August Underground

Only the very hardest viewers need apply to this indie. It is the absolute closest thing to genuine snuff you will ever see. Far more unsettling and realistic than the over hyped Guinea Pig series. Obviously without the use of a simple tripod August Underground assaults the senses from the first minute to the last. The movie comes off as something found stowed away in the recesses of a twisted serial killer's private collection of home videos because the basic plot is two college aged psychos tape their carnage. The acting is amazingly real, the effects are nightmarish. What makes it so realistic is the amateur way it comes off, ironically. With bad blips of home editing, camera shots up in the air and unsteady and the absence of any opening credits it's hard to believe what you are seeing is a full fledged movie. The camera person never makes an appearance but his sick laughing at his victims along with childish banter with the one killer we do see makes this feel like a homemade episode of Jackass that enters the zone of murder.

This is not a movie that most people would be able to handle. It takes a strong stomach and a numbed mind for this truly is one of the most extreme and violent pieces ever to make it to video.

The "story" in this annoying little movie consists of home movies shot by one of two serial killers. The camera follows them around as they indulge in all manner of disgusting deeds, whether they're putting human victims through pure hell or just raising trouble in general. (For example, they act out inside a convenience store.)

Prefiguring the "torture porn" genre began by movies like "Saw" and "Hostel", "August Underground" works like a mash-up of "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" and "The Blair Witch Project", except that it *really* ups the ante in terms of extreme human depravity, and that it lacks any sort of craftsmanship whatsoever. It may be one of the most disgusting movies that this viewer has ever seen. Its fans may argue for its sense of immediacy, or the fact that it's so vivid and so committed to portraying filth on film. But it's still impossible to want to spend time with the characters here. Apparently, the movie *does* have some sort of script, by Allen Peters and director Fred Vogel, but it feels like it was ad libbed for its interminable 71 minute run time. The effects are plenty tacky, but still have the power to thoroughly distress an audience.

If one really wants to see a serial killer epic based in some sort of reality, they're much better off watching or revisiting "Henry".

Three out of 10.

From the plot summary, you might think that August Underground might be like a heinously gory version of the Belgian semi-classic 'Man Bites Dog', but you'd be wrong as August Underground is nowhere near that good. The film apparently has the intention of being a phony snuff film, and indeed the violence looks graphic and realistic, but it's all really cold and pointless. There is a sex scene at the end of this film that really sums it all up; it's about as far from being erotic as it gets, so it's extremely difficult to get involved with it, and the same goes for the violence. Violence that is simply shown gives the audience no reason to care, and so overall; the film is really rather boring. There has been a slew of direct to video trash films like this one over the last few years, and despite the fact that August Underground seems to be reputed to be one of the better ones; it really isn't. The only good thing I can think to say about it is that director Fred Vogel succeeds in creating a home video style look to the film through the use of a hand-held camera; but like the worst film ever made, The Blair Witch Project, this really only makes it so that the audience can't always see what's going on; which only succeeds in being irritating. Overall, I can't really recommend this film. I'm a fan of sick filth, but it didn't do anything for me. I'd recommend seeing something else instead.

This camcorder tape cant even be classified horror, and would be an insult to the outstanding horror directors to have it labeled as such. It is the result of two very sick and twisted depraved examples of individuals who think they can be the next Blair Witch producers. Nothing is further from the truth. It is a fine basis for them being able to commit a heinous crime and be able to present a defense of INSANITY. It would appear similar to the result of two freaked out, doped up teenagers who would next think of attempting to simulate the Columbine incident. I have viewed most of the top listed horror or disgusting films and would not even consider this to be in the running. As I started my comments, this is not even a film. And I would not give it the satisfaction of being something worth rating. I listed it as 1/10 because that is the least one can to to proceed with their comments.

It don't even fall in the category of the Guinea Pig series. Those can be seen for what they are. This is nothing.

OK, I heard about this series of films a while back, and read up on the director, the production company, what they have done since etc.etc. I don't really have a strong stomach for violence, but i do like to be shocked. And, to be honest, it took me a while to get round to picking this ( the trilogy ) up and preparing myself for what i'd heard was a pretty shocking ride. I was quite cautious putting it on, and expected to either turn it off or fast forward at some point. well, what a let down. Granted, it is pretty vicious, but not in a way that is going to disturb anyone, at least anyone of a reasonable disposition. I can only see anyone really enjoying this if they are using this purely as a means to fulfil some sort of need for pointless aggression, which is just what this film is, pointless. I have given it 3 stars, and that is purely down to some of the dialogue being, and i am sure many will disagree, quite witty, and i am sure it was not scripted at all. i can't believe there was a script involved in this full stop. Also, the apparent lack of motivation for any of the events in the film could be considered interesting if it were handled in a more professional fashion. I believe the director quotes 'Henry; as one of his prime influences, more precisely the home invasion scene. Well, that scene, and film in fact, is pretty shocking, and i'd recommend that over this a thousandfold. I can't quite work out what the director was aiming to achieve with this, because a certain connection with the situation, or characters, is required to engage the audience enough to care about what happens, and this just isn't the case. you don't care, you are just waiting for the next shocking thing to happen to see if it repulses you, and quite frankly it doesn't do that. I started to watch the sequel, which appears to have a far more sexual motivation, but had to stop due to having something better to do, and i don't think i'll bother watching the rest.

I don't think vogel is totally talentless. He can't direct, clearly can't script a film and his acting sucks ( there seems to be a pre-occupation with ridiculing victims because of their weight, when none are anywhere near as fat as he is, which is quite unfathomable ) but put him with a team of competent, talented film makers and i reckon you might get something really good out of him. Having said that, avoid this unless you really feel the need to watch it, i expect the reasons that most people would want to see it are because of the supposedly shocking and outrageous violence. Well, it isn't shocking, and neither is the sequel ( of what i have seen ), only a bit sad and misguided.