A very different movie this week and an odd one to find itself on the Video Nasty list.
This is a completely different kind of disturbing, but disturbing none-the-less. I struggle with my viewpoint on this movie.
*****SPOILERS*****
Showing posts with label Flashback. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Flashback. Show all posts
Saturday, 17 November 2012
Saturday, 7 April 2012
I Miss You, Hugs and Kisses - Will's Review
Before considering watching this film, I want you to read the first part of this review. There are spoilers later in this review, as always but there's some highlight to read text coming up that, although it may be considered a spoiler, I really think you should know before agreeing to committing and hour and a half of your life.
Ready? okay, highlight this [ This is a whodunit where YOU NEVER FIND OUT WHO DID IT!!!].
Yeah, Really!
*****More spoilers to follow*****
I commented way back in Week 5 that blood is, as we are so often told, thicker than water, and as such one cannot get away with using red water as blood; no such problems here - the opening kill seems to work on the idea that blood is thicker than custard - a pipe to the head seems to result in red emulation paint pouring from under the victim's hairline!
Seven whole minutes into the movie, a text crawls informs us that the movie we are "about to see"(!) is based on a true story - then has the lamest disclaimer you've ever seen (To paraphrase "except in so far as it isn't") - see the end of the review for this text's reprise.
The biggest problem here, besides it's utter dullnes and lack of resolution, is the way the film jumps all over the place - It starts with a murder, then jumps to the trial of the (supposed) killer - the victims husband, then it's flashbacks based on testimony (including the cardinal sin of flashbacks - flashbacks to things that the person speaking wasn't present for) so next we're in wartime Hungary, then a party where the guy's wife is still alive, then they meet, then the marriage is on the rocks - all without warning.
Come to think of it, even the trail itself is jumbled - the first trail scene has the judge asking if the prisoner has anything to say before sentence is passed, but later in the film we here from witnesses - an the jury presenting their decision near the end of the film is played as a point of drama, despite the fact that we already know he will be sentenced. What. A. Mess.
The only point in the movie during which I was remotely entertained is presented here, to save you the effort of watching the rest of the "movie" (bear in mind that these guys are best friends):
There's a go-nowhere subplot about a murderer who escapes a home for the criminally insane - we see him kill (THEN rape - eew) a girl we have never seen before, and then he's actually called to our guy's trail based on the fact that the location of the murder - in the victims own home - was a bit close to the site of his murders.
The police investigation is carried out so badly that ANY lawyer ,including Lionel Hutz or Ted Buckland, could have got it thrown out of court! The police promise key suspects immunity to wear a wire, strip the body naked at the scene before (glovelessly) cramming them into an evidence bag, and pull out the victims fingernails (!) and bag them without a pathologist present. Oh, and the entire justice system fails to notice that the husband is out shopping with his daughter and the victims cousin at the time of the murder!
I suspect that this movie was originally a lot more chronological, but they realized it was dull and (mistakenly) thought that shuffling it would make it more interesting.
Fun Fact: The movie Men In Black originally had an extra sub plot, which didn't test well and was removed in post production, obviously one cannot simply cut a subplot and have everything else just work out, so re-shoots are usually needed - in the case of MiB this was avoided by re-dubbing a talking dog, and changing some subtitles and the display of a large viewscreen. Why do I mention this here? I suspect that a similar clever bit of editing may have happened in this movie.
See if you can spot the oh-so-smooth dialogue removal in the following scene:
All in all the whole thing is a shambles which, despite having far too many sub-plots and suspects, manages to be confusig, dull and frustrating in roughly equal measures.
Oh, and in-case we missed the bizarre information / disclaimer crawl at the (kind of) begging of the film, the text is repeated again after the credits:
Body Count: 5 (2 'real' plus 3 in dream sequences)
Boob Count: 2 pairs
Animal Body Count: Countless chickens in slaughterhouse footage.
Most memorable death: Paint-headed pinata woman.
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.
Ready? okay, highlight this [ This is a whodunit where YOU NEVER FIND OUT WHO DID IT!!!].
Yeah, Really!
*****More spoilers to follow*****
I commented way back in Week 5 that blood is, as we are so often told, thicker than water, and as such one cannot get away with using red water as blood; no such problems here - the opening kill seems to work on the idea that blood is thicker than custard - a pipe to the head seems to result in red emulation paint pouring from under the victim's hairline!
Seven whole minutes into the movie, a text crawls informs us that the movie we are "about to see"(!) is based on a true story - then has the lamest disclaimer you've ever seen (To paraphrase "except in so far as it isn't") - see the end of the review for this text's reprise.
The biggest problem here, besides it's utter dullnes and lack of resolution, is the way the film jumps all over the place - It starts with a murder, then jumps to the trial of the (supposed) killer - the victims husband, then it's flashbacks based on testimony (including the cardinal sin of flashbacks - flashbacks to things that the person speaking wasn't present for) so next we're in wartime Hungary, then a party where the guy's wife is still alive, then they meet, then the marriage is on the rocks - all without warning.
Come to think of it, even the trail itself is jumbled - the first trail scene has the judge asking if the prisoner has anything to say before sentence is passed, but later in the film we here from witnesses - an the jury presenting their decision near the end of the film is played as a point of drama, despite the fact that we already know he will be sentenced. What. A. Mess.
The only point in the movie during which I was remotely entertained is presented here, to save you the effort of watching the rest of the "movie" (bear in mind that these guys are best friends):
Well... This is awkward...
There's a go-nowhere subplot about a murderer who escapes a home for the criminally insane - we see him kill (THEN rape - eew) a girl we have never seen before, and then he's actually called to our guy's trail based on the fact that the location of the murder - in the victims own home - was a bit close to the site of his murders.
The police investigation is carried out so badly that ANY lawyer ,including Lionel Hutz or Ted Buckland, could have got it thrown out of court! The police promise key suspects immunity to wear a wire, strip the body naked at the scene before (glovelessly) cramming them into an evidence bag, and pull out the victims fingernails (!) and bag them without a pathologist present. Oh, and the entire justice system fails to notice that the husband is out shopping with his daughter and the victims cousin at the time of the murder!
I suspect that this movie was originally a lot more chronological, but they realized it was dull and (mistakenly) thought that shuffling it would make it more interesting.
Fun Fact: The movie Men In Black originally had an extra sub plot, which didn't test well and was removed in post production, obviously one cannot simply cut a subplot and have everything else just work out, so re-shoots are usually needed - in the case of MiB this was avoided by re-dubbing a talking dog, and changing some subtitles and the display of a large viewscreen. Why do I mention this here? I suspect that a similar clever bit of editing may have happened in this movie.
See if you can spot the oh-so-smooth dialogue removal in the following scene:
Seamless, ain't it?
All in all the whole thing is a shambles which, despite having far too many sub-plots and suspects, manages to be confusig, dull and frustrating in roughly equal measures.
Oh, and in-case we missed the bizarre information / disclaimer crawl at the (kind of) begging of the film, the text is repeated again after the credits:
It's fiction... apart from the bits which are true... which may also be fiction...
Body Count: 5 (2 'real' plus 3 in dream sequences)
Boob Count: 2 pairs
Animal Body Count: Countless chickens in slaughterhouse footage.
Most memorable death: Paint-headed pinata woman.
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, 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)