The Most Disturbing Film Ever Made

[bloodyminded]

A grandiose title, I know, and dependent on one's subjective view of "disturbing."

Important prefatory remark: I do not recommend this movie. To anyone.

August Underground's Mordum, a title which I don't faintly understand, is part of a low-budget, but in a sense relatively high quality, bunch of straight-to-DVD films produced by Toe Tag Pictures out of Pittsburgh. It's the second in a trilogy.

I have not seen any of the company's other films, and I certainly don't intend to.

There are roughly three types of horror films:

1. The popcorn variety popularized by the overrated Scream and Friday the 13th franchises; these offer a certain amount of thrills and suspense (well, in intent anyway), but are no more about horror, or even murder, than are the generic action films. In fact, the method, style, and story are presented in such a way that the audience more or less cheers for the killers, providing that the conventional frisson occurs. Since there is no characterization (or at best rote, unimaginative characterization), we don't truly care what happens to the victims. So there is no genuine horror present.

2. The actual horror film, in which murder and torment are explored in a somewhat more naturalistic way; that is, the actions of the tormentors (human or supernatural) are displayed as...well, honestly horrific. Audiences don't side with the killers, or hope for gruesome deaths of the victims; audiences want the victims to live, to succeed, and we have ill will towards the villains, or sadness and despair at the sorry state of things. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a classic in this genre; and the French film l'interieur is for my money one of the best horror films ever made. The good ones of this type are visceral films that, like good movies generally, have something to say.

3. "Extreme" or "gonzo" horror films: these are what are commonly referred to as "exploitation films." Their point of existence is to repel and shock, often through imaginative uses of gore, as well as a pointed and sometimes clinical focus on human suffering. Most fail by standards of their own premise; they don't horrify in any profound way; they don't tell us much or anything about the darker perspectives of human existence and the violence inherent to nature (except, I suppose, by virtue of their very existence).

That's why the Saw movies, for example, are not scary; people who find them scary simply lack the self-education of having watched and thought about horror films. If this sounds like snobbery, consider people who think Twilight the pinnacle of the romantic drama, or The Day After Tomorrow as a superior action film. Similar measures apply to what are and are not good horror films. (No, of course it's not a science, and everyone disagrees on specifically what are and are not "good" movies...but everyone, uncontroversially, agrees there are "good" and "poor" genre movies.)

Now to the film in question here.

August Underground's Mordum is clearly a film in which the architects consciously chose to avoid any boundaries. If it has anything enlightening to offer, it's that I fully realized for the very first time how ubiquitous those boundaries are in movies, including in horror films.

There is really no plot. The "story" revolves around a woman, her brother, and her boyfriend, who are joint serial killers. The conceit is that it is a snuff film. This isn't a "found footage" movie; we are never outside the central conceit. There is no conventional editing, music soundtrack, artistic lapses in time and place to navigate for us the fact we are watching a fictional account. Thrust directly into the point of view of monstrous sickos, we are watching three people, depraved and vile even by serial murderer standards, filming their exploits just for kicks. The production values are truly terrible, which makes sense because it is filmed entirely on out-of-date videocam. But the acting is naturalistic, the special effects appear real.

Is the result a good movie or a bad one? That is perfectly unclear. I would say it's both; it's successful as a film in its own right...but I detested it.

I have never been so repulsed by a movie. My emotional response afterwards was one of disgust, and sadness. Seriously. So the movie is a "success" by the standards it plainly attempts. If it weren't done right, I think the disgust would be joined by shake-your-head laughter at how awful it was, and the whole thing would be eminently forgettable. But it isn't. I felt dirty, as if I had just watched the vilest and most depraved piece of pornographic excess around. I almost felt secretive about having watched it. It's that extreme, presented as it is as a snuff film.

I've watched more horror movies than I can remember, but this is the first one I've seen that is literally too much for me. I watched the whole thing in about forty minutes, because I felt compelled to fast-forward, again and again; not from boredom, but from revulsion.

After three-quarters of an hour of incest, dismemberment, rape, maggots, cruelty, sex with a disembowelled torso, vomit, a man forced to cut off his own penis in excruciatingly graphic detail, necrophilia in a dirty bathtub, feces, and infanticide...I've discovered that I have my limits.

I didn't know that about myself. Quite educational.

Do not watch this movie. It's worse than I'm making it sound, actually. It's not scary in a suspenseful way; it's scary in an existential way.

Edited July 13, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Oleg Bach]

If I a watching generak TV...and no the story is about to have a sad ending, I switch the channel or trun it off. This stuff about watching things that are even mildly disturbing are a bit to much for me - If I want to be disturbed I just think if myself - who is disturbed enough without artifical assistance through so called art...such as film - I knew a young film maker years ago..and he made a "slasher" film - because he was ambitious and really had no talent to speak of..give me something good to enjoy - by someone who has got something on the go...It takes brains to write good material - anyone can generate a horror movie - Much like Terantino ...who after working in a video store as a kid - watched a few thousand movies and borrowed a bit from each one - seeing the little jerk never had an original idea of his own...thanks for watching this distrubing film on my behalf - The cheque is in the mail.

[Michael Hardner]

Henry - Portrait of a Serial Killer. When I saw that one, there was a signed posted at the box office of the rep theatre stating 'no refunds'.

Cannibal Holocaust. Really unappetizing.

After I saw Saw, I decided I don't want to see Saw. Or Saw II-VI. I think that genre is done for me.

[Shwa]

Thanks for the review, I appreciate it and, after a brief look at some of the graphics the two 'August Underground' movies, I will happily avoid it. I prefer to be entertained, not disgusted and saddened.

A little disturbance is thrilling, my first viewing of Texas Chainsaw Massacre - the original back in the day - was like that. But I don't find being continually disturbed, sick or saddened to be entertaining at all.

I am a category 2 kind of guy.

[bloodyminded]

Henry - Portrait of a Serial Killer. When I saw that one, there was a signed posted at the box office of the rep theatre stating 'no refunds'.

I saw that movie, and I would place it in my (genralized, not totally accurate, and ignoring all the cross-pollination) "category 2." I think Henry is a very good movie. It is disturbing, yes, but we're talking two different worlds here, believe me.

Cannibal Holocaust. Really unappetizing.

Yes, it is. I would argue that Cannibal holocaust is also a pretty crappy movie.

After I saw Saw, I decided I don't want to see Saw. Or Saw II-VI. I think that genre is done for me.

Yeah, I don't think these are very impressive.

Edited July 13, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Thanks for the review, I appreciate it and, after a brief look at some of the graphics the two 'August Underground' movies, I will happily avoid it. I prefer to be entertained, not disgusted and saddened.

Yeah. I wasn't being playful; I genuinely do not recommend this movie.

A little disturbance is thrilling, my first viewing of Texas Chainsaw Massacre - the original back in the day - was like that. But I don't find being continually disturbed, sick or saddened to be entertaining at all.

I am a category 2 kind of guy.

Me too. That's where the quality lays, though admittedly it takes some sifting, as horror is full of incredible dreck. There's probably more crap in this genre than in the romantic comedy genre...no small achievement.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre is awesome. And while very disturbing, it is almost entirely free of the graphic gore that it has unaccountably become famous for. It's simply not a very bloody movie. I think it is so effectively dark and strange that people actually believe they have witnessed a ton of blood that isn't there.

(Similarly, apparently folks are convinced that in Scarface, you see limbs being hacked off with the chainsaw. But that's not true at all.)

Texas Chainsaw Massacre, most (not all) of the Night of the Living Dead movies, the Exorcist...these are good films. Also, like I said, a few recent French horror films, with their mixture of graphic horror, intelligence, and world-class production and acting talent...though they haven't really taken off on this side of the ocean for some reason. They are pretty unpleasant, it's true, but I'd categorize them in the "good" section, rather than the "exploitation" section.

Edited July 13, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Oleg Bach]

S L A S H ! entertained yet?

[bloodyminded]

S L A S H ! entertained yet?

As I said in the OP, no, that doesn't work for me.

[Oleg Bach]

As I said in the OP, no, that doesn't work for me.

How about an explosion or two - some blood splashed on the screen...a car rolling over - while someone is cheating on their husband who is really a male lesbian locked in a baboons body - who is actually an alien from space that eats only cockroaches?

[bloodyminded]

How about an explosion or two - some blood splashed on the screen...a car rolling over - while someone is cheating on their husband who is really a male lesbian locked in a baboons body - who is actually an alien from space that eats only cockroaches?

The right congruence of talents could make an excellent movie out of precisely that premise. And yes, I'm serious.

[bush_cheney2004]

...After three-quarters of an hour of incest, dismemberment, rape, maggots, cruelty, sex with a disembowelled torso, vomit, a man forced to cut off his own penis in excruciatingly graphic detail, necrophilia in a dirty bathtub, feces, and infanticide...I've discovered that I have my limits.

What's the big deal? In France...this is considered cinematic art!

Do not watch this movie. It's worse than I'm making it sound, actually. It's not scary in a suspenseful way; it's scary in an existential way.

OK....so it's just another poorly made film or do you have issues with the subject matter?

[bloodyminded]

What's the big deal? In France...this is considered cinematic art!

I have seen four contemporary French horror films. Two are outstanding--the equal of any produced in America during its horror heyday (the 1970's, in my humble opinion). One is mediocre; one sucked big time.

But the sucky one (Haute Tension) is still admired by horror fans, a notoriously easy-to-please and low-expectation kind of group.

OK....so it's just another poorly made film or do you have issues with the subject matter?

Subject matter all the way. Content.

If it were truly poorly made, I would not have had the same visceral response to it.

Edited July 13, 2011 by bloodyminded

[dre]

Im addicted to really silly B horror movies. Love every bad zombie movie ever made...

As far as the really disturbing stuff, its always the most real movies. I saw a graphic movie about spousal abuse that made me feel pretty ill.

[bloodyminded]

Im addicted to really silly B horror movies. Love every bad zombie movie ever made...

I guess that's another category I forgot to mention (such categorizations can expand exponentially, into sub-categories and what have you): silly B horror movies, some of them intentionally ridiculous.

I enjoy them too.

[bush_cheney2004]

...But the sucky one (Haute Tension) is still admired by horror fans, a notoriously easy-to-please and low-expectation kind of group.

But there is an audience for "sucky" films, made even more popular by greater access than ever before. Use to be you had to go to the drive-in theatre or listen to the clatter of a 16mm/8mm film projector!

Subject matter all the way. Content.

If it were truly poorly made, I would not have had the same visceral response to it.

OK...tastes vary, and shock flicks like this have to try harder than ever. It's like George Carlin said about "tits" and word censorship on television....consensual "incest" doesn't even belong on the list of taboos anymore.

There is a wonderfully disgusting film available from Netflix called Anatomy of Hell (2004). It's a typical French artsy adventure into the depths human depravity, complete with the obligatory religious contrast of Jesus on a crucifix that another member referred to in another thread. Thing is, we have already seen these "disgusting" elements before...in bigger and better films (e.g. Exorcist).

Maybe I'm just jaded by experience in such fare, but nothing really shocks me any more. Snuff flicks, bestiality, urinating on victims, invertebrates in body cavities, beheadings, vivisections, etc. are no big deal....not even in 3D.

[bloodyminded]

But there is an audience for "sucky" films, made even more popular by greater access than ever before.

Of course. Isn't that clearly implied in what I wrote?

No doubt some of the movies I like would too be considered pure trash by many people.

But I still think High Tension is mostly garbage, albeit with a few excellent scenes of suspense. Exactly what people like about the film is done much better in multiple other movies.

OK...tastes vary, and shock flicks like this have to try harder than ever.

Absolutely.

It's like George Carlin said about "tits" and word censorship on television

We can always count on old Carlin, that's for sure. One of the greats.

There is a wonderfully disgusting film available from Netflix called Anatomy of Hell (2004). It's a typical French artsy adventure into the depths human depravity, complete with the obligatory religious contrast of Jesus on a crucifix that another member referred to in another thread. Thing is, we have already seen these "disgusting" elements before...in bigger and better films (e.g. Exorcist).

Yep. Like I said earlier in this thread, The Exorcist remains one of my favourites.

Maybe I'm just jaded by experience in such fare, but nothing really shocks me any more. Snuff flicks, bestiality, urinating on victims, invertebrates in body cavities, beheadings, vivisections, etc. are no big deal....not even in 3D.

I felt exactly the same way. For whatever reason, I've actively sought out those movies which are famous for being nasty or distressing to watch. And most of them aren't distressing to watch, I've discovered, whether I like them or not.

But for whatever reason--my mood on the particular day, or something about the film itself--this one was quite different. Not scary, not really. Just repulsive in the extreme, on a level that is jarring. On reflection, I don't even know that it is the "content," as I said to you earlier; I think it's the content combined with the style...because the style is very much that this is not a movie. It doesn't feel like a fake document (say, like The Blair Witch Project , a movie I insist is a good one despite continual complaints about "all the hype"); it feels like a real document. Watching it, you of course know that it isn't, and you never forget that--but the conceit has a cumulative emotional impact that I would not have expected.

It felt like the very act of watching it was somehow transgressive, that it was morally illicit. I don't believe any of that, mind, but that's how I can best describe my emotional response, which increased as the movie went along.

Which probably makes the film a rousing success, really, whereas the infamous Cannibal Holocaust made me chuckle out loud and roll my eyes.

It would appear, against evidence of my personal history, that I have some point of delicacy to my sensibilities.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course. Isn't that clearly implied in what I wrote?

No doubt some of the movies I like would too be considered pure trash by many people.

I guess..."disturbing" varies from person to person.

But I still think High Tension is mostly garbage, albeit with a few excellent scenes of suspense. Exactly what people like about the film is done much better in multiple other movies.

Again, few films can actually suspend reality (at least for me), if only because of life experience and logic. So called horror films are just dark comedies, while well made terror films might have a slight chance to spook me, but not much.

Yep. Like I said earlier in this thread, The Exorcist remains one of my favourites.

Exorcist was only interesting to me from the religious angle, not the symptoms of demonic possession. "Your mother sews socks that smell" is now a comedy line.

I felt exactly the same way. For whatever reason, I've actively sought out those movies which are famous for being nasty or distressing to watch. And most of them aren't distressing to watch, I've discovered, whether I like them or not.

I would just include such films as shock product...most being very poorly done, right down to amateur looking fake blood. Even the audience now knows to use Karo syrup and the right dyes. I guess what I'm saying is that the audience is far better educated and experienced in the actual technology of film making, so it has lost some magic. Fifty years ago, it was only black and white magazines with Boris Karloff or Lon Chaney Jr., ooooohh, scary!

It felt like the very act of watching it was somehow transgressive, that it was morally illicit. I don't believe any of that, mind, but that's how I can best describe my emotional response, which increased as the movie went along.

I can only surmise that fictional depravity involving personalized sexual assaults, murder, mutilations, etc. are not well received by general audiences. War flicks are OK, because of context...mostly. Years ago, I saw a film called I Spit On Your Grave that worked because of the revenge plot....heinous crimes justify heinous punishment!

It would appear, against evidence of my personal history, that I have some point of delicacy to my sensibilities.

I no longer patronize films with gratuitous sexual assaults (rape flicks), but nuking entire planets is fine!

[kimmy]

Thanks for the review, I appreciate it and, after a brief look at some of the graphics the two 'August Underground' movies, I will happily avoid it. I prefer to be entertained, not disgusted and saddened.

A little disturbance is thrilling, my first viewing of Texas Chainsaw Massacre - the original back in the day - was like that. But I don't find being continually disturbed, sick or saddened to be entertaining at all.

I am a category 2 kind of guy.

And I will stick with category 1.

Just yesterday I watched "Crank 2: High Voltage". I'm not sure how to describe it-- action, comedy, absurdly violent, theatre of the absurd, hilarious, offensive... ridiculous movie, anyway. But it had one scene, in which one of the villains forces his flunky to cut his own nipples off... which was shown in excruciating detail... both of them... for at least a minute... which was too much for me.

I have watched all kinds of ridiculous gore in movies, but that scene was just too much. It wasn't even a character you like or care about. Why was it painful to watch? Because everybody has nipples, I guess, and everybody knows what getting cut with a knife feels like.

-k

{when I saw the title, I anticipated this thread would be about Human Centipede.}

Edited July 14, 2011 by kimmy

[Jack Weber]

Plan 9 From Outer Space....

'Nuff said...

[bloodyminded]

-k

{when I saw the title, I anticipated this thread would be about Human Centipede.}

I saw that one, too. Not pretty.

But no, it's not in the same league as the speciman I'm talking about.

[bloodyminded]

Years ago, I saw a film called I Spit On Your Grave that worked because of the revenge plot....heinous crimes justify heinous punishment!

Revenge flicks do offer a certain satisfaction; but now that they've become a pretty large genere unto themselves (Hong Kong has been producing them by the bucketload) I think I've had my fill.

[bloodyminded]

Plan 9 From Outer Space....

'Nuff said...

Ah, good old Plan 9. It's the classic of the "so bad it's good" genre. But mostly it's just bad.

Edited July 14, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Bob]

Seems like a movie that just seeks to disgust the viewer. Even as the movie appears to be successful in that regard considering the reaction you felt from watching it, is that really an admirable ambition for a film? As a fan of a wide variety of genres, from good old suspense to westerns, this doesn't seem like a movie that would impress me. It's also important to remember that it's just a movie - it's fake. That being said, I'm quite certain the most horrifying stories are true.

[bloodyminded]

Seems like a movie that just seeks to disgust the viewer. Even as the movie appears to be successful in that regard considering the reaction you felt from watching it, is that really an admirable ambition for a film?

It's a fair question, and I don't know the answer. But look at it this way: when we watch Bruce Willis in Die Hard, we enjoy watching the killing. The killing is designed to please the audience, and it does so. (I like Die Hard very much, just to be clear.)

One might argue (and people as varied as as Stanley Kubrick and Stephen King have done so intelligently) that the horror film, at least those that truly horrify on some level, are moral pictures in a way that escapist action films are not. King argues that the horror film is fundamentally conservative. (I'm not arguing for or against that case.)

That is, because the violence and suffering are horrific to the audience, such films are actually taking a clear side against such goings-on, in the way that mainstream, PG-fare does not always do.

This is oversimplifying such movies, I understand that.

As a fan of a wide variety of genres, from good old suspense to westerns, this doesn't seem like a movie that would impress me.

It "impressed" me in the literal sense of the word...but I disliked it.

It's also important to remember that it's just a movie - it's fake.

Yes. I guess part of the movie's "success" as I called it stems from the lack of normal film artifice--no music, no obvious editing, intentionally-crappy production values...in a way, it shouldn't really work. But to some degree, it does.

But I sympathize with your view; this just isn't for me.

[fellowtraveller]

For true horror, watch pretty much anything by the fatuous auteur Lars Von Trier.

They all make me want to kill kill kill Lars very slowly.