bean-d Reviews

Happy Valley (2008)

Good Movie but a Bit Strange in Parts

[6/10 · 21 January 2014]

"Happy Valley" is an interesting film about prescription drug abuse in Utah--although it certainly is general enough to be applicable to prescription drug abuse in many places in the U.S. The premise of the documentary is that things look great on the surface of Utah but there is unseen pain and abuse beneath the happy surface. Additionally, in Utah there are many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as Mormons) who don't drink alcohol, coffee, or tea, or smoke cigarettes. Yet many of these very same people will take drugs because they're prescribed by a doctor.

The film does lose its way a bit when the director tries to equate sugar with drugs. I asked my friend who is a pharmacist about this, and he said, no, sugar and drugs are not analogous. Getting "addicted" to Twinkies is not the same as getting addicted to heroin.

Finally, the director seems to be channeling Michael Moore at a few points (that is, by inserting himself and his "will" into the documentary), especially at the end where he sets up a meeting between two people who have previously felt considerable antagonism for one another. While the scene was meant to be tender, it just made me feel uncomfortable. Moreover, it was unnecessary to the overall good message of the movie, which is that prescription drug abuse is a significant problem.

The Pope of Utah (1993)

An Interesting Film

[7/10 · 18 July 2013]

Set in the near future, this feature tells the story of high-tech televangelist Melvis Pressin and his disgruntled employee Del, a failed TV comedian who now edits swear-words out of films for broadcast on Melvis' channel, KTRI.

Del's wife is addicted to KTRI ("the home of the voice of God"), and is sending more money to the station than her husband earns. Del now wants to kill her off by blackmailing Melvis into giving her a heart attack by turning up on their doorstep in person! This futuristic black comedy won awards at "underground" film festivals in both London and Chicago, and, though the low budget shows at times, is far from being a trashy exploitation flick. It's a confidently directed, darkly comic picture of US religious TV pushed to the very edge. (M. J. Simpson. Rev. of "The Pope of Utah." SFX (#6) Nov. 1995: 81.)

Heckler (2007)

Fun but Flawed Documentary

[6/10 · 15 June 2012]

This documentary is a lot of fun, mainly because Kennedy spends a lot of time interviewing interesting people and funny comedians. Not surprisingly, the comedians often have the most incisive, trenchant observations--often cloaked behind vulgarities or inanities.

Where the film goes awry is in its conflation of heckler with critic. As a teacher, I can understand the destructive nature of a heckler. There is no benefit in having a student make a smart alec comment while I'm trying to make a point. If the "heckler" truly wishes to help me, then he can come to me after class and offer a suggestion. I think the analogy holds with comedians--although my students aren't normally drunk! A critic, in contrast to a heckler, is not interrupting the show. He is assessing the show/performance/movie/music/etc. after the fact. Admittedly some critics can be jerks, but good criticism should work to make art better by defining the art and helping us to understand it deeper. (As a fan of Roger Ebert, I can attest that he does this for me.) Besides, many of us enjoy reading criticism almost as much as we enjoy the actual art. (In other words, any criticism Jamie Kennedy has against criticism can be turned against him: If you don't like my show, don't attend it. If you don't like my criticism, don't read it.)

One thing I think Kennedy fails to understand is that average people don't see a distinction between stars and characters. Jim Carrey is a real person, yes, but I don't know him and never will. To me he is as much a distant character as Ace Ventura. If I make a snide remark about how Carrey's career is on the wane and he deserves an early retirement before he can do any more damage, I don't mean this personally because I don't know him personally! There are several good books about "para-relationships" that people have with stars. Kennedy seems to think that we should relate to him the same way we relate to our roommate or our next door neighbor.

And that's my final problem: There is some hypocrisy here. Kennedy seems to be asking for sympathy for himself and his fellow comics: Hey, y'all, we're just people with feelings! But how many comics make a name ripping to shreds women, or Paris Hilton, or conservative Christians, or George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton? So it's okay to laugh these people to scorn, but please, oh please, be nice to me? As they say where I'm from: Don't play with the bull if you don't want the horns.

The Supernaturals (1986)

Could Have Been a Better Zonbie Film

[17 October 2011]

The intrepid Phil Hardy nails "The Supernaturals" (1986) when he calls it a "bland zombie movie" ("Encyclopedia of Horror Film" 410). The plot is simple (much like 1964's "Two-Thousand Maniacs!"): a group of Yankee soldiers force some captured Confederates to walk through a minefield. The real atrocity is that the evil Yankee general forces a child to walk through the field also. Although he has promised freedom to any man who makes it through alive, he forces the child to walk through the field twice. One-hundred years later a group of moronic national guardsmen awaken the corpses of the killed Confederates. Again we have Hardy's accurate summary: "Sadly (director) Mastroianni makes little of the Southern setting, the rising body-count or the 19th-century zombies." Nichelle Nichols of "Star Trek" fame plays an unbelievably annoying drill sergeant. And why does everybody call her "Sir"? Isn't she a "Ma'am"?

Hillbillys in a Haunted House (1967)

So Bad It's (Mostly) Good

[17 October 2011]

"Hillbillys in a Haunted House" (1967) is somewhat of a sequel to "Las Vegas Hillbillys," reuniting some of the same "talent." Once again we have a paper-thin plot which is merely an excuse for a whole lotta country music singin'. Unfortunately, however, the plot here--that the hillbillies, on their way to Nashville, spend the night in a haunted house which is really a haven for international spies--is far more annoying than funny. The previous movie had so little plot that it was funny, whereas this movie has just enough plot to interfere since it's not developed. Also, I must admit that it was quite sad to see Basil Rathbone and Lon Chaney reduced to this silliness. Such terrible dialogue spilling out of the mouths of such considerable talents.

Las Vegas Hillbillys (1966)

Little Plot, Lotta Singin'

[17 October 2011]

"Las Vegas Hillbillys" (1966) is quite the movie. It features about twenty minutes of plot and sixty minutes of country singin'. I guess in the days before "Hee Haw," rednecks had to have some way to get their country music fix.

The movie is actually somewhat entertaining if you overlook the atrocious acting (with a hilarious scene featuring Jayne Mansfield talking on the phone), inane story, and thoroughly unimaginative camera-work. If you really enjoy classic country music, you may enjoy this film. If you generally enjoy cult films, you'll probably find this film fun and even somewhat endearing. But if you're not a fan of either of those two genres, steer clear, pardner!

Harry's War (1981)

A Smart, Entertaining Conservative Film

[7/10 · 2 June 2011]

I remember seeing "Harry's War" (1981) when I was on vacation in St. George of all places (where "Harry's War" was filmed). I honestly don't remember much about the film--the political arguments were a little beyond my 12-year-old brain.

Watching it recently as a 42-year-old, I must say that I enjoyed it quite a bit. Oh, the cinematography, script, and acting are a bit wobbly (you can tell it was a low-budget production), but it has one thing that a lot of movies today lack: entertainment value. I was entertained throughout the entire film. Part of it was probably due to the fact that I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I've seen plenty of left-wing diatribes on film, but I don't think I've ever seen anything so sincerely right-wing. And even though it was in the service of a "silly" comedy, it was smart right-wing (I know that sounds like a contradiction: silly and smart). The condemnation of the IRS in the film was valid, and it's only gotten about 1000 percent worse since 1981.

Boiling Point (I) (1993)

Surprisingly Good, Although No "Passenger 57"

[7/10 · 26 May 2011]

I finally got around to renting this (some 18 years after it was released). I assumed it would be like "Passenger 57"--basically a "Die Hard"-type film in which the body count was high. There were certainly plenty of those films around this time period.

I was pleasantly surprised. The film is a police procedural that interweaves the story of the thieves and the cops. Honestly, I could imagine Michael Mann being interested in this subject matter. Now the film is no masterpiece, by any stretch of the imagination, but I enjoyed the fact that it took its time, invested in the characters, and told a story.

Scream and Scream Again (1970)

A Surprising Horror Film

[7/10 · 26 May 2011]

"Scream and Scream Again" (1969) is surprisingly good. The film is quite odd because of the disparate story lines that seem to bear no relation to one another as the movie unfolds. In fact, I initially thought that the film might be a series of short stories, much like "Tales from the Crypt" or "Asylum" (both 1972), but with the difference that the three stories ran concomitantly (a trope that I don't think I've ever witnessed, but certainly an interesting idea--note to self when I'm a successful Hollywood director). But the stories did indeed come together towards the film's conclusion. The effect is a delicious sense of paranoia and disorientation.

The film, despite its PG rating, is actually quite explicit, with a surprising amount of female nudity (okay, only about ten seconds total, but that's a lot for a PG film) and some violence and gore. I certainly would have felt more comfortable if the film had borne an R

The Final Conflict (1981)

Disappointing--CONTAINS SPOILERS

[4/10 · 25 May 2011]

"The Final Conflict" (a.k.a. "Omen III," 1981) is a considerable step down from "Damien: Omen II" (1978), which is a step down from "The Omen" (1976). Sam Neill's performance is embarrassingly bad. Neill's dialogue is atrocious, and it's magnified in its obnoxiousness by his feigned American accent--which is strange, because the boy who played Damien in part II clearly had an English accent (his fictional father having been an ambassador in England). So why was Neill prohibited from speaking with an English accent? The result is laughable, as Neill tries to recite evil lines as the Antichrist. His evil scowls are also quite ridiculous. However the greatest detriment to this movie is that it has no epic grandeur. You would think that the battle between God and the Antichrist would be epic in scope, but "The Final Conflict" seems much more like rival gangs fighting over a piece of turf. Who cares? Although the script hinted at interesting ideas, I'm sure that the writers simply did not know enough about Christianity to make the movie persuasive. The climax of the film is also rather ordinary, as Damien dies by having a dagger thrust in his back. You mean that's all it takes to kill the Antichrist? Heck, Dracula and Frankenstein are a lot scarier than this guy!

Journey to the Far Side of the Sun (1969)

Interesting, Thought Mediocre--CONTAINS SPOILERS

[6/10 · 25 May 2011]

"Journey to the Far Side of the Sun" (1969) is a beautiful movie with impressive special-effects (given the year) and is well worth watching, although ultimately disappointing. Part of the problem lies with the script. First, the initial fifteen minutes of the film feature some impressive espionage by Herbert Lom for which he is murdered, but this vignette seems to have nothing to do with the rest of the film. Second, the main theme of the film--that a second, identical Earth has been found behind the sun in orbit directly opposite of our Earth--is never explored beyond the superficial. Apparently the only things that distinguish this second Earth are that words are backwards and our internal organs are on the opposite sides. Oooh, wow. Perhaps if the producers had not spent so much time in the filming of the space-flight special effects, they could have dedicated more time to exploring the paradoxical effects of a reverse Earth. Still, the film does have an allure; you can feel the sincerity of the filmmakers.

She Demons (1958)

Awesome in Its Idiocy--CONTAINS SPOILERS

[4/10 · 25 May 2011]

"She Demons" (1958) just might give Ed Wood's "Plan 9 from Outer Space" (1956) a run for its money as worst movie of all time--although in the final analysis "Plan 9" is more fun. "She Demons" tells the story of a rich girl and her two male helpers stranded on a supposedly deserted island. The island, however, is inhabited by an evil Nazi scientist who uses nubile young girls for his insidious experiments. At the precise point that he attempts to "operate" on the beautiful rich girl, planes bomb the island and a volcanic explosion destroys the Nazi and his evil lab. (Gee, what timing!) Perhaps the one thing that elevates this film from true Ed Woodian wretchedness is the occasional shock, which, admittedly, probably would have frightened a ten-year-old kid in the Fifties.

Dolly Dearest (1991)

Not Too Scary--CONTAINS SPOILERS

[3/10 · 25 May 2011]

"Dolly Dearest" (1991) is a poor imitation of "Dolls" (1987) and "Child's Play" (1988)--certainly its only financial hope being to cash in on the others' success. The cinematography is pedestrian, the story predictable. I saw the preview for "Dolly Dearest" on the "Servants of Twilight" (1991) video--both straight-to-video releases. The preview, I must say, was quite frightening, giving the impression that "Dolly Dearest" would be more like the straightforward plot of "Child's Play." But "Dolly Dearest" posits a Mayan devil-child taking over the bodies of some Mexican dolls. (Why dolls? Why not!) However the children of Satan apparently can be easily killed with a shotgun and some dynamite. Not much to worry about here.

Comparing "Dolly Dearest" and "Dolls" shows the absolute need for 1) a modicum of imagination from the director, and 2) a smidgen of creativity from the cinematographer. The plot of "Dolls" is rather ordinary, although it does have an E.C.-revenge logic to it. But "Dolls" just plain looks better. If you're going to sit through an hour-and-a-half of dumbness, at least make the dumbness look good. The cinematography of "Dolly Dearest" is usually plain, sometimes plain ugly. Also, the camera does absolutely nothing to increase the tension. The director apparently felt that a grimacing girly doll would be scary enough.

The Car (1977)

A Fun, Dumb Movie--CONTAINS SPOILERS

[6/10 · 25 May 2011]

"The Car" (1977) is an enjoyable horror flick, although its tone is somewhat tiresome when it would have benefited from a subtle sarcasm. (I mean, a car from Hell that drives around killing people? There are untapped opportunities for black humor here. See, for example, Peter Weir's "The Cars that Ate Paris," 1974.) I remembering seeing this on TV as a 9- or 10-year-old child. I was scared senseless, but I was also afraid of being mocked by my brother for cowardice if I dared leave the room. I watched the film now and laugh at what used to frighten me.

While "The Car" is rather ludicrous and occasionally boring when it deals superficially with its characters, it does have some truly frightening visuals as the car spins angrily around in the red dirt of Southern Utah and screams through a woman's house.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)

Awful. Just Awful.

[1/10 · 25 May 2011]

Terry Gilliam's "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" (1998) is one of those rare movies--oh, how rare indeed!--that I turned off without finishing. I'm amazed at how unfunny, unenergetic, and unimaginative this movie is, considering that it comes from the director of such bizarre fare as "Time Bandits" (1981), "The Fisher King" (1991), and "12 Monkeys" (1995). If there is anything that can be said about Gilliam, it is that he rarely lacks imagination. But the movie is simply boring. Boring! A movie about two men on a drug binge is boring! And lifeless too. I simply had no energy to care about Johnny Depp's character. Heck, I would have been glad to have even been annoyed! The film was literally a collection of images running in front of my eyes that I could not care less about. Abysmal. For those who love the film, I honestly do not know what you see therein.

Theater of Blood (1973)

Good, Not Great--CONTAINS SPOILERS

[4/10 · 25 May 2011]

"Theater of Blood" (1973), starring Vincent Price, is not a complete success, but not a complete loss either. The movie copies the essential formula of Price's "Dr. Phibes" pictures: a demented madman kills one by one people who have crossed him--all in particularly gruesome and creative ways. The premise of "Theater" is that Price was passed over for best actor of the year award by several London critics. While spouting lines from Shakespeare's works, Price kills them in ways that are loosely reminiscent of the deaths in the bard's plays.

The premise seems quite good for Price, who is adept at being a hammy-but-respectable actor. (See his performances in innumerable Gothic horror movies.) Unfortunately the film, a black comedy, is neither particularly black or particularly comedic. While there is a surprising amount of gore (it is rated R), "Theater" fails to scare mostly because of its bland camera-work. Likewise the humor just isn't that funny. (Price in an afro? Sounds funny, but in this movie it's tiresome.) Some of it, in fact, is terribly forced--like a fencing duel that takes place on trampolines! I think the idea here is funny and scary--if only Sam Raimi had been able to direct it!

Dolls (1986)

A Fun Little Horror Film--CONTAINS SPOILERS

[7/10 · 25 May 2011]

"Dolls" (1987) is surprisingly good for a low-budget horror film. I was expecting the movie to be very similar to "The Funhouse" (1981)--teenagers looking for a place to copulate, characters who are little more than knife fodder, etc.--but the movie has a much more moral tone. (If you like E.C. comics, such as "Tales from the Crypt" and "The Vault of Horror," you'll enjoy "Dolls." The same type of hyper-morality is at work in both.) A bad father, a bad stepmother, and a good daughter get stranded near a mansion in the English countryside. The house is owned by a strange old husband and wife who make dolls. They are soon joined by two Madonna-wannabes and the nice man who gave them a lift as they were hitchhiking. The dolls, of course, come to life and dispense harsh judgment upon the rocker girls who attempt to loot the house, and the bad father and stepmother for their poor treatment of their good daughter. The little girl and the nice man awaken in the morning, as if from a bad dream, and leave the house--the insinuation being that the nice man will wed the girl's mother and they'll be a happy family. The final scenes show us that the people who have been "killed" during the night were actually turned into dolls themselves, to sit eternally in the mansion of the doll-making husband and wife who are actually warlock and witch.

The movie is surprisingly clean, with only scattered profanities and no sex or nudity. There are a few gory moments, and I suppose the R-rating is deserved for those.

Monsters from the Id (2009)

A Good Documentary If Your Enjoy '50s Sci-Fi

[7/10 · 13 April 2011]

"Monsters from the Id" examines the image of the scientist in 1950s sci-fi films. The thesis, to a certain degree, is that people were inspired by the heroic portrayal of science and scientists in these films, became scientists themselves, and America became the world leader in scientific endeavors. Today, however, America is lagging in its production of scientists, and this is probably due in part to the portrayal of scientists on our movie screens.

One thing I have noticed is that in recent years, especially in science fiction films, the role of science and the scientist has become ambiguous, if not downright negative. In the 1950s, scientists often caused problems but they usually determined how to save us from those problems. The ultimate outcome of the majority of those films was that science was beneficial, not harmful. Today it seems that science is usually the villain, often portrayed as ineffectual--the lackeys of corporations and/or the military--if not evil themselves.

I'm not asserting that science should be exempt from critique. Indeed, throughout the history of science there have been thoughtful critiques of science and scientists. For example, H. G. Wells's "The Island of Dr. Moreau" critiques the amoral scientist who is insensitive to the pain of other beings in his quest for knowledge. But what Wells didn't do was criticize the entire enterprise of science, only a particular practice. I think too many people--comfortable in the benefits derived from science, ironically--now doubt the value of science.

I think the benefits of "Monsters from the Id" are twofold. First, it helps us understand the history of the representation of science and scientists. Not only does it help us see this, but it does so in an entertaining way. Second, it makes us aware of how present-day images may be working to shape our perceptions. I think such an awareness can only be empowering.

One drawback of the film is that it doesn't contain many (or any, that I can remember) modern SF clips. I would have liked some clips from more recent films to illustrate negative images of scientists. Another strike against the film is the excessive use of background music. I would rather just watch the clips and listen to the interviewees sans music, thank you.

All in all, though, a very good documentary if you like SF films and enjoy the topic of science in the media.

The Fan (1981)

Not Great--MILD SPOILERS

[3/10 · 11 March 2011]

I remember seeing the advertisement for "The Fan" (1981) as a child and feeling shocked by the idea that someone could like a star so much that he'd kill her. I also remember the critics panning the film, wondering why Lauren Bacall would involve herself in such a tawdry mess.

While the film is awful, it does make me wonder what the producers were thinking. I mean, we know from the first frame of the film who the fan is and that his fixation on Bacall will soon turn deadly. Without the element of mystery, the film is rather like waiting for a bus. Imagine if "Psycho" began by showing us that Norman often dressed and talked like his mother, and that he killed any woman who aroused him. Without the element of mystery, "Psycho" would have fallen into the abyss of forgettable films. Still, all things considered, "The Fan" is well acted and the production values are good.

Don't Torture a Duckling (1972)

Weird Title, Decent Film

[6/10 · 11 March 2011]

Featuring one of the weirdest movie titles of all time, "Don't Torture a Duckling" ("Non si sevizia un paperino") (1972) is much more thoughtful than the usual Lucio Fulci movie. In a small Italian village someone is murdering young boys. In true giallo fashion, one person after another is suspected.

The film is actually a thoughtful and disturbing examination of the dangers of superstition. Unfortunately that examination is weakened by a few moments of extreme gore and a long scene of unnecessary nudity. Although I didn't like the anti-Catholicism in the film, I suppose it does fit the film's ideological purpose.

Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990)

A Tepid Horror Film

[3/10 · 11 March 2011]

"Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III" (1990) is a tepid entry into the Texas Chainsaw Massacre family. This time a Texas family, complete with father, mother, son, Leatherface, and eight-year-old blond daughter, capture and torment three people who accidentally find themselves too deep in the heart of Texas. I suppose the worst part of the movie is that Leatherface is really not scary, nor does he have the trademark androgyny which made his character in the first film so creepy. No, perhaps the worst part of this movie is that it's too self-aware. It knows it's supposed to link sex and brutality. In one scene Leatherface's brother gives him a chrome-plated chain saw with the inscription, "The Saw is Family." No, perhaps the worst part is that it's just not scary. Okay, maybe I'm being a bit harsh. There are worse things you could watch on a lazy summer afternoon.

City of the Living Dead (1980)

Gross, Gross, Gross--SPOILERS

[4/10 · 11 March 2011]

I was eleven and I remember quite distinctly sitting on our living room floor, staring at the grotesque picture that accompanied the advertisement: a zombie head missing one eye stared dumbly over a cemetery. I suppose the entire incident would have drifted into memory oblivion except for one thing: the ad ran a warning something like this: "Due to the graphic and horrific nature of this movie, no one under eighteen will be admitted." At that young age I was deathly afraid of horror movies. I could only imagine what horrors existed in a rated R movie (which denied entrance to minors unless accompanied by an adult). But here was something beyond even rated R--no admittance to anyone under eighteen! What could be so horrible, I wondered, that it was even worse than rated R? While I tried to dismiss these speculations, I remember that I spent the rest of the night anxiously wondering what could be so scary. Of one thing I was sure: if I were ever to see such a movie, I would go stark, raving mad. I was both frightened by and in awe of those people who could attend such a film, for they were either insane already or amazingly courageous.

Well I came, I saw, and I didn't go mad. The film is the usual Fulci incoherence coupled with extraordinary gross-outs. Regarding incoherence, for example, when an investigator is inquiring into the death of a medium, a ball of fire shoots from the floor to the ceiling. What does this have to do with anything? I dunno. Or later, a father whose daughter was murdered kills the local town idiot by drilling through his head. What does this have to do with the living dead? I dunno. Regarding spectacular gross-outs, a dead priest looks at a girl. First she cries blood and then she vomits. It's an extraordinary vomit, really, since she manages to cough up her entire intestinal track plus a few major organs.

I do have to give Fulci credit, however; he does have an amazing ability to create an ambiance of weirdness. There are actually some genuinely frightening moments in the movie. Unfortunately Fulci is like a schizophrenic man whose left hand is painting an impressionistic masterpiece and his right hand is scribbling all over the canvas with crayons. The intrusion of extreme gore often breaks the delicate spell of creepiness that the film manages to create. I think it is summed up best by one fellow on IMDb who says, "After viewing this movie, I was struck retarded."

Thesis (1996)

Yuck!

[6/10 · 11 March 2011]

I have only one thing to say about the movie "Thesis" (1996): yuck! Directed by the same man who did "Open Your Eyes" (1997), "Thesis" deals with a female college student studying violence in film. She makes friends with a misfit who has a video collection of porn and ultra-violence. By a bizarre chance, she encounters a snuff film. She and the misfit realize that the victim is a girl from campus who disappeared two years ago. They begin to theorize that someone on campus is doing the killings. But who? And now, it seems, the killer(s) are after her . . .

While I must admit the film scared me, the subject matter was just too gross. Movies like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III" (which I also watched today) I find at best humorous, at worst boring. But I always know that they're fakes: from the moment they're first conceived by some drunken screenwriter looking for his big break, they're fakes. And even though, of course, "Thesis" is fake, the idea behind it is that REAL people would REALLY torture and kill on screen for the enjoyment of other REAL people. So, again: yuck!

Handcart (2002)

A Good Effort, Not a Great Movie

[5/10 · 11 March 2011]

The main problem with "Handcart" (2002) is that it aspires to be epic but it has neither the budget nor the script. Nor does it have adequate acting. The director, Kels Goodman, wanted to make an epic film; in fact, on the extras that come with the DVD he explains the decision to shoot in widescreen. Unfortunately the epic size of the screen only reinforces how little there is of interest to see. Shooting in the standard academy frame would have benefited the film by hiding the lack of budget and talent. My mom summed up the problems with the film best when she said, "After watching the film, you just don't feel like the pioneers suffered all that much." Goodman does show some snow and people shivering, but you don't really feel like this whole handcart business was much more than a really hard boy scout outing. Again, the smaller frame may have hidden the lack of deep snow and ice. While the film is a good effort, it's little more than an effort and will remain at the bottom of my list of the recent spate of Mormon films.

The Black Gestapo (1975)

Wasted Potential--SPOILERS

[4/10 · 11 March 2011]

"Black Gestapo" (1975) is an exploitation film that manages to both rise above its material and sink beneath it. The film features a group of black men who call themselves the People's Army, funded by the state of California, who engage in acts of community goodwill. Unfortunately the local white mafia corrupts the community with drugs, gambling, and prostitution. A faction of the People's Army, enraged by the rape of black women and the violence against black men, take matters into their own hands. As a viewer, I must admit that I found these scenes of vengeance quite satisfying--and therein lies part of the film's power. The film raises questions and provides some troubling answers. We want to side with the peaceful solutions of the helpful People's Army, but we also want bloodshed--racial bloodshed. We feel conflicted.

Sadly and predictably, the black avengers, after driving the white mafia from the area, become worse than the white mafia, running more drugs, more prostitution, more gambling. In a particularly painful scene, they beat a black storeowner because he doesn't make enough money to pay their protection prices. In the end, the peaceful general of the People's Army takes matters into his own hands and destroys the Black Gestapo.

As I mentioned, while the film raises important questions about white exploitation of black poverty--and how blacks should respond to that exploitation--the film also falters as the viewer is overwhelmed by tawdry scenes of violence against women (usually naked), and one wonders if the director is interested in making a point or just peddling trash to the dumbest drive-in voyeur.