you a bad time when you do. Some people want to see everything Kevin Smith has touched/been affiliated with. They should rent Vulgar. The DVD has a bonus feature on the fecal meteorology unleashed upon "Dogma," while it was being made so, to paraphrase Carl the groundskeeper, "It's got that going for it." I would be interested to know if anyone else has noted the persistent lack of synchronization between this movie's sound and picture - something that made an unpleasant viewing that more "memorable."