trashgang When I got hold of the DVD of Shelf Life, or called on the continent Subhuman I only saw the review available on the DVD sleeve itself. Splatter, gorehounds, for fans of Alien and Evil Dead. Well, they tricked me to buy it. It isn't a bad flick but it didn't deliver what I expected from it. The acting was okay and the way it was filmed was okay but you could easily see that it was a low budget. I rather forget the words Alien and Evil Dead, I would rather say that it is in the line of Blade. We do have a vampire hunter playing the main lead. On that part, the story was okay but there was just too much of talking in it. There are a few scene's at a bar and one of them is way too long to keep you attracted to this flick. On the other hand, the killings are mostly decapitations and it is okay but there are so many in this flick and it's always the same shot we see, once the head is removed you see the back of the decapitated one. Some parts were okay like going in the neck once the head was removed to search for some proof to show that he was right. I won't go into that because I would spoil the flick. As I said, the acting was rather good and overall it was okay but their could have been so many other ways to kill. I guess if they should had some money it would have been a rather "splatter" flick for the gorehounds.Gore 2/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 2/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5

Vomitron_G I was expecting pretty much nothing from SHELF LIFE... and, surprisingly, I got a lot more out of it. For a shot-on-video shoe-string production I must say this one didn't waste my time. Why? Because the film-makers really made an effort on mostly all levels. It looks a bit cheap, sometimes, but the camera-moves are there (well, most of the time, at least). Director/producer/writer Mark Tuit even wrote a rather interesting story too (a different take on vampires). Decent enough camera-work throughout most of the movie (even though in some scenes Mark Tuit tends to make his shots a bit too long, if you ask me - a little faster cutting could have made the film benefit from it, especially in the conversation scenes). Now, you will have to get passed the below-par acting from the whole cast, although you can clearly see they really gave it their best shot. Always applaudable, and they're certainly not the worst actors ever. William MacDonald - as said before in other comments on here - did a pretty neat job portraying Martin, the vampire hunter (our should I say: parasite hunter...?) with a nasty drug habit. If you can dig the semi-philosophical utterings & quotes coming from him, you can certainly find an added value in this movie (which I kinda did - although he did do it a lot, making the movie suffer a bit from overly long talkative scenes). Bryce McLaughlin, on the other hand, couldn't convince at all, I'm sad to say. But like I said, you can tell he tried.Then there's the gore & blood effects. The movie isn't really stuffed with them, but when they do come on, they don't skimp on it . You also won't see the best prosthetic cut-off heads ever or the best splatter-effects (because of budget-restrictions, I'm guessing, not lack of talent or creativity), but the way it was all executed, worked very well. So, in short: Interesting story, fun occasional gore-effects, below-par acting, decent camera-work & directing (some inventive shots even, mostly involving effects), the music is a hit & miss - I'm talking about all the songs coming from various bands here, not the orchestrated score - (and they just used too much of it throughout the movie, in my opinion), cheapie look & feel sometimes (but that's forgivable). Also worth a look are some of the features on the extra's menu. I quite enjoyed the alternative opening sequences and there's also a split-screen version of a scene already in the movie (including extra footage), giving more background info on the main character Martin. I would have loved seeing that 'split-scene' in the movie. It worked very well, and as far as 'experimental story-telling' goes, it would have fitted perfectly in a low-budget production like this.I can imagine some people might find this little film pretty boring or something. So it's not for all tastes. But nevertheless, I actually could take it seriously. So... Tired of big budget blockbuster horror? Searching for something that's a little different? You might want to consider giving SHELF LIFE (aka SUBHUMAN) a try.

jaunty101 Take it for what it is a low budget film I believe that this film is one of the most under rated film I've ever scene, yes the script is a little bland for some of the other charters but all this is made up by the fact that Martin (William MacDonald) has some brilliant lines.Martin charter is one of the best I've ever seen being abit of a philosopher I love the Nietzsche aspects of his actions and speech and this film could of simply have been two hours of him in a room ranting and id have watched it.If this film would have had a bigger budget it wouldn't have been the same, the bar seen is a grate example of right number of people right time, if you want a club full of helpless people or 1000's of vampires get blade. The money could have been spent on big budget stars or better CGI that's true but then again it would lose its appeal.If you were to give me a choice between this and the matrix or the war of the worlds crappy remake I will take shelf life (subhuman) every time

willywants Martin, a man who hunts parasitic vampire-like beings, invades a couple's apartment and tells them that the creatures are after him, and unless the happy young couple fight back, they'll die. This independent horror film, made for a slim 250,000 Canadian dollars, has the typical problems you'd expect from a film of this caliber—poor special effects, at times uneven acting, and somewhat amateurish look. It is, however, surprisingly well-written, and had the film had a bigger budget could have been very good. While lead actor William MacDonald gives a decent performance, the other principal actors, Bryce McLaughlin and Courtney Kramer, were often below-average and made the otherwise good dialogue seem wooden and forced. Writer/director Mark Tuit has done alright considering his low-budget, though several scenes appeared to be shot on DV and thus look cheap. His fore is clearly writing—the script is intelligent and interesting, and there were several genuine surprises here and there. I hope Tuit pens more horror films in the future; his script here exhibits more intelligence than about 70% of the crap Hollywood produces. The special effects are cheaply done and usually unconvincing, though there is a LOT of gore here (decapitations, anyone?).With a bigger budget this could have been a fine horror flick. The script was there but the resources weren't; as a result the film looks and feels like a low-budget cheapie at times. Still better than average though.6/10.