Bou

Reviews

25 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
I have several Spanish words I could use, none allowed here
8 August 2013
Wow. I have recently begun watching a number of Mexican films, and I vacillate between finding it a shame and being relieved that the current horror genre there seems to be as weak as it is in my own good ol' United States. This is one of of the worst films I've ever seen. I didn't give it a 1, because I reserve that for films in which a living being is actually killed or injured. It escaped a 2 rating only because it shows and applauds Xochimilco (I'm all for Xochilmilco being preserved and treasured), because it shows reasonably convincing stigmata, and because it features several dogs who do *not* die (Percy the Rottweiler even gets an end credit).

This is not a long film, but it feels interminable. A group of seven young friends decide to celebrate a birthday by taking a trajinera, a long, colorful, poled boat outfitted with a table and benches, through the waterways of Xochilmilco.

Nothing happens for roughly the first third of the film. The friends flirt, talk, and drink beer. There are many silences and shots of the boatman (made even more inexplicable because several of them are of his feet). The only break from this are shots of a man with really bad teeth who looks like a cross between the bad guy in a spaghetti western and the thing in _Jeepers Creepers_. He is inexplicably following the trajinera. Oh, and there's a scene when two of the characters sing while one plays guitar (the guitar seen in the opening minute was a sure sign of viewer pain to come; I might have run away). The singing and playing were clearly recorded in the studio, but the scene is shot as if we are hearing just what we are seeing. Oh, ugh.

Then the birthday boy finds a Ouija board under the table. Most of the friends want none of it, and there's about three minutes of yelling at him about it. There follow two minutes of what is supposed to be a scary Ouija sequence, but because we are deprived of reading what is spelled out, the audience soon tires of this too.

Nearly half an hour in, the boatman mysteriously and abruptly jumps off the boat and runs into the jungle. All of the passengers scream and cry in wild terror and despair, despite the fact that the boat pole is clearly left on the deck. This bizarre fact sets up what happens--or doesn't---for the rest of the film. This vagueness is not helped by the injudicious use of scene repetition, slow motion, and voice-over. The youngsters get off the boat at some point, and we don't know when or why. People split off from the group without explanation. They get killed when the menace is clearly in view and could have been stopped or evaded---repeatedly. I have never seen a film with a lamer group of protagonists. Their impotent nature rather reminds me of Edward Gory characters.

All in all, the film has no discernible motive or plot. The opening credits hint that this is about La Llorona, but I sure didn't see any sign of that in what followed. I think, given the dolls in the opening, that the filmmakers may have wanted to make a film on the genuinely creepy Isla de las Muñecas and couldn't get permission to. What and who the group encounters after the trajinera is never made clear. The implication is that two characters have become possessed by the Ouija board and their stubborn refusal to leave it alone, but the creepy man in black follows them all from the very first scene, when they're parking their cars. He follows them throughout, though most of the time he just looks constipated. A man they encounter at a shrine may or may not be St. Francis. I can't even figure out whether the Rottie was supposed to be good or a familiar of some evil being.

Needless to say, there was no budget. The sound is poorly recorded (not that it matters when the dialogue doesn't help), and the ending music runs out before the credits do, so they just start it over.

I suspect that a couple of the actors might have some talent, but the script and direction are so terrible that it's impossible to tell. I end this review as I began it---wow.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
truly vile
13 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
*Here there be SPOILERS.* Not that this film isn't spoiled from start to finish.

I had the displeasure of watching this as part of a SeeFlik month on On Demand. I'm a fan of short indies, especially tense thrillers. This was anything but. What was coming at the end was all too clear from the first few minutes, although nothing could have prepared me for the far-fetched quality of the rationale for it, or for the extreme brutality.

I suppose I should have been ready for the former flaw, though, because the whole film is completely implausible. How could Sky expect that his desired victim would drive by? Or that she would stop? Or that someone else wouldn't? And if she did to him the implausible thing that she did in high school, wouldn't she remember him? (Or if she's *not* actually that same girl---which I've considered in the year since I saw this, that he's just that insane---that's not made at all clear to the viewer.) And why would she stop and try to figure out anything about his car instead of just phoning someone for help or getting help at the next gas station? And if she's nice enough---though also dim enough---to do all that she does to try to assist, would he really still go through with his plan? My biggest complaint in the Ludicrousness Department is that there is no mom on the face of the planet who'd willingly get in a car and drive off with some stranger *leaving her kid in the other car.* Slee knows jack about women.

I'm disturbed that SeeFlik's 2011 competition put this in its top 20. I'm disturbed that they categorized it under "Social Issues" or some such inappropriate moniker. I'm disturbed that the tag line on the SeeFlik site says, "How far will one man go to mend a broken heart?" That's not mending---it's over-the-top vengeance. And I'm extremely disturbed that this is filmed in a way that seems to insist that we the audience are supposed to side with Sky, that we are to empathize with his extreme vengeance instead of wishing he'd got the hell over it.

Well, I wish he'd got the hell over it. And that I'd never seen the movie. There's enough misogynist crap out there to last several lifetimes. I'd have given this a 1, except for the fact that the acting wasn't completely egregious, and some of the filming was vaguely interesting, and also because I try to reserve the lowest rating for those rare flicks that actually harm animals or people. Not those that just seem to glorify it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
I feel like Charlie Brown with the football
26 September 2012
Okay, with the title this movie has, it was eventually going to get a look in this household. The dedicated cult-movie fan will sometimes follow a title like this into a so-bad-it's good experience. Sometimes it's time well spent. Most of the time one remembers why one does not play the ponies or the stock market.

What to say of this movie? Well, there's lots of driving. Not Steve McQueen stuff, though. No, more like "Manos, the Hands of Fate." And the walking! More walking than in "The Beast of Yucca Flats." I will admit that my thumb leaned heavily on "FF." Even then, the pace was unendurable.

However, I did not fast forward through some truly inspired dialogue uttered by the satanic leader, who wears some sort of helmet of leather and horns---perhaps a ram's head? No matter. Whatever it is, it successfully hides the identity of the actor(?) as he intones such lines as "For rejecting the serpent, prepare to surrender thy unhallowed flesh to all that is evil!" and "Now, whore, shall ye know the hard-on of sin!" (What happens next gives new meaning to "Lust in the Dust," as well as an ironic twist to the director's name.)

I suppose I should mention that there's a topless waterfall-shower scene, as well as a topless woman in a thong carrying around a boa constrictor . . . if you like that sort of thing.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Drive-in popcorn, a bit stale and needing more butter
21 May 2012
I really wanted to like this, not least because I'm a big fan of that vanishing and venerable phenomenon, the drive-in. Alas, I've come away with a mixed reaction.

The overall conceit---a postapocalyptic drive-in run by mutants, zombies, and the undead for a similar clientèle---is a fun one for a horror film. I've been left sitting in the last car present in a drive-in in the middle of the night, and a deserted one that's still running in real life is creepy enough, let alone one that's at the end of the world. Best, this fictional drive-in features what few real drive-ins do today---that staple of yesteryear, the B movie.

The problem is that we have some F movies included in this anthology.

In that category, I'd have to put the first film, "Pig." I believe the filmmakers fancy it to be in the company of such revenge films as "Last House on the Left" or "I Spit on Your Grave," but for a variety of reasons, the comparisons don't work. The film started on a hopeful, if low-budget, note (the frat's front door reads Delta Omega Alpha--D.O.A.). But that's just about the last I liked of it, except for the fact of how the woman managed to get the man into the position he's in--a nicely ironic touch. The actors do their best with what they've been given, which isn't much. The female lead has been given a load of vituperative histrionics, and the film quickly degenerates into a lot of shouted imprecations and ceaseless torture. The film suffers further from the fact that the timing of the first half is all wrong, and I started to get the giggles because of it. This vignette isn't scary, suspenseful, or triumphal---it's alternately gross, depressing, preposterous, and annoying.

"The Closet," about an unhappy boy of the Space Age, is rather better. The characters are over-the-top and unidimensional, but they are intended to be. Although one can see the end coming, it's nicely done. The boy playing the lead is surprisingly good for such a young actor. My main quibbles with the film are some poor pacing and some anachronisms (for example, glaringly, the cell phone; less so, the answering machine). Surely the writers know some people over the age of 50---they should have tried talking to them before committing images to film, especially since some of the set dressing (such as the lighted globe) was really good.

"Fall Apart" isn't big on action or plot, but it isn't meant to be. (My one argument with that fact is the plot threads that start and then go nowhere. Why?) The main character is likable enough, and he meets a terrible fate, which is the point of this one. It's a gross-out effects film, which starts creepily and builds to total nastiness, and the effects are well done. Unfortunately, the budget seems to have gone largely to making those effects; the small budget shows excessively elsewhere.

Of all the films, "Meat Man" may be closest to the creepy films and mags of the drive-in's heyday. It's certainly close to the real sorts of scary tales and rumors we told each other as children. The script, direction, and editing are crisp and well paced. The way these kids think is spot-on. Even the preposterous game they play with the freezer is on target---it's exactly the kind of game (that makes no sense to adults) that kids would invent. The child actors do a wonderful job portraying the brothers. Overall, I liked it. (But what did I miss at the beginning? What was with the Frankenstein monster in the bushes?)

Finally, "The Watcher" is 99% unwatchable. If Dark Carnival, the film festival I saw this at, had stuck to its schedule, and shown this one last, I'd have gone home after the few shots of some spectacular scenery, and caught one of my TV shows instead. The makers claim it was inspired by such classics as TCM, but there is nothing here of what made TCM a landmark film in the genre. The characters are unengaging, and there isn't a bright bulb in the marquee. These have to be THE stupidest characters I have ever seen in a film, and that includes the recent "Timber Falls." There is nothing scary or disturbing here, except perhaps the notion that "starring" on "Survivor" is an entrée to the film business.

The bits in between the vignettes are not particularly funny, but the guy playing The Projectionist does so with enthusiastic, committed glee, and the concessionaire Teenage Axe Victim is an inspired touch. There are plenty of trilogy-formatted B films, and I think that "Drive-In Horrorshow" could benefit by becoming one, that is, lose the first and the last vignette.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
What was Donen's excuse for this mess?
30 April 2012
Wow, this was bad. Unbelievably so, given the writing credits, given Bologna and Caine, and given the fact that this was helmed by one of my favorite directors: two of his films are in my Top Ten to take to a desert island. I couldn't figure out even that this was supposed to be a comedy until I was maybe halfway into it. No comedy, black or otherwise, is supposed to keep the viewer guessing for half the film whether this is the genre That's a big clue that it just doesn't work.

I see that Michelle Johnson was nominated for a Razzie, and she certainly deserved it, although Donen's the one really at fault here. He certainly seems to have lost his mind with this casting, the actress's most noticeable assets being located between her neck and her navel, and her greatest talent apparently her willingness to show them. Again, the atrocious performance by the female lead is Donen's fault (and is it any wonder that this was his last cinema release?), since Ms. Johnson was a mere 17, fresh out of high school and signed up to be a model. Her status as a minor just adds to the overall creepy quality of this film.

I've nothing against age-gap romance on film or in real life, but I do have something against minors used in this way for a film, and I also have something against the "comic" plot of the hook-up of a man with his good friend's daughter, whom he has known since birth and is his daughter's friend. Yes, this situation has been seen, more or less, in cinema both before and since, but not in this chuckle-chuckle buddy-film sort of way, and the others I've seen have higher values of every sort. Caine's character takes advantage, utterly ignores his own daughter (Demi Moore is wasted here), lies to his friend, and commits adultery, and we're supposed to find it all very nutty and funny.

The plot twist near the end did take me by surprise---contrived though it was---but even then I don't think I smiled once. What an icky, icky film.
6 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Apple (1980)
i was well warned and yet did not believe
18 January 2012
I watched this because (a) it was free and (b) I couldn't bring myself to take at face value the claim that anyone had actually recorded the lyrics "It's a natural, natural, natural desire / Meet an actual, actual, actual vampire!" But they did. Twice, even. And a vampire pops up and hisses, despite the fact that the movie really has nothing to do with vampires. (I have a theory about this. The vampire bit player is credited with several other roles in this movie as well, so I imagine the director owed her a favor. I can hear the conversation: "Okay, okay, so you can have a part in my next film, and we'll call it even, right?" "Well, okay. . . . But I wanna be a vampire. "The script doesn't call for a vampire." "I WANNA BE A VAMPIRE." "Okay. Sure. Fine. You're a vampire." "Goody!" I have this same theory, by the way, about all the talentless strippers in Carmine Capobianco's cult classic Psychos in Love. But I digress.)

Not a good thing to make a rock musical whose music is almost relentlessly this bad. I actually had to turn off the sound during "BIM's on the Way" (the anthem of the evil music corporation that is somehow taking over the world, or at least America), for fear the inanely repetitive thing would be stuck in my head indefinitely. "Master," a reggae tune, was discomfiting. And I flat-out cringed as the displaced star Pandi crooned while seducing the hero after drugging him. The title, "Coming," is a double entendre, but the verse jettisons any attempt at subtlety, preferring to hit the listener on the head with, say, a metal fire extinguisher: "I want it harder and harder, and faster and faster / And when you think you can't keep it up / I'll take you deeper and deeper, and tighter and tighter / And drain every drop of your love." That little ditty is backed by half a dozen slightly clad dance couples apparently making themselves into human seesaws on beds scattered cleverly about what must be the orgy room. One cannot help but wonder if American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance media mogul Nigel Lythgoe lives in fear that the American mainstream will discover this movie and learn the awful truth that he choreographed it.

Whoever sings for the female lead (I saw the credit but forgot it) has a decent voice, as does the male protagonist. And they have a rather enjoyable and sad duet, separated by circumstance and space, on "Cry for Me." But don't worry. That experience was strictly anomalous.

Most of the dance scenes are as bad as the songs, although the chorus boys have a couple nice routines. (Lythgoe was once one, so perhaps no surprise that those were the strongest dancers with the best routines.) Finally, BIM can't seem to get a grip on what sort of music it espouses: hair band at the beginning, disco later, and while the Captain & Tennille sorts of offerings from the protagonists are ridiculed at first, they seem to be what BIM is buying later.

The costumes are completely over the top and don't make much sense a lot of the time, which is fine, I suppose, because neither does the plot (just think every annoying attempted buy-in to youth culture you ever ran into), and the clothes and makeup are kind of fun to look at. (Well, except for the truly annoying, cheesy-looking BIM patches that everyone is made to wear.) This rock musical has more than a little of a gay glam film to it as well---loads of gold lame' briefs on the boys, and enough body glitter and pancake makeup to send me into sneezing fits just looking at it all.

What becomes of our protagonists and the final reckoning for BIM's evil Dr. Boogalow comes straight out of left field. I won't post it here even with a spoiler alert. It's just too weird. Suffice to say that at least I have never seen anything quite like it, and I've seen an awful lot of movies.

In the end, I can't begin to give this thing a numerical rating. Strictly on merits, I'd have to give it a 3. On intentions, I'd have to give it that as well, although I can't suss out what its intentions were, exactly. But if it was supposed to be serious, it failed; if it was trying to become another RHPS, well, you can't *try* to become a cult phenomenon. Well, you can, but it doesn't work. But putting those sorts of factors aside, there is something in The Apple that pulls you in, and even though that something is just watching to see if it can actually get any worse, well, it did keep me in my chair. And that's sayin' somethin'.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wild Orchid (1989)
3/10
Film is not a perfect art form
16 October 2011
. . . and won't be perfect until you can reach out and slap the characters. I wanted to reach out and slap that same tiresome, deeply annoying, manipulative expression off Wheeler's face so many times that my arm ached. I longed to slap Emily for falling for such a drip. I wanted to slap her mother for being Worst Mother in South America. I wanted to slap Jacqueline Bisset, who played Mommie, for allowing herself to be utterly wasted in this film. And Carre Otis for being such a bad actress that a parrot upstaged her. And Mickey Rourke for being Mickey Rourke circa 1990.

At least I can slap myself for knowingly watching a Zalman King film.

By the by, the 3 is for the pretty parrot, some good scenery, and the Carnaval players. Next time I'll just get a travel documentary.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
She Freak (1967)
Does the Impossible
17 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
It makes carnivals really, really, really dull. Really. The most interesting thing for me, a boomer kid, was reminiscing about the fashions and decor of the era, and noticing how freak-show signs never seem to change.

We didn't need the extolling at the outset of the film to realize that the producer probably was getting a big chunk o' change from the West Coast Shows carnival to make this film. I mean, for pity's sake, as has already been mentioned here, the scenes of the carnival in which NOTHING HAPPENS are mind-bogglingly frequent and long. But it certainly did the carnival no favors to have five minutes here and seven minutes there and another five minutes here of these scenes, because they're things like the same shots of the same rides, or the same shots of the same signs, or people standing next to trucks and smoking, or people putting ride parts on trucks or taking them off, or even, heaven help me, Jade, the main character, clearing debris off picnic tables. If this had been my experience of the carnival when I was a kid, I'd have been in tears asking my parents to take me home NOW.

And for the grownup seeking some titillation in Moon's "topless" dancing, well, caveat emptor. There's a question mark on her sign for a reason.

If anyone wants to know what it was like working in the actual West Coast Shows, there is a site by the (late) Amazing Vanteen, who played Mr. Babcock and also one of the killers, which details his life with that show. He briefly discusses the making of this film as well.

The attempted rip-off of Browning's "Freaks" is shameless and futile. For all of Jade's trembling hatred for the freaks, we don't see many of them. We have the odd-talent people, who only marginally qualify for this sad label. The closest to the classic definition of a sideshow freak is Shortie (and the oddest thing to me about Shortie is that he didn't grab that bottle of booze while Blackie and Pretty-Boy were duking it out by the trailer under which Shortie was hiding). The finale, of course, is total theft, although the details of the transfiguration constitute a more plausible end to Jade than the Browning ending provides. Whatever revolted viewer satisfaction there might be in the revenge is, however, I think undone by Greasy's reveling in Jade's undoing. We have no reason to think he is not as despicable as she is, after all.

Anyway, save yourself a wasted afternoon. This is no cult classic, kids.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Crazy, mixed-up movie
17 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This poor movie can't make up its mind whether it's a history lesson, a romance, a scary movie, or a nudie cutie, and it ends up being none of them. Thankfully, I didn't waste money on this flick (unless you count opportunity cost, and I suppose I should).

In blatant padding to fill out an hour, we're subjected to repeated details of a Bosch depiction of hell, while a narrator---Gary Owens, no less!---maunders on about witches. (Wish I knew who the narrator was of the single line following Owens's speech--he's familiar too.) Our history lesson ends and our geography lesson begins when the ostensible hero of the film haplessly runs out of gas outside of Luckenbach, Texas, whose roots we learn about ad nauseam. I nearly ran away when the German-singing tots appeared, but I hung in there to watch a possible love interest develop with the hotel owner's daughter. The appearance of a black peignoir set was promising . . . but no.

The witch of the film's title wants (and gets) her own romance (well, okay, lust-fest) with the hero, but though the camera lingers long on the naked witch swimming, so does the little soft-focus bubble over all her naughty bits. For the nudie-cutie enthusiasts out there, she does cavort later in the aforementioned sheer peignoir, but with the sudden and unexplained appearance of white underpants, and you have to suffer through something like liturgical dance as well. (And just where did the music in that cave come from, anyway?) The movie has about as many walking scenes as "The Beast of Yucca Flats." The voice-over narration seems unending, but maybe that's okay, because the German accents are atrocious, as is most of the dialogue. The acting is . . . well, let's just say the annoying children are given a run for their money by the rest of the cast.

And while one does give a bit of credit to the film for its sympathy for victims of witch trials, both literal and figurative, the end makes me want to slap the hero. The "naked witch" comes back to life after centuries of death, exerts mind control, and kills a few folks, and yet he wants to know "Was she really a witch?" Well, DUH.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Remote (2010)
8/10
take time for this one
5 October 2009
I saw this yesterday as part of the Dark Carnival Film Festival in Bloomington, Indiana. It has some interesting ideas injected into a well-worn theme, and I like that director/writer Roussel used a television set as the medium for the plot. How many of us have not played with the idea of interacting with someone in the set? The main characters are quickly established as likable--important in a short! I thought the film was well acted and had decent production values. Overall, the pacing was quite good, although I think one section in the second half takes too long to establish its point. There is one breathtaking moment I didn't see coming at all, although the circumstances that set it up to happen seem a bit too hard to buy, in retrospect. (I can't say more without spoiling that part.) I don't understand enough about physics and math (despite a long relationship with SF) to get the various arguments about alternate time lines, so I won't go there much. The only thing that I had a quibble with was the photo--I don't see how it was possible that it was sent to Matt. Otherwise, I bought the set-up and most of the details. A nicely handled ending, too. This is Roussel's third venture into directing, I believe, and I hope he does more.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Caution Sign (2009)
8/10
Are the owls what they seem?
4 October 2009
Good job! I just saw this yesterday, at Bloomington's Dark Carnival film festival, for which it won Best Screen writing.

This is a character-driven film, which is unusual for a short, but it works because we either know these people or have been these people at one point or another in our lives. Most of this short feature is taken up by an argument that occurs during a late-night car trip down a winding road, a stupid argument sparked by an insignificant event--or, rather, an event that would have been insignificant had they left it alone. The argument quickly escalates, exposing how damaged this couple has become in their relationship. There is a moment when we are poised for them to turn back from what they're doing to each other, and themselves . . . and I, for one, was wishing rather hopelessly that they would.

I guessed at the ending (possibly because it was tangentially reminiscent of a horror short I read decades ago, although I doubt that the short-story writer or the screenwriter ever did). Nevertheless, I thought the action of the final scene was communicated cleverly and well.

The film is very well acted (the actors got separate applause in our theatre at the end), and it is also well shot, edited, and directed. It is no easy thing to make an effective horror film that is mostly talk, even if it's a short, and my hat is off to all involved.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Open Graves (2009)
3/10
I should have just gone to bed
20 September 2009
OK, so I know better than to watch movies on SciFi . . . er, sorry . . . SyFy. Or shifafa. Or whatever it is now. So sue me. I spent my whole Saturday doing advisory-board brainstorming for a nonprofit. I can be forgiven for flopping into my armchair and wanting to watch some movie I'd never seen, rather than read Proust in the original or learn how to play the oud.

Which is to say, I didn't deserve Open Graves. Of which I saw none, incidentally. Were there any? Did I fall asleep? Why is it called this?

Some icky visuals. Not many scares. As with too many films in modern horror films, no reasons are given--apart from shared humanity--to care about any of these people. Half a point, though, for the legless entrepreneur, who was clichéd but did have one good scene.

It all sort of plays like Final Destination delivered via a board game. The game does have an intriguing look to it, and it involves one of my favorite old conundrums. I'll give it that much. The drawback there is that the game possessed more personality than most of the characters.

As for the end, if you didn't see it coming, then I think YOU fell asleep. Somewhere back around the dawn of the genre.
57 out of 96 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Timber Falls (2007)
2/10
Oh, just what we needed . . .
20 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
. . . yet another backwoods, genetically played-out bunch of rapists and murderers. I'd actually had a decent run lately of NOT saying, "Well, there's another 97 minutes of my life I'll never get back"--and, hey, I watch reality TV, people.

Where to start? Well, how about at the start, when we know immediately that the gun and phone will both be needed. Could it be any heavier-handed? Well, sure it could. Like naming one of the trails the Donner Trail. Somewhat less so is the reference to Willow Creek Trail (Willow Creek being one of the U.S.'s most influential evangelical megachurches), but combine that with the stranger lady's remarks about wedding rings and things being equal in the eyes of the Lord, and the couple's immediate confession (why, to this total stranger?) that they aren't married, and you have a good idea where this is going.

Very shortly, the film becomes, in my mind, unforgivable. It's bad enough that our couple decides a tentless, broad-daylight rut in the woods is a good way to get some rest on the hike, but that Our Hero not only doesn't shoot any or all of the three rubes but obeys his girlfriend's unfathomable insistence that he rid his gun of all the bullets is beyond the pale. I mean, heck, I'm a pacifist, antivivisectionist vegetarian with Mennonite and Jainist tendencies, and I'm pretty sure I'd have shot the weirdos in the kneecaps and got outta Dodge.

And then Cheryl--she who originally seemed to have some brights because she insisted on taking the phone--not only feels frisky that night, after the twisted events of the day, but decides to take a solitary nude dip in the lake at dawn? Sh-yeah, right. That's exactly what you'd do if some menacing creep with a gun had been sniffing the crotch of your jeans, I'll bet.

Like something else I've heard tell of, this just kept rolling downhill. The cinematic ripoffs proliferated (even ripping off Dusk Till Dawn via Deacon's fantasy), and there wasn't a single shock or chill, although there was plenty of the disgusting. The one thing I will credit it for plotwise is that although it included torture--and I am fed up to here with torture in the genre--there was actually a motive behind it that the bad guys could allow themselves to believe in. (Not that that carries a whole lot of weight for me. The Saw crap tries the same thing, and should utterly fail in the mind of any halfway sane person.) Because of this, the bizarre wedding scene, and the usually reasonable production values, I give it a 2 instead of a 1, although I am sorely tempted to deduct both points on the basis of the last second of the film.

One last thing--I'm not only tired of stupid stupid stupid characters and disgusting stuff passing as horror, I'm a little cheesed at religious people so often being depicted as deranged. I could not help, watching this schlock, remembering when my Jewish ex-boyfriend and I went primitive camping in the UP of Michigan some 35 years ago. This was in an era when a LOT of people really did revile you for living together before marriage, and when being a non-Christian American seemed rather rare. We met a born-again Christian and his Catholic wife, who not only did not shame us for our religious views and marital status (which were divulged naturally in the course of conversation) but put up a tarp for us in a rainstorm and then shared their dry firewood and fresh fish with us, sitting up late into the night, talking, drinking coffee, and being kind. I never saw them again--although we did correspond a little that year--but I have never forgotten them and their kindness and acceptance. I wish I'd spent 97 minutes last night trying to find out what had become of them instead.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
the brilliant but phantom satire
2 May 2009
Nice to see that there are other fans here, and also people who began to question their own memory or sanity with respect to remembering this show! Man, I now hardly know anyone who saw it, but my then-husband and I were big fans. It didn't air in our region, and we'd use the rabbit-ears and the outside antenna to pull it in from an independent station in a neighboring state.

I had considered myself a feminist for years, but I was amazed at how astute this show was in picking up how completely permeated society is with aspects of gender roles. There was always something in that show that made me do a double-take. Some of life's more offensive moments were shown for what they were and yet simultaneously rendered hilarious when role-reversed: the executive women's nearly unconscious treatment of waiters at the local bar, for example.

Add me to the folks who would so appreciate it if TV Land would air these ("Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman" too!) or if they were on DVD. Gotta love Norman Lear!
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
some of the best TV ever
31 March 2007
Praise be for the IMDb! I've been trying for years to remember the name of this series correctly, and some other user mentioned it in his memories of _The Man Who Had to Sing_, one of the shorts from this remarkable series. I was already a fan of animation, but I had become aware of non-US films only a few years before the International Festival began to air. Suddenly I was catapulted into the many films of the NFB, of Zagreb Films, of the UK producers, and so forth. The material was so rich, varied, and surprising that missing a single airing was never an option in our household! As the above-mentioned user noted, I still sing the poor little man's "ya, ya, ya, ya-ya" song decades later. I still remember the one-minute adventures of Maxi Cat and fall into fits of snickering. I still, at least once a year, try to learn the name and authorship of that amazing line-drawing animation that traces the rise of "civilization" since the demise of the dinosaurs--a marvelous ending that one has, that I'd never dream of revealing here even with a spoiler alert! When one hasn't seen a snippet of works in some 20 years, then such recollection really says something about quality.

I once wrote to PBS (getting the words in the series name out of order), asking if this wonderful series was available or ever would be, and the person who answered had no idea what I was talking about.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Meerkat Manor (2005–2008)
10/10
an amazing blend of research and entertainment
29 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I'm kicking myself for having missed this show until the final week of the first season (at least I managed to catch several repeats inside of a single night!). Whatever I've been gallivanting about doing on Friday nights can't have been as good as this.

While some might object that the show anthropomorphizes, despite its naming of the little creatures and its soap-ish format it doesn't go overboard in this respect. Meerkats are very social animals to begin with, and it's part of what makes them ideal for this kind of program. Also, while some would argue that it was unconscionable to let some of the animals die, I am inclined to disagree. I had a hard time with watching the loss of pups, and if the show were filmed as entertainment alone, I'd not have condoned such noninterference. But it isn't. It's science first, and scientists filming in the wild generally interfere with nature's own course to the least extent possible. There's room for argument about this practice, granted, but the sadnesses that happen on this show are NOT simply human hard-heartedness.

That said, sadness doesn't last long at Meerkat Manor. These are some very funny, frequently affectionate, and bold little creatures. They are fascinating, they are captivating, and they are downright addictive, so do plan to curtail your social life accordingly--or tell all your friends and get a bigger couch.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Humming to myself after--eek!--48 years!
21 March 2006
I Googled around today to figure out the name of a song I hummed a fragment of. It's from "The Land of Green Ginger," in this series (Jerry Livingston's "Abu Ali, the Mouse, and Boomalakka Wee"). I heard this on this series when I was five, which gives you an idea of how this show can linger. I also recently found my illustrated text version Storybook from 1958, which is a fond memory.

I'd be delighted to see this series on DVD. Near as I can tell from a visit to the site posted here by another IMDb user, only eleven shows thus far (from 1961) are. My remembered favorites are "Rapuzel," "The Land of Green Ginger," and "The Little Lame Prince," although it would take so little to bring back memories of more. Check the cast lists for the individual episodes--some heavy hitters!
14 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
i need to see this again
8 December 2001
I saw this when it came out, and I remember that I was mightily impressed with both the cinematography and the science. Alas, this film had a misleading marketing campaign that made it sound like it was not a bug movie, but a bug-eyed monster movie. The theater was packed with people expecting the latter, and you can imagine the noise level. (Why don't such people just go home?)
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
gosh, i wanted to like this film
27 January 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Hey, it stars Kevin Bacon. It features Illeana Douglas, whose work I have come to admire through the all-too-short-lived "Action." I adore a good ghost story. And Richard Matheson, whose novel served as the basis for this film, is easily in the last century's top five writers in the genre. I have to admit that it started off well. The initial characterizations are very good, emphasizing the ordinariness of the characters while the staging and cinematography lead us--and Mr. Bacon's character--into a world underlying this one that is anything but ordinary. That said, while the world that only those who "have the eye" can see does contain some real chills (and some heartbreak), the underlying plot is old hat by now. The novel was published in 1958, and the premise has been used in countless films since then. That's not an insurmountable problem, however. The central conceit of the work was old when Matheson penned it--as is almost every other conceit in literature or film. The triumph or the downfall lies in execution. I mean, I knew "whodunit" and could guess why very early in the film. That doesn't have to be a problem if something else is made the focus. And what this film lacks is focus. It shifts too much among the central characters, and Kevin Bacon going over the top in his performance does not constitute giving his character that focus. Instead, it made me feel alienated from him, no small statement given that he's such a recognizable and real sort of fellow at the film's outset. I did watch it all the way through, and it wasn't a torment to do so, but I did become restless and annoyed--not the hallmarks of audience reaction to a good ghost story. I was able, however, to forgive the picture its faults until the very end, at which point . . . well, I won't include any spoilers; I will say only that the film cheats, and I can't forgive that. As an aside, I would like to comment that while some found this film misogynistic, I found it completely otherwise. The crime that is perpetrated in this film bears strong similarities to a crime committed in my area a few years ago, and I'm glad that the film conveys the brutality and horror of such an experience, made worse by the nature of the victim. The depiction of violence against women does not in itself constitute a glorification of violence against them, and in fact the film's depiction--as well as the entire script--does quite the opposite.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
this beholder's eyes were closing
6 January 2001
The only good thing about watching this film, for me, was that I was watching the TV and therefore didn't waste any money. Heavy-handed, derivative, and with little to give it the internal logic it would need to work, the film is so poor that, unlike some other viewers, I found it impossible to notice anything special about Ms. Judd's performance. As for Ewan McGregor, I can't help but wonder why the studio didn't save itself a bundle of cash by hiring a doorstop instead.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Undertow (1996 TV Movie)
1/10
say wha'?
6 January 2001
A warning to you not to be seduced by the names Bigelow and Red. _Undertow_ is pointless and unengaging, and made me think often of a phrase by Twain about wishing all the characters would be drowned together. When someone brings up the category of Worst Films Ever Made, it's not the likes of _Plan 9_ or _Attack of the Killer Shrews_ that I think of; it's the likes of this. What a complete waste of time--my own and everyone who was involved with this flick.
1 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
a tradition in this household
6 January 2001
Once again, I made sure to watch this at Christmas, and it didn't disappoint. (Of course, I've watched this in July, and it didn't disappoint then, either.) I grew up in '50s (not '40s) Indiana, and I used to wonder if my nearness to the time and place made me love this so, but I've shown it to goths and death rockers and anyone else I can get to sit still for a couple of hours, and the strongly positive reaction has been almost universal. (But hey, I don't like guns and I don't eat turkey, but I sympathize with Ralphie and with The Old Man, so why should I be surprised?) The only thing I've ever found off-putting about this movie is the extent of the voiceover narration, although Shepherd's prose and his readings of it are so good that I can't complain much. I think what I like best about this film is its honesty. The dialogue rings true, and the acting is first-rate. I'm not only transported back to my childhood and what it felt like to be a kid, but I'm also reminded that I'm not too far different in some ways even now. Whatever the great things or the devastating things in my life, it's still the small things that make up the emotional fabric of my life and make for the keenest memories.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Putney Swope (1969)
Ah, bless the IMDb
6 January 2001
Bless the IMDb, for without it, I might have merely assumed that _Putney Swope_ was not out on videotape, nor would it ever be. I haven't seen it since I did in the theatre, nearly thirty years ago, but I will never forget the impression it made on me. At that time, audiences were still used to either not seeing black people very much at all or seeing them as these sanitized sorts of creatures. _Swope_ flew in the face of that with some of the most outrageous situations and dialogue yet committed to film. To my knowledge, there had never been anything like it . . . not in American cinema, anyway . . . and I feel that it helped pave the way for filmmakers like van Peebles and Townsend. If you like comedy with an edge, see it. That's all, folks, I'm off to buy it! (Sidenote for trivia buffs: One of the producers of this film, using the name of Ron Sullivan, made his mark almost entirely in the porn industry, directing one of the few "adult films" I've ever seen, the award-winning _Babylon Pink_. Let us be grateful that he left the porn world long enough to help make _Putney Swope_!)
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I, Claudius (1976)
10/10
one for my lifetime
19 July 2000
I remember quite well one Christmas vacation, coming back to my hometown from school, visiting much-missed friends at a party . . . and being shushed quite vigorously when I walked into the place. They were watching episode #4 of "I, Claudius," which was completely unknown to me at that time. At first I was quite miffed--the homecoming friend ignored for a TV show? But I grudgingly watched, and within 15 minutes I was kicking myself for having missed episodes 1 through 3. This is simply one of the best film experiences I've ever had. Years after watching it the first time round, I was delighted to have my hands on that "new" technology, the VCR, so that I could watch "I, Claudius" whenever I liked. In the meantime, I'd run out and purchased the Graves books, not to mention Suetonius' "Lives of the Caesars." Someone else here has written that this series has everything, and indeed it does. It has a fine sense of accuracy, and it manages to combine sweep and scope with the individual and intimate. This is everything historical drama should be, and I have found that the friends I've introduced to it feel the same. I have to say that my one regret is that it made me admire Derek Jacobi so much . . . I fell ill the one night that I had a chance to see him in person, in "Becket"! What an astounding actor!
13 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tenebrae (1982)
5/10
not really worth the wait
18 March 2000
As a fan of Mr. Argento, and as a witness to the dreadful consequences of watching a heavily snipped version of his work, I waited years before watching "Tenebrae." I was utterly delighted to finally find the full-length version, and then was sadly disappointed in what I saw. I fully appreciate the stylish genius of Argento. His use of color (especially in "Suspiria") is astounding, his composition fascinating, his collaboration with composers superb. These qualities have made most of his lapses in plotting forgivable. But for heavens sake, a giallo is supposed to be thrilling and suspenseful, and for that to happen the narrative must make some sort of sense. Alas, the holes and the contradictions in this film are so glaring that they simply scream "Look at me!" The real pity is that the script could so easily have been fixed, had anyone been paying attention. This problem is compounded by the use of Exceptionally Stupid Character Syndrome. Please, give the psycho only smart people to kill off--it makes the killer so much more frightening. My last gripe is with the composition I previously praised. There are times that both composition and Argento's trademark angles and camera movement are too self-conscious, and that's a shame.

While I found the film not at all up to my hopes and expectations, there are some excellent bits to this film. Argento makes especially effective use of some settings, and there are moments when you just want to scream "Get out! Run!" It's a pity that these are interspersed with just as many moments when you want to say "Hello?" or, worse, laugh out loud.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed