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!"
Showing posts with label Cannibal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cannibal. Show all posts
Sunday, 18 August 2013
Saturday, 19 January 2013
Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III - Will's Review
And so, the law of diminishing returns rings true...
Only the first film is mentioned in the opening crawl (ignoring the 2nd), and Leatherface is the ONLY returning Sawyer, transplanted inexplicably into a new family! (well, a grandpa is in it now, it may be the same one, but he's dead either way).
This time out (as hinted in the title) the goal is clearly to take Letherface to franchise, and pretty much abandon the TCM legacy.
And it fails.. miserably.
With the new family, this could also be seen as a reboot to the franchise; in fact, opening crawls asside, both is entry and the 2nd could be seen as completely unrelated movies, which each have a take on the character of Leatherface, but don't take place in the same fictional universe.
One thing I loved in the first movie (but it was underplayed and a lot of people miss it) is that Leatherface has a verity of masks, which he wears to suit his mood. A the beginning of the film he wears the mask most of us know from merchandising; the "killing mask", and a butchers apron. Later we (briefly) see him in the kitchen, wearing a light blue ladies apron, and an "old lady" mask (with blue rinse); Finally, from dinner onward Bubba puts on his best black suit, and a "pretty" mask (Which is to say it has make-up on and a ladies wig).
To me, if Leatherface is to be expanded upon and taken to franchise, this is the direction to go - almost like a morbid Worzel Gummidge with grotesque skin masks rather than turnip heads! Alas, like the previous entry, this movie features only a "killing mask" (although, admittedly, its a great one).
This time around the man behind the mask is R.A.Mihailoff; who, to his credit, is quite possibly the best thing in the movie, getting just the right balance between retarded and imposing; you wouldn't want to be chased by this dude, with or without his chainsaw! That said, a lot of the time I was put in mind of Kane Hodder (Jason, Friday the 13th parts 6 through 10)* so maybe it's my fondness for that series coming through.
As I've hinted a couple of times already, this entry in the TCM legacy is not a movie I could recommend Nor is it so mind-numbingly awful that I'd tell you to avoid it either... but there are definitely slashers I'd watch before this one.
*I've just read around and it turns out that's because Hodder was the stunt man on this, and pretty much every time the chainsaw is running it IS him.
Only the first film is mentioned in the opening crawl (ignoring the 2nd), and Leatherface is the ONLY returning Sawyer, transplanted inexplicably into a new family! (well, a grandpa is in it now, it may be the same one, but he's dead either way).
This time out (as hinted in the title) the goal is clearly to take Letherface to franchise, and pretty much abandon the TCM legacy.
And it fails.. miserably.
With the new family, this could also be seen as a reboot to the franchise; in fact, opening crawls asside, both is entry and the 2nd could be seen as completely unrelated movies, which each have a take on the character of Leatherface, but don't take place in the same fictional universe.
One thing I loved in the first movie (but it was underplayed and a lot of people miss it) is that Leatherface has a verity of masks, which he wears to suit his mood. A the beginning of the film he wears the mask most of us know from merchandising; the "killing mask", and a butchers apron. Later we (briefly) see him in the kitchen, wearing a light blue ladies apron, and an "old lady" mask (with blue rinse); Finally, from dinner onward Bubba puts on his best black suit, and a "pretty" mask (Which is to say it has make-up on and a ladies wig).
To me, if Leatherface is to be expanded upon and taken to franchise, this is the direction to go - almost like a morbid Worzel Gummidge with grotesque skin masks rather than turnip heads! Alas, like the previous entry, this movie features only a "killing mask" (although, admittedly, its a great one).
This time around the man behind the mask is R.A.Mihailoff; who, to his credit, is quite possibly the best thing in the movie, getting just the right balance between retarded and imposing; you wouldn't want to be chased by this dude, with or without his chainsaw! That said, a lot of the time I was put in mind of Kane Hodder (Jason, Friday the 13th parts 6 through 10)* so maybe it's my fondness for that series coming through.
As I've hinted a couple of times already, this entry in the TCM legacy is not a movie I could recommend Nor is it so mind-numbingly awful that I'd tell you to avoid it either... but there are definitely slashers I'd watch before this one.
*I've just read around and it turns out that's because Hodder was the stunt man on this, and pretty much every time the chainsaw is running it IS him.
Saturday, 12 January 2013
Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 - Will's Review
*** Contains spoilers for the first "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" ***
Tobe Hooper returns to pull directorial duties; making the massive shift in tone from the original all the more baffling.
This time the terror element is toned down, while the dark comedy element is ramped way up; not that dark humor was absent from the original, but it was a lot more subtle; also the blood is upped this time (hardly surprising as the always reliable Tom Savini has been brought in for makeup effects) .
More serious than the change in tone, is the change in characterization which plagues the film; once it's in full swing, Bill Johnson is superb as Letherface, although his earlier scenes show an enjoyment to the killing and teasing of his victims which was not present, likewise Jim Siedow returning as Drayton (simply 'the cook' in part 1) now revels in the violence that he previously couldn't bear to be around; it's worth noting however, that in both cases the script, rather than the actor, is at fault.
New to the Sawyer Clan, is genera stalwart Bill Mosley, as Nam Vet 'Crop-top' - an obvious stand in for the hitch-hiker (who also returns (in prop form), as 'nubbins' a corpse that Crop-top carries around with him*)
Finally, Grandpa returns; although he is once again hidden until a dinner scene, which plays far too much like a bad do-over of the one in the first. Of all the scenes to remake in the sequel, why pick the one that has already been done so perfectly?
On the side of good (cannon fodder aside) we have only 2 character of note; local DJ 'Stretch' (Caroline Williams doing her best Laurie Metcalf impression) and 'Lefty' (Dennis Hopper), a Texas ranger, uncle of the victims from the first movie, and only man in law-endorsement who believed in the cannibal family. I have to mention at this point, that seeing Dennis Hopper shopping for filing chainsaws is a thing of beauty.
On the subject of Lefty's ties to the original; Franklyn's skeleton makes an appearance, which is just silly; not only is it still in-tact an in it's chair (surely it would have been broken down for meat), but it's also in the Sawyers new digs (they have moved several times between movies, and currently live in an abandoned theme park) implying that the family take their victims remains with them when they move.
I really do enjoy this movie, probably more than it actually deserves; but as fun as it is, its still a shame to see Leatherface and the Sawyer family reduced to a clan of post-Freddy hero killers... That said, there isn't really much sequel potential if everything had remained unchanged.
Works well as a fun horror movie, but not necessarily as a sequel to TCM...
*untill this viewing, I'd always assumed that Crop-top was the Hitchhiker; the plate being a 'repair' from his meeting with the truck in part one. Watching the two in close succession, I notice that hitch hiker's death in part one was pretty final, and he shares a facial birthmark with Nubbins the corpse.
Tobe Hooper returns to pull directorial duties; making the massive shift in tone from the original all the more baffling.
This time the terror element is toned down, while the dark comedy element is ramped way up; not that dark humor was absent from the original, but it was a lot more subtle; also the blood is upped this time (hardly surprising as the always reliable Tom Savini has been brought in for makeup effects) .
More serious than the change in tone, is the change in characterization which plagues the film; once it's in full swing, Bill Johnson is superb as Letherface, although his earlier scenes show an enjoyment to the killing and teasing of his victims which was not present, likewise Jim Siedow returning as Drayton (simply 'the cook' in part 1) now revels in the violence that he previously couldn't bear to be around; it's worth noting however, that in both cases the script, rather than the actor, is at fault.
New to the Sawyer Clan, is genera stalwart Bill Mosley, as Nam Vet 'Crop-top' - an obvious stand in for the hitch-hiker (who also returns (in prop form), as 'nubbins' a corpse that Crop-top carries around with him*)
Finally, Grandpa returns; although he is once again hidden until a dinner scene, which plays far too much like a bad do-over of the one in the first. Of all the scenes to remake in the sequel, why pick the one that has already been done so perfectly?
On the side of good (cannon fodder aside) we have only 2 character of note; local DJ 'Stretch' (Caroline Williams doing her best Laurie Metcalf impression) and 'Lefty' (Dennis Hopper), a Texas ranger, uncle of the victims from the first movie, and only man in law-endorsement who believed in the cannibal family. I have to mention at this point, that seeing Dennis Hopper shopping for filing chainsaws is a thing of beauty.
On the subject of Lefty's ties to the original; Franklyn's skeleton makes an appearance, which is just silly; not only is it still in-tact an in it's chair (surely it would have been broken down for meat), but it's also in the Sawyers new digs (they have moved several times between movies, and currently live in an abandoned theme park) implying that the family take their victims remains with them when they move.
I really do enjoy this movie, probably more than it actually deserves; but as fun as it is, its still a shame to see Leatherface and the Sawyer family reduced to a clan of post-Freddy hero killers... That said, there isn't really much sequel potential if everything had remained unchanged.
Works well as a fun horror movie, but not necessarily as a sequel to TCM...
*untill this viewing, I'd always assumed that Crop-top was the Hitchhiker; the plate being a 'repair' from his meeting with the truck in part one. Watching the two in close succession, I notice that hitch hiker's death in part one was pretty final, and he shares a facial birthmark with Nubbins the corpse.
Sunday, 2 December 2012
Zombie Creeping Flesh - Will's Review
Whenever I find a film borderline incomprehensible, I tend to have a quick read around to make sure that what little I did understand is correct, before coming here and making an ass of myself by describing totally the wrong film.
This week, while it turned out i was right about the plot, it seems there are some bloody good reasons for my confusion.
It seems that, having already been fleashed out by one writer from another writers treatment, the director then decided it needed further changes; but rather than having them written, he just haphazardly filmed stuff that he thought might be useful, then tried to turn it into a cohesive movie in editing, THEN had a second unit film some more sequences (mostly gore shots) and edit them in, AND threw in some documentary footage from a previously released mondo to boot.
SPOILERS FOLLOW
This checkered history probably goes some way to explaining the go-nowhere terrorist sub-plot; following a chemical plant leek at the begging of the movie, a terrorist group pops up demanding the closure of the so-called "Hope-centers" (the chemical plants), only to be massacred 2 minutes later by a team of military types and never mentioned again.
The aforementioned chemical leak is responsible for a horde of oddly colored zombies; Mostly purple and brown, although they settle down to a consistent pale blue after about half way through the movie.
Come to think of it; odd skin hues are a bit of a theme; this guy is still alive and well (not even infected):
So, With the Zombie origin explained, We meet due of documentary film makers in the Jungle who, before long, form an uneasy alliance with the military types who took out the terrorists.
Wait a minute... Documentary film makers... Jungle... This is starting to sound like a cannibal movie!
Yup, almost the entire center third of the film has the look and feel of a standard cannibal flick; right down to the mixed moral messages - being preachy about sensationalism one minute, and using prolonged gross-out scenes and exploitative documentary footage the next, we see a tribal funeral. The female journalist at this point demonstrates the only reason (or rather, the only two reasons) shes in the film, as she strips down and dons body paint to gain the trust of one of the tribes.
Thanks to the "borrowed" nature of the footage, the look of the tribe switches from shot to shot, so we get everything from lip-disks, to intricate make-up, to Frank Sidebottom, all in a single 60 second stretch, supposedly featuring the same tribe.
The whole point of the (real) tribal funeral, is to tell us that the tribe doesn't bury or burn its dead; which handily brings us back to zombie movie territory, just in time for our heroes to reach a (formally) populated area.
More attempts at social commentary are made, as we drop in on a UN meating which has been called to address the Zombie problem currently affecting Africa's tribal populations, and the African delegates are virtually the only attendees.
The whole thing is, as I have mentioned, a confused mess; on top of that the acting is so over the top that I'm not 100% certain that they wern't going for parody!
The film's one saving grace was the stolen Goblin soundtrack, which lifts tracks from Contaminated and Dawn of the Dead (the latter being literally stolen - the rights were never cleared, and Goblin almost sued)
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.
This week, while it turned out i was right about the plot, it seems there are some bloody good reasons for my confusion.
It seems that, having already been fleashed out by one writer from another writers treatment, the director then decided it needed further changes; but rather than having them written, he just haphazardly filmed stuff that he thought might be useful, then tried to turn it into a cohesive movie in editing, THEN had a second unit film some more sequences (mostly gore shots) and edit them in, AND threw in some documentary footage from a previously released mondo to boot.
SPOILERS FOLLOW
This checkered history probably goes some way to explaining the go-nowhere terrorist sub-plot; following a chemical plant leek at the begging of the movie, a terrorist group pops up demanding the closure of the so-called "Hope-centers" (the chemical plants), only to be massacred 2 minutes later by a team of military types and never mentioned again.
The aforementioned chemical leak is responsible for a horde of oddly colored zombies; Mostly purple and brown, although they settle down to a consistent pale blue after about half way through the movie.
Come to think of it; odd skin hues are a bit of a theme; this guy is still alive and well (not even infected):
So, With the Zombie origin explained, We meet due of documentary film makers in the Jungle who, before long, form an uneasy alliance with the military types who took out the terrorists.
Wait a minute... Documentary film makers... Jungle... This is starting to sound like a cannibal movie!
Yup, almost the entire center third of the film has the look and feel of a standard cannibal flick; right down to the mixed moral messages - being preachy about sensationalism one minute, and using prolonged gross-out scenes and exploitative documentary footage the next, we see a tribal funeral. The female journalist at this point demonstrates the only reason (or rather, the only two reasons) shes in the film, as she strips down and dons body paint to gain the trust of one of the tribes.
Thanks to the "borrowed" nature of the footage, the look of the tribe switches from shot to shot, so we get everything from lip-disks, to intricate make-up, to Frank Sidebottom, all in a single 60 second stretch, supposedly featuring the same tribe.
The whole point of the (real) tribal funeral, is to tell us that the tribe doesn't bury or burn its dead; which handily brings us back to zombie movie territory, just in time for our heroes to reach a (formally) populated area.
More attempts at social commentary are made, as we drop in on a UN meating which has been called to address the Zombie problem currently affecting Africa's tribal populations, and the African delegates are virtually the only attendees.
The whole thing is, as I have mentioned, a confused mess; on top of that the acting is so over the top that I'm not 100% certain that they wern't going for parody!
You know you have problems when your
zombie extras cant keep a straight face...
The film's one saving grace was the stolen Goblin soundtrack, which lifts tracks from Contaminated and Dawn of the Dead (the latter being literally stolen - the rights were never cleared, and Goblin almost sued)
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, 19 November 2011
The Devil Hunter - Will's Review
As regular readers (humour me here) will know, I've stopped taking notes while watching the movies, which begs the question "how does one go about reviewing a film so dull that you had forgotten most of it before it finished?"
Well, I remember boobs, I remember that some of the boobs had a context (Natives, sacrifice, rape) and that some did not (walking around on a yatch).
I remember that some Hollywood type woman got kidnapped, and that her kidnappers decided the jungle was the best place to hide with her, and I remember not knowing why.
I remember that 2 raging idiots were sent to rescue her.
I remember a non-explicit, but still unnecessary and lingering rape scene, and a quazi-lesbian scene where 3 tribes women undress the unconscious (and now re-kidnapped by them) starlet, and anoint her body with oil (mostly I remember that the camera spent about 90 seconds on her muff).
I remember the worst voice acting (the movie is dubbed) I've ever encountered, and I remember that they managed to wedge 'nam in there somewhere.
Mostly I remember the Tribes "god" who rampages around the Jungle eating women's hearts. I remember that he has bloodshot pingpong balls for eyes and a face made of putty, I remember that his was buck naked, had big feet, was tall, black, and that he dispelled 3 penis-related stereotypes in one fell swoop.
What I don't remember seeing was any reason this piss-poor film was banned, nor any reason you should watch it.
Body Count: 8
Boob Count: 8 pairs (mostly tribeswomen)
Animal Body Count: 0
Most Memorable Death: Erm..... I think someone got their guts ripped out?
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.
Well, I remember boobs, I remember that some of the boobs had a context (Natives, sacrifice, rape) and that some did not (walking around on a yatch).
I remember that some Hollywood type woman got kidnapped, and that her kidnappers decided the jungle was the best place to hide with her, and I remember not knowing why.
I remember that 2 raging idiots were sent to rescue her.
I remember a non-explicit, but still unnecessary and lingering rape scene, and a quazi-lesbian scene where 3 tribes women undress the unconscious (and now re-kidnapped by them) starlet, and anoint her body with oil (mostly I remember that the camera spent about 90 seconds on her muff).
I remember the worst voice acting (the movie is dubbed) I've ever encountered, and I remember that they managed to wedge 'nam in there somewhere.
Mostly I remember the Tribes "god" who rampages around the Jungle eating women's hearts. I remember that he has bloodshot pingpong balls for eyes and a face made of putty, I remember that his was buck naked, had big feet, was tall, black, and that he dispelled 3 penis-related stereotypes in one fell swoop.
What I don't remember seeing was any reason this piss-poor film was banned, nor any reason you should watch it.
Body Count: 8
Boob Count: 8 pairs (mostly tribeswomen)
Animal Body Count: 0
Most Memorable Death: Erm..... I think someone got their guts ripped out?
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, 1 October 2011
Deep River Savages - Will's Review
*Spoilers*
Sigh, another Canibal Movie, another round of Animal Snuff...
It's always hard to talk about these things without sounding like a cruelty apologist; I'm not, I'm one of those people who doesn't watch 'Fear Factor' not because it grosses me out (it doesn't) but because I object to t way cockroaches are treated in the show (kill 'em because they're in your house - fine, it's a hygiene thing. Eat 'em alive for 'entertainment' - get the hell out if my sight m*therfucker!)
That said, I'm going to try and talk about this film on it's merits (such as they are) and save lambasting it's treatment of animals until the end of the review.
'Deep River Savages' is not (despite how it may appear) a horror movie. In essence it is a drama with grizzly bits; it's closest cousin would probably be a POW movie.
It also isn't a cannibal movie - there is one cannibal scene in the whole film, and even that isn't committed by our 'main' tribe - who are a primitive, cruel, barbaric people, but not (as far as the film implies) cannibals.
In fact, it's closest ancestor (plot wise) is 'a man called horse'.
After we see english photographer John Bradly's girlfriend kidnapped while at a kick boxing match it Thailand (a pointless scene - he assumes she has just wondered off, and seems okay to leave it that way) we witness him stab a man to death in self defence, then flee the scene and hop on a train.
The train takes him to the destination he'd apparently been planing to go to anywhere (a guide with a motorcycle rickshaw is waiting for him) - a river cruse on the border between Thailand and Burma (where, the opening crawl tells us, many primitive tribes live).
After rickshaw guy makes him a meal of water-snake (which he enjoys, until finding out what it is, at which point he spits it out and throws what's left overboard - I don't get that - how is it worse than any other meat?) Bradley goes off to do some underwater photography, before falling asleep on the boat.
Upon waking, he finds that he is alone; looking around, he sees his guide's body floating in the river, before promptly being captured in a large net, and dragged back to a village.
According to the opening crawl, the 'tribe' in this movie are genuine savages - I'm not buying that for a second! For one thing, some of them are the best actors in it, and for another the clothes at time (on the women anyway) seem a little too modern. I suspect the 'genuine tribe' bit was a lie to justify the animal snuff - either that or the 'extras' are genuine tribespeople, but our leads are actors.
After spending days hanging around (literally) in a net, and making flirty-eyes with the tribal 'princess', Bradley is tethered to a leash and put to work - catching turtles and helping with building work an so fourth. He also discovers that one of the old women in the tribe was kidnapped as a little girl, and actually speaks English; this is a secret at first, as she plans to help him escape, but about half way through the movie she speaks to him in his own language in the presence of the whole tribe and no one seems to care, or even notice...
Anyway, Stockholm syndrome sets in, and he starts to work willing with the tribe, eventually gaining their trust (and the anger of the tribe's which doctor) when he saves a young boy via a bamboo tracheotomy.
It's during the "enforced (but becoming willing) labour" portion of the film, that current favourite movie scene happens:
After a series of nasty trails (they treat their inductees worse than their prisoners) he is made a full tribesmember, and therefore gets to take part in the princess' husband selection... thing.
The princess sits blindfolded and naked, in a hut, next to a small window - the men of the village file past, and get to reach in and have a grope - with her picking her favourite groper to be her husband. Now, the first 2 guys either don't know much about women, don't want the job, or have figured they aren't gonna be picked, so the may as well have a cheeky fondle - one just goes straight for a boob, while the other does the same before progressing for a quick dip in the ladyparts! Our man Bradley though knows his stiff - he just caresses her arm, then holds her hand - Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!
They marry, have sex (a lot), and she falls pregnant - and ill. she dies in childbirth and Bradly stays with the tribe anyway (going so far as to hide from a potential rescue chopper).
Apart from a couple of invasions from a neighbouring tribe, that's about it. Some of the acting is a bit shonky (but no worse than I've come to expect in these things), there are a couple of unresolved plotlines (Whatever did happen to his girlfriend who got kidnapped? did Bradley's constant, and unintentional, pissing of of the witchdoctor lead to his wife's illness?) and the dubbing is a bit odd in places, having chosen to match the lip sync, rather than a suitable English-language pacing, but all in all, it's not a bad movie...
...but for the animal stuff.
This has hands down the most (and the worst) animal cruelty of any of the films we have seen so far, in-fact, Lisa watched this before I did, and tried to warn me off of it! and there is NO WAY I can recommend this film in it's uncut form. even the BBFC passed version has less than 4 mins of cuts, so I can only imagine that they've only got rid of the worst of it! (I won't be watching again to find out). I am slightly confused as to how a film that remains cut to this day got dropped from the DPP list?!?
Although I feel that animal cruelty in the name of entertainment should be banned outright, I still think the "Likely to deprave and Corrupt" line is bullshit! If you don't already think that Crocodile snuff is a good idea, there is nothing here to convince you, if you do already think that Crocodile snuff is a good idea, you are ALREADY corrupt (and actually seeing it might convince you otherwise anyway).
The atrocities in full after the usual Boob / Body / Critter / Memorable Death bit, for people who want to read that, but not the cruelty bits.
Body Count: 11
Animal Body Count: 11 (sadly, 10 of them real and on-screen)
Boob Count: 9 pairs (approx - a lot of the tribeswomen looked very smiler to each other)
Most Memorable (non-animal) Death: Comedy mask-drop (of death)
Animal cruelty list:
A boar is killed (off screen) this may or may not have been done humanly. We later see it's meat.
2 Fish are caught in a net and one is speared (probably shouldn't count these if you eat fish - I do)
A turtle is thrown (non fatal)
A cock-fight is staged (outcome unseen)
A Mongoose (on a leash) is made to fight a Cobra, to the death (the cobra's). - very prolonged and distressing.
A River snake is cut up for dinner (Probably not overly cruel - would have died instantly)
A Monkey is clamped into a table, and the top of it's head removed.
A Snake is cut in half as part of a fertility ritual (due to the way it is cut this is much crueller than the river snake)
A goat has it's throat slit.
A crocodile has it's throat cut, and is the slit up it's belly while squirming. It is obvious that the first cut takes out the windpipe (the blood bubbles) so it MAY have died quickly - the squirming being involuntary twitching.
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.
Sigh, another Canibal Movie, another round of Animal Snuff...
It's always hard to talk about these things without sounding like a cruelty apologist; I'm not, I'm one of those people who doesn't watch 'Fear Factor' not because it grosses me out (it doesn't) but because I object to t way cockroaches are treated in the show (kill 'em because they're in your house - fine, it's a hygiene thing. Eat 'em alive for 'entertainment' - get the hell out if my sight m*therfucker!)
That said, I'm going to try and talk about this film on it's merits (such as they are) and save lambasting it's treatment of animals until the end of the review.
'Deep River Savages' is not (despite how it may appear) a horror movie. In essence it is a drama with grizzly bits; it's closest cousin would probably be a POW movie.
It also isn't a cannibal movie - there is one cannibal scene in the whole film, and even that isn't committed by our 'main' tribe - who are a primitive, cruel, barbaric people, but not (as far as the film implies) cannibals.
In fact, it's closest ancestor (plot wise) is 'a man called horse'.
After we see english photographer John Bradly's girlfriend kidnapped while at a kick boxing match it Thailand (a pointless scene - he assumes she has just wondered off, and seems okay to leave it that way) we witness him stab a man to death in self defence, then flee the scene and hop on a train.
The train takes him to the destination he'd apparently been planing to go to anywhere (a guide with a motorcycle rickshaw is waiting for him) - a river cruse on the border between Thailand and Burma (where, the opening crawl tells us, many primitive tribes live).
After rickshaw guy makes him a meal of water-snake (which he enjoys, until finding out what it is, at which point he spits it out and throws what's left overboard - I don't get that - how is it worse than any other meat?) Bradley goes off to do some underwater photography, before falling asleep on the boat.
Upon waking, he finds that he is alone; looking around, he sees his guide's body floating in the river, before promptly being captured in a large net, and dragged back to a village.
How much candy do you think they keep in these things?
According to the opening crawl, the 'tribe' in this movie are genuine savages - I'm not buying that for a second! For one thing, some of them are the best actors in it, and for another the clothes at time (on the women anyway) seem a little too modern. I suspect the 'genuine tribe' bit was a lie to justify the animal snuff - either that or the 'extras' are genuine tribespeople, but our leads are actors.
After spending days hanging around (literally) in a net, and making flirty-eyes with the tribal 'princess', Bradley is tethered to a leash and put to work - catching turtles and helping with building work an so fourth. He also discovers that one of the old women in the tribe was kidnapped as a little girl, and actually speaks English; this is a secret at first, as she plans to help him escape, but about half way through the movie she speaks to him in his own language in the presence of the whole tribe and no one seems to care, or even notice...
Anyway, Stockholm syndrome sets in, and he starts to work willing with the tribe, eventually gaining their trust (and the anger of the tribe's which doctor) when he saves a young boy via a bamboo tracheotomy.
It's during the "enforced (but becoming willing) labour" portion of the film, that current favourite movie scene happens:
IF ONLY they had used the Wilhelm Scream, this would have been perfect!
After a series of nasty trails (they treat their inductees worse than their prisoners) he is made a full tribesmember, and therefore gets to take part in the princess' husband selection... thing.
The princess sits blindfolded and naked, in a hut, next to a small window - the men of the village file past, and get to reach in and have a grope - with her picking her favourite groper to be her husband. Now, the first 2 guys either don't know much about women, don't want the job, or have figured they aren't gonna be picked, so the may as well have a cheeky fondle - one just goes straight for a boob, while the other does the same before progressing for a quick dip in the ladyparts! Our man Bradley though knows his stiff - he just caresses her arm, then holds her hand - Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!
They marry, have sex (a lot), and she falls pregnant - and ill. she dies in childbirth and Bradly stays with the tribe anyway (going so far as to hide from a potential rescue chopper).
Apart from a couple of invasions from a neighbouring tribe, that's about it. Some of the acting is a bit shonky (but no worse than I've come to expect in these things), there are a couple of unresolved plotlines (Whatever did happen to his girlfriend who got kidnapped? did Bradley's constant, and unintentional, pissing of of the witchdoctor lead to his wife's illness?) and the dubbing is a bit odd in places, having chosen to match the lip sync, rather than a suitable English-language pacing, but all in all, it's not a bad movie...
...but for the animal stuff.
This has hands down the most (and the worst) animal cruelty of any of the films we have seen so far, in-fact, Lisa watched this before I did, and tried to warn me off of it! and there is NO WAY I can recommend this film in it's uncut form. even the BBFC passed version has less than 4 mins of cuts, so I can only imagine that they've only got rid of the worst of it! (I won't be watching again to find out). I am slightly confused as to how a film that remains cut to this day got dropped from the DPP list?!?
Although I feel that animal cruelty in the name of entertainment should be banned outright, I still think the "Likely to deprave and Corrupt" line is bullshit! If you don't already think that Crocodile snuff is a good idea, there is nothing here to convince you, if you do already think that Crocodile snuff is a good idea, you are ALREADY corrupt (and actually seeing it might convince you otherwise anyway).
The atrocities in full after the usual Boob / Body / Critter / Memorable Death bit, for people who want to read that, but not the cruelty bits.
Body Count: 11
Animal Body Count: 11 (sadly, 10 of them real and on-screen)
Boob Count: 9 pairs (approx - a lot of the tribeswomen looked very smiler to each other)
Most Memorable (non-animal) Death: Comedy mask-drop (of death)
Animal cruelty list:
A boar is killed (off screen) this may or may not have been done humanly. We later see it's meat.
2 Fish are caught in a net and one is speared (probably shouldn't count these if you eat fish - I do)
A turtle is thrown (non fatal)
A cock-fight is staged (outcome unseen)
A Mongoose (on a leash) is made to fight a Cobra, to the death (the cobra's). - very prolonged and distressing.
A River snake is cut up for dinner (Probably not overly cruel - would have died instantly)
A Monkey is clamped into a table, and the top of it's head removed.
A Snake is cut in half as part of a fertility ritual (due to the way it is cut this is much crueller than the river snake)
A goat has it's throat slit.
A crocodile has it's throat cut, and is the slit up it's belly while squirming. It is obvious that the first cut takes out the windpipe (the blood bubbles) so it MAY have died quickly - the squirming being involuntary twitching.
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, 3 September 2011
Cannibal Terror - Will's Review
Awful, awful movie - probably a short review this week, as I object to spending too much more time on this hunk-o-crap!
Some no-goods are planning their next scam, the woman of the group (consisting 2 guys and herself) has a chance encounter with the daughter of a car magnate; a little girl who is horribly dubbed by an adult doing a hideous 'little girl' voice; just seconds later, have managed to kidnap her (although she doesn't seem to mind in the slightest) and decided that "the jungle" (a field with some trees) is the nest place to hide out.
The local Don hooks them up with a safe house, where one of them pervs on, and later rapes, their host's wife - Their host finds out and has a releaxed party where he and hius wife dance with the no-goods like nothing has happened, before inviting the rapist to go out hunting with him. Because the rapist is a moron (well, all rapists are morons - but this guy is dumb by their standards) he agrees to go.
The husband ties the rapist to the tree, and (rather than shooting his nuts off) whistles for the local cannibal tribe - who it seems are very well trained and come when called.
Meanwhile Manuella (our rape victim) tells... some guys (I have no idea who) that the kidnapped girl is with them, and her parents arive on a rescue mission - causing the remaining nogoodniks to flee into "canibal country" - little gril and all.
The bad guys get eaten, and the tribe give the girl back, saying that the kidnappers "got what they deserved"
The end.
I honestly believe that I just spent more time on the plot that the film-makers did!
The acting (both original and dubbing) in almost non-existent, The score is horrible, consisting mostly of a "La Bamba" rip-off played on a Casio keyboard, the effects are dreadful - at one point the "raw guts" being eaten by the tribe are clearly cooked chicken breast in tomato sauce, and the skulls that adorn the village are less convincing that the ones that adorn my dining room at Halloween (they are, literally, Halloween decoration skulls from a shop - they arn't even hollow, having just recesses for eye sockets).
And the tribe! What can I say about the tribe? they are a hodge-podge of different races and builds, sporting an array of (often 70's) haircuts, and their made-up ranges from those stripes that skiers in the 90's painted on thier face, to kids at a village fate, to colour-blind Kiss fans:
The best thing about this film was the animal body count which, after the previous 2 'propper' Cannibal movies (Holocaust, Ferox), came as a blessed relief.
Body Count: 6
Boob Count: 2 pairs
Animal Body Count: 0
Most Memorable Death: ... I honestly can't remember any specific death! - I think a guy got hit with an arrow?
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.
Some no-goods are planning their next scam, the woman of the group (consisting 2 guys and herself) has a chance encounter with the daughter of a car magnate; a little girl who is horribly dubbed by an adult doing a hideous 'little girl' voice; just seconds later, have managed to kidnap her (although she doesn't seem to mind in the slightest) and decided that "the jungle" (a field with some trees) is the nest place to hide out.
The local Don hooks them up with a safe house, where one of them pervs on, and later rapes, their host's wife - Their host finds out and has a releaxed party where he and hius wife dance with the no-goods like nothing has happened, before inviting the rapist to go out hunting with him. Because the rapist is a moron (well, all rapists are morons - but this guy is dumb by their standards) he agrees to go.
The husband ties the rapist to the tree, and (rather than shooting his nuts off) whistles for the local cannibal tribe - who it seems are very well trained and come when called.
Meanwhile Manuella (our rape victim) tells... some guys (I have no idea who) that the kidnapped girl is with them, and her parents arive on a rescue mission - causing the remaining nogoodniks to flee into "canibal country" - little gril and all.
The bad guys get eaten, and the tribe give the girl back, saying that the kidnappers "got what they deserved"
The end.
I honestly believe that I just spent more time on the plot that the film-makers did!
The acting (both original and dubbing) in almost non-existent, The score is horrible, consisting mostly of a "La Bamba" rip-off played on a Casio keyboard, the effects are dreadful - at one point the "raw guts" being eaten by the tribe are clearly cooked chicken breast in tomato sauce, and the skulls that adorn the village are less convincing that the ones that adorn my dining room at Halloween (they are, literally, Halloween decoration skulls from a shop - they arn't even hollow, having just recesses for eye sockets).
And the tribe! What can I say about the tribe? they are a hodge-podge of different races and builds, sporting an array of (often 70's) haircuts, and their made-up ranges from those stripes that skiers in the 90's painted on thier face, to kids at a village fate, to colour-blind Kiss fans:
BONUS: Clip also contains one of those Halloween skulls I was talking about!
The best thing about this film was the animal body count which, after the previous 2 'propper' Cannibal movies (Holocaust, Ferox), came as a blessed relief.
Body Count: 6
Boob Count: 2 pairs
Animal Body Count: 0
Most Memorable Death: ... I honestly can't remember any specific death! - I think a guy got hit with an arrow?
Please use the comments bellow only to comment on this post - to write your own review, please comment on the main post for this movie.
Saturday, 20 August 2011
Cannibal Holocaust - Will's Review
NOTE: This post is tagged "Will Recommends", Please be aware that this recommendation applied ONLY to the Directors "new" cut, and NOT the uncut version viewed for this review.
Sigh, Animal cruelty again...
To be fair, I knew in advance this time, and (but for the nature of this project) I would never have dreamed of watching the uncut version. Luckily for those of you not taking stupid self-imposed challenges, director Ruggero Deodato has a new edit of the film coming out which excises the cruelty, and I would recommend it as a rental, because the film itself is actually quite good!
Last weeks movie did hit a lot of the same beats (chunks of it were bluntest lifts from this earlier, better, movie); there's a castration, a turtle murder, cuts between the Amazon and new York, even lines like "We are the real cannibals"... Certainly, the makers of this would have every reason to scream "Ripp off" at the makers of Cannibal ferox!
This time, our New York scenes are much less intrusive, and do feel like part of the same movie - The setup is that a NY film crew have headed off into the amazon to film a documentary, and are now missing, presumed dead. A rescue party is launched, sponsored by the "Pan American Broadcast Company" and "New York University" and headed up my Professor Harold Monroe, an Anthropologist from said university. They do not find the missing crew (or rather, they do, but in the form of a grizzly shrine on human remains) but they do find their film canisters, which the native believe to be cursed and are all too happy to get rid of!
Upon the canisters' return to NY, the movie switches between a found-footage type film, and scenes where the TV company are trying to convince the Professor to host a multi-part documentary based around the footage.
We quickly learn that the lead Journalist / Director from the original film crew was a total scumbag, who would set up real tragedies, just to film them. The Movie attempts to criticise Mondo film making, and to make a political point about how uncaring and disgusting the media is, a point which is lost in the hypocrisy as we see a real pig getting kicked around and shot FOR REAL, just for this movie, and Deodato even finds an excuse to use some genine execution squad footage from Nigeria!
The acts we see the film makers commit against the tribes they encounter get worse as the film goes on, and it isn't long before we're siding with the 'savages' and looking forward to them getting their comeuppance, at one point, the three male members of the crew take turns alternately holding down a native girl, raping her, and filming the assault. Obviously, the female crew member objects to this; they cant use the footage, it's a waste of film! - the bitch only really gives a shit when her boyfriend takes his turn as the rapist!
The really interesting part about this movie though, is the trouble it caused here in the real world - Deodato paid the 4 leads to go into hiding for a set time after the film's release - he had to bring them out of hiding early in order to prove to the Italian courts that he had not made a snuff movie! Indeed, the effects hold up remarkably well even now (most especially the movie's iconic impaling) and it's easy to see how the use of stock footage and real animal deaths would cause someone to wonder.
Deodato has claimed in recent years that the use of animals was "a mistake" - the implication is that he regrets it, I suspect though, that he regrets the trouble it has caused him!
As I say, check out the new edit, and just be thankful that movies are not made this way any more...
Body Count: 26.5 (including many from a virtually unrelated army sub-plot and 4 real deaths from stick footage - .5 for a foetus)
Boob Count: 24 pairs (mostly from tribeswomen and girls)
Animal Body Count: 5 - all real (a 6th was killed in footage that landed on the cutting room floor)
Most Memorable Death: Native on a stick
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, 13 August 2011
Cannibal Ferox - Will's Review
One Thing I was dreading as we reached the cannibal films was the real animal cruelty which I had heared occurred in some of them. Quite rightly, such scenes are still not allowed by the BBFC but I had set out to see the films that were banned - which means getting hold of uncut imports and seeing even atrocities like this in full.
Some of the scenes I had here were in Cannibal Holocaust are present here too - including a scene where a Live Turtle is dismembered and eaten. I do not know if the 'tribes people' in this movie were real tribes people, or just south american actors, unfortunately I believe the latter. I had managed to live with the idea of the turtle and monkey deaths in Cannibal Holocaust as follows:
The tribesmen in Cannibal Holocaust are real - These people kill animals in that way and eat them all the time, the turtle and monkeys in Cannibal Holocaust were eaten by the tribes that killed them, although they may have been directed to kill and eat then, on cue, it is something that would have happened anyway and, while I do not agree with their methods, nothing really died only for our supposed enjoyment.
With this movie however, I don't feel that's the case; and even if it is, the mongoose that was tethered to a stake and fed to an anaconda was certainly staged purely for our 'viewing pleasure' - snakes eat mammals, I get that, and I'm fine with it - but should that mammal really be tethered and offered up just for entertainment? I say "No".
Even if you're okay with all the animals which were killed and eaten in a manor aproximating the natural order of things, there's the fact that the mongoose was firs swung out of a moving Jeep by his lead, and the boar which is stabbed quite cruelly by a western actor (actually a stage hand - the actor refused) in a staged 'defending the group' scene.
But enough of that, assuming you get a cut version, what of the movie itself?
First of all, you won't actually miss anything; the animal killings do not add to the story, and were clearly added in a "look at us, hardcore! snuff'n'shit!!!!" way.
The film opens with a reasonably neat 'trick'; all the way through the opening credits' cheesy disco music, we follow a man through the streets of New York City. Normally this would be our main character, but no sooner does he arrive at his destination (the apartment of his dealer, Mike) he is killed by mobsters who are also looking for Mike (he owes them money) and the action cuts to the Amazon jungle.
To me, the action should never have cut back to New York, as the scenes of the police and mob looking for Mike are the weakest in the film, and the NY prologue would have been well served as an interesting mislead, and as a demonstration that the mob mean business, to illustrate why Mike ran.
Anyway, over in the Amazon, we meet Gloria, who has come away with her brother, Rudy, and thier promiscuous (and non-too picky) friend Pat, to find evidence to support her theory that "Organised cannibalism in human society does not exist, and that historically it has never existed" in order to write her Phd thesis.
Eventually our hero's stumble across 2 dead natives, impaled on what appear to be bamboo booby traps, and 2 westerners; one is Mike, the dealer mentioned in the NY opening, the other is his sidekick Joe, who is badly wounded.
Mike tells how he and Joe were buying coke (not the soda) when they decided to go prospecting for sapphires, having received info that the river in rich in them; he tells of a Portuguese guide that they employed. Mikes story continues that he, Joe and the Portuguese dude were captured by natives, who locked the 2 Americans in a semi-submerged cage with leaches, and tied the Portuguese to a stake, torturing him and removing, then eating, his genitals! It seems the 2 villagers in the man-trap had helped Joe and mike escape, and been killed just seconds before out trio arrived.
Of course, it turns out that Mike's story isn't entirely true, and it's not long before he shows his true colours, killing a native girl for shits and giggles, and taking a little too much joy in killing a boar that was attacking Pat. He also charmingly re-christens Gloria "Twat", and referring to her that way, throughout the rest of the movie.
The natives, of course, turn on our five... white folk ("hero" didn't work, "westerners" would include the Amazonians... the only other thing out key 5 have in common is their skin colour...) and (inbetween animal killings) you'll get to see some fairly decent gore, as people are graphics castrated, gutted, have thier skulls popped open like boiled eggs and, in the movies most iconic image) hung up by hooks through their breasts.
Which really is what the movie has going for it - gorehounds who are okay with the animal snuff (shame on you) or those who get the cut (by over 6 mins!) BBFC approved version will lap up the nasty, and for the most part well done, human-on-human violence.
Unfortunatly, I saw the uncut version, and as such, have already spent more time on this vile abomination that I'm happy to.
Body Count: 10
Animal Body count: 8 (a shocking 7 of which are real)
Boob count: 8 pairs (mostly toppless mud-covered natives, including one or two that are possibly under-age)
Most Memorable Death: The Turtle...
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.
Some of the scenes I had here were in Cannibal Holocaust are present here too - including a scene where a Live Turtle is dismembered and eaten. I do not know if the 'tribes people' in this movie were real tribes people, or just south american actors, unfortunately I believe the latter. I had managed to live with the idea of the turtle and monkey deaths in Cannibal Holocaust as follows:
The tribesmen in Cannibal Holocaust are real - These people kill animals in that way and eat them all the time, the turtle and monkeys in Cannibal Holocaust were eaten by the tribes that killed them, although they may have been directed to kill and eat then, on cue, it is something that would have happened anyway and, while I do not agree with their methods, nothing really died only for our supposed enjoyment.
With this movie however, I don't feel that's the case; and even if it is, the mongoose that was tethered to a stake and fed to an anaconda was certainly staged purely for our 'viewing pleasure' - snakes eat mammals, I get that, and I'm fine with it - but should that mammal really be tethered and offered up just for entertainment? I say "No".
Even if you're okay with all the animals which were killed and eaten in a manor aproximating the natural order of things, there's the fact that the mongoose was firs swung out of a moving Jeep by his lead, and the boar which is stabbed quite cruelly by a western actor (actually a stage hand - the actor refused) in a staged 'defending the group' scene.
But enough of that, assuming you get a cut version, what of the movie itself?
First of all, you won't actually miss anything; the animal killings do not add to the story, and were clearly added in a "look at us, hardcore! snuff'n'shit!!!!" way.
The film opens with a reasonably neat 'trick'; all the way through the opening credits' cheesy disco music, we follow a man through the streets of New York City. Normally this would be our main character, but no sooner does he arrive at his destination (the apartment of his dealer, Mike) he is killed by mobsters who are also looking for Mike (he owes them money) and the action cuts to the Amazon jungle.
To me, the action should never have cut back to New York, as the scenes of the police and mob looking for Mike are the weakest in the film, and the NY prologue would have been well served as an interesting mislead, and as a demonstration that the mob mean business, to illustrate why Mike ran.
Anyway, over in the Amazon, we meet Gloria, who has come away with her brother, Rudy, and thier promiscuous (and non-too picky) friend Pat, to find evidence to support her theory that "Organised cannibalism in human society does not exist, and that historically it has never existed" in order to write her Phd thesis.
Eventually our hero's stumble across 2 dead natives, impaled on what appear to be bamboo booby traps, and 2 westerners; one is Mike, the dealer mentioned in the NY opening, the other is his sidekick Joe, who is badly wounded.
Mike tells how he and Joe were buying coke (not the soda) when they decided to go prospecting for sapphires, having received info that the river in rich in them; he tells of a Portuguese guide that they employed. Mikes story continues that he, Joe and the Portuguese dude were captured by natives, who locked the 2 Americans in a semi-submerged cage with leaches, and tied the Portuguese to a stake, torturing him and removing, then eating, his genitals! It seems the 2 villagers in the man-trap had helped Joe and mike escape, and been killed just seconds before out trio arrived.
Of course, it turns out that Mike's story isn't entirely true, and it's not long before he shows his true colours, killing a native girl for shits and giggles, and taking a little too much joy in killing a boar that was attacking Pat. He also charmingly re-christens Gloria "Twat", and referring to her that way, throughout the rest of the movie.
The natives, of course, turn on our five... white folk ("hero" didn't work, "westerners" would include the Amazonians... the only other thing out key 5 have in common is their skin colour...) and (inbetween animal killings) you'll get to see some fairly decent gore, as people are graphics castrated, gutted, have thier skulls popped open like boiled eggs and, in the movies most iconic image) hung up by hooks through their breasts.
Which really is what the movie has going for it - gorehounds who are okay with the animal snuff (shame on you) or those who get the cut (by over 6 mins!) BBFC approved version will lap up the nasty, and for the most part well done, human-on-human violence.
Unfortunatly, I saw the uncut version, and as such, have already spent more time on this vile abomination that I'm happy to.
Body Count: 10
Animal Body count: 8 (a shocking 7 of which are real)
Boob count: 8 pairs (mostly toppless mud-covered natives, including one or two that are possibly under-age)
Most Memorable Death: The Turtle...
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, 7 August 2011
Cannibal Apocalypse - Will's Review
Well, over on the Facebook group I said that this weeks movie was the "First in six weeks of Cannibal movies", and it almost isn't... Don't get me wrong, it centres around people who eat other people; but when I think "Cannibal Movie" I think of tribespeople in the middle of nowhere in grass skirts, chowing down of hapless westerners (like the dude on the cover of "Cannibal Holocaust" ) - The 'Canibals' on this movie are New-Yorkers, infected with a virus that causes the desire to eat human flesh.
Which brings us to the second thing that makes the movie hard to classify; "infected with a virus that causes the desire to eat human flesh" sound like a zombie movie, but the infected here retain thier personalities in there entirety, save for said people-munchies, so I suppose its a 'non-zombie cannibal virus outbreak movie', which has to be a pretty small sub-genre (if you can think of another example, or a better genre title, let me know in the comments!1).
Classification problems out of the way, what of the movie itself? meh, not bad, not great either. One thing that bugged the hell out of me was the inconstancies in the time it took the virus to take hold. Our "patent zeros" (or is that "patents zero"?) are Nam vets Sgts. Bukowski and Hoffman who, when we meat them, have been trapped down a hole by the Vietcong. When Cpt. Norman Hopper (John Saxon, Nancy's Dad from A Nightmare On Elm Street) they are already fully under the influence - as witnessed when one of Hopper's men sets a Vietnamese woman on fire and throw her chard, but living, body within reach of the pit, but one of them bites Norman and it's FIVE YEARS before the urge starts to strike him, for the rest of the cast who get bitten (and survive) the cannibalistic seems to kick in anything from instantly, to a few hours after the bite.
As I indicated above, the bulk of the movie takes place 5 years after the POWs were rescued from the pit, starting on the day one of them is released from psychiatric care, seemingly the little woman-eating episode was put down to emotional damage, and the virus remains unknown.
Upon release Bukowski decides the first thing a traumatised war-vet should do upon release from a psychiatric institution is go to see a war move - but it isn't the action on screen that sets him off - it's the flesh of the ludicrously amorous couple in the seat in front of him, it's not long before he's breaking his buddy Hoffman out of the institute, and their old captain is joining them as they capture, infect and carve up everyone from nurses to gang members in a badly explained plan to get back to Vietnam and finish the job(?).
The Gore is quite good, especially in a scene where a victim is carved into manageable chunks with some kind of power tool borrowed from a garage, but I recommend you see the UK cut version - you won't miss any of the fake gore, but you will miss the unforgivable (unfaked) shot where a live rat is hit with a flame-thrower and runs burning to water.
A very average time-killer, the most interesting thing about it is that during the Video Nasty raids, hapless police seized copies of "Apocalypse Now" believing it to be this movie; but Quinten Tarrentino is a fan, so what do I know?
Body Count: 29 (many in war scenes)
Animal Body Count: 2
Boob Count: 2 pairs
1 - See how I acted like we actually have any readers there?!
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.
Which brings us to the second thing that makes the movie hard to classify; "infected with a virus that causes the desire to eat human flesh" sound like a zombie movie, but the infected here retain thier personalities in there entirety, save for said people-munchies, so I suppose its a 'non-zombie cannibal virus outbreak movie', which has to be a pretty small sub-genre (if you can think of another example, or a better genre title, let me know in the comments!1).
Classification problems out of the way, what of the movie itself? meh, not bad, not great either. One thing that bugged the hell out of me was the inconstancies in the time it took the virus to take hold. Our "patent zeros" (or is that "patents zero"?) are Nam vets Sgts. Bukowski and Hoffman who, when we meat them, have been trapped down a hole by the Vietcong. When Cpt. Norman Hopper (John Saxon, Nancy's Dad from A Nightmare On Elm Street) they are already fully under the influence - as witnessed when one of Hopper's men sets a Vietnamese woman on fire and throw her chard, but living, body within reach of the pit, but one of them bites Norman and it's FIVE YEARS before the urge starts to strike him, for the rest of the cast who get bitten (and survive) the cannibalistic seems to kick in anything from instantly, to a few hours after the bite.
As I indicated above, the bulk of the movie takes place 5 years after the POWs were rescued from the pit, starting on the day one of them is released from psychiatric care, seemingly the little woman-eating episode was put down to emotional damage, and the virus remains unknown.
Upon release Bukowski decides the first thing a traumatised war-vet should do upon release from a psychiatric institution is go to see a war move - but it isn't the action on screen that sets him off - it's the flesh of the ludicrously amorous couple in the seat in front of him, it's not long before he's breaking his buddy Hoffman out of the institute, and their old captain is joining them as they capture, infect and carve up everyone from nurses to gang members in a badly explained plan to get back to Vietnam and finish the job(?).
The Gore is quite good, especially in a scene where a victim is carved into manageable chunks with some kind of power tool borrowed from a garage, but I recommend you see the UK cut version - you won't miss any of the fake gore, but you will miss the unforgivable (unfaked) shot where a live rat is hit with a flame-thrower and runs burning to water.
A very average time-killer, the most interesting thing about it is that during the Video Nasty raids, hapless police seized copies of "Apocalypse Now" believing it to be this movie; but Quinten Tarrentino is a fan, so what do I know?
Body Count: 29 (many in war scenes)
Animal Body Count: 2
Boob Count: 2 pairs
1 - See how I acted like we actually have any readers there?!
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.
Saturday, 2 July 2011
Blood Feast - Will's Review
Herschell Gordon Lewis' 1963 gore flick is not only the oldest movie on the DPP list (and one of the first additions to said list) but is possibly the first true "splatter" movie.
The Tagline boasts "Nothing so Appealing in the Annals of Horror", and back in '63 this was probably not Hyperbole; but how does it stand up now, more than 45 years later?
The plot involves Fuad Ramses, An Egyptian caterer and Author (of the hilariously titled "Ancient Weird Egyptian Rites") who worships the Goddess Ishtar (actually a Babylonian god, but Egyptian for purposes of the film) and appears to have painted his hair and eyebrows a greyish blue...
We learn (through a night-school lecture) that Ramses intends to make the goddess flesh by preforming a cannibalistic ritual that while allow her to inhabit a human body - in this case the body of our heroin, Birthday girl, Suzette.
Coincidence is the order of the day here - Suzette just happens to be interested in Egyptology, and so her mother is open to the idea of an 'Authentic' Egyptian feast when she just happens to go to Fuad Ramses' Exotic Catering to organise her birthday party.
This week's lecture at the night-school she attends just happens to be about the feast of Ishtar, and the male student she is dating just happens to be the lead investigator on the case of the spate of girls being murdered (by Ramses) in the area - not that the police have no idea that there is an Egyptian theme to the murders - the officer just happens to attend the lectures in his spare time...
Speaking of the Police, the "office" that the Homicide department work out of is clearly a very small corner of a very large, otherwise very bear, room - every time we see this room it is from the same, fixed, vantage point, and the budget clearly didn't stretch to re-dubbing the dialogue, as the voices in all the homicide office scenes are ridiculously echoey.
I wouldn't want you to think that the poor writing and acting in those to clips was typical for the whole movie by the way... Most of it is FAR worse:
So, the plot, acting and direction are all piss poor, but that's okay - this movie exists for one reason -as an excuse to get gory death on screen! in 1963!
Back then, this would doubtlessly have been incredibly shocking - unfortunately some 45+ years later, to our jaded eyes, it looks like what it is - a bunch of bright red paint, offal and shop-dummy parts.
Alas, although this is (in its own small way) an 'important' film, there is nothing to recommend it to a modern audience - go watch Lewis' "Two Thousand Maniacs" or "Wizard of Gore" instead (they're not exactly masterpieces either, but they're better than this).
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.
The Tagline boasts "Nothing so Appealing in the Annals of Horror", and back in '63 this was probably not Hyperbole; but how does it stand up now, more than 45 years later?
The plot involves Fuad Ramses, An Egyptian caterer and Author (of the hilariously titled "Ancient Weird Egyptian Rites") who worships the Goddess Ishtar (actually a Babylonian god, but Egyptian for purposes of the film) and appears to have painted his hair and eyebrows a greyish blue...
We learn (through a night-school lecture) that Ramses intends to make the goddess flesh by preforming a cannibalistic ritual that while allow her to inhabit a human body - in this case the body of our heroin, Birthday girl, Suzette.
Coincidence is the order of the day here - Suzette just happens to be interested in Egyptology, and so her mother is open to the idea of an 'Authentic' Egyptian feast when she just happens to go to Fuad Ramses' Exotic Catering to organise her birthday party.
This week's lecture at the night-school she attends just happens to be about the feast of Ishtar, and the male student she is dating just happens to be the lead investigator on the case of the spate of girls being murdered (by Ramses) in the area - not that the police have no idea that there is an Egyptian theme to the murders - the officer just happens to attend the lectures in his spare time...
Speaking of the Police, the "office" that the Homicide department work out of is clearly a very small corner of a very large, otherwise very bear, room - every time we see this room it is from the same, fixed, vantage point, and the budget clearly didn't stretch to re-dubbing the dialogue, as the voices in all the homicide office scenes are ridiculously echoey.
I wouldn't want you to think that the poor writing and acting in those to clips was typical for the whole movie by the way... Most of it is FAR worse:
So, the plot, acting and direction are all piss poor, but that's okay - this movie exists for one reason -as an excuse to get gory death on screen! in 1963!
Back then, this would doubtlessly have been incredibly shocking - unfortunately some 45+ years later, to our jaded eyes, it looks like what it is - a bunch of bright red paint, offal and shop-dummy parts.
Alas, although this is (in its own small way) an 'important' film, there is nothing to recommend it to a modern audience - go watch Lewis' "Two Thousand Maniacs" or "Wizard of Gore" instead (they're not exactly masterpieces either, but they're better than this).
By the way - at the end of the movie, is the hint of a sequel; it took 39 years, but it Lewis made it happen!
Body Count: 6
Animal Body Count: 0
Boob count: 1 pair (plus several gratuitous bikini shots)
Most Memorable Death: None - to be honest, they all bleed together (no pun intended) 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.
Saturday, 4 June 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)