day
» » Muck (2015)

Muck (2015) HD online

Muck (2015) HD online
Language: English
Category: Movie / Horror
Original Title: Muck
Director: Steve Wolsh
Writers: Steve Wolsh
Released: 2015
Duration: 1h 39min
Video type: Movie
After narrowly escaping an ancient burial ground, long forgotten and buried underneath the marshes of Cape Cod, a group of friends emerge from the thick, marshy darkness, tattered and bloody, lucky to be alive. They have already lost two of their friends in the marsh, presumably dead. They stumble upon an empty Cape Cod vacation house alongside the foggy marsh and break in to take shelter. Whatever was in the marsh is still after them and soon after one of them goes for help, the rest of the group learns that the evil in the marsh is not the only thing that wants them dead. Something worse, something more savage, was lying in wait just outside the marsh, in the house. What happens next is unspeakable, horror that cannot be unseen. These unlucky travelers spend their St. Patrick's Day trapped between two evils forcing them to fight, die, or go back the way they came.

Videos

Cast overview, first billed only:
Lachlan Buchanan Lachlan Buchanan - Troit
Puja Mohindra Puja Mohindra - Chandi
Bryce Draper Bryce Draper - Noah
Stephanie Danielson Stephanie Danielson - Kylie
Laura Jacobs Laura Jacobs - Desiree
Grant Alan Ouzts Grant Alan Ouzts - Billy
Lauren Francesca Lauren Francesca - Mia
Jaclyn Swedberg Jaclyn Swedberg - Terra
Gia Skova Gia Skova - Victoria Cougar
Audra Van Hees Audra Van Hees - Miss Cape Cod 2013
Ashley Green Elizabeth Ashley Green Elizabeth - Miss Cape Cod 2012
Peter Hart Peter Hart - Nice Guy James the Barkeep
Victoria Sophia Victoria Sophia - Dedee
Leila Knight Leila Knight - Kitty
Victoria Meincke Victoria Meincke - Messa McWhikii

The fictitious location of West Craven is a nod to writer/producer/director horror legend Wes Craven.

Muck is full of old-school practical effects, and trumpets "No CGI" as a staple of the film's marketing, as Steve Wolsh has expressed "no desire to direct computers." In fact, he designed many of the stunts and stunt props himself, such as the trick axes and pitchfork blood effects, which were powered by fire extinguishers full of blood.

The Screen Actors Guild told writer/director Steve Wolsh that Muck was one of the top 5 most dangerous scripts they had ever come across, and they expressed serious concerns for the actors' safety in the marshes of Cape Cod.

Playboy Playmates of the Year 2013, Raquel Pomplun, and 2014, Kennedy Summers, have been cast in the Muck prequel, Muck: Feast of Saint Patrick.

Kane Hodder's makeup took 6 hours to complete each day, and incorporates natural scarring from burns he suffered earlier in his career when he worked as a stunt man. Muck is the first film in which Hodder appears shirtless.

Besides Playboy Playmate of the Year 2012 Jaclyn Swedberg, none of the actresses who appear nude in Muck had previously done so on film.

Muck features a bevy of dangerous stunts: high impact falls, full body burns, back away walls, numerous glass explosions, a car flip, countless blood effects, and hand-to-hand combat (most notably, in-water fighting). Nearly all of these stunts had to be executed in a single take due to the extremely limited budget and compressed shooting schedule.

The surround sound for Muck was mixed at Universal Studios Sound Facilities on the weekends, though Muck was frequently bumped off the schedule while Universal was finishing Fast & Furious 6 at the time. The head of the sound department was so impressed after seeing Muck that he mixed it personally, free of charge.

Despite the micro budget, Muck was shot completely on Red Epic in 4K Ultra HD. The film has a unique look and texture thanks to its being colored and conformed from a finished 4K master in DaVinci Blackmagic, courtesy of Blacklist Digital.

Muck was shot entirely on location in Cape Cod, MA, and exclusively at night. The predominantly Californian cast and crew survived 19 grueling all-night shoots, mostly outdoors, battling the elements: extreme cold, bugs, critters, and worse in the New England wetlands.

The film features a wall-to-wall score for which Steve Wolsh envisioned each character having their own particular sound, much like Prokofiev's Peter & the Wolf. The numerous instruments used to accomplish this include oboes, violins, guitars (jazz, electric and bass), a grand piano, drums, banjos, and ukuleles - all of which were composed and performed for Muck without the uses of synthesizers.

Steve Wolsh wrote Muck to be filmed at a house which he owns. It sits alone at the end of a court, atop the vast marsh depicted in the film.

Steve Wolsh sold the film's Massachusetts State Film Tax Credit to Apple Computers. It was the smallest tax credit that Apple had ever purchased.

The Cape Cod, Massachusetts, communities of Dennis and West Dennis appear as the fictional town of West Craven in the film.

Special FX makeup work was done by creature FX artist Ben Bornstein.



Reviews: [25]

  • avatar

    Wrathmaster

    What the... I have no words.

    So lemme get this straight. You're 2 best friends were killed, you run for help, you decide hey - there's a bar, and there's a hot girl right there.. let's have a shot, and hey, I'm just gonna wash my face whilst I'm here because it's not like anyone is in any immediate danger of being savaged to death whilst they wait for me to save them. And the nudity... well my Husband loves a bit of T&A in a film (he's a guy,duh!) but even he couldn't understand why every girl in the move was flashing her silicones when they should perhaps be concentrating on , um I don't know..survival maybe?

    We couldn't understand if this was a horror, comedy, or an audition for porno for the lovely leading ladies. That being said, the only thing they could do was take off their clothes as their acting skills left a LOT to be desired. Where did they find these girls?! In the back pages of a magazine me thinks.

    How on earth this film got the green light for production, I have no idea. And we were so outraged by the sh*tness of the overall film, I signed up to IMDb just to warn others about not only wasting time watching this spaff, but actually destroying braincells by watching it.

    How people have given this anything over 1* I don't know. I can only assume that there are a couple of 15yr old boys banging the bishop to the boobies.

    So in short...I just died inside after watching this ..erm...'film'

    (Oh, and the girl in the club bathroom changing her underwear 20 times???? WHY???)

    DO NOT WASTE 1 SECOND OF YOUR PRECIOUS LIFE ON THIS FILM!!
  • avatar

    Shalizel

    New 2015 "Horror" slash Thriller. "Muck" This was very strange and odd and I didn't really like the acting or the story line, if any? I didn't really get it?

    They started off with 5 teens in the middle of a swamp running from someone or something and 2 of them dead and 3 of them tired and wounded badly. One of them took 45 minutes to die despite having a bad cut across his chest and leg.

    Most of the killing took place off camera so you don't see what happened to them, we are just told they are gone and dead.

    The acting was poor, story was poor, and for 1 hour 20 this could have been a good movie but in the end was very disappointing!! I see others saying it was bad movie too?
  • avatar

    Malodred

    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."
  • avatar

    Glei

    There is so much wrong with this movie I don't even know where to begin. You're dropped in the middle of a story, and meet up with boring two-dimensional characters who are not developed even a little bit during the movie. Something else that was awful was the camera work, shaky is a big understatement. The lighting for the movie is also terrible, it's actually absent. This movie is supposed to be the 2nd in a trilogy, I don't know why you would make the 2nd movie first, but i'm really not looking forward to the prequel or the sequel. I'm excited to put this movie on the back of my shelf and forget about it. The marketing for the movie was really exciting and this is for sure one of those cases where something is hyped up and made to look watchable and when it comes out it's unbearable. The final complaint is going to be the fact that the director decided that putting a pair of breasts every 40 seconds in the movie might redeem it from being bashed online but that's not the case whatsoever.
  • avatar

    Yojin

    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.
  • avatar

    Arilak

    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!
  • avatar

    Swift Summer

    I did not finish watching this movie as all the nudity rubbish was boring me to hell and back.

    I like horror movies for the horror, creepy, jumpy, bloody, great characters and not because I might get to see some random shots of nudity! I felt let down as other reviews seemed to be OK but half way through I was already put off plus getting very and I realised this is not my type of horror as it clearly needed more story, more gore and less nudity.

    I do not get the long standing connection between semi naked woman and horror??? I like chocolate and pizza but would never put them together. So if you are like me and just want simple horror then pass on this one.
  • avatar

    Sti

    The most awful movie I had the bad luck to watch!

    Starting off the movie itself is anything but a movie in the first place. No plot no story setting nothing at all!!!

    Secondly the actors were terrible and lacked the basic skills for acting. No expressions, lame jokes around, over touched conversations and dialogues. Disgraceful!

    Then comes the horror. I never felt the tinge to be scared at anything at all in the movie. Nor spooky nor a proper slasher and nothing in between either!

    Lastly, the director had to be a pervert so he had directed some girls to show off their assets without any reason whatsoever.

    Not recommended at any cost, at any situation or for any purpose!
  • avatar

    Anardred

    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
  • avatar

    Virn

    I was so excited for this film. I really wanted it to be good. Billed as a "love letter" to the slasher genre. Not at all, it was an insult. I think other reviewers have summed up what's wrong with this film. No need to repeat how bad the flow or acting was. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's the second part of a trilogy. We get it, this film starts in the middle. We are smart enough to deal with that. It was just bad on every level. It wasn't poking fun at the genre or even "so bad it's good". It was just bad. Period. Even bad or cheaply made horror films can still be good or lots of fun. This was neither. Also, the nudity wasn't an issue for me. It's a staple of old school slasher/horror films. Yet somehow even they "mucked" that up too.
  • avatar

    Watikalate

    First off, having read the majority of the previous reviews for this film, it's obviously not everybody's cup of tea. That said, I thought I'd give it a go anyway & have to say that I'm glad I did. I struggle to understand how this film has such a low rating from so many reviews?!?! The film is full of clichés & gratuitous nudity & to be fair it does feel as though the first 20 minutes of the film are missing. But it didn't take me long to pick up what was happening & I thought the mix of comedic moments & gratuitous gore/nudity were great. It's a fun, tongue in cheek, horror film. If you want serious horror, it's not for you. If you're going to sit there & ask yourself why a man whose friends have been brutally murdered has stopped at a bar for a drink, or to perv on a half naked woman whilst he's searching for help, it's not for you. If you want a silly, over the top, blood/gore/T&A fest, give it a go. You won't be disappointed. Personally, I loved it & eagerly await a sequel.
  • avatar

    Kirimath

    Well, that was ... different! Firstly I thought I'd missed the start of the film. It just jumps right in with a group of half naked, injured, young people staggering through a marsh in the dark outside the town of "West Craven" (get it?) to an empty holiday home seeking refuge. Only when you're a couple of minutes in do the title credits start to roll and you know it's supposed to be that way. Refuge from what? Well, mute, psychopathic, albino, half naked zombie "creepers" of course. That really just about does it for the storyline. I read it's a kick starter funded sequel to a former film that didn't get made (?) and it's got that feel about it. Some of the script lines also support that. The girls are attractive (several ex beauty queens) and they scream, run about and get naked and wet pleasantly often. The guys are, well, guys. All of them are expert in the do's and don'ts of horror films. Always go into the dark cellar; always leave any weapon you find behind; always, if you're a girl, get naked and take a shower in a strange house; never, ever, phone the police even when you eventually get a phone that works etc. etc. etc. Overall I'd say that, as it stands, it's an exercise in style over substance. The style, to be fair, isn't at all bad but the lack of substance really kills the entire effort. Written, produced and directed by newcomer Steve Wolsh, a sequel,"Muck: Feast of Saint Patrick", (It'll make more sense after you've seen this one) is already in the pipe for 2016. Unfortunately, the film ends just as abruptly as it starts. Steve actually makes a cameo appearance in an end credit scene that, you guessed it, bears no relation to anything in the movie. The end credits just come out of nowhere. Take an adequate B movie horror film, miss the opening 20 minutes and walk out 20 minutes before the end, and you've got "Muck". Checking on the net there's a level of background chaos that appears to go deeper than this film. A prequel that was never made, plans to release the first part in the trilogy after the second, and maybe even after the third. Different names given for the different films. Different answers given to people making enquiries. I'd be tempted to write the whole thing off as a shambles but ... there's something there. On the basis of watching Muck I'd say that, if Steve actually gets enough money to make an entire film, (with a beginning, a middle, and an end), it might, just might, be worth watching ... but this isn't it. My score 4/10, mostly for the girls. Steve, I envy you. It was probably way more enjoyable to make than to watch. If you ever make the sequel, or the prequel, or any movie, I'd still give it a watch.
  • avatar

    White gold

    I stopped watching this film after about 30 minutes. It was that crappy. In fact its one of the worst films I think I've ever seen in the horror genre. For example a guy is seriously injured but instead of trying to tend to the guys injuries his pals stand around making small talk in front of a house they have just broken into because they were in dire need of shelter and a way to help their injured friend. The bigger horror story here is that this film even exists. It makes crap movies like Piranha 3D look like masterworks. Truly a waste of time. Apparently its the filmmakers first effort-lets hope its his last. Not to be overly cruel the Turkish adaptation of Star Wars is still a worse film-but not by much. Plenty of dumb broads in the film but no sex-which is a weird combination. Sex in a movie isn't a forbidden territory. Anyway-total joke of a film. Stay away from it completely.
  • avatar

    Mightsinger

    Okay so I'm a fan of cheesy horror, but this was just terrible. Muck tells a classic horror story of how much the director likes breasts. The breasts are displayed in various ways throughout Muck. In various stages of clothed, unclothed, wet, muddy, screaming, bouncing, etc…

    Our story takes place in a town or collection of houses in Cape Cod where the director took acid trips as a teenager which lead to the creation of this film. Side note; do not take drugs while watching this movie. The camera angles and needless effects will make you feel as if you took drugs anyway. We start off with a bang when three pairs of breasts come out of the swamp with two guys, one hurt. They find a dark house conveniently placed right in front of them. The three pairs of breasts and their escorts go into the house to drink. Our hero decides to go find a phone while the breasts and the other escort stay at the house, what could go wrong. As our hero runs out into the night he runs past several houses which may contain phones but no breasts so he continues to run like Forrest Gump. The others are assaulted by the main villains of the film, shirt-less albino farmers with laryngitis. These albinos also enjoy breasts and end up enjoying them too much and kill the breasts and their escort. One pair of breasts does escape the carnage by going back into the swamp. Forrest Gump stumbles into a bar and convinces a group of middle aged bar breasts to use their phone. He naturally uses this to call his cousin. His cousin is busy escorting two pairs of breasts by himself, but decides to take them with him to pick up his cousin. The director also decides at this point to take a swipe at Wes Craven for some reason, because his movie is in the league where Wes Craven is beneath him. Forrest leaves the middle aged breasts to head back to his breasts that he thinks are still alive and bouncing back at the house. He gets lost a bit and comes across a cemetery because you need a cemetery in a horror movie. Nothing happens there though and he runs through it. He does however come across a house where a pair of breasts is undressing, he stops to peep a bit before returning. His cousin is heading to the house in his cab when suddenly there is another group of albino farmers blocking the road. They want the breasts in the cab and proceed to attack them. Somehow theses albinos flip the cab onto its roof and kill one of the pair of breasts. Cab driver and the other pair of breasts head off into the woods and end up at the house. Forrest Gump arrived at the house to find his favorite pair of breasts dead just as his cousin and the other pair of breasts arrive. Awkward dialog takes place to remind the viewer that these two are close cousins that have done stuff together in the past. They go in the house to investigate where the other breasts are. Meanwhile the single pair of breasts that escaped the earlier albino attack has found her way to a shed somewhere, in the swamp. An albino attacks her there and she manages to kill him with a pitchfork. The power in this area seems to suffer from rolling blackouts, despite this the automatic sprinkler system comes on to spray down her breasts in slow motion. That being taken care of the pair of breasts heads back to the house. When she arrives at the house to find Forrest, the cab driver, and the cab drivers pair of breasts, she tells them how the albinos don't like the swamp and won't follow you there. She forgot about the one she killed at the shed I guess.

    The albinos then attack the house but as well trained as these albinos seem to be in hand to hand combat, they missed the course on defense from common yard equipment. Our cab driver turns out to be Rambo with a shovel, and takes down the majority of the albinos. He also loses his shirt, because the director didn't notice all the women leave the theater within the first 2 minutes of the film. The remaining breasts and the two guys head into the swamp because the other pair of breasts said the albinos won't follow. Within minutes however they are attacked by a very large albino with really bad laryngitis. Together the two males take him down with Rambo's trusty shovel. Something however in the swamp takes Forrest Gump into the water; this something didn't want the breasts I guess. So Rambo and his pair of breasts are all that's left and the movie closes with the water bubbling around them and Rambo saying "that's not good". The director then blows the remainder of the budget on a credit sequence that would make you think it's a good movie. So in summary this movie is about breasts and albinos whose only weakness is yard tools. The breasts are truly the point of the movie though. The director makes it very evident by centering the breasts in most shots. So if you like breasts and shirtless albino farmers with laryngitis, this movie is for you.
  • avatar

    Terr

    Whilst this is not one of the best movies I have seen, it is also a long way from the worst 2.7 seems an awfully low rating for a movie whose cinematography,audio,soundtrack and effects are all good, the storyline not so much and whilst the acting is not great it is adequate and this movie has a lot of style, perhaps too much time is spent admiring the physical attributes of the undoubtedly attractive young actresses, it is not the worst way to err. Overall I found it an enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours, even if I did shake my head a couple of times at the choices made by our heroes. If Steve Wolsh gets adequate funding for his next project I for one would be happy to see it. Well done to all and good luck for the future.
  • avatar

    Nahelm

    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!
  • avatar

    Modifyn

    Well a lot of negativity is spilled about this movie and after seeing myself i cant help but shake my head.

    I don't find the movie to be bad in the slightest. There are far worse films out there and to bury this one in to the ground, well thats just ridiculous. Over the years I've seen many films and to be honest i find this one to be pretty decent. Yes there is a lot of nudity. But i don't complain about that since many horror movies try to hide their poor quality by it. If you expect this to be the best horror movie then you'll be disappointed. If you want an entertaining movie that has a lot of blood, original ideas and a lovely female cast, well then your in luck.

    The only bits that i found not to be good at all were the male roles and the fact this movie started in the middle. Although i can understand the attempt of doing something original there. Unfortuatly it didn't work out.

    Will i recommend this movie? Absolutely. And I'm also waiting to see the rest.
  • avatar

    Wnex

    First off, I would like to commend the film and it makers for achieving what has been done here, on a budge of only 250 THOUSAND dollars.

    For making a movie, especially one done such as this, with NO CGI and only practical stunts is especially daunting.

    I doubt anyone knows how much it costs to make a movie, especially in this day and age. But thats all besides the point.

    I believe that everyone that hates this movie, or that finds it boring, because of either the dialogue, or the "supposed" T and A (since when does depicitng women in bra and underwear count as nudity?) are missing the point.

    And that is realism.

    That, more than anything else is what made this movie enjoyable for me.

    Believeablity, should be the thing horror movies aim for. Like, if you yourself can't picture this happening to you, or believe that the characters are real, then why should you be scared for them? Heres an example: Early in the movie, one of the characters is (for unexplained reasons) in bra and panties. We the viewers can see her shivering, because SHE IS LEGITIMATELY COLD.

    In conclusion, I feel the dialogue and the pacing all mesh with what one would expect to actually happen in a situation such as we found the characters having gotten into.

    Also, Kane hodder in the movie is a blessing, considering this movie is I believe THE TRUE successor to what Friday the 13th aimed (and achieved) back when it was made.

    10/10
  • avatar

    Vikus

    Muck is a classic gore/ slasher movie set with all lacing's of an 80's horror flick.Horror at its best! Or at its worst I must say. A great all round slash/ gore entertainment. 90 minutes of pure fright. Perfect for adults with a strong heart. Don't miss Gia Skova as Victoria Cougar in the movie.Steve Wolsh has done a great job of keeping the classic suspense/ horror combination. I love horror but Average story line; actually i could be better but lot of beauties thrown in including the lovely Gia. Over all good experience with movie "Muck" and my favorite Gia. i would also recommend to watch the movie and my rating is 7/10 for the movie and 10/10 for Gia
  • avatar

    Tisicai

    looks like i am in the minority here. I'm thinking that because of the polished look, interesting trailer, and decent distribution that this movie has hit mainstream crowds and therefor has gotten a lot of hate. Don't get me wrong i'd be crazy to ignore the fact that this is a flawed film. There were plenty of times where I had scoffed and shook my head at the stupidity. For example, the acting by most of the cast is atrocious. The nudity was over the top and exploitive (the scene with the girl in the bathroom trying on bras made no sense? she walks around with a purse full of bras and panties?) and there were a few continuity errors(the living room was drenched in blood yet no one was killed in that room and the girl who got tossed through the window couldn't have possibly lost that much blood). Yet i felt that one characters performance and hillariously cheesy one liners helped completely redeem this movie in the second half. Him and his friends relationship made me actually care for the characters as well as laugh at all the awesome violence on screen. Again i must repeat that Muck is undoubtedly a flawed movie that is not meant to be taken seriously. Mainstream crowds wont be able to overlook its flaws but i think hardened horror fans will be able to look passed the stupidness and take it for what it is. Dumb fun.
  • avatar

    Yla

    This is a disturbingly horrific film that is distinguished by a creatively written screenplay, superb direction, and extraordinary performances. Written and directed by Steve Wolsh, CGI effects are minimal and dangerous stunts and live action replications are used to create some of the most hair raising scenes ever filmed. Lachlan Buchanan, Puja Mohindra, and Bryce Draper give stunning individual performances as innocent people suddenly engaged in a battle between good and evil on St. Patrick's Day. Filmed on location in the marshes of Cape Cod, MA, director Wolsh manages to make excellent use of the unusual environment to create an overwhelmingly eerie atmosphere of fear, dread, and unyielding terror. Many of the scenes in this film contain some of the most haunting imagery captured for the screen in years. At times, this is a motion picture that's nearly brilliant and almost achieves true cinema greatness. No one who experiences this film can deny the utter terror, the unrelenting, all engulfing suspense, and bone chilling horror that is ultimately Muck.
  • avatar

    Mitynarit

    I wanted to see a scary story, brief nudity, and teens/young adults in danger. The bonus was Kane Hodder. The movie gave me what I wanted. It's not Oscar-worthy, but interesting enough to make me want to see the prequel.

    Like most movies with new directors, especially if they are the writer, there was not enough edited out. Seeing every detail of Troit called for a ride and his uninteresting interactions with his girlfriend, bartender, and another girl (who didn't need to be present at all) slowed the whole movie down. Same for Noah going to a bar for help, which he didn't seem to do. There were several scenes that could have been cut completely, but I assume the director just wanted to get several people into the movie. OK, so they have their SAG cards now, hopefully this won't be the case in the prequel.
  • avatar

    Skiletus

    Well I learned one thing... never run half naked in rain boots. Thank you Steve Wolsh for that and thanks for proving not all ideas are good ones.

    Seriously never watch this movie unless you want to know what the entire Victoria's Secret collection looks like. Do yourself a favor and listen to the reviews for once. I'm not sure if any of you have seen the film Monsturd... That had more of a story then this piece of trash. I have never been so lost in a horror film in my life. Most likely never going to watch anything this director puts out again Really disappointed in the uses of Kane as well.

    P.S Maybe next time use actual lighting instead of a flash light
  • avatar

    Wilalmaine

    The breasts on view elevated this movie from absolute garbage to a delectably delicious, of which there is no respite. Beautiful, pert breasts, gorgeous young women, explicitly sensuous sexuality. I have no idea what it's about, but any film with such beautifully formed asses and breasts has something going for it! 10/10!
  • avatar

    Abywis

    A group of young adults are out one summer during St. Patrick's in the wilds of Cape Cod in the town of Wes(t) Craven. They are being hunted by Kane Hodder and company who hack them up and rip off the tops of women...and then hack them up. We don't know who or why. The kids reaction in not getting the police is inane. The bad guys appear to be the offspring of Michael Berryman. Nothing makes sense except that the film was designed that way.

    This is a spoof of the 80's horror/slasher film. In fact Billy (Grant Alan Ouzts) comically explains who dies and why and in what order. He even claims Kylie is too classy to show her boobs and it is even in her contract...a little hint that the top billed Playboy starlet keeps her top on. Nothing makes sense. All the women were beautiful. There was an abundance of nudity. The only thing missing was a chainsaw.

    In addition to the frequent topless scenes, I also liked the dialogue, sort of like buying Playboy for the articles. I caught a street name in the film and searched it on line only to find a 1862 square foot house on said road in West Dennis Cape Cod that rents itself out and looked identical to the one in the film in case you are looking for a vacation home used in a B horror film. I am in no way connected to the film, but did visit Cape Cod once.

    It is a film not to be taken seriously.

    F-bomb, Nudity (Stephanie Danileson, Laura Van Hees, Laura Jacobs, and Ava whose face we don't see, is deliberately uncredited, they blurred out the name, and might be our Playboy starlet.)