The HorrorDads ask WHO CAN KILL A CHILD?

HorrorDads Jeff Allard, Dennis Cozzalio, Greg Ferrara, Paul Gaita, Nicholas McCarthy and yours truly return to discuss the Narciso Ibanez Serrador’s seldom-discussed but oh-so-disturbing Iberian killer kid shocker QUIEN PUEDE MATAR A UN NINO, aka WHO CAN KILL A CHILD? (1976).


NICHOLAS MCCARTHY: A while back when I was anticipating the birth of my daughter, I found myself wondering if my enjoyment of horror movies would go out the window, if  I would become too sensitive to the violence in them.  I had a standing movie night with a friend where we had regularly watched some pretty crazy stuff and I programmed a series of “horror kids” movies leading up to my wife’s due date.  We watched IT’S ALIVE (1974), THE OMEN (1976) and WHO CAN KILL A CHILD? (1976). It was purposely silly to do this, but in a real way, I feared that this would be the last time I could “see” these films clearly.  Now I have watched WHO CAN KILL A CHILD again, a year and a half later.  If I thought I would have a radically different reaction now that I have a kid, I probably should have just remembered that if a film is good, it is worth seeing and thinking about, no matter what it’s about.  And this is a great movie.

RHS: I wrote the box copy for Dark Sky Films’ recent DVD when my wife was eight months pregnant with our son, so I’m sure I sat through this at least once during our joyous anticipation.  But I agree – it is a great movie.

NICHOLAS MCCARTHY: It’s different from not only most of the Spanish horror movies I have seen but most horror films I have seen, period.  It’s well directed, edited and photographed, has a pair of compelling leads, and packs an incredible concept.  It’s scary and unpredictable.  The fact that it is a fairly obscure title I guess has to do with its Spanish production and a poor release, but also surely because of just how shocking it is.

GREG FERRARA: I’d say the reason it isn’t well known, aside from the fact that it wasn’t available for years, is probably because non-English language horror really wasn’t appreciated or even paid attention to until the age of blogging began.   And this applies to so many great foreign films that I keep discovering because no one bothered to make them available, from SPIRIT OF THE BEEHIVE (1973) to OVERLORD (1975), until recently.  We were all led to believe that the seventies was the second Golden Age of Hollywood alone rather than the second Golden Age for all of world cinema and the recent availability of WHO CAN KILL A CHILD? only lends credence to that.

NICHOLAS MCCCARTHY: What might not be clear to people who have never seen the film is it’s not shocking in the way we usually expect horror movies to be, but shocking because it takes a daring concept and follows it 100% without blinking.  It strikes me that much of the time when evil children appear in horror movies, the material is based on reactionary impulses toward.  THE EXORCIST (1973) devises a lot of ugly power in this regard.  But the astonishing thing about this movie is we have evil kids who legitimately do know something more than we do — they’ve decided to beat the adults at their own game of violence.  They’re rising up and killing us all.  And, the film argues that they have the right to do so.  It’s an unbelievably dark idea.  But one that has a logic that makes sense.  Yikes.

DENNIS COZZALIO: I would agree that the thing that surprised me most about WHO CAN KILL A CHILD? is that seriousness of purpose. I was expecting a much more garish, giallo-influenced treatment of the subject matter filled with a lot of morally questionable scenarios involving our enjoyment of watching kids in their death throes. I wasn’t entirely prepared for the way the movie sets up real questions about our behavior as a society and the perhaps inexplicable effects it has on the innocent, or one that is as comfortable with ambiguity as this one is.

NICHOLAS MCCARTHY: What stood out to me watching the film again wasn’t the bloody second half, but the relationship of our married leads.  Tom and Evelyn are two well drawn characters at a place in their life familiar to many  couples who have had children — those tense months leading up to the birth, wondering if you have made the right choice.  Their getaway strikes me as a vivid setting for a story, and one I can now draw a direct line to from my own experience.

RHS: How refreshing is it for a horror movie to focus on a husband and wife who actually get along?  The whole “troubled marriage” scenario has been done to death in genre films lately, mostly because the writers these days seem to be more adept at scripting bickering than at putting forward fresh ideas.

JEFF ALLARD:  The actors come across so naturally as a couple and I like that neither character has any special background that would help them deal with this situation. I imagine if this were ever remade, Tom would be portrayed as a scientist, a child psychologist, an ex-soldier or something.

RHS: And they would have just lost a child, of course.

JEFF ALLARD: Of course!

DENNIS COZZALIO: One of the things that is distressing about modern films is how cheaply the death of a child has become.

NICHOLAS MCCARTHY: I really respond to the early scene in the hotel room when Tom wonders aloud if is it right to be having a child when the world is so full of horrible things and so many children suffer because of the choices of adults.  There’s an elegant sincerity here in the placement of the scene, as all hell breaks loose soon after.

DENNIS COZZALIO: Seeing this married couple enjoying each other’s company makes it more interesting when the cracks in the relationship start to appear, when the doubts about another baby are expressed and when Tom doubts Evelyn’s sanity.

RHS: One thing that always strikes me about Tom and Evelyn in this is how incredibly kind they are.  The way Tom picks up the body of the old man coshed to death by little Marián Salgado from that wild Spanish EXORCIST ripoff DEMON WITCH CHILD (1974), and the sick, sad look on his face when he sees the terrible things going on… I don’t know, maybe it’s a take on the perception of British decency… but it always touches me.

DENNIS COZZALIO: There’s definitely a level of empathy based on the fact that the movie isn’t out to score points off of Tom and Evelyn for being crude tourists or somehow otherwise base and vile and unlikable. That’s the usual trope in horror films, particularly American ones: make the characters as wall-to-wall obnoxious as possible so we can enjoy their predicament, even root for them to get offed.  I thought the girl who first visits Evelyn in the bar and kneels at her feet, caressing her pregnant belly, was effective and proves the case for expressing the horror lying just beneath a calm surface in the way that the director makes sure she’s never seen in a predictably glowering or otherwise ominous pose. The boy with the fishing basket – what the hell is in that thing? – covers that territory beautifully. And the payoff for that simple, ostensibly caring, curious touch on Evelyn’s bulging midsection, which comes much later, has got to be one of the great creep-outs in movie history.

JEFF ALLARD: I agree. And it’s Ransome’s acting that really sells it. That scene could’ve come across as unintentionally goofy had Ransome not been so convincing, and her last words not been so totally heartbreaking.

DENNIS COZZALIO: That moment is a brilliant furthering of a fear that just about every expectant parent has had at one point or another. I can’t say I enjoyed seeing it played out, in the same way that the first ten minutes of ORPHAN (2009) for me were like reliving a real-life waking nightmare, but in its creative daring and absolutely empathetic horror it was brilliant and I know I’ll never forget it.

PAUL GAITA: I found the film much more suspenseful this time around – I’d love to say that I was paying better attention this time, but the pacing was really unbearable in moments, specifically when Tom leaves Evelyn to explore the other rooms in the hotel and finds the rooms where the Dutch tourists stayed, now in disarray. Every time he left her, I got very nervous. And I wonder if that’s a new-found protective feeling towards my family. Any time Evelyn was in serious danger, I became very tense. Even more upsetting was the scene where they both make a mad dash through the empty town and Evelyn takes a horrific fall right on her very pregnant belly. These are the joys reserved for horror husbands and horror dads, I guess.

NICHOLAS MCCARTHY:  A great detail was how Tom didn’t translate for Evelyn what the camera shop clerk says about children being the real victims of war.  That sort of protective instinct feels right — she’s pregnant, he’s already playing a father/masculine guardian role, motivated partially by his own fears.  It’s the sort of writing that makes the relationship just slightly complicated, and therefore real. Also, it should be noted that Tom gives a little speech about LA DOLCE VITA (1960), a very cineaste-friendly touch by Serrador.  The scene Tom describes from the Fellini movie is about a father who kills his family to save them from the future.

RHS: Another point that would get red penciled in a remake.

NICHOLAS MCCARTHY:  For obvious reasons, the documentary footage prologue was the only difficult thing for me to watch this time around.  WHO CAN KILL A CHILD? is (ironically) a movie about violence toward children, literally and metaphorically, and the opening makes this outrageously explicit.  It’s almost ridiculously overstated.  A brief exchange we see later in the camera shop covers the same ground in a few brief lines of dialogue.
GREG FERRARA: I’m glad you mentioned the opening documentary footage because I didn’t want to be the only one.  I have always found it, and still do, very offensive when the Holocaust or any of the other real horrors shown in the beginning, are used for anything other than an examination of what happened with them specifically.  To use Auschwitz to set the stage for your fiction film strikes me as not only unnecessary but in extremely poor taste.  That said, I liked the movie very much though I didn’t find it to be a great movie but very close, certainly a very good one.  I thought the performances by Lewis Fiander and Prunella Ransome were excellent and they had to be: if those two performances had suffered in any way the movie wouldn’t have worked.  They have to play every emotion in the movie against the rigid unflinching children and do so superbly.

PAUL GAITA: I was floored by the opening atrocity footage. The scenes from the Indo-Pakistan conflict, with children’s bodies stacked like cordwood, produced a physical revulsion that I don’t recall having when I first saw the film – pre-baby, of course.

RHS: For me, the montage works to take me out of the world in which I live now and put me in a kind of neutral place.  I don’t know if I can explain it better than that.  The montage beats me down a bit, softens me up, and leaves me very vulnerable to WHO CAN KILL A CHILD?, so as distasteful, as heartbreaking as it is, I can’t say it isn’t effective.

JEFF ALLARD: I felt queasy watching the opening, too – then again, what other way is there to feel about it? It seemed to go on forever, to the point where I just wanted to fast forward, but I think it’s there to show how the atrocities of the world can erode, if not obliterate, the concept of innocence. As tough as it is to watch, I think the footage sets the stage for the movie’s action not so much in light of these kids righteously rebelling so much as in showing the world to be a savage place incompatible with innocence. If children are so easily slaughtered, if childhood isn’t regarded as sacred, then maybe it shouldn’t be in children’s nature to be innocent. They should literally be born to kill – even before they’re out of the womb.

GREG FERRARA: One thing I liked very much was the playing out of the central plot in a very real and methodical way.  You can watch it and believe in the initial reluctance to harm a child because it doesn’t seem possible but by the end we have come full circle with Tom and completely understand his rage and violence against them.

RHS: Horror fans get a lot of mileage out of saying “They couldn’t make that today” and 80% of the time they’re wrong.  I do think the adage can be applied against WHO CAN KILL A CHILD? but it’s not the children-as-killers angle or the killing children part that would queer the deal in the 21st Century… it’s the deliberate pace of the movie.  The newsreel montage is nearly 8 minutes long and we don’t see the first body for nearly forty minutes.  I don’t think the leads catch on until nearly an hour into the film.

PAUL GAITA: The film feels more like a thriller than an out and out horror film. Its slow, deliberate unveilings of just how dire the situation is reminded me of THE BROTHERHOOD OF SATAN (1971), a film that I love unconditionally, which has a similar pace and determination to keep the audience in the dark until absolutely necessary.

DENNIS COZZALIO: I totally agree that the movie’s pace, which betrays its European origins as much as any Spanish locations or presence of overdubbing, would never fly today. People who were expecting the relentless shocks of a typical slasher movie were audibly restless at the underpopulated screening of LET ME IN (2010) I went to the other night, so imagine how they’d react to a movie made with as much confidence as this one. But also I think, ORPHAN being a big exception, there’s a general reluctance not to portraying kids as evil per se, but certainly to seeing them reap the rewards of the kind of strange, violent antisocial behavior to which the kids on this island are under sway. At the very least, the movie would have to be fly by one of the original alternate titles, ISLAND OF THE DAMNED, rather than the thorny rhetorical question by which we know it.

GREG FERRARA: Nicholas, you said, “… the astonishing thing about this movie is we have evil kids who legitimately do know something more than we do — they’ve decided to beat the adults at their own game of violence.  They’re rising up and killing us all.  And, the film argues that they have the right to do so.”  I didn’t get that the film was arguing they had the right to do so or that it was arguing anything about the kids outside of they were now fighting back against the adults.   I found the mechanism of their rebellion purposely vague.  Now, I know they explain the horrors that have happened to children in the movie, but I mean it’s vague what outside force made the kids in this village do this and gave them the power to turn other children through telepathy.  Clearly it’s something supernatural, as with just a touch they have turned the unborn child of Tom and Evelyn against them and I like that no one ever provided some unsatisfying explanation for how this all happened.

DENNIS COZZALIO: I think the movie’s main strength is in its refusal to come right out and say, beyond some strange supernatural phenomenon, what has flipped the switch for these kids. I think that serves the film in its horror film context quite well. I only have to compare it with something like CHILDREN OF THE CORN (1984), which traffics in some of the same dread and mystery as to what’s going on with its kids, but then deflates that dread by getting too explicit about the society of pagan ritual and the appeasement of a demon god behind it all. I would also second Greg’s initial worry about that documentary footage. So often this kind of tactic is used to lend credibility or an air of seriousness to a film which doesn’t deserve it. WHO CAN KILL A CHILD? isn’t entirely an exploitation movie and I think it’s after big enough game– the disillusionment of an entire generation who may not even be able to articulate their outrage at the horrors of the world which are usually visited upon them most egregiously– that it survives the juxtaposition.

JEFF ALLARD: As for the film’s nihilistic outlook, that was one of the things that took it down just a notch for me. Not the nihilism – I’m okay with that – but the sense that its conclusion seemed like another knee-jerk, downbeat ending from the ‘70s where the hero loses and evil triumphs. It felt to me that the kids win only because of stupidity forced on the adult characters. Evelyn makes Tom swerve to avoid plowing their vehicle through the mob of kids even though they’ve seen enough by then to know their situation is deadly.  Tom throws his gun aside rather than hang on to it and when the would-be rescuers arrive, they take lethal action rather than take a closer look at what’s really going on – would anyone seeing what was happening between Tom and those kids really think that Tom was the threat?

PAUL GAITA:  As for being a nihilistic movie, I’m in the disagree camp. My take on nihilistic movies are those that are violent, downbeat and destructive for the sake of those attributes, and while I can imagine how someone reading a plot synopsis of this film might see it that way – kids go crazy, kill all the adults – but it just doesn’t feel that way. Unsettling, disturbing, sure, but not vicious for vicious’ sake – here’s another case of where the Overlook Encyclopedia of Film: Horror (an informative but frequently wrong-headed book) goes far afield by dismissing the film as Serrador solving the problem of “bad” children by massacring them… um, not really.  CHILDREN OF THE CORN is a good example of how the movie might’ve played if nihilism was the goal – how else to describe the shot of the butcher getting his hand fed into his meat slicer?

NICHOLAS MCCARTHY: My interpretation of the story is that it’s about a world that’s become so barbaric with genocide and war that children are taking revenge on the stewards of the place (us).   What’s nihilistic is the children’s methodology to handle this situation.  The indiscriminate method they are taking (wiping out the problem) parallels the then-current genocide occurring in Cambodia under Pol Pot — “Year Zero.”  The political idea of Year Zero was to destroy all history and culture, so as to wipe humanity’s slate  clean.  It’s always struck me that this is what the children are attempting to do in the form of their “game” in WHO CAN KILL A CHILD? The irony here, and one of the reasons I love this movie, is that the film is clearly a call for sanity in the world, as you all have articulated so well.  It’s a bold anti-war film, very much of its time.  Unfortunately, I have not seen a genre movie in the last ten war-filled years that even approaches the sort of originality or
sophistication that this one has.

JEFF ALLARD: Personally, I would’ve liked for Tom to have gotten the upper hand on these kids. Not to sound bloodthirsty but spraying a few kids with bullets just doesn’t seem like enough given the situation. After Evelyn died, I would’ve liked to for Tom not to go all Rambo but to find a sense of ruthlessness in himself and instead of just trying to escape, have him try to exterminate this evil before it spreads outside the island. He seems too nice a guy to engage in that kind of slaughter but hey, circumstances can change a man. I know if I saw my wife murdered by the unborn baby in her belly, I just wouldn’t be myself after that. Had the police patrol boat arrived after Tom had accomplished his task and the boat captain had put a bullet through Tom in an act of moral outrage, I would’ve liked that more. Or if Tom got down to one last kid and he was shot dead before finishing the job and this survivor was safely taken back to the mainland to infect more kids – that would’ve been a nihilistic conclusion I could get behind. As is, too much of the climax depends on the adult characters either being incompetent, careless, or lacking nerve. Given what happens in this film, we know that Tom is right to retaliate against these kids. Under the circumstances, who wouldn’t act as Tom does? If his actions crossed the line from simple survival to actively trying to kill these kids in a way that went past self-defense, however, that would’ve been a more difficult question to answer.

GREG FERRARA: That’s the crux of the movie: who can kill a child?  The movie does an excellent job of answering that question.  By the time Tom and Evelyn are locked in the room fighting off the hordes of children and the little kid pokes the gun through the top window aimed right at Evelyn’s head, I thought, “Kill the son of a bitch!”  When Tom has to escape I thought, “What are you waiting for, mow them down!”  Had these events happened too quickly, with not enough development of both story and Tom’s character, I never would have felt that.  And a part of that is because they cease being children and start being mindless killers.  After all, whatever bad there is in the world, it’s not coming from Tom and Evelyn so clearly, the killing is indiscriminate: If you’re an adult, you die.  Period.

JEFF ALLARD: Watching movies where harm comes to kids is usually a tough thing for me to do but WHO CAN KILL A CHILD? falls into its own separate category. Harm coming to innocent children is hard to watch. Harm coming to evil or possessed kids, not so much. This is still within my cinematic comfort zone.

GREG FERRARA: Exactly.  Like I said, they became “the Other.”  Mindless killers so you actually want them eliminated.  Just like the kids in VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED (1960) - blow ‘em all to hell, I say!

DENNIS COZZALIO: This clear expression of the kids as pure, unaccountable evil made me more comfortable with the movie too. But I wonder then if the movie might not have been better (and I’m speaking as someone who thought it was damn good) if we all weren’t so sure of how to feel about the kids. What if the movie worked on us not in the way that gets our righteous fury stirred up, but more in the way that the little girl who lures her father to his death does– by working on our sympathies, by having the children use their age and their presumed innocence against the adults they’re moved to eliminate. I completely understand Greg’s point about the newsreel footage dulling the impact of anything that comes after it, but maybe a way that the movie could have deepened would have been to somehow make the audience (if not the adults at risk) far less sure of how we should respond to the fact that we want these kids dead.

RHS: Tom and Evelyn’s restraint spoke to me as someone constantly questioning himself as a parent.  I love the almost too polite way Tom and Evelyn get back into the jeep in that creepy moment where the uninfected children are suddenly, quietly taken over and get the hell out of there without making a big scene.  They know they can’t save the children’s mother, around whom all the kids cluster like the crows on the monkey bars in THE BIRDS (1963).  Tom would, of course, have driven through the children’s roadblock but it’s Evelyn, arguably the weaker or more sensitive of the two, who stays his hand.  Even after Tom kills that one boy sneaking up on them – and his killing of the kid is reflexive, defensive, not premeditated – I can still see him doing the math behind his eyes and resolving to do only what is necessary.  I can relate to that.  Tom and Evelyn’s decency dooms the pair of them.  But what does that say about decent society, to which I think we can all agree we belong (regardless of what our black tee shirts tell the world).  Is the film saying, ultimately, that decency with its back turned to the world’s problems (and here I’m reminded of Evelyn’s reaction to the civil war in Thailand – “That’s Thailand, not here”) is as much of a problem as genocide?

DENNIS COZZALIO: Maybe not “as much of a problem” as genocide, but certainly the moral equivalent of those who could have provided assistance to the potential victims of the rise of Fascism in Europe in the 40s and chose not to do so. The movie derives a lot of power from us at least turning the question around in our heads.

JEFF ALLARD: I do think WHO CAN KILL A CHILD? says that the world’s problems ultimately become everyone’s problems, in one way or another.   As for Tom’s reluctance to really let the kids have it, I think if you’re capable of killing some evil kids, you should consider going for the whole lot. He does what he considers necessary but he underestimates what it’s really going to take to get off that island. As much violent action as he takes, he’s forced by instinct to keep using – pardon the expression – kid gloves.

RHS: But isn’t horror about ultimate failure?  Isn’t it the nightmare in which we can’t even scream… our dream bodies frozen, our living/sleeping bodies paralyzed while we moan?  I think sometimes we look at horror movies with action movie eyes.  On a Facebook thread recently, a young woman said she preferred the 1990 remake of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD to the original because Patricia Tallman is kickass, while Judith O’Dea is pathetic, catatonic, worse than useless.  And I can understand that up to a point but kickass, however empowering it may be, isn’t horror.  I think what horror can do best is show us the intricacies of failure.

DENNIS COZZALIO: Horror can also be just the fundamental transference of shock and disbelief from the look on a character’s face, or the quality of their scream, into that unmistakably pleasurable shiver down your spine. It can also be about the expression of the unspeakable from those who don’t have a voice by which to articulate their rage or their loneliness, the howl of nature against an occupying force of humanity, the moan of a creature who is slave to his/her baser instincts reaching out for a human connection and destroying, with intent or not, the thing he/she most wants to love. What I love about horror is how, of all genres, it seems most accepting and flexible in the uses to which it can be put. It is essentially a conservative genre (the order, once disturbed, must be restored) that can easily accommodate the most radical, satirical, political and comic of perspectives. And when a good horror movie is firing on all cylinders, we often get many of these, if not all of them, at once.

JEFF ALLARD: For the most part, I prefer it when the protagonists of horror films lose, except sometimes when it’s a cheap “gotcha” scare, as in the end of the original NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (1984), where victory is arbitrarily yanked away from the hero at the last moment just because. The criticisms of THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (1999) that bothered me the most were the ones that took Heather, Mike, and Josh to task for not doing enough to successfully escape their situation – that somehow their inability to save themselves made them into contemptuous characters. Personally I think it made them more sympathetic. I was able to feel their dwindling hope.  In the case of WHO CAN KILL A CHILD?, I didn’t want to see Tom win the day but I do think that he could’ve fought back more and still failed both to save his own life and prevent the spread of the children to civilization. It might’ve even been a more crushing failure as he would’ve had to chuck his natural sense of decency aside and still not have anything to show for it.

PAUL GAITA: I’m wondering if the answer to this question is in the title of the movie itself. Despite the atrocities committed by the children of Almanzora, at the end of the day it’s Tom staring down a bunch of children – including a baby – in that final showdown. No matter how energized, or how deep into survival mode one has sunk, the choices facing Tom in that moment had to look as ugly as… well, what had befallen his wife. I’m thinking of the passage in Kim Newman’s Nightmare Movies in which he discusses Michael Caine’s reaction to the wholesale slaughter of the pirates at the end of THE ISLAND (1980). Newman essentially says that after seeing so much slaughter, and having his hand forced to react in kind, he appears not victorious, or filled with vengeance, but looking as if he wants to throw up. After all, he is faced with the title question: who can kill a child, even ones that have tried to kill you? It’s not an easy answer, but Tom has to address it. There’s no escape. He’ll die if he doesn’t do something, but to do something… requires him to kill a child. And he does – probably as many as one could stomach doing. The pacing in the scene is very deliberate – Serrador pans the whole crowd of kids, essentially asking us to size them up as Tom has to, and consider the possibility. In the end, he kills as many as he can to create a diversion, and makes a break for it. Interestingly enough, there’s that shot of the Martin Stephens-type leader, looking surprised as hell at Tom’s fleeing figure. He, too, assumed that no one could kill a child. That scene, for me at least, is the key to the movie.

HorrorDads banner © Greg Ferrara, 2010.

2 Responses The HorrorDads ask WHO CAN KILL A CHILD?
Posted By deadlydolls : October 18, 2010 7:40 am

Great discussion! I only watched WCKaC for the first time last year and found it to be one of the most effectively terrifying films I’d seen in years. The pinata scene was one of the most unsettling reveals of all time. Great to hear so many different, all valid points of view on this film. To the question of ‘would they make something like this today?’, I’d point to the 2008 British film, THE CHILDREN, which had a similar base premise (children catching a sort of mysterious airborne virus and turning homicidal on adults) but is set in the comfort of a wealthy family’s cottage. VERY brutal stuff that asks a lot of the same questions as Serrador’s wonderful(ly sick) classic.

Posted By deadlydolls : October 18, 2010 7:40 am

Great discussion! I only watched WCKaC for the first time last year and found it to be one of the most effectively terrifying films I’d seen in years. The pinata scene was one of the most unsettling reveals of all time. Great to hear so many different, all valid points of view on this film. To the question of ‘would they make something like this today?’, I’d point to the 2008 British film, THE CHILDREN, which had a similar base premise (children catching a sort of mysterious airborne virus and turning homicidal on adults) but is set in the comfort of a wealthy family’s cottage. VERY brutal stuff that asks a lot of the same questions as Serrador’s wonderful(ly sick) classic.

Leave a Reply

Current ye@r *

We regret to inform you that FilmStruck is now closed.  Our last day of service was November 29, 2018.

Please visit for more information.

We would like to thank our many fans and loyal customers who supported us.  FilmStruck was truly a labor of love, and in a world with an abundance of entertainment options – THANK YOU for choosing us.