Nope. The arty pretentiousness of this movie does not make it an original horror film. Neither does its brutality (much of it poorly simulated) make it a edgy art film. But the combination of the two certainly makes it something - pure drudgery. This murder/revenge drama strains to be unique offering nothing more on its soundtrack than a musical score and some rather awkwardly dubbed screams. A prolonged and arduous torture sequence might stir some guilty giddy pleasure in those fond of exploitation, but by the time it occurs, it is likely such viewers will have long given up on watching. And those who might have appreciated its deliberate pace and elongated romance scenes are likely to be turned off by the sudden burst of graphic violence. Defenders of the film might argue that Defenceless does not play by the standards that have been set by horror films of the past and therefore is to be appreciated for being different. But originality is not a sufficient substitute for a well crafted drama.
13 Reviews
Both artistic and graceless
thor589415 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This is a hard one to rate. On the plus side, the no-dialogue conceit works quite well, the slow pace is a virtue, and the lead actress manages to be charismatic even without any spoken dialogue. That said there are serious flaws.
-the movie looks like it was filmed on videotape, giving it a cheap, unwelcome brightness and sharpness to its visual look. I found this a distraction.
-too much of the extreme violence looks clumsy and badly simulated.
-while the story is properly simple, it still doesn't always make sense. At the halfway point the lead character is murdered, after the villains previously murdered everyone close to her. OK, except they needed her signature on a property contract--how does killing her solve this??
I'd say the film's second half is stronger, when the murdered woman emerges from the sea reborn, as some elemental pre-verbal creature to take revenge. The interlude with the young girl she befriends just after her resurrection is maybe the film's high point. But the flaws are glaring and keep the film from ever really taking flight. Also, yes I know we're in the extreme horror sub-genre, but why such fixation on genital mutilation? Is that needed to advance the story? Shock for shock's sake doesn't impress me. But in the end, I go back to the cheap videotaped look; making this on actual film would have been by itself a big improvement. So, not trash, but only partway successful.
-the movie looks like it was filmed on videotape, giving it a cheap, unwelcome brightness and sharpness to its visual look. I found this a distraction.
-too much of the extreme violence looks clumsy and badly simulated.
-while the story is properly simple, it still doesn't always make sense. At the halfway point the lead character is murdered, after the villains previously murdered everyone close to her. OK, except they needed her signature on a property contract--how does killing her solve this??
I'd say the film's second half is stronger, when the murdered woman emerges from the sea reborn, as some elemental pre-verbal creature to take revenge. The interlude with the young girl she befriends just after her resurrection is maybe the film's high point. But the flaws are glaring and keep the film from ever really taking flight. Also, yes I know we're in the extreme horror sub-genre, but why such fixation on genital mutilation? Is that needed to advance the story? Shock for shock's sake doesn't impress me. But in the end, I go back to the cheap videotaped look; making this on actual film would have been by itself a big improvement. So, not trash, but only partway successful.
Disappointingly tame and nonsensical film
Jester22213 September 2021
Sadly this film left me a little disappointed. It was quite tame with regards to violence and the supposed quotes stating it was nasty were far from the truth imo.
Not much is seen at all.
One woman is supoosedly (you don't see amything) stabbed in the privates with a knife and theres zero blood!? And she's beaten in the face (out of shot again) with a baton and when next see her face it has slightly purple blemishes on her face and no blood! Poor.
The lead actress is gorgeous so that helps a lot and she can act until directed to walk like filled her pants after spending 9 months in the sea!? Wah!?
Which is never explained. (A remnant of what the movie was going to be.....called The Deep).
The young director (24 at the time I believe) appeared very restrained with what he showed for a supposed uncut and vicious revenge film ......I guess the final scene although badly choreographed throughout did have one gory bit and partly made up for it .
Shame wasn't more though, felt restrained, especially the torture of the pedophile.
The lack of dialogue throughout was a good move. Less an artistic statement than a careful way to not show the low level of acting. (Even if they say otherwise)
Seems they had no one doing any make up FX throughout. Later in the film they must have had a whip around and bought some fake blood and chicken fillets so that was used more and helped a little.
Then it gets surreal.
Dolls heads on sticks. Random girls finding junk on beach finds lead actress and immediately hits her with a branch for some unknown reason? Ha ha. I think to see if alive. Flesh eating. Sleeping underwater.
Stock music is not used well and distracts at times. Not as emotional as they believed it was. Especially the classical parts.
Lot of long drawn out padded scenes, strange costumes.
Some artistically shot scenes seem out of place.
For a first real film I guess its forgivable.
Watch if nothing else on.
Did I mention the lead actress was gorgeous? Ha ha.
Not much is seen at all.
One woman is supoosedly (you don't see amything) stabbed in the privates with a knife and theres zero blood!? And she's beaten in the face (out of shot again) with a baton and when next see her face it has slightly purple blemishes on her face and no blood! Poor.
The lead actress is gorgeous so that helps a lot and she can act until directed to walk like filled her pants after spending 9 months in the sea!? Wah!?
Which is never explained. (A remnant of what the movie was going to be.....called The Deep).
The young director (24 at the time I believe) appeared very restrained with what he showed for a supposed uncut and vicious revenge film ......I guess the final scene although badly choreographed throughout did have one gory bit and partly made up for it .
Shame wasn't more though, felt restrained, especially the torture of the pedophile.
The lack of dialogue throughout was a good move. Less an artistic statement than a careful way to not show the low level of acting. (Even if they say otherwise)
Seems they had no one doing any make up FX throughout. Later in the film they must have had a whip around and bought some fake blood and chicken fillets so that was used more and helped a little.
Then it gets surreal.
Dolls heads on sticks. Random girls finding junk on beach finds lead actress and immediately hits her with a branch for some unknown reason? Ha ha. I think to see if alive. Flesh eating. Sleeping underwater.
Stock music is not used well and distracts at times. Not as emotional as they believed it was. Especially the classical parts.
Lot of long drawn out padded scenes, strange costumes.
Some artistically shot scenes seem out of place.
For a first real film I guess its forgivable.
Watch if nothing else on.
Did I mention the lead actress was gorgeous? Ha ha.
Revenge of the Little Mermaid
ElijahCSkuggs13 May 2008
For those of you who enjoy venturing deep into the nastier things the horror realm has to offer, I think you may enjoy this. A film with some ultra-violence, VJ stabbin, penae mutilation, rapeyraperape, cannibalism....it's got the "good" stuff. A film that revolves around themes of revenge and "staying true to oneself in rough times"....(what's a word for that?....perseverance?). The kicker is, there isn't a word spoken in the film, besides I think a couple "Nooooo!"s. No dialogue in the film. And to come across as powerful as it did, is pretty commendable.
Personally, even though it's got everything I enjoy in horror I'm not going cuckoo over it. The acting, camera-work and length all bothered me. Basically because it is slightly amateurish. But overall and most importantly it's unique, and it'll be some time till I have difficulty remembering it. Definitely worth a view for the right viewer
Personally, even though it's got everything I enjoy in horror I'm not going cuckoo over it. The acting, camera-work and length all bothered me. Basically because it is slightly amateurish. But overall and most importantly it's unique, and it'll be some time till I have difficulty remembering it. Definitely worth a view for the right viewer
Graphic Supernatural Rape/Revenge "Art" Film...
EVOL6662 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
DEFENCELESS is a very "different" kind of film. Blurring the lines between "arthouse" and exploitation cinema, the film is essentially an amalgamation of several genres which are combined generally to good effect. Being that the film is shot without dialogue, it's a good thing that director Mark Savage has a lot to "show" us, and can maintain interest through the feature-length run-time...
A woman is embroiled in a shady development deal that she wants no part of, but whose partners will go to any lengths to finalize. When the woman refuses to sign off on the necessary paperwork, the other businessmen resort to extremely underhanded tactics to get what they want. First killing the woman's husband, then raping and killing her lesbian lover (that she takes after her husband's death), and finally raping the woman herself and killing her son. Nine months later the woman is "reborn" as a vengeful cannibalistic mermaid killing-machine with a one-track-mind to punish those that have wronged her...
Being a huge exploitation/sleaze fan - there's a lot to like about DEFENCELESS. There are two rough rape scenes (both including a good bit of vag-stabbing), two graphic penile removals, a hinted-at side plot of a kiddie-porn snuff ring, self-mutilation, cannibalism...the list goes on and on. It's apparent both from the film and some other information that I've read on Savage that the director is a big exploitation, XXX "roughie", and Japanese pinku eiga fan - and these touches are all apparent in his film. I enjoy these sort of "nods" to other genres and found them fitting. From a film-making standpoint - though shot-on-video/digital (not sure which), it's clear that Savage cares about how his film looks and took a lot of care in both the actual filming and editing of DEFENCELESS - it doesn't look like your typical no-budget shot-on-hand-held crap-fest that many of these newer "underground" horror films are. With that said, there are several things that I found (for lack of a better term...) "unappealing" about DEFENCELESS. After the woman's "rebirth", her demeanor was almost (unintentionally, I assume) comically robotic. I couldn't help but draw parallels to the reanimated wife in FRANKENHOOKER which seemed out of place for such a "serious" film. The classical music score, though "elegant" in some instances, eventually became repetitive to the point of distraction, especially in the first half of the film. Most of the gore FX seemed limited by what I assume would be budgetary constraints, and were more campy than disturbing, and I may be nit-picking here, but most of the blood in the film appeared extremely syrupy and fake which didn't help the realism-factor. Honestly, it's hard to put my finger on exactly WHY certain aspects of the film left me a bit cold - it's just an overall impression. I feel that DEFENCELESS is definitely a must-see for exploit fans looking for something different, and I applaud Savage for his unflinching and uncompromising vision, and for bringing some originality to the oft retreaded rape/revenge genre. It is obvious that he is a horror/exploit fan making films for those same fans, and that's to be commended. I'll be checking out more of his work shortly and hope that the rest is as decent as this film. A few minor issues with DEFENCELESS that in my book keep it from being a "great" film - but definitely solid, original, and something to seek out...7.5/10
A woman is embroiled in a shady development deal that she wants no part of, but whose partners will go to any lengths to finalize. When the woman refuses to sign off on the necessary paperwork, the other businessmen resort to extremely underhanded tactics to get what they want. First killing the woman's husband, then raping and killing her lesbian lover (that she takes after her husband's death), and finally raping the woman herself and killing her son. Nine months later the woman is "reborn" as a vengeful cannibalistic mermaid killing-machine with a one-track-mind to punish those that have wronged her...
Being a huge exploitation/sleaze fan - there's a lot to like about DEFENCELESS. There are two rough rape scenes (both including a good bit of vag-stabbing), two graphic penile removals, a hinted-at side plot of a kiddie-porn snuff ring, self-mutilation, cannibalism...the list goes on and on. It's apparent both from the film and some other information that I've read on Savage that the director is a big exploitation, XXX "roughie", and Japanese pinku eiga fan - and these touches are all apparent in his film. I enjoy these sort of "nods" to other genres and found them fitting. From a film-making standpoint - though shot-on-video/digital (not sure which), it's clear that Savage cares about how his film looks and took a lot of care in both the actual filming and editing of DEFENCELESS - it doesn't look like your typical no-budget shot-on-hand-held crap-fest that many of these newer "underground" horror films are. With that said, there are several things that I found (for lack of a better term...) "unappealing" about DEFENCELESS. After the woman's "rebirth", her demeanor was almost (unintentionally, I assume) comically robotic. I couldn't help but draw parallels to the reanimated wife in FRANKENHOOKER which seemed out of place for such a "serious" film. The classical music score, though "elegant" in some instances, eventually became repetitive to the point of distraction, especially in the first half of the film. Most of the gore FX seemed limited by what I assume would be budgetary constraints, and were more campy than disturbing, and I may be nit-picking here, but most of the blood in the film appeared extremely syrupy and fake which didn't help the realism-factor. Honestly, it's hard to put my finger on exactly WHY certain aspects of the film left me a bit cold - it's just an overall impression. I feel that DEFENCELESS is definitely a must-see for exploit fans looking for something different, and I applaud Savage for his unflinching and uncompromising vision, and for bringing some originality to the oft retreaded rape/revenge genre. It is obvious that he is a horror/exploit fan making films for those same fans, and that's to be commended. I'll be checking out more of his work shortly and hope that the rest is as decent as this film. A few minor issues with DEFENCELESS that in my book keep it from being a "great" film - but definitely solid, original, and something to seek out...7.5/10
nobody loves an orphan
samoldman23 June 2006
This is going to polarize audiences because half the population out there hate nothing more than someone with a personal vision. The other half admire it. Reviews on here are positive so far, but this was slammed by Variety, and i can understand why. It's an unapologetic blend of high art and grotesque exploitation. You can't categorize it. The wife threatened to walk out of the Monday afternoon screening, but didn't make good on her threat. It took me a while to get comfortable with its dialog-free narrative, but I emerged a true admirer. The set-up is quite straightforward, although the complications mount. A woman, played by a beautiful Australian actress named Susanne Hausschmid (who was new to me), is murdered by real estate developers. She then takes revenge on them -- while dead. Yes, dead! Director Mark Savage hasn't made a film that will please all fans of bloody revenge movies because he's working from his own formula, not one thirty years old. The film has a strong French influence (a very Eric Rohmer-like seduction scene) and isn't possible to categorize. Is it horror? Partly. Is it art-house? Partly. For God's sakes, does it really matter? Do we have to know what it is? It's very different. And very explicit at times. Most importantly, it's highly individualistic. That's why it won't be loved by many. Nobody loves an orphan.
Beautifully shot and accompanied by a wonderful soundtrack, this film still manages to disappoint
DVD_Connoisseur1 September 2007
I really wanted to like "Defenceless" but it's a movie that somehow isn't a sum of its parts. While the plot is relatively straightforward, the film's strength should come from its stylistic approach. This is a movie without dialogue - the powerful imagery conveys the tale, accompanied by a largely classical soundtrack.
For gorehounds, there is some over-the-top violence. As with Savage's earlier "Marauders", some of this is taboo breaking but thankfully the more controversial deaths are off-screen.
The beautiful Susanne Hausschmid is excellent as the lead, "The Woman". Without going into too much detail, this is a character who has to undergo a fair amount of torment, both physical and mental, during the course of the film. Hausschmid conveys what's going on in her mind brilliantly.
Yet, despite its strengths, I was left feeling a tad empty after watching "Defenceless". I've not been able to warm to Savage's style.
7 out of 10. Missing a certain something but an interesting exercise in cinema.
For gorehounds, there is some over-the-top violence. As with Savage's earlier "Marauders", some of this is taboo breaking but thankfully the more controversial deaths are off-screen.
The beautiful Susanne Hausschmid is excellent as the lead, "The Woman". Without going into too much detail, this is a character who has to undergo a fair amount of torment, both physical and mental, during the course of the film. Hausschmid conveys what's going on in her mind brilliantly.
Yet, despite its strengths, I was left feeling a tad empty after watching "Defenceless". I've not been able to warm to Savage's style.
7 out of 10. Missing a certain something but an interesting exercise in cinema.
How films should be made
Stezza725 December 2004
There's no real easy way to describe DEFENCELESS. Surely it's one of the most hypnotising, most brutal and savage films to see release in a long time. And that is terrific news. This is the way films of this genre should be made. Somewhere between true high-art and suspense, Savage manages to keep the viewer on the edge of their seats, using some breathtaking imagery and the amazing feat (these days) of no dialogue. Produced and filmed in a country which has no real support or backing for this kind of film, Savage has to be congratulated for such a fine job. Here's hoping he moves from strength to strength, and can bring further fine tales like this to the screen soon.
A disturbing operatic headmasher
martinjohnston3924 August 2018
A film with hardly any dialogue, beautifully filmed tale of revenge on greedy land owners with supernatural elements. A unique vision that hits your senses, it will stay with you long after ,and a repeat view will let you see the evil of the minds of unscrupulous greedy bastards and what happens when you push someone too far, Hard find but well worth the search for it.
Stunningly original, no-dialogue feature
fertilecelluloid12 August 2004
This "silent" feature (there is an amazing soundtrack, but there is not one word of dialogue) from director Savage (who also co-produced, wrote, photographed and edited) is a huge surprise and clearly his most personal, uncompromising work.
Though it's a revenge yarn, there's not a single other movie I can compare it to.
It's beautifully photographed (by Savage himself) and walks a very delicate line between art-house, exploitation and humanistic drama. The combination, which shouldn't work on paper, works beautifully here because of the director's sheer forcefulness of vision.
Susanne Hauscchmid is The Woman, a mother and environmental campaigner whose life is destroyed by the brutal actions of property developers. Her performance, virtually mute, is certainly one of the year's best and it's interesting to know that Hausschmid also produced the film with Savage and a tiny crew.
Child actor Bethany Fisher also delivers a superb performance as a young girl who befriends the battered Woman in a portion of the film that feels unlike anything the director has attempted before. It must be said that the director's obsession with the ocean, cemeteries and broken dolls is amped right up in this confronting but highly satisfying fantasy. Also amped up is the director's take-no-prisoners approach to the staging of grotesque but cinematic ally justified sexual violence. Additionally, one scene of self-mutilation involving breast slicing will be quite beyond the pale for most viewers.
The film won Best Film, Best Cinematography and Best Actress at the recent Melbourne Underground Film Festival. It's a remarkable achievement for sustaining its dialogue-free structure over ninety-eight minutes and re-inventing a long-lost cinematic tradition.
But be warned: Its staggering beauty is contrasted with equally staggering brutality and horror.
Savage's best so far.
Though it's a revenge yarn, there's not a single other movie I can compare it to.
It's beautifully photographed (by Savage himself) and walks a very delicate line between art-house, exploitation and humanistic drama. The combination, which shouldn't work on paper, works beautifully here because of the director's sheer forcefulness of vision.
Susanne Hauscchmid is The Woman, a mother and environmental campaigner whose life is destroyed by the brutal actions of property developers. Her performance, virtually mute, is certainly one of the year's best and it's interesting to know that Hausschmid also produced the film with Savage and a tiny crew.
Child actor Bethany Fisher also delivers a superb performance as a young girl who befriends the battered Woman in a portion of the film that feels unlike anything the director has attempted before. It must be said that the director's obsession with the ocean, cemeteries and broken dolls is amped right up in this confronting but highly satisfying fantasy. Also amped up is the director's take-no-prisoners approach to the staging of grotesque but cinematic ally justified sexual violence. Additionally, one scene of self-mutilation involving breast slicing will be quite beyond the pale for most viewers.
The film won Best Film, Best Cinematography and Best Actress at the recent Melbourne Underground Film Festival. It's a remarkable achievement for sustaining its dialogue-free structure over ninety-eight minutes and re-inventing a long-lost cinematic tradition.
But be warned: Its staggering beauty is contrasted with equally staggering brutality and horror.
Savage's best so far.
Brutal,disturbing and wonderfully audacious film.
HumanoidOfFlesh3 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
A woman(Susanne Hausschmid)refuses to sell the property at any price to the land developers.Her ex-business partners turn her lifo into pure hell.Her husband is beaten to death,her lesbian lover is raped and murdered,her son is also killed and she herself suffers a brutal rape/murder at the hands of her tormentors,before she is resurrected and exacts her bloody revenge in the tradition of "I Spit on Your Grave"."Defenceless" is a brutal and evil film.There is truly sickening knife rape scene that may certainly upset some unprepared viewers.Also the rapist is castrated and has the genitals stuffed in its mouth in graphic detail.Susanne Hausschmid's performance is stunning and the cinematography by Mark Savage is beautiful.So if you are a fan of transgressive horror you can't miss this brutal assault on the viewer's senses.My highest recommendation.
Love it
Timchizmarproductions23 June 2022
Reminds me of the origins of "story"
mrarden13 August 2004
Have you ever wondered how a magician pulls off a trick?
If you watch "Defenceless", then expect to marvel in similar fashion, but do not expect any answers. Mr Savage has finally pulled a rabbit from his hat that has many of us scratching our heads. How did he do it? How on earth did the man manage to sustain interest for 98 minutes with no dialogue? Because Mr Savage has finally delivered a work which leaves us in no doubt as to the importance of story -- and what can be achieved in we concentrate on "the story". The story. And, still again, "The Story".
"Defenceless" reminds me of the origins of "story". When a tale was told with grunts by pre-historic men in caves. Stick figures on walls. No special effects, no adr, no computers. Just story.
How did he do it? By telling us a tale the old fashioned way. Not unlike the kind Hal Ashby and Bob Rafaelson used to tell in the sixties and seventies, but even they used some dialogue. Mr Savage does not use any. I love dialogue. Always have. Always will. I plot David Mamet like a nautical dove plots the course pf ancient mariners in times gone by. But, with "Defenceless", I did not need it.
The story was all.
How did he do it? Ask not. Any more than you would ask why pasta never tastes the same away from home as it does when you make it yourself. And, like a master chef, Mr Savage has finally delivered his piece de resistance: a meal fit for kings.
The wonderful thing is, that I suspect "Defenceless" is the "appetiser". The main course is yet to come. I am hungry for more, and in truth, cannot wait.
If you watch "Defenceless", then expect to marvel in similar fashion, but do not expect any answers. Mr Savage has finally pulled a rabbit from his hat that has many of us scratching our heads. How did he do it? How on earth did the man manage to sustain interest for 98 minutes with no dialogue? Because Mr Savage has finally delivered a work which leaves us in no doubt as to the importance of story -- and what can be achieved in we concentrate on "the story". The story. And, still again, "The Story".
"Defenceless" reminds me of the origins of "story". When a tale was told with grunts by pre-historic men in caves. Stick figures on walls. No special effects, no adr, no computers. Just story.
How did he do it? By telling us a tale the old fashioned way. Not unlike the kind Hal Ashby and Bob Rafaelson used to tell in the sixties and seventies, but even they used some dialogue. Mr Savage does not use any. I love dialogue. Always have. Always will. I plot David Mamet like a nautical dove plots the course pf ancient mariners in times gone by. But, with "Defenceless", I did not need it.
The story was all.
How did he do it? Ask not. Any more than you would ask why pasta never tastes the same away from home as it does when you make it yourself. And, like a master chef, Mr Savage has finally delivered his piece de resistance: a meal fit for kings.
The wonderful thing is, that I suspect "Defenceless" is the "appetiser". The main course is yet to come. I am hungry for more, and in truth, cannot wait.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
