It's hard to fathom the filmmaker's intent here. Were they illustrating the desperate need for social acceptance many young Gay people feel as they turn to drugs for solace after life's multiple rejections? Were they just out to hustle a few quick bucks from the Gay film festival circuit or were they sincerely trying to craft a little opus that exemplifies that old scripture, "what does it profit a man to gain the whole world only to lose his soul?"
My guess would be it's a hodge-podge of all three but it fails on so many levels it just becomes a stridently boring exercise in really bad filmmaking. They clearly had a budget large enough to do better, but either didn't know how or didn't want to which brings me back to my opening questions. There are a multitude of cinematic sins here from hammy, amateurish acting to incomprehensible dialogue, murky lighting, jarring music and downright psychedelic editing that an exorcism at the Vatican could never vanquish. But at least the sets and costumes are nice!
In all fairness this was an Australian production and the Aussie concept of entertainment can be -shall I say- skewed at times as their indie filmmakers take extreme measures present a social commentary or simply hold your interest. And in the hands of a true craftsman like Peter Jackson, even their crudest works shine can like a cinematic LED [Jackson's early titles like BRAIN DEAD, MEET THE FEEBLES and BAD TASTE prove this]... still harshly glaring and in-your-face, but peppered with little nuances that make the entire experience at least a little worthwhile. Okay: Jackson's actually from New Zealand but you get my point!
Again, CRAZY RICHARD just doesn't cut it and by the end you really hope this pair of Ruby slippers are so heavily padded so they never click and return to OZ... or at least a movie screen near you. On second thought: somebody needs to slam those scarlet heels together pronto and send this one-hour waste to time back to the deep Aboriginal outback where it belongs.
On another review forum, one contributor hailed CRAZY RICHARD film as a future cult classic if viewed through the "proper" lens. My answer to them would be only if that lens was smeared with a thick layer of Vaseline that totally obscured the images.
My guess would be it's a hodge-podge of all three but it fails on so many levels it just becomes a stridently boring exercise in really bad filmmaking. They clearly had a budget large enough to do better, but either didn't know how or didn't want to which brings me back to my opening questions. There are a multitude of cinematic sins here from hammy, amateurish acting to incomprehensible dialogue, murky lighting, jarring music and downright psychedelic editing that an exorcism at the Vatican could never vanquish. But at least the sets and costumes are nice!
In all fairness this was an Australian production and the Aussie concept of entertainment can be -shall I say- skewed at times as their indie filmmakers take extreme measures present a social commentary or simply hold your interest. And in the hands of a true craftsman like Peter Jackson, even their crudest works shine can like a cinematic LED [Jackson's early titles like BRAIN DEAD, MEET THE FEEBLES and BAD TASTE prove this]... still harshly glaring and in-your-face, but peppered with little nuances that make the entire experience at least a little worthwhile. Okay: Jackson's actually from New Zealand but you get my point!
Again, CRAZY RICHARD just doesn't cut it and by the end you really hope this pair of Ruby slippers are so heavily padded so they never click and return to OZ... or at least a movie screen near you. On second thought: somebody needs to slam those scarlet heels together pronto and send this one-hour waste to time back to the deep Aboriginal outback where it belongs.
On another review forum, one contributor hailed CRAZY RICHARD film as a future cult classic if viewed through the "proper" lens. My answer to them would be only if that lens was smeared with a thick layer of Vaseline that totally obscured the images.