Long Pigs

Even though I'm not a big fan of mockumentaries, ( I prefer pure fiction or pure documentary, the mix is often neither fish nor fowl ), I had somewhat high hopes for this. But what can I say? I understand the reasoning behind the film; to give us a matter-of-factly view into the motives and actions of your next-door cannibal, contrast his unspeakable deeds and grotesque philosophical musings with his more mundane everyday-activities, and out of these contrasts horror shall grow. And often this recipe works very well, perhaps because this is so close to reality, many serial killers are often unassuming and tedious in their sheepish guise, the type nobody would suspect to be a killer. The film that comes closest to Long Pigs is of course Man Bites Dog, but in that film everything works and the end-product is a diamond.In Long Pigs on the other hand this approach doesn't work at all, and what you are left with is a boring man's life spiced up with a couple of scenes of slaughter for good measure. You know something is wrong when two thirds of the film is a yawn-fest of smalltalk, and one third is spent on the actual deeds. And even the sections of slaughter doesn't really convey any sense of menace and horror, fair enough the special effects are great ( hence the three stars ), but I could just as well have enjoyed an episode of Hell's Kitchen, at least there you get a certain sense of dread. Here, on the other hand, it is non- existing, and that, in a horror-film is a mortal sin. If you want a brilliant mockumentary, watch Man Bites Dog, if you want a proper cookery-class, watch Cannibal Holocaust or Cannibal. Avoid this snoozer.

Two young directors film the hunt and butchering of a prostitute by a local cannibal serial killer. This is interspersed with footage of a grieving parent, a psychologist and a detective. How will the story unfold?

There are some minor complaints to be made. For example, the cannibal (Anthony Alviano) seems younger and nerdier than expected, which took away some of the realism. The same for the police officer (Shane Harbinson) -- seemed very young, but presented himself very professionally. A fine actor, he easily could have passed for a real cop.

The radio DJ (Roger King) was the strongest and best-written role. His words were well-scripted and well-spoken, and the way his scenes book-cased the film really worked well. The film would have been good without him, but this pushed it from good to very good... perhaps almost great.

I appreciate the argument made that "how can it be wrong if it tastes so good?" This is reasonable. God or nature has made edible things palatable -- we learn what to eat by whether or not our taste buds enjoy it. If man was created tasting good, something would seem to be supposed to eat it. Why not other men? (There are moral questions here, of course, but at the very least, why do we not eat the flesh of those who have died?)

More than anything else, I have to call attention to the very good use of effects on the corpse... very, very good. The body contained skin, flesh, meat, guts, bones... I do not know how this was accomplished, but it may be the greatest corpse effect in movie-making history. I believe this honor belongs to Chris Bridges, who has been involved in the field for over a decade on a number of notable projects.

I would endorse this film. It is an interesting faux documentary, and with the work of Chris Bridges, it may have you doing a double-take. Did they use a real body? It is almost too difficult to be sure.

I'm so sick of found footage horror I could scream, but I saw Long Pigs last night and it was fantastic. I'd say it has to be in the top five best films of the genre. The practical effects were outstanding. Definitely watch the Special Features on how they made the bodies. The acting was a little weak at first, but they found their groove before the halfway mark and it really started to click. I have to say I saw the ending coming, but I was not disappointed by that. The score was probably the weakest thing about the movie. I would have preferred silence to the urban remix of "Dance of the Sugarplum Fairies". I get the point they were trying to make with that choice, but to me that particular piece is way overused. It's on my blacklist with "O Fortuna" and the chorus from Beethoven's 9th. Just don't. The script was better than average. The acting got better and better as the movie carried on. Cinematography is always my complaint with these kinds of movies. I said the same thing about REC: This is supposed to be a PROFESSIONAL cameraman. He should be able to hold a camera still sometimes. I wish they hadn't fast-forwarded through the butchery scene. That could have been really horrifying if they had been able to pull it off realistically and we had gotten to see it. Overall, great flick. Not a rip-off of August Underground by a mile. I hate found-footage horror, but I loved this.

Odd Canadian film has two obviously first time documentary filmmakers following around a cannibalistic serial killer as he first stalks and kills his victims, then prepares them in stews and barbecues for consumption.

The way this is all show in nonchalantly and in such an off-hand manner adds to the dramatic effect as he literally hangs his prizes upside down, decapitates them and hacks them apart piece by piece, extracting "the best parts" for consumption along the way. The practical effects are absolutely amazing I must say. There is one incredible scene where they show him preparing an entire body in a very fast forward sequence that must have been a gruelling long shot.

The performances are all pretty credible here, and the movie is well shot. The winter Canadian scenery is nice to look at with one scene in particular showing New Years at the Toronto City Hall.

Fun fare for fans of the genre.

Direct to video pseudo documentary. Aren't we done with this phony format? And this one makes zero sense. What film crew is going to follow around a dude while he kills and eats women? It's amateurish and dumb.

The Plot

A documentary by two desperate young filmmakers who stumble upon the ultimate subject, a 33 year old cannibalistic serial killer named Anthony McAllister, who has agreed to let them document every aspect of his horrifically violent life-style. Initially terrified, the filmmakers get to know Anthony as a person. They even begin to identify with his ecological and philosophical justifications for his cannibalistic lifestyle. It's only when they investigate further that the filmmakers begin to doubt Anthony's accounts of his past. Tensions noticeably rise as the filmmakers continue to confront Anthony on his conflicting stories and ever-changing philosophies. During an awkward interview, the filmmakers interview Merle, the father of a young girl who was abducted and never found. This abduction was Anthony's first child victim. Merle welcomes them into his home and gives them a heart-felt experience that even Anthony is touched by.