In my review of Mark Colegrove 's Pleasures of the Damned, I warned potential viewers that many would not share my particular sense of humour, and as such I can't recommend the film to all audiences. Well, the same goes for its pseudo-sequel Isle of the Damned, a film that exceeds its predecessor in terms of sheer quality and effectiveness, yet also displays a lot of the same detrimental characteristics that hindered the overall quality of Pleasures…
That being said, I did three things before writing this review, in order to get myself in the proper headspace…
- Watched the film (obviously… Who didn't see that one coming?)
- Re-read my review of Pleasures of the Damned in order to re-acquaint myself with that film, as obvious comparisons would be necessary.
- I searched for Isle of the Damned on one of the many online databases we are affiliated, in order to see how many comparative reviews we'd be standing alongside.
So, after steps one and two, I headed over to the MRQE, and found only a single review posted. The review was from Film Threat's James Teitelbaum. The verdict - 0/5. Worse than that, however, is that I get the impression that Mr. Teitelbaum left the screening at roughly the 20 minute mark… I'm not certain this is true, but it is the impression I get from his review. More on this in a second.
Isle of the Damned is repugnantly violent, absurdly hilarious and sexually depraved, all at once. Beyond that, it's borderline brilliant. One visual gag had me in tears I was laughing so hard… I guess I should elaborate for those who are unfamiliar with the original Pleasures of the Damned. Isle of the Damned continues the adventures of Jack Steele (protagonist of Pleasures…), as he helps a reprehensible treasure hunter search for treasure on a secluded cannibal island. There's a little more to it than that… very little… but that's the films charm, isn't it?
Pleasures of the Damned was great because its paper thin plot served as a device to move from one outrageous sequence to the next. Isle of the Damned is much the same, but there is a little more downtime from the graphic violence during the middle of the film. It seems to be an attempt to develop… wait a minute… some sort of back-story. What's more surprising is that as simple as these developments are, they actually give a little credence to the events that are occurring. Don't get me wrong… they're never played straight, and these sequences are fucking hilarious, they just give the film a little more substance than I was expecting. On second thought, in the context in which this film was meant to be taken, substance doesn't really mean anything… What the hell was I thinking?
This film is not about substance, it's about violence, depravity, bizarre sexual practices, rape, and all sorts of other horrific things… Oh, I almost forgot about cannibalism. Most of all, however, it is about humour; but not your traditional humour. This is more like bringing a friend to a party, then laughing as he gets drunk and tries to have sex with an open light socket. Sure, a man with third degree electrical burns down his penis is truly a horrific sight, but I'll be damned if it's not funny as hell to watch, and damned entertaining. Well, that's about the worst analogy ever, so let's get back on track, shall we?
The same things that bothered me about the first film are still present in Isle…, and those are particularly the moments of deliberate and low-low-brow humour. Some bizarre fart noises throughout the beginning of the film, and some unsettlingly strange masturbation scenes to name a few. They seem even too immature and out of place in this film, which I would consider to be incredibly mature in its immaturity. These sequences are few and far between, however, and are really my only gripe with the film.
As I mentioned earlier, in a review from Film Threat, the critic dismissed the film as ‘a failure on every level' stating that what makes cult films appealing is the fact that they take themselves seriously. With this statement I agree; however, from a filmmaker's standpoint, it is impossible to deliberately make a film that carries the same essence of these films while trying to do it in the most straightforward and serious manner possible. It can't be done, and as such, the filmmakers have accomplished a significant feat by coming as close to reproducing a low budget 70's cult cannibal, as one could ever expect.
Film Threat's Teitelbaum also mentions his disgust regarding a sequence involving a woman's murder by cannibals, followed by the eating of her unborn baby. Apparently that was enough for him, as he states in his closing paragraph, “I'm outta here.” However, I seem to recall a certain D'Amato film in which essentially the same thing happened. That film was Anthropophagus, and would seemingly fit in to Mr. Teitelbaum's “rule of cult film appeal.” So, I ask, why the hypocritical distinction from one film to another. One plays for laughs, and one takes itself quite seriously. Given the subject matter, I'll take the laughs, please. I'm all for publicly displayed opinion, but hypocrisy just doesn't do it for me.
That being said, Film Threat's review of Isle of the Damned only serves to solidify my opening statement. This film is not for everyone, but I like to think that if you have some sort of grasp of what you are about to see before you enter the theatre, then you should be thoroughly entertained. But be warned, there are some questionable scenes and some impressively gory special effects.
I am of the opinion that it is more difficult to make a good ‘bad movie' than it is to make an Oscar winner. Before you get upset with that statement, hear me out… An Oscar worthy film usually starts something like this: A fantastic script, incredible actors, experienced cinematographers and editors, and last, but certainly not least, a reputable director. That pretty much seems like a formula for success. A ‘bad movie' (deliberate ‘bad movie' to be precise), starts out with nothing - a bad script, bad actors, simplistic from a technical standpoint, budget limitations, etc. Somewhere in there everyone involved has to craft something genuinely good and entertaining. No easy feat, I'm sure. It is a testament to everyone involved with Dire Wit Films that they have succeeded as much as they have. Through two films, none the less…
Regarding your third-to-last paragraph, a movie can still take itself seriously and fail as either art or a cult hit; not ALL 'bad' movies that take themselves seriously are guaranteed 'worthy cult film status'.
There is no hypocrisy in the Film Threat review.
You seem to make an argument on the FT reviewer's behalf that fails a test of logic: "all good cult films are cheap films that take themselves seriously, so therefore all cheap films that take themselves seriously are good cult films".
This is clearly not true, and the FT reviewer did not say that it is (what he did say is that good cult films tend to take themselves seriously, but he did not say that ALL films that take themselves seriously MUST be good cult films).
Therefore, it is unfair to call him a hypocrite.
Jason Pitt
– Canada
You have a point there, he doesn't state that ALL bad films that take themselves seriously MUST be good cult films (And this is most certainly not true). So, I will, out of respect for James Teitelbaums opinion as a film critic (and most likely 'film lover'), retract the statement that his comments were hypocritical.
I do stand by my statement that it is impossible to genuinely recreate the appeal of those cult films, by making them in a serious fashion. Therefore, the effort put forth by Dire Wit Films is admirable in recreating, as accurately as one could expect to be possible, the effect of watching those 'classics'.
The film makers understand the way we interpret those classics... They're bad, so bad in fact that we rarely take them offensively, despite what is happening onscreen. (ie. Anthropophagus' fetus-eating scene). It's horrific to be sure, but at the same time we take it less seriously because of the ineptitude of the film makers. It makes it (more) enjoyable to watch these events, and makes the film fun to watch, where if it were made competently, and with a deadly serious tone, it would be horrifying. Mark Colegrove laid similarly distasteful events out there, but again they never seem mean-spirited, simply because the tone of the film is very light given it's subject matter.
I will defend "Isle of the Damned" against critics like Teitelbaum, as I personally can appreciate the efforts they went to in creating a similar experience to those enjoyable cult films of the 70's. I enjoyed it for what it was, but apparently you can't do the same. A film must be judged fairly on it's own merits, both in it's intention and execution. I appreciated both.
I do retract my statement about hypocrisy, as I read your comments I realize that that particular statement was perhaps inaccurate and unfair. I do however, stand by the rest of my review.
Thanks for your comments, J T.