For Howard Stern to be repulsed by a movie, you know that you're in for something special. Vulgar is the proper title for this work, which features a clown being gang raped. Kevin Smith produced this stomach churning work. Will makes a living as a birthday clown at kids parties, when he comes up with the idea to expand into the world of bachelor parties. He dresses in lingerie and strips to garters to fool the client into believing that he is gay. One day, while walking in his strange outfit, he is brutally assaulted by a guy and his two sons. They videotape the attack and warn him not to go to the police or they will embarrass him with the tape. He later rescues a kid and becomes the hero clown on the news. As a result, he gets a TV show, and his rapists extort him for money, while holding the tape over his head. He sets up a meeting in order to resolve the issue, and it leads to a silly ending. Bad acting and camera work make Vulgar a waste of time.

I have seen a lot of bad movies. However, I suspect "Vulgar" was intentionally bad. The film plays like a drunk nihilistic comedy that demonstrates an absolute vile contempt for humanity and life in general.Brian O'Halloran is not a very talented actor and should especially steer clear of serious roles. Of course, "Vulgar" falls into that genre of "other". It tries to be a comedy, but there is no comedic value in rape, even if the raped is dressed as a transvestite clown.Everything about the film equates to "vulgarity". Its mixture of sexual violence with children's television shows, its poking fun at psychological anguish suffered by a son mentally abused by his mother, and its apathetic attitude towards murder and death.Films like "Vulgar" cause me to feel unclean, a filth that only the buffer of several days can rinse away. Even then, the film leaves a permanent residue.

I had no idea what this movie was about when I rented it, I just remembered that Kevin Smith produced another film, I think I heard it was made by one of his friends and it was called Vulgar. This movie is definitely interesting and it gets pretty depressing sometimes. The acting is horrible in a lot of places and in some it actually gets pretty good. The acting though, it's, say you gathered a few friends to make a movie with a home video camera, that's what it's like. And since that's what the movie was made for so I've heard, the acting can be tolerated. The movie gets brutal in parts and in the end even bloody. There's a lot of language, a lotta' language. Other than warning someone about the brutality, the depressing storyline, the decent acting, and the language, there's not much to say about Vulgar. It's not deep, it's not good, but it's definitely worth a rental.

I don't want to slam a View Askew movie, but it should be said that controversial content of Vulgar is not why it fails. If it had been directed by David Lynch it might have been creepy and meaningful, but it was not. The antagonists, like many of the incidental roles in the film, generate no presence and seem to be simply reading lines. The viewer may feel that those three twits could easily be dispatched by anyone including Vulgar who loses our respect because he doesn't solve what seems to be an easy problem. It seems unbelievable also that someone who can get his crap together to perform as even a mundane birthday clown and run a TV show accepts the surroundings we find him in - but then again it is hard to believe that a movie with such content is so plodding and that the resolution seems so codified - I mean it isn't as if the protagonist has to be a squeaky clean hero. But then again, victory over these "heavies" couldn't be much of a celebration anyway as they are so lame.Oddly, Jason Mews in his usual mode is an exception as he seems to exist in spite of whatever conditions under which the film was made. Kevin Smith makes a believable TV producer, despite his eyebrows emoting to the cheap seats. Brian O'Halloran is often good in the sad and traumatic aftermath of Vulgar's first ordeal, but for much of the movie he is more a victim of what must be some bad calls of the director. Many of the performances are like finger nails on a chalkboard. Considering some of the talent involved, it scares me because I wonder if it is just an inevitable fact of low-budget movie making. I inevitably saw this movie because it was part of the View Askew cannon, but thank God I waited until it was on sale. It is not a keeper unless you need it as a case study for other low-budget film makers. Contrary to what at least one other user has posted, the movie is hard to watch not because of disturbing content. The stilted acting ensures that you never feel enveloped in the events of the story anyway, so there is no real sense of danger only impatience.