To me, this movie is perfection.

Sadly Over-hyped

One of my all time favorites.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Synopsis: a psycho and his retarded, pregnant sister abduct, torture, kill, and eat people for kicks.Pig has quite rightly received kudos for it's bravura improvisational performances, its no-holds barred extreme content, and director Adam Mason's bold approach (which must have required meticulous planning and impeccable timing, particularly for what must surely be the longest single shot in cinema history); however, alongside this praise, criticism has also been levelled at the film for being a laborious, drawn out and ultimately pointless project devoid of a plot.Not really fair, says I....Admittedly, for most of the running time, Pig appears to be nothing more than a catalogue of gut-wrenching atrocities—rape, murder, torture, dismemberment, and cannibalism—all shown in unflinching detail for the delectation of its gore-hungry audience, and it is true that matters become rather tedious at times, but Mason has a trick up his sleeve: a sucker-punch of an ending that made me re-assess all that had gone before...Having given it some thought, I now believe the film to be a well executed metaphor for the whole extreme horror movie experience, with Andrew Howard's psycho nut-job representing the viewer, who happily wallows in violence and absolute depravity for an hour and a half before casually assuming a more socially acceptable persona and returning to the normality of everyday life. Mason is holding up a mirror to his audience and revealing to us the dark side of our very own nature—the deviant part of our psyche that, like the film's killer (well, maybe not EXACTLY like the killer), we may even keep hidden from our nearest and dearest.

So...usually, before I get into what I liked and didn't like about a movie when I review it, I usually give a plot summary to show others what it's about. But, in this case, I cant give one because, frankly, there IS no plotNow, I have good news and bad news about this film. The good news is that this film goes above and beyond the normal setting for films going "too far". The bad news? There's not much else to this film.A thing that I have to praise this film for is it's one on-going shot that's used for almost the entire film. If you want to become a director, cinematographer, or pretty much anything else to do with film, you should see this film purely on that.But, the major down-side to this film is that it's just plain boring at times. I'm not one of these conservative people who will hate this film because "It's too terrible" or "It will corrupt the kids" or anything like that. I mainly don't like it that much because it's just plain boring at times. Your waiting for the film to move on at points, but it never really does.Maybe that was the director's intentions or the actors intentions (because you can tell that this film is mainly improv), but whatever it is, it's not something that you should really see OTHER than the technical stand-point.

Let's get things straight right away, PIG is a deeply unpleasant and offensive film – not just in a grotesque visual manner but as an endurance test of cinematic tolerance for the viewer. In its simplest terms PIG is a 90 minute snapshot into the life of a brutally deviant trailer trash serial killer – little to no dialogue, the most minimal of plot structure but for the mature horror film fan a deeply gratifying film experience.In the lead role Andrew Howard manages to maintain a believable level of depraved intensity with even the odd moment that looks like his own psyche is being deranged by the role he's portraying whilst his shadow 'retard' sister adds to the visual and aural assault on viewers.Don't be under any illusion, PIG is a challenging film experience and most definitely not one for a mainstream multiplex film fan - well the film (welcomingly) has no moral value whatsoever and is pure 1980's vintage video nasty fare, reminiscent of the final 'family dinner' reel of Texas Chainsaw Massacre but with PIG kicking in from the opening scene and rolling with that intensity throughout the entire film (which in itself might be testing for even some horror fans but for this old genre buff was a welcome challenge to behold).Filmmaker Adam Mason has proved yet again that he's one of the finest talents from the Britsploitation scene, with PIG he's produced a film that's part old school classic exploitation cinema (James Ferman era BBFC would have positively imploded on viewing this one, be under no doubts this would have been banned outright back in the day) and part challenging modern improv horror theatre.Destined to become a horror film festival favourite – excellent.

Adam Mason's "Pig" premiered free to all tonight, on bloody-disgusting, dreadcentral, and Twitchfilm. Mason was responsible for the mind-f*ck of a film "The Devil's Chair." as well as "Blood River." To call this a film would be liberal usage of the word. It's more of an experiment in the technical side of film making. There is no narrative, no character development, and honestly no purpose to the film. The bulk of the movie(70 minutes) was filmed in one take. If you explain this to the average movie goer, not only will they not care, but they most likely won't even know what you're talking about.Now that I've explained that this isn't really a movie, but more of a talent showcase, let's delve into what worked for me. Knowing I was viewing one continuous take blew my mind for most of the film. The cinematography is nothing short of amazing after consuming that fact. Even more impressive is how they allow for F/X gags to be set up while the camera is running. A quick re-frame of the shot, allows for the off-screen crew to quickly set up the special effects. Some of the tricks used here were absolutely brilliant. Setting the kill in the bed of a pick-up truck, allows for them to make a quick cut to a wide-shot, while someone crawls on their belly, setting up the effects for the kill.This isn't a movie to be enjoyed. In fact, I wouldn't recommend viewing this film to anyone unless they are not only an aspiring film maker, but interested in film making as an art form. It's hard to watch, and not because of the subject matter. While our main character prepares his "meal" the camera lingers on him, with his captive struggling in the background. This goes on for what seems like forever. A lot of the time, it made me feel like I was stoned. I knew something should be going on on the screen, but I felt so disoriented that I couldn't tell if I was missing something, or if that was just the way the movie made me feel. The acting is decent, considering there's not much coherent dialog, and that this is mostly happening in real time. The setting is believable, all-be-it a little bland. The music gets a tad annoying, with the same song being played in the back ground over and over.If you're interested in becoming a film maker, and marvel at the technical aspects of a film, you may want to endure this experiment. You'll definitely be in for something original. But please, don't go into the flick expecting an enjoyable movie, because aside from marveling at the talent behind the camera, there's nothing to like here. Watch if you dare, and remember you've been warned.http://liberaldead.blogspot.com