Muck (I) (2015) User Reviews

Bad Movie / Bad Actors / Bad Actresses

[richardhoughton · 2/10 · 20 March 2015]

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?

Not my type of horror.

[Bobbybenoir187 · 2/10 · 16 March 2015]

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.

Different

[nabokov95 · 4/10 · 12 March 2015]

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.

The writer wanted to hire girls to get their boobs out for him

[kimmie_cutie · 1/10 · 16 March 2015]

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!!

Muck is an appropriate title.

[iceanvil · 1/10 · 13 March 2015]

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."

Where to Begin...

[Tyson_S · 1/10 · 18 March 2015]

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.

Dreadful!

[panther_husky · 1/10 · 18 March 2015]

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!

There are no spoilers here because THERE'S NOTHING TO SPOIL!

[Jack_Slashington · 1/10 · 21 March 2015]

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

An insult to horror fans.....

[hcsg-jobs · 1/10 · 22 March 2015]

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.

90 minutes never coming back!

[smokin-kid16 · 1/10 · 20 March 2015]

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!

I'm going against the grain, personally I loved it

[whinger1979 · 8/10 · 10 October 2015]

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.

What the heck....

[PatrickP · 6 March 2015]

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!

Don't Muck it

[kosmasp · 7/10 · 3 April 2020]

Or "Another Deadly Weekend" as it was renamed in Germany for its release. Maybe a better title than Muck, but I'll leave that up to you. I am shocked though at the level of hate this receives here. Don't get me twisted, this is not a masterpiece (and I reckon some felt they had to vote this a 10 because so many scored it low), but this is fun.

And when I say fun, I mean that exactly like that. Yes this is not exactly Horror and yes there is quite some erratic character motivation and decisions ... but while the script feels like it could have done with a bit more work, the actors and parts of the dialogue is really good. The timing of the jokes works mostly. There seems to be no CGI, which works for the movie and the low budget.

Now onto one of the biggest criticisms (besides this not being entirely horror and the beginning of the movie): mirrors and flesh. The director might have a mirror fetish, but he uses it for men and women characters in this. Yes there is some nudity in this, but this should neither bother you nor excite you (there are other sources for that). Yes the main cast is mostly pretty, but is this something you find appalling? Try not to concentrate on being negative if possible.

And lastly the beginning. Thrown into the action, into a weird world. I loved that - there is almost nothing more sufficient than keeping the viewer on the edge of their seat. And not knowing what's going on or where we are, how we got there ... is quite satisfying. It's mostly how every great TV show works/begins.

Yes the movie is riddled with flaws too (planting and payoff for example of a certain location, characters/decisions), but the cinematography, the acting and some of the script work nicely together. Believe me there are way worse movies out there ... I've seen them

Puerile, puerile, puerile.

[schoning · 1/10 · 22 March 2015]

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.

Even Russ Meyer would say NO

[GSK23 · 1/10 · 21 March 2023]

So it's worse than a feature length Bay Watch movie. But it's also worse than ANYTHING Ed Wood could have made. This director has zero creativity and seems to think that all he has to do is throw some blood at T&A. Heck, even in the 70s, they knew there had to be something more than that! Something for the audience to grab a hold of...

Otherwise, you just made a film for 8 year old white boys. OR you just made a film for adult white men that haven't progressed since they were 8 years old.

Yeah, that bad. Zero redeeming qualities. Not even "so bad it's good"!

And to think that this guy is STILL out there cranking out more of the same. This film was almost 8 years ago and he still hasn't progressed as a filmmaker or, apparently, mature human being. Sad!

A movie about breasts and killer albinos

[tmdarby · 1/10 · 10 April 2015]

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.

An awful film without a doubt.

[lois-lane33 · 1/10 · 14 April 2015]

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.

I really wanted to like the movie!

[Hellmant · 3/10 · 31 March 2015]

'MUCK': One and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

B-horror/comedy flick from debut filmmaker Steve Wolsh. Wolsh wrote, directed and produced the movie; on a mere $250,000 budget (and it shows)! It's the first in a planned trilogy and tells the story of a group of friends trying to survive the night in an abandoned Cape Cod vacation house; after being almost killed by something sinister, in the swampy marshes nearby. It stars Lachlan Buchanan, Puja Mohindra, Bryce Draper, Jaclyn Swedberg (who was named Playboy Playmate of the year, in 2012) and horror legend Kane Hodder. Despite the filmmaker's admirable (and somewhat ambitious) intentions, the movie sucks.

The film begins with a group of friends emerging from the marshes of Cape Cod. They're bloody, wounded and frantic. They also apparently already lost a couple of their friends, to something evil in the marshes. They break into a vacation house; as one friend, Noah (Draper), runs to a local bar for help (it's also St. Patrick's Day). Noah calls his cousin, Troit (Buchanan), and asks him for a ride; not telling him of the danger he and his friends are in. Whatever was after them is still hunting them, and killing them off; one by one. Troit, and his friend Chandi (Mohindra), unwittingly venture into the chaos as well.

The movie thinks it's a lot more clever than it actually is. There are a lot of tongue-in-cheek, inside jokes; that aren't really funny, or witty, at all. The acting is also really bad, and the dialogue and story are horrible. There is some decent nudity and gore, but that's about it. Wolsh was apparently trying to make a fun B-horror flick; that's an homage to other classic and popular B- slasher movies, but it doesn't really work. I admire what he was trying to do but I'm just not very impressed by the end results, and I don't think most other horror fans will be either. I really wanted to like the movie, though!

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3bbh5F6Mfw

Boobs and butts horror.

[BA_Harrison · 4/10 · 30 September 2017]

A group of friends—Noah (Bryce Draper), Kylie (Stephanie Danielson), Desiree (Laura Jacobs), Billy (Grant Alan Ouzts), and Mia (Lauren Francesca)—emerge from a swamp having narrowly escaped from unseen assailants. Stumbling upon a deserted house, they break in and try to survive the night, Noah phoning his cousin Troit (Lachlan Buchanan) for help, who arrives with friend Chandi (Puja Mohindra) in tow.

Muck is not so much a horror movie as it is an excuse to fill an hour and a half with hot, firm, nubile young women in varying states of undress. Barely a minute goes by without a flash of T&A, writer/director Steve Wolsh missing no opportunity to home in on the girls' impressive attributes; for this I am grateful, because without the constant supply of eye candy, Muck would be an almost unwatchable mess of a movie, with a wafer thin plot, dreadful performances and virtually no gore, most of the deaths occurring just off-screen. Wolsh also opts for some really irritating editing techniques during his so-called scary scenes; thankfully, the excessive visual gimmickry is not used whenever the lovely ladies are undressing.

As if to further prove that Wolsh had no agenda other than to show sexy women in their scanties, he offers up zero exposition, leaving the origin of his attackers a total mystery and ending the film with a cliffhanger that suggests a distinct lack of ideas.

Down N' Dirty and absolute Garbage

[typjs · 1/10 · 1 April 2019]

The only people that would enjoy this movie is 13 year old boys, who find it on late night cable. I love a good Bad movie. Numerous Troma Films come to mind. Muck is just a bad Bad movie. Muck, that's exactly where this movie belongs.

Bad on every level ...

[parry_na · 1/10 · 18 January 2016]

This is dreadful. A 'skin-flick' laced with sardonic dialogue and crazy, horny teens for whom taking selfies is a way of life and every line is a sexual innuendo. Classy it isn't, but even as a soft-core film, it lacks the courage to provide anything in the way of titillation that isn't 'cleverly' masked by shadows, shower curtains or foliage. Here is a world where everyone aspires to look and act in exactly the same way and casually roll off identical low-brow dialogue.

Perhaps it is novel for a film featuring such cutesy smart-arses to begin when the youngsters have already suffered some unspeakable horror and are searching through the night for sanctuary, because that is how this kicks off. We don't know why the scantily-clad youngsters are in the middle of a woodland (even though it transpires they are actually seconds away from suburbia) or what manner of jeopardy they have suffered. Who cares? Not the people behind this bore-fest. After finding an empty house in which to shower and continue to drink (clearly these are priorities), the second male of their number (I'm not sure they even have names, although I heard one called Billy at some point) heads to a bar five minutes away to call for help, but gets side-tracked by yet more rampant girl teens.

A joke is attempted. When one teen says to another he's 'At Wes Craven (the name of the bar, I think)', his friend says, 'Wes Craven? Used to be cool but now … eeeeeeewww.' Apparently this is a spoof of 1980's horror 'flicks'. But it really isn't. There's nothing remotely funny here, there's no concept of story, no reasoning for anything, no pretence at the first level of making the viewer want to continue watching beyond the repeated lame nudity teases. It's the worst film I've seen for a very long while and just exists to fill the running time with no discernible lack of talent on display (and yet it appears to be adequately budgeted and directed.

Couldn't the money have been spent on something else?) Even the special effects, never called on to do much, fail to convince, with only gurgling sound effects laid over the soundtrack to let us know that a gore scene is being attempted. More fulfilling to simply watch some straightforward pornography and miss out on the stilted, unfunny drivel in between repeated cleavage shots. Awful.

"Muck" is a horror film with influences firmly planted in multiple generations.

[unclephilk-40560 · 8/10 · 22 March 2015]

Horror movies made by today's generation FOR today's generation really suck. This isn't grumpy grumbling about how "everything old is sooooo much better", it's me saying that the modern iteration of the horror movie has become a wankfest of pointless splatter gore tacked onto an extremely meta plot that takes itself far too seriously, weighed down by way way WAY too many pointless CGI effects.

"Muck" thankfully, is not only just a return to the classic horror movie type, it avoids becoming too self-referential for it's own good. And in that sense, there's something here for horror fans of every age.

All the classic key horror film benchmarks are here. Impossibly hot college age kids (that are all kinds of dumb assholes that make REALLY poor decisions in a crisis?) Check. Bad jokes & a wry sense of humor? Check. Boobs? Check. Haunting visuals & an unsettling sense of danger? Check. Also Boobs? Check. A downright dark and creepy East Coast harbor town location with lots of ramshackle scary death houses of death? Check. Premarital Sex, drugs, & rock and roll? Check. Shower scenes? Check. AWESOME boobs? Check. Creepy albino rapist farmer bad guys from Cape Cod-- -where they exclusively make whitey-white people? Check. Horror movie ICON Kane Hodder? BIG-ASS Check. People who spend WAY, WAY TOO MUCH TIME staring at themselves in the mirror in various degrees of undress? Check. Holiday decor as a backdrop theme (specifically, St. Patrick's Day)? More boobs? Check. It's all here. That & much more.

What really makes "Muck" stand out from the horror movie pack are it's visuals. Shot entirely by first-time Director Steve Wolsh on Red Epic in 4K Ultra HD, using a complete wall-to-wall musical score, & using all PRACTICAL visual effects without a TRACE of today's over-relied on CGI garbage. That's right kids...NO CGI computerized effects were used in the making of this movie---a welcome return to what made all the great films of the 70's and 80's so cool. And the film is EXTREMELY heavy with impressive, high-impact stunt work. And I mean HEAVY. There's enough fights, falls, and explosions (EXSPLOSHUNZ!) here to satisfy even the most jaded of film buffs. And they look absolutely gorgeous on screen. It helps the movie maintain momentum & establishes the constant threat of danger even through the character building/plot exposition moments. Everyone who dies in the movie is inevitably SOME kind of jerk, but because of the visceral & explosive nature of their practical-FX shot death scenes, you end up feeling the impact of their loss SO much more. Not a lot of movies can lay claim to pulling that off. Especially in horror movies, where additional people are solely created to be expendable.

The one thing that might throw audiences watching the film is it's continuity. It initially seems like it jumps around randomly out of order from event to event. However, the film's continuity is actually EXTREMELY tight, and I urge you to stay with the film, no matter how confused you might be in those first few minutes. When "Muck" begins, our cast is already noticeably roughed up, beleaguered & running under the gun...which kind of feels like they just walked straight out of an entirely different horror movie. And you're not wrong. "Muck" is actually the middle film of a trilogy...with a prequel currently in production, followed by the sequel right after. But even with that sense of starting the party already halfway through, the film suffers no loss of storytelling direction. In fact, it only heightens the viewer's attention and desire to not only eventually discover how this tale begins, but who will end up being the lucky/unlucky ones left standing at the end to tell the complete tale. It's a bold statement and a risky narrative to make, but it really works well.

Even though it's neither the beginning or the end of the story, "Muck" is a satisfying and complete crowd-pleasing film all on it's lonesome & it actively makes you want to seek out the next cinematic installment of the series. What more could you really ask for? Watch it late at night with the lights out & your doors locked. My only gripe with the film? Nobody gets whacked in the head with an Anvil. And I'm talking like, a big arse Anvil THWACK taking off up to 80% of some poor schmuck's melon. So get on that, Wolsh.

MY FINAL SCORE: 4 out of 5 Bloody Anvils.

Good to watch

[mohitkumargoel · 7/10 · 18 March 2015]

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

Never has a title been so appropriate...

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 31 December 2015]

MUCK is an appropriate title indeed for this cheap, mucky, no-budget horror wannabe. The film starts off as if it's halfway through the plot of a different film, with a group of survivors escaping through the swamps and being pursued by some nameless evil. What follows on is more of the same: characters bickering, exchanging insults and profanities, and being killed one by one by some weirdo types.

Oh, and I forgot to mention the nudity. With at least a couple of Playboy Playmates in the cast, this is a film all about the nudity. Random characters parade in front of mirrors and strip out of their bras at regular intervals. The sheer scuzziness of it has to be seen to be believed. It gives the film a really sleazy feel which is about the only thing it does have going for it.

Elsewhere, it's a poorly-edited and misconceived monstrosity, wasting the talents of an effective-looking Kane Hodder playing one of the villains. Hodder enlivened the likes of the HATCHET trilogy but is sorely wasted here, although he's the only actor I liked in the whole thing. Cheap gore effects and incessant action only serve to induce a headache in the viewer.

T and a...

[HeathenHungr · 2/10 · 24 March 2015]

One star for the t's, one star for the a's...

A bad attempt on making a slasher movie in my opinion. There is a lot of blood, beautiful women showing of their bodies, smart-ass one-liners and a wide array of weapons being used. But the acting, directing, writing etc. is really poorly executed. It's not provoking, it's not scary, it's not erotic, it's not exciting, it's not worth one hour and 38 minutes of your life!

If you're looking for a slasher movie, there are many better ones out there... And it doesn't even help to watch it as a B-movie, it's not even worthy of a letter from the alphabet...