Ken isn't really known for making stomach-churning horrors, so how does this rate against other gore-fests of the same
-
BoyScoutKevin — 20 years ago(March 18, 2006 02:35 PM)
Well, the violence in it is one of the reasons it is rated "R." But, is it stomach-churning? Probably not. What is probably true, is that there are some horror films out there, that are more violent than this one. But, I don't know of any at the moment. Maybe someone else out there does.
-
kaiju0 — 20 years ago(April 03, 2006 11:32 AM)
Gore is not a word I'd use in describing this film. Is it a horror film? Barely. I always thought of it as a light horror, light comedy, damn entertaining movie. Having said that, it should also be noted, I'm a huge fan of Ken Russell's, and happily devour anything I can get my hands on that he's filmed. So I admit to being biased.
Also, Amanda Donahoe is spectacular in this movie. She completely "gets" what Russell wanted from her. -
keyser_soze_wales — 19 years ago(April 06, 2006 11:23 AM)
It's not that gory, and it's not at all scary either. But who cares, it's pretty damn watchable all the same! I only saw this film for the first time a few weeks ago, after reading the Imdb reviews. I have to say that, yeah, some of the acting's a bit lame but really not as laughable as I thought it would be after reading the reviews (pretty much everyone does a decent job here and the script is quite funny, intentionally or not), and yes, it's low-budget and completely bizarre in places but I think all of this leads to it being funnier and endearing. Who needs flash special effects anyway?!
-
ye_river_xiv — 19 years ago(May 11, 2006 08:33 PM)
Well, it's about as horrifying as the Evil Dead Trilogy
Quite humorous really, and totally unbelievable when you think about it, but they take themselves seriously enough that you can suspend your disbelief usually. -
BoyScoutKevin — 16 years ago(November 04, 2009 03:06 PM)
Actually, I looked this topic up, as I was interested in knowing whether it had won any Razzie Awards as well. And not only did it not only not win any Razzie Awards, it wasn't even nominated for any.
It did win Best Special Effects at the 1989 FantaFestival, and it was nominated (no wins) for Best Film at the 1989 FantaSporto and Best Actress and Best Costumes at the 1990 Saturn Awards.
But no Razzies. Not even a nomination, -
btodd2001 — 16 years ago(November 04, 2009 07:40 PM)
Ken isn't really known for making stomach-churning horrors.
http://www.imdb.com/board/10066993/
The Devils, from 1971, sure makes a run for its money.It's definitely one I would recommend only if you have a strong stomach!!!
If possible, find the DVD with the extras on it, that includes the long-banned and thought to be lost "Rape of Christ" scene.
I'm not even religious and it was pretty extreme.
"You know what Stewie, If you don't like it, go on the internet and complain." -
GeneticSugarKane — 12 years ago(February 09, 2014 04:37 PM)
I think you may be thinking of a different film.
My IMDb lists:
www.imdb.com/user/ur5570856/lists -
Mark_a_Wood — 10 years ago(August 20, 2015 03:50 AM)
No monsters. Nothing supernatural.
Apart from the huge white wyrm - that is an ancient god, the immortal serpent-woman high priestess, people being bitten by said serpent-woman turning into serpent people.
Just your average Derbyshire stuff really.Sparks Moran: "It was dusk. I could tell 'cause the sun had gone down" -
CMRKeyboadist — 15 years ago(May 12, 2010 11:28 AM)
Interesting blog.
Lair of the White Worm is a horror/fantasy. It does have some strong horror elements but mixes in some very old school mythology in a bizarre and sometimes hypnotic way. It's not Russell's best film (Altered States anyone?) but is certainly an entertaining film that should please most horror fans that are looking for something outside the slasher and gore genres. -
bradjanet — 15 years ago(May 17, 2010 08:16 PM)
The definition of a burlesque is as follows:"Burlesque is a humorous theatrical entertainment involving parody and sometimes grotesque exaggeration". Given this definition, I would call "Lair of the White Worm" a horror-burlesque. and along with Russell's other trashterpiece, "Salome's Last Dance", it makes half of a very entertaining double-feature.
But you ARE Blanche and I AM. -
snes4u — 12 years ago(August 03, 2013 02:05 PM)
I would not try to rate this against gore-fests. I do not even see the point of asking a question like that on the IMDB board of a movie you have not seen.
It is a much different sort of film.
You can try to rate it against dark horror comedies. In that regard, I think it does quite well. It is one of the finest examples of horror comedies. Though, how many horror comedies actually exist? -
rogerscorpion — 12 years ago(November 26, 2013 03:02 AM)
How about Bela Lugosi's Dracula? I think people misunderstand what horror films are.
I recently had a disagreement, with a person, who thought 'The Wicker Man' is a horror film ( the original). I disagree. It was very creepy & atmosphericyes, but not horror.
This one has giant white wormsno? Tremors had giant worms.
Carpe Noctem! -
Little_Korean — 12 years ago(December 02, 2013 03:03 AM)
How would you define a horror film, then?
I'd consider Wicker Man to be a horror film, at least in part (it could also be in the suspense, mystery, etc, genre).
It's not obvious until the very end, but it seems safe to assume that the intended result was for the audience to be horrified at what comes. Hence, horror.
When darkness overcomes the heart, Lil' Slugger appears