TYTD Reviews

One that…the more I watched it, the more I felt i'd seen it before…But for the life of me I cant place where or when I might have seen it. 'The American Scream' is a 2012 documentary that explores the art of the 'Haunt'. The art of transforming an everyday street home into either a haunted house, or a haunted maze or some kind of spooky 'experience'.

The documentary explores what drives average people to get into the annual tradition of making their home a spooky trip, what drives the hobbiests and the professional 'Haunt Scene', as we follow three experienced 'Haunters' from Fairhaven NJ as they prepare for their annual halloween haunt experiences.

regular readers will know im not the best at talking through 'Documentary' as a genre. So I'll keep it fairly brief. I really personally enjoyed this documentary. I found its exploration of 'The Scene' to be insightful and engaging. I loved how the film went a bit more 'multi layer' in its exploration of the people who get into this field. But also into the families of these people, how supportive or helpful they can be to keeping the dream going. and I feel like the film is very sincere in its intentions of showing the craft, warts and all for what it is.

Visually its very well put together, it all flows together well both visually and narratively, and while it takes its subjects seriously, it is also not afraid to get a little bit of humor into the mix as a nice palette cleanse to some of the more serious moments.

'The American Scream' is a fantastic Halloween Pre-gamer documentary, something that really helps to get you in the mood for 'Spooky Season' and a really solid documentary in and of itself. One I can definitely recommend, its full of likeable and memorable people, doing something that they love, and the film presents that in a considered and entertaining way. Definitely one for you 'Watchlist' this Halloween.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-american-scream-2012/

I first heard about 'Big Shark' about 10 years ago when Tommy Weisau gave an interview while touring his (then) newest feature 'Best f(r)iends' in which he announced he was returning to film making with long time buddy under duress Gregg Sestero. With his next feature, inspired by 'Jaws', having the tentative title 'BIG SHARK MOVIE!'…A few years passed, and in 2019, a trailer for it landed and…it looked bizarre, strange and very *of* 'The Room' in nature. And sure enough, It seemed to depict Tommy, Gregg and a new guy getting into fights with their partners and fighting a GIANT shark that had seemingly invaded New Orleans. I was fairly excited…

Aaaand then 7-8 years passed, Covid happened, the film seemingly dissapeared, briefly reappearing in 2023/24 at a handful of US cinemas for premier screenings…Again, I didnt hear much about it…and then last night while flicking around on Tubi, I found out that it was seemingly just…dumped on there…Now titled simply 'Big Shark'. Without hesitation I cleared my diary, grabbed the popcorn and sat back to see what Tommy Weisaeu could do outside of modern takes on 'Tragedy'…and the answer is…'The hell if I know?!'.

The plot follows three firefighters (that element is set up VERY heavily…as if them being firefighters is going to be relevent to the story…it isnt…not really. Other than for one specific scene where the fire captain call the gang to warn them about a 'big shark' about 45 minutes in…) We're introduced to Patrick, Georgie and Tim. Three all american guys, saving lives, drinking beers and living life to the fullest with their foxy FOXY ladies…

But just beneath the surface, theres tension. Patrick and Tim are both struggling in their relationships, arguing with their partners…kind of…the film makes out that they're simultaineously in very secure happy relationships, but then, as is the case in 'The Room', an arguement between the couples will just…happen. out of nowhere…go on for about 2 minutes getting increasingly heated…and then abruptly stop for no reason either…Its weird…

Anyway! lifes a party for the boys, and the day after the night before, Patrick decides to take his partner Sophia out on the lake to go fishing. While out there, the couple have a heart to heart, argue, Patrick sees a 35 foot shark in the Mississippi river (the film doesnt show the shark at this point), his partner doesnt believe him, they argue, the arguement abruptly stops, and they go home with one fish thats big enough for 2-3 with the aim of feeding 6.

From there? The film just gets more and more disjointed and strange honestly…As Patrick, Tim and Georgie enter a cycle of talking various shades of bollocks about anything and everything that happens to be going on. theres idle footage of the group shopping, dancing in the street, drinking, driving around, sleeping, showering…But every so often the film will cut away to a MASSIVE shark destroying bridges, sliding down side streets eating people, or lunging about…And noone reacts to any of this, the news occasionally brings it up, but only in the same way they might bring up that days 'powerball' numbers…

Add to this, that through this, roughly 45-50 minute window, non of the gang acknowledge the shark problem…other than Patrick…who sheepishly will just occasioanlly drop a 'I saw a shark in the river y'know…' into the random conversations every 15 minutes or so…sometimes it gets acknowledged and dismissed a bit…sometimes it just gets completely ignored.

Anyway, around the hour mark, the sharks flooded so many parts of New Orleans, destroyed so many bridges and killed so many people, that the captain of the fire department 'Captain Joe' calls the gang to let them know a big shark is on the loose, and that the gang need to try and either track it down and get rid of it, or stay indoors.

The gang thank the captain for flagging it up…and then the remaining 35-45 minutes of the film is the gang just…doing more random bumbling about getting into WEIRD situations like pig chasing, and buying pulled pork sandwhiches. intercut every so often with them encountering the Big shark, not really being that scared of it…and occasionally getting the sentience to go 'OH MY GOD! BIG SHARK!' for about 20 seconds, until the scene cuts to the lads going for a run. Or having another beer.

Concluding with a 10 minute finale where Patrick and Tim decide to get serious on taking the shark out…or as serious as this film can get.

Somehow this is even more incoherent than 'The Room' at times, Big Shark kind of transends explanation, it has to be experienced almost to get a read on exactly what its putting out there.

The big elephant in the room is Gregg Sesteros involvement. According to Gregg, Tommy basically tricked him into performing in the initial 2019 trailer for this film by promising a leading role as 'Georgie'. Gregg accepted, and with it, also agreed to help co-write the movie. But then in 2020 Covid hit, Tommy told Gregg the production was 'paused' and then just…didnt get back to him. When he finally did come back a year or two later, Gregg had already firmed up his filming diary and couldnt take part in the film anymore…and sometime between then and the films release Gregg was written out of the movie and 90% of the co-writing he'd done for the film had been deleted…but not smoothed out.

I feel like that explains a lot of this movie, Because it feels pretty much from the off like there are a lot of scenes that happen, where there were scenes in between the scenes that made it into the movie that were just…removed in pre-production…but those scenes had essential context, that wernt carried over and back into the movie. For example, the opening scene is of the guys saving a family from a burning building. which then crossfades to reveal the footage we were seeing was in a movie theater where…SOMEONE (its not explained who) has decided to give the firemen all medals…According to Gregg Sestero, the reason its in a movie theater, who is giving them an award, and why was all in an additional scene that was cut and not elaborated on.

The bulk of the film is the guys goofing around, improvising in locations and presumably doing a lot of shooting at locations in exchange for promotion of goods and services. with NO mention of the shark for HUGE chunks of the runtime…and then it'll randomly just cut to the shark destroying things…NOONE other than Patrick really mentions the shark for the bulk of the film, noone is ever really panicked, or bothered…in fact, the shark can slide into the scene and kill 2-3 people, and everyone else will just kind of…barely acknowledge its there…as if a small bird had landed or something.

Obviously Gregg had to be recast because of the scheduling commitments, and thats a real shame as I think he'd have been great here. According to Gregg, the actor hired to play his part, 'Georgie' had a bit of a fraught relationship with Wisaeu during filming, and as such. Tommy took the opportunity to get rid of him as soon as possible…But that in turn meant EVEN MORE of the script had to be deleted with no detail carried over…meaning once Georgie exits the film, everything after that point becomes EVEN MORE incoherent, and the events leading up to his exist become EVEN MORE bizarre, disjointed and unrealistic.

I really cannot stress enough how, if it wasnt for a vague sense of sincerity in this production that makes me believe Wisaeu was really trying to make a kind of horror, action drama film as best as he could. I'd be convinced this was an Adult Swim funded production. And I think the thing that endears me to this film as much as it did endear me is the fact that, up until the closing 10 minutes or so. The film does seem genuine in its intentions, it doesnt feel like Tommy is making a self aware goofy comedy film. I dont know what he IS trying to make…but whatever it is, It feels like he actually believes in it.

So, the script itself? disjointed, feels almost dream like in places, has characters who feel like the actors are playing themselves (likely because they are) has terrible lumpy pacing, the three act structure is a monolith with a 10 minute epilogue tacked onto the end. the dialogue ranges from genuinely awful, to instantly quotable in a way that only Tommy Wiseaus movies really can be. a HUGE chunk of Patricks lines are just him doing improvised singing about cowboys and his girlfriend. The front half of the film uses the words 'Delusional Minds' about 200 times with a few variations as well. I dont know if Tommy just liked the idea of his character constantly being told he has a 'Delusional Mind' or is 'Delusional of the mind'…but he makes every character tell him that at least 2-5 times in the first hour.

Large swathes of context are just…missing from scene to scene, and we as the audience are just expected to go with it. Characters are introduced as being important to the plot who we meet once or twice and then never see again, they have no impact on the plot ultimately. Theres a ton of subplots that are introduced that Gregg has commented DID have payoff in the final act, but in the Wiseau cut are introduced with intent…for one scene…and then just forgotten or abandoned. The gang dont even directly confront the shark until the final 15 minutes, they have some distant encounters before that, but it doesnt lead anywhere.

A BIG recurring point made throughout the film is that the guys drink and drive…A LOT. to the point that, if you didnt know any better, you'd think the cast NEEDED to be drunk in order to drive.

To sum it up on a high level. It feels like an alien was given a box containing scripts of scenes from two totally different movies out of order, and was asked to just 'pick some scenes from both films' and, with no formal film writing or editing experience, the alien picked the scenes he liked and then they just…SLAMMED the scenes together into a 105 minute script…whether the scenes flowed into each other or not.

Which…to me? is the thing I both love and hate about this thing. its all over the place which makes it feel weird, uneven, messy…but also manic and a bit crazy. theres so much going on in the scenes that it may take multiple watches just to catch most of the weird background bits or small acting choices that are just…hilarious to me.

But at the same time. I hate that its the way it is because it gets SO convoluted So quickly…and its really hard to take a film to heart when a not insignificant chunk of it is three guys drinking beer, chatting inanely, intercut with Tommy screaming, crying, scream crying or singing.

Direction wise…its all very loose, I believe a lot of this was directed by Tommy by way of giving the actors a scenario and a rough script, and…if Tommy was In the scene, people could improv…if Tommy WASNT in the scene, they had to stick to the script rigidly. Tommy's directional style is fascinating to me, as he doesnt seem to know how to get people to give him genuine emotion…He only (understandably) seems to know how to get 'Tommy Emotion' out of people…its that strange quality that made all the performances in 'The Room' so etheral…and he's managed that again here…theres no big 'memeable' moments here really…but still plenty of times where you'll hear something thats instantly quotable, and will probably go down well with die hard Wisaeu heads.

Visually, its a somewhat polished, but still very messy film, the disjointed script means getting the visuals to flow was always going to be a big problem, and it just…doesnt really work in my opinion…

But visually from a cine standpoint, its a mixed bag. Not terrible, but a bit problematic. the actual quality of the images, the compositions, the style of filming, I thought was actually pretty nice. It looks and feels like a mid to upper mid budget production with the rule of threes and the line being followed (for the most part). shots are crisp, detailed, deep, and mix faded palettes with some richer colour moments well…However, on the other side of things, the CGI is pretty bad, we're talking worse than 'Asylum' level CG, the scaling of the 'Big Shark' changes constantly, theres a lot of CG just kind of…meaninglessly dropped into the background of shots, like CGI'ing a surrounding neighbourhood, or adding random trees to shots, fake blood and water splatters are low budget and badly utilised. its bad CG basically for the most part.

And making things worse, because of the disjointed scripting and direction, it makes editing this a nightmare. With sequences barely holding together for the most part and random cuts that sometimes cut a conversation mid flow, cut the sound off mid noise or cut to something completely different mid flow that is ALSO midway through playing out…its hard to explain, but like…they'll establish a bar scene where the gang are talking, Patrick will say something like 'Sophia is the love of my life, I want to marry her and spe-' at which point the film will cut to the big shark mid way through destroying 3-4 buildings, and just as its about to finish smashing through a 5th, it'll then abruptly cut AGAIN to the next day, with Georgie in the shower, and his dialogue will open with '-ly…tomorrow im going fishing.'

Its making a purse from a sows ear really. but those cuts are horrendous and absolutely knocked me for a loop honestly. when I say that i've seen no budget productions with a tighter, more consistent edit than this? Im really not kidding.

Performance wise? …well, as mentioned a big chunk of this film is improvised, with a not insignificant chunk of it just being Tommy singing made up songs with a voice that sounds like coal trapped under a door, repeatedly shouting things like 'NO FEAR!!!' over and over again, repeating lines over and over again and…when he's run out of steam and doesnt have anything else to give, he'll cheekily dust off a line from 'The Room', or one of his other shows/films with a nod and a wink to the camera in doing so.

Tommy is kind of the selling point of this film, and if you want more Tommy, this film wont dissapoint, the rest of the cast are a bit dry though in my opinion, they're doing the best they can, but some are better with Improv than others, its already a stressful situation having to work with Tommy anyway, so having to do that when he wants to go massively off script, or pull you in on a minutes notice to film a 10 minute dance scene with a New Orleans jazz band…I can imagine would throw anyone off their A-game.

Even with that considered though, the best performances are just kind of…passable, and the worst performances range from truly awful to cultishly appreciated. Noone here really stands out, because they're not allowed to stand out…Only Tommy is. and he's…well…Tommy.

And as for the soundtrack? Begrudgingly added apparently. As in, Gregg saw a cut of this film that was being prepped for release, and realised that the entire film had NO music at all…he flagged it up to Tommy who then took the film away, and when Gregg next saw it (at a premier) he'd added library tracks to the majority of scenes, added the improv footage of him singing random songs, and added a LOT of footage of him and the cast dancing with street bands…I cant imagine how truly hollow this film would have been with ZERO music. Because even with it, it feels a bit generic in places…wild.

Overall? I had mixed feelings on 'Big Shark' in some ways, its the perfect 'next step' if you watched and enjoyed 'The Room' because it feels bigger, grander and even more disjointed and strange…but at the same time, I dont think its as enjoyable as 'The Room' and I dont think it has the weight behind it that made 'The Room' the success it was.

To that end, I think if you are a fan of the strangeness of Tommy Wiseau, you'll MORE than get your hit here, its a largely sincere attempt to make a 'proper' movie. and its those kind of conditions that I find Wisaeu thrives in. Im less endeared to him when he's playing up to the cameras or TRYING to be purposfully wacky. I'd maybe even go as far as to say, if you enjoy 'bad' movies or cult films, you might get a kick out of this.

But is this movie as accessible to general film goers as 'The Room' was? No. its a bit *too* weird for general audiences in my opinion and I feel they would either not get it, or would just be annoyed by it.

So from me? I'll recommend it if your already into the alt cinema scene, or if you enjoyed 'The Room'…but I think if your not really into that kind of thing, you'll already know this probably isnt for you.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/big-shark/

Going into 'Camp Blood 8: Revelations' I was cautiously optimistic. The 'Camp Blood' franchise is not exactly a bastion of quality, BUT! the last film 'It Kills: Camp Blood 7' while overly basic and a little mundane, was the first film in the series to just…make a killer clown movie that was technically proficient, didnt meander (too much) and felt like a legitimate attempt at a horror movie, and not just Sterling Entertainment kidnapping a freelance director, dropping him in the woods and telling him they wont pick him back up until he gives them a film thats AT LEAST 60 minutes long, has a killer clown in it, and at least one set of boobs…

So, going into this one, part of me was hopeful that they would take the sturdiness of the last film and build on it in a creative and productive way…But part of me was also fully anticipating (given the scattershot nature of this series) that it was just a flash in the pan, and that we'd be back to incoherent adventures in the woods AT BEST…

Well! Colour me pleasantly surprised, because 'Camp Blood 8: Revelations' is quite possibly the best film the franchise has managed to produce to date!…kind of.

The plot this time follows a Volleyball team, on the road to a big tournament when their car breaks down just inside the entrance of the fabled 'Camp Blood!' At first they try to call for help, but theres no signal, so the girls do what they think is best and split into 3 parties. two of the girls go one way, two girls go in another direction, and one stays behind with the car, just on the off chance that someone else passes by who might be able to help.

Little do they know that deep within the woods, a killer clown and his mother are expectantly waiting for their next victims…But this time, it's different, as the films twists and turns reveal that some of the girls now stuck in the woods MAY have ties to Camp Blood going back decades…and that the killer clown may have let himself in for more than he bargained for…

The absolute saving grace for this movie, the thing that fundamentally elevates it above the other films, is in and of itself its most contentious aspect. The director and writer Dennis Devine made the conscious decision to pivot the series away from being a straight 'Horror/Slasher' entry this time around, instead taking the film into 'Horror/Comedy' territory.

What this means in real terms is that, after 7 entries of mediocre and…frankly just downright awful (in my opinion) slasher movies. This entry is specifically written and directed from the perspective of highlighting just how crumbulent those entries were, while also taking pot shots at the slasher genre AND the kind of horror fans who make a point of trying to outsmart the writer. And, this is probably the most exciting development this series has had since its inception.

It means that, from a script perspective; we have an 80 (ish) minute long feature that feels self aware, is self referential in its humour, calls out elements of previous Camp Blood movies that were bad and emphasizes WHY they were bad. is a little ditzy and air headed at times, feels a little John Waters-esq in places but feels as if the writer is directly talking to folks like me, the kind of people who HAVE sat through all of these movies, and just…needed these films to develop a pulse.

Thats not to say this is a perfect script by any means, quite a few of the gags do fall a bit flat, for some reason they've decided to pull a couple of youtubers in to play roles in the film and they just…really dont land well with me. The dialogue dances a VERY fine line between 'self aware and witty' and 'cringy, badly delivered' or just plain poor. And, I feel the ending could be taken either as a solid subversion of what these films ALWAYS do. Or it could be seen as a bit of a lazy 'cop out' to not have to wrap the film up properly (Though I am still on the fence about exactly how I personally feel about it.)

The pacing is fairly consistent, though it does feel like its starting to run out of steam a little bit towards the end of the 2nd act, as things slow down and we get a LOT of scenes of the multiple splinters of our cast just…chatting about any old nonsense inanely (presumably to pad the runtime) Tonally; I cant really complain, I do wish they'd maybe leant just a *little* more into the drier self aware comedy side of things to help shore the comedy element up and more firmly plant it in 'Horror/Comedy' terratory. But as a parody attempt? I think its pretty solid.

The characters are all stereotypes of the genre, and to go one further, the script essentially acknowledges that, and trusts the audience to know thats the case, and in doing so it gives the film makers more of a chance to subvert the expectations of the genre…quite successfully I feel. Our core cast are a little thin on character development. they dont really get a whole lot to work with, but again, it feels almost like the films intentionally doing that as a play on these kinds of movies. I dont know if I fully trust that that was the directors intentions. But given what he does through the rest of this movie, I am willing to take it in good faith.

Which leads me to the biggest contention I have with this movie. Theres no doubt to me that this is very likely the best 'Camp Blood' script the franchise has seen to date. its solid as a rock, has a personality, and while it drags a little bit…in a franchise that gave us 'Camp Blood 4 and 5' the bar for this series was frankly in the toilet. But is it *really* a 'Camp Blood' script? can this be considered the best script of the franchise, if it is in fact a pseudo lampooning of the franchise? it would be like saying 'Friday the 13th' or 'unmasked Part 25' is the best film in the Friday the 13th franchise. like…yes, technically and irrefutably it IS a 'Camp Blood' film. but because it isnt in the 'spirit' of the 'Camp Blood' films, it isnt of this franchises 'Ilk' I dont feel entirely comfortable holding it up as an example of the best this franchise has to offer.

Its not seriously trying to be of the same genre the other films are. And because of that, I dont really know whether to overlook my feelings on it and consider this 'The Best Camp Blood' film, or whether to hold it in joint first with 'Within the woods' as the best subversion of a 'Camp Blood' film…I think my feelings on it will mature over time. But at this point, the juries out. I'll be honest, Im just happy its 99% competent.

To that end, theres no disputing the techncal aspects of this production, on a technical level, this is the best 'Camp Blood' film i've seen to date. The direction blends old school slasher tropes with elements of John Waters early filmography and more modern inspirations such as 'Happy Death Day'. Every shot feels carefully crafted to be the best it can possibly be, theres even some nice subtext hidden within the direction to help characters get a better understanding of the characters WELL before the script gives you the answers.

Its a visually pleasing piece with only a handful of missteps across the entire runtime, that shows a real care and attention to what Devine wanted to achieve with this. With my only gripe personally being those one or two missteps where an attempt to jazz up a scene was made and didnt quite land. and, in a situation that was kind of out of the productions control. The camera used to film this isnt exactly 'top of the line' its fine enough, but even with some half decent post work processing on the shots, theres a cheapness to the quality of the image that gives it a bit of a 'direct to Tubi' vibe…its 'Camp Blood 8' so I wasnt expecting 'The Odyssey' but it is a shame non the less.

The cine is the best the franchise has had to date. 'It Kills' was the best the franchise had to date up to that point because the shots were all largely focussed, there was attempts at more solid colour grading and sequences felt planned. This entry takes that and MASSIVELY ups the ante. It feels like this was meticulously planned from start to finish, with a clean and clear storyboard designed to show, not tell for the most part, composition is mixed to great, with the 'studio' footage looking especially wonderful as they utilized coloured gels, shadow work and decent chiaroscuro lighting to really help give the production a massive boost in quality.

Sequences feel largely carfully crafted, and while the title and credits sequences feel almost like an afterthought for how basic and 'default' they feel. the rest of the film practically pops to life with some decent day for night work, and the kind of shots that would convince anyone this was a series worth checking out. I genuinely loved the look of this film (for the most part)

Performance wise, we have probably this films biggest problem. The clear winner for me is Sally Mullins as the killer clowns mother 'Sheila'. Their relationship is an incestuous twist on Jason and Pamela Voorhees by way of 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2'. Looking into Sallys IMDB, I see she does standup, and I feel like that really comes into its own here, her performance is flippant, deranged and the perfect balance of crazy to scary to help sell it. The rest of the cast really struggle to keep up with the kind of manic terror she brings to the film.

Pheobe Dollar as 'Dolly' is also pretty solid, bringing a dry and acidic performance to the film, as the plot develops she gets probably the most developmental piece of character work out of the rest of the cast. and she rises to meet the challenge well! I was quite dissapointed when she exited, as I felt her story could have been interesting. Though, I do appreciate the 'gag' they parted her with.

But from here things go down hill a bit. Rhei Liu as Ashley is our lead for most of this film, and shes fine. gives a relatively good performance, but doesnt really get much in the way of range to work with. She seems to struggle a bit with the more deadpan moments, and her physical acting is a bit lacklustre…But compared to the actors who've come before in this franchise? she's solid. the other girls range from 'fine' to 'not so fine' to just…kind of unmemorable, which is a shame. I feel like the script really needed 4 people rather than 5. But there were just a couple of moments where a 5th person was needed to make the plot make sense. So they had to cram a 5th person in exclusively for those 1-2 moments…and the end result is that theres always one girl in this who just…ends up with a gulf of about 10 minutes or more where nothing really happens with them. it feels like padding.

the rest of the supporting cast are just kind of poor. I think they got wind that this was more of a comedy production and then lent into 'hyuck hyuck' comedy, rather than the drier stuff that I feel this production needed. and its just awkward. It didnt feel good and did dampen my feelings on this film a bit.

And the scoring is…a little ostentatious…but actually pretty fitting. its a stocky sounding (barring the original compositions which have a punky edge that was VERY welcome honestly) but it fits the tone of the production and sounds totally unlike anything we've had up to this point. It was great. and barring one or two moments where the ADR track slipped a little bit causing a mismatch between the actors mouth movement and the audio. I had no issue with this. its probably the best sounding 'Camp Blood' movie made up to this point.

All in all? I actually really quite enjoyed 'Camp Blood 8: Revelations' and I feel a bit weird saying that. But I did! the scripts largely solid, the direction and cine is the best the franchise has seen to date, and the scoring is pretty solid too! in fact barring some slightly mixed performances, a few missed jokes and a bit of sagging in the back end (Which, even the best of us are guilty of that) its a very solid offering, which is surprising from Sterling.

This is probably the first 'Camp Blood' film I can see myself definitely revisiting again in future. and probably the only one to date that I can firmly recommend, as it helpfully is out of the existing continuity and can be viewed anytime.

But the sticking point with me still lingers. I cant honestly say this is a good reflection of what the 'Camp Blood' movies represent…so can I call it THE best Camp Blood Movie?!…I dont know. had it been a bit more straight cut horror, it absolutely would have. as it stands, its the best entry in the franchise. even if it isnt necessarily the best example of a Camp Blood movie…and I think thats a hell of an accolade.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/camp-blood-8-revelations/

I decided to catch a 60(ish) minute Tubi movie today while in between chores. and stumbled across my favourite subgenre of 'Tubi movie' the 'How the hell is this on here?!' subgenre.

Grand Theft Auto: Murder City is an oddity of a picture. A film that almost certainly didnt seek permission or approval from Rockstar or Rockstar North to use the 'Grand Theft Auto' name. But did it anyway…only to then get cold feet on the idea of making an unlicensed 'Grand Theft Auto' movie…But not so much that they dont steal a lot of elements from the Grand Theft Auto games…its…a mess honestly.

So the film opens in the 80s apparently, and we're introduced to 'Max' who is three years old and playing 'Grand Theft Auto 5' on a flatscreen TV…his dad dies of an overdose, his mum is horrified, Max is terrified and then it jumps forward 40 years…and a now 28 year old Max is living in the tough suburban hood of…a picket fence suburb with nice tidy gardens.

Lifes tough in the hardened, dead eyed world of cozy suburbia, but Max is in it to get rich or die trying. When he tries to steal a van, he's caught by the owner, but rather than call the cops, the owner has a better idea and sets Max up as a dealer on his 'turf'.

From here? things get a bit confusing, as we jump around a fair bit exploring the 'hood' meeting several residents all with their own problems, backstories, tales of revenge and dreams of making it big, while Max kind of…drifts in and out of the various stories.

Its a world full of sex, drugs, rap and murder…and the big question is, Will Max make it out ALIVE, letalone 'Make it'.

So I suppose the question on many peoples minds right now is exactly 'HOW' 'Grand Theft Auto-ey' is this movie? And the answer is 'not very'. Most of the elements that tie this film to the game are cosmetic and/or literally copied directly from the various plots of the series.

Most of the pilfery seems to be centered around 'GTA: San Andreas', 'GTA 4' and 'GTA 5'. and I can say here exactly whats been 'half inched'. They've taken the theme tune from 'San Andreas' which plays at least a couple of times through the film, the theme from GTA 4 and incidental music from GTA 5 is also lifted and shifted into this film. Sometimes when characters die, they'll put a 'WASTED' caption on screen (as per what happens when you die in the game) but its inconsistent, it only happens a handful of times, and doesnt happen on every death. They also steal the 'Mission Completed: Respect +' captioning from San Andreas at the end of the movie, alongside the in game stings when these captions are triggered.

They also for some reason steal the 'Weapons Wheel' (an in game tool used to select your weapon of choice) from GTA 5…but again, its literally just a cropped .png of the weapons wheel, and its inconsistent as to when its used, sometimes they remember to use it, sometimes they dont.

They dont really steal too many 'shot for shot' cutscenes from the games…but they do basically steal the entire opening of San Andreas with Officer Tenpenny and CJ for a weird 5 minute segment that serves no purpose here other than to say 'Yeah we played 'San Andreas'.

They also occasionally try to recreate H.U.D aesthetics, whenever someone robs someone they show a money counter that goes up, when they enter a new part of town they'll put a caption in the bottom left to indicate the change. But these are all in white, on blown out grey and white skies with no shadowing or bordering…meaning 3/4's of the time you cant even see, letalone read whats popped up. GTA 5 gameplay is hidden in the backgrounds of shots a couple of times. and the soundtrack is a mixture of licensed pop and rap songs that they almost certainly didnt get permission to use, and independent talent thats actually not half bad.

The script itself is a mess, it sets up Max as the lead character before going down a more 'Interwoven anthology' pathway, bringing in WAY too many characters, WAY too many motivations and not really making it all that clear exactly what the stories building to. The characters arnt really well defined, dont really have motivations beyond 'Make it' or 'Survive'. the dialogue (whats audible anyway) is really rough, feels more like improv, and is usually really self contained to whatever scene is on screen…Meaning it feels like your watching clips from about 50 different 'gang' movies, that just so happen to very rarely feature an appearence from a recurring actor called 'Max'.

The ending is underwhelming, there isnt a sense of pay off, half the characters that are set up, dont end up going anywhere and given this thing clocks in at 66 minutes (5-6 minutes of titles and credits take it to about an hour) it feels criminally slow in places.

The direction is a heady mixture of low quality, badly lit, fuzzy handheld shakey cam footage, stock footage and for a couple of shots, they got a drone. non of the footage matches, theres no clear colour profile, and on at least one stock shot I believe I saw a watermark.

It feels less like a coherent vision, and more like the director was making this thing on the fly, shooting whatever came to mind, with whoever he could convince to come out with him over a year of weekends. and while I'll always applaud a low/no budget film maker for getting a project over the line. that really is where the bare minimum begins.

The cine is a mixture of poor to dreadful, a lot of the shots are shakey, badly lit, have low quality effects (bad muzzle flashes are SO common here) or filters put onto them, at several points in the film they leave outtakes in the final cut, or let the shots run past the 'cut' leading to on set chatter and off camera laughter. the lack of a colour grade really impacts the films sequencing, making this feel very much as if its woven together from offcuts, rather than having a shot list and being planned.

Night shots are either blown out by flood lights, or barely viewable, the whole thing just feels unpolished, and unfinished. But not in a raw 'this was intentional' way…in a 'this is the best we could do.' way…

The performances are hard to guage, largely because so much of it is made up of what feels like improvised dialogue, 'off script' patter or outtakes. I cant honestly say any cast member stood out as 'good', 'memorable' or even interesting…they're all just kind of…there…and not great. When I can say comfortably that the sex scenes in this film make 'The Human Tornado' feel like 'Emmanuelle'. I hope that sets the bar.

and the soundtrack, as mentioned, is largely a mixture of stolen tracks and independent performances, I didnt mind the original stuff so much, the title track 'Grand Theft Auto Murder City' is probably the strongest original piece and they run it into the ground. I laughed.

But its here we have another problem, which is they didnt have particularly good sound recording equipment on set, which means a LOT of the on set performances are muffled, inaudible or just really poor quality, even Tubi's own caption service struggled to figure out what was being said or going on. and the ADR work would have Doris Wishman asking for another take…its SO bad.

OH! and I completely forgot to mention, theres a smoke alarm chirp every so often in the background of the film whenever ADR is used…If your terminally online, im sure you'll understand why thats jawdropping…I cant be convinced they didnt do it on purpose.

Watching this film, I was reminded of an old favourite of mine 'White Glove Massive' and I think with a few beers, this film and that one could make a half palettable double feature. But thats probably the only way you'd ever get me to watch this one again, and I absolutely cannot recommend this one. Im amazed it hasnt been sued off the face of the earth by this point, I think you'd really have to be in a very specific headspace to get anything other than frustration and bafflement out of this film honestly. Honestly; spend your time elsewhere.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/grand-theft-auto-murder-city/

To cap off my summer 'fling' with the world record holder for 'Owner of the apartment to feature in the most movies' Doris Wishman. I decided to catch her final film. 'Each Time I Kill' was shot in 2002, shortly before Doris left this earth and spent 4 years in post production before releasing in 2006 on festival circuits, ahead of a wider release in 2007. And…as far as swansongs go? I simultaineously have to say that this feels like THE most and the LEAST Doris Wishman style movie i've ever seen.

The plot follows 'Ellie' a nerdy girl who's essentially a ghost at her high school (as written by an 89 year old woman) She's ignored by the jocks, bullied by the alt-kids, pitied by the other girls, and her only other friend is an equally unpopular nerdy girl, who Ellie resents to some extent as being essentially her 'only' option.

But Ellie is about to have a flash with fate, when she decides to explore an old abandoned house that local legend states had 'TERRIBLE things happen there to a family'. While exploring, Ellie finds a locket. And on taking the locket home, she discovers that, hidden inside, is a folded up note (printed from a printer and singed with a lighter for some reason…)

The note tells Ellie that this Locket is in fact MAGIC! and has the power to transfer a trait from someone else INTO Ellie. All Ellie has to do is murder the person she wants to steal the trait from, and then read allowed the sacred chant 3 times, and BOOM! whatever Ellie wanted will be transplanted into her, and her weakness in that field will be transferred onto the murder victim.

At first, she's VERY sceptical, but eventually curiosity gets the better of her, and she ends up murdering her school crushes girlfriend, using the Locket to take the girls excellent skin and complexion, and leaving the murdered girl pimply, pale and acne scarred.

Now with immaculate skin, Ellie realises she's dealing with more than a novelty, and sets in motion a plan to create her 'perfect form' using as many girls from her school as it takes to try and win the heart of her crush, while the police follow the trail of 'de-beautied' bodies wondering what the HELL is going on.

On the one hand, the script for this feels very much like Doris was trying to have another roll of the dice at seriously taking on the horror genre after the loss of the original cut of 'A Night to Dismember'. Tonally this film has similar movements and swings that her earlier film had. and I feel like she really wanted to get something out to the public with this one that showed people that she was more than just 'roughies' and Naturist films.

To that point, the script is actually pretty good fun! I cant say its anything *too* original, it has elements of 'Hellraiser', 'May' and other body horror style movies melded together. But it handles its subject fairly well, and at 81 minutes long (I believe the second longest film Doris ever made) It moves at a LOT faster pace than most of her filmography, keeps good pacing through the act structures, has maybe a slightly more bloated 2nd act than the 1st and 3rd do, and while the ending is maybe a little abrupt and feels a bit like the entire film collapsed under its own steam. It at least ends in a way that could be seen as believable, at least it ends in a way that, while maybe not THE most satisfying in the world, didnt ACTIVELY make me angry.

The characters are a little shallow, but do get some good development across the runtime, its a solid little SODV horror film. Maybe not the most bombastic or memorable, but definitely the kind of digi-video film you could play for cult fans and get an accepting thumbs up from the group at the annual SOV Potluck.

Where this falters for me is in the cine and direction. Bearing in mind that most Doris Wishman films i've seen, I've praised how well the direction has been, how decent the compositions and cinematography and sequence building is. Even if the plot wasnt all that solid, you could guarentee there'd be at least a handful of shots in Doris Wishman films of the 60s and 70s that would stick in your mind long after the End title card.

Here? Doris is working with digital video, and may I warmly admit that I found it incredibly respectable that Wishman so readily embraced different formats and genres, like jumping from colour to black and white in the 60s, and jumping head first into early digital effects in the 80s. at 89 years old, Doris saddled up with her lifelong cine collaborator, and got into digital as a format. and for that alone, I feel she deserves some credit…

With that being said, this is probably the worst shot film Doris ever made. I feel like dealing with smaller cameras, the chance to do retakes whenever, and the freedom to just get out and shoot has resulted in a horrendous mixed bag of a viewing experience. The majority of the film flicks between a fish eye lens that is BEYOND distracting and had me groaning whenever it came up, or it was shot with a flat 35-55mm lens of some description with digital zoom features. the result is shots that are flat, have to be digitally manipulated to create depth of field. Feel overly desaturated, and are generally kind of lifeless.

The cine itself is painful, as some shots start with the camera operator still setting up the shot, ground shots being unintentionally blocked by grass and debris, shots that snap in and out of focus as the cameras auto focus tries to catch up, shots that cut too early, shots that run way too late, moments where it feels like there should have been shots (like reverse should shots) that got missed off the shot list. It goes on and on. and I found it very hard to rationalise in my mind that the same person who came up with the beautiful shots of 'Bad Girls Go To Hell' and 'Another Day, Another Man' also shot this.

With that being said, some of the footage DOES accidentally strike on genius at times. Whether intended or not, there are fleeting shots here and there that look great, and feel almost Lynchian in their execution. the film may be VERY rough around the edges, but every so often it'll hit you with something that really makes you stop and wonder if theres life in the old dog yet…they're few and far between! But they are great.

This film also utilizes some early 'plug in' digital effects, that for my money are a bit rubbish, but sincere in their execution. the shot of Ellies first kill is at sea, so they shot the murdered actress against black and then cropped her out against…what can only be described as a 'tone' plate of wavey blue colours…its bizarre honestly, but noteworthy once again in the sense that at least a sincere attempt was made.

Obviously; I cant really comment much on the sequence building and post work, because a lot of it was done posthumously, and honestly; who knows if Doris would have approved the cut that eventually made it to screens? What I can say is its rough. sometimes its functionally passable, but for the most part, as with Doris's 70s work, continuity was firmly in the garbage, the line, was nowhere to be found, and everything was basically in free flow till Doris said she was happy. I cant rate the edit for this one personally; but I know some folks who like trippy edits, or bad cuts who'd really get a good time out of this one.

Performance wise, Tiffany Paralta is our lead as Ellie and…she's fine. Middle of the pack in my opinion compared to the other leading ladies Doris worked with. Her performance ranges from actually pretty solid in places, to hamstrung by the VERY cheap prosthetics used to 'ugly-fy' her, to a total swing and a miss on deliveries. I dont think she gives the best physical performance in the world. But every so often she brings the kind of energy that makes me want to watch a Doris Wishman flick.

The supporting cast are all fairly mixed, nothing standout awful…but nothing particularly noteworthy either. As with a lot of Doris movies, the supporting cast largely feel 'benched' until they're needed to have sex, be murdered or have sex and THEN be murdered. Window dressing essentially. Though; this time, given how many years Doris had been in the Biz, she had some showbiz help, in the form of very brief cameos from Fred Schnider (of the B52's fame), John Waters, Linnea Quigley and Frank Hennenlotter. Oh yes…its a regular 'Whos Who' this movie is! Non of them steal the show, but it does show the sense of community these people had, and the connection the cult world has running right through all its eras.

As for the soundtrack? its an ADR fest, and I wouldnt have had it any other way, its not great…and I wouldnt have had it any other way, and the music is library tracks and stuff written by one of her relatives…and I wouldnt…have it…any… … other way.

Also; please pour a glass out, for the final time we'll see Doris Wishmans apartment or…condo or…im not sure anymore…GONE BUT NOT FORGOTTEN!

All in all? I had a real soft spot for this one, like 'Night to Dismember' it feels like Doris is having a sincere crack at a genre she wasnt commonly involved in. and I think shes actually wonderfully weird and great at it. I actually lament a bit the fact she didnt get the chance to explore straight horror and science fiction a bit more in her lifetime. As I think there was a lot of potential there for her to have mined.

As it stands? 'Each Time I kill' is a fine enough end to the career of Doris Wishman, something semi-reflectant of her style and work, while also pushing into new and strange territory. This film isnt a good reflection of the body of Doris's work, and as such I cant recommend it as a film for people to get a foot in the door on her filmography. And I dont think I could recommend it to straight horror fans in the way I could recommend the original cut of 'A Night to Dismember'. Its a bit too self referential for that.

But if you've watched all of Doris's other movies, this is a bittersweet full stop on a career that made 'Naked lunch' read like 'Sense & Sensibilities' and I feel you'll really appreciate this if you meet it on its own terms.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/each-time-i-kill/

Talk about ending things on a wimper instead of a bang, we've finally reached the end of AGFA/Something Weirds 'Doris Wishman' trilogy, and we're seeing things off with 'The Prince and the Nature Girl'. known in Germany as 'Nackt im Sommerwind'. How do I know thats what the films called in Germany? Because at some point this film was 'lost' along with 2 other nudist/'nudie cutie' movies that Wishman shot in the early/mid 60's. and a decade or two later a print of this film was found in a German film archive with only the german audio track and US English transcript surviving…To this day, thats the only version of this film available (The other 2 films I mentioned are still lost.)

Not that we're exactly losing a 'Gold Standard' Wishman effort here. Approximately 75% of this film is literally just recycled footage from Doris's other nudist films, including direct exerts from her other movies, outtakes and deleted scenes reformatted to give them new context and spliced in to approximately 25%'s worth of 'new footage', with the aim of creating a story.

The 'story' follows a chap called 'Frank Prince' who decides to visit a nudist camp, enjoys it, and falls madly in love with 'Eve' a mysterious woman at the camp who also takes a shine to him. Unbeknownst to Frank however, Eve has a sister called Sue who looks very similar to Eve and who works alongside Frank. Sue is totally smitten with Frank, Eve can take or leave him…This film has a fully unbroken 5 minute sequence of trees and flowers with an unedited library soundtrack running over the top of it and nothing else.

The new footage is the only thing that saves me from absolutely hating this film. and even then its only a reprise in so much that being 'Hated' is better than being dubbed a 'Scourge of Humanity'.

The new footage is drab, uninteresting, the characters arnt fun, the story is very loose, light handed and doesnt really do anything interesting. the pacings awful, the recycling element is piss weak to the point that I actually got annoyed that SO MUCH of this film is just recycled footage.

The German only audio track made it even harder to follow an already meandering and plodding script. And the ending wasnt so much a twist, more an attempt to deceive the audience. The fact this isnt the WORST Doris Wishman film in my opinion, speaks volumes about the quality of Doris Wishmans productions…

A truely lazy effort, the only thing I can say this film has going for it, is I believe its a VERY early opportunity to see Doris Wishmans Apartment (probably for the first time)…Otherwise, unless your trying to learn German (and even on that point, its not exactly a great resource) dont bother with this one. truly a massive waste of time.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-prince-and-the-nature-girl/

The penultimate feature of 'Doris Wishman: The Daylight Years' finds us watching 'Diary of a Nudist' an early turn for Wishman, her 3rd Nudist film to be exact, and theres definitely a refinement in her film making with this entry.

This time around our film follows 'Stacey' a reporter for a local newspaper who's been put onto an 'expose' piece by her editor 'Arthur'. While out hunting one weekend, Arthur managed to stumble on a nudist colony, and; armed with only limited knowledge at what goes on at these camps. He charges Stacey with the job of going undercover as a patron of the camp to learn about the Nudist lifestyle, and then spin it into a hit piece to EXPOSE these nudie loving freaks for the sick perverts they all TRULY ARE!!!

But after getting a tour of the camp, and spending several weeks integrating with the locals. Stacey finds herself actually quite surprised by just how friendly, communal and open the nudist community are, and how supportive they are of her getting into the lifestyle. Putting Stacey in a difficult situation of whether to double cross her new friends for the sake of a 'hit' piece, or whether to confront her editor about the REAL conditions of the camp, and potentially lose her job in the process.

Not really a whole lot to say on this one ultimately; Its a definite improvement in my opinion plot wise over 'Hideout in the suns' broken and bloated narrative, and it seems to have more going on with it than 'Nude on the Moon' (even if the visuals arnt quite as up to snuff. The plot here feels a bit more refined, a bit more pointed and actually feels like it has direction, flow and intention.

Theres a clear 3 act structure, it keeps a relatively good pacing, it doesnt seem to sag really. Though, as is to be expected, this being a 'Nudie Cutie' film, do expect an UNGODLY amount of time following naked people around as they engage in day to day activities…

The characters are all well defined and get a good degree of development across the three acts leading to a rare and welcome 'satisfying ending' for a Doris Wishman production for once! Its maybe still a little on the slower side for a modern audience, but it works fine enough as a high level narrative + atmosphere piece to kill 71 minutes of your time.

Direction here is a little more simplistic. But, as i've learned watching Doris Wishman movies, the less Doris tries to 'push the boat out' and get weird or interesting with cine and scene direction. The more solid, stable and sturdy the production becomes. This isnt wow-ing anyone. Its a fairly basic, largely static production, Its not as vibrant or colourful as 'Nude on the Moon' and later films would handle the direction much better than whats here. But what IS here is a largely solid production thats engaging, light and gets the job done. Nothing too fancy. Its shooting for function over form.

On the cine front, its much the same, functional, gets the job done. Not a whole lot to say, compositions are largely fine, the underwater footage is a novelty for 1961, shots are largely in focus, look fine and make sense. sequences could have done with more B-roll and cutaway footage to smooth over the rougher cuts. But this was likely shot on a low/no budget with slim to no time for reshoots or cutaways. So I'll give it a pass.

Our lead cast members are Davee Decker and Norman Casserley. And both of them are okay, a little stiff in places on line delivery and physicality on screen. But i've seen far worse from Wishman, they dont do anything to knock your socks off, but they're a solid enough pair of leads. The supporting cast are largely mute, and apart from a few awkward moments where we either have nudists who dont know how to act natural on camera, or models who dont know how to act casual while nude and out in the open air. they're all just about passably fine.

'Diary of a Nudist' isnt the worst of Doris from this era. In fact, if you were going to exclusively check out her 'naturism' era, this is probably a pretty solid foot in the door for what to expect. Not her best, far from her worst. Its absolutely middle of the road, one I could see myself catching again at some point. Though absolutely not for everyone.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/diary-of-a-nudist/

One i've logged multiple times, but apparently never written about. Im going to keep it simple. Robocop is my favourite Paul Verhoeven film, and very likely in my personal top 10 science fiction movies ever made.

Tonight, I watched the 'Directors cut' which is slightly longer than the 'Theatrical Cut', I personally marginally prefer the 'Directors Cut' because the only thing better than 'Robocop' is 'Longer Robocop'.

Seriously. I dont really have much more to add than that. The script is wonderfully acidic and scathing of corporate America and on late stage capitalism (a theme that only becomes more and more fruitful with every passing year). The characters are superb, the pacing is superb, the tone is a perfect blend of graphic violence, pitch black humour, bleak narratives whimsy. The dialogue is expertly crafted and more or less quotable from tail to snout.

The directions glorious with some fantastic visions being painted by Verhoeven, excellent casting direction and a clear and striking vision that makes all other attempts at similar stories pail in comparison.

The cine has a sense of grandness to it, theres some fantastic stop motion work along side some incredible practical effects (and some less than incredible effects that are now particularly entertaining to watch!) sequences are lovingly crafted and combined with the script create a wonderful potential for subtext or multiple interpretations of the plotting and narrative (something to keep film scholars talking over their pints for many a bawdy evening)

The performances are near perfect. Peter Weller is limited on how his performance can be played and ABSOLUTELY nails the brief. Kurtwood Smith as lead henchman Clarence is probably one of my favourite acted performances of all time. And a supporting cast consisting of Ray Wise, Miguel Ferrer (Who's turn here is another one of my all time favourite acted performances on film), Ronnie Cox and more…they're all incredible, dont miss a beat, give THE best line reads i've ever seen and are just…SO perfectly suited for this movie…I mean, they even have Dan O'Herlihy for crying out loud!

Add to this an astonishing orchestral meets electronic score that is almost as iconic as the film itself is, and you have just…a master piece of work on your hands. I love Robocop very dearly, I can absolutely wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone with even a passing interest, frankly, the question I have for *YOU* is, when did *YOU* last watch 'Robocop'? if the answer is anything other than 'At least once in the past month', you should probably go and fix that.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/robocop/2/

A somewhat tepid offering from Doris Wishman, 'Gentlemen Prefer Nature Girls' is really a two part story, glued together with the same type of 'naturist' footage shown excessively in most Doris Wishman 'Nudie Cutie' productions…I swear to god, if I have to watch one more set of shots of nude couples playing 'suction cup archery' i'll scream.

So the primary plot follows Thomas and Annie, a pair who work for A chap called 'Bill'. Bill is a straight shooter with only two rules 'No Funny Business' and 'No married couples working together'…and for Thomas and Annie, thats a problem…Because not only are they working together and married, but they're also both Nudists. and they have to hide both of those things from their boss, otherwise they'll be out on the unemployment line.

Well, as you can imagine, it doesnt take long for Thomas to be caught out, when he leaves his 'Naturist business card' on the ground in Bills office by mistake. Out of the job, Bill retreats to the nudist camp while Annie continues to work. While at the retreat, Thomas is offered a temporary job working at the camp and quickly becomes a star employee.

This is where the 2nd part of the story picks up as Thomas bumps into Charles, a chap who's VERY good friends with Bill…and also is a nudist. After explaining whats happened, Charles is mortified that Bill would behave in such a way, and with that, he arranges for Bill to attend the nudist camp for a getaway weekend. Bill doesnt KNOW he's going to the nudist camp for the weekend, until he arrives. At which point he's very much against the idea, and also shocked to find out that Annie and Thomas are married.

Nevertheless Charles implores Bill to give the lifestyle a chance, and what follows is an extended set of scenes of the idyllic Nudist lifestyle, with the hope that Bill will see the error of his ways and take the couple back.

I didnt really get on with this one. the plots themselves were fine, and I appreciate that the (largely male) audience coming to this film were really more there for the nudity than the story. But the plot for this one feels so threadbare and thin, that it might as well be translucent. The main plot of this film, is a side plot that lasts no more than 10 minutes in other Wishman films like 'Another Day, Another Man'. Here? its strung out to over half the films runtime, and heavily subsidized with 'Nudie Cutie' footage that, if I didnt know any better, i'd assume was simply recycled from Doris's other Naturist films from 1960 – 1963.

The pacings lumpy and unpleasent, the tones inconsistent and constantly broken up with stock footage, the characters are largely uninteresting and unremarkable. There are flecks of Camp studded into this production, but not enough to really save it. Its just a kind of dull, very lightweight production.

The direction feels inconsistent and a bit stale too, not a lot of noteworthy production choices, the cast all feel a bit aimless within the shot frame, and the ACTUAL nudist footage also feels a lot less like a curated and managed experience, and more like the nudists told Doris what they were going to do that day, and Doris could take or leave what she wanted to film, because they wernt taking orders from anyone.

As such, the cine feels rough around the edges too, we do still get a nice colourful and vibrant set of shots, but it all feels a bit aimless. the sequences feel roughly composed as well…very much as if this was a working print cut rather than a polished and finished product.

Add to this the fact that the main casts performances are all very muted, very static, and that the dialogue on offer isnt exactly 'top craft' and that the supporting cast are predominantly mute for 99% of the runtime. and 'Gentlemen Prefer Nature Girls' ultiamtely just kind of falls through the cracks. Not interesting or memorable enough to stand out agains the tidle wave of 'Nudie Cutie'/ Naturism movies that came out during this time, and without enough of a hook to make it worth excavating in the year of our lord 2026.

I cant recommend this one, Its not really a great jumping on point either, there are better Wishman productions out there, and definitely better Wishman directed naturism productions. One for only the hardcore fans I fear…

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/gentlemen-prefer-nature-girls/

After a strong opening, 'The Daylight Years' of the Doris Wishman collection slows down considerably with 'Hideout in the Sun' the nudist 'espionage' flick you never knew you never not needed never.

The plot? Two criminals kidnap a young woman and go on the run, they realise that this young woman is in fact, a nudist who's on her way for to a commune for a holiday of 'suns out, buns out'. Thinking it'll be the perfect hiding place, the guys force the woman to take them to the commune, where one pretends to be her husband, and the other hides in the trunk of the car until they're checked in and at their Chale, once their, the trunk guy hides in the hut, while the other criminal heads out into the commune with his 'Wife' to take in the full fun and frolics that a naturist camp in the summer has to offer…with genuine romance, betrayal and action on the cards to boot!

Not much to say on this one, the plot itself occupies about 20 minutes of the full film with the rest either being extrended cutaways of naked models or nudists just…doing what they do. The plot itself sounds fun on paper, but runs considerably slower than it really needed to as the film desperately tries to hit its feature runtime.

The characters arnt that deep or well developed, everything feels overly dry and there isnt much development or variety to keep the average viewer fully engaged on the plot. Tonally its drab, and while it ends with a bit more energy than it starts with. Its all a bit underwhelming if im being honest.

The direction and cine are fairly drab too. Unlike 'Nude on the moon' or 'Blaze Starr' this one feels a bit more washed out, a bit more formulaeic, nowhere near as well structured, with poor compoisitions of shots, bad sequence structuring, and a real lack of focus for the viewer to be drawn in. It very much feels like they just put the camera down, shot whatever happened to be in front of it (no matter how well framed or poorly focussed it was) and then stitched it all together with whatever they could scrape from a day on set.

The performances feel a bit lifeless too, there very little energy, a raised voice here and there is about as wide and wild as the performances get. Physicality is kept to a minimum. Its just not that good.

The soundtracks stock tracks. But it does kind of work here, and its edited together fine enough…

This was the directoral Debut of Doris Wishman, and what I find weird is that this is actually better put together than some of the films she made at the peak of her career. While I cant deny that this is a quite dry and drab production (in my opinion at least) it is at least somewhat functional for the most part. and given what i've seen of Wishmans works. For a first outing? this had the potential to be 'horrendous'…as it stands its just 'fine…but not essential'.

Not one I can recommend, if your going to go through all of Wishmans films, this ones kind of the upper half of the lower middle of the stack. I probably wont watch it again for a good long while, and I cant recommend it as a 'jumping on' point for people looking to get into Wishman either…there's a LOT better out there than this.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/hideout-in-the-sun/