Strippers vs Werewolves

g

Britain leads the world when it comes to tongue in cheek horror SHAUN OF THE DEAD started a sub-genre of comedy horror movies both sides of the Atlantic , one of which was STRIPPERS VS WEREWOLVES , a horror comedy done with a nod to Guy Ritchie and a film that made £38 on the first week of its release £38 !!! Let me see now if my arithmetic is right then even one cinema showing this in the entire United Kingdom only received a grand total of between four to eight paying patrons ! Surely this must be either some mistake or some type of record . Surely no film can be bad enough to receive such low box office ? To be blunt STRIPPERS VS WEREWOLVES is trash comedy horror but didn't we know that from the title ? In its defence it does contain a lot of well known faces from British soap operas and it does have a mentalist plot featuring a gang of werewolves on a revenge mission against a group of strippers who killed one of their number in a club . This is the type of movie that will win Movie Of The Month in FHM In its ambition to fuse comedy , horror and Guy Ritchie it fails to do any of them justice and the story meanders all over the place , so much so that one thinks the title is merely to remind the audience of what the story is about . There's also a very irritating technique of using split screen by director Johnathan Glenedening which doesn't work and shows that there's only one Guy Ritchie

I bought this on DVD for £2 at some high street store. I guess it's one of those flicks that didn't make the grade. Now although, there have been some good British horror flicks such as Creep, The Descent, the classic Dracula movies from Hammer films. But Strippers v Werewolves? What the hell did I just see? Bad acting, bad script, bad plot, bad everything.. It looks so cheap and tacky.. I guess the only thing that was keeping this movie up was the actors that ranges from Sarah Douglas (Superman 2, Conan the Destroyer), Alan Ford (The Squeeze, Snatch) and Billy Murray (Rise of the FootSoldier) just to name a few.. Well, to be honest.. This was a waste of time, money and effort (to the filmmakers) to come up with this pappy-show! No, I didn't like this flick, so the DVD went to charity.. which by now, it may've found itself a new home. I've seen better movies than this tripe. No wonder it just took £38 at the box office. Not my cup of tea! Thumbs down!

Alright, so, the pacing was godawful - but it's actually not that terrible a film. My speedy summary: it puts both the cheap AND the cheerful in "cheap and cheerful". I love Raspberry films - films so bad they actually become pretty good - and this is definitely a Raspberry. Admittedly, not on Raspberry-par as "Megapirahna", but up there. There's some lovely bits of humour scattered throughout too, thought it might not be the sort the US is used to; snippets of self-depreciating humour, and I do so appreciate that. (Unlike the plain awfulness of the "scary movie" series. Ughh.) Very enjoyable - I certainly don't feel I wasted my time, lemme put it that way - would watch a sequel.

I am a big fan of independent cinema and bought this film straight away. I was impressed by similar style films such as the Robert Englund staring Zombie Strippers but this film lacks in every way. The scene at the start of the film showing a night club has some of the worst cgi lighting effects ever put on film. The cinematography is appalling the film looks like it was shot on camcorders in a drama room of a college. In the modern day and age of dslr cameras and colour treating software this is inexcusable. The editing makes the established actors look like they are reading from scripts. The named stars of the film are in it for a few Min's probably collecting a pay cheque whilst attending a film convention. The makeup effects are cheap looking. The girl who is in shock at the killing of Martin Kemps character possibly gives the worst performance ever recorded in film. The pacing of the film is all over the place. it drags and attempts to be funny but fails miserably. So what is good about the film? The opening credits. they look great. If you want to see how a good British film in the same style is done watch Doghouse or Severance or even Lesbian Vampire Killers. Black and Blue films could be the saviour of British horror but if the upcoming films are as bad as this they will become Britain's answer to Full Moon.

I'm a huge movie buff. and I would definitely watch this again. My name for a movie like this is a "sh*tgore". They're obviously not meant to be high budget or good but I'd much rather watch this than something like Insidious or the try hard and fail horror movies like today. This isn't a horror, or even scary, as I said it's just meant to be funny with some cheap gore. Typically, I don't like British films, British gore or anything but this was actually pretty funny. It's cheap and gimmicky in all the right ways. I think they did a really good job for it to be what it was, if you're expecting something like scorsese you should just walk away. The intro was really good, my favorite part. The soundtrack is pretty cool, I've actually added a few songs to my playlist. It's cheesy but really funny,and it's just fun to watch and laugh at the cheap acting. Although the cinematography was actually really good. I'd give it a 8/10 for the genre that I classify it in, something like killer klowns would be a 10. Anyhow, if you like funny horrible movies, this is a good one.

This movie stinks on so many levels that you will be aghast at how it got made... First the plot is so childish that I thought I was watching an episode of those creepy Chuckle Brothers with * and arse thrown in for good measure... Next was the acting, considering that these actors were not complete amateurs and some have played some really good roles in both TV and film it was pitiful to see them floundering around in this film like kids in a school play with all the lack of context and amateurish line delivery of an 8 year old... One of the things that makes good comedy is getting the timing right, one of the things about great comedy is getting the timing perfect, this film managed to deliver its gags (if you can call such ridiculous schoolboy humour gags) without any timing at all and the gags were too childish to be funny to adults and too filled with sexual meaning for kids to get them so I wonder who the target audience was supposed to be? The effects were ridiculous, the script was ridiculous, the acting was well below par for those who took part, the direction was the only joke in this film (Except the joke at the paying audiences expense), the split screen cinematography was just bloody annoying and as for the trendy comic book images flashed up in place of action well the less said about that the better... All in all this film failed both as a comedy, it certainly failed as a horror, in fact the only thing it succeeded in was as a documentary on how not to make a film...

It takes a special kind of talent, to take a concept so simple, and do nothing good with it. Those who say you can't expect much from a film with a title like "strippers vs werewolves"... why not? Why can't I expect a film to deliver quality regardless of it's premise? There is no character here to be found, and that is where the film is doomed from the very beginning. We can't get emotionally invested or attached to anyone. What infuriates me the most is the number of positive reviews, that having now looked at more closely, were probably friendly in some way with the production. When will people learn that fabricating opinions to get viewers to watch something you know to be bad, will only create negativity towards your work? Every aspect of this production, from the fake reviews, to the famous faces cameos, reeks of "get people to pay to see it, worry about the quality later". That is unacceptable. Respect your audience, or face the consequences. Don't hide behind the title as some sort of defence for being able to lower the bar. You didn't lower the bar. You put the bar on the floor.

The title was a give-away as to what to expect, which was potential guilty pleasure fun but not a masterpiece of film-making. So this wasn't the case of expectations being too high. The cast though seemed decent, which was the main reason for watching. There are three things that made Strippers vs. Werewolves more bearable than it was, a pulsating soundtrack that ranged from eerie to catchy, the hilarious Red Riding Hood-like scene and Sarah Douglas who is good value. The acting generally was a case of a decent cast on paper who act terribly on film. Very few bring life to their roles, even the soap-opera stars(though Ali Bastian is pretty, shame that she has little to work with) and Steven Berkoff and Robert Englund, who'd you'd expect to redeem things, are barely in it and have very little opportunity to shine as a result. As bad as the actors are it's not entirely their fault. Risible is the best way to describe the script, very childish- the worst of it is just cringe-worthy- and not always coherent either, and the characters suffer from lacking any kind of believability or development, so it's very difficult to root for them in any way. The story is also a mess and that's when there is one and when it doesn't feel like a badly done spoof(that probably was the intent but even at that Strippers vs. Werewolves does it badly). As a comedy and a horror Strippers vs. Werewolves fails at both, the comedy isn't funny and the horror is certainly not scary, if anything it's silly and laughably fake. There's also a lot of erotic-like elements that are done very awkwardly. Strippers vs. Werewolves is also one of those movies where you are not sure who it's aiming at, because adults will find it too childish and if a kid tried to watch it- and strictly speaking because of the age rating they shouldn't be in the first place- the content will fly right over their heads. Even teenagers may be puzzling over if the movie is for them or whether it has anything for them to maintain interest. Visually also it's an eyesore. The costumes and settings are basic as expected, while the atmosphere is too childishly and awkwardly conveyed to be creepy or seedy. The split-screen photography comes off worst, the technique is distracting and used far too much and the photography actually looks as though the camera-man was drunk which will make anybody feel sea-sick or nauseous. Strippers vs. Werewolves should also come with a warning for those suffering from epilepsy, not saying that something will happen but there is a risk(and to stop the risk of being insensitive I'm an epilepsy sufferer myself and did feel ill after watching). And the make-up and prosthetics look so awful and cheap, the werewolves actually look like giant rats. Overall, not as irredeemable as it's made out but what it seemed to be trying to do was done really badly. 3/10 Bethany Cox

Come on reviewers - lighten up! All of us need a stupid larf once in a blue moon. No need to be so serious. Among the recent wave of so-called "trash-flicks" bombarding the film-watching public, this is a farcically well-done low-budget horror spoof. Tho all the actors are remarkably professional from start to finish - Martin Compston, Sarah Douglas, Adele Silva (a spot-on Sally Field look-alike) & Nick Nevern are especially noteworthy. Their performances gave me the impetus to check out other films they have made, to watch them act. Perhaps the wry British sense of satire is being stretched to the limits, but this reviewer enjoyed (& was constantly astounded by) the sheer audacity of the filmmakers. What nerve – how did this film come to my attention anyway? Oh – right! Watching "other" Martin Compston films. However, "Strippers vs. Werewolves" is a surprisingly timely commentary on contemporary society today. Sad but true – we are all living in a good Bad Movie.