I know. I know. Just last week you were asking yourself how on earth I’d omitted Begotten from the five-plus years of reviews, and this week I roll up with Tetsuo: The Iron Man. What sort of extreme and cult horror film reviewer do you call yourself if you haven’t reviewed this movie, I hear you cry! Well, today I shall be putting that right with a look at this industrial cult hit of the late eighties.

To provide a bit of background, Tetsuo: The Iron Man builds on Tsukamoto’s earlier short films in theme and style, and was made with money saved up by the director from his day job. The shoot took place over eighteen months, with many of the cast becoming frustrated and burned out towards the end of proceedings – although I can’t honestly say that bleeds into what we see on screen. No doubt the movie is made on a low budget, but I was pleasantly surprised just how fresh it looked, and how impressive the special effects were for a movie that is now over 30 years old – the black and white colour scheme and stop motion no doubt do something to hide the shortcomings the visual FX might have had. Like Begotten, the black and white actually adds to the feel rather than detracting, fitting the metallic tones of the piece here.

The story itself is presented in quite a complex fashion, with numerous flashbacks and switches in time, and this again adds to the surreal atmosphere. Our cast is unnamed, titled more by characteristics, and the plot begins as Metal Fetishist (played by the director himself) is flattened in the middle of the road by a distracted Salaryman (Tomorowo Taguchi). His revenge is to transform the Salaryman into a nightmarish abomination of metal and flesh, with this dark transformation taking place throughout the film. It features a host of very well-delivered body horror scenes, including a few scenes with his girlfriend with dark sexual undercurrents, and a number of bizarre dream sequences to boot. What ultimately transpires is a battle between the Metal Fetishist and the Salaryman, all shot in striking stop motion – a cleverly selected device for those specific scenes.

That plot summary doesn’t really do this movie justice. By the time you’ve thrown in a superb, driving industrial soundtrack you have something visually arresting with real pace, strong performances and an unusual style rarely seen before or since. This one kept me – ahem – riveted throughout and left a real impression, with key scenes whirling around in my head ever since, and I came away really satisfied as a viewer. It may be tight at 67 minutes, but much longer and that relentless tempo and wild imagery may have started to lag – definitely a case of less is more here.  There’s two sequels to this one, and based on this gloriously overblown first offering I’ll certainly be seeking those out soon.

RATING: 9.5/10. I almost, almost went for the full 10 here, but there was the odd scene that slightly lost me so I just held it back a touch for that. But Tetsuo: The Iron Man is a movie with a bold visual style and a fascinatingly dark and surreal story to tell. The performances are strong and committed, and I was especially struck with just how well the effects still help up all these years on – the stylistic choices certainly seem to have enabled them to hold their impact. This is well worth going out of your way to check out if you haven’t yet, especially for fans of cyberpunk, science-fiction horror and body horror.

By Alex Davis 

I know. I know. You’re probably thinking to yourself, Alex, how can you have been doing Film Gutter for five and a bit years and not have reviewed Begotten yet? Simply put, it’s one of those anomalies made up of many factors – much of which is that I have to really drum up the enthusiasm to watch something quite this dark and unusual. I’ve still yet to turn my attention to Salo, or Melancholie Der Engel, so there’s plenty of the classics left to cover yet – I’ll get to them all, don’t worry.

But here we are – and if you’ve not heard of Begotten, it’s a late 80s experimental art piece that has developed a cult following over time. Directed by E. Elias Merhige, who originally envisaged the movie as a theatrical piece, it’s a painstakingly shot and crafted movie made in washed-out black and white. And when I say black and white I mean black and white, because the director spent a long time editing out the majority of the grey from the colour scheme. There’s no dialogue either, so it should be apparent from the get-go this is something pretty different from practically anything else in cinema.

The story itself – and honestly I had to do some research to really tell you about this – is a sort of creation myth, of a suicidal god killing himself before impregnating the Mother of Earth (yes, really), and the dark events that happen to her and the just-born Son of Earth. I can’t lie that it’s hard to really pull that apart without an assist – Begotten is as much a piece of visual art as it is a film, and while much of the imagery and ideas are fascinating it feels almost impenetrable to watch. There are no concessions made to the viewer – a number of the scenes actually make it hard to distinguish what’s going on, and the lack of dialogue makes everything even more difficult to interpret. However, I’m confident that’s deliberate, all part of the effect the movie was going for. When you add to that a soundtrack mostly made up of chirping crickets (or that sort of noise) only occasionally spliced with much darker, unpleasant sounds, it’s almost hard to stay awake through – I can’t help but wonder again if this is all on purpose somehow…

In many ways, the ‘lore’ surrounding this movie is what has helped it live on. Famed critic Susan Sontag was firmly behind the film, hosting private screenings at her house and dubbing it one of the 10 most important films of modern times. Merhige claims each minute of the movie took eight to nine hours to create, and estimates on how long it took to make the film go anything up to ten years. It has rarely been seen in cinemas, with IMDB listing only four theatrical screenings in the over thirty years since its release. There’s a widespread rumour that Marilyn Manson’s Antichrist Superstar album was designed as an unofficial soundtrack – its running time matches Begotten almost perfectly, and numerous synchronicities can be seen throughout. Manson allegedly had the film on loop while recording the album, and the artwork of Antichrist Superstar was heavily influenced by the movie.

Make of all that what you will, but Begotten is doubtless a cinematic experience worth checking out. I can’t say that I enjoyed it, or even loved it, but what I have always had a strong respect for as a viewer is a director with a distinct vision and the bravery to push that all the way – and that’s doubtless the case here. Everything feels carefully considered and crafted, and it’s hard to think that Merhige could have delivered his product any better than this. It’s interesting more than it is compelling, and a hard watch not just for some of its extreme content but also trying to puzzle out precisely what it is you’re seeing on screen. It’s sometimes argued that even 72 minutes is too long, and I wouldn’t argue too much with that – an hour maybe could have worked better. I wouldn’t even say it was enjoyable, but I’m certainly glad that I watched it regardless in terms of my own extreme horror education, and indeed broader film education.

RATING: 7/10. A slightly hard one to rate – if I were rating it as a piece of art and a unique vision, it would probably be 10/10, but then when I rate it as an actual experience to watch it’s a little long and hard to make out and hard to follow, so that drags it down to a more suitable 7/10. I genuinely wouldn’t put anyone off watching it – especially if you do want something different, as it’s hard to pick out anything quite like it. My closest reference points would be something like Eraserhead, or Flowers/Lung II, or maybe even Subconscious Cruelty. Go seek it out, but do brace yourself for a difficult viewing experience…

Another fairly random entry for Film Gutter this week, as the regular search for inspiration led me to this decade-old offering from Ryan Nicholson, who sadly died last year at only 48 years old. He left behind a fine legacy of extreme horror movies, and we’ve looked at some of his previous offerings before – Collar and Gutterballs in particular – and both of those were equal parts grim and comedic. That’s about what I was expecting from Famine, and that’s about what I got.

The story itself follows a cast of seniors in high school (as far as my understanding of the US school system goes) who are attending a 24-hour famine in an attempt to land some extra credit. The event is led by bitchy teacher Miss Vickers, who seems to have a particular fixation with ‘geeky’ Jenny. Those inverted commas mean that we’re told she’s geeky, despite the fact she doesn’t look anything like the ‘traditional’ high school geek.

The famine is attended by most of the jocks and popular girls too, and Sarah and Jenny in particular are constantly at loggerheads throughout the night. However the famine has a dark history, as five years before, the previous famine led to the death of a teacher. And, in true horror film style, there’s a mysterious killer stalking the students one by one…

It’s fair to say that Famine is nothing revelatory, and hits plenty of the sorts of slasher horror tropes you will have seen time and time again. However a lot of it is played for laughs – the school itself is called Sloppy Secondary, which sets up the sort of tone from the very beginning, and almost every role is completely overplayed. Jenny has a habit of shouting about every other line for no particular reason, our resident ‘psycho’ Kathy overdoes that particular routine with her random mumblings, and we also have the creepy janitor and the stern German headteacher to boot. There’s nothing especially subtle or nuanced about it, but there are a few chuckles here and there along the way as it pokes at both serial killer movies and even bits of the 90s and 2000s high school movie.

With that said, it’s not all giggles, and befitting much of Nicholson’s work as director the gore is pretty brutal and uncompromising. You might well have seen worse if you watch a lot of these films I review, but there were scenes in here that did have me flinching and uncomfortable for sure. This is enhanced by the gore effects too, which do look really good as always in Nicholson’s work.

Honestly I can’t go nuts on Famine – the jokes probably landed about half the time at most, and for everything that made me smile there was at least one moment that made me roll my eyes or sigh. It’s probably best described as a popcorn horror movie – if you switch your brain off at the door, have a few drinks and a good range of snacks, you’ll probably have some fun with this one. It didn’t have quite the brutality of Collar, and had more in common with Gutterballs with its strange mixture of brutal violence and base humour. It’s worth a look if you like horror-comedy with a more extreme edge, but if that’s not your bag then you might be better sitting this one out.

RATING: 4.5/10. Ultimately Famine was enjoyable enough, although at 77 minutes it was a pretty slight offering. Then again it’s hard to say what more you could have done had you extended the run time, with the plot being slim and all too familiar to many. The performances are generally likeable, deliberately hammed up to the hilt, although the script and the characterisation is pretty hit and miss to go along with that. There’s fun to be had here, but for me there’s no real sense that this one will live long in the memory, so it’s a slightly below average 4.5/10 from me.

While Saw was anything but the first, the success of that franchise did bring about a slew of ‘I want to play a game’ type movies that brought all sorts of groups of people together to destroy each other in the hope of escape or great riches. It’s always been a fairly hit and miss field, as real ingenuity and intelligent plotting is all too often thrown aside for much simpler shock and gore tactics. I’d even level some of that charge at the latter entries in the Saw series…

Of late we’ve seen Truth or Dare and Hide and Seek turned into much deadlier versions of what we would associate from our childhoods, so why wouldn’t Would You Rather? have had the same treatment?

The story is ostensibly about Iris, one of nine ‘lucky’ contestants to be invited to a sophisticated evening where they’ll all get to play a game, with fabulous (and desperately needed) prizes to the winner. Iris’s brother is extremely sick and, with them struggling to make ends meet anyway, she feels she has no choice but to go along with this bizarre invitation. The party is led by eccentric millionaire Shepard Lambrick, played by Jeffrey Combs in wonderfully over-the-top form – he’s probably the most fun thing about this movie.

The game itself is a simple game of Would You Rather, with contestants starting small – vegetarian Iris eating steak and foie gras for 10,000 dollars, for example. But soon enough it’s all electrocutions, icepicks, whipping rods, attempted drownings and limbs being blown off. The last one standing will land the prize at the end of it all – so who has the guts, heart and intelligence to pull it off?

The best way I could probably describe this movie would be middle of the road – there’s nothing patently awful about it, but equally there’s not much to make it a real standout offering. For all the charisma Jeffrey Combs brings to this pantomime villain bad guy, I find Iris very bland as a lead character – she seems to vanish for large spells of the film, and I found myself more interested in other players. Ex-soldier Travis and the nihilistic Amy stand out as two examples, but that does all bring forward another limitation – we don’t know anyone well enough, even Iris, to really care about what happens to them. The section establishing her situation at the very start feels rushed, like we just can’t wait to get to the twisted part of things, and there’s never enough given to get you really invested in anyone else.

That’s probably best epitomised by the fact I had already seen this one a few years back, but very little of it was really wedged in my memory for the rewatch. Bits of this are interesting, and some are even fun, but it has a slight sense of the throwaway about it. It won’t have cost a huge amount to make, it probably made its money back with a little splash of profit, and is still streaming away on Netflix UK happily enough. I can’t hate it, or be offended by it, but it’s certainly not the best of its category.

RATING: 5/10. You might have guessed where this rating was going to land before I got here. It’s a fun enough concept, and there are some likeable performances, as well as some performances that come over a little half-cooked. As strange as it sounds, the focus is too much on the game, and by skimping on the characterisation we do rather miss out on the emotional impact that we might have had. You’ll probably pass an hour and a half happily enough watching it, especially if you’re an afficionado of this particular sub-branch of horror. It’s more wry and twisted than it is flat out gory and bloody, so if you are a serious gorehound you might be better leaning towards something like Red Room or Vile. With all that said, it was entertaining enough, and I can’t say I really felt bored at any points, so it’s a firm thumbs in the middle all around.

Would You Rather? is streaming on Netflix if you’d like to take a look for yourself.

Grindhouse is, for me, a subgenre that can be distinctly hit or miss. Sometimes it nails the bizarreness, violence and dark humour just right, and other times it can feel corny, cheesy and overplayed. I certainly couldn’t call myself a huge fan of the field, but I’m always willing to approach things with an open mind - practically a prerequisite if you have any interest in reviewing extreme horror - and that was how I came to Bunnyman. It’s a movie I’d heard of, one of those titles that tend to stick with you after you’ve heard it, and I figured it was about time I got round to watching it. But of course this isn’t the original, oh no -- this is last year’s fresh re-edit, a sort of director’s cut to bring out the more grindhouse elements, including never before seen footage.

I’ll say up front - I’ve not seen that original take, so I won’t be comparing the two versions here. If you’re curious about the 2011 version, you’ll just have to check it out for yourself.

So, Bunnyman: Grindhouse Edition is the tale of a group of young adults off on a trip to… somewhere (they may have said, but the detail is lost on me now). As they drive through the desert they are attacked and rammed into by a truck, which forces them off the road and totals their car. Not good news, but there’s much worse yet to come, because from the truck emerges Bunnyman, a twisted serial killer created by a tortured childhood (as introduced to us in a gritty if slightly clumsy prologue).

And -- let’s not put too fine a point on it -- from there begins about every slasher movie you’ve ever seen. Lost in the landscape and desperate, the group turns on each other, unsuccessfully seeks to get help from disturbed locals, and basically drops like ninepins throughout the movie’s running time. The characters are broadly drawn, and are the fairly typical motley crew of jock guys and their girlfriends/would-be girlfriends. As such, it’s hard to be that invested in their travails throughout the movie. The Bunnyman concept is interesting, although could maybe have been explored more -- it’s actually a fairly familiar urban legend in parts of the US, but the movie doesn’t really bring that in or play with that particular concept.

Honestly much of the above I wouldn’t have minded that much, but there were two frustrating things. Firstly there was a sense of rather playing for time -- not just with intermissions and adverts (not hugely uncommon in grindhouse) but also overlong shots of characters doing simple things like walking and many scenes sort of pausing for a few seconds mid-action. It might not sound that egregious, but there’s a lot of it and it feels really unnecessary. There were also moments in the film that I think were meant to be funny but made no sense, in particular a scene where the characters’ speech is suddenly dubbed over in a thick Eastern European accent. Why? Maybe it’s been done elsewhere, but it was certainly lost on me.

The other thing that was a bit underwhelming was that the movie never really built on some of its best stuff -- the set-up on Bunnyman in the first five minutes is all we get, and I could have lived with plenty more psychology on the character. Throw in some interesting… erm… family dynamics at the end of the movie that are also rather squandered, and there is a lingering sense this could have been something rather more than it was.

RATING: 4/10. I feel like I’ve warmed a bit more to this movie since initially watching it, as there were elements I liked, but overall I just felt as though it tried too hard to present itself as a slice of grindhouse rather than it feeling natural. It just felt a bit showy and obnoxious on the whole. With that said, there are some fun and interesting scenes, and this certainly wouldn’t be the worst slasher movie you’re liable to see. I feel like there is a better movie in here itching to get out -- maybe it was the original, or the sequel Bunnyman Vengeance?