Okay, now I've seen it, so I get to say something about it.
No two ways about it--Tom Six came up with one of the most unforgettable concepts in the genre the first time around, whether you liked it or not. And he came up with an actor nearly as unforgettable to play the villain. So naturally, the question becomes "how do you top that?" (Notice that the question is never "WHY should you top that?")
Here's what I'm guessing you already know: this "Full Sequence" is NOT a sequel in the traditional sense. It supposedly takes place in the "real" world, where an unhinged fan of the original movie wants to duplicate the experiment four-fold. The catch, of course, is that he has no medical skills whatsoever. Remember, this one is "100% Medically INaccurate."
Okay, Six found another pretty unforgettable performer to play the mentally-challenged, constantly abused Martin (we could call him "The Human Slug" and get the idea across). I'm assuming Laurence R. Harvey is in no way related to MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE star Laurence Harvey, by the way. Martin works as a security guard for an underground parking lot and has "rented" a warehouse for his experiments. He vocalizes, but he never speaks--though apparently he was able to convince a couple of actor's agents on the telephone that Quentin Tarantino wanted to audition the CENTIPEDE cast for his new movie, bagging original actress Ashlyn Yennie (as herself) in the process. Martin collects the rest of his victims wherever he can find them (if you miss him smacking someone in the head with a tire iron the first time, don't worry--he does it about a hundred more times over the course of the film). Despite the constant cranial abuse, Martin manages to keep his victims alive and kicking (for the most part). And so...
Look. The first film relied heavily on ancient stalk-and-slash cliches to provide something of a storyline to surround the central shock concept. And I guess that was all it needed to get the point across. Whatever the first film was, it was NOT a "gore" film as such. So here's the difference. This one is. And then some. It constantly rubs your face in the foulest detritus imaginable (yeah, I heard that the U.S. release was cut by over two minutes, but I can barely fathom the difference it would make). It looks up the taboos that the first film managed to overlook and rams them in sideways (yes, children and infants are involved at various points)--just because it can. And the artistic choice to shoot the film in black-and-white doesn't dull a damn thing (I believe it was done JUST to get a certain liquid color to splatter the screen at one point--oh, and if you missed it, don't worry, they do it again shortly thereafter.)
If I told you I was shocked, disgusted, offended, etc. you might take it as something of a dare or a recommendation--after all, I'm quite aware that that's exactly the reaction Six WANTED from me. But I've seen films variously as disgusting AND as taboo-defiant (hell, this year alone I saw HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN at least) and came away with a significantly different reaction. And there's a reason for that. And I'll be happy to spell it out.
Did I CARE one LITTLE BIT where this movie was going or how it would turn out?
No. Pardon my language, but I didn't give a SHIT.
Horrornews is a discussion forum for true horror fans to discuss the more obscure areas of the horror/cult/exploitation film genre as well as current theatrical horror.
Moderator: Chris Slack
1 post • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest