Something Weird sure does release some weird stuff, and this film is certainly some weird stuff. The films plays out something like a cross between a noir flick and an exploitation film focuses squarely on one man. John Steele is a salesman in New York who becomes dismayed by life and ends up going on a sex spree when he finds his wife in bed with another man. The film is not very well made and certainly fits the 'trash' bill well. It plays out like it's made up of bits and bobs from other films, and that probably isn't too far from the truth. The only thing stringing everything together really is the constant narration from the lead character. This is actually the most interesting thing about this film - it gives it a sort of gritty noir edge and actually succeeds in making the whole thing more watchable and enjoyable. There's a fair bit of sex featured in the film, although none of it is particularly graphic, which is something of a shame. There are no shocks or surprises in the film, but it's only an hour long so not too much time is wasted watching it and I'd say it's at least somewhat worth seeing for the fact that it's so obscure.
2 Reviews
Peepholes
tedg12 September 2007
Much of my film viewing is of films that are recommended. But sometimes I get to them years later and forget who or why. Sometimes, as with this, I watch it searching for the reason that I am in the same room with it why its in my mind.
In this case, that's complicated by another dynamic. Sometimes the very same trash is more, depending on the context. But I had no context for this: I didn't know if the maker was intelligent, whether he know what he was doing. It matters. If he was lucid, then I can allow myself to be as well, and join him in watching this from an elevated stage. Otherwise, I have to accept it for what it apparently is: the cheapest way to get breasts on a screen and pretend there is a story.
The thing is: I can almost create an artistic mind behind this, someone who is manipulating the notion of a sex film. We're in it for the voyeurism, and that's true nearly every time we see a woman's torso in a mainstream film. In this case, our narrator (all the sound is narrated) is the voyeur. Sometimes he peeks through keyholes. Sometimes the "sex" comes to him while he is sitting in a café. It comes as dreams and visions. It comes with his ability to be a disembodied spirit, a participant or a member of an audience. It comes as a stylized show. It comes as an "audition." This is a veritable "Citizen Kane" of observational modes, of direct narrative stances.
But that's a lot of work and I don't know if the filmmaker deserves it. There's a sense of fairness here. If someone really is making simple smut, should we credit him with something larger? Does it matter? Yes, it does carry a cost.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
In this case, that's complicated by another dynamic. Sometimes the very same trash is more, depending on the context. But I had no context for this: I didn't know if the maker was intelligent, whether he know what he was doing. It matters. If he was lucid, then I can allow myself to be as well, and join him in watching this from an elevated stage. Otherwise, I have to accept it for what it apparently is: the cheapest way to get breasts on a screen and pretend there is a story.
The thing is: I can almost create an artistic mind behind this, someone who is manipulating the notion of a sex film. We're in it for the voyeurism, and that's true nearly every time we see a woman's torso in a mainstream film. In this case, our narrator (all the sound is narrated) is the voyeur. Sometimes he peeks through keyholes. Sometimes the "sex" comes to him while he is sitting in a café. It comes as dreams and visions. It comes with his ability to be a disembodied spirit, a participant or a member of an audience. It comes as a stylized show. It comes as an "audition." This is a veritable "Citizen Kane" of observational modes, of direct narrative stances.
But that's a lot of work and I don't know if the filmmaker deserves it. There's a sense of fairness here. If someone really is making simple smut, should we credit him with something larger? Does it matter? Yes, it does carry a cost.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
