Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Reader Reviews' started by dwatts, Jul 15, 2005.
I think Rhett reviewed it back in 2005- but I had heard tons about it before the review- many people thought it was a real snuff film - I dont have to see it to know there is no point to the movie unless you like senseless torture of women and no other plot to the movie. To be sick and disgusting for no other reason than to see how sick and disgusting you can be isnt art IMO- but that is just my opinion<: This particular movie in this thread is not the movie I am specifically talking about (I think it was "THE DEVILS EXPERIMENT?" although it was passed around untitled for a while) . I love takashi miike stuff so dont think I am against over the top edgy movies-but a movie that is just that sick for no other reason than to be sick and degrading isnt too far removed from the enjoyment someone would get from a snuff film- which is sad....so that is why I have personally steered clear of any guinea pig releases - so maybe some of the other releases are different and have some story or value or creepiness to them. So that is my two cents on guinea pig - Ill shut up now and let those that have a different view on it speak<:
Well, Flower of Flesh and Blood was definitely the movie Charlie Sheen thought to be a snuff film. Honestly, there technically isn't any suffering in the movie. And also technically there is no degradation either. In Devil's Experiment, which I do not want to see, there is plenty of both.
Like mentioned above, you can watch FoFaB purely as a really impressive special effects demo. I felt more uncomfortable watching Cannibal Holocaust, though Cannibal Holocaust is clearly much more enjoyable as a movie than FoFaB is.
So does anyone think Flower of Flesh and Blood really looks real enough to be mistaken for a snuff film- or is Charlie just an idiot? lol..Id probably guess the latter
Charlie's an idiot.
I think under the right circumstances it could be mistaken for a real snuff film. From what I understand, what Charlie watched was a compilation tape duped from multiple other tapes. Scenes from all sorts of unknown (at the time) movies were on there along with bits and pieces of FoFaB. If the right scenes were chosen, the quality of the picture was lousy, and maybe you had a little alcohol or something in you, you could be fooled.
It's easy now to dismiss it because everyone knows everything about it. Not so easy back then when you got the tape through a friend of a friend.
I can't help but chime in on this one.
I first got a copy of this film back in the late 80's. And, yeah, it was an Nth generation dupe that had been handed down from mohawk to mohawk. The effect of seeing this for the first time was truly unsettling. After some heavy scrutiny, we did deduce that it was not real, but we were all seasoned horror geeks in film school, so we had some knowledge.
However, this became a pretty powerful tool in my arsenal of unwatchable videos. Whenever we were throwing a party and wanted to get everyone out of the house, we'd just pop this tape into the VCR and start counting seconds. The house would be empty within 5 minutes.
That's one of the things that this current generation of video hounds really misses out on. Popping a manufactured disc out or a plastic case really dampens the drama.
I'd think that the best way to experience the video is to have a highly compressed video file with no subtitles that one of your more unhinged friends hands to you on his jump-drive as he smiles and says, "Look man, I don't know if this is real or not, but you've got to see it."
To get an idea, are the guinea pig films as graphic as an august underground's mordum?
--So does anyone think Flower of Flesh and Blood really looks real enough to be mistaken for a snuff film- or is Charlie just an idiot?--
Charlie is an idiot, but hey, it WAS a long time ago.
I've watched this film since and do enjoy it. More so than when I wrote the review to be honest. It's a fascinating thing, but certainly shoould not be confused with anything real.
I gave this a look today after years of hearing so much about it. Well as far as what they were attempting to do, count me partly impressed. I don't agree with Dwatts assessment that the gore no longer looks top notch. I thought it looked incredible and is really the film's showcase. If you look at it as a fake snuff film though that is where It doesn't always work for me. There are just too many professional looking cuts and sound effects for it to look like some serial killer did this all in his basement. It actually wasn't really all that disturbing for me I guess mostly because it didn't show the girl in much agony, it was almost like watching an operation.
Anyway pretty good film of it's type.
Did you watch both the remastered, and the VHS quality version?
I just watched the Unearthed films DVD that comes with the making of. Is there a difference between the two?
I think it works much better in VHS quality. But if you have the Unearthed disc, you have it!
Check out this picture:
It's an Easter Egg - see that blood splotch on the lip.
I prefer the VHs one, and that's how I watch it these days.
Thanks I didn't know it was there. That would help it's believability.