While I do have a list of movies I want to get to and review, there are times when I do a bit of wandering around the internet to try and find something that isn’t on that list. It’s always worth exploring, and you often stumble across something interesting that way.

Enter The Champagne Club, a relatively unknown movie shot in Brazil with a cast of five and directed by then-newcomer Joao Machado – in fact, this remains his only feature film. Purported to be ‘based on the letters written by Jonathan Hacke, an artist and mental patient at a psychiatric institution’, this one was certainly quite a ride. Honestly I couldn’t find anything further about this Jonathan Hacke, but given what I just saw those letters might be quite the read.

The storyline itself sees four figures from the art scene descend upon a huge mansion miles from civilisation – we have art dealer and gallery owner Bruce Wallace and his wife Connie, young, stifled artist Tim Miles and his girlfriend May Donahue, heir to an arts fortune. Of course they all enjoy the finer things in life, and it’s not long before their vacation turns to grotesque excess. The group are rarely seen without a bottle of champagne in sight, and what begins as a relatively harmless jaunt of drinking, fine food and easy days soon turns unpleasant. The seclusion and the privilege to do what you want certainly brings out the dark side in our quartet…

I don’t want to oversell this movie, because although it is an interesting concept, and certainly has its moments, I came away ultimately feeling pretty ambivalent towards it. The actors certainly give it plenty – Brian Donovan as Tim Miles in particular looks like he never slept once during the shoot, portraying his character’s growing isolation and disillusionment really well. The other three actors around him also go at losing their minds with real gusto, each of them descending from the childish play of the chronically spoilt to genuinely vindictive and destructive behaviour as the movie wears on.

I think the issue for me comes in the fact that the characterisation is too weak – the cast are introduced in a little montage at the start of the movie, probably no more than 90 seconds. It’s not a bad idea in itself, but ultimately that’s about all we get in terms of who they are, and we have overdone stereotypes rather than well-rounded protagonists here. As such, it leaves the various slips into madness feeling hollow, because we don’t really know WHY it happens the way it does. If the characters were more fully set up and explored, the chinks in their psychological armour established, then this could have been an absolute cracker of a film.

As it is, things can feel more than a little random, and scenes sort of string together and drift along without that much meaning attached to them. Individually there are scenes that are funny, and scenes that are weird, and one or two scenes that are genuinely gross. But it’s hard to really know where it’s all going, or ultimately to figure out what it all means. Maybe there’s some sort of rumination on the nature of art here, but it’s muddy at best. If it is inspired by the letters of this Hacke character, it might explain just why the movie feels so disjointed and chaotic – but I can’t just give it a pass on those grounds.

RATING: 5.5/10. I have to give credit for some things here – the director has obviously come in here with a vision, and I think has largely delivered it, thanks to the efforts of a cast absolutely full committed to deliver it. There are some strong visuals throughout, and if you like things that are pretty experimental then you might find this one up your street. Those of you who are regular readers will know that I like something a bit different, and The Champagne Club certainly qualifies as that. Still, with all that said, I can’t say that it honestly sticks the landing on everything, and there were phases where I found my attention wandering a little. I wouldn’t say that I regretted watching it, but equally I don’t think that I’m going to be rushing back for a rewatch any time soon.

It’s something I’ve never really spoken about on these pages, but I’m a big fan of the Saw movies. Of course they’ve become infamous as ‘torture porn’, and many are pretty flippant about all but the first few entries. However watching all seven together is an interesting experience. Sure, they do decline in quality, but the story work right until the end does a great job of developing a narrative throughout the entirety of the series – no mean feat, and something I feel is unique in horror.

The relevance of this to The Collector is that it marks the directorial debut of Marcus Dunstan, writer of the entire tail end of the Saw series from number 4 to number 7. The script itself is by Dunstan and Patrick Melton, who was also heavily involved in story and script for those very same movies. Being that Saw 4 was one of my favourites in the series – and stands in my mind as one of the best movie twists I’ve ever seen – I was pretty excited about this one. And that’s without even mentioning that this was originally pitched as a Saw sequel – although unfortunately we ended up with 2017’s tone-deaf Jigsaw instead…

So here I am, looking for a worthy successor to Saw. Sadly, The Collector is not it.

Our story follows Arkin, a handyman and former small-time crook whose wife/partner owes some money to some dubious types. It may sound like I’m paraphrasing, but that stage of things literally takes 15 minutes and that’s about all we’re told. With this in mind, Arkin decides the best thing he can do is rob the wealthy family he’s been working for recently to save his wife/partner and daughter from reprisal.

What follows from there feels pretty disappointing, because when Arkin arrives at the house it is loaded with traps and being stalked by a vicious masked man out to mutilate and kill everyone in sight. We find out that he is The Collector, and this his particular MO is to collect people…

I don’t want anyone to think I’m being fatuous about it, but the paucity of the storyline really irked me here, especially given the complexities that marked the Saw series. The vague set-up is there to set up basically a brutal version of Home Alone, complete with acid on the floor, spikes on the stairs and knives hanging from the chandelier. The set-up is so weak that it’s hard to really invest in any of the characters or events, and while you could argue the traps in Saw pushed the bounds of reality, at least I know what the rationale was. This just feels like the various pitfalls and dangers came before the plot itself – hey, I’ve got some ideas for traps, what story can I include them in!

If you’re a hardcore fan of silent serial killers and inventive deaths you might get something out of this, but I was left distinctly nonplussed when I came to the finale – which was also frustrating in its own right. Even at an hour and a half the movie feels overlong, the characterisation is scant, the visuals are so dark it’s hard to tell what’s actually going on half the time and it all just feels like a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

There was a sequel to this one, The Collection, which I can’t honestly say I’m itching to get to but I will probably stick on the ‘to review’ slate, just because it’s always nice when you can go for a whole series. I gather there’s also a third movie in the works, so I’ll be collecting these movies up for a while yet…

RATING: 2/10. The Collector isn’t bottom of the barrel garbage, but by the same token it’s almost unbelievable that it could come out like this given the team behind it. Almost everything that made the Saw series great is missing, apart from the cavalcade of traps – which in this context basically mean nothing. There’s the odd interesting moment, but ultimately it’s all just pretty forgettable and leaves next to no lasting impression. It does borderline surprise me there is a sequel, so I might just have to bump that up the review list out of pure curiosity.

If you’re out there looking for a successor to Saw, you might be better served by the grim WAZ or the more fun/bonkers 13 Sins.

There’s a huge amount on the Film Gutter list that I always ‘meant to get round to’ – and honestly after wrapping up in January I assumed I never would. But here we are, still in (sort of) lockdown, and hopefully our temporary return is providing a little distraction and maybe some film recs to keep you busy during this time too…

Anyway, Vibroboy has always been on said list, and bearing in mind just how short it is, it seems somehow criminal it’s taken quite this long to get to. French extreme generally has a pretty good reputation in my eyes, so it always had that going for it too.

And I can now say ‘why on Earth didn’t I watch this sooner’ because, in short, Vibroboy was absolutely great.

So, the story follows a trio of characters – beginning with Francesca, an extravagant cross-dresser who returns from an unspecified archaeological trip with a gift for Brigitte (this serves as a separate cutaway at the start of the film). The two of them live at opposite ends of a tiny trailer park, and get along well – much to the chagrin of Brigitte’s abusive, obnoxious partner Leon, who remains persuaded that Francesca is attempting to seduce Brigitte right under his nose. Leon’s character is staggeringly over the top, but then again the whole movie is – everything is deliberately exaggerated for effect, giving the whole thing the feel of a real dark, surreal pantomime. The artifact Francesca brought back is of course an immediate bone of contention, but this is no regular objet d’art – no, it’s a distinctly phallic-shaped piece rumoured to contain the captured spirit of El Vibro…

Vibroboy is one of those occasions where everything feels pitch-perfect, as though the director has smashed everything out of the park just the way they wanted it. The energy in the performances all round is incredible, the chemistry between the trio of performers is excellent, and the visual style is really striking – the use of camera angles feels very clever, and gives the whole thing a further manic and uncomfortable edge. It has almost the style of other French movies the likes of Micmacs or The City of Lost Children – although a very different type of film. It’s dark, deranged and ultimately a very strange slice of fantasy. If you’re a fan of French film you may indeed recognise one or two of the actors involved too, who has gone on to some pretty notable success since this offering.

A huge part of me wants to talk about the ending to this film, but the other side thinks that I would just be doing you a disservice in giving away the finale. Suffice to say it’s worth waiting for, and perfectly in keeping with everything that came before it. Plot-wise it goes for just the right amount for its runtime – I don’t think that you could have spun this out any longer, and there was certainly never a feature film buried in here that didn’t get out. But if you’re looking for a wild, out there, delirious half an hour, you could certainly do a lot worse than Vibroboy..

RATING: 9.5/10. It’s fair to say that this movie won’t be for everybody – it’s certainly intense, and gets right in your face from the get-go. However for me that was a part of what made it work, and you’ll probably know within a few minutes if this is not going to float your boat. What I loved the most were the bizarre visuals and the flat-out energetic acting all around – it barely drops for a second and is overblown – because that’s what works, never just for the sake of being overblown. Director Jan Kounen does have a few feature film credits to his name too, so if you’ll excuse me I’m off for a scout around to dig those out. In the meantime, a very warm recommendation for this genuinely entertaining offering – and entertaining is not something I can always say, even for movies I’ve rated very highly here…

​

DIR. LO LEE, 24 MINS

It’s not often I have the chance to visit fresh shores in the line of reviewing, but this one marks my first trip to Switzerland for a slice of extreme horror. It’s scarcely renowned as a hotbed for the subgenre – at least to my knowledge – but there are plenty of near-neighbours in Europe that have a strong reputation for the field, so this should be interesting at least.

Blutgeil is confusingly subtitled Zurich Cop Killer IV, although I’m stuffed if I can find three previous instalments. Maybe it’s some sort of gag I’m missing the point of? Anyway, we lead in with a news report of a man who’s killed 21 cops, with two escaping to fight another day. I couldn’t even tell you if that serial killer character reappears, honestly, but these are the two policemen that we follow throughout the piece. Right off the bat they break up a drug deal going on in a toilet – killing all but one of the people there, a woman who crawls away silently while the men are attempting to put up a fight. They ultimately trail her to a squat, which is where most of the action takes place, with the cops trying to avenge their fallen colleagues while the dark and bizarre cast of characters inside fight the law with everything they have…

I’m always willing to give a film I’ve not really got much of an idea about a whirl (especially if it’s this short) and I know this one does have at least a small cult following. Some of these low budget/no budget movies of this era have developed an audience over the course of time – and indeed some warrant it. It looks shot on VHS, and has a habit of skipping slightly awkwardly now and then throughout its runtime. Again that’s not necessarily a negative, and there have been some fun and even disturbing movies shot on VHS. Then again, we did have the filmography of Nick Phillips… *shudders*

Unfortunately this is not one of the best of its ilk. The acting is pretty hammy and overdone, it doesn’t look well-shot – that could be deliberate to add more edge to the chaos that unfolds throughout, but it didn’t quite land that effect for me. There is a certain energy, in the finale in particular, although for me the absolute last scene fell distinctly flat – I won’t say any more than that for risk of spoiling it. I always tip my hat to anyone who gets off their ass and invests them time and effort to make a film, and this is definitely one of those that feels like a bunch of mates of a similar mind that got together to do something. It’s good in its way that this one still has some sort of life, but there’s plenty – even in this sub-subgenre – that I’ve preferred.

RATING: 3/10. Sadly I can’t be neutral on this Swiss offering (damn it, I almost made it through this whole review without making that stupid joke). The idea is very simple, more just a set up for excess gore with little by way of plot or characterisation to hang it around – when characters both good and bad die it’s hard to really care either way. The gore effects aren’t terrible, but you will have seen rather more polished even in other low budget fare. If you’re a gorehound through and through, or someone who considers themselves an extreme horror completist, then you might find something here – other than that I think you could give this one a pass.

REVIEW BY ALEX DAVIS