The Stink of Flesh (Video 2005) Poster

(2005 Video)

User Reviews

Review this title
35 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
I tried to like this...
cmk486820 July 2005
For a low budget film, this looks amazingly good. There is a script, some good gore effects, and a lot of evident hard work by the cast and crew. The acting is not terrible overall, and this film pays honorable tribute to the low budget zombie flick tradition.

Problem comes from the cast and premise. If you must make a sort core zombie flick with frequent nudity, I would argue that having attractive actors in the naked roles is pretty much a requirement. It also would be a good idea to have your strongest actors take the most important roles. They may even teach that last point in real film schools...

Instead, we get "Dexy" who not to belabor the point is not in the least attractive, resembling a younger Kathy Bates. If she was as good an actress as Ms Bates, all well and good, but she is really not talented. So to cast her in a key (arguably pivotal) role as the center of the action is unwise as she cannot bear the load of talent needed to transcend her blah appearance. There is too much residual disbelief involved for the audience to imagine a circle of desire and treachery with this uncharismatic and unappealing character as the center of it.

The other liability is Kristin Hansen, who plays Sassy. She is such a poor actress that another main liability, the silly Siamese twin claymation face "Dotty", becomes even more tedious. The whole plot involving the soldier falling for Sassy is jaw-droppingly perverse, reminding me of that moment in "Night of the Zombies" when the commando puts on the tutu and pirouettes around the room into the hands of a mob of zombies. The difference is that the latter moment made me laugh because it was enjoyably dumb, while the current instance just made me roll my eyes in incredulity due to the crappy acting job of Ms Hansen.

Anyway, these two mediocre actresses in key roles plus the Dotty subplot deflate the movie quite a bit. From the aspiring director in me, I wonder why the director didn't take the two cuter actresses appearing in bit roles and put them in the Dexy and Sassy role. The zombie girl is far more attractive, and the girl Matool rescues from the car is also cuter and can act substantially better than either Dexy or Hansen. So you want a cute woman for naked scenes, you have one, you want a better actress, check have one of those too. The casting of this film therefore makes even less sense objectively...

Anyway, if you don't expect even adequate acting from horror movies, and don't mind seeing people who look like they are from the local Applebee's naked, you may be able to enjoy this movie more fully. Even if you are more quality minded, this is a decent viewing for zombie movie completists, as there are a few interesting ideas here and the director seems to have a lot of talent in every element of film production except casting.

CMK
16 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Zombies, Wife Swaping, And a Kickass Soundtrack....
Allie9Volt2 September 2005
o.k, o.k., O.K.! I would give this movie such higher ratings.... BUT I CANT! Yeah, yeah, yeah, the storyline sucks, the acting sucks (it does) and the makeup Really SUCKS! I mean BAD! But still hidden in the film are some easter eggs of a gem which I call some good zombie crap! The ideas are there, and it is comedic, but in general it needs a lot of work.

Apart from it's worse then ever movie makeup,(and it is worse than your neighbor's kids on Halloween) it does make you watch to see the true wonder of where the hell the plot is going. But alas, I would say the best thing about this movie is............ the SOUNDTRACK! Hence I KEPT WATCHING! Let me just save you the trouble... TRUE HORROR FANS SEE THE FILM, THE REST OF YOU GO BUY THE SOUNDTRACK!
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Nothing personal...
algemeen32128 December 2007
Not bad for a B-movie. Human life is not highly regarded in this flick. This is pointed out during each gore/killing scene etc. The introduction with the long nail made me laugh. I guess you need to be a bit of a sadistic person to enjoy that scene. Many other scenes like that followed and i was truly amazed by the acting as i never expected much out of this. Each character in this film seemed psychotic somehow while some totally disregarded the value of fellow (ex)human beings. I guess this is the aspect that makes people either hate or love this film. To enjoy this just don't take it too serious while watching. There is nothing personal about it.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
disgusting, badly acted amateurish movie
boon2331 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
There are lots of people out there, who obviously view their movies a whole lot differently than I do. They don't care about plot, acting, script, score but for action, blood and lots of gore. The Stink of Flesh was exactly made for these people. The directors had fun in creating dumb scenarios for zombie fights wherever possible and there is blood and guts and big nails... The acting is terrible, but IMHO this is not the fault of the actors, who really try to do their best, but of bad directing. The story is... not what I expect from a story to be one, just an addition of scenarios. The action... never ever have I seen more box fighting of zombies than in this movie. Still the action is the thing the directors did quite well. And as for a zombie movie the action comes along with lots of gory makeup effect which are also quite well done and acceptable for a low budget production. If you like scary movies, do not watch this. But if you like trashy, gory fun-action-splatter movies, this is one to consider.
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The stink of the stink
LarryDaveton14 February 2005
I think the user comments regarding this movie are posted by either the ones responsible for the film, or friends of those responsible.

I watched this cinematic suppository at Dragon Con 04. And trust me, there was not an impressed person in the room. I normally wouldn't reply to a movie such as this but seeing all the comments, I had to say what was on my mind.

This movie is on par with the works of Ed Wood. But not in a campy, humorous way. More like badly written, poor choice of actors kind of way.

This movie was horrible. Period.
7 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
OK zombie movie
Argwaan18 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
All I can really say about this move is that is was OK. Nothing special, but still watchable. The zombies and gore were pretty well done, but the acting was passable for the most part, but the "story" just didn't work for me, although i liked the "forlorn", apocalyptic atmosphere..

An attempt was made at being original by putting a lot of sex in the movie, but it didn't work for me (didn't mind it either).

(spoiler) And what was up with the little kid? I love plot twists but this one didn't make any sense at all.. there was absolutely no reason for him to turn against everyone... I would probably have liked the movie a lot better if this was explained somewhere.

BUT if you're a zombie fan like me any zombie movie is good enough and this one surely delivers on the gore, the most important part of any zombie movie.

Rating: 5/10
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
STINK of what the heck was that?
I saw a screening of this horrible movie in Atlanta at Dragon-Con. I believe that is was the second worst movie I have ever seen. This is all I have to say about the movie', "What the Heck was the purpose of someone wasting their time on garbage like this?" I do suggest that everyone watches the film so the film makers have at least one more person in the world actually like the film.

Let me say this again.

I saw a screening of this horrible movie in Atlanta at Dragon-Con. I believe that is was the second worst movie I have ever seen. This is all I have to say about the movie', "What the Heck was the purpose of someone wasting their time on garbage like this?" I do suggest that everyone watches the film so the film makers have at least one more person in the world actually like the film.
4 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Filled with murderous rage
Bezenby19 March 2009
The Stink of Flesh is just about the worst zombie film I've watched since Zombie Nightmare. I picked it up for a pound, knowing fine well it was SOV, but willing to give it a chance.

Set in a post-zombie world, we've got a guy who goes around using hammers and nails to defeat zombies ending up in the hands of a very strange couple, consisting of a voyeur and his nymphomaniac wife. I thought we were going to get some sort of 'people holed up against the zombies' type scenario, but instead we get some kind of ultra-low brow drama with some stomach churning sex scenes (these people sure are rough), some attempt at off the wall humour, and acting more lifeless than the inside of an ossary.

I'm all for low budget films, but the people behind this film seem to have bypassed the action (and the story) and gone straight for people posing (the usual non-chalant shooting of zombies, some sub-par Bruce Campbell one-liners), so much so that they even forgot to include an ending of any sorts. You've seen it better elsewhere.

Terrible. Insulting. Worst of all, the DVD I bought had about 17 hours worth of extras that no one except the chronically bored would even watch. If you want to see zombies on an ultra-low budget, watch Wild Zero.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What the F?
johnslegers2 November 2009
What the F? I mean : what the F? This movie is just.... awful. Special effects (?) and editing seem like mediocre college work. The image quality is reminiscent of an amateur video hobbyist. Make-up is just sad. Acting is atrocious. The story is not compelling. The characters are barely likable. The zombies are not convincing. The plot is completely uninteresting. The sex is gratuitous and reminiscent of the dullest of soft porn. The budget of this film is most definitely ultra-low. Hmmmm... What a waste of time! Why did I buy this film? Oh, I expected to see some semi-original humorist splatter fest like Braindead, Bad Taste, Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzzor or *ahum* Dance of the Dead (while not a perfect movie by any standard, there was something likable about the effort). Another option was something reminiscent of From Dusk Till Dawn, Planet Terror or questionable Japanese gore like Zombie Self Defense Force, Battle Royale, Ichi The Killer, Machine Girl or the atrociously delirious Toyko Self Defense Force. Or maybe it was an attempt to jump on the bandwagon of 28 Days Layer, Land of the Dead, Zombie Diaries or Diary of the Dead. But no..... Even the disgusting, perverted, retarded crap that looks like it could only have come out of the psychedelic vision of a man with all sorts of weird fetishes that is Toyko Gore Police still is more pleasing to watch than this poor attempt at a film by someone who should never have cared to waste my attention... WTF?
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Swingers and zombies
FilmFlaneur27 June 2006
Strictly z-grade stuff from writer-director Scott Philips, responsible for such straight-to-video fare as CRYPTZ and SCIENCE BASTARD (2002) , HORRORVISION, and so on. Despite the claims on the box ('Better than 28 Days Later!') STINK is clearly not in that league, although it now remains a favourite gross-out title, along with the likes of SHRIEK OF THE MUTILATED and ENTRAILS OF A VIRGIN. STINK is handicapped by some low rent acting talent, although the film benefits from an excellent rock score, reasonable photography and special effects, as well as an intriguing storyline. The catchily named Kurly Tlapoyawa plays Matool, a man who prefers the excitement of fistfighting zombies before driving big nails through their skulls to the less stressful, and more common means, of just shooting them straight in the head. After one grisly encounter, from which he is sole survivor, he stumbles onto the retreat of a swinging couple and a sister, still managing to maintain their alternate lifestyle during the current flesh eating apocalypse. Stranger still, the sister has a mutant head growing from her belly. Soon they are joined by soldiers carrying one of their wounded, shortly zombie-to-be, comrade in arms, and the swinging couple duly expand their activities - including the husband, whom we incidentally discover keeps a zombie chick in his shed for his private pleasure.. Whether or not the film intends a satire on a liberal lifestyle, the intrusion of such an idea makes a pleasant change from the usual concerns of the genre, and the vaguely communal life style of the uninfected is intriguing, even if Philips' script runs out of steam at the end, wrapping things up too abruptly. But as a film it is entertaining and rarely boring, quite playful in its own way and the rumpy pumpy inside, while the zombies bump up against the refuge outside certainly makes for some novel suspense...
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
I mean the way the world is today... what counts as a crime anymore?
lastliberal16 October 2008
If you don't have a budget for name actors or special effects, then you need a good script. Now, I don't know if I would call Scott Phillips script good, but it was certainly different enough.

Matool (Kurly Tlapoyawa) is a Rock look-a-like that doesn't use guns because he says bullets are hard to find. He isn't nailin paylin, he is nailin zombies with a hammer and long nails. Long nails aren't hard to find? Hmmm.

He manages to escape and ends up with a strange house full of people - Nathan (Ross Kelly), Dexy (Diva) and Sassy (Kristin Hansen). Nathan likes to watch, so Mandool is soon nailin Dexy, while Sassy spanks him with a plastic ruler.

Sassy must be a siamese twin, as she had the face of her sister in her side. Yech! Nathan obviously doesn't have any skin mags, so he keeps a zombie naked and tied up Jesus-like in the shed to visit whenever he needs a kick. Unfortunately, he decides on day that he wants to do more than just look at her decomposing body. Big mistake, Nathan.

Some soldiers manage to get to the cabin and soon they are all nailin Dexy. She even manages to get a little lesbian action with a female that shows up.

All the while these kinky things are going on the countryside is crawling with zombies.

If you like bloody body munching, and kinky sex, then this just might be your thing.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A real hoot !!!
deathtomongo17 June 2005
i watched 'the stink of flesh' expecting substandard dross... but was *very* surprised to find myself guffawing and gableating from the five minute mark to the end of the movie... dross it was not.

yes, it's low budget... but the directing, acting aplomb and musical score/soundtrack (...and gore !!) were well above the standard of otherwise typical low budget constraint.

i loved this sick little zombie flick, and while it was no 'dellamorte dellamore', it wasn't far off the mark for twisted entertainment value...

final comment: "open a bottle, sit back, relax, enjoy... !!"

Mongo :~>
18 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A higher level of low budget
xzentashi6 July 2007
I was impressed for what this film is. Low budget zombie movie fun, with some unique twists. I had low expectations going in and was pleasantly surprised.

Technically it has a spit and polish I'd expect from a higher budget. The lighting, sound, shots and makeup effects are really well done. I studied martial arts 18 years and the fight choreography isn't bad either, for what it is. Hong Kong cinema it's not but it's still pretty good. And it's not a mindless zombie flick. It actually has some depth, which I'll explain.

Dexy is an excellent cast, IMO. She's full figured and while she doesn't look like what would be typically sexy, she exudes sexy psychologically. Her sexiness comes not through her looks or figure (unless you like full figured women) but through her appetite for and attitude about sex. She also exudes a caring and warmth. If you had a beautiful looking actress playing that part, the subtly would've been lost, I think. Personally, I'm a fan. I thought she was great.

Ross Kelly is excellent as the brooding husband, turned on, yet disturbed by his wife's antics in the bedroom as he satisfies his own desire for flesh elsewhere.

Matool is the only minority in the whole movie I think, so having a Hispanic in the lead is refreshing. Being introduced so strongly I thought his character kind of got "lost" as the movie progressed.

The Stink of Flesh in an interesting title in that, the people are not that different from the zombies. Both crave flesh in a mindless, animalistic way that underlines its apocalyptic theme. Zombies aren't capable of ethics or morals and in the same situation neither are the people. All that's left is a desire for flesh and survival. You can't get much more basic in human behavior than eating and having sex and having the 2 parallel in a movie was really a fascinating twist. I just wish the story was presented better.

There are some things that didn't make sense (to me anyway) and it was really one of only a few things that disappointed me. I thought some good acting and an excellent premise was wasted on the lack of cohesion in the story and plot.

Zombies aren't angry. There's a sadness and emptiness that belies their behavior and zombie acting really is a unique perspective. I still look to Romero's films for the ideal zombie. I did like the idea of a "hyper - 28 Days Later" type of zombie. Zombies act through physiology and eyes... if they have eyes, so I feel the zombies could've been better, but that's being totally subjective. So the makeup effects sort of overshadows the zombie acting.

There really is some disturbing stuff here that I can take or leave. Again being a little disappointed in the story I would've preferred more focus on story and characters and less peripheral stuff going on that added little to nothing to the story. But nonetheless a great effort. I really enjoyed it.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A modern living-dead masterpiece
Tromafreak7 April 2010
Just a few years ago, before the most recent rise of the vampires, it was all about the Living Dead. Not unlike the mainstream, the world of Zombie B-cinema also experienced a rise in popularity. But recently, I saw a zombie flick that wasn't just a good zombie flick, or even a good low-budget zombie flick. By God, The Stink Of Flesh is just an all around good movie.

Brought to you by New Mexico's king of B-cinema... oops, I mean Z-cinema, Scott Phillips. This guy brings something a little different to the table, a little something called originality. And when I say original, I mean, you won't find anything quite like this. The Stink Of Flesh starts out regular enough, with a fellow named Matool, who, in a world filled with the living-dead, thinks it's cool to fight these things and kill them with a hammer (and nails), as opposed to shooting them in the head, like everybody else. After almost getting killed, Matool is kidnapped by Nathan, and his girlfriend, Dexy. Matool isn't too fond of this kind of treatment, but their house is about as zombie-proof as it gets, and the only thing he's being forced to do is participate in their harmless, yet peculiar sex games. I'm sure Matool would have appreciated a warning that Dexy's sisters is apart of the game, but really, what's the fun in that? I'm just gonna assume Sassy and Dorothy was some kind of homage to Basket Case... which is always a welcomed quality for a Horror movie.

Anyway, the zombies are present, in fact, they're everywhere, and there are gruesome, gory killings, and there is quite an apocalyptic vibe, but this movie is just too busy being a dark-humored freak show to care. That basically sums up this movie. The Stink Of Flesh never stops being interesting, unlike the repetitive work of George A. Romero. The Stink Of Flesh really puts Land Of The Dead to shame, in every way. And did I mention that this movie stars LBP's Billy Garberina? You know you're in for a good time, now. That guy is hilarious, and if you agree, I would totally recommend Wet Heat. But for those of you who are burnt out, or just bored with the regular, everyday living dead nonsense that the mainstream throws at us, yet you feel you're still above stuff like Zombie Rampage, and Mulva: Zombie Ass Kicker, this one might be just right. 10/10
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If you did not see this you missed out!
cdm_wolframheart10 August 2004
I was very pleased with this film.

I am an avid horror and Japanese movie fan, and after seeing the Village recently and being very disappointed, I was glad to get my moneys worth seeing The Stink Of Flesh. It was nice to see a fresh new spin on the zombie genre.

The effects were excellently bloody, the actors were good and the storyline was great. If this film does not reach cult status I will be very surprised.

If you are a fan of horror movies or just want a different kind of storyline, I highly recommend this film.
4 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Not Bad, But It Needs an Ending
w00f6 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't expect much from this flick, but it's actually pretty good. The acting is decent, the story is interesting, and the zombie make-up is passable. It even had a good score that reminded me a bit of Tom Waites. The main character, Matool, kicks some zombie butt in a few well-choreographed fight scenes, too.

Here I was enjoying this and then... it ended. A couple of characters run off into the desert, Dexy and the mute kid are still in the house, surrounded by zombies, and the damned thing just ends. What a let-down! What happened? The end (or lack of one) ruined it for me, I must admit. I would have rated this one higher if it hadn't come to such a clumsy and unsatisfying non-conclusion.

Ah well, better luck next time!
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Bad Like a Public Restroom. But not the Worst Public Restroom You've Been In.
Ralphus223 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Whoah! This is a very very bad film. Really, very very bad. In almost all aspects of the cinematic arts. Almost all? All! Decent, sensible folk (who wouldn't have rented it in the first place), will turn off after just a few minutes. And understandably so. But... for such a low-budget flick, "The Stink of Flesh" is actually fairly entertaining. Its biggest plus (and a pretty surprising one) is that it's decently written, again relative to its low-budget origins. The humor employed is mildly amusing - rising to 'quite' amusing on the odd occasion. And the plot, while glaringly unoriginal and dripping like a sieve, has the fun twist of characters who 'enjoy' taking on zombies - even seek them out - and having at them with hammers. Good stuff.

Alongside the cheesy goofball humor, though, is plenty of dumbness. One particularly exasperating example is when one idiot character opens the door WHILE ZOMBIES ARE TRYING TO CLAW THROUGH IT, not only to meet her own inevitable death, but also inflicting death upon an old man and a young boy who had been sheltering in the cabin. One of those groan-inducing idiot characters you are glad gets wasted. Then, more dumbness: immediately following this, Matool is saved (well, he's knocked unconscious with a car door and thrown in the back of truck) by Nathan, who we met previously, who also has the other young boy from the cabin in the car with him. We should assume, I suppose, that Nathan had swung by the cabin and saved the young boy before smacking Matool in the face with his car door. I guess that's what happened, but on first viewing it just isn't convincing. It smacks of sloppy plot hole or, more likely, deleted scene. This movie is full of such stuff-ups. There's some woeful acting (young boy number 1), some misdelivered lines (the girl who escapes to certain death), some unconvincing writing (I said it was fairly well-written, considering, and it is, 'broadly' speaking; but it's certainly not without its gawkish moments), inconsistent and wrong-headed pacing (action action action followed by way too long showing pieces of wood being nailed across a door; or too long of a man laying in a hot tub etc.), and REALLY unconvincing make-up.

But to focus on these negatives (and there are plenty more) is to do this particular film an injustice, in my opinion. This is a REAL low-budget job, made by some dudes for 'sh*ts and giggles' as they say - for the love of it! - and in doing so they've, yes been unable to include convincing special effects and expert acting, but have managed to make a fun film that doesn't take itself too seriously and reflects the fun had by those involved in its creation - as well as some future writing potential.

By contrast, I very recently watched (and reviewed) "The Hidden 3D" which was made by experienced industry professionals with a much larger (though still not very large, admittedly) budget and access to CGI and many other benefits "The Stink of Flesh" didn't have the luxury of. Yet, on the level of creativity and writing and enjoyability, "The Hidden 3D" was a MUCH worse film. In fact it was utter cr*p! "The Stink of Flesh", while clearly flawed (understatement) ends up being an entertaining piece of C-grade 'home brew' and more worthy of this viewer's plaudits than sloppy, cookie-cutter snoozeramas like "The Hidden 3D" (and many others of similar ilk).

In short: kudos to the makers. Hope you guys had fun. An open mind and VERY low expectations render this (barely) watchable schlock. But, hey, it's still better than...anything with David Caruso in it, for example. Cr*p, yes, but not the stinkiest kind. (Still, my vote is 3/10. I can't in good conscience grade this any higher.)

Never mind. Just my two cents.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
No real Zombie could be as wooden as these actors.
dantheman6969695 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Well you've got to admire there guts for making this 3ooo dollar film - But at the end of the day - It's not scary, it's not sexy, it's just crap.

I'm sure Kurly Tlapoyawa can do stunts, but he'll never be able to act as long as he has a hole in his bottom.

Having said that they all have guts for standing up and making it and getting it out there. So for that I couldn't give it a one.

The one bit I love is the very sexy zombie stashed in the Dunny/outhouse for sexual gratification. It's nice to see that her body doesn't deteriorate no matter how long she hangs around.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A watchable slice of warped low budget zombie fun.
BA_Harrison29 June 2008
Low-budget zombie films: almost anyone can make one, and the majority of them are crap. Technically, The Stink of Flesh ain't much better than your average amateur walking dead dreck, but thanks to its very unpredictable script, which steers well clear of Romero rip-off territory, it manages to be entertaining stuff for those who like their movies more than a little twisted.

Kurly Tlapoyawa plays a hard-nut survivor of a zombie holocaust named Matool, who likes to deal with the undead up-close-'n'-personal by bashing huge nails into their skulls with a lump hammer (obviously, he thinks that guns are for wimps!).

After narrowly escaping an attack by the undead, Matool is kidnapped by a couple of swingers, Nathan and Dexy, who have found that finding healthy (ie., living) participants for their sex games more difficult since the zombie outbreak. Fortunately, Matool has no problems with their alternative lifestyle, and is all too happy to service Dexy (as Nate watches on), and is only slightly put off his stroke when Sassy, Dexy's sister (who has a parasitic twin named Dorothy living in her stomach), wanders in and slaps his ass with a big stick!

A now satisfied Dexy is even more delighted when a trio of soldiers (one of whom has been wounded by a zombie) pitch up at the house: the two uninjured grunts join in the fun with the insatiable gal, which results in a slightly miffed Nathan making trips to an outbuilding, where he keeps a hot nekkid dead chick (who we later discover was killed by Nathan) chained up for his pleasure. Even Sassy gets a bit of loving when one of the soldiers also takes a shine to her (the guy's not fussy—he even even gives some attention to Dorothy).

However, when Sepulveda, the injured member of the group, eventually 'turns', Sassy is accidentally shot, and Nathan is attacked by his sex-zombie (who has been deliberately released by a mute boy who also lives with the swingers), the fun ends and the killing starts.

Whilst The Stink of Flesh admittedly features some truly awful acting, grade-Z effects and gore (a large proportion of the zombies are made-up with face-paint), and dreadful production values, its deliciously warped sense of fun easily helps one to overlook these drawbacks. Let's face it—any film with a zombie shagging scene and an abdominal mutant can't be all bad.

My only real gripes are that the film would've benefited greatly from a much sexier actress playing the role of Dexy, rather than chunky 'Kathy Bates-alike' Diva (the girl who dies early on in the film would've been a much better choice), and a slightly less abrupt ending.

I rate this unusual little horror flick 6.5 out of 10, rounded up to 7 for IMDb.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
..wincing and laughing at the same time..
christopher-underwood13 July 2005
Well, if ever a low budget movie ever fully achieved it's objective, this is it. At the same time feeding off every zombie film ever made this also manages to surprise and amaze. As well as astound, revolt and laugh lots. Just a wee bit let down by some flat acting here and there, this really should take nothing from this beautifully shot, excellently designed and very well SFX'd outing from a director we will here much more from. Not only does this film have some of the most squirmingly sticky/gory bits, some of the most head crunching violence but is happy to include erotic sex, social comment and never forget that whilst it's difficult to have an audience wincing and laughing at the same time, it's bloody great when it happens.
12 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
funny movie with a low budget
iandorion3 October 2005
i had a lot of fun watching this movie. Actually i really don't know why i liked it because the acting suck, the make up effect suck and it's pretty obvious that this zombie flick doesn't bring something new to the genre. but it make me laugh and i liked the characters. In my mind it surely beat dead meat and it's beat many zombie movie who pretend to be serious. It's not a comedy like shaun of the dead and it's not a great zombie movie like night of the living dead but it's surely one of the best zombie movie i have seen in a long time. Maybe i am the only one on earth but i don't care, i liked it and I'm surely watch it again with a bunch of friend and a couple of beer and have some good laugh.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Great Movie
Mortisha_Deluxe7 June 2005
This movie is great. Unlike many films of this kind "The Stink of Flesh" is not disturbingly predictable. On the contrary it has everything you don't expect it to have. I've enjoyed acting and dialogues. Each character has it's own interesting personality so you don't get the impression that he's there just to get killed. Music is superb. It goes very well with the action and creates a great climate of this film. I didn't find a single thing I didn't like bout "Stink". I must say that in the beginning I thought it's gonna be another cheap piece of crap but it's not. It's also not like any other horror movie and it's really worth of watching though the ending could have been better (anyway it still has its' charm:)).

Mortisha_Deluxe
7 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
your typical no budget TEMPE entertainment style c grade movie
ratblast-129 May 2005
if you have seen TEMPE entertainment DVD's before ,you will know what to expect. they are no budget over the top blood and guts with next to no plot and bad no name actors. this movie is no different i would only recommend it to true fans of low budget laughable so called horror. i own quite a few movies of this type and love them all. do not be fooled by the high rating you see so far, this will end up with a 3 or less if viewed by a non fan of the genre.

the movie wasted no time on how the zombies came about , it opens with a fight between a zombie and one of the main characters. no need to explain the lack of plot , but i was a bit disappointed with the end . i felt it should of gone a few minutes longer.

i being a fan rate it with a 6 .
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A good effort.. It could've done more better..!
smiley-3221 June 2005
The Stink of Flesh.. Yes! I saw this on DVD last week.. I must admit.. for a film like this this.. It's a low budget movie.. in which Scott Phillips said in his audio commentary.. 'It was made for $3000..!' Well, not bad for a man who scripted the actioner 'Drive'.. I think with this film.. It was a good effort.. It comes to show that any filmmaker can make a film for a small amount of money.. I've seen it here in this country.. And I must admit, some films are pretty good. But some others.. well, they are rubbish..!

The whole story of this movie was a bit confusing in some parts.. But if Scott has written up more action scenes.. it could've been more entertaining..

Let alone of what I saw on the featurette.. Although, I sat through 100 mins of this.. It's not bad.. At least, it gave me some reference about low budget film-making.. But on the whole.. I'm rating this as a 5 out of 10..!
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed