I'm a newbie when it comes to Japanese exploitation films from the 1970s, but what little I've seen has underwhelmed me. "School of the Holy Beast" (1974), "Wife to be Sacrificed" (1975), "Tattooed Flower Vase" (1976), and "Angel Guts: Nami" (1979) were all decent in terms of soft core sex, but weak in terms of everything else. "Holy Beast" probably had the most entertainment value because of a few memorable torture scenes, but even that film wasn't very good. And this is coming from a guy who enjoyed "Entrails of a Virgin" (1986), "Flower and Snake" (2004), and "Urotsukidoji: Legend of the Overfiend" (1988), so I'm most certainly capable of enjoying depraved exhibitions of gratuitous sex and violence. That said, I was particularly excited about "Assault! Jack the Ripper" after reading the glowing IMDb reviews. Unfortunately, I find myself (yet again) scratching my head at the overblown reputation of a silly, middling movie.
First and foremost, the death scenes are incredibly lame. This was quite a surprise given the IMDb reviewers who pointed out the "extreme and nasty violence" that is "shown raw and uncovered." If you're looking for shots of torn flesh, look elsewhere. The majority of the stabbings here use camera angles that obscure the point of contact. What results is a dull, repetitive series of killings that look more like a guy punching some girls in the stomach. The cumulative amount of visible blood in "Assault" could probably fit inside of a ketchup bottle. I kid you not. Even the minority of scenes that actually show something are mediocre at best. The stabbings executed in Lucio Fulci's "The New York Ripper" (1982) are about 10 times better than the ones shown here. It's not even close.
All the more reason for my perplexity after watching "Assault." Where the heck was all of the shocking violence that I was promised? To my surprise, it's nowhere to be found. Even more astounding is that some reviewers actually attempt to defend "Assault's" death scenes by asserting that the "inference" invoked by "sound and FX" are enough to make it disturbing. If this isn't an unintentional admission of failure by an exploitation film, I don't know what is.
Sure, the premise of a pastry chef and waitress who stab people in the genitals for sexual gratification is a great idea, but if you're gonna skimp on the red stuff you had better set up convincing characters or construct effective suspense sequences that don't rely on graphic violence. On the contrary, the characters sucked, the victims were cardboard cutouts, and there's not a lick of suspense to be found here. The dynamic duo kidnap someone, then punch them in the stomach (uh, I mean kill them) a few seconds/minutes later. That's about it. There's little to no torture and nothing at all to raise the viewer's heart rate. How can a movie possibly make a murder/"bang" session in a graveyard boring? Well, "Assault" somehow did it. Given the poor execution, the best part of the film is the plot synopsis.
Yeah, there's nudity here. Woopdee doo. The lead actress has nice boobies, but I'm gonna need a little more than that to sustain my interest over the course of 70 minutes. Even the sex scenes were pretty tame, barely reaching the low heights of Cinemax Late Night. As much as I criticize the Korean director Sang-soo Hong for his foray into dull art-house pornography, his direction of body motion during sex is much better than anything seen in "Assault." What I found especially disappointing is that the intercourse between the couple was not appreciably different before and after a murder. The entire film is reliant on how killing gets them off, but it doesn't take the sex to another level when necessary. I expected some real bed-denting after the murders, but all we get is soft spooning. In short, I was never convinced that the murders resulted in more gratifying sex.
Everything that "Assault" allegedly offers is done more effectively in non-exploitative genres. "Strange Circus" (2005), "Tetsuo: The Iron Man" (1989), "Moonlight Whispers" (1999), and "The Isle" (2000) are way better at portraying sexual perversion. The sex scenes are good in completely different ways, but most importantly every one of these films held my interest throughout much of their running times with a mix of effective characterization, stylish technical qualities, and/or mind-numbing insanity all things that are absent in "Assault."
I keep reading all of these rave reviews from persons who have earned my respect for their sheer knowledge of unorthodox cinema. Almost all of the heavy hitters gave "Assault" high marks: Fertilecelluloid, Evol666, HumanoidofFlesh, ElijahCSkuggs, Obscure 437, BaHarrison, Soucriant, and Coventry. This makes my disappointment all the more confusing. I even gave this film a second chance with lowered expectations, and it still failed to impress me in any way. Not only are all of the formulaic standards of conventional film-making absent (e.g., good acting, storyline, etc.), but all of the exploitative elements are feeble and forgettable.
My initial impression on 70s exploitation films in general is that they're much like a dog with bark but no bite, or a sheep in wolf's clothing. I certainly hope that my future experiences are more satisfying.
First and foremost, the death scenes are incredibly lame. This was quite a surprise given the IMDb reviewers who pointed out the "extreme and nasty violence" that is "shown raw and uncovered." If you're looking for shots of torn flesh, look elsewhere. The majority of the stabbings here use camera angles that obscure the point of contact. What results is a dull, repetitive series of killings that look more like a guy punching some girls in the stomach. The cumulative amount of visible blood in "Assault" could probably fit inside of a ketchup bottle. I kid you not. Even the minority of scenes that actually show something are mediocre at best. The stabbings executed in Lucio Fulci's "The New York Ripper" (1982) are about 10 times better than the ones shown here. It's not even close.
All the more reason for my perplexity after watching "Assault." Where the heck was all of the shocking violence that I was promised? To my surprise, it's nowhere to be found. Even more astounding is that some reviewers actually attempt to defend "Assault's" death scenes by asserting that the "inference" invoked by "sound and FX" are enough to make it disturbing. If this isn't an unintentional admission of failure by an exploitation film, I don't know what is.
Sure, the premise of a pastry chef and waitress who stab people in the genitals for sexual gratification is a great idea, but if you're gonna skimp on the red stuff you had better set up convincing characters or construct effective suspense sequences that don't rely on graphic violence. On the contrary, the characters sucked, the victims were cardboard cutouts, and there's not a lick of suspense to be found here. The dynamic duo kidnap someone, then punch them in the stomach (uh, I mean kill them) a few seconds/minutes later. That's about it. There's little to no torture and nothing at all to raise the viewer's heart rate. How can a movie possibly make a murder/"bang" session in a graveyard boring? Well, "Assault" somehow did it. Given the poor execution, the best part of the film is the plot synopsis.
Yeah, there's nudity here. Woopdee doo. The lead actress has nice boobies, but I'm gonna need a little more than that to sustain my interest over the course of 70 minutes. Even the sex scenes were pretty tame, barely reaching the low heights of Cinemax Late Night. As much as I criticize the Korean director Sang-soo Hong for his foray into dull art-house pornography, his direction of body motion during sex is much better than anything seen in "Assault." What I found especially disappointing is that the intercourse between the couple was not appreciably different before and after a murder. The entire film is reliant on how killing gets them off, but it doesn't take the sex to another level when necessary. I expected some real bed-denting after the murders, but all we get is soft spooning. In short, I was never convinced that the murders resulted in more gratifying sex.
Everything that "Assault" allegedly offers is done more effectively in non-exploitative genres. "Strange Circus" (2005), "Tetsuo: The Iron Man" (1989), "Moonlight Whispers" (1999), and "The Isle" (2000) are way better at portraying sexual perversion. The sex scenes are good in completely different ways, but most importantly every one of these films held my interest throughout much of their running times with a mix of effective characterization, stylish technical qualities, and/or mind-numbing insanity all things that are absent in "Assault."
I keep reading all of these rave reviews from persons who have earned my respect for their sheer knowledge of unorthodox cinema. Almost all of the heavy hitters gave "Assault" high marks: Fertilecelluloid, Evol666, HumanoidofFlesh, ElijahCSkuggs, Obscure 437, BaHarrison, Soucriant, and Coventry. This makes my disappointment all the more confusing. I even gave this film a second chance with lowered expectations, and it still failed to impress me in any way. Not only are all of the formulaic standards of conventional film-making absent (e.g., good acting, storyline, etc.), but all of the exploitative elements are feeble and forgettable.
My initial impression on 70s exploitation films in general is that they're much like a dog with bark but no bite, or a sheep in wolf's clothing. I certainly hope that my future experiences are more satisfying.