They say money cant buy happiness…but it can hire a script editor. And that I feel is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the problems I encountered when I decided to give ‘A Christmas Tree Miracle’ a spin.

an HOUR AND 43 MINUTES is this films full runtime. It could have been an hour and a half and felt neverending. It could have been twice as effective running at an hour + commercials. But no. This film drags its heels for the FULL duration, paying lip service to the concept of it being better to give than to recieve. And even thats forced…

So, this film is essentially a low budget holiday picture aimed at one of three groups of people (these groups can overlap) Conservative Christian families who think they understand ‘Hardship’, The Elderly and women of a certain hormonal delicacy. For anyone else? Buckle up because its going to be a long one.

The film follows a humble ultra rich family who have it all, two story manor house, all of them that can drive have cars, the have a summer home, they want for nothing. Then, the husband (David) loses his job. cue a good solid 40-50 minutes of the family slowly falling deeper and deeper into despair, as they’re forced at first to cut back on luxuries, then essentials, then they raid the trust fund, before winding up in a motel…and they’re even set to lose that.

When their youngest cello playing daughter suggests throwing themselves to the mercy of the church for sanctuary, the family oblige and meet ‘Henry’ a christmas tree salesman who doesnt sell trees…he GIVES them away, and because of a passing random act of kindness on Davids part 12 months prior. Henry offers to bring them back to his place, give them food, shelter and pay in exchange for working on his farm.

Little does he know, that David is actually working with a shady senator seeking re-election, who’s offering to give David a full time high paid job developing the land which the christmas tree farm sits on, if David can convince Henry to sell…

And I wont go any further than that, because it’ll spoil the film. But heres the key facts you need to know about this one.

Not ONE character in this film is GENUINELY selfless or sincere. not to mince my words, but ALL of them are arseholes. It plays into the neoliberal idea of charitable. the concept of ‘giving lipservice’ to a cause, while realistically wanting nothing to do with it.

The entire family (our main characters that we’re supposed to be rooting for) are selfish, self centered and arogant. The father, David ignores the advice of his peers to find temporary work to keep the ship afloat, to the point that he’s willing to try and exploit an old man RIGHT up to the end credits in order to make a quick buck in the slimiest way possible…and the film never really absolves that issue. it makes up a technicality that gets David off the hook, had that technicality NOT happened, he’d have happily sold the farm, the house and everything in it for $3 and a ramen bowl.

The eldest son of the house Nick is just as bad, acting entitled when he thinks he has money, and furious that his family would treat HIM like a pauper when they dont have the money to pay for him to go to his girlfriends college or to let him keep his own car. They try to redeem his character by giving him one incident where he stands up to a bully, and one instance where he helps out on the farm. Its not enough.

If you want an idea where this films heart lies, around the midway point they introduce us (via the daughter of the family ‘Natalie’) to a new character by the name of ‘Tessa’. Tessa and her mum barely survived a house fire, they lost absolutely everything in the process and are now sad, lonely, frustrated and living out of a homeless shelter, reliant on welfare and food packages and barely functioning.

Natalie and Tessa have a brief introduction, where they seem to hit it off and you begin to think ‘Ah, Natalie is a bit self absorbed and Tessas a bit of a grounded goofy realist…maybe this will be what grounds Natalie’ NO! because Tessa then vanishes from the movie for 20 minutes, then is re-introduced for about 3 minutes in a scene where she explains she took several busses and an amish buggy to get to the tree farm to come and hang with Natalie, so THEN you’re thinking ‘Oh…okay, so she isnt going to be a prominant character…but maybe she’ll have some purpose? Maybe the family will come into a bit of money and use it to help give Tessa and her mum a second chance while setting themselves up in smaller, but modest living?’

NO! she finishes that scene and is LITERALLY never seen, mentioned or referenced again. For all I know Tessa and her mum blew their collective brains out 5 minutes off the end of the credits. It was at that point I realised that, even AFTER droning on about the importance of doing the right thing, hard working and good moral standing. This film was STILL completely self absorbed in the needs of its core characters, rather than ACTUALLY trying to prove its point by example and help the homeless folk out.

Theres a strong ‘christian’ cinema vibe across the runtime of this film, its subtle, but if you’ve seen enough christian funded films, you pick bits out. Stuff like a heavy reliance on the church, multiple moments where the characters discuss there faith and the power of the lord in detail. Muzak versions and variations on christian hymns (Lord of the dance was a particularly noticable one) Its the kind of coding where, if you wernt actively looking for it, you’d miss it. But its invasive and a little discomforting to recognize here.

AND THATS NOT EVEN MENTIONING, That the film collectively spends 20 minutes of it’s hour and 43 minute runtime ACTUALLY dealing with ANYTHING about christmas. We get 10 minutes in the opening, and 10 minutes at the end. And even then, we get one christmas day (featured in the opening) and the ending closes out a few days off Christmas day itself…the rest of the film? takes place between February and October. Making it probably one of the least christmassy christmas films i’ve seen since ‘The Bloody Exorcism of Coffin Joe’

I’ve prattled on a fair bit here. But to more ‘technical matters’ the direction and cine here are fine. they’re well above similar low budgeted features that came out around this time. its on the level, but doesnt exceed expectations. its just a fairly solid, if not somewhat cheap viewing experience. Same goes for the editing, its VERY slow, and absolutely could have done with some more pass throughs to get that runtime under control. But what IS here is reasonably cut, paced out fairly well. its just bloated.

The script is the thorn in this films side, Overly long, with poor messaging, DEEPLY unlikable characters, a somewhat aimless plot. The tones a bit all over the place, it ends poorly, the three act structure is seriously bent out of shape and the dialogue dances a VERY fine line between awkward, cheesy and cringey in ALL the worst ways imaginable.

But it also commits the cardinal sin. Its dull. Even ‘Henry’ the hobo tree salesman cant muster the amount of festive sparkle needed to really get this thing into the holiday swing of things. I dont know how badly you need to mess up you christmas film script, that you have to add a throw-away line in about three quarters of the way in to try and explain why a house would be fully decked with christmas ornaments in september…But this film took a running start at giving it a go.

Not even fun as ‘riffing’ mateiral with drunken friends. ‘A Christmas Tree Miracle’ coasts by on ‘mediocre’ technical ability that *JUST* manages to stop it COMPLETELY falling apart as a production. But that script on a technical, moral and spiritual level…is just hideous to me. I really wasnt a fan, I ABSOLUTELY cant and wont recommend this thing to anyone. If you want festive slush that (largely) has its heart in the right place, hit the hallmark channel this holiday season.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/a-christmas-tree-miracle/

A real return to form for the ‘Hey Folks’ series. Not a whole lot to say about this one honestly. It’s more intermission commercials from drive ins and theaters.

But I feel this one gets the balance of campy fun and not getting to repetitive about right. There’s a good variety, things rarely slow down (barring a couple of 3 minute countdown clocks…) it’s good! It’s been a while since I’ve watched these latter compilations, but I’d say Volumes 1 and 4 were must see’s if your interested in this kind of thing.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/hey-folks-its-intermission-time-vol-4/

Seedy, dirty, vile and indecent, I wasnt *quite* prepared for just how intense ‘Last House on Dead End Street’ was going to be. Though, frankly having seen it now, Im amazed this film isnt bought up more often in discussions of film influence.

Would ‘Frank Booth’ in Blue Velvet be half the psychopath he is had this film not existed? Would ‘Pink Flamingos’ have pushed the boundaries of taste and decency quite as far as it did had word of this films existence not been circulating for years before its ACTUAL release?

Shot in an abandoned Campus in 1973 and eventually released in theaters in 1978 after MULTIPLE re-edits, retitles and reworkings…If you’re looking for an example of a ‘dyed in the wool’ US Exploitation film that REALLY doesnt pull its punches, this is the film for you.

The plot follows recently released prisoner Terry Hawkins (played by the films director Roger Watkins) Who, while spending a year locked away, has decided to come up with a ‘brilliant’ idea that going to turn his life around…

And, while I’d rather not spoil the plot of this one TOO heavily, as I think its best enjoyed as blind as I went into it. One thing that I DO love in this film is the themes on desperation. This film has no sunlit uplands, it has no rescue boat on the horizon. We are trapped with desperate people, in desperate situations forced into horrifying conditions by a group of people who have embraced the absurdity of their own ‘desperate living’.

Its important to bear in mind that around this time, New York (Where this film was being shot) was in the mid stages of a near total collapse that would leave hundreds of thousands essentially in abject poverty. I dont think this kind of film could have been made anywhere else and under any other circumstances.

The script is minimalist, harsh and unforgiving. There are ZERO likeable characters its just shades of unpleasentness. Whether it’s Jim Palmer, a porn director who seemed to shine during the ‘Nudie Cutie’ era, now forced into shooting harder and harder material (often reluctantly involving his own wife) and slowly being forced into incresingly less legal circumstances to please his clients.

or it could be Terry himself, a man desperate not to return to the prison system, and burning with vengence for a society and system he feels wronged within.

We have a clean 3 act structure present here, the characters are purposfully played down in terms of complexity. we are NOT dealing with nuanced characters in this piece. their solutions are often the most extreme and simplest ones. they do NOT lament their decisions through this.

The pacing is frankly breakneck, at an hour and 17 minutes this thing barely felt like an hour to me. Tonally? This is the film ‘Bloodsucking Freaks’ wishes it was, and the film that the ‘Ban this filth’ crowd thought that ‘Driller Killer’ WAS. its a dark, bleak pit of dread snatched away on celluloid and the closest comparison I can align it to would likely be Passolinis ‘Salo’ or a much less nuanced ‘I spit on your grave’ sheerly for how our main antagonists revel in the maliciousness they’re causing.

The direction is PERFECT for this kind of film, I caught this movie on Vinegar Syndromes release of ‘Corruption’ as an easter egg, and the version they’ve included on that disc is a VERY rough ‘grindhouse-esq’ partially restored version. and when I tell you that the grime and filth on that print GREATLY enhanced the viewing experience of this one. I really mean it.

It made the film feel even more like something that was shot for a ‘private’ audience, and unearthed years later. Which was the intention at the time, but because of the handheld, ‘run and gun’ rough around the edges approach to the direction, AND the fact a significant chunk of the film is presented as POV. the worse this film looks, the more realistic it seems to feel.

Direction of the cast is solid, obviously it helps when your director is also your main star, it really helps give the film a strong sense of identity and it looks like Watkins was very open to improvisation, with a strong cast who could also improvise well taking influence from Watkins performance leading to an increasingly demented ‘Upping of the stakes’ from all involved.

Composition comes second here to emotion on film. Everything is rough and ready and intentionally so, but this is a case of organised chaos, as its clear this wasnt some inexperienced chump swinging a camera around for 77 minutes, but rather a VERY talented hand, knowing exactly how to use the ‘handheld’ experience to carefully curate EXACTLY what the audience NEED to see (and better still, to hide what they *think* they see)

As such framing isnt this films strongest point in a traditional sense, but in terms of aiding the real feeling of unease, this film flourishes with character. the edit is loose, methodical, but non traditional. shots run for significantly longer than usual. Cut only when essential and the whole thing feels like it was assembled on an ‘essentials’ basis rather than to he standards of the day.

Performance wise? its incredible. With Roger Watkins deluded, manic and horrifying portrayal of Terry Hawkins being frankly mezmorising in places. He’s really truely unhinged and terrifying for the vast majority of this movie, and probably one of the all time great antagonists of cinema.

But! thats not to say the supporting cast underperform! Terrys crew are the perfect foil, hyenas following the leader of the pack into a savaging. they’re equally demented, cackling and frankly…odd, for lack of a better expression. they really help build up the sense of utter hopelessness ANYONE entering Terrys world (voluntarily or otherwise) experiences. Had they even been SLIGHTLY tamer than they are, the whole thing would have fallen apart. So I really have to applaud everyone on all fronts to so wholeheartedly committing to this.

And the soundtrack is the ribbon that ties this whole thing together, its lound, wailing, banging drone noise. From near start to near finish, its a wall of sound. And I can only BEGIN to imagine what this would sound like through a theater sound system. I can already envision my loss of ability to think clearly its that intense.

In fact; the only things I didnt really like about this movie, were the one or two concessions to either the censors, or to the bleakness, nothing too terrible, just the odd line delivery here and there and the odd bit of V/O post work that makes you think ‘someones told them to add that in to take the edge off…’

Clearly missing the point that this movie is SUPPOSED to be oppressive, and isnt SUPPOSED to be toned down.

But I digress. If you have an affinity to horror, exploitation, or the art of subverting taste and decency. and you HAVENT seen this. Its your moral duty to find the most torn up battered copy of this film that you can get your hands on and watch it ASAP.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-last-house-on-dead-end-street/

I feel kind of bad for giving this one a lower score, but as it stands this one was another example of a film selling itself on one thing, but delivering another.

I picked up ‘Deep Inside Annie Sprinkles’ based on the promotional material, which, somewhat refreshingly given the year this film came out. Promised an Adult film that was written and directed entirely by the star of the feature ‘Annie Sprinkles’ and that the the majority of the film was going to revolve around Annies day to day livings as an adult performer, photographer, and seemingly musician and artist too.

I basically went into this expecting a kind of pseudo adult documentary that was going to try and add a layer of humanity to an, at the time very one note industry.

This film is not that.

Somewhat jarringly, the film cant seem to decide WHAT it wants to be. Opening with an extended sequence in which Annie talks about her early life in detail, sharing photos of her growing up, her family and friends and going into detail about her sexual history growing up.

But then the film kind of hard veers away from that, instead just turning into Annie hosting intro and outro segments to various fetish sequences.

Annie in those segments is charming, warm and quite bubbly, but it was increasingly hard to watch her delivery to camera, as it was clear other substances were at play during the recording of this film and she seems to slur her way through the script and improv quite heavily in places too (usually going off script to see how many times she can say ‘Sex’ in increasingly awkward ways)

and…thats the movie. The film ends with Annie inviting people to write to her telling her what they’d like to do with her, and the address they post on screen IS a real address…though it looks like its a furniture store/apartments at this point in time.

Needless to say, the script didnt really win me over. I was invested in this thing, right up until the 3rd sex scene, when I realised that the very sincere introduction WAS all that there was going to be in terms of a documentary style…and that everything after that point was either going to be sex scenes, Annie introducing sex scenes or Annie faux working on sets in a production capacity…leading to sex.

The actual scenes themselves were shot quite well I thought, clearly well curated sequences that try to get the best out of whats on show. Though; as mentioned, with this being a fetish tape specifically, your milage may vary on the happenings within this film…I wasnt particularly a fan truthfully. But I could appreciate a pretty competently shot sex scene…

The edits a little all over the place, they use too many close ups too close together in my personal opinion, and the cuts are all a bit too quick for my taste. Equally it seems the budget only had room for 3 songs on the soundtrack because every sex scene has one VERY distinct and somewhat aggressive piece that plays over ever scene…which was particularly funny at the end of the film, as Annie illustrates the art of ‘Soft and intense love making with someone you care about’ to the sound of VERY aggressive ‘hardcore banging’ porn music.

I came away from ‘Deep inside Annie Sprinkles’ a little underhwelmed. While I appreciated the direction and cinematography, which were really quite well done, And Annie herself seems very charming both in life, and in film. The scripts decision to play things incredibly shallow, with uninteresting, overly simplistic and crude dialogue, combined with a bit of a haphazard edit meant that this film ultimatley wasnt for me.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/deep-inside-annie-sprinkle/