TYTD Reviews

A campy, but kind of unremarkable 9 minute short, and the last film Stacey Walker. Its essentially a ‘Nudie Cutie’ faux documentary ‘nature film’ narrated between Stacey and her ‘manager’ Charlie as shes tricked into attending a nudist camp, and more importantly ‘Miss Nude Universe 1965’ as some kind of judge or host.

Inoffensive, and not particularly well made. Theres a definite charm to this short, and its a very entertaining little time capsule of a particular way of life and film making from over 60 years ago. But in 2025, its a different kind of ‘novelty’ to what it was intended for back in the 60s.

The narration is probably the only reason to catch this one, the plots paper thin, its really just an excuse to show naked people in non sexual situations. But it all feels quite rushed, with Stacey only really appearing in about 2-3 minutes of the full runtime, and the rest of the movie being just footage of the contest, badly framed, and poorly edited together.

Back when adult content was censored and heavily restricted, I imagine this would have more than made some guy or gals night. But in the present day? its just a reminder of how inconsistent and aimless the censors were in their striving for virtuous modesty.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/but-charlie-i-never-played-volleyball/

Caught this today as the B feature on AGFAs ‘The Defilers’ set. Given the last time I saw this, it was a fuzzy, roughed up 280p, cropped to 4:3 download from the ‘Something Weird’ website. This looks really nice in HD.

There’s a LOT of dropped frames, and scratches and tramlines running pretty much entirely throughout. But the bump in resolution, combined with the return to its original aspect ratio more than balances this one back out. Its such a fun and sleazy movie. Definitely worth catching at least once.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/a-smell-of-honey-a-swallow-of-brine/1/

ONe from the desk of David F. Friedman, ‘The Defilers’ is an early 60s ‘Roughie’ that, for the time would have almost certainly had its share of controversy, and while the film itself to modern audiences may seem tame, the topics covered are as relevent today as they were over 60 years ago.

The film follows two young bachelor boys ‘Carl’ and ‘Jaimerson’, the pair are living for the moment, driving fast cars, following the latest fashions and scmoozing with as many ladies as the 60s will allow (which is apparently quite a lot!) Jaimerson is going somewhat steady with one of the girls within the pairs clique. But Carl prefers to ‘hunt’ his prey…quite literally it would seem…See…Carl is very much into doing stuff ‘For Kicks’, here translated as ‘He wants to do whatever gives him an endorphine rush and woe betide anyone who comes between him and achieving that’.

To that end, while hes the perfect picture of a earnest bachelor boy to his family and looser friends, in private, he’s a sadist, who lures young girls into a rented basement dwelling on the outskirts of town to do perverse BDSM activities on them. But its slowly not becoming enough, and after a night of smoking dope with Jaimerson, he confesses to him that he needs a bigger thrill, something REALLY ‘far out’. To the extent that he decides the only thing that’ll saciate his urges, is to kidnap a poor unsuspecting girl and keep her as his ‘owned’ captive, to do with as he pleases.

Jaimersons VERY reluctant, but Carl is so unrelenting and forceful on the issue that he eventually goes along with it. Their target? a young woman they’ve recently been introduced to through a mutual acquaintence called ‘Jayne’…And…under veil of darkness, the pair go to Jaynes complex, lure her into their car on the promise of going to a hip new party…and take her back to the basement room to be their love slave/animal.

And im still kind of struggling to get my true feelings on this film settled, because there are elements that it handles very well, and elements that are absolutely and truely dire…

Script wise, theres very little here honestly, to the point that the first half of the film is almost entirely silent for dialogue barring occasional overdubbed lines. we spend extended sequences watching the boys and their followers frolic around on beaches, we take extended tours of the LA strip, of the lad lounging about smoking or reading…its so incredibly padded that realistically if you just took the plot beats of the first half out and stitched them together, I think you’d struggle to hit 10 minutes. And while time has made this movie a veritable time capsule of mid 60s LA…that wasnt really the intention of the production.

when they arnt doing extended walking or lounging seqeuences, its ‘nudie cutie’ or ‘roughie’ fodder, either girls frolicking around in bikinis topless, or Carl administering spankings or making love (offscreen) to women in various states of undress. I realise that thats the main reason most folks showed up to see this film. but you’ve got to imagine when your films only an hour and eight minutes long and the first half an hour is 2 heavily censored sex scenes, 3 extended walking and driving scenes (intercut with some nudity) and about 7 minutes of ACTUAL plot sandwhiched in there, it does make for a bit of a dull viewing experience.

That being said, I think once Carls ‘kidnapping’ idea enters the story around the halfway point, things really do pick up and the film actually begins to build up a decent pace, ending about as solidly as this film could have ended. but whether you have the stamina to make it through the opening half for a kind of mid, but rewarding second half is really down to user preference.

Tonally, the films seedy, grubby and frankly quite grim in places, but then, the films called ‘The Defilers’ and in the first 10 minutes one of the characters says something to the effect of ‘Women only have one role in life, to pleasure men, and if they dont want to, you can just take it.’…Its a film that features the excessive abuse and rape of women, who are seen (at least in part) to enjoy it. And at times, even in 2025, it genuinely comes across as upsetting. And while they do try to balance things out a bit in the finale…I do think this is a film you’ll either need a very particular headspace, or a VERY particular fetish to enjoy.

The characters are a bit thin on the ground detail wise. Our boys get solid back stories with families, history and a decent arc running across the runtime. But the ladies of this movie? They basically get nothing…they exist to be molested, and apart from maybe the flimsiest of throwaway lines to explain how they came into the world of Carl and Jaimerson, they dont really have lives beyond their entry and exist point of the movie. Something that I feel is both indicative of its time in history, but also I feel why this film is so troubling, Friendmans writing style here doesnt really indicate he has a fondness for women, andd while he definitely makes a point of showing that our main characters are DEFINITELY evil in their actions, he doesnt really give the female characters any kind of depth or growth to show he cares what really happens to them. Its very much a film where the guys are shown to be immoral, and the girls are there to be chased in their underware.

The direction here is pretty nice, borrowing from the growing ‘new wave’ scene of the time, this movies all for fast cuts, handheld work and experimental camera and lighting work. With Carl’s basement scenes in particular being a definite highlight as we go for a more frenzied camera work combined with chiascuro lighting that helps emphasise the dank dinginess of the whole thing.

The cine too is razor, though I feel here that the experimentation occasionally comes to the detriment of the production, its clear they wanted to play fast and loose on filming the scenes, but that sometimes badly impacts composition or scene structuring, things like ‘the line’ feel like optional extras for this production. Which in some ways I feel accidentally improves the films tone and vibe given its plotting…But on the other hand does make it at times feel a bit unpolished.

Performance wise its pretty much a two person race here, with Byron Mabe as Carl bringing a wonderful level of psycopathy to the role, flitting between blind and silent aggression and a soft spoken calmness as he tries to force these women to do what he wants. He’s genuinely terrifying at times in this and is absolutely a reason to check this film out, if for nothing else. Mai Jansson plays the boys kidnapp-ee Jane Collins, and again, she absolutely aces playing a vulnerable and terrified individual captive to these men and their diabolical plans. I thought she came across as very naturalistic, particularly for mid 60s cinema, and she really sold the character to me, giving a good emotional range and bringing a solid physicality to the performance.

The rest of the cast dont really have the same level of naturalism unfortunatley, witha lot of the performers sinking into a ‘hey Daddi-o’ style hip beatnick schtick that does overstay its welcome by the end, a victim of its time almost certainly…But one that I couldnt really forgive.

If you like ‘Roughie’ pictures, ‘The Defilers’ almost certainly will scratch an itch for you. For me? I wasnt quite so impressed, While I enjoyed this one more than some of Friedmans other works, those good moments are just far too few and far between for me to really solidly enjoy this one, or recommend it really. a good example of the genre. I feel like I will revisit this one again at some point. But its a flawed and unpleasent work thats probably going to have to be watched next time under a haze of booze at 2am.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-defilers/

Trying to broaden my horizons, I landed on ‘Angels with Dirty Faces’ and what I was led to believe was going to be something of a gangster turn redemption movie…and it is *KIND* of like that…but not in the way I envisioned it.

The film follows Rocky Sullivan, and in the opening of the film him and his friend Jerry are nogoodnicks looking for good times and easy living, when they jump a boxcar heading to Florida, looking to escape the winter cold and enjoy some swimming, they end up being found by the cops and they decide to make a break for it, Jerry gets away, but Rocky isnt so lucky. While awaiting trial, Jerry suggests he should come forward and tell the cops he was involved as well, but Rocky advises him to keep quiet, because Jerry putting himself in the mess wont make either of their stints in Juvie any easier.

Jerry agrees and the two young mens lives divert tremendously, Rocky goes to jail, and spends the next 10 years or so offending and reoffending, building a small empire. with his last heist earning him 100 grand he has stored with his lawyer.

Jerry meanwhile gave up the low level life of crime and joined the clergy, eventually becoming the priest of his community.

When Rocky ends his latest stint he returns to his home town looking to reconnect, and get his money back. Jerry welcomes him with open arms, and brings him up to date about his saintly ways, especially with his work with the kids of the community. Rocky cant quite believe it, but hangs out with Jerry for a while to get a feel of whats changed in the area…However; it doesnt take long for Rocky to get back up to his old ways, and when a small gang of kids run into Rocky, hanging out and causing trouble in his old stomping ground, He decides to recruit the kids as part of a new racket. leading to confrontations with Jerry over Rocky bringing hard core crime to a community that has enough problems of its own.

I’ll be honest; going into this film I had preset expectations, which is THE worst thing a critic can have when going into a movie. *I* was under the impression that the core plot of this was going to be some kind of gangster thriller, in which Rocky returns to his community, meets Jerry, and while trying to look good in front of Jerry, he’d be secretly grooming the kids in Jerrys care to do bigger scale heists than their usual fruit stealing gigs. With Rocky having a question of morality as to whether this is the life he’d want to go to, and him and Jerry having to stop the kids when they get too big for Rocky to handle alone.

That isnt what this film is, what this film is is about 10 minutes of solid opening set up establishing Rocky, Jerry and the evolving neighbourhood, and then about 45 minutes of exposition between Rocky and his lawyer, Jerry and some other bad guys who want to do a heist with him. The kids Rocky works with get maybe 20 minutes of the movie, and dont really do much. If memory serves they pull of one heist for Rocky, get paid handsomely and then they kind of dissapear barring for comic relief. and it isnt really until 15 minutes off the end that the more actioney-Gangstery type stuff I was expecting the whole movie to be finally came into it, at which point it was so rushed and heavy handed I couldnt really enjoy it.

The pacing is fine enough here, but around the middle it bloats as we end up in extended moralistic conversations, and while the dialogue is really decent and quite naturalistic for the time, I struggled with the fast paced nature of it all and ultimately had to swap to subtitles to really figure out exactly what was happening.

The tones nice enough, its a gritty crime film, with some lighter moments, theres a gentle sprinkle of comedy through the runtime, which I felt added a nice contrast to things really…But again, because I was expecting something a bit more shooty bang bang and less criminals discussing finances, I did find myself drumming my fingers at times…

The characters are all solid, though the kids are a little too ‘theater’ for me, that isnt surprisng however, as ‘The Deadend Kids’ were all theater performers and this was their first feature outing. Rocky and Jerrys relationship is handled well, and I like the fact we do get a bit more depth to the characters via flashbacks and remenising as that helps bed in that these people had lives and a bit more complexity than say, had the film just opened with Rocky getting out of jail.

The direction and cine is solid enough, especially for the time, i’d go as far as to say its exemplary. with some interesting use of cross fading and some fantastic chiascuro work giving this a nice noir-esq finish. sequences are well put together. But, as i’ve found with a lot of these older movies, I feel like the picture could have been 10 minutes shorter, and more about showing rather than telling, and it could have been significantly better…However, I accept that this films a bit of a victim of its time.

The performances are solid, with James cagney as Rocky basically stealing the show in a highly memorable and rock solid physical performance, his closing moments at the end of the film were genuine to the point of haunting, and thats probably going to be the most memorable aspect of this for me truthfully.

I can understand why some would consider this a classic, and I can see this is clearly a very well made production, but having seen it now, I dont feel like this was really my kind of rodeo. It definitely had its moments, and I have no regrets checking it out. But I think it may be better recieved in a future rewatch now that I know what its about, especially when im in the right headspace, than it was when I watched it today.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/angels-with-dirty-faces/

‘Clifford’, in essence, is a parody of the ‘troublemaker kid’ movie genre that had a bit of a resurgence in the early half of the 90s. A period of time that gave us ‘Home Alone 1+2’, ‘Dennis the Menace’, ‘Blank Cheque’, ‘Getting Even with my Dad’, and ‘The Sandlot Kids’…These were movies that featured actual children, wisecracking, getting one over on the adults, pulling pranks, setting traps and being frankly incorageable.

The big twist with ‘Clifford’ and the thing that really acts as its main draw, is instead of a child actor playing the neredowell kid role, it’s Martin Short playing a precocious to the point of satanic evil darling, the titular ‘Clifford’.

Clifford is manipulative, gaslighty, phoney, psychotic, meniacle, capable of complex scheming and planning and deeply malevolent…and thats just the nice things…and the film opens in the far future of 2050, with an older Clifford explaining to a wayward child how he was a troublemaker when he was a lad.

The plots pretty straightforward, Cliffords on a business trip with his parents, but he REALLY wants to go to Dinosaur World, a dino theme park in California. But his parents business trip is in Honolulu. So…Clifford causes a major incident during the flight (he turns off the planes engines) to force an emergency landing in California so that he can go to Dinosaur world. But the end result is Clifford being banned from airtravel for the forseeable. and his parents potentially missing out on thousands of dollars in conference speaking fees.

That is until Cliffords father plays a last hope, roll of the dice and calls his brother Martin. The pair havent really spoken to each other in years, Martins an architectual designer in an long term relationship/engagement with his partner, the lovely Miss Sarah. But theres a bit of trouble brewing, as Sarah is a teacher and desperately wants children…and Martins obsessed with his work and isnt really interested in kids. When Sarah pushes the issue, Martin tries to fein enthusiasm for having kids, when his brother calls him to ask if he’d mind looking after Clifford for a couple of weeks till they get back from their business trip.

Martin jumps at the chance, thinking it’ll take the heat off of him from Sarah AND potentially allay any fears that he isnt interested in kids. But things go rum pretty quickly, when Martin tells Clifford he helped design some of the rides at Dinosaur World, and that he’ll take clifford as soon as possible…something Clifford clings to with a vice like grip…When Martin gets an emergency project dropped on him at work, he has to cancel the trip with Clifford, and…well, all hell breaks loose, as Clifford quite literally tries to tear Martins world apart over a broken promise…

I largely checked this film out tonight after seeing the ‘look at me like a human boy’ scene on Tiktok not too long ago, and…im gonna be honest, I think your milage may vary depending on how into comedy thats purposfully trying to test your patience you are really.

Me? I love comedy thats trying to see how far it can mess with its audience, and as a parody of those kinds of precocious kid comedy movies. I think this absolutely nails the brief. taking a usually pretty kooky adventure and ramping it up into a truely demented and at times sincerely bleak place.

The pacings pretty solid, I gut laughed at least a few times over the full run of the film…Is it the funniest thing ever? no…I wouldnt go that far, but when it hits it scratches a very specific itch for me. Tonally, its a tongue in cheek farce comedy that does have a couple of moments of pathos buried in it. The films intentionally trying to be insincere to the audience, but as soon as you as the audience recognise that, a whole other level of comedy opens up.

The characters are all pretty well written I thought, and theres some genuinely nice character pieces in here mixed in with the absurd comedy moments. Martin Shorts performance will likely split the room between folks who think its some great physical work, in the same vein as Norman Wisdom and the likes…and those who would gladly run their eyes through a rotary cheesegrater than experience one more minute of gurning. But I felt he landed on the right side of things for me, and really captured that wonderfully hideous charactism.

This is a studio pic, and as such the direction and cine are all above board, I think its probably quite underplayed, but the visual direction of this film is actually pretty superb, it reminded me a little bit of ‘Pee Wees Big Adventure’ in places, and the experimentation, particularly in the 3rd act was a really nice touch. Compositions are decent, theres a clear creative vision on hand, and while it didnt exactly blow me away, I will say my expectations were exceeded here.

The triptic of Short, Charles Grodin and Mary Steenburgen is a superb mixture, with Grodin slowly losing his mind over Short, but having to keep the illusion up to a tentative Steenburgen that Him and Short are great friends…its a fun dynamic that maybe wears a little thing in the middle, but then picks back up before the end.

I think the only thing I didnt really like about ‘Clifford’ other than some minor pacing issues and a couple of hideous transphobic gags, is just that the ending doesnt entirely feel earned. I think had it had maybe another 5 minutes or so just to give the film something a bit more sturdy to end on, it could have taken it to a whole other level, as it stands it feels rushed, and given everything Martins character went through across the film, I dont feel like how they ended the story lined up with what an actual reality for this situation would be…

Nevertheless…I had fun with Clifford, and I think, if I caught this again in the right headspace, I’d probably like it even more…Definitely an acquired taste of a movie…But theres a lot to like about it…and then there’s Clifford.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/clifford/

I basically just watched this one because i’d seen pretty much all of Scott Hillmans other films, and figured catching this one would more or less tie off his live action filmography…I didnt enjoy this one.

Its a paper thin plot in which a woman hooks up with another woman at a 90% stock footage night club, only to find out the next day that she is infact an infamous dutch hacker and leader of ‘The Bikini Hackers’ a group of ‘ethical’ hackers who try to undo the evils of the corporate world, and their gimmick is they do so in bikinis. The hackers ask our leading lady if she’d like to join the team, and the rest of the film is the gang slowly trying to infiltrate an evil corporation and steal a large sum of money from them. Oh! and the girls spend most of the film wandering around an office space in Bikinis, or having pool parties…

This one wasnt for me really…I found the characters grating, theres a heavy handed use of ‘Lolrandum’ style babyish speaking and humour that just fell absolutely flat for me. Theres a romance subplot that only really turns up at the very beginning and very end of the film, the pacings all over the place, it feels glacial to be stuck with these characters for as long as we are.

The plot itself just isnt long enough to sustain 67 minutes, it feels like a 30 minute short at most…as shown by the fact we have an overeliance on stock footage, TONS of moments where we see a text chat conversation between two people who are largely just idling and talking about pop culture stuff.

I know from interviews that Scotts said the attempt here was to try and revive or modernise the ‘bikini’ movie of the 60s, but theres not nearly enough genuine whimsy here or story/action to give it that vibrant campness that those films thrived under.

In short; it feels like a 60 minute runaround movie, thats dragged WELL beyond its natural running point, and it feels painful to have to spend as much time as we do with the characters. the pacings all over the place, the tone isnt quite right and when it does try to go deep, it fails for me.

Direction and cine wise, its basic, theres a huge overreliance on stock footage to help flesh out the film, which does give it a glossy quality, but at the same time, really makes the ACTUAL footage shot for the movie feel drab and uninteresting. This is supposed to be a colourful and vibrant bikini movie, but the colour grade is desaturated and dull for the most part, making the bikini pool parties look like they’re being held in the middle of a thunderstorm.

Composition is middle of the road, If I remember rightly this whole film was shot in 3 days, which is absolutely insane. and while I appreciate the grind. I’d have still rather it been shot in a week and them actually nail the script and visuals and make something closer to Scotts other films (Blue belt and the Magic Christmas Tree spring to mind) As it stands…It just about does the job, but when im sitting there picking apart how much of this film was ACTUALLY shot by the crew for the purpose of this film and how much is digital effects and stock bought from 3rd party sites, thats not a good sign.

Performance wise? Im gonna swerve on that because, I have nothing redeeming to say. Make of that what you will.

and finishing off the sludge, we have a soundtrack 90% comprised of royalty free tracks.

In my opinion, this may be Scotts worst film. I didnt like ‘Baby Cat’, but at least the jokes kind of landed and there was an attempt at sincere heart…This feels like a test shoot that just got expanded out to feature length to try and squeeze some cash out of people. Not one i’d recommend, its not so bad its fun, its so bad that I forced myself to sit through the final 20 minutes just to say I had watched the whole thing.

Also; as an aside, this is the 3rd film where the director appears either nude, or in some state of undress in this movie…if it happens again in any future films, im docking that movie a star immediately.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/bikini-hackers/

My eyes my eyes, the goggles they do nothing.

1. Blue Belt
2. The Magical Christmas Tree
3. Baby Cat
4. Bikini Hackers

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/list/the-films-of-scott-hillman-ranked/

‘The Room’ is an experience rarely achieved in art or theater, a production that is an absolute failure (in my opinion) on almost every conceivable level, that fails SO spectacularly, the failures somehow compliment each other transforming the work from an unwatchable mess to an almost mesmorising viewing experience that quite frankly, is a lightning in a bottle moment. If it hadnt been for these people, in these conditions, at this time, with these motivators. This film would have been a huge waste of time and money, and never would have seen the light of day.

As it stands these days, its almost a right of passage for the bad/cult film community to experience ‘The Room’ in its entirity. A privilage I had myself WAY back in 2006, and that I have had the absolute joy of inflicting on AT LEAST half a dozen people, converting them to devout Weisau-heads in the process.

The script tells the story of Johnny and Lisa, a couple in a seemingly happy relationship, but its slowly revealed that Lisa is in fact having an affair with Johnnys best friend Mark. The film basically follows Johnny, Lisa and Mark as Lisa falls further out of love with Johnny and more in love with Mark, while her friends and family take sides over the right course of action…Leading to a bloody resolution.

That, in essence is the main plot of the room, but it is FAR from the only thing going on, as we deal with pervy teenage 30 year olds, drug dealers, dogs that may or may not be real, unending games of football, cancer scares, pregnancy announcements and friends sneaking into random peoples apartments to have sex.

I cannot stress how, for the time, this film became the shorthand for ‘passion projects gone horribly HORRIBLY wrong’ and the fact that it was only when director and star Tommy Weisau pivoted from this being a serious film meant to tug at the heart strings to post modern black comedy, that it became the whipping boy for every half nickle critic from here to alberta. And while I disapprove of Weisaus attempt to play down what is clearly a quite embarrissing moment as something he ‘TOTALLY PLANNED ALL ALONG!!!’ And I absolutely dont like the way he behaved behind the scenes on this one (See: Fellow co-star Greg Sesteros fantastic book ‘The Disaster Artist’ for an idea of just how horrendous shooting with Tommy could be) I cant deny that what he made here, is ultimately, funny and enjoyable to me.

The scripts atrocious; plot lines drift in and out of the film in such a way that your never really truely sure whether you ACTUALLY need to be paying attention or not, sometimes the film will totally derail for 10 minutes on a plot that does absolutely nothing to move the film along, sometimes INCREDIBLY important lines that change the entire point of the film will be ADR’d in as a last second addition mumbled by Weisau.

The tones all over the place, its obsessed with badly shot sex scenes and seems to flail between wanting to be a drama, a bloody tragedy, a light hearted entertainment film, and a thriller. I lost track of the number of continuity errors, both in the script in terms of character background and in terms of literal on screen gaffes.

The act structuring is totally to pot, the film just seems to rev up to a set speed and pacing and then…right up until about 5 minutes off the end, when things go ABSOLUTELY insane, it just rides that pacing throughout with NO indication that its gonna do anything other than get through the script and end.

There are WAY too many characters, most of whome get almost no back story, no development and no character arc (outside of Johnny, Lisa and Mark) they dont feel like real people and because their stories are so underdeveloped, when they DO drop random things about themselves (such as Lisas mother announcing she has breast cancer) it seems almost farsical, because it comes out of nowhere, and is never really bought up again…Not ONLY that, but the characters are so wrapped up in their own stories when those kind of weird outlandish moments DO happen, they largely respond flatly, or drag it back to being about them…a personal favourite being when Lisa (falsely) tells her mother than Johnny didnt get a promotion, got drunk, and hit her. Lisas mother pauses for a second and says ‘…Johnny doesnt drink?’ as if THATS the surprising part of all this.

It reads like a script written by a guy who watched a ton of old ‘weepies’ on TCM, and wrote the thing in between commercial breaks, chucking in things he saw in those movies and lightly refining any plot holes to try and smooth it into some kind of cinematic meat obolisk. Nothing really lines up in this movie, everyone overreacts or doesnt react at all and the curveballs are so bluntly thrown out there, you’ll swear you could sue for the tonal whiplash.

The direction and cine arnt much better, Tommy infamously didnt know the difference between shooting on film or in HD, so he built a rig to hold both a film and digital camera and shot on both, cutting together the best takes from both cameras to create the final master.

Its a somewhat unusual end product, a film where the direction feels at odds with the cine, as, I assume someone who at least understood the basics of film making on a camera level, had to argue the toss with a guy who had NO idea what he was doing, outside of funding and writing the thing. The end result is a film that does have crisp, in focus and fairly well framed shots, directed as if it were a theater production and that the set was a stage. nothing feels right, nothing feels natural, it feels like how an alien might try to convince an audience that it was human too.

Theres a big lack of coverage or B-roll here, meaning the edits are a little rough around the edges, sequences run longer than I would have liked without cuts and an overeliance on the aforementioned sex scenes (which are badly framed, badly shot, deafened by THE most early 00’s RnB i’ve ever heard, and most of the time Tommys aiming a little higher than that target if you catch my drift) alongside some quite iffy CGI and greenscreen work that makes it look like folks are either 10 foot or 3 foot tall. its a mess that you can either choose to see as a ‘Striking vision from an independent film maker pouring his heart and sould into the production without full understanding of the tools…a RAW work!’ or ‘a vanity project by a guy who wanted to be James Deand and Marlon Brando, but had neither the talent or groundwork to get even close.’

Performances are horrendous, while Greg Sestero has gone onto decent things (I personally quite liked his turn in ‘Retro Puppet master’ Tommy Weisau should be studied in theater classes here on how performances can become infamously recieved. EVERY scene he’s in is memorable, quotable and bizarre in all the worst ways possible, he fails to nail a single emotional performance on ANY level. TRUELY it is the most bizarre performance both physically and in terms of line delivery that I have ever seen. I feel blessed in many ways for having lived in a time when I could witness such a unique and unusual turn.

The supporting cast, by contrast, all feel hammy, over the top, they cant make one line come out decently, its horrendous. again. your milage may vary, I personally can laugh my way through this whole thing and find it infinitely quotable, others, NORMAL people…may struggle inherently.

I struggle really with my feelings on the room. conventionally it fails on every level to even achieve the basics of what a good movie should strive for. But at the same time, I find the fact that Tommy and Greg believed in this thing so sincerely, and that it very nearly drove them to financial and emotional ruin so captivating, and the end product SO bizarre and distinct. That I ultimately keep coming back for more as the years go by.

Its a fun, and quirky picture thats infitnely quotable and weird in ways I didnt think were possible. Its been analyzed to death over the years, but I still think theres value every few years in just sitting down and taking this one in for what it is, one mans attempt to try and frustratingly open a sealed jar of beetroot while wearing oven mitts that have been duct taped on. Ahmen.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-room/2/

The final entry in the original run of ‘National Lampoons Vacation’ movies (We dont talk about ‘Christmas Vacation 2’) Sees the Griswolds embark on probably their least interesting adventure to date, an extended Vegas Vacation…

When one of Clarkes inventions at the food company earns him a big payout, he decides to treat the family to a lavish Vegas Vacation, where he also announces he plans to renew his vows with his wife Ellen. But rather than joy, the family is kind of nonplussed by the whole thing, mainly because Vegas isnt exactly a family hot spot and for people under 21, theres basically nothing to do but sit in air conditioned theaters watching shows all day.

Nevertheless, Clarke presses on and soon the family are on the strip, and ready to party. ‘hilarity’ ensues as Clarke fallas afoul of a blackjack dealer whos seemingly bad luck, and Ellen is swooned by a residenting Wayne Newton. Oh! and because it wouldnt be a ‘Vacation’ film without Cousin Eddy…he’s here too! Remember Cousin Eddy?! he’s back!…Again!…

Eddys appearence signals bad luck for the Griswolds, as Clarke falls deeper and deeper into a financial pit of his own making, ignoring Ellen who decides to spend incresing amounts of time with Wayne Newton, meanwhile Audrey links in with Eddys daughter Vicky who takes her out with the crazy party girls…and Russ? he gets bored, so decides to buy a fake ID to give gambling a go, and he’s surprisingly lucky with it, eventually fallin in with the ‘Mob’ types and chronic gamblers who see him as they’re lucky trinket to keep around as he racks up free cars and comp’d rooms.

Eventually however; Clarkes gambling catches up with him, and when the family end up over 20k in the hole and seemingly no way out, it may well be down to Eddy of all people to save the day!

I’d not seen this film in probably 5 years or so, but with news of Vegas’s tourism industry collapsing in real time I thought i’d give it one more spin because, if nothing else its interesting to see Vegas jumping AND this is the only original Lampoons Vacation movie I hadnt actually taken the time to review or rate…

Honest opinion? its not good…its not HORRENDOUS you understand…but what we have here is an incredibly lazy sequel, where noone really seems that invested in it, where the humour is largely building on references and jokes from the previous movies…But not in a creative or unique way…in a kind of lazy ‘just ampliphying what was already there’ kind of way.

The best case study for this is probably Cousin Eddy and the family, in the first film, they were backroad yokels who were kind and pleasent, but had a strange icky undercurrent running through them, they skipped out on the sequel, but by Christmas Vacation, they were back, living in an RV, and the hillbilly elements were a bit stronger (eating squirrels, undergoing medical experiments for cash, trying to renovate clearly destroyed furniture)…In this film? they’re just doing the same thing they did in Christmas vacation, but louder…not more interesting, or taking it in a different direction. its the EXACT same joke, just not as well written and more annoying.

Clarkes a family man at heart, with a distinct run of psycopathy, in the previous films he’s shown to take things to the extreme, often endangering his own family, himself and random strangers in the process. But its all in the pursuit of trying to be a good dad and a family man…Here? he spends most of the movie avoiding his family as much as possible and learning how to cheat the blackjack table…its only when he runs out of money that he remembers he even HAS a family and goes back to them for support…This is probably the worst Clarke Griswold has ever been portrayed in any of the films really.

The humour itself is lowest common denominator stuff, when they’re not badly ripping off there own stuff, the jokes are all kind of flat or stupid. Chevy Chase has a great physical presence and can handle pratfalls with relative ease. He barely gets any time to do anything in this film other than sit by various pools and casino tables, the one big physical piece he DOES get into (set at Hoover Dam) is largely greenscreened and again, it just isnt that funny.

Theres no chemistry really between any of the characters or cast members, the decision to split the family into 4-5 different subplots that largely ignore each other is bewildering to me. because it results in you not really feeling like your watching a ‘Vacation’ movie. It just feels like bad improv in movie form.

The pacings pretty glacial, at times it just full on turns into a Vegas tourist board infomertial, the tone swings between just about tolerable and unpleasent. and the character arcs arnt rewarding, and at times just feel a bit unpleasent. with the 3rd act resolution that solves the Griswolds troubles being particularly hard to believe given everything that happened in the preceeding 80 minutes.

Directions fine enough, theres some early greenscreen work that hasnt aged that well, but its a studio pic and for a generic film, a late 90s Lampoons film at that…its fine. but nothing really special. Same goes for the cine. it’s just…kind of unremarkably ‘okay’.

The soundtrack feels like its creaking at times mixing late 70s/early 80s fanservice tracks with mid 90s dance and house music…it’s a weird concoction and a fairly nauseating one at that.

Performance wise, its screaming paycheque gig. Im assuming Chevy was being problematic as he gets basically nothing to do, the odd vocal joke and a tiny bit of physical prat falling is about all there is, Randy Quade gets the lions share of the ACTUAL comedy in this and…as I’ve said before ‘Cousin Eddy’ is a flavour enhancer of a character, NOT a main ingrediant. You add him to an already funny character to make the situation funnier…but on his own? it becomes grating almost immediatley.

The rest of the Griswolds (D’angelo, and new in towners Marisol Nichols and Ethan Embry as Audry and Russ) are just…kind of flat really. they giving theater performances for a film that really would have benefitted from a more naturalistic turn. and as a result, they dance between annoying and just kind of okay throughout the runtime. Its clear from how they handled this that non of them expected this to be a career launch in any capacity…

‘Vegas Vacation’ is a stale comedy with a cast who probably could have done better with better material. Its a cheap cash in movie off the back of arguably 2 of the greatest US comedies ever made and arguably one fo the best Christmas movies ever made. and its painfully obvious the film makers knew this and just wanted to shake the piggy bank on this one to see what fell out.

It blows my mind that this film came out one year AFTER ‘Beavis and Butthead do America’ a film that handles the Vegas comedy setting MILES better than this film (and this film has the gaul to actually steal a couple gags from that film…) This? was a wasted opportunity, and a bit of a sour note to end the ‘Vacation’ films on…I totally get why Its been so long since I last checked it out, and it’ll probably be a lot longer before I go back again.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/vegas-vacation/

Well; 14years after ‘Jurassic Park 3’ slopped onto screens and stunk out the room. It was the era of the ‘Soft Reboot’ and every franchise was being pulled out of the toy trunk, given a quick clean with an anti-bacterial wipe, a paint touch up and launched headfirst back into theaters…’Jurassic World’ was ONE of those movies.

The plot? Its the present day, and despite John Hammonds clear message that there shouldnt be a ‘Jurassic Park’ AND two incidents where multiple people died and several people BARELY made it off the islands alive…Jurassic Park not only lives, its corporate sponsored. Rechristened Jurassic World, the park is beholden to corporations who are demanding increasingly more unrealistic additions to the park in order to keep people going through the doors and keep the share prices rising.

And we open the film being introduced to Zach and Gray, children of worlds saddest mother ‘Karen’. The kids are being shipped off for an extended weekend at Jurassic World, so that their parents can sort out seperation proceedings, BUT! They wont be doing it alone! as Karens sister Claire, who also happens to be the 2nd in command to the CEO of the park has agreed to give them an all access pass tour of the park on arrival…aaaaaand she’s too busy to ACTUALLY spend time with them, so instead, they get her P.A…who really isnt that bothered about spending time with a couple of kids.

Claire is then shown the parks latest attraction, genetically modified dinosaurs, basically the corps want something new a big, so they’ve taken DNA from a bunch of dinosaurs and other animals, in an attempt to create a non stop killing machine. Claires impressed, but the CEO wants checks to be carried out on its paddock, because they arnt entirely sure its completely safe.

Enter ‘Owen’, the parks raptor handler, he’s ex-navy and treats the animals with the upmost respect and importance. Much to the confusion of the rest of the handlers who just see the animals as product to be moved around the park. Owen gets the summons to go and take a look at the park security up at the paddock, and on arrival, something isnt quite right…the new dinosaurs seemingly missing, and when Owen sees scratch marks on one of the paddock walls. they believe its escaped its containment…worried, they head into the paddock…only, ITS A TRAP! and the new dino escapes into the park, RIGHT into the area where Zach and Gray are hanging out, Leading Claire and Owen to race to find them, and sending the kids on an adventure through the backroads of the park. While the park staff try desperately to keep control of the situation.

One of my first thoughts on this film happened around 20 minutes in, and it was a pretty glaring one for me. Is this film ignoring the sequels up to this point, or is it considering them. Because if its ignoring the sequels its pretty bloody GLIB to take the message of the first film (AKA: That some things are best left in the past, and that Jurassic Park shouldnt exist…and that, while they cant exactly undo what they’ve done, they could at least leave the dinosaurs to thrive and build their own societies away from human internetion) and essentially say ‘Ha! LOL! No!’ and just…Not only decide to rebuild the park in THE most pro capitalist way possible, but to do so while ACTIVELY trying to make out that John Hammond would have wanted ANY part of this.

Or! it DOES count the sequels as canon to this film, in which case its a bridge too far for me, the events of ‘Jurassic Park 3’ happened less thanb 14 years prior to this film, and this film establises that the parks been open and thriving now for at least a few years. Sooo…are they just ignoring that in a 10 or so year window at least 2 dozen people died and there were several raids/attempted invasions of the islands that house the dinosaurs? theres at least a dozen people who are still alive out there who survived these islands…and despite the fact this brand would have been toxic as asbestos by this point, SOMEHOW, they managed to get, what I can only assume is billions of dollars to fund and open a park?!

Nah, to me it feels like theres a step missing in this series. you cant go from the end of either the original OR ‘Jurassic Park 3’ to this without there having to have been SOME kind of serious transition in mindset towards it. I found the jump to this film, after the events of ‘3’ to be jarring to the point of concussion. and thats not even getting to the fact that some characters from the original DO return, and are now for some reason evil…I…dont really get it.

I think the difference between this film and the original ‘Jurassic Park’ is a problem a lot of contemporary films have, they treat the theater going experience as a theme park ride, they play down plot, human moments and sincere attempts at courting the audience, in place of set pieces and shallow CGI Action scenes. and thats kind of where I found myself with this film.

The plots fine enough, the genetic engineering of dinosaurs was kind of the next logical step after ‘Lost World’…But the execution feels somewhat shallow and uninteresting. Its like they basically went ‘well, people liked the T-rex in the first 2 movies…whatabout a SUPER T-REX!!!!’ and noone stopped them. Everything just kind of feels so vapid. and empty, the attempts at anti capitalist sentiment fall flat, because, you cant say ‘corporations sponsoring eugenics is BAD’ while simultaineously making every other shot a Merc or Samsung commercial…

the dialogue is marvelisation dialogue, everyones trying to be the likeable sarcastic so and so…and im just SO done with that style of scriptwriting by this point. the pacing is WAY too slow, this things over 2 hours long and it absolutely shouldnt have been. the characters arnt strong enough to sustain that and the film falls into the same mistake 2 and 3 did which is putting extended action scenes over genuine human interacation.

It feels like someone watched Jurassic Park, didnt get the subtext or the messages it had and made a clone of it in an easily digestable ‘slush’ form. and while the actual plot is fine enough, I dont think I could give this film my full attention on a second viewing. Its a ‘glance over my phone every 20 minutes’ kind of movie. Something to fill the deafening silence where I could be watching an AGFA or Criterion movie instead…

beyond that the technical elements are…fine. Once again a director has fallen into the trap of overegging the action scenes over giving us a sense of these humans ACTUALLY being real people. its a big budget studio picture, so everything on the direction and cine front is going to be of a standard. The trouble is here, the standard is about as good as it gets, they somehow manage the amazing feat of making grand sweeping scenes of dinosaurs roaming the land look kind of boring. and while the CG is miles better than what we had in ‘Jurassic 3’…10 years on from its premiere, its starting to creak a bit.

And thats probably how I’d sum up the rest of this film, the cines fine, but kind of unremarkable, the performances are fine, but dance the line between that Marvel style snark and being dry to the point of kindling. the soundtracks still milking the Williams score for all the nostalgia it can. The fact the films already starting to feel a bit dated only 10 or so years from its release is frankly concerning, because all thats telling me is 10 years from NOW, its going to look Pony.

I dont have the same level of whistful nostalgia for Jurassic Park as most people seem to have. If you were to ask me, from what i’ve seen, I think they really should have just left this as a ‘one film and done’ kind of thing. As it stands, as far as soft reboots go, I really just didnt get this one. I can see how this could lay the ground for maybe one or two more movies. But I know theres been WAY more than that, and I cant even BEGIN to imagine how tenuous they’re going to get from here on in. But yeah, I didnt hate this one, I was just…kind of unimpressed by it and left wondering what the point of any of it was other than to put brand names in front of people and to try and revive an IP that had been on ice for a decade and a half…Your milage may vary…But I dont think i’ll be in a rush to revisit this one…

EDIT: OH! And I almost completely forgot…the GAUL of this film to essentially take the plots of ‘Lost World’ (I.E a corrupt company trying to capture dinosaurs for their own nefarious needs) and ‘Jurassic 3’ (people who are aware of the events of the park getting stranded and trying to get back to base to call for help) and cherry picking elements of it to create some kind of recycled hybrid movie is ESPECIALLY annoying when you consider the main plot is about cherry picking the best bits of dinosaurs…GOD this movie kind of sucked in a way…

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/jurassic-world/