Well, I'll say one thing for this - It was indeed a Nasty.
Not all that graphic, but look at this checklist: Rape, Male Rape,Golden Showers, a 50-year old nude, bestiality, someone gets nailed to the floor and made to drink paint, stabbings, shootings, beheading via heavy machinery, limestone burns, incest, racism, homophobia, drugs, hanging, water sports (and I don't mean surfing), strangulation, public sex, goat slaughter... It's like they were trying to piss of the censors!
Oh. and the thing that really cracks me up; this one briefly got (accidentally) removed from the list, after someone watched "Who can Kill A Child" (Alternate title "The Island of Death") and though that was this!
The Plot involves a British, Christopher and Celia couple visiting an island in Greece, one which Christopher especially approves of due to its high number of churches and presumed Godly people. The couple (again, mainly Christopher) decides to cleanse the island of its ungodly - Those they deem perverts, such as Drug addicts, homosexuals, people who have the audacity to flirt with the Celia after being explicitly told she is single...
Oddly though, their righteous attitude doesn't come from a very pure place; They have sex in a phone box, and phone his mother to tell her what they are doing, they often seduce their victims before offing them, and they photograph their crimes and masturbate to the pictures - it is even Christopher who preforms the above mentioned goat rape! In short, they are not so much righteous, as messed up.
They mention having done similar in London, and are tracked and followed by a man who suspects them to be killers (is he a cop? We never find out) - this for me was the films biggest letdown, I wanted to know more of the backstory; why are they like this? Who is the guy following them? Why does Christopher think that red books bring him luck - This feels like a sequel rather than a stand alone movie.
All that said, although It could have been gorier, some of the kills here are pretty unique, and if you're after an intro to video nasties, you could do a lot worse!
Body Count: 9
Boob Count: 6 Pairs
Animal Body Count: 1
Most memorable Death: Jus' hangin' out on a rented plane...
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.
Showing posts with label Greece. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Greece. Show all posts
Saturday, 28 April 2012
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)