Bofsensai Reviews

The Woodcutter Story (2022)

Genius or tosh? (April 1st watch?) Pointless / absurd oddity spots tedium or out and out(re) intrigue?! (For Lynch&Lanthimos fans alone?)

[4/10 · 26 April 2024]

HAH HAH!*

So, what IS this?

Perhaps some sort of fellow (famed) Finn director Kaurismaki-like do nothing longueurs meets D. Lynch in Lanthimos-like ..., er: tosh!

As well, really, Finnish film does it again with its incessantly WEIRD (read, pointless? No, no, can't be) cinematic offerings in a remarkable (admirable) debut, director AND the writer of (such tosh) M. Myllylahti seems to have used typical Finn deadpan delivery so can (could be?) highly amusing; with the right approach to 'appreciate' and if you like that sort o thing (see below cribs & inspirations), so as watch, you can perhaps be aware / know, right: so, just 'whom is fooling whom'*?

Beginning with a fabulous vista - (= appreciative nod to cinematographer Arsen Sarkistants) - to introduce the 'mystery' in already, why there, who are they? Conundrums - (and which may already put in mind of Lynch's intro lever puller in 'Eraserhead' ...) then onto ..... er, well: no, why bother to try and surmise this?

Except to note, thereafter, well, for me the best bit (so look out for if gonna watch) was - (ONLY!) - the organist (check her hands): how director Myllylahti got her, indeed, the WHOLE cast, to maintain their Buster Keaton stoic non expressive stares is a directorship / performance feat in itself: BUT, so, overall, is it interesting, worth watching? Hmmm.... With having tolerated sitting (keeping awake) through this, please let me SHOUT OUT (very!) LOUD to one and all: NOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Still, if you insist to do so, like such (apparently?) meaningless meanderings presented herein, of the many (all!) admittedly fun odd non-sequitur bits that Myllylahti throws out at you to consider (fathom), will surely pique: so, it would be completely unfairly plot spoiling to set them out; but besides what seemed to me as animal like cribs (inspirations? Reminders?) from e.g. Von Trier's 'Antichrist', virtually all of Lanthimos' earlier oeuvre stylings (note the dance routine: shades of 'Dogtooth'**), and, and, well ...: as for, so, 'Hey: where did the boy go'? That's surely a Lynchian pinch from 'Twin Peaks, isn't it (Mikko)?

(The setting is a lumber yard, too, so, ah hah, I claim my nods recognition kudos now ...)

Complete and utter balderdash; but boy, like the ubiquitous thick snow throughout this and like the 'mystery' guy who opens this did, it was - I suppose - fun trudging through all its, um, "sludge"***; er, nonsense!

Oh; on which - to trudge through it - at least you will get a great soundtrack (nice one, Jonas Struck), too (that's how I got through it: so, yup, nice - if only to listen in to!)

So; yes: rubbish - or genius = entirely your call!

* as a good April 1st watch? (As I did!) ** Impartiality warning: I hated that, too!

*** chosen coz a line in the English translation of one of the characters .. twice over! Was it a metaphor for this?

Knocked Up (2007)

Misogynistic 'anti-amusing', utter shameful claptrap deluxe outing!

[1/10 · 16 March 2024]

Oh dear oh dear: am strongly moved to add this 'review', if only to have an excuse to have suffered seeing this, and so to SHOUT OUT REAL LOUD (warn!) just how pathetic, offensive, misogynistic and, basically, totally and completely UNfunny this total dross is: but then also in to record, well thank you, as to prove with clear evidence that Seth Rogen (although apparently his debut role - but appears to have subsequently more or less remained the same character typecasting) is crashingly, painfully unamusing, too, in any shape or form, here demonstrated completely so in a turgid screenplay written by director Apatow in a sort of his own family affair* representation in character Rudd's home, with Rogan playing a way beyond improbable 'love interest' to the beautiful Katherine Heigl, in this pruriently, adolescently, pathetically complete and utter sludge!

Course, should've guessed from already a crass, quite offensive titling already, so about the only aspect I can struggle to even think to tolerate sitting through this utter and complete trash, is, as 'we' did, an example of worst modern unintentionally(?) young(er) generation misogynistic misfire, in a sort of 'can you really believe they wrote and made this as supposed amusing entertainment?' challenge.

The Bechdel test (just about) passes a film if ANY of its female characters have a conversation between themselves that is not related to men: so, ok: in that case, at least Kristin Wiig in her deadpan exhausted used up husk of a Hollywood bod's assertion that "no one lies in this industry" raised a wry smile and was about the only occasion this could approach amusing: (but even then, pace recent 'jailing' events, surely was a knowing nod to what virtually everyone in Tinseltown must have known what was going on at that time, n'est pas?!)

Oh, and the overall aspect to laugh (out loud) at the absurdity, conceited arrogance, that a woman as bright, successful (she becomes a TV presenter), basically so gorgeous as Heigl, would in any remotest way, consider a dunderhead like Rogan('s loser - he's unemployed, making a website focusing on the boobs shown in films .. ohh how we, er, well, tittered!! - character) as somehow attractive, sexy, even if non-compos-mentis drunk blotto into a potential sex alluring, wanting(!) coupling (yeah, right: talk about, um, miscasting!), and then let alone then be a candidate for long life together, is, actually, in itself - but presumably unintentionally - uproariously hilarious in its never in your wildest (wet!) dreams unlikelihood absurdity (Seth/ Judd, writer/director)!

An absolutely appalling piece of misogynistic celluloid that I call out in an Emperor's new clothes way, is offensive sexist** claptrap throughout to the Nth degree!

Shame on EVERYONE** involved who thought such a plotline and character portrayal could be even remotely interesting let alone stupidly admirable (as like so he got to propose to her and so all is ok? ... Sheesh, almighty, how men just don't know women!)

* (I see that the Rudd family stuff is apparently, ah, inspired / based on director's own circumstances: which just further proves that being Tinseltown involved does NOT thereby make for unquestioning entertainment for the rest of us plebs, then, doesn't it?)

Fun: as one of the worst, squirmingly crass misogynistic 'comedy' mismatched couples ever .. (BTW: the one star is 'gained' is by for Heigl only ALONE: Otherwise, get that; NO STARS!)

** Hmm: interesting; I read that Heigl herself eventually adJUDDged this so, too: well, quel surprise, there!

Cat-Women of the Moon (1953)

Feline femme fear / male in peril shocker (clunker, really!) subtext.

[3/10 · 16 March 2024]

Another clunker, true, and yet, ohh, the closing inference offered in this fun feline femme fifties frolic in space is all too easily overlooked in its quite disturbingly threatening to the patriarchy!

For besides some surely intentional juicy lines - (e.g. Cap Laird to Helen: "We were at the terrace and she told me to hold it tight" ...!) - the significant major subtext of this 'male-in-peril' sci-fi (or if so, then, actually, sheer horror - to them) is assuredly aimed right at the patriarchal heart of early fifties male psyche.

Helen (the statuesque* Marie Windsor) as the only female crew member - so that already quite remarkable (and challenging!) for the fifties - not only immediately as soon as she awakes from rocket launch (either unconsciousness and / or mere bored slumber) makes herself pretty, for we're soon to learn there's a male top rocket crew bods' rivalry for her attentions; of which then plays significantly with the titular 'cat-women's intentions to bamboozle menfolk and take over the(ir) world - (i.e. Presumably from male patriarchal oppression, as it was very much so in that fifties era: as cf. Depicted too in recent 'Madmen' series): by utilising Helen's apparent easily deported feminine wiles and affections' duplicity: as like her other - all male - crew members are equally duped by the mooning (opps, sorry) 'cat-women' wiles, too (one is even murdered arising from his condescending greed with her! Serves him right, arrogant, gold grubbing man!) Thus, all of this zeroes in on the true undercurrent of permanent fear for the fifties male: i.e. That given half a chance, women would indeed, at the drop of a hat (disrobing of a black cat like leotard?) completely overwhelm and undermine them!

Yet, perhaps what was even more fearfully to them is that - as along the then fifties contemporary illustrator Eric Stanton's underground illustrative oeuvre of tough in control, boss those males about, clandestinely revealed - the ending of this film intimates that they actually, secretly, might quite relish that outcome!

Since for me, its ending seems to indicate an early, surely intended, sequel set up: that is that on returning to earth, Helen obviously has been programmed - ('cat-women' mind controlled: note her manic pop eyed glare as radio op foolishly, duped (again!) tells Earth control: "it's a long story") - to do the cat-women's all along bidding / plan: that is to easily enslave MANkind: "We will get their women under our power and soon we will rule the world" (Chief Moon 'Cat-woman'/ Lambada(?); Susan Morrow): which Helen, in that shape of statuesque* commanding Marie Windsor could no doubt so easily accomplish, since she had already done for the two top bods rocket crew.

As such, any male watching this seemingly throwaway trash, but with any femme company, should well beware: the implications of this film are terrifying - (or, besotting, depending on your desire for them ...!) - to men!

* so, get that? Alien' fans, note the shades of Sig Weaver tough, 'don't mess with me, you men' femme precursor in Marie / 'Helen', too.

Mutiny in Outer Space (1965)

'Alien' and even 'Star Trek' antecedent spots, clunker in space: better billed as 'The 'Creeping Fungus'.

[2/10 · 3 March 2024]

Just, ah, 'floating' by to add that this slow burning almost clunker can be worth tolerating sitting through to watch for its Star Trek and most noticeably, 'Alien' antecedents - oh, and some femme fun thrill, throughout, too.

Clearly mistitled, as the 'Mutiny' that does - barely - occur, is largely incidental, for is more like a 'Submarine in Space' (note those so low doors: med room surely regularly filled with banged head syndrome? Plus sonar tracking use); but an even better still 'come-on' title would have been 'The Creeping Fungus', which then leads into its surprisingly many 'Alien' spots: as, tick them off as they arrive, to include: invader from outside, infected crew member, quarantine, medical room isolation (with so brief, blink and you'll miss it great face infection make up effect) and even, steam (fire extinguisher?) use to dislodge the 'invader' (even the anguished scream of!)! Even two crew members tinkering with the ship's mechanics whilst female crew member look on .... (Recall? No cat though.)

Then, being that Roddenberry's 'Star Trek' turned up barely a few years later, I'd wager he'd seen this when you see statuesque Pamela Curran (as Lt Connie) in her hip / nether regions* hugging ski like pant/jumpsuit sashay about the control panel deck, raising her eyebrow quizzically á la Spock characteristically came to do: the doc even says "I'm only a Doctor ..." and to observe (know) "the captain is pretty stubborn", of whom (Richard Garland), also gets to exclaim "Stand by for evasive maneuvers!", so, all in keeping with a Kirk-like character, whilst even the crew lurch about the deck to indicate the 'ship' is under meteorite strike.

Of which, the ship, Grimaldi director (through Roger George, with Edwards Art Studio effects, credited) present a neat little space station prop put together seemingly out of an old upturned ash-tray, tea strainer top, both bolted together with a central (giant?) nut.

* Well, note her first introduction from camera focus pull out! Really! ('Ready for my focus now, Mr. Grimaldi ..: is THAT where you want to begin?') BTW: note; Lt Connie is also scripted to hint at a bit of a surreptitious masochistic minxiness, too, with lines like "I hear that she's been a naughty girl" (but that on Hurricane Nora seen from space!) and on that Captain: "I won't take that kind of treatment from a man .. (beat) .. unless he wants me to..." Sheesh! (Even more Kirk like allusions?)

But then, too, for a nice change, the femme content on the whole for this 'peril in space' entry is notable for being nicely distributed around: For there's also aboard, the botany scientist Dolores Faith (played by, get this, Faith Montaine: clever) first introduced in typical female white lab coated way of bun pulled back hair and heavy horn rimmed black specs, amused (excited!) me, as when she finally removes them to reveal the attractive dark eyed beauty that those specs are originally supposed to hide in favour of her credible boffin status. (Note, continuity fans, she initially needs them for close up examination through the microscope: later though, discarded as presumably no longer necessary as monstrously (fungus) afeared threatened; plus also now has hair free flowing down, too: so obviously so afeared, no longer taking her job seriously, tut tut!) And for her position, note how latterly she is manfully rescued from the dreaded fungus by hunk crewmember (Major) Gordon (Will Leslie) with his impromptu version of, ah, 'over' whelming it! (See the poster, :-))

Oh, then later, being her love interest, so when she sinks into a defeatist (infected?) fug, note how he again 'manfully' gets her out of it: (full face man slap: afterwards she's perfectly ok, back in complete thrall love / lust with him: well of course: opposites attract isn't it? The boffin and the caveman hunk.)

Plus several lovelies are placed about the Earth command centre, too: (one a long legged, demurely crossed, instep quite acutely arched for attention - (mine alone?! Oh dear) - who despite got no lines, raised my, er, eyebrow!)

All in all, quite turgid: yet, for any sci-fi horror fan, surely, if only, historically, essential to see.

Naked Harbour (2012)

Pitiful; as more Finnish misery & drearines, in several vignettes

[2/10 · 22 January 2024]

I wanted to add my tuppence worth here, even though two others have more or less set out pretty exactly what came to my mind on this 'slice of Finnish life' offering (see 'rlaine' & 'Slayerholmes'):more so in that, oddly, earlier 'reviews' alternately give this frankly undeserved (suspicious? Never!), bewilderingly high to maximum star recommendations: For, it's tedious, dreary and depressing, offering almost nothing redeemingly worthwhile to say for itself.

Why oh why Finnish writers* (three here, including the director himself) / directors want to seem to take pride in these misery wallows, I can only guess is some form of national psychotherapy / catharsis-like malaise.

This version is made up of several locals of the title, a coastal area, rapidly upmarket gentrifying, marginalising the originally dockworking milieu 'harbour' area of the Finnish capital. All of whom share some problem / loser-liker misery: which includes even the youngsters caught up in this (several**), but one in particular WRITTEN*, as she says herself, (repeatedly), to ("I'll) do anything" to escape it. Because this actress (Amanda Piilke) portraying this character (Milla) looks so young - (although actually in her twenties), - it's tantamount to hebephila - and IS - porn after what she is 'directed' to 'do' to achieve that (course, we can all guess this obvious outcome, and to be frank, I thought what she would've inveigled into would've likely been, in 'reality', far more, er, demanding = worse: writers* there surely pulling their punches, I think!); so by which, all kudos to the actress 'persuaded' to portray this. Um, 'requirement', along with equally all condemnation to writer(s)* for wanting to so, ah, 'illustrate' this. For, course, it quite likely occurs: but because of the short time necessarily afforded to so many individual storyline vignettes set up to be shoehorned into the standard film time run, this one's denouement is a naive cop out, rendering suspect the whole exercise (by those writers*)

For the eventual 'happy' endings tacked on to presumably leaven the misery earlier on display, becomes even more glaring when one - THE youngest (great turn by Topi Tavainen) - character is left with NOTHING uplifting. Why? How mean. Is that what the writer(s)* wanted to emphasise? Misery in Finland begins young and then never relents? (If you really want to watch this ennui, it's the 'boy with the dog' segment. Saddest part, I thought.) There's even the young single (?) Mother, suffering with incurable (?) cancer diagnosis trope, but with stoic youngster daughter amusing by her Mum's side ... ahhh. But we're simply left to guess this one's future outcome after getting us, the audience, to invest our hope emotions into their brief circumstance's arc.

* Then, ok, so you might feel I'm banging (pun!) on too much of this aspect the writer(s) of these misery vignettes of Finnish life they want to present and portray (in very short doses, each): but that's because it even becomes one of them (Mikko Kouki), as having set himself up to play the inadequate Dad character, and for whom, then, includes a scene in which he's shown, after getting himself a call-girl (I believe), unable to get it up - or at least successfully manhandle himself - so she has to merely, patiently, sit idly by: ok, yah hah, so that was worth knowing of Finnish single Dad of lethargic teenager ways to deal with life; most informative. But by which, from these writers, on sex and Finn life misery (have I mentioned, this film seems to be about Finnish existence struggles?), in my knowledge of what skinhead, (proto-Fascist?) loan shark debt collectors would accept as an interim 'punishment payment' for a debt - and that racked up by a, ah, non-white, too - from your female partner, would not be what is 'merely' shown in this!*** For more frankness (from someone who lived in; ah, shady areas of UK!) your lady would suffer far, FAR, 'non-controlling' worse! This gratuitous and in effect rather naive representation of sexual tribulation even extends to the 'we're all in this together' misery of the yuppy / doing better as got an upmarket huge window seaview home, couple here, where the betrayed wife merely invites their cleaner whom the husband has dallied with, to the sauna, for the three to resolve the issues, ah, arising (or, as has not, as the case would be inferred to be!) from why the marriage has drifted.

Like the sound of these? Then there's plenty more of this twaddle, by which, do watch if you like wallowing in just seeing miserable existences so as to presumably contradict the reputation of supposedly the happiest country in the world; but if you think film should have some didactic if not entertainment purpose - like ("Using the medium for socially and environmentally constructive purposes." from director's own IMDB profile) ... avoid.

N. B. It's even got a guest call over appearance by Brit Shaun Pertwee, in an all but completely pointless role other than to amuse Finns to themselves as to how they speak appalling English (the taxi driver's drivel****) with an apparently absolutely essential aspect of his character, written, that he is vegetarian AND teetotal, but his Finn business hosts - amusingly - get him tiddly so to be conveniently victimised by - and get this (by the writers!) - yup, shock horror, none other than the NON WHITE character (Deogracias Masomi), and then he's soon out of it, no doubt handsome pay-check for trip to the capital, in hand. Really worth shoehorning him into this all.

** P. S. The youngsters are great in this (that daughter of cancer patient, and another, Eemeli Louhimies - so note, same surname as director, as bullied loner, adrift Walteri, but the 'boy with the dog' especially: how did they get him to play it so convincingly (Topi Tarvainen): all by which unlike his pet, I trust, 'no youngsters were harmed in the making of ...'!!!

*** BTW: if you like this type of Finnish misery portrayal, this would make a fabulous 'depressing' double bill with this country's latter 'Arpara' (Bastard) - reviewed hereunder, too - which coincidentally also has another completely gratuitous fellatio scene in it: I can only surmise that Finns must equate this form of sexual encounter as, well, depressing: right? (Well, it does have a reputation for strong female rights, um, 'wielded', so ... hmmm....)

**** Endpiece: hah, after all this I found on the dvd box (the only) stated in English "In Finland we love very much"; which is his line: that heavily drone accented English speaking taxi driver!right!

Jack the Ripper (1976)

Misogynistic, revolting, appalling costume claptrap travesty of real case.

[2/10 · 30 November 2023]

From the outset, know that this is wretchedly repellant and, really, just revoltingly misogynistic.

Not only that, but overall, seems devoid of any redeeming cinematic interest, either*:

• even less so with some utterly inane dialogue spouted throughout; through English dub presumably translating original German sentiments written by director Franco.

As if not, the English - unaccredited - dub voiceovers were surely making it up as they went along, as seemingly with quite often tongue cheek-iness like so turns of phrases and deliveries; as check the almost effeminately played constable assistant quips - (and who, then by the by, looking like a ringer for a young Robin Williams!)

By which, despite star Kinski not only says almost nothing throughout it, but when does, the English dubbed in removes what otherwise would have been his likely splendidly menacing deliveries; but so instead, rather just virtually drifts, bewildered looking, through the whole repulsive concoction in a hardly more than a 'phone in performance style; that is, except perhaps, in keeping with his reputation as being rather manic like, for when he makes lusting, ravishing attacks on the beauties, as the titular murderer of history:

Yet, even here, this film is a travesty with almost virtually no relation to the real case, other than the few prostitutes murdered and cut up; one so dreadfully sensationalist so, that it borders on revolting misogynistic depravity.

Still, to which - if you really must watch - is fun fact; oddly - (or because of?) - one victim, actress Lina (then just 19) was eventually to became - (only just twenty years later) - the director Franco's real life wife. (Ahh) From which, his 'fantasy treatment' of, in this piece of utter trash, I can't think of a much better reason to revile this complete waste of celluloid and challenge any cineaste: if this is considered a cult Franco gem, it's tawdriness surely illustrates much about its creator.

So, except for seeing his future wife, the gorgeous dark eyed Lina's, ah, turn - as, literally so, of her rear end in the music hall scene; (and for which alone, only gains it its second star!) - this is really, quite utterly abysmal.

* ohh; well, there's a standard oft used by almost any director up / down (latter, here) the winding staircase shot trope, that might stand out .. but that's just about all, with the remainder mere costume drama cutout crass.

King Dinosaur (1955)

Abysmal claptrap clunker deluxe - animal cruelty+female derision on show: yet now curious double biller companion piece to latest 'Oppenheimer'!

[1/10 · 9 October 2023]

Oh well, really, sheesh: does this even count as a 'film'; (it barely breaks over the hour mark)?

So poor, that I wouldn't normally waste YOUR time to, ah, 'review' such a turgid, obviously lazily put together, total waste of viewing time ... as surely made clear by it starting with almost half it's running time with just compiled found stock footage:

but y'know, just now in context with the currently on show, Chris Nolan's 'Oppenheimer' to view, that with its ending here (no plot spoiler - watch it, to compare) - makes a sort of odd bedfellow 'double' billing to watch along with!

For your (unlikely) enjoyment of, I'd prefer not to plot spoil, but - and so give you - a reason to sit through this ridiculous, plodding, indeed, creature feature CRUEL*, offering, so to await the final lines given by 'Dr. Gordon' (R. Henderson.) (Had Nolan seen it?)

* On the way, note that cruelty of lizards - (oh, and a baby alligator) - standing in for the titular - (so, misrepresentatively) - 'King Dinosaur' as the 'menacing' iguana, and which actually, surely gives the best performance in this 'film' here, is the reality, truly disturbing factor of this cinematic claptrap: complete with its menace the helpless victims through a cave opening trope shown several, repeatedly, times over: presumably, to more pad the timing out to get it to its just barely over the hour mark.

(And note how the renowned "neurologist" Dr Nora Pierce (Patty Gallagher) shockingly deals with the astounding 'photographic' evidence of; professional, or 'fifties femme' expected hysteria, reaction - or what?!)

For padding is the presentation here, so for if you enjoy trying to guess stock footage sources, then virtually half of the 'film' is of such: but of which, extraordinarily so for the ending, the last, ah, 'contribution', since which was presumably being public domain available, is, in hindsight, utilised surprisingly, shockingly, presciently really, well: doubly so considering the bilge that has preceded it.

Of which - bilge - if you really wanted to masochistically movie watch this clunker deluxe, includes a femme professor (Wanda Curtis as Dr Pat Bennett) who screams furiously throughout, but then soon at the drop of a hat, canoodles with one of the (Second World war German V2, it would seem) rocketship colleagues - and of whom, he takes guarding on the new planet threats so seriously, he thinks it's no matter to wander off with said femme prof to impart sweet nothings to her, while the other two snooze*: (but only fair = we should have known that, coz when they first land, still attired in their fishbowl topped spacesuits, they tentatively tread the new world, space suit gloved hand in hand: ahhh ..) by the way, of this beau, note his miraculously quick healing abilities after 'gator attacked - must be the astounding palliative air of the mysterious new appearance** planet, huh?_

* since, on this aspect, to their teamwork, rapidly constructed Rob Crusoe like shelter, but still with HUGE OPEN VULNERABLE ENTRANCE, will soon be menaced by equally huge insect .. but ne'er fear for successfully shot dead, so that when their compatriots return, nary a word is passed on the such huge upturned dead insect like creature presumably now languishing just outside: hey, ho, only as new world space explorers should expect, I suppose ..

And then, there's ... but hey, no: you watch it and get the fab dialogue and intrepid new planet** explorers plotting from Mr B. I. G. (director / producer Bert I. Gordon: geddit?) In barely just over an hour, the inanities galore pile up: 'Giant' - just grazing ("Sherman tank"?!) - Armadillo?

Mastodon (?) / elephant?

Irritating ('get in the dinghy for goodness sake's' / it thinks: 'NOO, don't go to the island ...'!) pet of indeterminate other-worldly species (it's a lemur, isn't it? After all, there are other-wordly sloths there), yet instantly adopted as, what? Pet; mascot; swing over ya shoulder warming scarf, - future experimental subject ...?

BTW: mentioning such 'scarves' 'n' cruelty, check how brunette renowned Doc Nora is seemingly realistically (really?!) treated on a couple of occasions: like having her head banged against the cliff by Doc Martin (! William Bryant), and who shows his authority by mostly shouting at the women, (although surely, only as she should expect as having previously dealt astounding 'photographic' evidence of; professional? Or 'fifties femme' expected hysteria reaction?!) and again how she is seemingly literally thrown to, ah, safety over ridge at end: plus, see Doc Pat, too, gets the patriarchal safety treatment with 'get ya head down, babe' in the escape dinghy!

So, if it wasn't for current 'Oppenheimer', this would be utterly pointless: come to think of it, even in that current context: no, it remains just that, still: pointlessly pathetic!

** PS I wanna add, I liked 'Zmaturin's review here, preferred ending (para two): viz: "I would've added a scene where they discover all too late that instead of traveling to another planet they are actually in Earth's past .. they obliterated Earth's future and, consequently, their own despicable lives." So, yeah, as in its way, even more 'Oppenheimer' like = good call 'Z' - and that twenty years ago, too!

Roger Waters: This Is Not a Drill - Live from Prague (2023)

Rog (finally) does empathetic polemics

[9/10 · 25 May 2023]

WoW!

What a privilege to have seen this thru the 'worldwide' cinema simul-broadcast - and as Rog himself acknowledged at beginning (the cine viewers, of which I was just a humble one ..)

As a notable far cry from his previous 'all angry' delivery of his songs, this one came over as - finally - recognising his affinity with his audience, and as not so quite skewering polemics, those that he did throw out there as part of the 'show' - ('war criminals' statistics that surely cannot be denied!) - became all that more moving.

Plus, presumably ( has to be?) exclusive this live broadcasting, his recent travails with being 'cancelled' / banned from performance - (all overthrown by sensible / fair dealing courts in Germany), Rog delivered, finally, a post 'I am Floyd', to instead - at last - 'I am me - and my Floyd lyrics were mine' thereby so prescient, so apposite to today'*, gig; paced and ordered in stupendous linking those old Floyd and his 'newer' own songs, way; as for example, an absolutely stunning introduction of his new revamped version of 'Numb', utterly superb, both in its 'I don't need no DG' to play this song, thus with an utterly heart-rendering female vocalisation remaking, over background visuals that surely could have been Berlin '45 - or Bakhmut '23 .. There is more, but if you didn't catch this with the simul-broadcast opportunity, more loss to you; 'Hey you'; well done Rog, with your humble updating of all these tunes and there proper linkings: (e.g. For the die hard Floyd leftovers, savour his 'echo' like rendition of 'Sheep', alone.)

Fabulous, I'm still on a 'space cadet glow' / flow, far higher than the previous gig / broadcast effort!

*Well, only as he said that himself: 'apt'; so there: 'thought you'd like to know'!

Swamp Women (1956)

PRESCIENT DOMME FEMMES SUBTEXT 'OVERPOWERING' CLASSIC ROG CORMAN QUICKIE, CLUNKER

[3/10 · 13 March 2023]

Also known as, in a way, more accurately, 'Swamp Diamonds', although now more popularly, as for the - (Swamp) - 'Women' of its plotting.

The famed for bargain basement movie making director Rog Corman's very first film, is rightly listed as one of the originally judged 'Fifty Worst' ever, (as in Medved & Dreyfuss' '50 Worst Movies of All Time', back in '78), because, yup, it's a (swampy!) trudge to get through:

BUT, being it was made in the fifties, means it was thus, just coincidentally, same period to the contemporary Eric Stanton illustrator's nascent 'dominant dames' oeuvre, so from which has latterly attained a sort of cult status curio value in its scripting (by a David 'Stern'*) with Corman's direction of four tough women more or less completely dominating the captured innocent bystander guy in this: which is made even the more so in that he is played by hunk Mike (nee 'Touch'!) Connors - (later of US TV 'Manix' detective fame): not only as mostly tied up (hands behind back) by the escapee prisoner (the titular 'swamp'!) women, even at one time, seeming (= directed?) to even be rather relishing - ("It's getting to feel natural"! Oh, right, is it?!) - rather than resisting, his bound predicament to otherwise wanna escape the emasculating procedure imposed over him by the binding babes; and not only that, but he is also slapped by these spitfires several times over, as with right from first encounter with these dome dames, when he is then apparently clocked so hard by such a powerful woman's strike (Beverly Garland as hot / "red" headed Vera), to be even knocked out stone cold slam dunk into his boat! Whew!

And this is despite he's originally taken hostage along with his erstwhile femme ("just a) friend" Marie (Susan Cummings), who, in the opening (of real footage, incidentally) Mardi Gras scenes, fawns over him so's to "would like to stay with you forever" for he's "so strong and big and brave". Ahh; so, not only importantly shown as so deeply besotted with Mike (although not so much him? See plot development!), but portentous foreshadowing for them both, as shall be seen later 'proved'.

For this is all to be tested - latter quality of bravery especially so - when the only time the rogue wenches free him, is to allow him to tackle a swamp alligator, machismo hero so to the rescue like on their behalf: yet, well sorry Marie, coz transpires not so successfully for her as he fails to save her from being - (presumed = not seen!) - munched by it, just so summarily putting an end to her as his "just a friend" (! Although, does mean, suppose she was with him for her "forever" ..), for after which trauma tragedy, he is so moved to sagely assess from the safety of the shore, "poor kid"! And with that he's back to being bound, and seeming to far prefer their binds that tie, since which seems to then go along with each of the surviving kidnappers each flirting with him in his helplessly bound predicament.

On which, only soon after, has two of the abductors now blithely bathing (nude, too - or so we're led to lasciviously assume!) in these just gator encountered swamp waters! Well, they're dumb prisoner escapees (hang on; one's a law plant, though; so, guess taking ya undercover subterfuge conscientiously?): but surely all the better to titillate hunk Stuart - oh, and just incidentally displaying not an iota of grief at just lost Marie who had "wanted to stay with him forever", recall - and is even offered by lead escapee (Josie, played by pop-eyed Marie Windsor) an opportunity to join in the skinny dip along with them, and for which, would have to be freed .. but, for which 'opportunity' he ... (get ready, shock ..)= DECLINES! (Well, guess rightly so, he's only just tussled with a gator in them swampwaters; and in any case, presumably prefers to watch, whilst bound - well, whatever floats ya swamp water's boat, Stu / Rog, / Stern scriptwriter!)

And also note; of these band of baddy gals - in the 'colorised' version - just so happen to represent the four standard dame mane (hair) types; namely, aforementioned Vera red-head + that sassy in charge leader, Josie, as the blonde, + with a peroxide white blonde (Jil Jarmyn as Billie), too, + all along with then infiltrator cop, brunette. (Carole Matthews): there, see: complete Corman convict caper 'come-on' collection.

Moreover, coz they're such tough 'don't mess with us' gals, for those that thrill to femme 'cat' fights, several are quite realistically thrown in, too, as apparently courtesy of proper and veteran fight arranger, Jack Hayes (a.k.a. Jonathan Haze** here): certainly their punch throwing and clocking one another are a cut (punch!) above the usual hair pulling and scratching tussles usually set for rival women physical clashes.

These become even more thrilling when, despite the steamy critter - (alligators, bugs, snakes - wait 'til near the closing, when hunk hero is saved by stunningly accurate marksWOMan skill!) - ridden 'swamp' backdrop, nevertheless, these fugitive femmes had even plumped for preferable to cut down their jeans into thigh exposing, buttock hugging, hot pants like - so to then even be ever so (fashionably?) practical as when e.g. Needing to traipse through the swampwaters, too: yep, even despite only just having despatched afore-encountered alligator from surely such infested waters, when sorta southern slave-like, having to drag the otherwise threatened to run aground in low draft waters boat, through it, too.

And of course, - (ok; plot spoiler alert; do not read any further if want to watch and be so surprised / offended ..) - all the baddy b .., er, ladies, do - rightly! - get their come-uppance in the end and what's more, feisty femme 'Police Lt. Lee Hampton' thus then also get's her man, too, as of course, she bags hunk Stu to lawfully march off with; AND having seen her equally tough (fight) law enforcement action (on those wrong 'un gals!), you can surely just guess - (well, yeah, erotically speculate?!) - just what sort of 'obey my law officer' status relationship she'll likely be settling over with him ...! (* Well, it was a David STERN (geddit?!) that wrote the whole workout): so really, superb transgressive 'happy ever after' inference, there, Mr. 'STERN'!

So, if these, well, undercurrents of transgressive titillation aspects of an otherwise thoroughly tedious and daft film, ah, arouse, watch with exciting thrills; if not, prepare for tedium deluxe.

P. S. Would make a fun double bill with Corman's other first, the production of 'Monster from the Ocean Floor', which happens to have another unusual for the times, female protagonist lead driven plot.

** In which, incidentally, that fight arranger here, J. Haze, had a bit part in, too.

Monster from the Ocean Floor (1954)

Prescient Rog Corman female empowerment 'undercurrent' fable

[4/10 · 11 March 2023]

More claptrap from famed bargain basement, Roger Corman, productions, this one notable as actually being his first (solo) in his (very*!) successful beginnings of stupid monster horror quickies; but also because in hindsight has gained a rather respectable reputation as demonstrating in its telling a prescient female empowerment, ah, well, undercurrent.

Since, amongst the oft interminable patriarchally expositionally 'men explain things to dumb woman' way going through even its short run, what nowadays makes this stand out significantly to still tolerate to sit through, is not only to catch (only a) glimpse of the 'monster', as surely having been plagarised pinched (potential copyright infringed!) for 'Bob' from the recent animated 'Aliens vs Monsters' kid's film (should you have sued Rog?), but is that it also casts the lead 'Julie' (Anne Kimbell) as an intrepid, determined to unravel the horror, female protagonist who drives the plot, (by B. Danch), and so not the dunderhead /Steve Dunning) lead guy, Stuart**, who, in just such typical fifties patrirachal condescendingly 'don't worry your pretty little head' way, otherwise pooh poohs her monster suspicions and investigative zeal: well, he is a professor whereas she's only turned up initially to paint seascapes - coz she's an 'industrial (specialty: washing machines, no less!) illustrator'!

Suggestibly (most amusingly), Stuart is introduced to become the de rigueur love interest into the proceedings through the mini-sub that actually gave Corman the incentive, idea to make this film, after seeing it and asking the company that made it to use it (Aerojet submersibles; happy to get free promotion they said 'yeah'): this was 'directed' - well, suggested - in a surely not unintentionally phallic way, when Julie first encounters him in it, its 'nose' poking priapically up through the surface causing her to grab hold of its phallic nosecone: even more amusingly (smuttily?) so - (although perhaps admittedly now surely only in the eye of this 'male gaze' viewer) - is that when he then wheels it up ashore it seemed to this (male gaze) viewer to be noticeably smaller than when first appeared in that first surface breaking encounter, thus somehow seemingly simulating a biological truism that affects blokes returning to land from (prolonged) water immersion ... if you get my, ah, well 'drift'?

Anyway, as said, he mainly (manly!) doubts and dismisses Ms Kimbell: "You have your beliefs - and I have mine." (but, he IS the professor, dear) and preferring to more safely examine protozoa under a microscope, so it's her who wants to properly investigate into the briny, by which means can thus then be filmed swimming about undersea - (rather like as just coincidentally from the same year, Julie Adam similarly in more famous 'Creature from Black Lagoon') - searching for the 'Aliens v Monsters' 'Bob' precursor, thus to afford director (Wyott Ordung: of whom, that's himself, playing Paulo in the film), quite some extended opportunities to have salaciously shot her long legged litheness - and just happenstance then with concomitant pulchritudinous rear end - when flippering away from shot, too; whereat, if you like your women in terror emoting seemingly real fear, as both from 'Bob' (er, that Monster on the Ocean Floor) and shark menaced, she does so quite convincingly well from behind her facemask. (Sadly no close 'intermingling' encounter with 'Bob' / er, 'Ocean Floor' monster - as lasciviously come on shown on the poster - ever occurs!)

Then, along the way of besides savouring this historic feminine driven interest development, are a couple of storytelling, pacing, oddity fun spots to enjoy, too:

besides the inevitable denouement dispatch of the Ocean Floor Monster, which you just gotta, ah, 'see' in its surely not coincidental phallic into gelatinous eye suggestability (!);

is, so how would a 'meal, victim' cow just happen to wander / get onto a small isolated beach cove? (And, note, 'all' that is left behind for intrepid Julie to recover ... euww, or, er .. 'monstrous' consumption skills inferred ...)

But perhaps the best 'what are they inferring there, then' moment just has to when lothario lead Stu is serenading Julie on his guitar, sat on a beach reef rock (nothing wrong with that; assuredly sea air would have no effect on those twangy strings), but at whence soon after, almost literally, 'pops up' from behind said rocky reef, Dr. Barton (Baldwin? / Dick Pinner), his institution boss, attired all in two piece suit and tie - so, right, just as you do for on the beach wear? - to advise him on his recent promotion: euuw; voyeur stalker, or what?

Indeed, in just happening to have been afore skulking behind the rock, Dr. Barton now positions himself right between, so separating, the erstwhile budding lovers, to soon regard Stu to 'remind': "We've got a lotta things to do tonight" and when departs this beach encounter scene, then eyes him again to now declare - and somehow oddly enthusiastically: "See you later, Steve"! Well, really**: (Ok, so, why would boss be down there on the beach whilst Steve/Stu** was serenading Julie then?)

Watched in these lights (darkness?!), this otherwise tedious clunker can be full of enjoyable fun:

*and as would seem it was in real life, as apparently it made back its paltry, barely just over $10,000 budget some 100+ times, making it no wonder, Corman became so successful in this genre styling filmmaking.

** so, yup, which note, bad film fans: is an amusing unfixed glaring goof: coz means 'Dr Barton (as I heard, or 'Baldwin') called him by actor's real name, not character 'Stu'!)

P. S. Would make a fun double billing with Corman's then first direction effort, as coincidentally, another prescient female driven romp: 'Swamp Women' (aka 'Swamp Diamonds'.)

Celestial Wives of the Meadow Mari (2012)

Russian village / pagan femininity desire vignettes

[6/10 · 10 March 2023]

Blimey; what is going on here in this corner of the Russian (Mari area / province) federation?

A pretty good 'Women's Day' choice of the female lot, since virtually all female sexually driven vignettes*, although with the connection between them all that only becomes eventually apparent toward the end: by which: RECOMMENDATION: so would recommend / caution you, to enjoy / realise, then DON'T read any synopsis beforehand;

but just let wash over you, sit through the purpose to be seen / common theme on display being - seemingly - such varied manifestations of (pagan belief?) female desire, sexuality expression*; ranging over and insofar as: weird literal flights of fancy, woodland terrors, 'death becomes her' (?!), and - presumably - fantasising flirting fertility (husband selection!) like rituals .. ("They've turned into guys again! They've spilled our kissel!" What?!)

All in all, these vignettes add up to a quite perplexing, bewildering range of femininity and their wiles: and overall, how women seem to, ah, accommodate, their sexual desiring, sexually driven partners.

Despite this apparent titillation, you may find, is it all really worth sitting through, watching these largely village wenches enact their region's odd sexually based mores? (Although, apparently, all, or most, the invention of director Fedorchenko, and as based on screenwriter, from his own book, Denis Osokin. **)

Yet, yes, it is; as still, perhaps the main point to watch this all the way through is if for only the final 'reveals' of the 'stars' - (having - sometimes, possibly - played?) - themselves***: for it alone, it's absolutely utterly wonderful (Ormachiya's giggling! Ahh.) and completely well worth the waiting for!

Brilliant; for in its way, a female centric, fascinating 'feminist' theme.

* except for one, almost 'exception that proves the rule', I like to think: yett still in it, the ladies' perspective!

** for as for the brief, almost 'blink and you'll miss it' toadstools one, with seemingly far too young girl to know what she is to announce .. well, really; .. what can you say (Denis / Aleksey) ...?

*** Yana Esipovich as just briefly, 'Oshvika', has for example, previous appearance in 'Dry Valley' (also reviewed, too, hereunder.)

(P. S. Gotta share; buxom 'Oshalyak's 'journey' was my favourite.)

Sodan silmät 1918 (2018)

Short presentation of still photographs featuring just children in the time of the Finnish Civil War (of Independence) of 1917-18.

[4/10 · 8 December 2022]

Just twenty minutes of contemporary - i.e. To the Finnish Civil War of 1917-18 - photographs, in some way featuring children e.g. Child soldiers and caught as bystanders to the times.

This may sound rather unengaging, but becomes not so as the 'directors' - (or rather, compilers, Jouko Aaltonen and Seppo Rustanius) - of the shots, matched the soundtrack to the images to bring them poignantly to your attention: so much so that some shots, even now, a century plus onwards can still almost move you to tears to be reminded of how innocent, uncomprehending children are skewered by adult caused conflicts.

Often, the image choices are first zoomed (so, drawn your attention) onto on just the part of the photo to highlight the child(ren) in it, giving you time to study the child's often bewildered and / or palpable vacant looks, to then pull back to give the context of what the child was caught in to cause this: by this, some still, one hundred plus years on, have the power to shock and, moreover, sadden.

One note - and so perhaps of use here - is that it might have been helpful to give an introductory synopsis, overview of the Finnish Civil war, at minimum along the lines that the two opposing sides were characterised as 'Reds' - generally the commoners ('working class') i.e. Abjectly poor (as can be discerned in some of these images) - and 'Whites' - the landed, elite, controlling, (military) - classes.

Thus relevant to viewing, is to also know that the former, 'lost': This then gives context to its concluding stark captions - one of which shocked me: how can children (ever) be considered executable criminals of war?

A tiny but rivetingly stunning collection presentation.

As such, all kudos to all the compilation / preparation names involved.

The Bride and the Beast (1958)

Borderline Bestiality B*ll*x, er, Balderdash!

[2/10 · 1 November 2022]

If bestiality is your bag (like e.g. A la Borowczyk's 'La Bete') this is unmissable; if it's not, this is probably UNWATCHABLE! (Well, except for some great eye emoting from sultry Charlotte Autry rare appearance*.)

Ok, so, if you've not seen the film, below is a synopsis of thrill you could be in for if you choose to (still) watch; if you have (already seen the film), then you know that yes, this is (well?) known as an utter clunker, being it's out of the notorious poor filmaker reputation Ed D Wood oeuvre - although here only written by him (plus with the director, A. Weiss: you can try guess which bits when you watch); but that's where the rub - (of an angora sweater? Which, in Ed Wood fetish fame, the heroine herein shall de rigueur sport) - comes in; for it's surely a borderline bestiality disgraceful inference, preceding by some 20 years that which would be more salaciously put up on the screen by Walerian Borowczyk in his seventies 'La Bete / The Beast'!

Really; you have to watch patiently right through to the end to be affronted by this, which means you must go through what drags this tale down to complete dross clunker, in the mid section, when the 'main' character newly-weds go off to Africa for their honeymoon, so becomes a mostly stock footage wild animals romp: although even half of that (so now quarter of a short run film, anyway) becomes a tiger hunt: yes, in Africa - no, NOT India (despite the appalling white, black faced 'native''s (Johnny Roth as 'Taro'!) accent character .. hmm.) Oh and plus non native to pumas, too, and .. well whatever bits of wild animal film stock the director Weiss could pilfer, presumably .. But note that: it's the couple's honeymoon jaunt which takes us back to the all essential to setting the plot scenes outset: the splendidly authoritative looking Charlotte Autry* as Laura, is 'just married' (it's stated on their open top sports car!) to 'hairy' - (wait, this aspect of his character IS important) - Dan (Lance Fuller), and smoulders delightfully as taken to new hubby's abode on her wedding day, wherein he just oh so routinely invites her down to the basement where he just happens to have a gorilla caged (as you do, as a great white hunter?). But no matter, for intrepid Laura (Charlotte), is not in the least phased, rather, indeed, ah, 'affected' because she becomes somewhat entranced (check those emoting eyes of hers!) by 'the beast' (geddit? It's in the title init, oh, and well, she's a new 'bride', isn't she: ah hah ..!)

But this becomes NOT surprising because it transpires, she seems to feel an affinity with gorillas, which latterly hubby's easily and conveniently on hand regression hypnotist chum (William Justine as Dr. Reiner) uncovers that she was - get ready for this leap o faith - a gorilla in a previous life (read that again: Wood wrote it.) So, back to the all important honeymoon setting night scene, in which - being an Ed wood script - of course, comely Charlotte is attired in an angora top in her betrothal night's - separate .. - bed and so, decorumly, hands off one another, off to slumbering they soon go:

but, downstairs, caged gorilla has been so, ah aroused, it (he) finds it (he!) can break free from - (well, clamber through) - the at least all the while having been erstwhile effective enough, before comely 'bride', ah, well, yes, came by, solidly confining bars: (amazing what overwhelming lust can do, huh?) to enter the marital chamber; so, yup, you've seen that before as somewhat akin to the original Mary Shelly Frankenstein plotline (tut tut, rip off plagiarism, Ed!); but, astonishingly, dear Charlotte remains resolutely unphased, as no doubt flattered by the escapee's appearance / determination, so stands in front of it, so to give us viewers the gorilla - (er, actually it's a guy in a costume: Crash Corrigan apparently) - back on to camera so to lead to - now get ready, famed shock scene - he rips off her virginal white nighty!

S'truth: oh, you 'beast', why would it do THAT (what is it's 'intentions'?!) Ah, but fortunately, hero hubby is up (from bed; keep ya mind on the plot development, please) and rightly protective, not of the beast he's just happened to have down in his home basement for however long, but, and in making an instant no doubt most difficult instant choice, which to 'save', rightly, preferably so, of his new 'bride's safety, decorum: after all, think: no doubt from his point of view he now sees his, no doubt, blushing bride, completely STARKERS - (although, all inferred; we the (lustful 'male gaze') viewers see NOTHING! Boo!) Oh and incidentally, the angora sweater presumably already discarded for the night, too ..

Ok, ok, so, well of course, hubby Dan so shoots the beastly blighter: crashing through the upstairs landing railings, he / it's left for dead: literally so for the rest of the evening, presumably, whilst newly betrothed now 'beastily' aroused couple, er, settle back down for ... bed = sleep, well, of course, this is a nineteen-fifties film.

Ok, so now warning: you've soon got to sit tight through the interminable wild animals stock footage, before returning to the shockingly transgressive theme set up here, when in the last nail biting reel of the shortish film run, shock (disgusting!) horror, ANOTHER gorilla (remember, the first was SHOT STONE DEAD) now turns up to, what, 'kidnap' Charlotte: - or rather offer a supporting hairy armed lift up as actually, as when confronted with this new 'beast' she's shown (directed?) to first cast an eye over to hairy bare chested hubby washing up in the jungle camp, and then back to (guy in) gorilla (suit!) and .. chooses to preferably clamber into its (his?) strong hairy arms; oh and significant, essential plot costuming note to foreshadow the upcoming stunningly shocking end INFERENCE (only! It was 1950's!) is that she is conveniently back in another 'virginal' white nighty (well, see the poster!): and all good in continuity because she has indeed only just awoken from a campbed primordial jungle dream in which Weiss surely directed her to imagine, emote, her bridal night deflowering - (or I just desperately read far too much into these dross offerings!): well, so's anyway, point is, so attired and held, off they go, her clinging demurely to his strong hairy arms, gazing - expectantly? (Ah, perish the thought ..., Ed!) - into its eyes, nary a terrified - so, as would usually par for the abducted by beast trope - scream to her predicament, to gorilla cave 'home'; and surely NOT just incidentally, thus in effect carrying Charlotte over the cave entrance threshold a la standard tried and tested expectation of any new hubby expected to do with his new bride, over their new home threshold (ok, have I laboured that metaphor enough?); but ah hah, now well, dear viewer, do recall since human hubby Dan did NOT do at his home at the outset ... (rather, recall, t'was straight to 'come see my caged gorilla, my dear' ...**)

Then, oh my good grief orgy word, what's this?

We get to be shown, TWO other gorillas enter the 'home' cave!!! (What?!)

Wherein Charlotte has been 'laid' (gently, reverentially) onto a flat, er, well, bed-(like!) rock ... soon after, cut scene back to cave entrance exterior where OUT, both those new - just visiting? - gorillas now soon exit (stage right!), one jumping and thumping his chest as gorillas are wont to do to demonstrate, I believe, er, triumph over .... (ah, gonna leave that INFERENCE), but in any case, more like how teenage lads might whoop it up having just, ah, 'scored' in you surely know what stakes. (IN THE CAVE? Good Grief almighty, Ed!) Ok, you may reason I accept, this is pure salaciousness on my ('male gaze'!) watching behalf, but my shout out question would then be: so why did the two gorillas come over to 'visit' then? (Why put them in Ed? Damsel in distress trope de extremis!!)

Ah, but never fear though, coz white hunter hubby, duty bound - eventually (!) - bounds (!) to the rescue of his NEW wife (reminder, HIS 'The Bride' of the title, right?) in distress: ah, but is she?

For the lady ('bride'!) doth protest and thus needeth a strong fifties manly 'come to your senses, wench'** slap across her, Charlotte's, face - and so male assertively so, she's left out cold on the, ah, bed(!)rock: thus, 'protectively', male rival like, now comes a human vs primate, er, 'beast' tangle for rights to 'Bride' (look, it's in the title, innit?!) but this 'beast' also knows how to attempt to strangle its opponent, so ..

well, hey, come on, if you decide to watch through this, I'm not then gonna spoil the end for you; you'll have to watch it through to find out is sultry Charlotte (it's alliteration, innit?!) rescued and returned to newly wedded domestic bliss, or .. well, surely it could not be any other .. INFERENCE ... could there be, really, as ....?! Well, NO! Coz that would be ILLEGAL (Ed!)

Dreadful clunker, but with a bookended 'I can't believe it' set up and resolution storyline INFERENCE (only).

(So, extant the central stock footage bit; I loved it!)

* for if you do watch, in an alluring performance by early singing cowboy cinema star, Gene Autry's daughter (Charlotte) in her penultimate film appearance, which was a pity because she had the stature and appearance to make a stunningly wonderful sultry - tough dealing, film noir casting like - dame look to wallow in / die by.

** And, no, that's not the literal dialogue given; it's mine; coz to get another fun (point to watch) aspect out of it, is to shout out at the screen all your own preferable lines (that's how I got through it!)

Sukhodol (2011)

Russian serfdom treatment in 19th century = Russian tedium BUT painterly visuals treat.

[5/10 · 2 August 2022]

If - as likely - unfamiliar with the nation's book on which this is based

• (as adapted by the director, Alexsandra Srelyanaya) - might be better to

know that this is more about the 'Happenings to the servants in Dry Valley' ...

Since:

Typical in its way of Russian style of long, languid, seemingly do nothing shots and prolonged portentousness - almost photographically still in some shots of the characters involved* - yet out of which come some gorgeous painterly (sorta T. Malick) like countryside tableaux: in one mesmerising instant, involving a bride opining on her future, seemingly only natural light lit by her surrounding fellow flamelight holding women, is simply superb and reminiscent of Peter Greenaway's natural light treatments e.g.

In a similar candlelit set up in his the 'Draughtman's Contract'. Then soon after you get an astonishing dark into light effect almost a la Lynch in 'Lost Highway' which with that also being reminiscent of the well worn horror genre trope (it's behind you!), would there creepily thrill, as main actress Yana Esipovich** gently looms out of the darkness to answer her mistress. (**and being at age c. 21, yet portrays a far younger girl's naivete most believably.)

Hence, throughout what is otherwise a rather mundane story of how the Nineteenth century rich / landed ("nobility") elite (the owner is in the military) contemptuously treated their serfs, you'll be treated to some beautifully naturally lit shots, *in which some well chosen 'faces of character' - no doubt selected deliberately so by director Alexsandra, rather than for any acting - as oft seem cast to remain still and/or impassive, plus with their being also costumed pretty well too, in all their drabness.

Slow, meandering, but still, overall, visually delightful.

Virgin Sacrifice (1960)

Bondage drag thru da jungle

[2/10 · 25 July 2022]

Other than to watch pretty Angelica Morales - and it would seem in her only film - as the poor kidnapped, bound dragged heroine Morena, and continuity goofs galore spots, complete and utter dross!

Surely of the long gone, past kids' Saturday morning at the cinema complete throwaway trash fare, as in to see the regularly placed exotic animals - elongated man and attack tiger tussle especially - except that at the beginning, for the writhing virgin sacrifice (Linda Cordorva) bound arms up in front of night cavorting, menacingly masked local tribesmen (yup, ALL men, well of course), eventually her top is pulled off* revealing, shock horror, in most pre silicon full pert way .. well, what Saturday morning kids' films most certainly wouldn't be allowed to be shown to THEM!

So, with the following long (long!) tedious drag through the jungle of the next kidnapped sacrificial virgin (our helpless heroine, Morena: Angelica Morales) you have to wonder which audience this might've been aimed at (er, perhaps those kids' Dads?): but plot spoiler coming here - you won't get anymore after that. (Unless ya like bare chested men ...!*)

Instead, you will get fun constant continuity carelessness spots, as poor Angelica would seem to be interminably, literally dragged through the jungle: and surely realistically painfully barefoot at that, after one of her sandals is left behind to be a clue for rescuer hero (chunky David DaLie) to find - plus, later, yet another to assure he's on the right track, he finds her 'earing' that luckily and oh so plausibly spotted to be plucked outta the whole jungle floor of thick vegetation ... Indeed, re being barefoot for most of her captured drag, one closer up shot is of her feet bloodied: and at another shot, near a river, she slips: which looked a genuine fall to me and surely must have darn hurt! To the extent that for both instances, surely makes one wonder if that was also 'literally' real of her acting travails and commitment.

As not only that, but in that interminable drag to the sacrificial poles, many times she's manhandled slung about the evil native baddy kidnapper (Antonio Gutierrez), onto rocks and tree trunks: so much so that I would think it would be those Dads in the audience rather than kids who felt it would be worth sitting through this in effect silent film, as with mostly voiceover diegesis and soundtracked music rather than any location sound: as at that aforementioned slip on the watery rocks, we do hear a rather pathetic full throated whoop call from dragger kidnapper (evil native baddy), but the rushing stream waters at Morena's feet is completely absent.

Rather, you can almost hear the directions being shouted out by director Fernandez Wegner - 'look here, go there, stop there', and as like at that Morena tumble, no doubt, 'keep going Angelica, no matter, you're doing well, looking great, just keep in character, we'll attend to your injuries after we got the shot, don't fuss, now'!

For, on and on, she is dragged as our hero white (ostensibly animal) hunter in pursuit, nonchalantly picking off the pesky natives, even if appear to be mere slips of youths themselves, with them frighteningly, wildly gesticulating arms of theirs they quite deserve to be shot stone dead.

They - or the evil native baddy kidnapper - is also so inept at jungle lore that when he sets his traps, like trip vine spear, he sets it so thick and thigh high that intrepid white man hunter hero easily spots it before blundering into it.

Of another of those wily natives is an 'OILED' tree trunk our hero is shimmying across: we know coz voiceover he assures us: "Oil: They've covered the log! I hadn't realised just how cunning these natives can be!" Yup: think: all those logs to be 'oiled' - or it was, heck, just bad luck he chose that one (out of thousands!)

Then, having gone to all that trouble (half of the film's run!) to rescue her, and being that she just has to be a virgin (of course: hey, it's in the title, innit? And anyway, why drag her so far to sacrifice otherwise?!), then - ah warning (dads!): plot ruiner coming - as soon as he cuts her free - the film ends!

No happy ever after denouement showing nor even indicate her gratitude for a happy ever after embrace - even surely obligatory relieved at rescue kiss, into the sunset! (dads?!) You'll just have to imagine, guess THAT ending - which is as I did, by which then, boy o boy, yup, does that then make this film with sultry Morena, utterly fabulous!

(But so, warning: if ya don't have that imagination, besides Angelica and her tormented feet, complete and utter boring bilge!)

* Although, you could think of a sort equal opportunities was at thought here, because in an early purely incongruous long locals' dance routine, the boogieing dance guy (Joe Lanza) gets HIS shirt pulled off by his female (Lydia Goya) dance partner, so its then him all bare chested gyrating away.

Well see, there ya go: obvious equal sexes bare topped display, no smut nor objectification on display here - move along the plot, please!

* They should all be in the 'Goofs' section, but note, arrowed explorer (could be the actual director, Wegner?) who changes his dead position from camera shot to shot: the masked drummer native who at the fight to death finish is shown no longer drumming so despite the soundtrack frantically continuing drumming: Morena herself 'anointed' with sacrificial burnt wood cross on her forehead, first pretty large down to top of her nose, then disappears, then reappears, but much smaller .. then: ah, well, really, make it fun to watch it yourself as an all drink occasion when yet another crops up.

The Milkmaid (1953)

The trials and tribulations of countryside beauty romance in fifties Finland; stunning record of local stunner, Anneli Sauli.

[3/10 · 30 June 2022]

A pure lovelorn melodrama of a styling seemingly leftover from the silent era, the reason to seek out and watch this - (despite no copy I've found with English subtitling#) - is that it affords several full frame face shots of the moon faced, saucer eyed, all fluttering eyelashes Finn beauty, Anneli Sauli, as the titular Hilja, in her first main, ergo de facto debut, role - (prior first film was only as supporting bit part player): certainly director T. J. Sarkka must have been completely entranced* by her as we get not only several close up shots of her merely gazing, simpering into the distant nature and at Yrjo the paramour love interest here, but so's to be just seen and hardly heard (at first, anyway) as more or less need hardly utter a word in this, except mainly near the end where she sees off the baddy - (inferred) - rapist with a few choice threats having now got hold of a puuko (ubiquitous knife in Finn mores) to ward him off.

For it's an aging, bulky, previously Finn film heart throb, Tauno Palo, all silent film dark swarthy features bad guy like - the soundtrack orchestration abruptly makes that cue clear - who constantly menaces her - (initially, presumably **) - virginal innocence, through Midsummer almost assaultive dancing, right up to (more) presumably (inferred) rape after breaking into her cabin.

At least, he's shown waking up next a - (still fully clothed though) - inconsolably weeping Hilja / Anneli, with that contemptuous 'was it worth it' caddish look about him as he slinks out the supposedly refuge cabin; indeed, he's such a bad guy cad that on that last threatened, ah, encounter, he'd only just spurned the come on attentions of more buxom, mature doorway bum gyrating wench (Katri? Kirsti Ortola), but to whom he consolation like resorts back to, (well, she is still jiggling her bum at him invitingly!) her cabin, after defiant Hilja successfully threaten him away.

** at least a scene of Hilja (Anneli) afterwards distraughtly returning to understanding Mother seems to infer that she, Mother (Laina Laine) consolingly can - but of course, still never saying it outright - guess what's happened in the Finn village milieu expectations - and acceptances - of how life worked in such times and mores.

But wait, for balancing this is, - well of course - the good guy love interest (Saulo Haara as Yrjo): we know he's good, coz contrastingly, he has a shock of white (presumably, blonde) hair; facially made up (thick brows and eye liner etc; although for its age, understandably, I guess), so much so that to a contemporary audience, could strike as though some prescient transgender and/or 'same sex' paramour.

Whatever, on first meeting, he showers Hilja / Anneli with compliments and chat up lines#, to which she simpers away in true Finnish (chaste female) way of saying virtually nothing, but merely flutters those huge eyes hers mostly decorously downward. Makes a good chat challenge as he cadges a ride beside her - (immediately male in charge taking over the reins) - off to the local railway station to manfully unload the milk churns.

Coz that's another thing to realise in this film; about half of it is focused solely on her milkcart journeys to and forth in the countryside, with another quarter of it is of her traversing it on foot, alone - or being chased; e. G. as when aforementioned baddy Tauno does, but like a good fifties horror film, no matter how fast / slow she runs ahead of him, in his harassing pursuit, nevertheless he consistently (chivalrously?) stays just a few feet (metre or so) behind, never once catches up with her .. until ...!

That is until that fatal cabin invasion .. Hah; yup, what an awful cad!

Blimey, life must have been tough for young countryside beauties in those days in Finland.

Well, all well and good coz that's the plotline title, init: she's a milkmaid, and why we're here watching (init?); for Sarkka the director demonstrates this in the famed scene(s) that focus just as *entranced (lustily) on her, er, 'milk', um, well, assets! Now, bearing (no pun) in mind that just a decade earlier, in the west (Stateside) there had been a huge censorship kerfuffle over Jane Russell's mere cleavage in 'The Outlaw', in just a few years on, a Finnish film could have with almost pop ya eyes out, full on direct cleavage shots of an even bra-less clearly, er, 'pointedly' pert ('raisin' hard!), peach breasted Anneli! (Well, see, she IS a milkmaid, ain't she?).

If unsure / ah, 'overlooked' (not clear?!) this is reaffirmed when in a latter clinch with Yjro, her diaphanous top even then shows (off!) an accompanying areole, too! Now, you might accuse this is just mere hindsight smuttiness**, but think: imagine that on a Finnish fifties huge cinema screen, and I can't believe director (censor) would not have just happened to noted that, er, stand out aspect, too!!

Well, no doubt director Sarkka was extolling the obvious in the title he gave it: (geddit? She's a MILKmaid, isn't she?!); so, ah, right, then really, what would you otherwise have expected?!

** In any case, well, no, it's not prurience, because Yrjo is a sketcher and in one has captured Hilja (Anneli!) in décolletage abandon: one with nipple freeing (exposing) top now undone! And, no problem, coz she herself is shown wistfully relishing after he's given it to her after disappearing away from her mundane country (milkmaid) life whilst he's off to University.

In passing, as a time capsule of Finnish country life, patriarchal assumptions and then, ah, 'approach' to its women, this is quite remarkable in showing, presumably then as just, er, 'natural', expected, how old fat men in particular just seemed to nonchalantly manhandle, harass and generally treat with contempt such young wenches. E.g. As check out the top local bod drinking and dancing - (a form of body pop wrestling a piece of meat style!) - Midsummer sessions scenes, which Yrjo has taken Hilja to, and merely stands by smirking as though her clearly shown distress is all expected and fun! (Although at least at this occasion, Yrjo has finally changed his check shirt, otherwise having worn exactly same throughout; hopefully for 'Hilja' he had several of the same, and 't'was not the same, as then surely summer's stinky shirt he wore with her on each meeting!)

Quite stunning, not just for the numerous fawning Anneli shots, but also, when seen from a modern frame of reference, for the near repulsive awfulness set out beneath the ostensible darling (buds of May like) romance.

# So plot and developments mostly guessed; please no scorn if I got the interpretations wrong; still throughout, whatever Anneli sumptuously shines!

Fucking with Nobody (2020)

Cleverly arranged conceit on contemporary social media with the search for love

[2/10 · 3 April 2022]

My word, you got to admire the Finns for their odd (weird!), er, stylised, 'use' of the cinematic medium.

Billed as drama (yup ) comedy (er, well ... !), this does have a quite clever conceit behind it, and the main stars - plus also being its director / cinematographer, writers (and likely much else) - Hanna Leena Haru and Lasse Poser respectively, set up quite a, well, yes: a contemporary social media 'lifestyle' clash poser indeed, for a viewer patient enough to let it run through to consider: But is it really fully pulled off successfully, even visually and plotwise engaging ..?

Unfortunately, really, in a word, no.

For like the medium it is parodying - (is it?): merely largely unfulfilling fluff.

But still, doesn't take away from all kudos for presenting / trying an unusual viewpoint, twist, on contemporary social media and relationship mores.

Well, certainly at my age though, not sure if I could draw out / learnt anything!

Insanity (2019)

Potentially spooky 'found footage' setup .. soon disappointingly dissipated.

[2/10 · 6 March 2022]

INTRO: Another where the English titling given is more or less pointless, if not deceptive: Direct, literal rendition could rather be 'ENMITY': or if too esoteric/dull, then, for this, think along lines, if not 'Never- ending Story', then here a never-ending hatred.

For a debut - (director Miska Kajanus, incidentally also playing late entry character, Joni) - plus with all the extra bits he took on (see his name recurring constantly in the credits) this should be praised .. Plus, being also scriptwriter, with what would seem like a number of quite intriguing mystery, spooky inferences set up .. but, oh dear, disappointingly, eventually turns out just to be a mish mash mess of apparently unfulfilled ideas as nothing is really plausibly, properly - acceptably - brought to any clear close*; so rather than an initially potential disconcerting, Lynchian like unsolved mystery, instead rather smacks of just either ran out of ideas, or even to just having bitten of more than chew to tie up the multiply introduced loose ends*

As initially set up with the now quite hackneyed 'found footage' trope, yet soon interspersed with seemingly fourth wall point of view(er audience) shots - (otherwise how does such POV enter whose found footage / footage taker frame?) - to tacking on an odd third party, 'actually, we're watching this unfold' mystery which then veers off onto a sub 'Don't Look Now'- like territory (well, at least, the red coats are there, and of one early introduced player also - presumably - drowned, too), but we're never hinted to a how and why** - so that finally much is just never really satisfactorily resolved. Director even casts himself into a rather neat homage 'stance' to 'Blair Witch' - which could (looked as though it would!) have soon set up - well, something more .. but, no, it just goes nowhere.

As for the 'additional' closing scenes shot whilst he (director, Kajanus) was elsewhere (and anyway, admitted, to pad a out the time to a feature rather than a short as first mooted): well, what on earth is going on, being set up?*

Nevertheless, perhaps still worth sitting through if only for Hanna Angelvou's (and with her braided hair - too long, so to be soon preferably shorn, apparently!) seemingly real life bewildered, adrift as to what she was supposed to be portraying, as her character performance!

Of note, there's quite a bit of 'bullying / teasing' critique between the two main guys initially on the summer cottage island - that leftover from their schoolday times chumship, apparently: so which can prompt such assessment as: good try; but (really) could do (much) better.

* (or / since just to persuade a sequel is still needed - as is actually conjectured by director.)

** well, as scriptwriter, too, come on Miska: so what's with the Mother who would leave her two children unsupervised (out of eyesight) to play on an already icefloe breaking up frozen lake while she - inferred - entices (unseen - found footage filming again***?) Dad for a quick behind the summerhouse, ah, interaction?

*** and, as to whom (Dad), even worse; director shows him as STILL FILMING whilst Mother panicking that one child is suddenly missing - yet, this 'dad' just scours the iced shoreline still from / through his camera lens view... care that much, huh? How comes HE wasn't come back for haunted, then?!!!

Don't Look Now (1973)

Pre-cognition is all bulls**t, er, nonsense, init? Or ... is it?!

[10/10 · 28 February 2022]

OOHHH! = the reaction to this stupendous film ... but plus, for: With significant number review entry hereon, so thereby, surely similarly demands an appropriately significant film entry to return to: SO: with almost / soon to be, 50 years on, my take on probably the second best film I've ever seen - ('Lost Highway' is the first / best: also reviewed hereunder) - this is a chilling masterpiece of jarring polar opposites realisation - between those that believe (but surely shouldn't), and those who don't - but resolutely, life protectingly - surely should (have!).

Thus with such age, still, could be that there is little point to add to all the others here than to recommend, assert: amazing how this soon to be half century (!) old film still holds up:

So; if to recommend to anyone who's still not yet seen it, DON'T - er, well, not 'look, now', but - READ ANY REVIEWS: What? But what about this here, then?!

Well, at least try to catch / watch it anew / 'fresh', to 'see'* if you get the same frisson thrill fear that director Roeg managed to visually put into Daphne Du Maurier's such brief story: to get, in effect, the same as what hits main star Donald Sutherland, as grieving Father, in a recognition of what could / must be very like the last moments of a dawning of true, raw horror of, 'no, is this really so?' realisation of untoward death, in an 'oh no, this can't be it, really what is happening - can it...?' even for us watching. Yup, it's that disconcerting. (Well, that was du Maurier's writing; but, ohh, how (late) director Roeg viscerally visualized it!)

At least, that's what I got when first seen in the cinema - (already shocked from with its double billed 'The Wicker Man', incidentally) - of one of most horrendous chills complete with that hot flush you can get when close encountering a fear, I've ever got: when what has preceded just seems a weird mess, suddenly all falls - colourfully (keep an eye out for that from the very beginning) - painfully, tragically, shockingly - into place:

Unfortunately, so well known now, and copied and even parodied so often, but originally a piece de la resistance 'oh; I didn't expect that' twist: (DON'T let anyone tell you, spoil it by trying to advise, set it all out for you!)

• other than that to keep in mind, of those who - want to, yearningly - believe, but just don't have it, compared to those who don't want to, pooh pooh such nonsense (of course) .. but should have! (Well, all the 'signs' were there.)

Director Nicholas Roeg visually fashioned from the Venice scenery and the Daphne du Maurier source material a stunningly melancholic, menacing piece: so much so, I'm surprised the Venice tourist board, or whatever, has never condemned it as it turns the backstreets of Venice into a fearsome filled sort of Transylvanian village like bleak horror look.

*This is significantly so when, er, 'look' (watch) out for when a pair of eyes suddenly pops up to fill the whole screen: in my time in the cinema this was so unexpected / shocking, one patron let out a muffled scream, that seemed to elicit in the whole packed auditorium audience a collective gasp of tension release! Ohh, spooky indeed!

Oh, and yup, you'll also get to see the famous 'natural'* sexual encounter scene that Roeg cleverly concocted - or rather, intercut - so well, that even after all these years, it has lived on in admiration / notoriety: but, think, realise: all the more heart-rendering in that it's to do with a couple near numbly estranged by the worst trauma one can imagine hitting a couple / family.

* Donald avers it was - of course, how could you think otherwise, really - "fake" i.e. Well, yes: in other words, just 'acted'!

All in all: A spectacular, stunning, chilling MUST SEE = so: please: DO LOOK.

Rat Pfink and Boo Boo (1966)

Prescient 'Defendor' / 'Kick Ass' like genre, inept, yet movie buff curio

[3/10 · 18 January 2022]

Well now, why put up a review to recommend this notorious / classic clunker?

Because, despite being amateurishly stupid, actually, if you're a cinema aficionado, there's several aspects to note, even - (almost!) - ah, 'appreciate' in this:

First is that if you are able to come at this without knowing the plot / any advance 'review' knowledge - as I innocently did - what starts out as a seemingly cinematic useless, routine, even quite misogynistic reprehensible guys stalk innocent female, has an, er, significant shift in focus half way through that is quite completely unexpectedly, unpredictably (on first viewing) jarring.

To be fair / honest, it's delayed, 'jump' timing is quite effective to be equivalent to a sort of 'oh, I didn't see that coming' twist (which I didn't, had not read up on it beforehand - you should try not, to, to 'enjoy'..): Of course, those that want to find out, now know that this was not quite intentional, but an in hindsight quite serendipitous, rather brilliant left field desperation / inspired move to give this film quite some chutzpah.

Since, after which, it becomes remarkable how prescient it was to all those recent, but thus oh so much later, faux, human, useless superhero type genre entries that frequently came out just a few years back, as like 'Kick Ass'*, 'Scott Pilgrim', 'The Defendor' and the like.

* Just merely coincidentally lead player, indy director, writer, editor, no doubt, tea maker, Ray Dennis Steckler, even has Nick Cage look about him, too.

Thereafter, e.g. If you're a US fifties / early sixties car fan, you'll get plenty of shots of such genuine sidewalk parked cars as the 'heroes' careen about the Hollywood hills of those days in a sorta guerilla, dogme, filmmaking way that would be all but impossibly illegal today.

Then, on that way, film buffs can have fun with the surely deliberate to be amusing, if not stupidly careless ineptness on display again, chase vehicle continuity. (I saw as deliberate amusingly.)

Plus in the incongruously linked first half you'll also get another seemingly misogynist trope: or is that actually mere admiration of the feminine form with a long - long - menacing stalk of the main female star - (Carolyn Brandt as a Cee cee Beaumont) - in such behind-quarters lasciviousness, that if it wasn't that it is of the director's own then wife, would come across as creepy voyeurism, but here, is rather - presumably - in sort of adolescent like admiration of. Well - (plot spoiler alert ...!) - at least the menacing stalker eventually merely hangs about, sorta harmlessly - despite still 'menacingly' constantly testing his switchblade. Then he goes off. (Guess, director hubby once again ran out of inspiration...)

There's also another set of weirdness occurring (directed?) in an apparently in reality just stumbled across deserted half built / abandoned house that is also reminiscent of that which would not be out of place as location of some of those latterly, recently seen in the kidnapped gal / zombie genres. [á la, try 'All the girls love Alice'; 'Wasteland', etc.]

Then finally, those that know the end, know that director Steckler finally takes it into surely deliberate utter absurdity: but, if you don't know, then stay patient 'til it to see presented another sort of prescient aspect, in a sort of 'inclusive' lifestyles presentation (homosexuality and bestiality anyone ... or, is it ... something else / 'weird' entirely?)

Superb fun to be had in relishing its heartfelt oddities, yet still sheer ineptitude dressed up as filmmaking.

The Creeping Terror (1964 TV Movie)

Creepy clunker - or creepily subs-sexual shocker!

[1/10 · 4 December 2021]

THE CREEPING TERROR

Or almost TEN STARS if seen as I was fortunate to, with both live (Theremin) accompaniment* and live interpretation narration -(although in Finnish deadpan delivery style!) - I can only wish to share this completely idiotic turkey took a new life to be top notch enjoyable by.

Of course, that's not the way you will (likely) see it**, and so like all the other reviews here, fairly warn that otherwise this is tedious to sit through tolerate.

Yet, in enjoying the cleverly put together live accompaniment* - (to almost rolling in the aisles when the (Buddy Mize) guitar protection / assault arrives!) -indeed enlivening it to so give it an almost new life, gave me time to enjoy what you may wish to try to pull out of this otherwise out and out clunker deluxe.

First, to note that in this 'county' women seem extraneous to the recognition that men rule this county roost: ALL the women play less than second fiddle to their menfolk, having almost no lines anywhere (other than variations on some of the most incisive observations in the film of along the lines of "Oh my God! What is it?!") and with this county seeming to be heaving with randy courting couples (I counted at least FIVE cars parked - and close up to one another, too - up on the hillside 'lover's lane'!), yet no matter, for as the narrator assures us, settling down with your love in matrimonial betrothal will settle the restless man - at least this is what Martin (main star Vic savage + director (on screen as an 'A. J. Nelson' - but apparently Vic himself) / producer / editor (suspected writer, too): tells his cop buddy Bobby (Pierre Kopp), while he almost demonstrates / proves the pros of matrimony as he canoodles with his new Missus (sadly, no credit it would seem - latterly divorced?!) right in front of him as though egging on some form of voyeurism.

And this is not mere latter interpretation scurrilousness, because at that lover's lane, a distinctly elderly bloke pulls up in his pick up to leer at the lovers there so canoodling, as though awaiting some form of dogging opportunity! (Possibly Les le Marr, as credited 'driver passing lover's lane'!)

Then; of course, so please enter from stage 'rocket ship' our titular moth-eaten (stained!) throwaway wrap /carpet covering no doubt several crewmembers laboring unable to see where they're going, led by phallic upright plant like 'head', to portend barely disguised, decidedly sexual undertone connotations!

For, how the 'creature' consumes its victims, is - surely? - overtly sexual (isn't it'?!); although some blokes do get, um, 'sucked in' (geddit), it's the women whose legs - and especially feet focused upon, it would seem - are oh so slowly slurped in, and with also several other times for the other female 'stars' here, too, barefooted (e.g. As like Myra Lee as 'bikini victim'), so much so that assuredly the director / writer / producer / whatever, STAR Savage just possibly using the lensing opportunity to show up his podaphilia.

For even in one of the most discombobulating aspects hinted at here, when the young bathrobed - (as again, just coincidentally barefooted even if when on the driveway (ouch!) waving off her hubby) - Mother is dispatched with ... i.e. In that the best way to chill is of course, don't show but suggest, leave it up to your imagination - for you never see how! Ohhh; (and on which, so, what happened to the bawling baby ... euwww: thoroughly shocking, disturbing, Vic!)

Then, Vic the 'mysterious' (see trivia) missing / lost director / producer / writer (whatever) also chucks in a "hootenanny" bop (although at which, there are also happy senior ladies, too: so, nice non-ageist community spirit shown there), in which along with to see some almost Nicholas Cage manic bopping of one chap (sadly, uncredited), are several twisting, shimmying lasses: one in particular (Louise Lawson) seemingly clad in as credited 'blonde in gold pants' (lamé?) sprayed on jumpsuit, whose wiggling rear end is focused on almost lasciviously, to the point the director (producer/ writer etc.) surely 'directed', just before the creature from space party pooper crashes it, to up her hind quarters shimmying enthusiasm so much that I'm surprised it wasn't give an R (X) rating back in its era (if it ever did turn up in cinemas that is: there's doubt apparently on ever being originally exhibited.)

Whew; and finally, then check how just darn prescient Vic the star / director / writer (etc.) was with his denouement written; for surely, rightly, expecting total success with his contrivance here, cleverly sets up 'watch the skies' sequel potential.

Phewww!

Such a pity we never got it.

*The wonderful Susanna (erstwhile Nasu) Viljanmaa performance.

** unless released on DVD style way: which would be a fabulous way to reinvigorate this otherwise utter waste of celluloid existence!

Poissa (2019)

Around a Finnish male's psyche in 26 locations (27 if you count the country it was made in?)

[2/10 · 23 October 2021]

No review here yet, so until another turns up / is brave enough to set their impressions down, I'll share a few: First: = well, knowing how long this took to realise / get up onto the screen and for the cost (hereon listed as - just - Euro20, 000 only! Really?!) then can only admire, well done.

But then, as a work of entertaining time investment to watch, work out what's being set up .. well, now, 's'truth!

As seems to hold with my own experience that anything with little purpose can pass for film from this nation!

This one is mainly an opportunity to see a bloke appear - and NOT a plot spoiler to give that is: 'teleport', apparently - although never clear, why?* - coz that's in the synopsis; (although I came to it not knowing that for the first incident, so held a brief interest until so stated so by main character soon after that, er 'splash') - in "twenty six" overseas locations ..!

Right: although as said, you never know why?*

Nevertheless, you can just imagine the come-on to star (Pannu Tuomikko doing the 'teleporting' in bewildered fashion), and moreover, the pitch justification to the producers / money providers to have concocted a 'plotline' that will involve the chance to hob nob around said locations! (No wonder it took near on ten years to complete.)

* Director, writer both say that not knowing / showing the reason why was deliberate, for audiences to make their own take on it: but presumably, at minimum, is an obvious metaphor for absent husband / father, and for me as an outsider to (but, ah, 'particular' interest in) Finnish mores, merely seemed to set up another version of the recurring theme that seems to crop up with astonishing regularity in Finnish film storytelling: that its men in relationships, be that partner or husband to their spouse, even as father**, are irredeemably useless, inadequate - as, literally here, basically absent (check the reconciliation lovemaking interlude "37 seconds" of best time of the month!: his wife, Teija's assessment) - to their women, **as would seem to, according to this film, also include their barely contemptuous daughters too.

Is this really true of Finland? Since if not, then what's this one supposed to be trying to convey, if not surely insulting and unconscionable to its menfolk?

But certainly in keeping with much of Finnish film plotting, - unless you like almost blink and you'll miss them exotic location shots - another virtually total waste of time to endure: although I must admit, the ending left an intriguing ponder: at which time, having tolerated sitting through such claptrap, you can at least then enjoy the best bit of this film; not only the closing, but the industrial sounding closing credits soundtrack. (his first too, I believe, of Martti Antilla.)

Mies, joka ei osannut sanoa EI (1975)

Horse (!) narrated, vicar travails over Helsinki hamlet locals' mores: seventies style local tableau and milieu.

[3/10 · 1 September 2021]

Ah; this is a fun piece: worth watching for a time capsule lost aspect of the Finnish capital's wooden homes and buildings location shots alone, but plus lead actor Antti Litja cast as a somewhat befuddled returning vicar charged with attempting to counsel the local hamlet populace: all as narrated by an observant horse (yup, you read that right: as local merchandise supplies cart pulling; voiced by Martti Pennanen.)

By which, such counselling considerations soon cover the reliable Finnish trope of its tough dealing women: here, ostensibly, maritally troubled buxom Anna (Vivi-Ann Sjögren), but just so happens to also include a policewoman (of course - Sina Kujansuu), e.g. Notably, once as with her having taken her beau home and bashing him about - (well, inferred, offscreen!) - then seen suggestively bending almost in half, her truncheon! Oh er, ho, ho = wow, yup: those Finn women, huh?

But then which also includes along with the local beauty - here the gorgeous Kirsti Wallasvaara cast as Milla, with those distinctive dark eyes of her, those being cast starry eyed towards for Aimo the vicar, too.

Of course, there's their variously recalcitrant fellahs, too, of whom, some amusing 'painter and decorator' minor slapstick 'steps' are provided from (long gone) Jukka Sipilä.

(N. B. All discerned from guessing: dvd version seen issued without English subtitling.)

Someone Somewhere (2019)

Cheeky / 'clever' conceit for (Stateside) 'big break' hope(less!) hopefuls: hence = utter tedium!

[2/10 · 11 August 2021]

Oh dear: yup, 'someone, somewhere' may well be fooled into investing their time to sit down and try to 'enjoy' this; but presumably titled as actually referencing that "someone, somewhere" (in this profession) is struggling, (losing!) ... then, well, really, 's'truth, please be advised: Finnish moviemaking does produce some insouciant irrelevancies to foist onto patient audiences in its cinematic offerings!

Although in its defence, it does seem to be warning right near the start with the first of its several inter-title breaks: "Someone, somewhere -(so, see: its title)- is looking for exactly what you have to offer (sounds encouraging, huh? But:)

• following black inter-title break

OR NOT"!!!

+ "If people think you can't -(inter-title break)- they might have a point."

Well, vain niin, aivan! = For, on this, absolutely yeah!

So, there you go: this itself warns anyway right upfront, immediately: this is virtually totally tedious to pointless to bother to try and sit through seeking some semblance of satisfaction (let alone, enjoyment) .. That is: UNLESS; you happen to be a struggling (hopeful/less?!) actor / cum entertainer: Coz then, probably utterly essential for you to view:

for, the - clever, in its niche - conceit here is that said 'hopeful' actors/entertainers oft, well, struggle to get any 'break' and / or experience on their resumes, don't they, with just interviews / part readings and such 'not make it to the big time' likes .. so, what better (clever) idea than to make a film exactly about said type strugglers so that, hey presto, (well that's a happy coincidence then, innit?) that these on the whole otherwise complete losers - (well, portrayed as - do check Miska - and his 'girlfriend's inept joke telling ANTI comedy!) - then i.e. Now with this, instantly get a legitimate film acting credit in ... Yup; a sort of hung up by your own bootstraps type of casting and reasoning.

Clever (or rather, cheeky!), you see?

But, having admitted / assessed that, thereby, fair warning: not in the least interesting to tolerate to anyone else - precisely because these are 'performances' by up and coming, erstwhile UNsuccessful (failure) performers (so it would seem - or else, then they played their roles so convincingly so i.e. Enervatingly indeed)!

But so; if you were one of these, or from that milieu, you may find something of value to invest your time (learn?!) in watching through this otherwise completely utter tedium:

As, since I (most unfortunately!) did, I can share for those that might still wish to likewise waste their time so, almost all I could notably get out of it:

along with the marginally amusing, at times admittedly almost insightful inter-title aphorisms (example: "The ladder of success -(break)- is never crowded at the top" and in relation, another warns: "Success is -(break)- how high you bounce when you hit the bottom" Well, right!), were: the commonly, Stateside insincere / overly enthusiastic - "You were chosen out of 10,000 videos"! - persona like (aging) agent Arlene (Parness* - seemingly playing herself, then, as most, using their own names), who had coaxed over 'the Finn' (non!) hopeful, Milla (Nurmi in the film, but real name, Puolakanaho, so again, presumably, possibly, playing her - real life, actor hopeful - self?): yet so successful in her agent representation that she slept in her car.

Perhaps best was what surely had to be a (admittedly quite arch observation / commentary on) brief showing of this film's actual, real director himself (Hannu Aukio), slinking (nude) out of the room in which another young hopeful Ali (Pickard) has obviously just 'slept with' him, to the shock dismay of her erstwhile boyfriend who, unaware he's actually just walked in on her flagrante delicto, just declared his love for her. I.e. If not stating the obvious here = yup, sleeping with the (real!) director to get ya onscreen break (in this film = ah, ho, ho, with no doubt director self cast?!)

And on, likely unintentional, humour (perhaps?) in the Finn hopeful becoming homesick once she realises she's been fooled and / or just not gonna cut it - "I'm just not good enough - I just have to accept that" (Right!) she opines at one point before breaking down into tears - so wants to come back home, and on telling her husband through 'skyping', he ('s directed to) makes it so obvious he not only is perturbed she's gonna return sooner than he expected (make a guess as to why..?), also wants to get away from talking to her, so obviously checks out his watch clearly to be seen doing so on the skype screen! I.e. Besides who wears watches now anyway, even if needed to know the time so, surely would check it surreptitiously offscreen - and in any case: there's a clock timer on all screens isn't there? (scriptwriter Alexis Kerouac .. et al, apparently.)

SO: other than that, this is a total theft of any viewer's time investment, to the extent that my frank (casting!) advice is, unless you are indeed part of this stateside starstruck hopeful milieu, clever for them it may be, but for anybody (almost everyone?) else: AVOID!!!

(As even director / auteur / scriptwriter themselves at it's close, acknowledge: "Fail, Fail, fail .." (YUP!!) - well, I'll leave the last inter-title comeback for you find out yourself if such intrigues...)

* OH: although if you are a zombie fan, completist, besides Arlene's - surely (hopefully?) deliberately and not reality chosen - appalling make up appearance, you may wish to catch / know, there is one section where one hopeful (Corsica Wilson - again, in keeping with the conceit set up here, presumably playing herself) gets zombified make-up so to (hopefully) appear in a scene shown as being directed by a surely deliberately chosen George Romero lookalike (Hoppy Stone?).

N. B. Here's some of those arch inter-titles, presumably incisively supplied by scriptwriter Kerouac: "A certain darkness -(break)- is needed to see the stars." And "You decide the level of your happiness." Well, right (Yah hah!) But did I need to watch a film to be so enlightened?

In a (shout out loud!) word: NO!

Euthanizer (2017)

Jet black humouresque 'value' of - (any) - life: Finnish mores take on.

[8/10 · 9 August 2021]

Another of the Finnish cut dry style, verging on jet black, humour offering of this director / scriptwriter (and much, auteur-like else, too*), with a simply superb** stand out bittersweet, deadpan performance by Matti Onnismaa** as the lugubrious lead - (amazingly, as first ever, apparently***) - eponymous protagonist as alternately thoroughly menacing, at others - (ah, encounters 'expected'*** of him) - naively bewildered...

With the English titling somewhat misleading, as the Finnish titling has a double English translation meaning, to include what would seem to be the more apt representative of 'Mercy Killer', as, what might first appear to be a sort of slasher cum chiller / horror soon transforms into quite some philosophical challenge on the value of life - and quite equally (rights?) so, animal sentience / awareness especially, as a metaphor to their owner's life: e.g. Check the "God-daughter's sad life" guinea pig ☹ and even, quite, ah, 'barbed' too, for a very strong angling society, fish, too: as see how the anti-hero 'Euthaniser' deals with the decent 'fair / fun' fisher who only 'kindly' practices "catch and release"!

Plus with top ending vehicle stalking / chase included, too - just incidentally contrasting with some similar Stateside storyline cop outs - this is with a 'proper' follow through to the action set up.

BTW: For your, ah, 'appreciation' (fear!) of this, know that there really is a (right wing proto fascist) movement along the 'Soldiers of Finland' idea shown in this (cf. Reality Soldiers of Odin, 'established' two years earlier than this film's production year)****, by which, kudos should be shouted out too for Jari Virman (as Petri) delivering so well a difficult, unempathetic character.

** At minimum, for his first time lead role performance, this is worth alone to see.

Although if you are an animal lover - despite the quite soon and prominent 'no animals were harmed' disclaimer: even given in English amongst the otherwise all Finnish (film) credits - still, fair warning: your revulsion may well be so, ah, fired up, to preferably avoid!

* as would quite praiseworthy seem to be: not quite including the kitchen sink - although, almost, as includes being 'caterer', too, apparently (listed in the credits ☺!), but also like sets and props - (with Sari Altonen, the cinematographer - plus also costuming for her, too) - check titular anti-hero's motorbikes repair shop; since, in any case, only stored there and "not mine", too.

*** in one character foibles development, a bit, ah, dated perhaps here in that erotica-asphyxia surely was all the, ah, breathless rage (well, 'awareness'; I suppose) some way back in the nineties (n'est pas, à la certain band's lead singer demise and all that?)

**** and to both respects here, then, do seek out further, same director's recent "NIMBY": with both actor and, ah, 'grouping' to the fore in.