User Reviews

I heard it had some BDSM elements, so, I figured I'd give it a shot. I really shouldn't have. A complete waste of potential. And worse than that, actually offensive in it's "unsophistication".

For example, the first story sets up this couple. They have a really dark dynamic going on. In order to please her, he kidnaps women for her to use. He doesn't "really" want to do it, but he loves her, he wants her, and so he does this for her. You get to take a look into something twisted, and into something broken, into something really dark. How he selects and charms the homeless girl, and how they play their parts as she's at their place. It had the potential to intimately explore the minds of human predators.

And so far, the writer was spot on. So far, this was authentic. It was scary because it was real. And I think that, in the end, it had to come out of the writer. He was aware of this darkness inside him. He put it on paper, and then on screen. But then, after he got this far, he basically apologizes for it. "I'm sorry that I showed this, here, let me make it up. Let me take it all back. Actually, the homeless girl is a monster that eats human flesh and tortures them now That makes it alright, right?" No, it doesn't. It makes it worthless. You had the chance to make a point, and you wasted it by running away from it. And doing so in an incredibly "unsophisticated" way. And you did the same exact thing in the third story. I didn't really watch the second one. So I can't comment on it.

The "good guy" in the third story absolutely horrified me. But not in the way it was intended. I was horrified there was a person who could write someone like that. He was in an unfair relationship by his own choice. And then he decides it's not for him anymore. And he can leave at any time. But he doesn't. He stays. And he pretends. And he lies. And he manipulates. And he has his girlfriend then raped by dogs, dogs being the thing she has a paralyzing fear of.

That is NOT a good guy. That is the ACTUAL monster here. Not the girl who gave him spankings and what not, which he agreed to in the first place. Just because the girl does A doesn't make it OK for the guy to do B, and after your protagonist has someone RAPED BY DOGS you're not allowed to portray him as a hero that overcame some kind of odds. He overcame a weak, little, scared woman. Kudos to him.

The kindest interpretation of that would be "blaming the victim" behavior. The words that came from my mouth when I saw it though were more along the lines of "despicable". I don't find the character despicable. I found how he was written, how his motivations and actions were justified to be despicable.

Again, you had a perfectly excellent chance to make a point, in this case about power exchange relationships, and how they can be dehumanizing, and increasingly heartless. And again, it was authentic, it was real, until you decided to take it all back as if to apologize for showing what you had so far in the first place.

With some conviction and follow through the creator of this might actually create something worthwhile down the road. This though is not that.

This movie started with some real promise, and then tanked harder than the Titanic sinking to the floor of the N. Atlantic. The movie, or rather three short stories, each brought a little bit of terrible to the movie that left Little Deaths with a score of 2/10.

Story 1) Rich family brings in a homeless girl in to their home and gives her a meal. Then the family proceeds to drug, and then rape her. The homeless girl then unleashes her vampire power and kills the wife. Only part of this movie which could be considered "horror".

Story 2) Male nudity... Guy sells sperm pills.. No further comment.

Story 3) Crazed girlfriend forces her boyfriend to pretend to be a dog while they have sex. Eventually, it turns out that she is terrified of real dogs. The boyfriend gets revenge on her by unleashing a pack of dogs into her apartment.

Never watch with kids or your parents. Either/or would lead to the most awkward 2 hours of your life. It was absolutely awful. I wish I could say there was a redeeming quality associated with this film, but there was certainly none present. If you would like to enjoy your night, skip this one.

Drugs/excessive nudity/swearing

Films which face head on themes of fetishism, masochism and fear have the potential to move an audience to a place where they would not expect to go, even with the knowledge that they are about to watch a film about the darkest corners of humanity.

La petite mort, the French idiom, refers to a calmness or melancholia surrounding the orgasm, but it does also refer to the orgasm in general and so the misnomic nature of the film can be forgiven. All three are fast, intense and short explorations of sexuality with barely any pace below frantic and very little concept of transcendence, the very meaning of the phrase "little deaths". Every orgasm we witness: the rape, the post-pub lust and indeed the post-poor-sex vibrator-induced are cheap, quick thrills.

Episode two, perhaps, could be excluded from this issue when a character describes the strange constant-orgasm state as being "not human", but equally it's not really about an orgasm at all, not as we know them. If episode two is analysing what a "little death" is, it is creating something non-human which renders it, although fascinating to watch, defunct.

The horror genre has the uncanny ability to disgust and deeply affect a viewer, and the only thing we ask in return is that it doesn't make fun of us, by drawing us to invest ourselves emotionally in the film and then being half-hearted with the storytelling. With Little Deaths, the half-heartedness is in the overselling of the idea. There was no effort to create empathy away from the bedroom-nature of the characters which basically renders the film no more than porn minus explicicity.

Furthermore themes of drug use, prostitution, and bondage and discipline, dominance/submission, and sadomasochism are all problematic. It feels as though the filmmakers are telling stories on these subjects because they want to and not because they themselves are invested in the activities. Dialogue regarding the drug use and prostitution in episode two does not read naturally and detracts from what is designed to be a naturalistic film.

More serious, though, is the motivation for the male lead's breakdown at the end of episode three. The filmmaker spends a great deal of effort in establishing that the sexual relationship is of bold and exploratory deviancy, and that the relationship between the two is one of a deep, and necessary, trust. With the line "I don't deserve you" and the subsequent reply, this trust is strongly established. There is no foreshadowing of the finale but for the use of dog-imagery and the main inciting incident is one which would, in a relationship such as theirs, not cause such a great stir but simply cause discussion and a break up, considering that there was little attempt to stop it at the time. Either there was a lot more hate felt for the female lead by the male lead, which we are not told about, or the narrative makes fun of the Dominant and submissive relationship by devaluing it.

The performances from the actors were strong and very well directed, which adds value to each story and ensures that we do feel empathy with each, and the cinematography was at times magical. Unfortunately it is difficult to maintain a relationship with this film and its characters, however aesthetically strong and empathetic, when there are such issues with its very core.

What can I say, it is ridiculous beyond belief. A few short stories, that are absolute trash, made into 90 minutes of complete and utter drivel.

The acting is awful, the stories were conceived by someone who should be in a mental hospital.

If you are into sadistic sh?t - Nazis doing penis transplants, blending kidneys in a mixer to feed some bloke strung up with a horses dick being held captive to produce buckets of sperm so this Nazi Dr. can turn the sperm into tablets that then in turn make the people who take the medicine into the guy who was initially chained up!

Only this time, the chained person is a woman who overdosed on the medicine - and she now has a horses cock!

Honestly, do yourselves a favor and go and watch a real movie - go and watch "Carnage"

This garbage really should never have had been made.

I found this movie accidentally, and I am glad that I did. I try to watch all the newest horror movies when they are released. I haven't seen anything this disturbing in a long time. I LOVED it!

Very sensual/erotic (little deaths relating to sex) which is a running theme in all 3 short stories. And scary in the context that it could really happen. Very original ideas. Honestly nothing I could compare any of the 3 short stories to which was refreshing. So tired of remakes and sequels.

My favorite of the 3 stories was the 1st one, House and Home. Bored married couple trying to spice up their sex life. The hubby picks up homeless women and brings them home for a bit of fun. However, when they bring home Sorrow (yes that is her name), their night of fun turns into a sad event.

The 2nd story, Mutant Tool, was a bit sad to me. But seriously sick and twisted. Great original story idea. Won't give it away. I will say though...that was one of the biggest "tools" I have ever seen!

And finally the 3rd story, Bitch, was about a sadist woman and her masochist boyfriend. Whom she treated worse than a dog. However, every dog has it's day and he gets his in the end. No really, she straps one on and gives it to him! But seriously, he bites her in the ass in the end.

Overall, great movie! Great for a new horror movie slut like myself! Not so great for someone with a weak stomach. Bravo for original ideas!

I watched this film on the strength of the reviews and wasn't impressed with this film at all. The first story about the homeless girl was by far the best. It was great to see the nasty rich couple get what they deserved. I would've got the girl chop off his penis and make him choke on it as was said in the early exchange between the man and the girl. The acting was extremely good in this short story. The way the woman taunts the girl calling her a worthless nobody before the girl gets her revenge was great.

The second part was bizarre and by far the weakest of the lot. A prostitute hallucinating on drugs made from nazi experiments from the semen of a man fed on the livers of murdered people. WTF. Vivid imagination but too weird an idea that didn't work for me.

The third installment was a good idea of a man treated badly by his girlfriend who gets his revenge on the 'bitch' in the real sense of the word. However I thought this was badly acted and executed. The characters weren't fleshed out properly and no explanations were given for the mood swings of the girl or why their relationship was as it was. The ending disappointed as it was left to the imagination what the dogs did to the girl.

Apart from the first installment I was disappointed with this. So just 3/10 from me.

There are several unrelated stories in this "little deaths" movie. However, there is a common theme: bloody gross, and that seems to be the only trick in this movie.

Since there is very little story and no continuity from one story to another, you might as well surf the web for gross photos.

After watching two stories, I stopped. The plot gets thinner. I like scary movie, but these are not scary; they are just exercises in gross makeup effects. I believe this genre is started by the movie Saw.

Since I did not finish watching the DVD, I may be missing some brilliant finale, but probably not.

I borrowed the DVD from a local library. I hope nobody pays to see this.

I am watching this right now. Very interesting movie. The first story is awesome. I thought it was going to be the usual stupid, sadistic torture porn made popular by Saw and Hostel. The twist, however, is brilliant and very funny. That episode gave me impression of a very good EC horror comic. The second one has a Martyrslike premise with some elements of Stephen King (visions, etc). I thought it was a terrible let down in comparison with the first. Certainly a very disturbing torture porn notion about this drug enhanced fluid which is used for industry but quite frankly the acting and characters are so weak so it is hard to care for any of them. The ending or the story had no twist at all and the ending is pretty much nonsensical. At least it could have been elaborated what actually has happened. The third one has some very impressive bsdm. Good use of music as well. Very good description of a psychopath. Moreover, I could follow the emotions and transitions. I think the first and the third rely more on comedy. Anyway, very good movie.

An abhorrently orgasmic ejaculate of short films, Little Deaths is a ghastly, decadently exploitative spunkfest of misogyny and misandry. Harnessing obtuse pontification in sexual gratification, ergo an inevitable ruckus with the BBFC, the tawdry trio unrelentingly goad us with all amounts of bodily fluids in ode to the anniversaric copulation of Horror's bride and groom: Sex and Death.

Best of three

'House and home': A cult of personalities - the homeless and the upper class compete in a tete a tete. Bland at first and hugely predictable, yet filled with sorrow. 5/10

'Mutant': Nazi experiments, grafted giant cocks, blended kidneys and a nostalgic hint of thalidomide. Yep. 6/10

'Bitch': Vengeance is a dish best served in a dog bowl. The mightily poetic MTV finale will scorn the imagination. 9/10

Submissive, alienated and emasculated: the stereotypes of the traditionally hegemonic patriarchal society are explicitly smashed to smithereens. The revised totalitarianism demarcated is a world in which women not only rule, but where men are reduced to nothing but breadwinning toys or abused pets. Owing much to the anti-authoritarian exploitation films of the 70's, notably Russ Meyer and John Waters, horrors 'final girl' becomes the 'final boy'. A perversion in postmodernity, all three segments are triumphantly difficult to visually consume. For their daring vulgarity and literal buckets of bodily stew (mostly semen), the consequential subordination of context is marginally excessive. The seeded theme of compulsion via addictions and obsessions manifested to restrain partnerships in all vile states of toxicity - physical, sexual and emotional - relays an equally visceral reply in its counteract. The literal sex=death rhetoric is quintessentially satiric, a fervent leaf from the episodic 'Creepshow' tales, ending on a righteous or incredulous note. Though there is much to celebrate in its art-house attire, the niggling question still resides: did its visionaries go too far to give too little? For the first two instalments there is an unbalanced focus on crossing boundaries, in it purest form merely because they could. The third ('Bitch') is the piece de resistance, it's pedigree refined by a role reversal in rape-revenge. Urine, vomit and man-gravy galore, be prepared for the candid unpleasantries in store.