Donkeypunchin!

dr.bollocko

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0988849/

I just saw trailers for this film starting recently on Irish TV. Meaning a release is imminent.

I am not going to google for a youtube clip as I am at work and have just eaten.

Just wondering how could someone get away with calling a movie DONKEYPUNCH?!?!?!?
PS its certain to be awful. Dont bother seeing it.
Go about your day.
Oh and I am not explaining it to anyone who doesnt know.
Go ask www.urbandictionary.com

Fysh

Yeah, saw a trailer for this the other day. It looks and sounds awful, even by the flimsy standards teeny horror/slashers are usually held to. I'm willing to bet that the entire film's funding was obtained based on the (flawed) assumption that the name was "edgy" and would thus have a guaranteed audience.

I await the news that a film called "shocker" is in production, in which teenagers experimenting with pinky-bumsex get killed in unimaginative ways...

sprinkles

That's shocking. Looks awful to boot. Wonder is there a donkey scene?

rizzla

It's just a name and making this thread and spreading it about is probably exactly what the producers want. People talking about it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, never would have heard of it otherwise and now I might go and see it.

Sean Quagmire

Sounds like a well thought out, awe-inspiring epic. I mean it would have to be, to be called after a move where you punch someone unknowingly in the back of the head.

dr.bollocko

I just want to see the crossover between this and "teeth" in a freddy vs. Jason stylee.
"No todger left unmaimed" would be the tagline.

rizzla

Sean Quagmire wrote: »

Sounds like a well thought out, awe-inspiring epic. I mean it would have to be, to be called after a move where you punch someone unknowingly in the back of the head.

Never heard of a sexual act being called a "move" before, makes it sound like wrestling.

MadamMe

unknowingly? I thought the punch was 100% intentional!

who's yer one?

saw it the other night for free, and thank god for that, i wouldve been mad if i had paid in.
lots of naked people roidin', then lots of gore. none of it interesting.

Fysh

rizzla wrote: »

It's just a name and making this thread and spreading it about is probably exactly what the producers want. People talking about it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, never would have heard of it otherwise and now I might go and see it.

Yeah, I can see how the producers must have thought that a load of film fans seeing the trailer and saying "F*ck me that looks like the worst piece of trash to hit cinema screens in years" was going to be a positive contribution to its performance. I know Terrorfirmer has some sort of medical compulsion that drives him to watch terrible films constantly, but fortunately the majority of us don't.

I'm betting that the week-on-week ticket sales on this will plummet once word of mouth gets around...

dr.bollocko

One can only hope.

Sherifu

At least it's not called Tony Danza or Cleveland Steamer I guess.

The majority of reviews are all quite positive. It looks like another trashy teen slasher film but chances are I'll still go to see it. Any horror or slasher film which doesn't water down it's content to guarantee a 12s rating deserves 90 minutes of your time.

Fysh

Oh come on. Since when did "well, at least it's not a PG-13" equate to "must be worth paying to see at the cinema"? I'd say something if it was a straight-to-dvd release because while most films that go that route don't have a high budget or the best production values, they tend to be forced to go that way because the bigger studios & distribution channels won't carry it. This just looks like a cynical attempt to get attention by picking a name with controversial connotations.

Fysh

Fysh wrote: »

Oh come on. Since when did "well, at least it's not a PG-13" equate to "must be worth paying to see at the cinema"? I'd say something if it was a straight-to-dvd release because while most films that go that route don't have a high budget or the best production values, they tend to be forced to go that way because the bigger studios & distribution channels won't carry it. This just looks like a cynical attempt to get attention by picking a name with controversial connotations.

Since studios began watering down R rated films because PG-13 titles were doing so well. Look at Die Hard 4, filmed as a hard R film the studio noticed that PG-13 action films were doing well so they decided to cut it to a PG-13. Flash forward a year and R rated action films are again doing business and the studio reversed it's decision to shoot the new Beverly Hills Cop as a PG-13 and have stated that it will be an R rated film. In the horror genre watering down films is rampant, look at the recently abysmal Prom Night or ever Stay Alive, both were filmed for an R rating only to have studio interference cut them to ribbons in order to gain a more accessiable PG-13.

The title of the film is actually quite apt given the films content. The entire premise of the flick centres on a donkey punch gone wrong and while the name is controversial how many people actually know what it means? I'm after asking 10 people and only one knew what it was, he did'nt know what it involved just that it occured during sex.

L31mr0d

why can't you say the title of the movie? It's no more weird then the fact there was a show on MTV called "Dirty Sanchez"

dr.bollocko

You have a point.

Fysh

The name is apt if the entire plot is built on a donkey punch gone wrong, but what kind of lazy bullsh*t writing is that? And let's not be naive and pretend that they had a "valid" reason for choosing the donkey punch in particular - it was chosen in just as calculating and cynical a way as the studios you complain about gutted R-rated films down to PG-13; because it was perceived as a way of making the film look edgy.

The entire setup reeks of being an even worse-than-usual excuse to show a bunch of "teenagers" naked on-screen and then kill them off, and the plot in particular sounds like the sort of thing that even the production team of Friday The 13th Part 1 Bajillion : He's Still Not F*cking Dead would reject as being "too simplistic".

The film is based upon a donkey punch gone wrong but from the 40 minutes I saw of it, it also has some decent writing and characters who are'nt just generic cut and paste slasher fodder. I agree that calling it Donkey Punch is an attempt to make the film stand out and it has done exactly that. In fact like Snakes on a Plane, a quick glance at the title and you have a pretty good idea of what the films about.

Also lets not forget that this isn't some big Hollywood production, it's a low budget slasher film which is only going to get a very limited cinema run. It doesn't have a multi million dollar marketing campaign so the cynical use of the title has served it very well.

And hey lets not knock a film for being simplistic. When a film maker gets it into their head that a sprawling multicharacter piece is the way to go the results are often disasterous, lets not forget the Richard Kelly Cannes debacle.

The one thing that were all forgetting is that none of us has seen the full film, I've seen 40 minutes of it and while it was decent I'm reserving judgement till I see the entire film.

Fysh

I'm judging it based on what evidence is available to me right now, and my opinion is that it's going to suck ass like a starving cocrophiliac. It might turn out to be good, but I doubt it - if it had the black humour Teeth had then maybe, but there's no sign of that in the trailer.

Coming back to what you said about supporting it because it's R-Rated - I understand what you mean about not liking studios that cut films to make sure they get a PG-13 rating and thus higher profits, but if you support R-Rated films on principle all that tells studios is that you like R-rated films. If, along the way, you happen to support a load of awful films that happen to be R-Rated, the message then becomes "I'll watch sh*t films if they're R-rated". Which, let's face it, is already the norm for slasherflicks and doesn't exactly need reinforcing.

dr.bollocko

Fysh wrote: »

it's going to suck ass like a starving cocrophiliac.

Nice. Nice.

Horror films hold a special place in my heart and I will admit to paying to see some truly terrible hoorror films in the cinema. The trouble with horror is that often times when the studios have 2 films and only one is going to cinemas they always seem to pick the worst one. Just look at the Hills Have Eyes 2 getting a wide release while the superior Wrong Turn 2 was dumped straight to DVD. At least even the crappiest of R horror films there's plenty of gore and violence which is exaclty what I want for an unassuming Friday nights entertainment.

It's like with action films, Wanted for example is generic as hell, not a patch on the comic yet it contained enough blood and impressive action scenes to keep me entertained. I guess I'm just getting sick of Hollywood trying to spoon feed me blood less battlefields and cats being responsiable for the best scares in these PG-13 films.

Fysh

Ah, don't get me wrong, I like horror and have a certain soft spot for the crappier slasher types (though for the most part the new, glossy production value slasher flicks are less appealing to me than the ones made in the 80's, partly down to the cynicism that seems to pervade the newer ones).

I know this may be a contentious example, but I finally got around to seeing Doomsday in the cinema yesterday and I thought it was great. Part of its strength was a simple but solid core concept that had enough flexibility to fit in a variety of sequences. Sure, a lot of it was in homage to the kind of violent 80's action films it clearly harked back to, but it had a contemporary framework in which to hang those segments and it worked quite well.

Donkeypunch, as far as I can see, has a simple but crap core which is "teenagers party, one gets killed and hijinks ensue". If it was a 15-minute short film used to show off production skills, I could get behind it. As it stands, I don't see the appeal of sitting down and spending 90-odd minutes watching this. Fair enough if your mileage is different, but if you're watching it out of some sort of misplaced sence of obligation to r-rated films then that's not really much endorsement to the film itself.

No, I'm not watching it soley because it's R rated. Like I said I saw about 40 minutes of it and while it's not ground breaking uit entertained me. Doomsday is great, complete cheese but so much fun though the last car chase is very wtf.

zAbbo

Saw it last Monday, it's bad, very bad, but in a good way. I was very surprised when empire gave it 4 stars :eek: