Guinea Pig: Devil's Experiment (1985)

What makes it different from others?

Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

People should understand that short horror films like Guinea Pig aren't very story based, but for me, Guinea Pig failed at being scary just because I didn't feel like the characters had any motivation, and I was just left with a bad taste in my mouth from the gore.I understand that this film was mostly meant to shock viewers and make them feel uncomfortable with it's disturbing visuals, which could make Guinea Pig decent in the sense that it achieved what it set out to do, but because of how realistic the torture scenes and gore were, I really just didn't enjoy it as much as movies like Cannibal Holocaust where the gory scenes are planned out really well and give the scenes a freaky, shocking feeling, instead of just someone getting stabbed.The only part I kind of enjoyed was the final scene in which the girl is stabbed through the eye with a needle. I'm not a fan of needles to begin with, so this really freaked me out. While the special effects were really good, I still >>DIDN'T SEE<< any reason for the scene in the first place.

This film disappointed me. Perhaps the weight of my expectations was too high. Why? Because I read a lot about it before viewing. But could it be called a spoiler when a story doesn't exist?In a way what shocked me was the poor execution of the 'torture scenes'. I couldn't imagine how less of an impact will they have. Even the good ending scene could've been so much better. The fact itself that the person seems to be unconscious during the piercing takes away a lot of the shock factor. Her 'screams' throughout are so much contrasting to what's actually happening that I found myself laughing for most of it. I've seen school-clips which have had a bigger shocking value.The idea sounds great and that's the key word - sounds. The way I was imagining this film was much much better than what it proved to be in reality. But hey, underground can hardly afford a better performance, can it? The runtime doesn't do it any favours either.If you want a real challenge you should check some proved titles - the likes of Cannibal Holocaust, the masterpieces by Takashi Miike, Zombi 2 (1979) and a personal favourite - Mark of the Devil(the first). A story can enhance the effect, it's doesn't always give the viewer air to breathe. So does a genuine, full runtime.I acknowledge however, that this film has his place in the extreme history and it's a brave effort nevertheless, with the final scene being a highlight.

I am an avid fan of violent exploitation cinema, who would never attack a film for being violent or disturbing. I consider "Cannibal Holocaust" a masterpiece and will always defend controversial films like "Day Of The Woman" or "Last House on the Left" as genuine classics. Anyone who browses through my other user comments will notice that I am actually very pro-violence/gore when it comes to films. However, I do think that there should be at least some point to the violence. This piece of crap doesn't have any point whatsoever. The first film in the notorious "Guinea Pig" series, "The Devil's Experiment" (1985) is widely controversial, but, as opposed to many other controversial films, this stinker has nothing at all to be recommended for. I must say that, before seeing any of the Guniea-Pig films, I already had a feeling that I would hate this one, knowing what it was about. Due to its status as one of the most controversial films around, however, I decided I had to see it. I am very glad I didn't waste any money on this pile of crap, and I sure wish I hadn't wasted my time with it either.This thing's story (I don't even want to call it a 'film'): It doesn't have one. Three scumbags torture a woman to death for some excruciating 40 minutes. That's it. There is no artistic value, no 'shocking' story, no suspense; nothing. Simply the disbelief that a film that shows NOTHING except for a woman being tortured for no reason enjoys an enormous cult-following. It IS disturbing, I give it that. Of course it is disturbing to watch a torture video for 40 minutes. What is more disturbing, however, is the fact that many people actually seem to regard this pile of garbage as some kind of masterpiece. I really cannot figure why. The fact that the gore effects look realistic cannot be the reason, I hope. The girl who plays the victim isn't a very good actor, and reacts very calm to all the torture. That makes the film look less realistic, which is, in this single case, a good thing. This is a film that is sickening; not for its gore, but for its redundancy, its existence for the sole purpose of showing 40 minutes of torture.I strongly oppose any form of censorship. Since this is 100 per cent fake and nobody got hurt during its production, it is, of course, legitimate to make such a film. However, I cannot think of a single reason why anyone would like this, other than the morbid desire to watch suffering and the enjoyment of torture. This film's sequel "Flowers of Flesh and Blood" gained notoriety when actor Charlie Sheen mistook it for an actual snuff film and informed the FBI. Fortuneately, the film turned out to be fake. Overall, "The Devil's Experiment" is a fake torture/snuff film that seems to have the sole purpose of looking as close to a real snuff film as possible."The Devil's Experiment" is one of the worst films I have ever had the misfortune of sitting through. Don't torture yourself by giving this piece of crap a try for its controversial status. Do yourself a favor and avoid it.

This movie has to be my favorite of all time. Its not supposed to have a plot, because its makers wanted people (Charlie Sheen, I think)to believe it was a real snuff film. This was an exercise in visual effects, and doesn't cut away when the action happens like every other film does. Movies these days are now all about sound effects, leaving the visuals to be made by computers cause its easier to deal with CGI blood. There still are movie makers who still can't get fake blood to look like the real thing. There is no rape scene because that wasn't the point of making the film. Have you seen the hills have eyes 2? The rape scene was funny instead of shocking. Although i'm sure there are some GONZO porn film makers that have tried to marry porn with horror. But since they probably suck at making films, they probably wouldn't be able to pull it off. The movie "Baise Moi" has a disturbing rape scene because the actresses are actually porn stars and they show everything even though the movie overall sucks.Its too bad that a movie can't be made without thinking of the money aspect of it all, especially when talking about an AO or NC-17 rating. I'm sure Eli Roth has the ability/talent to make his Hostel film series much much better, but he has too tame it down to get an R rating...or at least I hope that his movies sucked because of these limitations.Watch Traces of Death or More than Smashed Pumpkins if you want no frills real footage (accident & crime scenes/footage). Don't forget that this movie was made in 1985. The fact that this film can still stand up against most crap made these days says a lot about this film. That would be like someone saying the 8bit Super Mario Brothers sucks because the PS3 has better graphics.