A familiar title this week. I vaguely remember watching a bit of this one years ago. I didn't quite remember what happened though, but that's nothing unusual with my memory. I had convinced myself that it was a really good movie because there had to be some reason that the title stuck in my head. Having watched it again, I suddenly remember both why the title stuck in my head and why I didn't remember much about it. Quite simply I didn't get to the end of it first time and struggled in a big way this time.
So, the premise? We follow Henry (Michael Rooker) and a prison buddy friend of his Otis (Tom Towles) and their wierd, somewhat uncomfortable friendship. Another major player is Otis's sister Becky (Tracy Arnold) who seems to have a strange fascination with Henry, even after being let into the secret that Henry killed his mother.
We follow Henry & Otis as they travel down the slippery slope of depravity and murder. They kill purely for the kicks, just because they feel like it. There is nothing to gain from it. They will kill anyone, man or woman. As Henry advises, they don't want to go for the same type of person every time and provide the police with a MO. As the movie progresses Becky grows closer to Henry, maybe because she came from such a depraved home. She may be transfixed by Henry, but she has a naivety about her and sadly she just seems to be one of those girls who gets shit upon over and over in life. Her story was very moving and sad to watch.
Now to why I'm not a fan. Maybe this is unfair... it probably is, but I found watching this movie SO uncomfortable, I didn't want to inflict my eyeballs with it any more. I literally had to FORCE myself to sit through the last half of the movie. Maybe that's a testament as to how good the movie is or how well it did its job, but the sheer nastiness of some of the scenes is just hard to stomach for me. It is filmed with such a dreariness and grittiness it adds to the whole utter hopelessness I felt watching it. The movie is just so..... grey and depressing. Henry & Otis give absolutely no thought as to what they are doing, what they are putting people through, that it made my stomach turn.
There is one particular scene which involved a family which made me deeply angry and disgusted. I won't go into detail. If I were actually to try to explain it to you, no words could convey the scene for me, as it sounds quite lame when written down, but for me it was too much. They say everyone has their limits and this scene is quite close to it for me. I don't tend to feel revulsion and disgust when watching gore for some odd reason... maybe I can distance myself from it as it's usually so removed from reality. This movie though is very close to the truth.
After having watched the movie, the simple thought that people exist who are like Henry or Otis, fills me with revulsion and anger. They simply don't deserve to draw breath. There are few movies with a similar premise that manage to convey the depths to which some people will stoop in the pursuit of 'feeling something' or 'scratching an itch'. Maybe I should be singing this movies praises for making me feel this way, but I feel like a need a wash after having watched it, so I simply can't.
If you want to watch a truely nasty, horrible movie, then this is for you. Sadly it most definately wasn't for me.
Showing posts with label Rape. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rape. Show all posts
Saturday, 4 January 2014
Friday, 27 December 2013
Martin (1978) Review - Lisa's Review
I've had a veritable plethora of emotions surrounding this movie. First off, I read the title and the year and was resigned that we were back to the old days of dated, old rubbish. I looked a bit closer and saw it was a Romero movie. It also has a part for Tom Savini, which seems to be a given in Romero movies. I thought it was maybe a good omen as most other movies which have similar statistics were quite good.
After I watched the movie I had a look at some reviews to see how my viewpoint rated. Seems like I was watching something entirely different than the vast majority of reviewers. I read everything from "It's my favourite vampire movie" to "A wonderful modern day vampire story" to "One of Romeros best".
So I come right out and say it, I thought this movie was terrible. The lead actor who played Martin (John Amplas) was repugnant in his attitude, expressions, way he carried himself... he just felt repellant to me. Surely this character should have had some kind of sexual pull on females given his role in the movie.
Our basic premise centers around Martin drugging young women and either slicing them with razors and drinking their blood (which is clearly portrayed as a sexual thing) or raping them. Where the comparison to classic vampires is here, I have no idea. The movie, to me just seemed like a poorly made excuse to show some young attractive flesh and a bit of blood.
I found the storyline lacking and the other actors in the farce to be laughable, especially a male relative of his who is convinced he is evil, a vampire who can be repelled by garlic, crucifixes and holy water.
Martin goes through the movie doing much of the same until he finally relents to the advances of a bored middle-aged housewife. Yawn.....
Some may say the ending is a bit of a surprise, but to be honest, following the usual direction of these kind of movies, I saw it coming a mile off.
So in short, I am definately not a fan of this movie. In actual fact, I would advise anyone to avoid it. Maybe had Martin been cast as someone else and had he been a bit older, it would have been palatable, but in its current state - No Thankyou.
Saturday, 27 July 2013
Mark of the Devil - Lisa's Review
*** Spoilers ***
I'm not going to spend a long time on this one. For me the high point was that it had Udo Kier in it! A very young Mr Kier, but the intensity is still there.
If you think Witchfinder General with gore and tits and you've pretty much summed this one up.
The movie basically centers around the torturing and murder of what seems any attractive young person, both male and female (but mostly female) who is suspected to be a witch. These acts are ordered by an evil Lord Cumberland, all under the guise of religion and god. We also have one of the most horrid men I've ever set eyes on - Albino, who concocts acts these poor women are supposed to have carried out (all untrue) just so he can brand them as witches and rape and torture them.
Udo plays a very young apprentice/pupil Count Christian Von Meruh. He is the supposed 'good guy'... well as good as you're going to get in this movie. Kier inevitably falls in love with one of the accused young women and starts to question the practices and what is going on.
What follows is what you would expect from this sort of movie. Tortures depicted include: Flogging, water torture, stabbing with skewers, chair of torture, the rack, thumb screws, burning at the stake and a tongue being ripped out. There are also rapes depicted.
Reviews I've read of this movie seem to rate it quite highly and feel that it is much more than an exploitation movie. True, there is more to it than that. It does depict the individuals responsible as horrible creatures and does point the finger very squarely at religion, so I suppose there is a moral message of sorts, but I just didn't enjoy this movie.
I didn't like how it 'felt'. To me, the way it was shot, the lingering on the suffering and the unnecessary nudity in places, which added nothing to the scenes or story, just felt a bit exploitative in the wrong kind of way to me. Maybe it was just how I saw it. Maybe I was in 'one of those moods', but the movie just didn't sit well with me. I felt like I was watching torture scenes which were filmed with the intention of being arousing. It certainly felt like the director had purely a male audience in mind when he put this together.
Aside from all of this, it was hideously overacted and hammy in several places. I just found myself feeling impatient and irritated by it.
I think this is just one of those movies that was a matter of personal taste for me. I'm more than willing to accept a lot of people may enjoy this movie, I am just not one of them.
Won't tag this as 'avoid' down to purely my own personal taste, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it.
I'm not going to spend a long time on this one. For me the high point was that it had Udo Kier in it! A very young Mr Kier, but the intensity is still there.
If you think Witchfinder General with gore and tits and you've pretty much summed this one up.
The movie basically centers around the torturing and murder of what seems any attractive young person, both male and female (but mostly female) who is suspected to be a witch. These acts are ordered by an evil Lord Cumberland, all under the guise of religion and god. We also have one of the most horrid men I've ever set eyes on - Albino, who concocts acts these poor women are supposed to have carried out (all untrue) just so he can brand them as witches and rape and torture them.
Udo plays a very young apprentice/pupil Count Christian Von Meruh. He is the supposed 'good guy'... well as good as you're going to get in this movie. Kier inevitably falls in love with one of the accused young women and starts to question the practices and what is going on.
What follows is what you would expect from this sort of movie. Tortures depicted include: Flogging, water torture, stabbing with skewers, chair of torture, the rack, thumb screws, burning at the stake and a tongue being ripped out. There are also rapes depicted.
Reviews I've read of this movie seem to rate it quite highly and feel that it is much more than an exploitation movie. True, there is more to it than that. It does depict the individuals responsible as horrible creatures and does point the finger very squarely at religion, so I suppose there is a moral message of sorts, but I just didn't enjoy this movie.
I didn't like how it 'felt'. To me, the way it was shot, the lingering on the suffering and the unnecessary nudity in places, which added nothing to the scenes or story, just felt a bit exploitative in the wrong kind of way to me. Maybe it was just how I saw it. Maybe I was in 'one of those moods', but the movie just didn't sit well with me. I felt like I was watching torture scenes which were filmed with the intention of being arousing. It certainly felt like the director had purely a male audience in mind when he put this together.
Aside from all of this, it was hideously overacted and hammy in several places. I just found myself feeling impatient and irritated by it.
I think this is just one of those movies that was a matter of personal taste for me. I'm more than willing to accept a lot of people may enjoy this movie, I am just not one of them.
Won't tag this as 'avoid' down to purely my own personal taste, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it.
Saturday, 6 July 2013
Murder Set Pieces - Lisa's Review
* SPOILERS*
This is a movie I hadn't heard anything about before today, so I pressed play with absolutely no knowledge of what awaited me whatsoever.
What can I say? I was all ready to slate this movie due to its appalling lack of plot, flimsy character building and seemingly spliced together scenes, but on thinking about it outside of the box and outside of my own personal viewing preference, I can't be as critical as I would perhaps like to be.
To give some idea of what we're talking about here, Murder Set Pieces is a story of a german photographer living in Las Vegas who has a penchant for raping, torturing and murdering beautiful young women. The movie mainly documents him picking up the women and their eventual demise.
The photographer is portrayed as an incredibly sadistic, immoral individual who it seems is driven to do what he does. It doesn't even seem that he gets much enjoyment from his actions, but rather it's just normality for him. We are given a tiny piece of background information on him in that his grandfather was an associate of Hitler and fought in WW2. He has various Nazi paraphernalia around his appartment and seems to believe the germans were the good guys in the war. This is as much information as we are given about why he is how he is or what drives him. The movie just seems to be one long blood bath with occasional naked women thrown in.
A store robbery is played out in the movie which seems to have absolutely no relevance whatsoever. 1 woman is left alive, which I thought may tie in later, but it is never visited again, making me wonder what the point was... It is slightly humorous which is saying something in the midst of this movie, a little light relief is sorely needed. This scene shows us that he is willing to kill anyone for pretty much no reason, again adding to my notion that he doesn't do what he does for kicks or fun, but simply because he wants to.
There is also the murder of a child in the movie, which is definately a taboo, but thankfully this isn't strung out and no torture or abuse scene is included here. I think I'd have been reaching for the remote if much dwelling was done. Again, I wasn't sure of the relevance of this scene, apart from to make him even more repugnant.....
Now that the negatives are over, I will say the effects in this movie are excellent. The blood is one of the most realistic I've seen and the murder scenes look exactly like you would imagine them to be in reality. There is no theatrics, no case of overkill (no pun intended). This does honestly feel like you're watching these horrible scenes for real. Specifically one scene in a bath with a young woman who is almost drowned and then has her throat cut comes to mind. I would imagine the violent dunking she undergoes left quite a mark with her. I know I cringed watching it, not because I was enthralled with the story (because there isn't one!), but because I felt for the poor actress playing the role.
I will say all the deaths, rapes and tortures in this movie are horrible. They are remarkably well put together and believable, I will give the movie makers that much. However the one scene which disturbed me the most about this movie was a scene including a young toddler. The Photographer lifts him from his cot with his hands covered in blood and holds him up to examine him. Inwardly my heart was thumping... as a mother of a 2 year old, I can't bear to see anything happen to a child in a movie, but with the way this movie was going, I didn't even want to think where we could be going with this one. Thankfully he doesn't harm the baby and we see him toddle down a corrider crying, covered in blood to his dead mother, where he puts his head on her chest. The scene is heartbreaking. I found it very difficult to deal with, both from an emotional viewpoint of being a mother, but mainly as this child was clearly very upset and distraught and was of much too young an age to be 'acting'. He was flailing around and pulling away from the actor, clearly wanting to get away from him, clearly frightened and crying hysterically for real. I didn't find it appropriate that they put such a young child through this experience for entertainment purposes. Ok, so it's a movie, it isn't real, but the fear coming from that poor child was definately real!
After watching several deaths and rapes, I just felt like this was a movie for gorehounds who don't care for a story at all. It did however occur to me, that this lack of plot, storyline or explanation is quite possibly due to wanting to place us inside the head of the killer. This guy didn't give anything much thought and killed for killings sake. The movie definately succeeded in giving us an insight into the mind of such a person and it most definately isn't somewhere I liked visiting.
So in retrospect, can I slate the movie because it doesn't fit a certain stereotype and it wasn't necessarilly my type of thing? Most probably not.
Oh I neglected to say, the soundtrack is excellent. Its very industrial/rocky and I found myself wondering what the tracks were all the way through as I loved them.
I will end by saying, I didn't enjoy this movie. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone I know to watch for enjoyment purposes, but I will say, I think it achieves what it sets out to and it does contain some of the most realistic murders I have personally ever seen. Most people would do well to avoid this one, but I can't give it an 'Avoid' tag, as certain aspects of the movie were very well done and it will surely appeal to some people.
This is a movie I hadn't heard anything about before today, so I pressed play with absolutely no knowledge of what awaited me whatsoever.
What can I say? I was all ready to slate this movie due to its appalling lack of plot, flimsy character building and seemingly spliced together scenes, but on thinking about it outside of the box and outside of my own personal viewing preference, I can't be as critical as I would perhaps like to be.
To give some idea of what we're talking about here, Murder Set Pieces is a story of a german photographer living in Las Vegas who has a penchant for raping, torturing and murdering beautiful young women. The movie mainly documents him picking up the women and their eventual demise.
The photographer is portrayed as an incredibly sadistic, immoral individual who it seems is driven to do what he does. It doesn't even seem that he gets much enjoyment from his actions, but rather it's just normality for him. We are given a tiny piece of background information on him in that his grandfather was an associate of Hitler and fought in WW2. He has various Nazi paraphernalia around his appartment and seems to believe the germans were the good guys in the war. This is as much information as we are given about why he is how he is or what drives him. The movie just seems to be one long blood bath with occasional naked women thrown in.
A store robbery is played out in the movie which seems to have absolutely no relevance whatsoever. 1 woman is left alive, which I thought may tie in later, but it is never visited again, making me wonder what the point was... It is slightly humorous which is saying something in the midst of this movie, a little light relief is sorely needed. This scene shows us that he is willing to kill anyone for pretty much no reason, again adding to my notion that he doesn't do what he does for kicks or fun, but simply because he wants to.
There is also the murder of a child in the movie, which is definately a taboo, but thankfully this isn't strung out and no torture or abuse scene is included here. I think I'd have been reaching for the remote if much dwelling was done. Again, I wasn't sure of the relevance of this scene, apart from to make him even more repugnant.....
Now that the negatives are over, I will say the effects in this movie are excellent. The blood is one of the most realistic I've seen and the murder scenes look exactly like you would imagine them to be in reality. There is no theatrics, no case of overkill (no pun intended). This does honestly feel like you're watching these horrible scenes for real. Specifically one scene in a bath with a young woman who is almost drowned and then has her throat cut comes to mind. I would imagine the violent dunking she undergoes left quite a mark with her. I know I cringed watching it, not because I was enthralled with the story (because there isn't one!), but because I felt for the poor actress playing the role.
I will say all the deaths, rapes and tortures in this movie are horrible. They are remarkably well put together and believable, I will give the movie makers that much. However the one scene which disturbed me the most about this movie was a scene including a young toddler. The Photographer lifts him from his cot with his hands covered in blood and holds him up to examine him. Inwardly my heart was thumping... as a mother of a 2 year old, I can't bear to see anything happen to a child in a movie, but with the way this movie was going, I didn't even want to think where we could be going with this one. Thankfully he doesn't harm the baby and we see him toddle down a corrider crying, covered in blood to his dead mother, where he puts his head on her chest. The scene is heartbreaking. I found it very difficult to deal with, both from an emotional viewpoint of being a mother, but mainly as this child was clearly very upset and distraught and was of much too young an age to be 'acting'. He was flailing around and pulling away from the actor, clearly wanting to get away from him, clearly frightened and crying hysterically for real. I didn't find it appropriate that they put such a young child through this experience for entertainment purposes. Ok, so it's a movie, it isn't real, but the fear coming from that poor child was definately real!
After watching several deaths and rapes, I just felt like this was a movie for gorehounds who don't care for a story at all. It did however occur to me, that this lack of plot, storyline or explanation is quite possibly due to wanting to place us inside the head of the killer. This guy didn't give anything much thought and killed for killings sake. The movie definately succeeded in giving us an insight into the mind of such a person and it most definately isn't somewhere I liked visiting.
So in retrospect, can I slate the movie because it doesn't fit a certain stereotype and it wasn't necessarilly my type of thing? Most probably not.
Oh I neglected to say, the soundtrack is excellent. Its very industrial/rocky and I found myself wondering what the tracks were all the way through as I loved them.
I will end by saying, I didn't enjoy this movie. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone I know to watch for enjoyment purposes, but I will say, I think it achieves what it sets out to and it does contain some of the most realistic murders I have personally ever seen. Most people would do well to avoid this one, but I can't give it an 'Avoid' tag, as certain aspects of the movie were very well done and it will surely appeal to some people.
Saturday, 29 June 2013
Ilsa She Wolf of the SS - Lisa's Review
* Spoilers *
When completing the 'Video Nasty' challenge, we watched quite a few movies like this. It's a case of, once you've seen one you've seen them all. I struggle with one aspect of this one though. Who the hell was it made with in mind as the audience?
I would imagine the usual audience for sexploitation movies would be men (forgive me if you find that sexist, but I doubt many women get their jollys from this kind of thing and they're hardly made with drama or storyline in mind). This movie is full of plenty of naked, beautiful young women, mostly of the large breasted variety, but with the premise of the movie in mind, I would imagine men wouldn't particularly enjoy the subject of the experiments which Ilsa is setting out to prove. She intends to prove that woman can take more pain than men, to enable the government to take another look at laws preventing women to fight in the war alongside men, (you would think not being allowed to fight in a war would be seen as a good thing, but hey ho).
So, what can I tell you? Lots of large breasted, naked woman being subjected to humiliation, horrible torture and rape, all to the glee of Ilsa and her equally large breasted, low-necklined officers. The female officers also seem to like to dole out punishment by way of whips with no tops on... funny that... Tortures shown include a pressure chamber, a bath of water at almost 89 degrees celsius, flogging, wounds being inflicted and filled with disease ridden maggot or gangrene, an electrified vibrator, insertion of horrid objects... the list could go on. I would add, most torture shown is being carried out on always completely naked women. There is also a horrid scene of a young woman standing on a block of ice with a noose around her neck. Obviously as the ice melts she is slowly hung. This is the centrepiece on the table while a superior officer who has been sent to visit is having dinner with Ilsa and the other officers. Everyone loves it and look on in awe as the young woman suffers.
In one scene we do get to 'hear' a rather horrid castration being carried out on an unfortunate male prisoner who was unable to satisfy Ilsa sexually. She continually rapes male prisoners in the quest for a man who can satisfy her. What I can't understand about this, is how these men who she is subjecting to rape, can achieve an erection and come at all?? Surely it's not a pleasurable experience?
That aside, we don't see much else of men being subjected to anything. One is being flogged alongside a woman, but apart from the opening scene showing them side by side, the rest of the scene is concentrated on the naked women and the topless officer doing the flogging.
One man who does feature quite strongly in the movie is an american prisoner who finds Ilsa's achilles heel when he is chosen as one of her companions. She learns that he can control when he 'finishes'. As her insatiable appetite has never been satisfied, this evil bitch is suddenly under some kind of spell and from then on seems to follow his every command.
This ability is used to manipulate Ilsa into agreeing to be tied to bed in the finale of the movie. This enables the prisoners to get together and decide, not to escape like you would imagine, but instead to take revenge on the staff of the camp. The american and his girlfriend (who is also a prisoner), want to run, but the others set to killing as many staff as they can. In a very hard to believe scene, a woman that was tortured to near death and is burnt all over turns up in the room to exact her revenge on Ilsa.
We have a twist however!! A superior that was sent into the camp (who it turns out has a penchant for watersports and has Ilsa pee on him) was actually sent there to destroy it before the allies found it, so all of the remaining prisoners are actually shot dead and the camp is burnt down. Fun Fact: this camp was actually the same set as the one used for Hogans Heros and they were allowed to use it as they would have to pull it all down after.
The final scene is a soldier telling his superior that everyone is dead and all proof of the camp will be removed so the allies will never know it is there, however, we see the american and his girlfriend standing on a hill in the distance. Dah Dah Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!
I'm not quite sure what I thought about the movie. I honestly don't think it was bad enough to tell you to avoid, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it as I don't find watched naked women being tortured for an hour and a half that entertaining. If you like this kind of movie, you'll no doubt like this one.
When completing the 'Video Nasty' challenge, we watched quite a few movies like this. It's a case of, once you've seen one you've seen them all. I struggle with one aspect of this one though. Who the hell was it made with in mind as the audience?
I would imagine the usual audience for sexploitation movies would be men (forgive me if you find that sexist, but I doubt many women get their jollys from this kind of thing and they're hardly made with drama or storyline in mind). This movie is full of plenty of naked, beautiful young women, mostly of the large breasted variety, but with the premise of the movie in mind, I would imagine men wouldn't particularly enjoy the subject of the experiments which Ilsa is setting out to prove. She intends to prove that woman can take more pain than men, to enable the government to take another look at laws preventing women to fight in the war alongside men, (you would think not being allowed to fight in a war would be seen as a good thing, but hey ho).
So, what can I tell you? Lots of large breasted, naked woman being subjected to humiliation, horrible torture and rape, all to the glee of Ilsa and her equally large breasted, low-necklined officers. The female officers also seem to like to dole out punishment by way of whips with no tops on... funny that... Tortures shown include a pressure chamber, a bath of water at almost 89 degrees celsius, flogging, wounds being inflicted and filled with disease ridden maggot or gangrene, an electrified vibrator, insertion of horrid objects... the list could go on. I would add, most torture shown is being carried out on always completely naked women. There is also a horrid scene of a young woman standing on a block of ice with a noose around her neck. Obviously as the ice melts she is slowly hung. This is the centrepiece on the table while a superior officer who has been sent to visit is having dinner with Ilsa and the other officers. Everyone loves it and look on in awe as the young woman suffers.
In one scene we do get to 'hear' a rather horrid castration being carried out on an unfortunate male prisoner who was unable to satisfy Ilsa sexually. She continually rapes male prisoners in the quest for a man who can satisfy her. What I can't understand about this, is how these men who she is subjecting to rape, can achieve an erection and come at all?? Surely it's not a pleasurable experience?
That aside, we don't see much else of men being subjected to anything. One is being flogged alongside a woman, but apart from the opening scene showing them side by side, the rest of the scene is concentrated on the naked women and the topless officer doing the flogging.
One man who does feature quite strongly in the movie is an american prisoner who finds Ilsa's achilles heel when he is chosen as one of her companions. She learns that he can control when he 'finishes'. As her insatiable appetite has never been satisfied, this evil bitch is suddenly under some kind of spell and from then on seems to follow his every command.
This ability is used to manipulate Ilsa into agreeing to be tied to bed in the finale of the movie. This enables the prisoners to get together and decide, not to escape like you would imagine, but instead to take revenge on the staff of the camp. The american and his girlfriend (who is also a prisoner), want to run, but the others set to killing as many staff as they can. In a very hard to believe scene, a woman that was tortured to near death and is burnt all over turns up in the room to exact her revenge on Ilsa.
We have a twist however!! A superior that was sent into the camp (who it turns out has a penchant for watersports and has Ilsa pee on him) was actually sent there to destroy it before the allies found it, so all of the remaining prisoners are actually shot dead and the camp is burnt down. Fun Fact: this camp was actually the same set as the one used for Hogans Heros and they were allowed to use it as they would have to pull it all down after.
The final scene is a soldier telling his superior that everyone is dead and all proof of the camp will be removed so the allies will never know it is there, however, we see the american and his girlfriend standing on a hill in the distance. Dah Dah Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!
I'm not quite sure what I thought about the movie. I honestly don't think it was bad enough to tell you to avoid, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it as I don't find watched naked women being tortured for an hour and a half that entertaining. If you like this kind of movie, you'll no doubt like this one.
Saturday, 20 April 2013
Run, Bitch, Run - Lisa's Review
*** SPOILERS ***
So quite a recent one for review this week. Having seen the trailer for this one a while back, I thought it looked quite interesting. Reading the premis, you may think... interesting?? Are you sick in the head?... well possibly, but that aside, something which needs to be said about this movie is that although it is about a horrid subject matter, it doesn't seem to take itself too seriously in its style. This movie reminded me an awful lot of a Tarantino movie in its style and direction.
So the basic premis here is following 2 catholic schoolgirls as they go door-to-door trying to sell bibles to make money for their school. It becomes very clear right from the start that the movie is aimed primarily at a male audience, as the girls are pretty much every inch the 'fantasy' image of a school girl, complete with short kilted skirt, long socks and a full face of make-up.. having attended a catholic school, I can assure you, this is obviously not a reality. From this itself, I didn't take the movie seriously from the get-go and I think that's what allowed me to enjoy it for what it was. I'm a Tarantino fan and this reminded me of him all the way through.
Back to the premis.. one of our schoolgirls, Rebecca is a little rebellious, a little naughty.. just so much to allow you a good ogle at her walking around naked and enough to also point out that our other girl (Catherine) is the stereotypical 'good girl', telling her friend off for her brazenness and making her cover up. Soooo a good little catholic girl, a virgin obviously... I wonder who our 'Bitch' of the movie will be?
Having knocked on the wrong door, as mentioned earlier, the girls fall into a horrid world with a pimp and bad guy Lobo (who just happens to be gorgeous... some eye candy for me at least), his stuttering sidekick Clint and what can only be described as his 'bitch' Marla. Marla happens to have an eye for the ladies too, so we are treated to some girl on girl scenes (did I mention this one seemed to be aimed at a male audience?). Rebecca is forced to engage in sexual activity with her as Catherine looks on in sheer horror. It is here Rebecca meets her end by way of a bullet to the head (accidentally it seems).
From here poor Catherine suffers further torture and rape by Lobo, who takes her virginity and leaves her for Clint to take a turn. Clint however seems to take a fit of conscience as he spies Catherines rosary beads lying in the dirt and is unable to continue with his abuse. This seems to be a staple in rape/revenge movies, we always have the guy who is fundamentally good really, but is under a bad influence.
Catherine is left for dead by Clint when she falls down a hill and bangs her head. Of course, she comes around and makes her way to a hospital. A mention has to go to the fact she is completely nude as Clint has taken her clothes, but there seems to be an awful lot of time spent on her naked journey to find help. When she comes around, she acquires a nurses uniform (which oddly fits her like a glove) and the rest of the movie follows her as she makes her way back to the town she met Lobo, Clint and Marla to seek her revenge.
I won't give you a blow by blow account of it, but this good girl has grown some serious balls and goes to work! A special mention has to go to the machete rape of Lobo. Ouch! That's got to sting!!
As previously said, I didn't get too close to this movie.. not close enough to be disturbed by the scenes I was witnessing. I'm not sure why, but I attribute it to the style of the movie and how it was portrayed. The ending however was quite poignant to me and maybe a reminder of what we'd just watched and maybe how hardened we have become to not have viewed the movie on any kind of emotional level. Maybe that was just me? I'll be interested to hear Wills take.
I did enjoy this movie. It was entertaining and didn't require any level of concentration. Its 'exactly what it says on the tin'. Thumbs up and recommended by me.
So quite a recent one for review this week. Having seen the trailer for this one a while back, I thought it looked quite interesting. Reading the premis, you may think... interesting?? Are you sick in the head?... well possibly, but that aside, something which needs to be said about this movie is that although it is about a horrid subject matter, it doesn't seem to take itself too seriously in its style. This movie reminded me an awful lot of a Tarantino movie in its style and direction.
So the basic premis here is following 2 catholic schoolgirls as they go door-to-door trying to sell bibles to make money for their school. It becomes very clear right from the start that the movie is aimed primarily at a male audience, as the girls are pretty much every inch the 'fantasy' image of a school girl, complete with short kilted skirt, long socks and a full face of make-up.. having attended a catholic school, I can assure you, this is obviously not a reality. From this itself, I didn't take the movie seriously from the get-go and I think that's what allowed me to enjoy it for what it was. I'm a Tarantino fan and this reminded me of him all the way through.
Back to the premis.. one of our schoolgirls, Rebecca is a little rebellious, a little naughty.. just so much to allow you a good ogle at her walking around naked and enough to also point out that our other girl (Catherine) is the stereotypical 'good girl', telling her friend off for her brazenness and making her cover up. Soooo a good little catholic girl, a virgin obviously... I wonder who our 'Bitch' of the movie will be?
Having knocked on the wrong door, as mentioned earlier, the girls fall into a horrid world with a pimp and bad guy Lobo (who just happens to be gorgeous... some eye candy for me at least), his stuttering sidekick Clint and what can only be described as his 'bitch' Marla. Marla happens to have an eye for the ladies too, so we are treated to some girl on girl scenes (did I mention this one seemed to be aimed at a male audience?). Rebecca is forced to engage in sexual activity with her as Catherine looks on in sheer horror. It is here Rebecca meets her end by way of a bullet to the head (accidentally it seems).
From here poor Catherine suffers further torture and rape by Lobo, who takes her virginity and leaves her for Clint to take a turn. Clint however seems to take a fit of conscience as he spies Catherines rosary beads lying in the dirt and is unable to continue with his abuse. This seems to be a staple in rape/revenge movies, we always have the guy who is fundamentally good really, but is under a bad influence.
Catherine is left for dead by Clint when she falls down a hill and bangs her head. Of course, she comes around and makes her way to a hospital. A mention has to go to the fact she is completely nude as Clint has taken her clothes, but there seems to be an awful lot of time spent on her naked journey to find help. When she comes around, she acquires a nurses uniform (which oddly fits her like a glove) and the rest of the movie follows her as she makes her way back to the town she met Lobo, Clint and Marla to seek her revenge.
I won't give you a blow by blow account of it, but this good girl has grown some serious balls and goes to work! A special mention has to go to the machete rape of Lobo. Ouch! That's got to sting!!
As previously said, I didn't get too close to this movie.. not close enough to be disturbed by the scenes I was witnessing. I'm not sure why, but I attribute it to the style of the movie and how it was portrayed. The ending however was quite poignant to me and maybe a reminder of what we'd just watched and maybe how hardened we have become to not have viewed the movie on any kind of emotional level. Maybe that was just me? I'll be interested to hear Wills take.
I did enjoy this movie. It was entertaining and didn't require any level of concentration. Its 'exactly what it says on the tin'. Thumbs up and recommended by me.
Saturday, 9 March 2013
Pink Flamingos - Lisa's Review
*** SPOILERS ***
So to review the oddest, strangest movie I have ever watched. As I write, I'm not even sure how I'm going to proceed or do this, but here we go....
We follow our star Divine who has been named 'The filthiest person alive'. This seems to be a title much sought after and one Divine is very proud of. She is living under the name Babs Johnson in a trailer-park with her very odd and over sexed son Crackers, a friend Cotton and wierdest of all, her mother, who seems to be mentally ill and spends all her time partially dressed in a playpen in the living room. All she seems to do in the movie is talk about eggs, how much she loves eggs, how she wants to eat eggs.... you get the drift.
For reasons best known to themselves, a married couple Raymond and Connie Marble wish to be the filthiest people alive so they seek to find out where Divine is living to destroy her. This couple run an adoption agency with a difference. They kidnap and keep hostage young women and their gay servant Channing (yes I said gay) is forced to rape them to impregnate them. The resulting babies are then given to lesbian couples. As you can imagine this gives for some rather questionable scenes. In one scene Channing, so disgusted with having to sleep with these women, masturbates in front of one woman before sucking up the produced semen in a syringe and artifically inseminating an unconscious woman. This is much more preferable to him than having to have sex with them.
I don't see the point of going into the full storyline of the movie as it is very warped, very odd and won't convince or unconvince you to watch this movie. What I will say is that it appeared to me to be nothing more than an attempt to put what would have been considered the most shocking and repugnant things possible on screen for the era it was made (70's).
We see Divine being sent feces in a box, a chicken being crushed in a sexual encounter between Cracker and a young woman sent as a spy by The Marbles (incidentally this is completely real and the animal was subsequently eaten by the crew as its neck was broken in the scene), an extended and very close-up shot of a man whose sphincter can lip-sync, Divine going down on her son Cracker (it seems the actor had a bit of difficulty rising to the occasion by the looks of things too) but probably most famous of all, as the movie ends, Divine is shown to walk over to a dog who is defecating. She picks up the warm feces and proceeds to eat it and then smile to the camera. Lovely!
If you're the type of person who would enjoy this movie, reading the above will make you want to watch it with no more information from me. If however you have no interest in watching this movie, I doubt any further plunging into the storyline is going to change much.
What did I think? Well Asides from the chicken part which I absolutely hated, I don't really see what all the fuss is about. The sphincter bit is definately a new one on me and amusing, but the rest of the movie just seemed to be trying too hard to shock while showing things that were... well, just not that shocking.
I wouldn't go so far as to say avoid as its probably one of those you have to see just to check it off the list, if only for the singing bum, but its definately not one I would watch again or recommend.
So to review the oddest, strangest movie I have ever watched. As I write, I'm not even sure how I'm going to proceed or do this, but here we go....
We follow our star Divine who has been named 'The filthiest person alive'. This seems to be a title much sought after and one Divine is very proud of. She is living under the name Babs Johnson in a trailer-park with her very odd and over sexed son Crackers, a friend Cotton and wierdest of all, her mother, who seems to be mentally ill and spends all her time partially dressed in a playpen in the living room. All she seems to do in the movie is talk about eggs, how much she loves eggs, how she wants to eat eggs.... you get the drift.
For reasons best known to themselves, a married couple Raymond and Connie Marble wish to be the filthiest people alive so they seek to find out where Divine is living to destroy her. This couple run an adoption agency with a difference. They kidnap and keep hostage young women and their gay servant Channing (yes I said gay) is forced to rape them to impregnate them. The resulting babies are then given to lesbian couples. As you can imagine this gives for some rather questionable scenes. In one scene Channing, so disgusted with having to sleep with these women, masturbates in front of one woman before sucking up the produced semen in a syringe and artifically inseminating an unconscious woman. This is much more preferable to him than having to have sex with them.
I don't see the point of going into the full storyline of the movie as it is very warped, very odd and won't convince or unconvince you to watch this movie. What I will say is that it appeared to me to be nothing more than an attempt to put what would have been considered the most shocking and repugnant things possible on screen for the era it was made (70's).
We see Divine being sent feces in a box, a chicken being crushed in a sexual encounter between Cracker and a young woman sent as a spy by The Marbles (incidentally this is completely real and the animal was subsequently eaten by the crew as its neck was broken in the scene), an extended and very close-up shot of a man whose sphincter can lip-sync, Divine going down on her son Cracker (it seems the actor had a bit of difficulty rising to the occasion by the looks of things too) but probably most famous of all, as the movie ends, Divine is shown to walk over to a dog who is defecating. She picks up the warm feces and proceeds to eat it and then smile to the camera. Lovely!
If you're the type of person who would enjoy this movie, reading the above will make you want to watch it with no more information from me. If however you have no interest in watching this movie, I doubt any further plunging into the storyline is going to change much.
What did I think? Well Asides from the chicken part which I absolutely hated, I don't really see what all the fuss is about. The sphincter bit is definately a new one on me and amusing, but the rest of the movie just seemed to be trying too hard to shock while showing things that were... well, just not that shocking.
I wouldn't go so far as to say avoid as its probably one of those you have to see just to check it off the list, if only for the singing bum, but its definately not one I would watch again or recommend.
Saturday, 2 February 2013
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!
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!
Saturday, 26 January 2013
The Virgin Spring - Lisa's Review
***SPOILERS ***
A movie this week I don't think I would have ever chosen to watch having read the premis. That's the good thing about doing these movie challenges, you get to see movies, you would never otherwise have watched.
I'm not going to do a blow by blow account of the movie. This is the Swedish movie made in 1960, that 'Last House on the Left' was based on. Although there are very good things to be said about both LHOTL movies (1972 and 2009), this movie is an altogether different experience. Whereas I would describe its successors are exploitation movies, this is not on any level. Its a deep movie that makes you think, that does disturb you, but in a different way.
To start with the cinematography in this movie is just beautiful! It is a joy to watch aesthetically. From a story point of view its heartbreaking. We see the young, beautiful, but very naive and innocent daughter (Karin) of a religious couple raped and murdered by 2 herdsmen when she is delivering candles to a church. This is all witnessed by her pregnant adoptive sister and maid (who is stunningly beautiful it has to be said) and a young boy who is with the herdsmen.
Unwittingly the men seek shelter at the girls parents home and try to sell the clothes they stripped off her body after they had killed her, alerting them to what had happened.
The parents being deeply religious people opens up all sorts of questions when they seek revenge for their daughters murder and kill the herdsmen. The father seems to question his faith when wondering how something like this could possibly happen, but at the same time he wants to make up to god for what he has done, so he promises to build a church on the site of where his daughters body was found. A virgin spring has sprung forth from where she was found and her parents heartbreakingly wash their daughter in it.
I found this movie very thought provoking and beautiful to watch. My skin crawled towards the herdsmen characters. They were repugnant. The actual rape scene was horrid and although not graphic, it was very matter of fact and to the point. There is no soundtrack to this movie. No music to set a mood, or to tell us how we should feel or cover an uncomfortable scene with peril. This made the rape scene all the more nasty for me.
The murder of Karin and the herdsmen is again very to the point and not blood thirsty but is oddly effective. I liked how fire was used in a scene with one of the herdsmen and the reality of how the father throws the young boy against a wall in his grief.
This movie is certainly not for everyone, but I for one enjoyed it. It was very different from anything I have watched before and I found it refreshingly different. I would recommend it to all movie fans who like to unearth little hidden treasures.
Thumbs up from me.
A movie this week I don't think I would have ever chosen to watch having read the premis. That's the good thing about doing these movie challenges, you get to see movies, you would never otherwise have watched.
I'm not going to do a blow by blow account of the movie. This is the Swedish movie made in 1960, that 'Last House on the Left' was based on. Although there are very good things to be said about both LHOTL movies (1972 and 2009), this movie is an altogether different experience. Whereas I would describe its successors are exploitation movies, this is not on any level. Its a deep movie that makes you think, that does disturb you, but in a different way.
To start with the cinematography in this movie is just beautiful! It is a joy to watch aesthetically. From a story point of view its heartbreaking. We see the young, beautiful, but very naive and innocent daughter (Karin) of a religious couple raped and murdered by 2 herdsmen when she is delivering candles to a church. This is all witnessed by her pregnant adoptive sister and maid (who is stunningly beautiful it has to be said) and a young boy who is with the herdsmen.
Unwittingly the men seek shelter at the girls parents home and try to sell the clothes they stripped off her body after they had killed her, alerting them to what had happened.
The parents being deeply religious people opens up all sorts of questions when they seek revenge for their daughters murder and kill the herdsmen. The father seems to question his faith when wondering how something like this could possibly happen, but at the same time he wants to make up to god for what he has done, so he promises to build a church on the site of where his daughters body was found. A virgin spring has sprung forth from where she was found and her parents heartbreakingly wash their daughter in it.
I found this movie very thought provoking and beautiful to watch. My skin crawled towards the herdsmen characters. They were repugnant. The actual rape scene was horrid and although not graphic, it was very matter of fact and to the point. There is no soundtrack to this movie. No music to set a mood, or to tell us how we should feel or cover an uncomfortable scene with peril. This made the rape scene all the more nasty for me.
The murder of Karin and the herdsmen is again very to the point and not blood thirsty but is oddly effective. I liked how fire was used in a scene with one of the herdsmen and the reality of how the father throws the young boy against a wall in his grief.
This movie is certainly not for everyone, but I for one enjoyed it. It was very different from anything I have watched before and I found it refreshingly different. I would recommend it to all movie fans who like to unearth little hidden treasures.
Thumbs up from me.
Saturday, 17 November 2012
The Witch Who Came From The Sea - Lisa's Review
A very different movie this week and an odd one to find itself on the Video Nasty list.
This is a completely different kind of disturbing, but disturbing none-the-less. I struggle with my viewpoint on this movie.
*****SPOILERS*****
This is a completely different kind of disturbing, but disturbing none-the-less. I struggle with my viewpoint on this movie.
*****SPOILERS*****
Saturday, 27 October 2012
SHOCKTOBER SPECIAL: I Spit on Your Grave (2010) - Will's Review
Reviewed (spoiler free) in full over on my solo blog, as per last week this article will focus on the differences between the 1978 and 2010 version, and therefore contain spoilers for both (although I'll try and keep the 2010 spoilers to a minimum).
Characters:
Jennifer is less well-rounded as a character this time, simply because we spend less time with her.
Mathew, the retarded 'gang' member, is a lot more believable that in the original; between being much better acted and losing the 'trailer park boys' glasses he is much less of a cartoon character.
With the exception of the new attacker (this time we are given the 5 that the original's tag-line promised, rather than the 4 it delivered) the rest of the gang are, in contrast to Matthew more caricatured this time out; from the moment we meet them they are obviously bad news.
Characters:
Jennifer is less well-rounded as a character this time, simply because we spend less time with her.
Mathew, the retarded 'gang' member, is a lot more believable that in the original; between being much better acted and losing the 'trailer park boys' glasses he is much less of a cartoon character.
With the exception of the new attacker (this time we are given the 5 that the original's tag-line promised, rather than the 4 it delivered) the rest of the gang are, in contrast to Matthew more caricatured this time out; from the moment we meet them they are obviously bad news.
2 of the attackers have families this time, although one of the families actually has a role i the movie this time.
The attack:
The attack is much shorter this time: Jennifer passes out and the camera fades to black part way through; but of the attack we do see there is a lot more psychological abuse this time and a fair but less physical violence, the sexual assaults seem as bad as they ever did - we just don't see as much of it.
Whether this is a good thing is debatable; it does rob the film of some of its predecessors 'power' but it also means we don't have to watch a woman getting raped for as long; which certainly helps the film be a little easier to watch (again, whether 'easier to watch' is a good thing, is open to debate).
Matthew is even less willing to take part (at least initially), requiring a threat on Jennifer's life at the hands of on of the other guys before he's willing to have sex with her
This time the plan isn't quite so stupid; the attackers do not rely on Matthew to go back and kill her.
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.
The attack:
The attack is much shorter this time: Jennifer passes out and the camera fades to black part way through; but of the attack we do see there is a lot more psychological abuse this time and a fair but less physical violence, the sexual assaults seem as bad as they ever did - we just don't see as much of it.
Whether this is a good thing is debatable; it does rob the film of some of its predecessors 'power' but it also means we don't have to watch a woman getting raped for as long; which certainly helps the film be a little easier to watch (again, whether 'easier to watch' is a good thing, is open to debate).
Matthew is even less willing to take part (at least initially), requiring a threat on Jennifer's life at the hands of on of the other guys before he's willing to have sex with her
This time the plan isn't quite so stupid; the attackers do not rely on Matthew to go back and kill her.
The Aftermath:
Again, we see less (in fact none) of Jennifer's effort to piece herself back together, although we do learn some of it through the things she says in the final act; arguably the experience in the 2010 version has left her even more damaged than her 1978 counterpart.
The Revenge:
Is where the movie deviates most - this time none of the men die of stupidity (1978 movie; I still haven't forgiven you for the guy who grabbed the propeller of the motor boat) and Jennifer takes her time to make sure that each man gets a death they deserve - even using a little poetic justice to customize each kill; the specific tortures she devices for each man mirror or reference their part in the attack - a man who held her face underwater is suspended over a bath, a man who analy rapes her wakes up with a shotgun up... you get the idea.
Tone / Overall:
The poetic nature of the kills, as well as the semi-elaborate setups of them, provide plenty of "punch the air" type moments.
You may recall that I criticised the Last House Remake for having just one of these at the end - but here it works; mainly because it isn't just one, that stands out as being inconsistent with the tone, but becomes the point of the movie.
Although the rape is still horrific, and not-for-kicks, it is shorter, and therefore easier to bear.
Between the shorter attack sequence and the more crowd-pleasing deaths (not to mention that the ordering of the kills is much improved - the most vile offender last this time) this movie is much easier to watch than the original; rape sequence notwithstanding this one is even a 'fun' movie in its own way. This I think is both its strength and its weakness; It fails as an important film, but makes a much better movie than the original.
I had fun watching it, and it did not eroricise rape, So I'm going to go ahead and recommend it. I'm going to guess Lisa has not (I didn't check yet), but we shall see...
Counts:
Body Count: 6
Boob Count: 1 pair
Animal Body count: 6 (3 Birds, 2 fish and a rat - none killed on screen)
Most memorable Death: Eye Eye!
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.
SHOCKTOBER SPECIAL: I Spit on Your Grave (2010) - Lisa's Review
*** SPOILERS ***
So another remake for our Shocktober special and a break from our 'Nasties' list. I was wary about watching this for a host of reasons. I didn't have much desire to watch the original (reviewed by us both HERE), due to its subject matter and my abject hatred for watching graphic rape scenes, but having managed to stomach that movie, I was left with nothing but admiration for its directors, writers and actors with what a fantastic job they did with such a difficult premis.
So did I feel the same about this one? Sadly not!
The story here is the same. I won't go into detail again (click the above link to read the above reviews if you haven't seen the original). Everything that was strong and poignant about the original is removed. The most disturbing aspect of the original, was that that the guys responsible for the heinous acts are portrayed as very 'normal' men. In the remake, it is made very clear from the offset, that these guys are nasty, certainly not normal members of society. It feels very 'Hollywood' and not as gritty as the original. Worst of all, the avenue we go down when Jennifer exacts her revenge turns this into a completely different movie!!
Now I surprised myself here and I'm going to sound all hypocritical-like, but in my original review (which I re-read before I wrote this), I was crying out for more brutal revenge from Jennifer. This movie delivers this BIG time. However, it feels all wrong. The brutality of the 'kills' Jennifer perpetrates is not in keeping AT ALL with her character and it changes what this movie is all about. It takes the focus away from the psychological horror and concentration on bigger questions and turns it into another SAW movie. Yet again, that must sound hypocritical, as I'm a big SAW fan, but turning 'I Spit on your grave' into 'SAW' is like watching a remake of your favourite kids show waiting to feel all sentimental and warm inside and being subjected to a tirade of swearing.
Don't get me wrong, the acting is very strong all the way through. The make-up and effects are good. There is even an addition in this movie of an evil Sheriff who wasn't in the original (excellently played incidentally). The gore is cringeworthy and would curl the toes of most die-hard horror fans, but its all wrong when used in this context and in this movie.
My original desire to see exactly what I have just watched, shows me how wrong I was. Jennifer should not have exacted revenge in a series of 'traps' designed to maximise the shock factor and ramp up the gore in this movie. It somehow 'cheapened' it for me.
I don't doubt a lot of people will like this movie and think it's an excellent remake, as, like I said, there wasn't an awful lot you could find wrong with the acting, script, effects etc, but it just didn't 'feel' right after the power of the first movie.
Had the 'kills' been in another movie, SAW 8 for example, I would have enjoyed these scenes when watching in a completely different context, but they just didn't belong here.
I wont' say this is a bad movie persay, but it didn't work for me.
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.
So another remake for our Shocktober special and a break from our 'Nasties' list. I was wary about watching this for a host of reasons. I didn't have much desire to watch the original (reviewed by us both HERE), due to its subject matter and my abject hatred for watching graphic rape scenes, but having managed to stomach that movie, I was left with nothing but admiration for its directors, writers and actors with what a fantastic job they did with such a difficult premis.
So did I feel the same about this one? Sadly not!
The story here is the same. I won't go into detail again (click the above link to read the above reviews if you haven't seen the original). Everything that was strong and poignant about the original is removed. The most disturbing aspect of the original, was that that the guys responsible for the heinous acts are portrayed as very 'normal' men. In the remake, it is made very clear from the offset, that these guys are nasty, certainly not normal members of society. It feels very 'Hollywood' and not as gritty as the original. Worst of all, the avenue we go down when Jennifer exacts her revenge turns this into a completely different movie!!
Now I surprised myself here and I'm going to sound all hypocritical-like, but in my original review (which I re-read before I wrote this), I was crying out for more brutal revenge from Jennifer. This movie delivers this BIG time. However, it feels all wrong. The brutality of the 'kills' Jennifer perpetrates is not in keeping AT ALL with her character and it changes what this movie is all about. It takes the focus away from the psychological horror and concentration on bigger questions and turns it into another SAW movie. Yet again, that must sound hypocritical, as I'm a big SAW fan, but turning 'I Spit on your grave' into 'SAW' is like watching a remake of your favourite kids show waiting to feel all sentimental and warm inside and being subjected to a tirade of swearing.
Don't get me wrong, the acting is very strong all the way through. The make-up and effects are good. There is even an addition in this movie of an evil Sheriff who wasn't in the original (excellently played incidentally). The gore is cringeworthy and would curl the toes of most die-hard horror fans, but its all wrong when used in this context and in this movie.
My original desire to see exactly what I have just watched, shows me how wrong I was. Jennifer should not have exacted revenge in a series of 'traps' designed to maximise the shock factor and ramp up the gore in this movie. It somehow 'cheapened' it for me.
I don't doubt a lot of people will like this movie and think it's an excellent remake, as, like I said, there wasn't an awful lot you could find wrong with the acting, script, effects etc, but it just didn't 'feel' right after the power of the first movie.
Had the 'kills' been in another movie, SAW 8 for example, I would have enjoyed these scenes when watching in a completely different context, but they just didn't belong here.
I wont' say this is a bad movie persay, but it didn't work for me.
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, 20 October 2012
SHOCKTOBER SPECIAL: Last House On The Left (2009) - Lisa's Review
*** SPOILERS ***
Another remake this week for the month of October. I was interested to see how this remake would compare to the original 1972 movie reviewed here. I had heard much about the original and had always been advised to avoid due to the horrendous violent and brutal scenes and graphic rape depicted. I myself found the movie to be very sympathetically shot and well put together. When I heard similar comments about the remake, I wondered whether it would be palatable. I hadn't rushed out to see it, so tonight was my first watch.
Again, I was pleasantly surprised with this movie, as with the original. I won't go into too much detail about the storyline of the movie as its still quite fresh and raw in my head. I did find it disturbing in places and difficult to watch, so don't think any amount of waffle could convey my feelings on the movie in full. While the movie started rather typically and wasn't much different to your typical modern horror movie, around the middle it shifted gears dramatically.
We have 2 girls again (Mari & Paige) as with the original who get into the company of a criminal gang who are on the run for murder. The movie actually started with the 'rescue' of one of the criminals by his 2 compatriots and the murder of the 2 cops transporting him to prison. The death of the second officer was particularly horrid and left me with a bad taste in my mouth as they held a photo of his children in front of his face as he died, telling him he'd never see their faces again. As a mother, I found that one difficult to bear and wondered whether I was going to be able to watch this movie.
Back to the 2 girls. In short, the gang take them deep into a forest where Paige is viciously stabbed and left to bleed to death due after shouting insults to the gangs leader (Krug) to save her friend Mari from being raped. Sadly all this facilitates is her own death and the slightly delayed rape of her friend. This is where the entire movie changes and even the cinematography ramps it up a gear. The rape scene is (as with the original) very difficult to watch, it is brutal, nasty and heartbreaking. For me the word heartbreaking sums up the entire mid section of this movie. I sat transfixed with the horror in front of me feeling loathing, empathy, disgust, fear, regret and deep sadness. In my eyes, even though, to give the whingers their dues; it is sick, it is disgusting, but it's real! It happens and if it is to be depicted, it should be for what it is. I feel this movie does this well. This is thanks to the direction, but mostly for me due to the amazing acting of Sara Paxton. This is an actress that hasn't come to my attention before, but I was remarkably impressed by her. She is stunningly beautiful in an innocent, naive, almost child-like way, which makes what she endures all the more heartbreaking. Its almost as if her eyes were made to illustrate the expression doe-eyed. Her portrayal of a young girl destroyed is captivating and horrific all at the same time. As in the original Mari manages to escape and is pursued through the forest. In the remake however she is a champion swimmer, so as we watch her swim across the lake towards her parents summer home, we have everything crossed she'll make it. The scene showing her swim and the eventual hit with a bullet is beautifully shot. (no pun intended) One scene where she rolls over in the water (which is all shot in slow motion) and lays on her back bleeding out, I have to admit made my eyes water. It is just so heart-breakingly sad. A rainstorm starts and hammers off her still body and upturned hands. It gives me shivers even now. I found myself intensely sad for some time after watching this scene.
In this remake, there is a major difference with regards to Mari, but I won't give it away. I had no idea and it made a VERY pleasant surprise for me.
Following these scenes, the movie goes back to its starting pace and loses its shine for me. That's not saying it was bad. It still stands as a solid horror movie. The acting is good, the effects are good, but that special something had gone. I felt some scenes were dragged out longer than they needed to be and not enough time was spent on the kills (especially the lead thug Krug, although it was spectacularly done).
I liked the ending. I can't say what happens as it would completely give everything away and I think I've given more than enough away above.
I would recommend this movie, but not for anyone who finds it difficult to watch disturbing scenes or who isn't a fan of horror. You have to have a strong stomach and a strong head to watch this one and not have it stay with you. I have no doubt it will stay with me for some time, but hey, to me that#s the sign of a good movie.
Thumbs Up and a Lisa Recommends from me.
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, 6 October 2012
Visiting Hours - Lisa's Review
*** SOME SPOILERS ***
I struggled this week with why on earth this movie found its way onto the Nasties List. It would be much better suited as a Sunday afternoon movie. There is little in the way of gore or graphic scenes in the movie to complain about, so I'm at a loss. There is a scene which sexualises a knife torture and rape, which I suppose is a bit in bad taste, but I've seen worse before the watershed I'm sure.
Saturday, 15 September 2012
The Toolbox Murders - Lisa's Review
*** BIG FAT SPOILERS ***
A VERY sleazy one this week. I struggled with how to present my review and whether or not to give the movie a 'recommends' tag. I decided since the aspects of the movie that I didn't enjoy are specific pet peeves of mine and perhaps aren't things that would irritate most viewers, I would go with a thumbs up.
Saturday, 25 August 2012
SS Experiment Love Camp - Lisa's Review
*** SPOILERS ***
So ANOTHER Nazi Sexploitation movie *YAWN*. The last one I am assured, thank gawd!
What to say? This movie is a big steaming pile of poo. It probably didn't help that I had to watch it on a faulty laptop which made a constant loud whirring noise the entire time, but I don't think the comfort of a lounge on the sofa and my DVD player would have made much difference.
Saturday, 18 August 2012
Snuff - Lisa's Review
I'm not going to beat about the bush this week. This movie is monumentally awful!!! I usually try to come up with a positive about our movies, but this week, I'm afraid I am struggling in a big way. The best thing about this movie is the publicity campaign which was the reason so many poor sods ended up watching it. The possibility of viewing an actual snuff movie was obviously a big pull. Unfortunately for them, this was a previously released and unsuccessful Argentinian movie called 'Slaughter', which the director took and made changes to (included an additional ending supposed to be a piece of snuff) and they were to be bitterly disappointed.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)