Right up front, I'm going to stick a big fat "Will Recommends" on this. If you haven't seen it yet, go do so; don't read this review, and don't read any publicity materials. In fact no: make sure you have seen at least the first 2 original Evil Dead
Still here? You've hopefully already seen the film then, so this will be less of a review, and more my side of a discussion about why it was clever / great.
One more thing - did you watch the closing credits? All of them? If not; back you go... I'll wait.
First up, the reason my opening paragraph says to avoid publicity material; being the kind of person who reads Dread Central, Bloody Disgusting, and so forth, I already knew that the hero of the movie is Mai. This is a crying shame, because well over an hour into this 90 minute move, it looked certain that her brother was 2013's Ash.
Having Mai become the new version of the "Cellar Witch", only to have her recover and be sole survivor was a stroke of genius, playing with our expectations and using our knowledge of horror films (generally) and the previous Evil Dead films (specifically) against us to keep things new.
Indeed, keeping things new is this installment neatest trick; despite the laundry-list of iconic moments being re-worked, it never feels like we've seen this before.
The male-lead's sister is first to be possessed, and is locked in the cellar, A possessed had is chopped of by its (former?) owner with an electric carving knife, male-lead had to bury someone he loves while she pleas with him, there's a tree-rape, the bridge goes down, all the trouble is caused by a creepy-ass book found in the cellar... That it manages to hit all if these points, but make them new is borderline genius!
It's all so similar-yet different that it works as both a reboot and a new story set in the same universe (more on that later).
As we know though, Mai is our "new Ash" and man does she suffer! Ash was famously put through the ringer more than any horror-survivor should be, but his ordeal was a walk in the park next to poor Mia, who has a car-crash, gets possessed, bisects her tongue with a craft-knife, gets scalded, shot in the face with a nail-gun, beaten, burried alive, suffocated, stabbed in the heart with electrified needles, and has to tear (not cut) her hand off! All while undergoing cold-turkey for a drug addiction!
Back to the idea that this film is as much a sequel as a remake; did you notice that the cabin (despite looking like the original and having Ash's car going rusty in the yard) was in a different state? Or that the Necronomicon is a different book - not only in appearance, but it has a new name?
That's because, box office willing, the plan is to have Mai and Ash's stories cross over in the 7th Evil Dead movie (after a sequel to this movie, and then a planned Army of Darkness 2).
Groovy!
Showing posts with label Beyond Nasty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Beyond Nasty. Show all posts
Saturday, 31 August 2013
Evil Dead 2013 - Lisa's Review
This week, the 2013 remake of Evil Dead, again starring Bruce Campbell. A group of young attractive types who go to a cabin in the woods and upon stumbling across the Necronomicon (book of the dead) they manage inadvertantly to release evil spirits. All kinds of hell, possession and murder ensues.
That's not to say this is a bad movie, it is far from it. It is enjoyable enough as a stand-alone movie. It's when you start to compare it to the original that we encounter problems.
Sadly none of the cast (apart from Campbell) are memorable and although the movie is not played for laughs like the original, there are parts which will genuinely make you giggle (which certainly was not the intended effect). The gore is a bit OTT and what a human body seems able to take before expiring is indeed inhuman! I suppose believability is not something one should expect from a movie about possession and the evil dead, sadly though, I do.
I didn't find anything was added to the movie by this remake, apart from the obvious updating of it for a modern audience. The cinematography was beautiful in places, but the general 'feel' of the movie, effects and performances just didn't leave me with the feeling of unease that it should have.
The feeling I got from the movie was similar to that of when watching a teen slasher movie and wondering who is going to be next (not difficult to do at all it seems). I felt that the original movie deserved a little bit more than that.
Its quite sad really as this isn't a 'bad' movie. I suppose there was just something 'missing' in what made the original special. That je ne sais quoi just wasn't captured here. I wouldn't go so far as to either recommend it or suggest you avoid it. I could however give it the green light to any younger horror fans who were yet to watch the 1981 original.
That's not to say this is a bad movie, it is far from it. It is enjoyable enough as a stand-alone movie. It's when you start to compare it to the original that we encounter problems.
Sadly none of the cast (apart from Campbell) are memorable and although the movie is not played for laughs like the original, there are parts which will genuinely make you giggle (which certainly was not the intended effect). The gore is a bit OTT and what a human body seems able to take before expiring is indeed inhuman! I suppose believability is not something one should expect from a movie about possession and the evil dead, sadly though, I do.
I didn't find anything was added to the movie by this remake, apart from the obvious updating of it for a modern audience. The cinematography was beautiful in places, but the general 'feel' of the movie, effects and performances just didn't leave me with the feeling of unease that it should have.
The feeling I got from the movie was similar to that of when watching a teen slasher movie and wondering who is going to be next (not difficult to do at all it seems). I felt that the original movie deserved a little bit more than that.
Its quite sad really as this isn't a 'bad' movie. I suppose there was just something 'missing' in what made the original special. That je ne sais quoi just wasn't captured here. I wouldn't go so far as to either recommend it or suggest you avoid it. I could however give it the green light to any younger horror fans who were yet to watch the 1981 original.
Wednesday, 28 August 2013
Week 119 - Evil Dead (2013)
Year: 2013
Reviews / Author Comments due: 31/08/2013
Reason for Inclusion: remake / new chapter in the series that started with the DPP classic
BBFC Status: Passed uncut in 2013
DVD: LINK
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
Tuesday, 27 August 2013
Within The Woods - Will's Review
I struggle to get a full length review from most 90 minute movies, so how well I'll fair with a half hour student film, we shall see...
But of course, this isn't just any 30 minute student film... This is Sam Rami's, Bruce Campbell staring, student film, about 4 friends who head off to a cabin in the woods, where they disturb an ancient evil; in other words this is Evil Dead 0: The Prototype.
Sadly, no good quality copies of this exist (even Rami doesn't have one) so the grainy, poorly tracked, fuzzy copy that you'll find on YouTube is pretty much as good as it gets - and the image quality alone renders it almost unwatchable.
It's a relief then, that the short itself is no masterpiece; we have, thankfully, lost no more than a curiosity to the ravages of time and VHS dubbing.
The only real way to look at this film; indeed, the only reason it is ever watched, I'd to compare and contrast with Evil Dead.
The makeup effects here are even poorer and more low-budget than in Evil Dead; but that's to be expected. Bruce Campbell is surprisingly interchangeable here, and the story hasn't been refined yet; here it's an Indian burial ground that's to blame (cliche much?).
On the plus side though, the cinematography and sound design has Rami's thumb print all over it - we get manic edits, lots of close shots and low, sweeping POVs, all accompanied by creaking and whooshing. Every blow and stab is brought right to the front of the song mix and, even though we've seen (or heard) this done throughout the Evil Dead trilogy here, against the backdrop of an inferior movie, we can really appreciate how great that sound design is.
All in all I really can't recommend this on its own merits, but it's an amateur film, and you wouldn't expect great things; as a curiosity for Evil Dead fans, yes, it's worth a quick look on YouTube as a novelty; if you can put up with the poor picture quality.
But of course, this isn't just any 30 minute student film... This is Sam Rami's, Bruce Campbell staring, student film, about 4 friends who head off to a cabin in the woods, where they disturb an ancient evil; in other words this is Evil Dead 0: The Prototype.
Sadly, no good quality copies of this exist (even Rami doesn't have one) so the grainy, poorly tracked, fuzzy copy that you'll find on YouTube is pretty much as good as it gets - and the image quality alone renders it almost unwatchable.
It's a relief then, that the short itself is no masterpiece; we have, thankfully, lost no more than a curiosity to the ravages of time and VHS dubbing.
The only real way to look at this film; indeed, the only reason it is ever watched, I'd to compare and contrast with Evil Dead.
The makeup effects here are even poorer and more low-budget than in Evil Dead; but that's to be expected. Bruce Campbell is surprisingly interchangeable here, and the story hasn't been refined yet; here it's an Indian burial ground that's to blame (cliche much?).
On the plus side though, the cinematography and sound design has Rami's thumb print all over it - we get manic edits, lots of close shots and low, sweeping POVs, all accompanied by creaking and whooshing. Every blow and stab is brought right to the front of the song mix and, even though we've seen (or heard) this done throughout the Evil Dead trilogy here, against the backdrop of an inferior movie, we can really appreciate how great that sound design is.
All in all I really can't recommend this on its own merits, but it's an amateur film, and you wouldn't expect great things; as a curiosity for Evil Dead fans, yes, it's worth a quick look on YouTube as a novelty; if you can put up with the poor picture quality.
Saturday, 24 August 2013
Within The Woods - Lisa's Review
A novel one this week. A mere 32 minutes long and a short movie by Sam Raimi that went on to be remade with a significantly larger budget as Evil Dead.
It starred mostly Mr Raimi's friends, but he was lucky enough to have Bruce Campbell in it also!! (not that you would know... he shows none of his characteristic massive persona in this offering).
This movie was released in 1978 and any surviving copies are very difficult to watch due to the quality of the recording. It is available on Youtube if you want a nosey.
What can I say? I thought that mostly it was gawd awful. Dated in a way that is difficult to get past (for me at least) and with a budget soooo low, you wonder how on earth he managed to get funding for Evil Dead.
I can't say I enjoyed watching it at all and if it weren't for the blog reviews, I would have turned off within 5 to 10 minutes.
One positive I will give to this movie however is its sound effects. Yes, you heard me right. Whether it be stab noises, gurglings, possessed voices or various other noises surrounding deaths. They were delightfully eerie and realistic. For me, any moments of feeling impressed end there.
Maybe bigger fans of the actual Evil Dead movie will enjoy it more than I did as a piece of movie nostalgia, but it's certainly not one I will watch again.
It starred mostly Mr Raimi's friends, but he was lucky enough to have Bruce Campbell in it also!! (not that you would know... he shows none of his characteristic massive persona in this offering).
This movie was released in 1978 and any surviving copies are very difficult to watch due to the quality of the recording. It is available on Youtube if you want a nosey.
What can I say? I thought that mostly it was gawd awful. Dated in a way that is difficult to get past (for me at least) and with a budget soooo low, you wonder how on earth he managed to get funding for Evil Dead.
I can't say I enjoyed watching it at all and if it weren't for the blog reviews, I would have turned off within 5 to 10 minutes.
One positive I will give to this movie however is its sound effects. Yes, you heard me right. Whether it be stab noises, gurglings, possessed voices or various other noises surrounding deaths. They were delightfully eerie and realistic. For me, any moments of feeling impressed end there.
Maybe bigger fans of the actual Evil Dead movie will enjoy it more than I did as a piece of movie nostalgia, but it's certainly not one I will watch again.
Wednesday, 21 August 2013
week 118 - Within The Woods (bootleg)
Year: 1978
Reviews / Author Comments due: 24/08/2013
BBFC Status: Never Submitted
DVD: No official release
FULL MOVIE:
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
Sunday, 18 August 2013
Welcome to the Jungle - Will's Review
The makers of The Blair Witch Project cited the original Cannibal Holocaust as a major influence - it seems strange then, that this (supposed - more on that later) Holocaust remake shares more DNA with Blair Witch than it does with its own direct ancestor.
In all fairness, it's probably more accurate to say that this movie "borrows heavily" from the original, than it is to say that it's "based on" it.
Like Blair Witch, we are introduced to a group of teens with an obsession for filming EVERYTHING (at least Blair Witch had the excuse that they had set out to make a documentary) and the entire movie is pieced together from their footage.
As with Blair Witch, we are quickly briefed on the background legend - the story here being the true one that Michael Rockefeller vanished in New Guinea "deep in cannibal country" and speculation that he may still be living in the jungle.
Everything starts off promisingly enough; we spend some time with our characters and get to know them, which is usually a plus, and everyone seems believable enough.
Unfortunately though, this move shares Blair Witch's biggest weakness; by the one hour mark, you somehow don't feel that anything has happened (impressive, when you consider that our 'heroes' have managed to be involved in roadside gunplay twice by this point), and the characters (two in particular) start to get dumber and more unlikeable.
By the time the tribes show up, there's only about 15 minutes runtime left, which is a shame because the movie really gets going around this point; it would have been nice to perhaps compress the middle of the movie (lose one of the 2 going-nowhere gun incidents, for instance) and expand the final act.
First contact with the natives is genuinely unnerving, and there are some wonderful / horrible moments as our group meet their fates.
Not a great movie by any stretch, but no worse than a dozen other found footage movies.
Speaking of which; how was the footage recovered?
A big fat "Meh!"
In all fairness, it's probably more accurate to say that this movie "borrows heavily" from the original, than it is to say that it's "based on" it.
Like Blair Witch, we are introduced to a group of teens with an obsession for filming EVERYTHING (at least Blair Witch had the excuse that they had set out to make a documentary) and the entire movie is pieced together from their footage.
As with Blair Witch, we are quickly briefed on the background legend - the story here being the true one that Michael Rockefeller vanished in New Guinea "deep in cannibal country" and speculation that he may still be living in the jungle.
Everything starts off promisingly enough; we spend some time with our characters and get to know them, which is usually a plus, and everyone seems believable enough.
Unfortunately though, this move shares Blair Witch's biggest weakness; by the one hour mark, you somehow don't feel that anything has happened (impressive, when you consider that our 'heroes' have managed to be involved in roadside gunplay twice by this point), and the characters (two in particular) start to get dumber and more unlikeable.
By the time the tribes show up, there's only about 15 minutes runtime left, which is a shame because the movie really gets going around this point; it would have been nice to perhaps compress the middle of the movie (lose one of the 2 going-nowhere gun incidents, for instance) and expand the final act.
First contact with the natives is genuinely unnerving, and there are some wonderful / horrible moments as our group meet their fates.
Not a great movie by any stretch, but no worse than a dozen other found footage movies.
Speaking of which; how was the footage recovered?
A big fat "Meh!"
Saturday, 17 August 2013
Welcome To The Jungle - Lisa's Review
*** SPOILERS ***
So this movie brings us back to our original 'Video Nasties' challenge, as it's a remake of banned movie Cannibal Holocaust. I wasn't a fan of the original movie, mostly due to the use of footage with real animal deaths, something I abhore. Lets see how I got on with the movie minus the animal nastiness.
When this movie started and for the first 20-30 minutes, I thought it was going to be quite good. A decent amount of time is spent introducing us to the main 4 characters, giving us an idea of personality types, how the individuals are linked and allowing us to form opinions and have the potential for empathy later in the movie.
We have 2 couples (the established one having been together for 2 weeks, the other having just met) who decide to head from Fiji to the jungle outside New Guinea to attempt to locate Michael Rockefeller, son of New York Governor who disappeared in 1961. Obviously with the area being full of indigenous tribes and there being armed criminals enroute, this is quite a dangerous jaunt.
So after the initial high hopes I had for the movie, when pretty much bugger all of interest had taken place within the first hour of the movie, I began to get a tad impatient.
The couples began to grate on each others nerves and we went from bickering and squabbling to wishes of death upon each other.... funny you should mention that....
In the last few minutes of a very dull, slow, dragging movie we have one of the couples be chased by tribesmen and shot with arrows. They're captured and the woman is hung on a large pole contraption which entered her mouth and exited the base of her skull. This was all done off camera. We don't see what happens to the young man until the other couple (the ones who wishes them dead remember...) arrive and find him. First they find some bloody clothing, followed by the hanging woman.
If that's not enough to disturb them, they come across a pair of severed feet hanging in a tree. It is then we see what became of the guy. He is laying on the ground covered in leaves and is missing his arms and feet. Lovely. His friends decide to put him out of his misery and shoot him.
The tribesmen of course had been following our couple and they also end up being done away with by the tribe. We also see an old white man walking away at the end of the movie, hinting that Michael Rockefeller is actually still alive. There is no explanation as to why he hadn't been killed and eaten.
In conclusion, this movie was sloooooooooow and dull. I was sat watching it, willing it to improve.... come ON already!! It did pick up in the last 15 minutes, but I couldn't help but wish they had lengthened the movie a bit and extended the last 15 minutes to a half hour at least. They could even cut some time from the first part of the movie.
I wouldn't recommend this movie, but neither would I advise you to avoid it. It was an ok watch I suppose, but too little, too late for me.
Wednesday, 14 August 2013
WEEK 117 - Welcome to the Jungle
Year: 2007
Reviews / Author Comments due: 17/08/2013
Reason for Inclusion: Remake of DPP movie Cannibal Holocaust
BBFC Status: Not Submitted, Nominally banned
DVD: Blu-Ray Import
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
Monday, 12 August 2013
The Trip - Will's Review
Another tough one this week, as we have very little in the form of plot to comment on.
In the middle of a divorce, advertising director, Paul (Peter Fonda) decides to experiment with LSD. Quite sensibly, he decides to take his first trip in the company of a sober friend, John, who uses the drug himself.
After a quick visit to John's dealer, Max (Dennis Hopper), its back to John's place to take the drug.
The rest of the movie deals with Paul's trip; a sequence of disconnected scenes in which he has sex (both real, within the context of the film, and imaginary), gets chased through a variety of landscapes, and wonders around LA, visiting the homes of acquaintances and strangers alike, interspersed with colourful 60's visuals.
And that's really all there is too it.
The thing that struck me most about the movie was how hard it is to believe that it was actually made in the 60s; a lot of the colours and design work looks like a recent parody of the decade - particularly Max's drugs den, which looks almost exactly like Austin Powers' 'pad' - all psychedelic swirls and giant stylised flowers.
Aside from that, I'm struggling to find anything to say; Fonda and Hopper give solid enough performances (as you'd expect) but Nicholson's script gives them little to work with.
I can't say 'avoid' because it does do out what it set out to do, but I will warn you that it is a flat, in interesting, disjointed movie; probably best left for people with a strong interest in LSD.
In the middle of a divorce, advertising director, Paul (Peter Fonda) decides to experiment with LSD. Quite sensibly, he decides to take his first trip in the company of a sober friend, John, who uses the drug himself.
After a quick visit to John's dealer, Max (Dennis Hopper), its back to John's place to take the drug.
The rest of the movie deals with Paul's trip; a sequence of disconnected scenes in which he has sex (both real, within the context of the film, and imaginary), gets chased through a variety of landscapes, and wonders around LA, visiting the homes of acquaintances and strangers alike, interspersed with colourful 60's visuals.
And that's really all there is too it.
The thing that struck me most about the movie was how hard it is to believe that it was actually made in the 60s; a lot of the colours and design work looks like a recent parody of the decade - particularly Max's drugs den, which looks almost exactly like Austin Powers' 'pad' - all psychedelic swirls and giant stylised flowers.
Aside from that, I'm struggling to find anything to say; Fonda and Hopper give solid enough performances (as you'd expect) but Nicholson's script gives them little to work with.
I can't say 'avoid' because it does do out what it set out to do, but I will warn you that it is a flat, in interesting, disjointed movie; probably best left for people with a strong interest in LSD.
Saturday, 10 August 2013
The Trip - Lisa's Review
This weeks movie review is going to be very short as I could make sod all sense of it.
To me this movie is simply a string of weird, unrelated scenes all mashed together with really irritating 60's trippy music and psychedelic overlays.
The story here is one of a young guy called Paul Groves (played by Peter Fonda) who is rather depressed to be going through a divorce. He makes a decision to embark on an LSD trip under the guidance of his friend John, an advocate of the drug.
What follows is basically an arty farty, trippy mess of a movie. Think Austin Powers with no funny bits... that's pretty much what it looks like. We have a plethora of 'names' in the movie as Dennis hopper also makes an appearance. I was also amazed to hear Jack Nicholson is responsible for this pile of tosh.
There are the usual 60's staples of nudity, sex, flower power, garish colours, funky music and questionable fashion.
Some people may enjoy this and no doubt it was probably ground breaking in the 60's, but viewed today, it has absolutely no shock value and is just dull, dull, DULL!
I have to stick an 'avoid' tag on this one purely as I don't see its relevance these days. Maybe worth watching for nostalgia purposes?
To me this movie is simply a string of weird, unrelated scenes all mashed together with really irritating 60's trippy music and psychedelic overlays.
The story here is one of a young guy called Paul Groves (played by Peter Fonda) who is rather depressed to be going through a divorce. He makes a decision to embark on an LSD trip under the guidance of his friend John, an advocate of the drug.
What follows is basically an arty farty, trippy mess of a movie. Think Austin Powers with no funny bits... that's pretty much what it looks like. We have a plethora of 'names' in the movie as Dennis hopper also makes an appearance. I was also amazed to hear Jack Nicholson is responsible for this pile of tosh.
There are the usual 60's staples of nudity, sex, flower power, garish colours, funky music and questionable fashion.
Some people may enjoy this and no doubt it was probably ground breaking in the 60's, but viewed today, it has absolutely no shock value and is just dull, dull, DULL!
I have to stick an 'avoid' tag on this one purely as I don't see its relevance these days. Maybe worth watching for nostalgia purposes?
Wednesday, 7 August 2013
Monday, 5 August 2013
Anthropophagous 2000 - Will's Review
Oh, what to say about this one? While the original was no masterpiece or summer blockbuster, one still has to question the wisdom of a bunch of amateurs re-making it on a budget of 27p; watching it though, that appears to be what has happened.
From the opening scene of the worlds most amateurish detectives, to a thunderstorm clearly filmed inside and achieved by going nuts with a dimmer switch. From an obviously pre-broken mast falling apart at its break line, to the some if the worst acting an SFX I've ever seen; for the first half hour I really thought this one was going to fall into the "so bad it's good" camp.
As with the original, a couple are introduced early in the film, simply to be dispatched; although this time around, a beach scene is replaced by a really bad soft-porn interlude in a tent.
The movie is german, with a german cast; so i was slightly puzzled as to why the aforementioned copulating couple were speaking English (with thick German accents). I can only assume they were playing English or American tourists? Either way it added to the batshit insanity, and I was at this point loving it.
We meet another Pair of campers, who, in the miday sun, declare themselves so lost that they may as well stop looking for the campsite and spend the night where they are (so lost, thy one of them decides to nip off down the pub).
Yes for the first half hour it is brilliantly bad.
Sadly, it isn't long before the rot sets in and it becomes jut another bad film, and incompetent remake of a movie that was never great to begin with.
Characters act in seemingly random ways ("where is the car", "I don't know <points>", "lets go" <walks in direction of pointing, finds car>), even the set decoration makes no sense ("Go away" is written on the INSIDE of a window).
Lodge full of corpses? Best stay inside feeling sick until someone else comes in and suggests you leave!
Been shot 6 times AND disembowelled yourself? That's no reason not to chase someone around the woods!
If it's ever classified (unlikely, given that the classification process costs more than i imagine the film itself did) then catch the first half hour when it finally makes it to the Horror Channel and laugh at it; Otherwise, Avoid.
From the opening scene of the worlds most amateurish detectives, to a thunderstorm clearly filmed inside and achieved by going nuts with a dimmer switch. From an obviously pre-broken mast falling apart at its break line, to the some if the worst acting an SFX I've ever seen; for the first half hour I really thought this one was going to fall into the "so bad it's good" camp.
As with the original, a couple are introduced early in the film, simply to be dispatched; although this time around, a beach scene is replaced by a really bad soft-porn interlude in a tent.
The movie is german, with a german cast; so i was slightly puzzled as to why the aforementioned copulating couple were speaking English (with thick German accents). I can only assume they were playing English or American tourists? Either way it added to the batshit insanity, and I was at this point loving it.
We meet another Pair of campers, who, in the miday sun, declare themselves so lost that they may as well stop looking for the campsite and spend the night where they are (so lost, thy one of them decides to nip off down the pub).
Yes for the first half hour it is brilliantly bad.
Sadly, it isn't long before the rot sets in and it becomes jut another bad film, and incompetent remake of a movie that was never great to begin with.
Characters act in seemingly random ways ("where is the car", "I don't know <points>", "lets go" <walks in direction of pointing, finds car>), even the set decoration makes no sense ("Go away" is written on the INSIDE of a window).
Lodge full of corpses? Best stay inside feeling sick until someone else comes in and suggests you leave!
Been shot 6 times AND disembowelled yourself? That's no reason not to chase someone around the woods!
If it's ever classified (unlikely, given that the classification process costs more than i imagine the film itself did) then catch the first half hour when it finally makes it to the Horror Channel and laugh at it; Otherwise, Avoid.
Saturday, 3 August 2013
Anthropophagous 2000 - Lisa's Review
*** SPOILERS *** (for what it's worth)
There are sometimes weeks when the movie isn't that hot, sometimes it's awful and sometimes we are very tempted to write "This was absolute shite" and leave it at that. Sadly, for me, this was the latter.
This movie is a remake of 1980 movie of the same name (removing the 2000). While the original movie wasn't all that hot, this one is just absolute bollocks! I suppose I should elaborate as to why I felt this was the case?
I'm not going to go into detail as to the premise, as I very much doubt anyone will want to see this movie on the strength of my review. Man kills his wife when she refuses to let him eat their dead child to survive after an accident at sea. He eats them both and then goes mad and kills and eats other people. That should about sum it up for you. Why didn't I enjoy it?
The acting was probably amongst the worst I have seen. The gore looked like something a GSCE art student produced (that's probably an insult to GCSE art students). Victims are replaced with what looks like a rubber model of themselves (that bears absolutely no resemblance to them) and then over the top, unrealistic, ridiculous gore is spattered upon us.
In one specific scene I struggled to understand what actual body part is being tugged out of one victims mouth... it looked like intestines (much too long for the tongue), but since the killer put his hand to the back of the victims throat and pulled, it's anyones guess.
Arms and heads are forcibly pulled off simply by the sheer strength of our bad guy. Various bits which should be anatomically there are not and vice versa. Victims flail about and make no attempt whatsoever to run. A pregnant woman flounders on her back and allows her stomach to be cut open and her unborn baby to be lifted out and bitten into, with nothing more than a few squeals.
The bad guy himself tugs out his own innards and chews on them after being shot multiple times and STILL has the strength to give chase to the last survivor and try to kill him!
If the gore scenes are laughable, then you have to see the sex scenes. I have never seen such passionless love making in all my life. The actors looked positively bored shitless! On one positive point, nice to see tattoos, piercings and long haired dudes in movies.
I don't think there is much else I can say about this movie. I HATED it. I didn't even laugh at the ridiculousness of it all. I didn't have to think twice about slapping a big fat AVOID on its ass!
There are sometimes weeks when the movie isn't that hot, sometimes it's awful and sometimes we are very tempted to write "This was absolute shite" and leave it at that. Sadly, for me, this was the latter.
This movie is a remake of 1980 movie of the same name (removing the 2000). While the original movie wasn't all that hot, this one is just absolute bollocks! I suppose I should elaborate as to why I felt this was the case?
I'm not going to go into detail as to the premise, as I very much doubt anyone will want to see this movie on the strength of my review. Man kills his wife when she refuses to let him eat their dead child to survive after an accident at sea. He eats them both and then goes mad and kills and eats other people. That should about sum it up for you. Why didn't I enjoy it?
The acting was probably amongst the worst I have seen. The gore looked like something a GSCE art student produced (that's probably an insult to GCSE art students). Victims are replaced with what looks like a rubber model of themselves (that bears absolutely no resemblance to them) and then over the top, unrealistic, ridiculous gore is spattered upon us.
In one specific scene I struggled to understand what actual body part is being tugged out of one victims mouth... it looked like intestines (much too long for the tongue), but since the killer put his hand to the back of the victims throat and pulled, it's anyones guess.
Arms and heads are forcibly pulled off simply by the sheer strength of our bad guy. Various bits which should be anatomically there are not and vice versa. Victims flail about and make no attempt whatsoever to run. A pregnant woman flounders on her back and allows her stomach to be cut open and her unborn baby to be lifted out and bitten into, with nothing more than a few squeals.
The bad guy himself tugs out his own innards and chews on them after being shot multiple times and STILL has the strength to give chase to the last survivor and try to kill him!
If the gore scenes are laughable, then you have to see the sex scenes. I have never seen such passionless love making in all my life. The actors looked positively bored shitless! On one positive point, nice to see tattoos, piercings and long haired dudes in movies.
I don't think there is much else I can say about this movie. I HATED it. I didn't even laugh at the ridiculousness of it all. I didn't have to think twice about slapping a big fat AVOID on its ass!
Monday, 29 July 2013
Week 115: Anthropophagous 2000
Year: 1999
Reviews / Author Comments due: 3/8/13
Reason for Inclusion: Remake of DDP nasty, Anthropophagous
BBFC Status: Never passed, therefore nominally banned.
DVD: Euro Import
No Trailer
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
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.
Tuesday, 23 July 2013
Week 114 - Mark of the Devil
Year: 1970
Reviews / Author Comments due: 27/7/13
Reason for Inclusion: Reader request via facebook group
Reason for Inclusion: Reader request via facebook group
BBFC Status: Passed uncut in 2003
DVD: LINK
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)