Girls Nite Out, 1982 – ★★★

Probably the definition of the phrase ‘What is the barest minimum I want out of a slasher movie’, ‘Girls Nite Out’ is, in essence a murder mystery presenting itself as a new fangled Slasher, but with a hearty dose of ‘mania’ to boot. Imagine ‘Black Christmas’ but if it had been directed and written by the guy who made ‘Sleepaway Camp’ with just the tiniest dash of ‘Friday the 13th’ and your not a million miles off.

The plot is split over two main plot lines, the first half follows a group of college students (mainly a group of serority girls) as they host a party at their serority house to celebrate a winning game for the football team. Its here that the film basically sets up its stall, establishing all the characters, their personalities and throwing a hearty sprinkling of ‘Oh! He’s got a dark/mysterious streak, maybe HE’LL be the killer!!!’ to help get peoples brains in gear (fun fact; anyone who is made out to be a killer in these movies is 99.9% of the time almost definitely NOT the killer.)

The second half of the film picks up the next day after several dramatic turns hit the sorority party, as the girls try and recover from the fun, but volatile night, by taking part in the college radio stations annual scavanger hunt. Only…the football teams mascot (a bear) appears to be on the prowl, following the clues of the hunt as well. And if they just so happen to come by any sorority girls who are also taking part in the hunt. Well…it’ll be a ‘Grizzly’ end for them!

And I think ‘Black Christmas by way of Sleepaway Camp’ is probably the best way to describe this one, but not in a good way. The film wants to have a certain heir of atmosphere and tensness. It wants to be a thriller for all intents and purposes like how Black christmas helps to build that sense of unease and isolationism…However; it doesnt really want to put any time into giving these characters the kind of depth and complexity that would allow for that unease and atmosphere to germinate. Instead, most of the characters get a personality type that they run into the ground with a kind of frantic mania. followed by a ‘twist’ personality type that the audience is supposed to infer as an attempt to make these base line characters a little more ‘extra’ than they seem.

Only, its a very lazy way to try and create uncertainty for the audience. To the point that I feel most audience members will clearly see through the attempts pretty much immediately. The mania I mentioned comes in the form of high energy comedic moments similar to sleepaway camp, but again, nowhere near as memorable and kind of jarring against the darker tones and suspensful atmostphere the films going for.

Mild spoilers also; but this is one of those kind of ‘whodunnit’ slasher films where its presenting itself as a ‘Find the killer’ film, but the ACTUAL killer in this film is barely on screen, has almost no dialogue and even on a quick watch back of the 1 or 2 scenes they’re in, gave almost NO impression that they could possibly be the killer, not to mention the big plot twist of the film is based on a photograph of the suspected killer, which you dont see properly until the big reveal of who the ACTUAL killer is. Basically; I dont think any reasonable person watching this for the first time would immediately know who the killer was without some kind of forewarning. which makes the whole core premise of the film (speculating who MAY be the killer) kind of redundant.

Outside of the above gripes, we do have a fairly solid little horror film, the pacing moves at a clip, the act sturcturing is fine, the characters border on annoying at times, but never fully go there, the comedy is VERY hit and miss, but landed with me more than it bounced. the dialogue feels solid enough given the characters are pretty much in a constant state of ‘drunk’ for 90% of the runtime.

The kills are a bit watered down, but are at least satisfying to sit through, the end reveal comes out of left field, but I felt was handled alright, if not a bit abrupt. the plotting requires a LOT of suspension of disbelief. But if you can do that, is fine.

The direction isnt out of the ordinary for early 80s horror. In fact i’d say its in the upper mid portion in terms of quality. I caught the Arrow video bluray of this, which…well, its a bit ropey to be honest, but given the films been left in disrepair for many years, the restoration work is about as solid as it can be. its clear the director was a solid pair of hands for the production, with all the various elements working quite well together to produce a film that more than holds up. My main issue is that it doesnt really stand out much (barring the mania element of the dialogue delivery) and a lot of it feels derivative of thillers and the protoslashers of this time…Id say its probably innoffensive truthfully. I liked it, I just wish it had more of an identity.

Same goes for the cine, the lighting is mixed to poor for the most part and a lot of the film is set in dark rooms or outside at night. Where it hits, its brilliant and striking with some nice moody work between ‘moonlight white’, the darkness and at most, candle light. But when it doesnt work, it makes it very hard to see whats actually going on, which naturally greatly impacts the viewing experience. Colour play is quite low, which is a shame, its hard to tell if thats how the director intended it to be, or if the print itself was just SO washed out that the higher contrast moments have paled. But in either case, it feels like, had the colours really been allowed to pop on this one, it could have been something special, instead; it feels a bit cheap and grungy…which is a shame.

Compositions are largely fine, there are moments where the croppings a bit off here and there, but on the whole this looks and feels the part for a low budget slasher flick. sequences feel a bit sparse on the B-roll front, but hang together well enough and the edit is just kind of unremarkable. Its a shame really as a lot of suspense can be drawn out of an edit, and its an opportunity that this film almost never really chooses to utilise.

Performance wise? we run the gauntlet from painfully annoying, to actually kind of naturalistic and fun. Key highlights include Hal Holbrook as the campus security officer, Julia Montgomery as Lynn, both of whome could have easily played to the gallery on this one, but chose a more serious take, which contrasts nicely against the rest of the cast. They are probably the strongest players in this, as the rest of the cast (and there is a LOT of them) range from not terrible, to horrendous, to…frankly incoherent.

One thing this film DOES have going for it though is a killer soundtrack, its essentially a 60s jukebox for the most part played directly from the campus radio DJ. Big names too! which surprised me given the budget for the film. while I woudlnt have thought it necessarily suits the 80s slasher tone. It does give the film a distinct and kind of charming aesthetic, that I wouldnt have considered. I think it works rather well all things considered.

Girls Nite out is a ‘passably’ good slasher film, given how poor this genre can get at times, its honestly pretty solid all things considered, if not missing that extra ‘oomph’ that takes it to the next level. I think this would probably pair well with something like ‘One Dark Nite’ or ‘Black Christmas’ as a ‘Sorority’ double header…Its borderline….But I think I would ultimately recommend checking this one out if your on a slasher kick and want something a bit deeper cut and off the beat and path.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/girls-nite-out/

by tytdreviews

Bon Voyage, Charlie Brown (and Don’t Come Back!), 1980 – ★★★

Had the pleasure of checking this one out with a friend the other night and had a pretty good time!

A little bit of a different turn for the ‘Peanuts’ specials, ‘Bon Voyage, Charlie Brown’ sees Charlie brown and the gang taking part in a foreign exchange programme, with Snoopy and Woodstock tagging along for the ride! With a brief stop in the UK, they all arrive in Paris, where a secret at an old Chataux will give Charlie Brown a MORE than memorable vacation!

And this ones pretty easy to sum up honestly, its a simple, funny and at times cute little special that, for me at least, stands out against the other ‘Peanuts’ specials. But isnt without its faults.

Probably my biggest gripe with this one is simply that its got a LOT of filler, its 75 minutes long, but could EASILY have been 45 minutes and been a LOT tighter for it. some moments here drag on and on, and while it isnt unpleasent, it does get to a point where you start wondering if the scenes ever will end.

Mercifully, the gentle comedy in this is consistent across the runtime, and is actually pretty funny for the most part. My favourite bits naturally involved Snoopy and Woodstock just palling around as they do. but that humour really is the saving grace of this one. it just about managed to keep me on side from start to finish.

I think this one would probably pair up quite well with something like ‘National Lampoons European Vacation’ as a kind of ‘travel comedy of extremes’ double header. This is a charming piece that, while a little bit flawed, did enough to ultimately win me over. It certainly made me feel like I should get out there and explore the wider world, which cant be a bad thing!

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/bon-voyage-charlie-brown-and-dont-come-back/

by tytdreviews

Café Flesh, 1982 – ★★★½

Another round from Stephen Sayadian and the middle film in the trilogy of weirdness. ‘Cafe Flesh’ kind of feels like the halfway house between ‘Night Dreams’ and ‘Dr. Caligari’, not as porny as ‘Night Dreams’, but WAY more porny that ‘Caligari’ though, not without good reason.

The plot is set in the not too distant future (Sayadian has gone on record as saying he felt this took place in an alternate 90s.) Where the world has been ravaged by a nuclear apocalypse. This hellscape has eradicated persecusion on race,sex,gender or sexual preference basis. But instead split society as we know it into two camps. ‘Negatives’ who make up 99% of the population, who, on top of the usual post nuclear apocalypse style burns and injuries, have developed a mutation that makes them pretty much completely unable to engage in erotic physical touch with themselves or others. If they try, all parties will immediately begin to feel nauseaus, followed by uncontrollable vomiting, and eventually passing out.

The other camp, the 1%, are ‘Positives’, folks who have seemingly escaped the apocalypse unscathed and are able to have sex freely. I know which side i’d rather be on. But ‘Pozzi’s’ as they’re known have an even bigger problem on their hands, as government agencies are sweeping the apocalyptic hellscape SPECIFICIALLY looking for ‘Pozzi’s’ and on locating them, they’re rounded up, and sent to their nearest ‘Cafe Flesh’ a jumping 50s by the way of 1982 style bar where all registered ‘Positives’ are forced nightly to perform in increasingly perverted and bizarre sex shows, aimed at keeping ‘Neggi’s’ under control and subdued, as its the only entertainment in the wastes, while also regulating heavily the movement of ‘Pozzi’s’

Our film predominantly follows Nick and Lana, a couple of ‘Negatives’ who, before the war were in a loving relationship, that are now really struggling due to Nicks inability to have sex, alongside Nicks own feelings of imasculation. Lana helps arrange the shows at Cafe Flesh, and the film predominantly follows the happenings around the club, introduces us to some strange and wonderful characters and some even STRANGER sex acts…But when a newcomer arrives from the wastes called ‘Angel’ who is adamant shes a ‘negative’ the whole cafe will quickly find itself on the reciving end of investigators, hellbent on locating ANY ‘Pozzi’s’ and getting them on stage as soon as possible. With revelations that’ll turn the worlds of Nick, Lana and Angel totally upside down.

Of the first three Sayadian films, ‘Cafe Flesh’ is probably my least favourite, that isnt to do it a disservice mind, theres a lot going on in it. But I just feel like its more of a ‘stepping stone’ picture for the director than a landmark highlight. Sayadian at this point was very use to theatrical productions. ‘Night Dreams’ had been his first solid foray into film making, and this feels like a director/writer who knows a thing or two about movie making, but wasnt quite yet at his most confident.

At its core, theres a lot to love about ‘Cafe Flesh’ the plot itself has twists and turns that were both welcome and unexpected, the surrealism is really the main draw for me to this picture, with explicit imagery I dont think in my wildest dreams i’d have been able to conjure up. (ever wanted to see a 50s housewife get railed by a fully adult sized mouse dressed as a milkman, complete with dildo tail?…Or a giant Pencil fuck a secretary? This may be the film for you.)

In that sense it carries a lot of ‘Night Dreams’ DNA, and in some senses, this feels almost like the offcuts from ‘Night Dreams’ that Sayadian couldnt properly relaize in THAT film have been transplanted into this. While the absolute madness is welcome, I find the porn sequences in this film do have a bad habit of overstaying their welcome, this film clocks in at around 72 minutes, and I’d say you could easily knock 3-5 minutes off of every porn scene and it would have run ten times better.

For me? the sex scenes just, arnt that interesting. the surrealism is, but once it gets stuck into the more porn oriented moments, its just locked off mid-close shots of boning, occasionally cutting to a reaction shot from one of the cast. And it’s hard to tell at this point whether the lack of intimacy in the direction of those sequences is a choice given the topic, or if its just an inexperienced director who doesnt really know how to frame intimacy to make it feel passionate or interesting. ‘Caligari’ doenst really delve into sex as frequently as these two and seems to keep its sequences a bit tighter, so im inclined to believe its the latter.

The extended sex scenes pad the runtime quite heavily, which, to me? impacts how the actual story ebbs and flows. It feels less like the sex compliments the plot, and more like the film makers are essentially wrenching the story book from my hands to make me watch ploughing for 8 minutes, before giving me the book back for another 10, rinse, repeat.

What I will say though is, thats probably the biggest and sole issue I have with ‘Cafe Flesh’ its not committed ENOUGH to being porn to BE porn. Its not fleshed out narrative wise enough to lead with story, it feels a bit caught in the middle.

The plot elements themselves are wonderful, we have eccentric characters who all get a decent handful of moments to define themselves, Nick and Lana’s relationship is complex and explored decently, the twists and turns always kept me guessing what was coming next and the film gets into some genuinely bleak and bittersweet moments I really wasnt expecting from a film that features men dressed as adult babies banging theigh bones on high chairs in the opening act.

the act structuring feels a bit lop sided because of the extended sex sequences, but on the whole i’d say they’re pretty decently balanced out. The contrast between comedy weirdness and genuine discomfort is frankly delightful as well.

Direction wise, as mentioned it feels more like a ‘missing link’ than a fully fleshed out piece. Night dreams embraced absurdity, Caligari is set in some kind of German Expressionist by way of the B52’s void world…’Cafe Flesh’ has one foot in the surreal, and one foot in reality. and to me that feels unsual and jarring, for the most part, it weirdly works. But then there’ll just be some random scenes that really pulled me out of the space it was going for and left me feeling a little disinterested. Sayandian here is really learning the craft, so I do have to cut him some slack, but I just feel that there were moments here that, in the hands of a more experienced director (or had it been dealt with by Sayadian today) would have been much tighter and better handled.

The cine however? is basically flawless. fantastic surrealist and experimental compositional choices, crash up against neon soaked moody, smokey bar sequences. Sayadian is a director who revels in colour and you wont get much more vivid, rich and expressive than in these early films. incredibly powerful sequences combined into a tight edit with creative and interesting lighting only really further sell me on the vision on display here. I’d say just on this aspect alone the films worth checking out alongside Sayadians other work. It really is flourishing.

Performance wise, again; its pretty faultless, I had actually missed the Michelle Baur was in this playing Lana until I checked out the supplimental material (I also wasnt aware that this was only Baurs second ever ‘hardcore’ flick, which was surprising) But shes astounding in this, I find it kind of crazy that NOONE talks about how good she is in this film, playing a woman with a secret, dealing with the increasingly complex realtionship she has with her partner. Shes incredibly emotive, brings a real presence to the film and says more with micro movements and her physicality on set than the dialogue ever could.

Thats not to downplay Paul McGibboney who’s also absolutely carrying this film from strength to strength playing Nick with a strong front, but a clearly crumbling mask as he begins to realise that ‘Cafe Flesh’ may be all thats left for him. I also have to shout out Andy Nichols who plays ‘Cafe Fleshs’ host for the evenings Max. a UTTERLY slimey performance, he OOZES dislikability with every single line delivery, its incredible, his own revelations were both very satisfying and handled very well. He was excellent.

I cant even begin to go into the supporting cast and extras in this film either, who play things ABSOLUTELY perfectly. Its almost like an inverse ‘Rocky Horror’ with the majority of the patrons of ‘Cafe Flesh’ looking at the performers the same way a dog looks at a rotisserie chicken in a shop window. the eccentricities all play off each other well with explosive and interesting moments. I really quite enjoyed it honestly.

And finally, the soundtrack…which, being honest…wasnt really my jam. It had its moments, but its trying to be a 40s and 50s ‘Jazzy, but in the future!’ kind of take, but its hit and miss, where it works, I kind of dug it, where it didnt. It was grating. I could easily see why folks would like the score to this one, but I personally much preferred Caligari.

I feel my rating for ‘Cafe Flesh’ will shift in time, theres honestly a lot to like here, but it feels like a film mid transition, a necessary work to get to the logical end point, but not a ‘complete’ picture in the spiritual sense. I loved the casting and cine, but the script really struggles to shake off its ‘too porny for its own good’ vibes, which left me a bit frustrated.

I’d say its definitely worth your time, alongside all of Sayadians early works. But done expect a film that puts story ahead of sex. its very much in the midst of an identity crisis on that front.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/cafe-flesh/

by tytdreviews

Maniac, 1980 – ★★★

‘Maniac’ is a film for which I dont believe Im the target audience for honestly. Theres two reasons for that. The first being that im not a huge fan of the ‘Stalker mutilates women on and off for 90 minutes in increasingly grotesque ways’ subgenre of the stalker/slasher genre. But also in the sense that Im not that hugely into the kind of stalker/slasher movie where we spend the majority of the film trying to get into the mind of the killer, following them around and hearing their internal monologues or hearing what makes them tick.

I will say that ‘Maniac’ is probably one of the better entries in this subgenre, But even so. Its still not *quite* enough to tip me well and truly into a fan of it. I last watched this film around 15 years ago on a ropey VHS bootleg copy, and was just kind of bored by it honestly, but I figured with 88 films having a sale recently, i’d pick up the bluray and give it another shot. And while my opinions on it have mellowed a little bit since that initial watch, im still not 100% sold.

The film follows Joe Spinell as ‘Frank’ the titular ‘Maniac’. Franks a somewhat complex character, a man who lost his mother at an early age, and through a combination of psychological conditions, and bad circumstances, has taken to stalking the streets after dark looking for innocent women to kidnap, mutilate, kill and scalp, before returning the scalps home to stitch into mannaquins heads as a means of ‘capturing’ women he finds attractive, so that they can never leave him, and are ‘dependent’ on him.

The majority of the first and second act is being brought into Franks world, as we see him stalk and kill a number of women in increasingly tense and gory ways. Before, midway through Act 2, we’re introduced to Anna, a photographer that Frank has a random encounter with when he ISNT goring people, and the pair strike up a VERY unlikely ‘early days’ relationship.

However, as Franks killings become increasingly noticed, he becomes more and more paranoid, eventually fully giving into his psychotic urges, in a final 15 minutes or so that really kind of saved the film for me in some regards.

Objectively, the script is fine. its got a decent pace, the tone is bubbling bleakness mixed in with some genuinely unsettling moments of Frank masking as just a normal guy to try and lure people into his world and plans. the act structuring is fine (nothing to write home about) and it ends about as well as it could end, concluding the film with an increadible veer into outright horror that caught me off guard, woke me up, and got me back into the film.

Subjectively however, It wasnt really for me. Because I dont like the ‘women being tortured for X amount of time and little else’ style of film making, the first two acts of this movie felt positively glacial to me, and while I will conceed that getting to hear Franks internal monologue and thought processes, getting to see Frank just be a normal guy in between the gorings was definitely a nice break when compared to films like ‘The New York Ripper’. It wasnt really enough to win me over, and, if anything I just found myself frustrated we spent so much time with Frank, when the commentary he produces is essentially rambling gibberish with occasional trauma thrown in, it quickly becomes apparent that Franks law of killing is unpredictable and that he’s just saying whatever comes to mind as a way to justify or sooth his unsettled soul.

The moment Caroline Munroe enters the picture as Anna, the film seems to snap onto a track line that takes us all the way up to the finale in an actually pretty well structured way, it slow builds to a genuinely out of left field finale that I liked, and its especially nice to see Frank dealing with encounters he’s not used to like dinner dates, where its clear (to the audience) he’s sort of fumbling about just to try and find the magic words that’ll keep Anna close and unaware of his true intentions.

The characters are fine enough, and I get that Franks psycopathy is supposed to kind of be loosely tied to his mother, but also not really tied to anything in particular. But I just didnt really feel invested because of the lack of steerage on his character. It feels more naturalistic. But it feels dissatisfying to me. Anna is probably the only other character in this who we get ANY other kind of depth or complexity from, and its kind of unremarkable. part of me wonders if the reason why Anna is so ‘base line’ character wise is because we’re seeing her as Frank sees her. More interesting than the women he’s previously hunted, not interesting enough for him to really go beyond the surface level observation of ‘She’s a beautiful photographer’.

I cant say the script for ‘Maniac’ is bad per’se, but it took me a long time to settle into it, and I didnt really feel invested for most of the runtime.

What DID invest me was the direction, William Lustig here has done a phenominal job in creating a genuinely seedy looking/feeling film, but not one without creative flare and flourish. while the script may not be for me, its clear we had a director on hand who knew what he wanted to visualize to the screen and worked closely with the cast and crew to achieve that, he’s done a marvellous job with some incredible lighting and colour choices.

The cine also is superb, a mixture of locked off and hand held footage, its an incredibly claustrophobic film, especially during the stalkers sequences, where it really feels like the films closing in around the audience as Frank gets closer to the kill. excellent use of angles and B-roll here aid the sequence building to create, probably one of the more atmospheric pieces i’ve seen in the slasher genre for a good while. If I was going to say anything WAS the reason to see this movie, its the incredible way Lustigs direction within the cine shows the audience more about Franks world, than dialogue ever could.

Performance wise, this has probably got to be the career peak for Joe Spinell who gets a very meaty (if not incomprehensible) chunk of the script as ‘Frank’. and he absolutely owns the role, I cant imagine anyone else playing this part anywhere near as decently. the dialogue may not mean much to me, but he delivers it with a level of pain and fear that sells me that HE believes what he’s saying (whatever that may actually be!). Munroe by contrast plays a very grounded, slightly bouncy photographer type, and brings a wonderful contrast to Spinells performance. they’re both excellent here, and again, their parts alone really help pull this film up WAY above where it should be honestly.

Rounding off we have a hit and miss soundtrack score, with some tracks being astounding pieces that have stayed with me WELL after the credits, and other tracks feeling like cheap ‘Halloween’ knock offs. as such, im kind of conflicted, where it works. It works really well! Where it doesnt, it feels cheap and rushed. your milage may vary.

I may not have gelled with ‘Maniac’ but I can see what its trying to do and I think, for what its trying to do, it works well. For me? I’d personally rather watch something like ‘Dont go in the house’ or ‘Blood Sucking Freaks’ for this kind of cinema. But I could see myself checking this one out again in future. and im kind of piqued by the fact there was a proposed sequel to this film that never got released AND a spiritual sequel that did…and hey, if a film was interesting enough that its got me curious to see what happened next, I dont think it can be all bad!

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/maniac-1980/1/

by tytdreviews

Freaks, 1932 – ★★★★

Probably my favourite work by Todd Browning, ‘Freaks’ is frankly revolutionary for the time it came out. A sympathetic drama with horror elements portraying actual disabled people in a way that (until the end at least) doesnt monster them or pity them. It plays them as real people, finding family and community within there small travelling roadshow, and protecting each other from the real ‘Freaks’ the people who bully them just for being different.

The plot revolves mainly around a dwarf named ‘Hans’ who slowly begins to fall in love with a radient trapeze artist called ‘Cleopatra’ who’s in a toxic relationship with the strong man ‘Hercules’. The problem? Hans is married and in a loving relationship with another woman called ‘Frieda’. Cleo picks up that Hans is interested, and decides to ‘date’ him as a cruel joke. But on getting to know him better, she finds out that he’s in fact an incredibly wealthy man. And so, working with Hercules; the pair decide to try and coerce Hans into leaving his wife, marrying Cleo, where Cleo and Hercules will then kill him via poisoning and claim his wealth. All the while Frieda confides in the other circus dwellers trying to find a way to get her husband back. And while all THIS is going on we’re treated to a whirlwind look at the life of these people as they face prejudice and ridicule simply for who they want to be.

Honestly? I love this film, its so bittersweet and sincere (for the most part) that its kind of mind blowing to me that something so progressive and unflinching could be made as early as 1932. But in the same breath, thats also probably the one thing that stops it from being truely perfect.

Because, at this time, the censoship boards were running rife over media in the US, and ‘Freaks’ is a VERY heavily hit victim of this era. with several key and important scenes cut from the film for being ‘obscene’ in the 30s and some final cuts being cut by as much as 30 minutes. You dont need a guide to see whats missing from ‘Freaks’ the blunt and sudden jumpcuts do that for you. These missing scenes added key additional information and helped to slow the narrative pacing a bit to let the characters breath and give them more depth and complexity. I consider this film in the same way that I considered ‘Metropolis’ in the sense that it feels like so much is missing thats critical to really getting under the skin of this piece. As such, whats left feels rushed and sporadic. the tones are a little all over the place and the grand ending (which revolted audiences in the 30s) has been reduced to scraps essentially.

I can only judge whats here, but what IS here is an incredible work for 1930 that feels naturalistic and compassionate in an era that most wouldnt typically associate with it. the pacings solid, the dialogue is fantastic (though, the fact the main character frequently drift in and out of german combined with some less than brilliant audio recording did stump me the first time I watched this) and the character feel deep, rich and lived in. I can only imagine a complete cut of this would make me love it even more.

The direction is superb, no notes from me its a slightly grimey, but creative work that has some absolutely unreal creative choices, particularly in the 3rd act. Which wouldnt be commonplace till the late 50s. Letalone the early 30s.

Cast directions a little flat at times, but I can forgive it that given the limitations of the cast, and the medium at this point in history.

The cine is rich and gorgeous, Its such a shame there isnt a better quality print of this film out there, as the one used for the criterion master is EASILY the best this films ever looked, but it still looks a bit soft and rough around the edges and the jarring jump edits really dont help matters either. Nontheless the scene structuring is sublime with some wonderful composition choices and astounding for the time lighting decisions. I really love the look of this film

Performance wise? Both Harry and Daisy Earles astound here as Hans and Frieda brining genuine sorrow and regret to the screen. I think they give energetic and brilliant performances where I always find some new layer to their performances every time I watch this.

Olga Baclanova and Henry Victor are ASTOUNDINGLY evil as Cleo and Hercules. bringing some genuine menace and discomfort to the roles alongside a genuine venemous streak that flirts with campy, but never fully commits to it.

The rest of the cast are all equally delightful and help really bring the picture together, its rare that I get to the end of a movie and really wish we’d just spent more time with the characters being who they are. But this film manages it.

And probably the weakest element of this whole production for me is the soundtrack, its largely diagetic sound, which is fine. But the one or two music cues in this film are VERY bombastic carnival pieces, and I feel that…while relevent to the location, they feel VERY out of place in all of this bleak drama works. That combined with the quality of the dialogue recording (which I know wasnt the best in the early 30s, and has seemingly degraded further over time) AND the constant shifting of languages with NO subtitles for those segments, made it kind of hard for me to keep up with exactly what was going on. I watched with subtitles this time around, but I think i’d have struggled in a non home viewing environment.

I love ‘Freaks’, I watched it for the first time over a decade ago and, like ‘Metropolis’ it still absolutely blows my mind that this film was made when it was, it was absolutely ahead of its time, and even today holds up remarkably well. I live in hope that one day the censor cuts may be found to truely restore this film. But for now, it’ll just have to settle as being ‘Remarkable’ and definitely worth checking out.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/freaks/1/

by tytdreviews

Demolition Man, 1993 – ★★★★

Im a man of simple pleasures, gimmie a good simple premise, no matter how fantastical, and if you can make it work? Im in. Thus, ‘Demolition Man’ a 90’s Stallone Vehical that takes the core premise of ‘Metropolis’ and marries it up to ‘Biodome’.

Its the far off future of 1996, and L.A has burned to the ground, a dangerous maniac named Pheonix (Snipes) roams the wastes running drug cartels and leading with violence above all else. Tasked with taking him in? is John Spartan (Stallone) a tough guy, all action cop who punches first and asks questions later. After a high speed chase involving Pheonix hijacking a bus with 30 tourists on board, the chase winds up at a warehouse, where Spartan finally manages to capture Pheonix, but is faced with the choice of letting Pheonix go free without fully knowing where he’s hidden the hostages, or taking him in and risking all of the hostages lives.

He chooses to take him in, but its revealed that the hostages were all in the building that Pheonix has now just destroyed. Both men are sentenced to Cryo-stasis to pay for the crimes, but part way through Pheonix’s sentence, in 2032, during a parole hearing, he breaks free and goes on a rampage. and we’re introduced to a new society, where crime has been all but eliminated, impurities are criminalised and the folks who WANT that nasty ‘free speech’ business have been driven into an underground city of dirty, but free, inhabitants.

The police of this time dont know how to deal with a maniac like Pheonix, as there hasnt been a murder committed in over 16 years. So…they go to thaw out the only man who knows how to kick arse and take names. Spartan. Hilarity ensues.

And, I always kind of considered this the B-picture to ‘Total Recall’. Demolition Man is fun, but it takes its concept just a little *too* heartily and ends up leaning a little *too* into its own tropes at times, turning what is ultimately a very fun and self aware Sci-fi Action Comedy, into the cinematic equivilent of a comedian who only has one set they play incessantly.

The script itself is fun, light weight, it deals with themes of classism, contrasting a free speech society, with a literal eugenecist ethnostate. But it doesnt bog itself down *too* heavily in the class unrest. Most of the film, is Stallone rolling his eyes at a society that learned to love and empathize, trying to deal with hardened criminals who actively take advantage of the situation.

Its a pacey hour and 55 minutes long, it zips through most of it with a clip, and while the plotting itself is a little all over the place in terms of trying to balance kooky ‘WELCOME TO THE FUTURE!’ness, with actual important narrative tropes, I dont feel it ever TRUELY became unbalanced, it comes close a fair bit, but it never truely lost me on that front.

We have a group of interesting and fairly well rounded characters, all with interesting back stories who all get a pretty decent chunk of the plotting, noone seems surplus and everyone seems to get their chance to shine.

We have a solid 3 act structure that feels fairly well balanced and transitions between the acts fairly seamlessly. The tone is really the thing that makes this movie a ‘must see’ for me. the comedies VERY on the nose, but the film makers relentless attention to detail in trying to KEEP reminding the audience about just how ‘soft’ this society has become, I thought was decently handled, if not a bit TOO on the nose.

Direction and cine? No notes. this is a 90s slice of action movie, it looks great, has a great sense of ‘futurism’ about it, its colourful, vivid and really gets the audience immersed in the universe its trying to build. Theres decent creative shot compositions, plenty of B-roll, room for experimentation and the edit is pretty rock solid, with some really well timed cuts and great use of coverage. I equally enjoyed the fairly minimal reliance on CG effects, outside of computer monitors and some lightning effects here and there, this is largely practical, and SO much better for it!

Performance wise, its basically the Stallone and Snipes show, Both are excellent, with Snipes playing a genuinely unhinged and effortlessly watchable criminal in Pheonix. He has amazing physicality and really brings himself into the role in a way that I feel would be hard for other actors to better.

Stallone by contrast brings a nice blend of self aware comedy and his usual macho performance to proceedings deliveirng a unique flavour to this film that I equally just, really enjoy sitting through. I find his tough guy roles sometimes a bit dry outside of the staple performances, but his comedy roles a bit too weird…This blend? is perfect.

Thats not to talk down the supporting cast, and its a veritable who’s who of 90s and early 2000s super stars. All of whome bring themselves to their roles sincerely and wholeheartedly, resulting in a great contrast of a clearly farsical world, with characters who seem to genuinely believe it in.

And the soundtrack? well, apart from a significant chunk of it being a gag for the movie to lean on (and a spookily accurate prediction of the future) its kind of unmemorable to me. Like…it punctuates the film fine enough, but it just didnt really do anything to set it apart from any other 90s Action or futurist action flick. Not bad, but just kind of…meh.

I always forget how long ‘Demolition Man’ is, I always seem to put it at the 90 minute mark, but for me? Even with it clocking in at 115 mins, it doesnt FEEL that long. its a goofy, fairly well made bit of cannon fodder that you could quite easily sink in an afternoon. I have a real soft spot for it. And though I will admit, sometimes its humour teeters into grating, by the end I always find myself promising myself I wont wait so long until the next screening.

Defintely worth checking out.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/demolition-man/

by tytdreviews

Buxom Beautease, 1956 – ★½

Irving Klaw was a cheap CHEAP film maker. Most of his films were a barely moving camera, bolted to the ground of a poorly dressed set, with half a dozen dancers and a couple of comedians.

And yet, when it comes to ‘Buxom Beautease’ one of the final ‘tease’ films he would produce. He somehow excelled himself at taking that cheapness to a whole new level.

I have been fairly charitable with the other entries in this series. The campy fun and ‘seedy lounge’ vibes has largely kept the series afloat in the face of objective poor quality.

But this film? It makes ‘cheap’ look expensive by comparison. It’s so cheap wind costs more. It’s so cheap, even the bums won’t touch it. It’s SO cheap restaurants have started serving it instead of bread rolls.

It’s literally 33/33/33. 33% new material shot on low quality black and white film stock with actresses who seem disinterested and comedians doing EASILY some of the worst comedy I’ve heard in a good while. 33% is made up of mixed colour and black and white footage that’s either from Irvings previous films or public domain footage, and 33% is deleted or excised material from Irvings other films such as ‘Teaserama’

Even at a 4k remaster this looks rough, stitched together and it’s cut through with the feeling that we’re basically done with the type of film making at this point.

No Bettie Page either which was very dissapointing.

Easily the worst of the triptic. Its depressing. And the Camp value is well and truely depleted. Not worth your time.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/buxom-beautease/

by tytdreviews