Salo - Will's Review

Wow.

That was without question the most depraved thing I have ever seen; and I include "A Serbian Film" in that.

There was a point in this movie, during the films 3rd segment (it has 4, each given an on screen caption)  that inspired from me I think the biggest reaction I have ever had to a piece of fiction, and I'll get to that in good time; I wasn't very far into the 2nd segment before I was wondering how this film is even legal.

Now, don't get me wrong; I absolutely think it should be legal; I strongly believe that ANY faked activity should be allowed, no matter how offensive I may personally find it, but it is a sad fact that English law does not agree, and we still have an Obscene Publications Act which can be applied to fiction.

In fact once again, as with Week 83's Antichrist,  the prejudices against horror and towards "Art Film" shines through. How this can be passed uncut, while similar scenes were trimmed from week 63's Human Centipede 2, I cannot comprehend.

****SPOILERS****





As I say, the film is split into 4 sections; in the first "Anteinferno", 4 men (referred to only as  duke, magistrate, bishop and  president) agree to marry each others daughters, in order to bind their group together. The daughters are never seen or heard about again. Then the 4 men, along with some soldiers who work for them, abduct 18 young people (9 of each sex). They are then taken to a mansion where the daily routine is explained.

Each day, The 4 men, the soldiers, the prisoners and 4 prostitutes are to gather in the "Orgy Room", Where the prostitutes are to tell depraved tales to 'inspire' the men. The prisoners are then to act out anything that comes to the men's minds. Any disobedience will be punished, and any religious act is punishable by death.

The 2nd part of the film, "The Circle of Manias", is arguable the most depraved (although not the most stomach churning) segment. The prostitutes' stories in this section seem to center mostly around being covered in seamen. The lords' reenactments (thankfully?)  do not follow this pattern; however the way the captives are treated is vile. As well as the rape which is already pretty much a given, they are humiliated and treated as subhuman constantly - not only by the lords and prostitutes, but also by the soldiers. At one point for instance the girls serve a meal to everyone else; they are naked (all of the captives are naked throughout most of the movie), one of the soldiers spits in one of the girls, which causes riotous laughter, she is then raped anally (until the president decides that it's his turn to be sodomized by the offending soldier). later all of the slaves are put on leads and made to act like dogs (during this, one is fed some food into witch a pin has been inserted, with bloody and cringe inducing results).

I can't actually put into words just how offensive the degradation in this segment is... y'all know I'm not easily shocked, but this is truly harrowing. At one point, a girl invokes the name of god, hoping to be killed as per the rules, and is devastated only to have her name added to a book. Throughout the movie, any who resist or break the rules are added to this book.

When the on-screen caption for the next segment is displayed, the viewer instantly knows that they are in trouble, because the 3rd section is called "The Circle of Shit"

The prostitutes stories refer to shit eating, and it isn't long before one of the lords takes a dump on the floor and hands a slave a spoon... suffice to say i threw up in my mouth a little.

The president orders a 'wedding' between 2 of the slaves, the girl is left naked and the boy dressed as a girl. The wedding feast is the most nauseating thing I have ever watched. Huge piles of shit are brought out and served  to everyone. The Lords (and even some of the soldiers) eat the excrement with gusto - so much gusto that it fails to be repelling... it simply looks like what it more than likely is... people eating chocolate mousse. The acting on the part of the 'bride' as he is force fed however, really does sell the stuff as shit. I did actually throw up at this point (a movie watching first for me!).

You know you are in a bad place when the final segment of a movie is called "The Circle of Blood", and you are relieved.

The slaves are interrogated, and one by one turn on each other, revealing rule braking, their names added to the book.

Finally, 3 of the men watch from windows with binoculars, while the Bishop, along with the soldiers, finally kill everyone who made it into the punishment book, by way of branding, hanging, scalping, eye gouging, castration etc.

Overall, it is, as I think I have made clear, the most repugnant movie I have ever seen. I'm glad that it's legally available; I see no reason for any sane person to want to watch (much less enjoy) this movie, but everything in it is faked and consensual, and there is no reason for any "free" society to ban it. "poor taste" is subjective, after all.

That said, as I mentioned in my opening, I get the distinct impression that the only reason it is legally available is that it is somehow supposed top be "artistic", and "well made" (apparently it has something important to say about fascism too). To this, I say "bollocks", "art" is every bit as subjective as "poor taste", and therefore neither is a reason to ban, or allow, anything.

Besides which, the only thing I classed as particularly arty here was the Danté reference in the segment titles.


The political message in non existent - if not for the fact it was set in wartime Italy there would be no reason to even consider fascism  As far as "well made" goes? the very 70's costumes in the wedding scene, along with the oddly grey fake flesh during the torture scenes beg to differ.

Add to all of this that the movie has no real "end" to speak of, and I'd encourage you to stay away. This is one of those that we watched... so you don't have to!

Island of Death - Lisa's Review

*** LOTSA SPOILERS ***

Bit of an odd one this week, a contradiction if you will.  This is a pretty nasty movie with nasty ideas, nasty people and nasty kills, but it still manages to be quite tame in how much it shows.  You get an 'idea' as to what is happening a lot of the time, but not the full picture.  This is a bit odd for a Video Nasty, as surely the whole idea is to show to nastiness?  Don't get me wrong, I don't think you always have to see everything to make a good movie, but I struggle to see why they come up with some of the ideas they do, only to edit the movie in such a way that it actually looks like its been cut by the censors.

So what did I think of it?  Well it seems a bit sick saying it was ok given various scenes in the movie which include our main character having sex with a baby goat when his wife is feeling too tired to oblige, he then proceeds to slaughter the goat.  This may have been the first obvious proof that the main male character (Christopher) was a sick, sick man, but we get hints that he's a little 'angry' early on from his rather humorous name calling of a man who dare look at his wife in a restaurant of  'Bastard' (this guy is later seduced by his wife, Celia, all while Christopher watches and photographs them having sex.  When they are done, he is nailed to the ground and force-fed paint).

He also gets rather animated when he see's a woman cheating on her husband, calling her 'Bitch' over and over.  Its appears that he thinks the acts he carries out in the movie are 'cleansing the Island' of its sinners.  He is sitting on some kind of moral high ground and his slightly warped wife (who it seems is losing her taste for cruelty as the movie progresses) is along for the ride.

They go on to murder a gay couple, one by sword at Christophers hand and one by gun at Celias hand following a rather uncomfortable sexual scene at gunpoint between her and the young gay man.  All of these are again photographed for the couples use afterwards.  I'm sure you can imagine the 'use' of a couple of sick indivduals.
As the movie progresses Christopher promises Celia there will be no more deaths, as she has made it clear she is not enjoying what they are doing any more.  They agree to continue their sexual exploits and photograph them.

The first 'victim' of this randy twosome is an older woman who has the hots for Christopher.. and when I say older, I don't mean sexy older woman, I mean granny.... this scene is probably one of the most disturbing for me and had me yicking and yucking from start to finish.... both at the tongue waggling and come-ons of the old dear and the golden shower that follows.. rather than be disgusted however, granny loves it and rubs it all over her droopy, loose-skinned body.  A bit put out by this and the fact that she bit him where no man wants to be bitten, he beats her to death.

The no death agreement didn't last for long, as Christopher walks in on 2 men attempting to rape Celia in the bath.  He makes short work of them and more bodies pile up.

I'm beginning to feel a bit desensitized to it all by now. I don't know... this movie just doesn't seem disturbing  now.  You're just wondering who is going to be next and how.  So we're getting bored... what better way to wake the audience up by having our beautiful leading lady get it on with a lesbian (would you believe it, called Leslie!!)  again Christopher is outside taking photos... do none of these people have curtains??  I say get it on.. she pretty much just doesn't protest, but there doesn't seem to be much interest coming from her side.

Of course poor Leslie meets her demise by being forced to drink something (I wasn't sure what) and is given a lethal dose of heroin.  Christopher then delights in blow-torching her body for fun.  Delightful chap!

If we are not already enamored with Christopher, he comes upon a naked young woman having a shower and attempts to rape her.  She manages to escape so we are 'treated' to her running about all over the place naked, with Christopher in pursuit with a sickle for some odd reason.... this ends in the girl being killed by way of sickle penetration to the chest, through a door....

The rest of the movie is just Christopher and Celia running all over the island to avoid capture.  They end up hiding out in an old barn.  Christopher wakes in the morning to Celia being raped by a simple farm hand and rather than help her, he gets out his camera and takes photos!!!  In a sick twist of fate, the guy (who is obviously a bit camera shy) then knocks Christopher unconscious rapes him also.   He dumps him in a pile of rocks and leaves him half buried and returns to Celia who sleeps with him (I wasn't sure if she was feigning  enjoying it to save her life or if she actually did).

In a final twist we find out that Christopher and Celia are actually brother and sister.... Wheres the moral high ground now???  The movie ends with Celia having sex with the simpleton while Christopher is still buried in the rocks in the pourng rain.

So what did I think?  Well it wasn't awful, but it wasn't shocking or frightening either.  While some of the subject matter maybe deemed suitable for the DPP list, the actual execution of it did not.  Given the subject matter, we could all imagine much, much worse in our heads... or is that just me?

---

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.

Flesh For Frankenstein - Wills Review

Udo Kier (last seen, by us at least, in Esposé), along with the rest of the cast, completely hams his way through this one, chewing so much scenery that it HAD to be a deliberate choice; we know he can do better!

I struggled long and hard trying to work out how seriously we were supposed to take this; it’s not belly laugh funny, but lines like “Finally, we have the right head, with the perfect nazum for my male zombie” really only belong in a comedy. Sure enough a quick look online tells us that this is, indeed, supposed to be a comedic take on the Frankenstein story. 

But this is no Young Frankenstein; this dark and unorthodox take on the tale bares little resemblance to the book or, as far as I know, any other filmed version.

Here, the baron is not only a mad scientist, but a perverse megalomaniac. Married to his sister, he has a quiet contempt for his children (who, technically, are also his nephew and niece) a strong dislike for humanity, and a sexual fetish for girl’s internal organs.

“To understand Life, Otto, You must fuck life in the Gall Bladder”

Frankenstein’s plan is to build a Male and Female ‘zombies’ and have them mate, thus creating a new race. When we join the tale, the male creature is still missing a head; one which the baron insists must have a strong Serbian nazum (nose) and come from an incredibly horny man.

The usual “abnormal brain” device is here substituted with a case of mistaken identity. In a mix-up worthy of a carry-on film, Frankenstein and his hapless assistant, Otto, manage to select an asexual man who wished to become a monk. Meanwhile the Baroness hires the real horny man as her ‘personal’ manservant…

You may have gathered by now that there is a lot of sex in this movie, any you’d be right, the sex is frequent, but inexplicit. In-fact, it would take few (if any) script changes to re-film this as “Frankenstein: A XXXParody”.

Originally in 3D, the movie does suffer from a few “Comin’at Ya!” moments, where things are held out towards the camera for prolonged periods and/or unnatural ways (including a preserved heart, held in forceps at arms length) thankfully most of the depth was added to the movie by placing certain objects and pieces of scenery in the foreground, while keeping the action midground, and so you don’t get too many moments where you feel cheated to be watching the 2D version. (no 3D version is currently legally available, although a Field Sequential version was released on Lazerdisc, and DVD bootlegs of this can be found, also Channel 4 showed it in Blue and Amber Anaglyph in 2009).

All in all a fun movie, that almost makes up in sheer bonkersness what it lacks in intrinsic quality. Oh, and the ending is great!

Body Count: 10
Boob Count: 5 pairs
Animal Body Count: 0
Most Memorable Death: 3D Curved Shears of Death!

---

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.

Flesh for Frankentein - Lisa's Review

*** SPOILERS ***

I'm hoping I can remember enough about this movie to so it justice with my review. I say do it justice, but I can see most people around my house ready to kick my rather ample posterior after having watched this one on my recommendation. I stand stubbornly forth though and state, 'I enjoyed this movie'. Why did I enjoy it? Well.....

For starters, I don't think Flesh for Frankenstein is to be taken very seriously. Although there are some very dark and disturbing scenes within the movie (copulation with a ladies innards being one), everything seems to be very tongue in cheek.

Our premis here is the basic Frankenstein idea of a mad scientist who creates a life. In this case, our scientist (who for the record is married to his nympho sister and has 2 kids, none of which he seems to have very much time for) is attempting to create the perfect male and female beings to start a master race with him as the führer. (see what I did there?...)

He is played by a new crush of mine, Udo Kier. We have seen him before in Exposé. Its a shame he's old now, but hey he's well worth a watch in this. The eyes are hypnotic! Hell, he even made humping his female creations innards seem somewhat appealing.

So where was I? In our movie, we arrive as the female has been fully created (we could have done with bigger boobs in my humble opinion, but hey ho). Our male is just missing a head. The scientist dictates that the owner must be a bit of a perv (kind of a Quagmire if you will) and he seems a bit obsessed with it having the perfect nose? Unfortunately as he sets out to aquire this head with his faithful assistant (everything about the assistant is hilarious, from his facial expressions, to the way he moves, to the lines he delivers), they mistake a young man who seems to have no interest in sex whatsoever (and in fact wants to be a monk) for a sexual pervert as he is seen coming out of a brothel. In fact he is only in there as his best friend (who just so happens to be a sexual pervert) is desperate to convince him that a religious, sex free life is not the way to go. He convinces him to try sex just once.

The actual beheading scene is well worth a belly laugh, as is the severed head when it has left his body... it is well deserving of a place in the crap 'chamber of horrors' I visited in Blackpool as a kid. Another belly laugh was had when the 2 of them put the completed male and female together later in the movie and on constant demands of her to kiss her male counterpart, they stare at his genitals, wondering why there is no movement. Poor bugger.

The story in this movie is just plain weird. The scientists horny wife hires the friend of our frigid wannabe monk as her 'man servant' - I'll let you guess what she uses him for. He sees his friend (or should I say his friends head) behaving rather oddly and starts an investigation into whats happening.

After more weird happenings, the sex with a surgical wound scene and lots of really crap sex scenes (that horny guy REALLY needs to learn how to kiss) we culminate in the female creation being destroyed after the assistant tries to replicate his masters sexual prowess, The male creation strangles the assistant and then impales the mad scientist on a spear-like implement, lancing his liver on the end in the process (you can see the bits made for 3D). Our male creation ignores his friends pleas and feels he is better off dead and so kills himself.

We end the movie with the man servant being the only one left hanging above this whole mess. The scientists children walk into the room and pick up a scalpel each and start to turn the winch he's attached to. You're left to make your own mind up as to whether they are going to cut him down and rescue him or continue their dads work. Given the opening credits of the movie where they cut the heads off their toys and sew them onto different toys, I go with continue their fathers work.

Wierd movie, funny movie but one I have to admit I did enjoy. Will deffo seek out the movie where Udo plays the count!

---

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.

Exposé - Will's Review

Sorry for the late review, when I'm not doing this, I'm self employed, and I've been battling my accounts ready for the end of the month deadline...

Anyway, This weeks movie; Exposé is the only British movie on the DPP list, it's also the first one (at least alphabetically) to star horror mainstay Udo Kier (we'll be seeing him again in 'Flesh for Frankenstein') - indecently, Udo was offered the Japanese profits in exchange for his appearance, he instead insisted on an actual fee; almost inevitably, the film was a massive hit in Japan...

So, is it any good?

Meh!

There's nothing wrong with it as such (apart from the hideous tit's of 'sex symbol' Fiona Richmond) but it's not terribly exciting either, and the structure is slightly odd - It is made obvious early on that Udo's new secretary is stalking him (we see her masturbating to his picture, which she had before she met him) - something which feels like it aught to be a twist, and although the killer is (for the first kill at least) unseen, there is never any reason to suspect anyone other than the secretary / stalker.

The Movie's 'twist' revolves instead around WHY she is stalking him... but it doesn't really shock the way I think it was supposed to, and doesn't gel at all with the (frequent) masturbation.

The highlight for me had to be the fact that a rapist (Jacko, from 80's sitcom Brush Strokes) seemingly survives days in a cornfield with shotgun wounds to the face, without actually crawling away, and then continently dies immediately after doing the thing the scriptwriters kept him alive to do.

Not bad, but a bit dull, and with terrible stabbing effects (which are still more convincing than those tits - shudder)

Body Count: 5

Boob count: 2 pairs (if you count those god-awful falsies as 'boobs')

Animal Body Count: 0

Most Memorable death: Shower scene revisited (badly)

---

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.

Exposé - Lisa's Review

***SPOILERS***

I start this review a little guiltily knowing I should probably think this movie was pants, but I actually quite enjoyed it. It had me cackling most of the way through.

The premis here, is an up himself author (Paul Martin) who has 1 successful book behind him (he keeps telling anyone who will listen how well it did and how much he made from it) attempting to write book number 2. He takes off to a quiet house in the country and goes about hiring a typist to assist him in his endeavours. He decides not to bring his lady friend with him after tiring of her and I'm not surprised it has to be said. NEVER have I seen a more hideous, overly tanned (she looks roasted!) and wierd chested woman in a movie. During the woman on top sex scenes, her boobs don't move AT ALL, no swaying, nothing!!! Also her acting when it comes to displays of esctasy is downright scary. I would be terrified if I was shagging that! Wierdly Paul always wears rubber gloves when he is having sex and he has flashes in his mind of some man outside a window and him covered in lots of blood every time. I don't think they ever explained that.


Sooooo our author Pauil clears off to the country and is soon met at the station by his typist (Linda)- a very pretty and we soon learn nympho type. She is harranged by a couple of thugs, who do the usual leering crap we come to expect for a pretty woman in a movie. They are dealt with very swiftly and impressively by this 'stiff-looking' suited author when he embarrassingly knocks 7 shades of excrement out of them.

The movie is quite slow and mostly centers around him dictating the text to Linda and the sexual tension that builds very quickly between them. He discovers she has a vibrator in her suitcase (oh quelle suprise! naughty girl!) and this seems to make him think its ok to try her room when he hears suggestion moans coming from behind a closed door. Yes, she is having a little fun alone time and knows he is there trying the door and peering in at her nakedness (she's finished by this stage) but she doesn't seem to care.

The scene which leads to her need for relief is most amusing. Paul dictates a new paragraph to her all surrounding going down on a woman... its all 'tongue darting here and there' etc etc. Before any climax is reached or any real filth is alluding to, he says 'Ok, thats enough for now'.. You could literally FEEL the frustration!

Another amusing scene after she emerges from her room post play is when he says 'You've been a long time' and she finishes his sentence 'in coming?'.. its so bad, its hilarious!

On another very wierd scene, she goes for a walk in a cornfield and has another go, but shock horror, the 2 guys from earlier at the station are there and ready to rape her. She doesn't seem bothered at all and if anything looked like she enjoyed it to me. She even strokes the shotgun one of them is holding her with. Afterwards, she shoots them both with the gun.. It sort of left me wondering what the hell the point of the scene was.. I suppose something else sexual was needed.... who knows.

So you're wondering where the hell this movie is going.. Pauls girlfriend shows up on his invite after Linda spurns his advances. He needs a bit, so here she is for some more scary sex and even some lesbian sex with Linda. She gets everywhere. I think Linda sleeps with her just to wind Paul up.

So everyone is having sex, frustrating each other and masturbating.. where are we going???

Basically we discover that Linda was married to the real author of Pauls first book that made him so much money. He stole the book and took the credit and she intended to get her revenge.

She attempts to kill him by cutting the brakes on her car, but he survives by crashing into a river and heads back to the house.

I won't spoil the ending completely but after a very slow movie, it all ends rather abruptly and obviously.

I know this movie was terrible but I enjoyed it because it was so bad. Why its a video nasty is anyones guess.

---

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.

HALLOWEEN SPECIAL - Will's Pick: A Serbian Film.

NOTE: In honour of Halloween, We're taking a break from the DPP list.

This week, reviewers were given a free choice of any horror movie. 

---

Year: 2010

Alternate Titles: Srpski film

DPP Status: N/A

BBFC Status: Passed with 4m11s of cuts in 2010

IMDB: A Serbian Film

Wikipedia: A Serbian Film

DVD: Cut UK version, The UK DVD is the strongest version (officially) available with English Subtitles.

---

***WARNING***

Contains some mild spoilers, and descriptions of highly distasteful subject matter.


While this film is very well made, serious, and handles its subjects responsibly, it is absolutely NOT for everyone.

Bear in mind that I have described slaughter-houses, disembowelling, mutilation, self cannibalism and foetus-eating without feeling the need to issue a "taste" warning. 


"A Serbian Film" has made me issue one...

First up, full disclosure; I did not watch this film this week - I watched it, and wrote most of this review, back in late March, and it's been sat waiting for this week, so that it can be posted here, despite not being from the DPP list.

I also watched this film without the intention of reviewing it so (apart from skipping back through it for the boob / body tallies) I did not take notes - I may therefore be wrong on more details than usual. That said,  thoughts are as follows:

This is one of those films so controversial that it is impossible to discuss the film on it's own merits; one is almost forced to address the controversy too.

Anyone who follows movie news (especially Horror movie news) will already know that some of the most vile acts ever committed to celluloid appear right here (albeit simulated).

However the media, and most especially the mainstream media, have taken this (admittedly already sensational) aspect of the film and amped it up to the Nth degree.

Despite what you may have led to believe, this is not a film (even in it uncut version) that never cuts away. The vilest act happen (thankfully) off camera.

Also, as I've already mentioned, all of these acts are simulated; So as far as I'm concerned, as no-one was hurt in the making of the movie, anything goes, as long as it can be justified by context.

Which is also the rub for the BBFC who required 4m 12s of cuts before the film was awarded an 18 rating. Their justification for some of these cuts is that the film contained "images of sexual and sexualised violence which have a tendency to eroticise or endorse the behaviour. "

I cry bullshit.

At no point are any of the repugnant acts portrayed in this movie presented as good or glamorous things.

The single most vile scene in the move is the now infamous 'newborn' scene, this is shown to our hero as a film-within-a-film, and causes him to be physically sick - in what way is that "Glamorising" anything?

Despite all of the warnings above, I'm going to hide the next piece of text - highlight it with your mouse if you want to know what the 'newborn' scene is exactly... [ Milos is shown a video of a man in a lab-coat delivering (very graphically) a baby. He then proceeds to pull down his pants and have sex with the child, while it is still umbilically attached to its smiling mother. ]

The other troubling acts in the movie are all committed by our hero - after he has been kidnapped and forcibly drugged; once the drugs wear off, and he discovers what he has done, he is left a broken man!

In short NOTHING in this film is glamorised or "endorsed". I suspect that the people viewing the film for the BBFC were repelled by it's subject matter (as all right thinking people should be) and felt in their gut that they MUST remove at least some of the worst of it, however (quite rightly) the BBFC must justify their decisions and "it's just wrong" isn't on the list of acceptable reasons, and so the only excuse they could give was the "glamorises violence" one.

Several  of the cuts , I cannot agree with; They rob the film of some of its earlier, retentively minor horror, and make what follows even more of a shock to the system, and in one case makes a scene confusing, while not removing the most offensive element  - a masked character is being raped; the removal of the mask (and the lead characters discover of the identity of the victim) is pivotal, however, in the cut version we do not see the mask coming off, and we kind of have to 'figure out' who it was from the immediate aftermath. I cannot understand this cut; the same character is clearly in exactly the same predicament either-way and I can't see how the unmasking is the problem! Also, a few scenes exist (this time to demonstrate the kind of people we are dealing with) in which sex acts are inter cut with images of children IN A NON SEXUALISED CONTEXT; again, the BBFC won't have any of that!

So what if the film itself; one thing that's surprising about it is how well made it is - much of the media has made it out to be a entirely meritless piece of trash, probably out of fear of reprisals from the moral majority if they DARE to say anything remotely positive, but this couldn't be further from the truth.

It is well filmed and acted throughout, and rather than being the wall-to-wall torture-fest you may have been led to believe, a decent chunk of the film is devoted to things like plot and character development - it's about 45 mins before anything violent happens, and even after that point there is at least as much drama on screen as sex and violence.

In the first half of the movie, we meet Milo - an ex porn star, family man, and all round okay guy. He and his family are living hand to mouth and trying to eek out the savings he still has from when he was working.

He is approached (through a friend) by a director and offered an obscene amount of money to come out of retirement and star in a commissioned 'art film'. After discussing it with his wife, they agree that he should take the part.

Once he realises that he is expected to be violent towards his costars, and preform in front of children, he attempts to quit; it is at this point that the director shown him the 'newborn porn' scene in a misguided attempt to win him over (!) when this fails he is kidnapped and drugged.

Here the film takes an interesting turn, and (if you have the stomach for it) it turns into a bloody good thriller.

Milo wakes up several days later, on his own bed, covered in blood, with no recollection of what happened to him; he is left to retrace his steps and try and work out what was done to him (and what he did) from his fragmented memories, and a pile of videotapes he recovers - think memento with snuff, porn, rape and paedophilia and you're on the right track.

Much to my surprise, it's a decent film; I'm glad I saw it,but I will almost certainly never watch it again, and it certainly isn't for everyone.

If you though "Saw 2" was too violent, or if you have to cover your eyes during the first half of "I spit on your grave" this is not for you.

If the only horror you enjoy is the 'hero killer' type, where you root for the madman while he hacks his way through a line of cardboard cut outs masquerading as characters; this is not for you.

Frankly, it not really for anyone, but if you genuinely want to be horrified, not scared, not shocked (although it will undoubtedly shock you) but actually shaken to your core HORRIFIED, you could do a lot worse than to see this film.

But make sure that's genuinely what you want, because it can't be unseen.

And if you are going to see it - Track down the Uncut version, The BBFC butchered version loses much of its impact, and with it, the point of the film, and of Milos' journey...

Tim Anderson, over at Bloody Disgusting, likened watching the movie to having one's soul raped, and ended his review with this warning:

"If what I have written here is enough to turn your feelings of wonder into a burning desire to watch this monstrosity, then perhaps I haven't been clear enough. You don't want to see Serbian Film. You just think you do"

Body Count: 13*
Animal Body Count: 0
Boob Count: 9
Most memorable death: Penis to the eye socket(!)

* One of these isn't confirmed dead, but I imagine the injuries would have been fatal.

---

As this is a non-cannon review, it will not carry a separate "Reader Review" page, you may add your own reviews in the comments section.

SHOCKTOBER SPECIAL: A cat in the brain - Lisa's Review

NOTE: In honour of Halloween, We're taking a break from the DPP list.

This weeks movie was selected for 2 reasons:

1. Although it was too recent to make the DPP list, it was banned on release in the UK, and only passed in 2003 after extensive cuts.

2. It was Written and Directed by, and stars (as Himself) prolific Video Nasty Director Lucio Fulci (The Beyond, Zombie Flesh Eaters)

So to the penultimate Shocktober Special, the very strange 'A Cat in the brain'. Having heard other peoples viewpoints on this, I wasn't expecting much, in fact I was expecting it to be one of the worst so far, in fact I found I really enjoyed this. As flawed a movie as it is in many respects, I'll tell you why I liked it.

For anyone not in the know, Lucio Fulci is a very famous Italian horror director famous for the goriest of movies. In this movie, he brings together the best examples of gore from his other movies. He manages to re-use these as he plays himself in the movie and we see how his involvement with such despicable material in his movies, slowly starts contributing to his mental breakdown. He eventually starts imagining brutal deaths and thinks he is responsible for these. So thats the premise... how did it pan out?

Ok, so the acting is dire. It says something that the best performance comes from Fulci himself and he is far from an actor. The gore isn't believable in a lot of places, the script is laughable and some of the gore is so obscene, all you can do is laugh open mouthed.. I suppose that's why we get the phrase 'Eyeball Gag' with reference to all means of horrid things happening to eyeballs... a Fulci favourite.

The good points? If you're a fan of gore, this movie has it in spades. Its like taking out all of the boring, slow bits from other movies and just letting loose with gore, obscenity and general rudeness. There are boobs a plenty in this one it has to be said, which is no doubt a plus point for the majority of male viewers. I also found that even though there are several violent scenes involving women, that have an overtly sexual nature, they didn't come across as titillating or exploitative to me at all.

This movie will appeal to some and not at all to others. I don't think its going to be one of those 'It was ok' movies. It certainly doesn't hold back, that's for sure. Among delights contained therein are: Decapitation, Disembowelling, Dismemberment, Chainsaws aplenty, Knife Stabbings, Several nasty Eyeball moments, A few horrendous beatings (very realistic too!), A psycho style shower murder (but this one is much more graphic) and cannibalism for good measure.

I won't go into detail about scenes from the movie, or give away the storyline, but I will say I really enjoyed this one. I have a penchant for nasty movies though, so if you're of a weak disposition and consider movies like 'Sixth Sense' and 'Final Destination' horror movies, then probably best avoid this one.

Deffo one for the die hard gore fan. BIG thumbs up!

---

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.

Blood Rites - Lisa's Review

*** Warning: Contains Spoilers ***

As this movie started, I had a feeling of dread,so monumentally awful was the opening scene. I have no idea what year it is meant to be set in, but the leading lady has a bonnet and parasol.. need I say more? She is having a lovely day in a meadow-like setting with her beau. The conversation is cringe worthy, the accents terrible. All of a sudden, in the midst of getting cozy with his lady, the young man states "I want to take a look around". Okaaaaaaaaaaaay, so we know something is about to happen. Thank gawd, I thought. The scene which follows is most odd and I never managed to tie it together to the rest of the movie, try as I might. Some maniac creeps up on him, the way this is shot (underneath trees with the sun shining through, muchos shadows) makes it very hard to see what is happening. I found myself wondering... was that an eyeball protruding as he gets his head battered in? This scene is quite brutal and effective it has to be said and comes out of nowhere. However why the guy getting a beating felt the need to drape his hand over the aforementioned possible eyeball protrusion is anyones guess. It had me wondering what the hell I had seen. Even a couple of rewinds didn't help. Even when he is dragged off screen by his murderer, that bloody hand doesn't budge!

His parasol wielding girlfriend follows and as she peers through a gap, her conveniently outstretched hand is unceremoniously hacked off before she meets her maker also. Now follows the opening credits??

So while I'm somewhat confused as to what's going on, we start the movie with a love scene between a married couple. We skip to 2 other couples and similarly cringe worthy love scenes. This movie is a perfect illustration to me as to why we never see ugly people in sexual situations *shudder*. Anyways we get to know these 3 'sweet' couples and discover that the 3 ladies (Victoria, Veronica & Elizabeth) are in fact sisters whose parents have both passed away and are due for some inheritance. They need to travel to New York to get this.

The husband of one of the sisters has a brother called Walter who they call upon to lend them money to travel to New York. He is only shown once in the movie so it kind of made me wonder why his inclusion at all. He was a very creepy individual who obviously has the hots for his own brother, who describes him as 'having abnormal tastes'. Very odd indeed. He gets his money and we all head for New York.

We next cut to a very creepy old solicitor who advises them that their father (who concieved the 3 sisters in his only 5 visits home in his life) had 4 conditions to his estate and money being divided amongst the sisters. They were as follows:

1) They must live at his old residence Grinshaw House in sexual harmony for 3 days.

2) On the morning of the 3rd day an envelope with a V on should be opened.

3) A Large trunk in the attic should them be opened.

4) Should anything happen during the stay, the eldest daughter should re-distribute the inheritance.

Seems simple enough? Of course they go to the house and allsorts kicks off. The servants are there to look after them - 3 siblings Colin (who is simple minded),Aggie and Martha. They are quite ominous characters so we know everything is not as it seems with them right away. In an attempt to illustrate Colins simple-mindedness and violent tendencies, we are treated to a scene where he picks up a rather cute fluffy bunny and starts eating it. Thankfully he turns his back to the camera for the actual kill. This rabbit later turns up in the youngest sisters bed as a start to the shenanigans.

What follows is people getting increasingly more ill tempered, greedy, violent and acting completely out of character as if the house is having some sort of effect on them. The eldest sister wants everything for herself with no thought for her sisters. The husband of the youngest sister starts beating her and forcing himself on her such is his irritation at her crying at the unravelling events.

The 3 husbands one by one meet their maker in very unimaginative ways. First off Richard meets his maker on the first night and is hung up in the hallway by his feet. Secondly Donald meets a grisly end with a saw while helping Colin in the cellar (some crap disembowelling & sawing follows). Thirdly our last husband gets a pitchfork through the neck again whilst helping Colin in the attic... kind of common thread. Of course the more astute amongst us will know Colin has sod all to do with it.

We are also treated to Elizabeths head served up on a silver platter beneath a cloche for dinner. The other 2 sisters however are spared only to meet the murderer at the end of the movie. We have only seen a hooded figure to this point.

In the conclusion Martha and Colin are attacked as Martha finds a photo which holds some form of revelation,which we aren't party to. Martha is killed and Colin is badly hurt (we are to assume possibly dead). The perpetrator is none other than their big sister Aggie (who oddly is now calling herself Hattie?).

It seems she was the first born and eldest child. Her mother died and her father (also their father) re-married. Their mother was hideously cruel to her behind closed doors (kind of Cinderella if you will). She starved, beat and enslaved her. She also hired 2 orphaned children (Colin & Martha) to act as her siblings so she could have slaves of all 3. She beat Colin so badly, he ended up simple minded. So it seems that Hattie / Aggie is in fact the beneficiary to the estate and that would have been contained in the chest and envelope that we never got to see.....

Just as she shouts "Bye Veronica, Bye Victoria" and attempts to axe them through the head, Colin appears as hero of the half hour and kills her. The film ends quite abruptly with no more explanation.... very odd.

This is better than the first 4 movies on the list, but not as good as The Beyond. It is watchable however, although the gore is rubbish. Inclusion on the list is ridiculous.

Gore Score: 2/10

Overall Score: 4/10

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 Beast in Heat - Lisa's Review

*** CONTAINS SPOILERS ***

I am torn with this movie. Part of me found it extremely distasteful and sick (the first so far where I could understand what all the fuss was about) but the other part of me found it too much like soft porn or movies like 'Flesh Gordon' to take in any way seriously. Had this movie been filmed with a darker mood and in all seriousness, I probably would have had problems watching it all the way through. That's not due to it being particularly horrific or having scenes which were bad enough for it to warrant prosecution, but just due to the fact I am a female viewer and much as I don't like typical sexist stereotypes, I think there are specific acts which men find easier to view than women.

There was 1 scene in this entire movie where a crying baby is snatched from its mother by a german officer and thrown into the air and shot (off camera) which is probably the only 'nasty' part in this movie played out seriously.

The general storyline involves a female nazi officers' experiment, where she creates a neanderthal-looking, sex-crazed creature, which spends the movies duration in a cage naked. Female prisoners are subjected to being thrown into the cage so this 'monster' can have his way with them while prison guards and the officers look on in amusement. These scenes are not particularly shocking, but more amusing to be honest as this incompetant, brainless creature does what only an animal could do, including ripping out the hair on one particularly thick muff. Thats something thats plentiful in this movie... very hairy female genitals! Makes you want to rush onto the set with some wax strips....

Also plentiful are boobs of all sizes and shapes. This movie is most definately one for the men as it just exploits women from start to finish. They just seem to be there for the eye candy to me. In saying that, the main movie villan is a woman, but her character is also something meant to appeal to the men and even she doesn't keep her clothes on! She is a dominatrix style character with the personality of a very lewd man. She makes advances on female officers, challenges male officers to 'get off' on the beast having sex with unconsenting women, then chastises them for it. She 'tortures' male prisoners by stripping off for them and asking them to look at her, before travelling southward..... kind of odd torture if you ask me. They'll be lining up for cross examination next.

So like I said, a kind of very poor soft porn movie in places, but done extremely badly. There are also several rape scenes with german officers and scenes where women are tortured, usually by way of genital electrocution or supposed rats eating their parts (although most amusingly, guinea pigs are used in the movie). Scenes which should have been horrific are played for kicks and to give you as much of an eyefull as possible.

One of the final scene inevitably involves Mistress bitch being hauled into the beasts cage so he can have his way with her. This is, as with the rest of the movie, played for kicks, with the absence of a bra when the uniform is ripped off, the suspenders and stockings which she just happened to have on underneath and their staying on all the way through. She is reduced to a quivering, bloody mess, just like all the other women (you could say she got her cum upence .. Ba'dum tish!) and they are both finally shot at the end by the villagers (who are in another story which runs alongside the main sex fuelled one and is too mind numbingly dull to talk about.... one of them does talk a lot like Pop-eye though, which I found amusing) its dull and monotonous and most viewers will just be wondering how long it takes until you get back to the boobs. It was a very weird mix of 2 stories to me....

So to conclude, nothing particularly shocking in this movie but it contains an awful lot of nudity and sex. It is so bad though and 'the beast' is so laughable, you can't really get all bent out of shape about it. I felt sorry for the actresses having the guys flacid bits all pressed up against them... YUCK!!! If you're a guy who likes to watch a lot of boobs and a bit of blood, then this is for you. If you're a horror loving female, then there's very little here for you (unless of course you like to look at boobs too). There are a few teeny tiny flacid willies in there as well though, if that does it for you!

You'll need your pen and paper for the boob count in this one Will. I can't wait to see what it is!

Gore: 1/10 (There is very little)

Story: 2/10 (there was little in the way of a story as it was all an excuse to get bits out)

Nudity: 8/10 (Seemed to be the main reason for the movie to me)

Overall Score: 4/10 (If I was a guy, this would probably rise to 6/10)

---

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.