Peta Wilson is one of the most stunningly beautiful women ever seen on the screen, so an argument might be made for seeing her in this. But the movie unfortunately is a hopelessly incompetent piece of amateur filmmaking and does not have a single redeeming quality apart from Peta. It is rather hard to believe that movies that bad can get a commercial release. What is even worse, instead of getting some opportunity to be sexy (apart from a brief lesbian sex scene where she shows no skin), the entire character development of her role consists of her being abused by the protagonist. Sad.
5 Reviews
Quentin Tarantino?
artpf5 October 2013
I watched this in streaming video mode and the summary said "In the vein of Quentin Tarantino!"
Correct!
If QT had no talent.
The film has the worst actors I think I've ever seen.
Made in 1996 and they seem to use some stock footage from the 70s for some scenes because they color has faded to red! Wow.
It's simply a difficult film to watch because it's so bad. And I'd like to know who had the bright idea to compare one frame of this garbage to Quentin Tarantino!
It's slow as molasses and has zero humor. The director makes a lipstick lesbian scene completely unerotic and unappealing! How on earth did that happen?
Correct!
If QT had no talent.
The film has the worst actors I think I've ever seen.
Made in 1996 and they seem to use some stock footage from the 70s for some scenes because they color has faded to red! Wow.
It's simply a difficult film to watch because it's so bad. And I'd like to know who had the bright idea to compare one frame of this garbage to Quentin Tarantino!
It's slow as molasses and has zero humor. The director makes a lipstick lesbian scene completely unerotic and unappealing! How on earth did that happen?
Decent art type film
oldblueeyes7319 September 2002
Decent art type film. Slow but quite moving. The story of a dead end stoner type who cannot right his life even with a brother and girlfriend trying desperately to help him. Realistic but obviously made on a painfully low budget
Art film that works
micah-113 September 2002
Loser is one of those rare no budget art films that work. I'm most people who are used to watching studio films won't get this film however I thoroughly enjoyed it. Think Cassevettes or a french cinema. Long takes, lot's of voice over and many imperfections. However the performances are solid and the movie has a good deal of heart and reality that makes it a worthy film.
Cool no budget film
info-244 December 2000
Just rented this film at Hollywood Video as part of the new First Rites program there. While obviously a no budget endeavor this film has more heart than most indies or studio films I've seen. Plus what a perk to see Peta with her clothes off! I'm surprised this film isn't available everywhere. Not too mention the lame ass studio film that stole this title earlier this year...
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
