|
weekly font posted:First off it needs to have actors acting. A girl legitimately being tortured is barely different from Faces of Death compilations I snuck watching when I was 10. Unless it's supposed to be some kind of horror documentary? Well, if you read about the filming of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the conditions were lovely enough that Marilyn Burns was pretty much screaming for real, so does that violate a boundary? What about Bjork's perceived emotional abuse at the hands of Lars von Trier during the making of Dancer in the Dark? The fear and anxiety experienced by the cast during the filming of The Blair Witch Project, where Myrick & Sanchez were loving with their heads and freaking them out for real? And if Ms. Getsic knew what was up, did it, and then didn't repudiate it afterward (hell, is taking part in press for the film), well, which of those is worse? Unwilling discomfort or willing torture? I don't have a pat answer, it just seems like it needs to hinge on something more than an Actor's Equity card. I thought A Serbian Film was a very well-made allegory using shocking, brutal imagery. I don't know about The Bunny Game, though - on the one hand, from an intellectual standpoint, it's an interesting commentary on art, horror film, and what role the audience plays. On the other hand, something about it makes me feel queasy in a way that A Serbian Film and The Human Centipede 2 didn't.
|
| # ? May 1, 2012 18:30 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 17:28 |
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:The Faces of Death movies were actually like 95% actors acting. The point still stands, when the horror becomes real it's no longer a horror movie. It can be horrific and horrifying but it's not a horror film any more than a video of an execution is. That's the problem with horror is that by trying to constantly outdo the film that came before it a new extreme is explored or invented. It reminds me of pro wrestling (bare with me here). If you've seen The Wrestler you might remember the scene where he's fighting a deathmatch and landing on barbed wire and stapling poo poo to his head? That really happens. lovely wrestlers "wrestle" in bingo halls, hitting each other with lighttubes and thumbtacks for 50 bucks in front of 15 fans. Jim Cornette once said, "Thirty years ago wrestlers never hurt each other and everyone ate it up. Now they're loving killing each other and no body believes a thing." Is there a real reason why any of the things in this film couldn't have been faked other than shock value? This is a whole different dog than Serbian Film or Human Centipede. Craig Spradlin posted:Well, if you read about the filming of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the conditions were lovely enough that Marilyn Burns was pretty much screaming for real, so does that violate a boundary? I knew someone would make this argument. The one I was thinking of was how Kubrick tortured Shelly Duvall on the set of The Shining. I have a problem with that too but the difference is we aren't watching and enjoying(?) the actual act but seeing the result of it in a new creation that can be divorced from the things inflicted upon them. weekly font fucked around with this message at May 1, 2012 around 18:35 |
| # ? May 1, 2012 18:31 |
|
|
weekly font posted:Is there a real reason why any of the things in this film couldn't have been faked other than shock value? This is a whole different dog than Serbian Film or Human Centipede. I'm not sure, being as I haven't seen the movie and have no context for it. Like, if the hypothetical movie you're describing is actually what this movie is, maybe, maybe you have a point, but I kinda take it as a given that anyone who goes "This movie is a turd!" without actually seeing it is not to be trusted.
|
| # ? May 1, 2012 18:34 |
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:I'm not sure, being as I haven't seen the movie and have no context for it. I've never eaten sewer rat but as a grown rear end human being I can pretty safely say what I like/don't like what I'm morally comfortable with. We're not discussing critical reviews of this movie, the point of discussion is using the legitimate, albeit consenting abuse of a person who may have some emotional/mental issues as a form of entertainment.
|
| # ? May 1, 2012 18:36 |
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Once again, I have to ask: Has anyone in the thread actually seen this movie? Yea, as I said my major view of it is 'this is a lovely movie' but it also raises a couple troubling thoughts in the whole 'real horror' camps that pop up every couple of years.
|
| # ? May 1, 2012 18:37 |
|
|
weekly font posted:I've never eaten sewer rat but as a grown rear end human being I can pretty safely say what I like/don't like what I'm morally comfortable with. Movies aren't food/rats. Like, I'm sorry that you're morally uncomfortable with it, and you're welcome to feel that way, but when I hear someone decrying a movie based on what they've heard described about it second- and third-hand, all I can think of is the people who protested the Last Temptation of Christ because they heard *gasp* Jesus has sex in it! LtKenFrankenstein fucked around with this message at May 1, 2012 around 18:40 |
| # ? May 1, 2012 18:37 |
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Movies aren't food/rats. Regardless of whether or not the film is brilliant or garbage, you honestly can't see how someone would reject a film based on the circumstances of its creation? I imagine a lot of people never watched Luck but hate the show for its abuse resulting in the deathes of three or four horses. e: Okay we are just coming from different places. I have morals and don't really want what I normally turn to for simple, escapist entertainment questioning them. The difference between your example of Jesus having sex is that one is content, the other is a thing inflicted upon a real human being that exists. weekly font fucked around with this message at May 1, 2012 around 18:43 |
| # ? May 1, 2012 18:41 |
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Movies aren't food/rats. This is a terrible analogy, being offended at 'well I heard Jesus has sex so ergo THE DIRECTOR HATES CHRISTIANS!!!!!' is entirely different than 'I refuse to support a movie made through what I feel is unethical methods'. It's like, I have a friend who refuses to watch those old movies where animals really were put in danger or the like, she loves animals and that method inherently offends her. It'd be absurd of me to go 'well maybe watch it and see' because she knows already 'this movie was made through ways that I can't support'. She could care less what the plot and characters are, it's the core fact about how the movie was made that's the issue.
|
| # ? May 1, 2012 18:44 |
|
|
weekly font posted:Regardless of whether or not the film is brilliant or garbage, you honestly can't see how someone would reject a film based on the circumstances of its creation? I imagine a lot of people never watched Luck but hate the show for its abuse resulting in the deathes of three or four horses. That seems to me like a completely different situation. Horses cannot give consent for that kind of poo poo, actors can. Like Disappointed Owl said, this really doesn't seem any different to me than any other shock-horror film made by consenting adults. My guess is it'll be really unpleasant, have a nice gimmick to hang the marketing on and make it seem xxxtra-shocking ("I hear the actress was actually tortured in this!"), get the obligatory zero-star review from Roger Ebert, and fade into obscurity. I'm not particularly upset about it, because frankly I couldn't care less about it. And once again, I'm not saying anyone has to watch it; I have no intention of watching it. But I am saying that I have trouble with taking you seriously when you say "This movie is a piece of poo poo!" without watching it. LtKenFrankenstein fucked around with this message at May 1, 2012 around 18:48 |
| # ? May 1, 2012 18:45 |
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:I'm not particularly upset about it, because frankly I couldn't care less about it. You sure seem to care a lot about me dismissing it as a "turd," because I find it to go too far in its creation outside the content. I mean, what are you going after in calling me out on that? Trying to make me change my mind about making assumptions without even knowing me on a level that would make you understand why I judge things the way I do? e: Okay fine, I'll edit. The movie MAKERS are pieces of poo poo. And their movie is PROBABLY complete trash.
|
| # ? May 1, 2012 18:48 |
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:And once again, I'm not saying anyone has to watch it; I have no intention of watching it. But I am saying that I have trouble with taking you seriously when you say "This movie is a piece of poo poo!" without watching it. I've seen it, it's poo poo, does that finally settle this dumb circular fight? Like, it's Human Centipede, it tries too hard to be shocking and scary by just bombarding you with objectively bad things with no stop or tension building or anything, so after the initial shock of 'oh my god' wears off you're left with fifty minutes of 'yep, still torturing a lady'.
|
| # ? May 1, 2012 18:54 |
|
|
weekly font posted:You sure seem to care a lot about me dismissing it as a "turd," because I find it to go too far in its creation outside the content. I mean, what are you going after in calling me out on that? Trying to make me change my mind about making assumptions without even knowing me on a level that would make you understand why I judge things the way I do? Okay, well I'll admit that part of where I'm coming from (and I really didn't want to open up this can of worms) is that all this criticism of the filmmakers for featuring "actual torture" when according to everything we've heard, the actress was 100% behind the idea smacks as really anti-feminist to me. Like, "this woman isn't capable of making those decisions for herself! Those filmmakers must be monsters!" But at this point I'm starting to feel like I'm making GBS threads up the thread defending what will PROBABLY be, like you said, not a very good movie, so I'll drop it. LtKenFrankenstein fucked around with this message at May 1, 2012 around 18:58 |
| # ? May 1, 2012 18:55 |
|
|
Edit;Dropping it too.
|
| # ? May 1, 2012 19:01 |
|
|
Thanks Orunitier and Hundu, I've looked through Rue Morgue before and I think I'll go with that. It's the gift that keeps on giving!Future Savini, the boy is.
|
| # ? May 1, 2012 19:14 |
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Okay, well I'll admit that part of where I'm coming from (and I really didn't want to open up this can of worms) is that all this criticism of the filmmakers for featuring "actual torture" when according to everything we've heard, the actress was 100% behind the idea smacks as really anti-feminist to me. Like, "this woman isn't capable of making those decisions for herself! Those filmmakers must be monsters!" I'm glad we can all agree a movie where someone is harmed will probably be garbage, but I just want to add that I'd be opposed to it if it was a dude doing it too.
|
| # ? May 1, 2012 19:24 |
|
|
weekly font posted:I have morals and don't really want what I normally turn to for simple, escapist entertainment questioning them. So - and this is a larger point, because I'm by no means convinced that The Bunny Game is worth watching - your evaluation hinges on the movie's unsuitability as entertainment. Fair enough (though you saying "I have morals" sounds like you're implying that others don't), but that brings up two more questions for me: First, is horror film confined to being entertainment? I think at its best it can be art, which doesn't have to be entertaining to have merit. I'm not saying that I think The Bunny Game is art - I haven't seen it. I'm just saying that I think it is a possibility for horror film in general. Second, does your expectation that horror film should be simple, escapist entertainment inform your assessment of a movie you haven't seen? If the filmmakers weren't trying for simple, escapist entertainment, should your evaluation really hinge on the filmmakers failing to meet expectations they weren't trying to meet in the first place? To me, that seems like going into a restaurant, ordering a steak, and then proclaiming that it made a terrible dessert and was therefore bad.
|
| # ? May 1, 2012 19:25 |
|
|
weekly font posted:I'm glad we can all agree a movie where someone is harmed will probably be garbage, but I just want to add that I'd be opposed to it if it was a dude doing it too. Word, well that's good. But - sorry, I know I said I'd drop it - my favorite horror movie of all time is Texas Chainsaw Massacre. And, as Craig Spradlin pointed out earlier, that movie includes a person being actually harmed (pretty much all the blood you see in that movie is actually Marilyn Burns'). And yes, that's fairly different from what it sounds like The Bunny Movie is, but I do think there are shades of grey.
|
| # ? May 1, 2012 19:30 |
|
|
 Keep in mind, I said normally. When I look at horror I almost exclusively like to watch stuff like Friday the 13th and Evil Dead. At the same time I don't mind stuff that goes deeper - love Funny Games. The problem to me with this is the real harm aspect. I think any director or producer should have enough respect for his actor to go, "Look it's cool you want to really jam needles into your eyes and all, but we're just gonna go ahead and get some props, cool?" The safety of the performer should come before the performance in all cases. Basically I think from reading the interview the film was made through a series of irresponsible decisions and I don't mean the content. I also got a serious "this person was a victim of abuse," vibe from the actress and I think this whole thing just makes me uncomfortable since I've known more than a few people who have been abused. e: Yes, there are shades of grey, duh. Fincher telling Norton to actually punch Brad Pitt in the ear in Fight Club to get a more realistic reaction is a world apart from "Can we brand you, whip you and surprise sex you on film? Cool." Consent or no. weekly font fucked around with this message at May 1, 2012 around 19:35 |
| # ? May 1, 2012 19:31 |
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Word, well that's good. But - sorry, I know I said I'd drop it - my favorite horror movie of all time is Texas Chainsaw Massacre. And, as Craig Spradlin pointed out earlier, that movie includes a person being actually harmed (pretty much all the blood you see in that movie is actually Marilyn Burns'). And yes, that's fairly different from what it sounds like The Bunny Movie is, but I do think there are shades of grey. If I remember right, and I could well not be, for chainsaw the train of things was more along 'ok this shot may be a bit rough to do, if she winds up hurting it just kinda adds to the feeling I guess' but there was a core concept of 'let's not INTEND to hurt her'. That'd be where I draw the line, it's lovely to have a scene where 'is it safe' is answered with 'well, mostly', but I think we reach unethical standards when it's answered with 'pft, nope this poo poo is real and raw'. Of course, I have issue with either, but I'm just trying to set the line for where, in my mind only, it crosses from 'oh come on really' to 'welp this is terrible and you're kinda a bad person for this'. Even beyond that, though, for chainsaw there's a core...plan. Like, ok I'm getting more into reviewing Bunny Game here but the major reason I call it a bad movie aside from the ethical problems is that after the very short intro it's just a non stop wave of torture. Chainsaw has...things...it has moments where if you look at it, someone is not being carved like a ham. These things create tension, it makes you go 'oh god what will he do', and then you get into the classic comment about horror where the main fear is what you imagine and all. I would inherently say Texas Chainsaw Massacre has more worth than The Bunny Game just because even if there were unethical aspects to it, they went into it with a core plan of making a full movie experience, whereas bunny is just an endless shock movie with no real pause other than the times when she's alone and crying and screaming. I think I'm beginning to ramble here, so I'll just say the major point of this post is that the reason I bag on the bunny game is because the danger aspect is so...needless. If a movie like the chainsaw series does a risky scene, it's part of a whole and usually, again totally based on my memory, they are major moments of the film. It's poo poo to do them, but they're part of a greater thing, rather than just an endless parade of shock.
|
| # ? May 1, 2012 20:08 |
|
|
This is one of those things I always forget since I haven't seen it in a while, but does anyone actually get chainsawed in TCM? The guy in the wheelchair?
|
| # ? May 1, 2012 20:14 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:This is one of those things I always forget since I haven't seen it in a while, but does anyone actually get chainsawed in TCM? The guy in the wheelchair? Yes, and if I remember correctly you don't even see anything graphic...(?)
|
| # ? May 1, 2012 20:24 |
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:Yes, and if I remember correctly you don't even see anything graphic...(?) Yeah - the one time someone gets chainsawed it's Leatherface leaping out of the darkness and then BBBBRRTTTTZZZTTTTTT and everyone's all "oh poo poo!" and then it's on to the next thing. It's probably the least graphic murder scene in the whole movie.
|
| # ? May 1, 2012 20:46 |
|
|
TCM is not at all that graphic in my view by todays standards. In Regards to Bunny Game I'm more interested in seeing it as a performance art piece the few reviews on it say it's decently directed, and acting is decent( is it really acting). I watched Salo and didn't really find that film that disturbing and it probably isn't as graphic as Cannibal Holocaust, so I mean I think those films Bunny games , Serbian have a place in the horror genre just because it gives you a litmus test for what the other end of the spectrum is. Has anyone ever watched the August Underground series of films?
|
| # ? May 1, 2012 21:55 |
|
|
Hollis posted:TCM is not at all that graphic in my view by todays standards. In Regards to Bunny Game I'm more interested in seeing it as a performance art piece the few reviews on it say it's decently directed, and acting is decent( is it really acting). Yeah, Bunny games just sounds like the exact sort of 'transgressive performance art' involving self-harm, bodily fluids and whatnot that The Human Centipede 2 celebrates/satirizes. It's even got the same black-and-white photography designed to resemble the look of early documented performance art (shot in b&w for cheapness and to give it a very basic documentary aesthetic). I know little else about it, but people's complaints seem similar to the complaints about Human Centipede - where everyone freaked themselves out imagining the premise in far more grotesque detail than is actually present in the film.
|
| # ? May 1, 2012 23:34 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Yeah, Bunny games just sounds like the exact sort of 'transgressive performance art' involving self-harm, bodily fluids and whatnot that The Human Centipede 2 celebrates/satirizes. It's even got the same black-and-white photography designed to resemble the look of early documented performance art (shot in b&w for cheapness and to give it a very basic documentary aesthetic). I haven't watched Human Centipede 2 , but I have read a full synopsis and the screenplay. Some things I just don't want to watch, call me weird. I kind of felt Human Centipede 2 was literally a gently caress you to audience in the similar vein of Funny Games. I mean the main character is literally a avatar for the audience. I'm debating on watching Bunny Games , I mean generally people who watch it won't probably know that yes, this is in fact real. I think the reaction would be greater if you didn't know it was real then learned later on that it wasn't staged. Would it illicit a stronger emotion towards it? Just imagine that you watched Irreversible saw the surprise sex scene and then later on people were like " That actually happened". What's your thoughts on Post Modern Horror, does it exist at all as a genre? Or does its inherent nature move it beyond the category?
|
| # ? May 1, 2012 23:53 |
|
|
Hollis posted:Has anyone ever watched the August Underground series of films? Yes, and they sound almost exactly like this, and similarly committed. I think people misidentify them as a show-reel for effects, mainly because I don't think the Toetag guys give a poo poo about doing effects for more commercial films.
|
| # ? May 1, 2012 23:55 |
|
|
How are they? Any worth artistic or otherwise? I will say I do appreciate films like Guinea Pig just for the sheer realism of the practical effects. Also, I use to be a Paramedic and Guinea is the only ones that really look like wounds their surprisingly realistic. That's really why graphic violence doesn't bother me and gore doesn't, it just looks ridiculous to me. The thing that pisses me off the most though is that people never show the fat!! Arrrrgh so frustrating, Muscle , Fat all of that is underneath your skin. They look different , their not just "red".
|
| # ? May 2, 2012 00:06 |
|
|
I think what distinguishes AU, which I won't watch (maybe I just need to buy myself a title that says "I HATE GORE AND AM SQUEAMISH) from Bunny Game is that AU isn't authentic the way Bunny Game is. Shes actually being abused and willing or not it just sounds like a borderline snuff film. What if she wasn't willing? I'm not trying to start a fight I'm curious what reactions would be though. Also I think this is a perfectly reasonable discussion  Also with Texas Chainsaw, I read Marilyn Burns was more often than not just like "okay whatever, just hit me on the head so we can do this." and even then Gunnar Hansen was hesitant IIRC or "it's 100 degrees in here just cut my finger and we can be done", not really comparable to Bunny Game. Toriori fucked around with this message at May 2, 2012 around 02:03 |
| # ? May 2, 2012 01:59 |
|
|
Toriori posted:I think what distinguishes AU, which I won't watch (maybe I just need to buy myself a title that says "I HATE GORE AND AM SQUEAMISH) from Bunny Game is that AU isn't authentic the way Bunny Game is. Shes actually being abused and willing or not it just sounds like a borderline snuff film. What if she wasn't willing? I'm not trying to start a fight I'm curious what reactions would be though. If she wasn't willing than obviously it wouldn't be okay. Since she is, it calls to mind for me guys like Bob Flanagan. I've never actually watched any of Bob Flanagan's stuff nor am I likely to watch the Bunny Game, but if that's how these folks choose to express themselves, I'm not gonna argue that they can't.
|
| # ? May 2, 2012 02:03 |
|
|
My only worry is if she's somehow mentally unbalanced. Based on that interview, and the fact that she's totes cool with being tortured, I dunno, makes me uncomfortable.
|
| # ? May 2, 2012 02:10 |
|
|
Toriori posted:I think what distinguishes AU, which I won't watch (maybe I just need to buy myself a title that says "I HATE GORE AND AM SQUEAMISH) from Bunny Game is that AU isn't authentic the way Bunny Game is. Shes actually being abused and willing or not it just sounds like a borderline snuff film. What if she wasn't willing? I'm not trying to start a fight I'm curious what reactions would be though. There's a shot in TCM where you can see Leatherface just randomly chainsawing some underbrush, and it was because Burns had stumbled and the chainsaw was live and Hansen was legit worried that he'd get too close so he had to stall.
|
| # ? May 2, 2012 02:12 |
|
|
Nemesis Of Moles posted:My only worry is if she's somehow mentally unbalanced. Based on that interview, and the fact that she's totes cool with being tortured, I dunno, makes me uncomfortable. That seems entirely intentional to me. Looking her up on Wikipedia, Rodleen Getsic has been an active performance artist for like 20 years. Your mileage may vary, but I find it pretty likely that she knows exactly what she's doing and is playing up the shocking elements of this film for publicity.
|
| # ? May 2, 2012 02:18 |
|
|
Nemesis Of Moles posted:My only worry is if she's somehow mentally unbalanced. Based on that interview, and the fact that she's totes cool with being tortured, I dunno, makes me uncomfortable. So it just makes you uncomfortable that maybe she actually has a mental problem? The guys in Jackass have obviously (generally) consented to the harmful antics and are probably all a little deranged but I've never heard anybody talk about how the franchise is exploitation of their damaged psyches.
|
| # ? May 2, 2012 02:19 |
|
|
According to some documentary I watched (can't google the name, at work) even hardcore BDSM pornography sites have to screen their performers for drugs/intoxication/mental illness and make sure that what they film takes place in a totally safe, environment with clearly set boundaries. Everyone seemed to be sane and having a good time between takes. If everything written about the Bunny Game is true then it is worse/more reckless/immoral/unsafe than hardcore pornography. This doesn't necessarily invalidate as performance art, but it does help me to place it waaaay down on my list of "grotesque poo poo I have no interest in watching."
|
| # ? May 2, 2012 02:20 |
|
|
Not to interrupt the horrible Bunny Games derail, but I just watched an excellent Korean horror movie called "The Antarctic Journal" on Netflix. It follows a group of six explorers in Antarctica traveling on foot trying to outdo previous expeditions, and it was very, very well done. It's the strange environmental horror of Yellowbrick Road, only with a coherent plot, better acting and a way better resolution. It's on Netflix instant and it's subtitled, I highly recommend it.
|
| # ? May 2, 2012 02:21 |
|
|
DrVenkman posted:She was actually surprisingly good in that film. Both her and the character were not what I was expecting. It's actually played/written a lot better than "This is just a dumb actress and fish fodder". Ironically, I think that may have made it worse. They made her a sympathetic character who you started to think might make it, but no she dies and the movie conforms to the old "show your boobs and die" rule anyway. It was frustrating because she was more likable than the virginal local girl who does survive. Then again I have a weakness for British accents so I can't be trusted.
|
| # ? May 2, 2012 02:22 |
|
|
Craig Spradlin posted:Yeah - the one time someone gets chainsawed it's Leatherface leaping out of the darkness and then BBBBRRTTTTZZZTTTTTT and everyone's all "oh poo poo!" and then it's on to the next thing. It's probably the least graphic murder scene in the whole movie. Huh? Doesn't the wheelchair guy get his head bashed in with a sledgehammer and then has a seizure getting dragged away? He gets chainsawed up after he's already dead. EDIT: vvvv Yeah I don't know why I thought it was the wheelchair guy getting bashed out of his chair. Mouser.. fucked around with this message at May 2, 2012 around 02:28 |
| # ? May 2, 2012 02:23 |
|
|
Craig Spradlin posted:Yeah - the one time someone gets chainsawed it's Leatherface leaping out of the darkness and then BBBBRRTTTTZZZTTTTTT and everyone's all "oh poo poo!" and then it's on to the next thing. It's probably the least graphic murder scene in the whole movie. Absolutely true. So many of the deaths linger on the victim which is why it's such a shocking, chilling movie. e: Mouser - no. The girl who get's hooked, her boyfriend gets sledged. The wheelchair guy gets the chainsaw in the gut.
|
| # ? May 2, 2012 02:23 |
|
|
Mouser.. posted:Huh? Doesn't the wheelchair guy get his head bashed in with a sledgehammer and then has a seizure getting dragged away? He gets chainsawed up after he's already dead. No, that's another guy. Franklin (wheelchair guy) gets chainsawed alive. It's part of that extra-twisted touch, giving the handicapped guy the worst death in the movie (even if there is no on-screen gore). e: beaten e2: Well, I guess the "worst death" thing is arguable, that meathook scene is loving brutal. Even if it, too, features no gore. LtKenFrankenstein fucked around with this message at May 2, 2012 around 02:27 |
| # ? May 2, 2012 02:25 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 17:28 |
|
|
rxcowboy posted:Not to interrupt the horrible Bunny Games derail, but I just watched an excellent Korean horror movie called "The Antarctic Journal" on Netflix. Why's it a horrible derail? quote:How are they? Any worth artistic or otherwise? I will say I do appreciate films like Guinea Pig just for the sheer realism of the practical effects. Also, I use to be a Paramedic and Guinea is the only ones that really look like wounds their surprisingly realistic. I'd say as a curiosity, they are kind of worthwhile. If you were to find home movies of sexual sadist/murderers, they'd look a lot like the AU films.
|
| # ? May 2, 2012 02:31 |
|
