This movie is reprehensible - My Worst Movie Experience Of 2005, No Contest. I totally hated it, do not understand why it was made aside from the shrewd rationale that it would probably earn money, and have zero interest in ever seeing it again to try and figure out what is going on. I don't want to understand this movie, I want to forget it. It lacks any kind of artifice of design or creativity, existing only as a document meant to mortify or titillate it's audience depending on whether or not they are vicarious sex criminals, and look trendy (circa 1976) while doing so. Spare me next time.
The idea has potential and somebody spent a lot of time scripting the intense, brooding dialog recited by the cast members. The formula sounds sure fire: Cross two parts Richard Speck with one part the IRA in Northern Ireland, trot out a cast of attractive looking young ladies and abuse them in the cloistered, claustrophobic confines of their dormitory with ample nudity. The idea has worked before -- Fernando di Leo's SLAUGHTER HOTEL was "inspired" by the Speck murders and is ten times more graphic & sleazy as NAKED MASSACRE (the version I found myself watching, oh the joy) but has a moral standpoint and was FUN. This movie is long, it is mostly boring, and what isn't is about as enjoyable as chewing on a mouthful of thumbtacks.
THE PLOT: An emotionally scarred former soldier (who has lost his wife & child *AND* served in Vietnam, injecting the plot with a terminal case of heavy-handed "social resonance overkill") arrives in a glum suburb of Belfast to watch the British soldiers mugging for the camera behind their barbed wire as they try to keep the people from killing each other, or whatever they were doing there, and cope with his personal loss of humanity. The guy is, in short, a basket case. Meanwhile, a boarding house full of scantily clad young nubile nurses at the local veteran's hospital is celebrating some holiday or another and the soldier (played with dull affection by Mathieu Carrière, who isn't bad actually) crashes the gig once all the lights are off & holds the nightgown clad nurses hostage with just a switchblade even though the girls I know would have bumrushed and pummeled the scumbag en mass into a lifeless pulp. But I digress -- He then proceeds to debase, humiliate, slap around and murder the girls in turn to further some general payback-against-humanity scheme as a counterpoint to war, the British occupation, global warming, the use of Styrofoam containers by McDonalds, teenage smoking, or any other handy social issues lying about. And eventually, the movie is over. ARE WE HAVING FUN YET??
I won't give away the ending but it was infuriating and suggests that this was supposed to have some sort of message about war, hatred, evil, suffering, murder, sex, death and the blurring of right and wrong within those who have been traumatized by carnage & suffering. If the film did have such a genuine message I might forgive it for being a sleazy, voyeuristic exercise in murder, debasement and humiliation. But whatever message is there is never made clear and the film seems to be using elements like Vietnam or the Irish Rebublic vs the British for their trendiness & topicality. The guy saw horror in Vietnam and sees it back home in Ireland, disguised by public policy. Well, so what? The movie could have been set anywhere, since most of the "plot" takes place indoors: The Ireland angle is just a contrivance. What's especially distasteful is knowing damn well that by condemning it people will be intrigued to find out why it pushed my buttons. Better to say nothing and just flunk it by saying it sucks.
The film is well-made to be sure but is almost pure exploitation, with minimal exposition, lots of gloomy discussion scenes and about a half hour of the girls screaming, grimacing, crying, suffering, hurting, begging and finally dying their way through the middle section of the film while Mr. Carrière sneers and drools over it all with a blasé detachment that suggests that he and/or the director saw OPEN SEASON with Peter Fonda first, which also shares the distinction of being fun compared to this. And don't be titillated or fooled by the USA "X" rating, it sure wasn't for graphic sexual content and makes CALIGULA seem erotic in comparison, and, amazingly, shorter than this. NAKED MASSACRE is not particularly provocative, not particularly gory or excessively violent, filmed with an unimaginative documentary style that lends nothing to the story while trying to appear topical, and can be easily missed by anyone who does not gain pleasure by watching humans suffer.
For anyone else shame on you, and I will take great pleasure in stating that this movie SUCKS.
1/10: To be avoided.
The idea has potential and somebody spent a lot of time scripting the intense, brooding dialog recited by the cast members. The formula sounds sure fire: Cross two parts Richard Speck with one part the IRA in Northern Ireland, trot out a cast of attractive looking young ladies and abuse them in the cloistered, claustrophobic confines of their dormitory with ample nudity. The idea has worked before -- Fernando di Leo's SLAUGHTER HOTEL was "inspired" by the Speck murders and is ten times more graphic & sleazy as NAKED MASSACRE (the version I found myself watching, oh the joy) but has a moral standpoint and was FUN. This movie is long, it is mostly boring, and what isn't is about as enjoyable as chewing on a mouthful of thumbtacks.
THE PLOT: An emotionally scarred former soldier (who has lost his wife & child *AND* served in Vietnam, injecting the plot with a terminal case of heavy-handed "social resonance overkill") arrives in a glum suburb of Belfast to watch the British soldiers mugging for the camera behind their barbed wire as they try to keep the people from killing each other, or whatever they were doing there, and cope with his personal loss of humanity. The guy is, in short, a basket case. Meanwhile, a boarding house full of scantily clad young nubile nurses at the local veteran's hospital is celebrating some holiday or another and the soldier (played with dull affection by Mathieu Carrière, who isn't bad actually) crashes the gig once all the lights are off & holds the nightgown clad nurses hostage with just a switchblade even though the girls I know would have bumrushed and pummeled the scumbag en mass into a lifeless pulp. But I digress -- He then proceeds to debase, humiliate, slap around and murder the girls in turn to further some general payback-against-humanity scheme as a counterpoint to war, the British occupation, global warming, the use of Styrofoam containers by McDonalds, teenage smoking, or any other handy social issues lying about. And eventually, the movie is over. ARE WE HAVING FUN YET??
I won't give away the ending but it was infuriating and suggests that this was supposed to have some sort of message about war, hatred, evil, suffering, murder, sex, death and the blurring of right and wrong within those who have been traumatized by carnage & suffering. If the film did have such a genuine message I might forgive it for being a sleazy, voyeuristic exercise in murder, debasement and humiliation. But whatever message is there is never made clear and the film seems to be using elements like Vietnam or the Irish Rebublic vs the British for their trendiness & topicality. The guy saw horror in Vietnam and sees it back home in Ireland, disguised by public policy. Well, so what? The movie could have been set anywhere, since most of the "plot" takes place indoors: The Ireland angle is just a contrivance. What's especially distasteful is knowing damn well that by condemning it people will be intrigued to find out why it pushed my buttons. Better to say nothing and just flunk it by saying it sucks.
The film is well-made to be sure but is almost pure exploitation, with minimal exposition, lots of gloomy discussion scenes and about a half hour of the girls screaming, grimacing, crying, suffering, hurting, begging and finally dying their way through the middle section of the film while Mr. Carrière sneers and drools over it all with a blasé detachment that suggests that he and/or the director saw OPEN SEASON with Peter Fonda first, which also shares the distinction of being fun compared to this. And don't be titillated or fooled by the USA "X" rating, it sure wasn't for graphic sexual content and makes CALIGULA seem erotic in comparison, and, amazingly, shorter than this. NAKED MASSACRE is not particularly provocative, not particularly gory or excessively violent, filmed with an unimaginative documentary style that lends nothing to the story while trying to appear topical, and can be easily missed by anyone who does not gain pleasure by watching humans suffer.
For anyone else shame on you, and I will take great pleasure in stating that this movie SUCKS.
1/10: To be avoided.