Run! Bitch Run!

Unnecessary homage.

It's no secret the exploitation genre is a collection of great ideas reworked over and over, and it's for that reason we don't usually review exploitation films from decades later than the 90's, where the last bullets of the genre were shot.Today's entry is the directorial debut of Joseph Guzman, a man who is better known for his second film Nude Nuns With Big Guns which we reviewed some years ago. 

 

Run! Bitch Run! is an attempt to bring back the rape & revenge sub genre which is perhaps the most gruesome film style you can watch even today. In the 70's things were a lot looser in censorship, and creativity, specially in the sexploitation field, was obsessed with displaying the most violent & sleazy side of mankind. The gore genre is nothing compared to movies like I Spit On Your Grave, The Last House On The Left, Thriller: A Cruel Picture, Ms. 45 and a long list of flicks considered as cult items today. Fortunately, for the untrained eye, Run! Bitch Run! it's a lot lighter than some of the previously mentioned films, and it's nowhere near the quality and originality the earlier had. 

 

Good ol' chatolic girls.

Good 0l' pervs.

Speaking of homage, Guzman is neither Quentin Tarantino, nor Robert Rodriguez, so instead of delivering an hour and half of pure tribute vibes, we get the exact opposite: a film that seems forced all the time. Even the great funky guitars from the music score sound as if they were pushed way too far to make us believe this wasn't a 2009 film, but one from the 70's. The whole overall feeling you get from watching this film is that making a B-movie/exploitation film isn't as easy as people usually think, and Guzman cleary took everything for granted when filming this forgettable homage attempt.

 

Anyway, let's set critics aside (remember, you watch it, you decide whether it's good or bad, our opinion is just that, a mere opinion in a world of Mrs know it all) and let's get down to business.

Catholic & loaded!

Get a load of this!

So, Run! Bitch Run! is about two Catholic girls (Cheryl Lyone as Catherine, and Christina Derosa as Rebecca) that sell Bibles  for a living. Predictably enough, they knock on the wrong door and get brought into a world of drugs, violence and prostitution. Soon, it becomes apparent that they probably will not survive, at least in one piece.

The film opens up with three couples fucking, two people taking bong hits and a murder scene. So the first five minutes really set the overall tone for the rest of the film.

The word that describes this film is either "nudity" or "exploitation" because it is both of these and nothing more. Within ten minutes, we see a fully nude Catholic girl, some naked nuns, gratuitous nudity on characters who do not even factor into the plot, and more. The nudity pretty much never stops, and considering this is a sexploitation flick where nudity & sex are supposed to play a key role in the plot, this simply doesn't happen. Everything is gratuitous and just because. Disappointing, cause this can mislead exploitation newcomers into thinking this is what this genre is all about, but believe you me, there's more than meets the eye!

 

A very christian girl.

 

Is that cum on her face?

This is a low budget picture, with the expected video and sound. The closest to any stars this picture has is the kid from Rob Zombie's "Halloween". The budget is not the big problem, though -- it is the plot. We have about 80% "I Spit on Your Grave" (without the graphic content that made this film so disgustingly famous) and 20% "Last House on the Left". There is practically nothing original about this film, aside from maybe the use of a plunger for masturbating.

The acting is below average as expected in the genre. Every actress with starring roles here, never worked in the film industry again and maybe the only thing that made this film known to a certain extent, it's the good publicity it had promising a return to the daring filming of the 70's. 

Poor little girl...

...helpless in the woods.

What makes this film a total meh, is the fact that the revenge sub plot is so brief, that you don't really care about what's happening to our lead heroine anymore. The film has little to no graphic violence, and the whole set of characters offered is one dimensional and due to budget issues (I guess?), they never get any chance for developing their personalities or sort of, explain why they do what they do. 

 

Again, this genre is usually unfairly bashed, but Run! Bitch Run! clearly deserves to be considered an insult to a genre with millions of followers around the world. Movies are not made just because, we expect a story to be told, appealing, or at least,  characters we learn to care about throughout the film's running time. Nothing like that happens here, so if you skip it, you're not missing much. 

 

Sleeping slutty beauty.

C'mon! just one more anal!

Positively, for the film maker, his skills were vastly improved in 2010 with the one film I'd recommend from him: Nude Nuns With Big Guns. Another, rape & revenge film, only this time, nothing was taken for granted and every mistake made in Run! Bitch Run! was properly dealt with in order to deliver a movie that people can actually care about watching. 

Overall, a film that is neither for connoisseurs of the genre nor for newbies, yet this film could be watched by untrained eyes as the rape part is treated very lightly compared to other films from the past, and maybe that's a good thing because rape is just too much. The T & A show is not that good either, so if you've really watched every good exploitation film there is, you may want to try this just for the fun of it. 

Here's the movie trailer:

Bad Biology

Old school sexploitation in the 21st century.

Frank Henenlotter is a well known film maker among trash cinema fans. Proud creator of bad taste classics like Basket Case (1982), Brain Damage (1988) & Frankenhooker (1990), returned to the film making industry (and to the 21st century) in 2009 with Bad Biology, today's film in deep review. 

If you're not familiar with Mr. Henenlotter's work, I can tell he grew up watching B-movies and obviously, all his films are trashy enough to be considered a fair homage to other B-movie directors. 

Meet Jennifer...

...and Batz.

Bad Biology is the story of a man and a girl that are obsessed with their sexual lives. However, their obsession goes beyond the limits of what's usual. Jennifer (Charlee Danielson) is a blonde sex machine born with 7 clitorises! So, in order to keep her orgasm appetite attune, she spends her days working as a photographer. Her interest is obviously finding men who can keep up with her mutation.  While on the other side of town, Batz (Anthony Seeds) a young loner who was born with a super sized junkie penis, struggles to find a cure and lead a normal life. If you're still reading this, I'm sure you will have a good laugh watching this 85 minute sexploitation horror film.

Obviously, this film, and any Hennenlotter film for that matter, are not for the faint of heart or easily scared type. While the films portrays the sexual adventures of a soon to be couple, there's nothing arousing about the sex parts. In addition, the most violent scenes are closely related to the sexual mind state of both Jennifer & Batz.

Jennifer is a 24/7 cum machine!

She collects the most useful toys.

The acting is predictably terrible, as it usually is in a Henenlotter movie, the script is alternately amusing,sexy and crude, and in the special effects department, it clearly shows off it's limited budget to great effect, nonetheless connoisseurs know this is part of the signature film making of Mr. Hennenlotter.

The gore on display is limited and most of the more horrific acts are actually played out with a streak of black humor running through them. In fact, the majority of this movie is more comedy than horror but there are certainly some disturbing moments among the levity.

Jennifer at work.

Jennifer's latest art installation: Pussy face.

Plot wise, if we are OK with weird science, the story is the best part of the film by far. Jennifer's story is that of a desperate person, looking forward to satisfy her strange mutation, and sometimes, or most of the time, she goes way too far to get what she wants. Pleasing 7 clitorises is clearly a gigantic task that requires men that do not exist even in the universe of the film. Besides, her side effect is what adds some of the creepiest moments to her story. Then, there is Batz, a shy man who's clearly living a painful life that has led to a never-ending obsession to find a cure to his weird mutation: a giant penis that can communicate with Batz' brain whenever it requires more drugs to stop sexual desire. Whenever Batz runs out of drugs, his penis instantly takes him into a painful trip. 



Jennifer is clearly the happier one of the odd couple. I mean, she's a beautiful blonde who can get laid whenever she wants, and seems to not give a flying fuck about the constant consequence that haunts her sexual escapades. Batz, on the other hand, is running away from the social world, and his only friends are a bunch of lifeless junkies, but concerning a sexual life, he is too aware he is a living danger to any woman near him.

it's hard to find men to satisfy her appetite.

Cunnilingus to 7 clitorises must be a hell of a job.

Amongst the true die-hard fanatics of trashy grindhouse exploitation/horror cinema, a select but loyal alliance of which I'm a proud member, the comeback of writer/director Frank Hennenlotter was pretty much of one the most anticipated events of the new millennium. The legendary director hadn't made any films since the disappointing sequels to his classic "Basket Case" in the early 90's. It may have taken Hennenlotter 16 years to direct another film, but he certainly hasn't lost his sense of tastelessness yet. Quite the contrary, I'd say, "Bad Biology" is probably the trashiest and most lurid film in many years. Not bad for a nearly 60-year-old director who hasn't been active in all those years.

Although I overall really enjoyed my viewing of "Bad Biology", I can't say it was the successful return feature that I wanted it to be. The film contains a handful of terrific basic ideas (like the mutant babies) and some hilarious sequences (throbbing penis penetrates walls), but the wholesome feels somewhat too forced. Hennenlotter tries a little too hard to demonstrate that he is still his old sick-in-the-head self or even that he has become even more perverted during his absence. The main storyline, appropriately described in the tagline as "one god-awful love story" is too thin and Hennenlotter doesn't succeed in holding the viewer's attention until the ending. The wannabe blackly comical jokes and situations often miss their effect and the script is actually at its funniest when reverting to blunt and tasteless images, like a POV shot from inside a vagina or the sight of a man wrestling with his own penis. "Bad Biology" is gory enough to satisfy trash-lovers, with some stupendously over-the-top and gratuitous make-up effects and crazy scenery. 

Nudity is cheaper by the dozen on this film.

This girl is about to cum forever after.

Even at barely 85 minutes of playtime, the film contains quite a lot of pointless padding footage, like a couple of teenagers discussing legendary porn star John Holmes in a snack bar and a couple of crack-addicted junkies arguing to each other. All the players were amateurs with zilch experience, so I guess the acting – albeit very bad – could even have been a lot worse. I'm glad Hennenlotter returned, and I enjoyed his bonkers film a lot more than I enjoyed the nowadays overload of remakes and stupid teen slashers, but regretfully his comeback isn't the trash-triumph it could have been. 

A hard one to recommend but fans of Henenlotter shouldn't really find too much to complain about here. It may not be a return to his top form but it IS a return and, for that at least, we should be grateful.

See this if you like: Frankenhooker, Brain Damage, Pervert!

Hey Batz! wanna cum on my tits?

Hope I don't die swallowing!

 Here's the movie trailer, and remember, keep it classy & trashy! 

 

300

This is Sparta!

Zack Snyder began his filming career in 2004 with the Dawn of the Dead remake. Previously he had worked as a videoclip director taking his work back to the early 90's with one of the hottest number of the decade Soul Asylum. Today, he's part of the elite hatred online league lead by Nickelback & Michael Bay, but is it fair to consider every work he's done a piece of crap just because? Certainly not. Snyder brought Superman back from shame with Man of Steel in 2013 and to this day he's the head of the DC expanded universe (not cinematic in order to avoid more trolling from Marvel fanboys) The results are mixed and this is clearly not the place to tell you what you have to think. it's a free world and we all can be thinkers deciding by ourselves. 

300 is the second film Snyder directed and like Dawn of the Dead is based upon somebody else's work: Frank Miller's graphic novel of the same name. Obviously, Miller has an extended resume of excellent stories, all of which could be transfered into the big screen by capable hands. Back in 2005 Robert Rodriguez & Quentin Tarantino produced and directed Sin City, the comic book blockbuster of the year, also based upon Frank Miller's work. Later in 2006 Snyder would try his rendition of 300 and Miller himself would direct The Spirit in 2008 while Rodriguez would direct Sin City 2 in 2014. Yes, Frank Miller has stories good enough for the big screen...

a mountain of corpses.

A now legendary kick.

Now, let's get down to business:

300 is the definition of what makes Zack Snyder, Zack Snyder: 116 minutes of pure styled action scene visuals. Back then in 2007, the movie spectacular visual effects were compared to The Matrix trilogy (not reviewed here for strange reasons) for its innovative and creative approach.  

Plotwise the story takes place In the Battle of Thermopylae of 480 BC an alliance of Greek city-states fought the invading Persian army in the mountain pass of Thermopylae. Vastly outnumbered, the Greeks held back the enemy in one of the most famous last stands of history. Persian King Xerxes lead a Army of well over 100,000 (Persian king Xerxes before war has about 170,000 army) men to Greece and was confronted by 300 Spartans, 700 Thespians, and 400 Thebans. Xerxes waited for 10 days for King Leonidas to surrender or withdraw but left with no options he pushed forward. After 3 days of battle all the Greeks were killed. The Spartan defeat was not the one expected, as a local shepherd, named Ephialtes, defected to the Persians and informed Xerxes that the separate path through Thermopylae, which the Persians could use to outflank the Greeks, was not as heavily guarded as they thought.

Leonidas, the hero.

Xerxes, the bad motherfucker.

This film isn't for all people. That's to say about a lot of movies in general of course, but this one in particular brings up a big clashing point between critics; What do we want to see in our movies? What is more important, to portray a fictional setting for the sake of giving people a mind blowing visual experience or to amuse and amaze them with clever plot twists and intelligent dialogs?

First lets analyze what exactly this film is made of. Basically, the whole thing is just one epic fighting scene after another. Most noticeably is the camera work and the visual effects. Every shot seems like it was intended to be a work of art. The colors, the characters, the costumes, the backgrounds... every little detail has been given so much attention. During the big fights you'll also instantly notice the unique editing. There are a lot of "time slowdowns" throughout the battles which show what exactly is happening. Fatal wounds that slowly leak blood spatters in the air, decapitated heads traveling in slow-motion across the screen... it's all there. 

The story on the other hand isn't very complicated, in the sense that the whole movie could probably be described in a sentence or two. The dialogs are simple and most often talk about moral values like freedom and honor. If you would look at the script, it would probably look like another movie that has nothing more to offer then idealistic visions of how life should be.

a strong queen.

a future X-Men.

Reviewers of this title were mixed back then and maybe they're less mixed now that comic book films became a respectable genre in the industry of movies. However, I feel reluctant to take a position in this kind of argument. Normally it's tolerable to weigh out both sides of this matter to result in a fair judgment about a movie. Not in this one. On the one hand the visual are surely among the best to be witnessed in a movie. Every detail, every background, every special effect set to the scenes are so mindblowingly stunning. On the other hand the plot and dialogs are of the most simplistic and quite frankly dumb kind. "I fight for freedom! I'd rather die in honor then live in shame!" Sounds familiar? 

Of course it could be debated that this movie was never intended in the first place to have a unique plot that makes your head spin. But from an objective point of view it's still lacking in this department, so it should be noted.

Now that's fine and all, but does that all make of the film? Is it still worth watching (in case you haven't) or what? I think it is. For me the good outweighs the bad by miles. From the second the movie starts it grabs you by the balls (or pussy) and doesn't let go. Every battle, every scene of the movie and even every campy dialog compels you to watch it until the end without any distractions (you know, smartphones, food, etc) 

Evil Persians!

Fantastic action scenes.

I did not one single moment felt like the movie lacked anything. But I could imagine why other people did.

So here's the deal.

If you are easily impressed by beautiful landscapes, wonderful camera-work and editing and powerful acting then go see this. Right. Now. You'll be missing out if you don't. There is so much to see, so much power in the way this comic is translated to the big screen... It'll leave you in awe.

However, if you are looking for a good story, clever plot twists, some innovating to the world of the movies then skip this. 300 contains nothing of this, nor does it wants to give you this. In addition, this film is based upon a graphic novel, and a very graphic one I might add. Just like watching Sin City, 300 delivers a page by page live action version of Frank Miller's pen & ink.

Tits oracle.

Spartans do love.

I enjoyed this movie so much when it came out that I even bought the DVD (on clearance), but I know there will be people that will pass anything Snyder as rubbish, and that's understandable. Just be sure to make up your mind about what you want to see when you go to the theater yourself instead of being drawn into bias by the tons of reviews, bad publicity and Marvel fanboys out there. 

PS: This movie had its own prequel in 2014, 300 Rise of the Empire, based upon the unpublished works of Frank Miller. The film features hottie starlet Eva Green! Maybe well' review it sometime. Now, what's next? oh yeah! the film that turned Snyder into a full time superhero film director: Watchmen!

Here's the movie trailer:

Giallo a Venezia: Mystery in Venice

Not as bad as they say.

If our previous entry was all about making a movie with class, today's entry is the complete opposite. By the late 70's the Giallo genre  was replaced by gory horror films, and even famous Giallo film makers had moved on into the new genre of graphic violence and demonic plots. However, director Mario Landi still believed the genre had plenty of potential to exploit, hence today's infamous film in review: Giallo a Venezia, AKA Mystery in Venice is a 1979 hard to find bizarre movie that according to other critics, is best enjoyed while high on drugs and drunk as fuck. 

Starred by Italian nude model & actress Leonora Fani, Giallo a Venezia, as the title already suggests, is a movie about a murderer in Venice. Before we get into details, let's say this movie was never released overseas, ever. During the 80's the only chance of watching it was by finding the bootleg VHS tapes circulating in some countries outside Europe. So for years, cult cinema fans had to deal with awful fan-subbed versions plus watching the movie in discolored stained  video quality, and let's not forget missing scenes and the worst tracking issues a VCR could face. Today, almost forty years after the theatrical release of this film, finding a VHS bootleg is impossible. Nevertheless, some bootleggers digitized the VHS and uploaded it somewhere on the internet. The problem is, that version is also nearly impossible to download, so what's left for those interested in watching this odd film? well, say no more friends! the film will finally get it's first official release ever!!!! and I'm not talking DVD, but pristine HD Blu Ray disc! Although there is no date yet, this link says it'll come to your nearest store by late 2016.Now, if your sleazy cravings are too high, you can watch a fan made remastered version of the film via YouTube (at the bottom of this read)

A mysterious dead couple is found.

Professionals are in the case.

Before we get into the full review of this odd cult film, let me tell you my fellow connoisseurs that a recent scientific research conducted by the Poetics journal has concluded B movie AKA thrash cinema viewers enjoy an above-average education due to being "cultural omnivores" interested in watching films that are not part of what's trendy or popular these days, what do you know? You can read more about the research here.  

Giallo a Venezia is seen as one of the ugliest and sleaziest giallos you could ever hope to see. Plot wise there is very little to say, but a few surprises by the end of the film saves it from being considered as a gratuitous softcore sex film. Anyways, two dead bodies are found at the edge of a canal in Venice. The police start asking friends of the late couple for clues, but as soon as they start their investigations, more dead bodies start piling up. What is the connection, and out of all the unsavory characters that appear on the screen, does any of them have a clear alibi (or conscience)?

Detective De Paul eats boiled eggs at work.

I'm here to tell you what I know about Flavia.

The dead couple are at the center of the plot, and the film consists of many flashbacks in which we see how the husband took pleasure in humiliating and sexually abusing his timid wife (something today's cinema standards couldn't possibly allow). The poor actress who plays Flavia (Leonora Fani) suffers the indignity of being stripped naked and roughed up in nearly every scene she appears. Worse still, her husband Fabio (Gianni Dei) is a fucking degenerate who forces her into orgies, having sex with unknown men in the streets and leaves her alone when she's about to cum. What a fucking prick! In addition, the sex scenes for every character in the movie are mostly about men forcing women into sex, so there is a darker tone implying women are abused up to the point they start enjoying it!! Obviously, a cinema cliché that didn't age well, and that is fortunately no longer used (unless, you're watching a porno) 
 
The sex scenes are 75% of the films running time! Other than that, we have to sit through the police force carrying out their investigations which is kinda boring, even with the running gag of the main inspector eating hard boiled eggs in every scene (why? who knows... It must be an Italian thing), and some half hearted attempts by director Mario Landi to spin a web of mystery around the proceedings. what makes this even more ridiculous is the fact that most of the sex scenes are flashbacks explained by people who knew the dead couple in order to, well, help with the investigation. "Yes, Mr. De Paul I think it's vital you know Flavia diddled her skiddle frequently and, oh! there was this one time she gave a handjob to a random adolescent passing by her place" 
 

Happy forever after?

You know, I haven't  cum yet Fabio.

So that just leaves ...the murders. And just as the director manages to make all the sex scenes ugly, violent towards women, unpleasant and graphic, Landi cuts no corners with the violence either. So prepare yourself for some very grim scenes of violence. Although the scenes are not dwelled on in loving detail like they are in a Lucio Fulci gore flick, they all seem to have a very nasty flavor to them. Scissor stabbings to the crotch and a human torch are two that spring to mind. Oh wait, did I say the gore is not dwelled on? Sorry I forgot the film's gore "highlight' in which victim has their leg sawed off while tied to the kitchen table. I have seen a lot of graphic gore but I found this intensely unpleasant. I think it's because it's just all sort of...thrown at you. No artistry to speak of, just events. Besides, the constant screaming of the actresses is really disturbing, I mean, you're like "oh fuck, they're abusing the character beyond good taste" My wife hated this film, mostly because of the way women are portrayed and treated, and I couldn't agree more. Nevertheless, we have to understand exploitation films are called that because they rely on elements that are usually either appealing or shocking to the audience, in order to make you leave the theater with a blatant "Fucking fuck! this film was bloody disgusting, I better tell my friends about it" Hence, this and many other movies ended up being classified as "video nasties" for ages to come. 

In today's world, where we're offended almost every minute of the day, making a movie like Giallo a Venezia would be completely impossible. This isn't the sleazy 70's anymore, and despite the fact I love music, fashion, series & movie from that decade, things have changed for the better. The way we see the world today, specially the way we see women today, is where we'd like to stay for sure. 

I'll do this myself.

Everyone is naked in their kitchens.

However, the plot isn't as bad as everyone on the internet has lead you to believe. Spoilers ahead (yeah right! in a 37 years old film!) The investigation is following a serial killer but, has found no connection whatsoever between the recent murders and the dead couple. The police tries everything, drug use, vengeance, cheating husbands, orgy clubs and simply cannot come up with the missing piece to solve the puzzle. Here's where Aldo Serio's script adds a touch of decency to the film. By the very end of the film, once detective De Paul has apprehended the serial killer (a philosophy student, what do you know?) they're revealed this blood craving fucker didn't kill the couple. So, the only chance left is a mysterious artist who paints murder art pieces very similar to the dead couple's crime scene. Well, guess what? he didn't kill them either! 

The thing is, to fully understand Mario Landi's vision on this film, you have to go through all the shocking scenes until the very end. Since Flavia was not a sex craving maniac, she never quite liked the way Fabio, his sick husband treated her, specially when it came to matters pertaining sex. She was constantly abused because this motherfucker liked watching her wife being fucked by other men. So, when he asks her to fuck a couple of random men, near the canal where the bodies were found, well, she can't avoid the abusive fucking but, once his husband is already turned on by what he just saw, she fucking stabs him several times until  he dies. She screams several times "I hate you, I'll kill you, I'll kill you"  Once she's done, she decides to commit suicide by drowning in the canal. So, in the end, like many other sexploitation films, the girl gets the revenge she deserves. 

Philosophy turns into a psycho.

Reflections of death.

The special effects are really poor, making the gory scenes a joke. The soundtrack is typical for the decade with some jazzy funky tunes written by Berto Pesano who is clearly an Ennio Morricone enthusiast. The scenery, displays the beauty of Venice in several scenes. The acting is nowhere near good, except for the roles played by women who clearly, portray the suffering of abusive men. 

Overall, a very sleazy film who's long gone for reasons. If you're OK with simulated violence toward women on film, you may find it worth watching. I for one, rate it a "meh" You can clearly tell, the producers tried too hard to rely only on exploitative scenes to come up with an entire movie.   

On a more positive side, here some photos of the beautiful Leonora Fani. We will be reviewing more of her films, just take a deep breath because her filmography has the word shocking all over.

Italian Bush.

Smoking kills, y'know.

There's no movie trailer to show here but some guy took the time to "restore" the VHS bootleg and uploaded it on YouTube: