SLiTHER Review and Discussion

Holy fuck. Welcome back, J. Great stuff as usual, man.

I just saw this today, very funny flick, and a great homage to 80's monster horror. It's great to see Gregg Henry on the big screen again, making me laugh my ass off no less.The only qualm I have is that the movie wasn't as gory as it was made out to be, but the laughs more than made up for it. Great directing debut by James Gunn. I'll definitely be buying this when it comes out on dvd.

I just got back from seeing this with a bunch of friends, thus doing my very tiny bit to help the box office. I thought the film was a blast, and Dev's review is spot on about the characters. They come across as real human beings that you wouldn't mind cracking open a beer with and swapping some stories. That's the real strength of the film right there.

And damn, I love me some Nathan Fillion.

Just got back, and it is definitely worth your $8.50.

Damn best time - great flick. Saw it last night.

Here's hoping more people go out and see this thing!

two snapps up

I loved it and thought it was pretty fucking funny, but I agree it could have been grosser!

I saw this afternoon in a theater with about 8 other people (disappointingly enough). Really enjoyed it, though not as much as Shaun of the Dead of course. The audience I was with dug it as well, laughing and cringing at all the right parts.
My favorite line: "And I watch Animal Planet all the fucking time!" along with "Ho. Ly. Shit."

I realize how hyperbolic it sounds, but Slither was a reminder as to just why I love movies.

I know Nick is already championing people to see this over the weekend and I couldn't agree more. I'm already excited to go and see it again, and I'm the type who usually waits for DVD for repeat viewings. What a fun film.

A fun movie, but not much more memorable than other white trash/southern hick horror comedies like Eight Legged Freaks or Tremors. Most lines are only going to be funny once. Michael Rooker in a movie like this is probably the most pandering piece of stunt casting in recent memory. He would have been better used in a more serious body horror film a la Cronenberg.

Seriously, why aren't people seeing this? It's balls-out fun, a great time, lots of laughs and fun, really gross gore. Whereas "Failure To Launch" at my local theater keeps selling out- socially disturbing, for one.

Did anyone catch Gregg Henry's line, "They're not going to bukakke Jack McReady"? Did he really say that?

I think I missed the "bukkake Jack McReady" line. However, I don't see the Mr. Pibb tirade getting old anytime soon along with a handful of other really solid throw-away lines and sight gags (the "squid sightings" map, anyone?). The audience I was with, while sadly small, cracked up with the "Hand me a little piece of that possum" delivery. Then again, many in Alabama have been known to react that way to all possum-related humor.

Does anyone else see the Rooker casting as a pandering stunt? I didn't have a problem with it myself, but I had to wonder if there were others who shared Amadeus's view on it.

Every now and then I get to be pleasantly surprised when a film meets even a quarter of the hype that our dear websites build. In the case of Eight Legged Freaks (and so many others), I would march out of the theater angry, reminding myself to take these things with countless grains of salt. Not so for Slither. There's just something heartwarming about a movie where town officials use the word cocksucker in front of small children.

I would like to see a Wheelsy movie that takes place around election time. JR McReady's campaigns would be works of art.

well, obviously I can't speak for everyone, but i know why I didn't see it. I have become weary of films that get so much great hype before they come out. they almost always fall short of my expectations.

a movie like Slither, is something we need to discover. when i first saw the trailer that came out months ago, where they said all those other movies were for pussies, i thought it was great and Slither was at the top of my list. then i was getting bombarded with just how awesome things were. even our own beloved Chud.com was running as many stories as it could to get people excited for the movie. months before the movie even came out, there were people screaming how great it would be.

Then, as the release date got closer, i started seeing newer trailers, that made the movie look less than stellar. But the reviews from screenings came in and people couldn't get enough of it. The same people who seemed to think it was great even before they saw it. (I know a few of them.)

all that made me feel pretty sure there was no way the movie would live up. it happened with High Tension, Shaun of the Dead (i know i am in the minority there, but i expected so much more) Undead and a bunch of movies that got way more coverage than they deserved.

Like i said, a movie like this needs to be discovered, and not overly hyped. if you compare it to the movies that it is a throwback to (Night of the Creeps) they were all things we found on cable or at the video store. If they had been hyped, people would hate them. That being said, I absolutely will rent Slither on DVD, like i'm sure most people decided to do.

oh, and i didn't see Basic Instinct 2, either.

Well, to be honest, the mainstream would probably think the same of someone who enjoyed Slither.

Not saying they're right, but it probably explains the public apathy.

Plus it looks like every parent took their kid to see Ice Age this weekend.

I loved "Slither", but I have to admit the marketing was not very good. It did not show that it was anything other then just another Horror film. The ads were not bad in and of themselves, but gave the non horror fan no reason to go see it. The ads should have been more like those for "SHaun Of The Dead" the indicated that this was not your typical horror film. Frankly, if I had not heard about this at ChUD I would have given it a pass myself and wait for it to show up on DVD since I am kind of burned out at paying nine bucks to see a crappy Horror movie myself.
What is upsetting to me is that a piece of crap Horror movie like "Saw 2" makes a fortune, whereas one that is really good ,with good writing, good acting, and a lot of style flops.
Most people are not hard core horror fanboys. They say no reason to go see this and the ads did not give then one. It sad to see a really good movie tripped up by a not very good ad campaign.
And I have to think the glut of Horror movies is finally flooding the market.

TO your first point, Not really, considering the loot that SAW 2 picked up.
But I agree the idea that a Romantic Comedy beating a horror movie is somehow "Socially Disturbing" is pretty silly, and just shows that "opened Minded" geeks can be just a closed minded as anybody else.

Saw II made $87 million and took 10 weeks to do it. Failure to Launch is over $70 million in four weeks. Ice Age hit that in one weekend.

Let's have some perspective when saying horror films rake in cash. Saw II did well for the genre, but horror is still a tough sell to the mainstream audience.

I don't deny that Richard, but it's Ironic that really good Horror film like Slither tanks, and a crapfest like SAW 2 is a hit. Sad, really.
I agree that Horror is a hard sell, and that is why not emphasing the fact that "SLither" is really as much a comedy as a horror film was a mistake. They needed to make Slither stand out from the pack becasue Horror is a fairly hard sell. And they failed to do so.
BTW Slither was very well reviewed by most of the mainstream critics so that adds to the irony.

Oh I'm not saying anything about the quality of Slither, but I do agree the advertising misfired -- not much of the comedy comes through.

Great contemporary horror never really gets a good meaty box office take. THE DEVIL'S REJECTS seemed ignored, I'm not sure GINGER SNAPS even got a theatrical release, MAY certainly didn't, SHAUN OF THE DEAD did well compared to its budget but still barely registered, and LAND OF THE DEAD made a third of the takings of the DAWN remake.

It's sad, but it happens.

Wow, I enjoyed the movie and all, but... this really is an outrageous bit of hero-worshipping hyperbole for a standard performance of the kind usually given by David Arquette, in the kind of goofy anti-heroic role usually played by David Arquette.

I avoid Joss Whedon shows, so I can't say how charismatic the guy usually is, but this is hardly a star-making performance.

Unfortunately I think the R rating might have something to do with it. My 16 year old nephew tried to get into this and Hills Have Eyes and was turned down. He's not like I was when I was a kid, I would have paid for Ernest Goes to Rehab and snuck into the shitty Nightmare on Elm Street sequel, which didn't need my help at the box office. But, as has been mentioned, the 2004 Dawn of the Dead made a good deal of money with a very effective ad campaign. I can't explain the success of the Saw movies, either.

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on marketing, or say whether the ads were detrimental or not, but one thing I can say, it's not for lack of trying. The past few weeks I've seen Slither tv spots all over the dial, all the time.

I thought the marketing for this flick was great. Pretty creative. And the Rooker/pandering theory is hilarious.

Oh it's not a fucking theory -- it just seems like a bit of a fanboy/genre indulgence to cast someone as intense as Michael Rooker in this schlocky B-movie. He just feels completely out of place.

Just the Browncoats at work again. Being the star of "Firefly" gets Nathan Fillon instant sainthood in their book.
Even if the film had sucked the Browncoats would praise it because Fillon is in it.

It did not put fannies in the seats therefore I would not call the marketing great.
"Creative" marketing that does not get a audieince is like a "brilliantly designed " motor that can't run a car.
And I thought the ads were not particularly brilliant. OK, Good professional job, but not memorable. No better then the ads for you typical horror film. And the ads needed to go beyond that to sell this film to the general public. Take off the Horror Geek blinders.
I liked the film a lot but let's not start confering the title of "genius" on everybody connected with it.
And when,oh when will the fanboy geeks realise THEY ARE A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL FILM GOING PUBLIC and to be a big hit, a film has to reach beyond the core geek audience.

there is only one reason why this film didn't do well...the recent trailers made it look like ass. and i wanted to see it until the new trailers came out. if a film looks good, people will go...that simple.

of course, you have to know who your audience is. and this film seems to have been aimed at kids who like stupid comedy mixed with their gore, but then it had an R rating.

I thought the trailers were creative, tongue-in-cheek - just like the flick. The studio tried to sell this thing, they got behind it. Who knows why it didn't work. Usually movies like this just don't do well at the box office, I guess. They do well on DVD and whatever. Fuck that. Wish people would just catch it in theaters. As far as the Rooker thing, the guy is great and he's great in this movie. If you think Gunn is pandering to geeks by casting him, ok. I mean, you're probably right - Gunn might have been after that exclusive Rooker fan money. But, I imagine, he cast him because he thinks he's a good actor. Maybe he was pandering to himself? Gunn's a geek, no doubt.

I liked the trailers for the film, too, though they make the film look like a balls-to-the-wall spoof of the genre, and while it is in certain areas, it's a film that can stand on its own as a true horror experience. It just happens to be a really damn funny film.

I thought the marketing for this one was pretty ballsy. They could've hid the creatures away from everyone and just made it look spooky, and get a lot more mainstream interest- but they chose to show some of the best of the gooey effects.

I loved this movie. I've always liked James Gunn's humor, and man, just the little moments in this one had me rolling. I can understand why people compared this to Shaun of the Dead because it's the plot and the characters that are funny, not what's happening- that's played mostly seriously.

But like everyone else, I saw this in a theater that was mostly empty. Damn shame, cause everyone that was there was laughing and groaning along- even the little kids that were there. (there were a lot of them!)

You just called a guy who thought the IDEA of a Serenity movie was retarded a "Browncoat". You're funny.

Faraci's review echoed my Ford comparison - and you guys know how much the Browcoat brigade loves him...

What did Fillion show me in Slither? He showed me he can carry a movie. That's what stars do - they take a movie onto their shoulders and run with it. He did it with comic timing, self-depricating charm, and oddball bravado.

And this David Arquette shit? I think anyone with more than seven brain cells would tell you that this is exactly the kind of movie Arquette is horrible in - be it his twitchy performance in the Scream films, of his flat-out channeling of Dustin Diamond in the utterly bland Eight Legged Freaks. In point of fact, Arquette's only ever been good doing drama - The Grey Zone and Dream With the Fishes immediately spring to mind. It's when he tries to do this sort of jokey performance that he botches.

Fillion's good as gold in this movie - and when he rolls a botch of his own (White Noise 2, anyone) - I'm sure plenty of people who didn't bother to watch Firefly (like...um...me) will call him on a shit flick.

As far as the Rooker thing goes...there's a really great story about his being cast in the film that you'll read about soon enough.

And yes, Matchstick - It WAS indeed about luring that all-important Rooker demographic - which we see now paid off in spades...

I really enjoyed the movie. I felt that it was well written, but a little harsh on language for my taste. The effects were great and I loved that they cast normal looking people for most of the parts. I'd give it a B+.

I caught the bukake line too

thought it was OK, nothing great. not so funny and no so scary. as somebody mentioned, I'd have rather just discovered it on video, like Night of the Creeps

dudalb needs to move the fuck on already. Seriously.

I wonder who has the bigger hardon.

Browncoats for fillion, or dudalb for browncoats.

Just saw this move, was great, can't wait to buy it on DVD when it comes out now.
2 of my favorite lines:
"It's like looking for a needle in a fuck stack"
"Where the fuck is my fucking Mr. Pib!"

Ok during this film Night of the Creeps came to my head, and was wondering if they took off from this movie? Creeps is a great 80s flick and want to get that on DVD when it comes out too, but was wondering if people saw the connection between the 2.

I don't think Night of the Creeps has been brought up before, but a lot of people have been comparing its tone to Look Who's Talking Too.

It's a damn shame that this movie has bombed, I just saw the weekend box office report on the main page, and it's not even in the top 10 anymore. What genius thought to put this movie up against Ice Age II anyway? I remember it was supposed to come out in January, and in retrospect it probably would have done way better if it had been released sometime after Hostel made all of that money, and came out at #1. I did read that the reason that they moved it to march, was because of the success of Dawn '04. In that same time frame, it worked then, but then again Dawn '04 didn't go up against an animated childrens feature's sure fire hit sequel.

I don't think they were competing for the same dollars.

I honestly believe that the slug thing hurt the film. I think that a lot of people are grossed out by that sort of thing and opted not to go. It seems that a lot of people just don't like to see gross things, which doesn't explain how Sandra Bernhardt got to be famous.

I honestly believe that the black thing hurt HUSTLE & FLOW. I think a lot of people are grossed out by that sort of thing and opted not to go. It seems that a lot of people just don't like to see black things, which doesn't explain how Will Smith got to be famous.

I've talked more than a few people who sadi that it looks good, but they are scared to death of worms and the such and so they won't see it. It may not have done well, but I'm not too bummed about it. It was said in the CHUD podcast that James Gunn is doing well and The Hills Have Eyes and Hostel did well enough to ensure that there is an audience for hard R horror film. Throw in the fact that it has made its budget back and I'd be content with its performance.

Movie is a blast. People have my hate for not getting off their asses and trying it out. It's such a weird, fun flick. Mr. Johnson probably does have a point about the worm/gore factor. My wife wouldn't go until I put my foot down (and cried a little).

Really great roundtable and review, HAM.

The fickle, mainstream horror audience would rather see shit like SAW and THE GRUDGE. Doesn't surprise me in the least.

Perhaps a fall release (around Halloween time) would've been a more lucrative choice?

I seemed to have missed the Lloyd Kaufman cameo, though I did spot Rob Zombie's. Where was Kaufman?

He was sitting in the police station at the desk, I think, of the young cop - who later gets the post in his throat. Comes down with a case of mail neck.

Thanks for the panel write-up, HAM. A lot of fun to read.