Exposé - 1976

 Also known as House on Straw Hill and Trauma.

Udo Kier is back, this time as a British alcoholic writer in this strange sex thriller.  Exposé is the story of him getting a new sexy assistant.  On her way to the job she is randomly raped, and hunts the guys down promptly.  Kier then starts trying to seduce her, and fails.  He resorts to his usual fling, Suzanne, while his new assistant begins to disconnect from reality.

This is a relatively minimal film, which in general I like a lot usually.  This one is not going to eschew that trend.  It has an A to B, direct story, and has a bit of the paranoia thriller bent to it.  The rape scene is mild in comparison to something like I Spit on Your Grave, and the violence is kinda just a whatever thing.  Not even a lot of blood in this one.

This fits into the whole realm of "why was this a Video Nasty?"  I guess a rape scene is pushing the envelope, but its not mixed with a lot of sexual violence, and its not that long or explicit.  There's some light blood n stuff, but yeah.  A mild R by today's standards.  I give this a solid 3 stars.

Argument against Video Nasty

Nasty Meter 2/10

A Bay of Blood - 1971

Also known as Chain Reaction, Carnage, Twitch of the Death Nerve and Blood Bath.

Mario Bava directs this surprisingly un-giallo and definitely another proto-slasher, Bay of Blood. This methodical horror movie is centered around a local bay, and a seeming unrelated series of killings that take place there.

Pretty small plot, pretty fun movie. The main kills in this are machete kills with lots of blood, and it’s as fun as it sounds. Lots. Decent effects and a cool face chopping scene, plenty of kills and some nudity, I mean what do ya need here?

I don’t have a ton to say. It didn’t stick out in any way as a Video Nasty. I’m kinda tired. 4 stars.

Argument against Video Nasty

1/10 in the Nasty Meter

Blood Feast - 1963

 It would not be a list of controversial films without the godfather of gore himself Herschell Gordon Lewis. 

This man, shocking as it is, has not been on the blog?! Lewis directed the usual nudie cuties before getting into horror, and he was trying specifically to show what Alfred Hitchcock had not. That was his goal, as I read about this movie on wikipedia. 

Blood Test was also known as Egyptian Blood Fest, and has all the hallmarks of what I more expected to see on the Video Nasty list. One take, unlit, non professional actors hamming it up in essentially plotless, artless films. Not to say Blood Feast is a bad movie. From what I’ve seen of Lewis, he is able to dig into that “slimy fun” aspect that can be had and make it funny. 

This is probably what created cult film. I mean sure, German expressionism and sex in film and other things had people seeking out specific things before this, but films like Rocky Horror, which is perhaps the most popular cult film, are  drafting off this. The “hokeyness” specifically, the ridiculousness. Characters that are outrageous and bizarre, that if they had a mustache would literally twirl it.  

It’s barely over an hour long. To start with. And the plot, I mean is this a plot? A woman goes to the butcher and says they want a “special party” and the butcher says he recommends an Egyptian Feast. He kills a girl and rips out her tongue. He books another feast. He kills another girl. That continues.

This could barely last 10 minutes longer, as it is you might check the clock as I did a few times.  There is one concept here, and its not one with much in the way of legs.  On the Nasty list for the gore and some cannibalism, I get it, especially for 1963.  I give it probably 3.5 stars.

Argument for Video Nasty

3/10 on the Nasty Meter

I Spit on Your Grave - 1978

 Also known as Day of the Women.

I should have maybe ranked the "well known" Nasties, and if I had, this would have clearly been up there as well known.  This and The Last House on the Left both somehow broke through a little bit, and I'm sure that the many many full nude scenes and sex scenes had something to do with it.  Interesting that around the time before there was anything truly pornographic in theaters, there were already films with heavy sexual violence.  I think that absolutely says something about the creature known as the human being.

Jennifer is on a writing retreat somewhere by a river and is being bothered by the locals.  They ogle her, they are loud.  Its fairly innocent until 20 minutes in they start to bother her while she's on her boat.  They tie a rope to her boat, tow her to shore, and collectively rape her over the next 30 or so minutes, taking turns and changing locations, and even heavily implying anal rape.  Direct references were removed by censors, it did in fact used to be explicit.

Beaten, defeated, raped, Jennifer tracks them down with vengeance in mind.  I mean, the thing about this movie is that it was critically panned and called the most vile or violent or hateful or whatever movie of all time when it was released.  It is pretty light on gore, there's a penis chopping scenes that is sorta the worst of it, which is truly something that I can't watch, not to sound like a little bitch.

Extremely well acted, linear, small in scope, and without much else to focus on, this is actually quite well made.  You obviously have like 30 something minutes of sexual violence, and if that isn't for you, well its a deal breaker.  Its not that it seems quaint specifically now, its just that thankfully it is the least professionally done aspect of the film, it seems almost comedic in acting and some of the depiction - lots of overacting on the males parts.  So...I dunno, what I'm saying is freakily enough I have seen worse.

Argument for Video Nasty.

5/10 on the Nasty Meter.

Cannibal Apocalypse - 1980

 Also known as Apocalypse Tomorrow, and Invasion of the Flesh Hunters.

Man was I confused starting this, because this has one of the guys from Cannibal Ferox in it and I was tricked into thinking I had watched this one already!  

This movie starts with a helicopter landing in an unknown foreign land and I steel myself for more tribal cannibal nonsense.  But it quickly steers away from that, and I sorta sat up and paid attention.  This is...oddly enough...a compelling drama?  And a movie sorta about PTSD?  And a virus movie?  What is this?

Charles Bukowski (what the fuck?  he is just named the exact name of the writer, at a time when the writer was still alive?) is rescued from the tribe after eating human flesh.  He returns to the real world and at first it seems he has broken to some degree, can't hack it.  He attacks a woman in a theater and gets chased by a gang, shoots one of them in self defense.  This all spirals into a hostage situation and it quickly becomes apparent that the cannibalism in this movie is treated as a virus, ala zombies, once you get bitten you transmit the craving to the next guy.

With John Saxon as a cop who gets the virus, this had good actors and an original idea.  It caught me and enraptured me in the beginning with the hostage stuff, but to be honest it does go a bit downhill after that.  It just feels a little bit rinse and repeat after about minute 30, as it just becomes more people getting turned - nothing else really happens that's new.

There's a few slightly grisly leg chopping scenes, there's a couple guts n whatever.  Relatively light in the Video Nasty realm.

In the argument "for" or "against" the concept of Video Nasty, this is very slightly "against"

On the Nasty Meter, I give this a 1/10

Cannibal Holocaust - 1980

 My friends and I used to endlessly riff on the title of of a book "Controversy Creates Cash" by Eric Bischoff.  Everytime something iffy would happen we'd look at each other and say the title.  Does it?  And more importantly, why did it once do that, and possibly arguably not do it now?

This is the question that several of these movies has made me think of, but since currently Cannibal Holocaust is making me ask it, it gets this intro.  There's a scene of real animal killing, followed by a rape scene and murder scene with frontal female nudity.  Nothing new for these Video Nasties, but gruesome, controversial, and at the time, cash creating.  Nowadays a real animal killed on screen is still legal, but the fuckin controversy would push 99% AWAY from it instead of towards it.  Why?  Why was that at one point a curious morbid interest and not anymore?

This rewatch of the infamous Italian movie was generally fine.  This is still not my genre, and luckily I've been in the Video Nasty realm for a little while so this didn't feel all that bad.  It has wall to wall violence and gore and nudity, it has aforementioned animal deaths on screen, it has cannibalism scenes.  It has sexual violence and rape.  The rest.  Also, as shouted out in this blog before, a great soundtrack.

Interestingly enough, I am less and less convinced that the Video Nasties were that extreme.  In the defense this movie used against its many legal issues, they cited Apocalypse Now as having animal cruelty scenes that were not prosecuted.  With films like Caligula, Salo, Texas Chainsaw, and yeah Apocalypse Now, how the hell did the prosecution have anything to say?  Its all about tone, and its all about that keyword that this entire genre got mounted with:  "Exploitation".  There's a scene of them killing and dismembering a turtle in here, for example, pretty much just to do it, for no purpose.  

A sort of "found footage" movie, a group finds a video of filmmakers going to the Amazon and finding a local tribe of cannibals.  They interact with the tribe and they find cocaine which they begin to use.  This all culminates in the white people raping and killing locals, which the locals take revenge for.

I feel like this was a little bit better than I thought it was, but thoughts aside this is still just like....not for me.  I recognize the value I guess, and I give it a whatever I dunno 3 stars.

Snuff - 1975

Upon its release at the National Theatre in New York City with a $4 ticket price, Snuff grossed $66,456 in its first week.  In New York, it outgrossed One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest for three consecutive weeks.

Its staggering how successful a lot of these were, and perhaps it was numbers like these that led in part to the Video Nasty list.  If this was so successful than that means a lot of people were seeing it, and what were we going to do if people saw this film?  Surely they would grow up to do the same horrendous actions depicted in the film.

I wanted to write about this film though because in a way, a few of these films in the Video Nasties have touched on the idea of trauma, and this is one of them.  One of the women who is in this film has a truly awful story about being raped by a neighbor when she was just a young girl, and having such anger at the man who victimized her.  The mastermind character in this movie manipulates her to take out that anger on the person he chooses, and uses her in that way but still, the trauma is acknowledged.  

Interestingly, its still not something we see talked about in movies now, despite being the obvious "reason" behind things like serial killers, etc.  For how popular true crime has become, you just would think it would be a huge plot point.

This movie is about some Manson-esque charismatic leader named Satan.  He has a group of women that are in his harem, and he makes them attack people.  That's about it, and it certainly leans into the demented side of things, that bizarre esoteric genre sort of known as psychotronic.  

This movie is definitely a vibe change from the last couple, a ton more fun.  It's a lot more of the campy weirdness going on, there's a bit more plot.  There's a clash of tones, there's fun nudity, there's B movie acting.  This is a welcome change, I have to really say.  Somehow it just feels fun again, and maybe cause I took the Nazi, psuedo-documentary and cannibal excursion.  This movie is a breath of fresh air right now.  For that its not awesome or good, but I give it a 3.5

Nasty-Meter:  5/10

Argument:  Mildly for Video Nasty

Cannibal Ferox - 1981

 Also known as Make Them Die Slowly and as Woman from Deep River.

"Do you realize it's us?  The so-called civilized people who are responsible for their cruelty. "  And in this movie it is, which I guess makes it at least somewhat different and/or accurate depending on your point of view.  Called "the most violent film ever made". Cannibal Ferox was also dubiously claimed to be "banned in 31 countries".

Some people are visiting the Amazons and find some drug smugglers there.  The drug smugglers are abusing cocaine and forcing a tribe to harvest the drug for them.  The evil and coke-sniffing Mike goes off the deep end and turns into a sadistic killer, mutilating and slaughtering some of the local tribes, which brings out the savage in them to return the favor.

Part of the giant cannibal craze in Italy at this time, at least this one had a semblance of a plot.  If my memory of Cannibal Holocaust holds up, that one was a lot more plotless.  I also don't mind making the white guy the villain, versus the other norm of this genre in general:  the sadistic unexplained Indigenous tribe.  

Banned for animal cruelty, tribal nudity, a couple cannibalism scenes, and some infamous penis chopping scenes, this was certainly controversial in plenty of places.  I think I said in my review of one of those Zombie movies that I prefer zombies over cannibals, and that held true.  This is pretty much much unremarkable from any other of the genre.  If you like the genre its fine, there ain't nothing here to write home about tho.

Argument "For Video Nasty"

Nasty-Meter:  8/10

Mr. and Mrs. Smith - 2005

 As we put this thing on I told my girlfriend that I remembered it coming out and that I didn't deign to see it as this was the height of my "art film only" phase.  

The thing about this movie is mainly this:  we are in such dire circumstances now that this seems really fun and better in retrospect than it probably did at the time.  Real actors, sharing the same space, in real sets, with real effects, and with actual squibs and liquid fake blood - nowadays this is all CGI.  Its just insane that this was likely shot on film paying A list movie stars the height of their billing asks, it was all done practically and filmed in LA, like this sort of film just does not exist now, every aspect of this has changed.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith are both secretly assassins, they're married to each other and hit a rocky patch in their relationship, and eventually learn the truth about each other.  They are set against each other and fight, only to get turned on and begin to fall back in love, team up and take on the other assassins of the world.  

The movie moves well.  There was a moment early on when internally my head said, "okay I get it with the setup, move into the actual plot" and it did moments later.  This is oldschool Hollywood in a lot of ways, such as even the direction by not an auteur, just classic journeyman direction style of Doug Liman who quietly has what like 5 of the better undersung action movies of the last 25 years?

I appreciate that this era was what it was now, when everything is overblown and over budget despite being all shot on green screen with actors Zooming in their entire part and yet somehow it goes $100 million over budget?  I mean seriously, how did things get so bad so fast...a question we're all asking these days, about many things.  This isn't like the best movie ever, not even great among its peers but it's a fine Tuesday night thing to watch with a few glasses of wine, like I did.  I give it 3 stars.

Faces of Death - 1978

 I was going to go on some tirade about this genre, went to Wikipedia, and apparently these are still being made, even with a "re-imagining" coming out this year.  Also known as The Original Faces of Death.

What this was was nearly inconceivable at the time.  This is almost the pure definition of exploitation.  Real footage of actual dead people, real dead bodies, purportedly "real" deaths live on screen, animal abuse and cruelty, and so on.  On screen, at your theater.  Banned from a reported 46 countries, do they get crazier than this?

We start with a super gruesome surgery scene, and you have to admit, like this is a fucking challenge.  The insanity of the surgery scenes in these movies are really something to me as a take away 25 films into this.  That's my count?  I hadn't done inventory in a while so that's kinda nice, but yo, the surgery scenes are legit disturbing.  In my youth I would have watched with the type of morbid curiosity people speak of when they say in stupefied awe "it's like watching a car crash".  I can genuinely say, partially from experience, not interested.  I don't watch, I look away.  And in the case of this movie, I don't watch, I look away.

Animal cruelty and sadistic acts don't bother me, tribal exploitation doesn't bother me, as well as supposed "eating brains" and other exploitative material.  But real footage of the aftermath of a car accident or a very recent plane crash, one cannot help but to grimace a little bit and take in a breath.  Maybe wince or look away, even. Which is to say, in my classic film review way, if its effective nearly 50 years after it's release, it works....just like, does that mean its good?

I watched the movie "Into The Wild" recently after just recently asking my girlfriend "if a movie is affecting emotionally does that mean it is a good movie?"  Into The Wild has extremely self indulgent, irrelevant moments and it is just not a very good movie about a really compelling and emotionally engaging subject.  This movie is sort of the same.  Its almost impossible to not be effected by something like this, but does that mean its good?  No, and that's the bizarre thing about art.  

I do get what this is trying to do.  It's trying to blend fact with fiction, for both shock value but also a provocateur of thought.  It'll have a detached narrator witnessing something barbaric and it'll say "Despite being the most intelligent creature, mankind is also the most inconsistent" and it's kinda like, you're not wrong, I get that.  It is interesting the fragile and tenuous link between life and death, and we are pretty inconsistent with whether we value or don't value existence.  Suicide, death sentences, cult rituals, many other examples of things in every day life in which life is either near over-valued or thrown away in casual disregard.  We cannot necessarily say right or wrong...we are just to take note, and move on.

What else would a documentary about death look like?  Well, it might not be trying to provoke, one might suggest.  But I don't say that in an argument that this is "wrong" morally or otherwise.  What is weird about this film in particular is with all that said, there are hokey moments aplenty and the fiction they represent is ridiculous.  Those make for parts of this to be insanity, and silly beyond most films, while the other parts are horribly scarring and like nothing else.

A strong argument "For Video Nasty"

I give this a 10/10 on the Nasty Meter.  

I guess I'll give it a 2.5?  I have absolutely no idea what to rate this.

Update a few days later:  

I keep thinking about this movie, and particularly in one specific way.  This movie makes you think, and it does not make you think from asking high level questions or even making suggestions, stating an opinion, doing anything.  By shoving fact and fiction in front of you, it makes you think about such broad topics like mythology, cultural values, cultural differences, the value of life, the rituals and the idiosyncrasies of human beings and their thoughts.  Religion, certainly.  

I think the criticism here would be that it asks these questions in a defiant, childish, and immature way.  But who am I to say this is wrong?  Art does not need to be "representational" in order to work.  It does not need to be high minded, eloquent, or even polished.  Those who need these questions asked in specific cadence with specific nuance should ask themselves why they do not accept a very poignant question, which they themselves cannot ask in polite society, to be asked to them in that way. Is it because you don't want to be confronted?  Is it because it takes you out of your comfort zone?  Is it because when it boils down to it, you can only accept certain answers to certain questions?  

This is all my thoughts on Faces of Death, which is not a masterpiece, but if it can illicit this response.... well... you know the rest.

Nightmares in a Damaged Brain - 1981

 Also known as Nightmare.

Very cool, another slasher and another decent Video Nasty!  Also a great title, the secondary title is what I put here, Nightmares in a Damaged Brain.

This is a very straight forward slasher, one of the ones where we know the villain and we understand the why, and at times those are harder to keep interesting because it gives us so much information at the get go and there's not the addition of a mystery to keep us watching.  A little boy watches his parents having some sort of weird BDSM sex and sees his mom kill his dad.  An incredible decapitating scene and we're off!

Cut to present time and that same kid has grown up, he gets out of a mental institution and immediately goes on a killing rampage.  And one thing I liked about this, as well as probably one of the reasons why it is labeled a "Nasty"?  Kids in trouble and kid death.  Gotta love it.  That and the blood.

This movie credits Tom Savini, which is apparently somewhat refuted but either way the effects are incredible.  Axe chops, knife stabbings, the aforementioned decapitation.  There's not a need for much more than that.  

Not a ton more to say about this.  Very enjoyable, very quick paced.  

Nasty meter 5/10

Argument very slightly "For Video Nasty"