Reviews

Yeah, what a great representation of the spectrum of love this film was... if your idea of "love" only applies to rich, middle class, heterosexual bumbling stereotypes of Britishness. Toss in a side-salad of nationalism and a few co-opted "minority" characters to attempt to redress the predominantly white balance, and you've got a picture of England that Michael Portillo would be proud of.

This film offended me. But what offended me the most was that all the other people in the cinema seemed to merrily buy this nonsense as being a shining example of an existence to aspire to. Hate it hate it hate it!

In theory, the Nazi-sex cycle of exploitation cinema should be an absolute winner. Not only are all these films based on spectacularly non-PC and offensive plot premises, but by their very nature they give plenty of opportunity for the film-makers to work in scene after scene of gore, nudity, sex, and combinations of the three. Of course, as any seasoned Euro-exploitation fan knows, it is very rare that ANY so-called "video nasty" lives up to the promise of its garish title and plot outline, and in practice, there is nothing that displays this more succinctly than this genre. The Nazi-sex films are ineptly made, dull, boring, and not nearly as offensive as they should be.

Saying that though, THE BEAST IN HEAT does at least enough to raise itself above other dross such as SS EXPERIMENT CAMP. Badly made and boring it might be, but the comedy of the caged "beast" is enough to keep you watching (even though its appearances are few and far between). The nastiest gore surfaces at the very end, and although it's all quite unpleasant in theory (particularly the moment where the "beast" tears chunks out of an unfortunate victim's mons pubis and gobbles them up), the absolutely dire standard of special effects leaves this whole affair more in the niche of BLOODSUCKING FREAKS than MEN BEHIND THE SUN...

Not really worth bothering with unless you are an enthusiast of this sort of thing. "Fans" of this particularly surreal thread of exploitation would be well advised to dabble in the seedy climes of the closely-related "Women In Prison" cycle, because the best of that genre beats this type of gubbins hands down.

SWEET AND SAVAGE represents Climati and Morra's final attempt at Mondo cinema. Having been seriously stung by previous criticisms of their film-making and of the genre itself in the past, it's surprising to see that once again they happily exhibit scene after scene of almost unwatchable nastiness.

SWEET AND SAVAGE contains a large bulk of out-takes and reused footage from Climati and Morra's previous mid-70s Mondo efforts, and predictably follows the same format. Accompanied by a pretentiously epic sound-track, the beauty and the savageness of nature are juxtaposed in a vain attempt to justify the violence on display. However, the more pleasant scenes just come across as twee and make the disturbing footage even more distasteful. As usual, scenes of animal slaughter make up the majority of the movie, but there are also a few faked and unfaked sequences involving humans. Tightrope walkers and stunt-men fall to their deaths; a corpse of a Tibetan monk is hacked up and eaten by vultures atop a mountain (surprisingly, this footage looks genuine); and in the "stand out" scene, a man is tied to two trucks and has his arm torn away. The final scene is clearly fake but that didn't stop it (as well as much of the other footage in this movie) turning up in Damon Fox's appalling TRACES OF DEATH series...

For me, the aspect of the Mondo genre that is so fascinating yet also indefensible is the misrepresentation and misinformation that these supposed "documentaries" push on the viewer. SWEET AND SAVAGE is no exception. For instance, many of the scenes have been clearly over-dubbed using actors voices in hilariously un-PC ways. In one scene, Africans are shown snapping the necks of ostriches, but these men have been over-dubbed with ebonics-laden, deep South accents. I can't help but laugh at such moments, but it is one of the aspects of these movies that is the most distasteful.

So all in all, this is the close of a fascinating and controversial chapter in Italian exploitation cinema. Saying that, I doubt it is for everyone.

At the end of the 70s, Ruggero Deodato was rapidly becoming one of the most dynamic and controversial horror directors in Italy. However, with two of his most spectacular efforts (CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST and HOUSE BY THE EDGE OF THE PARK) widely criticised and persecuted for their violent content, he found himself in a limbo where producers were simply not prepared to tarnish the reputation of their films by hiring him. Sadly, this reduced the majority of his subsequent work to a level of utter pap, ranging from a "kid dying of cancer" tear-jerker to a ridiculous CONAN THE BARBARIAN rip-off starring a pair of identical twin body-builders.

Saying this, it's strange to find CUT AND RUN amongst these films. This little seen (at least in its uncut form) violent adventure can be viewed as Deodato's final trip to the jungle, completing the "trilogy" began by ULTIMO MONDO CANNIBALE and CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. Originally slated to be directed by Wes Craven, Deodato was drafted in at the last moment, and managed to piece together a tight and exciting action movie containing plenty of stand-out scenes of carnage. Whilst the "cannibal" theme isn't really present here, there are numerous links to the genre, from the "Jim Jones" story-line a la Umberto Lenzi's infamous genre efforts, to Deodato's cinematography and handling of the travelogue aspect of the movie. There is also a (relatively) high-budget shine to the film, reflected by the semi-quality cast on display.

However, after his previous problems, Deodato wasn't to be stung again. He produced two different versions of the film, one far more graphic than the other. To my knowledge the unabridged "shock version" has only been officially released in Asia and Japan, but is definitely the one worth seeking out.

Despite the fact this is a fun and watchable film, it doesn't really have the fingerprints and style of Deodato's earlier work. It seems that the genuine creative spirit of this man was crushed by censorship and the widespread criticism he was, and still is, a victim to. Still worth a look though, just for those moments where the "real Deodato" grins through.

Antonio Climati is a man who will be remembered for one thing and one thing only: spectacularly contentious mondo films. During the 70s and early 80s, Climati produced a handful of some of the most unpleasant movies ever committed to celluloid, all in the name of "documentary". It was his 1976 film THIS VIOLENT WORLD that directly inspired some of the scenes in Deodato's exploitation classic CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, a film which dealt a critical blow to the mondo genre. With the similarities between mondo and the violent jungle travelogue approach of the classic cannibal movie, it seems only fitting that Climati would finally try his hand at it too. Ironically, his film has clearly been strongly influenced by CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, right down to the title...

Cannibal movie fans will immediately recognise the plot devices used in THE GREEN INFERNO from Deodato and Lenzi's past frolics in the jungle. However, it had one main difference- it was made ten years after the "golden era" of the genre. This is greatly reflected in the violence of the movie, which is enormously toned down. Whilst the "westerners captured by natives" plot remains perfectly in line with the most generic cannibal movie, there is no actual cannibalism in the picture and gore is kept to an absolute minimum. Similar to Deodato's CUT AND RUN, THE GREEN INFERNO treads the boards of a cannibal pictures whilst carefully avoiding cannibalism.

This isn't the only cannibal convention that has been sacrificed here. One of the most controversial aspects of the genre is the depiction of cruelty against and the killing of animals. Amazingly in THE GREEN INFERNO, these are replaced with scenes of COMPASSION towards animals! In one scene, a monkey is revived by the exploring party... and in total shades of CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, at another point, a turtle is pulled out of a water tank, only to be replaced unharmed.

One has to wonder what Climati's intentions were. The awkward "anti-animal cruelty" stance that the movie seems to adopt would be easier to appreciate if one hadn't seen Climati's previous work. Movies such as SAVAGE MAN... SAVAGE BEAST positively reveled in horrifically drawn-out scenes of animal killing, so what could have changed in the meantime? In honesty, many of the animal scenes are still clearly cruel and putting the subjects under distress. This makes Climati's stance quite transparent. I honestly believe he was attempting to criticise the cannibal genre just as Deodato had damningly and directly criticised him in the past. This was also coupled with the chronological fact that audiences were simply less willing to watch animals being butchered with machetes by the time this flick was made.

As a movie, THE GREEN INFERNO is competently made yet somewhat forgettable. It has the same atmosphere as the earlier genre entries, but comes across as being rather watered down. The sound-track, photography and dialogue are all utterly perfunctory, and besides the animal issues mentioned already, a genre veteran can quite easily predict the entire plot after a few short minutes. However, in a way it is a fittingly odd end to an extremely strange genre of exploitation cinema- anaemic, bitter, and self-referentially critical.

This is nasty stuff. Surprisingly strong for a 1972 movie, Polselli's over-complex and contrived giallo happily depicts what other people would only dare hint to in a number of jaw-droppingly misogynistic scenes of sexual violence. In one remarkably unpleasant scene, a black gloved killer masturbates a female victim as he strangles her. I find it surprising that movies like NEW YORK RIPPER are so infamous when extreme stuff like this and GIALLO A VENEZIA exist. It's quite amazing that these films were made at all, let alone had a cinema release!

Focusing away from the violence, this is actually a pretty well made and tight giallo. Whilst a lot more sleazy than some of the classy entries into the genre, Polselli hits the viewer with some relatively innovative scenes and camera-work. The plot is hilariously winding- I won't give too much away, but fans of the more ridiculous giallos will not be disappointed. There is also a definite undercurrent of black humour, particularly in some of the scenes of violence. I think it is safe to say that the misogynistic humour will be left misunderstood by most.

Unfortunately, DELIRIUM fell victim to distributor re-cutting in a big way. The American version is hugely different to the original Italian release, losing a lot of violence, gaining some new footage, and asa result suffering quite marked changes to the plot itself! The different versions are really quite different, and I'd advise any giallo collector to check out both. By all accounts, the French print of the movie is the most complete "uncut" form. Definitely worth a look for fans of giallos and of good, honest cinematic scum.

One of the most interesting consequences of the brief period of "porno chic" in the early 70s was the resulting effect on the Italian exploitation industry. Never quick to miss an American cinematic "craze", a lot of film-makers found themselves curiously crossing genres and stuffing hardcore porn into other genres, as well as vice versa. The absolute master of this was the ubiquitous Joe D'Amato, and here he fuses porno with the zombie movie (which at the time was in the midst of enormous popularity in Italy).

THE EROTIC NIGHTS OF THE LIVING DEAD was shot back-to-back with the similar, but more sex-oriented, PORNO HOLOCAUST. In its full uncut form, the scenes of XXX are strangely innocent. There are a few explicit shots here and there, but no actual "penetration" (other than when one of the female characters hilariously opens a bottle of champagne with her genitalia!), plus many of the scenes seem to cut away at strange times. Whether this is due to an incomplete review print (a Midnight Video release, clearly made from two different prints spliced together) isn't clear. What is obvious is that as a sex movie, this fails horribly. Many of the "erotic" scenes also fall victim to Luigi Montefiori and Laura Gemser's obvious unwillingness to perform in hardcore sequences. Many of the sex scenes are made up of Montefiori watching a female character masturbate, before pretending to have sex with her- often without removing his trousers first!

The real benefit for Massacessi is that the sex allows him to pad out a horror movies that, in actuality, has only about 30 minutes of material. Almost all of the first hour revolves around sex, and the "horror" portion of the story really only kicks in after that. Massacessi was the first to admit that horror was not his forte (although after seeing this, it has to be said that porn clearly wasn't either!) and by structuring his film in this way, he can basically cover up his shortcomings whilst still producing a marketable zombie movie.

Still, as ever, this is strangely enjoyable. The final 30 minutes is actually quite atmospheric, and there is some nice gore in there. I hear that this movie is very difficult to get hold of in an uncut form (review print was in unsubtitled Italian), but as far as I can tell from my copy, it is certainly worth seeking out as the "cut" print looks absolutely anaemic in comparison...

Although mondo movies were first popularised in the 1960s, they quickly lost favour with audiences, partly through lack of material and partly because the genre reached a logical conclusion of "documentary" violence with AFRICA ADDIO in 1969. THIS VIOLENT WORLD was part of the resurgence of mondo cinema in Italy in the mid-to-late 1970s, which was spear-headed by the "rival" teams of Climati/Morra and the Castiglioni brothers. Both were intent on out-doing the other by showing increasingly graphic scenes of violence and sex, many of them faked but all of them amongst the most harrowing sequences ever committed to celluloid.

THIS VIOLENT WORLD is actually quite restrained compared with Climati and Morra's preceding mondo, SAVAGE MAN... SAVAGE BEAST. As usual, the majority of the footage is made up with animal killings of various types. We also get to see fakirs cutting off tongues/piercing themselves, tribal rites involving abortion, and other such "curiosities". The movie concludes with a seemingly real firing squad sequence.

Mondo cinema is certainly a weird concept and THIS VIOLENT WORLD maintains the genre standards admirably. Semi-racist commentary and exploitation/misrepresentation of other cultures aside, the photography is actually quite atmospheric and imaginative in places, and the De Angelis soundtrack is a good one. However, nothing can take away from the fact that this, as with most mondos, is inherently an incredibly boring movie. It is far more interesting as a strange example of the direction of the Italian exploitation film industry than as a film in its own right.

The most interesting aspect of this flick remains the obvious influence it had over Deodato's CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. HOLOCAUST was always intended to be a critique of the mondo school of film-making, but there are specific sequences here that are so close to Deodato's classic that it is obviously more than coincidence. The abortion sequence (where a woman is pushed out of a tree to induce miscarriage, and then a fetus is pulled from her and buried in the mud) clearly was an enormous inspiration to the similar scene in HOLOCAUST. In another scene, a group of native women bathe with a white man and fiddle around with his penis in curiosity- again, a scene that was included in Deodato's epic! It's interesting to see precisely where Deodato took inspiration for his critique, yet managed to work it into a narrative.

Great stuff. The Italian exploitation rip-off bandwagon didn't miss a beat on any genre, and here we have THE EXORCIST acting as the "inspiration" for a horror picture. Naturally, the sleaze is turned up enormously and the result is a truly entertaining piece of cinematic scuzz. I think the other reviewers have covered the majority of the fun stuff that goes on herein, but I'd just like to add that the movie is nicely put together and photographed, and the hilarious dialogue is sufficiently hammed up by the actors. Plus, it's great to see Arthur Kennedy in ANY movie!

My highlight of the film was when the "possessed" woman seduces a German exchange student- truly hilarious.

I personally found the oft-revered THE EXORCIST to be laughable and ludicrous. L'ANTICRISTO simply goes even further, and if you are equipped with an imagination and a sense of humour, I can think of a lot worse ways to spend an hour and a half.

Made only months after Fulci got the Italian rip-off zombie genre rolling with ZOMBIE FLESH-EATERS, this effort is obviously a rushed and cheap attempt at making a few lira. It fails miserably from a horror standpoint but as is the case with many of these films, it is ludicrous enough to keep the attention. I would stick my neck out here and say that this is THE most ridiculous and hilarious of all the Italian zombie films- and in a genre that also houses Mattei's HELL OF THE LIVING DEAD, that is a tough order.

From the credits, it is obvious where the (limited) budget has been allocated- to FX man De Rossi. Gone are any attempts to create an atmosphere or even have a story, and instead the focus is firmly put on the sanguine. Over the course of the film, the characters are picked off one by one in increasingly spectacular ways. Bianchi isn't afraid to present zombies playing shlinky with the large intestine, and guts take a bashing left right and centre. In shades of Umberto Lenzi's CITY OF THE WALKING DEAD, the re-animated corpses on display here are far more enterprising and problem-solving than Fulci or Romero's, frequently using tools and weapons. In one scene, a nurse is crucified over a window and then decapitated with a scythe! Another character, in a direct copy of a similar scene in ZOMBIE FLESH-EATERS, loses an eye when her face is mashed through a broken window.

What can there be said about a film so devoid of style and substance that it leaves virtually no impression whatsoever? It's interesting to see what the once thriving Italian cinema industry had been reduced to at this stage. The whole movie is no more than a vehicle for violence, and more specifically the violence of FX maestro De Rossi. There are no shocks nor scenes where tension is built- but even more strangely, none are really attempted either.

I can only assume that the locations were chosen for convenience rather than atmosphere. Strangely though, this almost works in the film's favour. It has to be said that there is a VERY ethereal and bizarre quality to some of the scenes. There is such a strange dislocation from reality, especially in sections that have been shot outside. Some of the images (for example, zombies attacking the house at night) are lent a far more interesting twist by the surroundings. It's at times like this that the film comes the closest to actually becoming atmospheric, but I suspect that it was more by accident than by intention!

If you are a fan of Euro-tosh and zombies, this is pretty much essential. No-budget sleaze-fests like this may not be atmospheric as horror films but for some reason there is a feeling about them that I truly love. Sleaze, soft-core sex and gore- what better way to spend an hour and a half?

As any horror fan with access to the Internet will know, cyber-space is positively crawling with Fulci fan-boys. Whilst I'm not denying that Fulci had his moments, he was a journeyman hack who stylistically only has something above the rest of his colleagues in that at least you can sometimes tell a film has been directed by him rather than by some generic no-brainer like Bruno Mattei. I love DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING and LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN, positively adore THE BEYOND, and have time for his other early-80s horror fests. But after that, he totally lost it. But proving in one fell swoop that someone can start believing their own hype, the post-1986 Fulci really started to think he was some kind of auteur. He began producing "ironic" and even self-deprecating horror films in an attempt to try and look clever. It seemed that after the censorship troubles and widespread criticism Fulci had received for his more controversial films (such as NEW YORK RIPPER), he turned to a level of near self-parody to deflect and mock his critics. Quite simply he had neither the ability in direction nor in script writing to pull this off and consequently produced a string of abysmal, hideous wastes of celluloid- TOUCH OF DEATH (1988), THE GHOST OF SODOM (1988) and DEMONIA (1990) being the main offenders.

NIGHTMARE CONCERT came after these films and serves a strange two-fold purpose. Firstly, it is the most oblique example of Fulci's inflated ego around this time. Treating the film as a semi-biography and casting himself in the lead role (anyone who has chuckled at his wooden and appalling cameos in his earlier films will know that his acting is deeply bottom of the barrel) when (a) few people cared about him, and (b) he could barely speak English, shows that he genuinely thought he was living the auteur dream. Secondly, the ridiculous and contrived plot allowed him to literally recycle gore effects and horror sequences from the aforementioned and rarely-seen horror he was producing in the late 80s.

In saying that, I can't help but be fond of this particular movie. It's ridiculously goofy and anyone who has a soft spot for any of Fulci's films, but won't be offended by sub-par film-making, will certainly enjoy it. And the gore... JIMINY CHRISTMAS! This is the goriest Fulci film I've seen- gorier than THE SMUGGLERS, gorier than NEW YORK RIPPER! But is that enough?

The simple answer is... "no". The whole film, right up to the ridiculous "double twist" ending, is smothered with an absolutely OVERWHELMING sense of ego and self-importance that Fulci appears to have developed at this stage in his career. My favourite parts of the film are precisely the sections that clearly show this- Fulci helping a young woman in a wheelchair (you see, he's a humanitarian!), an attractive receptionist in the psychologist's office excitedly calling her friend to tell her that a world-famous director has just walked into the practice (Fulci ends up sleeping with her later in the film, despite the fact he is old enough to be her father!), the fact that EVERY character in the film panders around Fulci as if he is some kind of artist... I get the feeling from watching this that Fulci was a deeply insecure man, especially at the time of making this film. The ludicrous self-promotion should be irritating but comes across more as pitiful.

Sadly though, the film is very poorly made. The acting and script are totally dire, and many of the gore scenes that have been transplanted from other films (bizarrely, some not even made by Fulci) often make no sense within themselves, let alone within the context of the whole movie. Some of the violence is absolutely spectacular though. In the nastiest scene (I believe taken from A TOUCH OF DEATH) a man clubs his wife to death, literally beating her face into a gory pulp. The misogyny that Fulci has oft-been accused of displaying raises its head on other occasions as well. Women are cheese-wired, beaten and drowned, and to make it worse a lot of the scenes include the lamentable attempts at "black humour" and "irony" that Fulci saw fit to inject into his films at this time. As well as gore scenes, music has also been lifted from other Frizzi-composed scores. At one stage, the fantastic theme from THE BEYOND pipes over the sound track, but whereas in its original film it added to the atmosphere, here it seems lost and detached.

This film is a testament to a man who had the luck to be involved with some seminal films that allowed him to show his flair, but then lived off the memory of these thenceforth. I can't pretend it isn't entertaining and even charming in places (who could not crack a smile watching Fulci voyeuristically letching over a young woman getting undressed in a nearby house!) but it is horribly made. The over-the-top gore makes up for this but I feel ridiculous even sitting through this when it is apparent that it was solely made as a autobiographical tribute. The fact that this tribute relies on so much fiction is telling. I'm sure there are Fulci sheep out there who will disagree with me, but if you want to see good work, get his gialli and a copy of THE BEYOND (perhaps THE SMUGGLERS as well...), because really it's all you'll need.

Umberto Lenzi would be the first to tell you that he isn't a horror director. Generally working on war and adventure films, he dabbled in the seedy climes of the giallo and the cannibal film in the 70s, but that was pretty much the closest he came to horror. That is, until he was roped in by, you guessed it, the nefarious Aristide Massacessi to make an "unofficial" entry into the EVIL DEAD series (the Italian title of which was LA CASA). Although it has sweet nothing to do with Raimi's movies, it's actually quite a tight little supernatural haunted house movie, owing much to the likes of SUPERSTITION...

Critically, I can't really defend some aspects of it. The acting, script, sound track and plot are totally absurd. Although somewhat endearing, the whole "possessed doll" thing does NOT work when you are using a miniscule special effects budget. There are a few nice gore set-pieces and as the story gets increasingly ridiculous, it's surprising to see that there are some quite atmospheric moments worked in. A lot of this is owed to the fact that Massacessi managed to scrape together enough lira to justify shooting the movie in autumnal Boston, rather than on a CineCitta sound stage. Further points are scored by a typically typecast appearance from sleaze regular Donald O'Brien, who puts in the usual hilariously grizzly performance.

If nothing else, watch this movie for the absurdly Americanised pseudonyms. Lenzi chooses to call himself "Humphrey Humbert", and if that isn't ludicrous enough, one of the actors goes under the moniker of "David Champagne"! This is surely only second to Mario Bava's "John Foam" as being the most laughable pseudonym in Italian movie history.

This film has a sequel starring David Hasselhoff and Linda Blair. I haven't actually seen it and by all accounts it is spectacularly terrible, yet I still somehow feel drawn towards it. Cinematic masochism.

The first thing I should point out is that I'm very much a cannibal movie apologist/enthusiast. That being said, I still think that MOUNTAIN OF THE CANNIBAL GOD stands out as one of the more distinctive, and watchable, entries into the genre. Released at a time when extreme violence was very much at the forefront of the cannibal movie (thanks to the previous year's CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, which in turn inspired producers to force Umberto Lenzi to make CANNIBAL FEROX and EATEN ALIVE), this particular piece is far more derivative of the first two genre entries. It was Lenzi's DEEP RIVER SAVAGES (1972) and Ruggero Deodato's ULTIMO MONDO CANNIBALE (1976) that got the genre rolling and both films were more concerned about recreating the action and ideas from movies such as MAN CALLED HORSE and DELIVERANCE than packing in the cynical exploitation. MOUNTAIN OF THE CANNIBAL GOD fits into a very similar mould.

Relying more on melodrama, violent "Boys Own" styled jungle adventure and character interplay than extreme violence, Martino's entry remains interestingly watchable. The "social commentary" that made CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST so special but made CANNIBAL FEROX so utterly laughable isn't even considered here. Despite the more "traditional" feel, Martino still manages to work in some really quite unpleasant moments, including a castration sequence (extremely unrealistic none-the-less!) and the requisite animal killings. Interestingly many of the gore/animal killing sequences in this film were "borrowed" by Lenzi for his unintentionally hilarious EATEN ALIVE...

If you are looking for gore and gore only, this film will disappoint. However, if you are looking for a relatively exciting, tightly constructed violent adventure to pass an hour and a half, give this one a look. It is often overlooked as a genre entry, which seems strange when it is far superior on EVERY level to Lenzi's "trilogy" of cannibal movies. However, it is still a good distance away from the "auto-critique" level obtained by Deodato's efforts.

Of all the films that were implicated in the absurd and sickening tabloid-fueled "video nasties" witch-hunt in the UK, some were demonised more than others. I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE joins a select few as being one of THE films cited for causing the most problems at the time. Certainly, the title and advertising campaign (in classic exploitation fashion) was garish and contentious, but unlike some other films that suffered the same fate (such as SS EXPERIMENT CAMP), Zarchi's film is extremely powerful and disturbing... not to mention widely misinterpreted.

I've read a large number of reviews of this film. A worryingly high percentage of them accuse this movie of somehow advocating rape, and being sexist and demeaning. That is the last thought that crosses my mind whilst watching this. The whole "rape/revenge" genre is one that is fraught with moral contradictions. In essence, films of this type ARE exploiting the subject of rape (and sadly, often presenting it in a sexually ambiguous way) but does this mean that they are not able to condemn the subject matter, or offer a powerful criticism of the behaviour of many men towards women? The same school of argument is used against critical film-making like CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST- can a film truly condemn what it exploits? I believe so, and I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is a triumphant example of this, putting forward more powerful a message about violence of rape and the attitudes of some men towards it than any other movie I care to mention. However, it goes even deeper than this in this particular case. Zarchi doesn't praise the rapists- nor does he condemn them. Similarly he offers no moral judgment on the revenge that is carried out by the female protagonist. I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE offers a truly subjective message in that it presents gritty reality and leaves the viewer to make up their mind on the matter.

Much is made of the fact that the rape scenes last for around forty minutes. It seems that a lot of critics think that by proxy, long scenes of violence equal pure exploitation. In this case, this is far from the truth. The scenes are horrific, grueling and ugly. There is no kind of glorification of rape here. The scenes are shot practically real-time which brings home the gritty and sickening nature of what is being displayed. Furthermore, a lot of the scenes are shot from the victim's perspective. The revolting sight of sweating, grunting men is absolutely anti-sexual and anti-erotic, which is of course EXACTLY what it should be in this context! Rape has little to do with sex, and a great deal more to do with violence and power. This is expressed superbly in the sequences in this film. Sanitising the scenes that are supposedly "exploitative" would trivialise the very serious issues at hand.

The men presented in I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE are nothing to emulate. Nothing is even said about the backgrounds of their characters- they are totally faceless within the context of the film (other than one long shot later on which shows one of the men with his family- merely proving him to be a liar and cheat as well as a rapist). The point here is that they don't even NEED character building- they represent the threat and actuality of sexual violence that women face every day. The final and most telling twist is that these men are then so gullible and arrogant that they could be seduced and murdered by the person they had attacked. If Ebert and all his sniveling comrades are really right about this film "promoting sexual violence", they must see something appealing in the behaviour of these men.

Despite what you might read elsewhere, I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is a tightly constructed and well crafted piece of film-making containing some powerfully symbolic imagery. Scenes such as Keaton sitting broken and alone in her house after her attacks or her swimming costume limply floating in the river are extremely effective. There is also practically no music in the entire film. The viewer can almost feel the sense of isolation at every stage of the story- initially it is liberating but it quickly becomes frightening as events unfold. The simple cinematography reflects the isolated feel of the locations that frame this film.

Many horror films can be fairly accused of being misogynistic. I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE takes these concepts of misogyny and totally turns them around. This film is EMPOWERING, and whilst it does have the cynical production of an exploitation feature, Zarchi took this and created a powerful, bitter and dynamic story with many issues being explored therein. It's great. Check it out if you haven't already, and if you've watched it before with the wrong approach to it, I demand you have another look. This is one of the pinnacles of the genre but sadly it is (in)famous for all the wrong reasons.

LAST HOUSE ON DEAD END STREET is literally one of the most infamous horror movies ever made. Part of this comes from the legend and mystery surrounding it, and the fact it is so difficult to get hold of. Firstly, all existing prints are EXTREMELY heavily cut... reports indicate that the original movie was around three hours long, but even the longest running version nowadays only clocks in at 77 minutes. This print also has entirely "fake" credits. One "Victor Janos" is accredited with directing LAST HOUSE ON DEAD END STREET, but any research as to who this actually is ends at the credits themselves- as is the case with all the others involved with the film. Although it is now apparent that the across-the-board use of pseudonyms was an attempt by a distributor to "steal" the movie, for a long time it simply was not known who was responsible for this film (in actuality, a director named Roger Watkins wrote, produced, directed and starred in this movie). Trying to find a good, under-fifth generation copy of this movie nowadays is extremely difficult. All of these factors add to the movie's gritty and disturbing reputation- and that's before you've even watched it!

In actuality, it isn't nearly as grueling as many would make out but is still an extremely disturbing experience. It is brash, intelligent and EXTREMELY well made considering budget issues and the experience of the film makers (Watkins went on to work on pornography after this). The scenes of violence are very extreme and graphic, but in my mind these are far less disturbing than other aspects of the film. Although the photography is simplistic in a classically "US low budget underground cinema" way, the atmosphere that the movie creates is quite unique. It manages to conjure up a true feeling of a bad dream. The same feeling has been achieved by directors such as Dario Argento but they tend to use bombardments of imagery and a "surrealist" approach. In this case, everything seems gritty and realistic but at the same time strangely disjointed. This is partly because of the heavy cuts leaving huge and bizarre holes in the narrative; partly because of the strange sound track, lighting and empty sets; partly because of the fact the film was clearly rushed; and partly because of the surreal "story line", if it could be even called that...

This is a genuine cinematic curiosity and I think that any self-respecting horror fan would be missing out by not checking it. It is truly an original, one-off work. Sure, it is ragged around the edges but that is part of what makes it so gritty and atmospheric. The movie has an almost numbing and ethereal quality and really works. Extremely disturbing and definitely recommended.

If someone asked me if I was a fan of Aristide Massacessi, I'd probably laugh mockingly into their hurt faces. Yet when I look at the comments I've written for the IMDB, I've reviewed FAR more of his films than anyone else's! Say what you like about the man, but he really knows how to deliver utterly unpredictable and hilarious sleaze when you least expect it- which is probably why I keep finding myself attracted to his films!

CALIGULA: THE UNTOLD STORY is a superb example of this. What possible commercial motivation (other than ripping off the original CALIGULA, obviously) could there be for a movie like this? Within the first few scenes, Michele Soavi has had his tongue graphically cut off, and the fun pops up at regular intervals from there. Unexpected hardcore sequences and yet MORE scenes of equine masturbation (what WAS Massacessi thinking when he thought such scenes could add something to his movies?), plus sleazy violence, come thick and fast. However, unlike Massacessi's other weird attempts at fusing genres (see EMANUELLE IN AMERICA, PORNO HOLOCAUST etc for examples), CALIGULA: THE UNTOLD STORY is actually quite watchable. This is probably because he chose to throw the sleaze into a reasonably interesting (if hideously inaccurate!) historical story, rather than just into a flaccid soft sex film like he normally would.

I can't help but love this. Sure, it's not actually GOOD, but just when you think the film might be going downhill, you get a screen-full of a man being speared to death through his rectum. I have no idea what audience demographic Massacessi was thinking of when he made this, but I can assure you that it comes highly recommended.

Never quick to miss out on a buck, Troma picked up this ultra-cheap, ultra-grimy exploiter and retitled it (originally it was called AMERICAN NIGHTMARE, which is far more apt). I'm not usually a huge fan of US low budget cinema but this certainly has its moments. Ricky G is PERFECT in the role of the seedy, desperate Vietnam vet struggling through a miserable existence in a miserable city. The middle section of the film suffers badly from slow pacing and lack of material, but things pick up with an apocalyptically unpleasant and nihilistic ending.

Definitely a very strong TAXI DRIVER influence, but there is enough twisting and corruption of an already sleazy idea to keep you interested as a whole, despite boring moments. Better than most and certainly the best Troma release I've ever seen... although I hate Troma with all my heart, so what do I know?

This is a total mess of a movie. A Spanish/French co-production, this was accredited to Jess Franco for a long time until the real culprit (a Spanish ex-actor by the name of Julio Tabacana) was revealed. However, the fact it shares cast/scenes/plot with Franco's THE CANNIBALS, which was released at a similar time, hints that his veiled hand may have been at work somewhere in the production. Other "Franco-isms" include looping stock sound track (in this case, the same bird call repeated ENDLESSLY) and long shots of characters doing absolutely nothing and wandering endlessly through the jungle.

Getting through this is an ordeal. The "natives" are clearly white in origin (possibly cast members?)- many of them have coiffured hair and beer guts, and the only thing to distinguish their cannibal nature are smatterings of paint on their flabby bodies. In some scenes they clearly can't hide their amusement at the "tribal rituals" they are involved in. Their "cannibal village" is quite obviously not in a jungle, as the lawn is neatly mowed and in some shots you can see a road in the background with vehicles parked on it. Adding insult to injury, the disembowelment scenes are all achieved by shamelessly swapping the victim's torso for that of an actual pig corpse wrapped in clothing. Seriously.

For the cannibal enthusiast only, this is painfully boring and inept. It is an insult to CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST that the films share a genre.

You'd think that after directing so many movies, Massacessi would have managed to learn SOMETHING about the art of film-making. However, this is clearly not the case. FRANKENSTEIN 2000 really stands out as being a spectacularly terrible effort from a film-maker whose career has plumbed the depths of ineptitude on more than one occasion. The acting is possibly the worst I've ever seen, as unlike most of the old Euro-horrors, the dialogue seems to have been recorded real-time rather than dubbed afterwards. I can only assume that many of the actors couldn't actually speak English, as their delivery of some of the lines is absolutely HILARIOUS. The special effects are utterly abysmal. During an autopsy scene, you can clearly see a "corpse" breathing; the animal offal draped over its abdomen undulating suspiciously.

Hilarious, and probably worth a look to see just how bad a rushed film can turn out.

Jim Van Bebber is often lumped into the same bracket as individuals such as Richard Kern. However his loose and anarchic "underground" style of film-making is in another league entirely. CHARLIES FAMILY is amazing effective, disturbing, and accomplished. As in DEADBEAT AT DAWN, Van Bebber has clearly striven to reproduce a B-movie convention (in this case, the "hippy cult" flick usually tackled by the ilk of Al Adamson) and what he has produced is spot on, meticulously covering every detail down to the type of film stock used. Tack on some up-to-date and disturbing special effects sequences, psychedelia, a dark and doomy metallic sound-track (created by Pantera front-man Phil Anselmo), and some VERY strong violence, and you are on to a winner. As usual the acting (all by a cast of total amateurs) is very surprisingly strong and the script and structuring of the story is good, but the real flair in this film comes from the near perfect editing and cinematography.

It has been said before that Van Bebber would be "dangerous if given a budget" and this masterpiece of cut-price, resourceful and imaginative film making backs that up entirely. Buy, beg, steal to get a copy of this- Van Bebber is a pretty visionary director and I can't wait to see what he produces next...

... well, this confused mish-mash of clips provides just that. This video was clearly thrown together by someone with no more equipment than a digital titler and two home VCRs.

Whilst most of the more famous Mondo/shockumentary films have some kind of context, this is totally abandoned in TRACES OF DEATH in favour of unrelenting, and unrelated, violence. All of the footage was stolen from other Mondos, which should immediately invalidate the narrator's ("Brain Damage", aka Damon Fox, presumably also the individual responsible for editing this mess together) hammed-up claims that TOD is "the world's FIRST all-real shockumentary!".

Some of the movies plundered here include SWEET AND SAVAGE, SHOCKING ASIA, DAYS OF FURY and FACES OF DEATH III. Whilst I wouldn't EVER go so far as to recommend a Mondo film, you'd be better off checking out those original movies rather than this one. The true "art" in Mondo film-making is building a context, and even an (often dubious!) social commentary around the footage in question, creating a (potentially) watchable and thought-provoking shock-fest. TRACES OF DEATH does none of this. It is truly a Mondo for the "Beavis And Butthead" generation. And if this doesn't scare you off, be warned that the entire film has a Relapse Records death/grind metal sound-track...

This is a particularly inept and difficult film to watch. Like many other of the early-80s American horror films of the same bracket, there is little in the way of atmosphere or gore to keep one interested. At this particular time, the gulf between US and European low budget horror was enormous. This particular movie takes the worst from the contemporary US horror films (such as HALLOWEEN) and 50s monster movies and creates an absolutely lamentable waste of time. Don't bother.

This strange and rare piece of art-house sleaze starts exactly as it intends to continue. A prolonged and strangely edited rape scene, where a woman is attacked in some woods by a man with a stocking over his head, sets the tone for the rest of the film. She manages to escape the attack and flags down a passing car, driven by a man who takes her back to his house. He turns out to be a photographer who enjoys intensely dominant relationships with his models...

Cue ninety minutes of sexual degradation and humiliation, shot in a bizarrely minimalist manner that makes one think of early Abel Ferrara films. There are numerous strange sex scenes that vary from softcore, to near hardcore, to actual hardcore (only ever shown in brief edits). The film creates a very strange ambience and it's hard not to feel uneasy whilst watching the movie. The plot, although simple, is extremely difficult to follow as characters drift in and out of the story with little or no fanfare. There are also numerous oddly edited flashback sequences to add to the confusion.

What is apparent is that Cavallone is going all out for the sexual sleaze and attempting to package it in an art-house bundle. The film becomes more extreme, and scatological, until the "climax" where a model is forced to defecate in a litter tray, and then stuff her excrement into cigarette packets. Later on she is shown smearing faeces all over her body. Like all of the female characters in this film, it is hard to tell whether they are victims or consenting of the curious acts they are forced to perform. Certainly there is an overwhelming atmosphere of intimidation and misogyny, and Cavallone seems to take pleasure in presenting his subjects as submissive in the max.

Adding to the weirdness is real mondo footage that has been edited into the film at certain points. Scenes of executions and killings suddenly flash up almost at random. The footage in question is also extremely poor quality, grainy, and at times indistinguishable.

This is certainly a very strange film. Gritty pretension aside, it seems intended to be some kind of artistic piece, but this is thrown into question by some of the prolonged scenes of sexual dubiousness. I really don't know enough about this sort of film, or the director, to be able to completely assess the motives behind it- however take it as read that in places this movie makes you feel very uncomfortable. Fans of the work of people like Ferrara or Paul Morrissey, or generally of low-budget Italian sleaze, should take a look.

This is total dirge. Just behind Jess Franco's "The Cannibals" and the lamentable "Cannibal Man", this is the third worst cannibal flick ever made. D'Amato surpasses even himself with zero build and pacing, and some dialogue that go so deeply into the realms of complete rubbish that they aren't even funny. There are a couple of good gore scenes but seriously, this isn't worth your time. The usually fun Donald O'Brien has been overdubbed by a different actor and so might as well not even be in this, and Gemser is her usual wooden and naked self. Plenty of boring soft-core sex and a TOTALLY ludicrous ending top off an absolute waste of celluloid.

If you want cannibal films, get anything other than this. If you want to see Massacessi at his "best", get ABSURD, BEYOND THE DARKNESS, or hell, even ANTRHOPOPHAGUS! If you want to see Emanuelle at her most watchable, dip in to EMANUELLE IN AMERICA or Mattei's surprisingly awesome EMANUELLE REPORTS FROM A WOMEN'S PRISON...