Audience Member
Part documentary, part faux documentary, part scripted fiction, this movie takes you on a pretty disturbing and graphic ride. It's not for everyone, but it is fascinating and effective.
Rated 3.5/5 Stars •
Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars
01/23/23
Full Review
Audience Member
160110: Held nothing for me other than the hope it was a scary movie. It wasn't. It's a documentary, literally; not as described on the back of the box. And a poor one at that. Perhaps if you held some interest in this type of film making, super low budget horror. Into the garage sale pile.
Rated 0.5/5 Stars •
Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars
01/31/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Loved it. I am a huge horror fan, but not into the shock-for-the-sake-of-shock school of 'disturbing gore-porn' horror. In fact, I didn't enjoy Soft for Digging at all. I only say that to underscore how much I did enjoy this film. Petty takes a creative look at voyeurism and really challenges rational suspension of disbelief. I almost felt that my enjoyment was self-indictment: kind of a 'Funny Games' guilt-trip, lessened by the knowledge that I knew I was watching fiction.
True story: I've shown the film to three friends since. I'd discreetly sold each on the idea that we were going to watch a true documentary 'gone wrong.' Each was absolutely terrified by the film. It was interesting to watch, and it made me wish I'd seen it devoid of any a priori plot-knowledge. I don't know how much less effective, if at all, the film is with the knowledge of its twist. I do know that I've yet to suggest the film to someone who didn't watch and then report that they'd enjoyed it. To me that's the true measure of a film in any genre.
Notes:
1. J.T Petty is an extremely likeable presence narrating the film.
2. August Mordum (and his grandma story): pleasant and engaging. Wow.
3. Still not convinced Erik Marcisak is not a purveyor of snuff films.
4. Erik Marcisak was excellent: believable and fun to watch.
5. Do not show this movie to a girlfriend, then hide behind a door with a water-dampened rag and pretend to chloroform her when she exits the bathroom- followed by hysterical laughing at her terrified reaction. That may not have caused us to break up, but it couldn't have helped either. Sorry Amy!
6. Theory: the ampersand (&) in the title hurt this one's chances at achieving more notoriety and a bigger cult following.
Thanks for reading...and enjoy the film! -E
Rated 5/5 Stars •
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
01/23/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Creepy and entertaining with a great performance (I guess it had to be a performance, right?) by Eric (the S&Man).
Rated 4/5 Stars •
Rated 4 out of 5 stars
01/20/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Critics are insane these days is all I can say about the fact this film has an 82%. It takes little more than being "different". This film barely tells a story other than attempting to pull a Blair Witch on its audience by somehow convincing part if it that they are truly watching a snuff film director kill people. But for me I wasn't convinced of that nor that anything else being said had any point.
Rated 2/5 Stars •
Rated 2 out of 5 stars
01/18/23
Full Review
Audience Member
S&Man (pronounced "Sandman") looks at low budget slasher films, pseudo-snuff films, voyeurism, etc. It explores the conflict for the viewers of those films: On one hand, they want to suspend disbelief and pretend that the film is "real". On the other hand, they want to know that the films are just movies and are "safe" to watch and enjoy. Form follows function in this film which is part documentary, part pseudo-documentary. It is a spiritual cousin to Orson Wells' "F if for Fake" in that the structure of the film itself carries part of the message.
Rated 4.5/5 Stars •
Rated 4.5 out of 5 stars
02/24/23
Full Review
Read all reviews
>
