Well, I'm used to being misled by Amazon Prime, but I've never felt as misled by Netflix as I did when I watched The Bloody Judge. First off, there is this picture:
So it would be logical to assume that there is some sort of monster in this, right? I mean, you wouldn't put a clearly inhuman creature on the box art unless you delivered *something* monstrous, right? Well, that is not the case. Unless you count old-tymey British wigs as monstrous.
Then, there is the PG-rating. I've read quite a bit about director Jesus Franco - I've seen a couple of his films, but never anything with the sexploitation edge that he's probably most famous for. One would assume that the PG-rating would mean that there would be very little nudity, but nope! The Bloody Judge is way too harsh for a PG - full frontal nudity galore, and a particular fetish with torturing women in long, drawn out scenes. (Never mind the misogynist vibe that permeates the whole film, with lots of women in various torture devices and repeatedly being called "bitch", "slut," and "wench.") So if you assume that all PG-rated movies would be safe for family viewing, beware.
Now, neither of these are really Netflix's fault entirely. Obviously, you can't blame them for the promotional art. And apparently there is a PG cut of The Bloody Judge floating around out there, that runs 80-some minutes. But this cut runs 102 - so you've got roughly 20 minutes that was cut to make it PG. And those minutes, like I said, are pretty brutal. But again, maybe just a mishap in the Netflix office. But their summary is just terrible:
"When an evil judge targets her anti-government beau, a woman tries to save him by surrendering to the judge's licentious advances."
I mean, it's technically true - although the surrendering doesn't happen until about two-thirds of the way through the film. But this is like a Star Wars summary that doesn't mention they are in space. I mean, the 1688 English setting is basically everything in this film - it's a period piece through and through - which should have at least been mentioned. The main story revolves around the "Glorious Revolution" (I learned something today!) and has quite a bit of political skullduggery. It's not really just this woman and her boyfriend. Also, hearing a little bit about the witch trials or the torture chambers in the summary would have been nice.
You can kind of piece together the story from the above business, but here's my take. A holier than thou judge in ye olde England (Christopher Lee) believes in the righteousness of God and King and swiftly executes those he thinks are witches or rebel sympathizers. He executes a young woman for the crime of witchcraft early on in film. The woman's sister Mary (Maria Rohm) begs for mercy but ultimately does not give in to the judge's "licentious advances." Later, Mary falls in love with a young man named Harry who is on the opposite side of the "Glorious Revolution" than the judge. The young lovers and their cohorts are eventually captured, and in the name of "justice" are tortured and threatened with execution. Meanwhile, stirring in the background is a rebellion to overthrow King James II (for whom the titular judge is a loyalist). Will Mary and Harry (ha!) escape the wrath of the Bloody Judge and his morally bankrupt followers? Tune in to find out!
Oh, and there's lots of torture and nudity too.
For much of The Bloody Judge, I was wondering if this was even horror film - it seems more like a historical piece than anything. And it's a little dry in those parts. The story isn't all that compelling, and while they seem to be trying to delve into the concept of power and corruption, it's not explored as much as I'd have liked. But then, when you get to the horror (torture) parts, The Bloody Judge is a little too extreme - there is this tonal discrepancy that kind of stops you from enjoying either part. Apparently, Franco kept the more extreme violent and sexual scenes a secret from star Christopher Lee until all of his scenes were shot. So that's kind of funny.
Lee is good as always as the titular judge. He's an interesting character in that he isn't totally evil - he really believes in the righteousness of what he is doing. So there is kind of an interesting dynamic at play - in some ways, he is so firm in his beliefs that it's almost kind of noble. But he is also very sheltered from the repercussions of his verdicts. Unfortunately, the script doesn't do an awful lot with that idea. It sort of comes together at the very end, but I would have liked to see it develop a little more over the course of the film, rather than just sort of throwing it out there right before the credits roll.
But ultimately, the film is just kind of underwhelming. While the acting was fine across the board, the characters are pretty generic. The only really noteworthy character is an old blind witch (played by Maria Schell), but she doesn't really even have a reason to be in the film - her whole part could have been cut and it wouldn't mean anything to the story. And the political intrigue isn't all that intriguing - it's just kind of boring. Franco gets some style points in how it's shot (lots of close ups and hand held shots that are sort of disorienting, especially in the torture scenes), but the look of the film is pretty bland otherwise. Which I think sort of shows you where his true interest was.
Oh, and I feel bad for the horses in this film. There is a long and not that exciting battle scene where a ton of horses are dropped - I'd bet at least a dozen were put down after this thing was over. You actually see one on the ground, laying on it's side with it's leg broken. I hate that shit.
So even if "gratuitous nudity" makes your ears perk up, there isn't really anything here that's titillating. Honestly, the whole thing just makes you uncomfortable. And the way it's paired up with a kind of boring historical storyline is rather perplexing. The Bloody Judge is certainly different, but in this case that is just not enough.
I would not recommend this film.
No comments:
Post a Comment