Emma Nøddespæk K Winona I'm not usually a fan of "found-footage" films, but there's exceptions. This is one of those exceptions. I had found this movie randomly, and as i saw that it was marked as both "Horror" and "Documentary", i immediately picked it up. - Without researching the validity of the movie. Only about 30 minutes into the movie, when the hockey practice begins, i started feeling so uncomfortable that i had to investigate further. Luckily for me, this movie isn't really "authentic", but it is very convincing and realistic. The acting is done so undramatic, that it becomes VERY convincing, especially Anthony Alviano deserves credit for that, and the enthusiasm portrayed around the scenes on the farm, made me almost sympathetic about the cannibal-man that he portrays, and how much passion he has for the food he eats. I liked the ending too, but the Simon-part wasn't necessary at all for the movie to function. Overall, a very impressing movie.Best Intentions

glyptoteque Even though I'm not a big fan of mockumentaries, ( I prefer pure fiction or pure documentary, the mix is often neither fish nor fowl ), I had somewhat high hopes for this. But what can I say? I understand the reasoning behind the film; to give us a matter-of-factly view into the motives and actions of your next-door cannibal, contrast his unspeakable deeds and grotesque philosophical musings with his more mundane everyday-activities, and out of these contrasts horror shall grow. And often this recipe works very well, perhaps because this is so close to reality, many serial killers are often unassuming and tedious in their sheepish guise, the type nobody would suspect to be a killer. The film that comes closest to Long Pigs is of course Man Bites Dog, but in that film everything works and the end-product is a diamond.In Long Pigs on the other hand this approach doesn't work at all, and what you are left with is a boring man's life spiced up with a couple of scenes of slaughter for good measure. You know something is wrong when two thirds of the film is a yawn-fest of smalltalk, and one third is spent on the actual deeds. And even the sections of slaughter doesn't really convey any sense of menace and horror, fair enough the special effects are great ( hence the three stars ), but I could just as well have enjoyed an episode of Hell's Kitchen, at least there you get a certain sense of dread. Here, on the other hand, it is non- existing, and that, in a horror-film is a mortal sin. If you want a brilliant mockumentary, watch Man Bites Dog, if you want a proper cookery-class, watch Cannibal Holocaust or Cannibal. Avoid this snoozer.

trashgang The movie got some attention worldwide due the limited release of the DVD with a package of jerky. I got mine by contacting the director. Of course I had seen the trailer and immediately two films came into my mind, August Underground and C'est Arrivé Près De Chéz Vous (better known overseas as Man Bites Dog). After watching it I would rather compare it more to Man Bites Dog. August is more about brutality with a small storyline. Here we have the same story as Man Bites Dog. A director and his crew agrees to follow a killer. But not a normal one, a cannibal. Sometimes it's, just like MBD, a bit funny. Like making some stew from human parts. I won't go as far as other reviewers by asking who's worser, the killer or the crew. The difference between MBD and Long Pigs is the fact that Long Pigs goes more into the mind of the killer. It's all filmed docu style. It never becomes really gory but still, some scene's are really well done and are not for the faint hearted. See how he rips the flesh from one victim in an accelerated scene. Somehow you can see the end coming, but when it comes it's again not for the squeamish. Nice low budget which doesn't need the gore to keep you attracted.

gavin6942 Two young directors film the hunt and butchering of a prostitute by a local cannibal serial killer. This is interspersed with footage of a grieving parent, a psychologist and a detective. How will the story unfold? There are some minor complaints to be made. For example, the cannibal (Anthony Alviano) seems younger and nerdier than expected, which took away some of the realism. The same for the police officer (Shane Harbinson) -- seemed very young, but presented himself very professionally. A fine actor, he easily could have passed for a real cop.The radio DJ (Roger King) was the strongest and best-written role. His words were well-scripted and well-spoken, and the way his scenes book-cased the film really worked well. The film would have been good without him, but this pushed it from good to very good... perhaps almost great.I appreciate the argument made that "how can it be wrong if it tastes so good?" This is reasonable. God or nature has made edible things palatable -- we learn what to eat by whether or not our taste buds enjoy it. If man was created tasting good, something would seem to be supposed to eat it. Why not other men? (There are moral questions here, of course, but at the very least, why do we not eat the flesh of those who have died?) More than anything else, I have to call attention to the very good use of effects on the corpse... very, very good. The body contained skin, flesh, meat, guts, bones... I do not know how this was accomplished, but it may be the greatest corpse effect in movie-making history. I believe this honor belongs to Chris Bridges, who has been involved in the field for over a decade on a number of notable projects.I would endorse this film. It is an interesting faux documentary, and with the work of Chris Bridges, it may have you doing a double-take. Did they use a real body? It is almost too difficult to be sure.