Change Your Image
shanek-2
Reviews
Satin Rouge (2002)
Predictable
If you haven't figured out what is going to happen in this film in the first five minutes then give it a couple more minutes. Lilia is a widow. She has been left on the shelf for too long and she wants to burst out. She has a teenage daughter which only highlights that she is not getting any younger. While checking up on her daughter she discovers a world she never dared...the cabaret, where she can belly dance in skimpy sequined outfits while men throw money at her. The film is very misogamist. It's portrayal of men is dismal. Which is rather odd as Lilia stoops to jiggle around for them, not for money, but just for the hell of it. When she succeeds in arousing them it makes her feel like a woman again. She does not wish to connect with them but she is addicted to the attention. The other dancers all are mostly aging women who look like men in drag and realize their time in the spotlight is short-lived. Not short enough I say. She does find romance, however brief , with you guessed it....No surprises here we didn't see coming. Though the ending is good you realize that it could have ended no other way. Maybe this film just isn't targeting my demographic- 30 Male
Die Sister, Die! (1978)
What a great film!
It is amazing that the people behind this film haven't gone on to make many more films, they did well.
It has a good story, interesting characters, and they did a pretty convincing job of pulling it off.
It is refreshing to see characters in a film who are intelligent enough to figure out what is going on as it happens, and confronting each other with their knowledge. It seems they all have their secrets but not for long... and yet there are still some surprises at the end. I'm not talking the obvious.
Wonderfully gothic with good performances. Maybe todays horror films could learn some small lessons from this. Horror films can still work without a sexy young cast of TV stars.
Ilsa, Harem Keeper of the Oil Sheiks (1976)
I was expecting more!
They don't make them like they used to. Thin comic book story line, dodgy dialogue delivered questionably, gratuitous nudity, sex, and violence. Nowdays it seems the world is too politically correct to produce work like this so people have to settle for blandness and mediocrity and the most accessible, least offensive "Product" wins. When did "Exploitation" get a bad name? Give me Ilsa any day. The cinematography shows a lot of promise from future Oscar nominee Dean Cundey. It seems Don Edmonds really can pick talent (Tarantino being another "find"). How about an Ilsa film which directly targets the fetish market Don? Quentin could Executive Produce it. At the least I think every action movie ever made could be improved by the inclusion of Satin and Velvet, Ilsa's bodyguards.
Awesome Lotus (1983)
Should have been taken out the back and shot like a dog.
Oh it was. I used to believe that people didn't set out to make bad movies, they were just unable to pull it off, but after having seen Awesome Lotus that has completely changed my mind. I believe these people deliberately set out to make a bad movie and they succeeded. Was it a pilot for a TV show? Who knows. it seems to have been heavily influenced by the British TV show "The Goodies" all they needed was a bicycle built for 3. The film comprises of a series of sight gags, some mildly amusing, and a plot which is so cliched that they'll probably do a big budget remake in Hollywood, and cast Lucy Lawless as Awesome Lotus. The video cover promised gratuitous gore, needless nudity, and vigorous violence. Sorry folks but when these moments occur in the film if they didn't literally label them as they do you would completely miss them. What is the "Evil Dead" connection? Is the director mates with Sam Raimi and his crew? I know the director appeared in "Army of Darkness" but the connection goes back a lot further... And Pat Mahoney also stars in "Strangeland"! If you watch Awesome Lotus" and "Strangeland" as a double as I did it makes "Strangeland " appear good!!! almost.. In conclusion its only redeeming value is it makes bad appear not so bad as it sets a new benchmark in truly awful.
Blaze Starr Goes Nudist (1962)
Whatever happened to...
...nudist camp movies. This genre has been due a come back for longer than I have been alive.
Here we have an OK template for film makers to start from.
First take a marginally famous media celebrity who the media is no longer interested in. Acting ability is irrelevant. Preferably female as the target audience is most likely going to be teenage boys who have never seen naked ladies before. (Sounds like a rather small audience in this cyber-age)
Then start shooting!
You'll figure out a story as you go but until you do we want the following shots:
-starlet walking places: to the car, to the kitchen, to the bathroom, down the street, back from the car, back from the kitchen, back from the bath room, back down the street, up and down stairs, etc.
-starlet brushing hair, standing around by herself, smiling at nothing, and especially shots where her eyes widen and narrow for no apparent reason.
-starlet sitting in a stationary car which you gently rock.
-same car driving up and down streets, (could be anyone driving)
These shots are very important because this is where you'll lay down your voice-over track later once you've figured out what you still need to hold your story together, once you've figured out a story.
Location sound is not an issue, you don't need to record any. You can edit around that but be clever, film the other actors responses then edit so everybody is listening and nodding and all the dialogue is off-screen, or shoot from behind the speaking actors so you can't see their mouths move, or from long shots. You could just have the actors alternately chew gum in the long shots and add dialogue later, no one will care.
Have lots of phone acting, you only need the one actor for that, they hold the phone in front of their mouth while they chew gum and you can add both sides of the conversation later.
Now the story. This isn't really important, it is just to get the starlet out of her real world and into that of the nudist camp. Character names aren't important either, just use the actors real names, they will be happy for the exposure.
Now we come to THE exposure. Get a bunch of young ladies who are trying really hard to get a break into movies, waitresses, and strippers are good. "Dancers" if that's what they want to call themselves, we know what I mean. They must have perky breasts who aren't shy, saggy butts are okay too. It doesn't matter if they are shaved or bushy because you are going to compose all your shots so we can't tell: all the actors will sit cross legged or will be seen from behind, throw in a couple of guys for the ladies, it's okay if they wear shorts, after all this is a nudist camp movie, not the discovery channel.
Now action!
The cast play chess, checkers, archery (with suction cup arrows very P.C.), volleyball, row boats, sit around posing, sit around some more, play accordion, siamese dance, pick fruit, and grass, swim, and walk around. Lots. Shoot as much of this stuff as you can as many takes as you can, you're going to use them all! Some of the shots several times.
Get some cut aways of the non-nudist actors just looking, frame with just the sky behind them, you can use these any where.
Play dodgy Musak over it all you should be able to pick up some really cheap copyright-free stuff, it will help captivate the viewer.
Throw in a twist: Like after the starlet's dirty little "I'm a nudist!" secret is exposed the only one who cares is the original love interset, ditch him, insert last minute new love interest here, roll credits, everybody else in the film is converted to nudity and they all live happily ever after.
Should fit nicely under 75 minutes.
Note: don't reveal too much too early or nobody will stick through to the end to see your clever twist.
I think there are enough untalented film makers out there today who could really give this a go. Or remake-happy Hollywood should (is there an echo in here?). Doris Wishman would sell the rights relatively cheap, probably offer her director services as a free bonus. Or... wait a few more years , it will become public domain and we can all rip it off.
Maybe a cross genre to make it more 2000's.... nudist camp meets slasher film...hmmm hang on I'd better copyright that idea.
The Curse of the Screaming Dead (1982)
"You can't polish a turd"
This film was originally released as Curse of the Screaming Dead then Troma picked it up and rebadged it Curse of the Cannibal Confederates. I bought both videos. Both are bad.
What is interesting is how a company like Troma repackages the film. They re-edit the film placing zombie footage from later in the film in place of the original front titles, and anywhere else the film seems a little slow. Unfortunately the zombie footage isn't good.
It also appears that they play entire reels in a different order. A recipe for disaster in most films but in this one you really can't tell.
Both films are bad and no amount of re-editing could save it.
I don't recommend watching these films back to back or at all, but if you must, do what I did, watch them simultaneously and marvel at the futility of it all.
I think the only positive thing about this film is it was made by a group of people who weren't filmmakers (it appears) but just a bunch of friends, more power to you.
Beavis and Butt-Head Do America (1996)
Beavis and Butthead can do better.
If you haven't seen any Beavis and Butthead and are pressed for time then watch this film. If you have some free time set a weekend aside and absorb as much of the TV show as you can handle. It is much better on the small screen.
However if you are a Rob Zombie fan the hallucinogenic desert sequence is a must see. I think his contribution was slightly more than just musical.
Look What's Happened to Rosemary's Baby (1976)
Must see film for film students
This film is a bad film but to gain any nutritional value from it I recommend watching it back to back with Rosemary's Baby.
There is a lot to learn seeing how different directors can draw different performances from the same actors playing the same characters. Observe Minnie Castevet (Ruth Gordon) and the fine work she did in the first film vs the awful rendition in this film.
It is also interesting to see how the same characters were played by different actors. Which leads me to wonder if anyone involved with the sequel were aware of the first film and did any of them watch Rosemary's Baby before making this?
If your interest in films is purely superficial then you would best avoid this one. I have a lot more to say about this film but I really don't want to go there.