The Bagman (2002 Video) User Reviews

Not even worth the title B Movie

[escapingethan · 1/10 · 25 May 2009]

We bought this film from a shop called Poundland. We were looking for more inspiration as we have previously bought the film No Big Deal an remade it.

We expected this film to be badly inspirational so that we might remake it and put it on the tube. HOWEVER, this was shocking. BORING is the main word that comes to mind. The bad effects and script aren't enough to make you watch it. The main woman's body seems to be whipped out at opportune moments in a pathetic attempt to keep the viewer interested. However, it just makes you wonder, did they blow the budget getting her to take her clothes off? If so, I'd have asked for a refund! It looks like a homemade film, the shots don't even correspond with each other and the camera work is so amateur it makes our remakes of bad movies look professional. I CANNOT believe that this is being sold as a marketable product.

IT IS JUST BORING and UGLY to watch. The actors are bad and there is no degree of professionalism about it. There are no words to describe how terrible it is.

Far worse than the already awful title suggests.

[Winston_Payne · 1/10 · 31 December 2009]

Any film with a title as ridiculous as "The Bagman" should automatically attract the attention of any bad movie lover, but the plot is far different than what one may expect after viewing the DVD cover. The Bagman is by no means a good movie. It falls into the category of films that seem to have been (and probably were) filmed on a home video camera. The acting is awful. I haven't heard and seen such wooden acting since Troll 2. There are plenty of scenes with nudity and sex, but they are clearly jumped into too fast. The characters are morons and entirely forgettable. The ending (which I will not spoil) can be easily anticipated after watching the very first scene. Due to the cheesy nature of the film, nothing aside from the awful production values is truly scary (awful attempts at realistic gore, a driving scene where the car is clearly stationary, etc). Recommended for bad movie aficionados only.

Awful

[vmalast · 1/10 · 8 October 2018]

If this is a first film, it should definitely be a last film. "Teenagers" that were in their 30's, bad wigs, school uniforms?, laughable acting, "see spot run" dialogue. It doesn't even make it to the, it's so bad it's funny stage. Couldn't get past the 15 minute mark. Just say no.

I knew there was trouble when the movie was set in 'Doomsville.'

[A_Roode · 4/10 · 8 May 2006]

To be clear from the get go, 'The Bagman' is very, very, very bad. It suffers terribly in almost every aspect except for one: the finished product is such an awful film that it's actually hysterically funny to watch. This is a very low-grade film. Budget constraints for the film should be obvious to anyone who watches even just the opening title sequence. I'm not sure if much of the humour in the film was intended or not. For example, the movie takes place in 'Doomsville.' Note to all prospective home buyers: if the town you're moving to is called 'Doomsville,' keep moving. Stephanie Beaton is quick to pull off her top for a pretty enthusiastic sex scene in the kitchen. I couldn't help but laugh because it has intentional humour (she turns on the gas stove ... get it? The sex is THAT hot? get it?) and unintentional humour. The unintentional in this case is the music. It's like the theme music for 'Chariots of Fire' goes Electronica. Break out the computer and the synthesizers! I realize that coming up with music for a small production like this is cost prohibitive. I really feel for them because the work here is so well-intentioned. The problem is that cheap music isn't necessarily good music. I haven't laughed so hard at sex on screen since 'Alone in the Dark' with that 'Seven Seconds' song (I guess they were implying that poor old Mr. Slater was a bit ... quick on the draw?). Even the end credits are hilarious. Intentional or not? You be the judge: a pet dog and cat are part of the credited cast -- and an animal wrangler was on set for them! -- The boom is credited to 'Mr B. Stick,' and the 3rd Unit's wardrobe (Yep, they had a third unit) is credited to K-mart. Maybe it's just me, but I think the hilarity of this more than saves the film. The movie is very, very bad, but the goals of Stephanie Beaton, her friends and family are so well-intentioned in 'The Bagman' that you can't help but like the movie they've produced. 'The Bagman' is bad but not dreadful. In its own sweet way, it even manages to be a bit endearing. It wears its flaws so honestly that you can't help but forgive them. "Better" films that try to hide the flaws are almost worse in a way. I guess this is just a film that knew who its audience was and was produced accordingly.

Watch any number of movies and most of them will probably be a lot better than this. Some of them might look cheaper, or have worse acting, or sillier production value. They may not suffer terribly as 'The Bagman' does from awful editing, sound, and foley effects. Mr B. Stick didn't do a very good job. The special effects look to be where most of the money went. They tend to be more funny than gruesome, although when the 'Bagman' is finally unmasked at the end, the make-up job there is surprisingly well done.

My 4 out of 10 is a little high but the humour helped a lot. This is an ideal movie to track down some night with a few friends and a few beers in hand. Great entertainment is to be had by anyone who seriously considers themselves B-movie or low budget film aficionados. All others should probably avoid with great prejudice.

Stephanie Beaton is the scream queen for the next generation.

[stiefmo · 5/10 · 21 January 2003]

Ladies and Gentlemen, i just finished watching the great erotic horror movie The Bagman. It has your typical boy gets picked on boy gets revenge plot, but with an unbelivable twist. Was the boy who was picked on as a kid the real killer? Or was it just some evil plot to destroy a group of friends with no way of knowing who the real killer is? You will find out in this fast paced low budget movie. Acting was not to supurb and the movie was cheesy (naturally), but it is what it is a great B movie horror. Oh yeah and Stephanie Beaton is naked. GREAT. Later all you B movie buffs, until next time.

Great cheese flick....and the beautiful Stephanie Beaton!

[bfan83 · 5 December 2003]

I'm just a big fan of Stephanie Beaton and I try and get every movie of hers that I can! This is naturally a cheese flick, with the sometimes over-exposed Stephanie. But I think we all like her like that. And it also has an overweight guy with a burlap bag on his head. And some really great actors that are going on to better things one day. But I hope not, because we need people like this to keep the b-movie industry going! Sit down with a bowl of popcorn and watch Stephanie get naked!

Not a bad Flick and..... it had Stephanie Beaton

[wdgreen · 1/10 · 5 January 2003]

This film is the freshman effort of Stephanie Beaton and her new production company. While it suffers from a few problems, as every low budget production does, it is a good start for Ms. Beaton and her company.

The story is not terribly new having been done in films like The Burning and every Friday the 13th since part 2. But, the performances are heartfelt. So many big budget movies just have the actors going through the motions, its always nice to see actors really trying to hone their craft.

The story deals with the murder(and possible return) of a disfigured classmate. The others are sworn to secrecy, but the trauma of the event sends each person in different directions in their lifes. Ten years later, the friends are murdered one by one by a gruesome stalker known as "The Bagman". Who will survive? You have to watch.

If you are Roger Ebert or any number of arrogant critics, you probably shouldn't bother. But if your taste run more towards Joe Bob Briggs and you want to see a group of people honing their craft, then check out "The Bagman".

Bad Slasher Movie

[nogodnomasters · 8/10 · 22 March 2018]

I am embarrassed to admit it, but I liked this video. The film starts out with 20 some year old "kids" taunting a deformed kid. Randy places a burlap bag on the deformed kid's head and drowns him. He makes the other kids swear not to tell. 10 years later in Seattle, they get together on Friday the 13th to watch horror movies and hang out by the graveyard. One by one they are being killed off.

The plot was simple with no twists. The movie was short, and dialogue was bad, but enjoyable. The horror movie they watched was Razor's own "Eyes of the Werewolf" with Stephanie Beaton. They critique the movie, "the ending sucked" as if the rest of it was good. Stephanie, whose on-line biography states she loved horror movies so much as a child she wanted to grow up to become a Scream Queen, says she hates horror movies in this film...a little personal irony I enjoyed.

The special effects were funny, especially when they cut off a man's hand. I think we did that gag at age nine. The movie needed a good twist and some better dialogue. No character build-up.

F-bomb, sex, nudity.

Under rated...a Masterpiece

[Lukas_5 · 10/10 · 25 February 2008]

I think that people are under estimating this incredible film. People are seeing it as a typical horror movie that is set out to scare us and prevent us from getting some sleep. Which if it was trying to do then it would deservedly get a 1/10 but i viewed this film with a few friends and we found it very entertaining and though it was a good movie after all it does have Stephanie beaton. This is the reason why i think that it deserves the 10/10 for the pure entertainment of the film.

The general view on this movie is that it has bad acting, a simple script that a 10 year old could produce and that it cant be taken seriously and people are rating it low because of this. But i see this as a thoroughly entertaining masterpiece...that has a hilariously funny script which is made even more entertaining by the actors and although not very serious it is very entertaining.