The movies that went all the way - reviews

[svsg]

Willard: Never get out of the boat. Absolutely goddamn right. Unless you were goin' all the way. Kurtz got off the boat. He split from the whole fuckin' program.

This thread will end with Willard, my hero, but for now I am in a world of Kutzian morality. In the coming days, I will review some of the most disturbing, repulsive and forbidden movies ever made. Some of these were banned for a good reason. Some of them continue to be banned or available in mainstream only in heavily cut versions. But I will review the uncut versions. Some of them could be B-grade horror porn, whereas others are great movies that are just beyond social acceptability.

These film-makers went too far and went all the way. And so will be my choice of movies for the next few days.

[svsg]

Cannibal Holocaust * (1980)

IMDB link ( www.imdb.com/title/tt0078935/ )
This cult movie is banned in most countries. For a good reason. This is the goriest, most repulsive and sickening movie I have ever seen. It features cannibalism and (real) animal killings. No director would make a movie like this today. As horrible it is to watch it, credit must be given to the director for making a bold movie, completely ignoring the timid morality and hypocrisy of film-making ethics. A kind review of this film can be found here ( www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/cannibalholocaust25th.php )

[svsg]

Irreversible *** (2002)

IMDB Link: www.imdb.com/title/tt0290673

The story is told in reverse chronology. On a casual observation, this looks like a bad idea because the most intense scenes are at the beginning. The movie gets tamer as it progresses. But the real genius lies in the fact that as we get to see the past, the tragedy in subsequent events is revealed in retrospect. Very intense and disturbing movie and (for a lack of a better word) beautiful at the same time. The camera work is noteworthy with its constant and rapid movement, often wandering and then returning to the subject. Must watch – highly recommended.

[svsg]

Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma (Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom) * (1975)

IMDB Link: www.imdb.com/title/tt0073650/

This banned Italian film takes the crown for atrocious and disgusting fetish porn. But mentioning just that is doing the movie injustice. It is an exploration of cruelty stemming out of boredom and abundance. It tells the story of sexual perversion and depravity in Nazi/fascist occupied Italy. What starts out and continues to be a ludicrous fetish movie, ends in absolute brilliance. Watch it only if you can withstand watching stuff like eating crap.

[svsg]

The Last House On The Left (no stars) (1972)

IMDB link: www.imdb.com/title/tt0068833/

A rotten apple in my basket, this is a huge disappointment. This is banned in alot of places, but I don't know why. Firstly this is a very tame movie. Most violence is not shown directly*. And secondly, but more importantly, this was a goofy execution of what could have been a great movie. The plot is almost identical to the scenes at "The Home" in A Clockwork Orange. The music is terrible and is totally inappropriate for the emotions conveyed. Further, there is a lot of comedy in the movie that spoil the pace. Some think of this movie as a dark comedy, but I do not agree with them.

*Not necessarily a bad thing, but here it is ineffective.
ps: I want to watch the Bergman movie that this was based on.

[RNL]

svsg said:

Some of these were banned for a good reason.

And what reason was that?

I think I can categorically say that no work of art has ever been banned for a good reason.

[RNL]

svsg said:

Cannibal Holocaust * (1980)

IMDB link ( www.imdb.com/title/tt0078935/ )
This cult movie is banned in most countries. For a good reason. This is the goriest, most repulsive and sickening movie I have ever seen. It features cannibalism and (real) animal killings. No director would make a movie like this today. As horrible it is to watch it, credit must be given to the director for making a bold movie, completely ignoring the timid morality and hypocrisy of film-making ethics. A kind review of this film can be found here ( www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/cannibalholocaust25th.php )

I experienced a unique conflict of emotions when I saw those real animal killings: I lost an enormous amount of personal respect for everyone involved in the film, but at the same time I couldn't consider the killings gratuitous - I think they're morally indefensible and artistically justified.

I once saw this film aptly described as an example of "an exploitation filmmaker wrestling with his conscience". It's also an example of one of the most intellectually provocative and disturbing implementations of the meta-film device I've ever seen. I think it's a great movie, though not a lot of fun.

[RNL]

svsg said:

The Last House On The Left (no stars) (1972)

IMDB link: www.imdb.com/title/tt0068833/

A rotten apple in my basket, this is a huge disappointment. This is banned in alot of places, but I don't know why. Firstly this is a very tame movie. Most violence is not shown directly*. And secondly, but more importantly, this was a goofy execution of what could have been a great movie. The plot is almost identical to the scenes at "The Home" in A Clockwork Orange. The music is terrible and is totally inappropriate for the emotions conveyed. Further, there is a lot of comedy in the movie that spoil the pace. Some think of this movie as a dark comedy, but I do not agree with them.

*Not necessarily a bad thing, but here it is ineffective.
ps: I want to watch the Bergman movie that this was based on.

The violence is mostly not shown directly? If that's the case in the version you watched then it was heavily cut. The violence is depicted frontally; protracted and lingering. It's horrible.

The incongruent music and the jarring parallel cutaways to the slapstick duo of bumbling cops is supposed to upset the tone of the film. Craven states in his commentary that part of what he wanted to do with this film was present violence in a new way, to react against the flippant, stylised presentation of violence in films like Leone's Dollars trilogy, and to instead emphasise the suffering and humiliation of the victims, and then the desperate catharsis and ultimate futility of the parents' revenge.

I don't think it's totally successful, but at times his attempted wrong-footing and blind-siding of the audience works, and is very upsetting and discomfiting. And kudos to him for trying anyway, he was one of the first to do it, and it's apparently proven a very difficult thing to do.

[RNL]

Are you sure 'porn' is the right word to describe the content of Salo? I haven't seen it yet, but I understand it's supposed to be disgusting, not arousing.

Good thread, by the way.

[Capo]

wetdog said:

Good thread, by the way.

I knew you'd like it. (I told him to post it on here.)

I like the thread too. I must see these films myself sometime. Salo is the only film that a friend of mine has ever walked out of. This guy's sixty or seventy years old, and has been watching films all his life.

[svsg]

wetdog said:

svsg said:

Some of these were banned for a good reason.

And what reason was that?

I think I can categorically say that no work of art has ever been banned for a good reason.

I don't know why I wrote that. The very reason I am watching these movies is that I do not believe in the boundaries imposed by the so-called "moral standards". Probably I wanted to emphasize the fact that most people will be offended (it is debatable whether it is a good thing) by watching these. Still not a good reason to ban. Unless they are so effective that a lot of people will commit crimes influenced by these. Crimes were there even before cinema began, so these reasons are at best weak. I am against censorship, I am ok with rating system.

[svsg]

wetdog said:

The violence is mostly not shown directly? If that's the case in the version you watched then it was heavily cut. The violence is depicted frontally; protracted and lingering. It's horrible.

SPOILER ALERT
I am 100% sure I watched the uncut version because the director and script writer proudly say in the extras that this is the only uncut version available. The director goes on to say things like "the pee the pants" scene is very disturbing, which is not at all the case (for me). Secondly a lot (with two exceptions) of knife stabs were not shown. The disembowelment is so brief that you can miss it. That guy blowing his brains off, where was that shown?

The incongruent music and the jarring parallel cutaways to the slapstick duo of bumbling cops is supposed to upset the tone of the film. Craven states in his commentary that part of what he wanted to do with this film was present violence in a new way, to react against the flippant, stylised presentation of violence in films like Leone's Dollars trilogy, and to instead emphasise the suffering and humiliation of the victims, and then the desperate catharsis and ultimate futility of the parents' revenge.

I don't think it's totally successful, but at times his attempted wrong-footing and blind-siding of the audience works, and is very upsetting and discomfiting. And kudos to him for trying anyway, he was one of the first to do it, and it's apparently proven a very difficult thing to do.

I agree, kudos for trying. But negative points for not going all the way (unlike what he claims in the interview). A tame affair, probably hollywood wasn't as open in 1972 as its european counterparts.

[svsg]

wetdog said:

Are you sure 'porn' is the right word to describe the content of Salo? I haven't seen it yet, but I understand it's supposed to be disgusting, not arousing.

Good thread, by the way.

Bad semantics maybe.... Definitely not arousing. Just maybe in the beginning, imagining the possibilities, but that's about it. Very disgusting though. The movie is shown in three acts, something to do with a literary description of Hell by Dante(not sure, someone like that). The second act is called circle of shit, and is full of shit

[RNL]

svsg said:

wetdog said:

The violence is mostly not shown directly? If that's the case in the version you watched then it was heavily cut. The violence is depicted frontally; protracted and lingering. It's horrible.

SPOILER ALERT
I am 100% sure I watched the uncut version because the director and script writer proudly say in the extras that this is the only uncut version available. The director goes on to say things like "the pee the pants" scene is very disturbing, which is not at all the case (for me). Secondly a lot (with two exceptions) of knife stabs were not shown. The disembowelment is so brief that you can miss it. That guy blowing his brains off, where was that shown?

The incongruent music and the jarring parallel cutaways to the slapstick duo of bumbling cops is supposed to upset the tone of the film. Craven states in his commentary that part of what he wanted to do with this film was present violence in a new way, to react against the flippant, stylised presentation of violence in films like Leone's Dollars trilogy, and to instead emphasise the suffering and humiliation of the victims, and then the desperate catharsis and ultimate futility of the parents' revenge.

I don't think it's totally successful, but at times his attempted wrong-footing and blind-siding of the audience works, and is very upsetting and discomfiting. And kudos to him for trying anyway, he was one of the first to do it, and it's apparently proven a very difficult thing to do.

I agree, kudos for trying. But negative points for not going all the way (unlike what he claims in the interview). A tame affair, probably hollywood wasn't as open in 1972 as its european counterparts.

I didn't mean to suggest that every act of violence is made as explicit as can be in terms of actual cuts and wounds and gore. But the way you put it makes it sound like Craven is cutting away once things get too nasty. The rape/mutilation/murder scenes in the forest go on and on and on... they're exhaustive.

Krug telling her to piss herself is the part of the film I find most sickening. Like in Irreversible I find what the Tenia is saying to Alex far more upsetting than what he's physically doing to her.

What would have constituted 'going all the way'?

[Valenti]

admin said:

wetdog said:

Good thread, by the way.

I knew you'd like it. (I told him to post it on here.)

I like the thread too. I must see these films myself sometime. Salo is the only film that a friend of mine has ever walked out of. This guy's sixty or seventy years old, and has been watching films all his life.

Both the novel and film are immensely disturbing; though if you've seen Irrereversible it shouldn't be anything new.

The man who wrote the novel, the Marquis de Sade, is a particularly twisted individual. Probably a blast at parties, though

[svsg]

wetdog said:

What would have constituted 'going all the way'?

I am not able to pin point it, but somehow(probably because of the unnecessary comic relief) I was never able to take the movie as seriously as Irreversible. Somehow it did not have any emotional impact on me at all and looked like a grindhouse movie, especially towards the end. Since it was missing in that department, I at least expected it to shock me greatly. For example that guy in Cannibal Holocaust is brutally thrusting that big phallus shaped stone into the body of one of the women. It is not one of your conventional rape scenes, it is just added to offend you.

[svsg]

Pink Flamingos ** (1972)

IMDB Link: www.imdb.com/title/tt0069089/

I was never a fan of dark humor movies. This one takes dark humor to extreme, adds some really outrageous x-rated material and assaults your sensibilities with some of the most disgusting stuff possible. It never tries to be profound at any point, but at the same time it is a clever satire at the society and the extremes people go to be noticed as in reality shows. Bold attempt, but as one of the promotional titles reads, it is an exercise in bad taste

[svsg]

Day of the woman / I spit on your grave (no stars) (1978)

IMDB Link: www.imdb.com/title/tt0077713/

Banned in most countries, but can anyone tell me why? A bit explicit, but an ordinary exploitation movie from 70s. Safely skip this one.

[svsg]

Baise-Moi (no stars) (2000)

IMDB Link: www.imdb.com/title/tt0249380/

A mediocre porn comedy (don't think it is intentional) trying to masquerade as a mainstream drama. It looks like an amateur video, but has been nominated for awards in a few film festivals. Laughable at best.

[svsg]

valenti said:

The man who wrote the novel, the Marquis de Sade, is a particularly twisted individual. Probably a blast at parties, though

Trivia: The word sadism originated from Marquis de Sade