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"

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 their 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