Reviews written by registered user
|553 reviews in total|
HISTOIRE D'O is famous and yet few will say they've seen it or admit
they've seen it. Just look at the few reviews posted here at IMDb. The
main reason is simply because the whole thing is risible! It's
beautifully shot but still risible. It's almost like an old Benny Hill
sketch : O loves Rene but Rene loves Jacqueline who loves Sir Stephen
who loves O who loves Jacqueline who loves the fire hydrant. On and on
it goes. I truly wondered what planet they were living on since very
little of it made sense. Do they ever buy groceries? Wait in line at
the bank? You know, things normal mortals do. The story wants us to
believe it's all about love but love has nothing to do with the people
inhabiting this baroque soft-core reverie. Love? Hahaha!
Like all "erotic" films of the period, all women are bisexual, or anythingsexual, ready to take off their filmy clothes for the audiences' viewing pleasure. This brings up the main point of the "film" : the focus is only on the women which makes me wonder why they'd bothered with the male characters, who were very boring. Obviously the director, producers, and writer didn't care for them. They are merrily there to serve a purpose. The film would have been much more honest if the entire cast had been female, which during one segment it was. This is probably the best part of the film, not because it's all female but because the lecherous filmmakers could finally show every detail of the females' bodies along with their "tortured" minds.
The only saving grace of this superficial "charnel" nonsense was Corinne Clery. Remove her from the film and there would be nothing left to watch. Corinne was practically naked throughout the film. Her body was perfect back then.
In the end, the entire "complex" story, bogged down by its own pretensions and limitations, was bereft of the one thing they wanted to achieve : true eroticism.
I saw this film at the movies. Yes, a Japanese film that had a wide
release back in 1978. How times have changed. It's something which
doesn't happen anymore.
Is this an all 'round successful film? Not really. I'd say 40% is really pure schlock. While the remaining 60% is non-stop explosions and goofiness which I enjoyed back in the day and still today.
- the idea of magical walnuts was cool
- The main villain looks really great
- some of the space fights / dog chases, in the asteroid belt and inside the villain's inner sanctum were amazingly edited and were later seen in THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK and RETURN OF THE JEDI. Oh the irony.
- the sail-ship in space is fine by me
- great sword fight at the end
- The fantasy / sci-fi elements actually work here
- the tight pants on the two male heroes. Aha the 1970s!
- It was shot in VistaVision!
- the mother in the wheelchair
- the retro 1960s dance and pop music ; outdated even in 1978
- the script is all over the place
- at times, the film's overall grubby look
- the overacting
Today's audiences wouldn't understand this style of filmmaking but I get it and I enjoy it for what it was / is.
THE WONDERS OF ALADDIN is an Arabian PEPLUM adventure which makes
little sense. The screenplay, by Bava and others, is point blank
terrible. I'd like to write a comprehensive review of it but the story
is near incomprehensible that I can't review it because I still don't
know what the story is about. It meanders here and there with no
semblance of a cohesive storyline or logic.
The first thing which stands out is that Aladdin is played by a 35 year old Donald O'Connor. I don't need to say anything more about this.
Aladdin still lives with his mother who one day buys a cheap lamp which 'makes noise'. Now who would buy a lamp or even sell a lamp that makes noise? This 'noisy' lamp is meant to be funny but it's just the beginning of a series of comedic touches or jokes which aren't comical or funny in any way, shape or form.
Now Aladdin accidentally rubs the lamp while scratching himself because he has fleas (!!!). Like the 'noisy' lamp, the scenes featuring fleas go one endlessly and never illicit any laughs. I've never thought of seeing a movie waste 10 minutes of film on stupid fleas. It's overkill.
The film continues on here and there with nary a story. Now the lack of story could be fine if the direction and pacing and dialogue where amusing but it's not. There are aspects of this story which beggars belief: such as Aladdin NEVER knowing how to summon the Genie (played with complete indifference by Vittorio De Sica). Once Aladdin figures he can summon a Genie he never asks for money, love, etc. It never dawns on Aladdin to ask the Genie to grant him all of his wishes. The Genie is simply there like a prop whenever Aladdin is in a predicament. At one point, Aladdin tries to summon the Genie but since he doesn't remember how he did it the first time (see above i.e. fleas) in one scene we have to endure O'Connor goofing around, rubbing his stomach and such. A-ha! Again not funny. Just stupid and forced. This moment happens 30 minutes into the film and we still can't see any semblance of a storyline. Aladdin and his slave (Milton Reid) are stranded in the desert after a battle. The two end up being captured by desert Amazons who want to mate with them and kill them afterwards but Aladdin figures out how to get the Genie to get them out of there and bam they're back in the desert, walking in a chain-gang. The entire scene with the Amazons, who look like Las Vegas showgirls, was pointless. They could cut it out and go from the scene before and then to the chain-gang moment and it wouldn't make any difference. It's inconsistent and padded and nonsensical as that.
O'Connor was a talented and his artistry does shine through from time to time but for the love of God he was totally miscast. Terence Hill is in this and he's wasted in a pointless role. The whole project feels aborted and misconceived. Steve Reeves was supposed to star in this and the European film company LUX changed their minds as Steve was going to star in a couple of other productions, including the much better and more successful THIEF OF BAGHDAD. So they cast O'Connor instead of Reeves. How does one go from Steve Reeves to Donald O'Connor is a total mystery.
So to recap:
The bad: unfunny jokes, lame action scenes, terrible meandering script, padded. The complete total lack of any sense of wonder.
The good: locations, great score by Angelo F Lavagnino and a scene or two showcasing O'Connor's talents.
V/H/S/2 is one of the worst films I've seen in some time. Amateurish.
Not one story was worth watching. There are so many flaws, plot-holes,
crappy acting, repetitious and contrived set ups that the cumulative
effect, by the end of the film, is like a cannibal who cannibalized
himself over and over again until nothing was left.
There's no point of writing a comprehensive review. It's just not worth it for a film like this. All segments are poorly directed, written, photographed and acted.
The main problem with this film (as in the first one) is the contrived POV set-up which are never credible and the segments' directors themselves cheat this POV set-up repeatedly by showing scenes or shots NOT from any camera source. If the filmmakers can't even sustain the 'gimmick' they're trying to sell these gimmicky films as then it's an epic fail.
The only segment I'll review is the last one SLUMBER PARTY ALIEN ABDUCTION. It is so terrible that it takes the cake. It is so bad I just can't believe anyone thought this was ready for prime time. The whole thing is point blank stupid. For instance, the moronic action during the segment is almost entirely seen from the POV of a dog! Yes, a dog. During bits of conversations the dog actually moves its head back and forth conveniently following the obnoxious characters' painful chit chat...in order for us to see who's talking. I can't believe how stupid that was. As stupid as the infamous 'german shepherd having a flashback' in HILLS HAVE EYES PART 2 (1984). The director of this segment repeatedly distorts the image with video noise and VHS artifacts as a way to edit the "footage" in improbable ways.
The horror genre is really in a bad state when this atrocity generates any interest. Avoid at all cost!
AMER is all style with absolutely no substance.
It's a collection of over-directed scenes stitched together with overdone editing all about nothing.
Aside from the overdone beginning, which has very little to do with the rest of the film, in tone or anything else, the rest is just 60 minutes of shots pouty lips, of long hair ending up everywhere or of the wind blowing in between a young girl's legs or a middle aged woman's legs, sending her in constant state of near orgasmic frenzy. In this film, the wind is truly powerful!
Every little mundane detail is a sexual catalyst and this is amped to the nth degree, in case we couldn't figure it out after the endless number of close-ups of lips and flesh and sounds of heavy breathing.
For instance, when the middle-aged woman walks through the garden surrounding the mansion, the trees, plants and shrubberies she comes across seem to want to ravish her. This is me rolling on the floor with laughter.
This film has two directors, one of them being a woman but even so the so-called 'male gaze' has never been more omnipresent. I've never seen so many panties/crotch shots outside of a Spice Girls music video.
Its attempt to ape the Giallo style of filmmaking (which includes a cheesy retro poster) falls resolutely flat. Giallo films are first and foremost passionate and this film is as passionate as a dead fish washed up on a deserted beach.
A very shallow cinematic experience.
This French "Bronzées" T&A film, a popular genre at the time, is one of
the most memorable. Is it great art? No it's not but the goofy (and
sexy) story sorta works regardless. It's one of those guilty pleasures
you watch any time it's on TV. The story is secondary (something about
two buddies who are mistakenly given loads of stolen money and the
thieves trying to regain their loot). These kind of films were excuses
to show gratuitous nudity: boatloads of shapely girls in bikinis,
usually topless, as only the French can get away with and the men,
equally wearing skimpy swimsuits or disrobing on a whim, chasing after
Funny scenes: when the duo are talking on he phone with their boss and following instructions; the newspaper bit at the pool side and the subsequent burning of newspaper in the desert and the two pretending it's cold to the suspicious police. The cast includes Daniel Derval as the flamboyant "folle". Derval made a career playing the same role in several films.
This glossy musical remake of THE WOMEN, the famous movie which
featured a women-only cast, is nothing short of a complete disaster.
This film is pretty much toothless and almost completely miscast. June
Allyson? Yikes. She looks like a drip throughout the film. Hair,
posture, etc, as appealing as a bowl of oatmeal. Granted, Norma Shearer
wasn't the scorching beauty in THE WOMEN but she looked, eh, healthy.
June looks a bit sick here. In the original, Sylvia was played by
Rosalind Russell who almost stole every scene she was in. In this
remake, Dolores Gray is Sylvia and looks like an embalmed drag
queen-looking mummy. The only good bit of casting was having Joan
Collins in the role made famous by Joan Crawford. Whenever Collins is
not in the film, the film flat-lines, literally. She's the only spark
in this wet firecracker, as clichéd as it is for her to play the
conniving man-hungry uber bitch. Remarkably, having men in the film
almost added nothing except for handsome Jeff Richards who doesn't have
much to do but look good. Leslie Nielsen is wasted and not very
convincing. June Allyson and Nielsen as a married couple? Bleech.
Some scenes are lifted directly from THE WOMEN, like the bathtub scene. Some things that sorta worked back in the 1930s simply do not work in 1956. The entire Reno bit is truly tired and should have been re-written for the 1950s.
Oddly enough, this is a musical remake, probably just to accommodate June, and the musical scenes are mostly horrendous. The bit with Dick Shawn is painful to watch. The whole "Now, Baby, Now" with June singing with a bunch of gyrating male dancers is inexplicable. It's so odd it becomes brilliant if viewed as a total curio. You really wonder what they were thinking.
Watching the film, with the characters trying to be classy and the rich types, moving within the tacky studio sets, the overdone gowns and all that stuff and I sorta realized how Hollywood had a truly warped Waspy vision of the world. The end result makes Hollywood look like a playground for philandering film producers who wanted to be surrounded by what they thought were the beautiful people but in reality it was more on the corny & garishly gay side. Dreadful.
I'm a fan of silent films and try to watch as many as possible when the
opportunity arises. I'm also a fan of Sword & Sandal films and I had
the chance to see the 1914 version of SALAMBO. Compared to the
masterpiece CABIRIA, also made in 1914, this film is a mess of sorts.
The film lasts 75 minutes and for the first 25 minutes or so we *only* see a series of establishing shots with intertitles telling us what's going on. That's it. No close ups. No panning or anything interesting. Only wide static shots of large crowds scenes with the main characters somewhere in there. This wouldn't be so bad if the scenes weren't filmed in such an uninteresting way (angle, composition, etc). Once Matho climbs up the aqueduct of Carthage the action finally starts(this scene is very much like when Maciste and company climb the fortress in CABIRIA). And by action I mean the camera follows the characters and the characters exchange dialogue, not necessarily action as in action-packed stuff. Movies were still in its infancy which might explain the odd and confusing narrative structure of SALAMBO. 25 minutes of mostly static shots to set-up a story is way too long, even for that time.
Once it settles down to a visible storyline, it's pretty good and the magic of silent cinema finally takes hold but it's still a mess of sorts. Unlike CABIRIA, you can't really identify or empathize with any of the characters here. They're more like figures or shadows moving across the screen than characters. There are things that happen to the characters and I'm not quite sure why. No intertitle or dialogue telling us what just happened. There are some close-ups but they are rare. I think the first close-up within the story itself occurs 40 minutes mark. There are some close-ups of the actors at the beginning but those are there just to introduce the name of characters.
The sets are pretty good, the crowd scenes are grand. But these things can't overcome the sloppy editing and the wobbly, unfocused narrative. The one interesting aspect of this film is one of the main characters is black, Spendius, and he's not played as a caricature or as unimportant. He's vital to the story and it's cool to see that in a film made in 1914. When Spendius enters the statue of Tanit, and what happens afterward, it's probably the best moment of the film.
When the film on the DVD starts the words THE PRIESTESS OF TANIT appear, not SALAMBO. But the intertitles have the name SALAMBO on it. It seems the title is missing from this reel which goes straight to the introduction of the characters. The distributor of the DVD used the artwork of the 1925 made-in-France version of SALAMBO, which confused me. By the artwork, I thought I was buying that version but I really got the 1914 made-in-Italy one. The distributor should use different artwork or a photo from this film to sell this version. Oh well.
The music, credited to Lou McMahon, often didn't go with what was happening on screen but this is not uncommon with silent films in general as the original score is lost. A new score or finding the original score would be an improvement over this one. I had to turn off the sound to enjoy it more.
The story was adapted into another version, in 1960 titled SALAMMBO, starring Jacques Sernas and Jeanne Valérie. You can see some similarities between the two but the 1960 version, even with its faults, is more successful than this one.
THE GIANTS OF THESSALY is one of the better PEPLUM films made during
the PEPLUM/Musclemen/Sword & Sandal explosion of the the late 50s/early
60s. The assured hand of Riccardo Freda keeps it going even if there
are some weak spots in it, the weak aspects being the acting (there's a
scene with an actress tied to a rock and her acting is pitiful) and
some cheesy sets and effects. But the bad aspect of this film do not
diminish the entire overall effect and it's pretty cool. British actor
Roland Carey makes a nice change over the usual Steve Reeves or Mark
Forest or Gordon Scott. Physically, Roland is imposing. He looks tall
and built but not too built like a body builder. His physique is
believable. Roland plays Jason and the story is basically the quest for
the Golden Fleece (part of this story was already incorporated in
He leads a boat filled a beefy crew and they got through a bunch of great and not so great adventures, culminating with the finding of the Golden Fleece. The scene when Roland Carey gets the fleece is one of the greatest moments ever made in a PEPLUM. From the boat, to climbing up a cliff that leads to the statue where Jason as to climb all the way to the top of the statue to retrieve the fleece is simply amazing. Combined with the rousing score (one of the best and most familiar scores in any Sword & Sandal) and you have a brilliant scene. It makes the movie and Riccardo Freda's direction really shines here.
The DVD available in the US is of terrible quality. I've seen a clear fully widescreen HD version and it's amazing. The US DVD doesn't do it justice.
And to those who think this is nothing more than a weak rip-off of the Ray Harryhausen version of Jason & the Argonauts, well THE GIANTS OF THESSALY was made 3 years before the Harryhausen flick.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
CHLOE is the most risible film I've seen since, well, WHERE THE TRUTH
LIES. The story is totally whacked and one wonders who in their right
mind thought this story made any sense: a spoiled rich gynecologist
believes her husband is cheating on her. She suddenly feels invisible:
her husband is having sex with one of his young students. Friends are
dating young chicks. Her son his sleeping with a hot chick in his
bedroom. People all around are boinking chicks. The wife suddenly
realizes "Heck, I'm missing on all of the hot action" so she decides to
hire a hooker, with the idea of seducing her husband to see if he'll
sleep with her, but it's all a ruse really because she's the one who
ends up having sex with Chloe the Hooker. Chloe invents all these "hot"
stories of her sleeping with the husband, to dupe the silly wife; these
stories are so hot the wife decides to have sex with the hooker,
because the wife feels she's invisible and by having sex with Chloe
it's like some transference thingy going on and part of the passion the
husband is sharing with the hooker the wife thinks she'll feel it too.
The logic in the story is so whacked, it had me rolling on the floor.
First of all, I can't sympathize/empathize with the wife's pain/grief. She's a wealthy spoiled woman who hires a young woman to trap her husband. Nice character.
Second, the couple is a corny couple. Who cares if they don't make it or anything about their happiness.
Third, the two women, the silly wife and the hooker, are shown as being total nut jobs: the wife is gullible and accepts every little detail the hooker tells her without any proof of what she's claiming is real and the hooker is shown as being mentally unstable in the SINGLE WHITE FEMALE kind of way.
So basically the degrading screenplay portrays these two neurotic women as crazy, conniving, manipulating, narcissistic and out of control with their emotions. They both end-up coning each other while object of the initial target, the boring husband, doesn't even figure in the story. The two scheming women end up looking like two monkeys fellating each other at the zoo. I wanted to throw peanuts at them to make them stop. The ending elevates the level of degradation when Chloe the Hooker sleeps with the son in the parents' bedroom and when they're found out Chloe the Hooker then tries to seduce the wife again, which is seen by her son. The wife, embarrassed, literally pushes Chloe away to her death. Nice.
Though the story hints at Pasolini's brilliant TEOREMA, the storyline is straight out of the 1970s Black Emanuelle trash epics. Well, I would rather watch any Laura Gemser flick than this risible piece of "serious" filmmaking. The sex scenes in CHLOE were not hot for one second. Just unconvincing.
When the wife suddenly realizes the truth with those fake encounters Chloe has been telling her, she tells the clueless husband what she did: that she hired a hooker to entrap him and that she also ended up having sex with her (and in turn became the cheater here), the husband shrugs it off as if it was normal and OK. Again, this is me on the floor laughing my butt off. If I was the husband, I'd ask the wife to seek professional psychiatric help. I mean, the money she spent on the hooker could have been spent on something more important, ya know, like a brand new flat screen TV for that ridiculously overly designed house of theirs.
Even though it's a remake of a French film CHLOE reminded me more of the trashy Italian film called DELERIUM starring Mickey Hargitay. Same insane logic in the storyline with the women being completely crazy and degraded. The excellent Julianne Moore needs to get better projects than this laughable & embarrassing stuff.
|Page 1 of 56:||          |