Change Your Image
FunkyDan
Reviews
Cannibal (2006)
Like 'Pink Flamingos', this is less like a film, and more like an experience
The first thing I noticed is how beautifully shot this film is. Seriously, it looks excellent(to quote Alex Delarge, "like it was done up in Hollywood"), and I'm surprised that an independent film of this nature could achieve that. It's also the only film distributed by Unearthed Films that doesn't clearly look like a set(such as the Guinea Pig movies, which were clearly shot on sets). I was also quite surprised how much it was able to accomplish without the use of dialog throughout the first half-hour, and the beautifully artistic, haunting, and minimalistic score throughout. I'm sorry, I'm just having trouble getting over how aesthetically pleasing this film is. The cinematography should've won some awards, and I bet if it was about an orphan trying to cope with life, it would've.
Anyway, when the talking started, I was shocked to hear how feminine Armin's voice was, but that soon came to pass. Something I found quite interesting about the second act was how it depicted The Flesh as the one in control, as opposed to Armin. The eerie role reversal of power worked on many psychological levels, and actually gave off a more disturbing air than the infamous gore did, especially when Armin was gutting his carcass. To think that the slab of ribs that Armin toys with was once the dominate one in their brief relationship really gave me something to think about.
Now, you're probably wondering how I felt about the gore. Well, I found the effects to be top notch, and was quite surprised to find that absolutely nothing was left to the imagination. However, the weirdest thing is: none of the bloodshed I saw really got under my skin. Not even the castration(which I blame on the fact that I've seen the rare mondo flick, The Last Savage, which has a penile castration that would give the Pain Olympics a run for its money). Also, I thought that the emphasis on gore made the third act drag quite a bit. Do we really need to spend 20 minutes on seeing a guy's carcass get cut up? This part felt less like a gripping gore film, and more like a how-to video on how to gut corpses. But like I said, some of it does actually add a layer of uneasiness when put in context with the film's prior events. Still, they should've spent a little less time on this.
All in all, this is a hard film to rate, as it's less like a film, and more like an experience. Do I recommend it? Only to those with strong stomachs, and/or those curious about the Armin Meiwes case. It's a well-made film, and is rewarding in its own special way, but I can see 95% of viewers turning this off the moment The Flesh's penis starts to bleed.
À l'intérieur (2007)
A decent if overrated gore film
I blind-bought a copy of this for $10, and I must say, I fail to see why people find this so amazing. Sure, it's got excellent gore that made me cringe quite a bit, which is rare, but that's all it really is: A decent 83-minute gore film. Don't get me wrong, I love a good gore film, but when people are going around parading it as the greatest thing since the classic 1930s horror flicks(this has never been directly said, but the love is similar), I get somewhat uncomfortable. While the technical aspects are in every way amazing and made the film well worth my $10, I just felt like I was watching solely the third act of a much better, longer movie. There's no character development, no build-up to the crash at the beginning, no reason to care about Sarah, aside from knowing how horrible pain is. During the first 10 minutes of the film, all I could think was, "Boo-f@cking-who, your boyfriend died. It's been 4 months, get the hell over it. There are people worse off than you who recover sooner". If they had devoted even 10 extra minutes to establishing Sarah's character prior to the car crash, this film could've been so much better. Still, I have to give the film credit for the build-up, the amazing gore, and the atmosphere, and for those reasons it gets a 7/10.
Contamination (1980)
A good film seriously hindered by a horrible lead actress.
I must say, I'm somewhat irritated by this film. Now, my expectations weren't too high when I rented it, but I'll explain what happened. When I started watching the film, I noticed how clean and pristine the transfer of the film was. Blue Underground really made the film sparkle. At first I felt that the film was slightly boring and filled with a little mundane dialog. However, when the first eggs are seen, I fell in love with it. This film has the best special effects I've ever seen in a film of this nature, especially the alien cyclops at the end, which is one of the coolest aliens I've ever seen in any film, ever. The special effects technicians really knew what they were doing, and I'll probably end up looking up other films they've worked on.
People often refer to this film as an Alien rip-off, but I disagree. Unlike Alien, the eggs don't house anything. THEY are the danger, with a single alien which hypnotizes people into doing its bidding. Furthermore, this film takes place in New York, and has a totally different array of characters. All in all, it's my opinion that people who claim it's a rip-off are just trying to find something to dislike about the film.
On top of all this, there are fairly solid performances on MOST fronts. Unfortunately, the lead actress was the second worst actress I've ever seen(the first being the whole cast of Epic Movie, which I count as one person). To say that she's an actress who couldn't act her way out of a paper bag is an insult to that particular breed. With the exception of the scene where she's trapped in the bathroom with an egg, she NEVER, EVER emotes. Her two facial expressions are looking happy(at the most inappropriate times, too), and a dopey, trance-like stare, which is especially prevalent during the scenes in which she's supposed to be infuriated. This angered me so much I kept wishing she'd die, and for the first time in my life, I yelled at my T.V. in GENUINE ANGER. She nearly ruined the film for me. I would've thought much higher of the film if the casting director chose ANYONE else to play her part. She nearly ruined the film for me.
Overall, I give the film a 6.5/10, though I would've given it an 8-10/10 if not for the lead actress.
Cannibal Holocaust (1980)
Somewhat disappointing, but good none the less
First and foremost, because it's going to be talked about, whether I want it to or not, the animal killings. It's not that I have a problem with this, but I feel too big of a deal were made about them. I'd have to say, the animal killings seemed to take up about three minutes in all, most of which goes to the turtle scene. I'm not complaining, but people should just shut up about them, especially when the likes of Cannibal Ferox and Mountian of the Cannibal God have worse. Anyway...
After three years of waiting, with great anticipation, to see what I believed to be the potential Holy Grail of horror films, I finally got around to watching this. And I must say, I'm somewhat disappointed, which pains me to say in ways you couldn't imagine.
First off, while I knew beforehand that this wouldn't be incredibly gory, I most certainly expected much more gore and cannibalism. That is my favorite aspect of cannibal films: The gore. Now, while many say this is made up by how disturbing it is, I feel it fell just short of the mark here too, partly due to the aforementioned aspect. Which subject matter like this, it's necessary in my eyes to go a little further. Furthermore, if the film crew wanted to be gruesome and sensational, then they should'nt gotten a cameraman who likes to furiously masturbate while filming stuff(it's the only explanation I can come up with regarding the poor camera work of earlier bits of footage). I also feel like the film wallowed in its message a little too much. And lastly, the film put a bit too much emphasis on those rape scenes.
As for good things: The score. Riz Ortolani is my favorite film composer, and I make a point to see the films he worked on(big mondo fan here, by the way). I've loved it ever since I first heard it, and it's even better when watching the film.
The acting. The people who play Alan, Monroe, Faye, and Jack are all quite excellent(everyone else has too small of a part to mention). Alan Yates is perhaps the best movie villain ever put on screen, and it shows. Faye comes off as rather natural too.
Special effects. Though, as I stated before, there isn't that much gore here, what gore there is is incredibly realistic. These make the final moments(my favorite part of the film) so great. The use of real pig organs was ingenious, and the leg amputation was one of the best partial dismemberment scenes I've ever seen. While on the subject of harrowing parts of the film, I also really dug the hut burning sequence. Now THAT was disturbing. If there was more of that sort of thing, this film would've been great.
All in all, it gets a 6/10.
Dolce e selvaggio (1983)
Not as good as "Savage Man, Savage Beast" or "This Violent World", but still good
I remember picking up the "Grindhouse Experience" movie pack, and popping in the first film of the notorious "Savage" trilogy, "Savage Man, Savage Beast". If you read my review for that film, it can easily be said that I had to see more. I ended up ordering "This Violent World" online, and it too was excellent. I soon felt the need to watch the final film, and come full circle. Having finally seen it, these are my thoughts.
The film opens with shots of penguins nestled together, with an excellent score accompanying it. We are then introduced to Mike Gunn, shooting at land mines to prevent local wildlife from stepping on them. This man appears throughout the film, and is by far the best part of it. To show contrast, we are shown antelopes being blown apart by said mines. After this, we are introduced to some dolphins and their trainers. Once again, this is juxtapositioned with the image of Japanese fishermen killing dolphins. This is a truly disturbing bit. Contrasts of this nature are displayed for about twenty minutes, then there are brief segments on human murder and dismemberment. A man gets his arm ripped off by a truck, dead bodies are fed to vultures, and a stuntman falls to his death.
The second half of the film focuses on more pleasant matters: Mike Gunn is shown playing with cheetahs, a quadriplegic is helped out by a trained monkey, dancing rituals are shown, and a few bits and pieces from "Savage Man, Savage Beast", and "This Violent World" are shown, with different narrations than previously.
Both parts of the film have some truly disturbing footage, as well as some truly heart-touching scenes. That being said, I do have a few complaints: Picture quality: Looks like ass. But this is thanks to the fact that this is only available in bootleg form, to my understanding. The filmmakers are not at fault.
The fact that the film feels like it's been split into two halves actually injures it somewhat. The film is supposed to show a contrast between the sweet and the savage, which while accomplished to a degree here, would've worked much better if they spread out the violent footage, as there would be more and better contrasts. Instead, the first half is all: "Look over there, someone's dying" and the second half is all: "Look over there, people are having fun" without proper contrast.
All in all, while it doesn't hold a candle to the films that preceded it, it still manages to be a solid entry into the mondo genre, and makes a good conclusion to the "Savage" trilogy.
Izo (2004)
A disappointing film from an otherwise great director
Having watched "Fudoh: The New Generation" just days before I saw this, and getting blown away by it, I came into this film with moderate expectations. Not just because I thought "Fudoh" was awesome, but because I'm a fan of the director's work, and "Fudoh" showed that some of his more underrated work was excellent.
"Izo" tells the story of a samurai crucified for being an inhuman and bloodthirsty man, who wanders in modern times, getting revenge for everything he suffered through. I must say, I found myself throughly disappointed. It started off pretty good, but eventually became too weird, even for me. It was too linear to be abstract, and too abstract to be linear. Also, because the main character is a spirit, and therefore already dead, there is no tension because no matter how much damage the protagonist takes, he just gets back up. On top of this, the films constantly cuts to some guy playing the guitar, for up to five minutes. I suppose the songs he plays may have some deep meaning in them, but they were lost on me.
However, there were two things I liked about this film: 1. The main character looks like a Japanese Rambo, and pretty much acts like one too. 2. There was some decent gore in a few places, and some awesome fight scenes.
Unfortunately, these two things are not enough to save the film. 2/5 stars.
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (1936)
Old telling of Sweeney Todd has it's ups and downs.
Now, before I begin my review, I just want to say that I refuse to compare this to the 2007 version. They are completely different animals. In fact, most versions of the Sweeney Todd story aren't musicals. That being said, I saw this the other day and quite enjoyed it. I was expecting throat slitting considering the subject matter, but was surprised to see that Sweeney merely uses a trap door/chair combination. Now, the story itself is quite simple: Sweeney Todd is a barber who murders his customers for their money, and the woman who works next door to him, Mrs. Lovett, bakes the bodies into meat pies. Sweeney's just got a new apprentice, an orphan by the name of Tobais, who starts to wonder why every time Sweeney has a customer, he asks him to go downstairs for a meat pie. On top of this, Mrs. Lovett starts to realize that Sweeney's been taking all of their victims money before she arrives, leaving her without her deserved profit.
While an enjoyable and sinister movie, this film suffered from one huge problem: Horrific sound quality. There was a horrible static every time someone spoke, making some of the plot and dialog hard to understand. As such, I couldn't really keep up with the subplot about Johanna and Antony. I probably would've rated this higher if not for this flaw. Overall, this is worth a rent, or a buy if you can find it for under $10.
Chôjin densetsu Urotsukidôji (1989)
A bizarre mix of violence and hentai
NOTE: This is a review for the NC-17 version
Before, I begin, I'd like to state that what despite others say, the plot of this version was easy to understand, despite being heavily cut.
Now, this is a hard film to rate. To a degree, I was a bit embarrassed while watching it(probably because I invited a friend over to see it this Friday, promising that it'd be a platter of gore and violence), due to the fact that beneath the plot, even in it's NC-17 form that removes most of the sex, it's a hentai. As such, I'll be splitting this review into three categories, "The Good", "The Bad" and "The Ugly".
The Good: 1. This film has one of the nicest DVDs I've ever seen. By this, I mean that I love the art on the physical DVD disk. 2. One of the most badass final 20 minutes I've ever seen in a film, with an awesome apocalyptic battle. 3. A smorgasboard of shocking scenes. To my surprise, the "woman getting raped 'till she explodes" bit was still in there, intact. Numerous disembowelment's, dismemberments, and other forms of violence make this film a must for violent anime fans. 4. Awesome villains, and a cool main character, who's unfortunately flawed due to the English dubbing.
The bad: 1. As stated before, this is a hentai, strictly speaking. It contains numerous sex scenes, even after 48 minutes worth of sex was cut out! This was also the film that started the "Tentacle rape" craze. While watching these scenes, I felt like a 40 year-old virgin living in his mother's basement. However, some of these scenes are necessary to the plot, I will give them that. 2. Horrific English dubbing. There are no subtitles on the NC-17 version, though the uncut version has them, so this flaw, and the following, only apply to the NC-17 version, not the uncut one. 3. There were times when the acting was just HORRIBLE. During some serious scenes, I got the giggles because of this. 4. There were some very cheesy lines, many of which detracted from the experience. These lines made me more uncomfortable than the sex. The first 20 minutes came off as quite cheesy too.
The ugly: Giant dicks with explosive jizz. I mean this literally. The Overfiend has several dozen large dick tentacles, all of which are bigger than the Washington monument in terms of length. And by explosive, I do in fact mean fiery explosions that cause death and destruction. In one scene, the Overfiend jizzes over various locations in a city, causing buildings to explode and people to die.
All in all, I'd give it a 3.5 out of 5.
I Am Legend (2007)
Not as good as "Last Man On Earth" or "The Omega Man", but still pretty good
"I Am Legend" was decent, but lacked the heart that made the previous efforts, "The Last Man On Earth" and "The Omega Man" so excellent. Will Smith was pretty good, and giving him a dog companion was a good move, but he just didn't seem to fit the role. Also, despite being a Christan, I found Anna's "God told me that there were people in the mountains" speech to be one of the dumbest things ever put in film. It slightly irritated me that the monsters couldn't talk and were CGI as well, but didn't really detract from the experience. The mannequins were a good touch though, and the bit where Neville had to strangle his dog was the second most depressing scene in the "I Am Legend" film adaptions, second to the ending of "The Last Man On Earth". 7/10.
Ultime grida dalla savana (1975)
My favorite mondo thus far
First off, I'd like to say that I DID NOT watch the uncut version, but rather the Australian version, that's cut by 77 seconds*, and comes with the "Grindhouse Experience" DVD pack. Even though the version I saw was cut, this is still a very violent/bizarre film, that's not for the faint of heart. However, it is also incredibly interesting, makes very interesting and true points about animal/human and predator/prey relationships, such as how man wishes to be loved by animals, yet hunts them, and how even though people protest the slaughter of certain animals, many more cows/chickens/pigs are killed for their food. Lastly, it talks about in one scene about how the new laws of the world punish those who follow the older, more primitive ones. Onto the violent/bizarre bits. There are countless animals killed in this movie, including a snake vs. monkey scene that's quite similar to the one in "Mountian of the Cannibal God". We also see cheetahs killing ostriches, bears eating fish alive(In another very fascinating scene, commenting on nature documentaries), elephants getting speared, and many other things. Of course, who could forget about the human/human violence, as well as the infamous "Lion mauls a man in front of his family" scene. Well, let me just tell you, the lion attack footage is some of the most harrowing footage I've ever seen, yet at the same time, is fascinating. It ends with the narrator asking the question "Why did Pit Durmitz leave his car?" and then gives possible explanations. Among human/human violence, there's not much. There the aftermath of cannibalism, showing the corpses and the weapons used to cut open the bodies. Also, several indios get shot(In a staged scene). You've probably heard about an infamous castration/scalping scene. Well, that bit is cut out of the print I saw, unfortunately. The rituals are also quite bizarre. First, men dig holes into the ground, and proceed to make love to mother Earth. There's also the talked about "hippie breast-feeding a goat" bit. While that may sound sick on paper, its really not that bad, and there's a much worse scene like it in Mondo Cane. Lastly, there's the bit where African tribes encase their penis' into small cylinders, and pour the semen into the river. This scene may make male viewers(such as myself) very uncomfortable, as there are graphic close-ups of the tribes penises, jiggling up and down in slow-motion.
Anyways, I recommend this film not just to mondo/exploit fans, but also to fans of nature documentaries.
*In case you're wondering, here's what's cut from my version(which is also the most common): 1. The bit where a fox is torn to pieces by dogs is cut out. You just see the hunter throw it to them. 2. The lion mauling scene is trimmed, but not entirely removed. It gets rid of some of the more graphic bitings, and removes a few close-ups of the body. The uncut sequence is on Youtube, for anyone interested. 3. As mentioned before, the castration/scalping is cut out. You just see the events leading up to it.