Oh, what to say about this one? While the original was no masterpiece or summer blockbuster, one still has to question the wisdom of a bunch of amateurs re-making it on a budget of 27p; watching it though, that appears to be what has happened.
Showing posts with label Avoid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Avoid. Show all posts
Monday, 5 August 2013
Saturday, 3 August 2013
Anthropophagous 2000 - Lisa's Review
*** SPOILERS *** (for what it's worth)
There are sometimes weeks when the movie isn't that hot, sometimes it's awful and sometimes we are very tempted to write "This was absolute shite" and leave it at that. Sadly, for me, this was the latter.
This movie is a remake of 1980 movie of the same name (removing the 2000). While the original movie wasn't all that hot, this one is just absolute bollocks! I suppose I should elaborate as to why I felt this was the case?
I'm not going to go into detail as to the premise, as I very much doubt anyone will want to see this movie on the strength of my review. Man kills his wife when she refuses to let him eat their dead child to survive after an accident at sea. He eats them both and then goes mad and kills and eats other people. That should about sum it up for you. Why didn't I enjoy it?
The acting was probably amongst the worst I have seen. The gore looked like something a GSCE art student produced (that's probably an insult to GCSE art students). Victims are replaced with what looks like a rubber model of themselves (that bears absolutely no resemblance to them) and then over the top, unrealistic, ridiculous gore is spattered upon us.
There are sometimes weeks when the movie isn't that hot, sometimes it's awful and sometimes we are very tempted to write "This was absolute shite" and leave it at that. Sadly, for me, this was the latter.
This movie is a remake of 1980 movie of the same name (removing the 2000). While the original movie wasn't all that hot, this one is just absolute bollocks! I suppose I should elaborate as to why I felt this was the case?
I'm not going to go into detail as to the premise, as I very much doubt anyone will want to see this movie on the strength of my review. Man kills his wife when she refuses to let him eat their dead child to survive after an accident at sea. He eats them both and then goes mad and kills and eats other people. That should about sum it up for you. Why didn't I enjoy it?
The acting was probably amongst the worst I have seen. The gore looked like something a GSCE art student produced (that's probably an insult to GCSE art students). Victims are replaced with what looks like a rubber model of themselves (that bears absolutely no resemblance to them) and then over the top, unrealistic, ridiculous gore is spattered upon us.
Saturday, 22 June 2013
Boogeyman 2 - Will's Review
As with last week, this will be a short review, and for much the same reason.
First, the (slightly) interesting bit; why this film exists:
Ulli Lommel was credited as director for both the original The Boogeyman, and first sequel, Revenge of The Boogyman, but in truth his Revenge credit only exists because of the footage recycled from the original. All the new stuff about the people trying to make a movie of the events in the first film, were directed by a 2nd unit director. Lommel decided that he wanted to make a directors cut of the 2nd film, and so Boogeyman 2: Redux was born.
First, the (slightly) interesting bit; why this film exists:
Ulli Lommel was credited as director for both the original The Boogeyman, and first sequel, Revenge of The Boogyman, but in truth his Revenge credit only exists because of the footage recycled from the original. All the new stuff about the people trying to make a movie of the events in the first film, were directed by a 2nd unit director. Lommel decided that he wanted to make a directors cut of the 2nd film, and so Boogeyman 2: Redux was born.
Boogeyman 2 - Redux - Lisa's Review
Having now watched Boogeyman, Return of The Boogeyman, Revenge of The Boogeyman and now Boogeyman 2 - Redux, I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this review. If you have any interest in The Boogeyman at all, just watch the first one. The rest are basically a rehash of it anyway.
This movie is sadly no different. Of the running time, about 90% is made up of footage of the original Boogeyman movie. Believe it or not, they managed to get some footage from the second one in there too. The only piece of footage that is new is an interspersed police interview with Ulli Lommel (conducted 22 years after the event) that is being conducted. He claims to have no proper recollection of the events, but manages to narrate the entire events that happen in the first movie.
I'm afraid folks, there is absolutely nothing more to it. It seems Ulli Lommel wanted to create what he feels SHOULD have been the sequel to the original, so he completely ignored the fact Boogeyman 2 has already been made.
Sorry for the scant review, but really this movie should never have been released. Big fat avoid obviously.
I spent the extra time tonight watching next weeks movie to review as I won't be available next week.
This movie is sadly no different. Of the running time, about 90% is made up of footage of the original Boogeyman movie. Believe it or not, they managed to get some footage from the second one in there too. The only piece of footage that is new is an interspersed police interview with Ulli Lommel (conducted 22 years after the event) that is being conducted. He claims to have no proper recollection of the events, but manages to narrate the entire events that happen in the first movie.
I'm afraid folks, there is absolutely nothing more to it. It seems Ulli Lommel wanted to create what he feels SHOULD have been the sequel to the original, so he completely ignored the fact Boogeyman 2 has already been made.
Sorry for the scant review, but really this movie should never have been released. Big fat avoid obviously.
I spent the extra time tonight watching next weeks movie to review as I won't be available next week.
Saturday, 15 June 2013
Return of the Boogeyman - Will's Review
Man oh man, is this going to be a short review.
The 3rd movie in the Boogeyman trilogy is basically a framing device, wrapped around the first film.
I criticised the 2nd film for using too much footage of the first... I take it back. The 3rd entry in the series is probably 80% made up of footage from the first movie, albeit with a new VoiceOver.
The 3rd movie in the Boogeyman trilogy is basically a framing device, wrapped around the first film.
I criticised the 2nd film for using too much footage of the first... I take it back. The 3rd entry in the series is probably 80% made up of footage from the first movie, albeit with a new VoiceOver.
Saturday, 8 June 2013
Nekromantik 2 - Will's Review
Spoilers for a hard to find, crap sequel to a crap film follow.
Here we go again...
I really enjoyed writing last weeks review; despite the fact that the film was just bad (not "so bad it's good" just bad) there were still enough off-kilter parts that I could at least get my teeth into sagging it off.
That should be the case again with this equally dire sequel, but I fear my verve for criticising this series may have waned; as this is, essentially, the second half of the same movie.
The film opens with a recap of Rob's suicide, then carries on with the woman's shoe that we saw digging up his grave.
The shoe belongs to Monica - a new character, who takes Rob's green, shiny, rigid corpse home.
How she gets him home undetected, we do not; it remains a movie mystery up there with "how the hell did they get King Kong to New York?".
Anyway, having got him home, she slowly undresses him (he's still wearing his suicide clothes, by the way), licks its face, then sits on his unyielding chest (seriously - this is one rock solid corpse) staring at his dill-pickle penis and moaning, until she freaks out and runs to the bathroom to throw up.
The whole freak-out / Nausea thing is never mentioned again, ad she returns to her life of cadaver boffing with no further issues.
The sex scene is intercut with the introduction of another new character, Mark, who dubs porn films for a living. Just an aside, Mark is like everyone else in the movie, German; and yet, despite speaking German for the entire rest of the movie, clearly says at one point "just wait while I get a drink" in English. For no reason.
A recurring problem in this movie is that the casting director seems to have a thing for women who look a certain way, resulting in 3 separate characters who can easily be mistaken for each other; with that in mind Mark calls Monica 2, and arranges to go see a film with her (and really drives home to her about being in time).
Outside the cinema, Mark is annoyed to be waiting for Monika 2, when he runs into Monika, takes her instead, and the two begin dating.
The film within a film that the two of them go to see is a black and white art film, consisting of a naked couple, seated at a table in the middle of a landfill, eating an extraordinary number of hard boiled eggs, while talking about birds. We see entirely too much of it, and I can only assume that it is a short film the director made, and this was a sneaky way if getting it released!
Sometime during all of this, Minica 3 (who I believe is Rob's girlfriend from the first movie, given a new hairstyle and dress-sense, to look like Monica) visits Robs (still open) grave, and is disappointed to find it empty. This is never mentioned again.
Monica begins to question her 'relationship' with Rob, and decides to dispose of him (apart from his head and genitals obviously) by dismembering him, bagging him up, and putting him back in his grave.
The dismemberment, while gory, is not well done... It looks every inch like a woman sawing up a blood filled movie prop; and as far as the reburial goes, Rob's grabs is STILL open, and having filled it with blue bin bags, Monica leaves it that way!
Monica isn't the only one having relationship doubts... finding a cling-filmed, rancid, cock-and-balls in her fridge is one thing, being asked to pose as though dead for photographs, one almost expects in a relationship; but when he comes home to find a bunch of her mates watching a video of a (real) seal autopsy, he has to have a serious think about their future!
After consulting Monica 2 and a random drunk guy, Mark decides that shagging Monica will probably sort everything out... Except she beheads him mid coitus, straps a cock ring on his less-than-mighty erection, and fixes Rob's head onto the fresh body.
Which she then fucks until they climax together (yes, the dead body convulses with orgasm).
In a short 'sting' sequence, we find out that Monica is pregnant.
On a technical level, it is better made than the first one - although this is faint praise indeed. Certain shots are interestingly composed (at least in the first few scenes) and it doesn't have the 'first student film' quality that part one had (which, again, I'm not saying it was well filmed - just less-appallingly composed.
While Monica is trying to decide what do do about Mark (presumably this is when she decides to give him a head transplant) she goes for a wonder on the beach, which is reminiscent of Rob's nature walk in the first film (when he decides to kill himself) - wether this was dumb luck, or a thematic choice is impossible to guess but... Fuck it; I'm acting like this trash is worth studying!
Avoid.
I really enjoyed writing last weeks review; despite the fact that the film was just bad (not "so bad it's good" just bad) there were still enough off-kilter parts that I could at least get my teeth into sagging it off.
That should be the case again with this equally dire sequel, but I fear my verve for criticising this series may have waned; as this is, essentially, the second half of the same movie.
The film opens with a recap of Rob's suicide, then carries on with the woman's shoe that we saw digging up his grave.
The shoe belongs to Monica - a new character, who takes Rob's green, shiny, rigid corpse home.
How she gets him home undetected, we do not; it remains a movie mystery up there with "how the hell did they get King Kong to New York?".
Anyway, having got him home, she slowly undresses him (he's still wearing his suicide clothes, by the way), licks its face, then sits on his unyielding chest (seriously - this is one rock solid corpse) staring at his dill-pickle penis and moaning, until she freaks out and runs to the bathroom to throw up.
The whole freak-out / Nausea thing is never mentioned again, ad she returns to her life of cadaver boffing with no further issues.
The sex scene is intercut with the introduction of another new character, Mark, who dubs porn films for a living. Just an aside, Mark is like everyone else in the movie, German; and yet, despite speaking German for the entire rest of the movie, clearly says at one point "just wait while I get a drink" in English. For no reason.
A recurring problem in this movie is that the casting director seems to have a thing for women who look a certain way, resulting in 3 separate characters who can easily be mistaken for each other; with that in mind Mark calls Monica 2, and arranges to go see a film with her (and really drives home to her about being in time).
Outside the cinema, Mark is annoyed to be waiting for Monika 2, when he runs into Monika, takes her instead, and the two begin dating.
The film within a film that the two of them go to see is a black and white art film, consisting of a naked couple, seated at a table in the middle of a landfill, eating an extraordinary number of hard boiled eggs, while talking about birds. We see entirely too much of it, and I can only assume that it is a short film the director made, and this was a sneaky way if getting it released!
Sometime during all of this, Minica 3 (who I believe is Rob's girlfriend from the first movie, given a new hairstyle and dress-sense, to look like Monica) visits Robs (still open) grave, and is disappointed to find it empty. This is never mentioned again.
Monica begins to question her 'relationship' with Rob, and decides to dispose of him (apart from his head and genitals obviously) by dismembering him, bagging him up, and putting him back in his grave.
The dismemberment, while gory, is not well done... It looks every inch like a woman sawing up a blood filled movie prop; and as far as the reburial goes, Rob's grabs is STILL open, and having filled it with blue bin bags, Monica leaves it that way!
Monica isn't the only one having relationship doubts... finding a cling-filmed, rancid, cock-and-balls in her fridge is one thing, being asked to pose as though dead for photographs, one almost expects in a relationship; but when he comes home to find a bunch of her mates watching a video of a (real) seal autopsy, he has to have a serious think about their future!
After consulting Monica 2 and a random drunk guy, Mark decides that shagging Monica will probably sort everything out... Except she beheads him mid coitus, straps a cock ring on his less-than-mighty erection, and fixes Rob's head onto the fresh body.
Which she then fucks until they climax together (yes, the dead body convulses with orgasm).
In a short 'sting' sequence, we find out that Monica is pregnant.
On a technical level, it is better made than the first one - although this is faint praise indeed. Certain shots are interestingly composed (at least in the first few scenes) and it doesn't have the 'first student film' quality that part one had (which, again, I'm not saying it was well filmed - just less-appallingly composed.
While Monica is trying to decide what do do about Mark (presumably this is when she decides to give him a head transplant) she goes for a wonder on the beach, which is reminiscent of Rob's nature walk in the first film (when he decides to kill himself) - wether this was dumb luck, or a thematic choice is impossible to guess but... Fuck it; I'm acting like this trash is worth studying!
Avoid.
Nekromantik 2 - Lisa's Review
*** SPOILERS ***
I always feel the need to warn of spoilers, even though the chances of anyone reading this review, never mind wanting to watch this movie is virtually nil.
Sooooo, following last weeks offering of Nekromantik, this week we have its sequel. Is it any better? I'm afraid not. Is it any worse? Thankfully not.
The storyline is pretty much the same... odd person who gets her kicks from having sex with a corpse. There is the same cringeworthy tonguing of aforementioned corpse and wierd sex scenes. This time we follow a woman (Monika) who ironically digs up the corpse of the fellow Nekrophiliac and star of the first installment (Rob), who we saw commit suicide at the end of the last movie. As I was watching, I had to mentally rebuff myself for actually treating this dross like it was worth any consideration as I mused that Rob would actually be rather pleased to know what became of him. The ultimate in erotic for him surely?
The scene where Monika transports Rob home and undresses him is painfully slow and long-winded. I'm like "Come on already!". Maybe it was worth the wait to see the awful moment when she removed his trousers and we could see the corpses 'rubber' feet. Anyways....
Alongside her new beau Rob, Monika also meets Mark (who dubs porn movies) and they immediately hit it off. Although odd as he is (the scenes of him 'working' are actually pretty funny), even he has problems dealing with just how odd his new girlfriend seems to be. Granted wanting him to not move an inch during sex and taking photos of him that make him appear to be dead could be considered a bit odd. You would think her little quirk would be obvious.
I always feel the need to warn of spoilers, even though the chances of anyone reading this review, never mind wanting to watch this movie is virtually nil.
Sooooo, following last weeks offering of Nekromantik, this week we have its sequel. Is it any better? I'm afraid not. Is it any worse? Thankfully not.
The storyline is pretty much the same... odd person who gets her kicks from having sex with a corpse. There is the same cringeworthy tonguing of aforementioned corpse and wierd sex scenes. This time we follow a woman (Monika) who ironically digs up the corpse of the fellow Nekrophiliac and star of the first installment (Rob), who we saw commit suicide at the end of the last movie. As I was watching, I had to mentally rebuff myself for actually treating this dross like it was worth any consideration as I mused that Rob would actually be rather pleased to know what became of him. The ultimate in erotic for him surely?
The scene where Monika transports Rob home and undresses him is painfully slow and long-winded. I'm like "Come on already!". Maybe it was worth the wait to see the awful moment when she removed his trousers and we could see the corpses 'rubber' feet. Anyways....
Alongside her new beau Rob, Monika also meets Mark (who dubs porn movies) and they immediately hit it off. Although odd as he is (the scenes of him 'working' are actually pretty funny), even he has problems dealing with just how odd his new girlfriend seems to be. Granted wanting him to not move an inch during sex and taking photos of him that make him appear to be dead could be considered a bit odd. You would think her little quirk would be obvious.
Saturday, 1 June 2013
Nekromantik - Will's Review
As very few people read these things, and even fewer of those are likely to see this movie, I'm going to feel free to use spoilers. If you think you might be interested seeing in a poorly made, dull, corpse-fucking movie; stop reading now , and go track down a copy of Necromantic.
Nekromantik - Lisa's Review
***SPOILERS - if indeed you care***
Sometimes when I watch a movie, it takes me a while, sometimes a few days to decide whether I actually enjoyed the movie or not. Strange maybe, but true. A movie I thought was maybe just 'ok' in retrospect after a little bit of thought, I realise was actually quite good.
What has this got to do with this weeks movie I hear you ask?... well, this week that was not a problem at all. I am in no doubt as to what I felt about Nekromantik. If I didn't feel like a big, fat cheat for copying and pasting a dictionary definition for the word excrement as my review, that is exactly what you would be reading.
So why so bad? Where do I start. I'm not a person who is easily shocked. Granted, I do have my limits. I don't like watching any acts of cruelty which I know to be real. There have been scenes of real animal deaths in some movies we have watched which I have found very difficult, but aside from that anything else is fair game really. Don't get me wrong, there are staged scenes in movies, I find uncomfortable to watch, usually due to how they are portrayed, but gore generally doesn't offend me.
So to Nekromantik... I seem to be avoiding reviewing it thus far, for good reason really, I am struggling with the words to put together to give you any kind of idea as to how bad this movie actually is.
Sometimes when I watch a movie, it takes me a while, sometimes a few days to decide whether I actually enjoyed the movie or not. Strange maybe, but true. A movie I thought was maybe just 'ok' in retrospect after a little bit of thought, I realise was actually quite good.
What has this got to do with this weeks movie I hear you ask?... well, this week that was not a problem at all. I am in no doubt as to what I felt about Nekromantik. If I didn't feel like a big, fat cheat for copying and pasting a dictionary definition for the word excrement as my review, that is exactly what you would be reading.
So why so bad? Where do I start. I'm not a person who is easily shocked. Granted, I do have my limits. I don't like watching any acts of cruelty which I know to be real. There have been scenes of real animal deaths in some movies we have watched which I have found very difficult, but aside from that anything else is fair game really. Don't get me wrong, there are staged scenes in movies, I find uncomfortable to watch, usually due to how they are portrayed, but gore generally doesn't offend me.
So to Nekromantik... I seem to be avoiding reviewing it thus far, for good reason really, I am struggling with the words to put together to give you any kind of idea as to how bad this movie actually is.
Monday, 27 May 2013
WEEK 106 - Nekromantic
Year: 1987
Reviews / Author Comments due: 01/06/2013
Reason for Inclusion: Banned in many countries, never submitted in the UK.
BBFC Status: Never Submitted
DVD: US import (R1)
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
Saturday, 13 April 2013
The Last House on Dead End Street - Will's Review
This is going to be short.
I was even considering just putting the word "shit" in massive letters, and leaving it at that but if anyone actually reads these things, they deserve better...
I was even considering just putting the word "shit" in massive letters, and leaving it at that but if anyone actually reads these things, they deserve better...
The Last House on Dead End Street - Lisa's Review
*** SPOILERS ***
So having just watched this weeks movie the question is... how the hell am I going to review this one? I could write the review in 2 words if you like?
Monumentally Crap!!
Not good enough? Meh, I expected as much. Ok, lets start with a basic premis..We have a guy get out of prison and rather than stick to making porn movies, which is what he is used to, he decides to make snuff movies. He wants "something real, thats never been done before, something with action". Thats pretty much it I'm afraid. Yup, I kid you not!
He teams up with a band of rather tasteless individuals (both male and female) and they proceed to kidnap, torture and kill 4 individuals. Why these people pander to his every whim is anyones guess. They are indeed very weird folk and indulge in some odd pastimes, but its a bit of a step to go from orgies and S&M to actual torture and murder.
So having just watched this weeks movie the question is... how the hell am I going to review this one? I could write the review in 2 words if you like?
Monumentally Crap!!
Not good enough? Meh, I expected as much. Ok, lets start with a basic premis..We have a guy get out of prison and rather than stick to making porn movies, which is what he is used to, he decides to make snuff movies. He wants "something real, thats never been done before, something with action". Thats pretty much it I'm afraid. Yup, I kid you not!
He teams up with a band of rather tasteless individuals (both male and female) and they proceed to kidnap, torture and kill 4 individuals. Why these people pander to his every whim is anyones guess. They are indeed very weird folk and indulge in some odd pastimes, but its a bit of a step to go from orgies and S&M to actual torture and murder.
Sunday, 7 April 2013
Week 99: The Last House on Dead End Street
Alternate Titles : Fun House, The Cuckoo Clocks of Hell
Year: 1973 (made) 1977 (released)
Reviews / Author Comments due: 13/04/2013
Reason for Inclusion: It's believed that this film was intended to be placed on the DPP list but, thanks to it's alternate title, Tobe Hooper's "The Funhouse" was accidentally put on the list on its behalf.
BBFC Status: Passed uncut in 2006
DVD: LINK
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
Saturday, 23 February 2013
Stalker - Will's Review
I can see why this one underwent a name change... ostensibly a remake of Exposé, all that remains from the original is a writer who goes to a country home to get some work done, and runs into some trouble with their new PA. It's even less of a Remake than Toolbox Murders.
Oh, I tell a lie; they did keep one thing from the original; Linda Hayden. Hayden played the PA in Exposé, and is a housekeeper here.
This time around the author (now Paula instead of Paul) goes to her family's old holiday spot in order to write her 2nd novel. The PA (Linda) shows up and, after a perfectly normal start, begins to act violently, take over the writing of Paula's book, and even murder anyone who could interfere with the writing and publication of the novel.
Thankfully, this is another short one, coming in at 77mins including credits; I say 'thankfully' because the first half hour is as dull as hell, followed by another half hour lumbering towards a very predictable twist.
Martin Kemp (yes, the Spanda Ballet / Eastenders, guy) pulls writer and director duties and, while not entirely badly put together, it is very obviously a directorial debut; every shot is something we've seen before (often done better) and, as is too often the case with first time thriller directors, Kemp obviously spent quite some time (although not enough time) watching Hitchcock movies.
******spoilers from here******
There is, as I have said, a 'twist' , and it could have been a (relatively) interesting, if clichéd one, but for one thing...
Paula keeps having dreams in which a younger man is having sex with her, and starts bleeding and dies mid-act; During Linda's first murder (a journalist after a scoop) she screams that she (Linda) used to be regularly raped by her brother... Until she stabbed him mid-act.
If you can't work out the 'twist' from that, you've probably never seen a movie before.
Oh, I tell a lie; they did keep one thing from the original; Linda Hayden. Hayden played the PA in Exposé, and is a housekeeper here.
This time around the author (now Paula instead of Paul) goes to her family's old holiday spot in order to write her 2nd novel. The PA (Linda) shows up and, after a perfectly normal start, begins to act violently, take over the writing of Paula's book, and even murder anyone who could interfere with the writing and publication of the novel.
Thankfully, this is another short one, coming in at 77mins including credits; I say 'thankfully' because the first half hour is as dull as hell, followed by another half hour lumbering towards a very predictable twist.
Martin Kemp (yes, the Spanda Ballet / Eastenders, guy) pulls writer and director duties and, while not entirely badly put together, it is very obviously a directorial debut; every shot is something we've seen before (often done better) and, as is too often the case with first time thriller directors, Kemp obviously spent quite some time (although not enough time) watching Hitchcock movies.
******spoilers from here******
There is, as I have said, a 'twist' , and it could have been a (relatively) interesting, if clichéd one, but for one thing...
Paula keeps having dreams in which a younger man is having sex with her, and starts bleeding and dies mid-act; During Linda's first murder (a journalist after a scoop) she screams that she (Linda) used to be regularly raped by her brother... Until she stabbed him mid-act.
If you can't work out the 'twist' from that, you've probably never seen a movie before.
Stalker - Lisa's Review
***SPOILERS***
I put 'spoilers' as my first word here, but I doubt it will spoil anything for anyone, for as unlikely as it is that anyone besides me and Will are actually reading these review, its even more unlikely anyone who didn't 'have' to watch this movie would have any desire to... even less so after reading my review I would imagine.
So, here we have Martin Kemps first directorial debut with Stalker, a movie described as a 'remake of Expose' (a movie we watched for the Nasties challenge). Here instead of the delectable Udo Kier as the author Paul Martin, we have a rather dull, non inspiring female author called Paula Martin.
The basic premis is that she has a best selling book behind her and has had a difficult time and a nervous breakdown. She retreats to a beautiful mansion in the middle of the country to seek inspiration and peace to write her second novel. What follows could be compared to a mish-mash of movies... 'Single white female, 'Misery', 'Identity'... unfortunately it falls far short on every level when compared with any of these movies.
An assistant (Linda) is sent to help Paula with the typing of her novel. Things all seem to be going swimmingly well (asides from what appears to be a rather uncomfortable over familiarity with Linda and Paula), then Paula continues to get increasingly more and more irate at her writers block. This mild mannered, quiet, gentle woman is prone to hissy fits it seems. Linda, seemingly wanting to help starts to write for Paula. Initially absolutely furious at this intrusion and insult, Paula gives it to Linda both barrels. That seems to be the last we see of Paula as the woman we have been introduced to.
I put 'spoilers' as my first word here, but I doubt it will spoil anything for anyone, for as unlikely as it is that anyone besides me and Will are actually reading these review, its even more unlikely anyone who didn't 'have' to watch this movie would have any desire to... even less so after reading my review I would imagine.
So, here we have Martin Kemps first directorial debut with Stalker, a movie described as a 'remake of Expose' (a movie we watched for the Nasties challenge). Here instead of the delectable Udo Kier as the author Paul Martin, we have a rather dull, non inspiring female author called Paula Martin.
The basic premis is that she has a best selling book behind her and has had a difficult time and a nervous breakdown. She retreats to a beautiful mansion in the middle of the country to seek inspiration and peace to write her second novel. What follows could be compared to a mish-mash of movies... 'Single white female, 'Misery', 'Identity'... unfortunately it falls far short on every level when compared with any of these movies.
An assistant (Linda) is sent to help Paula with the typing of her novel. Things all seem to be going swimmingly well (asides from what appears to be a rather uncomfortable over familiarity with Linda and Paula), then Paula continues to get increasingly more and more irate at her writers block. This mild mannered, quiet, gentle woman is prone to hissy fits it seems. Linda, seemingly wanting to help starts to write for Paula. Initially absolutely furious at this intrusion and insult, Paula gives it to Linda both barrels. That seems to be the last we see of Paula as the woman we have been introduced to.
Monday, 18 February 2013
WEEK 92 - Stalker
Year: 2010
Reviews / Author Comments due: 2/3/2013
Reason for Inclusion: Remake of DPP movie, Expose
BBFC Status: Passed uncut in 2011
More Info: No Wikipedia, IMDB
DVD: LINK
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
Saturday, 2 February 2013
Salo - Lisa's Review
*** SPOILERS ***
I'm at a bit of a loss this week as to how exactly to review this movie as I have no want to give a blow-by-blow account of it, thats for sure. The fact I am feeling more than a little ill today also would make me want to avoid even thinking about it, never mind reviewing it.
So, what can I say. Having read a bit about the movie, it seems that the absolute and utter depravity we see on screen from start to finish is in actual fact a very political message about facism, with the 4 main characters (a bishop, a president, a duke and a magistrate) representing different sections of our society. The bishop - religion, the president - political leaders, the magistrate - the legal system and the duke - nobility. Well that was all very much lost on me I'm afraid. To me it just appeared to be an excuse to be shocking, to show as much depravity as possible and get away with it under the usual screen of proclaiming it as 'art' with an important message. Bollocks! It truely felt to me, like a few people sat in a room and wrote a list of what they could get away with depicting onscreen.
Salo - Will's Review
Wow.
That was without question the most depraved thing I have ever seen; and I include "A Serbian Film" in that.
There was a point in this movie, during the films 3rd segment (it has 4, each given an on screen caption) that inspired from me I think the biggest reaction I have ever had to a piece of fiction, and I'll get to that in good time; I wasn't very far into the 2nd segment before I was wondering how this film is even legal.
Now, don't get me wrong; I absolutely think it should be legal; I strongly believe that ANY faked activity should be allowed, no matter how offensive I may personally find it, but it is a sad fact that English law does not agree, and we still have an Obscene Publications Act which can be applied to fiction.
In fact once again, as with Week 83's Antichrist, the prejudices against horror and towards "Art Film" shines through. How this can be passed uncut, while similar scenes were trimmed from week 63's Human Centipede 2, I cannot comprehend.
****SPOILERS****
That was without question the most depraved thing I have ever seen; and I include "A Serbian Film" in that.
There was a point in this movie, during the films 3rd segment (it has 4, each given an on screen caption) that inspired from me I think the biggest reaction I have ever had to a piece of fiction, and I'll get to that in good time; I wasn't very far into the 2nd segment before I was wondering how this film is even legal.
Now, don't get me wrong; I absolutely think it should be legal; I strongly believe that ANY faked activity should be allowed, no matter how offensive I may personally find it, but it is a sad fact that English law does not agree, and we still have an Obscene Publications Act which can be applied to fiction.
In fact once again, as with Week 83's Antichrist, the prejudices against horror and towards "Art Film" shines through. How this can be passed uncut, while similar scenes were trimmed from week 63's Human Centipede 2, I cannot comprehend.
****SPOILERS****
Sunday, 27 January 2013
Week 89 - Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom
Alternate Titles : Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma
Year: 1975
Reviews / Author Comments due: 02/02/2013
Reason for Inclusion: Banned for over 20 years, Subject of a police raid when shown at a London cinema club (where BBFC ratings are not required, but obscenity laws still apply)
BBFC Status: Passed uncut in 2000
DVD: LINK
Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.
Saturday, 22 December 2012
Antichrist - Will's Review
When the BBFC let unsimulated sex pass uncut without giving it an 18R (porn) rating; There's a good chance you're dealing with an art film.
When a continental European sounding name precedes a movie title; There's a good chance you're dealing with an art film.
If a film made this side of 1965 is filmed (or partly filmed) in black and white; There's a good chance you're dealing with an art film.
If a movie opens with a slow motion prologue; There's a good chance you're dealing with an art film.
I'm not a fan of art films, so the fist three minuets of "Lars von Trier's: Antichrist" were enough for me to know I was in trouble...
When a continental European sounding name precedes a movie title; There's a good chance you're dealing with an art film.
If a film made this side of 1965 is filmed (or partly filmed) in black and white; There's a good chance you're dealing with an art film.
If a movie opens with a slow motion prologue; There's a good chance you're dealing with an art film.
I'm not a fan of art films, so the fist three minuets of "Lars von Trier's: Antichrist" were enough for me to know I was in trouble...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)