Reviews written by registered user
|20 reviews in total|
A drama, a comedy?. There's a bit of both in this film. It starts out quite seriously, but as it goes on, the filmmakers appear to be commenting on and making fun of a certain macho attitude that is all too prevalent in our society. The plot is simple: a guy's girl is supposedly raped by his best pal, and each side's account of what transpired is entirely different, so we can't accept either as the final truth. But that's not what's important here: the main plot line is the escalating feud between the two friends and how they immaturely try to solve their differences: with violence, of course. This is when the film turns hilarious, as all the vengeful plotting goes totally out of whack. Despite its one-note premise, the film is never boring, it's realistically acted and scripted and it leaves us questioning the wrongheaded social attitudes that are passed from one generation to another and it does so while keeping us entertained. Highly recommended.
I'm surprised this film got such a critical beating, it certainly didn't deserve it. I always thought the public looked down on sequels because they are usually more of the same, but it seems that's what they were expecting with this one and since it isn't, they were disappointed. Instead, it's an interesting meditation on the Blair Witch phenomenon, and its possible effect on a group of fans who venture into the Maryland woods to get a feel of the place where the original movie was filmed and to indulge in some of their fantasies involving the fictitious witch. What transpires is a descent into an apparent nightmare from which they can't seem to wake up. It's a horror film that works on a purely psychological level and it counts on the audience's intelligence to put the pieces together and give the story closure - the film itself doesn't - and it's all nicely and efficiently realized. Good photography is one of this film's assets, another one is the tight, tense direction. This must be the first time that a sequel (although only in name) has been shunned because it dared to be different from the original, and it's unfortunate. The public is fickle indeed.
Interesting take on Hitchcock territory, although it lacks the suspense and capacity to involve the viewer as The Master's films always did. The true wonder here is Jeanne Moreau, as cool as a cucumber, going about her revenge business with clockwork accuracy, exuding class and talent equivalent to five of today's stars. Bernard Herrman's passionate score seems slightly out of place against the film's emotional detachment, and most of the time things fall just a little bit too perfectly in place, but overall, this is a satisfying film, of interest to genre fans.
This is the kind of movie that gives independent filmmaking a bad name. An amateurish, pretentious mess mixing angsty drama a la Bergman and surrealistic imagery a la Fellini (my apologies to the masters for mentioning them here). We are asked to sit through 90 minutes of two uninteresting, very nasty sisters talking their heads off about their unhappy childhood caused by their very creepy, comic book parents. Every recrimination cliche is thrown in, and the surreal asides do absolutely nothing but bring needless and meaningless visual chaos to the film. The film just sort of expires at the end, having run completely out of gas. A true endurance test.
An aging stripper (Tan'e McClure) comes into a $2 million inheritance and seizes the opportunity to leave the business and resume her previous "normal" life. What she finds is a reluctant ex-boyfriend who resents her tainted past and a young aspiring stripper on her way to Vegas. The interaction among these characters forms the bulk of the film, and it's mostly fascinating to watch. Some extended softcore sex scenes are thrown in for good measure, but they don't detract from the script's worthiness and the thoughtful direction. At times, the existentialist nature of the story and its presentation reminded me of a Bergman film, and the Death Valley locations are used to excellent effect, to convey the characters' inner turmoil (shades of Erich Von Stroheim's "Greed"). All around, an independent film I can strongly recommend.
I didn't know who Basquiat was when I saw this. At first, I thought the film was a take off on the New York art scene and the main character a joke a la Peter Sellers in "Being There". However, as the film went on, I realized I was wrong, which made this reverential piece a bit of a hilarious experience, considering the adulation that Basquiat's childish doodling elicits from everyone around him. This film may unintentionally shed some light into some of the reasons for our popular culture's increasingly sad state of affairs. Kudos to David Bowie for his right-on-the-mark portrayal of Andy Warhol, just about the only bright spot in this wrong-headed film.
I actually thought I was in for something interesting during the first few minutes of this film, the section I'll call "the prologue". It was atmospheric and strange enough to hold some promise. Unfortunately, I kept waiting for something to happen for the rest of the movie, and very little does, except for the last 10 minutes when I finally learned what the title really means, and that I had been had, big time. This isn't scary, suspenseful or even erotic as the trailer suggested, the only positive thing I can say about it is that it's well photographed. I certainly expected more from the director of Tourist Trap and the original Puppet Master. Netherworld is an infuriating disappointment.
Loud, obnoxious western "comedy", about two estranged brothers who get reunited after receiving an inheritance. One of them is a womanizer who wants to use his money to build a whorehouse, the other a self-righteous priest. Forced comedy ensues after both run into assorted characters and situations. Unsuccessful attempt to capture the effortless zaniness of Terence Hill's Trinity movies, this film seems to go on forever, getting louder and more irritating (everyone mugs too much here) as it goes along. See it only if you are a Richard Harrison fan (he's quite good, regardless) or a Western junkie.
This film is essentially about a bunch of people having sexual relations around the globe (L.A., N.Y., France, Hong-Kong), in mostly unusual places (bathroom, furniture store, airplane cockpit, the FAA should hear about this!), etc. It's all nicely photographed and awfully acted, but what I find depressing about it is that the movie seems to be saying that all men think with their genitals and all women are whores. In other words, it reduces human beings to their bare essentials, regardless of their often sophisticated exterior. This bomb may have been released in 1989, but movie billboards that appear in one sequence firmly place it in 1984.
Interestingly shot (on video) production, that starts off as a crime caper, then turns into a haunted house gore fest. I liked the creepy, atmospheric photography, which was accomplished with very little lighting, and the intriguing, although confusing premise, that appears to want to say something about facing (and embracing) your own demons. Whatever. It's a good independent effort, and I applaud the ingenuity behind it. Recommended for dedicated horror fans.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |