Horror Movie Discussion Thread - Page 5

It's a shame to hear whenever cheap companies have ripped off superior prints by better companies. In the earlier days of DVD, independent small guys like ROAN and IMAGE gave us many fine-looking discs, even though they cost $20 or $25 each. And so now, due to these "50 movie cheapie sets" ripping off those prints, there's no longer any more incentive for ROAN and IMAGE to even bother! What's the point for a ROAN or an IMAGE to spend any extra time or money in making a film look better if they can't sell it for $20 because there'll always be a Brentwood-type cheapie outfit lurking around the bend to rip off the prints and charge 30 cents each? This is a real shame for fans who liked the work ROAN and IMAGE used to do.

For starters, Roan and Image aren't paying any money to have these films remastered. Secondly, like any other public domain release, those involved with the film aren't making any profit from the release. The only people making money are the labels.

Whatever shape the print is in is what we get. Some look great while others look terrible. The "some look great/others look terrible" is true with these public domain discs but I'd much rather pay $20 for 50 movies rather than $30 for BELA LUGOSI MEETS A BROOKLYN GORILLA.

The problem is that most of these films are crap and not too many are going to be willing to spend $30 for DEVIL BAT'S DAUGHTER or LUGOSI MEETS. At $1, more people will buy the title, which in turn will lead to future releases.

On the other side of things, some say buying bootlegs will keep the majors from releasing these items on an official DVD yet that doesn't stop anyone from doing it.

Michael, we've discussed this before. First off, you're wrong in that I've talked to Cary Roan by telephone and he told me how he went about finding the best elements for his ROAN discs early in the DVD game, and he also tweaked the contrast and went through considerable work to make these lesser movies look their very best. Since you're a big fan of DVD I just can't understand how you're so permissive about poor quality, just as long as it's cheap enough. You're a big fan of TAXI DRIVER and RAGING BULL. Would you like very scratchy or jumpy prints to be dashed off, as long as they were only $1 instead of $20? If the answer is "yes," then you should have been satisfied with VHS tapes. Of course, you'll say that there's a difference because those two films are "great movies," but that's really not the point. One man's garbage is another man's treasure, and in the age of DVD the prints should look as nice as possible.

You can't excuse stealing just because it helps your wallet. Thanks to ROAN, IMAGE, ELITE, CRITERION and others, we have very nice copies of some ordinary films, and it's sad that they could be less inclined to do them anymore because so many fly-by-night cheapie outfits are content to either rip their copies off, or else scrounge up any old broken down piece of celluloid to keep their independent cost down to 30 cents a film. How can the other companies compete when you can buy films for 30 cents each? Why should they bother making anything look nice? Either way, those cheapo companies have got some nerve if they copy pristine prints straight from ROAN and IMAGE or even CRITERION.

I know you liked THE UNEARTHLY (generally considered not to be a "good" movie)... and remember the stunning quality of THE UNEARTHLY? It was letterboxed, and looked like a brand new film - the best the movie ever looked. You turned out to love this film, and yet if it wasn't for IMAGE you wouldn't have had it looking that nice. I'm not saying ALL of IMAGE's movies looked that nice (DEVIL BAT'S DAUGHTER and THE FLYING SERPENT didn't, for example) but they certainly wouldn't have bothered with THE UNEARTHLY if they were going to throw it in a set with 49 other movies for $20 total. And why should they bother in the future anymore if Brentwood is going to dupe their copy and sell it for 30 cents?

TAXI DRIVER, RAGING BULL, THE GODFATHER, GONE WITH THE WIND, CITIZEN KANE, BELA LUGOSI MEETS A BROOKLYN GORILLA and THE SEARCHERS. I'd be willing to pay $20 for all but one. I'll let you pick that one for me.



BU, AB and Synapse won't touch them. Elite has been going to PD route but their prints are usually as bad as anyone else's. Image is out of the game because these things weren't selling. Roan has been out for years now and Troma isn't doing them any good.



For starters, Roan, Image, Elite and Criterion are "stealing" if that's the way you want to look at it. The directors, screenwriters, actors and others aren't making any money off of these films so perhaps we shouldn't buy PD titles at all. Image is "stealing" $30 while Alpha, Brentwood or Treeline are "stealing" $1-$5.



That's the fair play in PD. People can use whatever print they like but most of the time, Criterion and Elite have been left alone. No one has used their prints of THE BLOB, CARNIVAL OF SOULS or NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD.



I'd say it's the same reason why Image is now selling these titles for $5.

If someone wants to look for a better version then they can do that. The Image disc offers extras if someone wants to pay an extra $25 for them. Most people here, including myself, don't consider these great films so we're not going to pay $30 for a film like BELA LUGOSI MEETS A BROOKLYN GORILLA. People complain about quality way too much and I'm perfectly happy with what these smaller guys release. Without them, there would be a lot of stuff that wouldn't be out on the market. Alpha has released a lot more stuff than Image ever did so they must be doing something right.

If you want to pay $30 for BELA LUGOSI MEETS A BROOKLYN GORILLA or BRIDE OF THE GORILLA then that's your choice. However, I'll take the 50 films for that price considering most of those 50 films will be a blind buy. Who in the hell would tell someone to spend $30 on BROOKLYN GORILLA if they haven't seen it?

If these studios aren't going to support the filmmakers then I have no obligations to support that studio.

For all those who don't understand what is happening here, let me explain. Michael and I have gently sparred for years now on different forums, and he has this fetish about mentioning BELA LUGOSI MEETS A BROOKLYN GORILLA every time he wants to make a case for "lousy, cheap, public domain junk films". And because he knows I feel that Bela Lugosi makes almost any film he is involved with at least somewhat watchable (except for Ed Wood's GLEN OR GLENDA), he thinks he's getting under my skin by mentioning this film all the time because it happens to have Lugosi's name in its title (though it also went by the name THE BOYS OF BROOKLYN). I actually don't think much of this movie, except that Bela is quite entertaining in it and there's a beautiful native gal thrown in there to make my eyes happy. In any event, that was certainly more than I can say for Ed Wood's NIGHT OF THE GHOULS. I've seen far worse, so perhaps Mike may like to try another title next time.

As for your "point" above, Mike - there isn't one. The fact remains, you wouldn't like to be forced to settle for a cruddy looking copy of TAXI DRIVER, THE SEARCHERS, etc... just because it was only a dollar. That's pretty much the only point I made there, and I think you'd agree that you'd like to have the option of a decent looking copy of a film. I know you happen to love JAWS THE REVENGE, too. Would you rather it cost one dollar and look like it went through a garbage disposal?


I'm talking about the ethics of swiping someone else's master. You wouldn't like going through all the work of writing one of your HTF reviews and then having someone else steal it, put their name on it, and claim it as theirs, would you? This is the same thing I'm talking about with the DVD companies. I'm not talking about the films themselves (which are PD), I'm referring to ripping off the DVD master, right off the disc. It's not ethically right, at the very least.


Alpha has swiped Criterion prints.


Well, then you're missing the point of all this. I'm saying that there won't be any better, more expensive versions made available. If so many like yourself will settle for 50 DVDs for $20, poor quality or not, what's the point in making one single pristine DVD and charging $20 for it alone? There is no point in doing that.


It's more like $20-$25. Since you want to go by what "most people" consider or "would do" ---- Well, you know you'd pay $30 for a beautiful copy of PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, BRIDE OF THE MONSTER, THE UNEARTHLY and other poor films that "most people" don't consider "great," but which you personally enjoy yourself. Please don't give that old "these aren't GREAT movies so they derserve lousy treatment" routine -- because that would mean that many, many of your favorite dog films would be issued looking like a piece of swiss cheese after it went through a meat grinder.


Yes, Alpha is doing something right - going for quantity over quality, and most everyone eats that up. Most of the general mass buying audience aren't really big film aficianados like I imagine we are here at HTF. However, I've always thought of you as a real film buff - and you were always the one to trash VHS tapes when DVD came along, precisely because they looked lousy by comparison!


Again, the point you keep missing is that this option will not be available.


But who would spend $30 on just about ANY movie if they haven't seen it? I want badly to see GONE WITH THE WIND, but am having trouble justifying paying $30 for a film I haven't seen. Following your own example, too bad Brentwood isn't able to put it out with 49 other films looking like crapola for 30 cents.

You tend to look at DVD collecting as a sort of "rental" deal. Sure, it's nice to do a "blind buy" every so often, but most of us collectors already know what favorite films we like to own -- and DVD is supposed to provide us with the best copy available.
Don't get me wrong -- sometimes there ISN'T a better copy that exists elsewhere except for what's released. But that's a whole different matter.


But that would have to go for these 50-movies-for-20-bucks outfits, too. They're not "supporting the filmmakers" either, yet you support them.

I'll name 150 more. Look at the previous page where I listed the titles to Matt.



I'm not making any money so in all honesty, I wouldn't care. I'm a ghost writer as well and that doesn't bother me. However to play along, the reviews have a copyright on them so it's a bit different than this. Now, if I published them without a copyright then yes, it's fair game.



I wouldn't tell anyone to spend $25 on those titles. They can get them for dollars now so I'd have them go that route.



Oh really, which one? If you say CARNIVAL OF SOULS then you are wrong. If you remember, I once did a duel review of the Criterion, Diamond, Alpha and Madacy versions and none of them were taken from Criterion. Not even the Brentwood and all these PD copies look great but due to print damage, you can tell they didn't come from Criterion.



Back to that 150 titles from the previous page, very few of them were released by Image or Roan so if it weren't for these small guys no one would have released them. Now, are you telling us to wait for Image?



It's not public domain so they can't.



I'm more of a film buff than a simple collector so that explains all my blind buys. I don't have to like a film in order to buy it. I don't have to have seen a film in order to buy it. But as with you and GWTW, I'm not going to pay $30+ for a blind buy to a film I probably won't like. I'd pay $30 for THE KING OF KINGS because I trust it's rep, DeMille and Criterion. However, I would not pay $30 for a blind buy of POSTAL INSPECTOR even though it has Lugosi. The odds are the film won't be that great so I'll take the cheap route.



True. I'm not going to hold off buying those A&C sets just because they don't look like CASABLANCA.



Sadly the filmmakers will never see a dime of this money. I mean, screw the Monogram titles. Just think how much Romero lost on NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. Ouch.


The bottom line is that people are buying these 50 sets for blind buys. They can pay $20 for 50 films or pay around $750 looking for better versions or buying VHS because a certain title isn't on DVD. I'm not sure if you've done it yet but you kept telling me you were going to jump on Alpha's 5 for $25 deal. For that $25 you could have a total of 50 films. If you enjoy films, there should be plenty news ones to view in that set.

Well, that's easy to say now. But I thought I recalled something similar happening like that on another forum, but I don't recall the details now...


Again, I'm not talking legally. Just morally.


You are a master of going off on tangents, my friend. YOU have said YOU'D spend big dollars on some of those very "bad" films that you happen to have a fondness for, but the masses do not (like PLAN 9). The point is, as you well know, you'd want them available in stores looking great for $25 as an option in case YOU decided to spring for them. Wouldn't you? You still want nice copies of the Ed Wood movies. You wouldn't want bad prints if you only had to spend a buck ...


For one, THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME.


I'm sure Image or Roan would have gotten to them - and looking better - if the smaller guys hadn't taken the profit out of it for them by remaining content with poor prints for cheap (again, I admit that even Image released some poor prints like DEVIL BAT'S DAUGHTER and THE FLYING SERPENT).


You're referring to my GONE WITH THE WIND comment. And of course, I'm well aware of this, which is why I said "Brentwood isn't able to release this" in my post. But it was a hypothetical question that may still be answered without the dodge.


I'm a film buff too, as are most of us here at HTF. I'd wager most here don't just buy blindly, though. That is, I won't buy something almost universally said to be lousy only because it's cheap. I'd still rather save the money from four of those dogs and get something better in the $20 range, if I wanted to buy blindly and see something more revered. You'd do better to try THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN or WESTWORLD, for instance, than some of the stuff in the bargain bins.


There's nothing wrong with the cheap route - as long as there's another option for those who may want a really nice version too (and POSTAL INSPECTOR is probably a bad example because I don't think great prints are out there for it).


"True," what? I was saying that not all films could look good. In the case of the A&C films, those could look as good as CASABLANCA, if the studio wanted them to. The A&C movies are not lost films to which all we have are chewed up 16mm dupey prints to work with...


Yes, but why go for the junky ones, just cuz they're cheap?I have a lot of Alpha films - including stuff like LOVE FROM A STRANGER (1937), which is a pretty decent Basil Rathbone thriller. And Boris Karloff in JUGGERNAUT (1936). But I bought those because most importantly, it's all you can find for those films.
If IMAGE or ROAN could do a restoration and extras for LOVE FROM A STRANGER and charge me $20 to justify it, I'd go for it - but that option is not available. And part of the reason is because most people are content enough with the poor looking $4 print on this.

Yeah, discussing horror movies.....yeah.....

Our little debate is the only discussion going on here. :b

Anywho....

I haven't been watching too many horror films recently, although I did watch DEAD END, which I thought was great but I wish they had gone a different direction. As I said in my review, it's the first time I bashed a great movie for not being one of the greatest ever made.

I also cracked open my ABUK double feature of ALLIGATOR and its sequel ALLIGATOR 2. I love these types of films and ALLIGATOR was certainly one of the best. The sequel wasn't too hot but it was still mildly entertaining. I'll probably search out Hooper's CROCODILE now but I hope it's better than LAKE PLACID.

Hey, anyone's free to add a new subject!

I saw the movie "May" last night. Very stylish. Very weird. Not sure if I really enjoyed it or not...

I asked a question in another thread that was pretty much not noticed....so I'll re-post it here in hopes of it being equally ignored.

This is regarding the Japanese version Ju-On: The Grudge, I must ask a question that was broached earlier but never answered, what the hell was it about?

Seriously, I understand that it was an ever repeating curse instigated by the original horrible violence but....well, why the hell did the dead Mother feel the need to kill innocent people? She was an innocent victim herself wasn't she, so why would she hunt down other innocent people? Was it actually the murderous Father doing the killing in the guise of the Mother? Was the women we see in the very last shot of the film supposed to be Rika or the Mother? I ask because on the DVD's alternate ending commentary by the director, he keeps saying it is Rika but I'll be damned if it doesn't look like the Mother. Is there some cultural thing going on here that I, as a westerner not deeply immersed in japanese culture, am not picking up on?

Would seeing the two previous TV films make it any clearer?

Is there intentionally no clear answer?

Is it butter or is it Parkay?

I love the film for it's style and atmosphere but it's vague plot is frustrating my true enjoyment of it.

Can't answer your question, but I didn't think a whole lot of the movie. I liked the atmosphere in the beginning, but it is extremely repetitive, and showing the little boy and the girl over and over and over eventually spoils the effect.

Also saw Cat O' Nine Tails a few days ago and like just about every other Argento film I've seen, I thought it was excellent. The style and camera work were impeccable as always, effortlessly generating suspense. Nice to see Karl Malden and James Francicus providing very solid performances.

I have Kairo and am planning to watch it in the next couple of days. I've also had the Creature From the Black Lagoon Legacy since it came out but haven't gotten around to watching the sequels. Other than that, I don't have anything coming from Netflix anytime soon, though maybe by March or April I'll have run through my queue to a planned Takashi Miike fest. There have just been so many 2004 movies come out in the past few weeks I haven't been getting to older movies in my queue.

Figured this was a good place to ask this rather than start a new thread. Has anyone here seen Vlad? I have it on the way from Netflix. I remember seeing banners for it on various web sites but I've never heard anything else about it.

I also checked out Dead End a couple of weeks ago. A solid little film.

Heh, I was just thinking of starting a horror film thread, then I found this I'm really impressed and pleased by the breadth of horror films (my personal fave genre and my passion) discussed, but I'd like to recommend/introduce some rarer stuff that some members here may not have been exposed to yet. First: a few of my fave horror films, in no order:

-DAWN OF THE DEAD (original of course): My all-time fave. It's the ultimate. Social commentary, laughs, scares, GORE, apocalyptic atmosphere, ZOMBIES, Savini FX, brilliant editing (back when Romero was still editing his stuff), great acting, etc...
-BOXER'S OMEN: Pure unadulterated HK horror delirium! If you've seen some of hte classic HK gross-out horrors from the late 70s-early '80s, this will BLOW THEM ALL AWAY! Amazing psychaedalic gory scene after scene, including people vomiting up bats (which then turn into buddhist monks) and conga eels, the most outlandish black magic spells ever committed to film (involving resurrection via regurgitated vomit, said vomit annoiting a rotting mummified corpse which is then sewn into a REAL and GUTTED crocodile, etc), and a finale involving a duel between a man and a buddhist statue!
-SUSPIRIA
-THE THING-the Carpenter version. Amazing Rob Bottin fx and that Morricone score! Not to mention Kurt Russell as a total badass
-NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (original)
-ALIEN
**and zillions more***

--Anyways, here are a few horror films I HIGHLY recommend that some of you may have missed:

-AQUARIUS (aka STAGE FRIGHT): THE slasher film of the '80s! SO much more stylish, gory, and satisying than any US 80s slasher! One of the last true Italian horrors. Make sure to get the EC Entertainment DVD (under the title STAGE FRIGHT) b/c it offers a fullscreen transfer--this film was shot open-matte! The Anchor Bay release crops it to 1:85 as a gimmick so it will fit widescreen TVs without black bars! But you lose picture information so what's the point?
-LADRONES DE TUMBAS: Another amazing slasher from the 80s, this time from Mexico. A group of graverobbing teens rob an executed warlock's tomb and he resurrects to slaughter them with his MASSIVE medieval battleaxe! Great gore and a swift pace--everything that's missing from most US slashers!
-BLOOD FEAST-One for the bad horror movie fans! You simply WON'T BELIVE this one! This is the infamous "christian-funded, anti-drug splatter movie"! A schmuck takes one hit of pot, eats some tainted turkey, and wakes up with a GIANT TURKEY HEAD and must drink the blood of (gorily slaughtered) drug addicts to survive. Oh, did I mention that the whole thing's ineptly narrated by the chain-smoking director (decked out with a oily satin suit) who erupts into a coughing fit in the end? And it was made in the '70s so you get the weird retro atmosphere AND, it's played TOTALLY STRAIGHT!

**well, I could go on and on and on but I'll stop here for now. There's so much more to discuss (older Japanese horror, which I feel is much superior to new-wave stuff, Spanish horror, etc), so if someone posts a message and is interested, I'll keep babbling:b

Stephen, is Aquarius the Italian film from Michele Soavi? I remember seeing that on the store shelves years back, but neglected to pick it up. I love the other Soavi films The Church, and one of the best surreal zombie movies: Cemetary Man (Dellamorte, Dellamore).

And on the HK/Asia end of things, you ever watch any Takashi Miike films? Audition, Ichii the Killer, Happiness of the Katikuris....

Yes, Aquarius IS the Michele Soavi film! If you already like his other films, picking this one up is a no-brainer IMO.

As for Miike, well... I have not been impressed by anything of his I've seen (FUDOH, ICHI THE KILLER, VISITOR Q, AUDITION). AUDITION was the best of his I've seen, but I still think there are much better similar films. One such film is the rarely seen German shocker DER FAN. This one is a very disturbing knockout about an obsessed fan. The film takes a similar narrative tack as AUDITION in that it builds VERY slowly up until it's shocking climax. But I find the film much more effective b/c it's more believable (no mutant guy in a sack here!) and has a great off-kilter, art-house approach--most of the film consists only of the fan's inner monologue and a Kraftwerk-esque German techno-pop soundtrack.

I honestly don't see what the big deal with new-wave Japanese horror is. It just seems so sterile and lifeless. I much prefer the older stuff from the 50s-70s, like Nobuo Nakagawa's work (JIGOKU, GHOST OF YOTSUYA) and the more delirious Toei horrors like HORRORS OF A DEFORMED MAN. These films had style AND content to spare--philosophical comments on Eastern religion, the nature of mankind, and amazing cinematography and set design.

I'm going to have to track that down now!

I just rewatched Suspiria and loved it, I really need to get more Argento in my collection.

I have not been impressed by everything from Miike, but I have enjoyed the majority of what I've seen. I like the current wave of horror coming out of Asia, they have a better horror seen than the US does!

I'll have to track down Der Fan. Not exactly a horror film, but have you seen Das Experiment? I liked that one a lot.

Also, any thoughts on CHoking Hazard? I picked it up but haven't watched it yet.

INFERNO: my favorite Argento film and one of the great films, period. It's a grower - watch it once and be confused but titillated, watch it again and be transported... It's one of the most dream-like films ever made and I love the fact that it doesn't 'make sense' in so many ways. Think of it as a companion piece to LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD (with which it shares an actor), a kind of artistic haunted house movie.

Regarding this HEAVENLY CREATURES comment:


I've seen this repeating several times over the years that Jackson "prefers" the shorter Miramax edit (which is 10-MINUTES shorter, not 1 1/2 mins), so way back in 1997 or 1998 when Jackson used to post at the long-defunct "The Bastards Have Landed!" website, I actually asked him which version he prefered. His basic answer was sort of a diplomatic middle-of-the-ground non-answer. He said something like, "For big fans of the film, the long version, for casual viewers, the shorter version is probably better". The basic jist of his comment was that he wasn't unhappy with how Miramax trimmed the film, but he certainly didn't say that it was his "prefered" version, and ended his post by saying that he eventually wanted to release a "special edition" of HEAVENLY CREATURES "containing ten minutes that hasn't been seen in any version". Obviously, he got busy with the LORD OF THE RINGS films shortly thereafter and this was put on the back-burner, but if Jackson truly "prefered" the 99-minute Miramax edit, then doesn't it stand to reason that he'd want that version to have beem the one that was released in his home country of New Zealand in the first place?

Myself, I much prefer the longer cut overall, although the Miramax edit does tighten up a couple of sections quite nicely (for example, I prefer the shorter Miramax version of the opening "travelogue" footage).

Regarding INFERNO, it's my favorite Argento film, and I even love Emerson's music.

Vincent

Well, sorry, the comparisons I made between the short (cable) and long versions (DVD) seemed to be one of slight snippets here & there not 10 min.
I see from visiting The Fourth World what scenes were cut and their length.

(Shrugs shoulders) Oh well, my mistake.

Hmm, I'll have to check out Der Fan, but I thought Audition was great, easily one of the best horror films of the last 15 years or so. I'm just now getting to some of Miike's other films. I also love Kiyoshi Kurosawa's Cure, but otherwise I mostly agree with you on the new Asian horror films.

Devil's Rejects is pretty fantastic, old school hardcore stuff. A couple actually walked out after the semi-truck splattering, that was great!

Poltergiest is the only flick that ever really scared the ever living crap out of me. The Exorcist didn't bother me as much as it bothered a lot of people, maybe it's because I watched it at a much older age than most people see it at.
Blair Witch sort of got me, but I watched it in the middle of the night alone, so I guess nearly anything could get you.
There were a couple of scenes in The Sixth Sense that freaked me out. But nothing since Poltergiest and then before that Psycho and Vertigo did I really get freaked out from a film and/or say WTF?

Well I finally watched this and I have to honestly say.....what a load of crap! It isn't the animal killing scenes that bothered me (although those were fairly disgusting and for the most part unnecessary IMO) it was the horrible acting, lack of any real plot, crappy effects, miserable music (sorry Justin S ) idiotic character motivations:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Well...there you go! That pretty much sums up my feelings on the film.

I agree with you Kevin. I never for a single second bought the director's comments that the film tries to give people a "message". I guess the director feels the media are worse than cannibals and that's why this group does what they do. The only reason the film is remembered is due to the animal violence. Without that controversy this film would be forgotten like so many of the other cannibal films.

Case in point....CUT AND RUN. This is from the same director, has the same stupid "message" yet there isn't any animal violence. The film is just as boring as CH but without the controversy no one really mentions the film.

MAN FROM DEEP RIVER and JUNGLE HOLOCAUST are a lot better films. There's still animal violence in these but there isn't any "message" but instead we've got fun adventure films.

I did like the score though.


Has anyone here seen CHAOS yet? I've been following the Roger Ebert debate with the director but I really think Roger needs to drop the subject. Ebert's certainly in the right but I think he's bringing more attention to the film that is going to cause people to go out and see it.

I watched Bergman's THE VIRGIN SPRING for the first time last night and I must say I have even less respect now for LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, HOUSE ON THE EDGE OF THE PARK (from the director of CH) and other ilk.

Mike, I just wanted to have you on record here if I understand you correctly. Because I know that in many of our various talks over the years you've always maintained that - regardless of what we viewers think - you always go by what the director says regarding the last word as to what his intentions are for his film. Would this be fair to say, that you sometimes doubt the director, too?

The problem is that the director has at least seven different stories so people can pick and select which one they want to believe. Ruggero has changed his story so many times, due to the controversy, that you can't believe a thing he says. When people talk CH, it's for the controversy. Ruggero would be killed if certain people could get their hands on him so he has since lied about who shot and why the animal deaths were shot.

An attempt at a message is certainly there but this is hidden behind the violence, gore, rape, mutilations and so on. It's the same as you killing me to teach people that killing is wrong. It's like me blowing up a building to teach people that blowing up buildings is wrong. This isn't the right "message" to send is it?

I haven't seen CH yet, but have certainly heard much about it in the way of controversy. I have to see it for myself to fully comment, but I don't think its content would bother me.