Flesh

Glad you are consuming Flesh.

Horror has to make an emotiaonal impact on audience. Sometimes, its a pure blast of morbid artistic ejaculation in the form of deformed, mutilated flesh.

Some of you felt uncomfortable and disgust, that is totally normal reaction.
 
VersuS was right on target with post #57. I'm not sure I can add anything here.

Would it offend anyone to say I want more?
 
Barf mixed with fecis is uncomfortable and disgusting. But I don't see the connection from that to horror. I think the type of horror we are referring to is within the realms of entertainment as oppesed to say the horror of the twin towers or perhaps beheadings. I think there is a line between horror and disturbing images, not that yours was either. But if it is to invoke debate, I say let's rock. -gordo

Actually, I think i will watch some of the other clips instead.
 
Last edited:
If someone posted a movie about a guy watching the news about the victims in iraq, the disfigured victims, the mutilated victims of the bombings, or just showed Ground Zero with a plane going by in the far distance and a girl holding her mother's hand pointing up....these two are quite horrifying in a sense...

Horror is not only in the BOO people! Get it over with! If we are to become film makers or try and bring something in film making in our short lives on this planet, then we have to act like THINKING ARTISTS and people who QUESTION everything just to find the meaning. If we take Horror as it is portrayed in Helloween, Shining, Ringu and Showgirls, then we are NO GOOD FILMMAKERS!

I am not saying that everybody should make a movie like Flesh or something that goes about social horrors and life out there....but dont act like its not there. Stop hiding behind your finger (some of you).

You name someone provocativ and you cast the first stone...oh my....arent you the tolerants of this world...
 
I didn't really get this short. I'm not sure what the point or message was.

It did make me think about what I wanted to get from the butcher for dinner the next day though.

Were you just trying to gross people out? I can see how it would gross some people out I guess.
 
Filmmaking is as subjective an artform as anything else. And I think it's just how you chose to approach something as ambiguous as "Horror" for a topic of artistic expression. Some people might find a 6 minute static take of a plate of macaroni and cheese horror (I know my 9-year-old would!). A more black and white take on this topic in regards to HorrorFest is that some people chose to entertain with horror and other chose to repulse. AND THERE WHERE A WHOLE LOT IN BETWEEN.

Hey, the studios and the independents have been going on about this for years. Nothing really new about a discussion like this.

And I am sure that the current presidential administration would LOVE this film. :cheesy:



John G.
 
Plissken.

I get where your comming from. I've seen stuff. But I think you missed a trick, if you really wanted to make an impact you should have killed a live one! Otherwise it's just a cheap shot/ gimmick.

J.P.
 
Plissken said:
Well...you can say that because it isn't structured as a conventiaonal film. It looks experimental. And what is most important, it is not boring at all, and it is very, very interesting, fresh and shocking...

...The film is about a young creature that is to young to die...but it dies anyway, in most disgusting and shocking way you'll see on this fest...

...The purpose of Flesh is to be consumed.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I didn't find it interesting. I didn't find it shocking. I definitely didn't find it good. I did find it ameteur, bad, and stupid. It was a low quality film that had no redeemable aspects. If you wanted me to think it was a baby, I did, but, was there a point? Not really. Just shots of you cutting up a dead animal. Talent? No. The colors weren't even nice. Definitely the worst film in Horrorfest, maybe the worst film ever.

Otherwise, I applaud you for trying. Keep working at it, keep making films. I appreciate that you are trying to make a statement, I just didn't think that I would dislike the statement so much.
 
Attempted shock aside, this film was terrible because it had no freaking story. It had poorly designed sounds over a guy butchering a small animal. I think the message that screamed at me was a profound disrespect.

The very least you could have done was make the scene far smaller and explain yourself a little. Why is this character engaging in such acts? What is the purpose? You didn't explore anything outside of the action.
 
Noct said:
Attempted shock aside, this film was terrible because it had no freaking story. It had poorly designed sounds over a guy butchering a small animal. I think the message that screamed at me was a profound disrespect.

The very least you could have done was make the scene far smaller and explain yourself a little. Why is this character engaging in such acts? What is the purpose? You didn't explore anything outside of the action.
Click to expand...

Sorry to say this Noct coz i ve read most of your reviews and you are a person who understands movies and moviemaking but here you seem like someone who has not explored fully the world of films. PLEASE I mean no disrespect and I wait to be corrected. What I m saying is that I find it strange to think that a film/movie/flick whatever, needs to have a story in the form you expect. Why should he explore outside of the action? why should he give it to us plain and simple? should all movies come in a package with a script and details pointing to the right directions? a movie or a film is what you make out of it and the ability to comprehend way beyond the moving frames is your own deal, its like fighting with your inner demons the process of understanding a movie that goes beyone 'hero A kills villain B and saves blondie X'
Watch The Tenant for example by Polanski....is it all so clear ? or is it the fact that the film is not so gorish that you accept it as a film? I ve see TONS of films and art video like Flesh as i said before and they may not have the standard structure of what we're accustomed but that dont make them NON-FILMS...

My opinion again AND NO DISRESPECT!
 
Edgen said:
This film is trying to push the envelope. I'm sure everyone else appreciates you entering the fest.
Click to expand...
I think if you piss a few people off, or offend some, or have someone call your work "disgusting" or "disrespectful" I think that's a damn good thing. That's what art is supposed to do. I could photograph puppy dogs and flowers all day, and someday, I actually MIGHT. But I LOVE pushing the envelope. I LOVE taking risks. I LOVE making people think, "Whoa! What the f##k was THAT!" Other than that, I think you're one sick motherf####r. Welcome to the club!
 
Last edited:
Man I had to read it 3 times to understand the 'shoot puppy dogs' was with the camera...LOL!!!! LMFAO!
 
-zach- said:
It was a low quality film that had no redeemable aspects . . . was there a point?
Click to expand...
See what I mean?

-zach- said:
The colors weren't even nice. Definitely the worst film in Horrorfest, maybe the worst film ever.
Click to expand...
See what I mean?

This is now, to me, the most provocative thread on the forum. And you've already earned a few "inverse-best of" reviews. If it were me, I'd put that quote in my sig! I mean who wouldn't be curious to see, ". . . The worst film in Horrorfest, maybe the worst film ever?"
 
VersuS said:
Man I had to read it 3 times to understand the 'shoot puppy dogs' was with the camera...LOL!!!! LMFAO!
Click to expand...
LMFAO too! Thanks for pointing that out! I edited the post make the meaning absolutely clear!
 
Plissken said:
This film shows HORROR in its pure form.

The most original and shocking short film you'll ever see.

There is only one purpose of this film: to disturb you.
Click to expand...

Mission accomplished.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top