Squealer

First off, why was Tyrese even in this movie? His role in the movie was meaningless. In my opinion, Tyrese parts in the movie was boring filler. The arrogant role he played was seriously pointless.

Let's tackle the drug addiction part of the movie since the women that was murdered was addicted to drugs and prostituted. The writers could have done better. Some of the women didn't look the part. They did something to their teeth to make them look terrible and called them drug addicts. Lol I'm laughing while writing this review.

Seriously though, their teeth matched the part, but their bodies surely didn't.

The Emergency call doctor didn't play the role right. I honestly think the acting and the scrip was terribly done.

There was nothing unique about the movie. Drugs. Prostitution. Relationship problems. And murders. It lacked creativity and realistic roles to the situations they tackled.

The bar tender was probably the best actor in the entire movie.

Whilst the idea of another serial killer film doesn't bother me, the blatantly overuse of every b movie murder film cliche by the terrible writer does bother me very much.

Bearing in mind it is a straight to DVD / Streaming service movie, it still falls well below par of that segment of the market that is being currently driven by intelligent film students and people early in their careers who are learning to hone their craft, and.............they are doing it very well!!! Sadly unlike the makers of this movie.

It's a very staid and predictable storyline, no amazing twists and everything is predictable, it's almost like the writers just can't be bothered anymore with the ever growing crop of remakes.......and this rubbish. Come on writers, we your viewing public deserve better!

It is performed by actors that are usually good solid performers, finding them in some TV movies and also some of Amazon Primes best series. The trouble is the director seems to have really got the least out of his performers possible. In fact, maybe the director got the nearest toddler to direct it for him instead. Maybe he used the writers toddler to direct it as their skills seem to be about level after all.

The really sad thing is it wouldn't have taken much to turn this into a watchable movie, even a good one. In it's current state it is definitely one to avoid! Do not waste your hour and thirty plus minutes. Use it for something more exciting like watching paint dry.

Squealer is a serial killer film, whose story is loosely based on the Robert Picton case.

It's not exact portrayal, or anything.

But the similarities are clearly there.

Anyone from Canada will clearly recognize this.

Especially because Ronnie Gene Blevins looks remarkably similar to him, here.

Picton was a pig farmer- known as "The Butcher" or "Pigman"- who preyed on drug addicted prostitutes from the poverty stricken East Side of Vancouver.

And was one of the most prolific serial killers in Canadian history.

Like in the film, after killing his victims...he would dismember, and feed their remains to his pigs.

Possibly after eating bits of their bodies, himself.

The creators have obviously taken their own artistic liberties with his story.

Adding in an extended crime aspect, some drama, and a criminal investigation angle to it.

But the basis for it all won't escape the observations of any Canadian viewers, who were privy to news coverage throughout the 2000s.

Where the story dominated the news cycle.

The role played by Kate Moennig is also based on a real person, Dinah Taylor.

Who was Picton's main accomplice in the killings.

She would introduce Picton to many of his victims, in exchange for drugs.

Whose promise was the lure she'd use to get the girls to come to Picton's farm.

The woman who escapes from him at the beinning of the film is based on a real person, as well.

The pseudonymous "Ms. Anderson", who testified about escaping from Picton's farm in handcuffs at his trial.

While the Lulu character played by Christina Gonzalez is somewhat based on Monique Wood.

Another woman who would testify, about her interaction with Picton, at his trial.

In regards to production...sure, it's kind of a low budget effort, with heavy made-for-TV vibes.

As if it were a Lifetime movie, or something like that.

But the acting in it is surprisingly decent, across the board.

And it does have a subtly creepy vibe going for it.

But it's not overtly scary.

And acts more like a biopic, than it does a horror.

I also love how they make the unsung hero, of the whole ordeal, iconic Canadian actor Graham Greene.

Who does a great job as the doctor, whose observations break open the case.

While by no means a masterpiece, in any conceivable facet.

It's certainly a competent, and entertaining, low budget biopic.

That is likely to resonate with Canadian viewers.

Even if American viewers aren't able to recognize the connections to the actual case.

The bit where the pigs maul the dude is hilariously absurd though.

4.5 out of 10.

Easily one of the worst horror movies which is unfortunate from the cast, directing is awful and there's been much better on peacock! I would appreciate the movie more if several known actors weren't involved really peculiar for a B-Movie. Probably the most likable aspect is the killers are kinda cool. The acting and cinematography is uncomfortably it seems like would've made more sense to have released many years ago before some of the known actors like Tyrees Gibson, Theo Rossi and and the older gentleman I've seen before too. Whole thing is weird to me and genuinely doesn't belong on peacock, deserves the low ratings!

Exactly. Even for someone who can dig splatter and exploitation, this one really was a waste of film stock and everyone's time. As others have noted, it's based on the Canadian serial killer Robert Pickton, and yet again we're treated to the fiction that it takes place in the US (yes, it was filmed in New Mexico, but so what?) because... because why? Because they don't want to shatter everyone's belief that all Canadians are *nice*? Trust me, they aren't - I've been in a room (twice, in fact) with Kevin O'Leary. But I'll not go off on that tangent. The point is that they could have stuck closer to the actual story and probably improved the movie, because it really wouldn't be possible to make it any worse. Some of the facts of the case are much creepier than they portrayed, such as the Pickton farm actually being very close to the populated areas that had grown around it rather than way out in the country as suggested in the movie. And everything about where he lived and what he did was far more squalid and creepy than portrayed, as much Ed Gein and Texas Chainsaw Massacre as forensic procedural, as the poice and MEs spent *years* sifting through the muck in search of DNA traces of the dozens of women who had been killed. It's as though the filmmakers chose to pick the least interesting path through the entire story. I dunno how Graham Greene got roped into this.

So why a 2 instead of a 1, which is the lowest rating I use (I won't do 0 because they aren't counted)? Nudity. The braless cop was a treat and the victim with the pierced nipples was impressive, though I'm pretty sure those were prosthetics. See? I can be cerebral and shallow at the same time. Anyway, I watched this one so you don't have to. There are other movies based on this story that are worth the time.