Saturday, December 19, 2009

Bloodsucking Freaks (1976)

Fear 0/5
Gore 2/5
Entertainment 2/5
Creepiness 3/5

Not sure what the poster has to do with the movie since the people shown are not in it, there's no head on a plate in it and no disfigured and bloodied Sloth type guy in it either. But hey, it got me to watch.

Instead, we have a a story that revolves around a guy named Sardus who's a cross between Christopher Guest in Waiting for Guffman and Anton LaVey. He, along with his midget assistant Ralphus ( 3 ' 7" - 4' 6" with the 'fro) spends his free time torturing and humiliating scores of naked, bushy crotched chicks until they become his slaves. At that point, he either sells them to some Eastern European guy with a backwards Hitler mustache or has Ralphus torture them on stage in one of his Grand Guignol performances. He winds up kidnapping a theater critic that loathes him and a blonde bimbo ballet dancer who puts on one of the worst acting performances on record. The blonde's pro-football player boyfriend (who lives in what appears to be an hourly rate Bowery hotel?) eventually starts tracking her down with the aid of a crooked and wildy combed-over cop.

So that's the story.

There's plenty of cheap torture scenes that, though low on actual blood and guts, still manage to make the viewer feel kind of icky. I think this mainly due to the overall cheapness of the film though. You know how The Ring has an overall grey tone to it - visually I mean? Or how The Sixth Sense uses the color red to indicate when something supernatural is about to happen? Well, here the overwhelming color is brown. The walls are brown, the clothes are brown - everything is brown. It's like watching a movie that was shot inside someones colon. So I think that has a lot to do with the grimy and filmy aftertaste you get from the movie.

Of course, the torture scenes help, as comical and tongue-in-cheek as they are. Thumb screws, nipple electrodes, drills into the brain, crucifixion, and cannibalism - it's a fun ride! I had read that the funding for the film was mainly from sources deeply involved in the NYC S&M scene and that makes sense, though it could just be a fun rumor. Regardless, that seems to be the intent of the movie - scoring more points for depravity than for horror.

Whether or not this is a good movie is a moot point. It's like asking if moonshine tastes good. The more important question is does it scare you, does it horrify you, does it offend you? Me personally, no, but the average viewer - say my mom - would be very disappointed that a) a movie like this exists and b) money exchanged hands to make it and view it. So in that sense, it's a triumph. But in terms of wanting to find an enjoyable movie to watch I guess it depends on the setting. Had I watched this with a bunch of like minded friends (and possibly while I was still in high school) I probably would have had a blast. Instead, I chose to watch it on netflix after having just watched Food Inc. The purpose of BSF for me was to allow me to fall asleep to something stupid that I wouldn't mind "missing".

I suppose it says something that I watched the whole thing despite how tired I was. Not sure what it is though.

- Complaint Dept

HorrorBlips: vote it up!


Eviltwin said...

folks give this movie a bad rap! but hey, i suppose its because it deserves it... lol...
hey, i made a stoopid 're-mix' trailer:

Cortez The Killer said...

That is hilarious! Brilliant

MarkusWelby1 said...

Troma at its finest. I'll always remember the midget assistant in this one. I need to pick this one up on DVD I hear Eli Roth does a commentary track.