I luv Clockwork Orange,from fuzzy pirate betamax to its first release after Kubrick died,I even had the poster and soundtrack before i had even saw the film,im often pass thru Thamesmead where the exterior to the flats were filmed.

just realised Ive never read the book :o

Read the British version, it's longer and has a different ending to the film.

You might be right about the extreme porn situation - better safe that sorry I guess, though as the BBFC haven't formally passed the film, that still wouldn't help if the cops did turn up.
Der Todesking WAS released in the UK, but in a version trimmed (by Buttgereit) to remove the castration scene, which wouldn't have passed the censors at that time.

Random viewings from over the last ten days:

CANNIBAL FEROX - Has been on these pages quite a lot recently, so I thought I'd give it another go. It's never been a favourite of mine, but I appreciate the appeal, excluding all the animal trashing. It dips and peaks in intensity unevenly, with moments of (for its time) trangressive splatter being pissed on by sagging passages of boredom. Nevertheless, it still manages to feel a bit dirty after all these years. But when it cmes to Lenzi I even prefer things like 'Ghosthouse', no matter how ridiculous this sounds. Plus, the theme tune sounds a bit like a bad funk outfit playing 'The Bill'.

FREEZE ME - OK to good Japanese rape revenge story. It's not a harsh Pinku by any means, more a dramatic horror flick based around suspense and tension rather than mind flaying viciousness and brute misogyny, although it has its moments. There are minor shades of 'Repulsion' / apartment based insanity and claustrophobia as, five years after the fact, the victim of a previous rape is visited (one by one, in slightly too convenient a manner) by her assailants. Her freezer gets pretty full by the end of the movie. I watched a dubbed version, which is really not the way to see a contemporary movie of its kind.

MS.45 - An easy choice from yesterday. I had a really punishing hangover and was stressed about one of my shitty sound art projects, so I reverted to a movie I've seen countless times. What can I say, it's a brilliant exploitation flick which dallies with a faint air of Euro-arthouse in its depiction of the fatal unravelling of a mute seamstress following two vicious sex attacks forced on her by horrible scum. This film does everything right - it's so lean and down to the bone. It's a tribute to Ferrara that it alienates and disorientates at the same time as it invites empathy. The slo-mo Halloween party shoot-out at the climax is wonderful. As is the rest of the film. An all time fave, couldn't possibly recommend it enough.

Nice. I'm a huge fan of (old) Ferrara. Driller Killer is one of my absolute favorite films.

The last chapter was missing from the american edition, this is the version Kubrick read, hence its missing from the film.

I didn't know that and, because it's been years since I read the novel, it would be interesting to reread it knowing the film a lot better than I did when I first read it, seeing what might have been.

From Wikipedia:

"The book has three parts, each with seven chapters. Burgess has stated that the total of 21 chapters was an intentional nod to the age of 21 being recognised as a milestone in human maturation. The 21st chapter was omitted from the editions published in the United States prior to 1986. In the introduction to the updated American text (these newer editions include the missing 21st chapter), Burgess explains that when he first brought the book to an American publisher, he was told that U.S. audiences would never go for the final chapter, in which Alex sees the error of his ways, decides he has lost all energy for and thrill from violence and resolves to turn his life around (a slow-ripening but classic moment of metanoia—the moment at which one's protagonist realises that everything he thought he knew was wrong).

At the American publisher's insistence, Burgess allowed their editors to cut the redeeming final chapter from the U.S. version, so that the tale would end on a darker note, with Alex succumbing to his violent, reckless nature—an ending which the publisher insisted would be 'more realistic' and appealing to a U.S. audience. The film adaptation, directed by Stanley Kubrick, is based on the American edition of the book (which Burgess considered to be "badly flawed"). Kubrick called Chapter 21 "an extra chapter" and claimed that he had not read the original version until he had virtually finished the screenplay, and that he had never given serious consideration to using it. In Kubrick's opinion, the final chapter was unconvincing and inconsistent with the book."

I have mixed feelings about the books ending. It argues that the reckless, destructive and often antisocial behaviours of youth is something that can be grown out of, and as people become more mature and their outlook on life changes people are capable of making a self concious choice to be good and moral beings. The ludviggio technuique in the book removes that choice, so Alexes change in behavior is not a moral one and Burgess views this as worthless, the conciouss choice to change through free-will is arguably the more moral one and this I agree with.

However..


Some people don't/wont change their ways. Through the book I got the distinct impression that alex was a psycopath, and the extremes of behavior shown including rape, aggrevated assault and murder functioned at a level where rehabilitation is unlikely and reccidivism likely. Basically some people cannot change. Kubricks ending kept burgess moral argument imo, perhaps diluted a little without the ending to reinforce it, but most viewers and readers where sophisticated enough to probably grasp that without the final chapter so it was possibly a little heavy handed. I'm sure theres people who might dissagree with me but thats how I always saw it.

The final chapter certainly changes the entire meaning of the book

Watched Killer Joe last night.
Movie was ok,but McConaughey was excellent.
Worth watching to see his great performance.

Wasn't the book written by Anthony Burgess when he had recuperated after being attacked at home, with the Frank Alexander (Patrick Magee) character based on him? I read the book represents his belief that people aren't inherently bad and can be rehabilitated.

Just a flying visit
 

Watched the following yesterday:

Tombs of the Blind Dead (1972)
American Gothic (1988)
Curse of the Crimson Altar (1968)
Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932)

Only one I wasn't sure about was American Gothic, I've seen so many mixed reviews usually pointing towards it being terrible but I thought it was rather good - just reading some of the reviews on Lovefilm again, most people seem to struggle with the concept being too weird which makes me wonder why they bother watching horror films at all :loco:

I watched castellaris The Last Shark last night and found it to be appaling.
Im a massive fan of castellari and shark films so thought i was on to a winner but it was a real letdown. it was even worse than Jaws 4 - The revenge.

I don't see how that can't be great! Is it not even worth a watch!

If your fan of either the director or shark films then check it out but be warned its got a really feeble plot and is a very short film. i hope lamberto bavas shark film is better.

I actualy quite like The Last Shark. Better than Mattei's Cruel Jaws (Which lift's footage from TLS).

Wasn't it The Last Shark that was hammered with a lawsuit from Universal for plagiarism. Am i right in thinking it can't ever have a US release.

Survival of the Dead: had this languishing on my shelf for such a long time and finally took the plunge. It's pretty bad. Romero attempts at doing a zombie film (interestingly his first which is a direct sequel, of sorts, to a previous film) borrowing from the western genre which sounds kinda cool, the problem being it's so poorly written and utterly dull it just amounts to a waste of time. The idea behind it is pretty interesting and some of the western-inspired shots are nice but it never escapes from the poorly underwritten script or cheap visual effects; the cgi is beyond dismal and the practical zombie effects make it genuinely hard at times to distinguish the living from the dead. I watched it twice over two nights, the second time with the commentary on to see what Romero actually thought of it and was shocked to be listening to a commentary track full of self-satisfied guffawing at the cgi gags as if they're something to be proud of and the revelations of a former master of the genre thinking this is genuinely good work he's still doing.

Thriller: A Cruel Picture: I still think this is great. One of the most beautifully shot exploitation films which uses sound (or lack of) in a fantastic way. The dryness of certain scenes make it feel like an odd collision of arthouse and grindhouse and although I can understand why some oppose them, I find the lingering slow motion scenes of revenge perfectly fitting. Although I still find the hardcore inserts ugly and unnecessary (still, sign of the the times etc) I can't think of any other exploitation film which looks and feels like this one does.

Both that and Cruel Jaw's are not aloud to have US releases. Doesn't say anything about a R0 UK release though. :lol:

Despite your complaints, i do think Survival and Diary are better than any other zombie film from the last ten years. (Excluding Dead Snow which is an all time classic.)

Many of the more famous ones such as Zombie Diaries are far worse.

Frankenhooker:
The creator of low budget cult shocker ‘Basket Case’ (1982) conjures up a demented re-imagining of the classic ‘Frankenstein’ tale. That features a whole host of ludicrous ideas, like: death by lawnmower, explosive crack and enough fake limb flying scenes to satisfy any exploitation fan.

When crazed scientist Jeffrey Franken's fiancé is accidentally killed by a super-remote controlled lawnmower - that he created - he becomes obsessed we bringing her back to life. Keeping her head and a few stray body parts, in his purple collagen laced liquid solution, Jeffery becomes convinced that he can return her to life...now all he needs is some spare body parts.

In search of those parts, Jeffrey makes his way to the seedy sex district of New York. Where he acquires a plethora of skanky hookers, from the muscle-bound pimp Zorro. Later, at a wild party, Jeffrey gives the girls his special concoction of 'super-crack', which has the adverse effect of making them explode into the parts he desperately needs to bring his love back to life...Yes that’s the plot; your eyes are not deceiving you.

Similar in style to director Henenlotter's previous entries in no budget film-making, this mad as a box of spiders interpretation of Mary Shelly's classic tale of re-animating the dead, features a host of bizarre, downright demented scenes. From the aforementioned sight of hooker pieces flying through the air, to a man being knocked out by a decapitated head and the final body swapping, sex change finale. This no taste shocker is both entertaining and terrible in equal measure.

The enjoyment one gets from all this, is how willing one is to embrace the bad effects, acting and dialogue, and instead wallow in the sheer madness of this sluts and bolts black comedy horror. While 'Frankenhooker' is certainly not a good movie, it's most defiantly an enjoyably bad one. If you’re a fan of violent, low-budget horror cinema, then maybe this might just be for you.

On the other hand, if you're one of those refined film watchers that demand fine acting, seamless special effects and a coherent story...well then f**k off to 'Gladiator'. 'Cause what the hell are you reading a review entitled 'Frankenhooker' for anyway?!

Hmm...Survival of the Dead felt to me like nothing more than a slightly slicker straight-to-dvd film (which it effectively was I guess) but I just don't think that's good enough. It's true that there's been an over-saturation of zombie films over the last ten years due to them being in vogue again which means there's going to be loads of poor films to wade through but it doesn't make Romero's last two films any better for me (and I really enjoyed Land of the Dead incidentally)

Dead Snow is definitely one of the standout films of that genre of recent years though; I agree with that completely

Due to Diary of the Dead flopping at the box office, i suppose Romero could only get minimum funding and a straight to dvd release.

Diary grossed $5.3 million dollars worldwide and under a million of this was taken in the US.

I have been led to believe that is certainly semi-autobiographical

This afty, I watched 'Sir Henry at Rawlinson End'

It's not a phrase I use often, but all I can say is WTF?

Attachment 91848

It amazes me that something made over 80 years ago is funnier than 99% of comedies made now. Timeless classics :nod:

Yeah but he's done so much better in the past with so much less

DVD Rulers released a home made Blu Ray of this, which was apparently quite good, but I think they've gone under, pirating being illegal and all.

Hey I like Gladiator! :tongue1:

The thing with Survival in my opinion is that Romero just tried to do something a little different, which i applaud him for.

Sure he could have just stuck his protagonists in a house and had zombies trying to get in but he would have received far more critical flak for that.

Personally i think he should leave the Dead in peace as there isn't much that can be done with them that he or someone else hasn't already tried.

Just out of interest Paul, what would you have him do?

I would have him make his zombies run around and shout "BRAINS" ,AH I see a flaw.

Make something of interest that doesn't involve tainting his legacy as one of the great American horror film makers. I'm no fan of George's body of work but think "The Crazies", "Martin" and "Season of the Witch" are some of the finest and most interesting films from the USA in the 70s. I think it's a real shame that he will only be remembered for his zombie films which, to me, are his weakest works.

All the older directors now seem to have had it in quality terms. Romero, Argento, Carpenter.

The problem the horror industry has now is that the new breed of film makers, Green, Roth, Zombie etc all get kicked to shit by the fans who want films from their heroes not these youngsters. However when the classic directors make a film that isn't Tenebrae, The Fog etc then they also get kicked to shit by the fans for as you put it "tainting their legacy". Unfortunately though you are right as the majority of their output in recent years does "taint their legacy".

New horrors by unknown people aren't given a chance because on the whole new horror films are poorly made, badly acted, CGI rubbish.

The only success stories nowadays are teen friendly vamp rom-coms which no one on here likes except PaulD which neatly brings us back to square one meaning we should all ignore his critical panning of a Romero film.*

Its a lose lose situation.


*I'm only kidding Paul. :lol:

Very well said good sir i could not agree more :clap:

Just finished watching Bad News On Tour and More Bad News back to back and I haven't laughed as much in a long time. Dare I say it, better than Spinal Tap?

Yes you may say it because its true :nod:

I've never seen either Bad News film, nor Spinal Tap. :peep:

You should check them out all three are very funny.:)

The Cabin In The Woods - 2011 USA d: Drew Goddard

Thoroughly smug and angering load of bollocks that thinks it's so very clever. The comedy isn't funny, the horror isn't horrifying. One can't help but imagine a lot of self congratulation and patting each other on the back when this was written. It is infuriating from start to end and really doesn't offer anything more than Williamson and Craven dished up with more fun and less pretension as Scream.

Avoid.