Change Your Image
mkw-5
Reviews
Walk the Line (2005)
Magic
This is why movies exist. This is movie magic: It's alchemy, something that cannot come true without something unexplainable, and that something must be love. One other ingredient is story. Best stories, the only stories that matter, come from life. Life of human beings. Life of REAL people, LIVING people. And stories of real people don't get written down or made to any form of art too often. The reason is that real people are not too frequently any kind of artists.
Artists themselves are not very often what I would call living human beings. In my experience they are many times more or less mentally "ill" people, who run away from their lives rather than people who would confront it and live it. Which is of course totally contrary to the idea, that at least I have, about what an artist should be. Personal therapeutic art is a different case, but that is not meant or made to any other person than the patient.
But Johnny Cash is a real human being. And I say IS, because in this movie, he lives. I don't know or even care about who got the Oscars, Oscars are sh*t anyway, same as every other prices: Nothing more than politics, if not even less. But Joaquin Phoenix in this movie is something more than an actor: He IS Johnny Cash. If you squint your eyes just a little bit, there he is. And that's a miracle: I really felt like I went to Johnny Cash's living life. I don't remember ever having that feeling in a movie. At least not in ten years or something. And Reese Witherspoon... It's so beautiful.
From Mangold I've seen before the movie "Girl, Interrupted", which I love (love, love). On the basis of these two movies, I say that Mangold is one of the three most important movie makers active and ALIVE today. I've seen maybe two thousand movies, but this is one of the few that matters.
Dellamorte dellamore (1994)
Basic horror
Someone said that this is one of those "deeper"/more intellectual horror movies that he likes. Well, I would say that the "deepness" is also in the mind of the watcher: If you are deep and intellectual, then even from the stupidest movies you can find something of those same qualities. I don't quite understand what's all the fuzz about this particular movie: Yes it is very well made and a good quality horror movie, but it's nothing special.
The casting is interesting. I think Rupert Everett is somehow a little "wooden" and distant actor, I haven't seen any of his other movies, but at least here. But he fits in quite well and brings something interesting to the "strangeness" of the movie. Anna Falchi is surprisingly interesting also. (I admit I had some reservations for her acting skills: Before this I hadn't seen her with her clothes on.) Visually and technically the movie is disciplined and looks good. It's basic horror above the mediocre level, but still not anything mind-blowing.
Masters of Horror: Dance of the Dead (2005)
Hooper: 4, Malone: 8
Tobe Hooper: "Dance of the Dead"-Hooper is one of those directors/artists that are on my top favourites list just because a one single work: That is of course in this case The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. But I don't have any expectations from him. Partly because the mentioned movie is so perfect and ingenious, that it's hard to imagine him doing anything better, at least if he doesn't try something completely different. Of course comparing is always stupid, be that somebody's own works or others. I try to review every piece as it's own, separate self. OK. There are interesting people here: Very beautiful (Suicidegirls-type) girls, and very sick, disgusting and dirty criminals. The music is very good. The visuals are very well made: Contemporary "chaotic" cutting and camerashaking styles have been used very justifiably. The story (from Richard Matheson) is interesting enough. It's funny that the "end of the world" reality in this film doesn't differ at all from the actual world today. So that's what this is: A picture of the existing reality in today's city culture. Not bad, but not amazing either.
William Malone:"Fair-Haired Child"-Malone is one of the directors in this series, whose name I've never heard. Which is a good thing of course. This movie has really unpleasant atmosphere right from the start, which is also a good start for a horror flick. I guess. At least in it's surrealistic elements this differs from the other parts (of Masters of Horror). This is also the only part in which the (really sick) main characters inner life and history is shown at least a little bit. The overall feeling is kind of a mystery/fairy tale-like, although the story is quite close to the earth. Yeah, it's good. Nothing to complain about. One of the best stories in this series.
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
A great classic
This is a truly great movie. A big story. I was really surprised, what this movie actually was like: I was expecting some stupid space scifi. But most of the movie is really something else. It's brilliantly written and directed. I have to admit that Spielberg really has talent. The special effects and visuals are really beautiful. For example the clouds: It's funny how they are clearly much better than in contemporary movies, when they are trying to do the same thing with computers and billions of dollars! (Of course this movie must have cost billions also...) Everything is good, maybe even perfect, in this movie. Except, maybe in the last half hour, I would maybe have done some different decisions... But it's overally so good, that little flaws can be easily forgiven. One of those classics that everyone should see, especially persons who see less than 100 movies in their whole lifetime.
Francesco (1989)
A tolerable introduction, especially if you don't know the story
This is the kind of movie that tells a story like an automaton: It lists the events, one after another. It's like a teaching movie. And it's technical looks and the overall quality resembles television rather than a movie shot in film. And there is nothing wrong in those things. In that way it's not bad at all, actually it's one of the best, if not the best, teaching movies I've seen. But as a movie, I mean as an experience, it's not very much. It's not strong in any way, or touching in any way (only maybe intellectually, if you think the stories). And I really think Mickey Rourke is not the best choice for this role. It's a brave choice, and it creates "interesting" results, but I feel that this character has nothing to do with St. Francesco, who's story is known to many. And I'm sorry, but he doesn't look very awakened. I've never seen so lousy role from Rourke. His acting here is in the mediocre summer-theatre level. And most of the other actors working also, so would it be relevant then to "blame" or thank the directing? To my opinion, especially if you know the story, and have maybe even read some Francesco's texts, this gives you nothing. It's like those illustrated Bibles. I give 3 points just for the sake that someone does this kind of movies at all. After all, they are not a total waste of time, money and/or human energy, like some movies.
3000 Miles to Graceland (2001)
A zero of a movie
The movie starts well: The first sex scene is quite funny. But after that, the movie vanishes into nothingness. The gangs chauvinist jokes don't make me laugh: Why do this kind of guys even bother to talk about women, if they despise them so much? And that is the part of women in the whole movie: Brainless bimbos in the background. In other words, they don't exist.
It's funny that yesterday's movie (in TV) was "Italian Job", and in my review I mentioned Steven Soderberg's brainless buddy-comedies. This is exactly like them, but even much worse. This one you can't even watch! It's sad if Kurt Russell don't get better roles than this. There is nothing interesting in this movie, no matter how you try to look at it.
The Italian Job (2003)
The robbery entertainment at it's best
Very well made, smooth and light action-comedy entertainment. Good actors. This is maybe what Steven Soderberg would do, if he just could. This is not just some brainless buddy-comedy, like the movies of the mentioned (I mean the "Oceans'11,12,13..."). This movie's characters are a little more realistic: They have dreams, pasts, feelings and everything. One problem with movies that have as much (main) characters as this, is that of course the characters cannot be very deep or developed.
The money fetish is an interesting issue in these movies. But maybe it's just as good fetish as anything: People must have (or at least they very often want to have) something that gives their life some goals, excitement, hobbies... And like in this case, the money comes connected (after a tragic incident) to everything in these people's lifes, so deeply that they are ready to risk their lifes for it.
I would say this movie is very much like the best few of the James Bond movies. The same kind of entertainment. Of course there is nothing political here, like in the Bond movies. It's all about the money...
The Dead Zone (1983)
A classic
I think this is a predecessor to some movies of today that deal seriously with "supernatural" issues. I mean movies like Gothika, White Noise... Actually these kind of movies are not made very often. But Cronenberg's movie is one of these serious ones.
It's very concentrated and unhurried. It's very "normal" movie from Cronenberg, I mean compared to his other ones. The best role from Chris Walken I've seen. His work here with Cronenberg is very strong. I haven't read this particular book of Stephen King, but on the basis of the other King literature I've read, it's also very respectful to the spirit of his works. But this is one of those classics that are hard to take a stance towards: So many of the same kind (even if we count only the King adaptations) have been done after this, that these themes feel almost like a cliché today.
Anyway, a really good movie. One of the best in it's category.
CB4 (1993)
Surprisingly high quality comedy, full of funny details and ideas
This is really funny movie. It's well made in every way. Comedy must be one of the most difficult "art" forms, alongside with horror. It's very well written, the timing is good, actors are good. Full of good ideas. And it's not only funny, it's also kind of sad, humane and beautiful. It's made with love.
This movie makes you want to forget all the BIG, Tupac and Suge Knight sh*t. The people in this movie have beef also, but it seems more like they are playing: They are not serious psychopaths like some. But anyway, after the rap world has experienced very seriously what playing with guns does in real life, it's a little confusing feeling to notice that you're laughing to these guys who are popping' their machine guns. But if you can take it as humor and all that, it's good movie. After all, these guys didn't kill anybody.
But in the end, under the "irony" and humor, there is some small but serious messages and lessons to learn if somebody wants to.
Masters of Horror: Homecoming (2005)
Review of Dante's, Garris' and McNaughton's pieces
Joe Dante:"Homecoming"+++This is a concentrated and professional work. It's well directed and edited. The zombie genre is really challenging, and it's a little wonder that directors want to even try after decades of so great zombie movies: Can they bring something new or fresh to the scene? But there is some good solutions here, one of them being that it goes straight to the point with no bullsh*tting. Joe Dante has a funny style; This movie could have been made in the 80's. Visuals and everything is really 80's. Even the acting. That was the time when Dante made some famous movies. But the story takes place in today's world. To Americans this story must be more horrific than to anyone else. The lead actress has an interesting face. And there's a homáge to Jacques Tourneur.I wouldn't call this great, but it was good TV entertainment. Not bad.
Mick Garris:"Chocolate"+++Acting is a little pretentious, same as the story... And actually everything: Directing also. It's like bad TV, when some of the other episodes were real movies. It was so bad I didn't even bother to watch it.
John McNaughton"Haeckel's Tale"+++This is directed by McNaughton, who made one of the sickest horror movies ever: "Henry". And the story is by Clive Barker. And Romero has been a producer or something. Should be something interesting. But it isn't. It's totally unrealistic and pretentious. Acting is bad, directing is bad, story is stupid... Really cheap. But it wasn't a disappointment, because I didn't have any expectations.
To Naughton and Garris: Zero, to Dante:5 (out of 10).
Byt (2006)
In my place, in my place...
Great movie about madness and loneliness. I have seen only one Svankmajer film before this, it was "Down in the Cellar". It had some similar elements. This is much older. It reminded me of Beckett's "Film" and Polanski's "Tenant", from which the latter is in my opinion one of the greatest movies ever made. I don't know has Polanski got some inspiration from this? Anyway, comparing is stupid because these are all totally separate artistic achievements and all are great in themselves.
This movie is really energic and full of ideas. It's bravely simple. This movie is really crazy, the guy is really hallucinating. You can't call this neurotic or paranoid anymore, this is truly psychotic. But it's funny, actually it's a comedy! I don't know where Svankmajer has got these ideas. But I know that if you would show this film in the army draft, you wouldn't have to go.
Bad Boys II (2003)
If you want no brain, just call Michael Bay...
Really interesting movie. It takes action entertainment and exploitation to their extremes. There is no brains in this movie, and this is not a movie that you'll watch when you want some intellectuality. There is no plot. But it's a total enjoyment. Sex, explosions, cool pictures. You really see the hundreds of millions of dollars burning in front of your eyes.
It's exciting in a sick way. There is some quite dark humor (the scenes in the mortuary). It's interesting to see, how splatter and gore seem to be acceptable in a mainstream movie nowadays. Everything is perfect in this movie. There are many good/funny ideas. This is a classic in it's own category.
Begotten (1989)
A very serious religious movie.
This kind of angst can only be inside a young person who seeks very seriously his religion and his place in this world. As the text in the beginning of the movie says, these pictures are dead: They are the past already, and have been right from the moment when the product was ready. But that is only for the maker of these "products": Maybe to somebody, who is in the same frame of mind (I think very many people, at least of those who are seriously interested in religion, go through the same terrible angsts and doubts in their personal development). And that, of course, is the reason that art is made in the first place: Identification and consolation amongst fellow human beings.
This film uses very well the "classic" technics of the experimental cinema. And this is where those technics are to my opinion in the best possible use: As an instrument in telling stories and creating atmosphere to them, not just as a pure abstractions or as an end in themselfes. Those "tricks" have already been made many enough times. Some other movies that I imagine have influenced/inspired this director, are "Eraserhead" and "Nosferatu". It's interesting how these technics make this movie totally timeless: There is nothing contemporary in this movie. Or nothing from any other specific time either. It could have been made a thousand years ago.
It is interesting in this story how these people treat this new born holy child: They use it selfishly in their own purposes, and don't even try to listen to him. They beat him, rip off his intestines and castrate him. They drag his (living) body forcibly from place to place. And they do the same kind of violence to his mother. The story also reminds me of the Borges' short story "El informe de Brodie". Also the critique towards the practices of the Christian institutions reminds me of the great "El Topo".
Unpleasant watch at times, but beautiful. Very simple, thought and concentrated. Very strong movie, almost too strong. The whole human energy has been concentrated to this. Also this movie shows that when you have the passion and ideas, you can make a movie with a round zero budget.
But I have to admit, it was a bit hard to watch for a "contemporary" viewer like myself, because of the experimentality. It was so slow and demanding. But after all, worth the suffering. I have to give ten points just for the effort that somebody makes this kind of movie.
New York Stories (1989)
Different works from Scorsese and Coppola... Very good!
"Life Lessons" (Scorsese)-This is really different from the Scorsese we are used to see. This special form (=short episodes) seems to have given the directors some new possibilities and freedoms. The movie is great. Nick Nolte and Rosanna Arquette are absolutely perfect. The story is simple on the surface, but the characters are very well build and very realistic: They are both lovable, sympathetic and stupid and selfish at the same time. The characters are maybe the deepest and most multi-dimensional that I've ever seen in a Scorsese movie.
"Life Without Zoe" (Coppola)-Very interesting movie. The story is about rich people, a rich and well succeeded family. The movie shows that rich people are people also. Very specially directed and acted. Very interesting.
"Oedipus Wrecks" (Allen)-I don't know if Allen is a director or an artist at all. He don't have anything to say, at least in this short picture. He's again acting himself, and comically, not acting very good. He's a super-neurotic person that creates problems out of nothing. He doesn't seem to have anything else in his life than whining about nothing and making movies about that. This is his most boring work I've seen. OK, maybe he's done something good also. But this was so bad, so boring and uninteresting that I hardly could watch it even with fast forwarding.
Overally, because the Scorsese's piece is so great, and the Coppola's piece also in it's own way, this episode movie was very good, and very interesting. Allen's part couldn't make the other parts worse. Recommended for everybody.
Doom (2005)
Nothing
I usually don't waste my energy thinking (or doing) about negative things, in this case: Writing negative reviews. I just have to wonder: Why in the world are this kind of movies made? This may not be a deep or professional thought about the money world, but: Couldn't these moneys be put in something more useful purposes in this world? For example given as grants to some young, unknown movie directors? I haven't seen any other video game movies that are done recently. Many people/reviewers say that this might be the best of them so far. I rented this because of the cover, and I thought this would be at least an average/mediocre action/hero movie, with some interesting "mythical" plot with labyrints and tunnels and monsters. But it wasn't. It was so bad that it was almost impossible to watch. There was nothing interesting in this movie. It wasn't scary, it wasn't exciting, it wasn't sexy, it wasn't good looking or good-sounding. It was like there would be no script in the movie: Nothing happened. It was as close to being nothing as anything gets.
The Rock will never be an interesting action actor: He isn't believable person. He looks stupid. The Rock could never save the world. (Anyway, a better movie with him starring was The Scorpion King.) The other lead actor (Karl Urban) is much better, but he doesn't have a role in this movie. The movie is so shallow, it's like watching someone play some medium shoot-up game in some crowded game hall. Nobody remembers after two years from now that these movies even excisted. Maybe they didn't? Was it just the dullest dream of my life? If it was, I'm really low.
Death Wish V: The Face of Death (1994)
5 wifes killed by gangsters - What would you do?
I have noticed in the previous parts that Charles Bronson's character is himself a total psycho/mentally "ill" person. And that's totally understandable knowing what he's been through. So both the bad and the good guys are real extremes also in their sickness (in these movies). You have to be "freakin'" crazy to fight these crazies. "Fight evil with evil". "If you "have" to fight, you have to fight dirty." "Because war in itself is bad, evil and crazy." (These citings are not from this movie, they're just clichés.) Is there any other way? But compared to the bad guys Bronson's character is also very, very sad and sympathetic. It's sad that some people have to see and experience so much evil in this world. It is a very interesting character and portrait of a time and a frame of mind.
And the bad guys are not as comical as in some other Death Wishes, they are somehow more realistic.
From the start setting of this film some mental professional would suggest that Bronson's character is begging for blood and violence in his life: He has hooked up with some psycho-sadist-mob boss's ex-wife, who has a daughter with the mentioned. But let's not be shrinks. Shrinks (both amateur and pro) seem to be wrong very often, maybe as often as non-shrinks. Maybe it's just because they have fallen in love. And maybe Bronson/Kersey has heard about this only later.
One of the most important questions that these movies rise is: What would YOU do? Would ethics and philosophy of forgiveness be enough, if some person would for example kill some of your loved ones with no reason. Would you think that that person has deserved forgiveness and is worth of that? If that person would be a repeated killer, who has been in jail a couple of times already for his/her former crimes/killings? Would you think of that person as an equal to some person you love, and who you know is trying to be as good person as he/she possibly can? The movie is very well directed, shot, acted. Good editing and music. The atmosphere is whole. Some nice pictures. It's also more sexy than all the other parts combined. This might be one of the 3 best of the 5 Death Wishes, but wouldn't 3 have been enough? Obviously not, because these movies are just a small glimpse of the "vigilante"/revenge-movies genre... Worth seeing.
Perfect Strangers (2003)
Love, madness, life. A thriller for "adults"
A previous previewer said that this was in his/her opinion "like a small student movie", like that would be something bad(?). Anyway, there is nothing amateurish or "student" in this movie. Maybe the guy was talking about the simplicity and small-scaleness of the film. Yes, it is that. But simplicity is/can be very brave and rare today. Many times filmmakers try to hide their lack of ideas under a chaos of different ideas and technical complexity.
This was not the greatest masterpiece of all time, but it was well worth watching. The script was very clever, and the directing and the "flow" of the movie was very well made. Sam Neill and the lead actress were very good castings for these roles. I think it's refreshing to see movies that don't try to be anything else than what they are. I rate this movie not compared to any other movies I've seen, but as an independent being and work.
I, Robot (2004)
Secretly intellectual entertainment
Proyas has become one of the most interesting and intellectual movie directors working today. And he's young also. His first, "Crow", was quite simple romantic story. "Dark City" and "I, Robot" are very serious and deep, and on top of that, very entertaining.
However Proyas' is not a very deep actor-director. His characters are straight from some comic books, kind of hollow and too simple. But that fits to the package, it doesn't disturb. It's his style. Someone else might do these stories in totally different style. But Proyas masters his own style perfectly.
Surely this must be "Big Willie" Smith's best acting role. Not Proyas' best, but very good anyway. There are very interesting themes in the movie: How other people don't (want to) believe somebody who knows something (maybe "too much" of something), and tries to warn others. And in the end, when the truth comes out, the guy was of course right. And conspiracies... Not that this is the only movie handling these themes, but it's one of the best.
Cabin Fever (2002)
Surprisingly good horror entertainment
I saw Roth's newer "Hostel" before this, and I didn't like that very much. But afterwards when I have thought about that movie, it has actually "grown" better in my mind... If I remember correctly, I gave 2 points to that movie. Now I would maybe give it a 5 or 6. And I think I'll watch it again some day.
This is couple of years older, I assume it's Roth's first full-length movie. This was a positive surprise. Actually this was very good horror movie. From the DVD-covers I waited for some bimbo teenage horror, but this was nothing like that. The characters are quite good. The story is original (enough), even it's full of homagés to contemporary horror classics. It's very well written, and very well made in every way.
It feels really good to see that there are many new/young horror directors making movies nowadays. I'm really expecting something interesting from these guys in the future. In the meantime, these are very good horror entertainment.
War of the Worlds (2005)
Absolutely great movie
I haven't read Wells' book. This was anyway happening in contemporary world, and some changes must have been made to the original story.
As in the other "dark" scifi films of Spielberg: "Minority Report" and "A.I.", the visuals are very beautiful and well made, just like everything else in this movie also. Spielberg must be the biggest film maker today in many ways, and in some way also the most important. He's the real mainstream voice of the world. Cruise is very good, of course, has he ever been anything else? Also Dakota Fanning, although I had some suspicions towards her, because of the "child-actor" thing. This must be her best role this far.
What was surprising to me, considering the story of the film, was that it wasn't in any way made to represent some "problems of today": The aliens aren't symbolizing anything, they're just aliens, and the horror comes from the story itself. That's a great and brave choice.
I think Spielberg has really become a movie director in the last years. His newer movies are deep, thought and important. Deep respect to him.
Starship Troopers (1997)
Them Bugs...
Entertaining and deep at the same time: Just like the main characters look "hollow" by the first glimpse, that's only the surface. Under the surface they are just normal human beings.
Verhoeven is a genius. From "Turkish Delight" to this, all of his films (that I've seen) have been good and interesting, and on top of that every one of them is different from each other. I don't particularly like neither science fiction or war movies: This is both, but I like it. That tells something of Verhoeven's talent.
The whole package is perfect (serves the purpose): The music, visuals, editing... I have to mention the casting separately: It's brilliant.
I remember seeing this as a teenager, right when it came out in -97. Then it felt more twisted and "sick" (in a good way) than now. Now it's just, well... Reality.
Citizen Shane (2004)
A nice little documentrary-portrait of "some freak"
This is a portrait of someone who would be classified in this society as a Freak. Shane Ballard loves violence, pornography, Hitler, serial killers (enough?). He likes to provoke. He wants to "shake things" and "wake people up". This film don't stay only in the surface: The scenes where Ballard talks about his childhood (he never saw his father and his mother, who was also never there, died "mysteriously" when he was 8) give some perspective and something to think.
The telephone conversation with Charles Manson, where he (Manson) sings his song and talks with Ballard and the pictures of Manson come towards the viewer, that might be the strongest scene in the film, at least for anybody who knows something about Manson. (It's quite long, maybe 10 minutes.) It's very interesting and simple example of (documentary) film making where the character makes almost the whole scene and atmosphere, and the director and editor just follow and back him up. It's very scary when you notice, after a nice and "normal" beginning, how in some point of the "discussion" Manson starts to manipulate the listener (=Ballard). And you can also hear how he succeeds. I don't know is there this kind of material about Manson elsewhere, I'm not so familiar with this area, but I would assume this film/scene is very interesting to Manson "fans". And to others also.
It's hard to say is this documentary "important" in any way: Does it say anything about this society for example? I don't know, but it's what it is: A portrait of one person. It's not very positive or happy film. It's also sad when you think that this guy killed himself after this. And of course it's sad (and little bit scary) to know that there is very much of this kind of people (who for example adore serial killers) existing all the time. (If I'm honest, I would assume that these people almost never really DO any of these sick things they watch films or read about: The people who DO NOT read and watch these films, but still has the same kind of violent urges and frustrations inside them, are the people who commit crimes in reality.) There are also some scenes that you might consider funny (the night of the election votes counting.) But should everything be so totally light and easy anyway? It's (almost) the only documentary I've seen that portrays this type of person. Nick Broomfield's "Kurt and Courtney" might be atmospherically closest (I've seen) to this. It takes place among similar kind of people and culture.
You can download this movie from Subcin.com/shane.html: Shane Ballard himself gave the movie there to download for free, just days before his death.
The Amityville Horror (2005)
Not worth seeing
I was interested of this, because I saw Douglas' previous film, "Searching for a Wrong-Eyed Jesus", which was really great ("documentary"). I didn't have much hopes, but still this managed to disappoint me.
Everything is below mediocre in this movie. The pictures, the music, directing. The characters are really distant. The artificial coloring, which is made in the editing room, is really ugly and unnecessary. But that (the coloring) seems to be the standard practice in today's movies. The atmosphere and the quality of the film is exactly the same as in the teenage "horror" movies made in the recent years ("I Know What You Did Last Summer", "Urban Legends", etc.). So if you like them, maybe you like this also.
I don't know what's the story behind making of this film: WHY? I haven't seen the older Amityvilles, so I cannot compare this to them, but this feels like a really vain effort. I think the better choice for directing this movie/story would have been Scott Derrickson, who made "Exorcism of Emily Rose" and the absolutely brilliant "Hellraiser 5-Inferno". Maybe he would have been even too obvious choice.
Some pictures work, but overally this is nothing more than a boring collection of horror clichés.
Breaking Point (1975)
Better than you'd expect reading these reviews
This is not nearly as repulsive film as some reviews would suggest. Actually it is quite interesting, and even funny, sad and beautiful. I think Vibenius has made some deep movies (I'm talking about "Thriller-En grym film" and this). And I'm pretty sure he hasn't got too much understanding, or even very many attempts to understand these films.
Everything is good, both the insides (atmosphere) and the outsides (technicalities) of the film. It's nicely shot, the music is very good, acting is good, people are interesting, overally it has a strong and whole atmosphere. The ideas/script are very good also.
It's funny that in these two movies Vibenius also shows, how differently you can, or COULD, do "hardcore porn": In "Thriller" those scenes were quite dull and ugly, but in here some scenes are nearer to "love making" than regular "porn".
And what comes to the directors "comments" towards psychology: Unfortunately all the "expert statements" that we hear in this movie are direct citations from the leading figures of psychology (in the last century). Vibenius just lets these authorities speak for themselves.
Some scenes are harder to understand than others. And very provocative. Maybe some scenes could have even been left out. I'm mainly talking bout the "candyman" scene, although nothing even happens there. But it's hard to condemn this man (I mean the film's main character), because it's hard to even know are the things shown here reality or just pictures flashing in his bored mind.
The main character seems to have quite a dream conditions in his workplace, it almost makes me jealous... Which brings to my mind: I think the girls in this film are refreshingly normal looking.
I would add to the title of this film ("Pornographic Thriller") one word: PSYCHOLOGICAL Pornographic Thriller. That would describe it quite well. It's a thriller that happens in the mind. However, this is not a film for everybody. At least not for the "faint-hearted". Whoever that may be.
Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers (1988)
Dirty sneakers and white tennis socks... Again
This is not horror, as the first part was: This is ("campy") light and humorous entertainment. Like in so many sequels, the action starts right away with no explanations. But there's boobs, so I don't complain. And real boobs that is. If I understand correctly, those are quite rare today amongst the teenage girls in U.S. of A. Which brings to my mind the fact that the main actress here is Pamela "Bruce's sister" Springsteen.
This cannot be thought without the first movie, so I compare this to it. Again there is too small clothing (mainly pants) and funny hair, it's not hard to tell what decade this film is made in. Again there is really strange characters, this time even more visibly "pathological" ones. Especially the personnel of the camp. It's like some mental rehabilitation summer camp. People are older: Most of the actors must be at least 25, but I think they're supposed to be 16 or something. Some "methods" used by the Evil Dyke are quite unpleasant. Actually this movie don't have much in common with the first part, and this is worse than it in every way.