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.

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.

I think it's an extraordinary question of cinematographic life how movies like Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The (2002) received an 8.7 and stands just below The Godfather, while such jewels like "Pearls before Swine" got an 3.1 (last time i checked). It's good to know some critics can see beyond the cultural imperialist Hollywood genre, but sadly, none of these seem to have watched, or shown appreciation of, this particular movie."Pearls before Swine" doesn't stand out on quality of acting, plot or any other conventional measure of rating a movie, but, as the title suggests, places itself above the average viewer in its magnificent value of INTEGRITY. Indeed, those who know its main actors, such as Boyd Rice and Douglas P. (Death in June) are well aware of the closeness this particular movie stands with the opinions of aforementioned men. Boyd's lack of a any expressionist inclination with his own statements ('how marvelous') for example therefore not only parallel the plot and introspectuocentricity of the movie, but match perfectly well with personal opinions that, to themselves, hold great value. Essence, being for oneself and a great belief in self-actualisation thus gain their credibility through a whole life of great accomplishments.Maybe this movie doesn't .shock., or deliver a moral message, but still it delivers a message that centers oneself to understanding itself.

This may well be the worst film ever made! There really is nothing more embarrassing than having a central character in a semi-violent film, spilling forth a monologue about violence in cinema and how good it is and then topping it off with bad scripting to have another character actually say: "Mmm, interesting. Go on." No! It isn't interesting at all! It's boring! No thought for character, thematic premise, continuity (we actually have the guy walk into an empty bookstore and pick up his own book with interest - as if he's never read it before! Who is he trying to fool?).Worst of all is that the film has been heavily promoted as 'shocking'. Well, it is shocking, but not in the way they meant. Shockingly BAD is what it is!