Showing posts with label Shocktober Special. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Shocktober Special. Show all posts
16 Nov 2012
HALLOWEEN SPECIAL: Evil Dead : The Musical - Lisa's Review
So the last one on our Shocktober list is a musical!! Yes, you heard me right. Evil Dead - The Musical to be precise. Now I am not a fan of musicals and even moreso when they are not in the medium they need to be in (sat in front of a stage), but hey you got to give it a go.
I wouldn't say I sat down and enjoyed this movie/screener of the musical as its not meant to be watched like this, but I can say this did make me want to go see it. It looks like it would be an awesome night out with friends. It is a must see for horror fans, even moreso for Evil Dead fans.
I like the movie, but am not a die-hard fan, so I would probably miss a lot of the humour (and this musical is very much coming from a funny place) and 'In' jokes, so I'm sure big fans would enjoy it more than me, but I would like to see it none the less.
They have also created a 'Splatter Zone' in the first few rows where audience members are spattered with blood periodically throughout the show. I can imagine these seats sell out pretty fast!
One thing I've never been a fan of is the mixing of horror and humour (apart from a few exceptions, most notably Shaun of the Dead), but this seems to work. I certainly will be off to see it if it ever ventures near me. Sadly I doubt it will.
The makers of the musical do seem to be genuine fans of the movie and it is done almost like a 'homage' to the original material, ensuring a thumbs up from the legions of fans this movie has.
So, definately a different one this week and although it didn't feel like watching a movie as such, it looks like a fun experience.
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.
28 Oct 2012
WEEK 76 - HALLOWEEN SPECIAL: Evil Dead: The Musical
NOTE: In honour of Halloween, We're taking a break from the DPP list through October, to take look at Remakes of some of the original nasties.
For Halloween Week, We're doing something a little bit special...
For Halloween Week, We're doing something a little bit special...
Alternate Titles : Evil Dead 1&2: The Musical
Reviews / Author Comments due: 04/11/12
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
27 Oct 2012
SHOCKTOBER SPECIAL: I Spit on Your Grave (2010) - Will's Review
Reviewed (spoiler free) in full over on my solo blog, as per last week this article will focus on the differences between the 1978 and 2010 version, and therefore contain spoilers for both (although I'll try and keep the 2010 spoilers to a minimum).
Characters:
Jennifer is less well-rounded as a character this time, simply because we spend less time with her.
Mathew, the retarded 'gang' member, is a lot more believable that in the original; between being much better acted and losing the 'trailer park boys' glasses he is much less of a cartoon character.
With the exception of the new attacker (this time we are given the 5 that the original's tag-line promised, rather than the 4 it delivered) the rest of the gang are, in contrast to Matthew more caricatured this time out; from the moment we meet them they are obviously bad news.
Characters:
Jennifer is less well-rounded as a character this time, simply because we spend less time with her.
Mathew, the retarded 'gang' member, is a lot more believable that in the original; between being much better acted and losing the 'trailer park boys' glasses he is much less of a cartoon character.
With the exception of the new attacker (this time we are given the 5 that the original's tag-line promised, rather than the 4 it delivered) the rest of the gang are, in contrast to Matthew more caricatured this time out; from the moment we meet them they are obviously bad news.
2 of the attackers have families this time, although one of the families actually has a role i the movie this time.
The attack:
The attack is much shorter this time: Jennifer passes out and the camera fades to black part way through; but of the attack we do see there is a lot more psychological abuse this time and a fair but less physical violence, the sexual assaults seem as bad as they ever did - we just don't see as much of it.
Whether this is a good thing is debatable; it does rob the film of some of its predecessors 'power' but it also means we don't have to watch a woman getting raped for as long; which certainly helps the film be a little easier to watch (again, whether 'easier to watch' is a good thing, is open to debate).
Matthew is even less willing to take part (at least initially), requiring a threat on Jennifer's life at the hands of on of the other guys before he's willing to have sex with her
This time the plan isn't quite so stupid; the attackers do not rely on Matthew to go back and kill her.
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.
The attack:
The attack is much shorter this time: Jennifer passes out and the camera fades to black part way through; but of the attack we do see there is a lot more psychological abuse this time and a fair but less physical violence, the sexual assaults seem as bad as they ever did - we just don't see as much of it.
Whether this is a good thing is debatable; it does rob the film of some of its predecessors 'power' but it also means we don't have to watch a woman getting raped for as long; which certainly helps the film be a little easier to watch (again, whether 'easier to watch' is a good thing, is open to debate).
Matthew is even less willing to take part (at least initially), requiring a threat on Jennifer's life at the hands of on of the other guys before he's willing to have sex with her
This time the plan isn't quite so stupid; the attackers do not rely on Matthew to go back and kill her.
The Aftermath:
Again, we see less (in fact none) of Jennifer's effort to piece herself back together, although we do learn some of it through the things she says in the final act; arguably the experience in the 2010 version has left her even more damaged than her 1978 counterpart.
The Revenge:
Is where the movie deviates most - this time none of the men die of stupidity (1978 movie; I still haven't forgiven you for the guy who grabbed the propeller of the motor boat) and Jennifer takes her time to make sure that each man gets a death they deserve - even using a little poetic justice to customize each kill; the specific tortures she devices for each man mirror or reference their part in the attack - a man who held her face underwater is suspended over a bath, a man who analy rapes her wakes up with a shotgun up... you get the idea.
Tone / Overall:
The poetic nature of the kills, as well as the semi-elaborate setups of them, provide plenty of "punch the air" type moments.
You may recall that I criticised the Last House Remake for having just one of these at the end - but here it works; mainly because it isn't just one, that stands out as being inconsistent with the tone, but becomes the point of the movie.
Although the rape is still horrific, and not-for-kicks, it is shorter, and therefore easier to bear.
Between the shorter attack sequence and the more crowd-pleasing deaths (not to mention that the ordering of the kills is much improved - the most vile offender last this time) this movie is much easier to watch than the original; rape sequence notwithstanding this one is even a 'fun' movie in its own way. This I think is both its strength and its weakness; It fails as an important film, but makes a much better movie than the original.
I had fun watching it, and it did not eroricise rape, So I'm going to go ahead and recommend it. I'm going to guess Lisa has not (I didn't check yet), but we shall see...
Counts:
Body Count: 6
Boob Count: 1 pair
Animal Body count: 6 (3 Birds, 2 fish and a rat - none killed on screen)
Most memorable Death: Eye Eye!
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.
SHOCKTOBER SPECIAL: I Spit on Your Grave (2010) - Lisa's Review
*** SPOILERS ***
So another remake for our Shocktober special and a break from our 'Nasties' list. I was wary about watching this for a host of reasons. I didn't have much desire to watch the original (reviewed by us both HERE), due to its subject matter and my abject hatred for watching graphic rape scenes, but having managed to stomach that movie, I was left with nothing but admiration for its directors, writers and actors with what a fantastic job they did with such a difficult premis.
So did I feel the same about this one? Sadly not!
The story here is the same. I won't go into detail again (click the above link to read the above reviews if you haven't seen the original). Everything that was strong and poignant about the original is removed. The most disturbing aspect of the original, was that that the guys responsible for the heinous acts are portrayed as very 'normal' men. In the remake, it is made very clear from the offset, that these guys are nasty, certainly not normal members of society. It feels very 'Hollywood' and not as gritty as the original. Worst of all, the avenue we go down when Jennifer exacts her revenge turns this into a completely different movie!!
Now I surprised myself here and I'm going to sound all hypocritical-like, but in my original review (which I re-read before I wrote this), I was crying out for more brutal revenge from Jennifer. This movie delivers this BIG time. However, it feels all wrong. The brutality of the 'kills' Jennifer perpetrates is not in keeping AT ALL with her character and it changes what this movie is all about. It takes the focus away from the psychological horror and concentration on bigger questions and turns it into another SAW movie. Yet again, that must sound hypocritical, as I'm a big SAW fan, but turning 'I Spit on your grave' into 'SAW' is like watching a remake of your favourite kids show waiting to feel all sentimental and warm inside and being subjected to a tirade of swearing.
Don't get me wrong, the acting is very strong all the way through. The make-up and effects are good. There is even an addition in this movie of an evil Sheriff who wasn't in the original (excellently played incidentally). The gore is cringeworthy and would curl the toes of most die-hard horror fans, but its all wrong when used in this context and in this movie.
My original desire to see exactly what I have just watched, shows me how wrong I was. Jennifer should not have exacted revenge in a series of 'traps' designed to maximise the shock factor and ramp up the gore in this movie. It somehow 'cheapened' it for me.
I don't doubt a lot of people will like this movie and think it's an excellent remake, as, like I said, there wasn't an awful lot you could find wrong with the acting, script, effects etc, but it just didn't 'feel' right after the power of the first movie.
Had the 'kills' been in another movie, SAW 8 for example, I would have enjoyed these scenes when watching in a completely different context, but they just didn't belong here.
I wont' say this is a bad movie persay, but it didn't work for 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.
So another remake for our Shocktober special and a break from our 'Nasties' list. I was wary about watching this for a host of reasons. I didn't have much desire to watch the original (reviewed by us both HERE), due to its subject matter and my abject hatred for watching graphic rape scenes, but having managed to stomach that movie, I was left with nothing but admiration for its directors, writers and actors with what a fantastic job they did with such a difficult premis.
So did I feel the same about this one? Sadly not!
The story here is the same. I won't go into detail again (click the above link to read the above reviews if you haven't seen the original). Everything that was strong and poignant about the original is removed. The most disturbing aspect of the original, was that that the guys responsible for the heinous acts are portrayed as very 'normal' men. In the remake, it is made very clear from the offset, that these guys are nasty, certainly not normal members of society. It feels very 'Hollywood' and not as gritty as the original. Worst of all, the avenue we go down when Jennifer exacts her revenge turns this into a completely different movie!!
Now I surprised myself here and I'm going to sound all hypocritical-like, but in my original review (which I re-read before I wrote this), I was crying out for more brutal revenge from Jennifer. This movie delivers this BIG time. However, it feels all wrong. The brutality of the 'kills' Jennifer perpetrates is not in keeping AT ALL with her character and it changes what this movie is all about. It takes the focus away from the psychological horror and concentration on bigger questions and turns it into another SAW movie. Yet again, that must sound hypocritical, as I'm a big SAW fan, but turning 'I Spit on your grave' into 'SAW' is like watching a remake of your favourite kids show waiting to feel all sentimental and warm inside and being subjected to a tirade of swearing.
Don't get me wrong, the acting is very strong all the way through. The make-up and effects are good. There is even an addition in this movie of an evil Sheriff who wasn't in the original (excellently played incidentally). The gore is cringeworthy and would curl the toes of most die-hard horror fans, but its all wrong when used in this context and in this movie.
My original desire to see exactly what I have just watched, shows me how wrong I was. Jennifer should not have exacted revenge in a series of 'traps' designed to maximise the shock factor and ramp up the gore in this movie. It somehow 'cheapened' it for me.
I don't doubt a lot of people will like this movie and think it's an excellent remake, as, like I said, there wasn't an awful lot you could find wrong with the acting, script, effects etc, but it just didn't 'feel' right after the power of the first movie.
Had the 'kills' been in another movie, SAW 8 for example, I would have enjoyed these scenes when watching in a completely different context, but they just didn't belong here.
I wont' say this is a bad movie persay, but it didn't work for 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.
21 Oct 2012
Week 75: SHOCKTOBER SPECIAL: I Spit on Your Grave (2010)
NOTE: In honour of Halloween, We're taking a break from the DPP list through October, to take look at Remakes of some of the original nasties...
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
20 Oct 2012
SHOCKTOBER SPECIAL: Last House On The Left (2009) - Will's Review
For a spoiler free review of this movie, check out my solo blog here
Rather than review this movie directly (I did that already today - see above) I'm going to use my space here to compare and contrast with the original, therefore...
***SPOILERS***
The remake spends a little more time setting up the family – we see dad at work, and learn a little more about Mari (2009s main victim) than we did) Phyllis (1972) – They’ve given her a “thing” (She’s a swimmer), and a dead brother, Ben, (died in a accident a year ago).
Mari’s necklace is an old pressie Ben gave her, rather than a crappy birthday gift from Mum and Dad.
Of the Gang, Junior has a name now (Justin) and if far more sympathetic. While ‘72s Junior was still a victim, controlled by his father, Junior wants nothing to do with the gang, but can’t see a way out. Rather than luring the girls back to the gang’s place so that the gang can party, Justin is a lonely lad, who brings the girls back to smoke some pot, and intends to have them gone before the gang return. He even openly turns on the gang; He uses the pendant to tip the parents off, just as in ’72, but then he steals Krug’s gun, and gives it to the father!
Speaking of Krug, he is played here phenomenally well; while it would have been easy ho have him all snarling and shouty, he is instead almost charming, but with an underlying *something* that will make you shudder – he’s also a particularly nasty bastard; at his ‘rescue’ in the films opening, he holds a photograph of a policeman’s kids in front of his face… while killing him; ensuring that the last thing that cop will ever see is his own blood dripping onto his children’s faces.
Rather than review this movie directly (I did that already today - see above) I'm going to use my space here to compare and contrast with the original, therefore...
***SPOILERS***
The remake spends a little more time setting up the family – we see dad at work, and learn a little more about Mari (2009s main victim) than we did) Phyllis (1972) – They’ve given her a “thing” (She’s a swimmer), and a dead brother, Ben, (died in a accident a year ago).
Mari’s necklace is an old pressie Ben gave her, rather than a crappy birthday gift from Mum and Dad.
Of the Gang, Junior has a name now (Justin) and if far more sympathetic. While ‘72s Junior was still a victim, controlled by his father, Junior wants nothing to do with the gang, but can’t see a way out. Rather than luring the girls back to the gang’s place so that the gang can party, Justin is a lonely lad, who brings the girls back to smoke some pot, and intends to have them gone before the gang return. He even openly turns on the gang; He uses the pendant to tip the parents off, just as in ’72, but then he steals Krug’s gun, and gives it to the father!
Speaking of Krug, he is played here phenomenally well; while it would have been easy ho have him all snarling and shouty, he is instead almost charming, but with an underlying *something* that will make you shudder – he’s also a particularly nasty bastard; at his ‘rescue’ in the films opening, he holds a photograph of a policeman’s kids in front of his face… while killing him; ensuring that the last thing that cop will ever see is his own blood dripping onto his children’s faces.
Also on the Subject of Krug; he is the only character to retain his name from the original, and other than “iconic” value I'm not sure why they bothered… he is very different to the original.
The rape is once again brutal and horrifically realistic, I think that it was technically, if analysed god on a shot-for-shot basis less explicit this time, but use of tight shots and shaky-cam made it perhaps even more brutal and difficult to watch.
This time only the female gang member has the “we just went too far” moment, which I liked – in the first movie, after the rape, the gang stand around looking remorseful.. then kill her and immediately get back to being utter bastards.
One major difference is that (unbeknownst to the gang) Mari survives, and manages to crawl home (arriving after the gang have been put to bed for the night in the guesthouse) – this was a smart move, for a few reasons. Her survival allows her father to use his skills as a doctor; in the original it is mentioned that he is a doctor, but we never get to *see* it; here, we see him drain an internal bleed using improvised tools. Her condition provides a ‘ticking clock’ – the parents must get her to a hospital (a doctor with a knife drawer can only do so much), as well as having the gang to contend with, We are also afforded a (somewhat) happy ending this time as Mari and her parents escape, along with Justin. Their lives are shattered, but there is hope. I think to an extent, the implication is Justin will go on to fill some of the whole that Ben left in the family too.
Before anyone cried “Hollywood ending” it’s worth noting that Mari survived in the scrip for the ’72 version… the decision to kill her was made on-set.
It would have been easy to remake this one in the currently popular ‘torture porn’ mould; thankfully the producers (Cunningham returns as co-producer, joined this time by original director / writer Wes Craven) were smart enough to hire a director who ‘got’ the movie.
Apart from the last scene… in which Krug’s head is microwave (and explodes? Really? It isn’t an egg!) I get that they felt the need to give a ‘punch the air’ moment, but for me, that was a mistake.
The original had the downbeat “What did we do here?” ending, in which the parent’s realise that their actions have changed nothing, and that they have allowed the gang to not only tale their daughter, but also change who they are; in this movie we are left with no such morals to ponder. It’s like the “Pro Capital Punishment” version of the same movie. I get the sentiment, but I think it made for better characterisation the old way.
Still, all in all I think this was a better movie than the original, to the extent that this time, I’m going to give it the recommended stamp!
Body Count: 4
Boob Count: 1 Pair
Most Memorable Death: It goes 'Bing' when it's done!
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.
The rape is once again brutal and horrifically realistic, I think that it was technically, if analysed god on a shot-for-shot basis less explicit this time, but use of tight shots and shaky-cam made it perhaps even more brutal and difficult to watch.
This time only the female gang member has the “we just went too far” moment, which I liked – in the first movie, after the rape, the gang stand around looking remorseful.. then kill her and immediately get back to being utter bastards.
One major difference is that (unbeknownst to the gang) Mari survives, and manages to crawl home (arriving after the gang have been put to bed for the night in the guesthouse) – this was a smart move, for a few reasons. Her survival allows her father to use his skills as a doctor; in the original it is mentioned that he is a doctor, but we never get to *see* it; here, we see him drain an internal bleed using improvised tools. Her condition provides a ‘ticking clock’ – the parents must get her to a hospital (a doctor with a knife drawer can only do so much), as well as having the gang to contend with, We are also afforded a (somewhat) happy ending this time as Mari and her parents escape, along with Justin. Their lives are shattered, but there is hope. I think to an extent, the implication is Justin will go on to fill some of the whole that Ben left in the family too.
Before anyone cried “Hollywood ending” it’s worth noting that Mari survived in the scrip for the ’72 version… the decision to kill her was made on-set.
It would have been easy to remake this one in the currently popular ‘torture porn’ mould; thankfully the producers (Cunningham returns as co-producer, joined this time by original director / writer Wes Craven) were smart enough to hire a director who ‘got’ the movie.
Apart from the last scene… in which Krug’s head is microwave (and explodes? Really? It isn’t an egg!) I get that they felt the need to give a ‘punch the air’ moment, but for me, that was a mistake.
The original had the downbeat “What did we do here?” ending, in which the parent’s realise that their actions have changed nothing, and that they have allowed the gang to not only tale their daughter, but also change who they are; in this movie we are left with no such morals to ponder. It’s like the “Pro Capital Punishment” version of the same movie. I get the sentiment, but I think it made for better characterisation the old way.
Still, all in all I think this was a better movie than the original, to the extent that this time, I’m going to give it the recommended stamp!
Body Count: 4
Boob Count: 1 Pair
Most Memorable Death: It goes 'Bing' when it's done!
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.
SHOCKTOBER SPECIAL: Last House On The Left (2009) - Lisa's Review
*** SPOILERS ***
Another remake this week for the month of October. I was interested to see how this remake would compare to the original 1972 movie reviewed here. I had heard much about the original and had always been advised to avoid due to the horrendous violent and brutal scenes and graphic rape depicted. I myself found the movie to be very sympathetically shot and well put together. When I heard similar comments about the remake, I wondered whether it would be palatable. I hadn't rushed out to see it, so tonight was my first watch.
Again, I was pleasantly surprised with this movie, as with the original. I won't go into too much detail about the storyline of the movie as its still quite fresh and raw in my head. I did find it disturbing in places and difficult to watch, so don't think any amount of waffle could convey my feelings on the movie in full. While the movie started rather typically and wasn't much different to your typical modern horror movie, around the middle it shifted gears dramatically.
We have 2 girls again (Mari & Paige) as with the original who get into the company of a criminal gang who are on the run for murder. The movie actually started with the 'rescue' of one of the criminals by his 2 compatriots and the murder of the 2 cops transporting him to prison. The death of the second officer was particularly horrid and left me with a bad taste in my mouth as they held a photo of his children in front of his face as he died, telling him he'd never see their faces again. As a mother, I found that one difficult to bear and wondered whether I was going to be able to watch this movie.
Back to the 2 girls. In short, the gang take them deep into a forest where Paige is viciously stabbed and left to bleed to death due after shouting insults to the gangs leader (Krug) to save her friend Mari from being raped. Sadly all this facilitates is her own death and the slightly delayed rape of her friend. This is where the entire movie changes and even the cinematography ramps it up a gear. The rape scene is (as with the original) very difficult to watch, it is brutal, nasty and heartbreaking. For me the word heartbreaking sums up the entire mid section of this movie. I sat transfixed with the horror in front of me feeling loathing, empathy, disgust, fear, regret and deep sadness. In my eyes, even though, to give the whingers their dues; it is sick, it is disgusting, but it's real! It happens and if it is to be depicted, it should be for what it is. I feel this movie does this well. This is thanks to the direction, but mostly for me due to the amazing acting of Sara Paxton. This is an actress that hasn't come to my attention before, but I was remarkably impressed by her. She is stunningly beautiful in an innocent, naive, almost child-like way, which makes what she endures all the more heartbreaking. Its almost as if her eyes were made to illustrate the expression doe-eyed. Her portrayal of a young girl destroyed is captivating and horrific all at the same time. As in the original Mari manages to escape and is pursued through the forest. In the remake however she is a champion swimmer, so as we watch her swim across the lake towards her parents summer home, we have everything crossed she'll make it. The scene showing her swim and the eventual hit with a bullet is beautifully shot. (no pun intended) One scene where she rolls over in the water (which is all shot in slow motion) and lays on her back bleeding out, I have to admit made my eyes water. It is just so heart-breakingly sad. A rainstorm starts and hammers off her still body and upturned hands. It gives me shivers even now. I found myself intensely sad for some time after watching this scene.
In this remake, there is a major difference with regards to Mari, but I won't give it away. I had no idea and it made a VERY pleasant surprise for me.
Following these scenes, the movie goes back to its starting pace and loses its shine for me. That's not saying it was bad. It still stands as a solid horror movie. The acting is good, the effects are good, but that special something had gone. I felt some scenes were dragged out longer than they needed to be and not enough time was spent on the kills (especially the lead thug Krug, although it was spectacularly done).
I liked the ending. I can't say what happens as it would completely give everything away and I think I've given more than enough away above.
I would recommend this movie, but not for anyone who finds it difficult to watch disturbing scenes or who isn't a fan of horror. You have to have a strong stomach and a strong head to watch this one and not have it stay with you. I have no doubt it will stay with me for some time, but hey, to me that#s the sign of a good movie.
Thumbs Up and a Lisa Recommends from 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.
14 Oct 2012
Week 74: SHOCKTOBER SPECIAL: Last House on the Left (2009)
NOTE: In honour of Halloween, We're taking a break from the DPP list through October, to take look at Remakes of some of the original nasties...
Alternate Titles : N/A
Reviews / Author Comments due: 20/10/12
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
13 Oct 2012
SHOCKTOBER SPECIAL: Toolbox Murders (2004) - Will's Review
NOTE: In honour of Halloween, We're taking a break from the DPP list through October to look at some recent remakes.
I can't decide what I think about this one.
I mean, I know exactly how I felt about it, but I don't know how much of that was based on it trading off of, and consequently sullying, the Toolbox Murders name.
The original was a cracking, sleazy, slasher / psychological horror bit; this is a fairly middle of the road supernatural slasher. I honestly can't fathom why the bought the rights to the title, and I think I would have enjoyed this effort a lot more if I hadn't been so directly instructed to compare it to a better movie.
They kept the fact that the kills happen in an apartment complex, and they kept the 3 main deaths (Nail Gun, Claw hammer, and Drill) but beyond that literally NOTHING in this movie has to do with the original.
Now, I'm the first to whine at a shot-for-shot remake (what's the point? We already have that movie), but to keep the title only? Why not just call it something else? It's not like TBM owns the idea of killing someone with power tools!
A young couple move into an Hollywood apartment complex, with paper-thin walls, and it isn't long before she starts hearing things - but not just the sex-noises and call-back rehearsals one might expect to hear in a shitty apartment... She becomes convinced that she hears an actual murder. When her neighbours start to go missing, and no-one else will listen, she takes it upon her self to work out what's going on... And why every floor is missing room 04...
One of the highlights of the movie is a kid who hacks into his neighbour's (Juliet Landau - Drucila from Buffy) wifi to spy on her through her webcam... And who's mother catches him just in time to stop him Witnessing a murder!
Speaking of murders - although not gory, the murders here are delightfully vicious - the claw hammer especially shows a real rage in the killer (and goes on long enough to demonstrate a bit of a lack of control).
The lowlights in the movie come from the supernatural elements - I think the killers hiding place was interesting enough, and this would have been a better movie had he been mortal; perhaps if he'd kidnapped someone to his lair - that way they could have actually called this a remake AND had some fun with people hearing the missing girl through the walls.
Body count: 8
Most memorable death: bolt cutter to the spine.
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.
SHOCKTOBER SPECIAL: Toolbox Murders (2004) - Lisa's Review
NOTE: In honour of Halloween, We're taking a break from the DPP list through October to look at some recent remakes.
*** Murder Spoilers ***
When I started watching this weeks movie in a break from our 'Nasties' list in honour of October, 2 things occured to me. Firstly, this bore very little resemblance to the original Toolbox Murders we reviewed a few weeks ago and secondly I have actually watched this movie before. I thought it was pretty pants then too.
Don't get me wrong, I've watched worse. Much, much worse, but this isn't a movie I would recommend you rush out to see or add to your 'Must Watch' list.
I'm not going to write a long review of this one as there are so many things which are left unanswered, are left to individual interpretation (and not in a good way) and just plain don't work, I would be here all night analysing it... and this movie does not deserve the time.
What I will say is that some of the kills are pretty decent, but the additional footage you get on an extra's option are much more cringeworthy. I mainly refer to the hammer death which pays special attention to hair clumps and fragments attached to the claw of the hammer and the drill death which I quite enjoyed truth be told, especially the undulating head action.
For me a very dull, convoluted movie was made worse by a lead actress who annoyed the arse off me. I found her irritating, moody, rude and whiny. I spent most of the time being thankful I could switch off at the end of the movie and never have to look at her miserable face again.
Other characters are weak and one dimensional. Attempts are made to make then kooky or quirky, but that just didn't work. You can work out 'who it isn't' while watching the movie, but to be honest, I don't think many people watching this would be making enough sense of proceedings to predict the actual ending. The 'villain' is just laughable and the back story (or what exists of it) makes absolutely no sense in any respect, but then making no sense was pretty much in keeping with this movie.
In short, it was more watchable than a lot of movies on the Nasties list, but that's sadly little recommendation to go on.
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.
7 Oct 2012
Week 73: SHOCKTOBER SPECIAL: Toolbox Murders (2004)
NOTE: In honour of Halloween, We're taking a break from the DPP list through October, to take look at Remakes of some of the original nasties...
Alternate Titles : The Toolbox Murders
Reviews / Author Comments due: 13/10/12
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
5 Nov 2011
HALLOWEEN SPECIAL - Lisa's Pick: Saw
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: 2004
Alternate Titles: N/A
DPP Status: Passed Uncut, 2005
BBFC Status: Rated 18, with 4m11s of cuts
IMDB: Saw
Wikipedia: Saw
DVD: R2 Uncut
I chose this movie for a review due to it being one of my favourite horrors. I'll admit I rushed my choice and forgot about 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' and 'House of 1000 corpses' but hey ho, SAW it is.
I remember watching this movie in the cinema and feeling something I barely do watching anything - a lovely big shiver run down my spine when the end twist was revealed. It was so utterly wonderful because I never even begun to imagine the twist, it was so completely out of the blue, it floored me. I love that. Off the top of my head, the only other movie I remember getting that same rush about was at the end of 'The Usual Suspects' when Keyser Soze is revealed. I won't spoil the twist in either movies, in the vain hope that someone other than Will actually reads these reviews and hasn't seen either of these movies. Its rare I don't get the twist or see things coming a mile off, so to have that happen in such a big way was wonderful!
So why do I love SAW? Well admittedly I am a bit of a gore hound and enjoy things being taken to new lengths which I feel SAW pretty well for a mainstream horror movie (so many are 15 certs these days.. it kind of begs the question, why bother?). Apart from the obvious gore, this movie is clever, well thought out and is about so much more than the bloodshed. Without giving away too much about the movie, it reminded me a lot of Se7en (which I also love) but with a slightly more horrific edge. I suppose where Se7en concentrated more on the psychological effects of murders, SAW leans more towards the ick factor.
The basic premis of SAW is our murderer who is out to teach our victims life lessons, to make them appreciate the lives they have rather than take it for granted. He does this by setting up various 'traps' which our victims have to engineer their way out of. Escape usually means maiming, serious injury or doing something very nasty. Failure to escape means a horrid death. The hope is that if they manage to live, they will then not take their lives for granted. It makes them think about how much they appreciate their lives.
One trap includes a self harming drug addict who has a reverse-springed bear trapped anchored to her head and wired into her jaws with a timer attached to the back. She comes to in a chair with this contraption fixed and while she is trying to comprehend whats going on (and failing miserably) the TV to her side flicks into life and there's a scary puppet (Billy) used by our killer to explain. This is a part I love in every 'game', the killer in a disguised freakish voice telling our victim what the trap is, what is expected of them and what will happen if they don't 'win' the game. In this case it tells her that she is throwing her life away and taking for granted what she has, he wants to see just how much she want to live. She has a set time period to escape from the trap by digging the key to her trap out of the body lying in the corner of the room. If she doesn't manage it, the trap will spring open breaking her jaws and ripping her lower jaw completely off. F*** that she thinks and springs out of her seat, which starts the timer ticking. She runs over to the body (which she soon realizes is actually alive but is paralyzed by a drug overdose) and she must decide whether to dig into this poor guys intestines to find the key and save herself. I won't tell you whether she did or didn't but needless to say, its messy.
There are other wonderful traps including a razor wire pit , a drill chair, flammable fluid and a darkened room with only a candle to use as light. On top of these, we also have the bathroom setting with our main 2 kidnapped victims story unfolding, which also involves the infamous leg sawing scene.
I don't want to go into any more detail about the traps or the twist or even who the killer is or why, but needless to say its all wonderful, brilliantly thought out and doesn't disappoint anywhere. I LOVE this movie and have watched it over and over again, many many times. Even the theme music makes me tingle! I have sat through several poor sequels so much did I enjoy the first one, but to be honest, even though I know they weren't great, I still enjoy them to a degree as I love the idea so much.
If you haven't seen it, you simply MUST!!!
As this is a non-cannon review, it will not carry a "Reader Review" Page, you may add your own reviews in the comments section.
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.
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...
"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(!)
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.
30 Oct 2011
WEEK 24: HALLOWEEN SPECIAL - Reviewer's Choice.
NOTE: In honour of Halloween, We're taking a break from the DPP list.
This week reviewers were invited to select ANY HORROR MOVIE.
As such, posters, trailers, stats etc. will be contained in the review posts.
Reason: Favourite horror movie
Will's Pick: A Serbian Film
Reason: One of the few movies nasty enough to make Will admit to it's nastiness without resorting to real violence.
29 Oct 2011
SHOCKTOBER SPECIAL: A Cat In The Brain - Will'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)
Famous Italian Horror director Lucio Fulci (playing himself) is beginning to become effected by the gore he sees day-to-day in his work. At first, he has trouble eating rare meat, then he is bothered by a neighbours chainsaw, and before long he is hallucinating terrible murders (most, I think culled from his previous movies), and even believes he is committing some of them himself.
Over on our Facebook Page, reader Sean described this thus; "the only Fulci movie that had me beat, I struggled through an hour then gave up", but then Lisa messaged me to say how much she was enjoying it... So, who was right?
Well.... Kinda Sean, but I can see Lisa's point; Lisa, you understand, is a bit of a gore hound - and this film is certainly not lacking in gore. There's the obligatory eyeball gag1, Maggot covered corpses, dismemberment, disembowelment, stabbings, bodies oozing goo of every verity, and of course, a cat digging through a brain, all in glorious hyper-realism (read: too gory to be real, hold on to your lunch).
For me though, the gore was pretty much all it had going for it; the acting was terrible (only Fulci wasn't utterly horrendous, and he's a director, not an actor!), the score cringe-worthy, the script insane, and the sound mixer needs shooting; I watched this with headphones, and the first scene change in the movie almost blew my eardrums, and caused my partner to ask me to turn them down as she couldn't hear what she was doing!
So it seems this is a love or hate film, and I can't say I was a fan... Lisa, we disagree again!
Body Count: 18
Boob Count: 10
Animal Body Count: 0
Most Memorable Kill: Chainsaw Beheading
1"Gag", for those not geeky enough to have read around these things, here refers to a special effect, rather than a joke
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.
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)
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!
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.
23 Oct 2011
WEEK 23: SHOCKTOBER SPECIAL: A Cat In The Brain
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)
Alternate Titles : Cat in the Brain, Nightmare Concert, Un Gatto nel cervello, I volti del terrore
Year: 1990
Reviews / Author Comments due: 29/10/11
DPP Status: N/A - But refused classification in 1999
IMDB: Nightmare Concert
Wikipedia: A Cat in the Brain
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)