sean4554 Reviews

Five Loose Women (1974)

Superb no-budget exploitation

[10/10 · 25 February 2011]

No one will mistake "Fugitive Girls" (the most common title for this film) for great cinema. The ultra-low budget, editing errors and continuity blunders alone guarantee that. But taken for what it is - a 1974 exploitation quickie, a drive-in nudie flick about female criminals - this movie really works. With the legendary Edward D. Wood Jr. contributing one of his finest screenplays and also acting in two different roles, the film won't disappear. "Fugitive Girls" is good entertainment!

The acting ranges from passable to good, the dialogue ranges from classic Woodian nonsense to decent, the music often works very well, and technically...well, this aspect doesn't usually manage to impress. Director Stephen Apostolof deserves credit, certainly, for the superb pacing and for bringing out the best in actresses Tallie Cochrane, the '70's adult superstar Rene Bond (now supposedly deceased) and the strangely overlooked but genuinely charismatic Margie Lanier.

Rarely do these no-budget grindhouse flicks deliver like this one does, and not because of overt sex or violence; "Fugitive Girls" succeeds on it's own quirky charm and likability. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is a *good* movie, but a great one for it's genre. Despite all of this, "Fugitive Girls" rarely receives extended mention in Ed Wood discussions, probably because it's such an oddity. It isn't family friendly like, say, "Plan 9 From Outer Space", doesn't feature any of his most famous players from his earlier period (like Criswell in "Orgy Of The Dead"), and this film barely qualifies as softcore, much less hardcore (such as "Necromania"). You get the idea.

"Fugitive Girls" is top-shelf exploitation and recommended viewing for Wood cultists, Rene Bond fans, B-cinema specialists and grindhouse followers alike.

(10 stars for genre excellence, not general brilliance)

Lost Boys: The Tribe (2008 Video)

Entertaining, nothing more or less than that

[6/10 · 15 August 2010]

I'm not seeing why this sequel is so bad, and I revisited the original "Lost Boys" right before "The Tribe". I completely disagree that the vampires were sympathetic or less idiotic in the first film than in the second. The vampires were real ***holes in the first film and the same in the second, although the Shane character in "Tribe" did seem like he was at least trying to be 'decent' in some way.

The comedy in the first film was almost always poor and took me right out of the movie nearly every time, just as in the sequel. The funniest line between the two movies for me is in "Tribe" where the lead actress, right after learning she's a vampire, says a line with perfect timing and a great delivery. I laughed at least, which is more than can be said for nearly every other attempt at comedy in these two films (the dinner scene with Max in the original is well done and humorous, but not quite laugh out loud funny I don't think).

The first has generally better actors and a better look to it, and the second has nudity. Neither movie is anything all that spectacular; they are good pop-horror flicks, both entertain without pushing anything or being innovative. "The Lost Boys", 1 and/or 2, aren't by any stretch of the imagination great cinema or even great horror, they are just good vampire movies. In my opinion.

If you'd like to see a very artistic and different vampire film, try "Vampyr".

Le porte del silenzio (1991 Video)

One of Fulci's greatest films

[10/10 · 8 August 2010]

For what turned out to be his final project, Lucio Fulci opted for something different, a type of film that he really hadn't made before - a Rod Serling kind of tale of the journey of an American businessman in search of answers regarding his own existence. As this man drives through the Louisiana countryside he encounters a strange woman several times as well as a hearse with his name on the coffin. It doesn't take long before he realizes something is up and he frantically attempts to discover what it is.

John Savage is superb as the confused Melvin Devereux, likely the greatest performance of his career that I've seen. He doesn't overplay or underplay, and his reactions are seemingly entirely natural. The other actors and actresses in "Door To Silence" cannot compare to Savage but do very well nonetheless, while Fulci directs with a subtle fluidity and sense of reflective affection which had become increasingly rare for the master after his career really took off circa 1980.

This isn't a perfect film, there are a couple of slightly poor edits and several 'what the hell' parts (a motel stay for 15 minutes, a phone that rings before dialing, etc. - although these can be seen as being perfect for the unreality of Melvin's situation). The same camera problem that plagued "Demonia" also pops up in "Door To Silence" here and there, but not to the same extent nor to the film's detriment.

Sadly enough, I don't know if this final effort will ever be truly accepted. It's not generally of interest to Fulci's fans as it's not horror, and despite it's artistic cult appeal, Fulci is unknown to the art-house audience (if not outright vilified). It is really a shame that despite the high quality of "Door To Silence", Fulci's name was replaced with a fictional one for apparently some bizarre commercial reasons.

"Door To Silence" is a near-masterpiece and more than deserves to be seen, and now can be due to it's very welcome release on DVD by Severin. Check it out while you can, you won't be sorry.

Hypocrites (1915)

Very odd curio

[7/10 · 26 October 2009]

It's good to see that the comments posted on this film are all well thought out. I agree with almost everything already said about this odd little film called "Hypocrites". This definitely isn't the easiest movie to get through. It's very slowly paced and so overly moralizing that I doubt many viewers would have even liked it much in it's time. Indeed the film is highly artistic, but also self-consciously so. Everything screams IMPORTANT in the movie, which isn't the flaw one may think it would be, but doesn't exactly help things either. The aura of "Hypocrites" is that of a revival meeting of sorts, the kind of old-time gathering in a tent that may still happen today in the more rural parts of America but is generally a hazy memory elsewhere. That is strange as well because the religious characters appear either Roman Catholic or high Episcopalian (or something along those lines), not evangelical at all. To further compound the confusion, the artistically justifiable insertion of Naked Truth could do nothing but anger religious folk of the time, and this was all done by a woman director (the trailblazing Lois Weber)!

The gimmick may well have drawn them in, at least to an extent. Which is the strangest aspect of "Hypocrites" - that in denouncing hypocrisy, even with such artful gestures, Weber demonstrates in no uncertain terms that even she isn't immune to it. It's all around us, part of humanity, part of everything we are. Just have to learn to control it, is what she seems to be trying to say. I do like "Hypocrites", watch it every so often and come away with something different each time, even if I soon forget what it was. Is this a classic? In a way. Is it entertaining? Sometimes, could be, depending on what mood you're in and what you're looking for in a film. I don't think most people would like it at all. But for what it is, and as an example of the work of Weber (it seems most of her films no longer exist), "Hypocrites" is indeed IMPORTANT.

It Happened at the World's Fair (1963)

Standard

[4/10 · 19 October 2009]

As a longtime Presley fan, I didn't remember liking this one even when I was a kid way back when and loved his pictures. I have all of his movies on DVD as part of my collection and stuck this one in last week along with the dreaded "Double Trouble", if only to confirm my memories. And I was pleasantly surprised with "...World's Fair". Once you get past that horrific opening sequence of Elvis singing while in the plane, this is actually not bad. The songs are typical; only the lovely ('Anything That's Part Of You'-rip) 'They Remind Me Too Much Of You' and the tame-but-likable 'One Broken Heart For Sale' stand out, but there are only a couple terrible ones. The film itself is silly, unbelievable fluff, but with a sweetness that's rarely irritating. As far as Elvis musicals go, "It Happened At The World's Fair" isn't one of the better ones, but not among his worst, either. Fans should have a look (as if they already haven't).

Warning Shadows (1923)

Masterpiece

[10/10 · 11 August 2009]

"Warning Shadows" shouldn't work as well as it does. There are no titles, causing the plot to be confusing if not closely paid attention to; the Expressionistic elements are abundant but also strangely removed in style; the acting is often tongue-in-cheek, and the overall artiness is seemingly self-conscious. However, those same elements also contribute to this film's majesty and originality. There is simply no other film (that I'm aware of, anyway) that approaches the beauty and sheer erotic oddness of this obscure classic. I cannot adequately describe exactly what it is that makes "Warning Shadows" one of my all-time favorite motion pictures, so...just see it. It's available on DVD from our great friends at Kino.

Easy Come, Easy Go (1967)

Elvis hates this, and you can tell

[2/10 · 26 April 2009]

This was Presley's final film for producer Hal Wallis, who was not being at all kind to his star at the time, and his second film for director John Rich, who never liked Elvis and vice-versa. Wallis' indifference was largely due to the fact that Elvis movies were no longer big box-office. Rich, who knows what his problem was, but he kept Elvis in the frogman suit in unbearable heat for a ridiculous amount of time. Besides these problems, "Easy Come Easy Go" was just another of the horrible plot less teenybopper musicals that Elvis had already long grown to despise; and there's really nothing else to distinguish this from the others. Well, one thing: during the final song, 'I'll Take Love' (which can be described as somewhat listenable), for a flash of a second a look of disgust and anger passes over Presley's face. This in itself raises the rating from less than one star to two.

Richard III (1912)

Excellent early American feature

[8/10 · 25 February 2009]

Watching Shakespeare without dialog isn't as challenging as you might think. Indeed, this 1912 film manages to condense the play neatly and still retains much of the power of the piece without hearing - or even reading - the words. Much of the success of "Richard III" is due to the vivid characterization by Frederick Warde, but his costars are excellent too. The direction is basic, of course, and every so often director-star James Keane wastes precious time (what's up with that long semi-tracking shot of the ship?), but generally his work is more than adequate. Comparing Keane's work here to the pioneering 1911 Italian feature "L'Inferno", it's clear that the American did have knowledge of what was going on elsewhere, even if he (of course) fell far short of what D.W. Griffith was already doing. Overall, "Richard III" will be of considerable interest to silent-film fans as well as stage performers interested in viewing the work of 19th century master Warde. Otherwise, I doubt this movie will thrill many other viewers. But I could be wrong; check it out for yourself.

Eleanor's Catch (1916)

?

[4/10 · 18 February 2009]

As an added bonus on Kino's DVD "Hypocrites", this one-reeler from popular female actress/writer/director Cleo Madison doesn't really annoy. Neither, though, does it go anywhere. The story, which is some sort of dramedy (at least I think it is), is ridiculous, the acting is standard and the direction weak. Since "Eleanor's Catch" is apparently the only surviving Madison film, it does have considerable historical value and it's very nice that it is available for home viewers. But it probably won't be watched by most people more than once or twice, and on the basis of this film it's difficult to discern what Madison's appeal was.

The Last Days of Pompeii (1913)

Masterpiece

[10/10 · 17 February 2009]

So many viewers don't like "Last Days Of Pompeii". Well, the only surprising aspect of that is that these people have even seen this movie. As a silent film fanatic, the generally less than stellar notices posted on the movie prevented me from shelling out the 24 dollars the DVD cost. Don't know why I paid attention to the reviews. All I can say is, I'm glad I finally got it, because this is a truly, truly great motion picture. The lead actress is absolutely brilliant, one of the greatest performances that I've *ever* seen; why she didn't go on to megasuccess is beyond me (although she likely was popular in her native Italy but it seems very little is known about her today), and director Mario Caserini is every bit the artist that the much more celebrated America filmmakers of the time were - and actually more talented than most. "The Last Days Of Pompeii" is simply a brilliant film. Find out for yourself.

The Cat and the Canary (1927)

Adequate but hardly essential

[6/10 · 20 October 2008]

As far as silent cinema is concerned, this film is considered a classic by many. I have an extremely large silent collection, and really love these old pieces. I do not love "The Cat And The Canary", however. The problem is the so-called 'comedy' inserted throughout the film: it isn't funny, it doesn't work, all it does is annoy and detract from the main story. I think that, generally speaking, comedy that (apparently) was enjoyed by the audiences of that time just doesn't translate well all these decades later. With notable exceptions, of course. But even some of the most successful film comedians of the silent era fall flat today. Everything else about this film is pretty good, not great. Leni's earlier film "Waxworks" is so much better that it's hard to believe "Canary" is by the same director. And a lot is made of this film being some sort of trailblazing genre entry, although D.W. Griffith had made "One Exciting Night" (a very similar type of film) at least five years before Leni's movie. All in all, "The Cat And The Canary" is good entertainment, however, really not worthy of it's classic status.

Freddy vs. Jason (2003)

poor film and DVD

[2/10 · 23 June 2008]

It took them a long time to finally get these two characters together...and why? It certainly couldn't have been waiting for a good script, because this is one of the stupidest that I can remember. Freddy's resurrection makes no sense whatsoever following on from "Freddy's Dead", for one thing. And on and on...bad continuity, bad pacing, plot holes, absurd framing devices, crappy set pieces - all a part of "Freddy Vs. Jason". The worst part of this film for me is the absurd aftermath of the field rave. After Jason hacks away at the kids, on fire and still unflinching, the main characters survive and just want to...go home?? GO HOME?? Wait a minute. If I saw a psychopathic zombie killing everyone in sight I'd get my family together and get the hell out of the town, county, state and maybe country. I certainly wouldn't drive 5 miles to go to bed. Would you? And is Ohio anywhere near Crystal Lake in New York? It would appear as though it's just a leisurely jaunt, but geographically speaking it wouldn't be, according to prior "Friday" films. And...after all the hype, the decade plus of myth making, neither character triumphs over the other. Not really. Which makes this piece of celluloid excrement even more pointless. One last thing...on the commentary track as well as the bonus features, the lead actress is almost never mentioned. You get the idea that the filmmakers and the studio were somehow embarrassed by Monica Keena's performance. Pretentious, sleazy, self-deluded fools; they could have put Ingrid Bergman in her prime in the role and she couldn't have been any better. Keena's persona non grata treatment here reminds me of the Wes Craven commentary on the original "Elm Street" DVD. He (and an actress) seem to really enjoy laughing at Ronee Blakely's acting and completely ignore the other bad parts of that admittedly classic but still extremely flawed movie (Ohio palm trees, lack of time continuity, sloppy direction, bad lead performance, etc). Of course; as Church Lady used to say, "How CONVENIENT"!

Unless you enjoy bad movies or just have to see all of the Jason / Freddy films, really, this is not a film you need to see.

Elvis in Concert (1977 TV Special)

The final tour...

[9/10 · 2 June 2008]

It's well known that in June of 1977 Elvis Presley didn't look well. He was bloated and obviously ill, but he still had unbelievable charisma and ability. His voice was never greater; check out 'Hurt', 'How Great Thou Art', 'You Gave Me A Mountain', 'My Way' and (in the outtakes) 'Tryin' To Get To You' and 'Unchained Melody'. Amazing. The CBS special had the known faults, with too many fan comments and editing which actually made Elvis seem worse off than he really was (which is why I've rated this a 9), but Presley himself was brilliant as always. Perhaps it's just me, but anytime I watch Elvis live he seems somewhat ill at ease, uncomfortable about some aspect of himself. But not here. Oddly enough, at the end Elvis seemed much more accepting of himself, much more at peace with who he was. I don't know if you'll notice the same thing or not. Of course, EPE won't give you a chance to. "Elvis In Concert" has never been officially released on video or DVD, their reason being it would subject Elvis to ridicule. ? They did insert footage into "This Is Elvis" and "Great Performances" (some title like that) so what the heck they're talking about, I don't know. The public has seen Elvis in June of 1977 already, so their argument doesn't make any sense. But don't despair. The special as well as outtakes are available everywhere on pirate DVD's until EPE decides to release them.

American Psycho II: All American Girl (2002 Video)

Terrific sequel-continuation-...

[8/10 · 16 May 2008]

"American Psycho 2" is one of those sequels that people either love or hate, and only rarely based upon the quality of the actual film. A much-repeated phrase is "this would be a good movie with a different title". Huh? I never quite understood that way of thinking. It reminds me of the opinions I got from people who were fans of the rock band the Doors. After the singer Jim Morrison died the Doors continued for two more albums that hardly anyone wants to listen to. Why? "the Doors without Morrison? forget it". As if the only records in the universe worth listening to are ones with that particular singer. Once I made that point the illogic of their argument was revealed and they listened to the two albums and really liked them. Good music is good music. Same here. This movie wouldn't be any better or worse with a different title. I feel "American Psycho 2" (not all prints carry the subtitle "All American Girl") is almost the equal of it's predecessor. And not only for actually confirming that Bateman did indeed kill at least *some* people, but for the film's point of view. While the first movie was a stunning and biting satire of self-obsessed yuppies, "2" is aiming at the college crowd, the vapid kids with a frightening sense of entitlement and sum-zero convictions. The psycho Rachel here is somehow even more bizarrely sympathetic than Patrick, to a point, even with there being no true ambiguity as to the sequence of events. After the murder of a billionaire's son we know it's Rachel behind the killing, yet it doesn't take away from the narrative. Two unexpected and satisfying twists aside, there's no mystery here; the brilliance is entirely in it's own universe and following it's own catharsis. To condemn "American Psycho 2" for it's somewhat stilted commercial construction and gaps in logic is missing the point entirely. This is a great film. It's not pretentious in presenting itself as a sequel because it really does fit- Bateman would be proud. Or not. If the idea of a sequel nags at you, call it something else. If the revelation that Bateman was a serial killer is worrisome, then I guess the premise of "American Psycho 2" is just insurmountable. Skip it. But you're missing out on a terrific film.

A King in New York (1957)

Tremendous, meaningful motion picture

[9/10 · 2 May 2008]

For years I've read how controversial and second-rate this film is. I finally bought the MK2 DVD, and was amazed at how funny and intelligent Chaplin's movie really is. I can understand the controversial aspect - it's not very subtle although it's entirely correct - but second rate?? I also hear how supposedly 'shabby' the movie appears, due to a tight budget and shooting schedule, but I honestly don't see any of these flaws. In fact, "A King In New York" may be my favorite Chaplin picture. The only problem I have with the entire film is the comedians scene in the club. Every single person in attendance is laughing hysterically at two quite unfunny performers. It's actually so slow and stupidly surreal it takes away from the commentary that runs throughout the movie. Oh well, a minor quibble but, still. If you're avoiding "A King In New York" for any reason, go get it. You'll be very pleased with this classic.

The Amityville Curse (1990 Video)

Standard

[4/10 · 3 April 2008]

I see that many viewers dislike this film, some intensely. I can understand that. But reading how this one is worse than the others? Not keen on that point. As far as I can tell, "The Amityville Curse" is no worse (or no better) than virtually any of the others in the series. This one is dull, inane, badly paced, sloppily rendered, (mostly) badly acted, silly, predictable and largely devoid of notable special effects. Except for the last descriptive, each of the above words can be applied to every one of the "Amityville" movies, and the special effects wasteland can be said for probably 3/4 of the others as well. So...the good points. ...

Well, there is a decent feeling of creepiness somewhere towards the end of the film. Several others in the series lack even that. Otherwise, this is standard issue Amityville nonsense. Basically.

Howling IV: The Original Nightmare (1988 Video)

Should have been better...

[6/10 · 28 March 2008]

...but "The Original Nightmare" isn't awful. Actually, this entry is a fairly enjoyable one, with some good lines here and there and a decent lead performance. On the downside, all the other actors are horrendous, the pace is erratic and the sound quality lacking. "The Howling" series was never intended to be great cinema as anyone who has seen any of the seven films should know; even the first one, as entertaining as it is, isn't anything marvelous outside of good special effects. These are just horror films about werewolves, people. Whether the film is set in the Australian outback or in a carnival or in the woods or in a castle. We're talking about low-budget films about...werewolves. Brilliance just ain't gonna happen.

Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story (1987)

Well...it's good

[6/10 · 2 March 2008]

A lot of people absolutely love this film. If it has something to do with the mystique of owning a legendarily unavailable cult film made with dolls, that's understandable. I think when I first got this film in the early '90's on VHS I was swayed by that and also overpraised "Superstar". Now, twelve or so years later, "Superstar" is no longer 'rare' as it's all over the fileshare sites, and let's face it, there's a world of much stranger films out there. Seen today for what it is, "Superstar" is still an interesting piece, an experiment that works more often than not. The best element I feel is the editing. Great work there. Otherwise, and I'm not knocking it at all, this isn't a great film. It's good, entertaining and certainly memorable, but really nothing all that special. In my opinion, of course.

Hellraiser: Deader (2005 Video)

Overlooked masterpiece

[10/10 · 8 December 2007]

I am not only a die-hard fan of the "Hellraiser" series and the horror genre, but of cinema itself. Judging this film isn't easy on many levels: there are a couple editing errors and red herrings, but overall, "Hellraiser: Deader" is a masterpiece of modern horror and a fascinating sojourn into unrelentingly oppressive atmosphere. The script, famously, wasn't written for inclusion into the "Hellraiser" series. This is neither here nor there although some viewers have convinced themselves otherwise. The script revisions not only effortlessly incorporate this film into the "Hellraiser" mythology, but I dare say "Deader" makes more sense as a sequel than any other in the rightfully acclaimed series. The credit for this is almost all due to director Rick Bota, whose love for the mythology is surpassed only by his genuine respect for the film-making process. Having a long and successful career as a cinematographer certainly informs every frame of "Deader" (there has been probably no other horror film in recent memory imbued with such eerie beauty). Yet his narrative abilities best illuminate what is in fact a very complex and often obscure story. "Deader" was very low-budget and had an absurdly short 25-day shoot; what should have been a mess was instead tightly corralled and turned into the instant classic it is. The film is tense and unnerving in the old-fashioned sense; very few of those cheap jump scares that litter way too many horror movies - and is genuinely frightening, as well as uncomfortable. Actress Kari Wuhrer is completely believable and often downright brilliant - the scenes with the Klein character struggling to move in between close walls and, especially, the bathroom sequence with the knife are perhaps the greatest performances in a horror film since "The Shining". The combination of a raw but dedicated filmmaker, a truly committed leading performer and the always reliable special effects of Gary Tunnicliffe turn what should have been a confusing spectacle of second-rate direct to video gloss into a great film that far too few have seen and even fewer understood. The script by Neil Marshall Stevens and Tim Day deserves nods for originality and for refusing to bow to overtly commercial tedium. But at the end of the day, this is Rick Bota's film and in a just world he'd be recognized as a genius- or at least be given an episode of "Masters Of Horror". If you haven't bought or watched "Hellraiser: Deader" because of the bad reviews or the inexplicable complaints of "too little Pinhead", give this motion picture a chance. You'll be glad you did.

Arsenal (1929)

Brilliant, multi-layered masterpiece

[10/10 · 2 September 2007]

For several years I had a decent quality print on video and was always fascinated by this film. Very few motion pictures are as visually striking and intense, but little of the story came through. I just purchased the DVD and the audio commentary track by Vance Kepley really illuminated "Arsenal". Undoubtedly the finest commentary I've yet heard. If this classic movie isn't your cup of tea, get the DVD anyway. Dovzhenko was an artist like few others. His work really deserves rediscovery; hopefully future releases of "Zvenigora", "Earth" and "Aerograd" will have Kepley's commentary as well. But even as they are, Dovzhenko's films are truly essential.