Anthropophagous 2000

Now, before I begin, I must emphasise that I am NOT bias against trash films. In fact, I LOVE Schnaas films, Nikos The Impaler is one of my most favourite films of all time.

But this was complete SH*T, Andreas tried to make the tension a little bit slower. Which ultimately failed, and just made the film Painful to sit through. I must admit though, the gore wasn't too bad, but there was so much of an abundance I felt a bit cheated.

Thing that made Anthropophagus (The Original) good, was how scary George Eastman was, but somehow, Schnaas, even in his make-up, isn't scary AT ALL. I think I speak for all Schnaas fans that Schnaas should just stick to playing a Cleaver wielding, masked maniac.

Anyone wanting a good horror film, watch Anthropophagus, a good trash film, watch Nikos. But please, avoid this excuse of a film.

In this retelling of Joe D'Amato's cult classic 'Antropophagus' from the 80's, a marooned lunatic preys upon hapless teenagers.

Joe D'Amato was, in all honesty, not the best director. Carving his name in a niche market of extremely gory and often hardcore pornographic films, his status diminished more and more, until he died of a heart attack in 1999. Mostly, he is remembered for his morally and stylistically repugnant films like the 'Ator' and 'Emanuelle' series, in particular 'Emanuelle in America', but also for his bizarre horror efforts, such as 'Buio Omega' or the aforementioned 'Antropophagus'.

So already you have a sort of love him or hate him situation. Andreas Schnaas evidently despised him, because where 'Antropophagus' was offensive, 'Anthropophagous 2000' is inept and borderline unwatchable.

It all becomes very clear when you sit through a love scene between a long-haired weirdo and his girlfriend who looks like Chong Li from 'Bloodsport'. The, dare I say, dialogue is laughably bad and sometimes totally inaudible. After the scummy sex scene, they are both murdered by our main antagonist, Nikos Karamanlis. The sex is ugly, the gore is over the top and the acting is ludicrous, but you knew that already.

The question is, is it worth it?

No. D'Amato's films were pretty terrible, but like many other video nasties and exploitation films from that time, they have a certain twisted charm, especially some of the soundtracks.

'Anthropophagous 2000' has virtually no redeeming qualities. You will probably laugh a few times, but I doubt that was Schnaas intention. The exposition delivered by the titular cannibal in particular is just unbelievably bad.

Not uncommon for Schnaas. Part of a burgeoning scene scene in the 80's, his previous efforts such as 'Violent Sh*t' or 'Zombie 90' are funnier than this, but technically even worse. Other well known members of this movement were Jörg Buttgereit and Olaf Ittenbach. Both have made vastly superior films to anything Schnaas has ever done.

Now it probably sounds like I'm knocking him pretty hard, but the truth is, you can absolutely watch 'Anthropophagous 2000'. My advice would be to get highly intoxicated first.

this really shouldn't work. it's shot on video which is always a bad thing, the acting is bad - especially when the actors try speaking English. the sex scenes are laughable - the type where characters bonk away without removing their underwear apparently.

the gore is badly done too - it makes blood feast look professional! people having their insides pulled out by the villain just seem to be standing there and allowing him to do it!

despite this, it's good fun - the gore (despite it's low quality) is yucky and even funny and there's lots to see in the film - it's made with enthusiasm.

worth a watch with pre knowledge of how bad it all is.

Anthropophagous 2000 (1999)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

German director Andreas Schnaas' remake of Joe D'Amato's infamous Anthropophagous is pretty much a direct rip and follows the same storyline of vacationers stuck on an island and being terrorized by a cannibal. I've heard a lot about Schnaas but this was the first film of his I've seen. He's got quite a reputation for gore and the film doesn't disappoint on that level. There are all sorts of insanely violent scenes with tons of gore but the special effects are so incredibly poor that you can't help but laugh at them. It's that laughter that gives this film its charm, ala an Ed Wood movie. Technically speaking everything here is pretty horrid and doesn't hold a candle to the original flick. The famous "abortion" scene is also done here but not nearly as well.

"Anthropophagous 2000" is the first Schnaas film I've seen. As a huge Joe D'Amato fan, I couldn't but give it a try. Well, I wasn't totally displeased, but I wasn't overly excited either. When Andreas Schnaas is good, he is very good, but when he's bad, he's rotten.

The film has its strong points: (1) The atmosphere is creepy and suspenseful. (2) The violence is brutal and plentiful. (3) There are enough surprises to keep viewers interested (especially if you are familiar with the original Joe D'Amato classic). (4) Andreas Schnaas is very good as the Grim Reaper (at least he tries his best to make a solid performance).

But there are also weak points. To name the most important ones:

(1) The major letdown is the lack of realistic gore. The gore effects in "Anthropophagous 2000" are of very uneven quality: some are quite impressive, while others are cheesy to the point of offense to the viewer. Was Schnaas distracted by other projects while he was making this, or did he run out of money, or did he simply lose interest?

(2) The sex scenes are laughable. How people are supposed to have sex with their under- and outerwear on (and how we are supposed to believe they're having sex) is beyond me. I'm not asking for Andreas Bethmann- type explicitness, but those scenes just don't work.

These drawbacks aside, "Anthropophagous 2000" is a nice effort. It's brutal, it's gory, and it's definitely worth a look – or maybe two. But it could have been better.