Why was this banned?


I just saw this movie last night for the frist time. I frist heard about this movie a while ago on the salo board and I was interested in seeing it due to its supposed graphic nature.Now I know this proboly the wrong reason to see a movie but I usally enjoy dark graphic movies with uneasy subject matter(in glass cage,I stand alone,Irreversable).Anyway after watching this movie last night I came away a bad tase in my mouth I thought overall that the acting was pretty good,however I think that the plot and the(spoller?)killer's motive was a little weak.but what really suprised me was the fact that I did'nt really find the movie shocking in the least I don't know maybe I am just desenseitized to everything but what was really shocking about this film? I know he was being tourtured but you never really see anything that brutal or distugting she makes him(Spoller) piss himself,cuts his hand and drops a little blood on his hand,Anally rapes him(that one's is the worst IMHO),sticks his hand into a microwave and drop maggots on his wounded head and finally proforms sugery on him(that's pretty tame you don't really see anything)and cuts his neck.I know that these are all terrible things but I think I was excepting more I know they had a very limited buget so shooting a lot of gore was most likely out of the question.But in the end I think that if the movie overall had been better I would'nt be coplaning about the lack of gore. but why was it banned I seen more violence on cable tv

out

"Intolerance is evidence of impotence" Aleister Crowley

reply

He didn't have his throat slit, he was strangled with a cord. The film was probably banned because there was no cliche'd suggestion of victory of good over evil. Anyone returning home alone after a nights prowl should pop this video on and they'll no longer be grumbling over not getting lucky.

reply

yeah your right about the neck thing. sorry

"Intolerance is evidence of impotence" Aleister Crowley

reply

I saw clips of this movie on a show called 'Banned in the UK' and it thoroughly disturbed me (the bits with the anal rape, and the skeletons & dismembered penises behind the curtain).

What actually happened in the rest of the story (ie the beginning, other story bits etc)? There seems to be quite a cast.

reply

Yeah, saw the same show and decided to D/load it...

in fact only the first 2/3 minutes take place OUTside of the darkened
room, the rest of the film being a (very) slow climax to the end.

I normally burn the movies I get but not this one.
Watch it once for curiosity sake but I think you would be struggling
to get much more from it.

Im all for low-budget independant films but the lack of finance in this one
really lets down the atmosphere...the intermittent titles throughout are gaudy and tacky detracting from the darkness of the scenes. What real "gore" there is fleeting and unconvincing and the plot itself seems somewhat ad-libbed.

Not to say its a BAD film though, give it a go, but i think after seeing "Banned in the UK" you will be slightly dissapointed and bemused at the lack of any real graphic violence/gore.

reply

i tried to get the movie by all means but unfortunately i failed. i wanted to soo much to see how a woman is portrayed in such terrible tortures by playing the torturer. could anyone plz tell me how she tortured the guy. i mean what ways she used, did she cut his pinus, his tongue?, could anyone plz tell me in a short answer so i would know to what extent the movie carried female sadism.

reply

you sound like this really turns you on katoga2002

reply

yes it do turns me on :)

reply

Well, I could direct you to a link where you could download the entire piece free of charge - but, first & with all due respect, I guess you need some serious treatment.

cheers, s., san sebastian.

reply

[deleted]

well, lots of men gets sexually aroused by movies depicting violence on women and the answer is usually that it's just a fantasy, and then the freedom of speech stuff and so on.
It is pretty evident that in horror/gore movies victimes are often sexy, half-naked women who get tortured in all ways and this to please the eye of the heterosexual male viewer.
So what's wrong with a woman dismembering a man and a male viewer who gets excited by it? .. specially when you think that physicial and sexual abuse from men to women is by far much, much more present in real life than the opposite.

reply

...It wasn't actually banned. Tartan were paying the production money in weekly installments to complete the film when they ran out of money. Somebody from Tartan approached the BBFC and asked them what the chances of receiving an 18 rating for the movie were and, based on a verbal description of the content, were told that it was unlikely. At this Tartan pulled the financing which meant that they struggled to get the film finished as the three backers had already spent their entire student loan on the film.

Not sure how accurate this ifo is as it was told to me back in 1995 and I'm quoting from memory but that is what Ray Brady told me.

It is entirely possible that it was banned after this though.

"Never eat yellow snow"

reply

Should have been banned for being a steaming pile of dung.

Hey Witchdoctor, give us the magic words.
ooh ee ooh ah ah, ting tang wallawallabingba




reply

[deleted]

If it was two men torturing a woman I'm sure it would have been banned.

reply