Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings910
Sandcooler's rating
Reviews668
Sandcooler's rating
"Web of Seduction" holds a special place in my heart, it's a nostalgia trip if you will. In the US, productions like these are usually kept on Cinemax, far away from impressionable children. In Belgium, nobody gave a damn and we just showed this on regular television. Oh boy, did we show it. I've seen this movie so many times I thought it was a test pattern. After careful revision, I feel like it holds up to this day.
The main attraction of this movie is obvious: the intricate plot, which is about two dissatisfied wives who form a pact to kill each other's husband. The plot somewhat resembles "Strangers On A Train", but it makes less sense because the women involved are not actual strangers but rather neighbors and friends. Like, I reckon the police could still figure all this out quite easily. Not everything goes according to plan, giving us the best twist I've ever seen outside of "Days Of Our Lives".
While the film moves at a brisk pace, it is slowed down somewhat by the characters' constant appetite for sexual intercourse. This movie has six characters and though I should have made a chart, I'm pretty sure everyone has sex with everyone. This makes no sense, because some of them are married and still bone somebody besides their spouses. As a devote Christian, I don't condone any of that. To add insult to injury, we also get a threesome, some girl on girl action and (albeit very tame) masturbation. For shame "Web Of Seduction", you don't need smut like that.
The stand-out performer of the movie is without a doubt Lauren Hays, who is actually very believable as the sultry femme fatale and clearly enjoys playing this role. Unfortunately she hasn't done much in the field of erotic thrillers, though curiously she has done half a dozen of movies that appear to be foot porn. As good as she is here, I don't think "Fondle My Feet!" and "Bare Feet A Trois" (both real titles) will show much of her acting chops. Traci Ryan is very cute as the naive wive who turns to murder surprisingly quickly, but Nancy O'Brien appears to think she's acting in a "Scooby Doo" climax. And if it wasn't for you meddling kids!
The main attraction of this movie is obvious: the intricate plot, which is about two dissatisfied wives who form a pact to kill each other's husband. The plot somewhat resembles "Strangers On A Train", but it makes less sense because the women involved are not actual strangers but rather neighbors and friends. Like, I reckon the police could still figure all this out quite easily. Not everything goes according to plan, giving us the best twist I've ever seen outside of "Days Of Our Lives".
While the film moves at a brisk pace, it is slowed down somewhat by the characters' constant appetite for sexual intercourse. This movie has six characters and though I should have made a chart, I'm pretty sure everyone has sex with everyone. This makes no sense, because some of them are married and still bone somebody besides their spouses. As a devote Christian, I don't condone any of that. To add insult to injury, we also get a threesome, some girl on girl action and (albeit very tame) masturbation. For shame "Web Of Seduction", you don't need smut like that.
The stand-out performer of the movie is without a doubt Lauren Hays, who is actually very believable as the sultry femme fatale and clearly enjoys playing this role. Unfortunately she hasn't done much in the field of erotic thrillers, though curiously she has done half a dozen of movies that appear to be foot porn. As good as she is here, I don't think "Fondle My Feet!" and "Bare Feet A Trois" (both real titles) will show much of her acting chops. Traci Ryan is very cute as the naive wive who turns to murder surprisingly quickly, but Nancy O'Brien appears to think she's acting in a "Scooby Doo" climax. And if it wasn't for you meddling kids!
"General Massacre" is truly an anomaly in Belgian cinema, because we barely ever do exploitation films. Granted, it does seem to present itself as a serious war drama, but the main selling point is clearly shock value. Unfortunately for writer/director Burr Jerger, he did his job a bit too well and got the movie banned from the more interesting markets. Nowadays, it's actually quite tough to find a VHS for this movie, but surprisingly it has gotten a DVD release as well.
Burr Jerger made this movie for pocket change, but the limitations definitely work to his advantage. The shoddy camera work, cheap film and questionable acting (particularly by Jerger himself) give the movie a grim atmosphere. It definitely needs it too, because there's not much going on in the way of story. A general (he's actually named Massacre, believe it or not) comes back from Vietnam and the war made him insane, which makes him do all kinds of weird, disturbing things. That's basically as far the story goes.
While some of the experimental stuff in this movie is pretty fun, there's one quite infamous scene that takes things way too far. At one point the general confuses a random cow with the enemy (it happens) and shoots it with a machine gun. Unless Burr Jerger is the best special effects wizard in cinema history (spoilers: he isn't), this is real. Animal cruelty isn't exactly rare in cheap B-movies from the 1970s, but even to those standards this scene is pretty disgusting. Did Jerger think he was making art here? To even things out, he also kills some ducks.
"General Massacre" is pretty interesting as a historic oddity, but I'm not really buying the supposed deeper meaning of this movie. It doesn't have enough substance to really work as an anti-war statement, which I think they were desperately going for. With that said, I did find it strangely fascinating, even if it will put me of burgers for quite some time.
Burr Jerger made this movie for pocket change, but the limitations definitely work to his advantage. The shoddy camera work, cheap film and questionable acting (particularly by Jerger himself) give the movie a grim atmosphere. It definitely needs it too, because there's not much going on in the way of story. A general (he's actually named Massacre, believe it or not) comes back from Vietnam and the war made him insane, which makes him do all kinds of weird, disturbing things. That's basically as far the story goes.
While some of the experimental stuff in this movie is pretty fun, there's one quite infamous scene that takes things way too far. At one point the general confuses a random cow with the enemy (it happens) and shoots it with a machine gun. Unless Burr Jerger is the best special effects wizard in cinema history (spoilers: he isn't), this is real. Animal cruelty isn't exactly rare in cheap B-movies from the 1970s, but even to those standards this scene is pretty disgusting. Did Jerger think he was making art here? To even things out, he also kills some ducks.
"General Massacre" is pretty interesting as a historic oddity, but I'm not really buying the supposed deeper meaning of this movie. It doesn't have enough substance to really work as an anti-war statement, which I think they were desperately going for. With that said, I did find it strangely fascinating, even if it will put me of burgers for quite some time.
Dustin Ferguson makes about a dozen movies a year, which seems really impressive until you actually watch one of them. It's tough to call what he does filmmaking. He basically sells footage to bottom feeders like Tubi. He turns on his consumer-grade camera and mostly just points it at stuff. I can't imagine this movie even had a script. There's a very rough outline and the actors just kinda figure things out as it goes along. That worked really well for "Blair Witch". This isn't "Blair Witch".
Low-budget movies usually tend to waste some time. Cheap horror movies that are all killer no filler are few and far between. Not everyone has the talent or resources to make the new "Evil Dead", and we accept that. Sometimes a walking/driving scene can go on for way too long in a thinly-veiled attempt to boost the running time, and we just kinda smile. That's fair. However, I don't think I've ever seen someone pad the running time so cynically and blatantly. "Amityville: Evil Never Dies" starts with two scenes that were clearly shot for a different movie, has the slowest credit sequences in cinema (ahum) history and gives us riveting scenes like a character walking to a park, sitting on a bench, making a drawing and walking back home. Of course the drawing or the park have absolutely no bearing on the plot, what a silly thing to ask. What do you think this is, a movie?
Granted, this is nothing new. While Ferguson himself claims inspirations by Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper, in reality he's much more related to Jerry Warren. Warren was a prolific director in the 50s and 60s, but basically all he did was buy up obscure foreign films, chop them up, add just a bare minimum of footage with American actors and pretend it was a coherent movie. Much like Ferguson, he churned out products with no regard for quality or entertainment value. The main difference between Warren and Ferguson is that Warren was brutally honest about this in interviews. He knew he was a glorified con artist and never tried to convince us he was trying to make the new "Texas Chain Saw Massacre". Ferguson doesn't even give us that courtesy and tries to convince us he's making homages to his favorite movies. If you're making me defend Jerry Warren, you may not be very good at your job.
The most bothersome thing about productions like this is how they make it increasingly difficult to find a diamond in the rough. There are (probably) some promising directors out there who try to get a head start with a micro-budget horror flick, much like Sam Raimi or Peter Jackson did before them. I want to see these movies, but they're between hundreds of films by people who don't give a damn and are there for a quick buck. Even video stores, notorious for how much crap they had on the shelves, had much better ratios than that. If you genuinely love horror movies, for the love of God don't make them look like this. It's just going to turn people away from giving micro-budget horror a chance.
Low-budget movies usually tend to waste some time. Cheap horror movies that are all killer no filler are few and far between. Not everyone has the talent or resources to make the new "Evil Dead", and we accept that. Sometimes a walking/driving scene can go on for way too long in a thinly-veiled attempt to boost the running time, and we just kinda smile. That's fair. However, I don't think I've ever seen someone pad the running time so cynically and blatantly. "Amityville: Evil Never Dies" starts with two scenes that were clearly shot for a different movie, has the slowest credit sequences in cinema (ahum) history and gives us riveting scenes like a character walking to a park, sitting on a bench, making a drawing and walking back home. Of course the drawing or the park have absolutely no bearing on the plot, what a silly thing to ask. What do you think this is, a movie?
Granted, this is nothing new. While Ferguson himself claims inspirations by Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper, in reality he's much more related to Jerry Warren. Warren was a prolific director in the 50s and 60s, but basically all he did was buy up obscure foreign films, chop them up, add just a bare minimum of footage with American actors and pretend it was a coherent movie. Much like Ferguson, he churned out products with no regard for quality or entertainment value. The main difference between Warren and Ferguson is that Warren was brutally honest about this in interviews. He knew he was a glorified con artist and never tried to convince us he was trying to make the new "Texas Chain Saw Massacre". Ferguson doesn't even give us that courtesy and tries to convince us he's making homages to his favorite movies. If you're making me defend Jerry Warren, you may not be very good at your job.
The most bothersome thing about productions like this is how they make it increasingly difficult to find a diamond in the rough. There are (probably) some promising directors out there who try to get a head start with a micro-budget horror flick, much like Sam Raimi or Peter Jackson did before them. I want to see these movies, but they're between hundreds of films by people who don't give a damn and are there for a quick buck. Even video stores, notorious for how much crap they had on the shelves, had much better ratios than that. If you genuinely love horror movies, for the love of God don't make them look like this. It's just going to turn people away from giving micro-budget horror a chance.