"Curtains" is a mess, a movie so confusing and uneven that it finally becomes ridiculous.
Many movies have plagued productions. Few, however, are so easy to diagnose what went wrong. Yes, "Curtains" had a director who wanted to make one movie, and a producer who wanted to make another one. It was shelved for over a year so it could be re-shot, and the tension was so bad the cast and crew didn't know if the movie would ever be finished.
The director wanted to make an arthouse thriller movie. The producer wanted to make money. And thus we have intense scenes between the commanding character actor John Vernon, here playing a Kubrickian theatre director, and the poor, suffering actresses being tormented and pushed by him.
This movie probably would have been merely average. I couldn't help but wonder who would let themselves be tortured by a crazy man like Vernon for a role in... the theatre. How much does that pay, anyway? Who would go to see it?
But then, of course, there's the slasher. The set up for the first movie - the one the director wanted to make - seems to have slasher written all over it. Six young female actors, a crazy film director, doing their business where else but a SECLUDED LOCATION. The actresses must have gone in thinking, "when is the masked murderer going to arrive?"
Weird, then, that the slasher movie grafted onto this one is such an uneasy fit. The slashing goes on someplace else and hardly seems connected to the main story. There's at least one death that pulls the old, "it was only a dream" routine. As if the movie wasn't confusing enough without adding that contrivance.
The producers had the right idea when they shelved "Curtains", and the wrong idea when they took it off the shelf and put it in movie theatres and home video. They should have taken it off the shelf and thrown it into a bonfire.
Many movies have plagued productions. Few, however, are so easy to diagnose what went wrong. Yes, "Curtains" had a director who wanted to make one movie, and a producer who wanted to make another one. It was shelved for over a year so it could be re-shot, and the tension was so bad the cast and crew didn't know if the movie would ever be finished.
The director wanted to make an arthouse thriller movie. The producer wanted to make money. And thus we have intense scenes between the commanding character actor John Vernon, here playing a Kubrickian theatre director, and the poor, suffering actresses being tormented and pushed by him.
This movie probably would have been merely average. I couldn't help but wonder who would let themselves be tortured by a crazy man like Vernon for a role in... the theatre. How much does that pay, anyway? Who would go to see it?
But then, of course, there's the slasher. The set up for the first movie - the one the director wanted to make - seems to have slasher written all over it. Six young female actors, a crazy film director, doing their business where else but a SECLUDED LOCATION. The actresses must have gone in thinking, "when is the masked murderer going to arrive?"
Weird, then, that the slasher movie grafted onto this one is such an uneasy fit. The slashing goes on someplace else and hardly seems connected to the main story. There's at least one death that pulls the old, "it was only a dream" routine. As if the movie wasn't confusing enough without adding that contrivance.
The producers had the right idea when they shelved "Curtains", and the wrong idea when they took it off the shelf and put it in movie theatres and home video. They should have taken it off the shelf and thrown it into a bonfire.