I had heard mixed things about SUCK from festival screenings, and I don't know why, it's really just not that good. The film wants to be something that it just doesn't quite achieve, unless you are a fan of misplaced music, non-laugh-out-loud jokes and tame, seen-it-before Vampire gags.
The biggest issue with SUCK is that it doesn't go for the jugular, pun intended. Its pretty weak in all aspects. I can respect the attempt and idea, but I can't respect the way it was carried out. The film was obviously low budget, but big enough to get the names that were attached, which were the only reason I can see this film getting the attention it did. The cameos were decent, but the rest of the film was badly paced, very predictable and uneventful. As a viewer I knew what was coming in the first ten minutes, but what should have taken 25 mins to get there, was stretched to about 50mins. The music didn't fit in with the hard-rock atmosphere, it was very 90's indie-pop sounding, and not a single tune stuck in my head. The biggest mistake with this film is that it didn't go all out in any sense, it wasn't a hilarious or over the top comedy horror, it wasn't an all out rock and roll horror, it was just tame all around, with lots and lots of gimmicks. Ontop of the that, the look of it was quite bad. Camera work looked really cheap, like Hilarious House of Frightenstein cheap. If it was intentional, it didn't lend itself to a better film. I have to say I'm not a big fan of REPO, and knowing its budget was somewhat higher, it at least knew what it was and went for it, I have a little more respect for it after seeing SUCK.
I feel bad ragging on a low budge film with a cool premise, but when it's just not done right, in reason for spending money on well known cameo names over substance, that makes me think of the high priced garbage Hollywood churns out, with big names and lots of gimmicks, and I don't buy that. Sorry
The biggest issue with SUCK is that it doesn't go for the jugular, pun intended. Its pretty weak in all aspects. I can respect the attempt and idea, but I can't respect the way it was carried out. The film was obviously low budget, but big enough to get the names that were attached, which were the only reason I can see this film getting the attention it did. The cameos were decent, but the rest of the film was badly paced, very predictable and uneventful. As a viewer I knew what was coming in the first ten minutes, but what should have taken 25 mins to get there, was stretched to about 50mins. The music didn't fit in with the hard-rock atmosphere, it was very 90's indie-pop sounding, and not a single tune stuck in my head. The biggest mistake with this film is that it didn't go all out in any sense, it wasn't a hilarious or over the top comedy horror, it wasn't an all out rock and roll horror, it was just tame all around, with lots and lots of gimmicks. Ontop of the that, the look of it was quite bad. Camera work looked really cheap, like Hilarious House of Frightenstein cheap. If it was intentional, it didn't lend itself to a better film. I have to say I'm not a big fan of REPO, and knowing its budget was somewhat higher, it at least knew what it was and went for it, I have a little more respect for it after seeing SUCK.
I feel bad ragging on a low budge film with a cool premise, but when it's just not done right, in reason for spending money on well known cameo names over substance, that makes me think of the high priced garbage Hollywood churns out, with big names and lots of gimmicks, and I don't buy that. Sorry