jadavix I never felt particularly engaged with "Spun", for some reason. I guess it's a typical cult movie: either you love it or you hate it. The rapid-fire, kinetic editing, aggressively bad, retro-style and generically crazy behaviour of the characters just grew tiresome after a while. The movie feels like "Gummo" made by a music video director. It's superficially "shocking" and "in your face", but there's nothing in the movie to really make you think. So that's what the experience of watching the movie becomes: like a long music video, ie. something which isn't supposed to be really engaged with or deconstructed... but at feature film length, it becomes exhausting. It never really held my attention for long.It's also impossible to take it seriously as a portrayal of something as real as meth addiction.

Karl Self Visuals and cast: 10/10 though.This movie is an unmitigated Hollywood rip-off of Guy Ritchie's first two movies "Lock Stock And Two Smoking Barrels" and "Snatch". Only not anywhere near as good and engaging. A speed freak finds himself working as a chauffeur for a methamphetamine "cook", and mayhem ensues. The cast is outstanding, but gets in the way of the movie, because I kept thinking "Wow, Mickey Rourke's back" or "Wow, Billy Corgan did the music" which took me out of the movie. The director comes from music videos and it shows. The movie is like one long music video, glitzy but the story is lacking. A shame, really.

Lesha Holland When I saw "Requiem For A Dream" for the first time, I remember that I was puzzled, confused, annoyed, then incensed at the consistent failure to correctly depict the proper physiological effects a shot of any form of opiates would have upon the pupil: Constriction, rather than dilation. Eventually, I decided to stop being so ridiculously anal-retentive about it: Maybe a big ol' pupil was simply considered more... "cinematic" or whatever! HOWEVER: The VERY NEXT major Drug-Flick I saw, "Spun," shared the same, glaring "blooper" of depicting a pupillary response 100% wrong; An oversight [???] made all the more noticeable by the rest of the film's near-unprecedented level of accuracy, realism, and resonance.Can anyone tell me why the pupils get BIG in the heroin movie, and SMALL in the tweak-flick??? I know this question would be a better fit if placed in the message board section, but I can't seem to undulate my way through the verification process. Please, someone: Respond!

jgtamblin I really enjoyed this film, right from the opening credits the direction makes you feel slightly dizzy and intoxicated yourself. The characters are all portrayed in a realistic way and you kind of forget that they are polished Hollywood stars. With the feeling of a fly on the wall documentary this film shows with little effort the dirty side of meth-amphetamine and the phychosis that comes with it. The state of Brittany Murphy and Mena Survari is priceless and will probably never been seen again other than in this movie. If you've ever got high you will appreciate this film, if you have not then it will just be a curious insight into a world few people know. The animation's and added clips are a bonus and help to make this film visually entertaining. Slightly risky and on the edge as well as controversial, I really enjoyed it, give it ago "get spun".