Yes! Excellent choices! Meet the Feebles is like watching The Muppet Show if it were tweaking on crystal meth.
I could have sworn there was already a show like that: Fraggle Rock.
Fraggle Rock didn't have cockroaches filming bondage porn in the basement, nor did it have a knife-thrower who was not only a 'Nam vet but also addicted to smack. Feebles had that and so, so much more.
Also, to ironzealot: Grindhouse is worth seeing if only for the last half of "Death Proof", namely everything that happens after the gals go for a test drive. But I thought the whole thing was worth seeing for the ridiculously over-the-top violence and gore effects.
Za ginipiggu: Akuma no jikken (Guinea Pig: Devil's Experiment ) is really gory. Its just some masked men torturing a woman for 45 minutes with really realistic make-up and prosthetics, I heard a rumour that the director was forced to release a making of documentary because many people thought it was a real snuff film.
The most violent movies I have seen are probably Kill Bill and Sin City. Standard over-the-top violence movies. While I'm sure more violent movies exist, I can't imagine them being particularly enjoyable. There's only so much gratuitous violence I can take before it starts being unpleasant.
The most violent movies I have seen are probably Kill Bill and Sin City. Standard over-the-top violence movies. While I'm sure more violent movies exist, I can't imagine them being particularly enjoyable. There's only so much gratuitous violence I can take before it starts being unpleasant.
You haven't lived unless you've seen Ichi the Killer completely uncut.
My friends and I are making Festivus plans for the 23rd. We're planning on watching Lagaan as some light fare after the Airing of the Grievances, but I am trying to coerce them into watching Ebola Syndrome and Braindead afterward for the purposes of MST3K'ing (also for science). The next day, I'll celebrate Christmas Eve with my family. Gotta love them holidays.
Ichi the Killer never really bothered me, but has anyone seen Grotesque? It's a really interesting Japanese movie about a serial torturer (sp?) and sadist that kidnaps a young couple and slowly tortures and kills them (also has some sexual abuse if your into that kinda stuff). I think it came out in 2009.
Being a huge horror movie fan I've actually always hated most gore movies. I've found that in most cases the more gory a horror movie, the worse it is. In most cases it's either over-used or unnecessary. Of course there are some exceptions, but in my opinion the best horror movies use gore either sparingly or not at all. I still appreciate the classic "cut away at the last minute scene" where you see the blood splatter on the wall instead of the actual gore. I'm all for leaving it up to the imagination.
I've found that in most cases the more gory a horror movie, the worse it is.
Hosteland everySawafter the first one exemplify this. All gore and no substance.
I would disagree slightly here, since I thought Saw II was also good like the original, but otherwise, yes. Lots of gore is really only good in campy horror films (see Dead Alive/Braindead).
People also need to make a distinction between fake gore, trying to be realistic gore, and actually realistic gore.
Something like Machine Girl or Fist of the North Star has blood and guts all over the place, but it's sooooo fake. It's zipper on the back of the monster costume fake.
War movies usually present their gore as more realistic, but are not actually realistic. If it was realistic, the whole theater would be vomiting all over the place.
Personally, no amount of fake gore bothers me, but almost any amount of real gore makes me nauseous. For example, there are lot of videos of sports injuries where limbs are broken at ninety degree angles. Most of these injuries are completely hidden by socks/uniforms. You don't even see the blood, protruding bones, extreme discoloration, etc. Yet, watching that, my stomach is very displeased. Meanwhile I can watch some movie with limbs flying through the air and blood spurting all over the place no problem. I even got sick watching this fascinating TED talk about arthroscopic surgery robots.
I admit, I might have been a little affected by the fact that I saw it with a group, but I have to give it credit for having a twist ending that I didn't see coming, and the pit of needles is still one of the few things in horror films that has ever made me cringe. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't compare to the first one, but it's still a big step above the ones that came after.
EDIT: @Scott, you were probably never a big fan of rotten.com then, I would assume.
Gore doesn't really bother me in any form. However, I cannot for the life of me even contemplate watching simulated torture. Torture-porn movies push that "need to escape" button in me, which is why I won't watch Saw or Hostel.
I've found that in most cases the more gory a horror movie, the worse it is.
Hosteland everySawafter the first one exemplify this. All gore and no substance.
That's the problem with horror movies nowadays, they've downplayed the suspense in favor of grotesque abominations (man-made and natural), lots of unnecessary gore and blood, sick and twisted murders/torture sequences, etc. This is why (in my opinion) Halloween (the original, not the shit remake) is a shining example of a well-done horror movie that both has substance and doesn't rely heavily on the aforementioned aspects I listed above.
The main intention of the film is to actually frighten it's audience by using situations which contain: characters that are honestly and truly scared out of their wits, a very uncomfortable level of suspense and terror, violence that is downplayed to the point where it isn't gratuitous, and making the audience want their heroes to escape and not be caught by Michael Myers.Granted, the rest of the Halloween series lost sight of that intention as more and more sequels were made (as is common with sequels). The point is, is that, looking at horror movies nowadays, they have to be more aware that there has to be balance where both the violence compliments the suspense, and vice-versa.
The only recent horror movie that I've enjoyed is The Orphanage, despite it's predictability. It used every one of the standard Horror Movie Tropes, but executed them so perfectly that I enjoyed every minute of it.
While it was a torture-porn movie, I do think that Saw (the first one) was actually pretty solid as far as horror movies go. It was sufficiently twisted to be psychologically terrifying, and it was grotesque enough to induce the right level of cringing. The sequels are all awful, but the first one was good.
Torture-porn movies don't really bother me too much. Sure, they're cringe-inducing, but I wouldn't say that I'm revolted. That's largely because most torture-heavy movies don't maintain my suspension of disbelief, so I never get into the mindset where I think it could be real. I wind up a detached observer most of the time, the same way I get when I watch a surgery.
Really any amount of gore and/or torture doesn't bother me at all. I have yet to find something that irks me. Probably from lurking on 4chan and other fucked up websites just to raise the "extreme" bar.
I like funny gore, like in Drag Me To Hell. I did not enjoy Ichii the Killer, but that was more because it was a bad movie that was only patched together as an excuse for gore.
I find that the gratuitous violence in these UV movies is equivalent to the laugh track in sitcoms. It is a cheap gimmick to induce a reaction and retain your attention in an otherwise unworthy product.
And while it is obviously extremely cool to be desensitized to violence (or just be able to completely dissociate fake and real violence) and thus brag about watching/liking UV movies, you're effectively watching Plan 9 From Outer Space, not because it's camp but because it has a laugh track (which it doesn't but let's say it does for the sake of this argument).
I tend to laugh at ultra-gory movies, because it's essentially just an hour long case of "HUMAN BODIES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY."
That was actually a cool thing about the book American Psycho that didn't really come through in the film. In the book, you're reading detailed descriptions of violence in which, as you said, "HUMAN BODIES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY." Of course, in the case of American Psycho, there's a reason for that.
My friend keeps being like, "NO EBOLA SYNDROME. Not in MY house! derpviolencederp!" She refuses to watch clips proving that it's just ridiculously hilarious Hong Kong camp, and won't read about the film.
I decided that I'll bring Riki-Oh instead. She doesn't want "EBORA!!! *spitting*" she can get (spoilers): a man eviscerating himself and trying to choke out his nemesis with his own intestines. I will introduce her to a new world of bad taste.
Comments
Also, to ironzealot: Grindhouse is worth seeing if only for the last half of "Death Proof", namely everything that happens after the gals go for a test drive. But I thought the whole thing was worth seeing for the ridiculously over-the-top violence and gore effects.
EDIT: I watched it a while back on Asian-Horror-Movies.com, and I found the Wiki artivle for the movie here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grotesque_%282009_film%29
That is all.
Something like Machine Girl or Fist of the North Star has blood and guts all over the place, but it's sooooo fake. It's zipper on the back of the monster costume fake.
War movies usually present their gore as more realistic, but are not actually realistic. If it was realistic, the whole theater would be vomiting all over the place.
Personally, no amount of fake gore bothers me, but almost any amount of real gore makes me nauseous. For example, there are lot of videos of sports injuries where limbs are broken at ninety degree angles. Most of these injuries are completely hidden by socks/uniforms. You don't even see the blood, protruding bones, extreme discoloration, etc. Yet, watching that, my stomach is very displeased. Meanwhile I can watch some movie with limbs flying through the air and blood spurting all over the place no problem. I even got sick watching this fascinating TED talk about arthroscopic surgery robots.
EDIT: @Scott, you were probably never a big fan of rotten.com then, I would assume.
The main intention of the film is to actually frighten it's audience by using situations which contain: characters that are honestly and truly scared out of their wits, a very uncomfortable level of suspense and terror, violence that is downplayed to the point where it isn't gratuitous, and making the audience want their heroes to escape and not be caught by Michael Myers.Granted, the rest of the Halloween series lost sight of that intention as more and more sequels were made (as is common with sequels). The point is, is that, looking at horror movies nowadays, they have to be more aware that there has to be balance where both the violence compliments the suspense, and vice-versa.
Torture-porn movies don't really bother me too much. Sure, they're cringe-inducing, but I wouldn't say that I'm revolted. That's largely because most torture-heavy movies don't maintain my suspension of disbelief, so I never get into the mindset where I think it could be real. I wind up a detached observer most of the time, the same way I get when I watch a surgery.
I did not enjoy Ichii the Killer, but that was more because it was a bad movie that was only patched together as an excuse for gore.
And while it is obviously extremely cool to be desensitized to violence (or just be able to completely dissociate fake and real violence) and thus brag about watching/liking UV movies, you're effectively watching Plan 9 From Outer Space, not because it's camp but because it has a laugh track (which it doesn't but let's say it does for the sake of this argument).
I decided that I'll bring Riki-Oh instead. She doesn't want "EBORA!!! *spitting*" she can get (spoilers): a man eviscerating himself and trying to choke out his nemesis with his own intestines. I will introduce her to a new world of bad taste.
Oh, I should bring Bad Taste and Braindead, too.