p-stepien The plot? Sexy horny chicks, who apparently like giving and getting some, get morbidly murdered, then have flowers placed next to their corpses. The local sheriff Jimmy Fleck (Jeffrey Combs), incompetent and focused on getting reelected, isn't really up to the case. Actually he's more interested in getting into bed with hottie deputy Zoe Adams (Sarah Thompson). With the election on Tuesday, sexy bodies turning up all over the place and Zoe getting all envious about his wife and children the sheriff is getting really nervous. Zoe trying to get her mind of her affair focuses on the serial killings. Unfortunately there seems to be no shortage of horny, young chicks in this small town...Despite the above description it is not a porno movie, although the script and lines suggests it may have as well been. Just add some sex scenes and you have yourself a porn flick. Essential gorno with bad dialogue and atrocious acting. Nothing inventive, new in any manner and even solutions are clear rip-offs.The only reason I don't give this a 1 is Michael Berryman as Leroy Calhoun, who plays an autistic bloodhound trainer. May not be Shakespeare, but its good to see him in a role, where he is not the bad guy.

slayrrr666 "Brutal" is a decent if not exactly spectacular entry.**SPOILERS**After a wave of bizarre mutilations, Sheriff Jimmy Fleck, (Jeffrey Combs) and his Deputy Zoe Adams, (Sarah Thompson)try to keep the community safe from the mysterious killer. When the killings continue, they try harder to solve the crimes, putting their affair on hold to solve them. Unable to find a way of doing they, they decide to solve the killings. With the help of Leroy Calhoun, (Michael Berryman) they eventually find the murders has a pattern to them, in that there's a flower around each one who's seeds are tied into everything, and quickly race to stop the next intended target on the list from becoming a victim.The Good News: There was a couple of good things about this one. One of the big areas is that the film has some really graphic kills in here, much more than expected. Several are cut up with a chainsaw, including one in half at the waist, one is stabbed in the throat with a large metal rod and is later forced out the other side of the throat, a couple of impalings with a tree pruner to the stomach, a whole slew of hearts ripped out and hedge-clippers stabbed in the back of the neck, among others, leaving it with a satisfactory sense of gore. The aftermath is also nice as well, and there's also the film's inclusion of the flowers on the bodies, which is another good point. The film's big twist with the killer, where they use a special secret about flowers as the basis for the victims in the spree. This is ingenious, original, innovative and comes with a highly entertaining and well-thought-out revelation sequence that nicely ties in all the evidence in a nice bundle. The other plus to this one is the fact that the film has some rather nice confrontations with the killer, as the scenes of them around town playing with the oblivious victims are a little comical at times. These here are the film's best parts.The Bad News: There's only a couple flaws in here, but they are significant. The main fact is that the film decides to focus on the killer for the duration of the film. We know who the killer is when the film starts, so there's no suspense to be had from trying to use the clues to solve it along with the detectives, the scenes of them interacting with the victims are comical rather than suspenseful and it doesn't generate anything, which tends to play heavily against a film. There's also a point where most of the attacks taking place at night are way too dark to see a whole lot. It's incredibly hard to spot what happened for most of those scenes and it detracts from the film. The last, and it's biggest one to overcome is the incredibly unneeded and unnecessary subplot involving the two detectives in their affair. This doesn't do anything for the film other than fill the beginning with endless scenes of the two of them making innuendo at each other but not capitalizing on it, or later scenes where the case has taken priority and talk turns to making the relationship into a more normal one, not exactly some of the most enjoyable or entertaining avenues to explore for a film. It just makes the film incredibly hard to get into and dull to sit through once it has, two factors which nearly cripple this one detrimentally and are the biggest issues to overcome, along with the rest of the film's flaws.The Final Verdict: Not exactly the worst entry made, but it's big flaws are somewhat distracting and do serve to knock it down some. Give it a shot if it sounds interesting or if this is the kind of film you find a lot of enjoyment from, while those who prefer more straight-forward slashers should seek caution.Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language and Brief Nudity

HumanoidOfFlesh "Brutal" is actually a prequel for "Blackwater Valley Exorcism",which I haven't seen.It tells the story of several attractive and usually whorish young women,kidnapped and messily killed with various tools and implements including hedge clippers.This trashy and unmemorable horror flick has Jeffrey Combs as the sheriff and Michael Berryman as the autistic dog breeder.The film is pretty gory,but the killings are not really shocking and the victims are incredibly annoying.The killer is bland and comes across as wimp.The climax isn't half bad,however I'm still not very satisfied by the whole proceeding.Fibonacci sequences as a plot device is a strange choice.Overall,if you are a fan of Combs or Berryman give "Brutal" a look.

dvd123 This is a real stinker.For some reason I thought this was actually going to be a real movie. It was within the top 30 pre-leases on Amazon for the week it came out AND it starred one of my all time favorite actors- Jeffrey Coombs.I had hopes. Hopes that were dashed against a stone within the first five minutes. Jeffrey and the villain had marginally believable characters, but just about everyone else made Denise Richards look like Laurence Oliver. They were just horrible. And not very pretty either. It wasn't like they sacrificed acting ability for looks. I've seen a LOT of bad acting- community theater, Troma movies, high school productions. This ranks below just about all of it.Like the other reviewer stated, this is definitely an F movie.The story is a joke as well, although you're so busy being amazed by how bad the acting is, it's hard to scrutinize the plot that closely.On a happier note, this movie helped me to realize how good most of the stuff I watch is. After this, I'm much more appreciative of actors and their craft. Most actors, that is. Definitely not these.As far as my fondness for Jeffrey Coombs goes... it's still pretty far up there, but not quite as high as it was.