One of the great things about watching movies from a list you didn't write, is that occasionally you get to go into a film completely cold. For my money the best way to see any film is with absolutely no knowledge of it at all, but when choosing films for yourself it's all but impossible.
I'm pleased to say that I went into Martyrs knowing exactly nothing. If you like your horror movies brutal, and don't mind subtitles (it's a French film) I STRONGLY recommend that you stop reading. Come back when you've seen it.
Showing posts with label Torture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Torture. Show all posts
Monday, 22 June 2015
Sunday, 22 March 2015
Audition - Lisa's Review
I became a Japanese horror fan 12 or 13 years ago and Audition was one of the first movies Japanese movies I watched. I had watched a couple before this so was prepared for the odd style, which is just as well, as Audition is probably as odd as it comes. From the off I'll say it. I love this movie. It's all kinds of strange, the words of an old rock song by a band called Crimson Glory sum it up quite succinctly... "Strange and beautiful... wicked and wonderful". I'm deliberately not going to go into much detail on the story as it's a movie a lot of people won't have seen and they really should change that as it is well worth a watch. It is also a movie where a lot is left to the viewers own interpretation. There are quite a few interpretations of the movie to be found online, one of which I am most definitely on board with. Again, it's not something anyone who hasn't seen the movie should read beforehand. It's better to go into this movie with as little knowledge as possible. I'll happily talk about my interpretation if any reader (are there any out there??) wants to know after having viewed the movie.
Saturday, 7 February 2015
Videodrome - Lisa's Review
I'll start this weeks review by putting it out there - I hated Videodrome! I seem to be standing out there in a very lonely place with that viewpoint. I've read so much about manipulation of mass media, subliminal messaging and how clever the movie is, but it most certainly isn't something that I would choose for a nights viewing.
The movie is directed by David Cronenberg who is known for his love of movies with an underlying message. He also is a big fan of body horror, which Videodrome definately falls into the category of. I am no Cronenberg fan, it has to be said., with the exception of a small number of his movies that I can count on one hand and still have some fingers left over, I find his work incredibly dull and self indulgent. The effects artists he works with on movies are where the talent lies. I will admit some of the actual body horror itself is impressive in a disgusting kind of way. That's where I find myself intrigued and glued to the screen. If I wanted to start watching political movies or movies with a specific hidden agenda, I would. Mostly I just want to be entertained and carried away to somewhere much more interesting not educated on "the impact of mass media perversity on the human psyche".
Wednesday, 21 January 2015
Martyrs - Lisa's Review
I'll start the review by saying right away that this is one of my favourite horror movies. It's the only movie I own on Blu-ray even though I don't even have a Blu-ray player. I will one day and had to buy this one when I saw it as a bargain. It's not too often a movie comes along that stays with you for a long time afterwards and prompts some deep thought. This is definately true of Martyrs. I know a lot of people who refuse to watch a foreign language film, which is such a shame as so many people will miss out on so many fantastic films, this being french is one of them. So, to the movie itself.
One thing I will say to start with is the less you know about this movie, the better. Director, Pascal Laugier even states this in a DVD introduction. He prefers viewers to see it as "Virgins". Having watched this movie quite a few times, I can understand why. Having a absolutely terrible memory means I can enjoy different aspects of this movie each time I watch it as I never remember absolutely everything. Martyrs isn't a simple, easy watch. It's a very thought provoking, moving and clever movie, that prompts questions that don't necessarily even have answers. Writing a review of a movie when you're trying to give absolutely nothing away is somewhat difficult, so I would say if you haven't seen this movie, stop here! Go rectify the situation!
Friday, 2 May 2014
Wolf Creek - Will's Review
Shades of Texas Chainsaw Massacre abound, tonally, stylistically, and plot wise, as 3 friends break down in the Australian outback, and are "rescued" by a stranger who turns out to be a maniac.
There's plenty of time to get to know our characters; the movie is two-thirds trough before anything bad happens - this can be a blessing or a curse in these movies; with Wolf Creek it's neither. That's pretty much a pattern for the movie as a whole; it does nothing wrong, as such, but nothing about it excites me either.
The maniac is great, and I understand that the sequel sees him in a more central role, shifting the emphasis (or rather giving it one) to slasher. I'll probably check that out, as with a little focus in the right direction, it could have been a lot better.
There's fun to be had as the movie (quite skilfully) plays with us regards the identity of "final girl / guy", but it's still nothing to elevate a solid movie into a great one.
art slasher, part torture porn, Wolf Creek is a solid movie, that competently does everything it set out to do. Sadly though, it brings nothing new to the table. Unlike lasts week, where I both recommended that you see the movie and advised you to avoid it, here I simply don't have the depth of feeling towards the film to do either.
An average, but serviceable, time-killer.
There's plenty of time to get to know our characters; the movie is two-thirds trough before anything bad happens - this can be a blessing or a curse in these movies; with Wolf Creek it's neither. That's pretty much a pattern for the movie as a whole; it does nothing wrong, as such, but nothing about it excites me either.
The maniac is great, and I understand that the sequel sees him in a more central role, shifting the emphasis (or rather giving it one) to slasher. I'll probably check that out, as with a little focus in the right direction, it could have been a lot better.
There's fun to be had as the movie (quite skilfully) plays with us regards the identity of "final girl / guy", but it's still nothing to elevate a solid movie into a great one.
art slasher, part torture porn, Wolf Creek is a solid movie, that competently does everything it set out to do. Sadly though, it brings nothing new to the table. Unlike lasts week, where I both recommended that you see the movie and advised you to avoid it, here I simply don't have the depth of feeling towards the film to do either.
An average, but serviceable, time-killer.
Monday, 29 July 2013
Mark of the Devil - Will's Review
I was quite looking forward to the week's movie; it's a reader recommendation (via our Facebook Page), and it has Udo Kier in it!
Our last Reader Request was Ilsa: She Wolf of the SS, while Naziploitation isn't my favourite genre, Ilsa was one of the better examples.
Our last Reader Request was Ilsa: She Wolf of the SS, while Naziploitation isn't my favourite genre, Ilsa was one of the better examples.
Sadly this weeks movie is, in all but the trappings, a run of the mill naziplotation movie. Swap out Nazis for the church, the SS for witchfinders, Jews for peasants, and the Camp for a small village, and it's the same old same old.
The acting is terrible, save for Keir; who doesn't exactly give a career best performance himself, and spends most of the film in trousers so tight that an interested observer could probably narrow down his religion.
Against the stock background of people (mostly women) being tortured is the story of the Witch-finder general's student/protégé/apprentice (Kier) realising that his beliefs are not all they're cracked up to be.
Aside from that its a fairly standard 70s/80s torture movie; nothing to write home about, but not terrible either.
Aside from that its a fairly standard 70s/80s torture movie; nothing to write home about, but not terrible either.
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, 20 July 2013
Coffin Baby - Will's Review
Those of you who have been paying attention will know that Coffin Baby was the killer in the "Toolbox Murders" remake, and this film was originally "TBK: The Toolbox Murders 2" (TBK standing for 'Tool Box Killer').
At some point the decision to make this a sequel was dropped (originally it was to pick up where part one left off) and it was re-tooled into a stand alone movie.
This kind of awkward production process is rarely a good sign, and indeed it's taken it's toll here.
For one thing, Coffin Baby is never given a proper origin story (if it were still a sequel, that would make a little more sense), but worse; some elements of the original plot still surface... But then go nowhere.
The rune-like symbols that Coffin Baby utilised in the first film still make an appearance in a couple of very in-your face places, but are never mentioned again, and the spate of murders that shook golden era Hollywood is referenced, but never linked to the main narrative.
The story gives us nothing in the way of motive. Coffin Baby kills a woman at the opening if the film, then captures and tortures her sister... But we never know why.
To top it all, some of the acting was really ropey too, and (especially in the first half hour) the script can be laughable; the policeman who goes to tell our protagonist that her sister is dead, basically ends up yelling at her for taking it badly, comparing having to notify next of kin with the horror of losing someone, like some bizarre "my life is shit" pissing contest!
But, for all that... I actually really enjoyed this movie!
The gore and makeup FX are great, and both benefit enormously form being glimpsed, rather than put of full show; the result is that some of the murders (particularly the first one) are wonderfully / horribly believable, and none are nearly as graphic as you will go away thinking they were.
I also really enjoyed (is that the word) the ordeal that the captive sister is put through; those scenes are everything that the god awful Captivity should have been.
Towards the end there are some quasi supernatural elements I could have lived without, but I can forgive them as its pretty clear they were all in the head of our protagonist who was just pushed too far.
Against all my better judgement, and almost in spite of myself, I'm going to go ahead and recommend this one... It's a disposable popcorn movie, but I had fun watching it; and isn't that it's only real job?
This kind of awkward production process is rarely a good sign, and indeed it's taken it's toll here.
For one thing, Coffin Baby is never given a proper origin story (if it were still a sequel, that would make a little more sense), but worse; some elements of the original plot still surface... But then go nowhere.
The rune-like symbols that Coffin Baby utilised in the first film still make an appearance in a couple of very in-your face places, but are never mentioned again, and the spate of murders that shook golden era Hollywood is referenced, but never linked to the main narrative.
The story gives us nothing in the way of motive. Coffin Baby kills a woman at the opening if the film, then captures and tortures her sister... But we never know why.
To top it all, some of the acting was really ropey too, and (especially in the first half hour) the script can be laughable; the policeman who goes to tell our protagonist that her sister is dead, basically ends up yelling at her for taking it badly, comparing having to notify next of kin with the horror of losing someone, like some bizarre "my life is shit" pissing contest!
But, for all that... I actually really enjoyed this movie!
The gore and makeup FX are great, and both benefit enormously form being glimpsed, rather than put of full show; the result is that some of the murders (particularly the first one) are wonderfully / horribly believable, and none are nearly as graphic as you will go away thinking they were.
I also really enjoyed (is that the word) the ordeal that the captive sister is put through; those scenes are everything that the god awful Captivity should have been.
Towards the end there are some quasi supernatural elements I could have lived without, but I can forgive them as its pretty clear they were all in the head of our protagonist who was just pushed too far.
Against all my better judgement, and almost in spite of myself, I'm going to go ahead and recommend this one... It's a disposable popcorn movie, but I had fun watching it; and isn't that it's only real job?
Coffin Baby - Lisa's Review
*** SPOILERS ***
Before I watched this movie, I noticed from a little online research that it wasn't especially popular. Actually that's me being kind. People seem to HATE this movie, thinking it a poor sequel to the remake of Toolbox Murders, so I wasn't expecting very much.
Did I hate the movie on the same level as most other people who submitted their opinions online? It seems not. It's an odd one. There were aspects of this movie which were great! I loved how it looked, the scene settings, the bad guy looked awesome, the gore was incredible. Some of the scenes were amongst the most gruesome I have ever seen in a movie. When I say most gruesome, what I mean is, they look very real. There is no faffing about and suspense here. It's in for the kill - pun intended!
Our basic premis here involves a young woman who is kidnapped by a murderer who is responsible for killing her sister. He holds her captive and makes her watch while he tortures and murders others in front of her in many different adventurous ways.
The plot itself was sadly full of holes and raised many questions which were never answered or addressed. Some details which seemed imporant throughout the story seemed to have been forgotten and were just left hanging. In places the acting was a bit 'hammy' and overdone. I have seen much, much worse though.
Moving on to the positives, the first murder scene in the movie is almost impossible to watch without registering some form of disgust or cowering away from the scene you're witnessing. It involves a very graphic facial mutilation before the actual murder itself, which had me cringing and thinking I may find it too difficult to watch this movie if there were more of the same. The special effects, sounds and general way this is depicted all seemed very realistic to me. So realistic it made me actually feel pretty damn uncomfortable watching it.
Did the gore continue? Well yes, but I think that particular scene was the one which freaked me out the most. Another scene starts off quite amusingly where a young black man has got out of his car (egged on by his mates) to move a random trolley that's blocking his way. Cue our bad guy who is not best amused that his belongings have been tampered with. An argument of sorts ensues where the young guy is wildly gesticulating at our bad guy. I was chuckling away when the mood changed very quickly and some more gore is thrown our way.
This theme does continue and there are many more good examples of these effects to keep all gore hounds happy. There are a couple of rather nasty beheadings (one of which was particularly realistic and not something I enjoyed watching at all) and a woman who is tied to a table and has slices of her flesh cut out and cooked to be eaten while she is still alive. The killer makes our hostage eat the flesh also and as she is starving, she is unable to help herself. A man is cut in half from the groin to the head with a table saw... the list continues.
Now, where the movie falls down. As I said earlier, the plot-line is very weak, there are inconsistencies everywhere, the acting, while it is not the worst I've ever seen is a bit over dramatic in places. It all seemed to end very quickly for my liking and without any proper kind of justice. Also a supernatural element that there really was no need for is introduced. This actually detracted for the movie for me.
All in all, it wasn't as awful a movie as reviews online would have you believe. I certainly didn't feel like I'd wasted my time in watching it, like is sometimes the case, but I doubt it's going to make many peoples top 10 movie list.
I would only recommend to anyone I know likes a bit of gore and isn't bothered about depth of story.
Before I watched this movie, I noticed from a little online research that it wasn't especially popular. Actually that's me being kind. People seem to HATE this movie, thinking it a poor sequel to the remake of Toolbox Murders, so I wasn't expecting very much.
Did I hate the movie on the same level as most other people who submitted their opinions online? It seems not. It's an odd one. There were aspects of this movie which were great! I loved how it looked, the scene settings, the bad guy looked awesome, the gore was incredible. Some of the scenes were amongst the most gruesome I have ever seen in a movie. When I say most gruesome, what I mean is, they look very real. There is no faffing about and suspense here. It's in for the kill - pun intended!
Our basic premis here involves a young woman who is kidnapped by a murderer who is responsible for killing her sister. He holds her captive and makes her watch while he tortures and murders others in front of her in many different adventurous ways.
The plot itself was sadly full of holes and raised many questions which were never answered or addressed. Some details which seemed imporant throughout the story seemed to have been forgotten and were just left hanging. In places the acting was a bit 'hammy' and overdone. I have seen much, much worse though.
Moving on to the positives, the first murder scene in the movie is almost impossible to watch without registering some form of disgust or cowering away from the scene you're witnessing. It involves a very graphic facial mutilation before the actual murder itself, which had me cringing and thinking I may find it too difficult to watch this movie if there were more of the same. The special effects, sounds and general way this is depicted all seemed very realistic to me. So realistic it made me actually feel pretty damn uncomfortable watching it.
Did the gore continue? Well yes, but I think that particular scene was the one which freaked me out the most. Another scene starts off quite amusingly where a young black man has got out of his car (egged on by his mates) to move a random trolley that's blocking his way. Cue our bad guy who is not best amused that his belongings have been tampered with. An argument of sorts ensues where the young guy is wildly gesticulating at our bad guy. I was chuckling away when the mood changed very quickly and some more gore is thrown our way.
This theme does continue and there are many more good examples of these effects to keep all gore hounds happy. There are a couple of rather nasty beheadings (one of which was particularly realistic and not something I enjoyed watching at all) and a woman who is tied to a table and has slices of her flesh cut out and cooked to be eaten while she is still alive. The killer makes our hostage eat the flesh also and as she is starving, she is unable to help herself. A man is cut in half from the groin to the head with a table saw... the list continues.
Now, where the movie falls down. As I said earlier, the plot-line is very weak, there are inconsistencies everywhere, the acting, while it is not the worst I've ever seen is a bit over dramatic in places. It all seemed to end very quickly for my liking and without any proper kind of justice. Also a supernatural element that there really was no need for is introduced. This actually detracted for the movie for me.
All in all, it wasn't as awful a movie as reviews online would have you believe. I certainly didn't feel like I'd wasted my time in watching it, like is sometimes the case, but I doubt it's going to make many peoples top 10 movie list.
I would only recommend to anyone I know likes a bit of gore and isn't bothered about depth of story.
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, 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, 20 October 2012
SHOCKTOBER SPECIAL: Last House On The Left (2009) - Will's Review
For a spoiler free review of this movie, check out my solo blog here
Rather than review this movie directly (I did that already today - see above) I'm going to use my space here to compare and contrast with the original, therefore...
***SPOILERS***
The remake spends a little more time setting up the family – we see dad at work, and learn a little more about Mari (2009s main victim) than we did) Phyllis (1972) – They’ve given her a “thing” (She’s a swimmer), and a dead brother, Ben, (died in a accident a year ago).
Mari’s necklace is an old pressie Ben gave her, rather than a crappy birthday gift from Mum and Dad.
Of the Gang, Junior has a name now (Justin) and if far more sympathetic. While ‘72s Junior was still a victim, controlled by his father, Junior wants nothing to do with the gang, but can’t see a way out. Rather than luring the girls back to the gang’s place so that the gang can party, Justin is a lonely lad, who brings the girls back to smoke some pot, and intends to have them gone before the gang return. He even openly turns on the gang; He uses the pendant to tip the parents off, just as in ’72, but then he steals Krug’s gun, and gives it to the father!
Speaking of Krug, he is played here phenomenally well; while it would have been easy ho have him all snarling and shouty, he is instead almost charming, but with an underlying *something* that will make you shudder – he’s also a particularly nasty bastard; at his ‘rescue’ in the films opening, he holds a photograph of a policeman’s kids in front of his face… while killing him; ensuring that the last thing that cop will ever see is his own blood dripping onto his children’s faces.
Rather than review this movie directly (I did that already today - see above) I'm going to use my space here to compare and contrast with the original, therefore...
***SPOILERS***
The remake spends a little more time setting up the family – we see dad at work, and learn a little more about Mari (2009s main victim) than we did) Phyllis (1972) – They’ve given her a “thing” (She’s a swimmer), and a dead brother, Ben, (died in a accident a year ago).
Mari’s necklace is an old pressie Ben gave her, rather than a crappy birthday gift from Mum and Dad.
Of the Gang, Junior has a name now (Justin) and if far more sympathetic. While ‘72s Junior was still a victim, controlled by his father, Junior wants nothing to do with the gang, but can’t see a way out. Rather than luring the girls back to the gang’s place so that the gang can party, Justin is a lonely lad, who brings the girls back to smoke some pot, and intends to have them gone before the gang return. He even openly turns on the gang; He uses the pendant to tip the parents off, just as in ’72, but then he steals Krug’s gun, and gives it to the father!
Speaking of Krug, he is played here phenomenally well; while it would have been easy ho have him all snarling and shouty, he is instead almost charming, but with an underlying *something* that will make you shudder – he’s also a particularly nasty bastard; at his ‘rescue’ in the films opening, he holds a photograph of a policeman’s kids in front of his face… while killing him; ensuring that the last thing that cop will ever see is his own blood dripping onto his children’s faces.
Also on the Subject of Krug; he is the only character to retain his name from the original, and other than “iconic” value I'm not sure why they bothered… he is very different to the original.
The rape is once again brutal and horrifically realistic, I think that it was technically, if analysed god on a shot-for-shot basis less explicit this time, but use of tight shots and shaky-cam made it perhaps even more brutal and difficult to watch.
This time only the female gang member has the “we just went too far” moment, which I liked – in the first movie, after the rape, the gang stand around looking remorseful.. then kill her and immediately get back to being utter bastards.
One major difference is that (unbeknownst to the gang) Mari survives, and manages to crawl home (arriving after the gang have been put to bed for the night in the guesthouse) – this was a smart move, for a few reasons. Her survival allows her father to use his skills as a doctor; in the original it is mentioned that he is a doctor, but we never get to *see* it; here, we see him drain an internal bleed using improvised tools. Her condition provides a ‘ticking clock’ – the parents must get her to a hospital (a doctor with a knife drawer can only do so much), as well as having the gang to contend with, We are also afforded a (somewhat) happy ending this time as Mari and her parents escape, along with Justin. Their lives are shattered, but there is hope. I think to an extent, the implication is Justin will go on to fill some of the whole that Ben left in the family too.
Before anyone cried “Hollywood ending” it’s worth noting that Mari survived in the scrip for the ’72 version… the decision to kill her was made on-set.
It would have been easy to remake this one in the currently popular ‘torture porn’ mould; thankfully the producers (Cunningham returns as co-producer, joined this time by original director / writer Wes Craven) were smart enough to hire a director who ‘got’ the movie.
Apart from the last scene… in which Krug’s head is microwave (and explodes? Really? It isn’t an egg!) I get that they felt the need to give a ‘punch the air’ moment, but for me, that was a mistake.
The original had the downbeat “What did we do here?” ending, in which the parent’s realise that their actions have changed nothing, and that they have allowed the gang to not only tale their daughter, but also change who they are; in this movie we are left with no such morals to ponder. It’s like the “Pro Capital Punishment” version of the same movie. I get the sentiment, but I think it made for better characterisation the old way.
Still, all in all I think this was a better movie than the original, to the extent that this time, I’m going to give it the recommended stamp!
Body Count: 4
Boob Count: 1 Pair
Most Memorable Death: It goes 'Bing' when it's done!
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 rape is once again brutal and horrifically realistic, I think that it was technically, if analysed god on a shot-for-shot basis less explicit this time, but use of tight shots and shaky-cam made it perhaps even more brutal and difficult to watch.
This time only the female gang member has the “we just went too far” moment, which I liked – in the first movie, after the rape, the gang stand around looking remorseful.. then kill her and immediately get back to being utter bastards.
One major difference is that (unbeknownst to the gang) Mari survives, and manages to crawl home (arriving after the gang have been put to bed for the night in the guesthouse) – this was a smart move, for a few reasons. Her survival allows her father to use his skills as a doctor; in the original it is mentioned that he is a doctor, but we never get to *see* it; here, we see him drain an internal bleed using improvised tools. Her condition provides a ‘ticking clock’ – the parents must get her to a hospital (a doctor with a knife drawer can only do so much), as well as having the gang to contend with, We are also afforded a (somewhat) happy ending this time as Mari and her parents escape, along with Justin. Their lives are shattered, but there is hope. I think to an extent, the implication is Justin will go on to fill some of the whole that Ben left in the family too.
Before anyone cried “Hollywood ending” it’s worth noting that Mari survived in the scrip for the ’72 version… the decision to kill her was made on-set.
It would have been easy to remake this one in the currently popular ‘torture porn’ mould; thankfully the producers (Cunningham returns as co-producer, joined this time by original director / writer Wes Craven) were smart enough to hire a director who ‘got’ the movie.
Apart from the last scene… in which Krug’s head is microwave (and explodes? Really? It isn’t an egg!) I get that they felt the need to give a ‘punch the air’ moment, but for me, that was a mistake.
The original had the downbeat “What did we do here?” ending, in which the parent’s realise that their actions have changed nothing, and that they have allowed the gang to not only tale their daughter, but also change who they are; in this movie we are left with no such morals to ponder. It’s like the “Pro Capital Punishment” version of the same movie. I get the sentiment, but I think it made for better characterisation the old way.
Still, all in all I think this was a better movie than the original, to the extent that this time, I’m going to give it the recommended stamp!
Body Count: 4
Boob Count: 1 Pair
Most Memorable Death: It goes 'Bing' when it's done!
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: 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, 18 August 2012
Snuff - Will's Review
After watching Snuff, but while pondering what I could possibly write about it, I happened to read an interview with (Current Doctor Who writer-in-chief) Stephen Moffat, in which he says that "All stories are endings; the rest of the story is just a way to arrive at the ending" - which is true, and sums up nicely why a bad ending can ruin an otherwise fine movie, and why a great ending can elevate an average film.
It's also never been more fitting as I come to review a movie that was sold entirely on it's final scene.
It's also never been more fitting as I come to review a movie that was sold entirely on it's final scene.
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, 18 June 2011
The Beast in Heat - Lisa's Review
*** CONTAINS SPOILERS ***
I am torn with this movie. Part of me found it extremely distasteful and sick (the first so far where I could understand what all the fuss was about) but the other part of me found it too much like soft porn or movies like 'Flesh Gordon' to take in any way seriously. Had this movie been filmed with a darker mood and in all seriousness, I probably would have had problems watching it all the way through. That's not due to it being particularly horrific or having scenes which were bad enough for it to warrant prosecution, but just due to the fact I am a female viewer and much as I don't like typical sexist stereotypes, I think there are specific acts which men find easier to view than women.
There was 1 scene in this entire movie where a crying baby is snatched from its mother by a german officer and thrown into the air and shot (off camera) which is probably the only 'nasty' part in this movie played out seriously.
The general storyline involves a female nazi officers' experiment, where she creates a neanderthal-looking, sex-crazed creature, which spends the movies duration in a cage naked. Female prisoners are subjected to being thrown into the cage so this 'monster' can have his way with them while prison guards and the officers look on in amusement. These scenes are not particularly shocking, but more amusing to be honest as this incompetant, brainless creature does what only an animal could do, including ripping out the hair on one particularly thick muff. Thats something thats plentiful in this movie... very hairy female genitals! Makes you want to rush onto the set with some wax strips....
Also plentiful are boobs of all sizes and shapes. This movie is most definately one for the men as it just exploits women from start to finish. They just seem to be there for the eye candy to me. In saying that, the main movie villan is a woman, but her character is also something meant to appeal to the men and even she doesn't keep her clothes on! She is a dominatrix style character with the personality of a very lewd man. She makes advances on female officers, challenges male officers to 'get off' on the beast having sex with unconsenting women, then chastises them for it. She 'tortures' male prisoners by stripping off for them and asking them to look at her, before travelling southward..... kind of odd torture if you ask me. They'll be lining up for cross examination next.
So like I said, a kind of very poor soft porn movie in places, but done extremely badly. There are also several rape scenes with german officers and scenes where women are tortured, usually by way of genital electrocution or supposed rats eating their parts (although most amusingly, guinea pigs are used in the movie). Scenes which should have been horrific are played for kicks and to give you as much of an eyefull as possible.
One of the final scene inevitably involves Mistress bitch being hauled into the beasts cage so he can have his way with her. This is, as with the rest of the movie, played for kicks, with the absence of a bra when the uniform is ripped off, the suspenders and stockings which she just happened to have on underneath and their staying on all the way through. She is reduced to a quivering, bloody mess, just like all the other women (you could say she got her cum upence .. Ba'dum tish!) and they are both finally shot at the end by the villagers (who are in another story which runs alongside the main sex fuelled one and is too mind numbingly dull to talk about.... one of them does talk a lot like Pop-eye though, which I found amusing) its dull and monotonous and most viewers will just be wondering how long it takes until you get back to the boobs. It was a very weird mix of 2 stories to me....
So to conclude, nothing particularly shocking in this movie but it contains an awful lot of nudity and sex. It is so bad though and 'the beast' is so laughable, you can't really get all bent out of shape about it. I felt sorry for the actresses having the guys flacid bits all pressed up against them... YUCK!!! If you're a guy who likes to watch a lot of boobs and a bit of blood, then this is for you. If you're a horror loving female, then there's very little here for you (unless of course you like to look at boobs too). There are a few teeny tiny flacid willies in there as well though, if that does it for you!
You'll need your pen and paper for the boob count in this one Will. I can't wait to see what it is!
Gore: 1/10 (There is very little)
Story: 2/10 (there was little in the way of a story as it was all an excuse to get bits out)
Nudity: 8/10 (Seemed to be the main reason for the movie to me)
Overall Score: 4/10 (If I was a guy, this would probably rise to 6/10)
Please use the comments bellow only to comment on this post - to write your own review, please comment on the "Reader Reviews" post for this movie.
Please use the comments bellow only to comment on this post - to write your own review, please comment on the "Reader Reviews" post for this movie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)