Having been trawling the murky worlds of Film Gutter for the better part of five years, how on earth have I not come to look at Riki-Oh yet? This Hong Kong movie has a huge reputation as a cult movie, and also as one of the most violent films ever committed to screen at the time – quite possibly ever. It's based off an equally brutal manga, and has the distinction of being the first Hong Kong film to achieve the notorious Category 3 status for something other than sexual/erotic content. But how does this one stack up all these years on?

The year is 2001 – the far-flung future! – and private prisons are cesspools of corruption and gang warfare. Into this melee lands Ricky, a young man sent to prison for taking revenge on a crime lord for his heinous actions. But Ricky is no ordinary inmate – he's been trained by his uncle in martial arts and has not only incredible combat skills but also superhuman strength and resilience. It's not long until he finds himself the target of the Gang of Four, a quarter of kingpins who effectively run the prison along with the crooked governor. And so begins an absolute orgy of excess the likes of which you might never have seen, and are probably unlikely to see again.

Now don't get me wrong – I can see why this movie has achieved a cult status. For anyone who is big on martial arts movies, you'll probably get a kick out of this one (if you'll forgive the pun). The action itself comes thick and fast, and there's liable to be enough blood and guts to keep most gorehounds happy as well. But to be honest, this one does fall apart fairly quickly if you give it a close inspection. As such, it's important in many regards to switch your brain off before you hit play and just enjoy the crazy action for what it is – it's as much pure spectacle as it is an actual movie, a cavalcade of outrageous scenes filled with bonkers special effects and over-the-top violence. It's also fair to say that the English dub does this movie no favours at all – some of the voice performances are frankly ridiculous, and don't do anything to sheer away the slightly silly veneer that the film has.

Personally I wasn't a fan of this one. Any long-term readers will know that I'm not much of a fan of real gratuity in films, and Riki-Oh is gratuitous in spades. I also found it hard to overlook some of the logic holes that were featured in this one – I won't pick at those particularly here, because that is fairly spoiler-ish territory, but you'll certainly know then when you see them. My final criticism was in evidence in the very writing of this review, where more than once I wrote 'game' instead of 'film'. And that's the ultimate feeling – this would actually be a blinding good video game if anyone had ever turned their mind to making it, and there's a sense of climbing through the levels before finally meeting the boss at the end. And that will appeal to some, but it wasn't really to my taste.

RATING: 5.5/10. In my view, Riki-Oh is a mess. But it was based on a mess, and was only ever really meant to be a mess. In its way it's an entertaining mess, but I can't get over the fact it is (once again) a mess. The story jumps all over the shop, and the lead character is all but indestructible, which diminishes any tension. There's a level that you can get something out of it as a spectacle, but as an overall film I can only go a scooch above average at 5.5/10.

Dir. Matthew Eskandari/Michael Pierce, USA, 90 mins

Before we get into it – there are a lot of films that share this title, even in recent years. There were separate films on top of this called Victim and The Victim in 2011 alone, and of course the first movie to appear on IMDB being the famous 1961 offering directed by Basil Dearden with a wonderful central performance from Dirk Bogarde. Just to be absolutely clear, if you want to make sure you're watching the right movie, it's this one...
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0918575/

So, with that disambiguation completed, what of Victim? This is one of those movies that I knew absolutely nothing about ahead of time – just a pure stumble-across that sounded sort of interesting from its blurb – and I'd say in conclusion that I probably got more than I bargained for. In my experience, most films that I have found extremely upsetting come with a sort of reputation that proceeds them. There may well have been more graphic and gory films I've seen, but I can't think of that many that have felt more genuinely distressing than this one. The opening credits themselves are a sort of Lucifer Valentine ‘lite’ – I'm thinking in particular of Perfect Child of Satan for the LV enthusiasts out there – and set a fairly unpleasant tone.

We then meet our unnamed lead, a young man who is established as something of a smooth operator (or at least someone who fancies himself that way) before he gets attacked and kidnapped. He awakes to find himself in a basement prison cell, trapped by a sinister surgeon by the name of Dr. Volk and his henchman Mr. George. At first it's slightly unclear of what their intentions are, but as the film wears on things grow ever more apparent – they want to break this young man, make him forget his past and his roots, and turn him into a woman against his will through surgery and psychological measures. It turns out that he's effectively going to become a proxy replacement for Volk's daughter Rachel, although as the plan nears completion the web of police and detectives closes in...

The concept of not naming – and barely establishing – the ‘Victim’ of the title is an interesting choice, and one of those things that could go either way as a viewer. You could easily argue it makes it harder to feel real empathy or sympathy or alternatively you could land on the other side and say that ‘blank slate’ makes him feel like an everyman, and that this is something that has the potential to happen to anyone.
 
Now I don't want to say the film is perfect, and in fact there were bits of this that almost – almost – broke my suspension of disbelief. There are moments of acting that feel a little off-point, but there's a definite grittiness and griminess to this movie that does demand and hold your attention. It's so bleak and unremitting it put me in mind of something like a Megan is Missing – the whole central conceit is so f***ed up it's hard for it not to hit home to some extent. I could certainly get why some people wouldn't like it, because if you don't feel able to go with that conceit then Victim is liable to pass you by. But if you accept its dark heart and immerse yourself, this movie is bound to stay with you for some time despite its flaws.

RATING 7/10. I’ve thought long and hard about what to rate this one. There was a lot I liked – or maybe ‘respected’ is a better word for such a grim feature – but there are enough flaws for me to knock it down at least a few marks. With that said, I can certainly see this one dividing opinion – something the briefest scan of IMDB reviews backs up. There are elements of this that a viewer will either go with or they won’t, and those things will most likely be what determines your own view of this movie. For me this was dark, horrible filmmaking that is bound to leave you with a could hanging over you, at least for a little while, and for all those reasons I’m landing on 7/10.
​

I'll be honest from the get-go – this review is purely me indulging myself, and I'm not even going to make any apologies for that. Those of you who have been long-time readers might remember just how much I raved about the extended version of this one back in March of 2016 (you can check out that review at https://gingernutsofhorror.com/film-gutter/excision-2012 if you fancied taking a look) and it's been on my mind for a while to take a look back at the short film that inspired it in the first place. In these instances where it goes 'short first, longer second' it's always fascinating to compare and contrast the two, so I was pretty excited to check this one out.

Excision certainly follows the plot of its longer cousin, although it doesn't have any of the actors and actresses involved in common. Tessa Ferrer plays the lead role of Pauline here – and does it well, but differently, coming across a little more rational than the darker display that Annalynne McCord gives in the 2012 take. That’s quite a significant difference, but I feel as though both work just fine. Pauline's younger sister Grace lives with cystic fibrosis, which dominates much of the family's life, leaving Pauline feeling awkward and left out very often. Pauline has an obsession with surgery, which also bleeds into some very strange sexual dreams that inhabit her sleeping hours. And it's that obsession that leads her to a dark and dramatic conclusion to cure her sister once and for all...

As a short piece in its own right, it's very effective, and there are certainly areas where this feels like an advance on its longer incarnation. It has a slightly 'found footage' feel that works really effectively, and the soundtrack is also very good. It's another very strong lead performance, as previously mentioned, although some of the other acting displays around her don't match up to the feature-length version – Traci Lords in particular seems to be an advance on the mother in this take, and while Carly Hobson is serviceable as Grace the character itself just isn't as developed here. The hints of what Pauline has in mind throughout are subtly dropped, and the opening scene for me has a great impact and sets the tone for the whole piece. Where it feels like a slight downgrade is in the dream sequences, which are realised with a strange golden quality rather than the clean, clinical look of the movie – in my mind it just better suits the milieu of Excision.

Without knowing the story, it's hard to know exactly why Ferrer didn't get the role in the feature-length – based on this I wouldn't have said that she needed replacing, although Annalynne McCord's performance has plenty of merit too. There may have been any number of reasons for that, but you wonder how different things could have been. I don't think it's a matter of McCord having more name value – she had some credits, but nothing much to give her a serious star power to amplify the movie's visibility.

If you liked the original, this is well worth a look as an item of curiosity. However if you want to get what I would consider the true experience of this story I would suggest the feature film, ultimately because it explores things more deeply and gives more basis and more gravitas to what is definitely an interesting story.

RATING: 8/10. Lots to enjoy here, and a really intriguing, truncated version of what is a story I've always loved – it remains one of my favourite horror features of all time, and this is very good without quite reaching those same heights here. There is plenty that is as good, even a handful of things that might be a touch better, but enough that seems a downgrade to rate this a bit less highly than its extended cousin. So 8/10 seems like a very fair rating for this one all told.

Dirs. Jill Gevargizian, Christopher G Moore, Andy Stewart, USA, 71 mins

A lot of extreme horror viewers, like myself, are very much drawn to or susceptible to being 'dared'. Many times I've gone out of my way to find the most disturbing and most extreme movies I can, and many of them in their language imply that 'you shouldn't watch it', or 'you can't handle i't. To which many will invariably say 'bring it on' and tune in not despite of it, but because of it. So when you float a title like Watch if You Dare there's no doubt that you're trying to attract those kind of viewers. And attract me it did, with not only the title but its promise of being one of the most disturbing films of the year. That's certainly fighting talk – but does this one deliver?

Watch if You Dare is constructed of four short horror films. I hesitate to call it a portmanteau because there's very little to actually tie the films together – the segues are fairly generic horror shots, and we don't have any sort of host or framing device to make it feel coherent. With that said, this one isn't terrible, it just isn't awesome either.

We kick off with The Stylist, which funnily enough we have previously reviewed here and rather enjoyed (you can check out the original piece here if you'd like to take a look). It remains a fine short film, and if anything I feel as though I enjoyed it more this second time around – the ending felt as though it had more impact, and while there remains not a huge amount of substance it's got style and ambition, both of which are things I like. I was really pleased to see that director Jill Gevargizian has just conducted a successful Kickstarter for a feature film of this one, so it'll be fascinating to see how this one plays out in the extended format. I feel as though it'll give some more scope to explore the background and character, which should add plenty.

Following that is Ink, a dark and bleak little British piece following a serial killer who targets people with tattoos, determined to take the ink of their skin and stitch it onto his own. There are some grim scenes, and something to like about the idea, but it doesn't really feel very conclusive. There's simply not enough character motivation here – why can the character not just get a tattoo done himself? – and in the end it's just a bit slight despite the good gore effects on display.

Then comes The Foodies, which follows a chef and a restaurateur who are invited to a special evening called Kitchen X. At this event they're joined by wine connoisseurs, food bloggers, specialist butchers and more besides. Of course it's not long before things go distinctly south, and I'd love to tell you it's startling original but it's really not. It has a few funny moments, but ultimately it looks pretty cheaply made – there's some terrible ADR as well – and with this running the longest of the four pieces it does feel like it holds things down a little.

The final piece of the quarter – Knob Goblins – is the shortest of the four, and it's hard to say a huge amount about it really. The title probably tells you most of what is going to happen, and even as a gag that doesn't run for that long it still misses the mark.

RATING: 4/10. Rating this sort of movie is not always easy, because it's sort of a matter of rating each individually and then coming up with something that seems to epitomise it as an overall experience. I think it's held back somewhat by the lack of a linking device, making it feel more like a random short film showcase than a complete entity. I think one of the other problems is the ordering – it feels like you start off with the strongest piece, then it's all gradually downhill towards the end, leaving a slightly unsatisfying feeling. Maybe with a different running order it could have been a 5, but as it stands 4/10 feels about right.

It's one of those great little pleasures in life when a film lands in your inbox, and rarely moreso than when that film happens to be the new movie from Kasper Juhl. His slice of extreme arthouse, Your Flesh, Your Curse, remains one of my favourite films of recent times (although it is still a deeply hard watch), so when Manebrand arrived I was pretty excited. No doubts that a film like YF,YC would be a hard act to follow, but I was heartily intrigued to see what this director would offer up in this more recent offering.

Manebrand is a very different sort of movie, following the disturbed life of siblings Valdemar and Alex. They seem to have next to no responsibility and spend most of their life drinking, partying and taking drugs, as well as throughout most of the movie seeming to share a strange, almost sexual tension between them. The two of them go so far as to hire prostitutes together before verbally and physically abusing them in a couple of distinctly uncomfortable scenes. However this dark, cyclical existence is broken when Valdemar starts to date Rebekah, with Alex's jealousy and desire for her brother's girlfriend twisting things in a darker direction than ever before.
 
This one feels like more of a very bleak drama than a horror movie, but there are certainly lots of moments that are unpleasant and distinctive enough to leave an impression. However this one for me is messy in the narrrative sense, and doesn't really move forward in much of a linear fashion. You could level the same at Your Flesh, Your Curse, but that sort of bizarre dreamscape was better suited to that non-traditional structure. The performances are certainly committed, and contribute to a handful of powerful moments, and Juhl's skills as a director remain beyond doubt.

The other thing that holds this one back for me is that I didn't really feel as though the characters are as well-developed as they could be – it's apparent from frame one that the pair of them are pretty messed up, but there's never really much to ever explain why. The opening text seems to give a hint, but it's never really backed up throughout the film, so the actions and interactions feel as though they are somehow lacking the background needed to really make the maximum impact. There are one or two scenes that feel a little out of place, and never get fully explained throughout the duration of the movie.
 
I wouldn't call this one a mis-step, and it's possible my expectations of the director are a bit too high after some previous offerings. It's a good solid effort, but it also leaves a sense that there could have been something better here that slightly got left behind – with more solid backdrop and character development this could have been absolutely stunning, but as it is it falls into good rather than anything above that.

RATING: 7/10. Kasper Juhl certainly remains a director to watch, and continues to purvey a brutal, dark and impactful style in his movies. This one has flashes of great stuff, but the message is somewhat muddled in a confusing, sometimes meandering narrative and some broad character development. It's certainly worth a look for those that like their drama very harsh and abrasive, but there needed to be a little something more to this one to really reach the absolute heights Juhl has achieved before.