Even the generally "Why the hell would we release a commercial
film that doesn't involve some bullshit moral/heroin addict/Geoffrey
Rush" Australian film industry let one slide with the incredibly
successful Wolf Creek. But at what point do we draw the line between entertainment, exploitation - and the downright uneccissary. The English flick Broken, another torture flick in the vein of Wolf Creek
which claims to be "Based on True Events", begs this question from the
very first frame. A woman is found screaming in agony she hangs from a
tree in a bare forest - forced to undo the stitches on her stomach in
order to find a blade buried beneath her skin in order to free herself
of the rope which threatens to hang her by the neck. I would
imagine that the same question would have been posed in the 80's when
slasher flicks started to takes off. The stories were often pointless -
and often just an excuse to see which director could come up with the
most inventive ways of decapitating a mean spirited teen. But the
difference between the cheap B-Grade Slasher flicks and this new breed
of torturous horror is that the victims are innocent. These victims
aren't quickly decapitated. These victims are subjected to cruelness
beyond belief. The loose base for a background story (plot is
irrelevant throughout these flicks - as it's the random nature of the
victim being chosen which makes the concept so much more horrifying) is
that young nurse, Hope, and her young daughter are abducted and
brought to a remote forest by a mysterious and nameless man. As Hope is
forced to undergo a series of humiliating, violent, and degrading
trials, she fights desperately to escape and discover the fate of her
missing daughter. Will Hope escape the clutches of evil or will be she
be Broken? I have to admit - I absolutely adored Hostel. It appealed to something primeval within me (and obviously to many others looking at the box office takings), however while Broken
does build up the tension and suspense with great skill (many times you
get the feeling that the abductor might have a change of heart before
he snaps) - it is just far to difficult to endure as a form of
entertainment. And while I would suggest that it does work as a
film (and it is fantastically layered and engrossing - with the
cinematography & lighting absolutely superb) - it's just all so
unnecissary, not in a 'large body count disposable slasher flick' kind
of way - but in a 'do I really need to be subjected to this' kind of
way. Let's just hope that after a few more flick like this (Hostel 2
is already on it's way), there is another re-invention of Hollywood
horror genre (must like there was in the late 90's after a spate of Scream copies) and we return to the "Not what you see, but what you don't see" brand of thriller. Fantastically watchable, but difficult to watch. DVD
Extras It's
a relatively cheaply made flick - shot on Digital - so the chances of a
secondary film crew wandering around making a fluff "Behind The Broken"
was always fairly unlikely. All we get here is the trailer for the
flick, along with a second film trailer in the same vein. Conclusion:
Movie 75% Extras: 30% 
| 
