Change Your Image
le_chiffre-1
Reviews
Ripley's Game (2002)
Tough to pigeonhole
I rented this on video not having previously heard of it or knowing what to expect. After watching it, I'm still not sure what to make of it, as it's not an easy movie to categorize, but it was certainly entertaining.
It boasts an original story, interesting characters, intelligent dialogue, fine actors, beautiful settings, and high production values.
There's bits of black humour sprinkled throughout; kudos to John Malkovich for his performance, as I don't think another actor could've pulled off such subtle humour.
There were a few plot holes near the end and I didn't buy the behaviour of some of the characters (like Trevanny's wife), but it wasn't enough to spoil the movie.
I've been reading that this didn't get a proper theatrical release in the United States. That doesn't surprise me; if Hollywood was to allow anything good to appear on American theatre screens, audiences might start to notice just how rotten most of its productions are.
Black Rainbow (1989)
Too preachy
This had the potential to be a good movie -- the basic premise, about a phoney medium who starts to experience real premonitions, was interesting, the actors were excellent, and the gloomy atmosphere of an economically-depressed rural South came through loud and clear -- but it just didn't go anywhere.
The movie came off like more of a soapbox for the writer's leftist, secular humanist views than anything. For example, there's a scene in which the psychic starts telling an auditorium of blue-collar workers that if only they were to stop believing in God and the afterlife, they could start to build a better world here on earth.
The problem with such propositions is that they don't square with reality. The further we've moved from religion, the baser we've become. Unlike the churchgoing villain of this film, real-life Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling was a fan of Richard Dawkins, not of the Bible. Becoming more honest with ourselves and each other by dispensing with our ideals (or, as the writer would probably see it, our hypocrisy) doesn't mean that the world will become a better place. Better a Henry Ford than a Gordon Gekko.
Black Rainbow didn't spend enough time developing its characters to justify the frequently grandiose, overwrought, overly-intellectual dialogue. The story, which with a little more work would've resulted in a first-class supernatural thriller, was given a backseat to the incessant moralizing.
Too bad Lee Ving wasn't cast as the hit man. That role would've fit him like a black glove!
6 out of 10 stars.
The Entity (1982)
Unintentionally funny Hollywood sexploitation trash
From the opening theme song, which bears an uncanny resemblance to another piece of music popularized by a famous, similarly-themed film which came out 9 years earlier; to the loud, obnoxious kick-drum-and-electric-guitar music that's used over and over to alert you to the fact that something nasty and supernatural is happening on screen; to Barbara Hershey's car-fixin', hard-rock-listenin' teenage mestizo "son" who looks old enough to be her husband (to give the producers credit they probably don't deserve, perhaps this strapping Latino was selected for the role to reinforce the Freudian subtext of the movie, or to suggest that the mother hadn't been too discriminating about her sexual partners in her youth); to the over-the-top drama school acting (try to convince yourself you're not watching a production by a high school drama club during the scene in the kitchen between the protagonist and her boyfriend) and special effects that wouldn't be out of place in one of the Christopher Reeve Superman films; to superfluous subplots being dragged out to the point of absurdity (don't you think Dr. Sneiderman would've given up after being told to buzz off and mind his own business about ten times?); to the extended close-ups of Barbara Hershey's breasts being sucked and squeezed by unseen lips and hands (well, I'm sure the breasts were actually prosthetic, not that that makes it any less sleazy); to the voice of Satan saying "welcome home, c*nt" to the protagonist in the last minute of the movie; this movie had the hallmarks of a true unintentional comedy. Oh, and it's all "based on a true story", to boot.
If you're looking for a good horror flick, this ain't it, but lovers of trash cinema might get some chuckles out of it, and misogynist creeps are sure to enjoy the scenes of Barbara Hershey being raped and molested by Beelzebub, who apparently is well-hung and randy as hell.
Maria Marten, or The Murder in the Red Barn (1935)
No need to be a cultist to enjoy this film
Prior to renting the video of this movie, I had no idea who Tod Slaughter was, why he has a cult following, or exactly what people meant when they said he was "hamming it up". I couldn't have told you the difference between a Victorian melodrama and a Greek tragedy.
Well, after viewing it, I still couldn't tell you what the big deal with Mr. Slaughter is or how this was any more melodramatic than, say, the movies Hitchcock was making at around the same time, but I will say that this movie was well made and thoroughly entertaining, with never a dull moment. You need not be a Tod Slaughter devotee or know a thing about the history of English theatre to enjoy it.
The Murder in the Red Barn reaffirms my belief that movies from the early sound period managed to pack a lot more into their short running times than today's, which have doubled in length. The action in this movie was non-stop.
Other reviewers have stated that this film feels more like a stage play, but I find that many of the films from this period have that feel. There obviously wasn't as wide a gap between the cinema and theatre back then as there is today.
The Burning (1981)
Promiscuous teens played by adult actors get brutally murdered at summer camp
This is one of the most average movies I have seen.
The killer's identity and motive are given within the first 10 minutes, so all that's left to keep you in suspense for the remainder of the film is exactly where, when, and how the kids from Camp Stonewater are to be slaughtered.
There is nothing in this movie that you won't see coming from a mile away.
The movie is notable only for having one of the homeliest casts I have laid eyes on.
Unusually for this type of film, there was almost as much male nudity as female, with particular attention paid to male buttocks; was this a marketing decision to try to lure more females to the theater to see it, or was it perhaps a reflection of the sexual preferences of one of the producers? Not to cast aspersions, but looking over the list of movies the Weinstein brothers have been involved with makes one wonder.
Having seen most of the initial installments of the Friday the 13th series, Sleepaway Camp, and now this, I can honestly say I've had my fill of the serial-killer-loose-at-summer-camp horror subgenre. There are no trails left for these movies to blaze, no twists or variations left to uncover. If you've seen one then you've pretty well seen them all.
I'm giving this movie 6 stars rather than 5 because some of the photography was nice and some scenes were so competently done that they managed to be unsettling in spite of the movie being predictable and unoriginal.
Le notti del terrore (1981)
Uninspired knock-off
I rented this movie on VHS about 12 years ago and thought it was better then than I do now after watching it again on DVD a couple of nights ago. I can only assume that as I've gotten older and seen more of these types of films, I've become more discriminating. Either that, or the darker transfer on the VHS made the movie appear better than it actually is.
All I see in this movie is a belated and half-hearted attempt at cashing in on the gore and zombie craze of the 70s. The movie is so formulaic that it could almost be a spoof. The story, such as it is, gives every indication of having been written on the back of a napkin over coffee and donuts just before shooting.
The scythe decapitation scene was creepy and the incest with that inbred-looking midget in the hiked-up jeans was so sleazy and out of left field as to be funny, but those were the only inspired touches to the whole film. Otherwise, Burial Ground was a bore.
Ginger Snaps (2000)
Starts out strong, but runs out of steam
I've seen this movie twice, once on video shortly after it came out and more recently at a movie theater that was re-screening it, and both times I was left with the same impression. The movie starts out strong, with interesting, mostly likable, if a bit derelict, characters, and adds some minor original twists to werewolf lore, but halfway through it starts to drag and by the end you really don't care what happens anymore and just want the movie to be over. Past 75 minutes there's no story left to tell and it feels as though they're deliberately stretching it out just to waste film. Not even the actress playing Ginger, as easy on the eyes as she is (at least, when she hasn't turned into a werewolf), was enough to keep me interested 'til the end. While initially intriguing, by the middle the characters have become two-dimensional and the viewer grows indifferent to their fate.
If the movie had been 20 minutes shorter and the feminist rhetoric and latent lesbianism had been toned down or removed, this would've been an OK teen horror-thriller in the same vein as Lost Boys or Disturbing Behavior.
A few minor points about this film which have left me scratching my head:
1) Isn't sixteen years of age a bit old for a girl to be having her first period? I'm sure it happens sometimes but it can't be all that common. Was her late period supposed to carry a symbolic significance?
2) Why does the movie try to elicit pathos when the Asian janitor is murdered by Ginger, but not when the school principal is? Is this subtly trying to communicate that blue-collar immigrants who intervene in potential rapes should be regarded as morally superior to white male authority figures?
Once Upon a Time in America (1984)
Should be buried next to Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate in the cemetery of failed epics
I didn't like this movie.
I found it corny and self-indulgent. The characters were uninteresting and one-dimensional. The story didn't grab me -- and did they really need nearly 4 hours to tell it? It was gratuitously sleazy, like a Tinto Brass film. The music was cheesy and unmemorable -- and yet others say that it's one of Morricone's best scores?! Not to mention that the music was mismatched to some scenes.
I'll concede that the cinematography did rise to above average from time to time and that the last 10-15 minutes of the movie (starting from the scene with the garbage truck) were outstanding -- atmospheric, surreal, disturbing, bizarre, and beautiful. Too bad the other 3 1/2 hours weren't as good.
1 out of 10 stars.
Ring of Terror (1961)
Fun!
While I wouldn't call this the greatest movie ever made, it's not anywhere near as bad as other reviewers have made it out to be. An average rating of 5 or 6 stars would be fair, but 1.5 is harsh and totally undeserved.
Ring of Terror feels like an episode of The Twilight Zone stretched to an hour. In fact, it's so much like a TV show that one wonders if it might not have been originally created as a pilot.
If you're a fan of 1950s horror/suspense series like Thriller, The Veil, One Step Beyond, Tales of Tomorrow, and Alfred Hitchcock Presents, you'll likely find this a pleasant way to spend an hour, as I did.
Normally I would only give this film 6 out of 10 stars, but because others have been panning it so unmercifully, I'm giving it a 9.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008)
Interesting, but could've been better
This documentary was technically well made and was relatively interesting, but there was too much self-promotion from Stein and too much of a Jewish angle (which is not surprising, since it seems to have been both written and directed by jews). For example, was it really necessary to waste 10 minutes of the viewer's time on the supposed connection between Darwinism and National Socialism? Wouldn't that time have been put to better use showing us more of the interviews with leaders of the ID movement like Stephen C. Meyer, most of which were cut woefully short? Why are only jews shown to be the "conscience of humanity"?
At one point Stein has a little pow-wow, a little strategy meeting with his fellow tribesmen Dr. Berlinski and Dr. Schroeder (the latter even wearing his yarmulka) which takes up two minutes and adds virtually nothing to the subject but the documentary couldn't be bothered to grant even that much time to major *gentile* figures in the ID movement like Meyer, Dembski, or Wells. Seems lopsided.
Despite all the fluff, self-promotion, and the ethnic bias, this documentary is worth sitting through just to hear arch-atheist Richard Dawkins admit on camera in no uncertain terms that he considers intelligent design to be a real possibility:
"Well ... it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization ... (came) to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, an intriguing possibility, and I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe."
Even if the editors did some creative splicing around that statement and took it out of context, its meaning is still unmistakably clear. How can atheists be so hypocritical as to try to keep ID out of academia when their most visible spokesman admits that it might be worth looking into?
Clearly atheists have something other than the disinterested search for truth on their agenda.
6 out of 10 stars.
Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky (2009)
Henry & June on tranquilizers
The movie was technically well made but it was dull, dull, dull. The story, about an affair Russian composer Igor Stravinsky apparently had with French fashion designer Coco Chanel, might've been interesting enough for a short film, but wasn't sufficient for a full-length one. The subject, not that exciting to begin with, was stretched thin to fill 2 hours; about 3/4 of the way through, I felt like I was watching a dead horse being flogged. So Igor had a roll in the hay with Coco; so what? I would've been far more entertained if instead of being fixated on the affair, the movie had shown us what had happened in Russia that made Igor and his family flee for France, or if he went to rejoin his wife and kids after the affair.
I must also say that, while I'm sure there's a core of truth to the story, it's obvious the filmmakers took a lot of liberties with the facts in order to 'spice things up'; so many, in fact, that it verges on the indecent. It's a good thing dead people can't sue filmmakers (and the novelists whose works their movies are based on) for defamation.
The best thing about this movie was the performance by Mads Mikkelsen (who played the bad guy in Casino Royale a few years ago) as Igor.
5 out of 10 stars.
Docteur Jekyll et les femmes (1981)
Entrancing
This movie was recently screened at a local theater and being a fan of old horror movies, I went to see it based on the title alone, not knowing what I was in for. I didn't find the movie all that engaging for the first twenty or so minutes and thought I might've made a mistake in going. Boy was I wrong! It turned out to be one of the best movies I've seen. The first 20 minutes couldn't have prepared me for the insanity that would subsequently erupt on the screen.
The person I was with kept snickering at what she perceived as plot holes or moments that she found over the top, but if you're concerned about the plot or expect this to be a faithful rendition of Robert Louis Stevenson's novel, you're missing the point. The coherence of the story doesn't really matter; what makes this movie amazing are the mesmerizing dream-like images and atmosphere, enhanced with excellent photography and lighting (some of the best lighting I've seen in a color movie) and set to a soundtrack of piano and hypnotic, minimalist electronic music (from the days when "electronic music" meant analog technology, not Casio keyboards), occasionally punctuated with silence. There were parts where I almost felt like I was watching a silent film, except with music and in color.
The photography reminded me somewhat of Andrei Tarkovsky's boring but visually beautiful film Stalker.
There were scenes in this movie, like one that took place in a bathtub, which played with the viewer's sense of time in a manner that I've only encountered in some of David Lynch's work. I have to wonder if Lynch might not have picked up a few tricks from this movie.
The closest thing I can compare it to in terms of "feel" would be to Carnival of Souls or perhaps more appropriately, to the 1964 "pink film" Hakujitsumu (Day-Dream).
Even though there is a realistic, and hence viscerally unsettling, quality to much of the brutality in this film, Docteur Jekyll et les femmes is not a gorefest. It might be best to think of it as more of an "arthouse" film than as standard horror, kinda like a Russian Ark that won't put you to sleep. If you go into it expecting Friday the 13th or something like that, you're going to be disappointed.
My only real complaint is the gratuitous sleaze, in particular the quasi-pornographic homosexual rape, the father flogging his daughter's bare buttocks, and the close-up on the dead maid's crotch, parts which needlessly drag the movie into sexploitation territory, making it less effective. I might've considered this a masterpiece if it hadn't been trashed up with what I can only assume were the director's pet perversions. I guess he just couldn't help throwing a couple of turds in the punch bowl.
Here's hoping that this unique film gets a proper release on DVD sometime, since as of this review, it appears to be unavailable on home video. I suppose I should count myself lucky that I got to see it at all.
Casablanca (1942)
Am I missing something?
So I finally got around to watching Casablanca, one of the greatest movies ever made, or so I've always heard. Does it live up to its hype? In a word, no. It was maudlin and melodramatic; Ingrid Bergman was homely, no matter how many softening effects were used in the close-ups of her face (did a rodent gnaw off the sides of her nose? To say nothing of that masculine jawbone and those underdeveloped lips...); Humphrey Bogart was about as slick and charismatic as the Hunchback of Notre-Dame; and the story was undisguised war propaganda. One would have to have the mental age of 5 to think this movie was in any way great. Watchable, yes, but not great, and certainly not deserving of being on the IMDb top 250.
The movie was fast-paced, which was both good and bad: good because it would've been unbearable to watch otherwise, and bad because it didn't give the viewer time to get attached to any of the characters (which is just as well, since as I've said, it was war propaganda and so the less effective, the better).
Apart from a few good one-liners and patches of clever dialog, the only other positive thing I can say about it is that it was technically well made, in particular the lighting and the dynamic camera work (though I'm not personally a fan of this style of camera work, as I find it detracts from story and atmosphere). It was, however, irritating how the lighting would change whenever there was a close-up on somebody's face. What was the purpose of this? To try to mesmerize the viewer? Talk about corny.
If you've never seen Casablanca before, don't feel you have to, because you ain't missing much, "kid." It's about as overrated as it gets.
1 out of 10 stars, to offset the deranged "I'm giving it 10 stars but I wish I could give it more" reviews this cinematic mediocrity has been getting.
Night Tide (1961)
Not as good as I was led to expect
Night Tide was OK but not great.
I picked up a copy because I had heard it compared favorably to Carnival of Souls. Apart from the fact that it's low budget, b&w, a horror movie, and has some scenes shot in a carnival setting, I don't see the similarity.
Dennis Hopper got on my nerves: very spastic, jerky movements, couldn't sit still for two seconds, smoking nonstop throughout; you'd think he was jacked up on coke or had ADD or something.
The last 10-15 minutes didn't make sense to me. What happened in that underwater scene? Was Mora trying to kill Johnny? Help him? Why did he wait on the boat afterward? Why didn't she surface? How did she die? How did her body end up at the carnival? Who was the woman stalking Mora? Too many loose threads. Maybe the version I saw was missing scenes?
And what was with the jazz combo in the bar and the black bongo player on the beach? Was L.A. really this multiculti back in 1960? If the bar had been in New Orleans or the beach in the Caribbean, well, OK, but these things felt contrived and didn't jibe with the overall decor.
Maybe I would've enjoyed it a bit more with a better quality transfer (the Alpha Video DVD release I got left something to be desired, both in sound and picture quality), but even with a pristine version, I still wouldn't have loved this movie.
UPDATE (10-02-20): I rented a copy of the Image Entertainment DVD and the picture and audio quality were markedly better than on the Alpha one. While it's not cheap, if you care about quality, that's the one to spring for.
I recently watched the 1942 film Cat People and I agree with other reviewers that Night Tide borrows heavily from it. Fans of one would likely benefit from seeing the other. I haven't figured out which one I prefer.
Lo squartatore di New York (1982)
A reasonably well-made but unremarkable giallo
New York Ripper is a reasonably well-made, if unremarkable, giallo.
The editing was tight, the pace fast, the acting, photography, and special effects good, and the use of dim and colored lighting contributed to making a few scenes genuinely creepy and suspenseful; but overall, it wasn't as classy, quirky, or visually striking as Dario Argento's films in the same genre.
It reminded me of 1984's Tightrope (starring Clint Eastwood), both stories unfolding in the seedy sexual underworld of urban America, but Tightrope was more tasteful and understated and, IMO, a far better movie.
I'm not much of a gorehound, but those who are will probably like this movie. Some may consider it light fare by today's quasi-snuff standards, but for its time, New York Ripper was regarded as quite extreme, reportedly earning a ban in the UK. The cold, muted colors of the film stock that was ubiquitous in the 70s and early 80s seem a better compliment and to impart a more realistic look to scenes of bloodletting than the brighter, sharper films in use today.
The music was forgettable and didn't add anything to the movie. It consisted mostly of funk instrumentals that sounded like a throwback to the mid 70s, making the movie seem older than its release date of 1982 would suggest.
I'm giving it a 5 out of 10 because while it wasn't bad, it's nothing I haven't seen before, and it was just too sleazy for me, even by giallo standards. And I don't mean sleazy in a funny Doris Wishman or Michael Findlay 60s grind house sort of way; I mean sleazy in the sense that its over-the-top scenes of sexual violence could only be meant to appeal to men who have some serious hang-ups about the opposite sex. I've heard at least one person try to defend this movie as social commentary about the decadence of modern America, but to me it comes off as pure exploitation and nothing more.
Evil Dead II (1987)
More a remake than a sequel; disappointing
Rather than picking up where the last one ended, Evil Dead 2 takes elements from the first movie and creates a new story that doesn't quite jibe with the old one. So it's more of a remake of the first than a sequel. But at the same time, it doesn't really stand up on its own and I can't help but think that someone who watched it without having seen the first would be lost; a lot of the references and inside jokes would go over his head.
I found this movie pointless and don't understand why they bothered making it (other than the obvious financial motive, and to lay a foundation for the third movie of the series). As a remake, it didn't better or even equal the first or add anything original. It seemed like more of an excuse to mess around with special effects than anything, as there wasn't much in the way of story or character development. You could say it was ahead of its time, since like most current horror movies, it comes off like a long MTV video, with lots of gore and special effects, fast (too fast, IMO), jump cut editing, with the story taking a back seat.
Bruce Campbell didn't bother me in the first one, but in this he was awful. His acting was self-conscious and he was trying too hard. I felt like I was watching a performance by a clown who thinks he's being funny but isn't.
The comedic elements were less subtle than in the first. While I laughed at a couple of scenes (like the one with the meat cleaver), ultimately I was neither frightened by this movie nor amused by its attempts at slapstick. Bruce Campbell is no Buster Keaton or Jim Carrey, and Evil Dead 2 fails both as a comedy and a horror flick.
The last 30 minutes were an improvement over the first hour, but only because by then it had turned into a prelude for the action-adventure-oriented third movie, with Campbell being a bit more credible as an action hero. (On a side note: Who came up with the rule that time travel always has to be depicted in movies as a tunnel or vortex?)
The puzzling thing is that if they had chopped off the first 7 minutes of this movie, it easily could've been made into a real sequel rather than a remake and it would've been much better.
Die-hard fans of the other Evil Deads or of Bruce Campbell might like this but I can't recommend it to anyone else. I sat drumming my fingers through most of it, wondering why they were wasting my time rehashing this material. This was one of those rare movies where I was tempted to fast-forward through parts. AFAIC, it wouldn't have made any difference if the producers had gone from the first Evil Dead straight to Army of Darkness and skipped this one.
Mark of the Witch (1970)
A mixed bag
What I liked about this movie:
I don't know what film stock this was shot on, but it gives the movie a distinct look. Deep blacks and the colors haven't faded much, which is unusual for a 40-year-old movie. I assume it was done using the color process that preceded the one that was so prone to fading and that gave so many 70's movies their washed out look.
Some of the photography was quite nice, as when they're sitting around a table doing a ritual near the end.
The soundtrack, consisting of the ominous blips and drones of an analog synthesizer, was very effective, and the singsongy, a cappella piece done by Trella Hart over the opening credits was downright eerie.
The actress who played Jill (Anitra Walsh), even if I wasn't mesmerized by her performance, was a doll, which made her scenes a pleasure to watch.
On the down side, the acting was amateurish, going from the bad acting typical of low-budget movies to the two main female characters (Margery of Jourdemain and Jill) delivering overwrought monologues like they were in a stage play (good actors like Vincent Price can get away with that sort of thing in movies, but these two just came off like members of a high school drama club).
The woman who played Margery of Jourdemain (Marie Santel) was every bit as hideous as Anitra Walsh was gorgeous. With her botched nose job, she looked like Michael Jackson.
I found the story hard to follow at times and it seemed like there were holes in the plot (though maybe I missed something). I think the writers were trying to be clever by inserting unpredictable plot twists, but the execution was so poor that it just made the story incoherent. At times it seemed the filmmakers couldn't decide whether they were creating a horror movie or a comedy (a movie can be both, of course, but in this case the combination didn't work).
The movie was a mixed bag. It had good atmosphere but I had trouble getting into the story and characters. Overall, with a 5 out of 10 being the middle, I think this movie was more good than bad, so I'm giving it a 6 out of 10. I watch a lot of old horror movies and this one is more memorable than many, despite its flaws. Worth a look if it's running on TV or you see it for rent at a video store.
The Devonsville Terror (1983)
Feminist garbage
This movie was nothing but feminist man-bashing from start to finish.
Almost every misandric feminist cliché you could think of was in here. Every "independent" woman in the story becomes the target of the hatred of the men of Devonsville because she refuses to sleep with them. Every woman is an innocent lamb, trying to free herself from the shackles of servitude to her patriarchal oppressors in order to live a life of pure elation with her sisters, while nearly every man is a misogynist creep and potential rapist. The men deride the women who turn down their advances as lesbians. God, we are told, was a woman, until those nasty male supremacist monotheists came along and forced Judeo-Christianity on everyone. The witch hunts were carried out by cruel, sadistic men who had had their frail egos wounded by non-conformist women who wouldn't sleep with them.
Interestingly, all this didn't stop the director from including several gratuitous shots of his wife's breasts. Before watching this, I had no idea that it was necessary to take one's shirt off to do past life regression. Sex sells everything, I guess, including feminist propaganda films.
The movie had a rather different effect on me than what I imagine the writers intended, because I actually found myself cheering when the men tied the feminist radio talk show host to the back of a truck and dragged her to death.
Bad acting and bad special effects throughout with an ending ripped-off from Raiders of the Lost Ark.
About the only redeeming thing about this movie was that some of the outdoor photography was nice (though it might've been stock footage, for all I know).
Lesbian Vampire Killers (2009)
A comedy, not a porno
Not sure why this movie is being panned so hard. Saw it at the Fantasia Festival last week with my wife and we both thought it was funny. Reminded me of the better horror-comedies of the 80's (Fright Night, Vamp) but with a bit more toilet humor.
The break-up scene at the beginning was hilarious. So true-to-life. Ah, the mind games women play!
Really, there were so many biting (no pun intended) insights into female psychology as well as queer jokes in this movie that I'm surprised there wasn't an outcry from the feminist and the homosexual lobbies.
As for the recurring complaint that there wasn't enough lesbianism in this, c'mon guys. This is a comedy, not porn.
Vidocq (2001)
Movies shot on video don't age well
I first saw this movie in 2002 or 2003, after it had come out on VHS. The other day, I rented the DVD. As I sat and watched this with my wife, we both asked, "Was this shot on video?" A trip to IMDb confirms that it was.
The first time we watched it, we didn't notice it was shot on video, probably because the technology was so new and it was unfamiliar to us. But now, with the passage of a few years, we definitely noticed it and it looks CHEAP. When you take into account the other expenses that go into making a feature movie like this, the cost of film is such a small part of the overall budget that I don't understand why someone would compromise the entire project by recording it on something that looks as awful as video. There was a lot of hype over digital video at the time this movie was made and the producers probably got caught up in it, but the fact is, stuff shot on video just doesn't age well.
Video may be fine for the evening news, reality TV, or porn, but when you're an artist, you should be concerned with the quality and look of your medium. I've heard people argue that video is better because it's cheaper and easier to shoot, and I've heard people argue that it can be hard to distinguish from film, but I've never heard anyone claim that video looks BETTER than film (because it doesn't). The argument for shooting video over film is entirely one of quantity and convenience over quality; a sad attitude for an artist to have. There's enough mediocre trash out there as it is.
I can only hope that this trend of shooting big-budget movies on video is a fad. Though digital video has improved enormously since this movie was made, it's still not film and never will be.
If it weren't for the choice of medium, this movie would've been great. It's such as shame, when you look at the amount of work that went into the sets and costumes, that they chose to shoot on video.