CONTAINS SPOLIERS.
Anthropophagous the Beast.
Well, hmmm.
To be honest, it needs renaming:
John Entwistle is Anthropophagous the beast (sponsored by Coca-Cola)
Let’s start with the important facts;
Was/is this worth watching?
Contentious….
It probably is if only for a few scenes.
Unfortunately I couldn’t get past the thought that ‘The Beast’ looked uncannily like John Entwistle from The Who,
Which is quite a connection as when you ask most people about this title, the first response is ‘what, Who’
There was an attempt at a storyline, but my attention slipped off to watch paint dry during extended scenes of ‘meaningless conversations’ that had naff all to do with anything!
Nice campervan mind.
Oh, did I mention Mia Farrows sister make yet another appearance in this?
Something that still stands out in the film is sadly not a special effect, but simply some bizarre dialogue…
A young couple on a beach, he’s topless, his girlfriend strips to a tiny bikini, yet his attention and scripted “oh ya” is directed at their dog which is relaxing in the sun!
See, even now, I’ve deviated from the plot…
It basically evolves around a man goes mad, blah blah blah, eats his family, islanders disappear….blah blah.
So what of the reason for making the DPP?
That’s down to one short clip that could’ve/should’ve been damn memorable….
The eating of a foetus freshly yanked from a pregnant woman. Not your average midwifery there!
I’d heard about the clip years ago & now I’ve seen it.. *shrugs shoulders*
I have to admit to fast-forwarding the ‘tense chase scenes’ –NOT.
No, really I did, the Not was sarcasm.
The naff soundtrack & score helps not at all either.
The film crawls along with painting by numbers style killings, during which you’d be thinking ‘I recognise him’, well, like I said it’s John Entwistle, bass player with The Who.
After dragging things out further there is an almost interesting final death scene where Mr Entwistle can’t resist eating his own spilt guts.
The End.
feck, all it needed was ‘Fin’.
This had the foundations of a classic watch again & again Horror.
Sadly it’s not.
My advice is watch it once just so you can cross it off your list & maybe edit a few clips out to a compiled montage.
Fin.
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.
Showing posts with label Anthropophagous. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anthropophagous. Show all posts
Monday, 6 June 2011
Saturday, 4 June 2011
Anthropophagous - Lisa's Review
So on to week 2 of the 'Video Nasty a week', which is Anthropophagus. Maybe I should have watched this one first as this is supposedly the prequel to the one I watched first (Absurd). Thankfully there is no link to the stories. The only thing which ties them together is the lead character and given that he dies in this movie, his appearance in the next movie is obviously a clear enough indication it is not a follow-on.
I was disappointed with the first film in my list, but this one was actually not too bad. Given that it was the earlier movie, I was quite surprised by how much better the blood, gore and general feel of this movie is.
The acting, although poor in places is satisfactory (it is a video nasty after-all so don't expect any Oscar winning performances) I didn't feel myself cringe at the awfulness of the music, acting or anything to be honest. It did have an ominous, creepy feel in places which I liked. To me, whether or not I enjoy a movie has a lot to do with how it physically makes me feel while i'm watching it and whether or not I dwell on it afterwards. I liked how this one made me feel, but it certainly didn't have any scenes that I can say would stay with me.
The storyline is strong and keeps you interested as it progresses. It makes sense and all ties together quite nicely. Normal movie fans could watch this one quite easilly as there is honestly nothing shocking or nasty in this movie. The bad guy is excellent and perfectly cast. He was one of the few positive things about Absurd.
The gore is nothing more horrific than you would expect in any horror movie. The scene which got this movie banned (a scene where the lead character removes and eats a human foetus) is very brief and not at all shocking to be honest. Turns out the realism of the skinned rabbit used for this scene caused some viewers to feel the movie makers had actually got their hands on a real life dead foetus.... nice!
The movie is dated as you would expect, but it is watchable and somewhat enjoyable. If you are looking for gore, to be disgusted or to see something horrific, then probably best not to waste your time. If you're interested in watching an easy enough little movie with some slightly messy scenes, then fire away with this one.
Not at all bad or to be laughed at. Much superior to his sequel. Overall I would give this one a 5/10.
Please use the comments below only to comment on this post - to write your own review, please comment on the "Reader Reviews" post for this movie.
Anthropophagous - Will's Reviews
***Spoilers throughout***
When I first wrote up the viewing reschedule for this project; I decided that alphabetical order was the best way to avoid missing any of the films, but that left "Absurd" (AKA "Anthropophagous 2") before this film, however a quick background check told me that the two movies are entirly unrelated - and they are; which is wierd when you consider that both are from the same director, the same writer, and star the same guy, playing a(n entirly different) madman from Greece.
In this movie he plays an insane cannibal with a bad complexion, but no special powers, where as in the 'Sequel' he plays a killer (but not cannibal) with remarkable healing abilities.
Also bear in mind that one title for "Absurd / Anthropophagous 2" was "Zombie 6" ("Zombie" was the italian title for "Day of the Dead") so it's worth bearing in mind that 'MOVIE YOU KNOW PART X' means very little in the world of low budget Italian horror.
In this movie he plays an insane cannibal with a bad complexion, but no special powers, where as in the 'Sequel' he plays a killer (but not cannibal) with remarkable healing abilities.
Also bear in mind that one title for "Absurd / Anthropophagous 2" was "Zombie 6" ("Zombie" was the italian title for "Day of the Dead") so it's worth bearing in mind that 'MOVIE YOU KNOW PART X' means very little in the world of low budget Italian horror.
If you went into this movie completely blind, you could be forgiven for assuming at first that it was a Jaws rippoff; The film opens with a couple (with an adorable old dog!) on an abandoned beach, She makes for the water, while he settles down with headphones, not watching her, while she swims out to a small moored boat, it isn't long before we get shots like this:
See what I mean?
When she gets dragged under, the unknowing viewer (an by "Unknowing" I mean "Hasn't seen the video box, much less found out that 'Anthropophagous' is Greek for 'Cannibal') could still carry on in their sharky assumptions.
When the guy gets an axe to the head however, It becomes apparent that the killer in this movie is a bit less water-bound than everyone's favourite killer shark.
The fate of this chap is left unknown
Then, things slow down for a bit as we meet our fodder main characters (6 friends, and a new girl) and actually spend a good half hour getting to know the group, so that we stand a chance of caring about them (Nothing ruins a large group of victims faster than a lack of introduction - leaving us confused as to how the group slot together when they start getting bumped off).
The group meet the new girl, by the way, in the most absurdly polite sequence ever caught on film:
The group meet the new girl, by the way, in the most absurdly polite sequence ever caught on film:
Mental! -So, they agree to give her a lift in their boat, and even this sleezebag isn't enough to make her rethink it and just take the new camera:
shudder
Anyway, the new girl needs a lift to a particular island, where she is to keep a 15 year old girl company in exchange for a free holiday (!), and since our gang don't have a particular itinerary, they decide to visit said island themselves.
When they arrive, the island turns out to be practically deserted, save for a few bodies dotted around (The bodies look mummified to me, but our heroes claim they appear 'devoured'), and a nice little mystery unfolds about where everyone is, who has done this, and why?
One thing that isn't explained (or rather is, but not very well) is how our killer came to be a porridge-faced monster who seemingly can't look at a human being without having to eat it. an explanation is given (in flashback) but...
The gore was much better (although still limited) in this than in it's sequel (which makes no sense - I can only assume the second film had a smaller budget), but that said, it's still hard, though jaded post-Saw/Hostel eyes, to see why this movie was on the DPP list, much less what a jury found so offensive that the movie was prosecuted.
Well, actually I think I know exactly why it was on the list (though still not why it was prosecuted) - The video box-art for one (Which, by the way, is a massive spoiler) and the scene where the killer reaches up a pregnant woman's skirt, bulls out the feotus and starts to eat it! This scene looks, to me at least, laughably fake; while the 'feotus' is clearly a whole, dead something it is equal clear that it has never been human (Wikipedia says it's a skinned rabbit). This was not enough to prevent a panic; It was reported in the news (even by the BBC) that this was a genuine "snuff" moment.
Unlike "Absurd", George Eastman (Who, incidentally, also wrote and produced both movies) isn't the only one bothering to act this time out - The whole cast give solid enough performances, and the voice actors have made the wise choice of going for a decent delivery, at the expense of perfect lip-sync (In Absurd the lip-sync was so good that it was hard to believe at times that the cast weren't genuinely speaking English, but in fitting the words to the actors mouths, all cadence was lost.)
So, despite the ribbing I've given the film, I actually quite enjoyed it - it's a reasonable 70's horror movie, that these days you would expect to pass uncut with no problems, the story is a little thin, but to be fair it has more of a plot than, say, Halloween (which I love), so story is demonstrably not the biggest concern in a decent slasher movie. Over all I'd say it was a little better than Absurd, and once again, not a bed way to kill 90 or so minutes
When they arrive, the island turns out to be practically deserted, save for a few bodies dotted around (The bodies look mummified to me, but our heroes claim they appear 'devoured'), and a nice little mystery unfolds about where everyone is, who has done this, and why?
One thing that isn't explained (or rather is, but not very well) is how our killer came to be a porridge-faced monster who seemingly can't look at a human being without having to eat it. an explanation is given (in flashback) but...
If you want to see what single event can turn a relatively normal
man into a flesh-crazed demon-lookin' dude, play this clip:
The gore was much better (although still limited) in this than in it's sequel (which makes no sense - I can only assume the second film had a smaller budget), but that said, it's still hard, though jaded post-Saw/Hostel eyes, to see why this movie was on the DPP list, much less what a jury found so offensive that the movie was prosecuted.
Well, actually I think I know exactly why it was on the list (though still not why it was prosecuted) - The video box-art for one (Which, by the way, is a massive spoiler) and the scene where the killer reaches up a pregnant woman's skirt, bulls out the feotus and starts to eat it! This scene looks, to me at least, laughably fake; while the 'feotus' is clearly a whole, dead something it is equal clear that it has never been human (Wikipedia says it's a skinned rabbit). This was not enough to prevent a panic; It was reported in the news (even by the BBC) that this was a genuine "snuff" moment.
Unlike "Absurd", George Eastman (Who, incidentally, also wrote and produced both movies) isn't the only one bothering to act this time out - The whole cast give solid enough performances, and the voice actors have made the wise choice of going for a decent delivery, at the expense of perfect lip-sync (In Absurd the lip-sync was so good that it was hard to believe at times that the cast weren't genuinely speaking English, but in fitting the words to the actors mouths, all cadence was lost.)
So, despite the ribbing I've given the film, I actually quite enjoyed it - it's a reasonable 70's horror movie, that these days you would expect to pass uncut with no problems, the story is a little thin, but to be fair it has more of a plot than, say, Halloween (which I love), so story is demonstrably not the biggest concern in a decent slasher movie. Over all I'd say it was a little better than Absurd, and once again, not a bed way to kill 90 or so minutes
Human Body Count: 10.5
Animal Body Count: 1 (probably)
Boobs: 1 (single)
Most memorable death: Foetus Eating(!)
Please use the comments bellow only to comment on this post - to write your own review, please comment on the "Reader Reviews" post for this movie.
Sunday, 29 May 2011
WEEK 2: Anthropophagous
Alternate Titles : Anthropophagous: The Beast, The Grim Reaper, Anthropophagus: The Grim Reaper, Man Eater, The Savage Island
Year: 1980
Reviews / Author Comments due: 04/06/2011
Added to DPP List: November 1983
Added to DPP List: November 1983
DPP Status: Successfully Prosecuted
BBFC Status: Not Submitted
IMDB: Anthropophagus
Wikipedia: Antropophagus
DVD: Uncut US Import
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)