The most disturbing horror movie ever?

[lepage]

If it is not the most disturbing then it is close to it.

The title of the film is "The Human centidpede"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX8fKLjC__c

pretty disturbing!

[johnmiic]

My friend told me about that one. I won't even look at the clip. No thanks!

[Mikey]

Looks like a comedy :smiley1:

[Meule]

Disturbing? Nah.
Weird? Definitely.

[Brazoo]

If you're able to watch a gory horror film I don't think you'll be as challenged watching this as people initially think. Of course I guess just the idea of this is going to be more disturbing to some people.

It's not horribly graphic - I think is what I'm trying to say.


Looks like a comedy :smiley1:

Actually the Doctor character is hilarious. Best part of the movie and worth it just for his performance.

[toys2cool]

lmfao! holy crap :smiley1:

[Brazoo]

In a way "The Human Centipede" was just an update of the classic mad scientist disfiguring people with crazy experiments movie. Like "Eyes Without a Face" or "The Brain That Wouldn't Die".

"Irreversible" was a much more disturbing horror movie, in my opinion: Irreversible (2002) - IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290673/)

Also "Audition" : Audition (1999) - IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0235198/)

The most disturbing movie I can think of is "The Wannsee Conference". A made for TV German movie filmed from surviving transcripts in real time of a famous conference where Nazi's met to discus their plans for the "final solution". All it is is a conference room full of Nazi leaders calmly discussing the extinction of millions of people as if they're vice-presidents in a corporation discussing a new product. To me that's true horror: Die Wannseekonferenz (TV 1984) - IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088377/)

What are your guys most disturbing movies?

[babycyclops]

Most disturbing movie: Come and See.
It is a Soviet era World War 2 film

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091251/

Audition is waaaaay out there, pretty hard to sit through. I've been avoiding Irreversible.
I have to admit, I'm curious about Human Centipede, and might check it out.
Creepiest horror film: Rosemary's Baby is hard to top for fear and paranoia

[knight errant00]

Also "Audition" : Audition (1999) - IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0235198/)

I was scanning the thread to see if anyone had mentioned that yet. I actually had to stop during the ending, it was so getting under my skin [shudder].

Never been more bothered by a movie. Ever.

[Mikey]

Personally, I thought Audition was kind of boring.

I think because I like monsters better than psychos.

[fallensaviour]

Looks like a comedy :smiley1:

I agree seems very amusing not really disturbing...LOL

[JediJaida]

I ran into a cheesy Mexican horror movie on Sci-Fi a couple of years ago. I can't remember the name, but the upshot is, a young man and his fiancee become trapped in a town full of overly inbred people, who are descendents of Cthulu, and in the end, he sets himself on fire, rather than marry his own sister, but he doesn't die.

Instead, they both end up falling into a well, and swimming off, and there's a bas relief of Cthulu or whatever Old One it was that started the whole thing.

Went to Wikipedia and looked up cthulu. It was a movie titled 'Dagon', and it seems that everyone in the town had the same Daddy: Dagon, but different mommies.

The ending, while not squicky, was truly disturbing, cuz it didn't really resolve anything except for the fact that the lead male actually swam off with his mermaid sister!

If that ain't disturbing, I don't know what is.

Oh, and the remake of 'The Cuckoos of Ipswich' with Christopher Reeves.

That ending was really disturbing, as was that little brat in charge of the kids. She was creepy with a capital 'C'.

[Mr.Krusher]

"Threads" is pretty rough for me. An older Charles Band film called 'Tourist Trap' always bothers the hell outta me, ughhh.

[Bizarro Amy]

Tokyo Gore Police. That movie messed with my head.

[Brazoo]

Most disturbing movie: Come and See.
It is a Soviet era World War 2 film

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091251/

Audition is waaaaay out there, pretty hard to sit through. I've been avoiding Irreversible.
I have to admit, I'm curious about Human Centipede, and might check it out.
Creepiest horror film: Rosemary's Baby is hard to top for fear and paranoia

Oh wow - I'm going to check out "Come and See" for sure! I just googled some images from it. Cheers!

Rosemary's Baby is creepy for sure. If you haven't seen it yet you should check out an earlier Polanski movie called "Repulsion".

[babycyclops]

Oh wow - I'm going to check out "Come and See" for sure! I just googled some images from it. Cheers!

Rosemary's Baby is creepy for sure. If you haven't seen it yet you should check out an earlier Polanski movie called "Repulsion".

You're welcome. The movie really is a punch in the guts.

I've never seen Repulsion, reckon i'll track it down! I really like 'The Tenant', another one of Polanski's early films, too.

[Brazoo]

You're welcome. The movie really is a punch in the guts.

I've never seen Repulsion, reckon i'll track it down! I really like 'The Tenant', another one of Polanski's early films, too.

"The Tenant" is great too. Actually a lot of people refer to "Repulsion", "The Tenant" and "Rosemary's Baby" as Polanski's Apartment Trilogy, so I think you'll enjoy it for sure.

[Gorn Captain]

The Sound of Music still scares the hell out of me.

[Mikey]

Getting back to the movie in question, I think having a mad German scientist as the bad guy is over the top cliché :smiley1:

[fallensaviour]

Getting back to the movie in question, I think having a mad German scientist as the bad guy is over the top cliché :smiley1:

I loved that part...LOL

Shhtop!!!! :smiley1:
That's part of what really makes me want to watch this. :smiley1:
Mad german scientist The ultimate cliché.

[megoapesnut]

"Threads" is pretty rough for me. An older Charles Band film called 'Tourist Trap' always bothers the hell outta me, ughhh.

Tourist Trap with Chuck Conners and Tanya Roberts? I love that flick. One of my favorite low budget horror flicks. I haven't watched it for a while so I'll have to dig out the DVD sometime soon.

[Mr.Krusher]

Tourist Trap with Chuck Conners and Tanya Roberts? I love that flick. One of my favorite low budget horror flicks. I haven't watched it for a while so I'll have to dig out the DVD sometime soon.

Thats the one. Nary a drop of blood is spilled in the film, but the atmosphere is of utter hopelessness and its very claustrophobic and uncomfortable later in the film. The scene where 'he' is using the plaster...that dialogue and his inflection...VERY dark and unsettling - far more visceral than any silly 'Jason' or 'slasher' crap.

I think that its a very original film and would like to see it re-done by someone with a talented eye.

I also love 'Dolls'. But thats a whole different scene, thats just an awesome Stuart Gordon/Charles Band fairy tale. :cool_y:

[clemso]

Texas Chainsaw Massacre to me is the most disturbing that I have watched

[Mr.Krusher]

Clemso - Agreed man, that was a doozy. Made me want to toss up and then have a shower the first time I saw it. :yuk:

I'm sure that it MUST have been on the 'Video Nasty' list.

[fallensaviour]

Texas Chainsaw Massacre to me is the most disturbing that I have watched

The original from the 70's?
Really... :juggleyes_y:
Again silly and humorous/preposterous... :smiley1:
Maybe there is something wrong with me... :smiley1:

Disturbing I tend to lean more along the lines of I spit on your grave,last house on the left(original),cannibal holocaust,Hostel or Henry:portrait of a serial killer.

All that other slasher crap is just ridiculous and often funny.Or simply ridiculously funny.

[clemso]

The original from the 70's?
Really... :juggleyes_y:
Again silly and humorous/preposterous... :smiley1:
Maybe there is something wrong with me... :smiley1:

Disturbing I tend to lean more along the lines of I spit on your grave,last house on the left(original),cannibal holocaust,Hostel or Henry:portrait of a serial killer.

All that other slasher crap is just ridiculous and often funny.Or simply ridiculously funny.

Well I was quite young when i saw it. I'm sure compared todays films it might not stand up, but it scared the s**t out of me :terror:

[Earth 2 Chris]

I saw the end of Rosemary's Baby recently, having never seen it all the way through. The sight of Clara from Andy Griffith saying "Hail Satan" over and over again was quite disturbing in and of itself.

I've never seen the Exorcist all the way through. I don't plan to either.

Carpenter's Prince of Darkness scared the beejeezus out of me. It really disturbed me for a number of weeks after seeing it. I was in my early teens then, and my head was scrambled enough by hormones and such.

The first true horror movie I ever saw was Carpenter's The Thing. What a way to start out!!!

Chris

[fallensaviour]

Well I was quite young when i saw it. I'm sure compared todays films it might not stand up, but it scared the s**t out of me :terror:

When I saw it I was 11 I think so that might skew my opinion?
I had to own it no small feet at the time as it was "illegal" in Canada?
Not sure why,I mean there were way more graphic films than it out there at the time.
I just find it hard to believe anybody thought it was real I know it was based off of ed gains but he was around in the 50's not the seventies and he never had a chainsaw?
It's a film classic for sure I was utterly disappointed with the new remakes.

Not trying to be judgemental I mean if it is disturbing to you than it is disturbing to you no ifs ands or butts about it.

[alex]

This had my jaw dropping with repulsion, part of the "masters of hooror"
Imprint (TV episode 2006) - IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0757061/)

[babycyclops]

Disturbing I tend to lean more along the lines of I spit on your grave,last house on the left(original),cannibal holocaust,Hostel or Henry:portrait of a serial killer.



'Cannibal Holocaust' I think is in its own category of messed-upness, what with the animal cruelty and all. I saw it uncut for the first time about 3 years ago, and it fully lives up to it's reputation as one of the most horrific films out there.
I think it's a really clever, way ahead of it's time film, not just a sleazy disgusting film that is scary by accident. Definitely a challenge.


I've never seen the Exorcist all the way through. I don't plan to either.

I know what you mean! Even though I love scary movies and am a dyed-in -the-wool gorehound, I avoided the Exorcist for years, and had never sat through the whole film. I finally watched it a couple of years ago. It's a scary spooky film!

[cjefferys]

I just knew that this thread would be about Human Centipede. I've been hearing about it for a few months now and I just have to check it out (although I've mostly heard poor reviews about it).

Not really a horror movie, but I thought "Requiem for a Dream" was pretty disturbing. A good film, but I have no desire to see it again. "Irreversible" is a bit disturbing too. And I've heard that much of the camera movements and sounds in that film were done to subliminally make the viewer even more uneasy while watching.

If we can add books to the discussion, by far the most disturbing novel I've read is "The Girl Next Door". Very dark and depressing, I felt like I got punched in the stomach after reading it, and it left me in a bad mood for a couple days. The fact that it was based on a true story makes it even worse. I haven't seen the film adaptation yet, but I'm guessing it's not as bad, there was stuff in the book that would absolutely have to be left out of the film.

[Mikey]

Not for scariness, but for pure shock factor nothing can beat this scene from Exorcist 3

Warning,
Don't watch this if you have a weak heart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Srhd7kKARI

m

[Mr.Krusher]

Several of those 'Masters of Horror' are quite good. (And many are, ehhh)

We collect the DVDs whenever we see them, we have most of the set. 'Jennifer' is good as is the one with the heavy guy from Cheers.

Although not disturbing, I think that 'Abominable' is a hell of a fun ride, especially for a newer film.
:ape:

Mikey01 - Thanks for the ten years off my life man! DAMN! Had to snap the lamp on after that! :please_y::smiley1:

[megoapesnut]

Carpenter's Prince of Darkness scared the beejeezus out of me. It really disturbed me for a number of weeks after seeing it.

Yeah, this was my pick. The ending sent chills up my spine that are just beginning to warm back up after 20 years.

[fallensaviour]

Not for scariness, but for pure shock factor nothing can beat this scene from Exorcist 3

Warning,
Don't watch this if you have a weak heart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Srhd7kKARI

m

:smiley1: Come on don't watch if you have a weak heart... :smiley1:
Really... :smiley1:

[clemso]

Not for scariness, but for pure shock factor nothing can beat this scene from Exorcist 3

Warning,
Don't watch this if you have a weak heart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Srhd7kKARI

m

How about the end scene from Don't Look Now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-J9z5cJEGc

[Brazoo]

Not for scariness, but for pure shock factor nothing can beat this scene from Exorcist 3

Warning,
Don't watch this if you have a weak heart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Srhd7kKARI

m

To be fair, it might not have the same effect when separated from the rest of the movie like that.

It reminded me of that shot in The Shining when Shelley Duvall looks down a hallway, and the camera quickly zooms into a room where two men in masks are doing, uh, something very strange. If that makes any sense. Sorry, I can't find the shot - but that shot always use to be very effective - and it uses the zoom and music in a similar way.

[ctc]

>I just knew that this thread would be about Human Centipede.

....so did I. Haven't seen it yet, but a guy at work said it's.... well.... odd. If you like weird, disgustipating 80's kinda horror you'd probably like this.

Don C.

[wilbs518]

Henry portrait of a serial killer was pretty disturbing to me.

[Goblin19]

Don't Look Now's ending is creepy as heck.

[cjefferys]

Just thought I'd mention that "Human Centipede" got a mention on tonight's Halloween episode of "Community" (which was completely awesome, a zombie movie parody set to ABBA music :smiley1: )

[mego73]

I just knew that this thread would be about Human Centipede. I've been hearing about it for a few months now and I just have to check it out (although I've mostly heard poor reviews about it).

Not really a horror movie, but I thought "Requiem for a Dream" was pretty disturbing. A good film, but I have no desire to see it again. "Irreversible" is a bit disturbing too. And I've heard that much of the camera movements and sounds in that film were done to subliminally make the viewer even more uneasy while watching.

If we can add books to the discussion, by far the most disturbing novel I've read is "The Girl Next Door". Very dark and depressing, I felt like I got punched in the stomach after reading it, and it left me in a bad mood for a couple days. The fact that it was based on a true story makes it even worse. I haven't seen the film adaptation yet, but I'm guessing it's not as bad, there was stuff in the book that would absolutely have to be left out of the film.

Well, I haven't read the book but I did see the movie and it's really brutal. If they did leave anything out, they sure still left enough in..

[palitoy]

Not really a horror movie, but I thought "Requiem for a Dream" was pretty disturbing. A good film, but I have no desire to see it again.

Agreed, it disturbed more than any horror movie could. I have a friend who owns it, I never understood why.

[bgrimm77]

The original Texas Chainsaw , with the original Psycho and the Exorcist as runners up

[Goblin19]

The needle in the arm scene toward the end of Requiem is unwatchable.

[Hector]

That Human Centipede looks like two hours of LOL...

:smiley1: :smiley1: :smiley1:


Now I wanna rent it!

:smiley1:

[alex]

Just reading the rundown of the movie made me laugh
The Human Centipede (First Sequence) (2009) - IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1467304/)

[highquality]

The eyeball cutting scene in "Hostel" was pretty disturbing.

[lepage]

Truth be known, the most distrubing horror film I have ever seen hands down was cannibal Holocaust. That movie really bothered me. It was not a pleasant ride. To me it boarder lined snuff.

[Goblin19]

Cannibal Holocaust was very tough to watch.

[Hector]

Never seen it...I just saved it on Netflix too...

:smiley1:

[Brazoo]

Truth be known, the most distrubing horror film I have ever seen hands down was cannibal Holocaust. That movie really bothered me. It was not a pleasant ride. To me it boarder lined snuff.

The parts where they killed animals kinda do make it animal snuff. I wasn't effected too much by the film horror-wise, but felt icky about the people involved in making the movie. Personally, not a fan.

[Mikey]

I like this Human Centipede trailer :smiley1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukbuPQ7pGpc&feature=related

m

[cjefferys]

I like Cannibal Holocaust but it's tough to watch the scene where they are tearing apart that big turtle. I have no problem with the human "killings" because I know they are fake.

[lepage]

Cannibal Holocaust as a horror movie did not bother me. What bothered me was the killing of the animals. I have a soft spot for animals and felt it was in VERY poor taste.

The only thing that got to me about the Human centipede is when the "head" of the centipede had to "relieve" himself.

[Brazoo]

I like this Human Centipede trailer :smiley1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukbuPQ7pGpc&feature=related

m

Haha - that was great!

[Goblin19]

I actually watched the version of Cannibal Holocaust without the animal stuff. There's 2 options on the DVD.

[babycyclops]

I like Cannibal Holocaust but it's tough to watch the scene where they are tearing apart that big turtle. I have no problem with the human "killings" because I know they are fake.

For sure. The turtle scene was the worst thing in any Italian cannibal film.
I kept thinking that the turtle could have been 50 or 60 years old, maybe older, and here it is being killed for the sake of a film.
:ugh_y:

[mazinz]

I would go with these

1. scrapbook
2. Men behind the sun 1 and 2
3. at least one of the films in the guniea pig series

[TrueDave]

very "Westerner" attitude here.
People EAT turtle. Everyday. That turtle was probably eaten.

Where do you think McNuggets originally come from? live animals.

Theres a fate worse than "Turtle Death" and that is being exploited by foriegn filmakers. Those "Extras" didnt know what the hell they were doing nor the world would see it.
That movie was like Bruno does Hostel

Most disturbing for me was I spit on your grave. At least the first 15 minutes. I turned it off.

[Karen-bionic-fan]

raw meat and tcm owiginal ir brill

[babycyclops]

very "Westerner" attitude here.
People EAT turtle. Everyday. That turtle was probably eaten.

Where do you think McNuggets originally come from? live animals.

Theres a fate worse than "Turtle Death" and that is being exploited by foriegn filmakers. Those "Extras" didnt know what the hell they were doing nor the world would see it.
That movie was like Bruno does Hostel

Most disturbing for me was I spit on your grave. At least the first 15 minutes. I turned it off.

There's an unpleasant scene in Cannibal Holocaust to offend just about any viewer. Personally, I was commenting on the scene that I found most 'gut wrenching'. I think that movies such as Cannibal Holocaust, and indeed Man Behind the Sun, which blur the distinction between real, and simulated violence on screen, must be approached and discussed differently to films that contain simulated violence, such as 'I spit on your grave'.

[Brazoo]

very "Westerner" attitude here.
People EAT turtle. Everyday. That turtle was probably eaten.

Where do you think McNuggets originally come from? live animals.


I get what you're saying, but the animals in this movie weren't killed in any kind of normal way - that wouldn't have ticked me off - they were basically just used as props and tortured.

[wolfie]

Not gruesome or horrific but just a film that sends shivers through me is THE CHANGELING with George C Scott.

[TrueDave]

There's an unpleasant scene in Cannibal Holocaust to offend just about any viewer. Personally, I was commenting on the scene that I found most 'gut wrenching'. I think that movies such as Cannibal Holocaust, and indeed Man Behind the Sun, which blur the distinction between real, and simulated violence on screen, must be approached and discussed differently to films that contain simulated violence, such as 'I spit on your grave'.

The realism of Spit of your Grave is what bothered me. It was cheap and 70s the woman was not attractive really. Prety sure , but kinda scrawny.

After watching Rambo I understand the Revenge Film Payoff idea, Death Proof etc. I guess I might have gotten "the message" if I had watched it to the end.

I haven,t seen Canibal Holocost in a while. Just the bootleg I brought back from the Pacific before it was available here. that was 5 years or so back.

My buddy the gore hound says 120 days of Sodom is the worst for him. But he still is lookig for more shocking stuff.
Animal Death? I think it was a 70s action film with Teddy Savalis that had a long scene of sctual footage from isside a slaughterhouse. Seen from the point of view of a very young illegal worker. Border Cop?

Faces of Death was pretty nortorious for teh animal deaths.

Wel we know what Hostel three will be.:shocked:

Pet Spa snuff film/ torture porn. :7:

[cjefferys]

Sure I've eaten turtle soup once or twice but the scene still bothered me. Hell, I eat meat, but I have no desire to see what goes on in a slaughterhouse, I'd probably be disgusted and repulsed. Maybe that's hypocritical of me, but I'm sure I'm far from alone in that.

Personally, although I'm not a big fan of animal deaths in films, I've always thought it was done in Cannibal Holocaust to blur reality and fakery. People would be hit in the face with horrific real animal deaths, and then start thinking "Wow, what else is real in this film?" and perhaps be a little more susceptable to believing the effects involving human deaths. The Italian courts were fooled, director Ruggero Deodato had to testify and prove that the impaled woman scene was a special effect and needed to produce the very much alive actress to authorities.

[Mikey]

The Italian courts were fooled, director Ruggero Deodato had to testify and prove that the impaled woman scene was a special effect and needed to produce the very much alive actress to authorities.

Yea, I think i've read she's sitting on a bicycle seat mounted on a pole with a piece of balsa wood in her mouth

Very high-tech :smiley1:

[cjefferys]

Yep, that's how they did it. :)

I don't know why the authorities always seem so clueless and stupid when it comes to special effects. The FBI was convinced that the Japanese Guinea Pig series consisted of real snuff footage at first. Anyone halfway intelligent who's ever watched the footage in question could tell you how laughable that is, and that it's painfully obvious to see the edits and trickery that were done to "hide" the effects work. :smiley1:

[babycyclops]

What I find interesting is that so many films, even mainstream ones, have scenes of torture in them these days. I watched Marathon Man recently; a great film, but it's dental scene pales in comparison to many films today in terms of length and detail. I like to think that I haven't been too brutalised by all this stuff.. Marathon Man still has an effect on me, and films such as the Saw and Hostel franchises hold no interest for me. Reservoir Dogs blew my mind, but I don't want to see James Bond strapped to a chair and having his nuts whacked repeatedly. It's just not pleasant in that sort of a film.
Even District 9, a film I really love, has scenes that border on torture, it's strange, but perhaps a reflection on our times. :huh:
Action films have always had protagonists or their helpless friends (usually women) in peril, but I feel outright torture is pervasive these days.
What do you guys think?
Please don't get me wrong, I take full responsibility for what I watch, and sit through gruesome films by choice, and with gusto!
I just don't think that every second movie needs a torture scene

[mazinz]

for animal abuse, pretty much most of all the Cannibal jungle films (mostly out of Italy) that ripped off/cashed in on the Cannibal holocaust craze all have some sort of animal footage that has the poor thing dying in a rather unatural way

I am suprised no one has mentioned that the animals killed in CH were used for food by the crew AND the natives that did help with the film. Though the animal was very much mocked in it's death, it did not go to a total waste


Yep, that's how they did it. :)

I don't know why the authorities always seem so clueless and stupid when it comes to special effects. The FBI was convinced that the Japanese Guinea Pig series consisted of real snuff footage at first. Anyone halfway intelligent who's ever watched the footage in question could tell you how laughable that is, and that it's painfully obvious to see the edits and trickery that were done to "hide" the effects work. :smiley1:

That was because the actor Charlie Sheen saw the one called "flowers of flesh and blood" at some party and thought it was real, so he called the feds (it later turns out it was a tape provided by Chas Balun for a tidbit of info). Charlie was probably high as a kite and the thing was prob on some sort of large screen tv and being a vhs copy with that frame of mind it might appear that you are viewing something real...

you gotta admit the effects were very well done in that

[babycyclops]

My buddy the gore hound says 120 days of Sodom is the worst for him. But he still is lookig for more shocking stuff.


My friend loaned me 120 days of Sodom but I haven't watched it yet.
It's a Chinese bootleg with no subtitles, and the fact that it has no subtitles is what is putting me off. In any case I'm in no hurry to watch the film.
I'm glad I'm not still looking for the next ultimate gore-shock.

'Killing for Culture' by David Kerekes & David Slater is a sober and excellent book that covers these type of taboo films.

[Brazoo]

for animal abuse, pretty much most of all the Cannibal jungle films (mostly out of Italy) that ripped off/cashed in on the Cannibal holocaust craze all have some sort of animal footage that has the poor thing dying in a rather unatural way

I am suprised no one has mentioned that the animals killed in CH were used for food by the crew AND the natives that did help with the film. Though the animal was very much mocked in it's death, it did not go to a total waste


I have never heard they ate them before. It's nice they had a conscience - but the torture was still pretty classless in my opinion.



That was because the actor Charlie Sheen saw the one called "flowers of flesh and blood" at some party and thought it was real, so he called the feds (it later turns out it was a tape provided by Chas Balun for a tidbit of info). Charlie was probably high as a kite and the thing was prob on some sort of large screen tv and being a vhs copy with that frame of mind it might appear that you are viewing something real...

you gotta admit the effects were very well done in that


Haha! That's incredible! Oh, stupid stupid Charlie - you never let me down.

[mego73]

My friend loaned me 120 days of Sodom but I haven't watched it yet.
It's a Chinese bootleg with no subtitles, and the fact that it has no subtitles is what is putting me off. In any case I'm in no hurry to watch the film.
I'm glad I'm not still looking for the next ultimate gore-shock.

'Killing for Culture' by David Kerekes & David Slater is a sober and excellent book that covers these type of taboo films.


I've seen Salo, it's considered a "great" film. It doesn't have much in the way of gore (although it has some) what is really revolting about it is sexual abuse and humiliation which, shall we say, sometimes involve scatological actions. And the fact that this is all done to what appears to be teenagers.

[Brazoo]

Best line:

http://www.blogcdn.com/blog.moviefone.com/media/2010/10/nihil.jpg

[Bizarro Amy]

Not exactly a horror movie, but I am freaked out by "Eraserhead" - specifically the baby. I read an interview in which they ask David Lynch about thanking a veterinarian in the credits and whether or not it had anything to do with it. Lynch refuses to speak about it, then ends the interview. I've read that it was a calf fetus, kept alive for the filming, but I don't know if that was ever confirmed.

[cjefferys]

My friend loaned me 120 days of Sodom but I haven't watched it yet.
It's a Chinese bootleg with no subtitles, and the fact that it has no subtitles is what is putting me off. In any case I'm in no hurry to watch the film.
I'm glad I'm not still looking for the next ultimate gore-shock.

'Killing for Culture' by David Kerekes & David Slater is a sober and excellent book that covers these type of taboo films.

Salo is a pretty good film, but it's not quite as notorious as it's reputation. But I could see people being offended by it.

"Killing for Culture" is a fantastic book. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in mondo and horror films with "snuff" elements. Very well written and researched.

Yeah, the whole "Flowers of Flesh and Blood" debacle proves that Charlie Sheen is a bit of an idiot. :smiley1: Although it's true that the bootlegs of the Guinea Pig films that circulated back then were pretty fuzzy looking due to them being so many generations removed from the original VHS, so I guess I could see the obvious special effects being more obscured. But still, would a real snuff film use multiple cameras and a bunch of edited shots? I doubt it.

[TrueDave]

New Movie and new topic of debate. ( Well, same as Spit on Grave)

I just ejected a movie from the public library. Hills Have Eyes 2.

I dont remember what it was about the first this morning but now I do.

I will not watch rape on film.

I can stand the threat of rape , maybe even off screen . I wanted to see the rest of this film , but as soon as I saw it I ejected.
Hills have eyes belongs with Saw and Hostel.



Even Savini told me once he wont watch realistic rape. And he's a flake.

[cjefferys]

Definitely stay far away from IRREVERSIBLE then.

[Mr.Krusher]

Damn....some of these 'films' are horridly dark and negative...

Speaking on graphic depictions of rape and torture, I dont want anything to do with either.
Many of my younger friends ask me to see 'Saw' and 'Hostel' and 'Devil's Rejects', but I'm sorry, thats little more than 'getting off' on morbidity and pain - there isnt anything 'scary' about most of these 'nuevo shockers' - only grotesque and evil depictions.

When I was younger they were showing 'Don't Go in the House' as part of a double-feature. We saw it at the drive-in and within twenty minutes I was asking my friends and family: "What the f##k is this?! Is this an instruction manual for psychos?!?"

Reality is cruel enough at times, I mean, hell, my mother's boyfriend put a shotgun in his mouth and pulled the trigger - ten feet in front of her and with his own children watching out the windows...I mean, Jesus...

My folks were very cool and usually let us rock-out and have a ball, my pop showed me and my buddies Dawn of the Dead when I was about 7, and we had a BLAST!
I think that the difference is that we 'knew' what was up - we were all raised right. (My pop was an old WWII guy that acted just like Brian Blessed in Flash Gordon.) I think that some of the modern horror films are socially repugnant - and they do nothing whatsoever for society. In my opinion they are especially damaging to younger boys/men that might not have ANY positive outside influence.

[Brazoo]

Damn....some of these 'films' are horridly dark and negative...

Speaking on graphic depictions of rape and torture, I dont want anything to do with either.
Many of my younger friends ask me to see 'Saw' and 'Hostel' and 'Devil's Rejects', but I'm sorry, thats little more than 'getting off' on morbidity and pain - there isnt anything 'scary' about most of these 'nuevo shockers' - only grotesque and evil depictions.

When I was younger they were showing 'Don't Go in the House' as part of a double-feature. We saw it at the drive-in and within twenty minutes I was asking my friends and family: "What the f##k is this?! Is this an instruction manual for psychos?!?"

Reality is cruel enough at times, I mean, hell, my mother's boyfriend put a shotgun in his mouth and pulled the trigger - ten feet in front of her and with his own children watching out the windows...I mean, Jesus...

My folks were very cool and usually let us rock-out and have a ball, my pop showed me and my buddies Dawn of the Dead when I was about 7, and we had a BLAST!
I think that the difference is that we 'knew' what was up - we were all raised right. (My pop was an old WWII guy that acted just like Brian Blessed in Flash Gordon.) I think that some of the modern horror films are socially repugnant - and they do nothing whatsoever for society. In my opinion they are especially damaging to younger boys/men that might not have ANY positive outside influence.


Well - horror movies in general are not for everybody, and everyone's got their own threshold for horror. Just as you think "Saw" is going "too far", there's someone who thinks "Dawn of the Dead" is going "too far" as well.

Fiction is fiction, horror is horror, and we all just have different tastes. I see no harm.

[Brazoo]

Yeah, the whole "Flowers of Flesh and Blood" debacle proves that Charlie Sheen is a bit of an idiot. :smiley1: Although it's true that the bootlegs of the Guinea Pig films that circulated back then were pretty fuzzy looking due to them being so many generations removed from the original VHS, so I guess I could see the obvious special effects being more obscured. But still, would a real snuff film use multiple cameras and a bunch of edited shots? I doubt it.

I just watched it online because you guys mentioned it, and that's what blew my mind. As dumb as he is, Sheen must kinda know how a movie is put together, why would he think an actual snuff movie had multiple camera set-ups, dissolves and a music score? Hel-arious.

[samurainoir]

Most of Takashi Miike's stuff gets pretty extreme, but Audition takes the prize.

[megowgsh]

Kickin' It Old School or Balls of Fury

Both very disturbing

[mazinz]

I just watched it online because you guys mentioned it, and that's what blew my mind. As dumb as he is, Sheen must kinda know how a movie is put together, why would he think an actual snuff movie had multiple camera set-ups, dissolves and a music score? Hel-arious.

He was probably high, but really if I made a snuff film I would want it to look like it was shot and not really snuff (expect for the "effects"), this way I would be able to do it again down the road.

Take the average joe who has had no real "initiation" into extreme horror other than technically now PG rated Friday the 13th or Nightmare on elm and then show that person the guinea pig series and watch the reaction. They will do a double take to make sure what they saw was not real

[TrueDave]

Well - horror movies in general are not for everybody, and everyone's got their own threshold for horror. Just as you think "Saw" is going "too far", there's someone who thinks "Dawn of the Dead" is going "too far" as well.

Fiction is fiction, horror is horror, and we all just have different tastes. I see no harm.


I feel harmed by watching the last Saw movie. It had been years and I forgot.
Reminds me of a question somebodty asked the Punisher: " When do you have enough revenge?"

My Gore Hound buddy keeps saying he wish he could unwatch some of the stuff he has seen. But on he goes.

Heck in 15 years we'll all chuckle about these little films when " Hammer Smashes Newborn Baby Hamster in 3-D part 6 " comes out.

I thought Alien Vs Predator ( I THINK 2) was bad. Having the Aliens cacooon all the women in the maternity ward and ( double?) impregnate them was harsh. Predator Vison aside. It was too graphic an idea.

The baby Zombie in the Dawn of the Dead remake was good becaue it was evolving the story, new feelings, questions answered. It was harsh but not cruel for the sake of it.

I DO believ that Horro Movies promote violence. I know they do. I would like to drag the freak who wrote the "breastfeeding" scene in Hills Have Eyes remake out in the street and beat him till he/she stops giggling.

You are what you feed yourself. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell something.

I think I need to watch teh Muppet Movie and take a strong bath.

[ctc]

>I DO believ that Horro Movies promote violence. I know they do. I would like to drag the freak who wrote the "breastfeeding" scene in Hills Have Eyes remake out in the street and beat him till he/she stops giggling.

I think you just proved your point....

I dunno: I can watch the most offensive, perverse, gruesome stuff and not flinch 'cos I know it's not real. That's me, and I can understand people not wanting anything to do with some of the more blatant, awful stuff out there. On the other hand; I can't watch shows like "The Real World" 'cos the selling point is the (proported) suffering, fighting and stupidity of real people. THAT I find disturbing: the kick being that all the misery is real.

Don C.

[Brazoo]

I DO believ that Horro Movies promote violence. I know they do. I would like to drag the freak who wrote the "breastfeeding" scene in Hills Have Eyes remake out in the street and beat him till he/she stops giggling.

You are what you feed yourself. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell something.

We've had this discussion before in the comics thread.

Basically I'm a horror fan - I've never been a violent person - I think freedom of speech works just fine and I think the facts are on my side.

[TrueDave]

Maybe I'm just too old for these kind of movies. Just saw Shutter Island and I think it's the most disturbingthing I have seen. Yet good.

Gore, Rape, Cruelty and all that garbage is for teenagers. Always has been.

Most of the gore films I like are from when i was a teen, or before.

Shutter Island was rated R because you would have to be an adult to understand it.

I know why was Hills Have Eyes 2 is rated R. Can't explain it to make sense though.

I think a broader catagory should be made for torture ( orig Chainsaw Mass) , rape ( Hills have eyes), revenge ( spit on Grave) , or just sick ( Devils rejects)

theyre Cruelty movies.
:monkey:

[Bo8a_Fett]

I think there is a huge difference between 'shock' movies and 'horror' movies...in days gone by such as much of the old universal classics the reliance was on the building up of suspense and creating an atmosphere rather than out and out gore/shock value....this way of making movies in the genre has pretty much died out....compare Halloween and Friday the 13th...Carpenter uses little gore and creates a much better horror movie with atmosphere and the steady building up of suspense whereas 13th goes for the 'pow..didn't see that coming' gore filled effect heavy set piece. One is a true horror film and the other just goes for the shock value. Depending on your values and personal discomfort different people are disturbed by different things such as rape, torture, war and animal cruelty, I know my values changed when I had kids and found films i'd previously watched with little or no real opinion became more intense and uncomfortable due to having children such as 'Pet Cemetry' and 'Don't Look Now'.
Horror much as most films nowadays rely of a formulatic principle, with some exceptions, most have to have set pieces thrown in at regular intervals because the industry believes it must keep the audiance constantly entertained rather than build any suspense or create an affinity with characters. Yes there are exceptions to the rule..the original Dawn of the Dead is a great example of this because the balance between set pieces and characterisation is spot on...you really care what happens to the main cast and as the film heads towards its final 15 you do get that 'I wonder what happens..will they survive...I hope they do' feeling and therefore have an emotional response to the ending rather than 'meh' it was an ok film. Nowadays with the advent of 'we've gotta have more gore/shock in this' than any other film being made the idea of actually telling a story is left behind. It becomes a shock for shock's sake, or more gore...there is a difference however in what is realistically portrayed compared to shlock (sic) horror...'10 Arlington Place' is creepy because it is based on a real life story..the gors in say a 'monty python' film is acceptable because you KNOW it's not real (for example look at the 'zulu war' sequance in 'meaning of life'...if it was a proper war film you'd think it was gross).'Come and See' is traumatic because of the change that overcomes the young boy in the movie due to the horrors he witnesses and we see it with him...a great anti war movie. I'd much rather be watching a good suspensful build up movie to a set piece film every time and i'd feel much more comfortable watching made up stuff than re-enactments of real life killers or torture...THAT is what I find disturbing..even the documentries on tv about real life stuff.

[ctc]

>Horror much as most films nowadays rely of a formulatic principle

I don't think that's just nowadays though. I think technology and mores play a part: even the old Universal monster films were SUPPOSED to be shocking and disturbing.... check out how they're sold on the posters.... but they seem almost benign to us. Partly 'cos in the 70 years hence we've developed effects to the point where we don't have to cut away from the gruesomeness for it to be effective. (Check out the early splatterhorror films of the late 50's/early 60's to see what I mean.)

Don C.

[Bo8a_Fett]

True about the universal stuff ctc, but even then the fomula then was to build up gradually throughout the film and rely on suspense rather than pepper the film with worked out set pieces at times regulated to peak audiance interest. The spatterhorror films of the 50/60, the explotation movies from the 70's, video nasties and snuff movies from the 80's are all sub genres rather than a whole. You make a good point about the earlier films becoming benign...lets face it with sci-fi we call most of the movies made pre 1970 as B-movies. Gore can be effective as can the most simple of effects or direction...it just seems that nowadays the formula seems to be 'we have to have more than the other film' or the audience will get bored if nothing seems to be happening.

[mazinz]

I think there is a huge difference between 'shock' movies and 'horror' movies...in days gone by such as much of the old universal classics the reliance was on the building up of suspense and creating an atmosphere rather than out and out gore/shock value....this way of making movies in the genre has pretty much died out....compare Halloween and Friday the 13th...Carpenter uses little gore and creates a much better horror movie with atmosphere and the steady building up of suspense whereas 13th goes for the 'pow..didn't see that coming' gore filled effect heavy set piece. One is a true horror film and the other just goes for the shock value. Depending on your values and personal discomfort different people are disturbed by different things such as rape, torture, war and animal cruelty, I know my values changed when I had kids and found films i'd previously watched with little or no real opinion became more intense and uncomfortable due to having children such as 'Pet Cemetry' and 'Don't Look Now'.
Horror much as most films nowadays rely of a formulatic principle, with some exceptions, most have to have set pieces thrown in at regular intervals because the industry believes it must keep the audiance constantly entertained rather than build any suspense or create an affinity with characters. Yes there are exceptions to the rule..the original Dawn of the Dead is a great example of this because the balance between set pieces and characterisation is spot on...you really care what happens to the main cast and as the film heads towards its final 15 you do get that 'I wonder what happens..will they survive...I hope they do' feeling and therefore have an emotional response to the ending rather than 'meh' it was an ok film. Nowadays with the advent of 'we've gotta have more gore/shock in this' than any other film being made the idea of actually telling a story is left behind. It becomes a shock for shock's sake, or more gore...there is a difference however in what is realistically portrayed compared to shlock (sic) horror...'10 Arlington Place' is creepy because it is based on a real life story..the gors in say a 'monty python' film is acceptable because you KNOW it's not real (for example look at the 'zulu war' sequance in 'meaning of life'...if it was a proper war film you'd think it was gross).'Come and See' is traumatic because of the change that overcomes the young boy in the movie due to the horrors he witnesses and we see it with him...a great anti war movie. I'd much rather be watching a good suspensful build up movie to a set piece film every time and i'd feel much more comfortable watching made up stuff than re-enactments of real life killers or torture...THAT is what I find disturbing..even the documentries on tv about real life stuff.


you really summed up why I do not like a good majority of the so called horror films that come out these days. Another reason you also see more extremes now than then is because they can actually get away with it and with little to no mpaa involvement. It was rare back in the 80's (and films from the 70's and in the US) to get an unrated video release to see what was cut from the theatrical. Nowadays an unrated release containing more is the industry standard, but as you stated and it is true- they left story and character development behind in exchange for more flashy colors across the screen

[Bo8a_Fett]

True mazinz, they can get away with more these days, and I too have not enjoyed a majority of the horror movies that have come out in the last 20 years...there have been exceptions and the odd stand out film but in general they tend to be all the same and yet trying to outdo each other at the same time...if that makes sense. I think another problem is that there is just so many films coming out these days...you hardly have a chance to anticipate a movie and watch it before a sequal is out or you attention is diverted because another movie is out soon...I know I watch trailers or hear about a movie that i'd like to take a bit more interest in..(maybe even watch lol) but by the time it is out i've forgotten about it because there are so many others fighting for your attention (wait..maybe the forgetting part is just my getting old). It seems there are more movies coming out per month than there were per year nowadays.
I know that remakes, sequals and tv shows made into movies are moneymakers and hollywood doesn't want to risk bucks for something that might not work. I actually saw a movie in blockbusters (Hatchet) that had the tagline 'It's not a Sequal, it's not a remake, it's not a japanese film' which I thought was quite funny...and interested me untill i heard that a sequal was in the making...which kinda enforces my point.

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

We really have gone back to the 50's moviewise.... with so many flicks coming out; most of which are almost INTENDED to be disposable. (Disappearing from collective consciousness and completing the theater/home/gone cycle in a few months.) I think for horror (and a lot of the more nerdlier films) that's why you see more gore and such: it's easier to sell technological advancement and SFX quality than story. And names.... hence the same six people being in every film....

Don C.

[Bo8a_Fett]

Yeah ctc especially the glut of awful awful movies usually shown on sci fy channel over here such as 'Mammoth', 'Bigfoot', 'Mega Pirahna', 'Mega Shark v Mega Octopuss', Pteradactyl' and the like...same story/cast/effects/music in a lot of cases...I shudder over the even worse ones about the end of the world..or cash in ones such as 'Titanic 2'..shudder...now those are scary and disturbing films for ALL the wrong reasons

[ctc]

>those are scary and disturbing films for ALL the wrong reasons

I prefer to think of 'em as fodder for Mystery Science Theater FOUR Thousand.

Don C.