Cannibal Ferox - 1981

 Also known as Make Them Die Slowly in the US 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 banned 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 remember 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 in 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 does $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

Agruments very slightly "For Video Nasty"

Love Camp 7 - 1969

  According to Wikipedia, this may very well be the first Nazisploitation of this type, these sexual and torture based fantasy films.  Also the beginning of generally the women-in-prison genre which blew up shortly after this in the early 70s.  

Like I said in the review of SS Experiment, I get this completely.  You have WWII end and barely 20 years later some sick fucks are making something which sexualizes and exploits the actions of the Nazis?  Specifically also including sexual violence, nudity, gore, and excess?  It does not necessarily condemn the Nazis also, even if it includes the characters getting killed and clearly being villains, they're not dripping with evil intent, and the film seems to be secretly getting off on the power they wield.

Love Camp 7 follows a group of new female recruits to a Nazi camp.  Their job is to have sex with the Nazi guards and generally to be exploited.  We have them strip nude pretty much early on and get abused for about an hour.  Then we reveal that the nice guard at the prison can't help them, that one of the female recruits is actually an undercover agent, and that they're going to rebel at some point.

It's all a thin plot and an excuse to have nudity, depravity, and Nazis raping women and hurting them...and it goes on and on while nothing happens.  It's a lot like the SS Experiment Camp, even hinting at a possible relationship between the "nice guard" and one of the "willing women".  There's also "main character" and that's about as deep as these characters are written.

This is not worse than the last one by any means, but it's def a little bit of the same thing.  It can have a 2.5

Nasty Meter: 4/10

Argument:  For Video Nasty

The Gestapo's Last Orgy - 1977

 Also known as The Last Orgy of the Third Reich and Caligula Reincarnated as Hitler.

I wanted to get through the three of these quickly, as this is not my genre and it is not what I want to be watching, and the first two fit the bill pretty much completely for what I thought they'd be and what I didn't care to see.  But this one slightly surprised me!

It's not like this is a different plot.  A woman recalls her treatment in the Gestapo's sexual service area.  She seems to have experienced some truly awful experiences.  We have an initiation to what will happen as nude German soldiers watch extreme torture videos with forced lesbian incest, coprophagia, bondage, urination, etc.  The soldiers are getting into it, and even though the film doesn't quite match that extremity again, it's just a fuck and torture fest for the next hour 20.

I'm not going to say I liked this, but what I appreciated is that if you're going to do it, DO IT.  Push the boundaries.  Salo The 120 Days of Sodomy had come out in 1975 (by the way how did that escape the Video Nasty list?) and if you're not going to top that you're going to be forgotten - and this film does top it.  We also have (albeit shadowy) male nudity and even hints at erections, which is pretty cutting edge.

This movie is one that has still not been released in certain areas, and it is certainly one of the crazier Video Nasty entries.  I'm glad to be through this Nazi era of Nastys and I enjoyed it more than the other, but its like a 3.

Nasty Meter 10/10

Argument:  For Video Nasty

Tenebrae - 1982

 I haven't reviewed all that many Argento films in this blog, nor have I really delved too much into Giallo at all, which is odd cause I do really love it.  Case in point with this masterpiece, so called the "last great Argento Giallo film."

Tenebrae has all the hallmarks of a giallo, and coming out relatively late in that film movement, they've all been sharpened like the very murder weapon in this film.  The almost fetishization of the weapon is on high effect in this film, the glint and the following of the straight razor is absolutely awesome.  Other great parts of the giallo are here too, the sexual nature including plentiful nudity, the serial killer and they're twisted self and motivation, the awesome music.

This movie starts with American author Peter Neal coming to Italy after publishing his newest book Tenebrae.  It appears he may now have an obsessed fan, because a woman is killed with her mouth stuffed full of pages ripped out of the Tenebrae novel.  John Saxon is brought in to help while the killer begins to stalk women around.  Simple, effective plot.

Part of the video nasty list because of a arm cutting-off scene and largely just because in general it had stepped up the violence and the sexual content, this is one where its really just splitting hairs.  Why this over certain other giallos, over the proliferation of slashers in the 80s in general...  This is not wildly outside of any other bloody 80s horror movie, and it does not seem to be entirely justified.  It could be this version I watched was at least partially censored still, I have no idea about that, but yeah.  Dunno.

Therefore I give this a 3/10 on the Nasty Meter.

It is in the argument slightly Against Video Nathy.

SS Experiment Camp - 1976

 Also known as SS Experiment Love Camp.

Bizarre Magazine, in a 2004 overview of the Naziploitation genre, said the following: "Its advertising campaign, an image of a semi-naked woman hanging upside-down from a crucifix, was instrumental in bringing unwanted attention to the Nasties, although, beyond that, its infamy is unwarranted" -Wikipedia

Two things here, not just related to this but the entire genre.  One, it is absolutely jaw dropping to think that the women starring in movies like this were born in probably the 1950s or even the 1940s.  They're great-grandmothers now, and I just cannot quite fathom that when we see the level of sexuality, when we see their young supple bodies, when I as a male get an erection while watching segments of this film.

Second, the human race re: its relationship to sexual violence, masochism, and sadism.  BDSM has Masochism represented strongly, encompassing the entire second half of the 4 letters.  Whether you interpret SM as Sadomasochism or as Sadism/Masochism, they're obviously quite similar and around the same level of potential simulated or real sexuality mixed with a level of violence or minimally inflicted "torture".

What's fascinating about that to me is that there was a time when we confronted this head on, via an art form that was well known enough to spark controversy and receive censorship.  The world has only escalated from here and outside of a few times when we might remove one certain video of a porn star who maybe turns out to be 17 or gets cancelled or some stupid shit like that, we now have this type of thing available at any website, probably with multiple full penetrations in addition to what is filmed here.  

If you as a viewer are someone who doubts about if there should be censorship, watch films like this. Not necessarily this one, but of this genre. This is a movie in which characters who are presumably Jews are raped by Nazis and like it, after all. There’s almost less scenes of women wearing clothes in this film than scenes of nude women, and there’s no plot it’s just exploitation for 90 minutes. I think part of the Video Nasty was always something saying something on the lines of “Why does this exist? Who is this for? We should not have people who want entertainment like this. In an ideal world no one seeks out this type of entertainment.”

 

It’s not a sentiment I disagree with. Which makes it a very fascinating thing to study as a moment in time when people who are great-grandfathers now were watching Nazi rape in art house cinemas. Not something I think will come back. This isn’t a great example of it though and I’ll give this only 2 stars.

Nasty Meter: 8/10

Argument: For Video Nasty

The Cannibal Man - 1972

 Thus we come to the first of what I assumed would be multiple of these- a film where I think...this got labeled a Video Nasty?  Why?

Also known as Week of the Killer and The Apartment On The 13th Floor.

Yeah I mean, first the name is misleading.  There is a scene where our main character is eating soup with human meat in it unbeknownst to him, and he specifically stops when he discovers this.  He is not a cannibal by any real choice.

Marcos is a hapless man in a plot which I think is pretty brilliant, a man forced through almost comedic circumstances to become a serial killer.  It begins with a man assaulting his wife, and Marcus killing him on accident.  Then the wife wants to tell the police, so kill her, then the people who come poking into his life after the two disappearances preceding.  He gets rid of the bodies by taking them to his meat processing plant where he adds them to the sausage.  With basically no crazy blood or nudity, one does have to wonder about the labeling and prosecution this one got.

The most interesting aspect to this for me was that it was directed by a gay man, and there are absolutely homosexual undertones to a lot of what happened in this flick.  And you know what?  I'll say it, it was hot as fuck.  Dude, I wanted these guys to go at it, show nudity, have them touching each other cocks, FUCK!  Get me all riled up over here...

This is a original movie with a great premise, its maybe a tad slow and/or long, but its not that bad by any means.  Its very much of its era, and the dubbing and the production all feel very enjoyable in the B grade, trying for A grade sorta way.  It has some decent kills and its almost kinda sorta a proto-slasher, giallo leaning in some ways, but wholly original as well.  

Nast-ometer:  0/10

Argument for or against Video Nasties:  Against.

I give it a 4!

Flesh for Frankenstein - 1973

 (Googles current popular artists)  I mean, I haven't heard of any of these guys, so this goes back a little bit, but what if Banksy officially endorsed and produced a relatively low budget, X rated version of fuckin' The Creature from the Black Lagoon?  What if Taylor Swift put out a 3D Video Nasty version of Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde?  Wouldn't the world be better?

Andy Warhol did not have much to do with this movie which is alternatively titled Andy Warhol's Flesh for Frankenstein, but still man, this was a bit of a controversial move I have to imagine.  I guess Rob Zombie is maybe the modern version of this, but the music was not a far cry from the cinema, so it does not compare.

Flesh for Frankenstein was a Italian, American and German co-production for a super underground film that got rated NC-17 and X, got on the Video Nasty list, and also helped launch Udo Kier's career.  I'd seen this one before, perhaps over 10 or even 15 years ago, as this is on many lists of "most disturbing" and "most cult" movies.  I didn't remember anything on this rewatch.

This movie is minimally going for satire, and I think its also an early example of meta, self aware, excess for the sake of excess type thing.  I wanted to look up early self aware movies, and just on the initial screen the things they cite are not far and away far off from this things 1973 date.  This certainly has a comedy of extremes, satirical leaning to it, there isn't a ton of outright humor but there is certainly an air of "having fun with the material", a wink and a nod.

There's plenty of nudity and some surgery scenes, there's a scene where Udo Kier has sex with a dead body, but overall this is pretty tame.  I think if anything it is the oddness of tone and the way this film almost feels like a comedy that makes the disturbing parts stand out.  Part of you really wants this movie to pick a lane, and from modern aspects I think it did, its just we were not ready for THIS lane yet.  But in that way this is super ahead of it's time.

There's an aspect of moral panic to some of these for sure - not that the content is not disturbing, but this could be seen as a little bit more of a skew towards moral censorship certainly.  There's homosexual content in here as well, and there's a bit ol' dick that you can see for a little while. 

While this movie is popular mainly because of the big name attached to the front of it, this is a fun and self-aware, strange and somewhat boundary pushing film.  It also succeeds because of the name in front, lets face it that something with a big name will bring in a bigger audience, and we may have this film to thank for bringing cult movies a bit more into the spotlight.  4 stars.

Nasty Meter:  2/10

Argument for or against Video Nasty:  very mildly For.

Yeti: Giant of the 20th Century - 1977

 I'm trying to watch whatever free pre-1990ish Yet, Sasquatch, and Bigfoot movies are available.  But does this one really count?

Apparently some Italians heard that there was going to be a sequel to the 1976 King Kong movie and they decided to rush production on this "would be ripoff" except that the sequel movie in question was never made and now this is an odd curio from 1977.  

In this, a frozen creature thought to be a Yeti is thawed, promptly comes back to life, and goes on a rampage.  I mean, that sounds fun and whatever, except that the Yeti itself is instead a giant regular man, and once he's raised he quickly acts as much like King Kong as possible, including falling in love with a human woman and doing all that typical bullshit.

Featuring stodgy effects and ridiculous acting, there is a B grade drinky smoky aspect to this, but its a little slow, and a big section of the movie where the monster gets sick and has to be put on oxygen really grinds the momentum to a halt.  Its also just like...not a Yeti.  It is more like a giant neanderthal and plays like any "giant" monster movie, especially perhaps obviously like King Kong.

Its whatever.  Kinda boring.  I give it a star.