G Norris (dagzine) It's one thing to be somebody. It's quite another to be a parody of somebody. I am reminded of Boyd Rice's early years hanging out with Holocaust deniers in his basement in Denver and playing records at the Lion's Lair and how he only appeared to be an actual loser. Because he is the brain behind NON. As in, he is a self devout NOThing. He also has a knack for hanging out with all the real artists while they do good things that he mocks with his bad products. He, I am sure, is the un-Warhol. (ugh.)Anyways, starring in this piece of garbage as a piece of garbage probably wasn't a stretch. It is something I am sure he'd agree is self-parody. Nevertheless, the filmmakers seem to think their film makes a statement.Pearls Before Swine ends up being a parody of an attempt to make a film that makes a statement. I don't know what the film is, really, nor what its statement is supposed to mean. So. Is it an Un-film? No it's a film. Just a poor film.It's "star" is a parody of a satire of a man Boyd Rice fantasizes he is in real life.The title is a parody of a title, pointing to far too much than a title to a film can signify.But this film is not even UNpop, as it is advertised. (Unpop is purposefully bad popart, by the way. Kind of like a dumb Warhol; or Stupid Jeff Koons.) Anyway, unpop, like this film, is pure POP refuse and more proof Americans do not really understand IRONY.Is it funny that a pseudo-NeoFascist like Boyd Rice stars in crap like this? No, it's not funny. It's "Shocking!" Oh wait, that's how the movie is marketed. Well, Pearls Before Swine is certainly Shocking. Shockingly Crappy.Eventually, it is nothing more than a shocking bore.

Mike I have a fairly high tolerance for low-quality and low-budget movies, especially when they strive to be different from the usual Hollywood pap. In fact there are only two such films I have seen this year that I felt had no redeeming qualities: this film and Red Cockroaches. And even Red Cockroaches made me look at ketchup differently.The script is horrible. It is obvious from reading the liner notes of the DVD that the writer/director changed the script on the fly (including the addition of the silly twist ending), probably after a late night session bulls^H^H^H^H^Hbrainstorming with the actors. It is even more obvious from watching it ("a Dr Who scene? sure!").The dialogue is horrible. People don't talk that way. Boyd Rice delivers monologues that sound as if he is reading from one of his own articles. I'm sure these were intended to be socratic dialogues (especially since they reference the concept, albeit poorly), but they managed to sound even *more* contrived than that, impossible as it sounds. And the attempts at slang? Ouch. Painful embarrassment for the character.The acting is horrible. The only one of any note was Daniel's partner Paul; he may not be able to carry a movie on his own, but standing next to Boyd Rice made him look like John-friggin-Malkovich. Once again, reading the liner notes made it apparent that the director knows/idolizes Boyd Rice, to the point where he was unable to give good direction (if he had it) to an actor. Stilted, wooden, monotonic moments are what we get. Keanu would be proud.The violence is poor. Maybe a viewing of Doom Generation is in order. It *is* possible to do good violence with a low budget. Simply firing guns (most of which were poor, though Paul's revolver was actually a quality piece) and splattering red paint around doesn't do it. Unless of course you're talking TROMA, where violence isn't actually the point.I cannot continue this review without addressing the terms 'controversy' and 'artistic integrity'. There is nothing controversial about this movie. The views expounded upon (at great tedious length) are not original or unique; they have been gracing the pages of zines and books from the fine folks at loompanics, paladin press, and the anarchist bookstore in SF for DECADES. In the course of my checkered literary past I have encountered these same arguments and views repeated ad nauseum.I'm sure the director and actor both hold these opinions as their own -- that's patently obvious from the ham-fisted way they were inserted into the plot(?), and the lackluster delivery (i.e., it's not an actor making you believe they believe this, but a believer droning on and on about their religion with no regard for their listener). I do believe they thought they were casting pearls before swine in the making of this film. But that does not make the opinions original, controversial, well-thought-out, appealing to any but the most philosophically naive, or indeed anything but what they are: a reactionary position against the established order which would not succeed on its own merits and thus must actively strive to emphasize its difference and novelty.To paraphrase Tom Stoppard's play The Real Thing, which actually treats the subject of watching a work such as this quite well, "Making a bad film is no proof of integrity".What makes a good movie? Interesting characters. A compelling script. Convincing acting. Natural dialogue. Incredible cinematography. A sense of mood or atmosphere. You don't have to have all of these, but you need at least one. And Pearls Before Swine strikes out.

Crap_Connoisseur Richard Wolstencroft's latest film represents a distinct change of pace. The main ingredients of sex and violence are still prominent but Pearls Before Swine takes a far more philosophical approach than the director's early films. It seems a bit redundant to call a film that is bookended by quotes from Rilke and Hoelderlin as cerebral, but I can't think of a better description. The film kicks off with a bang. Boyd Rice plays Daniel, a killer who nonchalantly shoots a group of homeless boys for their organs before going out on a date with his bondage mistress girlfriend, Christy. This act sets the platform for the film's exploration of morality, a theme which is covered from every imaginable angle. I found Daniel's monologues on religion and Nazism particularly thought provoking. The concentration camp S&M role-play is also one of the film's highlights and a perfect example of Wolstencroft's fearlessness, a quality that sets him apart from his contemporaries.There are times when the material veers towards pretension, such as the 'violence in the movies' dinner debate or Daniel's pro "Dr. Who" rant. However, on the whole, the film is refreshingly apolitical. Wolstencroft has found a fantastic spokesman for his challenging world view in the form of Boyd Rice, the man behind NON. Boyd is perfect as Daniel, discussing philosophy and shooting children with equal conviction. The rest of the cast is vastly superior to Wolstencroft's earlier films, perhaps with the exception of the actress who plays Christy. My only criticisms of the film are the rather dull final twist and the preference for dialogue over action. I wish that violence was less frequently discussed and more frequently depicted.Pearls Before Swine is technically light years ahead of Wolstencroft's earlier films. Here is a director who has grown and continues to refine his craft. I just hope Richard doesn't refine his craft to the point where his films become a blunt instrument. There were fleeting moments during Pearls Before Swine when I missed the rawness of "Bloodlust". That is not to dismiss the thought and intelligence that went into making the film. Pearls Before Swine is probably the most interesting and perplexing debate yet about the roles of sex and violence on film and in life.

Jerry Nuckolls I really enjoyed this movie. It should be noted that I have a high tolerance for low-budget fare. I got this as part of a 2-disc set, which I bought primarily to get a hold of Wolstencroft's first feature, "Bloodlust". I finally watched this, and was pleasantly surprised. This is the tale of Daniel, a killer-for-profit(be it assassinations or murder and the subsequent sale of cadavers). Between bouts of drugs, partner-swapping, S&M and crime, Daniel ruminates on the nature of fascism. I don't want to give away too much, but suffice to say that this movie doesn't take the tried and true(not to mention cliché) Hollywood approach of force feeding its audience an affable, cuddly lead character. Daniel's opinions may shock and offend you. The movie's morality is ambiguous and its philosophy unique. If you need a likable, handsome Tom Cruise type "Hit Man" in order to digest a movie, don't watch this. If you are not afraid to have your own notions of film and character challenged, this movie should be an unexpected treat. The film's budget and non-professional cast are evident. However, if this movie had been produced at greater cost, and with a well-known actor or two, it would most likely have been successful AND controversial.