I was led to watch this after reading some reviews here, after watching a dismal Youtube clip of Keanu Reeves tied to a bed.
I read a review that started out promising to do what no other reviewer has and "explain the film", only to have said review descend into a emulation of a poorly written fourth grade book report. My response was to stop reading that review, go paint my spare room, then come back and explain what seems to be getting lost in the detail. Specifically the ending, so, spoiler alert.
Spoiler Alert
Personally, to me it is a spoiler to have someone tell me every detail of production, and then pat themselves on the back because they didn't tell you anything about the last three minutes.
The details are not part of a synopsis. They are not part of the story. They are however, the elements of craft that shape how you will be effected by the film.
It doesn't matter how old the protagonist is, what city he lives in, why his wife is away, or what his bathroom looks like. In one sense, these are elements of the writer's imagination, the set designer's choice, and casting. That is IF there is no other motive to these choices... As I say, they greatly influence how we relate to the characters and react to the presentation.
A real synopsis, however, looks like this:
"Once charming houseguests turn violent when asked to leave."
It really is all embellishment if they are blonde or brunette, young or old, attractive or homely. If they hit you with a candlestick or a clock.
And if you follow me you will see that there is a great utility in this sort of simplification. But first the spoiler.:
And it's definitely related to the ending.
Stop right there if you think that a B movie from 1977 needs to be treated with a great level of plot secrecy.
If so please stop reading now; I respect the convention and IMDB policy,
ABSOLUTE SPOILER ALERT. DON'T READ ON UNLESS YOU'VE SEEN THE FILM.
Contrary to several other reviewers' opinions, this is not a story of two homicidal lesbians.
That's perhaps the point, really, and I am here to explain the simple ending as I see it, that seems to be so mystifying to some:
The girls don't hack the guy to pieces. They leave and have a good laugh about it.
WOW. There, I said it.
Now the why seems rather clear, if we don't treat this like the impossible happening of the century.
In my humble opinion, it is a deliberate message. It's not like blood and gore hadn't been done; we had Hitchcock and if you don't mind the pun, this sort of thing had been done to death.
But as I see it, in a post Manson Family USA, there is quite a simple reason, from a film maker's perspective, to dish out this sort of anti-climactic ending to a movie-going public that not only expected the worst, but in many cases felt deprived not getting it. And it goes back in a way, to the effect of production details on the viewer experience. To me it says, profoundly, that even in this post Manson Reefer Madness world of paranoia,
"Not every hippy chick is a bloodthirsty lunatic."
Some are just plain old lovable lunatics.
And "get that through your head, Mr. hung-up upper middle-class suburban white dude with a fireplace and a piano and jacuzzi.
Think about it. That title about the 'inescapable evil' that started off the film was the perfect set-up, for YOU, brain-washed paranoid entertainment addicted American.
Well that's how I see it. To my mind it is a worthwhile message and as good a prank on the audience as the gals played on Mr. Hot Tub Fantasy Threesome.
Because let me go back to what I was saying about the value of simplification of the plot.
"Once charming houseguests turn violent when asked to leave."
If you reflect we get the story from the point of view of Mr and Mrs White Suburban Folk. We see Mr Home Invasion victim alone, we never see the two nutty chicks planning this prank. We are sucked into feeling the story from his point of view, but given the events, and our simplified synopsis, we can perhaps read it another way....
"Man has his fun then shuns his playthings, and they get even."
From his point of view they were sloppy and intolerable and overstayed their welcome. But really? His fear that he would never get rid of them preceded their 'violent behavior.'
From their point of view? They were seeing through him.
"It was fine to feed us pizza last night while you were playing us, now you want us to get lost before your wife comes home. We'll see about that. Ha-ha. How do you like us now?"
Seen this way it is a little psychological tale of human nature and paranoia born of one's own guilt.
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
That's my take, for what it's worth, feel free to see it differently, I'm just saying that viewed with the narrow of expectation of a genre and judged in terms of how it fulfilled our presuppositions according to that genre, we can easily miss the point while perpetuating our own cultural fears and expectations.
As for the performances and production values, I really didn't find it as intolerable or as comical as some others have. It was a humble project with what could be considered a moral if you think about it:
"The American middle class while clinging to its avarice and fantasy lives in a prison of fear born of guilt and so do you Mr and Mrs moviegoer".
"You want to use us when it's expedient and dispose of us when you're done."
A counter-culture, possibly anti-war message about "the system"?
Or in other words, "Stickin' it to The Man."
I read a review that started out promising to do what no other reviewer has and "explain the film", only to have said review descend into a emulation of a poorly written fourth grade book report. My response was to stop reading that review, go paint my spare room, then come back and explain what seems to be getting lost in the detail. Specifically the ending, so, spoiler alert.
Spoiler Alert
Personally, to me it is a spoiler to have someone tell me every detail of production, and then pat themselves on the back because they didn't tell you anything about the last three minutes.
The details are not part of a synopsis. They are not part of the story. They are however, the elements of craft that shape how you will be effected by the film.
It doesn't matter how old the protagonist is, what city he lives in, why his wife is away, or what his bathroom looks like. In one sense, these are elements of the writer's imagination, the set designer's choice, and casting. That is IF there is no other motive to these choices... As I say, they greatly influence how we relate to the characters and react to the presentation.
A real synopsis, however, looks like this:
"Once charming houseguests turn violent when asked to leave."
It really is all embellishment if they are blonde or brunette, young or old, attractive or homely. If they hit you with a candlestick or a clock.
And if you follow me you will see that there is a great utility in this sort of simplification. But first the spoiler.:
And it's definitely related to the ending.
Stop right there if you think that a B movie from 1977 needs to be treated with a great level of plot secrecy.
If so please stop reading now; I respect the convention and IMDB policy,
ABSOLUTE SPOILER ALERT. DON'T READ ON UNLESS YOU'VE SEEN THE FILM.
Contrary to several other reviewers' opinions, this is not a story of two homicidal lesbians.
That's perhaps the point, really, and I am here to explain the simple ending as I see it, that seems to be so mystifying to some:
The girls don't hack the guy to pieces. They leave and have a good laugh about it.
WOW. There, I said it.
Now the why seems rather clear, if we don't treat this like the impossible happening of the century.
In my humble opinion, it is a deliberate message. It's not like blood and gore hadn't been done; we had Hitchcock and if you don't mind the pun, this sort of thing had been done to death.
But as I see it, in a post Manson Family USA, there is quite a simple reason, from a film maker's perspective, to dish out this sort of anti-climactic ending to a movie-going public that not only expected the worst, but in many cases felt deprived not getting it. And it goes back in a way, to the effect of production details on the viewer experience. To me it says, profoundly, that even in this post Manson Reefer Madness world of paranoia,
"Not every hippy chick is a bloodthirsty lunatic."
Some are just plain old lovable lunatics.
And "get that through your head, Mr. hung-up upper middle-class suburban white dude with a fireplace and a piano and jacuzzi.
Think about it. That title about the 'inescapable evil' that started off the film was the perfect set-up, for YOU, brain-washed paranoid entertainment addicted American.
Well that's how I see it. To my mind it is a worthwhile message and as good a prank on the audience as the gals played on Mr. Hot Tub Fantasy Threesome.
Because let me go back to what I was saying about the value of simplification of the plot.
"Once charming houseguests turn violent when asked to leave."
If you reflect we get the story from the point of view of Mr and Mrs White Suburban Folk. We see Mr Home Invasion victim alone, we never see the two nutty chicks planning this prank. We are sucked into feeling the story from his point of view, but given the events, and our simplified synopsis, we can perhaps read it another way....
"Man has his fun then shuns his playthings, and they get even."
From his point of view they were sloppy and intolerable and overstayed their welcome. But really? His fear that he would never get rid of them preceded their 'violent behavior.'
From their point of view? They were seeing through him.
"It was fine to feed us pizza last night while you were playing us, now you want us to get lost before your wife comes home. We'll see about that. Ha-ha. How do you like us now?"
Seen this way it is a little psychological tale of human nature and paranoia born of one's own guilt.
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
That's my take, for what it's worth, feel free to see it differently, I'm just saying that viewed with the narrow of expectation of a genre and judged in terms of how it fulfilled our presuppositions according to that genre, we can easily miss the point while perpetuating our own cultural fears and expectations.
As for the performances and production values, I really didn't find it as intolerable or as comical as some others have. It was a humble project with what could be considered a moral if you think about it:
"The American middle class while clinging to its avarice and fantasy lives in a prison of fear born of guilt and so do you Mr and Mrs moviegoer".
"You want to use us when it's expedient and dispose of us when you're done."
A counter-culture, possibly anti-war message about "the system"?
Or in other words, "Stickin' it to The Man."