Vulgar

This film is, if nothing else, unique. One might state without fear of contradiction that it is the Citizen Kane of films about guys who like to gang-sodomize party clowns.

Our hero is a really nice guy, and completely ethical. He is, in fact, so honest and obliging that he is not having much luck making ends meet as Flappy the Clown. To supplement his income from the family-oriented clowning, he contrives a second character - Vulgar the Clown, for adult entertainment. The idea is that Vulgar would come to your bachelor party during the period when the bachelor is expecting a stripper - as a goof. Instead of a stripper, the bachelor would get a transvestite clown in net hose and garter belts, and hilarity would theoretically ensue.

Flappy's friend seems to think this is will only appeal to a very tiny niche market, but Flappy moves forward with it anyway. Bad idea. On his very first gig, he is beaten and gang-raped by some leftover cast members from Deliverance. Miraculously, he survives, and he decides not to inform the police because his own involvement in the sleazy clown business would be exposed, thus destroying his livelihood in the children's party clown business. So he gets on with his life.

Through a bizarre twist of fate, he becomes a hero, and later becomes a famous TV clown when unscrupulous producers exploit his heroism. Unfortunately, the guys who raped him recognize him on TV, and they threaten to reveal a tape of their "party evening" with him. Then they go still further and decide that they want to rape him some more, so the film gets an "I Spit on Your Big Shoes" vibe working.

The rest of the film moves into the territory of "Reservoir Clowns" when Flappy and his buddy get involved in a violent, bloody showdown with the rapists.

DVD info from Amazon

widescreen format, 1.85:1

Genuinely strange stuff. I guess it was intended to be black comedy, but it's really just ugly and mean-spirited. Kevin "Silent Bob" Smith produced and plays a small part, as does Jason "Jay" Mewes. In addition to the fact that its generally nasty, it is also amateurishly acted and directed. One reviewer wrote that it is about the same quality as a high school project which was crammed through by pulling an all-nighter on the night before it was due. I think that hits the nail right on the head.

The Critics Vote

filmcritic.com 2/5

Rotten Tomatoes summary. 11% positive.

The People Vote ...

IMDB summary. IMDb voters score it 6.7/10

with their dollars: it grossed $14,000.

IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is either an F or a C-. Objectively, it could easily be considered the worst movie of any year in which Tom Green was inactive, and the domestic gross of $14,000 speaks for itself, but it already has a devoted cult following among the lovers of avant-garde films. I vote for F, but concede that C- is arguable.