filmbizarro

Between the years of 2007 and 2012, 79 suicides have been reported in Bridgend County Borough in Wales. This horrible real life even is the source for the story of "Bridgend". Media has been part of the blame for many of the suicide, for bringing them to attention in the wrong way. Apparently "Bridgend" has been banned in the county, but I don't know if these are rumors. It's understandable if a lot of people find that a movie like this is distasteful, and perhaps made too soon. I am not here to judge the production of the movie, but I will be giving my two cents about the movie itself below.

From what I can gather, the story of "Bridgend" is not too far detached from the reality. It's set in Bridgend County, where many mysterious suicides among young have taken place. We follow a young woman who moves to Bridgend with her father. He's a cop and is quickly getting familiarized with the horrific situation that the town finds itself in. Sara is a shy and quiet girl, but somehow she gets drawn into the gang of youngsters that are directly associated with the kids that have been committing suicides.

One thing that is striking about reality and the movie, is that the reasons behind the suicides are unknown. The movie portrays a small town with kids that have nothing to do - so they enjoy themselves with alcohol, vandalism, and hanging out with each other. Now and then, they are one person short as a suicide has taken place. It can be speculated upon that there's a cult mentality behind everything, and that seems to be the most believable reason. The exact why's are not ventured into at depth, but with the style of the movie that makes it all the more powerful.

Somewhere between a profound art-house film and a social drama, "Bridgend" can jump from being realistically bleak to visually stunning in just seconds. It's not that the movie is in any way trying to bend reality like, say, Lars von Trier. Rather, it gives us a moment to breathe and let us gather our thoughts. After all, the movie does not romanticize the situation it is based on. It's sad movie about something that is hard to accept, and we feel completely helpless (as we are). I can still understand those that see "Bridgend" as further glamorization of the events, but the heart and soul of the movie seems to be to show us the horrible realities that many of us are unaware of.

This is not a movie to watch if you want something light-hearted. There are no moments of relief here. If you expect a movie that will make you dream about the freedoms of teenagers, then you are on the wrong end of the spectrum. The movie takes you on a dark journey into a group of people who seem destined to commit suicide. That's the reality and that's the truth of what this is. The movie leaves you alone with your thoughts. Is it a good movie? Absolutely. I think many of you will understand this movie and will gather from it exactly what the filmmakers hoped for.

Chad Archibald has a number of notable titles under his belt as a producer with titles such as "Sweet Karma", "In the House of Flies", "Antisocial" and "Septic Man" to just name a few. While his filmography as a director is significantly smaller, there's enough there for some of our readers to have seen his work even though I have not. Going by his producer credits, I was excited to dig into his new body horror movie "Bite".

Casey comes home from a bachelorette trip only a few days prior to the wedding. Some things that happened on the trip are still lingering on her mind, making her anxious and giving her cold feet before the wedding. But worst of all is a seemingly harmless bite that she got while in the water. The bug bite starts to grow. Soon she has a big boil of pus on her leg, and things about to get even worse. She hears things as if they are just beside her. She's spewing out translucent eggs. Yes, it escalates from here.

You've likely heard about "Bite" from the articles about the people who puked and fainted. I have no plans to make my review a comment on someone's article - but while "Bite" definitely has gross things going on, it's unlikely to affect anyone but those with pretty weak stomachs. What we see in "Bite" is nothing new, especially now as we have gotten a few too many body horrors involving women who start to transform. But most of all, "Bite" is a movie about a woman turning into something insect-like, and it is still miles away from the grossness portrayed in Cronenberg's "The Fly".

If we leave the comparisons for a second and just look at what this movie has to offer, there are certainly some gross scenes involving puke, pus and slimy eggs coming out of orifices. Unfortunately the transformation that Casey is about to experience never really goes beyond some layers or slime and bruises - at the very most looking like a burn victim. The apartment which essentially turns into her hive is an interesting addition that the other body horrors didn't really have, mostly because Casey does indeed turn into an insect being. However, the "hive" looks more like a haunted house attraction. In fact there are just a few scenes in the movie where the effects are really effective.

Normally decent effects that would be just fine, but the recent trend of body horrors has seemed more like show reels of effects, or competitions between each other. "Bite" doesn't have much more to offer than its goo and pus, which certainly puts it far below a classic like the "The Fly". More recently I'd put it up against "Thanatomorphose", which didn't have too much going on outside of its effects either - but that one actually felt disgusting.

Okay, let's put the effects to the side for a moment. The reason I am so harsh against this movie is that it simply doesn't stand out. From the beginning I had a hard time feeling sympathy for any of the characters, let alone Casey. There were no reasons for us to really care for the majority of the movie, and when reasons were given it sort of felt like it was too late. Her fiancé was okay but due to his annoying mother and the relationship they had he got dragged down with it. So right there we have two characters with a tragedy between them (her transformation), and yet I feel incredibly untouched by it. I don't really have any grudge again the actors, there were certainly fine, but the direction they were given was often very underwhelming. Scenes like them stumbling into Casey's hive of an apartment show some severe underreacting to what is going on. It's a horror movie, I get it - they need to walk into her apartment and have some stuff happen to them, but their reactions threw me out of the movie entirely. Going by the fact that it happened to most characters and not just one, I will say it's the fault of the direction and not the actors.

There are some smaller things that I could dive into, but I don't want anyone to confuse my criticism with hate. Fact is, "Bite" is a pretty innocent horror movie. It seems to have the attitude that it wants to gross you out, but beyond that it doesn't step outside of many boundaries. It's a decent enough horror movie for the general fan to check out, especially if you haven't watched that many body horror movies. As a fan of the subgenre I will continue to watch what will come my way, but perhaps it is time to retire the transforming women for a while? The best body horror movies are rather complex and show a wide variety of talents. David Cronenberg built much of his fan base on the fact that he could deliver something incredibly gross, but at the same time very thought-provoking. We live in a time where everything has to be fast and over-the-top to satisfy this ADD generation, so it makes sense that the majority of new body horror movies focus solely on the disturbing effects. Personally I hope we can go back to when body and mind were equally important in the matter.

Jordan Galland's "Ava's Possessions" stood out in the Fantasia International Film Festival schedule to me for being a movie about the aftermath of a possession. When I originally heard about a little movie called "Tonight, We Stay Indoors" by no-budget filmmaker Joseph Larsen, I was intrigued in similar ways. If you don't know, "Tonight, We Stay Indoors" is essentially about what happens after a slasher movie. Yet "Ava's Possessions" seemed to take a completely different route with its aftermath story. A more traditional one than Joseph Larsen's very slow art-house approach. "Ava's Possessions" mixes crime mysteries and comedy with its horror themes, making it something that doesn't require you to be completely on edge.

Ava wakes up as her normal self, with a priest telling her that she has been possessed by a demon. This has been going on for a month, and her family have desperately tried to get through this month of torment. Finally Ava is back! Because crimes were committed during her possession, Ava has to take responsibility for them. She can either go to jail and serve the time, or she can go to meetings with the Spirit Possession Anonymous group. The group helps her on her journey to recovery - a long and hard journey as the demon might return. When things are starting to look up, Ava is told to get in contact with all the people she wronged during her possession, and she slowly finds evidence of something horrible having taken place.

"Ava's Possessions" feels like if you treat possession like going on a bender, and the movie takes place the day after when trying to remember where you were, what you did and who you slept with. Yes, it's very on the nose about this, especially considering that the demon that Ava was possessed by was a rich, snotty and careless demon. The movie is rather basic and you can quickly tell what the filmmaker was going for. This wasn't really issue to me until a slightly underwhelming end to the movie. For a movie with such a great premise, it felt like the movie became less and less original the longer it went on.

Don't let the above statement scare you from watching the movie though, it is still a very fun movie. It's still relatively fresh and unique, with plenty of fun horror movie clichés having been skewed to fit the mold. "Ava's Possessions" is not a horror movie, but I'd absolutely regard it as a movie made for horror movie fans. It's a perfect movie to watch when you want a horror comedy but have realized that the majority of them are the same.

I appreciated that "Ava's Possessions" never blossomed into full horror, and was always much more a mystery/crime comedy than anything else. The clichés were done in just the perfect way where they didn't feel like parody, yet somehow intentional. The possession scenes themselves were pretty much what you expect but they are treated well within the "lore" of the movie. Overall a pleasant watch that's worth keeping in mind when you want an easier movie.

We've all seen them; those hilarious Turkish rip-offs. "Star Wars", "Spiderman", "The Exorcist", "Tarzan", "Dracula", "First Blood" and even "The Wizard of Oz". I imagine that since the days of the internet arriving in every person's home, you've gone through a number of these for a cheap laugh and recommended them to a friend just to see their reaction when they see the Turkish version of "Spiderman" in "3 dev adam", who appears as a brutal villain. There is no shame in this - the movies are ridiculous by any standard. It's hard to imagine that these movies were ones huge in their home country, and brought an audience unlike anything else. "Remake, Remix, Rip-Off: About Copy Culture & Turkish Pop Cinema", which screened at Fantasia International Film Festival 2015, shows a glimpse of this long gone era.

In Turk in the '60s and '70s, filmmakers didn't have the time or money to get scripts written so they decided to just take from every source of inspiration they could, mainly big American movies or Turkish novels. As the copyright laws were nonexistent they could borrow freely from any source imaginable, even going as far as taking complete soundtracks or even scenes from big movies like "Star Wars" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark". This was how the industry was in Turkey. People involved in the business had to go to extreme measures to create them on the cheap and fast. Sometimes that would mean doing dangerous things in front of the camera with no security at all.

Besides all the outrageous and bizarre things that were done to create these movies, "Remake, Remix, Rip-Off: About Copy Culture & Turkish Pop Cinema" brings out the sincere side of it all. It shows how people with no real knowledge in film cameras, effects, and equipment could put together their own camera dollies, make best use of editing, and sometimes come out with complete movies in just days - and still have an audience. This is unheard of in Hollywood. It is hard not to admire the work that was put into these productions, no matter how stupid or silly the outcome might have been.

The documentary takes a quick look at how the film business in Turkey changed in the '80s due to political decisions to censor the most absurd things - small things like cops running. Not to mention the state of the business today, which is miles away from the weird, eccentric times of the '60s/'70s - yet most people involved in this documentary look back with fondness.

Watching this documentary is just great for any fan of film. It can't possibly show us exactly how things went down back then, but it goes into the real heart and soul of creating movies simply for the money, if that indeed has heart and soul (this film proves it does). A must watch for the curious!

It's festivals like Fantasia International Film Festival that truly bring out some original titles to recognition. "Crumbs" is a title that I most likely would have missed out on. Not because the trailer or synopsis wouldn't intrigue me, but because when you run a site like Film Bizarro you are mostly surrounded by horror fans and "Crumbs" doesn't exactly bring in that crowd, yet this is the type of movies I enjoy pushing for the most. Now, having seen "Crumbs" doesn't really mean that I understand what the hell I watched.

Impressions were left, thoughts were pondered, ideals were questioned, the future was feared and the visuals were mesmerizing. So what the hell is "Crumbs"? Imagine yourself in a post-apocalyptic Ethiopia. The world has gone through wars after wars, so much so that the world is now in a strange state of hopeless peace. There is a spacecraft hovering above Ethiopia, one that people hope to get on somehow. People loot and scavenge for old items such as toys, records, figurines and other artifacts from our time to hopefully sell - or better yet, trade for a spot on the spacecraft. Candy is a small man with a slight physical disability who believes he doesn't belong to this world, and so he wanders into an adventure through the Ethiopian lands to reach the spacecraft.

Storywise I can't go further into "Crumbs". It's a movie to experience, to sit down and watch to let it occupy your mind - but without it feeling too heavy-handed about it. It's a rather pleasant, easy watch compared to similarly themed movies. Sure, it brings to question a lot of things such as the worth of material things, religions and who you look up to, where we all belong and what we love. There are wonderful moments where you see celebrities from our time being prayed to or random items being of importance. Simple things that can make us question the things we look up to in life. But above all I feel that "Crumbs" should be watched in the same way as you read a poem - whatever you feel and see in it, is there for you to interpret. If you find nothing, then that is okay too.

No matter what you meanings or thoughts you find in this surrealistic love story/sci-fi adventure, you can't say anything bad about the visuals. With completely absurd yet beautiful locations that are of another world compared to the very green Sweden that I live in, it's easy to get pulled into a post-disaster atmosphere and be there right next to Candy. This is the rare movie that has quite a bit of dialogue, but which would have succeeded in saying almost the same thing even if you watched it without subtitles.

"Crumbs" is luckily just 68 minutes short, which is a perfect length for something so abstract and strange as this. The movie is surprisingly cheerful which adds to making it an easy watch rather than a Tarkovsky-like narcose (I love Tarkovsky, but you know what I mean). The movie is best seen as something you're allowed to have different opinions on. It is very open, but has many distinct things that will get discussions and possible conflict going. I might have left the movie with merely open ideas of what it could all mean, but that didn't make the experience any less enjoyable.

Growing up I always thought that a good ghost story was the scariest thing imaginable in a movie. Slow moving ghosts, creepy things in the mirror, transparent figures in hallways, the usual things that go bump in the night. As I grow older I find myself more and more scared by horror movies that are grounded in reality. Exaggerated as some may be, movies like "Eden Lake" and "Ils" have lasting effects above most horror movies. "Slumlord" is the closest I have came to such intensity this year. It's a small movie that played Fantasia International Film Festival, and which I believe will make a name for itself before too long.

"Slumlord" starts with an odd looking landlord looking for surveillance equipment. He buys the most discreet kind of cameras and begins to rig a house with them - before renting it out to a young newlywed couple who are expecting a baby. As Ryan starts cheating on Claire with his assistant Hannah, the marriage begins to crumble. Meanwhile, the landlord becomes more and more obsessed with watching them and goes into their house when they are away. Behind a locked door is a staircase down to a basement that the couple have not seen. A place that only the landlord can get into.

From the very first shot, intensity is brewing in "Slumlord". It's the face of Neville Archambault as the landlord. People have been talking about Laurence R. Harvey's character in "The Human Centipede 2" as being a disturbing character, but his character always felt like a parody of the real creepy characters: the kind of character that Neville Archambault portrays to perfection in "Slumlord". Neville Archambault's performance as Gerald the landlord is masterful. It's the subtle things that always keep you on the edge. We don't know what his plans are, or how far he wants to go. Whether he is "just" a strange pervert or a complete psychopath is hard to tell, and in that lies the most disturbing aspect.

What sets "Slumlord" apart from many similar horror movies is that beyond the voyeuristic horror plot, is a complete drama movie that actually could have survived on its own merits. Sure, it would have been a bit thin, but I have seen worse cases. The fact that the couple's many problems are a big focus for the majority of the movie makes any scene involving the surveillance cameras and the landlord that much more effective.

I can't really say much bad about "Slumlord" at all. There's a predictability that comes with the premise but that's fine - it nails everything else about it so well. At certain times the dialogue felt stilted, but in no way did that lessen the impact.

"Slumlord" is really well crafted. It's somewhere between "Sleep Tight" and "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer". Thanks to a few darkly funny moments it helped keeping the movie from being too disturbing. Despite that, it's exceptionally intense. Its voyeuristic plot fits perfectly with where we are as a society today, but obviously a bit more perverted. If you, like me, find horror movies with real villains to be effective then give this a shot.

"Nina Forever" has been talked about since it's screening at Fantasia International Film Festival this year, and rightfully so. It's a movie that is hard to categorize into only one genre but still feels complete and secure in its choices. If I were to put it in one genre, then it would be "romance", yet somewhere in this dark love triangle we find comedy, horror, drama, gore, eroticism and pure love. Our emotions are played with in "Nina Forever", and it's exciting to be part of from start to finish.

The movie follows Holly and Rob, a young couple who fell in love after meeting each other at work. Holly found herself fascinated that Rob had recently attempted suicide and decided to muster up the courage to talk to him. Rob doesn't tell her the reasons why, but after a night of passionate sex it is revealed to her that Rob lost his girlfriend in a car crash. Holly finds this out because his girlfriend, Nina, comes back to life while they are having sex. She continues to torment the couple every time they have sex.

The wonderful thing about this kooky concept is that we have no distinct answers as to why Nina returns, but it never makes us question it. We feel involved but we don't let the mystery of Nina get in the way of what actually matters in the movie - the love story. This is not the first movie where a dead ex-girlfriend returns to life. In fact, there have been a few recently with Joe Dante's "Burying the Ex" and "Life After Beth". Both of those movies follow a recognizable formula, but "Nina Forever" is its own thing entirely. Nina doesn't come back as a zombie that the couple have to deal with and try to hide from people. Nina comes back as something else, more of a ghost, and only comes back during sex to make life harder for the couple.

Thanks to the comedy, which is not too crazy or out there, we can relate to this strange story and connect to it as a love drama rather than a horror movie. That doesn't mean that it isn't charged with several dark, twisted things. There are scenes that could be qualified as necrophilia, several scenes of graphic gore, and a whole lot of nudity and steaming hot sex scenes (always followed by a bloody mess in the bed as Nina makes her entrance). Luckily the movie remains hard to classify because it doesn't choose to focus on one thing specifically, and this leaving us with the wonderful movie that "Nina Forever" is.

Abigail Hardingham, Cian Barry and Fiona O'Shaughnessy make up the lead trio of actors and I am pretty sure that the Blaine guys would have had some problems on their hands if it weren't for these three. In a movie as odd as this it is important that all parts understand exactly what they are trying to achieve. These three lovely actors could not have had an easy time on their hands, trying to balance all of the important ingredients to make "Nina Forever" as lasting and engaging as it is. It could easily have slipped into the realms of bland or trying too hard, but it never does.

"Nina Forever" is one of the bloodier romances, but don't confuse that with being a horror movie. It shows several aspects of a horror movie, obviously, but there is a heavy focus on comedy, drama and romance as much as there is on blood and gore. It's a fresh take on several old genres and I can't help but think that this will be on many people's minds after they have seen it. Whether "Nina Forever" sounds like it would be up your alley or not, it is a movie that I highly recommend to all of our readers.

"Catch Me Daddy" was a breath of fresh air for a reviewer of mostly independent horror movies like myself. Where most movies I watch try to grab your attention by being over-the-top gory, it is movies like "Catch Me Daddy" that stand out when you look over the past year of reviewing (and general movies you have watched). With their debut feature, the Wolfe brothers have brought out a unique, tough thriller that deals with family, love, religion and crime while always putting emphasis on being a thrilling on-the-run type of adventure.

Laila is a British-Pakistani girl. She works at a hair salon with cleaning up the hair from the floor. It's not a great job, but it gives her enough to survive. She lives with her boyfriend Aaron in West Yorkshire, where she is trying to stay hidden from her criminal family. When her father sends her brother and his gang, and another gang of two British guys, after her, Laila and her boyfriend have to run away.

Trust me when I say that this is not a fun adventure of hide and seek - "Catch Me Daddy" is incredibly tough and dark. The movie deals with very serious issues and it never stopped surprising me in how riveting it could get. The movie is nearly 2 hours long so at times it did feel a bit slow, and while I was mostly focused on Laila and Aaron we spend a lot of time with the different gangs as well. It adds to the overall plot and relationships between them all, but sometimes it felt like it spread itself thin.

Sameena Jabeen Ahmed is a newcomer who already comes off as a star in the lead, with an expressive personality that keeps us rooting for her. She shows her character's strengths and weaknesses in a realistic manner. It's surprising that she has not done acting prior to this movie. Obviously the movie would not be what it is without the co-star, Conor McCarron, who brings a completely different personality into the story, a rough but loving character who protects Laila with her life.

If this sounds like you would be intrigued by it, then odds are that you would be. It's a suspenseful adventure that ends on a very upcoming dark note. Equally poetic as it is packed with violent force, you won't be left unaffected. It might not make a stir as some similarly dark thrillers such as Gaspar Noé's work has, but it is absolutely a movie worth watching. The movie is distributed by Oscilloscope Laboratories and it has its US theatrical release on August 7th and VOD release on September 1st, so you can watch it sooner rather than later!

Larry Kent is not an unfamiliar name in Canadian cinema, having made a number of features since the '60s. He might not be the first name you think of when you think of Canadian film, but several of his movies are quite well-regarded by those who have seen them. He started out with exploitation but with "She Who Must Burn" he is mainly exploiting my anxiety and my anger towards extremists in religion - in the very best way, of course.

A fanatical evangelist kills a nurse in a planned parenthood clinic, after which the clinic is shut down. Angela worked as a counselor there, and people continue to see her for help after the clinic shuts down. When Angela helps the wife of one of the evangelists to get to a safe place after he raped and beat her, the group of religious nuts go after Angela and the people who came to her for help.

"She Who Must Burn" is not an easy watch - it's harrowing to the core. That's proof of talent in a filmmaker if there ever was. If a movie can get me as riled up and nervous as Larry Kent succeeded with in this, then that is a good movie in my eyes. There are some common traits between this and other movies dealing with a similar plot, but many of those movies come off as cheap horror movies in comparison. With a subplot of a storm coming, there is something very methodic to this movie, always making sure we don't feel safe. The evangelists are rather stereotypical but there isn't too much you can do to these characters if you want to stay within the frames of Christianity. The performances are still very effective despite being cut from the same cloth as characters we've seen before.

This is definitely not a gory movie, but there are several scenes that could turn the stomach of some. When there's violence it gets quite nasty. Right in the beginning we're treated to the birth of a stillborn, and while I have seen way worse scenes in many movies, I still found the dead baby incredibly creepy to look at. It prepares us for some heavy scenes that we'll get later on.

I'm confident that "She Who Must Burn" will split people. Even when acknowledging it as being effective and graphic, some people could have a problem with its ending. Personally I found myself to be in a state of both emptiness and relief at the same time as the credits rolled. It's in no way a happy ending, nor is it a fair ending - but there is something to it that sticks.

There's an anger brewing inside of me when I watch movies like "She Who Must Burn". I guess having lived my entire life free from religion, I find myself get very affected by extremists in film. "She Who Must Burn" is fuel to the fire. The movie is terrifying without ghosts or monsters, but because of the strong beliefs. I think you have a fair idea of what this movie is, so you probably know if it's for you or not. If you want to see an over-the-top religion horror that gets you to the core, then this is for you.

My review from 2013: The synopsis that was released back then was "A Gore Bondage Film". Yes, that's the SYNOPSIS they gave us! What can you expect from a movie after that? Gore and bondage, of course! The movie does have more to offer than that, even if the plot is your average "character falls into madness" plot. We jump back and forth in time following a boxer who lost his most important match. After the match ended, his manager was through with him and his dream of winning the champion gloves was over. He falls into an abusive life of alcohol-fueled pain and sorrow, and he is visited by a female figure that is forcing him to kill. Several innocent women fall victim to his bondage torture, but the main target remains - the boxer he lost against.

The movie promises a whole lot of torture and violence, and that's basically what you are getting. There are a number of unsettling scenes, some which could disturb those with weaker stomachs. I think the creativity in the bondage is quite fascinating, and the way the ropes were used made the movie memorable on its own. The kind of violence we're talking about is stuff like the following: stabbing out the heart through someone's back, impalement through two bodies and a bed (possibly my favorite kill), human punching bags, being tied mouth-to-mouth to someone who is slowly rotting, and skullhumping. This is the kind of stuff you can expect, and there is more of it than that.

My problem with "Visceral: Between the Ropes of Madness" is mainly in some of the effects and the editing of the violent scenes. While the effects aren't always the best, some are still great. A movie can be effective even if the effects aren't the best (some of my favorite movies have cheesy effects). The effects are often made worse by the editing, though. Certain scenes are too short, which makes them hard to believe: it should take a little while and some struggling to cut through a back to reach the heart. It shouldn't just take a few seconds. This is a re-occurring problem in the movie. Once you look past that, if you can, then you're basically good to go. "Visceral: Between the Ropes of Madness" says it all in the title - that's what you're getting. In the end, a movie like "Schramm" has reached notoriety even though it's rather silly in certain moments - I'm a fan myself - and that should be proof that low-budget can get away with things once in a while.

It's not all just shock and torture, as I must say this is probably one of the better flicks I have watched from Chile. I mean, the movie's goal is shock and torture, but still has some sweet cinematic candy to hand out. There are several parts of the movie where you can feel influences from filmmakers like Gaspar Noé. The movie is pretty raw, but you still get several visually interesting scenes and some great setups (usually the ones involving bondage). Not to mention the great credits, which I think is safe to say is in the veins of Noé.

"Visceral: Between the Ropes of Madness" is a low-budget movie, made in a country that has just recently started making horror, and you can tell. There are some weak spots here and there, but the movie is both entertaining and often brutal. You can prepare for a lot of blood, boobs and bondage, and even when the movie goes over-the-top I was entertained. The acting works for the most part. For a movie like this it could be detrimental if the actors playing the victims weren't believable, but in this one they might even be the best actors.

It's a joy to finally see the movie. Could it be better? Sure it could. It could be more disturbing too, no doubt. Still, the movie manages to be more brutal, creative and... visceral (heh), then the majority of torture/extreme films out there. I definitely recommend "Visceral: Between the Ropes of Madness" to you readers, just don't let the 4 years of anticipation ruin it for you. They have made a solid shock-for-shock indie debut, and I am excited for their future. More reviews at FilmBizarro.com

Shinya Tsukamoto's new movie is based on the anti-war novel of the same name (a.k.a. "Nobi"), written by Shohei Ooka. Perhaps better remembered by our viewers from the 1959 film by Kon Ichikawa. If you have seen the early version, then there is no doubt that you will be familiar with the story of Shinya Tsukamoto's take. But what a lot of people seem to forget when they went into Tsukamoto's version of the story is that while he might be portraying the same hell, his style is and always has been completely sensory. Seen in a massive theater with incredibly loud volume, I was thrown into a graphic and hypnotic re-imagining of a known story and left it feeling like I've been in a tumble dryer with a corpse.

The Japanese are retreating from the Philippines at the end of the second world war. Shinya Tsukamoto himself plays a soldier who is sick of tuberculosis and starvation, but is unable to get help from the field hospital nearby his company's camp. His leader refuses to take him, as there is nothing to gain from this weak man, and the hospital won't treat anything that isn't wounds. He's told that if the hospital refuses him one more time, it is better for them all if he just kills himself with his grenade. Suddenly his camp is on fire after an attack, and Tamura decides to take off on his own. What follows is one soldier's personal hell as he tries to find safety to get back home to his girlfriend. From meetings with locals, to acts of cannibalism, there isn't a moment of rest for our sick protagonist.

There is no doubt that the original "Fires on the Plain" knew more what it wanted to say, but Tsukamoto's attempt to wake us and remind us of the horrors of war is not without effect. Yes, it is the most gruesome and brutal movie that Shinya Tsukamoto has ever created, and in his typical way he doesn't hide away from showing more than most would, but the violence is not the only thing that's on display. The movie is visually intense, mixing the beauty of the landscape with the powerful tail end of a war, and what might be even more captivating is the sound, where every bullet and explosion is out to get you. Watching Tsukamoto's "Fires in the Plain" is a hypnotic, loud and grim event to take part of.

There is no other movie in Tsukamoto's filmography that can truly be compared to "Fires on the Plain". Where you could say that "Kotoko" is within the same walls as something like "A Snake of June", I think that this movie stands alone. Here he attempts to show realism paired with his supersonic chaos. What we end up with is a movie that puts us close enough to the realities of war that we can smell the rotten corpses, but with a psychological and surrealistic style that slowly shakes the ground beneath you.

With its limited budget you can expect that certain aspects of war are trimmed down, but personally I always felt like the war was out there. We're closely following a soldier who does whatever he can to stay away from the war so it always makes sense story wise, but I personally never had a problem with what they managed to show during the more action-heavy sequences. To the contrary, I felt they were extremely effective and jarring, even when stylistic choices were made to hide the fact that it has a low budget. The effects are certainly graphic, but they weren't of usual Tsukamoto style where its over-the-top in an almost anime way (I'm looking at movies like "Tokyo Fist" and even "Kotoko"). Here, the dead bodies on the ground look as if they're from a documentary rather than a horror movie - dirt, flies and maggots, rotten skin. The action gore is obviously of a more splattery flavor, which can be distracting to those who are after a thoughtful drama, but it is perfectly in line with the Tsukamoto experience that I was after when I heard that he was making this.

If the reason behind this remake was to remind us of the horrors of war, then I think they did a good job. This is in no way a pleasant experience. It is a very brutal movie with some downright disgusting scenes of dread. You could argue the need for this remake, as they both tell the same story and have a lot of similar scenes. I am positive that certain people are better off going back to the original movie from 1959, but if you want Tsukamoto's relentless sensory power and graphic brutality then this is a must. This movie truly put me in the midst of an inferno and forced me to feel the heat, starvation and complete confusion that Tamura goes through - sometimes more clearly than the original does to me. The new version of "Fires on the Plain" is a vivid hell.

More reviews at FilmBizarro.com

Henrik Möller is a name I've heard of for years due to his crude animation films - something I made a conscious decision not to watch. It wasn't out of spite or any ill-meaning, I simply never found myself interested in watching them. It's with something like this debut feature, "Lokalvårdaren" (or its English title, which speaks more about the movie but stands out less, "Feed the Light") that I really got curious. It's a low-budget horror from the Southern part of Sweden (made obvious by the accents, of course) that's akin to psychological/supernatural stories like "Session 9".

Storywise it keeps itself somewhat familiar. The whole supernatural activities at a weird place/facility/whatever. Sara takes a job as a cleaner at a strange place where her daughter got lost after following her dad to work (he also works there). She comes to learn that the co-workers are far from the most bizarre things she's about to meet. She hears about "the light" - and a supposed other dimension. It strays away to some interesting places here and there, but mostly it remains easy to follow while still keeping us curious. That's possibly one of the main strengths here, that it's not always easy to predict what will happen next.

My general distaste for modern Swedish cinema doesn't have much to do with the country or language itself. It's as simple as this: we're mostly horrible at making movies. We're unoriginal and unaware of it. When decent ideas come along, they're usually failing elsewhere. "Lokalvårdaren" stood out with its trailer and it gave me some hope for Swedish independent cinema, and I think it's a lot better than movies like "Mara", "Vittra", "Den som söker" and "Marianne" (all recent Swedish horror/thrillers). It shows a lot more talent and originality (despite feeling familiar in story) than the rest, that's for sure.

But what is my overall feeling of the movie? Fact is that I still struggle to fully enjoy it. There are several things that distract me from being fully involved in it. Sometimes it's the characters, sometimes the actors, sometimes it's the few leaps it takes. There are great characters, like Sara herself is quite good, but I'm not entirely sold on the boss character (or the bizarre, nude gimp-like man she has in her office). Acting is also mostly decent, but I felt the dialogue came off as a bit stale or even comedic at times. As for the leaps... well, I'm not entirely sure why certain things happened (and maybe that's on purpose), but without spoiling the scenes I simply felt they brought out more sighs than curiosity.

I'm glad the movie has an experimental approach, but at times it felt like means to add something more of interest to the movie, to give it a little unique touch, rather than fully using the style. Simple things like having blood and the daughter's coat in color when the rest isn't is just an old trick that needs some heavy thought behind it to actually mean something. At the same time though, I feel Henrik Möller certainly does best when the movie gets odd.

I guess I have to take on the role as a grumpy man yet again, and I guarantee that it's not my intentions upon watching Swedish movies. I will be watching more of Henrik Möller if he comes out with more features, I think he has a few great ideas in him and he's a bigger hope for Swedish horror than most filmmakers right now. The cinematography also stands above most low-budget supernatural horrors that I review. "Lokalvårdaren" might not have won me over, but it has a lot that almost all other Swedish horror movies are missing. If you want a decent supernatural mystery then you should give this a shot though!

More reviews at FilmBizarro.com

I'm sure most people are familiar with the feeling that you know something about a person that they don't themselves. A.J. Bond's feature film "Stress Position" is an uncomfortable discovery of what two friends can do to each other just to prove something. It doesn't take the typical route of torture, but it delivers something a lot more powerful than any "Saw" ever could. Perhaps it reminds me more of "The Bunny Game" taking place within the world of "Cube".

"Stress Position" begins with an explanation in front of cameras of what it about to happen. A.J. and Dave (both playing fictional versions of themselves, I believe) describe the reasoning behind their planned experiment - by bringing up their own personal issues with each other. The idea for the experiment came about when A.J. said he'd be able to get out of Guantanamo Bay using reasoning and wits, which Dave sees as complete bullshit. The two friends - and the clearly are friends - definitely have some unsolved issues with each other, and they decide the way to do it is to make a bet. The bet is that they will give themselves over to the other for psychological torture over the course of 7 days, or until they break down and give out the secret code to an account where they've put in $10,000 for the other to take. Dave loses a good ol' rock-papers-scissors and is the first person to go into the "chamber". Meanwhile A.J., as a filmmaker, wants to film the entire process in hopes to find something about a person rarely captured on film.

At first, this was a fun movie to watch. We're excited to see whatever psychological terror they will treat each other to. Slowly you start to get unnerved by the ways that A.J. is torturing Dave, but things take a darker turn once Dave shows himself unmoved by a certain experiment and A.J. becomes more desperate. During Dave's week of being tortured, A.J. is getting more and more bizarre and mean-spirited. But is it still just a game of breaking his friend for the money?

Without revealing to much of what's to come, I'll say that eventually is it Dave's turn to torture A.J., and he comes even more prepared. I could go on about the story alone, as I find it both fascinating and thrilling, but I had to find a balance between giving enough and too much away.

"Stress Position" exceeded my every expectation. This is a movie that really challenges you. It doesn't do it in the most typical way, instead it does it by forcing you to dig deep into yourself and the people you know. It's an awkward, uncomfortable and psychologically heavy movie. It undergoes several twists to make it just as hard for the characters as for the audience. Without actual shocks (especially graphically), the movie still presents an experience which can most accurately be described as "shocking". It shows a part of friendship that many know is there, but hopes will never come out. For being such a stylish movie, it always manages to keep its feet on the ground, keeping it small and simple to truly unnerve you.

This is a movie which wouldn't work if it wasn't for the great performances by A.J. Bond and David Amito. They're equally outstanding, and before the movie ends you don't know who to root for even though A.J. Bond often took the role as the antagonist (if there is one here). They make you believe that they are friends that know each other too well, which is hard to show unless you want it to come off as the over- used "bromance". You believe it instantly, but they also make it damn clear that they feel superior to their friend, and believe that they know more about them than they do. A.J. Bond deserves recognition for directing, writing, producing and starring in something so powerful as this debut feature.

Its "Cube"-like set design makes it much more than just a game between friends, it shows how serious they are about the experiment. There's nothing in the room but a strange metal sculpture-ish object in the center, all white walls and just a cup to do your "needs" in. Trouble was brewing the moment Dave stepped into the room. The set might be very typical for a "torture chamber movie", but it does the deed. It seems to deliberately planned, constructed to truly be able to push each other too far.

"Stress Position" shouldn't be missed out. It's a nearly flawless debut feature which jumps head first into psychological terror. There's something darkly methodic, almost evil, in "Stress Position". A selfish experimentation of friendship, where someone is more interested in how far they can go to achieve something, than they care about their relationship. At times this is a very emotionally hard movie to tackle, but you're rewarded if you do. It makes you think, not just about yourself, but others. It almost forces you to open up, and we're all uncomfortable with the idea of that. As a director myself, it's very interesting to watch this as an experiment between a director and an actor, and not just friends, and it succeeds just as much when seen that way. A.J. Bond needs to make some spectacular movies in the future to ever top this debut feature.

More reviews at FilmBizarro.com

"Tin Can Man" might have some competition as my recent favorite Irish movie. Though two completely different movies, so I am ready to let them split that spot, I can't even begin to explain what a surprise "Love Eternal" was. Based on a novel by Kei Ôishi called "In Love with the Dead" (a.k.a. "Loving the Dead" I believe), directed by a name that's completely new to me - Brendan Muldowney. It's no surprise that he has a bunch of short films and a somewhat known feature behind him ("Savage"), neither of which I have seen, considering what he managed to create in this dark drama.

Ian's a troubled young man. He spends his days researching which way to end his life. This is something that his entire life has been leading up to. When he was 6 years old his father died while they were outside playing, something which hurt him a lot because of how much his father meant to him. He became a very secluded kid after that. In his teens he discovered a girl who had hanged herself in the woods. Every day after school he went to visit the girl, starting something of a relationship with her due to his loneliness. His mother finally dies when he's a young adult, leaving behind a notebook to help him live on his own. Everything from recipes to general help such as what to buy at the store. It's the final nail in his coffin, he's ready to end his life. He finds the perfect location for his planned method of suicide, carbon monoxide poisoning. He sits in his car, ready to end it all when he witnesses a van of people arriving to do the same thing. He waits until they're dead and grows fond of one of the girls in the van - and brings her body home with him.

There's something very Japanese about "Love Eternal". I know, I know, it's based on a Japanese novel, but that doesn't automatically mean it will feel (in atmosphere and style) like a Japanese movie. "Love Eternal" does that, which I found to be very interesting. It actually reminds me of Shunji Iwai's "Vampire" in more ways than one. Oddly enough there's a lot of similarity in the suicide aspect of the story and the dark themes. I even had to check if the two were based on the same novel because there's really striking resemblances in certain parts of the movie. I don't mind as they differ enough, but it was interesting to notice. In their entirety they're two difference experiences.

While "Love Eternal" has some brief necrophilia in it, it'd be stupid for that to be what you take from the movie. This is an extremely emotional movie about death of all kinds. Death of a relative, suicide and mortality in general, but just as much about love and loneliness. And not the good, happy part of "love". The movie got to me really fast and it had moments that were very rough to get through emotionally. I might be a softie when it comes to certain things, but it's still somewhat rare for movies to have a personal effect on me. "Love Eternal" left me feeling very insignificant and made me question mortality in a way few movies do. Similar to what "Breaking the Waves" did to me, it's not that it's bleak, but it makes you appreciate what you have but also realizing that tragedy can strike at any time to anyone.

There are two things making this an incredibly beautiful movie. One is the very sensitive cinematography, which complements the dark themes perfectly. The other thing is the actors. This is filled with class acts, but mostly I admire Robert de Hoog in the lead, Pollyanna McIntosh as Naomi who tragically loses her son, and Amanda Ryan as Tina who wants to commit suicide with Ian. Every role is important and portrayed beautifully, but these three made a strong impact on me. They're deserving of any praise given to them for this.

Initially I got into "Love Eternal" not knowing what to expect, but it was a movie that instantly sucked me in and completely messed me up emotionally. It was a hard movie to watch because it brought out the dark themes in the most careful, beautiful way imaginable. Brendan Muldowney's "Savage" isn't a movie that sounds like it would appeal to me, but I know that if he ever makes a movie that sounds even remotely like this, I will be fighting to get to see it. He made something incredible here. I hope others will get the chance to experience this powerful movie. I realize it won't have the same effect on everyone, but I hope it does. I'm emotionally drained by it.

More reviews at FilmBizarro.com

Where some filmmakers like Rob Zombie bring out the south in a rather cinematic, exaggerated way, Blake Eckard shows it exactly how it is. He doesn't butter it up. What you see feels uncomfortably real, and there's a reason for it. He doesn't make good and bad people, he makes people. He puts them in a real setting and let them communicate. There's most certainly intrigue and a script, but it's subtle and creeping out at you. Sometimes it's a friendlier experience, like "Backroad Blues", but sometimes it gets unnerving like in "Bubba Moon Face". And it's all so easy to relate to. Even out in the country here in Sweden I can relate to how people behave and simply how things are in Blake Eckard's movies. That's why "Sinner Come Home" and "Bubba Moon Face" worked so well, and that's exactly what kept me excited that I was given the chance to watch "Ghosts of Empire Prairie".

Ryan Harper Gray returns to Blake Eckard's world, this time as Lonnie Enright who returns to him home town Empire Prairie. It's a small place, calling it a town is even pushing it. Lonnie leaves his girlfriend to go back for a while. Back home, Lonnie has his drunk-ass asshole of a father and his loser brother, and his return is stirring up drama in the family.

"Ghosts of Empire Prairie" offers exactly what I've come to expect from Blake Eckard. Not in a bad way, but because he has found his style and it's oddly rare. The atmosphere of the movie is very uncomfortable. Though not that much happens in terms of plot, there's a lot going on within our characters when Lonnie comes back to mess things up. The longer he stays, the more stuff's going on, slowly growing darker and more mean- spirited. Its redneck, don't-give-a-crap, hand-me-a-beer atmosphere really works for me, I'm instantly locked in.

I like that we're not watching the movie from Lonnie Enright's perspective. We're not there to pat him on the back. He's a sly and egotistical ass, just like most people in the movie. Hell, just like most people in real life. We're left on our own to decide who we want to care for, and in my case I had the most care for the little brother. It's interesting to be left on your own as a viewer, it's a style I appreciate a lot more than being forced to love someone I never would like in real life. Some movies do this. I understand that if you follow a bad person long enough, you get sympathy for him because you see what makes him tick, what makes him the bad person. But "Ghosts of Empire Prairie" has a different style altogether, it's not a personal portrait. It's the portrait of the people in Empire Prairie. Blake Eckard successfully gets that through to us.

"Ghosts of Empire Prairie" isn't my favorite of the Blake Eckard movies, "Bubba Moon Face" still takes the cake. But this is pretty tied with "Sinner Come Home". You need to keep in mind that this is a very independent and rough movie. It's not flashy, it's not about the grand production. It's about character drama and portrayal, and this is the strength of the movie. The story isn't remarkable at all. Hadn't the characters been so well-written and beautifully acted, this would have been a complete waste. Luckily that's what Blake Eckard and his cast (Ryan Harper Gray, Jon Jost, Frank Mosley and the rest of the gang) do so well. In the role of the father we see prolific independent filmmaker Jon Jost, who started making movies back in the 70s, which is an interesting side-note. If you're interested in the work of Black Eckard you should start with either this or "Bubba Moon Face". If they don't interest you, then this isn't for you. If they do, then you're in for a treat because it doesn't seem like he will stop making these movies anytime soon.

More reviews at FilmBizarro.com

I'm yet again happy to get to watch another independent Irish movie, thanks to our good buddy Michael Parle, who also co-produced this movie. In the lead we see the great Patrick O'Donnell and a new face, Lorna Larkin. This new Irish ghost movie doesn't offer the scary kind of ghosts. It's not a horror movie with jump scares, nor is it quite as unique as "I Am a Ghost". What it is, however, is a slowly developing drama that focuses on a ghost mystery, which gets you involved in its lead woman and her search for the truth.

As many ghost stories, a couple moves into a new house. A large, gorgeous house. One that they'll be living in until they're six feet under, if things go as planned. But things are on a slippery slope when Janice cheats on Matthew, and she's going through a personal crisis due to her big mistake. Things go for the worse when it turns out that Janice and Matthew are now living in a house that is haunted by the ghosts of a couple, but only Janice is the one seeing them. Matthew's busy with his job, while Janice begins to get invested in the mystery of her new house. What separates the movie from the usual ghost stuff is the drama approach, that Janice isn't attacked by these ghosts, that they're not out to haunt her. What's happening in their new house is a vision of domestic abuse, and Janice decides she has to find out what once happened in the house. She finds that she can help more than she ever expected.

It sounds like most ghost movies, and I wouldn't say it's groundbreaking, but it is nice to not get the typical scare fare. For a movie which is quite traditional in its build-up, it's just fresh to be treated to something calmer. It's all about how Janice witnesses something horrible and wants to find the truth behind it - who were they, when did they live there? There is one point in the plot which fell for me, and that was most parts involving the medium. I understand anyone believing they are haunted by ghosts would seek out a medium (or at least in movies), but it felt more like they moved the story there because they had to, that it was expected, rather than actually making it an interesting part of the story. I'd rather see them just skip it, because I had a hard time enjoying the medium as a character even.

Besides that small bump in the road, this is a nice movie. It's not spectacular and perhaps you'll leave never to return to the movie again, but with that said I also find it hard to dislike it. Lorna Larkin gets us interested in the mystery and shows that she certainly has acting chops. Hell, she's even shining over Patrick O'Donnell in this movie, and that says a lot since we're big fans of him here. In this one, he plays the difficult husband - the non-believer, the naysayer. He's a good man, but one that's there to tell Lorna's character to get her crazy ideas out of her head. Lorna Larkin portrays Janice as someone both strong and vulnerable at the same time, and that makes a very realistic character.

"North Circular Road" offers a large mystery delivered slowly. There isn't a ton of effects, scares or that much oddity at all. It's a drama. It's a movie worth watching but not necessarily one you should spend a day trying to track down. If you cross paths with it, give it a shot. While it might have a fresh drama approach to the supernatural, it's not a movie that stands out a lot. It has good performances, namely from Lorna Larkin, and is a great start for director Donal Nugent, so I am psyched to see more from both of them after this - and continued great work from Patrick O'Donnell who convinced me to become a fan after "Tin Can Man" and "The Looking Glass".

More reviews at FilmBizarro.com

Cassandra Sechler's "Wireboy" is straight to the point, showing itself to be an entirely visual experience. It's as if the short film is an experiment of style - a test for future project - rather than focusing on deliver much of a story. In fact, if anything it tries to deliver an atmosphere. Going into "Wireboy" with this in mind, it's a lot easier to settle down and appreciate what it manages to bring forth rather than the lacking story.

There is story, but you have to read the synopsis to get it. That's the first warning that, storywise, it's weak in its presentation. With "Wireboy", we kinda have to build our own version of the intended plot. The intended plot being rather vague, essentially showing a cyberpunk nightmare where a character named Wireboy is seeing and experiencing relationships and other figures. As thin as metaphors come, this tries to show a representation of where we're all going as technology becomes more and more important to the everyday life.

Again, this is what it delivers as a story, but I didn't watch it that way. I think it's a lot stronger when just experienced, just turn your mind off and go into it appreciating the things it does succeed with. Its "Tetsuo: The Iron Man" meets performance art (or, if you will, meets "Dandy Dust") and you can't help but admire the great ambition behind every character design, which is its key feature. In fact, it's something which has me extremely psyched to watch Cassandra Sechler's upcoming "Blue Noon". If this level of ambition can be put on character design in a 15 min short, then I can only imagine what can be achieved in a feature. Whether it's similar in style or not, it shows the true passion of its filmmakers.

Other than the story, which was a tiny bump in the road for me (I never expected to get into a storyline with this one), I couldn't help but be distracted by the jumping between looks and some editing choices. It seems to have been shot with different cameras, it jumps between excessive colors to black and white, all while being in VHS quality. Sometimes it works to mix it up, but usually it is a more giving experience if it doesn't jump too much. It was as if I was watching several different films (where I much preferred the black and white footage, but couldn't help but love some of the completely red ones).

The soundtrack was a bit too ambient for my taste, I would've loved music that could have helped keeping us in touch with what's on screen. Something with a bit more force when needed, which ambient music rarely does - instead it makes it feel slower and more dragged out than it should. But overall the sound design is good, it fits the short, and it does establish it as the experience it was intended to be.

"Wireboy" is far from the perfect cyberpunk experience, it all depends on how you choose to watch it. It's rough around the edges, there's not a story to follow, and so forth, but it shows what the filmmakers are capable of. It's very ambitious, which has me excited for the future of everyone involved. It's daring to make a movie like "Wireboy" and I don't think many similar films have been made since perhaps "Dandy Dust", so I definitely think you should give it a shot (in the link below). It shares the depraved, sexual nature of "Dandy Dust" and Austrian performance art, making this an experience for adult eyes only. Whatever this short film is lacking, it makes up in ambition and passion, and that proves to me that Cassandra Sechler is a filmmaker to look out for in the future. "Wireboy" has true underground attitude, grand ambition and a care for design often lacking in independent science-fiction.

More reviews at FilmBizarro.com

Seligman (Stellan Skarsgård) lives as a loner in a relationship with his books, his knowledge, his fishing. One day on his way back home from the store he finds a woman, Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg), beaten and bruised on the pavement in an alley. He walks to help her, offering to call an ambulance or the cops, but she stops him. She doesn't mind his help, but a cup of tea and some rest is all she needs, so he brings her home with him. They quickly begin a discussion about her, as she claims she is a bad human being - which Seligman does not believe. She begins to tell her life story of nymphomania. During all of this Seligman ties everything back to math, books, religion, fishing, Frued in an attempt to understand Joe.

There is no doubt that Lars von Trier wrote this with a childlike enthusiasm, eager to empty his mind of any idea he could discover along the way, while tying it all back to Joe's nymphomania. "Nymphomaniac" is a very sad movie and with sad characters, but it's also very funny, often poking fun at itself and the unbelievable - almost fantastical - story that is being told. The movie also comes back to many of Lars von Trier's past movies, ranging from the devastating opening of "Antichrist" to the haunted halls of "Riget", and sometimes only to mess with the audience.

Seligman also makes sure that the movie is filled to the brim with symbolism, metaphors, associations to literature, religion and all that. Perhaps to an extent that takes it too far, but that kinda becomes a joke in the movie as well. Is it to actually give a deeper meaning to Joe's nymphomania, or is it to show how easy it is to find meaning where, perhaps, there is none? The Joe character cleverly ties back to her character in "Antichrist" without making it too certain if it agrees or disagrees with the statements of "Antichrist", but it ties a nice knot to this trilogy. The many symbolisms in "Nymphomaniac" are illustrated often with stock footage, images, text and numbers on the screen, which yet again gives this a more fun and childlike touch, helping us getting through 4 hours of this devastating, provocative, depressive, sex-filled life story.

This 4 hour version is supposedly the cut version. It's likely that a ton of explicit sex has been edited out, but there is plenty to be found in this 4 hour version. I don't think the movie, 4 hour version or otherwise, will have so much explicit sex that the movie becomes ABOUT that. Even though you have watched penetration, blowjobs, vaginas, asses, penises, many times over, graphically, during these 4 hours, it never takes the upper hand. And despite what I think many will say, I think all of it was needed to tell this story. Joe isn't addicted to sex because of past problems, she's addicted to sex because she loves it. Nymphomania becomes her personality, that's what her days are all about - planning when to see the next man, looking for ways to get to another level, and so on. Not showing explicit sex in this movie would cut the movie short of how straight forward it wanted to be about the subject.

Charlotte Gainsbourg and Stacy Martin both do a great job as Joe. Stacy Martin takes good care of the youthful side, the rise of the nymphomania and finding love. She plays the stronger, rising side of Joe. Charlotte takes care of Joe's fall, wisdom and darker sides. Charlotte Gainsbourg is a great actress and have proved herself to be a great asset to Lars von Trier's stories in these three movies, and this seemed like it was her time to have fun, as she lays the trilogy to rest.

There are many tricks done to enhance the movie without being a visual-obsessed creation which you could argue "Antichrist" was at times. The opening is fantastic, many of the illustrative shots would perhaps serve more purpose on the big screen, and as Joe climbs a mountain to discover a lonely, naked and twisted tree on the very top I'll admit I was happy I saw it on the big screen.

"Nymphomaniac" is a very long movie to get through, but it has a lot of things going on. The story is quick and Seligman keeps us busy with his intellect (which brings a lot of the comedy), so it's hard to be bored. People are always split when it comes to Lars von Trier's movies, and that will be the case here too. Some will see it simply as smut, some as pretentious garbage, but if you manage to care about Joe then odds are you will be interested from start to finish. It's strictly about Joe, the actresses portraying her makes her likable even when she shows how little she cares about anything but her sexuality. We're all our own judge whether she is the bad, horrible person that she claims her nymphomania makes her, because I don't think a clear message is to be found. Even down to the finale it can be seen from different angles, which works as she tells her story to Seligman, her complete opposite in every way. You'd need to losen the tie a bit for this movie, because it might be pretentious, provocative and pushing buttons for the sake of it at times, but it's actually an entertaining movie that shows many sides of Lars von Trier. It has a million things going to make it an interesting, captivating movie. I'll need time and rewatches to know how well it stands up against his filmography. We went to see the life story of a nymphomaniac, and that's what you get.

More reviews at FilmBizarro.com

Louis C.K. is a bit of an idol - certainly the funniest comedian out there. I've been following him since the start of the "Lucky Louie" show, which I personally loved, but he found his perfect style with the newer "Louie". I'm aware of some of his earlier short films, which are all strange in their own way but I wouldn't say I'm a big fan of them overall. But there is no doubt that Louis C.K. returned to his earlier style with "Louie". Let's be fair, "Pootie Tang" doesn't really count (nor should it, as it was essentially being messed with without Louis C.K.'s consent). It's interesting to me to see "Tomorrow Night", his first feature now available on his website, as you can so clearly see how "Louie" could develop from that.

Like many independent comedies, "Tomorrow Night" isn't about the story it has to tell, but about situations and characters. This one is about a whole truck load of messed up people. In the center is Charles. He owns a photo/camera store, he's not very social and he keeps the store very neat (so everyone automatically hates him). After noticing his stack of processed photos that haven't been picked up growing too big, he says no to new orders and starts calling the customers to get their stuff. Most of them do, and this forces him into many strange meetings. Among them are Lola Vagina (she's a sex fiend, as you might understand), an old lady who hasn't seen or heard from her son for 20 years since he went into the army, and so on.

The old lady is the other main plot, and some of the funnier scenes. Her husband, father of her son, is an annoying asshole who doesn't let her do anything, constantly screams and laughs at her misery and gambles all the time. Her only friend is Tina, a very sexually open woman (played by a man familiar to many Louis C.K. fans, Rick Shapiro). Her son is stuck in the army thinking that his mother has never returned his letters, but in reality he has been the bottom of a joke for 20 years. The mail room guys are throwing his mail away while laughing hysterically (maybe one of Steve Carell's best roles, simply just laughing). Funny joke, guys! This old lady is living quite a miserable life, and Charles is soon in the middle of all that.

It's hard to explain why this movie is funny and entertaining, because sometimes it doesn't even make you laugh out loud. Most of the time, actually. Yet I found it to be hilarious in an odd, "what-the-hell-am-I- watching-and-why" way. Louis C.K. does the same in "Louie", just perfected, but in that show it's also less weird. This gets very weird at times, and it honestly pleases my artsy-fartsy-surreal-like mind at times too, which is just great. Is the movie great simply because I am a fan boy of Louis C.K.? No, because I have admitted to not enjoying his shorts that much, and it took a while to get into "Tomorrow Night", but once I understood it and got into its style, I couldn't get enough. It's just bizarre!

Had "Tomorrow Night" been released around the time it was made it could have been a cult hit. I don't think it can in 2014. It had a few screenings back then (apparently also in Sweden, which proves to me that we're not completely useless here) and then went nowhere, stuck in Louis C.K.'s personal archives, along with the debts to his friends that helped him make the movie. But now that it is here, I don't think it will make the mark it could have - but boy am I glad that he released it. It's fun as hell without always making you laugh, because it's just such an oddity. There's a definite proof of talent in it, both comedy- wise and strictly because it looks great. Quaint, but great - some shots are actually done with the eye of an artist, which can't be said for every comedy. "Tomorrow Night" is not only for fans of Louis C.K., it's for people who thought "Clerks" didn't have enough people sitting bare- butted in ice cream. It's so absurd that I find it hard to hate it.

More reviews at FilmBizarro.com

I admit it, I get a kick out of movies that distort reality. I don't mean strictly surreal movies, even though I like that too, but movies that take on a rather realistic style and then twist it around - much like the previously reviewed "Ape" did. "Toad Road" takes a slightly more subtle way of things, especially since it deals with drugs as well. Yes, if a movie deals with drugs I am more likely to accept the way it bends reality as still being realistic. F*ck it, I don't need to explain why, do I? It's drugs! You all kids do it, so you know exactly what I mean.

The movie is based around the legend of the Toad Road, a long road through the woods that has 7 different gates. It has been said that no one has came to the 7th gate, and that after the 5th some seriously strange things start to happen and that's the furthest anyone has gotten. A group of friends get high in all the ways they can, and just seem to enjoy the life they are living, albeit going nowhere. The movie is about James and a girl he meets, Sara. Sara sees the drug use as something bigger, and after James tells her about the Toad Road her curiosity is piqued. She needs to go there, she has to try and reach the final gate. She manages to get James with her, and that's the last time Sara is seen.

The movie is very real and simple a lot of the time, but it still manages to get creepy once they go to the Toad Road. The last part of the movie is spent only with James and it's hard not to reflect on the past events in a similar way to how James does it. It feels even more odd knowing that the actress playing Sara, Sara Anne Jones, has since passed away. Her part in this movie is so important to keep it steady - James Davidson is fantastic too, but he needs a co-star that carries just as much strength, and Sara did that. It's a shame to lose someone like her.

"Toad Road" brings up a lot of questions while still working as a creepy story of a missing person. Most of all it's existentialistic and the use of drugs in the movie is just spot on to put every piece where it belongs. The movie doesn't need to go over board with anything, and the pace becomes one of the most important things about it. It's slower than your typical Hollywood movie, but still not a movie that literally struck me as "slow". It's hard to describe it, but it's a movie that keeps its audience busy and hooks us in to the experience. It's a movie that makes you question your choices, your past, your future, your curiosity and your mortality, and that's probably one of the biggest compliments a movie can get. A really strong effort!

More reviews at FilmBizarro.com

The "Lord of Tears" team might be some of the smartest crowdfunders in horror recently, basically giving horror fans exactly what they want to see with their teasing. They doubled their goal and then some, and it's not a surprise when their main teaser was the image of a slenderman-like figure in Victorian clothing, an owl head and long freakish fingers/claws. It's what children's and adult's nightmares alike are made of. And now it is time for this Gothic and poetic horror movie to reach its anticipating audience and reviewers.

It tells the classic tale of a troubled man returning to his past to find answers. James Findlay is a school teacher who has been suffering from nightmares of a figure we've come to know as the "Owlman". As I said before, a well-dressed human-like figure with an owl's head and long claws for fingers. This is a vision that's been haunting him since his childhood, but that he has finally put to rest. When his mother dies the Owlman returns to his dreams, and James sets out to get rid of his nightmares once and for all - by returning to his childhood's home where the nightmares started. At his return he meets a woman who he starts hanging out with to keep his sanity, while he investigates the history of the house and what happened to him in the past.

The movie does where its influences and inspirations on its sleeve, and sometimes even in the plot. History, religion, ghost stories and authors like Lovecraft, Hammer horror movies, Japanese horror, and so forth is very much all of the "Lord of Tears". And not in a bad way, it successfully uses what it needs to tell an atmospheric story. Except maybe the Japanese horror aspect, especially aesthetically and in the editing in certain parts - that might be one of the low points of the movie for me. It's actually a quite specific moment where you get a sense of that kicking in, and that's also when I think the movie went slightly downhill.

The build-up of this movie is very long but it also has to introduce you to a number of characters, its main location, much of the lore without spoiling anything, and so on. In true classic horror fashion it knows that you need to be aware of what you are watching before it brings out the big guns - or the big owl. The Gothic Hammer horror atmosphere might be the strongest influence, which comes free with the territory by its location, telling a ghost story and using history and religion to do so. It's a movie that heavily relies on its back story and they successfully build an interesting lore. The atmosphere is really strong within this movie, but I don't think it delivered any actual scares. Its iconic Owlman is a great character and many of the shots are fantastic, but I had hopes for a figure that would haunt me long after the movie ended. The Owlman didn't end up feeling like a villain as much as the one to guide James. Nothing wrong with that, and not necessarily a bad thing, but not quite what I thought I'd get whenever I looked at the terrific design of the character. What Owlman lacked in scares for me, I think it made up in purpose towards the end.

"Lord of Tears" has a familiar story and quite often you can predict what's about to happen, but when things come full circle at the end you're definitely pleased with the experience. It has a few bumps on the road, such as the Japanese horror inspired part later in the movie (at least this was the case for me). But between the location, the soundtrack and the Owlman, this is a movie that's packed with atmosphere and well worth a watch. A lot of independent productions lack atmosphere and I think that's the main force of this one. It's a good watch, but personally it's not something I will revisit any time soon. Definitely worth buying and hopefully it will deliver more chills and scares to someone else, but either way it delivers a well-rounded and personal story that many horror fans will love.

More reviews at FilmBizarro.com

To put "Marty's House" in a genre is kinda killing the point of the movie. The filmmakers themselves have chosen to go with putting it under the banner of the classic cinéma vérité style, which might be a smart move considering it's not as clear. And "Marty's House" is far away from clear. Part documentary, part experiment, part... horror? Not outright horror, but there's definitely something there.

It essentially is a documentary, but it starts out with the filmmaker arriving at a collector's house - Marty's house - and then passing out after a strange encounter in the bathroom. Marty then drags her out to the back of his house and sits next to her in a chair and drinks blood. All shot in slow motion. We then see him undress and showing off his wiener while singing Judas Prist's "Breaking the Law". It eventually jumps to a very traditional styled documentary about Marty and his large number of items in his house. And more importantly, about him selling items off so that he can start over. He has to sell them for cheaper than they are worth, but he feels it's worth it to finally get rid of it all and get away from there.

It's not clear what the filmmaker wanted with this short film, but that's sort of the reason it exists too. It's an unusual trip that some might not be interested in taking. It's something I like having seen, but I can't say that I really liked the movie as a hole. It's more interesting to see Marty's attempt to sell his things than the semi- horror experiment we're treated to in the beginning. Ultimately it leaves me unimpressed even though the mixing of styles is a pleasure on its own terms. It raises a lot of questions, but it answers none of them.

"Marty's House" is a play on genres, a sort of undefinable experiment. It might not be a great watch but you can't deny that what Ginnetta Correli did was interesting. I don't think it's a style that would work on several projects, and I have no idea what the filmmaker has done before or since, but it's here for you to experience. Take from it what you will, even if just opening your eyes to something very free.

More reviews at FilmBizarro.com

"Within the Darkness" is a tad bit of a bland title for any horror movie, even if it's not a good one. It's a title you'd easily mix up with other movies, and this could be a reason as to why I left it unwatched for some time. Not because I had heard anything specific about it, but because the title itself was unintrigued. Like its title, "Within the Darkness" has a familiar spine, but it's a movie that might not be quite what you expect it to be.

Austin is paving his way to Hollywood as he plans to create a paranormal investigation show. It's all bullshit, of course, but as every similar show on TV is too, he's pretty sure he can pull it off. Together with his girlfriend Lucy and a small group of people, he's ready to shoot his pilot which will focus on the legendary death in the Hewitt house. Lucy isn't too happy about doing it in that house, but she does her best for her man. His cinematographer however, is a bitchy woman who only sees Lucy as a block between her and Austin. When they get a real psychic in, it seems like the house's dark legend might be true.

Without actually deserving to be called a "horror comedy", this supernatural ghost story is filled with a lot of fun moments. Already from the start, which is what originally hooked me into it. The entire plot of people faking a paranormal investigation show is fun. It's still very much a horror movie when things start kicking off, but the ride there is what might make this stand out. I personally found the first hour to be great, because while the comedy didn't make me laugh out loud, it's just a light-hearted and entertaining horror dosed with comedy. The movie falls a little bit when the horror starts happening for real, mostly because they went with some awkward effects and seemed more concerned with forcing it on us than scaring us.

The movie also has quite a plot twist, which I think will divide people. It's not very logical and it does make me uneasy in deciding what I thought. It wasn't the most typical twist, at least, and it worked really well within some aspects of the movie. It wouldn't have worked in a different movie, that's for sure. So while it wasn't a great ending, it was at least an interesting way to tie the bag together.

Erin Cline as Lucy is what really sold me here. When many of the characters were intentionally made as assholes, she was a constant pleasure on the screen. To no surprise, of course, since Erin Cline is slowly becoming one of my favorite new faces in horror. Having just seen her in Jason Fragale's shorts "Date Night" and "Simone", and Thomas L. Phillips's great feature "Quite a Conundrum", she has already made herself very recognizable and proved herself to be an instant likable person. Surprisingly, another solid character is Megan, the psychic, played by Shanna Forrestall. Unlike other movie psychics, her role actually meant something to the movie, and she was often alongside Lucy as a nice person. Psychics in horror movies often play as much of a role as the cop who instantly dies, but luckily "Within the Darkness" had more use of their psychic.

Overall, "Within the Darkness" offers more joy and entertainment than scares and originality. It works for me because I found myself having a good time with it, but expecting a scary ghost story you'll set yourself up for failure. The title might make you believe that something sinister is going on, but even though this is a ghost story in its core, its focus is often on the things around it. Which is good, in my opinion, but I suspect certain people won't agree. Not perfect by a long shot, but "Within the Darkness" proved to be a fun experience. It doesn't hurt that Erin Cline continues to brighten every role she plays either!

More reviews at FilmBizarro.com

"Halley" has been doing some festivals but seems to have been kept under the radar - or maybe it's just skipped due to a title that doesn't appeal. Essentially it's a body horror drama, but one that doesn't go for boils, slime or even that in-depth. It kinda fits into the zombie genre, but saying that would annoy those who wants flesh eaters. There are several dramatic horror movies that follows a person who turns into a zombie during the movie - this is one of them.

Alberto is a night guard who is forced to quit his job due to a disease. The disease is bruising his body, skin is sticking to his clothes so it peels off when he takes them off, and he's getting weaker and weaker. Soon after, Alberto dies... and wakes up again in the morgue. The movie is about how Alberto tries to get away from everything and just accept his fate, but during his fall he's invited out by his boss, Luly, and it quickly turns into a date. I believe this works mostly to show the unfortunate turn of events, that when his life is literally ending, he's getting close to someone even without trying.

A masterpiece in storytelling? Not at all. It's not even very original, as the close-and-personal styled zombie movie has been done before. "Halley" does, however, show off a slower, calmer and sadder side than many of them. It has a few gruesome scenes where you see his bruises and wounds (a scene towards the end especially), but it's not over-the-top in the least. Instead it's more like seeing a corpse from a morgue, where blood and goo isn't flowing because the heart has stopped. It's oozing of something a lot more real.

There's a calmness in this movie that really got me into it, but I can imagine that it might not be for everyone. The ending is questionably sudden - but it could also be seen as a beautiful decision to make. When the movie finally seems to head towards a close to Alberto's story and it has reached horror territory, it cuts to something on the opposite side of the spectrum. I have had some time to think it over, and I still feel the movie should have continued a bit further before cutting to its atmospheric end sequence. As nice as that finale was, it was pushed on us too soon.

"Halley" is a very sad horror/drama about a man finally accepting that he is a walking dead. It's body horror but not one of the very disgusting ones (it's not like "Thanatomorphose" in that sense). The idea has been done before, but certain aspects of it makes it feel fresh. They have taken a really slow approach, and it's actually very rarely stepping into horror territory. Hell, the only horror part of it is that he continues to live and decompose after his death. I still feel comfortable in calling it a horror/drama since it's not for the general drama fans, and would appeal more to the horror crowd. It's definitely a watchable movie, but not something I'd tell people to seek out unless their interests seem to fit in perfectly.

More reviews at FilmBizarro.com

French filmmaker Bertrand Mandico wears his influences on his sleeve, and "Boro in the Box" might be the most obvious example of this. Not only does it share themes and styles of filmmakers, but this short film is literally about a character named Walerian Borowczyk (Boro for short). And its a Polish filmmaker. To make this clear, this is a surreal fantasy tale inspired by Walerian Borowczyk, based on him as a filmmaker. The character is a lot more appropriately called Boro, as the name Walerian Borowczyk does induce confusion (which may or may not be good). "My name is Walerian Borowczyk. I am a dead Polish filmmaker" says the female voice portraying Boro.

The short film tells us about the conception, the birth, the childhood and the youth of Boro, a kid with a box for a head. He was conceived when his father pretty much raped his mother. I say "pretty much" because the strange ordeal became quite mutual. She's pregnant on their wedding day and ends up falling from a rock and rolling down a hill. Little Boro survives the fall, but her belly has taken a squared shape. Boro is born into the world one random day when his mother is taking care of a horse. As a baby he's just a box with a hole in it. She puts her breast into the whole to feed him. He slowly grows up - as a kid he has arms and legs sticking out of the box. When he finally gets older his head is the box. Boro gets a fascination for watching "birds" early on after joining his father on his trips. The trips consist less of watching birds and more of watching nude women in the woods - something which becomes a huge part of his life and upcoming career. His career as a filmmaker, artist and pornographer. It's initiated after he receives a large, box-y film camera which fittingly enough resembles himself.

These 40 minutes cover even more than the above, and it was made possible because it jumps into phases of Boro's life, done by naming the chapters after letters. Every chapter has a word starting with the next letter of the alphabet ("Aforetime", "Beastiality", etc. - they don't seem as forced in French as they do in English.) I wouldn't say that the use of chapters help the film, but it does push forward some of the meaning and might lead some in the right direction.

There is no doubt that this is a visual short film. The story it tells is in no way as appealing as the visuals. That doesn't mean it's bad - the story does have some interesting things going on, such as the reason for Boro's future obsession in vulgar and bizarre filmmaking comes from seeing his mom sneak out at night to be with her lover - a horse. The box-headed Boro might be a symbol, and more so when the camera is introduced and shares the shape, but it does add a darkly comedic tone to the movie. There are several things that makes it lean towards black comedy, and it works really well. Seeing as some ideas and visuals are so wild and out there, having it be bizarrely comedic helps us accept them. But then there are the actually dark, erotic and twisted visuals which keeps it far from a family friendly viewing. There's plenty of nudity, hints towards extreme perversions, etc. Nothing we haven't seen before, however.

"Boro in the Box" is a much recommended short film that manages to blend styles from many greats such as Walerian Borowczyk, Andrei Tarkovsky and Jan Svankmajer. It's a visual treat, yet with a intriguing story (as strange as it is). It seems like Bertrand Mandico is a name just waiting to explode, as it currently resides in obscurity except for select festivals. No doubt the trailers have been raising eyebrows, and I think it's justified. "Boro in the Box" was more than I had hoped for. It's a great blend of pretentiousness, erotica and darkly comedic surrealism.

More reviews at FilmBizarro.com