Showing posts with label Island. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Island. Show all posts
Saturday, 6 April 2013
Who Can Kill a Child - Will's Review
This weeks movie opens with 8 minutes of disturbing real-life footage (concentration camps, victims of Korean and Vietnam wars ect. ) all captioned to remind us how badly children suffer during such things. Grim stuff.
Then we cut to a happy beach scene... Where a dead woman washes ashore - having apparently been stabbed repeatedly, including in her thighs.
This is clearly the feel-good family movie of the year!
Before long we meet out protagonists, holidaying English couple Tom and Evelyn, who have left their first 2 kids at home (the 3rd is still in Evelyn's belly) in order to visit a small island that Tom visited as a child. This island is so small it isn't on the map, yet our stars have decided to leave both the hiring of a boat, and indeed clarifying the exact location of the island, until they arrive at the nearest coastal town in mainland Spain.
You'd think that having gone to the effort of having them spend a day in said town, there would be some kind of payoff to relying on a stranger to point to the bit of the map that should contain the island; but, no, they get there just fine.
Upon arrival the town appears to be deserted but for a handful of children, and it isn't long before we find out why - the children seem to have taken a homicidal dislike to adults.
For some reason, long after Tom starts to realise what is going on, he continues to insist to his wife that the adults have probably just gone to a festival at the next town over, and that everything is fine; Unfathomably, even having seen a girl kill an old man, and then watching the local children use the body as a piñata, he still has his pregnant wife stay the night!
Eventually, they realise that they really are going to have to leave, for reasons I cannot fathom it is only then that they become a target for the children.
The title if the movie is a question asked within the narrative... Apparently the reason the children have been so successful in their adultcide is because no-one can bring themselves to kill a child.
Luckily, Tom is a little more pragmatic than the natives, and has no problem offing the little fuckers once it becomes obvious that its then or him. Evelyn, in the other hand, had me screaming abuse at the screen on more than one occasion.
Sadly, there's also a supernatural element that the film REALLY didn't need - upon finding a small group of
'Normal' children, we see that the desire to kill adults can be passed on by making eye contact (which isn't even the silliest example of the 'infection' spreading in the movie).
At times, I was reminded of the Village / Children of the Damned movies, so it wasn't a shock to see that this movie has also been released as 'Island of the Damned'
I did enjoy the movie, particularly the rather dark ending (the dramatic ending, not the 'sting' which relies too much on the supernatural element) but it does have some fairly major faults; that said, the acting is solid enough, and I did have fun watching it, therefore I will give this one a 'Will Recommends' ... But only just.
Who Can Kill a Child - Lisa's Review
*** SPOILERS ***
I read the title of this weeks movie and right away got completely the wrong idea about what sort of movie this was going to be. Since becoming a mum, I find any kind of child murder/torture pretty near impossible to watch, so I worried how I'd manage with this one. However, it seems I was wrong about the plot line here.
The first 5-10 minutes of the movie were very, very difficult for me to watch, even moreso because it is real documentary footage of atrocities including World War 2, Vietnam and several famines. This footage is horrid! Not anything I haven't seen before and something we should never forget, but it's still difficult to watch none-the-less. The footage concentrates on the effects on the children and gives the scarilly high number of deaths in these atrocities which can be attributed to being kids. I've always found footage like this difficult, obviously because we know its real, but since becoming a mother, any kind of footage involving children is guaranteed to start me off. Make it real and you have one depressed young lady on your hands. The footage is interspersed throughout with an eerie soundtrack of children singing. The tune will probably stay in my head for weeks to come (along with some of those images). The point? To get through to the viewer what children have been put through over the years down to us adults. The biggest victim is always the children. Who's to say they won't have had enough of it being that way some day... and so to the premis of our movie.
The first 10 minutes and this footage seems to be the reason for the on and off of the DPP list. It really isn't required to 'get' the movie, but it certainly adds strength to the premis.
When the documentary footage stops, we are transported to Spain where some sort of festival seems to be taking place. There are pinatas and celebration everywhere, so much so that our stars and holidaying British couple (Tom & Evelyn) are unable to find an empty hotel to book into. Cue the recommendation of a small island closeby which is nice and quiet, which is exactly what they're looking for as Evelyn is heavilly pregnant and in need of a quiet break.
When they get to the island it is clear there is something amiss. It appears to be deserted. It later transpires that the island is in fact inhabited by children. There is the occasional adult, but that's at their own peril. It seems that these kids seek to do away with the adults in the world. If this is due to atrocities children have had to tolerate for years at the hands of adults, I'm not sure, but that's the way we're supposed to look at it.
I won't go into minute detail about what happens as this is actually a really decent movie and one which I heartilly recommend anyone reading this watch. Needless to say there are deaths. The evil nature of the children is quite shocking. They enjoy playing with their own human pinata a bit too much for my liking.
What it comes down to quite simply is.. to save yourself, could you kill a child? In this instance, given what evil little b*stards they are, most definately!
One aspect of the movie which I didn't like is the fact that there is a supernatural element which really was not needed. It seemed if the children make eye contact with a normal child, they are able to 'change them' to be the same way. I suppose they needed some way to make the baby inside Evelyn evil enough to attack her from inside. A bit of attention and belly rubbing from one of the island girls was enough to manage that.
I won't give away the ending or say any more about anything that happens, but this was really easy to watch, had a nice tension throughout, didn't drag and had solid performances from all involved. There were some inconsistencies and oversights which can be forgiven, but all in all, I enjoyed this one.
Gets a recommended from me.
I read the title of this weeks movie and right away got completely the wrong idea about what sort of movie this was going to be. Since becoming a mum, I find any kind of child murder/torture pretty near impossible to watch, so I worried how I'd manage with this one. However, it seems I was wrong about the plot line here.
The first 5-10 minutes of the movie were very, very difficult for me to watch, even moreso because it is real documentary footage of atrocities including World War 2, Vietnam and several famines. This footage is horrid! Not anything I haven't seen before and something we should never forget, but it's still difficult to watch none-the-less. The footage concentrates on the effects on the children and gives the scarilly high number of deaths in these atrocities which can be attributed to being kids. I've always found footage like this difficult, obviously because we know its real, but since becoming a mother, any kind of footage involving children is guaranteed to start me off. Make it real and you have one depressed young lady on your hands. The footage is interspersed throughout with an eerie soundtrack of children singing. The tune will probably stay in my head for weeks to come (along with some of those images). The point? To get through to the viewer what children have been put through over the years down to us adults. The biggest victim is always the children. Who's to say they won't have had enough of it being that way some day... and so to the premis of our movie.
The first 10 minutes and this footage seems to be the reason for the on and off of the DPP list. It really isn't required to 'get' the movie, but it certainly adds strength to the premis.
When the documentary footage stops, we are transported to Spain where some sort of festival seems to be taking place. There are pinatas and celebration everywhere, so much so that our stars and holidaying British couple (Tom & Evelyn) are unable to find an empty hotel to book into. Cue the recommendation of a small island closeby which is nice and quiet, which is exactly what they're looking for as Evelyn is heavilly pregnant and in need of a quiet break.
When they get to the island it is clear there is something amiss. It appears to be deserted. It later transpires that the island is in fact inhabited by children. There is the occasional adult, but that's at their own peril. It seems that these kids seek to do away with the adults in the world. If this is due to atrocities children have had to tolerate for years at the hands of adults, I'm not sure, but that's the way we're supposed to look at it.
I won't go into minute detail about what happens as this is actually a really decent movie and one which I heartilly recommend anyone reading this watch. Needless to say there are deaths. The evil nature of the children is quite shocking. They enjoy playing with their own human pinata a bit too much for my liking.
What it comes down to quite simply is.. to save yourself, could you kill a child? In this instance, given what evil little b*stards they are, most definately!
One aspect of the movie which I didn't like is the fact that there is a supernatural element which really was not needed. It seemed if the children make eye contact with a normal child, they are able to 'change them' to be the same way. I suppose they needed some way to make the baby inside Evelyn evil enough to attack her from inside. A bit of attention and belly rubbing from one of the island girls was enough to manage that.
I won't give away the ending or say any more about anything that happens, but this was really easy to watch, had a nice tension throughout, didn't drag and had solid performances from all involved. There were some inconsistencies and oversights which can be forgiven, but all in all, I enjoyed this one.
Gets a recommended from me.
Saturday, 22 September 2012
Twitch of the Death Nerve - Will's Review
Not quite a slasher (misses one of the essential ingredients) but defiantly an influence on the slashers that would follow (parts of this movie would be remade virtually shot for shot a decade later in 'Friday the 13th part II') Twitch of the Death Nerve is an important and interesting film, if only from a historical point of view.
Opening with 2 kills, and with a kill on average every 10 mins thereafter, I can't quite decide if I was entertained; but it was impossible to be board...
Opening with 2 kills, and with a kill on average every 10 mins thereafter, I can't quite decide if I was entertained; but it was impossible to be board...
Saturday, 28 April 2012
Island of Death - Will's Review
Well, I'll say one thing for this - It was indeed a Nasty.
Not all that graphic, but look at this checklist: Rape, Male Rape,Golden Showers, a 50-year old nude, bestiality, someone gets nailed to the floor and made to drink paint, stabbings, shootings, beheading via heavy machinery, limestone burns, incest, racism, homophobia, drugs, hanging, water sports (and I don't mean surfing), strangulation, public sex, goat slaughter... It's like they were trying to piss of the censors!
Oh. and the thing that really cracks me up; this one briefly got (accidentally) removed from the list, after someone watched "Who can Kill A Child" (Alternate title "The Island of Death") and though that was this!
The Plot involves a British, Christopher and Celia couple visiting an island in Greece, one which Christopher especially approves of due to its high number of churches and presumed Godly people. The couple (again, mainly Christopher) decides to cleanse the island of its ungodly - Those they deem perverts, such as Drug addicts, homosexuals, people who have the audacity to flirt with the Celia after being explicitly told she is single...
Oddly though, their righteous attitude doesn't come from a very pure place; They have sex in a phone box, and phone his mother to tell her what they are doing, they often seduce their victims before offing them, and they photograph their crimes and masturbate to the pictures - it is even Christopher who preforms the above mentioned goat rape! In short, they are not so much righteous, as messed up.
They mention having done similar in London, and are tracked and followed by a man who suspects them to be killers (is he a cop? We never find out) - this for me was the films biggest letdown, I wanted to know more of the backstory; why are they like this? Who is the guy following them? Why does Christopher think that red books bring him luck - This feels like a sequel rather than a stand alone movie.
All that said, although It could have been gorier, some of the kills here are pretty unique, and if you're after an intro to video nasties, you could do a lot worse!
Body Count: 9
Boob Count: 6 Pairs
Animal Body Count: 1
Most memorable Death: Jus' hangin' out on a rented plane...
Please use the comments bellow only to comment on this post - to write your own review, please comment on the main post for this movie.
Not all that graphic, but look at this checklist: Rape, Male Rape,Golden Showers, a 50-year old nude, bestiality, someone gets nailed to the floor and made to drink paint, stabbings, shootings, beheading via heavy machinery, limestone burns, incest, racism, homophobia, drugs, hanging, water sports (and I don't mean surfing), strangulation, public sex, goat slaughter... It's like they were trying to piss of the censors!
Oh. and the thing that really cracks me up; this one briefly got (accidentally) removed from the list, after someone watched "Who can Kill A Child" (Alternate title "The Island of Death") and though that was this!
The Plot involves a British, Christopher and Celia couple visiting an island in Greece, one which Christopher especially approves of due to its high number of churches and presumed Godly people. The couple (again, mainly Christopher) decides to cleanse the island of its ungodly - Those they deem perverts, such as Drug addicts, homosexuals, people who have the audacity to flirt with the Celia after being explicitly told she is single...
Oddly though, their righteous attitude doesn't come from a very pure place; They have sex in a phone box, and phone his mother to tell her what they are doing, they often seduce their victims before offing them, and they photograph their crimes and masturbate to the pictures - it is even Christopher who preforms the above mentioned goat rape! In short, they are not so much righteous, as messed up.
They mention having done similar in London, and are tracked and followed by a man who suspects them to be killers (is he a cop? We never find out) - this for me was the films biggest letdown, I wanted to know more of the backstory; why are they like this? Who is the guy following them? Why does Christopher think that red books bring him luck - This feels like a sequel rather than a stand alone movie.
All that said, although It could have been gorier, some of the kills here are pretty unique, and if you're after an intro to video nasties, you could do a lot worse!
Body Count: 9
Boob Count: 6 Pairs
Animal Body Count: 1
Most memorable Death: Jus' hangin' out on a rented plane...
Please use the comments bellow only to comment on this post - to write your own review, please comment on the main post for this movie.
Saturday, 4 June 2011
Anthropophagous - Lisa's Review
So on to week 2 of the 'Video Nasty a week', which is Anthropophagus. Maybe I should have watched this one first as this is supposedly the prequel to the one I watched first (Absurd). Thankfully there is no link to the stories. The only thing which ties them together is the lead character and given that he dies in this movie, his appearance in the next movie is obviously a clear enough indication it is not a follow-on.
I was disappointed with the first film in my list, but this one was actually not too bad. Given that it was the earlier movie, I was quite surprised by how much better the blood, gore and general feel of this movie is.
The acting, although poor in places is satisfactory (it is a video nasty after-all so don't expect any Oscar winning performances) I didn't feel myself cringe at the awfulness of the music, acting or anything to be honest. It did have an ominous, creepy feel in places which I liked. To me, whether or not I enjoy a movie has a lot to do with how it physically makes me feel while i'm watching it and whether or not I dwell on it afterwards. I liked how this one made me feel, but it certainly didn't have any scenes that I can say would stay with me.
The storyline is strong and keeps you interested as it progresses. It makes sense and all ties together quite nicely. Normal movie fans could watch this one quite easilly as there is honestly nothing shocking or nasty in this movie. The bad guy is excellent and perfectly cast. He was one of the few positive things about Absurd.
The gore is nothing more horrific than you would expect in any horror movie. The scene which got this movie banned (a scene where the lead character removes and eats a human foetus) is very brief and not at all shocking to be honest. Turns out the realism of the skinned rabbit used for this scene caused some viewers to feel the movie makers had actually got their hands on a real life dead foetus.... nice!
The movie is dated as you would expect, but it is watchable and somewhat enjoyable. If you are looking for gore, to be disgusted or to see something horrific, then probably best not to waste your time. If you're interested in watching an easy enough little movie with some slightly messy scenes, then fire away with this one.
Not at all bad or to be laughed at. Much superior to his sequel. Overall I would give this one a 5/10.
Please use the comments below only to comment on this post - to write your own review, please comment on the "Reader Reviews" post for this movie.
Anthropophagous - Will's Reviews
***Spoilers throughout***
When I first wrote up the viewing reschedule for this project; I decided that alphabetical order was the best way to avoid missing any of the films, but that left "Absurd" (AKA "Anthropophagous 2") before this film, however a quick background check told me that the two movies are entirly unrelated - and they are; which is wierd when you consider that both are from the same director, the same writer, and star the same guy, playing a(n entirly different) madman from Greece.
In this movie he plays an insane cannibal with a bad complexion, but no special powers, where as in the 'Sequel' he plays a killer (but not cannibal) with remarkable healing abilities.
Also bear in mind that one title for "Absurd / Anthropophagous 2" was "Zombie 6" ("Zombie" was the italian title for "Day of the Dead") so it's worth bearing in mind that 'MOVIE YOU KNOW PART X' means very little in the world of low budget Italian horror.
In this movie he plays an insane cannibal with a bad complexion, but no special powers, where as in the 'Sequel' he plays a killer (but not cannibal) with remarkable healing abilities.
Also bear in mind that one title for "Absurd / Anthropophagous 2" was "Zombie 6" ("Zombie" was the italian title for "Day of the Dead") so it's worth bearing in mind that 'MOVIE YOU KNOW PART X' means very little in the world of low budget Italian horror.
If you went into this movie completely blind, you could be forgiven for assuming at first that it was a Jaws rippoff; The film opens with a couple (with an adorable old dog!) on an abandoned beach, She makes for the water, while he settles down with headphones, not watching her, while she swims out to a small moored boat, it isn't long before we get shots like this:
See what I mean?
When she gets dragged under, the unknowing viewer (an by "Unknowing" I mean "Hasn't seen the video box, much less found out that 'Anthropophagous' is Greek for 'Cannibal') could still carry on in their sharky assumptions.
When the guy gets an axe to the head however, It becomes apparent that the killer in this movie is a bit less water-bound than everyone's favourite killer shark.
The fate of this chap is left unknown
Then, things slow down for a bit as we meet our fodder main characters (6 friends, and a new girl) and actually spend a good half hour getting to know the group, so that we stand a chance of caring about them (Nothing ruins a large group of victims faster than a lack of introduction - leaving us confused as to how the group slot together when they start getting bumped off).
The group meet the new girl, by the way, in the most absurdly polite sequence ever caught on film:
The group meet the new girl, by the way, in the most absurdly polite sequence ever caught on film:
Mental! -So, they agree to give her a lift in their boat, and even this sleezebag isn't enough to make her rethink it and just take the new camera:
shudder
Anyway, the new girl needs a lift to a particular island, where she is to keep a 15 year old girl company in exchange for a free holiday (!), and since our gang don't have a particular itinerary, they decide to visit said island themselves.
When they arrive, the island turns out to be practically deserted, save for a few bodies dotted around (The bodies look mummified to me, but our heroes claim they appear 'devoured'), and a nice little mystery unfolds about where everyone is, who has done this, and why?
One thing that isn't explained (or rather is, but not very well) is how our killer came to be a porridge-faced monster who seemingly can't look at a human being without having to eat it. an explanation is given (in flashback) but...
The gore was much better (although still limited) in this than in it's sequel (which makes no sense - I can only assume the second film had a smaller budget), but that said, it's still hard, though jaded post-Saw/Hostel eyes, to see why this movie was on the DPP list, much less what a jury found so offensive that the movie was prosecuted.
Well, actually I think I know exactly why it was on the list (though still not why it was prosecuted) - The video box-art for one (Which, by the way, is a massive spoiler) and the scene where the killer reaches up a pregnant woman's skirt, bulls out the feotus and starts to eat it! This scene looks, to me at least, laughably fake; while the 'feotus' is clearly a whole, dead something it is equal clear that it has never been human (Wikipedia says it's a skinned rabbit). This was not enough to prevent a panic; It was reported in the news (even by the BBC) that this was a genuine "snuff" moment.
Unlike "Absurd", George Eastman (Who, incidentally, also wrote and produced both movies) isn't the only one bothering to act this time out - The whole cast give solid enough performances, and the voice actors have made the wise choice of going for a decent delivery, at the expense of perfect lip-sync (In Absurd the lip-sync was so good that it was hard to believe at times that the cast weren't genuinely speaking English, but in fitting the words to the actors mouths, all cadence was lost.)
So, despite the ribbing I've given the film, I actually quite enjoyed it - it's a reasonable 70's horror movie, that these days you would expect to pass uncut with no problems, the story is a little thin, but to be fair it has more of a plot than, say, Halloween (which I love), so story is demonstrably not the biggest concern in a decent slasher movie. Over all I'd say it was a little better than Absurd, and once again, not a bed way to kill 90 or so minutes
When they arrive, the island turns out to be practically deserted, save for a few bodies dotted around (The bodies look mummified to me, but our heroes claim they appear 'devoured'), and a nice little mystery unfolds about where everyone is, who has done this, and why?
One thing that isn't explained (or rather is, but not very well) is how our killer came to be a porridge-faced monster who seemingly can't look at a human being without having to eat it. an explanation is given (in flashback) but...
If you want to see what single event can turn a relatively normal
man into a flesh-crazed demon-lookin' dude, play this clip:
The gore was much better (although still limited) in this than in it's sequel (which makes no sense - I can only assume the second film had a smaller budget), but that said, it's still hard, though jaded post-Saw/Hostel eyes, to see why this movie was on the DPP list, much less what a jury found so offensive that the movie was prosecuted.
Well, actually I think I know exactly why it was on the list (though still not why it was prosecuted) - The video box-art for one (Which, by the way, is a massive spoiler) and the scene where the killer reaches up a pregnant woman's skirt, bulls out the feotus and starts to eat it! This scene looks, to me at least, laughably fake; while the 'feotus' is clearly a whole, dead something it is equal clear that it has never been human (Wikipedia says it's a skinned rabbit). This was not enough to prevent a panic; It was reported in the news (even by the BBC) that this was a genuine "snuff" moment.
Unlike "Absurd", George Eastman (Who, incidentally, also wrote and produced both movies) isn't the only one bothering to act this time out - The whole cast give solid enough performances, and the voice actors have made the wise choice of going for a decent delivery, at the expense of perfect lip-sync (In Absurd the lip-sync was so good that it was hard to believe at times that the cast weren't genuinely speaking English, but in fitting the words to the actors mouths, all cadence was lost.)
So, despite the ribbing I've given the film, I actually quite enjoyed it - it's a reasonable 70's horror movie, that these days you would expect to pass uncut with no problems, the story is a little thin, but to be fair it has more of a plot than, say, Halloween (which I love), so story is demonstrably not the biggest concern in a decent slasher movie. Over all I'd say it was a little better than Absurd, and once again, not a bed way to kill 90 or so minutes
Human Body Count: 10.5
Animal Body Count: 1 (probably)
Boobs: 1 (single)
Most memorable death: Foetus Eating(!)
Please use the comments bellow only to comment on this post - to write your own review, please comment on the "Reader Reviews" post for this movie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)