The most disturbing horror movie ever?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[cjefferys]

Definitely stay far away from IRREVERSIBLE then.

[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]

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.

[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.

[Brazoo]

Best line:

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

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]

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.
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

[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.

[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