In Off-topic

Alright, I'm a big fan of Charlie Sheen, and one day I read his profile on . I read that in 1991 he and a friend came in posession of a japanese movie called "Za ginipiggu: Akuma no jikken". He thought after watching the movie, that this was actual snuff footage.

So Charlie and his friend phoned the FBI, who tracked down the makers of the film, and they convinced them that this was indeed special effects.

Anyway, when I had read all this, I saw that it was a link of the movie on imdb.com. I checked it out, and the movie really sounds creepy.

Here's the link:

Definetly not my kind of taste in movies.

It's a shock film. There are a lot of them out there...

Disgusting. I can NEVER watch a person in pain or tortured. Who the heck would watch something like this? It's horrible.

Ediit: Cursing

.

Disgusting. I can NEVER watch a person in pain or tortured. Who the heck would watch something like this? It's horrible.

Ediit: Cursing

I imagine it's aimed at sadists for sexual highs. Did anyone read the for the movie? Relatively creepy person...

Never heard of that Sheen movie, but surely know the Faces of Death. Man that were shockers... I was very impressed with 10 years watching those.

I saw that one. Poor chimp...

actually, i wouldn't mind seeing it. just to say that i saw it, and to see why the author of that review was so disgusted

The worst thing is, they still do this a lot in Taiwan and China.

Can something made in 1985 really be that convincing? I wouldn't want to see it though, me and a few dumbarses at school were searching "beheaded" "gore" "blood" "brutal death" on google image search, that was enough there.

The 80s were a good decade for bloody horror flicks...

man, you should check out that site is pretty sweet.

I hate rotten.com, and all those shock sites. I just... ugh.



Actually, the author of the review was saying the effects weren't real ...

Yeah, nothing that I'd call "sweet"...

I hate rotten.com, and all those shock sites. I just... ugh.



Actually, the author of the review was saying the effects weren't real

As many wonders, "Can this be any realistic, although it's a movie from 1985..." It was said in a review for the movie that it wasn't very realistic, everything except from "The Eyeball Scene" (if you read the review, you'll know what I'm talking about...) You actually get to see them cut her straight over the eyeball with a sharp object.

Tell you what...Copy the name of the movie and got to google, and then to images, and then paste the title in. You'll get to see some of the disgusting images from them movie there. Try also the American title of the movie: "Devil's Experiment".

Er, thanks, I'll pass.

Now, I'd like to know why exactly shock films are classified as "horror"... it has no plot, no character development (on second thought, thank God for that), no anything, they just show people getting tortured. What a wierd and ugly concept.

I know...I think the reason why they call it "horror", is because it's very disturbing for most people to watch.

In this movie for example, the men has covered their faces by the shadows, it has no character plot and no cast. Which makes you sometimes wonder if what you watch is illegal.

It says by the way that it was banned in Australia.

I don't really see the point of watching or owning these movies, all you see is a poor woman beeing tortured for 45 minutes.

Some people however want to own movies like this for their "horror" collection. Some other perverts wants to watch it for (wich was mentioned earlier) sexual reasons.

I never realised that Emilio Estevez and Charlie Sheen were brothers!
Anyway, doesn't sound too nice.

Really? I've known that for ages...Charlie Sheen's real name is: Carlos Irwin Estevez.

I feel embarassed by it. Although I don't really know much about Charlie Sheen.

I know it's a while since I started this topic, but I just had to show you what I just came across: .

Check out "Devil's Experiment" or "Mermaid in a Manhole".

Man that's the ugliest thing I've ever seen...