ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Konterr Brilliant and touching

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

InDyingArms For a personal standpoint, I've personally heard about this film multiple, multiple times - Hearing mixed reviews, mostly either saying this film is just flat out awful, or that this movie is actually decent. The film overall just follows two journalists who're after a story that'll succeed heavily for them. They end up following the story of the alleged "Teardrop killer" or in this case the antagonized clown killer we also follow. From there on out, both Mark and Jen find out more and more of this clown. Firstly, this film took the interesting approach of a story; This film however prevailed that to be a bit pointless. This story isn't the worst possible one out there, but for the most part it's showcasing cliché aspects. There's been countless films about detectives following cases leading to more than they bargained for, this time, now, we have a gore-hound film following such. The journalist characters we follow aren't the worst pair, it could be much, much worse. I found Mark to be a likable, goofy guy - though at times he turns a performance of being funny at either the most ineffective times, if not, it's just ineffective in general. Admittedly however there are times he lightens the mood, or simply prevails. Jen is a typical bad-ass, independent - like chick who's so involved in her work to where she leads some of the stupidest decisions - Once again seen plentiful times. The acting in this film, for a considerable "micro- budget" horror flick? It is what it is, there are some really low points throughout I feel, especially through the detectives; However that's what's to be expected through these fun little films, know what you're getting into. The gore in this movie is the absolute lead, however. It's a decent display of absolute carnage through random characters; Literally. This film throws the most random, unnecessary display of people who're there just for the sake of dying. There'll be parts of the film you see quite literally a minute to two of a random person getting slaughtered, said random person literally has no point of being there, was never mentioned, and shall never be seen again. For what's displayed, the kills weren't the most creative; Though that wouldn't be fair at all, judging by the fact we have a clown with a novelty-sized cleaver. As the body count rises, the deaths grow less, and less intriguing, I feel. However the film takes that and flips it completely around through the closing run-time, delivering the concluding intriguing, back to unique-like kills. The pacing of the film is another displayed topic that gets flipped - The beginning of the film paced decently, around the middle to closing thirty minutes it grows slower, and slower, focusing more upon the story, of which, as said, feels overly-done and clichéd. However around the end we get a more quicker, perhaps even rushed feel; The ending feels rushed compared to the rest of the movie. There are a few ordeals that happen that just happened for the sake of the viewer to be pulled back in for a split second, it felt. In conclusion, the hype. Is it all there? Is this the goriest, most disgusting NC-17 film? No. I've seen another film by the title "Sweatshop" (2011) that, to me, proved more effective. This film follows like it - Clichéd, pointless plot that is there just for the excuse of killing masses. 100 Tears follows closely, however took the unique - like approach of delivering a story; As said many times said story is clichéd, and really does nothing for me personally. Fumbled dialog, acting flaws to a minor degree, all masked by a clown with a story .. and a massive cleaver. Would I recommend watching this film? Despite this review sounding as if I'm hating on it - I don't. I WOULD however watching this film. On an overall spectrum view of this film, the hype is a letdown. On a spectrum view upon a gore-hound, this film delivered. If you're looking for carnage, 100 tears delivers. If you're looking for minor - slight comedy? 100 tears delivers. However if you're looking for something totally new? You won't find it here.

LasKeepsItReal I only heard about the film 100 Tears a couple of days ago so i thought i would see if it was worth watching!Be warned the trailer gives away a lot of highlights from the film so i wouldn't recommend seeing it first!Some spoilers for the plot will follow!100 Tears tells the story of a middle aged clown who goes by the name of Gurdy. After being falsely accused of a crime when he was working as a part of a circus act and then turns into a psychopathic killer with no remorse.At the beginning of the movie we meet two reporters Jennifer and Mark who are investigating the deaths of people who have been murdered by Gurdy for many years, at the same time they are at trying to get their big story,track the killer down and usually do the detectives work as the two of them are incompetent.There are dozens of kills and mostly on screen,violent and gory. Several graphic murders happen near the beginning of a film in scenes taking place with teenagers in a half way house. If you can get past the first fifteen minutes then you are likely to find the film watchable. The plot is average for this type of film although at times it becomes slow and drags on.In the final thirty minutes or so Gurdy the clown meets up with his teenage daughter Christine, who has shown some questionable behavior earlier in the film and after a brief reunion they go on a killing spree in his house after a group of party goers break in.I enjoyed watching the main characters Gurdy and Christine and the reporters Jennifer and Mark as they were the only ones who really added to the storyline. The reporters also showed chemistry and had a sense of humor too. There are a couple of fairly brutal fight scenes between the main characters towards the end of the film as well. Most of the effects in the film were good for the budget although at times they were not taken too seriously!I would give this film 6 out of 10.

Paul Andrews 100 Tears is set in Florida where a serial killer known as the 'Teardrop Killer' has been murdering people for the past twenty years, his latest victims were all staying at a halfway house for teens as he slaughters the entire place. Two local journalist's Christine Greaston (Raine Brown) & Mark Webb (writer & producer Joe Davison) are writing a front page article on serial killers & decide to investigate the Teardrop Killer since the halfway house massacre took place nearby, speaking to an eyewitness Christine & Mark learn that the killer was dressed as a clown & as such check out any local circus. Christine & mark hit the jackpot & several leads prove useful in discovering the Teardrop Killer is in fact Gurdy the Clown (Jack Amos), to close to quit & desperate for a big story the pair go after Gurdy themselves & try to save some lives in the process...Directed by Marcus Koch who is also credited with the special effects make-up this low budget slasher film wasn't as amateurish or as downright bad as I was expecting, 100 Tears is no masterpiece but it has lots of gore & is generally quite watchable. The script is as basic as they come, I would imagine if the makers had any sort of budget they would have had many more set-pieces & sets rather than staging scenes in car parks & made the whole plot far more elaborate. Only two (plain clothes) cops are ever despite several murder scenes being featured & while the murder mystery aspect of the script is serviceable it's quite dull so don't expect anything like The Silence of the Lambs (1991) or Se7en (1995) or even Halloween (1978) or Friday the 13th (1980) for that matter. 100 Tears lumbers from one dry exposition scene to another as the two reporters get lucky, where are the police the whole time? Why didn't they figure it out as well? Who called Christine to inform her about the missing men? Why weren't the police told? Why did Gurdy the Clown turn up at Drago's caravan? Why did it take him twenty years? The twist at the end is difficult to take seriously, if I found out my father was a psychopathic serial killer I wouldn't just join in & start murdering people as well. Why did she turn? Why did she not kill anyone before? At an hour & a half 100 Tears is maybe ten minutes too long, scenes do drag & although a fairly serious film there's a bizarre moment in which Christine & Mark chase a dwarf in comical fashion that looks like it belongs in a Benny Hill show (anyone in the UK will know who Benny Hill is).The one area where 100 Tears does get things right is with the blood, gore & violence. 100 Tears is very gory & the special make-up effects are surprisingly good with nice thick red blood rather than blood that looks like coloured water. People's heads are chopped off, people's feet, legs & arms are chopped off, people are sliced in half, intestines flop out, huge amounts of blood splatters everywhere, an eyeball is removed, heads are bashed in, throats are slit, heads are sliced vertically in half, faces are cut to pieces someone is run over & splatters everywhere as they are crushed. There is lots of good looking gore here but budget problems rear their head again as there's no build-up to them, a person enters the screen & then about two seconds later they are killed with no tension or suspense or build-up. The killer Gurdy the Clown never says anything during the film but is a decent enough villain, all I want to know is where do you buy one of those huge over-sized meat clever's? I want one.With a supposed budget of about $75,000 which is about as low as they come 100 Tears was filmed in Florida & is technically a bit rough around the edges. People talk in hallways so there's this annoying echo, background sounds like traffic or trains distort dialogue & there are virtually no close-ups. Almost everything seems to have been shot on one camera in one take with a wide angle, it makes for a dull & uneven looking film. The gore scenes fare much better & you can tell that's where the money & effort went. The acting is OK, it's not as bad as I was expecting anyway.100 Tears is a really low budget slasher film with lots of gore, to my eyes all the money & effort went on the gore (not a bad thing in itself) with the plot & everything else taking a back seat. Although shot on video & rough around the edges 100 tears isn't too bad & if your looking for gore then this is worth a rental at least& if nothing else 100 Tears teaches us that looking both ways before crossing the street is important...

capkronos Two tabloid reporters, Jennifer Stevenson (Georgia Chris) and Mark Webb (writer/producer Joe Davison) are wanting to be taken seriously as journalists and begin investigating a serial murderer known as "The Teardrop Killer," who has been hacking up people over a 20 year period but has somehow managed to elude the police all that time by hiding out in an abandoned building's cellar. Jennifer and Mark piece the clues together, which lead them to a flea-bag circus (which seems to be right in the middle of some junkyard) and revelation that the psycho is actually an obese, jilted clown named Gurdy (Jack Amos) who murdered a few people decades earlier before disappearing. Also disappearing around the same time was Gurdy's lover Tracey (Leslie Crytzer), who has successfully managed to change her name and live in the same small town along with her and Gurdy's whorish cutter daughter Christine (Raine Brown) for two decades without being detected. Other characters include a dwarf and bartender who know the clown's whereabouts and a pair of ineffectual police detectives (Kibwe Dorsey and Rod Grant), as well as various victims (a real estate agent, partying teens, etc.) who show up just long enough to get killed.This very low-budget film (shot on digital) excels at one thing and one thing only - gore. Heck, during the first fifteen alone the body count has already reached double digits as the clown killer goes around a halfway house hacking up anyone he can get his hands on with a huge meat cleaver. There are cut off limbs, slashings, decapitations, guts spilling out all over the floor, a head getting stomped in and blood literally gushing out all over the place. These scenes are actually pretty entertaining and well done. Unfortunately after the first fifteen minutes of almost non-stop carnage, the film then tries to add the plot and deal more with characters and this is where it starts to come apart. In fact, 100 TEARS seems to falter any time it isn't being gory. The entire mid-section of the film is slow-moving, tedious and badly written, with uneven performances and a sense of humor primarily centered around farts and bowel movements. The ending is also rather sloppy, and the overdone gore scenes themselves start growing tiresome and monotonous after awhile.A good point of comparison might be with Peter Jackson's DEAD ALIVE (aka BRAINDEAD), which has even more gore than this one but also managed to be entertaining and fun when it wasn't being disgusting. Jackson's film is also much more clever and inventive when it comes to creating new and original gore scenes, while the kills in this one - bloody as they may be - aren't particularly clever. Though in this film's defense, it only had a 75K budget while DEAD ALIVE's was 3 million, so I guess they did a good job cramming as much blood and gore in as possible. It's just too bad the other areas of the film aren't quite as strong. From a technical standpoint (cinematography, score, sound, editing, etc.), it's pretty uneven, though again not bad for the budget.So if you're looking simply for gore and a high body count, then this will satiate your blood lust. However, if you're looking for a scary or otherwise good horror film, you'll probably find less to like here.