source: The Reverend

I thought this was reasonably well done For a B film. Acting was passable on the whole, with some exceptions. Production value was not terrible but could have been better.

Saw This in Poundland and the idea of Rutger Hauer in a Low budget looking British Horror intrigued me enough to give it a try. He's in the opening scene only, Playing The Devil... The film proper (as it were) is the story of the titled rev and his Job like trial of faith. While it has it's flaws (Shane Ritchie being a MAJOR one his acting is painful and his main scene goes on FAR to long) This is an interesting take on a Vampire film. It works best if you watch it as a Pilot for a never made TV show for me. Worth a look at the right price.

I was assuming that Rutger Hauer was going to be the lead in this, but instead he got 2 minutes of screentime along horror icons Doug Bradley and John Morgen (who also deserved more screen time). However, I didn't think The Reverend was all that bad. It's based on a graphic novel that I have no knowledge of, but it does seem there is a lot missing here in the film medium that could have this make more sense and enrich the story. This is basically a reverend that becomes a vampire and uses his powers to clean up the town vigilante style. The flick delivers on blood and gorgeous big breasted women. The fella that played The Reverend did a good job and I think the acting was pretty decent to good as a whole. It seems that to this is pretty hated in the reviews here. I would not put this over as a classic, but for B grade horror, The Reverend is a decent watch.

I was kind of in a run of enjoying recent UK horror films, but this film is about the slowest 'horror' film I've watched since sitting through The Witches Mountain. You've all seen that, right? What's that tumbleweed doing here? Seriously, how can a film have Doug Bradley, Rutger Hauer, and Giovanni "John Morghen" Radice in it and have this have no effect on the film whatsoever? The film itself involves I'm guessing the devil (Rutger) offering up some sort of Job deal with God (Radice) so that some new Rev in England gets turned into some vampire type deal, helps out a hooker, takes on a rogue landlord blah blah. So much time is spent in this film with the main character struggling with his persona that the whole film is floored. It's very dull stuff. I don't know what folks are targeting Shane Ritchie because to be honest with you he's about the only actor here that injects his character with any energy. And I don't watch Eastenders for the record. Poor show, this one. I was all jazzed to hear Giovanni Radice was in it, but he's here for about three minutes. Complete wasted of time.

Let's start off with Rutger Hauer ... and not mention him again after that! It's funny if you an actor to play for the first couple of minutes just to market your movie with him. But there is also Doug Bradley (Pinhead to his friends) and Tamer Hassan. Both not really that much in the movie either, so if you're a fan of either it might not make sense watching the movie because of those two. Tamer also plays a cardboard cutout, that is so bad, you wonder where he left his charisma? With the check at home I reckon. You also have Emily Boobs ... I mean Booth of course. A funny woman in person, but not blessed (sorry for the pun) with her character/role here. Her physical appearance obviously very blessed, but playing a weak character like that, especially after an even weaker introduction, given lines that make you cringe? A waste. As is one scene with her and her "boss", that seems to go on for hours (actually couple of minutes) and should have been cut altogether. There is also a blonde lady that is involved with the inciting incident (Russian I think), that seems to have learned her lines phonetically. Not helping the movie either ... Conclusion: Waste of time

I got this from Poundland and was initially put off by the fact that there were some well known actors in it. Let me explain: I am into low budget Uk slasher type horror and famous faces tend not to be in the type of film I like. That said, the fact that it had Emily Booth in it was enough (and the price, £1) to persuade me to buy it. It was well worth it. Luckily RH and DB were in it only briefly. Whilst the story wasn't that original, it was well done, without that much gore. EB played a convincing and beautiful prostitute, why she doesn't do more films is a bit of a puzzle to me. The relationship between the rev and her was realistic and above what you might expect from a film of this type. The film had a good atmosphere and all the actors put in good performances. On the basis of this film I will check out more of Neil Jones's work. Recommended.

3 on a scale of 1 to ten is low right? I won't grade it a 2 but surely nothing more than 3 and I'll give you all the info you need: the camera work is amateur and cheap; the acting is seriously bad from half the characters at least, especially that Steven Seagal lookalike; the effects are somewhat acceptable, few, nothing pretentious, nothing spectacular; the plot itself, bad; even Rutger Hauer's appearance was nothing more than a Shakespearian rap battle. I'm telling you, don't get impressed by other positive reviews, as they are either fake or coming from people who seriously have little contact with horror. It is a very weak movie that will annoy, disappoint and let down everyone standing in front of it for a view. Pass it, if you that much into modern religious horror movies try either "Heretic" tho it is also quite bad but not as this one or "The borderlands", the last one being the found footage type and much better in my opinion. Then again, keep in mind, much better than a 3, is not much either. I'm gonna leave you with a warning, careful with this one, the chances that you might actually enjoy it or consider it a good time waster are very close to an "impossible!".

Trailer—The Reverend

As an Australian I find this offensive, based on stereotypes from decades ago that I thought we had moved past. If you think in anyway this is based on anything in Australia it's absolute ridiculous stereotype of Australians living in rural unpopulated towns with no resources, not to mention the fact we don't really have "reverends" in Australia as a primarily catholic and Christian community. Maybe try better acting and not such a stereotypical version of "layed back beachbtowns" that have no access to the rest of the world" not a realistic approach to Australia. Just disappointing to say the least.