WEEK 50: Killer Nun

Alternate Titles : Deadly Habit, Suor Omicidi

Year: 1978

Reviews / Author Comments due: 05/05/2012

DPP Status: Removed from list July 1985

BBFC Status: Passed uncut 2009

IMDB: Suor Omicidi

Wikipedia: Killer Nun

DVD: Uncut R2

---

Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.

Island of Death - Will's Review

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.

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.

WEEK 49: Island of Death

Alternate Titles : A Craving for Lust, Cruel Destination, Devils in Mykonos, Island of Perversion, Psychic Killer 2

Year: 1977

Reviews / Author Comments due: 28/4/2012

DPP Status: Successfully Prosecuted

BBFC Status: Passed uncut in 2010

IMDB: LINK

Wikipedia: N/A

DVD: R0 Uncut

No (English) trailer online.

---

Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.

Inferno - Will's Review.

This one's an Argento. And then some. From the primary colored lighting, to the score that manages to feature Prog Rock, Experimental Jazz and opera, to the bug that lets us know shit's about to go down, this week's movie has his fingerprints all over it.

That said, it does lack the batshit insanity of his Giallo work... Probably because of the mainstream funding (this one was paid for by Fox); this isn't to say it's entirely coherent ether...

***Spoilers follow***

Part of the problem with the coherency, may be the fact that it doesn't have a clear lead character; Every time you meet someone why might be lead in any other movie, they die. There is a guy who is in most of the movies final 2/3rds, but I'm, not sure he does enough to qualify as a 'lead' in any traditional sense.

It also doesn't have much in the way of a story - there's a book in it, which tells the story of the "Three Mothers", and this book seems to be of  interest to a lot of people, especially alchemists. One such alchemist, lives under a library that has a copy, but rather than just nipping upstairs and checking it out or removing it from the shelves, he seems content until someone wielding a copy takes a wrong turn and winds up in his basement, then attempts to boil their head.

There are also some pretty ropy effects, like a god awful "Death" costume which is clearly a black jumpsuit with a rubber skeleton on it, and a potentially hilarious scene in which a woman has (what I hope are stuffed) cats thrown at her is attacked by cats...

Sad to say it, because I do like a lot of Argento's work, but this one is a bit of an, albeit beautifully shot, mess.

Body Count: 9
Boob Count: 1 pair (through a wet shirt)
Animal Body Count: 5 kills (including one insect), 2 stuffed lizards on desks.
Most Memorable Death: Knife through neck - with a lovely flow of blood from the mouth.

---

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.

Inferno - Lisa's Review

*** SPOILERS ***

So a movie from the famous Dario Argento.  I've heard a lot about him, so I was interested to see what all the fuss was about.

Having watched the movie and several parts of it several times, in a vain attempt to work out what was going on, I have to say I'm still wondering about all the fuss.  I will attempt to give a synopsis, but I don't promise that it'll make any sense.

The movie centers around a book called 'The Three Mothers' which (as far as I could make out) was written by an architect who built 3 buildings in different parts of the world.  They housed each of the three mothers (evil women).  There were also 3 keys and strange clues given about where these could be located.  In fact there seemed to be a bit of an obssession generally with the number 3 in this movie.  We also seemed to follow 3 different characters rather than have 1 main lead.

A woman in New York (Rose) is researching the history of her building when she comes across 'The Three Mothers' story.  She thinks she is living in one of the cursed buildings, so she writes a letter to her brother Mark such is her concern (whatever happened to telephones...) asking him to come and see her.  He doesn't read the letter as he is distracted by some uber-hairy eyebrowed woman makes wierd mouth shapes while he is trying to read it (I think it was meant to be alluring).  The girl sitting beside him (Sarah) however sees fit to read the letter when he leaves it behind  (nosey cow!).

So having read the letter, this new character goes to a library to check out 'The Three Mothers' book.  She is completely freaked out by what she reads and from there everything just goes completely crazy.  Sarah is stabbed, along with some wierd guy that turns up, who ironically makes a big deal in not believing in the supernatural.  He gets a nice big pointy knife to the throat.

Mark finds the 2 bodies and returns to New York to look for his sister.  We meanwhile know Rose has also been killed.  He finds out via people in her building that she has disappeared so he starts to look for her with some help from one of her friends, Elise.

He meets several weird people, including a mute guy in a wheelchair (who you just know will show up again) and starts to investigate his sisters disappearance.  What happens from then on is complete confusion to me.

 People die -  Elise is stabbed while trying to help Mark - The original seller of the book to Rose is eaten by rats after trying to drown some cats in a lake.  He is then stabbed by a hotdog seller who hears his cries - A caretaker starts a fire accidentally and is burnt to death.

Mark at the ending discovers the mute guy in the wheelchair is in fact the author of the book and the architect of the 3 buildings.  Blah Blah Blah he manages to do away with him.  One of the three mothers makes an appearance (it was one of the women he met earlier) and the fire gets her as it causes the building to collapse.  Mark escapes.

Wondering WTF?  Yup I was too.

I know a lot of people are big Argento fans, but after this I doubt I will be joining those masses.  He seems to be more intent in creating something that looks the way he wants it to, rather than something that makes any kind of sense or is entertaining to the viewer.  He uses red and blue light a lot and although visually some of the scenes in the movie look fantastic, surely that shouldn't be at the expense of the movie?

I've also heard people talk about the soundtrack.... I hated it.  It was loud and distracting (as if you needed any more distracting).

My rating?  Avoid unless you're a pretentious art student or someone who likes to say they enjoy Argento just to look cultured.  Looks good, unfortunately doesn't deliver on any other level.

---

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.

WEEK 48: Inferno

Alternate Titles: Dario Argento's Inferno, Horror Infernal

Year: 1980

Reviews / Author Comments due: 21/4/2012

DPP Status: Removed from list September 1985

BBFC Status: Passed uncut in 2010

IMDB: Inferno

Wikipedia: Inferno

DVD: Uncut UK version

---

Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.

I Spit on Your Grave - Will's Review

This is one on the more famous Video nasties, so you probably already know the plot, if you don't allow me to fill you in using only information found on the films posters.

Its origional title was "The Rape and Revenge of Jennifer Hill" and the tagline is "This woman has just cut, chopped, broken, and burned five men beyond recognition…but no jury in American would ever convict her!"

Up to speed? Good.

***Spoilers (such as you can have for such a simple plot) follow****

First of all; The poster lies - Jenifer is attacked by (and takes her deadly revenge on) only 4 men.

After moving into a rented lakeside house for the summer to write her first full length novel, author Jenifer Hill orders a grocery delivery from the local store. They are delivered by a walking cartoon character (and  town simpleton) Mathew:

Mathew

So, what with him being a half-wit, and her being nice to him, he gets a crush on her, the fact she had a thin shirt on and no bra helped too...

Mathew immediately tells his only 3 friends, Johnny, Stanley and Andy (who Own the local fueling station, hang out at the local fueling station and hang around at the local fueling station, respectively) about the new girl.

One sunny day, when Jennifer is out sunbathing in a drifting rowboat in the lake, Stanley and Andy start harassing her from her speedboat and drag her to shore.

What follows is one of the most unpleasant hours of cinema I have ever seen.

It becomes quickly apparent that Johnny has orchestrated Jenifer's capture, so that Mathew can lose his virginity, she is stripped and held down, but when Mathew is reluctant, he is demoted to leg holding duty while Johnny rapes her.

The rape is, an I'm sure I won't find much opposition this time, horrific, we see most of it while the camera is trained on Jennifer's face, and I have to offer kudos to Camille Keaton at this point, who does look genuinely humiliated, terrified and pained.

That said, when she is allowed to go free, I found myself thinking "is that it" - not because here ordeal wasn't horrific, but because it wasn't as horrific by movie standards as I had expected.

Unfortunately , for the next half hour or so, we see her tracked recaptured, raped and beaten again and again - even once she reaches the "safty" of her rented home from home; Mathew is eventually coerced into taking his "turn" (although can't preform under the conditions) and things get so bad that she offers to give the last guy a hand job, just to avoid being raped again.

When they are quite finished, Mathew is sent back into the house, to kill her - which, again, he cannot bring himself to do, and so he lies.

You may have noticed that up until this point my review has been lacking its usual sarcastic edge, usually only absent when the movie was good; make no mistake, this movie was not "good" - it's just that the subject matter does not lend itself to snark. 

Rest assured that the following half hour of the movie is outright stupid, Jenifer's revenge involves (separately) seducing the members of the gang and killing them. 

When this works with Mathew (Who she actually sleeps with again - not sure I buy that) I can accept it; he's a retard; However I'm not entirely convinced that Johnny would be so easily fooled. I get that you have to be at least a bit lacking in the head department to think that raping someone is a good plan. however that same person came onto me, ran be a bath, got in it with me and started masturbating me, I'd like to think alarm bells would go off - I'd also like to think that when she (quite rightly) chopped my dick off, I'd notice before I saw the blood, not just think that the hand-job was "so good it hurts" . Further, one of the guys only dies because he after realizing that Jennifer is out for revenge, he literally grabs onto the outboard motor of a speedboat she is driving!!!

Another problem with the kills is the order of them. The castration of the leader should by rights have been the dramatic climax of the movie; both for the fact that he was the leader, and the obvious 'symbolism' (if you can call it that) of castrating a rapist  - instead he's the second kill, which then gives the feeling that the other 2 are more or less "clean up" and that the peak has passed.

All in all though, killing order and extreme stupidity aside, it's fairly competently made, and (With the exception of the characiture that is Mathew) reasonably acted, so if you think you might enjoy 20 mins of setup, 40 mins of a woman being raped and half an hour of stupid people dying in stupid ways, knock yourself out.

No really... do!

Body Count: 4

Boob Count: 1 pair

Animal Body Count: 0

Most memorable Death: Turns out an outboard motor isn't a great ladder...

---

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.

I spit on your grave - Lisa's Review

So this was a biggie for me, a movie I've heard a lot about and one I never really found the right time or mood to watch.  As I watch most movies with my husband and he was never keen that I watch this movie, it was kind of hard to get around to it.  Then came the 'Video Nasty' challenge and a reason to watch it.

I didn't quite know how I would feel about it as I know the subject matter was surrounding brutal rapes, something any regular reader will know, I feel quite strongly about.  As this was such a notorious and widely discussed movie, I was keen that it be an accurate representation of the brutality of this act.

So - The premis.  Pretty straightforward.  A woman (Jennifer) leaves New York to stay in a house by a lake in a beautiful countryside setting to write her book.  The start of the movie is a bit irritating and you can see what happens coming a mile off (maybe not to the degree it happens, but the fact you see it coming is disturbing in itself).  We get to know Jennifer and there is no concentration on any other character, apart from a retarded young man called Matthew.

After some set up, the movie is quite quick to get down to a series of brutal rapes of Jennifer.   I found these scenes very uncomfortable to watch and very upsetting.  I won't go into minute detail as to what took place, but it was far from pleasant.  The camera doesn't cut away as it tends to in scenes such as this.  Its stays on the victim and perpetrators throughout the entire act adding to the uncomfortable nature of watching these scenes real time.


Although I have said these scenes are upsetting and I found them difficult to watch, I feel that the director here did an excellent job of conveying the brutality of rape.  He concentrated on the violence usually involved, the complete and utter lack of respect for the victim as a human being and most importantly, how the experience is affecting the victim.  There were no gratuitous shots, even though Jennifer spends a vast portion of the movie completely or partially nude.  There is never an air of arousal or tease, there are no genital or breast close-ups, there really is no need.  The rapes are shown for what they are with no need to spell anything out to us.

What is just as disturbing as the brutal rapes and violence in this movie, is the mysoginistic attitudes of the men in the movie.  On a one to one basis, they seem like pretty normal guys,  but when brought together they turn into complete and utter vile, aggressive animals.  This is something I've always had problems with as it has been proven in history over and over again (ie war) that this does happen.  What can make an ordinary man turn into someone capable of such repulsive acts.  To me, that was the most disturbing aspect of the movie.  One character is even heard to say that any man when given the chance will rape a woman.  That is obviously completely untrue, but a frightening thought that some men may even think that way.

Anyways pondering aside and back to the movie.

Young Matthew is sent (after they've used her for their own needs) by the other lads to dispatch Jennifer by way of a rather pathetic looking knife.  Unfortunately he is unable to do so and just cuts the side of her face to collect some blood to make it all realistic like... Hmmmmmmm.

We return to the story with Jennifer physically recovered and ready to exact her revenge.

This is where I hypocritically cheer for violence of a massive degree.  Jennifer does indeed track down all the perpetrators (starting with retarded Matthew) and dispatches with them one by one.  Now I won't go into detail as to how as some people may want to actually watch the movie, but I was satisfied with the first 2... just desserts I thought.  Very satisfying.  However the last 2 guys (including the most aggressive, nasty of the 4some) get away far to lightly for my liking.  Not enough thought is put into their murders.  I would have liked something a bit more thought provoking, nasty and deserving.

In conclusion, I don't know if 'enjoy' is the right word for this, but this movie did tick most of the right boxes for me and left me feeling mostly satisfied (all but for those last 2 deaths) and impressed by the directors genuine accomplishment at making a move that portrays this nasty subject just as it should be.

Heartilly recommend it for anyone who can stomach it.

---

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.

WEEK 47 - I Spit on Your Grave

Alternate Titles : Day of the Woman, I Hate Your Guts, The Rape and Revenge of Jennifer Hill, Non violentate Jennifer (Non-Violent Jennifer)

Year: 1978

Reviews / Author Comments due: 14/4/2012

DPP Status: Successfully Prosecuted

BBFC Status: Passed with 2m54s cut in 2010
IMDB: I Spit on Your Grave

Wikipedia: I Spit on Your Grave

DVD: Unrated US import

---

Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.

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):

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.

I Miss You, Hugs & Kisses - Lisa's Review

*** SPOILERS ***

This weeks movie seemed to be keeping with the trend of sedative viewing.

I found this one hard viewing.  It was so dull and I was so uninterested in it, getting to the end was a struggle.  I still feel I probably missed half of it through mind drifting.  It is a supposed true story, but how much of this has been kept close to the actual story is anyones guess.


The movie starts with a murder of a supposedly beautiful (I say supposed as I didn't think she was) model Magdalene.  All fingers are pointing at her husband, Charles.  The movie plays out as a court room drama with flashbacks to events leading up to the murder.  As it does, it introduces possible killer after killer and uncovers new motives.

As with last weeks movie, this one had an appearance of being made for TV.  There were a few scenes which would have raised a few eyebrows from the usual viewers of this kind of dross (and they were the reasons it made the DPP list) but asides from that, I can see this alongside Columbo or Murder she Wrote on a Sunday afternoon.

What else can I say about this movie without boring you even more than I was with regards to the plot... scenes in the movie that probably led to it being placed on the nasties list??

A Chicken Slaughterhouse (all been seen before so not surprising)
Head Bludgeoning (we see the victim being bludgeoned by every suspect leaving lots of unanswered questions for the viewer... if indeed they care)
A Stabbing followed by a suggestion of necrophilia (performed off screen - This was a bit disturbing as it seemed so out of place in the movie, something genuinely nasty)
A disgruntled husbands fantasies about killing his wife (this was more humorous than anything else)


This movie is all over the place in the court room.  We keep getting more and more information and just when you think you know 'who did it', we are presented with another would-be killer.  Thing is... I didn't care who did it.  Was it the husband Charles?  After all Magdalene won't sleep with him and he is in love with another woman.  He also talks at length with his best friend Gershen (I kept seeing Bobby Ewing when I looked at him!) about ways to kill his wife.  Was it Gershen, his confidant who was actually having an affair with the victim? (naughty boy!) Was it the escaped serial killer with the penchant for sex with corpses?  (On a side note, this character seemed to have no place in the movie.  I could see a movie about him working though.) Even cops are fingered as possible murderers.

After everything has played out in the court, the jury find Charles guilty.  They are then asked to stand up as their numbers are called 1 at a time, if they agreed with the verdict... was this ever the case in reality? (Will?)

We end the movie with Charles writing a letter to Paulie (not sure if that was his daughter or the woman he was having the affair with... I think it was the daughter).  He has been in prison for a couple of years and is appealing his conviction.  The things he seems most perturbed about are the fact he's had to have his head shaved and the food is crap (so much so its brought him out in boils, lol).

Rather dull ending to a very dull movie.  Not quite as bad as last week, it has to be said, but still... not something I'll ever watch again.

I wouldn't bother with this one folks.  Nothing particularly nasty or rivetting here.

---

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.

WEEK 46: I Miss You, Hugs and Kisses

Alternate Titles : 'Drop Dead Dearest', 'Left for Dead', 'I Miss You, Hugs & Kisses'

Year: 1978

Reviews / Author Comments due: 07/04/2012

DPP Status: Removed from list October 1984

BBFC Status: Passed  with cuts in 1986

IMDB: Drop Dead, Dearest

Wikipedia: N/A

DVD: N/A

---

Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.