Raw Meat?

[Grega77]

Hey has anyone seen this movie called Raw Meat?
It stars Donald Pleasence and is directed by Gary Sherman.
Is it worth a rent or buy?
Let me know your opinions on this movie if you saw it.
Thanks.

[countchocula]

Rated on a scale from 0-5 Chocula’s...

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00009PY41.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

MINOR SPOILERS

This film answers the question, “What if cannibalistic underground dwellers weren’t humanoids?” Raw Meat (known as Death Line in the UK) boasts a fresh, repugnant premise. By repugnant, I mean coarse and filthy enough to appeal to rabid, gibbering horror freaks such as myself. In 1892, a tunnel toppled over during the formation of an underground railroad system, enmeshing a group of men and women beneath the rubble. For generations, a select few survived by feeding on the flesh of their dead acquaintances. When all the meat had been consumed, they turned to the tenants of London for nourishment. Cut to 1972 – the last remaining C.U.D. (credited as “The Man”) skulks about a transit station scouring for potential victuals. The police finally catch on to these base murders, and it’s up to a particularly badass Donald Pleasance to detain the marauding savage.

The film itself is as gritty as the synopsis indicates. The Man’s warren is a grisly set piece, there are many lingering shots of partially eaten cadavers, and I don’t recall any natural light peeking through the backdrops. A dank, macabre flick, to be sure. That’s how I like them, but the putrefied atmosphere is one of the very few desirable virtues that Raw Meat has to offer. The pace is spent, the improvident editing choices sap the viewer’s patience, and while the plot is definitely unique, it’s far too gaunt and skeletal to comfortably fill 90 minutes. I was shocked by how little actually happens. Futile, uneventful scenes are drawn out for no apparent reason other than to pad the running time. There’s one intrepid exception to this rule, but I’ll discuss it later.

Aside from distressing imagery, this film’s most valuable asset is its invaluable cast. Donald Pleasance steals the show as the sardonic Inspector Calhoun. To be frank, he’s a smartass, and being a professionally-trained smartass myself, I could relate to the guy. I delighted in his glut of witty barbs and assertive demands for tea. Pleasance’s theatrical delivery suits his character, and to my pleasant surprise (vomit-inducing pun intended), Dr. Loomis rarely came to mind. Hugh Armstrong gives a conscientiously emotive performance as The Man. He’s a tragic villain in the same vein as Frankenstein’s monster or King Kong. You empathize with him to a degree, but his perpetual burbling tends to fray the nerves (“Mind the doors! Mind the doors! Mind the doors!”...125x).

Christopher Lee crops up for a frivolous cameo. He only occupies a couple of minutes of screen time, but the opening credits see to it that you’re aware of his billing. His name sprawls across the screen in bold, hulking letters. A slutty thing to do, but his fleeting presence is indisputably memorable. He plays a groveling, underhanded character, and we all know that he has a resolute grip on bad guys. The sole lacking performance here is given by David Ladd, the sole American cast member. To be fair, his dialogue is labored (“Pat, what’s really bothering you?”), but he just seemed indifferent throughout. Perhaps if he weren’t surrounded by distinguished talent, he wouldn’t come off as inferior. All the same, everyone else acts isosceles triangles around him (no, circles aren’t good enough).

The exposition is choppy thanks to protracted periods of humdrum goings-on. We spend the first 20-30 minutes watching people…talk. It’s not that the conversations are mind-numbing; it’s just that Gary Sherman’s camera refuses to budge. His point/shoot “style” muffles the script’s content. Although the content itself is quite clever at times, I wasn’t given a reason to care about it. The garrulous first act is followed by roughly seven minutes of…silence. It’s a plodding, continuous tracking shot that gives us a brief tour of The Man’s uncanny abode. This sequence is flawlessly executed, and effectively heaps on the stark vibe, but it jarred my equilibrium. The prolonged stillness didn’t sit well with me after undergoing so much aimless chit-chat. The rest of Raw Meat adheres to this disjointed formula. We alternate between both extremes ad infinitum, which bogs down the already deliberate pace.

By the time that this flick reached a conclusion, I didn’t invest much interest in how the tale concluded. The “climax” is lethargic. Not to mention that it fails to resolve anything, and doesn’t tie every constituent of the plot together. What’s worse, it negates a certain character’s purpose and leaves you flummoxed as to why that particular subplot was so heavily emphasized (technically, it’s actually the main plot). Oh, bother. I wanted to dig Raw Meat. It wasn’t an inclusive loss, but I couldn’t force myself to gloss over the imperfections. Sherman would refine his craft with Dead & Buried, his belated sophomore effort. I would advise you to skip ahead to it, but this film does have its fair share of groupies. Give it a go because you might see something that I didn’t.

http://www.panterachat.com/phpBB/images/avatars/189e2d913f19af0c5477f.jpg http://www.panterachat.com/phpBB/images/avatars/189e2d913f19af0c5477f.jpg http://www.panterachat.com/phpBB/images/avatars/189e2d913f19b100369a9.jpg

[Cushing]

Well Countchockula's said it all there in a very fine dissection of Raw Meat a.k.a. Deathline . If I can add anything at all it would just be to say that I must be one of the films " groupies " cause I really like it . Mostly for its downbeat themes , originality and Donald Pleasance as the most realistic Detective Inspector I've ever seen on screen .

[xlr8r]

I agree...
I liked "Raw Meat". Liked it better than "Dead and Buried".