Canibble exploitation movies:which is the best

[urgeok]

Originally posted by EXTR3MIST
aka Night of the Zombies / Zombie Inferno / Cannibal Virus...

It's probably the same movie, but I'm fairly sure there are other Italian exploiters also utilising 3rd-world stock footage and the like in attempts to make their films appear authentic.

were there scenes at a factory .. lots of metal pipes, etc ?

[zwoti]

Originally posted by urgeok
were there scenes at a factory .. lots of metal pipes, etc ?

yep.....infected rat attacks a man in white protective suit at the beginning

[urgeok]

Originally posted by zwoti
yep.....infected rat attacks a man in white protective suit at the beginning

ok, that sounds extremely familiar - i must have it ..

i was finding these films and eating them up when they were first being released on video years ago ...
god knows if i can find it again

[42ndStreetFreak]

HELL OF THE LIVING DEAD/"Virus"/"Zombie Creeping Flesh"

A VERY bad film.
Overlong, plodding, hysterical (and annoying) animal stock footage with appaling characters.

BUT...It uses some Goblin tunes from "Dawn" and "Contamination", has lots of cheesy gore, gross out Mondo footage, breasts, a zombie rat, nasty as hell ending...AND...a SWAT guy in a tutu!!

It's what cheap trash is all about.

[EXTR3MIST]

I stopped branding cheap exploiters as bad some time ago, seeing as everyone was doing it ("It's so bad... it's good!").

Way I see it now, there is no such thing as a bad film - low production values and inept acting/direction may make for a challenging experience, but surely this is all part of the fun.

Being able to easily suspend the weight of disbelief means films like Zombie Creeping Flesh are more important in my collection than the likes of Schindler's List - this may be down to their obscurity and curiosity, but more likely it's the sheer rawness and naive enthusiasm (save the Itallian producers' shrewd cash-ins on their Hollywood counterparts in the 70's/80's!) that gives these cheap movies a charm and honesty so lacking in "serious/good" Hollywood productions.

[urgeok]

Originally posted by EXTR3MIST
I stopped branding cheap exploiters as bad some time ago, seeing as everyone was doing it ("It's so bad... it's good!").

Way I see it now, there is no such thing as a bad film - low production values and inept acting/direction may make for a challenging experience, but surely this is all part of the fun.

Being able to easily suspend the weight of disbelief means films like Zombie Creeping Flesh are more important in my collection than the likes of Schindler's List - this may be down to their obscurity and curiosity, but more likely it's the sheer rawness and naive enthusiasm (save the Itallian producers' shrewd cash-ins on their Hollywood counterparts in the 70's/80's!) that gives these cheap movies a charm and honesty so lacking in "serious/good" Hollywood productions.

oh hell, i cant agree with all of that .. i find that not all of them are showing entheusiasm or any fun or curiosity value at all.
Sure some do - but others are just tedious.
I have no desire to see something painfully acted with bargain basement effects. If there's a hint of cleverness or above grade 6 lever humor - maybe- i've seen a lot of no budget films that were great ... but many more that just couldnt hold my interest...
I'll put together a list of these shitty movies I have ...
I have a bunch and they have worn my tolerance level paper thin.
One of them is The House That Screamed ... i'm not sure who released it - but jesus christ .... films like that - i can't appreciate anything that went into it - even knowing as much as i do about the process of making films and how difficult it can be.

Lets face it .. a lot of these are just attrocious cash grabs ...

I can sit and watch a Schindlers list and feel a sense of wonder - be in awe of the performances if nothing else ..
but these back yard films .. i find more often than not a chore, rather than a challange.

[42ndStreetFreak]

Well it may be fun, but it's still bad.

The perfect example is if you compare "Nightmare City" to "Hell of the Living Dead".
Your definition far more resembles "City" than "Hell" for me.
"City" may be trashy and cheesy but it's not 'bad'.
"Hell" is bad though.
All the pitfalls "City" avoids "Hell" pretty much falls into.

I still like it though, and also own it . I agree it has an energy and a soul (even a cheap jack soul) not seen in too many Hollywood films as well. But I think there is a difference between good Trash cinema and, although still enjoyable, bad Trash cinema.

[slasherman]

Originally posted by 42ndStreetFreak

"Nightmare City"

One of the better "zombie" movies......or is it a zombie movie :confused:

[EXTR3MIST]

Of course all cheap exploiters are not exactly bursting with charm and enthusiasm, but then again neither are commercial, Hollywood films - and when the latter fails to impress at a basic level, I find it easier to resent the motives of fat cat producers than those foreigners knocking out the dodgy violence and casual mysogyny in the 1980's.

Defining "good/bad" and "bad/good" zombie movies might be a laugh, but one supposes it's just horses for courses unless somebody has an ageing, torn document written in the blood of heroes that tells us the real truth.

[urgeok]

Originally posted by EXTR3MIST
Of course all cheap exploiters are not exactly bursting with charm and enthusiasm, but then again neither are commercial, Hollywood films - and when the latter fails to impress at a basic level, I find it easier to resent the motives of fat cat producers than those foreigners knocking out the dodgy violence and casual mysogyny in the 1980's.

Defining "good/bad" and "bad/good" zombie movies might be a laugh, but one supposes it's just horses for courses unless somebody has an ageing, torn document written in the blood of heroes that tells us the real truth.

yep - its all subjective

whatever floats your boat really...