I saw a quite rare Italian horror film last Monday on the Finnish Film Archive's series: Holocaust 2000 by Alberto Di Martino. The Finnish title for this 1973 made was Terrori 2000, which makes the film sound even more cheezy. But cheezy it is not - well, maybe in places. There were some awkward moments, but all in all I found the film quite interesting and well-made.
It's about Kirk Douglas (who's as good as ever, pulsing with masculine energy and even hidden rage) who's planning a huge nuclear reactor in an unnamed Arab country. It seems there are some hidden powers at work here and soon Douglas finds out that he's being used as a pawn - the player of this game is none other than Devil. There are some quite horrific scenes in which the director shows his flair for the absurd - especially the scenes in the madhouse which is like Michel Foucault's bad dream, with glass walls and all. The Finnish censorship had cut away some of the goriest moments, but they'd been restored - the result was that the cut scenes looked different from the usual stock. They were red and pale, which only added to the bizarre feel of the film.
Holocaust 2000 is also more political than the American counterparts it copied so freely (especially The Omen). Douglas is a vehement capitalist who cares only about his investments and mangles the documents so that everything looks safe, even though it's far from that. The ending is a bit abrupt and the narration bogs down for a moment. Uneven, the film is still very interesting and moody.
I was in awe when I noticed that the people in the audience were laughing all the time. (Hey, isn't there enough proof that I really don't understand what's funny?) Maybe they'd been expecting to see a turkey, but as I said, this is not a turkey. I don't know if it's on dvd or has been on vhs, but would recommend it if you came across it and have a taste for this sort of thing.
That was definately a turkey. The narrative doesn't really hold up, the scenes were over-explained (which ruined the mystery) and the editing was horrible. It tried to hold on to all the strings of the unfolding story by using camp-esque christian symbols and needless, corny scenes (love scenes with Bambi, water rising with Douglas running in it). It just studdered from one explanatory act to another. Good for laughs, thought.
ReplyDeleteI didn't think the water scene was a turkey. I thought it was pretty well done and atmospheric.
ReplyDeleteBut maybe I'm wrong. It seems it's just one of these weeks.
Maybe the water scene as such wasn't a turkey, but the context and it's meaning for the whole story was. It just seemed an unmotivated way to get rid of the old professor. And I think I saw a continuity blurp on Douglas' clothing... At that point I was already looking for irrational storylines and unbelievable events.
ReplyDeleteDidn't mean to start an argument. It's just funny that people correspond differently to a same movie.
Is the pissed-off author and critic of your review bringing you down? I got some critisism from nationalist bloggers for an interview I did - I'm pretty sure the article was well grounded, but still the amount of criticism made me lose my sleep for a while.
I understand the guy. I don't like negative reviews myself. But I don't react to them this way. But as for bringing me down... well, that's possible, but I have more things to take care of than worry about that kind of stuff. I'm in inner peace about that.
ReplyDeleteAnd hey, I read your article and some of the comments. I would've lost my sleep after those! Hope they calm down!