Milk_Tray_Guy
Joined Jul 2016
Badges4
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews524
Milk_Tray_Guy's rating
In early 19th century France a group of strolling players and entertainers are invited to perform at the castle of one Count Drago (Christopher Lee). On their arrival Count Drago tells them almost immediately his hobby is taxidermy - and that he is striving to perfect a formula that will kill and instantly embalm *any* living creature... Now, right there is the point where anyone who isn't a complete idiot would say 'thanks - goodbye'. But of course they are all complete idiots, and respond with little more than 'Oh, that's fascinating.' I guarantee you have already worked out the rest.
Lee is watchable as ever (thankfully, this is one of his European films where he did his own English voice dub). The rest of the cast are okay. Philippe Leroy makes for a virile hero and looks good in the action (turns out before becoming an actor he was a paratrooper in the French Foreign Legion, and later a circus performer); Gaia Germani as the ingenue is incredibly beautiful (think Audrey Hepburn but with Italian va va voom), and Mirko Valentin is very creepy as the Count's lumbering, murderous manservant. But the pacing is slow, the plot is as predictable as it could be, and at 90 minutes long it feels too drawn-out/padded for what really feels like a short story. Also, unusually for Italian horror of the time it was shot entirely in B&W. I own and love plenty of B&W movies, but unlike those this *feels* like a movie that should have been shot in colour, if that makes sense.
Director Warren Kiefer was actually American (although originally credited here as 'Lorenzo Sabatini'). Donald Sutherland - making his first featured movie appearance (in several roles) - was so grateful for the opportunity that he named his son after him! Englishman Michael Reeves (who would go on to make the Vincent Price classic Witchfinder General, before dying tragically young) worked as assistant director.
It's worth a watch for Christopher Lee fans, but other than that I can't really recommend it (as a huge Lee fan I can't see myself ever revisiting it). 5/10.
Lee is watchable as ever (thankfully, this is one of his European films where he did his own English voice dub). The rest of the cast are okay. Philippe Leroy makes for a virile hero and looks good in the action (turns out before becoming an actor he was a paratrooper in the French Foreign Legion, and later a circus performer); Gaia Germani as the ingenue is incredibly beautiful (think Audrey Hepburn but with Italian va va voom), and Mirko Valentin is very creepy as the Count's lumbering, murderous manservant. But the pacing is slow, the plot is as predictable as it could be, and at 90 minutes long it feels too drawn-out/padded for what really feels like a short story. Also, unusually for Italian horror of the time it was shot entirely in B&W. I own and love plenty of B&W movies, but unlike those this *feels* like a movie that should have been shot in colour, if that makes sense.
Director Warren Kiefer was actually American (although originally credited here as 'Lorenzo Sabatini'). Donald Sutherland - making his first featured movie appearance (in several roles) - was so grateful for the opportunity that he named his son after him! Englishman Michael Reeves (who would go on to make the Vincent Price classic Witchfinder General, before dying tragically young) worked as assistant director.
It's worth a watch for Christopher Lee fans, but other than that I can't really recommend it (as a huge Lee fan I can't see myself ever revisiting it). 5/10.
Loosely based on the true story of the 1939 'Salon Kitty' operation, in which the SS took over a Berlin brothel, replaced all the 'working girls' with girls (made auxiliary members of the SS) specially selected and trained by themselves. The intention was to catch clients saying things in 'unguarded moments', perhaps giving themselves away as spies, or at least disloyal to the Nazi cause.
It's a weird mixture of musical numbers, comedy, a *lot* of softcore, intermixed with scenes of cruelty, murder, and suicide; think a serious WWII drama, mixed in with Cabaret, Springtime for Hitler, Monty Python, and Benny Hill.
Visually the film is very good. The sets look far more expensive than than they probably were (production designer Ken Adam - perhaps most famous for the Bond movies - was desperate for something lighter and more fun to work on after the stress of working for Stanley Kubrick on Barry Lyndon!), and the costuming is perfect (from the immaculate Nazi uniforms, through the clothes of various people struggling to get on with their ordinary lives and just survive the war, to the more 'casual' apparel of the girls).
Helmut Berger, Ingrid Thulin, and Teresa Ann Savoy are very good, as is giallo regular John Steiner - almost unrecognisably clean-shaven and short-haired - as a very senior (and fencing-obsessed) Nazi officer.
The uneven tone does jar a bit, and it certainly didn't need to be over two hours long, but this was more (bizarrely) enjoyable than I expected. 6/10.
It's a weird mixture of musical numbers, comedy, a *lot* of softcore, intermixed with scenes of cruelty, murder, and suicide; think a serious WWII drama, mixed in with Cabaret, Springtime for Hitler, Monty Python, and Benny Hill.
Visually the film is very good. The sets look far more expensive than than they probably were (production designer Ken Adam - perhaps most famous for the Bond movies - was desperate for something lighter and more fun to work on after the stress of working for Stanley Kubrick on Barry Lyndon!), and the costuming is perfect (from the immaculate Nazi uniforms, through the clothes of various people struggling to get on with their ordinary lives and just survive the war, to the more 'casual' apparel of the girls).
Helmut Berger, Ingrid Thulin, and Teresa Ann Savoy are very good, as is giallo regular John Steiner - almost unrecognisably clean-shaven and short-haired - as a very senior (and fencing-obsessed) Nazi officer.
The uneven tone does jar a bit, and it certainly didn't need to be over two hours long, but this was more (bizarrely) enjoyable than I expected. 6/10.
Any internet list or discussion around the most disturbing/controversial films ever made inevitably includes this film.
Loosely based on the Marquis de Sade's novel The 120 Days of Sodom, and directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini, Salo is difficult to pigeonhole but has elements of drama, satire, arthouse, and horror. The story centres around four corrupt men of high social/professional standing ('the Duke', 'the Bishop', 'the Magistrate', and 'the President') in Italy during the final year of WWII. These men have 18 male and female teenagers kidnapped and taken to a luxurious villa outside a small rural town, where they are subjected to four months of extreme violence, sadism, physical and psychological torture, sexual abuse, rape, and murder.
Pasolini's intention was to explore the themes of political corruption, consumerism, authoritarianism, nihilism, morality, capitalism, totalitarianism, sadism, sexuality, and fascism. Despite the film's notoriety it is fantastically well-made. The camerawork, lighting. And shot composition of the scenes inside the villa (where almost the entire film takes place) are beautiful (highlighting the ugliness what's being depicted onscreen all the more).
Salo has been called 'the sickest film ever made', whilst paradoxically appearing on critics' lists of the greatest/most significant films ever made. Its reputation was enhanced by director Pasolini's own brutal murder three weeks before the film was released (and inevitable rumours that he was punished/silenced by present-day elites). Its viewing is still seen as a 'rite of passage' for fans of extreme films.
Very well made, and I absolutely believe Pasolini's stated reasons for making it - but it's not a film I can say I in any way enjoyed watching. 5.5/10.
Loosely based on the Marquis de Sade's novel The 120 Days of Sodom, and directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini, Salo is difficult to pigeonhole but has elements of drama, satire, arthouse, and horror. The story centres around four corrupt men of high social/professional standing ('the Duke', 'the Bishop', 'the Magistrate', and 'the President') in Italy during the final year of WWII. These men have 18 male and female teenagers kidnapped and taken to a luxurious villa outside a small rural town, where they are subjected to four months of extreme violence, sadism, physical and psychological torture, sexual abuse, rape, and murder.
Pasolini's intention was to explore the themes of political corruption, consumerism, authoritarianism, nihilism, morality, capitalism, totalitarianism, sadism, sexuality, and fascism. Despite the film's notoriety it is fantastically well-made. The camerawork, lighting. And shot composition of the scenes inside the villa (where almost the entire film takes place) are beautiful (highlighting the ugliness what's being depicted onscreen all the more).
Salo has been called 'the sickest film ever made', whilst paradoxically appearing on critics' lists of the greatest/most significant films ever made. Its reputation was enhanced by director Pasolini's own brutal murder three weeks before the film was released (and inevitable rumours that he was punished/silenced by present-day elites). Its viewing is still seen as a 'rite of passage' for fans of extreme films.
Very well made, and I absolutely believe Pasolini's stated reasons for making it - but it's not a film I can say I in any way enjoyed watching. 5.5/10.
