Vulgar (2000) User Reviews

return of the twisted exploitation movies

[PaulLondon · 4/10 · 25 February 2003]

Vulgar is just that. A cheap, nasty but reasonbly watchable exploitation movie of the type that was being made in the late 70's. Sort of a less existential "Driller Killer". The film also has the sort of flatness and flabbiness that characterised much of this type of film.

The sorry tale of Flappy the clown and his treatment at the hands of a bunch of sickos isn't the greatest of stories and there are some agonisingly boring scenes but it is enthusiastically made with a caustic misanthropic eye.

The greatest controversy will doubtlessly be about the rape scene and its perpetrators. These three guys aren't gay - the father is shown as married with a kid and it is his two sons he commits his terrible crimes with. These are a family of psychopaths who delight in homophobic cruelty. "Lets make hate" Dad says as he begins his abuse of Flappy. For a viewer to automatically label the twisted protagonists gay is wrong. They are psychopathic rapists not gays.

The film raises some interesting questions but it just doesn't have the panache to answer them. Unlike "Happiness" and "Contre Seul Tout" there doesn't seem to be much thought behind the provocative nature of the film and certainly the filmmaking isn't as accomplished. A possible cult item of the future but far from an essential view

Vulgar: Damion Crowley review

[Frequency270 · 6/10 · 23 June 2004]

I almost rated this movie a 5 due to the audio track being about one-two seconds out of sync with the video, but figured that would be a rating on the DVD and not the movie itself.

'Vulgar' attempts to be a dark dramady. Bryan Johnson incorporates the humorous stylings of its producer, Kevin Smith, with a sinister tale of extreme abuse, and a weak man's response to it. Johnson, in attempts not to rush the story uses lengthy character studies with the camera. Occasionally, this means boring. The shadowy realm that Johnson is attempting to create occasionally threatens to blot out necessary story-telling. Brian O'Halloran the under-employed resident of View Askew studios turns in a top-notch performance. All of the actors do give it their all and present a kingdom of mire and helplessness for Flappy/Vulgar. Nice touches are Kevin Smith's blessing, in the form of a brief appearances as a TV show producer (and his first appearance will cause many a double-take).

Overall a good movie, but not a great movie, certainly worth a watch on video. I'd rate it a 6 out of 10.

Damion Crowley

Decent first effort...

[poe426 · 6/10 · 11 November 2002]

***SPOILERS*** In the no-budget world of Public Access, one often contents oneself with intimations of talent: lacking loot, the driven wannabe filmmaker struggles against impossible odds to write, direct or produce SOMETHING of value (perhaps nothing of "lasting value," but certainly something marginally entertaining, at the very least). Likewise, the low budget, indie filmmaker is struggling to entertain or enlighten us. If said IF (Indie Filmmaker) strikes cinematic gold, we get a CARNIVAL OF SOULS or a NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD or a CLERKS or a BLAIR WITCH PROJECT [the greatest Public Access movie ever made], and our miserable lives are thereby enriched. The would-be autuers who fall far short of the mark are legion in number. Somewhere between the two lies the promising newcomer whose innate talent may one day elevate him/her to greater heights.

Like newcomer Bryan Johnson.

VULGAR, best summed up, perhaps, as SHAKES THE CLOWN meets DELIVERANCE (without the humor evinced in the former, which is VULGAR's greatest, most glaring failing), is worth seeing. Yes, Vulgar sucks- but the movie doesn't. There's quite a bit of talent on display here. Maybe not breathtaking, awe-inspiring cinematic slight of hand, but certainly some genuine storytelling ability. And that's what movies- especially the little ones, at THIS end of the spectrum- are all about.

Strange. This is a film that is extremely easy to hate, but to me, I understood what it was going for and appreciated it for that.

[LLAAA4837 · 27 May 2006]

Will Carlson is a birthday clown who is having some troubles. He can't pay the rent, his mom hates him, and everybody gives him a difficult time. He gets the idea of being an adult entertainer party clown. On his first job he is tortured and raped by an insane father and his two sons. He is too embarrassed to call the authorities, so he keeps the entire incident a secret. Some time later, he saves the life of a little girl who is held hostage by her father and becomes famous and gets his own show. Finally, his dream has come true. He gets a call from the family of rapists who had videotaped his performance and tell him to give them a share of his money. He does, but then they also want a repeat reenactment of that fateful night or they will leak the tape to the press. This film doesn't try to be special. It isn't stylized, or done artfully or tastefully. It can be considered many things, but one thing the film can't be criticized for is being pretentious. This is, to put it properly, an old-school exploitation grindhouse style picture. This film is very effective and quite shocking. It certainly is not a film for everybody. It is a hell of an experience. The film is ugly, rough, grainy, and dimly lit. The acting is very intense and the characters are often quite abrasive. The plot of the film is quite realistic to an extent. The rape scenes are pretty horrific and brutal, some of the roughest I've seen in fact. The spends enough time getting us to sympathize and feel sorry for the character of Will Carlson. His roommate(Bryan Johnson, the director of VULGAR) is probably the best character in the film. Ethan Suplee and Matthew Maher are both pretty creepy as the two rapists, Jerry Lewkowitz is quite nasty as the father, and Brian O'Halloran gives a pretty strong performance. In fact, the only serious issue I had with this film is that it tries to be a comedy at times. Ultimately, the attempts at humor come off really poorly. The humor in this film feels out of place and is distracting at times when it shouldn't be. I guess I could call this a black comedy, but the film is actually really disturbing and difficult to watch. Maybe the comedy element was added to make the whole film seem even more wrong. As it is, it's a merciless film and is nasty. If you are a fan of exploitation you will probably love this film. For others, you could probably do with this film.

Pros: -very engaging and moving at times -decent acting -well established dark tone -intense -a guilty pleasure

Cons: -unneeded humor -graphic violence, rape, and sexual torture may be too much for a lot of viewers -bad marketing

still at the 'late one drunken night we had an idea' stage

[tabolt · 2/10 · 19 April 2006]

okay. this is a very bad movie. it is not because of the subject matter, which is occasionally disturbing but so nonsensical that even the darkest moments tend to undermine themselves. kevin smith(whose work i sometimes really like) has his fingerprints all over this movie. the stilted dialogue, the poor plot logic, the uncanny ability to pick a cast who have no acting ability. brian o'halloran is always awful and the rest of the cast deliver their lines as if from cue cards. the one exception is smith himself, whose cameo role is the best actual performance he's turned in to date. i really sort of believed him.

anyhow, one of two things will happen. you will either get irritated with the illogical, aimless plot and clumsy acting and struggle to wade through the final 30 minutes (by the climax i couldn't have cared less about what happened) or you will find something in the concept and odd execution here that makes you forgive all that. for me, not possible.

From the Toronto International Film Festival

[yakov · 3/10 · 18 September 2000]

This is not a Kevin Smith film. Although he did produce it, it does not have any of his elements in it. There is no funny dialog, nor witty talk. Instead, you get to see the life of a clown who is down on his luck. Things happen to this character, some of it very vulgar, and finally he succeeds in his life. What is the point of this story, though? There is no moral, and because of that, no point for us to watch all the gruesome circumstances in the flick. BTW, the director does have talent, and will eventually make a really good flick. Vulgar is far from one of those.

Some trivia for the film: the old man in the metal contraption in the middle of the film is the director's dad.

By far, one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

[dimjonpro · 1/10 · 16 May 2003]

I don't know, maybe I don't understand what the director was trying to show us. When I was watching this movie, i thought, huh, maybe it will get better and when it didn't i though maybe it will actually go somewhere but no. This movie suckes the whole way through. Nothing made any sense. I can't think of one good thing.

Not what i expected from the askew

[neil_tiffany · 7/10 · 3 October 2003]

*****Very minor plot spoilers(tiny really)********

Being a big viewaskew (smith) fan i ordered this film thinking i would get something similar to the other films on askews production company. But this film, by bryan johnson (of steve dave fame), is very differant to smiths film. Its a serious look at how rape can affect a man. Allthough it does have a comedic undertone with the man being a clown, it has some very edgy and reasonably well made moments. As i watched the last 20 mins i found myself feeling very on edge and in the end satisfied with the conclusion. Its a decent film with some good moments and decent acting. For kevin smith fans its worth watching just for his role. For the rest of you if you like a film that deals with harsh realities, maybe this is for you.

One of the worst movies I have ever seen

[Lucian-3 · 1/10 · 1 January 2001]

A film that sets out to both physically (through a piercing overloud soundtrack) and emotionally (through horrible imagery, rape scenes, abuse of children and much more) hurt its audience then expects them to switch gears and follow their cute little comedy scenes.

It doesn't work. The director has no sense of pacing or flow so the film is like a car with a bad clutch, jerking and bouncing about with nothing to redeem it.

The film lacks wit, humour, characters to sympathise with or a terribly believable plot. This film is worth nothing more than avoiding.

2 out of 10.

Send in the clown... and brace yourself!

[wip3out · 7/10 · 27 April 2002]

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** In the best role of his career Brian O'Halloran plays Will Carlson (a.k.a. "Flappy") who is a clown down on his luck. Neighbors are sleeping in his piece of crap car, Will's mother can't stand him and he lives in the most ramshackle house in the neighborhood. Life couldn't get much worse for Will. After a children's party falls through Will decides to pack it in. One day while looking through the newspaper for a real job Will has an epiphany.

"This is the single greatest idea I've ever had!" proclaims Will.

He explains to his best friend that since his clowning around at children's parties isn't paying the rent he will put a different spin on things. He creates a raunchy clown character that is designed to appear at bachelor parties as a novelty act. When his best friend suggests that the idea is "vulgar" Will agrees. So much so that he will name his new clown persona just that- "Vulgar".

Unfortunately when "Vulgar" goes to his first gig he meets a very scary Ed (Jerry Lewkowitz in the worst toupee ever) and his 2 sons Frankie and Gino (Ethan Suplee and Matt Maher). But this is no bachelor party. In a harrowing piece of cinema Will is beaten, tortured, held at gunpoint and raped by the threesome. This is a very dark and disturbing scene. But while this well publicized segment is unsettling it is no more disturbing than similar scenes in "The Accused" with Jodie Foster or Pier Paolo Pasolini's "Salò". Needless to say, this film is not for everybody.

When confronted by his best friend, Syd Gilbert, as to what took place Will tells him what happened. Will, who is ashamed and embarrassed of the incident, decides to just let it lay while Syd pleads with him to go to the police. He is the voice of reason throughout the film. This is ironic because Syd is played by director Bryan Johnson who also wrote the film and essentially put Will in this predicament in the first place.

After saving a little girl from a hostage situation, Will and his "Flappy" persona becomes a media darling. Soon a producer (played by Kevin Smith) comes knocking at the door offering a nationwide TV show. Soon Flappy is a huge success with millions of adoring fans from Portland, Oregon to Portland, Maine. Finally Flappy can make a good living, get a real car and pay his Mother's rent at the nursing home.

But all is not well in Flappy's Funhouse. In another creepy scene Ed calls Will on the telephone and blackmails him for $50000 dollars or he will release a videotape of the incident that could potentially ruin Flappy's career. That's when Will decides to take things into his own hands and go face to face with his attackers.

For a low budget film from a first time director "Vulgar" works on many levels. Mr. Johnson creates a dark moodiness to the film that continues even when Flappy is riding high as the number one clown in the nation. You can sense that his happiness won't last long and that impending doom is just around the corner. The music is almost too good for a film of this budget scale and it complements the film very well. Ryan Shore's score helps maintain a dark atmosphere.

On the other hand the sets are terrible. Especially Flappy's Funhouse, which looks like it was built at the very last minute. (I can see it now."Ok. Ready to shoot the Flappy's Funhouse scene... Oh No! We forgot to make a set.Quick! Get some plywood and some spray paint! And let the kids help.") The lighting is equally bad. Watch the inconsistent lighting behind the producer and Will during the meeting in Will's home.

Fortunately for the filmgoer the performances throughout are well acted. The casting is well done for as film of this genre. Brian O'Halloran takes a huge risk and thankfully succeeds. He skillfully conveys all of the emotions the role requires. The sequence when "Vulgar" returns home after his assault is especially gripping. Mr. O'Halloran plays the scene with just the right amount of emotion without going over doing it. Also Jerry Lewkowitz is one creepy b**tard. His portrayal of Ed is scary as hell.

And of course "View Askew" fans will appreciate the appearances of Kevin Smith, Jason Mewes, Scott Mosier and Walt Flanagan as well as the very subtle references to Mr. Smith's movies.

The Title Says It All

[danfeit · 1/10 · 17 October 2002]

In hindsight, I don't know what I expected when I rented this, but I suppose I should have known better. The film is "vulgar," plain and simple, though you could also call it "disgusting," "disturbing," "stomach-churning," or even "unwatchable."

I guess I tried to watch it because I love "Clerks" (1994) and since the Askew-crew was involved I expected a certain level of quality. Well, the dialogue is Kevin Smith-esque but the events which occur in this film are horrible. It's a comedy for the first 10 minutes, then it seems more like a drama, and then it's "Deliverance" except there's no one to root for.

And let me take time to mention that this is BAD acting. When it feels like people are reading lines of a page, that's BAD. When the characters are as one-dimensional as the script they're printed on, that's BAD. When every single character in the film (right down to the waitress in the "posh" diner) is COMPLETELY unrealistic, that's BAD. Brian O'Halloran tries his hardest (A for effort, by the way) but this isn't gym class.

Please don't see this movie, not even as a rental. The only reason there aren't OVERWHEMINGLY negative reviews for this flick is because most people choose to ignore it. How I wish I done the same.

Something very different from View-Askew. Glad I saw it...

[abyoussef · 8/10 · 8 January 2004]

by Dane Youssef

Bryan Johnson shows amazing talent and depth as a first-time greenhorn filmmaker. There's more than just one worthwhile film here. There's two.

"Vulgar" plays out like a scrappy, slapped-together little campy comedy and then shifts wildly into much darker territory. And then back again. And back...

Johnson seems to have a natural wild indie touch and while it has touches of some of the darkest nature ever uncovered on the screen, it also has some nice Jersey-blue collar comedy.

Now here's a movie Tarantino would enjoy. It's kinda like a soup. It plays out like a stew of movies, styles and ideas. European avant-garde cinema, indie film and campy, low-budget comedy. It's a shame this movie didn't play in Europe and France. Or college kids. This is the kind of thing they all gobble up.

I'm glad I bought a copy. It gives me hope as an aspiring filmmaker... and joy and thrills as a movie-lover who loves off-kilter stuff.

Brian O' Halloran is touchingly determined and vulnerable as the clown. He scrapes out a meager existence as a "party whore" and lives in his hovel of a home, living on s**t-wages, barely making ends meet. His landlord is understanding and sympathetic and lets him "mow the lawn or do some maintenance" and knocks off a few.

Ethan Suplee and Matt Mawer are effective and creepy as his inbred and mentally-retarded sons who seem to have been phoned right out of "Deliverence."

Jerry Lewkowitz is just plain frightening and disturbing as Ed Fanelli. With his portly beer-belly, bug-eyes, raspy voice and bad wig that looks like a little boy's hair. I heard that the inspiration for this character was Dennis Hopper in "Blue Velvet," one of the scariest villains (or any kind of characters) to pop up on any kind of cinema in history.

The rape sequence with Will is just horrifying. It outdoes the whole scene in "Blue Velvet" and literally makes you BELIEVE and FEEL what this poor guy who just wants to entertain little kids is feeling.

The morning after where he has his emotional breakdown is just as strong. Will confides in Syd about the whole evening and Syd begs him to go to the cops, but Will swears him to secrecy. These scenes all shows strength, talent and feeling with both O' Halloran's acting and Johnson's directing.

Johnson himself, like Tarantino and producer Kevin Smith, once jockeyed in a video store. He gives the movie the flavor of a lot of low-budget films and masters past. He gives some "Kevin Smith" flavor in the dialouge and the juice of other great filmmakers', but he also gives it his own signature style. You'd have to see it to know what I mean.

Johnson has never been within 200 miles of a film school, so he seems to have gotten all of whatever film education and knowledge from Smith and Mosier.

You can tell Johnson is emulating Smith as a filmmaker, like the film's dialouge has an overwritten, over-articulate Kevin Smith-ness to it. Not to mention Smith's one-shot camera set-up. Still, there are moments that generate pain beyond words and conversation that Smith has never shown us.

And anyway, this is NOT a Kevin Smith film. I love the man, but this is another cup of tea altogether. Many will see because of the "Kevin Smith" name on the marquee. Which means they;ll be in for some serious shock and disappointment.

Johnson's only real mistake, in my opinion (and this is one that hurts the movie more than anything else) is his decision to act in it as the clown's only friend. You see why Smith only gave him bit-parts as Steve-Dave. He's no actor. He tends to mumble a lot of the time.

Look, read the other "user reviews" on IMDb about Johnson's "Vulgar." Listen to them describe it. YOU know if it's the movie for you. It all depends on your taste. Go to the site's OFFICIAL WEB PAGE and read the interview with Johnson. After hearing him, does it sound like your type of movie?

All in all, this is a hell of a debut. I liked Johnson's different stories and juggling them all at once. Comedy, drama, horror, working-class stories...

And at the center of it all, View Askew's poster boy--Flappy the Clown.

Have you ever wondered the real story about that clown? Here it is...

Don't see this because Kevin Smith produced it. See it because this is your taste. Read the reviews. Does this sound like your brand of poison? You know who you are.

SPECIAL NOTE: Jerry Lewkowitz deserves particularly special acclaim. Speaking as someone who has seen far more than his share of movies, Lewkowitz is the most frightening villain I've ever seen.

And as Ed Fanelli, he should be placed next to Michael Rooker in "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" and Charlize Theron in "Monster." His role as the horrifying Ed Fanelli will stay with you to the grave...

--A Vulgar Movie Fan, Dane Youssef

I dont know about you, but I liked it. (sort of)

[DaveWhite1234 · 7/10 · 2 October 2003]

This would have to be one of the more disturbing movies i've ever seen, but, i liked it. I mean of course I didn't like the raping sequences but the plot was pretty good, and it starred Dante from Clerks, and it has some funny lines in it. Yes, it's not my favorite movie, probably not top 50, but it was still pretty good. Not for children.

Awful B-Movie, terrible acting.

[bird-66 · 1/10 · 7 April 2006]

Geez, dunno how people can like this movie.

It tries for the snappy dialogue of Pulp Fiction. Failed miserably. Really bad acting.

You wonder why there are so many starving actors around...well this movie's a good reason why.

It was a little interesting in the beginning, but just went completely downhill from there.

Still can't get over how bad the acting job was.

Don't these people watch their own movies and reshoot mistakes and crap?

Oh boy - whatever it was trying to do, it missed by a mile

[gparshal · 28 January 2003]

I have the stomach for the more brutal scenes in this movie (they're not too far removed from the "Zed's basement" scene in Pulp Fiction, after all), but definitely not for the shabby plot and the weak supporting actors (OK, also the headliners). I wanted to see this movie out of morbid curiosity, and expected little other satisfaction than that from it. I was not disappointed in the depth of my disappointment. I support the effort that went into attempting what must have semed like an interesting story, but more effort was needed and better actors. AND MORE REWRITES.

OK, specifics. "William/Flappy" is simply unbelieveable in his reaction to his attack, as is his friend's reaction to his recounting of it. Except we were primed for this lack of credibility early in the movie when "William/Flappy" got the whole transvestite clown idea in the first place.

Also, there are completely unnecessary distractions throughout the movie. Examples: the abrasive waitress, the abusive drunks, William's overacting bitch of a mother (her bit of scene chewing was more appropriate for an early John Waters movie, and even he wouldn't suffer such silliness now). The erstwhile TV host who interviews Flappy is completely miscast, and would have been better served as one of the supernumerary homeless guys laced throughout the movie.

The movie made me angry, for wasting my time and for being so ill-conceived in its plot that even Raelians couldn't suspend disbelief long enough to take it half-seriously. Perhaps every moviemaker has a "Vulgar" in their background.

OTOH - I'm not recommending against anyone renting "Vulgar," but I am guaranteeing you a bad time when you do. Some people want to see everything Kevin Smith has touched/been affiliated with. They should rent Vulgar. The DVD has a bonus feature on the fecal meteorology unleashed upon "Dogma," while it was being made so, to paraphrase Carl the groundskeeper, "It's got that going for it." I would be interested to know if anyone else has noted the persistent lack of synchronization between this movie's sound and picture - something that made an unpleasant viewing that more "memorable."

Quite simply the worst film I have ever seen (Reposted review from www.filmjerk.com)

[Lucian-3 · 1/10 · 27 July 2001]

When I saw this film at the 2000 Toronto International Film Festival it sounded like a lark and I knew I'd get to see Kevin smith, the producer, at the screening. I did but th film itself is offensive, poorly written, poorly acted and purely pointless.

The film fails on pretty much every level. The main character is a clown yet the actor who plays him has no sense of comedic timing. The film's pacing and plot change gears so often and so poorly watching it is like riding with a student driver first learning on a standard transmission car.

The subject matter of the film is far too dark to be treated comedicly. I'm not sure how long the film's rape scene actually is, maybe 10 minutes, but it felt like 30. And that's not even the most disturbing scene in the film. Yet 2 minutes later we are expected to laugh at silly trivial material. It doesn't work.

Even the soundtrack is so loud and grating it's physically painful and, at the screening I was at, the director overrode the complaints of audience members demanding it be turned down. That's inexcusable. No film should ever attempt to /physically/ hurt its audience.

In the end the film is forced to introduce ridiculous strings of coincidences in order to avoid a realistic response from its main character and allow a forced happy ending. It doesn't work, on any level, ever. The only positive thing I can say about writer/director/actor Bryan Johnson is that he saves the best, most realistic dialogue for the the character he plays himself. His character doesn't seem long he belongs in this movie but, then again, neither did anyone else, neither did I and neither do you.

Vulgar is what it claims to be, I give it a 1 out 10 and I think I'd rather gauge my own eyes out than see it again.

bad acid-trip for a bunch of spoiled little dick-heads

[fidomax · 1/10 · 4 December 2006]

Kevin Smith made "Clerks" on low budget with a little help from his friends. That movie became a hit, and smith earn a cult reputation with it. Smith has to be a nice guy, because then he helped few Jersey friends with their projects. One of that friends was Brian Johnson, and his project was named "Vulgar".

People are using words like original, shocking, vulgar, violent for this movie. And they are pretty right, but I add just one more – very bad.

Brian O'Halloran who's not a great actor to begin with, plays Will – blunderer, who works as clown at children parties. He doesn't earn a lot of money, he drives old ramshackle car, and live in a hovel, when everyday he can be beaten by his neighbors. This movie starts like avenger comedy and goes from there in direction not many movies have a courage to go. It ends like pulp fiction drama.

The problem is – this movie isn't comedy, this movie isn't drama, this movie doesn't know what it is, and most important the director doesn't know what moves makes a good movie, he doesn't even got the clue. At the end it taste like "bad acid-trip" that tries to be rip-off of "one of the pulp fiction rape story". Its not the idea is total rubbish, it had potential, but execution is so bad its almost depressing.

The one shining thing in this mess is of course Kevin Smith, playing gay TV-producer, he is really funny, and maybe Lewkowitz playing pretty scary villain. But thats about it. All of the stuff here, cinematography, editing, story are BAD, a not M.Jackson kind of Bad.

Just one conclusion at the end – responsible for this mess is no one else but Kevin Smith, because sometimes helping your friends can lead to creating a really smelly monster. So shame on you Smith, shame on you.

Vile

[Kashmirgrey · 2/10 · 16 April 2007]

I have seen a lot of bad movies. However, I suspect "Vulgar" was intentionally bad. The film plays like a drunk nihilistic comedy that demonstrates an absolute vile contempt for humanity and life in general.

Brian O'Halloran is not a very talented actor and should especially steer clear of serious roles. Of course, "Vulgar" falls into that genre of "other". It tries to be a comedy, but there is no comedic value in rape, even if the raped is dressed as a transvestite clown.

Everything about the film equates to "vulgarity". Its mixture of sexual violence with children's television shows, its poking fun at psychological anguish suffered by a son mentally abused by his mother, and its apathetic attitude towards murder and death.

Films like "Vulgar" cause me to feel unclean, a filth that only the buffer of several days can rinse away. Even then, the film leaves a permanent residue.

It has its moments

[jmoss-7 · 7/10 · 30 September 2004]

If you like Kevin Smith you'll probably know about View Askew. And If you are a dork like me and watch the view askew movies a lot you'll know that steve-dave and walt. Well Steve-Dave is Bryan Johnson. Bryan and Smith were tossing around an idea roughly based on their view askew logo at the time and Bryan asked if he could try writing it and Smith said yes. The writing has its moments. The beginning of the movie seems like that was the last thing written. the story is about a children's clown how has some bad things happen to him and he wants revenge. Once we get past willys, our clown, bad happenings the writing gets much better. It just seems that he wanted to get to the revenge and he rushed his way into the script and just needed a way to get into the story. The movie has a very dark plot, it seems that the dark evil bad guys could have had a little more tought put into them they were dark but not that interesting. There are some very good lines in the movie and a very good tone. By far the worst part of the movie is Bryan Johnson's acting. He really should not have put himself in his own movie. Smith knew better than to utter more than four or five words in a movie if you the actor saying them. As for the lead Brain O'Halloran when he's on he is on, but he is only on for about fifty percent of the movie. This is sad because the movie would be twice as good if O'Halloran was on the ball more. The rest of the actors wern't too bad, well none as bad as Johnson. Just like the story O'Halloran is worst in the beginning and best towards the end. The camera work is nothing special. there were times that i tought the subject should not have been so centered and should have followed the rule of thirds. All in all the movie is worth seeing if you can handle dark and disturbing. 7/10

Just Plain Bad

[billcr12 · 2/10 · 28 August 2012]

For Howard Stern to be repulsed by a movie, you know that you're in for something special. Vulgar is the proper title for this work, which features a clown being gang raped. Kevin Smith produced this stomach churning work. Will makes a living as a birthday clown at kids parties, when he comes up with the idea to expand into the world of bachelor parties. He dresses in lingerie and strips to garters to fool the client into believing that he is gay. One day, while walking in his strange outfit, he is brutally assaulted by a guy and his two sons. They videotape the attack and warn him not to go to the police or they will embarrass him with the tape. He later rescues a kid and becomes the hero clown on the news. As a result, he gets a TV show, and his rapists extort him for money, while holding the tape over his head. He sets up a meeting in order to resolve the issue, and it leads to a silly ending. Bad acting and camera work make Vulgar a waste of time.

Impressive Directorial debut

[trebor38 · 7/10 · 21 January 2003]

Being an ardent fan of Kevin Smith films, I was looking forward to seeing this effort by one of his close colleagues Steve Johnson. Obviously people are going to be deterred by the obvious graphic material, as I was at first. But there is more to this film than the much maligned rape scene.

This is a film about a down and out clown called 'Flappy', played by the impressive Brian O'Halloran from Clerks fame. He entertains children at birthday parties for a living. He has a crazy mother in a old persons' home. He also has lunatics for neighbours, who throw glass bottles at him. He then gets an epiphany to become a transvestite clown for bachelor parties. This is where it goes horribly wrong. On his first party he is jumped by three inbreds who subject him to torture and rape.

He is obviously distressed by the whole situation and decides to give up his employment as a clown altogether. But on his way to one last party, he confronts a man who has kidnapped his daughter. Flappy is successful in his attempts of saving the girl. He's becomes a national hero overnight and has been assigned to present his own childrens' programme. It is here that the inbreds recognise the Flappy on television. They decide to bribe him, if Flappy does not comply then they have a cassette, which shows the whole rape incident.

Finally Flappy enlists the help of his friend to come up with a solution. He confronts them one final time and the situation is resolved with drastic consequences.

In my opinion this is a brave subject to be tackling on your first film but I feel Steve Johnson has passed with flying colours. At first I debated whether or not to watch the film but in the end I am glad I did. All I can say further is that you have to keep an open mind about the whole subject and try and enjoy the film for what it is. IMPRESSIVE!

Kevin Smith fans ... don't bother ...

[scirceo · 1/10 · 21 February 2003]

This a terrible movie with a terrible story. It's low budget, so, of course, I forgive the acting and production flaws. But there's no excuse for a bad story. A down-on-his-luck clown who is determined to make it as a clown, decides to become a stripper clown and market himself as a joke for bachelor parties. His first gig goes really bad. A turn of events makes him rich and famous, but that bad gig comes back to haunt him. I rented this movie because of the Kevin Smith connection, since I'm a huge Smith fan. Don't make the same mistake I did.

Amazing

[Chadd-3 · 8/10 · 2 November 2002]

This is one hell of a movie. At times it's funny, and at times it's sad.

Many people don't like this film because it's disturbing. Well, it is. But you just have to get over it. People hated this film being disturbing because they weren't expecting it, they thought it was a light comedy. So just go into it knowing your going to be changed.

For the fainter of heart, rent the Rated version. The rape scene is much shorter. But keep in mind, that wasn't the director's vision.

Great acting, great writing, great directing, great film.

"Vulgar"- A troubling and generally well executed thriller, though it suffers cripplingly low production values and occasional aimlessness in the narrative.

[TedStixonAKAMaximumMadness · 7/10 · 26 September 2017]

To date the only feature-film written and directed by the fascinating Bryan Johnson, "Vulgar" is one of those strange cult-releases that never really found an audience and has been more-or-less forgotten by the majority of fans and film-goers. Released seventeen years ago in the early- 2000's heyday of low-budget, independent and direct-to- video films, it's actually quite surprising that such a unique experience fell through the cracks... especially with indie-god Kevin Smith attached as a producer. "Vulgar" is a twisted and distressing thriller that pushes the audiences buttons in the best of ways. And yet... in my life I've never met anyone else whose actually seen it. Which is a shame, because despite the fact it does suffer from a cripplingly low budget and some occasion aimlessness in the structure, I found it quite enjoyable.

"Clerks" star Brian O'Halloran plays Will Carlson- a kid's party clown who loves entertaining children, but is struggling to make ends meet while getting absolutely no respect. In a desperate bid to make more money, he adopts the new moniker of "Vulgar the Clown" to serve as a prank entertainer for bachelor parties, and he takes on his first clients... only to find himself savagely attacked and gang raped by a ruthless father-and-son trio (Jerry Lewkowitz, Ethan Suplee, Matthew Maher) who abuse him over and over. Stuck in a crippling depression following his attack, Will is eventually given salvation after saving a child's life and becomes an overnight media darling, gaining the love and adoration he always wanted. However, his attackers learn about his new-found fame and threaten to release video of his attack to the public unless he will "perform" for them again. And so, Will must struggle with his own personal feelings of regret and guilt as he asks himself whether he will go through with it... or if he has it somewhere in him to try and murder his attackers...

The film is almost beyond the concept of genre, and defies many conventions of film. It's a unique experience that takes elements of 70's exploitation, grim revenge thrillers and overt shades of horror, all while subverting it with instances of humor and lightness. A big part of why the film worked for me was it's uniqueness and strangely grounded approach to such a strange concept. The plot is a bit ridiculous, but the film plays it straight and treats the characters as real people. And it leaves you feeling truly shaken by the moments of violence and sexual assault. Many people who have gone into this film have emerged disturbed and disgusted by it, and I think a big part of that has to do with the fact that the film constantly defies expectations and goes into darker directions than you could possibly imagine. You really can't go into the movie with any pre-conceived notions. This movie is a love-letter to the twisted and the deranged, and you need to be completely open to it.

The cast all do incredibly well, and the movie is a great showcase for their talents. O'Halloran continues his low-budget winning streak following his breakout hit "Clerks", and the performance he pulls in is truly remarkable. Director Johnson has a minor supporting role as Will's best friend Syd, as does Kevin Smith as an ad executive, and they are both a lot of fun. And the trio of Lewkowitz, Suplee and Maher are just wild as our villainous presence. The three are among the most slimy and disgusting characters of the past twenty years and are insanely underrated. Lewkowitz in particular being just deliciously evil and depraved. You'll love to hate them. I was also quite taken by Johnson's visual direction and sharp ear for dialog. Despite having little money to work with, Johnson has a dynamic eye for composition and flow and his guidance of the material is very well accomplished. And his writing and handling of character is sharp, witty and very efficient. It really is a shame he hasn't written or directed another film since. I'd be fascinated to see him work on a new project given the potential he shows in "Vulgar."

Unfortunately, there are some major issues at play and they do bring the film down a bit for me. With a budget of only about $100,000, there's a lot of practical limitations and cost-cutting measures that needed to be made, and yet the movie doesn't seem to understand this. They try to show too much, and it becomes hard to buy a lot of what you're seeing. Everything looks a bit cheap and hokey, especially around the film's mid-point. Most blatantly being that there are a few too many sets that are clearly just made of paper and foam core. It created a bit too much of an aesthetic gap between myself and the film and it was hard to ignore. The film's audio is also questionable. While Ryan Shore's score is fantastic, the rest of the audio is very "off", and most scenes eventually have the dialog drifting and lagging behind, giving the film a strangely "dubbed" look. And I do think the movie meanders a bit too much. It loses focus on the narrative in a few key sequences that feel aimless and out of place.

But ultimately... I'd be lying if I said these problems ruined the film for me. The characters are identifiable and our protagonist is endlessly likable. The performances are unanimously excellent and there's no "sore thumbs" in the entire cast. The film's grim tone is suitably oppressive and hammers home the dark themes exceptionally well. And it's generally well made outside of the issues brought about by the low budget. "Vulgar" is most certainly not a film for everyone, and it might have been forgotten by the majority. But as someone who enjoys the strange and the macabre and the weird, I'd highly recommend it to open-minded audiences. I give it a pretty decent 7 out of 10.

Intro to Film Making 101

[IOBdennis · 1/10 · 5 September 2002]

This film is just plain awful. Down to the less than amateurish acting, which is 99% off--just like the soundtrack! On the copy that I rented, the audio and video were not synched through a great deal of the movie. And the track was done at Skywalker Sound? How odd. This film has the look and feel of a school project for an Introduction to Film Making 101 at a community college. The only presentable acting is by Bryan Johnson himself. Hey, Bryan, stick to acting and leave directing to someone else.

Some of the highlights of this bad film: the waitress in the "posh" restaurant (looked like a Dennys to me) who threw the burgers down in front of the two male leads. Sorry, but in real life, waitresses who act that way don't wait for long! The senior in the nursing home whose one line "How rude!" is lost. She obviously isn't an actor. Hey, Bryan, as a director you should have cut the line or something. And the male lead says at one point in the film that he had wanted to put his show on cable access but he couldn't afford it. Oh, come one! Producing on cable access is too expensive? Where on this planet?

And casting: it just didn't make sense that the white-bread Harriet Nelson housewife with her bratty Partridge Family kid had the party-goer husband as a husband. It just didn't synch up somehow. So, maybe he married her for a coverup? But nothing like that was every hinted at. I simply couldn't imagine two so un-alike people ever getting together in this world. I couldn't imagine him, his two "sons" (were they REALLY? or was that some kind of perverted humor), wife and daughter in any kind of a family situation. The wife does refer to the two younger men as her husband's "boys" or "sons" at one point, I believe, but somehow the types just didn't line up. I'm also, quick frankly, not sure what the relationship between the junkyard owner and the attendant was. The owner refers to the attendant as "son." Was he being metaphorical or what? If you care to waste your money, rent the film and see what I mean.

I was angered by the fact that I spent money renting this movie, and to me that is a key indicator of whether or not this movie should even exist. I don't know what I would have done if I had spent full price to see this bomb in a movie house. And it's really a shame, too, because the core of the script is a good idea. More time should have been spent at the drawing board perhaps?