Strippers vs Werewolves (2012) User Reviews

Wait until it gets shown on channel 4

[paulswampymarsh · 4/10 · 25 April 2012]

Thought i well let people know (Warn) about Strippers v Werewolves, as i went to the premiere last night in London. The UK is brilliant at making Horror Comedies (Think Dog Soldiers & Shaun of the dead) However this isn't one of them. This film has 3 good points - A couple of great cameos (Alan Ford & Robert Englund) The nerdy vampire killer boyfriend (Hillarious at the end) and the end scene as the 4 strippers in stockings and suspenders dressed as little red riding hood. But even these 3 great point aren't enough to save this shocking(ly bad) film.

Let me start by saying what annoyed me the most, The soundtrack. I think it was supposed to be a new take on 80's new romantic era, but it was just awful. The cinema was full of cast and friends of friends, I can only assume the soundtrack was done by one of these as a favour. As i said earlier, it is build as a horror comedy, Although it had a few laughs, i cant remember one moment that i actually jumped (unlike Dog Soldiers) Cheesy lines, horrific acting in places & and some strippers that weren't even that good looking. I was hoping for a UK version of Zombie Strippers and got something that wouldn't be a miss on one of those free to air horror channels on sky.

Ali Bastian was decent in it, However i feel it probably won't do much for her career (Maybe she just had some bills to pay) Adele Silva actually looked better in person than on film, where she just looked like a bulldog sucking on a thistle. The make up was so bad, i can only assume it was done by make up students learning they're trait. The funniest point of the night was the end of the film when everyone applauded, thats when the lights came up and i realised everyone except me had a cameo in the film! Wait until it gets shown on channel 4 at 1am some when and try to stay awake for Robert Englund's 10 minute cameo. 4/10.

Pole dancing has never been so dangerous in Strippers vs Werewolves

[rgblakey · 4/10 · 13 September 2012]

There have been some really zany over the top horror comedies come along over the last few years bust most focused on the zombie craze with films like Shaun of the Dead, Zombieland, and Zombie Strippers, but finally someone has decided to bring in the werewolves in Strippers vs. Werewolves. Is there any chance that this will work or fall along the lines of the so many other failed horror films?

Strippers vs. Werewolves follow a pack of werewolves seeking revenge for the death of one of their own at a strip club. This is a silly movie, but not in a bad way. Is it good of course not, but it is fun. The reason this one works well is that while they are delivering a dark comedy, they manage to take themselves seriously for most of the film. This aspect makes the movie work a bit better than its title would lead you to believe. It's really not until the end confrontation in the film that things get a bit sillier. You get the feeling this was the silly nature it was headed towards which thanks to not going full on silly for most of the film makes it welcome, but could easily through some off. Most of the acting was pretty bad, but in this sort of movie you don't expect too much. They delivered the blood and gore horror fans want, but not near as much nudity as you would have expect, especially for a movie involving a strip club.

This is a bit of a silly movie, but if you can just sit back and have some fun it becomes just that, fun. Filled with some genre centric actors including Sarah Douglas (Superman 2), Barbara Nedeljiakova (Hostel series), and Robert Englund (Nightmare on Elm Street series) but don't be fooled, Englund is barely in the movie and serves little purpose other than his name recognition.

http://www.examiner.com/movie-in-dallas/bobby-blakey

Lock, Stock & Two Silver Bullets

[richardchatten · 3/10 · 6 January 2021]

More like a London gangster film than a horror movie. 'Underworld' gave us Dominatrixes vs. Werewolves presented rather solemnly. Here we get dirtier talk (naturally), brighter colours, frenetic pacing (including lot of flashy burst-wipes), sixties-style split screen, and a sense of fun.

It does rather go on, and strippers dressed as schoolgirls are a poor substitute for Kate Beckinsale in PVC. But the cast is game and for those of us with fond memories of Sarah Douglas as the evil Ursa in 'Superman III' it's good to see her back playing the film's resident Queen Bee.

Absolute garbage not even worthy of a drunken nights viewing...

[aelthric · 1/10 · 9 May 2012]

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 boobs 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...

That title is brilliant, even if the rest isn't

[ogdendc · 5/10 · 21 September 2013]

Well, the title of this film might lead you to think that this is either really cool in a postmodern ironic sort of way or truly dire. It's worth watching just so you can make your mind up.

For me, it almost worked. Although some of the acting is poor, there are some good performances in here: Martin Compston (Red Road, Sweet 16, True North) is particularly good. Ali Bastian (Hollyoaks), Sarah Douglas (Superman), Charlie Bond (GBH) and Steven Berkoff (Clockwork Orange and about 100 things since) are all worth watching.

The soundtrack is spectacular: 20 original tracks with an 80s vibe from Sodajerker. That's not a Swedish band, it's a pair of guys from Liverpool whose work deserves to be in something more mainstream that this.

The plot actually makes sense, if you can follow it. A stripper manages to kill a werewolf with a silver fountain pen. His mates want revenge. Her colleagues put up a fight. Obviously there's a bit more to it than that.

The technical side is quite good, even though the pacing is all wrong. There's blood, nudity, some good lines. Above all it's very British. Reminded me of Shaun of the Dead. Not quite as good overall. But if it had been produced properly it would not have been far off.

And that title is brilliant.

Really wanted to like it more

[alvinllo · 5/10 · 22 September 2012]

I thought it started pretty good and the cast was game and it was nice seeing Sarah Douglas and enjoyed the cameos, but something didn't quite click. I think it lost me with many subplots like the stripper living with the werewolf and the other other stripper breaking up with her vampire hunting boyfriend (he was very annoying and unfunny).

Nothing really happened for the longest time and then they go and kill the only likable male character. I can forgive bad acting and low production values what I cannot forgive is a boring storyline and annoying characters.

It could've benefited from a longer final battle and more deaths, most of the time its nothing but talk talk talk.

You will die with embarrassment

[philgr8 · 1/10 · 14 May 2012]

I have just donated my time to something... A movie well I don't know that you could call it that... It was more like a 9 year old's fantasy. Not funny at all just embarrassing. I can't not put the word film in with the movie. I am sure the actors did their stuff well. I can't think of anyone who would have come out of this movie with any credibility. Dusk till Dawn its not. Buy some paint and watch it dry it's much, much more entertaining. The script is lame. There could have been some mileage in this piece. Maybe it ran out of budget. even the effects, bits of limbs, blood gore are like some one made them in school art class. They were neither realistic or silly enough to be funny. I am sure someone had fun when they made it. Its just the audience won't.

Extraordinarily bad

[Leofwine_draca · 1/10 · 25 May 2019]

STRIPPERS VS. WEREWOLVES is truly one of the most appalling British films I've ever witnessed, a comedy/horror hybrid that makes LESBIAN VAMPIRE KILLERS look like a masterpiece by comparison. The setting is the usual sleazy strip-club, inhabited by actresses willing to strip for the camera while at the same time displaying no acting ability whatsoever. The exception is Adele Silva, as she's a proper actress from EMMERDALE, but she's perhaps the most wooden of the plot.

After one of their number is killed in the opening sequence - none other than Martin Kemp, wisely having as little screen time as possible - a gang of werewolves led by the reliably sinister Billy Murray decide to get revenge on the club and those who work there. Cue stupid gags, crude humour, exploitative nudity, cheesy special effects, and terrible werewolf make-up, but it's mostly cringemakingly boring. There are cameos from horror greats like Robert Englund but awful scripting and direction making this one of the worst I've watched in a very long time. The companion vampire/gangster piece DEAD CERT, while not great, is ten times better than this.

One of the cheapest looking worst acted films ever.

[crone76 · 1/10 · 9 June 2012]

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.

A special kind of talent

[sixtydaysofhonestymovie · 1/10 · 20 April 2014]

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.

starsIF YOU CAN'T TALK, AT LEAST BARK

[nogodnomasters · 8/10 · 22 April 2018]

After a stripper kills a werewolf with her silver pen, a pack of werewolves hunt down the killer of one of their kind as the film evolves toward the title climax. This production has a decent soundtrack and some stars. The film is more comedy than horror. Lines from the film:

"My mother sold my soul to the devil when I was 9 so I wouldn't be an altar boy."

"I'm sorry. I may have blocked your toilet."

"I would never do that...not on the first date anyway."

The film is campy with a little grindhouse mixed in. It had some enjoyable lines and scenes. Worth a peek for quirky grindhouse fans.

Parental Guide: F-bomb, sex, ample nudity FF.

One way or another, it'll make you howl

[tragacanth · 7/10 · 18 March 2013]

I won't beat around the bush. The acting is horrible, the script risible, the makeup and prosthetics are dire and probably the least said about the plot the better. With the number of ex-soap actors in it, perhaps it's not surprising that the film seems to derive much of it's inspiration and ethos from Crossroads and El Dorado. Put simply, it's bad. I guessed that from the title. What surprised me is that it manages to cross that line from 'bad' to 'so bad it's good'. I'll admit I didn't know it was supposed to be a comedy when I watched it and I wouldn't have guessed they were trying to be intentionally funny, but looking on it as a (bad) horror - it was hilarious. I nearly gave it an 8.

Not much bite, but plenty of fleas.

[one9eighty · 3/10 · 14 September 2020]

A very British, ultra low budget film with a sprinkling of famous faces - albeit most are from UK soap operas. Directed by Jonathan Glendening and written by Pat Higgins and Phillip Baron, this 2012 film is rated 15 and has a runtime of 93 minutes. It is rated as Action, Comedy and Crime but also borders on supernatural horror too.

The plot is simple but conceivable, in a weird kind of way anyway; a stripper accidently kills a werewolf with a silver fountain pen. His friends, the rest of the pack, want their revenge. It is up to colleagues, friends, and clientele of the stripper to fight off the bloodthirsty werewolves.

I am not going to mess around and try and jazz this film up, I knew what I was getting myself into with this film, and the title of the film also set my expectations too, but this film, well - it was just bad. I usually like bad b-movies, but even by that standard this is really really bad. The acting is terrible; the script and dialogue is cringy; the make-up, effects and prosthetics are cheap; the soundtrack was awful; it wasn't funny (and it was supposed to be); the pacing was terrible... wait, I've used that descriptive word before... let's go with the pace was on par with a bumpy, pot hole covered road that was only partially built and required detours for no reason. What I am ultimately getting at, in case it was not obvious, is that this is a poor film.

With how bad the film was I was surprised at some of the faces that are in it, some from UK soap opera, some from the world of film. Ali Bastian, Adele Silva, Martin Compston, and Billy Murray all have experience in various soap operas. Martin Kemp, Alan Ford, Steven Berkoff, Lysette Anthony, and Robert Englund all have big film experience. With a cast this rich I was really expecting to see something a lot better than I got to experience. This felt like a cheap rip-off of 2008's "Zombie Strippers", which is pity because Britain is usually a strong player in the comedy-horror market with some really great tongue in cheek blood splatter films. This, unfortunately, had very few redeeming qualities and I can see this being quickly forgotten by audiences and probably the cast themselves too. I am not basing my review on a single viewing; I watched this in 2012 when it came out, and I have re-watched it in 2020 when I wrote this review. The film stunk almost ten years ago, and its fragrance has not improved since then.

A Howler

[By-TorX-1 · 1/10 · 7 May 2015]

There is an art to making bad horror movies that are a pleasure to watch due to their badness, but Strippers vs Werewolves is simply bad. Howlingly bad, in fact. OK, it is meant to be a horror-comedy and not to be taken seriously, but that (as John Landis masterfully demonstrated) is also an art, and this film misses the canvas by miles. It is not funny, scary or effective in any way and is generally an amateur affair. The tricksy split screen and use of strange animated stills is also very annoying and totally unnecessary. Added to this, the make-up effects are rudimentary and make the villains of the piece look less like werewolves and more like 19th century pub owners with muttonchop sideburns and big ears, while the much-heralded 'strippers' don't actually strip (I've seen Emmerdale episodes that are more daring). On a positive note (yes, there are one or two positive notes - literally one or two), it's always great to see the marvellous Sarah Douglas on screen and Alan Ford is a class act (now Cockneys vs Zombies is a good comedy-horror), but they deserve better than this shaggy-dog story.

Hungry like the wolf

[IndieZeus · 5/10 · 4 November 2020]

This Brit Horror sees Strippers (none of which actually take their clothes off) versus werewolves; who don't look especially wolfie.

Not a bad cast. Martin Compston, Martin Kemp, Ali Bastian, Steven Berkoff and Robert Englund are all on show and if nothing else they make great use of the Duran Duran classic 'Hungry like the wolf'.

Hmmmm

[kaceyrbaker · 10 May 2012]

Based on the trailer, I must say I'm a fan of American cinema, and this is a perfect example why.

I watched it thinking it would be slick because Bill Murray is in it, but a few moments in I checked the credits again thinking it was a high school project or something???

Just something about British cinema that just looks tacky and cheap.. gritty I dare say. I guess it works for a lot of audiences, just not me (the jerk as it would appear).

Although ten thumbs up to the cast and crew, god save me when I release my first movie.

Eastenders vs. Hollyoaks. Via Emmerdale

[FlashCallahan · 3/10 · 17 October 2013]

Martin Kemp gets killed by the ugly one from Emmerdale who's always in lads mags, so Alan Ford 'sorts it out'.

Meanwhile, the really fit one from Hollyoaks stands around cooing at a bouncer, but doesn't know that Johnny Allen from Eastenders is still mad that Martin has been killed.

And Martin Compston just stands around thinking 'why?'.

Its a wonderful title, and fans of soaps will recognise lots of the cast, something your mum and dad would watch because of who is in it, but alas,mother film is one big mess.

The cast, aside from Bastian are dreadful, and considering that Berkoff, Ford, Compston, and even Murray are quite prolific, that's some going.

Bastian saves face, but when your biggest role is in the poor soap Hollyoaks, it isn't saying much.

Make up effects could be worse, and they suit the film in some strange way, but the film tries too hard. England pops up for no real reason other than to elevate the film a little, and he really looks like he knows this.

Its one of those cases where the title is lot better than the film.

A lot.

Just another strippers and monsters flick...

[paul_haakonsen · 4/10 · 15 May 2012]

Actually the title here, "Strippers vs Werewolves", says it all. Do not venture here and watch this movie unless you got nothing else better to do. This movie was right up the alley along side similar movie titled "Zombie Strippers". Starting to think that anything with the word 'stripper' in it is not really all that great and worth sitting down to watch.

The story in "Strippers vs Werewolves" is about a group of strippers at Club Vixen who get tangled up with a band of werewolves when one of the dancers kills one of the werewolves. So it is basically a death match of beauty versus the beast, so to speak. The storyline was a bit stupid, but it wasn't slow paced or dull, so that was working for the movie at least.

The cast actually did good enough jobs with their given roles. However, I wonder how they managed to get Lysette Anthony (despite her being in a small cameo role) and Robert Englund to appear in this movie. Guess money does make the world go round.

Now, the werewolves in this movie were not that bad. Sure, they weren't traditional werewolves as we have come to know (and love) from movies and books. They looked more like some kind of hybrid version, and personally, I think it was a nice touch to see something out of the ordinary for a change.

But still, in overall, "Strippers vs Werewolves" wasn't particularly memorable. It was a no-brainer movie, something to watch on a lazy late weekend while nurturing a hang-over and would be drifting in and out of a sleepy haze. The movie didn't leave a lasting impression, and now having seen it once, I can honestly say it will be bagged, tagged and never brought out to be watched again.

Has a few redeeming values but overall a complete failure as a comedy horror

[TheLittleSongbird · 3/10 · 26 August 2013]

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

The worst awful garbage horror flick that stinks like a bad doughnut..!!!

[smiley-32 · 1/10 · 9 September 2012]

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!

Trashy Comedy Horror That Only Really Works As Trash

[Theo Robertson · 3/10 · 6 July 2013]

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

A Raspberry!

[kuleanasquishee · 9/10 · 1 February 2014]

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.

Cheesy in all the right ways.

[beccastarstruck · 7/10 · 30 April 2013]

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.

Almost as bad as Lesbian Vampire Killers.

[BA_Harrison · 3/10 · 25 July 2012]

Despite its unimaginative title (this is just one of many predictable '— vs —' films to have surfaced on DVD in recent years), I was willing to give Strippers vs Werewolves the benefit of the doubt, but having just suffered through what I can only describe as an hour and half of absolute puerile drivel I'm now more than happy to pounce on it and give it the critical mauling it deserves.

There are countless reasons to hate on this film, but I'll start by addressing the obvious ones: the strippers and the werewolves...

After years of teasing fans on Hollyoaks and in assorted mags, I was most interested in seeing Ali Bastian as one of the movie's principle strippers: would she finally get 'em out for the lads? Would she heck (damn you Bastian for still having a shred of dignity even when your career is on the skids). Similarly, Emmerdale strumpet Adele Silva and Hostel babe Barbara Nedeljakova fail to get nekkid (despite neither girl being the shy or retiring type), leaving the task of baring all to a few complete unknowns desperate for exposure.

As far as the werewolves are concerned, plastic fangs, rubber ears and crap facial prosthetic appliances (that make the actors look like over-sized rodents) are the order of the day, the dreadful make-up eliciting far more laughs than the supposedly humorous script.

Gimmicky editing proves to be almost as irritating as the lack of nudity from the leading ladies, with an overuse of novelty scene wipes, more split-screen than all of DePalma's films combined, and absolutely shocking 'comic book' images (achieved by using one of the standard filters in Photoshop) making this even more of a chore to sit through. Strippers vs Werewolves also suffers from lousy dialogue, some cringe-worthy acting, and weak gore.

On the plus side, Simon Phillips is mildly amusing as a nerdy vampire killer (and, rather unbelievably, the boyfriend of Nedeljakova's goth stripper Raven), Lucy Pinder appears as a sexy vampiress, and Bastian and Nedeljakova both sport black stockings, sussies and basques for the film's finale (not naked, but still nice!), but none of this is enough for me to want to rate the film any higher than 3/10.

Mildly Entertaining But Really Doesn't Work on Any Level

[Michael_Elliott · 6 October 2013]

Strippers vs Werewolves (2012)

** (out of 4)

British mix of comedy and horror about a stripper who kills a werewolf whose colony then comes from revenge. This means that the entire strip club must stick together to try and destroy the hairy beasts. STRIPPERS VS WEREWOLVES was obviously influenced by ZOMBIE STRIPPERS but unlike that film this one here doesn't seem to know what it wants to do. The story itself is pretty stupid from start to finish and I must admit that quite often it just seemed to go off the rails on things that just weren't all that interesting. I'd also say the movie doesn't work in regards to the laughs or the horror elements. Most of the jokes are aimed around dead bodies and their erections towards the strippers. It was funny the first or second time but after that the joke just gets boring. The horror elements are decent but nothing overly memorable. This includes the werewolves and their looks. The special effects are good but they're certainly far from memorable. Those looking for a lot of exploitation are probably also going to be disappointed because there's really not as much nudity or naughty bits as you might expect. All of this leads me to wonder what the point of the movie was. There's certainly moments where the film is taking itself way too serious but then at other times it seems like it just wants to be goofy fun. Overall the thing is mildly entertaining but there's no question that it's highly uneven. The performances are pretty much what you'd expect, although Robert Englund does show up for a brief spot.