Q: Yeah i saw the rough cuts. The unedited sex scenes. The dire cut scenes. Almost on a par with the film 'The Need' for awful acting. This movie is as bad as bad films get.the bad script, bad acting, bad effects, bad locations, bad stunts bad everything. The best 'actors' in the film were the lap dancers they hired for the vampire extras!

Sean Harry, the 'foppish actor' as someone else put it, makes a matchstick look talented here. His amazing ability to badly drive a car, when it is obviously being shook by people on the bonnet (check out the reflection in the windscreen), his inability to turn left, which is class. OH and don't forget the sex scene. plus his noteworthy use of a toy gun which the props guys couldn't even be bothered to disguise as a real gun. The other actors on screen could barely deliver their lines.It was as if half the time they were waiting for a line that wasn't there!

The 'special effects' were soooo good to the point that the guys who did it took their real names off the credits!

If you want a laugh at a party then rent this movie...then again there are plenty of good comedies that are just as funny and don't give money to people who don't deserve it.
A: negative
Q: Great actors, an oscar nominee actress, stunning scenery, good strong story line and more laughs than you can fit into my new handbag (and thats quite big). This film was brilliant. It was beautifully acted in the more serious scenes and the funny moments were . .well, side splitting. I have never heard a cinema audience laugh so much, and tears were streaming down my cheeks during the 'stoned ladies in the tea shop' scene. Well done to the British film industry and to Craig Ferguson whose magic ingredients have made sure this is one of my favourite films of the year, if not of all time.
A: positive
Q: Ok, let me say that I didn't expect a film starring Jerry Springer to be cinematic gold, all I asked for was it to be cinematic...and it wasn't even that. It looked like someone's bad home movies. Poorly acted, scripted, and filled to the brim with nudity of the most unnattractive people I've ever seen.

The film's "plot" focuses on a low-class family who decide to go on the "Jerry Farrelly Show" to discuss multiple affairs between a mother, daughter, stepfather and the daughter's fiancee. From there, the movie fizzles and develops into a unique experience: white-trash pornography. There's redneck sex, interacial sex, even sex between Jerry and his wife? (Yuk!) This film encouraged me to want to run out of the theater and get a second circumcision. At least it was mercifully short. Disgusting and degrading. African-Americans and working class America should be offended. (Howard Stern should be pleased however, he didn't squander his attempt for film stardom. His was smart, funny and entertaining)

MY GRADE: F+ (the daughter was hot)
A: negative
Q: Peter M. Cohen has a winner satire on the mating game, twisted around and turned inside out. The critical bashing of the movie in mainstream media publications as "offensive" and "raunchy" only serves to underscore its intensity as a refreshing and concentrated dissection of people's sexual pursuits and passions. It is in the tradition of what I call "reality based" satire following in the footsteps of "In The Company of Men," "Chasing Amy", "Your Friends and Neighbors" and "Two Girls and a Guy". Cohen's dialogue is hilarious and I was continually intrigued by how perfectly he captured the real pace of today's conversations. Brian Van Holt, Zorie Barber, and Jonathan Abrahams are three distinct, unrelenting sex-obsessed predators who along with the foil of their recently married buddy (superbly played by Judah Domke) are turned upside down on their own terms by a female predator (Amanda Peet). Underneath the satiric surface lurks a romantic comedy far more satisfying than most sugar-coated studio products.
A: positive