8MM (1999)

Hollywood takes on a dark subject matter…

Private investigator Tom Welles (Nicolas Cage) is hired to find out if a snuff film is authentic or not. This is the start of a long dark road.

A snuff film is defined as; “A motion picture genre that depicts the actual death or murder of a person or people, without the aid of special effects, for the express purpose of distribution and entertainment or financial exploitation.” The term “snuff film” was first used by Ed Sanders, who wrote that the Manson family was involved with making such a film to record their murders. Fictionalized snuff or pseudo-snuff began gaining notoriety with the 1976 flick Snuff. Since then this sub-genre has grown slow and steadily in volume with the Guinea Pig films and Cannibal Holocaust being the most infamous ones. More recently A Serbian Film (2010) has dealt with the subject matter Both Guinea Pig: Flower of Flesh and Blood and Cannibal Holocaust have had to prove that they were indeed pseudo-snuff and not the real deal. There are several examples of real people committing torture and murder while filming the act. German cannibal Armin Meiwes filmed the killing of his willing victim, but since this was never done with an intention of distributing for money such videos aren’t generally considered snuff films.

8MM is a bold movie in the light of being a big-budgeted Hollywood flick dealing with humanity at its most depraved. The script was apparently a lot darker, but writer Andrew Kevin Walker and director Joel Schumacher disagreed and Walker has subsequently disowned the film. I can’t help but wonder what the uglier version would have looked like.

Do you like what you see?

*Spoilers*

Cage works well as the private investigator. His descent into the abyss is easily one of the movies’ highlights. While initially looking at the case with a certain detached attitude it gradually gets under his skin. My favorite scene is when Welles decides he wants to give the men responsible a dose of vigilante justice and takes on Eddie Poole (James Gandolfini). Gandolfini makes little out of his role for the most part, but excels in their little showdown not showing an inch of remorse while uttering; 


“Go ahead. Pull the fucking trigger. Well go ahead. What're you waiting for? Go ahead, do it! You faggot! What do you want me to do, start crying like a little baby? "Oh, I'm so sorry I killed the little girl." Well, fuck you, and fuck her! Go ahead! Put me outta my fucking misery! Pull the fucking trigger! Pull the fucking trigger! Do it! Do it!” Cage communicates a whole range of emotions while Poole rambles on. He wants him to suffer, but is afraid to go to that dark place. As Nietzsche has put it; “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.” To push him over he calls the victims’ mother and asks for a boost; “I want to hurt them. I want to punish them for what they did. Please give me your permission to punish them!” This could easily have come off as dumb or corny, but the scene is plays out as an emotional rollercoaster. Give in to temptation. What do you do when you encounter humans devoid of empathy? Do you want him to punish them? Another stand-out in the movie is Joaquin Phoenix as the porn shop clerk Max California that Welles hires to guide him in the underground video market. Otherwise Peter Stormare is a perfect fit as the extreme film director Dino Velvet. According to Max he’s “the Jim Jarmusch of S & M”, which is a small but welcome joke in this otherwise doom laden universe.


One thing I wondered about when Welles and California are scouring the underground market looking for snuff is how is the extreme film market today? Specifically is there still and to what extent a market for extreme movies dealing in physical copies? Internet has made everything more available so has it affected this market? We can watch videos of people being tortured and executed on the internet at any time. All the death and suffering is there for those seeking it, but is it enough? The answer always seems to be no.


One of the driving questions for Welles is the why. Why would anyone want to have someone make something like this? One answers his question with the chilling words; “Because he could.” That is a part of what makes 8MM so interesting. You wonder what the motivation is just like Welles. Tom’s surprised face as he finally unmasks Machine and realizes it is actually a human being behind it is a small revelation. In the end we can never get a satisfactory answer yet we strive for an understanding. It is all the more chilling when Machine doesn’t give a good reason either. In fact he makes a point that his life hasn’t been a troublesome one. There is no history of sexual abuse or other elements to shed light on it. Life isn’t black and white. Life isn’t a Disney film.


*End spoilers*


8MM works well on several levels. It works as a thriller, but more interestingly to me, it's a movie about movies and not just any kind. It puts a seedy light on the more abysmal genres of movies little or completely unknown to most people. While doing so it confronts you with your own views on violence without feeling condescending. It's an element through the movie lingering in the back of your head. I have followed that line of thoughts many times before. Why do I watch movies that feature such cruel and heinous acts? Why do you? Why not?


Joel Schumacher has crafted a solid thriller with 8MM. It gives viewers unfamiliar with snuff film and extreme cinema a safe and sanitized look into the darker side of movies, while posing intelligent questions. Dark mainstream entertainment can indeed be good.


8/10

Machine-Gun Kelly (1958)

 

Bronson the gangster…

Charles Bronson stars in his first leading role as the notorious gangster George R. “Machine-Gun” Kelly. He, along with female companion Florence ‘Flo’ Becker (Susan Cabot) and a gang of criminals are making life sour for bank owners. After a robbery goes wrong Kelly takes out the rest of the gang conspiring to kill him for fouling up. His next move with Flo is to kidnap the daughter of a wealthy businessman for ransom.

Bronson is surprisingly charismatic and loose in this film. His stoic nature more apparent in later films takes a backseat here and he shows remarkable capability. It’s also fun watching him in a rare role as a villain that even manages to generate sympathy, at times anyway. I’ve never seen Bronson laugh as heartily before either. There is a duality to his character. On one hand he’s like a small child terribly afraid of death. Being a bank robber isn’t the wisest of career choices then, but life isn’t predictable. On the other hand he can be a cold and calculating killing-machine. Much of this is due to Flo’s ability to manipulate him. Behind every strong man there is an even stronger woman. Her role becomes progressively more interesting as the film develops. I love watching her going from slyly sexy to a cold and calculating bitch. While there is a serious tone underlying humor frequently sneaks in punctuating that it’s just a film. Most of the laughs are provided by comedian Morey Amsterdam, which clearly isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. He is also involved in one of the most unexpected highlights in the movie.

A classier sort of gangster.

Director and b-movie maestro Roger Corman shot the entire film in merely eight days. I expected it to look a lot rougher, but everything is filmed with an on-the-run sensibility. Machine-Gun Kelly probably gained from this. Both the characters in the movie and the people making it are in a hurry, but still take time to evaluate what has to be done. With such a rigid shooting schedule and budget there is little room to elaborate on anything. A bank robbery is filmed from the outside leaving a shadowy figure holding his hands up and a bullet through the door as illustrations of what’s going on. It’s a necessary minimalistic approach, but it works. I still wish we could have seen more scenes cementing Machine-Gun Kelly’s name though. Fortunately Bronson was just warming up and has since addressed this issue with a hailstorm of bullets.

Machine-Gun Kelly isn’t a miracle of movie making, but in its rather simple script there are some interesting themes both explored and left for the imagination. If you like either Charles Bronson, b-movies with gangsters, Roger Corman or a combination of them then Machine-Gun Kelly is worthwhile.

6/10 

Death Wish 3 (1985)

His name is Paul Kersey…

Paul Kersey (Charles Bronson) returns to New York to visit his old friend Charley. His old town has again become a cesspool of sin. Detective Richard Shriker (Ed Lauter), tired of all the crime, forces Kersey to pick up old habits. He does just that, once again making the few people he cares about possible targets for the scum of the streets. Mayhem ensues.

The first Death Wish established the formula for the series; a man frustrated by the inactions of the law becomes a self-appointed avenger. Death Wish II elaborates in a more exploitative manner and remains the most nihilistic one. The only question here is how will Bronson dispense with the criminals this time around? Death Wish 3 is a more easygoing entry in the Kersey saga. It’s still brutal and packs the highest body count with 48, but shows some restraint for instance in a rape scene, that unlike the previous one is mercifully short here. This is Michael Winner’s third and final Death Wish film before leaving the reigns to veteran director J. Lee Thompson. Winner succeeds again in painting an urban dystopia of America gone wrong. The apartment complex where Charley resided shows good and honest people living in fear of the chaos in the streets. History is as usual repeating itself. But out of these worn-down streets rises a phoenix in the form of Paul Kersey. He is the vigilante angel of death. He is the savior of all that’s good, or at least it appears that way. There are some disturbing lines along the way, like when he says: “It’s like killing roaches – you have to kill ‘em all, otherwise what’s the use?” Kersey needs tools for this job and sends for his old friend Wildey .475 Magnum, a gun that surely would have given Harry Callahan potency problems. Apparently the sale of this gun increases every time Death Wish 3 is shown on cable in the States.

The villains in the movie, led by the menacing Fraker, all feel like caricatures. They are so over-the-top it’s virtually impossible to see them as human beings. That also makes it a lot easier to enjoy watching them die. And that is the big payoff. Bronson has some terrific scenes with the scum. As two crooks are messing up his car he calmly walks outside and asks them what they are doing. Unwilling to comply he kills them both before walking calmly back inside. He just sent Fraker a message. A bullet is all they understand. Things escalate and eventually Kersey declares New York a free-firing-zone, running around with a Browning 30. caliber machine-gun and an assistant feeding him ammunition. This again inspires the good and honest people to pick up their guns. The uprising has begun! Death Wish 3 really takes off towards the end. It’s a non-stop killathon dispensing everyone in the way. Detective Shriker even joins in and he and Bronson jogs up the street together only occasionally taking time to stop when killing. Eventually he finds the opportunity to use a rocket launcher as well. It’s all done in gloriously excessive 80s style. Thanks Ronald Reagan!

Bronson declares war on crime

Interestingly Death Wish 3 was released the year after Bernard Goetz shot a severely wounded four muggers on the New York subway. He was subsequently named “The Subway Vigilante”. The views on him were divided. Charles Bronson even went on to state publicly that people shouldn’t imitate Paul Kersey’s actions in the light of this.

Death Wish 3 is a gung-ho bullet storm of killing for those that like their action films violent. Winner directs this bad boy with brawn, though perhaps less brain this time. Bronson’s stoic nature wins me over every time and he brings a strange sort of minimalistic humanism to the whole affair. You like action? You need Death Wish 3!

9/10

A Serbian Film (2010)

You can add Norway to that list.

A nightmarish journey to the bowels of hell…

In May 2011 A Serbian Film was released in Norwegian stores. Having read about all the controversy I was naturally curious. After getting a confirmation from the distributor that it was uncut I picked it up fearing it would be pulled from stores. Norway bans A Serbian Film two short months later, making it the first one since Ichi the Killer in 2008. There were two paragraphs coming into play in this decision, first being sexual abuse and portrayals that sexualize children. The other paragraph concerns distribution of films with extreme violence made for entertainment purposes. So how gruesome is A Serbian Film and is it really worth banning?

A Serbian Film tells the story of porn actor Milos. He’s tired of the business and one day sees the opportunity to retire for good when he’s offered the lead in a new film. Milos accepts the deal unknowing about just what kind of a project he’s signed onto. The nightmare begins.

We’re given time to get familiar with Milos, his wife and son. They live a decent life. Early on their young son is caught watching one of dad’s porn films. As he goes to bed the kid remarks about a funny feeling he got downstairs when watching the film. Milos and his wife smile at their young innocent offspring. Both this scene and one later on portray child sexuality with skill and care. It is a part of them without knowing fully what it is yet. Building relationships also serves well for what is to follow.

On a technical level A Serbian Film is a surprisingly well-made film. The cinematography is professional, the lighting excellent and editing sensitive. The score works well with gentle piano tracks for the more quiet moments, while a brutal bass is ready to pound you on other occasions. That works particularly well over the ending credits when you feel exhausted and slightly violated.

Simple, but effective. Love that mise-en-scène.

The movie spends time building up and lets you believe Milos’ LSD infused journey into madness. There are a few potholes along the way you might question though. The prime example being when Milos is confronted with footage from something his mad director Vukmir has shot. It is the rape of a new born, or “new-born-porn” as Vukmir enthusiastically hails it. Milos’ eyes begin to wander away from the screen and so do mine at this point. You would think this would be Milos’ exit from the project, but that is not the case. Vukmir considers this horrific child abuse to be art that people just don’t understand, not yet anyway. According to Oxford dictionary art is; “the expression of human creative talent, especially in a visual form.” That is a quite broad definition and I highly doubt any normal sane person would agree that what Vukmir is doing is art. But that is a film within the film. A Serbian Film poses the question; what is art? Can a film that includes rape, incest, necrophilia and murder be art? I would certainly say yes. There is much beauty in A Serbian Film even if it can be in some rather dark corners. It reminds me of Cronenberg commenting on the beauty of a tumor. It is a living organism just trying to evolve. The tumor is a destructive force on the host, but has a beauty in its own right. One might disagree, but “art” and “beauty” are both ideas and challenging them, like in A Serbian Film is certainly meaningful and relevant in my humble opinion.

In regards to Norway’s reasoning for banning it, what we see involving child abuse, with the exception of footage of a young girl eating a lollipop, nothing here is portrayed in a manner to entice. And even that scene feels more like comment on the subject matter with some very dark humorous undertones. With that said, I certainly wouldn’t let a child of mine act in this movie. When it comes to A Serbian Film showing what they consider “extreme violence for entertainment purposes” I really have to disagree. Extreme violence as entertainment can readily be seen in modern movies like Saw and Hostel. Why is Hostel okay? Is Hostel okay if we say it’s a movie that plays on people’s xenophobia? A Serbian Film is actually a lot less interested in showing us brutality like these films. It shows restraint, believe it or not. Yes, it doesn’t shy away either, but it’s not as gratuitous as you might expect.

Becoming the beast.

A Serbian film is an unpleasant film as it should be. Dismissing it as cheap, exploitative trash is way too easy. It goes a long way to offend you, but does so in intelligent fashion. For those depraved enough there is the blackest kind of humor here, perhaps most evident at the very end. There is no escape, not even death. Banning it has only made it more sought after here in Norway and I encourage curious people to seek it out at their own risk. We are all responsible for making a better world. A Serbian Film only makes me want to try harder. In that light it certainly has value.

8.5/10

Untraceable (2008)

Untraceable you say?

A serial killer shows his victims live on internet. Their demise is directly linked to the number of viewers. The more people that watch, the faster they die. FBI agent Jennifer Marsh (Diane Lane), along with agent Dowd (Colin Hanks) is put to the task of tracking the killer down. Help is also enlisted by detective Eric Box (Billy Burke). That is essentially the story. Jennifer has some emotional baggage as well, but the story doesn’t seem concerned with exploring this. What fragments there are, aren’t really particularly interesting, so it may be a good thing. Still, it makes me wonder why they would even bother with it in the first place.

Diane Lane doesn’t exactly shine in the lead, but she’s limited by an underdeveloped script. For the most part Jennifer smiles bravely, when not looking shocked or sad. Colin Hanks is easily the most likeable character, while Billy Burke looks like a cardboard box. The killer himself is given too little development to make any impact. To the writers credits the killer manages to generate some sympathy with the viewer. That rare glimpse of intelligence is however firmly crushed and put to death during the course of the movie.

Psychopaths have all the fun, but at least this killer let's you watch. 

Untraceable is a competently made film. The technical aspects are perfectly fine without being anything special, apart from a couple of inspired moments. The real problem is the script. There are too many plot holes and dull scenes. You are never surprised during the movie apart from perhaps Jennifer’s stupidity when hunting the serial killer. You’re an FBI agent, so act like one! Most of the elements in the movie work okay, so it’s a pity the script drags everything down.

In all fairness I think Untraceable raises a valid point in terms of media and particularly internet cynicism. It doesn’t feel real, but there are real people behind the tragedies we witness. Trying to make it more realistic Lane at one point mentions the now infamous videos of soldiers being beheaded. Will anyone who reads this look for those videos afterwards? Have you perhaps already seen it or some other clip of a person dying? It’s quite remarkable how much cruelties we witness through the news, internet and so on growing up. Unfortunately they seem hell bent on making you realize this and so, much like watching a Paul Haggis film, the message becomes smeared all over your face. I like movies that don’t underestimate its audience. Movies that allow you to discover and contemplate things for yourself are indeed more rewarding. Less can definitely be more!

I will give Untraceable kudos for not spending a lot of time rounding off the movie. We know what the end is and what happens to Jennifer, her family and all others involved after isn’t interesting. Just like Die Hard!

In the end Untraceable is forgettable thriller. It’s passable entertainment, but don’t you want more from your movies?

4/10

The Human Centipede (First Sequence) (2009)

The Doctor will see you now…

Scientist Dr. Heiter (Dieter Laser aka Mantrid from Lexx) has a dream of creating a human centipede. Why would anyone want to do such a thing you might ask? Well, people have different interests and some are more eccentric than others. You could of course just label him a madman. It will make everything go down easier.

The movie opens with Heiter finding a suitable victim for his experiments at a rest stop. The hunter is patiently waiting for a prey. He’s a creepy looking man, much thanks to a strong face and truly villainous, borderline non-human eyes. A long coat, a dart gun and a car with a decent seized trunk can get you a long way when you’re a mad scientist, at least in terms of acquiring victims. The good doctor has plenty of luck on his side. One strange evening a couple of ladies lost in their search for a party show up at his front door. If there ever was an incentive to learn how to change tires this is the movie. It’s welcome that one of the ladies comments the lack of cell phone reception. “There is always reception!” Cell phones have become an element that always plays into consideration when psycho’s or the threat of psychopaths is imminent in horror films set after the 90s. The two girls, Lindsay and Jenny soon realize that their host isn’t quite right and unsuccessfully tries to escape. One of them gives it another go later on in a painfully slow cat and mouse game. It plays out remarkably well and has a tone and look similar to the scene following the dog chase in Tenebre.

A part of what builds up around the whole atmosphere of unease is the look of the movie. It’s given a cold and sterile, bluish look. Everything feels very clinical. Heiter’s house is like a small fortress sparse on everything. Dieter Laser impresses as the doctor. You can see Heiter’s detached attitude to humans in his eyes. It’s really quite terrifying. He feels like a poster boy for Nazi scientists. The doctor would probably be more at home during WWII when medical ethics was a non-issue. It would have been perfect for his experiment.

One of the more terrifying scenes in The Human Centipede.

Then there is the actual human centipede of the movie. As it progressed it started dawning on me just how twisted this idea is merely in theory. But this isn’t about theories and director Tom Six in content to show you more than you’ll need to see. The most affectionate gore hounds might be disappointed, but what restraint is shown only works to The Human Centipede’s advantage. The simple drawings Heiter shows when explaining the procedure to his victims works remarkably well. Initially I thought the movie would end with the completion of the human centipede, but this only marks around the 50 minute mark. For the last 40 minutes we follow the doctor, his human centipede and its/their effort to escape. The small cage designed for the human centipede made me squirm. If it isn’t bad enough that you have been surgically sown together with two other people you are confined to a small space at night as well. Add to that the humiliation of being in this state and you’ve got yourself an incredibly unpleasant and highly distressing situation. The thought of it really does make me uncomfortable, which is a good thing.

Science used for nefarious purposes.

Twisted as The Human Centipede is there is actually a very dark sense of humor in it. Yes, it’s gross and filled with what-the-fuck moments, but I also found myself laughing quietly at how absurd it is. It wouldn’t surprise me if Six’s sense of humor stems from Jörg Buttgereit’s Nekromantik. At least here the center of affection is alive though.        

                                                                                     

The Human Centipede is a challenging horror flick. It’s unpleasant to watch and is able to do that without going overboard graphically. I was always curious what would happen around the next corner. Could there possibly be anything near a happy ending? It is a horror that will benefit from multiple viewings. Tom Six has created a perverse little picture well worth seeing.

The sequel The Human Centipede (Full Sequence) has recently been banned in its entirety in the UK. I’m quite anxious to see how Six is going to top the first one, but since Buttgereit managed it with Nekromantik 2, anything’s possible. A third film has been confirmed so it looks like this is a concept that will be explored in more graphic detail in the future. The Human Centipede (First Sequence) is worth checking out for fans of alternate cinema.

8.5/10  

Hitch Hike to Hell (1977)

Take the bus instead…

Loving son and truck driver for a local commercial laundry, Howard Martin (, likes to pick up hitch hikers. It’s a noble thing to do, except for when the hitchhiker’s are running away from home. Howard will kill you for it!

Howard Martin is played by Robert Gribbin better known for his menacing role in Don’t Go Near the Park under the pseudonym Crackers Phinn. Why he wasn’t comfortable having his real name on that film remains a mystery, since Hitch Hike to Hell is just about as exploitative, though slightly less graphic. Martin’s problem with runaways stem from a very close relationship to his mother. That’s right; we have another psycho with severe mommy issues! At this point I’m beginning to wonder if this is the leading cause of serial killers. He is a simple and quiet soul except for his occasional murders. There is no reason to suspect a man like that! That was also the case with Ed Gein, but he turned out to have some rather nasty habits. Hitch Hike to Hell was also made in a time where there were several cases with real serial killers roaming the States. Both the Zodiac Killer and the Skid Row Slasher are briefly mentioned by the detectives trying to ground the film more in reality. It’s in bad taste, but works.

Say, may I offer you a ride in my van?

Now Hitch Hike to Hell is competently made for a 70s exploitation, even if it does add little to the serial killer genre. It all feels distinctly underdeveloped. Howard becomes less and less involved with his job as the murderous tendencies come more and more into play. Has he just started murdering when we enter the film or has it been going on for a longer period of time? I feel Hitch Hike to Hell would have benefited if we were given a catalyst for his behavior. His mother is a definite part, but what caused that final leap over to the dark side? It’s probably a bit too much to ask for in a low-budget 70s exploitation though.

There are a lot of good elements in Hitch Hike to Hell that unfortunately don’t add up to much in the end. I’m always weak when it comes to gritty 70s flicks, even if this one is quite mild and less exploitative than it should have been. Serial killers are always an interesting theme, so it’s too bad the execution wasn’t better. Still, you could do a lot worse.

5/10