If you are looking at this page and reading about this film you probably know what you're getting, or should be getting. It is what it is. At best it should be entertaining or at least of some interest to those who have an interest in these films. I should be one of them but this is not good.
I watch plenty of similar fodder and am happy to be entertained by many exploitation films of questionable taste. There's a certain pleasure to be gained by leaving your brain in neutral and plopping down in front of some trashy exploitation film or similar. If you watch this genre you have to forgive a lot and just go with it - there's no point picking these films apart - they were never meant to be worthy and few are well-made.
Nothing is theoretically off-limits as far as subject matter goes. The "S.S." exploitation films are not generally offensive to me as they inhabit an entirely different universe to the real world or actual events and are completely separate things. The supposed settings are just an excuse (I'd hesitate to call it a plot device) for a procession of sex/violence/torture-type scenes. Even these are not well done.
This film is fairly boring. The 90 minute run time feels like a long time.
There are many things covered by other reviewers, which I won't repeat here, about the quality/dialogue/acting/"plot" etc.
This doesn't have the campy charm of some exploitation films. It won't surprise you that there are multiple sex scenes. These can only be considered rape but the victims are almost all portrayed as willing participants who enjoy it.
Two things stand out to me and discomfort me.
Firstly I've seen an interview with the director where he seems to suggest that he had extensively researched for this film. He seems to think his film is researched and verging on historical and the tone of his interview suggests he has done the world a service by showing us this. Come on mate!!! Really!!! That makes it more offensive to me than if he just accepted it is a straight-up, bad taste, low budget exploitation film. The testicle transplant mentioned by others is obviously not the only b*llocks associated with the film.
The second thing I found odd and jarring is the use of burning scenes - they are so badly done it is hard to see why they are included. The only reason would be to shock but these corpses (surrounded by fake superimposed flames that don't mark them) all start to dance about like some modern interpretive dance troupe. Any potential shock value is gone. (As an aside, I suspect this is part of the "research" - burning corpses DO flex and can sit up etc. What they don't do is flex and extend and move to-and-fro in silly jerky dances - think Peter Crouch's robot goal celebrations - like is portrayed here)
So, in summary - duller than it should be, not well done, no humour or campy charm as you almost always have in exploitation - even inadvertently. The interview with the director has probably made me judge it more harshly than others of its ilk - it is hard to keep your brain in neutral when he seems to suggest his film is so much more worthy than it so obviously is. Completists will watch whatever anyone else says. No-one else should be bothering with this. It is arguably the most notorious of the S.S. films but is one of the worst. If you only watch one or two consider Ilsa, or even Hellcamp/Beast in Heat before you get to this.
So, in summary - duller than it should be, not well done, no humour or campy charm as you almost always have in exploitation - even inadvertently. The interview with the director has probably made me judge it more harshly than others of its ilk - it is hard to keep your brain in neutral when he seems to suggest his film is so much more worthy than it so obviously is. Completists will watch whatever anyone else says. No-one else should be bothering with this. It is arguably the most notorious of the S.S. films but is one of the worst. If you only watch one or two consider Ilsa, or even Hellcamp/Beast in Heat before you get to this.