Tetrady not as good as all the hype

TeenzTen An action-packed slog

Breakinger A Brilliant Conflict

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

dave-101-924448 I paid 99p for this and still think I was overcharged. The only reference to the SAS is on the UK cover where they have renamed the film "SAS Black Ops". The acting is poor, its not real in anyway, they go foundering through the woods making as much noise as possible, the. In order not to be seen, they apply cammo cream to their faces, and leave white arms on show. Their "Comms" is done by pressing your ear. The budget for this film was £50 and it shows. However, it does have its good points, I feel its well directed and edited, special effects are good, considering its all done on home PC. With a little more thought, this could have been a lot better film.

jagged-shard Seeing the packaging at supermarket with guy dressed in SpecOps gear with urban background. On rear of packaging showed troops repelling from Chinook helicopter. Imagine how disappointed I was to find none of these things in the "film"!! The plot - wafer thin and implausible. The staging - all within a ruined house with wooded grounds. The characters - never likely to have worked as a team. The acting, I consider , to have been very amateurish - more akin to to something put on in a church hall. Sorry guys, I cannot find it in me to be very charitable as it just fell too short of the mark. All in all, I feel I have been conned. There are way too many of this style of ripoff films around and we need to vote with our feet!!

carltheola I bought this film as SAS Black Ops, though I have to say that I like the original title of Slaughter better. For a film made for nothing it's quirky and enjoyable. As a Hollywood film... basically it*s not. For me the packaging is not anything to do with the film. The characters don't even pretend to be anything other than mercs, so it's a blatant marketing ploy. Three Wolves Ltd seems to be a trading name of Brightspark Productions, who appear adept at misleading people. And I noticed a couple of spelling mistakes on the back cover. Quality Control!As for the film itself, I think the general story was good and mostly original if a little underdeveloped. The acting was mainly quite amateur but in general very tongue in cheek, so it does have a spoofy kind of feel which I like. I can see what they were trying to do with the cinematography though they obviously only had the sort of equipment you could fit in a shoebox. Enjoyed the soundtrack, which I thought matched what the film would have been with a higher budget.In conclusion, the price was too high and the packaging completely wrong, but I was entertained by this respectable stab at independent cinema. I hope all the good things about the film aren't overlooked because of a misleading cover. Next time use a competent distributor!

matthewkrussell1111 Okay, so I get that the movie was made for absolutely nothing. Now I don't mean this is a low-budget B movie...I mean it was made with no budget. Zero. Don't believe me? Look it up. That is the only reason I give it a 3 and not a 1.So, I borrow the flick from TD, Make myself a Manhattan, hit play, and start laughing. The acting from the "Team" is so shatteringly bad I felt silly watching it. I've seen better acting at the local community theater. Okay, sure this is the leads first "major" film and he didn't get paid. Now I know why. I wouldn't have paid the dude either. Unfortunately the same holds true for most of the actors in this, ahem, film.There are a few scenes where the comedy saves this from being unbearable. But as a whole it is a yawn. A bad acted yawn.To wash down this medicine I would have needed three Manhattans.