All language subtitles for VIDEO NASTIES THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE VOLUME 1 DISK2_Part1

The following 39 videos were
successfully prosecuted under Section 2

Obscene Publications Act 1959, following
the advice of the Director of Public

Prosecutions, DPP.

Anyone found supplying these titles on
video would be liable for prosecution

run the risk of fines and or a prison
sentence if found guilty.

This collection, in fact, effectively
enshrines the list of the 72 titles

at one time or another, were on the
Video Nasties list. If you're a purist,

these are the only films you can call
Video Nasties. The fact that some

offensive and gruesome movies were never
even caught in the trawl is again a

bizarre anomaly.

It's odd that, I mean, it's almost a
badge of honour now to have been on the

Video Nasties list. I'm sure there are
filmmakers out there whose films didn't

make the list, who now wish they had.

Third, or Anthropophagus 2, it's sort of
a follow -up to Joe D 'Amato's movie

Anthropophagus in that... uh george
eastman luigi montefiore plays another

cannibalistic killer who has his insides
torn out at the beginning rather than

the end but it's a completely unrelated
story it is in fact a rip -off of

halloween and halloween 2 shoved
together with some weird science fiction

element about the killer having a
rationale for being self -regenerating

his guts have been torn out

It's one of those titles that was just
asking for it, isn't it?

Calling your film absurd is almost as
asking for trouble as that Andy Warhol

film that's called Bad.

I mean, what do you think critics said?

And it was hardly any better when it was
called horrible in France or in some

English language releases recently. It
was the monster hunter in America, which

sort of makes sense because there's a
character in it who's a monster and

there's a character in it who's chasing
him, who is de facto the monster hunter.

Edmund Purdom, the British actor, who
plays the kind of macho priest who's

tracking the killer. He's also basically
doing Donald Pleasance's act from

Halloween. The killer is out there
murdering people. And it's not

It's Super Bowl weekend, which is,
interestingly, a holiday they never

bothered to use in the title.

So all the grown -ups are watching the
football match. That takes up hours of

this film, is people eating Italian food
and watching American football.

while the killer is menacing the
babysitter and, indeed, the handicapped

who's frozen in a bed, which ought to
make for a really good suspense

You know, the girl's paralysed, can't
move from the bed, the killer is in the

room coming together.

Joe DiMato, or, indeed, Massachussie,
wasn't particularly good at staging

suspense. What this film does have, at
least in its uncut version, is really

gory murders.

Anthropophagus only has a few gory
sequences at the very end of a long 90

minutes of wandering around a Greek
island.

This ups the ante, and Masakasi had at
least learned that if you have something

gory happen every 15 minutes, that means
you've only got 15 minutes of tedium

before the next really gruesome thing
happens. And the effects are much better

than usual for this kind of thing.

But of course...

After it had been around and upset
people on video, the distributors put it

the BBFC, who just said, cut all the
violence out. It's just three and a half

minutes of cut, which reduced it to
being almost as excruciatingly dull as

Anthropophagus. Taking the gore out of
this movie is like putting Singing in

Rain out and removing the musical
numbers.

There would be no reason to see that.

And so...

I've never actually seen the cut version
of this film. I imagine that would be a

real endurance test for Joe D 'Amato
completists, of whom there are more than

few, strangely.

The gory version of this movie is
actually reasonably entertaining just

it's so ludicrous.

It's not quite grim enough to be
offensive in that the conceptually

upsetting things, like the menacing of a
handicapped girl, are so...

clumsily done that they do come across
as unintentionally humorous rather than

intentionally upsetting. I find it very
hard to get worked up either way over

absurd. It doesn't strike me as being a
great work of art martyred by evil

censors, but equally it doesn't strike
me as being so gruesomely subversive

it should be wiped away and forgotten.

I mean, I'm reasonably sure I'll never
find another reason to watch it again.

Although that said, yeah, it wasn't
until you came along and asked me to

about it that I did watch it again for
the first time in some decades. And I

found it slightly improved with age,
maybe because we've all seen so many

so much worse in terms of boringness,
not in terms of gore. We've seen things

much duller recently that it at least
seems slightly endearing. I even found

those ridiculous...

scenes of Italian actors pretending to
be interested in American football,

slightly endearing. But it's no great
loss if you haven't seen it.

When Absurd landed on the Video Nasties
list, the distributors put it into the

BBFC, made the suggested cuts, and then
advertised in the trades saying that,

you know, would all dealers please
return their now illegal tapes so they

be replaced by legal ones?

Of course, most dealers just ignored
this.

and for years the both versions run and
connoisseurs are able to tell you the

tiny differences which meant that you
were buying the full strength version as

opposed to the cut version and certain
collectors taped the uncut version over

the cut tape and then presented them on
the trading market for I think the

term is silly money to make them more
valid the idea that you can there is

a thing as a forged video nasty is
peculiar but they do exist and if you're

there collecting this stuff and you want
them all lined up on your shelves

beware there are unscrupulous people out
there making you know very convincing

looking facsimiles of these films for
sale

Ah, Italian exploitation.

I mean, where would we be without Joe D
'Amato? Or to give him his real name,

Aristide Mathesides.

He came up with Anthropophagus the
Beast, one of the main titles on the

Nasty list.

Now, what's this about? Well, this is
about cannibalism on a Greek island.

In fact, anthropophagus does actually
mean, in Greek, cannibalism.

But it's so laughable, you can't really
take any of it seriously.

I mean, it's very much an animal
-intestines -up -the -jumper sort of

where it's all pulled out, looks really
fake.

Loads of blood everywhere. And, of
course, George Eastman, who plays the

to give him his real name, Luigi
Montefiore, who also wrote the film, has

this red putty all over his face, and it
looks really, really fake.

The main bone of contention, I think,
for the DPP was the actual scene where

rips open a pregnant woman's stomach and
eats the foetus.

It doesn't look very convincing. You can
see it's a skinned rabbit.

But these are the things that actually
got this sort of movie mentioned on the

news at 10, which it did, and it was
called a snuff movie on that particular

programme. Ah, the good old days.

Where were we without that? Of course,
everyone would rush out and buy it and

watch it for that reason. But
Anthropophagus the Beast.

Not a particularly good one. What was it
doing on the list in the first place?

Who knows?

So here we have Axe by Frederick
Friedel.

A clashed total terror, it says.

And I think we can guess what it was
that the police or busybodies of one

or another disliked about that. It's the
title.

It's a Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but with
axes.

That's the idea. It seems to be
propagating.

Axe will slash up and shock you beyond
anything before.

If it had been released under its
original title, then I don't think it

have ever have gone anywhere near the
banned list, because its original title

was Liza Liza.

which is gentle and poetic and sort of
slightly melancholic. It's repeating a

name and it's kind of almost like, you
know, it's a poetic sort of title.

Pretty Lisa took an axe, gave her captor
40 whacks.

You can guarantee that if a film called
Liza Liza had been on the shelves, it

wouldn't have attracted any kind of
unwanted attention at all. And then when

see the film, it's also kind of strange
that it ever really kind of ended up on

the band list because...

The violence is very restrained. It's
really not a very extreme film. It's

certainly not anything like, you know,
Your Cannibal Holocaust or I Spit on

Grave. It did actually see the light of
a projector in this country under an

even more lurid title. I mean, it
actually played as California Axe

which really does underline the fact
that they were trying to sell it off the

back of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Not since the Texas Chainsaw Massacre
has the screen delivered terror like

Axe. I think it's very, very well made.

And it shares a great deal more with
something like Polanski's Repulsion than

does with a gore flick, as such.

It's about a mute girl living apparently
with her grandfather in an isolated

farmhouse. Where they met Lisa.

The farmhouse is taken over by a gang of
criminals who use it as a criminal

hideout for a while when they're on the
run from the police.

And all the violence in the film is
against the men who invade that terrain.

It's not... a kind of a film that ever
need troubled feminists um it's not it's

not a film where violence against women
is an issue it's actually about this

strange mute girl who reacts to the
threat from these men by taking the law

into her own hands it's very
thoughtfully made it's very well shot

incredible melancholic electronic score
the guy who made the film frederick

friedel who's in it as well, used to be
a photographer before he got into

filmmaking.

And it's got a photographer's eye,
almost like a photographic attitude to

character as well. A lot of the
characters are very enigmatic.

You don't really learn very much about
them, about their backgrounds.

You're kind of presented with them as
people in a landscape, and you don't

necessarily learn anything more about
the girl or her grandfather or what

brought them to be in the situation
they're in.

You don't even really learn what the
criminals have been up to. It's

some sort of heist that's gone wrong.
But you start slap bang at the beginning

of the film with very little backstory.

In 1971, they rampage throughout the
South.

The film's as much about enigma and what
you're not told as it is about what

you're shown.

So even though there are moments of
violence, a lot of the fascination is to

with mystery and spaces, empty spaces,
you know.

They played a game of William Tell, a
killing spree that ended here.

It's a fairly sophisticated visual
approach to storytelling, and it's not a

conventional narrative by any means.

It was clearly not something that ever
needed to have had questions raised in

the house.

It's a sophisticated, low -key, rather
melancholic film with a great deal of

artistic merit.

Texas Panther Massacre, ironically,
didn't end up on the banned list.

California Axe Method Acts did, although
most people would say that Chainsaw is

a much more disturbing experience than
this.

So it's one of those titles where you
really do wonder quite what the logic

and because we were never privy to legal
arguments about these films or why they

ended up being banned or certain ones
were dropped and other ones weren't, we

may never know.

You know, it would be interesting if one
day somebody did actually kind of spill

the beans about the decision -making
process.

We're not privy to what juries had to
say about the film either.

But this did, you know, regardless of
its merits and regardless of its

restraint, end up on the banned 39 list.

So it is one of the core titles of the
Video Nasty saga.

All I can think is that if anyone goes
to the Video Nasty's list thinking...

gore, torture, terror, murder, rape,
fantastic, bring it on, and they put

film on, they're going to be terribly
disappointed.

It's just I hope that they can see it
for what it is rather than for what they

were told it was going to be.

Because if you watch it with a clear
head, I think it's a really rather

beautiful film.

Not since the Texas Chainsaw Massacre
has the screen delivered terror like

Axe in 1971.

They rampaged throughout the South.

They played a game of William Tell, a
killing spree that ended here, where

met Lisa and took what they wanted.

The sharp edge of suspense slams hard
into fear, and fear becomes terror.

That's more like it, baby.

Pretty

Lisa took

an axe, gave her captor 40 whacks.

When she saw what she had done, she gave
his partner.

41.

Axe will slash off and shock you beyond
anything before.

Axe.

The most elusive video nasty is this
one.

The Beast in Heat, which apparently only
sold a couple of hundred copies and it

now retails at about £500 if you can get
your mitts on it. Directed by Ivan

Katansky, the alias for Luigi Bazzella,
who was an actor.

What is it? Well, it's tied in with all
those Nazi concentration camp movies of

the time and it is pure concentrated
camp, let's make no mistake.

You're very pretty.

You'll find out for yourself that we
Germans aren't nearly as bad as we're

painted, you know.

The title on the actual video is
Horrifying Experiments of SS Last Days,

Beast in Heat, but he was played by Sal
Boris, who was sort of like a character

actor from the mid-'70s who did a lot of
films like Star Crash, Ator, Sal and

Kitty.

And...

His major scene in this, which is
probably one of the reasons why the DPP

on it, is that he munches down on a
girl's pubic hair.

That's what I call a Brazilian.

Look at the special effects in other
places, too. I mean, there's a scene

a girl gets eaten alive by rats.

They're obviously gerbils with sort
of...

black makeup on them um elsewhere it's
not very good the torch is a pretty sub

-ilsa which is obviously where the
influence of this movie comes from tell

you find the spectacle exciting private
shoots yes of course who wouldn't be

excited it's rubbish of course it's
tasteless only an idiot would really

be taken in by this sub -ilsa nonsense
but of course that's what the dpp were

idiots

I'm certain that my creature will give
you a demonstration of its virility that

no human being could be capable of
imagining.

I only want you to experience a moment
of intense pleasure.

Lieutenant Helen Crash of General
Command.

I am a human being.

I can only deplore what you're doing to
these poor creatures.

And you, how do you find the experiment?

Excellent.

I think you're a genius. You're
wonderful, Dr. Crash. I can't wait to

methods. Do you find me more exciting?

You're just a feature on TV.

Right, Bloodbath, notorious title.
Actually, this is a case where the

really doesn't serve the film
particularly well. I mean, yeah, it does

scene here, and there's the axe hacking
or machete murder stuff in it, but I'm

not... This octopus seems to have come
out of nowhere.

It may be in the film. I actually can't
remember.

But it's Mario Barber's movie, Antifato,
Bay of Blood, Twitch of the Death

Nerve, Carnage, whatever, all the same
film.

And... Although it's not one of Barber's
best movies, it is quite a classy

picture by the standards of video
nasties in that it has an idea.

Not much of one, and it is the classic
film play drama

La Ronde by Arthur Schnitzler.

Famously filled by offals, but also done
by Rajavadi and many other people, the

chain of seductions, but it's done as a
chain of murders, which is a neat idea

and it's sort of funny and disorienting.
It's a group of characters who kill

each other off in a round robin with a
sort of cheery, tinkly children's type

score to indicate that this isn't
terribly serious.

It's been said that it was very much an
influence on the American slasher movie

that came out from Friday the 13th
onwards, which is true. I mean, it's got

kind of lakeside setting and it has
slasher murders and there's a sort of a

subplot about some teenagers who get
killed in one scene, which is in Embryo,

the slasher film.

But its emphasis on wit and irony and
cynicism distances it from

the much more straight ahead.

style of 80s slasher movies.

It is one of the films on the list that
I feel a certain degree of affection

for, although not as much as Bava's
other work.

It's not even, I think, as good as Five
Dolls for the August Moon, which is the

other film Bava made in this like vein.

But actually, Five Dolls came out
theatrically in Britain.

We're not entirely sure whether
Bloodbath came out theatrically in

was available.

It was trade -shown, which means it
could have been released theatrically.

can't find any evidence of people in
real cinemas who saw it. So it may well

have been trade -shown as a preface for
its early 80s video release, ten years

after it was made.

So its actual distribution history is
murky, to say the least.

and it's been out under more titles than
almost any other film apart from Living

Dead at the Manchester Morgue.

Bloodbath had so many titles that it's
entirely possible it was released

times by different companies who didn't
even realise they had the same film.

Medusa announced this picture for
release in 1984 as Bay of Blood, one of

more commonplace alternate titles, and
then didn't release it, either because

they found out somebody else already had
it in release, or because it was banned

under another title.

But then again, if you banned it under
that title, it could easily have crept

back as Chain Reaction or Twitch of the
Death Nerve or any of these other

titles. It is now out and available in
the UK and the US on DVD in various

forms. Still, nobody's quite settled on
what its actual title is, but under any

title, it's worth watching.

The trailer is kind of arty and
solarized and sort of acid trippy. Maybe

conceal how gruesome it is, because it
is quite gruesome.

But it's sort of gruesome fun rather
than gruesome grueling.

and the fact that all these people are
horrible caricature stick figures.

I think its tone is closer to, say,
something like Dr. Phibes or Theatre of

Blood than Last House on the Left, which
means that its sort of labelling as a

nasty is slightly unfair.

I mean, it's a cut above most of its
fellows.

It's a cut above most Italians of psycho
slasher type movies as well.

Blood Feast by the infamous Herschel
Gordon Lewis.

Nothing so appalling in the annals of
horror, it says, and audiences who saw

that at the drive -ins in 1963 when it
was made would have probably agreed at

the time.

If you had a time machine to go back to
a drive -in in 1963 and see Blood Feast

with an audience who had no idea what
they were in for, that would be one of

things I would use my TARDIS for.

Just the pleasure of seeing it with an
audience who had never been exposed to

that kind of...

level of gruesomeness before.

It is a very gruesome film.

It's also so silly and so campy and so
bizarre that you'd have to

be such a chump to be offended by it. I
really can't believe that anyone could

watch it and get on their high horse
about the violence. It's just hilarious.

John Waters has written very amusingly
about this, saying that he fell in love

with Lewis's films when he saw people
jumping out of their cars at drive -ins

go and be sick in the butters.

and he said at last i knew i'd found a
filmmaker after my own heart um it's not

going to have that kind of effect now
obviously anyone who saw it in the early

80s would have been aware that it was
you know um you know cast off mannequin

limbs from dressmakers dummies with bits
of you know awful sticking out of the

end you know from a local butcher shop
still it's the thought that counts and

comes you know the desire to be gross is
certainly there and and there are times

when it it manages this strange flip
between completely unconvincing and

actually really quite gross as well, so
it kind of has it both ways.

And even though you're looking at it
thinking, this is so false, it also

kind of unpleasant as well, so it's an
interesting kind of line that it crosses

there. The villain, Fuad Ramses, is a
caterer who is slaughtering women to

recreate a feast to an Egyptian idol.

We don't really know why he's
particularly obsessed with this Egyptian

what he thinks he's going to achieve by
this, but he is.

recreating the Egyptian feast with body
parts from women who look like Wilma

from the Flintstones or something.

It's fun to see these strange early 60s
Jetsons -style hairdos on

women who are having their legs cut off
in glorious technicolour.

So, yeah, I've got a lot of affection
for the film. I think there's not a lot

you could really say to make a case for
it as a great... contribution to cinema,

except that, you know, from it, from
This Little Acorn, so many other kinds

gory and extreme sort of horror films
grew. It really was the first.

Herschel Gordon -Lewis, who made this
film, is a very, very...

witty and sharp and clever guy, although
the films aren't necessarily the best

way to prove that, but he is a very
sharp guy. I think he was an English

and had worked in advertising, was very
sussed.

I think he came to make this film
because he was looking at exploitation

that already existed and saying, what
can we do that's not been done before?

He'd been making softcore, kind of
nudie, cutie, sort of softcore sex

I was getting a bit bored with those.
He'd made about three or four of those

they were starting to become a bit
repetitive.

And he sat down with his producer one
day and made a list.

What could we do that hasn't been done
before? And gore was on the list.

And the rationale was that in horror
movies or movies of any kind, if someone

died prior to Blood Feast, they fell
over, they clicked their chest. If they

were shot, there might be a trickle of
blood, but essentially they died and

closed their eyes and fell on the floor
and that was the end of it.

No, not in this film. And this is the
innovation with Blood Feast, is that not

only do you see flesh torn from the
bone, not only do you see someone's

yanked out of their throat, but the
victims are alive and screaming and it

on and on and on for a while as well.
And this is something that he took

and further in his later films. If you
get something like Wizard of Gore or The

Gorgor Girls, and you can tell by the
titles of those two how seriously he was

taking it by that point. The killings...

got on and on and on and you got like
three minute deaths you know which is in

screen terms it's just an insane amount
of time so that wasn't that was an

innovation no one had done anything like
that before no one had quite rubbed the

audience's nose in death and mutilation
and suffering uh quite it sounds awful

doesn't it it sounds like it's a
terrible night out but having said that

clumsiness and the amateur hour quality
and the kind of kitsch elements mean

that you're not it's not an endurance
test you know it's not like watching the

guinea pig films or something you know
they're essentially kind of amusing and

there's a kind of a jocular quality to
them there's something about lewis's

films where you can tell that he's kind
of laughing up his sleeve behind the

camera you know and even more so if you
make the mistake of taking anything

seriously you know as he went on as the
films got more and more grisly they also

got more and more satirical and sillier
and crazier

And it was obvious that if anyone was
foolish enough to get offended by any of

his films, then he would have been
cackling with glee behind the scenes,

thinking, he's got another one.

You know, really made a fool of him this
time. So, you know, you've got to be

aware that it's a wind -up.

These gory scenes in Lewis's films are a
wind -up. He's really pushing your

button, seeing if he can get a reaction
out of you.

So, you know, these people that hopped
out of cars at the drive -in to go and

sick in the bookies, he would have been
going, yes!

Ladies and gentlemen, you are about to
witness some scenes from the next

attraction to play this theater.

This picture, truly one of the most
unusual ever filmed, contains scenes

under no circumstances should be viewed
by anyone with a heart condition or

anyone who is easily upset.

We urgently recommend that if you are
such a person or the parent of a young

impressionable child now in attendance,

Let you and the child leave the
auditorium for the next 90 seconds.

A gruesome orgy of human mutilation.

That's what Blood Rites was hyped as on
the cover, although it's actually Andy

Milligan's 1968 clunker, The Ghastly
Ones, retitled. Blood Rites, or The

Ones, as it could really have been
called. Why did they retitle it Blood

That's such a boring title.

The Ghastly Ones is a gift.

That's one of those great exploitation
titles. I can't believe that they

it. But this is... quite unique in video
nasty land because this is the very

first video to feature a reversible
cover on one side you get the artwork

you take it out and reverse it you
actually get the photographic sign or

more interesting anything that's
actually on show in the movie which is

full of amateurish acting terrible
special effects you can actually hear

Milligan prompt the actors when they
forget their lines one of the things I

really like about Milligan is that You
can tell that it's one of his movies

within 20 seconds of it starting.

You know, the style, the way, the
delivery of dialogue, the whole

everything. It's like his name is
through the work like a stick of rock.

Rape, mutilation, and the sadistic story
of human slaughter.

Milligan is a figure that a lot of
people don't like.

The cult around Andy Milligan is one of
the smallest of all the cult directors,

probably. I think he's fantastic.

Milligan was a very interesting guy.

He's been dubbed the horror Andy Warhol.

In New York, he'd hang around this
Greenwich Village gay coffee house

Cafe Ceno. A lot of other contemporaries
did as well. He'd bring all the rent

boys and oddball Manhattanites back to
his house in Staten Island, this

Victorian mansion where he'd make these
films.

Usually between about $5 ,000, $25 ,000,
I think the budgets do really show.

With some of the most hideous tortures
and heinous crimes ever shown on the

motion picture screen.

He's a person that had a vision, however
warped and however clumsily realized

that vision was.

He was telling stories his way. He
wanted to tell them his way.

I mean, one of the hallmarks of a
Milligan film is talk.

talk and talk and talk and talk and talk
and talk and talk and talk and talk and

every single character gets to gas on at
great length to everyone else and it's

always bitter talk as well.

People are always sniping and joibing
and complaining at each other and

marriages are always collapsing.

Servants are always plotting to
overthrow their masters. He was a fan of

so you can see where that's coming from.
He used to produce things like The

Maids. In his theatre work as well, he
produced several of those Jeunet plays.

Not for the squeamish, but an experience
so sensually exciting that it will be

the stomach shocker of your life.

And then another thing that he's got to
offer, which isn't to everyone's taste,

but I think it's a valuable addition to
the language of cinema, is his camera

work. and specifically a particular
instruction which he used to write on

scripts to himself, because he wrote
them, he thought them, he edited them,

designed the costumes, he did absolutely
everything virtually himself.

But something that apparently Jimmy
McDonagh's wonderful book tells us that

used to do with his scripts was that at
certain points in the margins there

would be this note saying, swirl camera.

Now, if you watch the films, when you
get to the violent scenes, he didn't

money to do... He makes Herschel Gordon
Lewis look like James Cameron. There was

virtually no money. And so the gore
scenes are fleeting, shall we say.

Kind of over and done with very quickly.
And just to help to disguise the fact

that they're very clumsily done and, you
know, incredibly unconvincing.

he will swirl camera at the key moment.
So you're lucky if you get a glimpse of

a flesh wound before. It's like... It's
like scanning the walls and the sky and

the ceiling and anything but his
unconvincing gore effect.

So swirl camera, I think, is a great
technical addition to the lexicon of

cinema, I think.

It's as important as Jeff Franco's
zooms.

But, yeah, what a trailer.

William Mishkin, I think, was the person
who was responsible for making the

trailer. And he really knew how to get
some life into the proceedings.

Into this house came the monsters of
slaughter.

With some of the most hideous tortures
and heinous crimes

ever shown on the motion picture screen.

The ghastly ones.

Rape. Mutilation and the sadistic story
of human slaughter.

Meet Colin, the mad brother who loves to
eat meat.

Live meat.

Or Liz, whose sick need is only
satisfied by the sadism of man.

Any man.

Or John, who learns the terror of the
ultimate torture, but never lives to

tell about it.

The ghastly one.

What is it? Not for the squeamish, but
an experience so sensually exciting.

that it will be the stomach shocker of
your life.

The ghastly one.

Bloody Moon by Jess Franco.

Not one of Franco's more typical.

and yet probably one of the most
frequently seen by casual horror fans

not have caught the Franco bug.

It's a classic film, and it's a Jess
Franco film. Now, that for me is like

Christmases at once. That's just two of
my favourite ever things in one play.

But even though it's not a great Jess
Franco film, it doesn't have the

stamp of some of his other films like La
Contessa Noire or Virgin and the

Mondelein Dead.

Even though it's...

got a lot of flaws i love it to bits i
just i could watch well i could watch

bloody moon now quite frankly i've
watched it about 30 times in my life so

know that tells you something doesn't it
don't say what bloody moon summer

nights filled with horror a killer who's
lost for blood will stop at nothing and

then also just to throw into the mix as
well it's got disco music so it's a

slasher film It's a Jeff Franco film,
and it's got a disco soundtrack as well,

and terrible, unconvincing disco hoofing
as well. You know, that's just, you

know, it's just nirvana.

It's not a film that you would coach
someone to try and establish what it is

that makes Jeff Franco special.

It's a kind of a gun -for -hire job.

It

doesn't

represent him terribly well, but if you
put that to one side and just treat it

as a slasher movie...

It's just wonderful.

It's just got everything you could ask
for. It's got the ditzy, ridiculous

characters who you've got absolutely no
problem with seeing hacked up at all.

You'd be quite happy to see that happen.
Abe has been murdered.

That's nonsense.

He wants to kill me too.

And unlike a lot of Franco films, it
really does go for the gore and special

effects. He actually shoots special
effects.

almost unheard of with Jeff.

You're lucky if somebody gets their
throat cut, you're lucky if you see a

line of red across, not gaping flesh
wounds.

But in this, you've got severed heads,
blades coming out through

somebody's back, a girl's back and
coming out through the nipple, which I'd

to read a feminist critique of that
scene, actually. That's like a knife

coming out of a nipple.

What's the feminist angle on that image?

That's the combination of blood on
breasts, I believe, which was a total no

as far as the BBFC were concerned.

And, you know, it's always been
considered to be, amongst the

of trigger image, you know, for violence
against women, that, you know, the

moment blood touches breasts or blood
emerges from breasts, then, yeah, sort

like everyone's going to run amok and
start chopping them off.

Franco's films are heavily eroticised
and his stock -in -trade is to kind of

blend horror and eroticism.

Your kiss is cold and icy as death.

Your embrace keepeth the night.

It's interesting that some of the more
overt and challenging combinations of

and horror that Franco did never even
made it onto video in this country.

But Bloody Moon, for all the fact that
it's not one of his more personal films,

still does have this undercurrent of the
erotic in combination with quite

graphic horror scenes as well.

I imagine that probably is what yanked
the chain of the censorious at the time.

And also the cover is very lurid. It's a
screaming girl, sort of like a rotating

blade. I think if I remember rightly,
wasn't there a problem with... tools of

any kind, chainsaws, you know, any kind
of hand tool, like axes, of course,

circular saws, anything you'd find in a
workman's toolkit, basically.

The toolbox murder's been the obvious
case, Pyrex Lance.

I think the BBFC in particular took
against anything which, probably because

they were concerned about imitative
violence, you know, a wave of circular

murders would have followed from a free
availability of Bloody Moon, you know.

Bloody Moon, a film you won't soon
forget.

And one of the real charms of the film
as well is just it's got a tin ear for

dialogue. I'm dying to sleep with him. I
can't wait till tonight. I wish you

were here now.

Really, there's some lines in there that
just always, always kind of brighten my

day if I hear them.

There's one particular one where a girl
says, I bet he's never even made it with

a girl, the phony Spanish lover.

Fantastic. I must admit, I can't find
many ways of getting it into

very often, so this is perhaps my only
chance, but what a line. Fantastic.

Your kiss is cold and icy as death.

Your embrace, deep as the night.

Abe has been murdered.

That's nonsense.

He wants to kill me, too.

Bloody moon.

Summer nights filled with horror.

A killer who's lust for blood will stop
at nothing.

Nights of blood.

Nights of terror that will leave you
breathless.

Young girls in search of love and
adventure become the prey of a

killer.

I am

dying

to sleep with him. I can't wait till
tonight. I wish you were here now.

Fear will grip you on this holiday of
terror.

A dream vacation becomes a nightmare.

Bloody Moon, a film you won't soon
forget.

Bloody Moon.

The Burning, it's an entirely ordinary
Friday the 13th rip -off. It was

unusually for a video nasty, released by
fairly respectable people, Thorne EMI

Video, Handmade Films, George Harrison
Company, who made The Life of Brian and

Longwood Friday and stuff like that. It
was the first film venture for the

Weinstein brothers, who later created
Miramax.

In fact, it was produced by Harvey and
even scripted by Bob Weinstein. Director

was Tony Malem, a British guy who'd made
Riddles of the Sands, not bad little

film, didn't have much of a subsequent
career. He was fired off a movie called

Split Second with Rutger Hauer.

Tom Savini worked on it. It's got some
interesting people in it. Holly Hunter

in it for about two seconds.

And other recognisable actors pop up as
victims.

But it is basically a summer camp
slaughter movie.

A legend of terror isn't just a campfire
story anymore.

There was another glitch to do with its
video release, which made it among the

more complicated of the nasties to
track, in that...

For theatrical release it lost some nine
seconds but accidentally when it was

released on video the uncut version was
put out and then recalled when it was

pointed out that a mistake had been made
but for a long time there were two

different versions of this in nearly
identical

sleeves floating around and the recall
didn't really work. It just led to a

great deal of confusion. You could argue
that cutting nine seconds out of this

reasonably gory but entirely ordinary
picture didn't make a blind bit of

difference. What I find odd is that
anybody ever noticed because you would

had to see this film in a cinema and
then watch it again on

video.

and recognize that there were nine
seconds of extra gore in there

then feel impelled to complain about it.

I just can't imagine the mindset of
somebody who did that, but obviously

somebody must have.

First of all, the burning, and there's
the scene at the beginning when he puts

the garden shears in.

And the version I'd seen, I found out
later, only when I was at school, was

And someone went, yeah, but he actually
opens the shears and goes like that. I

said, no, no, not on mine he didn't. And
I suddenly felt like, oh my God, I've

seen the cut version.

There's a cut version. And you felt like
the shame.

I need to get hold of the uncut version
to see the garden shears open up. But

it's still with me now, the kind of
feeling of, ah, I never saw that at the

time. Again, if you're a connoisseur and
a collector, the way to tell between

the cut and the uncut version without
actually, you know, fast forwarding

through to the raft scene and see it's a
finger -stipping and a throat

-stabbing, by the way, is what was going
on, is that the cut version, the legal

version, has a date stamp.

on the the tape itself proving that it's
different and legal of course that

version is utterly worthless to
collectors who want the one without the

stamp which proves it has that finger
-stepping it's out yeah in a fully uncut

version on dvd now if you actually want
to see the film uh if you want to own

the the precious hallowed artifact that
will cost you a bit more

If you're planning to go camping, don't.

If you're looking forward to midnight
swims, don't.

I'm going to sneak on back to the
campsite.

Get some matches.

We'll do the hot fire.

Don't be long. And if you're thinking
about being with someone like no one can

see you, don't.

Because this summer, a legend of terror
isn't just a campfire story anymore.

They say he smashed his way through the
bunk room door in just a mass of flames.

He cried out, I will return.

I will have my revenge.

He lives on whatever he can catch right
now.

summer five years ago is about to happen
again and again and again.

Cannibal Vietnam veterans scoff their
way through Atlanta in Anthony M.

Cannibal Apocalypse.

Antonio Margheriti is the director of
this, of course, under that pseudonym.

This was bound to be a film that was
going to end up on the DPP's radar,

Cannibal. apocalypse i mean you know all
the stuff that they sort of pushes

their buttons it was actually titled
originally in italy as apocalypse domani

which translates as apocalypse tomorrow
a clever play on words from francis for

capola's big hit at the time apocalypse
now the italians always did that sort of

thing with their titles

The Italian cannibal genre was always
going to be a hot potato for the DPP,

here this one doesn't let you down.

I mean, there's some great stuff in
this. I mean, all courtesy of Gennetto

Rossi, the make -up man behind Zombie
Flesh Eaters.

Entrails get ripped, and of course
you've got John Morgan having his

blown out and the camera going through.

Horror veteran John Saxon.

plays the lead anti -hero.

He has gone on record as saying that
it's one of the worst films he's ever

appeared in and he wished he'd never
done it and all that, how they all do

now. Of course, he had read the script.
I mean, he knew what he was doing.

I mean, he wasn't ashamed to cash the
paycheck, was he?

But, of course, it's so typical of
American actors who appear in Italian

they honestly think no one's going to
see them until it sort of ends up at the

drive -in next door, and then they sort
of throw their hands up in horror and

go, it wasn't me, gov, honest.

But Cannibal Apocalypse actually does
deliver. There's some great stuff in it,

and it's one of Antonio Margheriti's
best films.

Put it down.

Cannibalism.

A Vietnam vet barricaded in the flea
market taking pot shots at the cops

outside.

Okay, that's enough. Wait a minute.

Please.

Please try to understand her.

Listen to me.

While she was here, I had this urge to
bite her. To bite her, you understand?

Like Bukowski.

We got it.

There's no exit there.

Made in 1981 by Umberto Lenzi, Cannibal
Ferox was actually an attempt to

capitalize on the success of Cannibal
Holocaust, which of course was a major

everywhere. In America, it was known as
Make Them Die Slowly, presumably because

they thought the Americans wouldn't know
what a ferox was.

It was also announced in its publicity
that it was banned in 31 countries.

it was actually banned in England as
well, so that presumably made it 32.

It did actually make it into the
Guinness Book of Records.

So I guess that must be true.

The film itself is a typical Italian
cannibal movie.

And you have sequences in it, for
example, where there's probably one of

most famous scenes where an actress gets
hung up by her breast.

A scene that seems to imitate a similar
sequence in the Richard Harris Western,

A Man Called Horse.

But there's also poor old John Morgan,
who suffered a lot in these kind of

movies, gets his cock chopped off,
basically, and the top of his head split

like a breakfast egg and the brain
scooped out.

So that's a fun sequence.

Really, it's one of those movies that
deserves its reputation, and most

for the animal cruelty, because there's
the killing of a pig and that sort of

thing, which is the reason, really, that
it's had problems, still continues to

have problems to this day with the
censor.

you know the uncut version which was
released back in the day is still quite

collector's item anyway on to the gore

Come on, bitch.

Where's your stud?

Give me just a little more. It's
fantastic.

How would you like to make an Indian
girl?

Well, Ruggero Deodato's Cannibal
Holocaust, one of the original 17, it

banned from the beginning of the video
nasties era to the end.

Lots of films with cannibal in the title
were banned. The reason for that was

probably Cannibal Holocaust. It was by
association with this, because it is

still a gruesome, shocking, terrifying
film.

I can't understand the reason for such
cruelty.

Well, Cannibal Holocaust was one of the
most notorious of the nasties, and it

was actually prosecuted, one of the very
early ones to be prosecuted and found

guilty under the Obscene Publications
Act. Because, of course, up until that

time, prosecutions under the Obscene
Publications Act had only been brought

pornography, never for violence.

And movies like Griller Killer...

and Cannibal Holocaust and SS Experiment
Camp were like test prosecutions,

really, to see whether a jury would find
these videos guilty under

the Epithene Publications Act, and they
did. This is another one of those

pictures where the ad mats, the artwork,
the cover images were so strong

that... For a start, I mean, they must
have shifted a lot of tapes when they

in the trades. But they were also just
begging to be used out of context by the

Daily Mail in their indictments of Video
Nasties. And every newspaper that did a

layout on Video Nasties would have the
cover image of Cannibal Holocaust, which

is this grotesque vision of what a third
world cannibal looks like tucking into

a double handful of guts.

Actually, that was one of the less
offensive images in the film. There were

actually some much stronger images that
could have been used and weren't.

However, it became the image that
encapsulated everything that was truly

transgressive and revolting and ought to
be banned, you know, the ban this thick

filth approach, which was the rallying
cry of the censorias.

during the whole Video Nasties era.

What wasn't realised, I think, by many
people, both by the police and by the

DPP, and also people who were renting or
buying the movie, actually was that it

was a cut print.

You know, like so many movies, it
circulated around the world in

versions for different markets.

If you like, there were kind of hotter
versions and there were cooler versions.

And the version which was distributed in
the UK by Go Video was definitely a

cooler version. There were much, much,
much stronger versions of the film

available. So even though people got
terribly angry and upset about this

they weren't actually being exposed to
the...

the full horrors of Cannibal Holocaust.

But it was literally a case that you
could have cut every single frame of

violence out of this film, and the fact
that it was called Cannibal Holocaust

would still have got it banned.

One of the scenes which was most
definitely cut from the Go video release

the forced abortion scene, which is
certainly a pretty...

horrendous scene. And again, it's one of
those scenes in the film which is

strikingly realistic.

I mean, clearly, the woman concerned was
not having a forced abortion.

But like a lot of the scenes in the
movie, it's extremely realistically

could actually make you think that
that's exactly what you were seeing.

sort of an interesting film to talk
about.

Yeah, it's the kind of thing academics
really like, because it does complicated

things with point of view and the use of
found film footage, and it sort of

addresses issues of representations of
violence, all those things you can do

theses about.

I never tried to do it because I didn't
like the animals, because I'm a lover of

animals.

So I never wanted to do it, except that
in the end I said, OK, I'll make

this film. And I did it again because it
bothered me.

When I saw the television, the evening
newspapers...

the news, my son was complaining because
they were always seen dead, killed by

the Red Brigadists. It was a very hard
time.

So I said, look how strange it is,
journalists can show, in the hours

to children, terrible things.

And when I make a film, they forbid it
at 18, they cut it, they copy it, they

don't want to burn it, and yet my films
are banned at 18.

Anyone can go and watch it at 18, if
not, no.

So it was a film to go against those
journalists who went to make scoops and

where they couldn't do it, they created
them.

One of the interesting things about
Cannibal Holocaust is that every time

hear these stories of snuff movies being
found at collectors' fairs, etc.,

etc., very, very often one of the films
that is eventually cited is Cannibal

Holocaust. But that's because the
violence in Cannibal Holocaust is so

believable. There's a great deal of
verisimilitude in this film. One of the

interesting things that the film...

does is it edits together scenes of
actual

cruelty to real animals and deaths of
real animals with

staged cruelty and staged deaths of
human beings.

And what in fact happens is because you
realise that what you're watching when

it comes to the animals is absolutely
unstaged and real and took place in

of the camera,

That kind of feeling of verisimilitude
actually carries over into the scenes of

cruelty between human beings and makes
them seem all the more

realistic. The equivalence of...

unfaked animal atrocities with faked
human atrocities, I think rather

Cannibal Holocaust's position as an
indictment of unethical documentarians.

maybe it also adds an extra level of
ironies that you could do several

appendices and footnotes to your thesis
on representations of violence in

Cannibal Holocaust.

But any idea that Diodato is not a good
filmmaker, I think will be

dispelled by looking at a really good
print of Cannibal Holocaust. The trouble

with Cannibal Holocaust is that, like so
many of the nasties, it circulated

because of being banned in second,
third, fourth, nth generation copies,

horrible, dupey videos.

It really did... take the DVD era to
come along before we could see these

in all their true glory.

Now, some really are crap.

I mean, some really do look awful, even
on a decent DVD.

You look at a film like Cannibal
Holocaust, you can actually see that it

terrific and that Diodato is a filmmaker
of very, very considerable skill.

The film may be reprehensible, but badly
made, it certainly isn't. It is a film

that... You can see why it upset people.

Even now, it's still pretty strong meat.

But it is, you know, one of the key
horror films of its era.

I mean, it's an important movie.

But I mean, we've got the point of the
video nasties. Sometimes we highlighted

some films that otherwise we might not
even have noticed. I think this

Driller Killer is another.

Films that actually had sort of slipped
by in their home territories. It was the

fact that they became video nasties,
Fight For Your Life, that made people

notice them, that made some people look
at them and say, you know, there's

actually stuff going on in these movies
that's worth talking about.

The film was finally passed in the new
millennium by the

BBFC on video and DVD.

It was only passed with very, very, very
considerable cuts, somewhere around

seven minutes of cuts, some of these
being for animal cruelty, but some being

for scenes involving sex and or violence
between human beings as

well. So beware BBFC -certificated
versions of this film. It's

really worth going online and getting a
decent, complete DVD of this.

I still don't understand the English
people how they manage to prohibit that

film.

I mean, they should understand it.

Watch it, Alan. I'm shooting.

Oh, good Lord.

It's... It's unbelievable.

It's... It's horrible.

I can't understand the reason for such
cruelty.

It must have something to do with some
obscure sexual rater.

With the almost profound respect these
primitives have for virginity.

The Cannibal Man.

This Spanish film from 1971 opens up
with a very gruesome scene of a

cow being slaughtered and then being cut
into various parts of meat. And it

contextualises the main character who
works in a slaughterhouse, cannery,

a special kind of soup that people love
to eat because it's full of meat.

A river of blood is created by The
Cannibal Man.

The film actually, however, doesn't
appear to be about a cannibal man.

It is more a kind of study of one man
who seems to, against his will and

his volition, get out of control in his
little accidental habit of killing

people.

It's quite interesting because
technically one could say that it's a

killer film because it's about this man
who, over the period of a week...

kills a number of people.

However, the first murder is an
accident. He kills a taxi driver

who is a very objectionable taxi driver,
I should add.

And then he keeps having to kill people
who tell him to go to the police. And so

every time he kills someone, it's
because they've said, oh, you killed

person, you have to go to the police.
And then the next person is looking for

the person he's killed earlier, and then
he has to kill them. So it's a very

incremental film, and therefore it's
quite easy to follow.

It has some really interesting
cinematography in that it is set in the

wastelands of Madrid.

And so there's a kind of urban feel to
it that insinuates a sense of despair.

The cannibal man living in today's
jungle kills for his freedom.

I think that the character, though, is
not entirely unlikable. He seems to

simply be a victim of a situation that
is rolled out of his control.

Strangely enough, even though the film
starts with the slaughter, we don't see

any more slaughter. And so I think with
the English title of the film and also

with the fact that it opens with a kind
of...

stock footage of bulls being
slaughtered. We're being set up for

may well seem to be quite gratuitous and
perhaps you could argue that the

censors saw that opening scene, saw the
title Cannibal Man and thought this is

immediately going to be a horribly
gratuitous and offensive film. But

as the story unravels those set up
elements really don't quicken to a

of any kind of blood

desire that we may have to be fulfilled.

Does this man discover the dark secrets
of the cannibal man?

One of the most interesting parts of the
film, however, is the interjection of a

gay character.

And there's almost a sense, because of
the kind of traditional exploitation

films, that the gay character is going
to become a victim.

However, in quite an astounding final
scene, the protagonist goes to kill the

gay character, who completely submits,
and by his submission, he is spared.

And finally, as a result of this, the
protagonist goes and calls the police

gives himself in. So there's a beautiful
elliptical ending to this film that I

think will surprise the viewers.

And so in terms of its gratuity and its
violence, the film only mildly delivers.

The murders are quite...

visceral and enjoyably so, but there
also seems to be a poignant

every time he kills someone as if he
never really wanted to and he takes no

pleasure in it. So I think for elements
of ambiguity in killing, this film is a

really good example of the creation of a
complexity in a character who's having

inner turmoil that comes out as
externalised violence.

Don't be hasty.

What do you want?

Well...

Please go in there if you want to.

If that's what you need to ease your
mind.

What strange foreboding secret is within
this room?

So you're ashamed to look me in the
face.

Marcus, what happened?

Did the paper have anything?

No, not a word.

Did you read it all?

Well, there was something.

The man died.

His picture's in the paper.

What lures the innocent into the death
room?

What smells in here?

What?

Please, excuse me. I don't want you to
suspect that I... What do you mean?

suspect.

The cannibal man living in today's
jungle kills

for his freedom.

Discover his unique way of disposing of
the bodies.

A river of blood is created by the
cannibal man. Marcos!

Does this man discover the dark secrets
of the

cannibal man?

The devil hunter, Jeff Franco, again.

And this is one of the rarest of the
Videonasters. It's one of the ones that

changes hands for the most crazy amounts
of money. I think 400 or 500 pounds

wouldn't be unusual.

And I understand you're giving me this
one, actually, for doing this. That's

great.

Devil Hunter, again, it's a rather
untypical Jeff Franco title.

He's not very fond of it. It's got a
cannibal theme. Essentially, it's kind

response, a very low -budget and rather
oblique tangential response to films

like Cannibal Holocaust.

Now, Franco has said in interviews that
he absolutely hated Cannibal Holocaust,

didn't like the idea of making cannibal
movies, but his producers at the time

were saying, oh, come on, you know.

why not just knock a couple out for us?
And he was working at such a clip at the

time that he probably just thought,
well, go on then, I've got a few weeks,

got a fortnight's spare, I'll do you a
couple of cannibal films.

They're not great films, and again,
they're not great examples of Jeff

art.

Devil Hunter is one of those movies that
you can watch it and think, has someone

flipped?

hallucinogens into my tea because
everything is just the sound is the

kind of echoey and it's a montage of non
-musical kind of atonal sort of

scraping and moans and groans characters
just kind of pop up as if

they're going to do something important
and then just kind of wander off again

having done nothing at all and there's
no sense of development what's the

for your visit here miss crawford we're
checking out locations for our next film

The plot is very, very threadbare, and
there are times when, for minutes on

you're thinking, what's actually
happening?

What am I actually watching?

What's happening here? I don't really
understand this film.

So it's kind of fun at that level.

And in terms of violence, Cannibal
Holocaust, of course, was shocking and

extremely graphic and obviously
disturbed a lot of people when they saw

it's very hard to imagine anyone being
disturbed by the violence in in devil

hunter i mean it more or less revolves
around slow motion footage of chewing

kind of strings of bloody tripe or
something like that you know and it's

know it's not even trying to be
convincing it's not it's certainly not

be kind of uh verity kind of you know
like cannibal holocaust it's not

interested in trying to convince you he
doesn't give franco doesn't give a

monkeys about reality

uh in in in terms of violence he's a
symbolic filmmaker in a lot of ways you

know or an expressionist he's not um
he's not concerned with trying to create

kind of you know realism he seems to
have kind of contempt for realism a lot

the time you know this is the man who
famously shot a scene that was meant to

in slow motion but the safe film
actually shot it in real time and just

pretended to be moving in slow motion if
you're going to do that you don't care

about realism you know The person
committing the violence in the film is

very athletic, very large black guy
who's got these kind of prosthetics,

maybe that's too posh a word for what
they really are, kind of, you know,

plasticine eyes stuck over his real
eyes.

Why? God knows.

I mean, in terms of actors in there,
there are several familiar faces from

Franco's films, like Olivier Maffo.

Antonio Mayans is in there, quite an
early role for him.

The female lead is Sabrina Siani, who is
this sort of blonde bombshell,

sort of rather statuesque, but also
slightly blank -faced, understandably

mean, I don't think there's anything in
the film to kind of pull anything

particularly passionate out of her, so
she might have been...

capable of much more, who knows, but she
certainly looks rather elsewhere in the

film. She's, you know, very beautiful.

But the idea of the plot is that she's
like the white woman who ends up in the

hands of a native tribe.

The plot description makes it sound like
an action movie.

The cover makes it look like an action
movie.

I don't know.

Presumably somebody saw it, complained.

Complained about what? I mean, it is a
puzzle. Something like Devil Hunter, not

only is it kind of weird and grisly, a
bit grisly, it just doesn't look

like what a certain person's idea of
cinema should look like.

And I think that's probably why a lot of
these films ended up offending people,

because they had the safety net taken
away. The style template was not there

safely in place to tell you, OK, it's
just a movie.

Even if it's a horror movie, Hammer
movies, they've got a particular kind of

structure that enables you to put the
horror in context.

You know where you are. It's a story
with a proper beginning, middle and end

all the rest of it.

A lot of these films are shot in such a
haphazard way that all of those safety

markers about what constitutes a real
film are completely missing. Now that's

thrill for people like myself and an
awful lot of other people who love...

exploitation pictures.

But I think it's also a very
disorientating and disturbing thing for

like to have movies made the proper way,
the old pattern the proper way, you

know, with certain verities of craft in
place. And if you take those things

away, I think it disturbs people as much
as...

you know an open flesh window you know
the combination of the two perhaps that

really seems to rattle people there's a
tribe in the area they sacrifice human

beings victims are usually young girls
and they eat their hearts it would be a

mugs game to kind of try and mount a
kind of an art defense for the for it as

film it's just not that kind of film
it's just a disorientating 90 minutes

where at the end of it you're really
none the wiser about why it was made,

you've just watched, what the experience
could be summed up as.

It's just 90 minutes in the twisted mind
of Jess Franco.

What's the reason for your visit here,
Miss Crawford? We're checking out

locations for our next film.

Who are you?

What do you want from me? Get out of
here once!

He won't come up with a dough.

He couldn't care less about her.

He'll pay you. You can bet your life
he'll pay.

Why don't we send him a piece of her?
That'll convince him to pay her.

What do you think?

That's our island.

There's a tribe in the area, and they
sacrifice human beings.

The victims are usually young girls, and
they eat their hearts.

You have Don't Go in the Woods, not
Don't Go in the Woods Alone, that's just

title on the sleeve. This was one of a
run of don't titles.

Don't look in the basement, don't go in
the house, don't open the window, don't

answer the phone.

A few of these ended up on the nasties
list, so maybe there was an idea that

there was something wrong with don't
movies.

Don't go in the woods. It's not just a
warning.

It's the only way to stay alive.

Edgar Wright actually made a trailer for
a film called Don't, which is in the

American version of Grindhouse.

There's not actually much to say about
this. It's an extraordinarily amateurish

bunch of people go in the woods and are
slaughtered by a deranged mountain man.

picture. There was a much better film
called Campsite Massacre about the same

time, which was the same basic plot, but
with proper actors and decent

photography and some quite exciting
bits.

This was one of the first movies I
remember seeing that was just completely

inept on every level. Now, of course, it
looks like a masterpiece compared to

all those films people camcorder in
their backyards with their friends

around. pretending to be zombies or
whatever but it was i think

And considering that, you know, this
went to jury trial at some point, you

ordinary people watching movies like
this must have been more affronted by

lack of production values and the
amateurishness of the filmmaking than by

gore, which, again, it's gruesome. Lots
of people get killed, but not in a

particularly upsetting or terrifying
manner. It started as a carefree weekend

camping trip.

soon turned into an orgy of unrelenting
horror.

There's one tiny sequence in it which
again is almost a good idea where

somebody is expecting the monster to
come around the corner and stabs them

then realizes they killed a completely
innocent person and tries to apologize

the dying guy.

And that very same sequence is restaged
in Neil Marshall's movie, The Descent.

I've seen it actually done again a
couple of times recently.

And in there, it's a really powerful,
affecting moment. But in Don't Go in the

Woods, it's just a joke that isn't
particularly funny.

James Bryan, the director, has tried to
pretend that he... It was intended to be

a comedy all along and it has a sort of
jokey end credits music to the tune of

the Teddy Bear's Picnic. I bet they
didn't pay Performing Rights Society to

composer of Teddy Bear's Picnic to do
it.

But it's not. It's just...

clod -hoppingly inept on every level. It
was an endurance test to sit through in

the 80s.

It hasn't really improved over the
years, although there's a special

out in America that's quite entertaining
because it has retrospective

documentaries about the making of it,
and the commentary track is actually

cheerful and sort of insightful in the
problems of making low -budget movies

like this.

It sort of makes you appreciate all the
more the achievement of the makers of

the Blair Witch Project, who had fewer
resources. They had fewer people to go

into the woods with and still actually
made a film that worked.

It proves that actually you don't have
to make rubbish because you haven't got

any money.

The other thing is that the tagline is
don't go in the woods alone.

And these are the most crowded, isolated
woods. You can't turn a corner without

more victims turning up, including
somebody.

on a skateboard or jogging there's
something on a wheelchair there's an

is in there painting someone you think
these are the you know these woods have

got more people passing through than you
know tottenham court road station at

rush hour uh most of them get killed by
the the mad beardy axe murdering person

i can't even remember what the point of
it was what it was that drove the

maniac mad in the first place, if it's
even mentioned.

I think he's just a local loon. He
doesn't even have what The Burning or

have, an urban legend or a rural legend
where somebody explains the myth of the

mad guy in the woods. You get nothing.

It's just, here are some victims, here's
a mad guy, pile of bodies, the film's

over, let's go home.

You won't see the forest for the
screams.

And even if you're a completist who's
got that DVD special edition, what you

don't have is what you're about to see
now, the original theatrical trailer.

Don't go in the woods.

Something's out there. Something evil.

Something so terrifying only screams can
describe it.

Hunters become the hunted.

Every camper is fair game.

When a walking nightmare turns a lush
green forest crimson red with the fresh

blood of each new victim.

It started as a carefree weekend camping
trip. It soon turned into an orgy of

unrelenting horror.

You can run. It will catch you.

You can hide.

It will find you.

After that, you won't see the forest for
the screams.

Don't go in the woods. It's not just a
warning. It's the only way to stay

Hi, my name is Brad Stevens.

I'm the author of the book, Abel
Ferrara, The Moral Vision. And I'm going

talking a little bit about Abel
Ferrara's film, The Driller Killer, one

more notorious entries on the video
nasties list.

And when I say the film was notorious, I
have to say its notoriety was almost

entirely due to the cover of the video,
which you can see here.

This cover in particular, when it was
reproduced in trade magazines, as much

anything else.

contributed to the uh the start of the
video nasties panic in truth the film is

violent but uh it would have been cut
certainly if it had ever been submitted

the bbfc but uh just the title and the
cover of the video were what made it

a notorious film the film came out in 79
but dipco released the video in 82 and

i would have been um i guess around 15
years old at the time and i went and

rented it from my local video store
attracted obviously by the cover and

thinking i was going to see something
like a herschel gordon lewis film that

certainly the kind of film that i was
expecting and right from the first shot

which showed a man who i now know now
but i didn't know then was the director

abel ferrara walking into a church i
could see this was something uh quite

different from what i had expected to
see something much more intense see

lane as reno miller a man driven to the
very edge

I saw the film very soon after it was
released. And in fact, I believe we have

here the original rental slip, which is
dated from early

1982. Yeah, this is dated from March
1982.

I believe it came out in February.

And I would probably have seen it around
that time.

And I recall that I was so impressed by
it, but I was absolutely convinced that

this film was not originally called The
Driller Killer.

It seemed to me so sophisticated that I
was sure it must have been called

something else and had been retitled The
Driller Killer for its video release.

And I spent some time trying to find out
what the original title was, but of

course, as it turned out, it was The
Driller Killer.

The film has usually been described as
Abel Ferrara's first film. In fact, he'd

already made a hardcore porn film called
Nine Lives of a Wet Pussy.

And he also acted in that under the
pseudonym Jimmy Lane.

And that's also the pseudonym that he
uses in this film. In fact, you can see

the name Jimmy Lane is on the cover.

One thing that's worth pointing out is
that, like a number of other VIP co

-titles, The Driller Killer was uncut in
terms of violence, but was missing

several narrative scenes.

There's a scene which runs six or seven
minutes showing the central character,

Reno, played by Ferrara, getting ready
to go to a nightclub and turning up in

the nightclub playing pinball.

There's a whole sequence that was cut
out.

This was then restored to the version
that was submitted to the BBFC many

later for a video release which was pre
-cut.

Now the version you have on DVD is
completely uncut with all the violence

the six or seven minute section intact.

Originally, Ferrara started out making a
hardcore porn film and this rather

disreputable seeming horror film.

It's rather ironic that today he's
regarded as something of an art house

and he's worked with major stars like
Christopher Walken and Harvey Keitel.

And yet, the bizarre thing is that his
films now

aren't that different from the films
that he was making in the 1970s. I mean,

even his porn film, Nine Lives of a Wet
Pussy, thematically and stylistically,

is absolutely consistent with the films
that he's making today, such as Mary and

Go -Go Tales, films which have, as yet,
not even been released in the UK.

The Driller Killer's reputation as a
video nasty, which, as I say, was...

very much influenced by the title and
the cover of the video.

It has been extremely hard for the film
to shake off. Even now, if you mention

the title to people, you get the
impression that you're talking about

which is obviously disreputable.

In fact, the film has very respectable
historical antecedents in, for example,

taxi driver and certainly in Polanski's
Repulsion.

The film is very much...

in the style of Repulsion. It's a study
of psychological breakdown.

I think it's worth pointing out that
there is a way to read the film as that

none of the driller killings are
actually happening, that it's all

that's taking place in the central
character's mind.

But it is a portrait of psychological
disintegration.

There's no violence for, I think, the
first 40 minutes or so.

And when I first watched it, that was
what struck me. This was a serious film

the style of Hector Scorsese or
Polanski.

The driller killer is coming.

One thing I'd like to say about the
trailer for the film, which you'll see

this DVD, is that it includes a very
brief bit of footage which is not

in the film.

It's a close -up of Reno, the character
played by Abel Ferrara, saying, it's

only a window, Dalton.

Just a window.

And this obviously comes from the scene
towards the end of the film in which

Reno invites Dalton Briggs, the art
dealer, to his apartment.

And obviously at some point the film had
included a section in which Dalton

notices that the window of the apartment
has been broken. Because earlier in the

film you saw Reno through his phone
through the window.

So that's something that's an
interesting extra in the trailer.

See Jimmy Lane as Reno Miller, a man
driven to the very edge.

And then beyond.

The Driller Killer is coming.

Just a window.

Made in 1981, Evil Speak has the dubious
honour of being recommended by Anton

LaVey, that's head of the Church of
Satan, as essential viewing for

Stanley used the power of man to call on
the powers of evil.

The film stars Ron Howard's younger
brother, Clint, who's also known as the

of TV's Gentle Ben, in a rather less
gentle role as a bullied military cadet.

He's the kid everyone used to pick on.

Who gets his own back when he finds a
way of summoning up Estabar the demon

through his computer.

And he then unleashes an army of wild
pigs on all those who've tormented him.

And all hell broke loose.

There's quite a lot of gory stuff in it.
There's a football game using a severed

head. And there's a very good exploding
head at the end as well. And there's a

very sadistic scene where the bullies
slaughter poor old Clint's puppy.

It's quite a fun movie. I think the
Satanist stuff would have to be taken

pinch of salt. But if you're into it,
well, it's got Anton's recommendation,

give it a try.

Everyone's known a boy like Stanley
Coopersmith.

You speak.

He's the kid...

Everyone used to pick on him.

Screwed up for the last time, Cooper
dick.

You see, everyone thought Stanley was a
joke.

An outcast with no one to turn to.

You guys broke my catapult. You're going
to pay for that. No one except man's

most advanced machine.

Stanley used the power of man to call on
the powers of evil.

I, Stanley Coopersmith, command you!

Oh, my God.

And all hell broke loose.

creatures with your strength and force.

Let them avenge me.

Remember that little kid you used to
pick on?

Well, he's a big boy now.

Okay, what was the only British film to
end up on the Video Nasties list?

Time's up.

It was Expose, which was passed with
slight cuts in 1975 by the BBFC, but

on video. Here's the original gatefold
sleeve.

Very rare for the day, as you can see.

Many people didn't like that. That's why
it's actually quite rare, and this is

one of the most sought -after tapes to
get in this particular packaging.

Directed by James Canham -Clark.

He was the director of also two...

Sexploitation films, Let's Get Laid and
Hardcore, which is one of the reasons

why Britain's number one sex symbol,
Fiona Richmond, appears in the movie,

especially in a sort of like a psycho
-influenced shower scene.

But the real reason why this got pounced
on by the DPP was because of the rape

scene with Linda Hayden being attacked
by two thugs. Those two thugs are played

by Carl Howman of Brushstrokes TV sitcom
fame and Vic Armstrong, who would later

on become, well, James Bond's biggest
stunt coordinator of choice.

Original title is The House on Straw
Hill.

It's got quite an arty look about this
movie. There's some really nice shots in

this.

Very much of the day, of course, but you
can see a definite Euro sensibility

going on in the background.

And that's one of the reasons why Udo
Kier, the German star, appears in it as

the lead author.

Udo actually told me many years later
that Exposé taught him one of the

lessons he ever had in his life.

there was a point where Brian Smedley
Aston, the producer, one of the reasons,

by the way, why two of the characters
are called Smedley and Aston, came to

and said, look, we haven't got any
money, we can't pay you, would you

take the Japanese video rights instead?

Well, of course, Udo should have said
yes, because he would have made a

but he didn't. He stuck his gun and
said, no, I want to be paid.

They finally got the money together, but
he said from that moment on, he was

always asked.

to sort of be paid up front by the
producer and that's the lesson he

from expose

the documentary faces of death the cover
states that this video cassette will

change your attitude to life it has a
lot to live up to and if you've seen it

you'll know that it will definitely have
a lasting effect on you in fact it was

around the time i first saw it in the
mid 80s that i decided to become a

vegetarian so there you go it's
essentially a mondo film that is it's a

documentary which purports to show
extreme and taboo subjects such as

autopsies suicides

executions and there's some really
strong animal cruelty in there too what

now know is that it was financed with
japanese money primarily for their

after the success of the italian mondo
film savage man savage beast the

producers wanted something much stronger
than that that hadn't been seen before

and they got it for the first time in
cinema history the greatest fear of all

mankind will be graphically exposed the
main man behind faces of death It's

probably a guy called Conan Lee Collier,
which is most likely a pseudonym, as it

would seem most people involved in the
making of the film prefer to remain

anonymous, for obvious reasons.

The writer who is credited on screen as
Alan Black is actually John Alan

Schwartz, which, to add to the
confusion, many sources credit as a

real name.

In fact, Mr Schwartz popped up in a
Channel 4 documentary a few years back,

was credited on screen as the director
of Faces of Death, so who knows.

The other actor appears throughout the
film in numerous stage scenes, some of

which are very convincing and have had
people forward for years.

The film opens with some graphic footage
of an autopsy, then cuts to footage of

a doctor leaving the autopsy theatre who
goes by the name of Dr Francis B.

Gross, and he comes complete with dodgy
glasses as well. He tells us that he's a

pathologist who has compiled a library
of the many faces of death.

This doctor is played by actor Michael
Carle. He tells us he's going to take us

around the world to help us develop an
understanding of death.

In one brief moment, within the span of
a heartbeat, your world could stop.

Some of the more harrowing Real News
Real Fudgy sequences involve that of a

Diego plane crash with body parts strewn
all over the place. It was obviously

too strong to show on TV.

There are also quite a few genuine
accident scenes.

People jump into their deaths from tall
buildings and stuff like that. A

parachutist whose chute just fails to
open and he just bounces on the ground.

It's horrible.

The stuff that really affected me was
the section which shows animals being

killed. There's seal cullings, the
kosher killing of cows.

However, none of these scenes were
staged for the camera. They were just

purchased from a natural history
company.

Some of the other most talked about
scenes were simply faked by the crew.

Among these, there's a scene of a monkey
having its skull smashed open and its

brains eaten.

There's an electric chair execution,
there's a Middle Eastern execution by

decapitation, and an alligator eating a
man. You get the picture.

The end of the film takes us to a
séance, and attempts to lift us out of

nearly depressive state with this really
corny life and rebirth sequence is

quite silly.

Those with strong enough stomachs to
make it to the end of the film might

noticed the revealing end disclaimer,
which clearly states, Exiguous scenes

within this motion picture have been
reconstructed to document and further

clarify their factual origin. So there
you have it.

Faces of Death was released in Britain
by a company called Atlantis Video in

September of 1982, and the tabloids were
quick to pick up on its disturbing

content. Some even ridiculously singled
it out as a genuine snuff movie,

including the tabloid newspapers and
numerous gullible politicians who viewed

sections of it in Parliament.

Predictably, Faces of Death made its way
onto the very first of the DPP's native

hit lists. That was in July of 1983,
where it was to remain until the end.

Rather strangely though, the British
video release didn't contain the full

version. For reasons unknown to me at
least, the distributor chose to chop out

around half an hour from the middle of
the film.

including a decapitation, a bizarre
satanic sacrifice ritual, a scene of a

washed up on the beach drowned, a bear
eating a man, and the famous electric

chair sequence which features on the
cover. Viewers may have wondered what

hell happened to that scene.

If I were you, I would view this one
with extreme caution, including its

-churning sequels. Meanwhile, here's the
equally stomach -churning trailer.

In one brief moment within the span of a
heartbeat your world could stop.

There is no way to predict when you will
become one of them.

For the first time in cinema history the
greatest fear of all mankind will be

graphically exposed.

Now a motion picture dares to take you
beyond the threshold of the living where

you may discover your own face of death.

Explicit footage will expose one of the
most repulsive forms of death.

witness as helpless creatures die by the
butcher's hand.