rs095644 VERY MINOR SPOILER ABOUT BEGINNING. Not at all what I expected. I started this movie thinking it would be more about the classic "what would you do if no one was watching" nature of the human psych. I did assume eventually it would get to the subject of rape. Instead the movie basically starts with one character raping the girl. The first half of the movie is basically characters conflicting over to rape / release the girl. Not really the social commentary I had expected. The second half really picks up though, and pushes the movie into the positive side. The first half of the movie is probably a 3 out of 10, but the second half is closer to a 7.I won't ruin it, but not sure how well the final scene really fit in with the rest of the movie, but it could be taken as a piece of social commentary.

omnimog I was really gonna let this one go after rating, just erase it from my mind. But after seeing so many ovations in the reviews, I suddenly felt the urgent need to balance things out a bit.First of all, I do like weird, low-cost indie movies. So this is in no way a genre-bashing, nor is it a "I didn't get it, so f**k y'all who are better than me"-kind of approach. There are a couple of elements that I see people easily read into this production, which I in no way see though. For starters, it is the social commenting. OK, teenage boys rape as soon as they get a chance. Disturbing, huh? And it really says something in the most intricate, subliminal, and psychologically thrilling ways of how teenage culture, manliness and all works for this generation, in our general, western culture etc etc. It is just so that it does not. People seem to find the theme and concept in itself so different from your everyday Hollywood-productions that they think the premise in itself is somewhat genius. Well, I guess it could be. But problem is, the characters are not even once believable throughout the entire movie. Their actions are mildly retarded at the very best, as is all the dialog between them. Not to mention the mediocre acting, or directing for that matter.Then there is all these comments about this being "art". Now, I have great respect for arts, as I have great respect for individual perception on how to define arts for someone. But seriously guys. I will not call any movie production "artsy" just because the pacing is slow. Or, because of the fact that there is a semi-conscious idea behind how to make use of light and dark in the most basic ways. Nor do I like to call it "art" just because the idea behind something sets it apart. It also need something more substantial, which I didn't find Deadgirl to have whatsoever.To give an example of horrifying, different wickedness that I do appreciate, I did find a film like Martyrs to be very, very good. Then again, that is of course, my very own taste, so I do not want to project anything upon others. To each his own. But please. Do make up your own mind about Deadgirl, and just don't feel the need to find this to be a masterpiece just because so many others do so. Personally, I found it to be one of the worst movies that I've seen in quite a while. Not because the idea was disturbing, or because I didn't "get it". But because I found it to be a horrible production in most every way.

brendo11 This movie was a waste of time. It has next to no story. It starts out well with good intentions but around half an hour into the movie it just turns into a 'rape-fest' nothing but a movie about teenagers having sex with a dead girl which is the most disturbing movie I have ever seen (and I've seen a few disturbing movies)I don't see how anyone could enjoy such a movie. "Deadgirl" has no story line, no contrast and is definitely not interesting. The whole time I was watching both myself and the person i was watching it with wanted it to finish.1 out of 10. I recommend you do not watch it.

Matt Kracht While some people accuse this movie of being a vile rape fantasy by the filmmakers, I think this totally misses the point: the protagonists are actually the villains of the movie. If anything, this movie takes a rather sympathetic view of radical feminism, which purports that society (in the form of a patriarchy) oppresses women, primarily through objectification and, ultimately, rape.Each of the male characters in this movie objectifies women in a different way. Our two protagonists have been crapped on for their entire lives. J.T., the more aggressive and dominant one, is desperate to find some way to turn the tables so that he can finally be the oppressor for a change. Richie, a wishy-washy "nice guy" type, spends his days nursing his stalker crush on the girlfriend of the local asshole jock, who, of course, treats his girlfriend like property.When these guys (and a couple others) discover a helpless, immortal woman (strongly implied to be a zombie) in an abandoned asylum, they realize that they can indulge every anti-social fantasy that they've ever had, no matter how violent or sexual. The movie deals with deeply misogynist subject matter, but the movie itself is not misogynist. Rather, it reverses the traditional roles in a horror movie. What would traditionally be the monster is instead victimized repeatedly by the "heroes". This leads to an admittedly somewhat clichéd theme: which is the true monster? Recommending this movie can be a bit tricky because of the controversial, disturbing subject matter, the lack of likable characters, and the deeply cynical take on society (and teenage boys in particular). If none of this bothers you, and you're familiar with the Troma-inspired approach to filmmaking (fast, cheap, and amateurish), then I'd suggest you give it a try. It's not for everyone, and there are perfectly legitimate reasons to dislike it, but I think many people are seriously misinterpreting the themes.