Ten Dead Men

I was hoping that "10 Dead Men" was going to be as good as "Rise of the Foot Soldier." The premise/plot is a decent yet typical tale of revenge while the fight choreographing is superb. The acting, dialog, cinematography and editing are horrible (i.e. terrible directing).

The small budget excuses the poor cinematography and editing however it doesn't excuse the bad acting, dialog and overall horrible directing.

The film seems more a vehicle for sadistic homo-erotica than serious story-telling with lots of violent BDSM, torture, transvestites, and big burly men.

As a Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) fan I was offended by the film's portrayal of MMA competitors as brutal, blood-thirsty, mindless goons.

The entire film is summed up in one scene halfway though the movie. Two of the main characters are mindlessly watching TV on the couch. The supporting actor channel surfs past an MMA fight to a porn channel which bores and annoys Ryan (the main character). Ryan then takes the remote and returns to watching the MMA fight and is visibly excited by the action.

If you're looking for a film featuring homo-erotica, BDSM and MMA to watch with your guy buddies then this is the flick for you. However if you are looking for a good action film like "Rise of the Foot Soldier" look somewhere else.

Don't be fooled by a high IMDb rating of this film. I watched it as it had an IMDb rating of 8.1/10 with 156 votes. After watching the film I am very certain that the entire cast and everyone they know voted a 10 for this movie.

I rated it a 4/10 as the fight choreographing is superb.

This is absolute tripe!! Terrible acting by most, if not all of the cast. I watched this for about half an hour thinking it couldn't get any worse....but it did. I only watched it because Terry Stone is in it and I thought Rise of the Footsoldier was excellent. Avoid this film....it is 90 minutes of your life you won't be able to get back. BAD BAD BAD BAD. I do wonder what people think of when they are making garbage like this? Do they honestly think this is a good piece of film making? I would love to hear what the director/producer have to say about it. It makes it into my all time worst 5 films. It is years since I saw something as bad as this. I love this type of film but this one falls way short on so many levels. The acting is rubbish, the sound is rubbish, the directing is rubbish.....and did I mention the acting???

Ross Boyask & Phil Hobden have created, in this movie, a work so awful that it is utterly compelling.

If you remember the dreadful photo stories from the girly teen comics of the 80's, (so brilliantly parodied in UK adult comic Viz) then imagine a moving picture version with violence, and you will be most of the way toward understanding the feel and presentation of this film.

The storyline itself, is a poor version of The Crow, without all the coolness of course, and without the exceptional feeling of empathy for the main character. Where The Crow had dark, brooding, Gothic brilliance, with a classic and memorable score, this movie failed at everything... except at being bad, that is. If revenge story lines were drinks, The Crow would be a fine vintage Champagne, whereas 10 Dead Men would be p*ss flavoured water.

Where it fails in the storyline department, it fails equally as spectacularly in the action genre department. The fight scenes are patently contrived and badly executed, and the gore effects brilliantly poor.

The acting itself is so appallingly bad, that the viewer is forced to consider the possibility that Boyask abandoned the traditional auditioning route, and instead opted for the less orthodox method of approaching likely looking characters in bars, and asking them if they wanted to be in his movie. Seriously, the acting is so bad, that at times even the walking looks strained and put-on.

Doug Bradley's narration seals the deal. It comes across as a badly written afterthought; an addition to the moving picture storyboard. It's almost as if the director realised that the acting talent within the cast pool was utterly incapable of putting the rather tired storyline across, and threw it in as a necessary evil. The movie is however, all the better for it.

And therein lies the brilliance in this movie. It is so unintentionally bad, that it compels you to keep watching, right up to the rather predictable and clichéd ending. One needs to look to the deliberately awful genius of Peter Jackson's 1987 movie "Bad Taste" to see this sort of dreadful. Where movies deliberately made this bad miss the mark of awful by the very act of trying to be such, this movie succeeds in spades entirely by accident... It is that which makes this movie worth watching.

I would have loved to have given this movie a 10 vote, if for no other reason than the maker's sheer lack of shame for releasing it. In the end, I gave it one star, because awful REALLY IS the best description for it... and that's why you should watch it.

This flick was sold at a horror convention due the name Doug Bradley. Horror geeks do know who he is, pinhead from Hellraiser. Naturally, by using his name the producers thought it would sell well. Doug isn't in the flick at all, he's just the narrator.

It even got nothing to do with horror, it is more a mafia flick were one is taking his revenge for killing his girlfriend. 1O people were there so ten men had to die. This is a British production and by doing so you have to dig the accents used. But it's all understandable. The last year I have seen a few revenge flicks coming out of the UK but this one here isn't that brutal. It's rough and merciless but I have seen rougher flicks like for example A Day Of Violence. Still, due the merciless fight scene's it isn't for the easily offended. The red stuff do flows but the torture is done off screen. So it's easy to see that it was a low budget. Personally I expected a little more from it but it fits in the line of British mobster revenge flicks. And there's a bit of relieve of fight scene's due the goofy couple Parker and Garrett.

Gore 1/5 Nudity 0,5/5 Effects 2/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 1/5

I could only get about 3 minutes into this video. Most of the reason for this is because it is, in fact, a video and not a film. This is an important distinguishing feature, because the use of a video camera here has made the piece look amateurish despite some decent camera work and far above average editing. Everything is there to make this a mediocre film... except the film. A better camera and an actual professional sound crew would have made this video something worthy of the video rental vending machine I got it from. Unless you are a film student and want to view this from the point of view of a director/ editor, then I strongly recommend that you avoid spending any money on this at all.