I got the DVD of Grapes Of Death for free with a magazine and still managed to feel ripped off after enduring its painful 85 minutes. I am no zombie film enthusiast by any means and I had never before seen any of Jean Rollin's work but I went into this expecting to be at least entertained by a dumb fun gore flick in the vein of Zombie Flesh Eaters. Instead I was treated to a poor attempt at an art-house film. You may say my expectations were what let me down and that 'Grapes' has more going for it than I was prepared for. If that's the case then may I be stricken by lightening this very day, because what I saw was not only a complete and utter failure in every aspect but also one of the worst films I have seen in my life.
The plot, for what its worth, revolves around a young woman who, after surviving an attack from a diseased man aboard a deserted train, finds herself lost in the French countryside. She stumbles across a farmhouse and encounters more diseased people and the film progresses in the usual manner until the big showdown at the end. It's worth mentioning at this point that although the film bills itself as a zombie film it's really not. The infected have been poisoned by the grapes which grow locally and are more 'insane yet aware' killers than 'roaming braindead' flesh eaters.
There's no need to say anymore about the plot as with this type of film you know what you're getting yourself in for and to reveal anymore would only to be explaining scene by scene what takes place.
These type of films really rely on either being funny or just damn scary to keep us interested. 'Grapes' spectacularly fails at both, although I concede it was only aiming for the latter. Atmosphere? None to be found here, as Rollin's idea of conjuring up any kind of mood is to have repeated far away shots of our girl (yes, I've already forgotten the "characters" name and I can't be bothered with finding it out) walking through the hills, then, when she gets close, stick the camera another 100 metres away and let her get close again. As I mentioned before, Rollin's seems to be trying to make an arty film here but it really doesn't work and he should have just gone all out and made it a ridiculous gore fest. The gore that is here? I'll admit at times the weeping facial sores were pretty sickening but for the most part it looks fake. Budget constraints you might say? Work to your budget, I say. Romero's Night Of The Living Dead barely has any gore (for a zombie flick) and is an absolute classic. Gore isn't needed, and if your budget can't afford you good effects then don't bother. Try and tell a decent story instead. Oh dear, I just contradicted myself. What do I want Rollin to do? Make a gore fest or a story driven film? Maybe even combine the two? Hmmm, I suppose that he should have just donated the money to charity and done us all a favour. The music is typical synthesiser rubbish that you forgive when a film is good but when the film is bad it just makes you want to burst you own ear drums. I was reaching for a knitting needle...
The acting is bad, although that is no real surprise given the genre and budget. When the script is good and you are engaged this is the kind of thing that won't bother you too much but obviously that is not the case here and if there's one thing worse than bad acting it's bad acting in a foreign language. When you can't understand them and still know that they're terrible then it's not a good sign. Horror films tend to have more than their fair share of annoying characters, those dumbasses who are just begging to be butchered, but the main girl in this is so dense that she makes the average slasher movie chick look like Stephen Hawkins. As for the blind girl character, if I ever hear the name 'Jaques' again I think I will turn more insane than the infected in this film. She stumbles aimlessly around saying it for at least 15 minutes of this films over drawn length.
And over drawn is what this review is becoming. I could rant about this dog turd of a film for hours but it won't make a bit of difference and I feel I have already wasted far too much of my life on it. Suffice to say I cannot recommend this to anyone except... actually I cannot recommend it to anyone. Judging by the other reviews on this site I seem to be in the minority but as far as I'm concerned this is one of the most boring films ever made.
The plot, for what its worth, revolves around a young woman who, after surviving an attack from a diseased man aboard a deserted train, finds herself lost in the French countryside. She stumbles across a farmhouse and encounters more diseased people and the film progresses in the usual manner until the big showdown at the end. It's worth mentioning at this point that although the film bills itself as a zombie film it's really not. The infected have been poisoned by the grapes which grow locally and are more 'insane yet aware' killers than 'roaming braindead' flesh eaters.
There's no need to say anymore about the plot as with this type of film you know what you're getting yourself in for and to reveal anymore would only to be explaining scene by scene what takes place.
These type of films really rely on either being funny or just damn scary to keep us interested. 'Grapes' spectacularly fails at both, although I concede it was only aiming for the latter. Atmosphere? None to be found here, as Rollin's idea of conjuring up any kind of mood is to have repeated far away shots of our girl (yes, I've already forgotten the "characters" name and I can't be bothered with finding it out) walking through the hills, then, when she gets close, stick the camera another 100 metres away and let her get close again. As I mentioned before, Rollin's seems to be trying to make an arty film here but it really doesn't work and he should have just gone all out and made it a ridiculous gore fest. The gore that is here? I'll admit at times the weeping facial sores were pretty sickening but for the most part it looks fake. Budget constraints you might say? Work to your budget, I say. Romero's Night Of The Living Dead barely has any gore (for a zombie flick) and is an absolute classic. Gore isn't needed, and if your budget can't afford you good effects then don't bother. Try and tell a decent story instead. Oh dear, I just contradicted myself. What do I want Rollin to do? Make a gore fest or a story driven film? Maybe even combine the two? Hmmm, I suppose that he should have just donated the money to charity and done us all a favour. The music is typical synthesiser rubbish that you forgive when a film is good but when the film is bad it just makes you want to burst you own ear drums. I was reaching for a knitting needle...
The acting is bad, although that is no real surprise given the genre and budget. When the script is good and you are engaged this is the kind of thing that won't bother you too much but obviously that is not the case here and if there's one thing worse than bad acting it's bad acting in a foreign language. When you can't understand them and still know that they're terrible then it's not a good sign. Horror films tend to have more than their fair share of annoying characters, those dumbasses who are just begging to be butchered, but the main girl in this is so dense that she makes the average slasher movie chick look like Stephen Hawkins. As for the blind girl character, if I ever hear the name 'Jaques' again I think I will turn more insane than the infected in this film. She stumbles aimlessly around saying it for at least 15 minutes of this films over drawn length.
And over drawn is what this review is becoming. I could rant about this dog turd of a film for hours but it won't make a bit of difference and I feel I have already wasted far too much of my life on it. Suffice to say I cannot recommend this to anyone except... actually I cannot recommend it to anyone. Judging by the other reviews on this site I seem to be in the minority but as far as I'm concerned this is one of the most boring films ever made.