A lot of fun.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

A 'just married' couple are driving through Las Vegas accompanied by a musical soundtrack that sounds as if it has been lifted straight from Hawaii Five-O. Everything is going well until the groom has his head blown away by a passing driver.A similar shock happens later on. FBI Agent Naughton has all the hallmarks of a sharp-dressed hero. Before long, he is smeared along a sun-kissed highway by the same manic driver.The storyline involves disfigured criminal Leonard Karlsson (Jeremy Fitzgerald), convicted of child molestation. He breaks out in a clumsily shot pre-credits sequence and starts a killing spree against the 12 jurors who convicted him. To hide his deformity, he takes to wearing the faces of his victims. Apart from this, we are never invited to learn much about Karlsson; he immediately becomes the standard slasher/killer whose victims are dispatched in a less than bloody way.The characters are sketchily written. None of them are particularly obnoxious (a common complaint) but neither are they particularly interesting or easy to care about. Deputy Kent, who emerges as the unlikely hero, is probably the most likable of them all – before he too is dispatched, leaving two young girls Vicki (Mercedes McNab) and Claire (Emily Hardy) to sort things out.As a whole, 'XII' is competent, perfunctory and contains some gory moments, particularly towards the end. If we knew a little more about the main villain, he would have been more effective – as it is, he is simply another 'bogeyman.' My favourite aspect of this is the element of surprise; many of the deaths were truly shocking because the characters seemed the least likely to be despatched.

I saw this film in the video shop yesterday and decided to give it a try. When I saw what ratings this film got here, I was sort of put off but at the same, I had high hopes that this might succeed in me giving it at least a 6.That's not the case in this film and I tell you why in pointers.First off like the film Seed, I don't know about you guys but I found Seed to be some sort of Michael Myers rip-off. Here I have the same minor problem. At first the Leonard Karl Character is quite awesome but as we see what goes behind doors, in his house, he is more portrayed as a Leatherface character. I don't know if that's what you guys think but that's what I think. Yes, we get a cool looking killer but it treaded on when a poor writing director tries to use someone else's character to rip theirs off. The director ruined his killer which sucks (in that sense). Overally I found the Killer enjoyable to watch in action. One thing with Karl I found the director pulled off well was the amount of screen time Karl was on for. He was on at the right moments and he was paced on the screen well, not revealing too much till the end.From start to finish, we get crappy un-developed characters that we really don't care about, and we just want them to die or live either way. I had high hopes that eventually we would come to like these characters. oh well.the music is OK.The acting is bad. Not much else to say about how bad it is.The kills are average at best. They were timed right (being honest). I never had a problem with them.The story also could have been more awesome and conclusive if we didn't have such poor actors, scenes and scares. There was nothing about this film that was scary and as for the script, it feels as if it's poorly written and when every scene comes around the corner, it just goes no where.A really poor film. 4.9/10

Well, where shall I start with this one? It starts off OK with one guy getting his head blown off driving along the interstate. His new 'wife' then cops for it, but you don't see it - you only hear about it a bit later. The 'baddie' then sets about bumping off the rest of the jurors that convicted him of 'kiddie-fiddling'. When in prison, the inmates sorted him and his face out good style for bring a 'nonce', so he isn't too happy when released. He gets through 11 of the jury who all happen to be living in some poxy little town where it seems nobody lives(?). You don't get to see much gore until the last 15 minutes when he is taking the faces of some of his victims. Unfortunately, the last jury member; some bimbo waitress beats this tough guy up, runs away, gets caught, beats him up again, gets away again, gets caught again and then manages to get away again and finally shoots him. The End! The bit that I'm most annoyed about is that the description on the CD box said the film contained: Strong Sex, Gore and Sexual Violence. What a load of crock - There is some gore but not an ounce of sex, nudity, kissing , sexual banter - Zilch! This is clearly a case of false advertising and I'll be contacting my lawyer tomorrow!

I'll begin with the title of the movie. Let's just say it's pretty easy to decode/decipher, which makes it kinda painful, that the characters in the movie, don't realise it for a very long time. That's all I'm gonna say.Having seen HATCHET and therefor seen Ms. McNabs natural and therefor obvious talents, might be a disappointment for those waiting, to be "exposed" to the same thing here (pun intended). But she plays her part very convincing (for a horror movie) and the others don't let her down. On the other hand, the script does let them and the audience down and the "Less is sometimes more" phrase could've applied here too (especially at the end, where it tried to compensate for the lack in other departments, in just being ... out there! Not really bad, but not really good either!