Year: 1967
Reviews / Author Comments due: 11/8/2013
Showing posts with label Previously Banned. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Previously Banned. Show all posts
Wednesday, 7 August 2013
Sunday, 21 April 2013
Week 101: Maniac
Year: 1980
Reviews / Author Comments due: 27/04/2013
Reason for Inclusion: Nasty Era slasher, not passed in the UK until 2001, remains cut to this day.
BBFC Status: Passed with 58s cut in 2002
DVD: Uncut Danish import
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
Saturday, 9 March 2013
Pink Flamingos - Will's Review
It's almost impossible to criticise this film in any conventional manner, Because most of the criticisms that you could level at it are the things it sets out to achieve.
If this were any other film you might complain that it's just as many offensive things as possible strung together; But that is entirely the point of the movie, in fact it was billed as "An exercise in poor taste". Even the terrible overacting seems to be a directorial choice, tailored to the scrip's constant use of hyperbole.
Unfortunately, just because something is deliberate, doesn't make it good, especially as the movie also, quite unintentionally, commits the cardinal sin, the one thing that really is unforgivable in a movie; for much if its runtime, it's dull.
Repulse me, shock me, make me hate you for killing a chicken just to make a movie, but by all that's unholy, please, do not bore me!
The plot, such as it is, is that (drag star) Devine has been named "filthiest person alive" and, due to the attention this brings, gone into hiding with her son, Crackers, her mentally ill egg-obsessed mother, Edith, and her traveling companion, Cotton.
Meanwhile Connie and Raymond Marbles, a couple who kidnap women, impregnate them, sell the babies to lesbian couples, and then loan the money to drugs pushers who operate in elementary schools (!) feel that they are more worthy of the "filthiest people alive" moniker, and set out to destroy Divine.
But really none of that is relevant, it's all an excuse for scenes such as toe sucking, a rape scene involving Crackers, his date and a chicken (the chicken ends up dead, but thankfully still a virgin), a "singing" asshole (a guy who can dilate his anal sphincter at will 'miming'), cannibalism , and the most un-erotic act of felacio you've ever seen; an obese man, playing a woman, sucking the flaccid cock of a man playing her son, punctuated with dialogue like "I want to give you a gift only a living mother can give" and "I want to receive it as a loving son should".
The highlight of the movie, is Edith Massy, Playing Devine's mentally changed, Egg obsessed, playpen dwelling, mother. At times she is so convincing that it gets uncomfortable to watch... If feels like they must be exploiting a genuinely disabled woman*
Finally, when the movie proper is over, there's one final thing; a non-sequitur that's one of the most famous scenes in cult / endurance cinema. I'm almost loathed to say what it is, but at the end if the day, I you're the type of person who's going to seek out an imported copy of a 70's gross-out film you probably already know about it.
Devine eats dig shit.
For real.
In one continuous shot, a little dog takes a dump, and Devine picks it up, pops it in her mouth and eats it; pausing only to flash the camera cinemas most literal shit-eating grin.
For my money though, even though it was fake, the shit eating in Saló is still worse, if only through frequency and volume. (Case in point; I described the Devine scene just with relative ease, but as soon as I began to recall Saló I say here dry-heaving at my keyboard).
I can see that, given the right crowd, the boring moments can probably be he heckled over and forgiven; indeed this movie did find some success on the midnight movies circuit; but at home, alone or with only a small group, it's a really bad movie.
I can't say 'avoid' because there's a lot if stuff that's worth seeing, if only because it's so unique, but unless a local cinema does a midnight revival screening, I can't come close to recommending it either.
I've said it many times, but I definitely like John Waters a LOT more than I like John Waters' movies; midnight screenings aside, give this a miss and track down the movie of his one man show "This Filthy World" instead - his Pink Flamingo anecdotes are wayyy more entertaining than the movie itself.
*I feel I should point out that, while certainly eccentric, Massey is not genuinely challenged in real life.
If this were any other film you might complain that it's just as many offensive things as possible strung together; But that is entirely the point of the movie, in fact it was billed as "An exercise in poor taste". Even the terrible overacting seems to be a directorial choice, tailored to the scrip's constant use of hyperbole.
Unfortunately, just because something is deliberate, doesn't make it good, especially as the movie also, quite unintentionally, commits the cardinal sin, the one thing that really is unforgivable in a movie; for much if its runtime, it's dull.
Repulse me, shock me, make me hate you for killing a chicken just to make a movie, but by all that's unholy, please, do not bore me!
The plot, such as it is, is that (drag star) Devine has been named "filthiest person alive" and, due to the attention this brings, gone into hiding with her son, Crackers, her mentally ill egg-obsessed mother, Edith, and her traveling companion, Cotton.
Meanwhile Connie and Raymond Marbles, a couple who kidnap women, impregnate them, sell the babies to lesbian couples, and then loan the money to drugs pushers who operate in elementary schools (!) feel that they are more worthy of the "filthiest people alive" moniker, and set out to destroy Divine.
But really none of that is relevant, it's all an excuse for scenes such as toe sucking, a rape scene involving Crackers, his date and a chicken (the chicken ends up dead, but thankfully still a virgin), a "singing" asshole (a guy who can dilate his anal sphincter at will 'miming'), cannibalism , and the most un-erotic act of felacio you've ever seen; an obese man, playing a woman, sucking the flaccid cock of a man playing her son, punctuated with dialogue like "I want to give you a gift only a living mother can give" and "I want to receive it as a loving son should".
The highlight of the movie, is Edith Massy, Playing Devine's mentally changed, Egg obsessed, playpen dwelling, mother. At times she is so convincing that it gets uncomfortable to watch... If feels like they must be exploiting a genuinely disabled woman*
Finally, when the movie proper is over, there's one final thing; a non-sequitur that's one of the most famous scenes in cult / endurance cinema. I'm almost loathed to say what it is, but at the end if the day, I you're the type of person who's going to seek out an imported copy of a 70's gross-out film you probably already know about it.
Devine eats dig shit.
For real.
In one continuous shot, a little dog takes a dump, and Devine picks it up, pops it in her mouth and eats it; pausing only to flash the camera cinemas most literal shit-eating grin.
For my money though, even though it was fake, the shit eating in Saló is still worse, if only through frequency and volume. (Case in point; I described the Devine scene just with relative ease, but as soon as I began to recall Saló I say here dry-heaving at my keyboard).
I can see that, given the right crowd, the boring moments can probably be he heckled over and forgiven; indeed this movie did find some success on the midnight movies circuit; but at home, alone or with only a small group, it's a really bad movie.
I can't say 'avoid' because there's a lot if stuff that's worth seeing, if only because it's so unique, but unless a local cinema does a midnight revival screening, I can't come close to recommending it either.
I've said it many times, but I definitely like John Waters a LOT more than I like John Waters' movies; midnight screenings aside, give this a miss and track down the movie of his one man show "This Filthy World" instead - his Pink Flamingo anecdotes are wayyy more entertaining than the movie itself.
*I feel I should point out that, while certainly eccentric, Massey is not genuinely challenged in real life.
Sunday, 3 March 2013
Week 94: Pink Flamingos
Alternate Titles : John Waters' Pink Flamingos
Year: 1972
Reviews / Author Comments due: 9/03/2013
Reason for Inclusion: Successfully prosecuted under the obscene publications act, avoided much attention by unique distribution method: To purchase the film, you had to send payment with a blank video tape, onto which the film would be copied, and sent back with packaging, thus no stock was carried and none could be seized in raids.
BBFC Status: Passed with cuts in 1999 with 2m8s of cuts, offered an uncut 18 in 2008, however the distributors withdrew the application, meaning the 1999 cut version is the strongest version legally available in the UK.
DVD: Uncut R1
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
Saturday, 2 February 2013
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!
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!
Sunday, 27 January 2013
Week 89 - Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom
Alternate Titles : Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma
Year: 1975
Reviews / Author Comments due: 02/02/2013
Reason for Inclusion: Banned for over 20 years, Subject of a police raid when shown at a London cinema club (where BBFC ratings are not required, but obscenity laws still apply)
BBFC Status: Passed uncut in 2000
DVD: LINK
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
Sunday, 13 January 2013
Week 87 - Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III
Year: 1990
Reviews / Author Comments due: 19/01/2013
Reason for Inclusion: Banned in the UK for 14 years
BBFC Status: Passed uncut in 2004
DVD: LINK
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
Sunday, 6 January 2013
Week 86 - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2
Reason for Inclusion: Refused classification in 1990 when distributors would not agree to over 20 mins of cuts.
BBFC Status: Passed uncut in 2001
DVD: LINK
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
Sunday, 30 December 2012
Week 85 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
Alternate Titles : none. but note that the correct spelling has "Chain Saw" as two words (which is wrong) - the sequils and remake all corrected this.
Year: 1974
Reviews / Author Comments due: 05/01/2013
Reason for Inclusion: After being shown in the UK for 1 year with an 'X' rating, it was then banned by the BBFC for over 20 years. it upset the censors so much that the word "Chainsaw" was banned from use in any movie title in the UK for a while.
BBFC Status: Passed uncut in 1999 (reference impossible to find on new look BBFC website)
DVD: LINK
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
Saturday, 29 December 2012
Silent Night, Deadly Night - Lisa's Review
*** SPOILERS ***
I'll be quick this week as we have a house full of lurgy, a migrane ridden husband and a sick child.
I'm torn yet again with what I thought about this weeks movie. I can definately see the appeal to the masses. It's a typical 80's slasher movie. Young boy (Billy) witnesses a tragedy that is the murder of his parents and rape of his mother by a criminal dressed as Santa Claus (who he already has a fear of Santa anyway following a rather sinister conversation with his 'supposedly' catatonic grandfather in a home - who it turns out is far from catatonic). This leaves him and his brother Ricky as orphans. This already warped young mind is further twisted by nuns in the orphanage where he is placed. Evil catholic nuns is a favourite in horrors.
As an adult, for reasons best known to himself, Billy ends up working in a toy store. For a boy/young man who has such a problem with Santa/Christmas its possibly not the best choice of career. Predictably he ends up having to stand in for the store Santa and spends the day scaring the bejezus out of all the kids.
Here Billys killing spress starts after he witnesses the girl he thinks he is in love with that he works with getting off with someone else.. another horror staple for pushing the guy over the edge. There is plenty of opportunity for topless women, another staple.... you can see why I'm not jumping up and down about this one....
What follows is Billy killing lots of people in a variety of ways, including impaling on reindeer antlers which I suppose was one original scene in the movie. We also have a decpaitation, knife stabbing, Axing.
We also have a little twist at the end, which is a must have in this kind of movie. I found it hard to let this one pull me in as it was full of so many cliches and I felt like I'd watched it many times before, even though I know I haven't. I'm not saying it's a terrible movie by any means, I know it will appeal to many people who are fans of this kind of movie. It just didn't do it for me. I don't feel I have completely wasted my time by watching it, yet I don't feel its one I would recommend anyone rush out to see either. It is a typical 80's slasher movie. I suppose there is the additional draw of the seasonal aspect, but I can't see any reason to watch this outside of December.
If you want a no-brainer seasonal horror, by all means, you could do much worse than this one. If you want something good to watch, probably best not bother.
I'll be quick this week as we have a house full of lurgy, a migrane ridden husband and a sick child.
I'm torn yet again with what I thought about this weeks movie. I can definately see the appeal to the masses. It's a typical 80's slasher movie. Young boy (Billy) witnesses a tragedy that is the murder of his parents and rape of his mother by a criminal dressed as Santa Claus (who he already has a fear of Santa anyway following a rather sinister conversation with his 'supposedly' catatonic grandfather in a home - who it turns out is far from catatonic). This leaves him and his brother Ricky as orphans. This already warped young mind is further twisted by nuns in the orphanage where he is placed. Evil catholic nuns is a favourite in horrors.
As an adult, for reasons best known to himself, Billy ends up working in a toy store. For a boy/young man who has such a problem with Santa/Christmas its possibly not the best choice of career. Predictably he ends up having to stand in for the store Santa and spends the day scaring the bejezus out of all the kids.
Here Billys killing spress starts after he witnesses the girl he thinks he is in love with that he works with getting off with someone else.. another horror staple for pushing the guy over the edge. There is plenty of opportunity for topless women, another staple.... you can see why I'm not jumping up and down about this one....
What follows is Billy killing lots of people in a variety of ways, including impaling on reindeer antlers which I suppose was one original scene in the movie. We also have a decpaitation, knife stabbing, Axing.
We also have a little twist at the end, which is a must have in this kind of movie. I found it hard to let this one pull me in as it was full of so many cliches and I felt like I'd watched it many times before, even though I know I haven't. I'm not saying it's a terrible movie by any means, I know it will appeal to many people who are fans of this kind of movie. It just didn't do it for me. I don't feel I have completely wasted my time by watching it, yet I don't feel its one I would recommend anyone rush out to see either. It is a typical 80's slasher movie. I suppose there is the additional draw of the seasonal aspect, but I can't see any reason to watch this outside of December.
If you want a no-brainer seasonal horror, by all means, you could do much worse than this one. If you want something good to watch, probably best not bother.
Silent Night, Deadly Night - Will's Review
I've been threatening to watch this one for about 10 years, but never got around to it until a (self imposed) rule on a blog told me I 'Had' to... I don't know what that says about me, but "I'll watch one day..." it is one of the reasons I decided to start blogging the Video Nasties in the first place, and it great that not only did it work, but it's now continuing to work with non DPP movies!
The premise is simple: Age 5, Ricky sees his parents murdered (and his mother molested) by a man in a Santa suit (an armed robber on the run as it happens, but that's by-the-by). 13 years later, having grown up with a hatred of Christmas, and a dread fear of Santa Clause, he is roped into playing Santa when the grotto-santa at the shop he works at calls in sick; This is enough to push Ricky over the edge and (still suited up) goes on a killing spree.
It's a compliantly made, low budget, post FT13th, 80's slasher, with all that entails; Most of the effects are good enough, though none are great, there are a handful (if you'll pardon the expression of gratuitous scenes of topless young ladies, and the "plot" serves mostly to put victims in the path of Ricky and whatever improvised weapon comes to hand (This may be the only movie, and is almost certainly the first movie, where a killer runs someone through with a pair of antlers).
Characters are often introduced and killed in the same scene; a real pet hate of mine in modern movies (if I don't know the characters, why would I care when they are killed) but that somehow works in 80's slashers (where we care more about the killer and the method they are killed).
Dark humor highlights include Ricky (while still working as a grotto-Santa) quietly threatening a child into sitting quietly, while a group of parents look on admiring how great he is with kids, and the moment where he gives a young girl a bloody knife, after checking that she has been good.
My only real gripe with the movie is Ricky's Grandpa; The movie opens with Ricky and his parents visiting Grandpa in a (very empty) care home. While Mum and Dad are out of the room, Grandpa reveals to Ricky that he is only pretending to be catatonic; then he goes on to (deliberately) scare his grandson by telling him that Santa 'punishes' children if they have done anything naughty all year. This is never mentioned again; I don't know about you, but when I find out that a catatonic person in a movie is faking it, I expext some kind of payoff down the line...
Oh, and Ricky has a younger brother, who literally has no job in the movie until a sequel setup is needed at the end.
So, Grandpa and Little brother aside, I straight up loved this movie; A killer Santa Clause is every bit as much fun as it sounds, and is done here much better than in 1980's Christmas Evil (which, to be fair, didn't have the benefit of coming after the Friday sequels, and therefore had no template to steal).
If you are a fan of 80's slashers, I strongly recommend that you put this one on your letter to Santa for next year, and be good, for goodness sake.
The premise is simple: Age 5, Ricky sees his parents murdered (and his mother molested) by a man in a Santa suit (an armed robber on the run as it happens, but that's by-the-by). 13 years later, having grown up with a hatred of Christmas, and a dread fear of Santa Clause, he is roped into playing Santa when the grotto-santa at the shop he works at calls in sick; This is enough to push Ricky over the edge and (still suited up) goes on a killing spree.
It's a compliantly made, low budget, post FT13th, 80's slasher, with all that entails; Most of the effects are good enough, though none are great, there are a handful (if you'll pardon the expression of gratuitous scenes of topless young ladies, and the "plot" serves mostly to put victims in the path of Ricky and whatever improvised weapon comes to hand (This may be the only movie, and is almost certainly the first movie, where a killer runs someone through with a pair of antlers).
Characters are often introduced and killed in the same scene; a real pet hate of mine in modern movies (if I don't know the characters, why would I care when they are killed) but that somehow works in 80's slashers (where we care more about the killer and the method they are killed).
Dark humor highlights include Ricky (while still working as a grotto-Santa) quietly threatening a child into sitting quietly, while a group of parents look on admiring how great he is with kids, and the moment where he gives a young girl a bloody knife, after checking that she has been good.
My only real gripe with the movie is Ricky's Grandpa; The movie opens with Ricky and his parents visiting Grandpa in a (very empty) care home. While Mum and Dad are out of the room, Grandpa reveals to Ricky that he is only pretending to be catatonic; then he goes on to (deliberately) scare his grandson by telling him that Santa 'punishes' children if they have done anything naughty all year. This is never mentioned again; I don't know about you, but when I find out that a catatonic person in a movie is faking it, I expext some kind of payoff down the line...
Oh, and Ricky has a younger brother, who literally has no job in the movie until a sequel setup is needed at the end.
So, Grandpa and Little brother aside, I straight up loved this movie; A killer Santa Clause is every bit as much fun as it sounds, and is done here much better than in 1980's Christmas Evil (which, to be fair, didn't have the benefit of coming after the Friday sequels, and therefore had no template to steal).
If you are a fan of 80's slashers, I strongly recommend that you put this one on your letter to Santa for next year, and be good, for goodness sake.
Sunday, 23 December 2012
WEEK 84: Silent Night, Deadly Night
Year: 1984
Reviews / Author Comments due: 29/12/2012
Reason for Inclusion: Refused classification in 1987 when the distributors refused to make the required cuts, banned until 2010.
BBFC Status: Passed uncut in 2010
DVD: Here
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
Saturday, 15 December 2012
Freaks - Lisa's Review
*** SPOILERS ***
Here we are on the first week of our 'Beyond Nasty' launch. Fresh from the accomplishment of completing the 72 'Nasties' List, we're pushing on to other movies in a similar vein.
This weeks offering is 'Freaks'. I knew nothing of this movie when I started to watch it, so was surprised that it was made in 1932!! That probably makes it the oldest movie I've ever seen. From a bit of background reading I find out it was made with actual real-life circus performers who had deformations or where seen as 'freaks' at the time. It was commonplace to use makeup and costumes to achieve this look, so the use of real people caused a bit of a furore at the time, consequently leading to its banning for 30 years. I don't see the problem. Surely if you want to see these people as equal to us (which they are), then they should be able to make a bit of money from the situation, rather than a role go to a much less suited actor? Anyways...
I loved the style of this movie. It was indeed very odd, but captivating at the same time. I found the story pulled me right in and kept me transfixed all the way through. It didn't feel like I was watching out of any sort of morbid curiosity, but because the characters were real, the story interesting and I simply wanted to see how it all panned out. Another aspect I loved was the musical score in the movie. It reminded me of really old cartoons.
Our storyline here focuses around Hans, a midget from the circus the movie is set around. He is engaged to an absolutely adorable woman (also a midget) called Frieda. We learn that Hans seems to have a bit of a crush on a normal sized trapeze artist Cleopatra (a nasty cow). For some unknown reason he wants to be with Cleopatra and leaves Frieda for her. Baaaaaaad move for every reason possible. Why you would want to leave a woman like Frieda is anyones guess. Frieda, even after losing her Hans, begs Cleopatra to leave him alone and accidentally lets slip about an inheritance he is coming into. This plants an idea in Cleopatras head and she marries him planning to poison him, pocket his money and live happilly ever after with her boyfriend Hercules, the circus strongman.
The Wedding reception is definately the oddest you would have ever seen. Cleopatra gets rather inebriated and is rude and obnoxious to all the other performers. She openly snogs her boyfriend Hercules at her wedding reception and mocks Hans for getting jealous. The guests however seem to accept her and chant 'One of us, One of us' in a rather menacing way.. along with some gobble gobbling???
What follows is the discovery that Cleopatra is slowly poisoning her husband. She does it for the first time at the reception and proceeds to continue administering poison as she supposedly cares for him and gives him medicine. However another circus performer overhears Cleopatra and Hercules discussing the plot and tells Hans and all the other freaks. They plan revenge! The film culminates in the freaks attacking them, this isn't shown in any real graphic nature, but still manages to be frightening and ominous. I loved the scene of all the 'freaks' closing in one Hercules. Fantastic stuff!
We end the movie going back to a scene that was briefly shown at the start where a circus master is showing a group of punters into a pen where a previously beautiful trapeze artist has been horribly disfigured. We finally get a peek into the pen and see Cleopatra squalking like a bird. She seems to be without legs and has feathers all over her torso. Her face is also disfigured.
The movie ends sadly with Hans in his newly aquired mansion. Frieda comes to see him with 2 of her friends from the circus. He is angry at them for coming to see him and he is still grieving for his situation with Cleopatra. After everything that's happened, the movie ends with Frieda holding Hans as he cries. He doesn't deserve that woman!
I enjoyed this movie. It was poignant, odd, quirky, interesting, moving and different to anything I have ever watched before. I would definately recommend it.
Thumbs up from me.
Freaks - Will's Review
Sadly, the directors cut of Freaks no longer exists; 30 mins or so were cut after a disastrous test screaming... One woman even threatens to sue MGM claiming that the movie caused her to miscarry!
Whether that's why the version that exists today seems a little oddly passed in the middle is hard to say; many films from that era seem to be missing a middle segment (how did they get King Kong back to New York anyway?) so the jump from flirtation to wedding may possibly have always existed.
What we do know that we are missing is an extended 'revenge' sequence, which originally included a castration!
In any case, Freaks, in it 63 min version was STILL banned in the UK for 30 years!
The most striking thing about the movie, is where it's sympathies lay: dislike it's sensationalist title and tag line ("Can a full sized woman ever truly love a MIDGET?") from the opening crawl the film sides firmly with the eponymous sideshow workers.
***Spoilers for an 80 year old movie follow***
The moment when the freaks descend upon Cleopatra remains suspenseful to this day, and it's easy to see why it would have disturbed an audience back when movies were still so young (this was one of the very early 'talkies' remember).
The revenge of turning a woman into a chicken-beast feels slightly at odds with the rest of the movie to me, implying some supernatural ability on the part of the carnies.
Brownings direction is superb, possibly his best (it's a shame then, that this movie all but ended his carrier), the cinematography is superb (although there was no such thing as a DP back then, so browning gets the credit for that too).
The only real problem is the sound; but again, sound design wasn't a thing in 1931 either, so the sound problem is just one if those things that you have to put up with when you watch movies as older than your grandparents.
An excellent and quirky little film, that deserves a watch.
Whether that's why the version that exists today seems a little oddly passed in the middle is hard to say; many films from that era seem to be missing a middle segment (how did they get King Kong back to New York anyway?) so the jump from flirtation to wedding may possibly have always existed.
What we do know that we are missing is an extended 'revenge' sequence, which originally included a castration!
In any case, Freaks, in it 63 min version was STILL banned in the UK for 30 years!
The most striking thing about the movie, is where it's sympathies lay: dislike it's sensationalist title and tag line ("Can a full sized woman ever truly love a MIDGET?") from the opening crawl the film sides firmly with the eponymous sideshow workers.
***Spoilers for an 80 year old movie follow***
The moment when the freaks descend upon Cleopatra remains suspenseful to this day, and it's easy to see why it would have disturbed an audience back when movies were still so young (this was one of the very early 'talkies' remember).
The revenge of turning a woman into a chicken-beast feels slightly at odds with the rest of the movie to me, implying some supernatural ability on the part of the carnies.
Brownings direction is superb, possibly his best (it's a shame then, that this movie all but ended his carrier), the cinematography is superb (although there was no such thing as a DP back then, so browning gets the credit for that too).
The only real problem is the sound; but again, sound design wasn't a thing in 1931 either, so the sound problem is just one if those things that you have to put up with when you watch movies as older than your grandparents.
An excellent and quirky little film, that deserves a watch.
Sunday, 9 December 2012
WEEK 82: Freaks
Alternate Titles : Forbidden Love, Natures Mistakes, Tod Browning's Freaks
Year: 1932
Reviews / Author Comments due: 15/12/2012
Reason for Inclusion: Banned for over 30 years.
BBFC Status: Most recently, passed uncut rated 12 in 2001.
DVD: LINK
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
Saturday, 4 August 2012
Human Centipede 2 - Full Sequence - Lisa's Review
PREVIEW WEEK:
DUE TO WEEK 63's MOVIE (REVENGE OF THE BOOGEYMAN) BEING DELAYED OVER ON OUR MAIN SITE, WE HAVE DECIDED TO KICK OFF "BEYOND NASTY" EARLY WITH A SPECIAL PREVIEW. NORMAL SERVICE WILL RESUME OVER ON VideoNastyAWeek.co.uk UNTIL DECEMBER, WHEN BeyondNasty.co.uk WILL TAKE OVER FULL-TIME.
*** SPOILERS ***
This is a movie that a lot of people will miss, as in my humble opinion, the first offering - Human Centipede - First Sequence, is so monumentally dull, so why on earth would you want to watch the second installment? This movie however is completely different. Ok, so it has the similar premis of the creation of a Human Centipede, but the acting, the way it is shot and the level of violence and nastiness in this waaaay surpasses the original.
I do think however its a movie you'll either really like or hate. I watched it with my husband who thought it was one of the worst things he'd ever seen, however I really enjoyed it. I liked the way it made me feel creeped out and disgusted all the way through. I liked how it made me wrinkle my nose over and over. I also loved the fact I was repelled so vehemently by the movies lead, Martin. It has an unsettling air all the way through, achieved both by the fantastic portrayal of our lead character and the fact it is in Black and White. The movie was originally shot in colour and later transferred, a great move. The blood looks fantastic and it gives the movie a great ominous feel.
So to the premis? Martin is a very sad, sorry little man, with what can only be described as a life that most people would struggle to tolerate . He is middle-aged, short and fat and is truely one of the oddest looking human beings I have ever seen. He lives with his completely crazy and suicidal mother who hates him and makes this very clear. She blames him for the imprisonment of her husband (Martins father) who abused Martin as a child. He was also abused by his family doctor, a very creepy, nasty character. That perhaps will give some kind of indication of what we are working with. Martin seemed to have some kind of learning difficulty or slow nature to me. I could be wrong in that assumption, but he didn't seem the full shilling. A little more than a bit odd.
Martin, with everything he has to contend with is obviously a very mixed up individual. He is obsessed with the first Centipede movie (First Sequence) and has put together a very detailed scrapbook on the subject and keeps a pet centipede which he seems to love above everything else.
The movie follows Martin abducting several people at his workplace (conveniently a secluded carpark), cracking them over the head rather viciously and bringing them to a warehouse he has aquired by killing its owner. He ends up with 12 victims, rather more than the original 3 in the first movie. Amongst the victims are the actress from the original movie and a heavilly pregnant woman.
We watch Martin setting to assembling his greatest creation - A 12 person Human Centipede. Obviously the first movie contained surgical precision and everything was neat and tidy. Martin is far from precise. He cuts the tendons in all of the victims knees to prevent them from running off and knocks their teeth out with a hammer. This part is completely cringeworthy and very well done. Great effects and noises, made me wince over and over. He cuts into the backsides of all the victims with dirty knives and staples and duct tapes them to the mouths of the next person in the line. I just realised I am writing this assuming anyone reading has watched the first movie and knows what the human centipede is... for anyone who doesn't, this picture should hopefully shed some light.
This is achieved by some clever scalpel work and stitching the anus of the first victim to the mouth of the second and so on... As I said, Martin had no aspect of surgical precision about his attempts, which made the process all the more horrific.
Two individuals die in the preparation section, so Martin ends up with a 10 person centipede with the actress from the original movie at the front. He sets to force feeding her soup with a funnel and then injecting all the victims with laxatives forcing them all to expel the contents of their bowels into the mouths of the person behind them. Martin is ecstatic at the spectacle but ends up vomiting from the stench of the excrement. He also seems quite excited by it all and is running about in rather disgusting underwear with just a lab-coat on top. In one of the strangest sexual perversions I've ever seen, he wraps 'himself' in barbed wire and rapes the woman at the back of the centipede. A very uncomfortable scene.
While all this is going on, one of the victims who we presumed dead from before the centipede was put together (the pregnant woman) revives and makes her escape to a car outside, but the horror of the experience has brought on labour and she gives birth in the drivers seat. The newborn drops to the floor and as she slams her foot on the accelerator, she crushes the babys head. I did feel quite disturbed by that, but then that's an odd statement from a person who has just sat and watched what came before. I just feel maybe that bit wasn't needed, but it certainly did add another level of depravity.
While Martin is outside trying to capture the pregnant woman (who got away incidentally... wonder will the child-killing cow be in the 3rd one?), the centipede has managed to split into 2 pieces. Martin sets about killing them all with a gun. He moves onto slitting their throats when he runs out of ammunition, so they all knew what was coming.. horrid! He seems unsure about killing the actress at the front of the chain. His hesitation would be of consequence with a piece of uncharacteristic quick thinking from the actress as she uses the funnel Martin force fed her with to send his pet centipede up his backside (he had it with him in a jar which broke). Although in agony, Martin manages to stab her in the face before he leaves.
Unbelievably the movie ends with Martin sat back in his little booth at work watching the first 'Human Centipede' movie looking as if nothing has happened. We're left to our own thoughts and wondering whether or not it actually happened. I'm going with, no. It was just a fantasy.
Wierd, disturbing little movie, but well worth a watch if you like sick movies. Gets a recommended from me!
Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence - Will's Review
PREVIEW WEEK:
DUE TO WEEK 63's MOVIE (REVENGE OF THE BOOGEYMAN) BEING DELAYED OVER ON OUR MAIN SITE, WE HAVE DECIDED TO KICK OFF "BEYOND NASTY" EARLY WITH A SPECIAL PREVIEW. NORMAL SERVICE WILL RESUME OVER ON VideoNastyAWeek.co.uk UNTIL DECEMBER, WHEN BeyondNasty.co.uk WILL TAKE OVER FULL-TIME.
I'm not a fan of the first Human Centipede, not for any taste reasons (obviously - look at the sites I write for) but because I found it to be very dull - sure, it had a gross / funny / interesting central concept, but once you get there, there isn't much else for the movie top do / say.
That said, the second the BBFC said that they were refusing it classification outright (A possibly the later reversed after over 2 mins of cuts) I knew that I HAD to see it (and that it HAD to be the first review on VNAW's sister site).
I'm pleased to announce that this is not only a much more depraved movie than the original, It's also a much better one - everything from the story, to the acting, to the cinematography is a vast improvement. I do feel that the decision to film in black and white (or rather, to release in B&W - the movie was filmed in colour then converted) was a little pretentious, but that said, it may have been impossible to stomach in colour!
This time around, the movie uses the old trick of being set in "our world" - the first 'Human Centipede' was only a movie, and our (for want of a better word) 'hero' (Martin) is obsessed with it; watching it several times a day, keeping a scrap-book on it, even owning a real pet centipede.
Of course, his real dream is to build a real "Human Centipede" - Not with 3 segments (like Dr Heiter); but with 12 (oh, and to wrap his penis in barbed wire and have sex with said centipede).
Unfortunately for his 12 victims (including Ashlynn Yennie, 'Jenny' from the first movie, here playing herself), he is no surgeon. Where Heiter had Aesthetic, an operating room, and surgical experience and know-how, Martin has a hammer to the back of the head, A grubby warehouse, gaffer tape and a stapler!
DUE TO WEEK 63's MOVIE (REVENGE OF THE BOOGEYMAN) BEING DELAYED OVER ON OUR MAIN SITE, WE HAVE DECIDED TO KICK OFF "BEYOND NASTY" EARLY WITH A SPECIAL PREVIEW. NORMAL SERVICE WILL RESUME OVER ON VideoNastyAWeek.co.uk UNTIL DECEMBER, WHEN BeyondNasty.co.uk WILL TAKE OVER FULL-TIME.
I'm not a fan of the first Human Centipede, not for any taste reasons (obviously - look at the sites I write for) but because I found it to be very dull - sure, it had a gross / funny / interesting central concept, but once you get there, there isn't much else for the movie top do / say.
That said, the second the BBFC said that they were refusing it classification outright (A possibly the later reversed after over 2 mins of cuts) I knew that I HAD to see it (and that it HAD to be the first review on VNAW's sister site).
I'm pleased to announce that this is not only a much more depraved movie than the original, It's also a much better one - everything from the story, to the acting, to the cinematography is a vast improvement. I do feel that the decision to film in black and white (or rather, to release in B&W - the movie was filmed in colour then converted) was a little pretentious, but that said, it may have been impossible to stomach in colour!
This time around, the movie uses the old trick of being set in "our world" - the first 'Human Centipede' was only a movie, and our (for want of a better word) 'hero' (Martin) is obsessed with it; watching it several times a day, keeping a scrap-book on it, even owning a real pet centipede.
Of course, his real dream is to build a real "Human Centipede" - Not with 3 segments (like Dr Heiter); but with 12 (oh, and to wrap his penis in barbed wire and have sex with said centipede).
Unfortunately for his 12 victims (including Ashlynn Yennie, 'Jenny' from the first movie, here playing herself), he is no surgeon. Where Heiter had Aesthetic, an operating room, and surgical experience and know-how, Martin has a hammer to the back of the head, A grubby warehouse, gaffer tape and a stapler!
In the midst of all the blood snot and shit, one scene did make me laugh out loud - I'll not spoil it; but look out for Martin taking a second out of his day to interact with the toddler he orphaned...
As is usually the case, I'd recommend that you go for the uncut version, although it does appear to be missing one thing that the cut version has - apparently, following the administration of some powerful laxatives, Director Tom Six adds a "splash" of colour (think along the lines of a scatological version the red coat from Schindler's List). I watched the appropriate part 3 times, but I never spotted it :(
FUN FACT: The role of Martin was originally a speaking part, but actor Laurence R. Harvey kept forgetting to speak during rehearsal - The director liked it so much he edited the script and took all of Martin's dialogue out.
BEST MOMENT: Martin 'talking' to the toddler
WORST MOMENT: Ambiguous ending.
Wednesday, 1 August 2012
WEEK 63(b): Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence
PREVIEW WEEK:
DUE TO WEEK 63's MOVIE (REVENGE OF THE BOOGEYMAN) BEING DELAYED OVER ON OUR MAIN SITE, WE HAVE DECIDED TO KICK OFF "BEYOND NASTY" EARLY WITH A SPECIAL PREVIEW. NORMAL SERVICE WILL RESUME OVER ON VideoNastyAWeek.co.uk UNTIL DECEMBER, WHEN BeyondNasty.co.uk WILL TAKE OVER FULL-TIME.
Year: 2011
Reviews / Author Comments due: 4/8/12
Reason for Inclusion: Initially banned by the BBFC, before being passed with 2 minutes and 37 seconds of cuts.
DVD: UK Version remains cut, but a loophole in classification laws means that an uncut version may be legally downloaded from Bounty Films.
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
Sunday, 9 October 2011
WEEK 21: SHOCKTOBER SPECIAL: Xtro
NOTE: In honour of Halloween, We're taking a break from the DPP list.
This weeks movie was selected because (although it never made the list) it was often seized by the police during DPP raids, and is often mistakenly listed as a "Video Nasty".
This weeks movie was selected because (although it never made the list) it was often seized by the police during DPP raids, and is often mistakenly listed as a "Video Nasty".
Alternate Titles : X-tro, Monstromo
Reviews / Author Comments due: 15/10/11
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)