Reviews written by registered user
|40 reviews in total|
I quite don't get the negative reviews. Sure, it's an ultra-low budget movie, as too many of independent LGBT movies are. It's clunky at some point, some actors are horrendous, way too long for its storyline. Some parts have nothing to do with the main plot line (as for the couple with Luzandra). It's one subplot too many. But... it offers people you can relate to, not your average gay-themed movie with unthinkable twinks and gym queens running all over the place. It's about real people. It covers perhaps way too much ground for its own good (HIV, lesbian clichés, coming out, etc.). Predictable at some point and a bit preachy but it's sincere and earnest. And for that, it was quite nice to watch an indie movie not sacrificing itself for the LGBT market.
This is absolutely preposterous.
Iused to like M. DeCoteau's a lot : back in the 80's, his TV movies (SKELETONS was a good one), LEATHER JACKET LOVE STORY was a good departure. And his formula-movies with guys in boxer shorts, well, some of them were interesting. The first BROTHERHOOD, the 4th installment was more ambitious, but I think i prefer THE FRIGHTENING best. That was... a decade ago, almost.
But here, there is nothing left. A bunch of half-naked dudes wandering in the woods. The thinnest plot possible, an extremely (+ long & stupid) first scene. And the guys just do.. nothing. First of all, they just can't act, so... You have to wait for the last 10 minutes to get the point of this story.
It is BORING. Just plain boring. It not even badly shot, but a giant bore. The fake blood on the screen is hilariously bad. No scares, no excitement. BROTHERHOOD V : ALUMNI was the pit. The 6th part has first of all nothing to do at all with the whole Brotherhood concept. It just exists to put guys in briefs on a screen. At some point, the director has to ask himself why on earth always shooting over and over and over and over the same scenes year after year after year? Ican think of the money thing (the director's gotta eat), but where is the creativity, the fun? Nowhere in sight anymore.
Conclusion : I'm actually a pi**ed-one DDC fan.
A group of Italian students in Turin decide to shoot a documentary
regarding a case of demonic possession. Of course, things go awry as
the shooting begins.
Recent Italian horror outings were navigating between the mediocre and the awful . But I must admit that LONTANO DALLA LUCE (or DEMON'S TWILIGHT as advertised at the Cannes Film Market this year) is beyond everything. One of the worst attempt at revigorating a genre in a country where Dario Argento remains the last director in activity (and what activity if you have watched the horrible LA TERZA MADRE); Poor storyline, hilarious acting, lame dialogues, amateurish camera-work makes this movie unwatchable. Watching this garbage was a painful experience on a big screen, and almost every viewer -except three of us- left the theater after 20 minutes.
No gore, one ridiculous sex scene, shot in DV... and a subject that has been shot a hundred times. No originality and worse, it contains nothing recommendable for an allegedly 'horror movie' advertised as "the return of Italian Gothic style à la Mario Bava". There's nothing worse than a promise of horror without any horrific moments.
This movie is not even sure to hit the direct to video market.It's not scary at all. It contains no surprises... it's just painful and extremely boring. Like a movie shot by cinema students that went for all the stuff that should be avoided in order to shoot a good scary movie.
I just don't understand how the team behind LONTANO DALLA LUCE managed to raise some money to shoot this junk - and how some producers actually think they will make money out of it.
Not since LEGION OF THE DEAD or HOUSE OF THE DEAD has the Teutonic
gore-fest sank so low. High expectations, low results. The gore is
indeed fun and very graphic. The rest is absolutely appalling. Awful
actors who can't play properly. And ohmygod the talking and talking and
talking ... where does it end, really? Why this interminable talking?
Why this torture to the poor viewer?
102 minutes reduced to 15 or so gory effects, one bus accident and a screenplay lost in the wilderness.
Austrian mountains, where the movie has been shot, are very beautiful indeed.
So, just forget the movie. Pack your bags and go ski in Austria. Better investment, than buying or renting this turkey. Really.
... from the 90 mn of the Psychotronic Man, you easily have 30
mn of driving
through the countryside with annoying bad country music.
That leaves, say, 60 mn of pure movie. Pure indeed.
This is not a movie. This is not an essay about a movie. This does not bear any resemblance with art or cheesy fun or anything connected with the movie business.
There are some movies which are so bad you can find them amusing, fun, easy to follow because of their badness... well, fascinating stuff. The only fascinating thing here is the will of the director to show us how good the psychotronic man is at driving a car. He is, definitely. He's the best to lead you on the way to total boredom.
This is probably one of the only movie in all movie history where a blank screen can be a better spectacle.
IL DOLCE CORPO DI DEBORAH bears a strange resemblance with Umberto Lenzi's
COSI DOLCE...COSI PERVERSA. Same lead actress (Carroll Baker), same plot,
same twist ending. Made the same year...who is the copycat? Not important
after all, the Lenzi's flick being far more superior in suspense &
For about an hour or so, we follow newlywed Carroll Baker and husband Jean Sorel thru the Swiss Alps, Geneva, the swiss countryside... guess the Swiss authorities paid a lot to make their country have a sufficient screening time to get noticed. No plot at all, just beautiful shots of the mountains & the city. Then some hot sex scenes between Baker & Sorel. Then back to some über-chic club. Then some more hot sex. And, oh, there's Luigi Pistilli accusing Sorel of driving his ex Susan to suicide. That's the beginning of the plot. then they're getting scared by strange phone calls. Oh, er!
La Baker is viewed under any possible shot (no frontal nudity, though :these are the 60's), she can scream all right. But she really doesn't know what she's doing. Obviously, the screenplay either, as it doesn't know how to handle such screen presence. The editing doesn't help, as it jumps from flashy 60's shots of a nightclub atmsophere (flashy camera angles, too) to loooong face to face dialogues between the two leads. No rythm is given, which leads to some boredom after the first half hour.
The last 30 minutes are a bit more satisfying, as the suspense grows thicker, the rythm accelerates and the story really begins. Too bad it comes too late.
Romolo Guerrieri is not a great director here. He's just a man following Luciano Martino and Mino Loy's orders : show more Carroll Baker and to the hell with the story (who cares anyway). No special talent, no great use of the anamorphic screen (Cromoscope here). No specific direction of actors. Just plain average.
But it's not bad (in a Mattei way), it's always fun if you're into some 60's/70's sexploitation mood. (S)Exploitative indeed : the black stripper as an arty-sex show is ridiculously long and may seem infuriatingly mysoginistic today. Mizar's strip in Giuliano Carmineo's PERCHE QUELLE STARNE GOCCE SUL CORPO DI JENNIFER? avoids this trap by eing a victory over machismo. This is pure pre-giallo routine.
But you can't help looking at screen wondering how come someone like Carroll Baker made this in 1968 after HOW THE WEST WAS WON, CHEYENN AUTUMN or HARLOW.
Better stick to the Lenzi territory for some sexy-giallo stuff. COSI DOLCE...COSI PERVERSA is a really better choice.
Superwonderscope says : 5
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
High Expectations-Lower than low results. Just another cute-family-movie
that makes me wanna yell 'LAST REEL, PLEAAAAAAAASE' every couple of
I just don't get how people like Whoopi and Loretta could read, enjoy and accept such a script suffering of terminal cuteness. What is it all about? That african american women are born to suffer, bring babies to the world, clean up the mess their husband is doing and go to church and pray god, sing gospel (of course, every african american woman sings gospel). That african american men are born to be pathetic losers waiting for wellfare, prison or being unfaithful to their wives, being alcoholic,etc,etc... wait... is this being human? nah. The script doesn't know where to go so it makes every character having something bad to confess or to suffer from. Something's got to happen to them in order to keep the audience awake. Which I hardly did here.
So Loretta knows how to scream. So Whoopi can be pouty. LL Cool just looks at everyone, his face screaming "look, I can act like an alcoholic" but it still doesn't work. Toni Braxton is, well, Toni Braxton. And Jada is, hum,well, like what she's been doing these past few years...her best part being Scream 2, I guess. These characters are just one-dimensonial and caricatures of what human beings really are. And this happy end where everyone forgives everyone and all is good in the end, right? Yuck. I remember a time where a director such as Charles Burnett was really directing and having a point of view.
There is nothing wrong doing a family movie but a movie that looks like a tv movie should stay where it belongs : on tv. No swearing (that's BAD), no sex (that's WORSE), God is good, family is good, going to church is good, not going is bad : the character that dies wasn't going and keeping poor Whoopi out of it! No wonder he's considered so mean by almost everyone! That is, I guess, the whole point of the movie.
Being a believer -which I'm not- is probably a great thing. To give a moralizing point of view is sickening. To achieve such a low quality in movie making is beyond redemption. Go rent KILLER OF SHEEP or JESUS OF MONTREAL.
This movie is a just another turkey stuffed with so many clichés that the hoven is about to explode before Thanksgiving.
Superwonderscope says 1
I was quite puzzled after seeing Rosanna Arquette's first directorial
effort. Highly difficult exercise in documentary, she's trying to
the choices and the feelings of 30-something to 45-ish actresses in
Choices of being at the same time mother, actresses, raising kids,
artists and...why some just quit.
From Her introduction on THE RED SHOES to the final words of Jane Fonda, I could sense and feel what she was trying to do and express but...I couldn't see the point.
Some actresses here made some very interesting comments (Martha Plimpton is both hilarious and utterly clever). Some anecdotes are sometimes insulting for them (Adrienne Shelly's experience and Melanie Griffith's)others funny or even rewarding for the audience (Theresa Russell, for that matter). There's always something to learn from these artists. You can hate them for being soooooo serious (Sharon Stone, i really do love you but... don't take yourself so seriously, please!) or love them for being so lucid on their job (especially Alfre Woodard and Anjelica Huston). The most rewarding is (indeed) Debra Winger saying that she didn't say no to her acting career, but she said yes to some other stuff that she left apart doing her job.
But after all these comments and laughters and angers expressed...what's the meaning of all this? All I could feel is empathy for some time but I was also annoyed as the camera was always revolving around Rosanna Arquette. Not because she was the interviewer but...the her point of view was too self-centered. And it has no conclusion. As if we saw a rough cut of the documentary (or "experience" as the credits pretentiously say), waiting for some guiding line or some editing.
As a photography of what's going on in the head of actresses between 30 and 50 y.o in this new millenium : excellent cast, fascinating comments :all good. As for the rest SEARCHING FOR DEBRA WINGER proves that it's not with some good intentions that you make a good movie. It still needs something deeper. And a better light, please! Emmanuelle Beart has never been uglier on a screen. Rosanna needs a real camera operator (even if she was the B team C.O) and a decent D.P.
Superwonderscope says : 6
Semana Santa is jaw-droppingly bad. It's so wrong in so many ways I don't
where to begin.
So, let's see...Mira Sorvino, whose judge husband has been shot while
protecting her, goes from Madrid to Seville for her cop job. During the
week (Semana santa, see?...everybody begins to fall sleep..told u it was
in so many points, even from the beginning), a killer executes his victims
like bulls in a bullfighting arena. She teams up with male chauvinist pig
Olivier Martinez and nice Feodor Atkine. Soon she discovers she'll be the
next target of the killer (who wears a red robe). Why, oh but
Why..;that's the questionthat has been in my head the whole movie.
Q :Why did go to see that A : Because i love Mira Sorvino (i even excuse her for that AT FIRST SIGHT crap)
Q : Why were we only 8 people in the theater this saturday on the first week end of release? A : ah-ah-ah. Spider-man got relaesed the same day. But also the fact that the movie has been blast with execrable reviews.
Q : Why this movie has been made? A : Money I guess. But boy did Mira need the money.
then...why???????????? first of all, there's always something wrong with european co-productions. here you got a french-english-german-italian-spanish-danish production. yi-ha.
Then it wants to play on the same playgroung as US thrillers/slashers/whodunit/mysteries/whatever. Even VALENTINE, though unnecessary and badly scripted and shot, was much better in the suspense and the fun.
Then , to give some credit to the story, the screenwriter wanted to add some political sight to the story. Wrong : done in flash-backs in a Traffic-like photography, it's certainly the most interesting thing i n the movie. Could have stick to it, it wouldn't have to sit through the whole movie. Better go straight to Guillermo del Tros's THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE (El espinazo del diablo)for some clever fun.
Then the homophobia. Bullseye! The first victims are S&M drug addicted gay twins who got stabbed to death. The annoying olivier Martinez goes to a dating agency held by a badly shaved overweight transvestive with a blond platinum wig. Calls mira Sorvino's character a big dyke all the time. Do we need this kind of stuff? Nah. Just needless offensive remarks, just like ol'times.
Then the suspense. Yipee. No apparent motive. The first murders are plain illusion as they're a representation of a famous painting. But no. And the revelation of the killer (a horrible fascist, of course) could have been done from the beginning as he appears at the end of the movie as, I guess, it was time for the director to say "weel, time to finish that damn movie. let's reveal right now who the killer is and why he kills".
Then the director thinks he's a director. Wrong : no sense of suspense, no sense of directing the actors, no knowledge of change of pace. A Giant, mega-bore. The scenes of the holy week are needless (maybe a co-production rule saying : ok, shoot in Sevilla but show some creditsof this beautiful and historical town with the celebrations of Easter. There we are : a mystery movie for tourists!)
Then the actors. All wrongs. Mira Sorvino bores herself to death : she does practicly nothing except getting stabbed in the right hand. Everything she did best (the Replacement Killers, Mighty Aphrodite...) were like they never existed. Olivier Martinez...hello, anybody here? When the producers will learn that he's not an actor but a mannequin with no ability of speech nor feelings? Feodor Atkine, bland and transparent. Only do we pay great respect to Alida Valli, one of the greatest actress this last century (and I hope for some more roles in this current one). She's tha main attraction here as she's the only one to give life to her poor lines. I won't mention the other actors as they're only one-sided characters, uninteresting and shallow.
Incoherent direction, inconsistent actors, implausible plot. Idiocy incarnated.
Superwonderscope says : 1
Very rare but highly improbable giallo, that's about it. This movie is
of the late entries into the giallo genre and obviously hasn't much to
A lady in black (close shot on the black hose she wears)kills several young ladies (wearing undies, as usual) with no apparent motive (oh, really?). Except that the ladies are all related to a picture on which they appear altogether. The detective( John Richardson)penetrates the world of a very rich family where everything seems to be, well...mysterious.
Oh well, very usual indeed. Vice always finds home in the italian haute-bourgeoisie, loads of lesbian scenes & female nudity, and murders scenes piling up in a very tired way (all razors except one strangulation). The resolution is completely absurd (and the explanation of the sole survivor is utterly funny as she doesn't seem to be convinced of what she says).
The director has no sense of rythmn (essential in that genre) and lacks of strength when it comes to direct. The actors are like robots doing their thing over and over, lead by british actor John Richardson (and genre veteran)who was on the decline of his career.
The suspense does work anyway and for those who know the Giallo tricks, it's nevertheless obvious who's doing what. The director although tries to give a different tone (a comic one) with John Rochardson's sidekick, as if he wasn't interested in the suspense : that's why maybe the murders scenes are so mechanical and uninteresting.
For genre lovers only, IL VIZIO HA LE CALZE NERE has very few appeal on all levels even though the version I've seen is a 71 mn running time and appears to be heavily cut.
has been shot in Techniscope 2.35:1. Watch out for the horrible pan and scan version
Superwonderscope says : 4
|Page 1 of 4:||   |