Nazi sexploitation. Again. This time with really bad German accents (except from the token 'nice' soldier, who sounds remarkably not-German).
I think the thing that bugs me about these things is that Nazi run enforced Jewish 'staffed' brothels did exist, and I'm sure there's a few great, if harrowing, stories to be told, so long as the material is handled sensitively. The subject matter, however, is not at all suited to the LOOK AT THE TITS!!! approach.
The story this time around is that an allied sympathising Jewish scientist's assistant who worked for the nazis(!) was feeding our side information, but was sent to Love Camp 7 when the scientist she was working with died. 2 allied officers (women of course) are sent to pretend to be Jews and infiltrate the camp by allowing themselves to be captured.
Once in the camp OH LOOK TITS!!!! TITS AND RAPE!!! LOOK AT THE 'SEXY' RAPE!!!
Except, it even fails on that level, as the 'rapes' are all committed without the men so much as unbuttoning their flys, much less removing their trousers, so we are 'treated' to repeated and prolonged scenes of men in (the bottom halves of) Nazi uniforms dry humping and clumsily groping struggling or crying naked women.
The highlight of the movie is the 'vicious' guard dog who is supposedly chomping at the bit to attack the women while they are being hosed down; except he is clearly excitedly trying to play with the stream of water and has had some growing dubbed in.
Oh, and the whole thing is told in flashback by someone who wasn't there...
Ineptly made, offensive, not sexy, not entertaining and not worth your time.
Body count: 8
Boob Count: 10 pairs.
Most memorable Death: shot through the shoulder.
Please use the comments bellow only to comment on this post - to write your own review, please comment on the main post for this movie.
Showing posts with label Supposed True Story. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supposed True Story. Show all posts
2 Jun 2012
12 May 2012
Last House on the Left - Will's Review
Another of the "big ones" this week; As David Heiss plays a rapacious scumbag (a character type he will revisit) under the first-time direction of Wes Craven, and we are told (for the first time) to keep repeating; It's only a Movie... Only a movie... Only a movie.
First up; props to Hess, who plays an utterly convincing scumbag, but a very different one to House on the Edge of The Park's Alex - that one actor could play 2 such seemingly similar characters so differently is a great testament to the man as an actor.
Plot wise this falls somewhere in between the 2 Rape-Revenge movies we have already seen, showing us the stalk and attack (and eventual murder) of the victims, as per I Spit on your Grave, but once the attackers find their way (unwittingly) to the home of one of the victims' families, it is they who seek out the revenge, as in The House on the Edge of the Park.
This time around however, far from being an Edge of the Park style stitch-up, our gang realizes who's home they are in before the girls' parents even realize that anything has happened to her; sadly however, this isn't used in the plot in any real way.
Another moment that goes unused is a brilliantly acted moment where the gang show some silent regret for their actions - disappointingly, this regret is never shown nor mentioned again.
I had mixed feelings about the younger member of the gang, and by extension the fact that he was killed. The lad did deliver the girls to the gang (and with a fair idea as to why they were wanted), but he did it in exchange for a fix - his father (The gang leader) had, we learn, deliberately got his son addicted to heroin from a young age as a method of controlling him.
The parents' revenge, when it does come, is too fast and easy for my tastes, leaving it somewhat unfulfilling. It is possible that this somewhat anti-climactic feel is deliberate; it is made clear at the end of the film that the parents' loss is in no way listened by the revenge, but no matter how clever this may have been from an audience empathy point of view, it doesn't make for a great ending, dramatically speaking.
All in all, not terrible, but not a home run, I still prefer its similarly cast ripoff. (At least that means I'm likely to disagree with Lisa this week)
Body Count: 6
Boob Count: 2 Pairs
Animal Body Count: 0
Most Memorable Death: Ouch - Less teeth please!
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.
First up; props to Hess, who plays an utterly convincing scumbag, but a very different one to House on the Edge of The Park's Alex - that one actor could play 2 such seemingly similar characters so differently is a great testament to the man as an actor.
Plot wise this falls somewhere in between the 2 Rape-Revenge movies we have already seen, showing us the stalk and attack (and eventual murder) of the victims, as per I Spit on your Grave, but once the attackers find their way (unwittingly) to the home of one of the victims' families, it is they who seek out the revenge, as in The House on the Edge of the Park.
This time around however, far from being an Edge of the Park style stitch-up, our gang realizes who's home they are in before the girls' parents even realize that anything has happened to her; sadly however, this isn't used in the plot in any real way.
Another moment that goes unused is a brilliantly acted moment where the gang show some silent regret for their actions - disappointingly, this regret is never shown nor mentioned again.
I had mixed feelings about the younger member of the gang, and by extension the fact that he was killed. The lad did deliver the girls to the gang (and with a fair idea as to why they were wanted), but he did it in exchange for a fix - his father (The gang leader) had, we learn, deliberately got his son addicted to heroin from a young age as a method of controlling him.
The parents' revenge, when it does come, is too fast and easy for my tastes, leaving it somewhat unfulfilling. It is possible that this somewhat anti-climactic feel is deliberate; it is made clear at the end of the film that the parents' loss is in no way listened by the revenge, but no matter how clever this may have been from an audience empathy point of view, it doesn't make for a great ending, dramatically speaking.
All in all, not terrible, but not a home run, I still prefer its similarly cast ripoff. (At least that means I'm likely to disagree with Lisa this week)
Body Count: 6
Boob Count: 2 Pairs
Animal Body Count: 0
Most Memorable Death: Ouch - Less teeth please!
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 Apr 2012
I Miss You, Hugs and Kisses - Will's Review
Before considering watching this film, I want you to read the first part of this review. There are spoilers later in this review, as always but there's some highlight to read text coming up that, although it may be considered a spoiler, I really think you should know before agreeing to committing and hour and a half of your life.
Ready? okay, highlight this [ This is a whodunit where YOU NEVER FIND OUT WHO DID IT!!!].
Yeah, Really!
*****More spoilers to follow*****
I commented way back in Week 5 that blood is, as we are so often told, thicker than water, and as such one cannot get away with using red water as blood; no such problems here - the opening kill seems to work on the idea that blood is thicker than custard - a pipe to the head seems to result in red emulation paint pouring from under the victim's hairline!
Seven whole minutes into the movie, a text crawls informs us that the movie we are "about to see"(!) is based on a true story - then has the lamest disclaimer you've ever seen (To paraphrase "except in so far as it isn't") - see the end of the review for this text's reprise.
The biggest problem here, besides it's utter dullnes and lack of resolution, is the way the film jumps all over the place - It starts with a murder, then jumps to the trial of the (supposed) killer - the victims husband, then it's flashbacks based on testimony (including the cardinal sin of flashbacks - flashbacks to things that the person speaking wasn't present for) so next we're in wartime Hungary, then a party where the guy's wife is still alive, then they meet, then the marriage is on the rocks - all without warning.
Come to think of it, even the trail itself is jumbled - the first trail scene has the judge asking if the prisoner has anything to say before sentence is passed, but later in the film we here from witnesses - an the jury presenting their decision near the end of the film is played as a point of drama, despite the fact that we already know he will be sentenced. What. A. Mess.
The only point in the movie during which I was remotely entertained is presented here, to save you the effort of watching the rest of the "movie" (bear in mind that these guys are best friends):
There's a go-nowhere subplot about a murderer who escapes a home for the criminally insane - we see him kill (THEN rape - eew) a girl we have never seen before, and then he's actually called to our guy's trail based on the fact that the location of the murder - in the victims own home - was a bit close to the site of his murders.
The police investigation is carried out so badly that ANY lawyer ,including Lionel Hutz or Ted Buckland, could have got it thrown out of court! The police promise key suspects immunity to wear a wire, strip the body naked at the scene before (glovelessly) cramming them into an evidence bag, and pull out the victims fingernails (!) and bag them without a pathologist present. Oh, and the entire justice system fails to notice that the husband is out shopping with his daughter and the victims cousin at the time of the murder!
I suspect that this movie was originally a lot more chronological, but they realized it was dull and (mistakenly) thought that shuffling it would make it more interesting.
Fun Fact: The movie Men In Black originally had an extra sub plot, which didn't test well and was removed in post production, obviously one cannot simply cut a subplot and have everything else just work out, so re-shoots are usually needed - in the case of MiB this was avoided by re-dubbing a talking dog, and changing some subtitles and the display of a large viewscreen. Why do I mention this here? I suspect that a similar clever bit of editing may have happened in this movie.
See if you can spot the oh-so-smooth dialogue removal in the following scene:
All in all the whole thing is a shambles which, despite having far too many sub-plots and suspects, manages to be confusig, dull and frustrating in roughly equal measures.
Oh, and in-case we missed the bizarre information / disclaimer crawl at the (kind of) begging of the film, the text is repeated again after the credits:
Body Count: 5 (2 'real' plus 3 in dream sequences)
Boob Count: 2 pairs
Animal Body Count: Countless chickens in slaughterhouse footage.
Most memorable death: Paint-headed pinata woman.
Please use the comments bellow only to comment on this post - to write your own review, please comment on the main post for this movie.
Ready? okay, highlight this [ This is a whodunit where YOU NEVER FIND OUT WHO DID IT!!!].
Yeah, Really!
*****More spoilers to follow*****
I commented way back in Week 5 that blood is, as we are so often told, thicker than water, and as such one cannot get away with using red water as blood; no such problems here - the opening kill seems to work on the idea that blood is thicker than custard - a pipe to the head seems to result in red emulation paint pouring from under the victim's hairline!
Seven whole minutes into the movie, a text crawls informs us that the movie we are "about to see"(!) is based on a true story - then has the lamest disclaimer you've ever seen (To paraphrase "except in so far as it isn't") - see the end of the review for this text's reprise.
The biggest problem here, besides it's utter dullnes and lack of resolution, is the way the film jumps all over the place - It starts with a murder, then jumps to the trial of the (supposed) killer - the victims husband, then it's flashbacks based on testimony (including the cardinal sin of flashbacks - flashbacks to things that the person speaking wasn't present for) so next we're in wartime Hungary, then a party where the guy's wife is still alive, then they meet, then the marriage is on the rocks - all without warning.
Come to think of it, even the trail itself is jumbled - the first trail scene has the judge asking if the prisoner has anything to say before sentence is passed, but later in the film we here from witnesses - an the jury presenting their decision near the end of the film is played as a point of drama, despite the fact that we already know he will be sentenced. What. A. Mess.
The only point in the movie during which I was remotely entertained is presented here, to save you the effort of watching the rest of the "movie" (bear in mind that these guys are best friends):
Well... This is awkward...
There's a go-nowhere subplot about a murderer who escapes a home for the criminally insane - we see him kill (THEN rape - eew) a girl we have never seen before, and then he's actually called to our guy's trail based on the fact that the location of the murder - in the victims own home - was a bit close to the site of his murders.
The police investigation is carried out so badly that ANY lawyer ,including Lionel Hutz or Ted Buckland, could have got it thrown out of court! The police promise key suspects immunity to wear a wire, strip the body naked at the scene before (glovelessly) cramming them into an evidence bag, and pull out the victims fingernails (!) and bag them without a pathologist present. Oh, and the entire justice system fails to notice that the husband is out shopping with his daughter and the victims cousin at the time of the murder!
I suspect that this movie was originally a lot more chronological, but they realized it was dull and (mistakenly) thought that shuffling it would make it more interesting.
Fun Fact: The movie Men In Black originally had an extra sub plot, which didn't test well and was removed in post production, obviously one cannot simply cut a subplot and have everything else just work out, so re-shoots are usually needed - in the case of MiB this was avoided by re-dubbing a talking dog, and changing some subtitles and the display of a large viewscreen. Why do I mention this here? I suspect that a similar clever bit of editing may have happened in this movie.
See if you can spot the oh-so-smooth dialogue removal in the following scene:
Seamless, ain't it?
All in all the whole thing is a shambles which, despite having far too many sub-plots and suspects, manages to be confusig, dull and frustrating in roughly equal measures.
Oh, and in-case we missed the bizarre information / disclaimer crawl at the (kind of) begging of the film, the text is repeated again after the credits:
It's fiction... apart from the bits which are true... which may also be fiction...
Body Count: 5 (2 'real' plus 3 in dream sequences)
Boob Count: 2 pairs
Animal Body Count: Countless chickens in slaughterhouse footage.
Most memorable death: Paint-headed pinata woman.
Please use the comments bellow only to comment on this post - to write your own review, please comment on the main post for this movie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)