The most disturbing horror movie ever?

[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. 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. 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.

[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.