Week 93 - Blood For Dracula

Alternate Titles : Andy Warhol's Dracula

Year: 1974

Reviews / Author Comments due: 2/3/2013

Reason for Inclusion: Follow-up to DPP movie, Fleash for Frankenstein 

BBFC Status: Passed uncut in 2006

More Info: Wikipedia, IMDB

DVD: LINK

---

Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.

Stalker - Will's Review

I can see why this one underwent a name change... ostensibly a remake of Exposé, all that remains from the original is a writer who goes to a country home to get some work done, and runs into some trouble with their new PA. It's even less of a Remake than Toolbox Murders.

Oh, I tell a lie; they did keep one thing from the original; Linda Hayden. Hayden played the PA in Exposé, and is a housekeeper here.

This time around the author (now Paula instead of Paul) goes to her family's old holiday spot in order to write her 2nd novel. The PA (Linda) shows up and, after a perfectly normal start, begins to act violently, take over the writing of Paula's book, and even murder anyone who could interfere with the writing and publication of the novel.

Thankfully, this is another short one, coming in at 77mins including credits; I say 'thankfully' because the first half hour is as dull as hell, followed by another half hour lumbering towards a very predictable twist.

Martin Kemp (yes, the Spanda Ballet / Eastenders, guy) pulls writer and director duties and, while not entirely badly put together, it is very obviously a directorial debut; every shot is something we've seen before (often done better) and, as is too often the case with first time thriller directors, Kemp obviously spent quite some time (although not enough time) watching Hitchcock movies.

******spoilers from here******

There is, as I have said, a 'twist' , and it could have been a (relatively) interesting, if clichéd one, but for one thing...

Paula keeps having dreams in which a younger man is having sex with her, and starts bleeding and dies mid-act; During Linda's first murder (a journalist after a scoop) she screams that she (Linda) used to be regularly raped by her brother... Until she stabbed him mid-act.

If you can't work out the 'twist' from that, you've probably never seen a movie before.

Stalker - Lisa's Review

***SPOILERS***

I put 'spoilers' as my first word here, but I doubt it will spoil anything for anyone, for as unlikely as it is that anyone besides me and Will are actually reading these review, its even more unlikely anyone who didn't 'have' to watch this movie would have any desire to... even less so after reading my review I would imagine.

So, here we have Martin Kemps first directorial debut with Stalker, a movie described as a 'remake of Expose' (a movie we watched for the Nasties challenge).  Here instead of the delectable Udo Kier as the author Paul Martin, we have a rather dull, non inspiring female author called Paula Martin.

The basic premis is that she has a best selling book behind her and has had a difficult time and a nervous breakdown.  She retreats to a beautiful mansion in the middle of the country to seek inspiration and peace to write her second novel.  What follows could be compared to a mish-mash of movies... 'Single white female, 'Misery', 'Identity'... unfortunately it falls far short on every level when compared with any of these movies.

An assistant (Linda) is sent to help Paula with the typing of her novel.  Things all seem to be going swimmingly well (asides from what appears to be a rather uncomfortable over familiarity with Linda and Paula), then Paula continues to get increasingly more and more irate at her writers block.  This mild mannered, quiet, gentle woman is prone to hissy fits it seems.  Linda, seemingly wanting to help starts to write for Paula.   Initially absolutely furious at this intrusion and insult, Paula gives it to Linda both barrels.  That seems to be the last we see of Paula as the woman we have been introduced to.

From this point onwards, it becomes clear that Linda has a nasty plan and seems to want to take over Paulas life.  She advises her to have a day of rest as she is mentally troubled and feeling unwell.  Meanwhile she deals with everything for Paula.  'Dealing with things' includes murdering a rather nosey journalist who has been trying to get an interview with Paula (mostly about her breakdown) for a long time.  He can't believe his luck when Linda lets him in and she is openly agreeable to the interview (he thinks she is Paula).  The murder is probably the only thing is the movie that doesn't make me want to take to my bed for a loooong sleep.  It is rather convincing and a nice use of cheese wire I thought.

Linda also dispenses with the housekeeper by way of a hammer into the eye socket.   At this point Paula realises all is not well (she doesn't know about the murders) and Lindas intentions are not as they appear to be.  She realises she has been locked in her room and cannot get out.

So if you've zzzz'd along with me for this long, heres where the twist comes in.  If you don't want to know, don't read on....

Throughout the film we have had brief scenes with a past physician and friend of Paulas called Leo.  We find out a little more each time he is shown.  Apparently he dealt with her when she went through her breakdown.  We also cut to scenes of Paulas publicist Sara, who gets together for a meal with Leo where they discuss Paula.  Here it is revealed that Paula and Linda are one in the same person and Linda has been 'stalking' Paula since she was a child.  Paula has always been very troubled due to the sexual abuse she suffered at the hands of her father.  She tells us (as Linda) she pulled his spleen out of him when he was on top of her.  We also see flashback scenes showing this, which had been flashed to us throughout the movie, but made no sense until this time.

We move on to Leo travelling to the house with Sara to see Paula.  He is panicked because he finds out the journalist has gone to see her and is worried for his safety.  This visit leads to Leos murder by way of a knife in the back.  Sara escapes into a wooded area and when Linda/Paula eventually catches up to her, she pushes her backwards into a tree which impales and kills her.  All very quick...completely unlike the first 3/4 of the movie.

So... everyone at the house is dead, yet there is a spectacular book on a laptop which Saras beady eyes have seen... so how does the movie end?  Yup,. as predictably as the old 'split personality' slant... Sara publishes it as her own... *YAWN*

This movie was MONUMENTALLY dull.  The last 15 minutes were much better than the previous hour, but I don't think it was worth it for something that I had guessed long before it was revealed.   I would suggest if you have no need to see this movie, AVOID it.  Big fat waste of time.

WEEK 92 - Stalker

Year: 2010

Reviews / Author Comments due: 2/3/2013

Reason for Inclusion: Remake of DPP movie, Expose

BBFC Status: Passed uncut in 2011

More Info: No Wikipedia, IMDB

DVD: LINK

---

Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.

The Last Horror Movie - Will's Review

The strangest thing about this weeks movie is that it was released in an age of DVDs... The entire premise of the movie is that you, the viewer, have rented a VHS tape of a movie called 'The Last Horror Movie' only to find that (apart from the first scene) someone has recorded over it.

It really is important to the movie (especially the ending) that you buy into the 'recorded over' premise, but as far as I can tell, this movie has never been released on VHS, so a larger-than-average suspension of disbelief is required.



So, after the opening scene of what appears to be a pretty lousy DTV teen-slasher, the screen goes fuzzy, an we are presented with a 'mocumentery' in which wedding Videographer / Serial Killer, Max, attempts to explain / justify his position, while challenging the viewer to question his desire to continue to watch such a movie.

While I wouldn't want to watch a real serial killer in action, the very fact that this is only a movie kind of renders most of the points it tried to make moot. Again, willing suspension if disbelief on the part of the audience is essential here.

Some of the attempts at depth sound a bit too much like the kind of 'depth' that you often overhear in Starbucks in university cities. That said, some of Max's philosophical brain teasers are interesting; What is a random human life worth to you? If you sold your TV, you could donate the money to charity and an African child could live a bit longer... But you don't. Does that mean that human life is worth less to you than your TV?

The acting has been much praised and won awards at a whole bunch on film festivals, but personally I didn't find Max all that convincing. Clearly this is just me.

Between the acting, faux depth, and suspension of disbelief issues, I appreciate that I've given this movie a bit if a hard time, so you may be surprised to learn that I did, in fact, enjoy it.

Somehow it manages to be more than the sum of its parts, and at only 73 minutes it doesn't outstay its welcome.

Probably only one for horror fans, not because of any gore content (there is surprisingly little), but because it is squarely aimed at, and questioning of, the horror fan's mentality. That said; we're all horror fans here! Recommended.

The Last Horror Movie - Lisa's Review

So to a goody this week!  YAY!!  I have watched this movie before, but as its a relatively short one (an hour  and 15 mins) it was easy to watch again.

So firstly I have to say, I don't know how swayed I was with my opinion on this movie, by how jaw droppingly delicious the actor is.  I'm hoping not so, but I just thought I would state that upfront in case I've missed something and loved a movie that is monumentally terrible purely through the delight of a rare perv.

Anyways... back to the movie.  This is the story of Max, a handsome, personable wedding videographer who has an interesting little sideline.  The thing is... he's a serial killer.  This serial killer sets out to make an 'intelligent horror movie' which challenges the viewer to think about their preconceptions and actual real-time reactions to what they are watching.  It raises quite a few interesting questions about people who enjoy this kind of movie (people like me you could say).  Of course, its all make believe and we all know that (I would have no desire to watch something I KNEW was real), but it does beggar the question, why on earth do we enjoy watching more and more realistic footage of people meeting brutal ends?

Although finding Max so visually appealing, I still feel there would be a common thread with the male viewer.  I would be surprised if men did not find him personable, interesting and intelligent.  That's the wierd juxtaposition (if thats the right word to use in this instance)... One minute you're watching him, nodding along to something he's saying, actually starting to like this guy... next minute you're feeling all judgemental (as he himself points out) and you're recoiling from the acts he is committing on screen... distancing yourself from it and him.  Yet again, he reels you in.... again, he shocks you by his barbarity and lack of any kind of empathy.  Its like a game of cat and mouse all the way through.

The movie is shot with a camcorder/documentary style by Max's young assistant (who I don't think is ever named), a homeless young man with no friends who hasn't seen any member of his family in several years.  Someone who won't be missed.  He moves in with Max and is offered somewhere to live in exchange for filming Max's murders.  The assistant thinks that taking someones life is something he wants to do, but we find out in a horrid scene where he is about to make his first kill, that he just doesn't have the stomach for it.  Just like in 'Texas Chainsaw' where Grandpa is trying to bash the young womans head in and failing miserably... we have much a similar situation where just not enough power is being administered.  Max has to take over and finish the job for him.... rather swiftly.

Now he knows his young assistant no longer wants to take a life and also no longer wants to be a part of his project, he realises he is dangerous to him, so has to do away with him.  Here we see the polar opposites in his character where he easilly cuts up his body and serves it up in a meal to his gran, sister and her husband, passing it off as a kind of veal.  They all eat a hearty meal and there are many compliments about how tasty the meat is.

Asides from being a cold and ruthless serial killer, Max is also a much loved brother, uncle and friend.  We see his relationships with his 2 young nephews, his sister and some of his friends (mainly Petra who he had 'a thing' with in the past).  He comes across as a normal, likable young man, with nothing whatsoever pointing to his dark side.

The movie ends by showing us what Max did with his movie when he had finished.  He put it over a normal horror movie, entitled 'The Last Horror Movie' and loitered around a video store waiting for someone to rent it.  He would follow them home and wait while they watched the movie in its entirety... he would then somehow gain entry into these peoples homes in an attempt to get some form of 'interesting' reaction from them... that reaction was never forthcoming.  All the viewers met their end while sat in front of their 'Last Horror Movie'.  He leaves us with the thought that we are next.... makes me VERY glad I didn't rent this one from a store, lol.

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie from start to finish.  The acting is superb, the lead is one of the most engaging actors I have ever watched, the script is intelligent and questions posed thought provoking.  Big fat 'Recommended' from me.

Week 91 - The Last Horror Movie

Year: 2003

Reviews / Author Comments due: 16/02/2013

Reason for Inclusion: Temporarily voluntarily Withdraw by UK distributors following link to real-life double murder.

BBFC Status: Passed uncut in 2004

More Info: Wikipedia, IMDB

DVD: LINK

---

Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.

Bride of Frankenstein - Will's review

Oh, Universal Monsters, how I love thee! And this is among the best of the bunch!

Sadly, the version we have now is incomplete; despite testing well, universal cut 15 mins (for time, not censorship reasons) shortly after the film previewed, and those scenes are now lost forever. This studio cut though, was still subject to censorship when it hit our shores.



Obviously, due to the era in which it was made, it is not as explicit or fast paced as we have come to expect; I'd even go as far as to say that there is a 'knack' to watching and appreciating movies from the 30's and 40's, in the same way that one needs to adopt a different frame of mind to watch say, kids films, each decade I think also requires its own frame of mind (think how different even 80's movies are than today's). But I digress.

I love this movie.

It's beautifully lit and shot, the acting is for the most part superb (Karloff, as always, is unfaultable in the role of the monster) and most of the makeup and special effects still stand up today - witness the scene with miniature people in the foreground, while full-sized actors walk around behind them; Today they would probably attempt to CGI the homunculi and it would look awfull.

It's probably (almost certainly) the first horror movie to use a device that would later become associated with postmodernism; The film opens with Mary Shelly talking about how the events of the first film were only the beginning. Shelly is played by Elsa Lanchester, who pulls double duty as The Bride (Credited in the roll simply as "?"). It also has some subtle (too subtle by today's standards - I expect many people miss it) homosexuality references, in the shape of Dr. Pretorius - Dr. Frankenstein's now disgraced former professor (we never learn of the reason for his 'disgrace') and his desire for men to be able to make life together.

The relationship between the Monster and the blind man is superb, and has a great "fairy tale" quality to it (although, in reality, it is from Shelly's original book), and I wish we could have spent more time with them, or have seen more of the hermit once the two parted company.

The creation sequence is a blast, using parts of the original machine, and a few new additions; as was his bent Dwight Frye steels every scene he's in as Karl, the Barons freakish, yet underplayed, assistant.

Finally, the bride herself, who in her (shockingly brief) time on screen is portrait brilliantly  all twitching movements, frightened eyes and animalistic grunts and hisses.

Superb.

Bride of Frankenstein - Lisa's Review

I must be one of the few people who hadn't seen this weeks movie in its entirety before.  I have seen clips and probably so many, there wasn't much of the movie I hadn't seen.

It receives critical acclaim, everyone seems to love it.  What did I think?  Mmmmm meh.....  I didn't dislike it, but I wouldn't go mad about it.  I kinda get like that about movies everyone else seems to love, I just can't be arsed getting all excited about.  Star Wars, Star Trek..... Zzzzzzzzzzzz.

I haven't actually seen the predecessor, but since I know the basic story of Frankenstein and have seen other versions, I don't think I was missing much back story.

What I would say I did like about the movie were the characters of Praetorious, The Monster and The Bride of Frankenstein.  Its interesting how iconic the bride is when she is in the movie for such a short period of time and doesn't even speak beyond a series of grunts and hisses.  I was shocked how little she is actually in it.

I won't go into a big description about what this movie is about as I very much doubt anyone hasn't seen it and I've got the headache from hell.

Basically Henry Frankenstein has realised the error of his ways in creating The Monster in the first movie, but  when he discovers the monster is not in actual fact dead, as everyone believes, he is cajoled into helping his former mentor, the mad Dr Praetorious in creating a woman for him. The movie is about little more than that. Some people are killed by the monster, we are shown he has the potential for love and learning with his short friendship with a blind man and we follow Henrys struggle with his conscious in what he's doing versus his scientific mind.

While the characters and makeup are great, its just not a movie I think I would watch again.  I can understand why so many people love it.  It has an iconic feel about it.  You can watch it and realise straight away what scenes would be the stand-out ones.  Its just not my kind of movie.

If you've reached adulthood without seeing this movie, there's probably a reason.  If you're the kind of person who would love this movie... you'll have seen it already.

Week 90: Bride of Frankenstein

Year: 1935

Reviews / Author Comments due: 9/2/2013

Reason for Inclusion: Cut on release to obtain an X (then the strongest rating available), Also passed A in 1935 and H in 1945 - these 2 releases are listed as uncut, but did have about 15 seconds removed by the distributor.

BBFC Status: Passed uncut rated PG in 1989

More Info: Wikipedia, IMDB

DVD: LINK

---

Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.

Human Centipede 2 vs Salo vs The BBFC

I always told myself that if a topic came up that suited it, this blog (and the original VNAW) would occasionally contain articles other than reviews. After only 89 weeks, such a topic has finally come up.

The bias (in my opinion) showed by the BBFC in the way "art" films are treated differently to more mainstream Horror films prompted me to e-mail the BBFC's press department.

Rather than editorialize, |I will present my email, and their reply, in full. I will save my opinion of the exchange for the comments section; where you are welcome to join me.

Dear Ms Anderson, I run a blog dedicated to banned, previously banned, and controversial movies. The subject this week is Pier Paolo Pasolini's Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom. While I personally found the movie repugnant in almost every conceivable way, I never the less applaud the BBFCs desision, in 2000, to pass the work uncut; In a free society, poor taste is no excuse to curb freedom of expression. With this thought, as specifically the content of Salò in mind, I was hoping that someone at the BBFC could take a few moments to consider the footage exhumed, at the Board's insistence, from Tom Six's Human Centipede 2: Final Sequence; Bering in mind that, like "poor taste", "artistic merit" is entirely subjective. I would be grateful if you could explain to our readers why two movies, seemingly so similar in content, have received such different treatment. I look forward to your reply.

Dear Will, Thank you for your email. With regards to Salo and Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence). The BBFC website provides BBFCinsight or case studies for most films, explaining why they received the classification they did. We are often asked to compare two works and their classification but this is not something we practice since every film work must be classified against the guidelines as a unique work in its' own right. You can find a case study on the classification of Salo at http://website.bbfc.co.uk/case-studies/salo120-days-sodom The press release explaining the reasons for refusing to give a rating to Human Centipede 2 can be found here: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/about-bbfc/media-centre/bbfc-rejects-human-centipede-ii-full-sequence A press release regarding the decision to pass Human Centipede 2 with cuts can be found at: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/about-bbfc/media-centre/bbfc-has-awarded-18-classification-cut-version-human-centipede-ii The BBFCinsight for Human Centipede 2 is also available here: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/human-centipede-ii-full-sequence-2011 Note that Salo was first submitted before the BBFC introduced its' Classification Guidelines, although even once these were introduced in 2000 (following the first large scale public consultation exercise) the film was still regarded as neither illegal nor harmful within the terms of the new Guidelines and therefore the BBFC agreed to classify the film 18 uncut for cinema exhibition. Human Centipede 2 was submitted under the 2009 Classification Guidelines and you'll notice that unlike Salo, the press release states that "It is the Board's conclusion that the explicit presentation of the central character's obsessive sexually violent fantasies is in breach of its Classification Guidelines and poses a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to potential viewers." I hope this is helpful in completing your article Kind regards, Catherine

Salo - Lisa's Review

*** SPOILERS ***

I'm at a bit of a loss this week as to how exactly to review this movie as I have no want to give a blow-by-blow account of it, thats for sure.  The fact I am feeling more than a little ill today also would make me want to avoid even thinking about it, never mind reviewing it.

So, what can I say.  Having read a bit about the movie, it seems that the absolute and utter depravity we see on screen from start to finish is in actual fact a very political message about facism, with the 4 main characters (a bishop, a president, a duke and a magistrate) representing different sections of our society.  The bishop - religion, the president - political leaders, the magistrate - the legal system and the duke - nobility.  Well that was all very much lost on me I'm afraid.  To me it just appeared to be an excuse to be shocking, to show as much depravity as possible and get away with it under the usual screen of proclaiming it as 'art' with an important message.  Bollocks!  It truely felt to me, like a few people sat in a room and wrote a list of what they could get away with depicting onscreen.



Now before I go into the small amount of detail my stomach permits today, I will say, although I hated this movie and really wonder why anyone would WANT to watch it nevermind enjoy watching it, I realise every movie has its audience (it would be a very boring world if we were all the same), so I don't think the movie should be banned, I am amazed however that it is not.  As Will stated to me, Human Centipede 2 has similar (yet nowhere near as shocking) scenes which were cut and the movie was banned under the obscene publications act... how is this possible?  It seems with the 'art' umbrella you can get away with an awful lot.

So to the movie... well the story itself is minimal and quite hard to follow.  The 4 main characters I already detailed make an agreement to marry each others daughters as a start in the quest to make real whatever perversions they can imagine.  The movie which follows is basically those perversions carried out.

We have sexual torture, scalping, eyeball gouging, burning of genitals with candles, defecation, urination in mouths and on faces, rape, torture, general degradation.... what more is there to say really.

In one noteworthy scene a wedding is taking place between a young boy (bizarrely dressed as the bride) and one of the perverts.  The young women have been ordered not to defecate for some time before the feast as they are to perform on the day for everyones delectation... Several young women walk out with silver platters piled high with faeces which everyone proceeds to get tucked into (some with a lot of gusto it has to be said).  This in itself is repugnant, but the scene of the young women beforehand who was reprimanded for having a poo in her chamber pot a day early as she 'couldn't hold it' was just twisted... they even examined her and realised she'd had the audacity to clean herself after!!  What AM I watching?

In another scene a young girl is forced to urinate on someones face and in their mouth... okaaaaaay.

An idea of the degradation is shown where a group of the naked young men and women (they are all naked throughout the movie) are shown kneeling down, bums in air, head on the ground to be examined by these perverts by way of a torch being shone where the sun aint supposed to shine to see who has the most beautiful backside!

Nearing the end of the movie we are shown scene after scene of torture and mutilation is shown through the eyes of the 4 perverts who are watching through binoculars at what they have created.  I was just a bit in shock that this movie has been passed at all!  It is without question, the sickest piece of movie making i have had the misfortune to sit through.

The political message was lost on me completely.  It just appeared to be a load of shock elements using the guise as 'art' to get away with as much as they could.

I can't recommend this at all.  In fact I have no idea why anyone would have a desire to watch this or would sit through it all if not for the purpose of a challenge or review... AVOID!

Salo - Will's Review

Wow.

That was without question the most depraved thing I have ever seen; and I include "A Serbian Film" in that.

There was a point in this movie, during the films 3rd segment (it has 4, each given an on screen caption)  that inspired from me I think the biggest reaction I have ever had to a piece of fiction, and I'll get to that in good time; I wasn't very far into the 2nd segment before I was wondering how this film is even legal.

Now, don't get me wrong; I absolutely think it should be legal; I strongly believe that ANY faked activity should be allowed, no matter how offensive I may personally find it, but it is a sad fact that English law does not agree, and we still have an Obscene Publications Act which can be applied to fiction.

In fact once again, as with Week 83's Antichrist,  the prejudices against horror and towards "Art Film" shines through. How this can be passed uncut, while similar scenes were trimmed from week 63's Human Centipede 2, I cannot comprehend.

****SPOILERS****





As I say, the film is split into 4 sections; in the first "Anteinferno", 4 men (referred to only as  duke, magistrate, bishop and  president) agree to marry each others daughters, in order to bind their group together. The daughters are never seen or heard about again. Then the 4 men, along with some soldiers who work for them, abduct 18 young people (9 of each sex). They are then taken to a mansion where the daily routine is explained.

Each day, The 4 men, the soldiers, the prisoners and 4 prostitutes are to gather in the "Orgy Room", Where the prostitutes are to tell depraved tales to 'inspire' the men. The prisoners are then to act out anything that comes to the men's minds. Any disobedience will be punished, and any religious act is punishable by death.

The 2nd part of the film, "The Circle of Manias", is arguable the most depraved (although not the most stomach churning) segment. The prostitutes' stories in this section seem to center mostly around being covered in seamen. The lords' reenactments (thankfully?)  do not follow this pattern; however the way the captives are treated is vile. As well as the rape which is already pretty much a given, they are humiliated and treated as subhuman constantly - not only by the lords and prostitutes, but also by the soldiers. At one point for instance the girls serve a meal to everyone else; they are naked (all of the captives are naked throughout most of the movie), one of the soldiers spits in one of the girls, which causes riotous laughter, she is then raped anally (until the president decides that it's his turn to be sodomized by the offending soldier). later all of the slaves are put on leads and made to act like dogs (during this, one is fed some food into witch a pin has been inserted, with bloody and cringe inducing results).

I can't actually put into words just how offensive the degradation in this segment is... y'all know I'm not easily shocked, but this is truly harrowing. At one point, a girl invokes the name of god, hoping to be killed as per the rules, and is devastated only to have her name added to a book. Throughout the movie, any who resist or break the rules are added to this book.

When the on-screen caption for the next segment is displayed, the viewer instantly knows that they are in trouble, because the 3rd section is called "The Circle of Shit"

The prostitutes stories refer to shit eating, and it isn't long before one of the lords takes a dump on the floor and hands a slave a spoon... suffice to say i threw up in my mouth a little.

The president orders a 'wedding' between 2 of the slaves, the girl is left naked and the boy dressed as a girl. The wedding feast is the most nauseating thing I have ever watched. Huge piles of shit are brought out and served  to everyone. The Lords (and even some of the soldiers) eat the excrement with gusto - so much gusto that it fails to be repelling... it simply looks like what it more than likely is... people eating chocolate mousse. The acting on the part of the 'bride' as he is force fed however, really does sell the stuff as shit. I did actually throw up at this point (a movie watching first for me!).

You know you are in a bad place when the final segment of a movie is called "The Circle of Blood", and you are relieved.

The slaves are interrogated, and one by one turn on each other, revealing rule braking, their names added to the book.

Finally, 3 of the men watch from windows with binoculars, while the Bishop, along with the soldiers, finally kill everyone who made it into the punishment book, by way of branding, hanging, scalping, eye gouging, castration etc.

Overall, it is, as I think I have made clear, the most repugnant movie I have ever seen. I'm glad that it's legally available; I see no reason for any sane person to want to watch (much less enjoy) this movie, but everything in it is faked and consensual, and there is no reason for any "free" society to ban it. "poor taste" is subjective, after all.

That said, as I mentioned in my opening, I get the distinct impression that the only reason it is legally available is that it is somehow supposed top be "artistic", and "well made" (apparently it has something important to say about fascism too). To this, I say "bollocks", "art" is every bit as subjective as "poor taste", and therefore neither is a reason to ban, or allow, anything.

Besides which, the only thing I classed as particularly arty here was the Danté reference in the segment titles.


The political message in non existent - if not for the fact it was set in wartime Italy there would be no reason to even consider fascism  As far as "well made" goes? the very 70's costumes in the wedding scene, along with the oddly grey fake flesh during the torture scenes beg to differ.

Add to all of this that the movie has no real "end" to speak of, and I'd encourage you to stay away. This is one of those that we watched... so you don't have to!