Change Your Image
seth_yeah
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Vargtimmen (1968)
It's hard to do art!
Bergman made another movie about how hard it is to be an artist. You know what, though? Screw the artists. It's a difficult life for everyone.
This movie exploits natural landscapes by introducing them as gorgeous, indistinguishable from human beings, then minimalizing them by focusing only on its human character's psychological drama. Although I really like most of his movies, Bergman seems like the kind of guy who would wander off into the woods and, rather than notice the woods, would think only about himself. This art show should be of interest to film students however.
The mountains and the bubbles in water accidentally captured in this motion picture are more fascinating than its anthropocentric purpose!
Box Ball (1977)
The Post-Post-Modern Testicular Grotesque
This short movie offers cinematic ruminations on scrotal dignity, its plot revolving around the elasticity one man's genitalia and one woman's erotic ambitions and desires.
Our modern lovers, hungry for the fiery passion of truth, are distraught by the robotic movements to which their promiscuous sex has descended. To correct their problem, they discover a trick that for most men would be anatomically impossible: her kneading and twisting his scrotum at its base, several times around so his testicles are just these nubs of balls at the end of this spiral, this thick candy cane of a sexual organ. His scrotum is indeed large and does dangle as some heavy potatoes might in a dark burlap satchel. His facial contortions indicate varying degrees of pleasure and relaxation at the genital twisting, while the woman (neither character is given a name), has a pretty face and wears no garment upon her body.
She then makes love to him by inserting the sac into her moist groin and grinding upon it after discovering a position in which they could both remain comfortable. In a voice-over monologue, she espouses the great sensual pleasures derived from performing coitus in this "new way." Naturally, the act implies that the man cannot become aroused because otherwise, wouldn't his scrotum rise and therefore lose its "twist?" The film's greatest weakness is that its director chose not explore this dilemma. -SPOILERS- At the end he seems to ejaculate without problem, so perhaps his testicles don't need to rise as most men's do during the physical sexual crisis. Although he does "untwist" his piece before kindly bestowing his ejaculate upon her midsection, we are left to wonder if we have witnessed a man go through the sexual act, leading to an orgasm without ever becoming fully aroused. Therein lies the paradox. Or, we wonder, have we just witnessed another physical anomaly, a sexual freak-show? This would make sense since we have already been shown that his genitals can be considered abnormal by certain members of various societies.
-CONTINUED SPOILERS- Finally, our heroine entreats the viewers directly to join her sexual adventures if they have bendable, "baggy, pendulous" balls such as the ones featured here. -END SPOILERS- This is a profound movie that was arguably a pleasure for its two lead actors to have filmed.
Scarecrows (1988)
Not terrible, but-- wait, yeah, nevermind-- it's terrible
I just rented it on the strength of some online reviews, and because it did look & sound creepy. Misleadingly, it seems that some people give it more credit than it deserves, taking into account its small budget and placing it in some "genre" that allows for it to be bad, or something. That is a schooled take of the movie that is removed from the natural context of a regular viewer sitting down and wanting to see a good scary movie.
The legitimate gripes you'll hear about this one are the standard criticisms you'll hear of any bad film, coming from anyone-- the acting is bad, the characters are stupid, the script is awful, it doesn't make any sense, and if the scarecrows are so supernatural, then why do they use big knives to kill everyone? Kind of for keeping with the slasher-movie trend, I guess.
So much potential was wasted, in this movie. It's the kind of movie that you don't need a big budget to turn into a classic. These people are stranded in this creepy old house in the woods one night (for meaningless reasons), and these really scary-looking scarecrows are surrounding the place, for no reason. I like the fact that it never explains who put the scarecrows there, and why the scarecrows come to life, or who owns the place in the first place. It makes for good atmosphere. Really good premise. You're not even supposed to ask "why," which, for a horror film, is a good thing-- it means anything goes. However what could be a straight-forward and barebones horror story is weighed down by a tendency toward fast-paced action; wise-cracking criminals, guns and explosions, a crime subplot that drains the supernatural mood.
A group of criminals with no charisma or brains, who you remain typically indifferent to, are on the run and as they hide from the law, they find their selves in the backwoods, hunted down by these freaky scarecrows. These are not characters who you get to know, empathize with, or understand. They bicker unintelligently, swear a lot, shoot guns and recite corny lines. No one's really heroic, you don't know who to root for-- basically the scarecrows end up the most endearing characters, though it's not intended that way. It's just that- with each person the scarecrows kill, you know the movie is sooner to being finished. It's not really suspenseful, and other than the appearance of the scarecrows (which you kinda get used to), it's not really scary, unless you're young or watching it alone out in the country, late at night.
What really spoils it, seriously, very badly, is the terrible acting. You can't even overlook it. And the dialogue. Everyone is constantly talking, in their stupid voices, making stupid jokes all the time, saying stupid things. You can't get around it. If the movie had dropped at least half the dialogue, it could be viewable. And if it had lost, ideally, about 95% of the dialogue ('cause so much of the drama and conversations is so stupid and annoying and pointless) the film itself could be worth repeated watches with no other alterations. Unless you're into bad movies, and that's cool, too-- some people are.
The scarecrows are pretty frightening-looking. I live out in the country. If I saw a scarecrow like that, it would make me say yikes and run away. I think that, in this movie, the scarecrows have a dialogue going back and forth, sharing corny one-liners, but you can't tell if they're talking or if the main characters are the ones talking, because they all sound the same and talk the same way, and they're just always talking. Maybe this movie would be better if you watched it with the volume all the way down.
Rating: Worse than fair, but not bad enough to be bad.
The Last Waltz (1978)
Talented musicians performing without inspiration
This is a documentary of one concert, The Band's final concert, interspersed with mildly interesting interviews. They are very talented traditional rock musicians, but unless you're a fairly big fan of their music you'll probably end up bored with this movie. Or, if it's on TV, you'll be flipping around to other channels to see if anything better is on.
For exaggerated reasons that frustrate me, this film is constantly listed among the greatest rock-documentaries of all time. It's not. Perhaps it's over-rated simply because Scorcese directed it. Perhaps it's overrated because some of the camera angles are pretty cool. Perhaps it's overrated because of all the big-name musical guests who appear. But, none of the guests are in their prime, save Dr. John who never seems to age and Neil Young who never seems to change. But, still it's not their best performances. And The Band needs guests to sustain interest. Afterall, this is "The Band" so-named only in relation to other musicians-- their major claim to fame is that they played as Bob Dylan's backup band in the 1960s. Robbie Robertson is handsome, but a terrible singer. The guitar parts are boring (One Dylan biography even described The Band's inability to intuitively jam on stage when Dylan began noodling on his guitar), yet their playing ignores the folk and blues derived melodies, and the originals all sound alike.
The film is highlighted, musically, by Dr. John smiling and playing piano, Muddy Waters standing there and singing on The Band's lackluster performance of "Who Do You Love," Bob Dylan's cool hat, Emmylou Harris looking pretty during a rehearsal, The Staple Singers stealing the show on "The Weight" (it's hilarious when the film goes back to the band, when the bass-player sings the verse, he looks so unprofessional and goofy in comparison to the Staples' authentic soul. The Staples really helped the set!), Joni Mitchell's weird, aimless song, and that's about it. Van Morrison looks fat and miserable. Neil Diamond sings an old classic of his without verve or variation (or movement). Neil Young seems distracted during his dull performance (but Scorcese doesn't even show the cocaine on his nose). And, the best part is probably the encore-scene, just the Band playing "Greensleeves" on old-timey instruments while the credits role. But it's only the names that appear that are historic, none of the performances are really historic. I guarantee this film won't last. It's all hype. It's not interesting enough (and The Band is not charismatic enough) to sustain itself through generations.
There are some kinda-amusing, but overall meaningless anecdotes told by The Band during interviews, placed in between songs... but mostly it's just them jabbering about their embarrassingly half-thought ideas about the world (While not quite as stupid-sounding as the parody-interviews in "This Is Spinal Tap," Robbie Robertson still does come off as a high-blown dumbass) and why the music they like is the best music in the world, which is supposed to give credence to their overall-mediocre originals.
Also, what's with the confederate flag hanging behind them in their kitchen, or trailer, or wherever it is they're being interviewed. They're from Canada! (Except for Levon Helms, who plays his drums hunched over like a praying mantis-- cute.) Are we supposed to like these guys? The Last Waltz truly exposes them as a bunch of derivative, blown-up musical hacks who possess both fake accents and a freakish obsession with the American south.
There is talent on display in "The Last Waltz," and often, but unfortunately it's usually it's aimless and floundering. The overall affect can be boredom if you're not already a hardcore fan. However, the documentary is a worthwhile watch if you're bored or interested in learning the stories behind rock bands.
Dylan never even considered these guys his best backup band. He knew.
The Devil's Rejects (2005)
Call it the "Free Bird" Music Video
This is has been called a throwback to the grisly horror of the 1970s It contains stylistic nods to road/revenge films like "Bury Me An Angel" and "Last House on the Left." But this is no horror film. It jumps all over the place, from novelty exploitation to horror to action to comedy.
It's about a sadistically murderous family who spit one-liners and pseudo-philosophical explanations for viewers who can't figure it out for their selves (Along the lines of "Might is right," "Society deserves what we're doing because people are too stupid and weak to stop us," etc.). But they done messed with the wrong guy. One of their murder victims was the brother of an obsessive cop who leads a troop to surround their house and get 'em. The family appears in metal uniforms for a shootout. Only "Baby" (sister) and "Otis" (brother) escape, with the pigs hot on their trail. They make a call to their clown father who arranges a hideout at his brother's brothel. Now it's just a matter of them getting there. That's the story.
It's time to turn off your brain and follow along and take the characters at face value for good, clean, dirty shallow fun.
But even as mindless entertainment it offers little to latch upon. No plot exists. The characters are annoying and unrealistic. Director Rob Zombie is a poor writer, spoiling every potential thrill with in-jokes that aren't funny. This director, also a rock star, cannot keep his mind on one thing; heavy metal, horror, and now road movies. He is like a little child with an armload of toys, picking up more toys, and constantly dropping the others, picking them back up, dropping more, picking up more and making a big unorganized messy trail behind him. The "Rejects" style creates and tosses in characters at Zombie's childish whim, exercising his "Look-what-I-can-do" muscle. When he can think of nothing clever for these characters to say (which is almost always), you hear them shouting over and over "MOTHER F***ER" which loses its threatening feel about 5 minutes before the movie starts. If anything, Zombie's reliance on clichéd immoral behavior (using 'bad' words, referring to one's self as the devil) really shows his stunted, simplistic and actually conservative worldview.
Devil's Rejects has been commended for abandoning a choppy MTV style of modern thrillers in favor of a gritty vintage look. Yet Zombie's use of 70's rock, which is typically praised, mostly just turns the whole thing into a music video anyway. The two most crucial scenes have no dialogue, and are cut like music videos. The music pacifies the viewer with a kind of stupid nostalgic sentimentality that dopes viewers ("This song rocks!"), taking away any realism. The technique results in a film that'll seem extremely awkward in time.
Because Zombie cops out of adding depth to his characters and setting by putting southern rock in its place, none of the characters actually have to act realistically. The worst is Bill Mosely as Otis, who confusingly talks like a pompous modern suburban teenager. Nothing about their mannerisms indicate that they are from the south. They are supposed to be unself-conscious hicks, but instead Zombie gives them Tarantinoesque dialogue, asides, anachronistic catch-phrases ("You want a piece of this?") and tons of references to older films that are supposed to make them look clever and witty (for instance, why are people this depraved and removed from society so into movies? Why would they have ever seen Willy Wonka? It's an excuse for Rob Zombie to woo fans who mistake trivia for wisdom.).
"The Devil's Rejects" is extremely graphic; that is the point of it. A problem with the violence is that even though the characters are serial killers it still makes no sense that during such a crucial, rushed time they they would takes so long to torture some strangers. It is done stupidly, randomly. Yet that is pretty much the heart of the movie. It is there to exploit the undeveloped interests of those audience members who watch a movie just to see gore.
Even if you're okay with that, there's still the problem that 'Rejects' has the look of being made by a guy who got the idea "Hey, I like movies! I wanna make a movie too!" It doesn't matter what about, he just wanted to make a movie. So he throws everything he likes in older movies and just expects it to work out. Yet, the bloody exploitation films that it tries to emulate said something for their time, at least inadvertently. They were testing boundaries as well as presenting us with violence and madness that people were refusing to face even in movies, let alone in real life. They were creating styles, even when they were not great movies; they were not emulating styles. Those old boundaries have been broken already; new ideas are needed now, not mere homage-payers.
A mindless and self-indulgent homage would not bother me if it were not so overpraised as "daring." It takes horror back to a point it should have grown past by now. There is nothing provocative about it either; just stupid people doing and saying stupid things, exploiting any preconceived fears a viewer might have while watching a "horror" movie.
If you ask who or what Devil's Rejects exploits, the answer is: It exploits the audience's most base interests, sensibilities and curiosities-- in a vulgar way without addressing them outright, let alone answering them or illuminating them: violence without meaning, cruelty without feeling. By referencing older styles it manages to exploit the audience's intelligence ("Hey! I get that!"). Not only does it exploit that, it rewards it. All the meaningless, pointless things that Rejects' fans congratulate themselves for noticing; their intelligence has been exploited. This is a movie that rewards stupidity.
Splatter Farm (1987)
Question: Splatter Farm? Answer: Splatter Farm!
Splatter Farm! SPLATTER FARM! Sometimes I see a work of art that just makes me withdraw to reassess my life and the meaning of art. Splatter Farm (SPLATTER FARM!!!) is not really one of them, but it's sort of close. It is the first and only shot-on-video homemade horror film I have seen.
Splatter Farm was shot by two teenagers, the Polonia Brothers, who eventually became producers and directors of independent low-budget cult horrors. I wonder how this movie, SPLATTER FARM, ever got distributed, and how it fell into my hands. How? It is about these two kids who-- Wait, no, before I tell you what it's about, I have to tell you what it looks like. The first thing you think when you watch this thing, this "Splatter Farm" is "huh?" This is a home-video. It was shot on a camcorder. It looks like the tapes of your cousin's birthday party from way back when. It doesn't look this way as a stylistic technique-- it looks this way because that's what it is. You see this old house in the country. You see a cat out in a regular yard, not doing anything. You see a kid with an axe, standing over a stuffed dummy... and he begins swinging that axe right onto that stuffed dummy in a manner that indicated this kid, this "actor" has never swung an axe before, and the stuffed dummy begins leaking some red syrup. SPLATTER FARM! A toy keyboard provides the soundtrack, but it's not supposed to sound funny. Splatter Farm. I've never watched a movie like this before.
Regaring the "story," it is something like: these two teenagers (the Polonia Brothers) are going to spend the summer vacation with their aunt on her farm-- her Splatter Farm... with the other kid from the opening sequence, that one with the axe (he lives in the barn and does chores). The setting is realistic and grimy because it is a real, old house in the country. Throughout the course of the movie you'll see a mustached teen grunting on a toilet, then excretes a stream of blood and a butcher's knife into the toilet, and he gets up, drooling blood and pulls his underwear up over his mutilated groin (it was just a dream), the aunt constantly hitting on the boys, finally giving one of them a roofie and raping him (which is depicted as someone hopping up and down underneath some blankets on a bed), ol' crazy boy gets ahold of one the brothers and gives him the ol' Splatter Farm with a pitchfork (SPLATTER FARM!), performs fellatio on him, drools out the guy's semen, turns him around, fists him (not explicitly shown) to pull out a handful of pudding (supposed to be feces), licks it then rubs it in his victims face, before sending him up to the great Splatter Farm in the sky. It also contains a scene of a decapitated head being used for self-fellatio before "Haute Tension" made it chic. Oh, and the boys' aunt is also a necrophiliac (with a nicely decomposed corpse wearing pants into which she reaches and sadly pulls out fear in a handful of dust), and then there's a twist regarding incest (again) at the end. The boy who plays the bad killer of SPLATTER FARM actually menaces me, yet he needed to learn how to properly swing an axe. The final scene of him, after murdering everyone, (don't worry about me spoiling the ending, you don't care about the plot when you watch something like this) frolicking and dancing gaily in the field is touching like Mabel reenacting the Death of a Swan in Cassavete's "A Woman Under the Influence." Not really. Everything in this movie (SPLATTER FARM) looks fake, yet, the fact that these boys put their imagination into doing this, it disturbs me.
The acting is great, and by great I mean not so great, and by not so great I mean SPLATTER FARM!!!! The people recite their lines as though they were just told what to say before every shot without knowing anything about the movie (they probably wouldn't want to know anyway) (because the movie is Splatter Farm.... SPLATTER FARM!). I don't... you know... I... This looks like the kind of movie my buddies and I would make in high school, for fun... except our themes weren't so sickening.
In a way, I want to recommend this to everyone, because it shows a totally different side of homemade film-making that many are not familiar with (I wasn't). And the camera angles, cutting, editing, everything, kinda shows conventions at their most stripped-down and basic... if you see it in this naked light then you can kind of recognize it better when you see it done professionally (check out the strange shot of an oven being lit). I suppose it contains some interesting comments on youthful film making.
I bought this used for a dollar from a rental store in a very small Midwestern town. The tape had been stopped and queued about 25% through into movie, indicating that the last person to have rented this probably could not get through this strange video. I would love to have seen that person's reaction. I believe this film is now available on DVD from its distributor's website.
Rating: "Splatter Farm" out of "Splatter Farm" SPLATTER FARM!!!!!!