No Notes.
Its an extended episode of the Batman ’66 tv series but with a bigger budget and better effects, it carries over wonderfully, everyones giving 100% and camping it up to the max.
The only thing I can think is it maybe would be interesting to see this edited into a 4 part TV special, or to see it re-edited into a 90 minute ‘TV Movie’ length.
Otherwise? for what this is trying to achieve. it ABSOLUTELY nails the assignment.
John Waters Penuiltimate work to date, ‘Cecil B. Demented’ feels like a refreshing return to form for the film maker, after a near 10 year run of inconsistent stabs at finding his place within the (at the time) ‘modern’ cinema landscape.
The film follows Honey Whitlock (Melanie Griffith) a snobby and high strung professional film actress who, while attending a gala premiere of her latest ‘Oscar worthy’ work, finds herself kidnapped and pulled into the cult of Cecil B. Demented. an underground film maker with a cult like following who believe in the concept of ‘Reality cinema’ the idea being that you pre-film some scenes as lynchpins and then shoot the ACTUAL movie in a real public place, with unsuspecting members of the public present who are encouraged to work to Cecils demands…or face the ‘night night’ end of a pistol.
With the police hot on their trail and a growing opposition from hollywood and industry execs. Cecil and his team have taken a vow of celibacy until the film is complete because ‘the film comes first’ at all costs.
And after struggling a bit with ‘Cry Baby’, not quite fully loving ‘Serial Mom’ and drumming my fingers throughout ‘Pecker’ This film really does seem to recapture a sense of anarchic and controversial naughty fun that I loved about John Waters pseudo studio era (Female trouble, Desperate Living, Polyester).
The script is littered with references to cult and outsider film makers, it gets the balance of being lightweight enough to enagage people unfamiliar with cult, but complex enough to keep long time Waters followers bedded in just about right for most of the runtime, and clocking in at an hour and 29 it really doesnt waste much time.
Theres a nice clear story at the heart of this one, with a soldily paced out 3 act structure which transitions decently. While it does lean a little towards the repetative (with the main body of the shooting scenes getting numbingly repatitious in particular) the humour and tone are really why your paying to see this thing.
John Waters writing here is razor, critical and delivered with absolute perfection by the cast, its a very quotable movie with some fab one liners and some real creative fire behind the plotting itself. I laughed my way through most of this movie and really quite enjoyed the idea of Waters both lambasting the hollywood system, while also turning the light inwards to those weird ‘outsider’ film makers who think they’re significantly better than everyone else. Which I acutally kind of respected.
the characters all have their own unique personalities and complexities, though it does feel weird seeing these characters that were clearly written with Johns old ‘Wrecking crew’ in mind, getting played by a new stable of actors.
The directions rock solid, an structured production with a clean creative vision behind it that even bothers to experiment a little beyodn the usual generic scene structuring rules. The set design in this one really helps give the production a big boost, and if I were a gambling man, i’d put money on Waters being influenced here by the 1989 erotic ‘equal’ “Dr. Caligari” as there are moments in this that look/feel very similar to that movie.
Direction of the cast for the most part is pretty solid too, i’d argue that this is realistically the most naturalistic a cast has appeared in a John Waters movie. the delivery is over the top and manic for the most part, but for this cast? it feels genuine. A lot of other Waters movies have cast members who dont quite look/feel right delivering loud, aggressive toned works..but here, I think they’ve been carefully guided and instructed and I think they do a great job.
The cine too is delightful, hyper colourful, vivid set design REALLY helps give the camera a lot to work with, composition is rock sold throughout, while it may be a little generically sequenced in places, it more than makes up for it with some genuinely surreal moments and the brave move in not being afraid to experiment with sequence structuring.
The edit is relatively tight, as with most films I do feel this could have stood to have been 5-10 minutes shorter, but on the whole its a really well assembled production and probably the best cut John Waters movie i’ve ever seen.
The performances also really help here, with a wide variety of character types on display, it means you get all the different flavours of ‘Waters’ characters from over the years perfectly curated, and im certain there’ll be at least one performance here that you’ll really enjoy, if not all of them.
For me, it has to be Griffiths as ‘Honey’ she really gets a meaty shot here at a character with a decent growth piece, and she transitions between snobby and dismissive, to defeated, to slowly warming to the cultish ideology to eventually a full embrace of it, working through all the emotions involved in that along the way. I think she’s fabulous for every minute she’s on screen, her physicality is subdued, which I think works in the films favour, but her delivery for me was what really sealed the deal.
Thow in a VERY aggressive and gritty 2000s punk soundtrack, intercut with 50s jukebox classics and old movie studio stings and I had a really good time with ‘Cecil’. It felt like a confident return to form for the director, While it is a little bit of a downer that Johns period of experimentation in style and writing didnt yield any new strings to his bow in terms of areas to grow into. I feel like his work between 1990 and 1999 helped make him a much more confident director and writer, and by this point. I feel like he was able to transplant his newly learnt skills straight into his old stomping ground, and he works WONDERS with it.
Definitely recommended if your a fan of films like ‘Female Trouble’ or ‘Polyester’, I think you may come away a bit dissapointed if you preferred Waters more ‘gross out’ and gritty era of film making, but in terms of his latter day works? this is one of the best.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/cecil-b-demented/
Watched on Monday August 26, 2024.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/halloween-resurrection/1/
I had relatively high expectations when I found out Charlie Day was writing, directing and starring in what would be his first feature length work. I’ve been a long time fan of ‘It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia’ and I’ve found that, whenever he turns up in a movie, he’s generally my favourite aspect of it. Which makes it somewhat dissapointing that ‘Fools Paradise’ is just kind of…fine.
The plot follows a man dubbed ‘Latte Pronto’ who has strong regressive tendancies. He’s not medically mute, he just seemingly doesnt talk, and the doctors in the opening scene with him confirm that he has the mental capacity of a 5 year old (or a labrador). In the opening he’s in a mental hospital, but because the government wont pay to assist in treating his condition, he’s instead dumped out of the hospital and bussed into downtown LA, where he’s almost immediately spotted by a Hollywood executive with a problem.
Y’see, he’s currently working on a gritty remake of ‘Billy the Kid’ and the lead actor for the film is a method actor who’s being a real pain in the ass, BUT by sheer chance, Latte and this actor look almost identical. So. The producer gets Latte to fill in, doing a few mute pieces to try and keep production rolling. Then the method actor accidentally hangs himself…Catapaulting Latte into the weird, wild and deeply sensual world of the hollywood management system. Teamed up with a desperate to break into the industry publicist ‘Lenny’ the pair will try and take on hollywood…with chaotic and explosive happenings.
Essentially this is trying to be a ‘fish out of water’ style film, a ‘Keatonian’-esq quasi silent picture with elements of ‘Broadway Danny Rose’. and what its trying to be is also kind of its problem.
The script has a pretty straightforward plotline running through it, but I feel like they struggled to really pick a lane as to whether they wanted this to be a screwball, more slapsticky (the keaton influence) piece, or whether they wanted to lead more with naturalistic comedy and contrasting pathos (see: Rose) As such, it ultimately ends up kind of falling between two chairs, with the more screwball-esq comedy feeling a little forced and toned down, when it needed to be ramped up. And the naturalistic comedy elements working a bit better than the screwball stuff, but still comes up a little bit short, with the pathos elements being given next to NO time to actually breath here.
As such, you end up with a film that’ll mix pratfalls, with ‘Big lebowski’ inspired one liners, intercut with quite heartfelt moments that get less than a minute to rollout before they’re trying to go zany or strange again…It really throws the film out of whack and makes it difficult to try and figure out exactly what Day is trying to put across with this thing. If the message is an attempt to showcase that Hollywood is full of crazy and strange people, even from the perspective of someone LITERALLY introduced to us as a ‘crazy person’. then it kind of fails on two counts.
One being that 99.99% of the world ALREADY know that Hollywood is full of lunatics, I dont really feel like we needed reminding of this fact, and two being that the crazy people we’re introduced to in this…just, arnt really THAT crazy?…I just feel like if your going to do something like this, you really need to push your cast to go to the next level, otherwise it just kind of feels like a self congratualtory acknowlegement of a flawed system…and this, while not FULLY in that camp, is swinging that way.
I also had issues with the pacing here, the second act drags a little whole we wait for the film to refind its feet after a relatively strong opening act, theres quite a bit of repetition in the 2nd and 3rd act of ideas (at one point I actually thought i’d acidentally jumped back a scene or two because they redo a crazy car chase/race sequence) the 3rd act does start to find its thread an build up steam, but the ending was a little underwhelming and while it had nice sentiment, I dont feel like it was a particualrly ‘earned’ ending, nor did it really fall in line with the tone of the rest of the movie…Nor was it particularly unique. Again, think the works of Woody Allan and your not a million miles off where this thing goes.
The characters outside of Latte and Larry are all purposefully vapid and shallow. Which is a fine enough gag, but the lack of variety in that vapidity harms the film and as a result it is a joke that wears quite thin, quite quickly. To the point that by the 3rd act, i’d pretty much forgot that it was supposed to *be* a gag…which is a problem if your film is trying to contrast light and dark.
I dont really have a whole lot to say on the direction and cine for this thing, its a very pretty to look at movie, but im not entirely convinced it was the right style of direction that a script like this could have thrived in. It looks a feels very clean, very clear, very smart. But we’re constantly at an arms length from the characters, and the camera play is kept quite limited and only really played with in controlled short bursts. I feel like this is shot more int he vein of a light hearted drama, than a comedy or a more intimate picture (which it feels like its trying to be).
Composition is pretty, but uninspiring. sequences are cut together fine enough, but lack passion. It feels like a professional studio pic. Which is FINE…But films like this need a bit more behind the eyes than just a clean image and clear edit. it needs a layer of heart. Something deeper that helps the audience connect with the main character and their situation…and I didnt really feel that here. I didnt feel an emotional connection with any of these characters, or their world. I just felt like I was watching something trying to be a bit safe…and thats a problem for me.
Performance wise, Charlie Day is fine enough as ‘Latte’ Day has always been a great physical performer, and I feel like he really succeeds here in giving a lively facial performance and a solid physical one. I really do wish though that the cine had given him more close ups to really showcase that facial range, as he pulls some tremendous faces in this feature…non of which are captured particularly clearly.
Ken Jeong as Larry is great as a loud mouth publicist who shoots his mouth off first, and deals with the consiquences later. While I think he gives a really quite solid performance here, I wasnt totally won over by his chemestry with Day. they’re a pairing for a decent chunk of the films runtime, but 90% of the film seems to just be Larry shouting at ‘Latte’ or offering him an energy drink…Which makes the turns in the 3rd act between the pairing all the more unebelievable. I feel had the script given the pair a couple of quieter moments to build a relationship, it would have made the 2nd half of the film much stronger. As it stands when the revelations between them DO come out in the 3rd act…all I could muster really was a shrug.
The rest of the casting choices are honestly unremarkable. It was nice to see some ‘Always Sunny’ Alumni cameo throughout, but on the whole I was just kind of ‘meh’ towards them. I cant say there was a bad performance here, but noone reallys stood out.
Mark Kermode used to set a rule with comedies. If they could make him laugh decently 3 times, they passed the test and were (at minimum) a ‘good’ comedy. I laughed openly with this film once…I cracked a few smirks/smiles…but a smirk/smile does not laughter make. ‘Fools Paradise’ is a somewhat gentle watch, which is in part its biggest problem. I feel had it leant just a bit more into a chaotic energy, and had it picked a lane in what it actually wanted to BE. It could have been a really REALLY solid picture. As it stands it comes across as indecisive. a little thin on the ground and overly dry. Im glad I checked it out…But I dont think I could really recommend it, and I cant see myself revisiting this one anytime soon.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/fools-paradise-2023/
A transitionary film for John Waters, ‘Female Trouble’ marks a shift in the film makers output from a very grungy ‘rough and ready/run and gun’ style of heavy gross out counter culture film making, into the beginnings of a much more technically proficient, considered and ‘studio friendly’ era. Make no mistake, ‘Female Trouble’ still has a hardened controversial edge to it. But the days of sodomizing women with rosary beads and eating dog crap are sunset.
The film follows ‘Dawn Davenport’ a wicked high school girl with one thing on her mind. a shiny pair of black ‘Cha-cha heels’ to complete her school outfit. When her parents fail to deliver on the goods come christmas morning, Dawn snaps; destroying the christmas tree, smashing all the presents and knocking her mother unconcious, before fleeing in her pyjamas into the back roads to hitch a ride somewhere and start afresh.
Unfortunately the first person to catch her on that road is a sleazy individual (Also played by ‘Divine’) who sexually assaults her, resulting in Dawn falling pregnant with her daughter ‘Taffy’ a VERY vocal an opinionated child who gets under Dawns skin.
After falling in with a bad crowd (and a boring marriage) Dawn eventually finds herself as the face of a crime syndicate being run out of a hair salon, where committing elaborate and disgusting crimes raise her higher and higher within the criminal industry, where muder is considered high art, and the electric chair is like winning the academy award.
I’ve always had a bit of a soft spot for this one personally, while the pivot away from wild-eyed chaotic film production is missed, the structure and technical skill being injected here is welcome and this film seems to manage to just about get the best of both worlds. having enough intensity and chaos to keep it unpredictable and interesting, but enough structure to keep it visually engaging and on the level. Some would argue the shift to a more ‘technically friendly’ output does deminish the sense of rawness that Johns early work encapsulates…I’d agree, but I dont think its bad that this embraces a more linear and traditional film pacing and plotting…its just different.
The script is a nice change of pace, we have a clear and slightly more complex than normal plotline that runs with a clean 3 act structure in place, the acts seamlessly transition quite well I found and lead to some nice impactful ‘ramp ups’ as and when the film needs to warm the audience up, or cool them down.
I do feel the 2nd act does get a little lost at times, the film clocks in at 97 minutes and I feel a good 10 minutes could have been shaved off this thing to make a much tighter overall production. There are just a few moments (particularly in the back end of the 2nd act) that, while nice…Just, dont really add anything to the main narrative drive. It feels a bit like a runaround in places, bordering on dreary.
Fortunately, John Waters dialogue and direction on delivery SHINES here, being almost as quotable as ‘Pink Flamingos’ theres barely 5 minutes that goes by without some OUTLANDISHLY yelled line of dialogue knocks you right off your seat, as you wonder how the HELL he even thought to write the way he did. Its punchy, VERY entertaining and easily one of the main reasons to check this film out outside of the performances themselves.
The tone of the film is wickedly dark with some wonderfully macarbre sight gags in place and the cast seem fully tuned into this new way of working, seemingly relishing every opportunity they can get.
The direction seemingly gets the biggest upgrade here, gone are the ‘wildly flailing’ camera moments, and instead comes very well considered, structured and crafted scenes that aim to show rather than tell how our characters are feeling. It looks like a professional low budget work, yes it loses the anarchy, but the anarchic days of John Waters career hit almost as much as the missed in terms of trying to tell the story through the moving image.
This is laser focussed on driving the story, and it feels a like a lot more planning went into trying to turn out an affectionate and sickly tribute to the ‘Juvinile delinquent’/’roughie’ films of the 50s and early 60s. In fact, one of my only criticisms here is that, again, around the second act things start to get a little bit nebulous, we get introduced to a lot of characters very quickly, some who are integral to the 3rd act, some who only appear in a scene or two. And the direction doesnt really do a great job of keeping track of why these people are here doing what they do…though part of that also comes down to a slightly rough edit…but more on that shortly.
The cine again is a big improvement over Johns previous works, here we have clean and clear shots, that follow the rule of thirds and have decent composition. Its a bit unfortunate that depth of field work isnt explored more with this one, but then, on that note, there are moments where whats in FRONT of the camera is barely focussed in…So my guess is, they didnt want to be too adventurous. Sequences are well constructed, though the edit does struggle a little bit due to a low uptake in B-roll captured on set and with there being so MANY characters who all have such mixed levels of involvement in the narrative. It would have been hard enough to juggle so many narrative lines in a full blown studio feature. letalone an indie one…Johns a fab writer, a fun director…Editing seemingly isnt his strongest point, god bless him for doing what he does, but his cutting work is a little lacklustre to me.
Performance wise, its still firing on all cylinders, Devine as ‘Dawn’ gets to work a full range of emotions from amerous, to sadistic, cunning to full on freaking out. Her physicality is only surpassed by her total committance to THE most over the top and manic deliveries possible. Her performance as ‘Babs’ is probably the most iconic role she ever did. But this one is probably the role that showed she had range.
The rest of the cast too all bring their own elements to the table, there is still as stong manic energy to this film, but it does seem a little more paired back when compared to Johns earlier works. Whether thats just because, they now had ‘retake’ money and could afford to mould things a bit better (reducing the sponteneity) or whether its just that they were aiming for a more subdued time, I cant honestly say. But they’re still good non the less!
And, once again we’re on a jukebox soundtrack. The title track for this film and some of the other original elements are fab, the 50’s/60’s scoring here actually really works for the film (given it starts in the 50s and ends in present day 1974) here? the OST works for me.
Female Trouble still packs a weighty punch, but its impact is quite different from anything that came before it, As John Waters progressed through his career, he would soften a little, favouring Studio safety and comfort over really getting into the muck and mire that his earlier films defined him as being renowned for. Non the less ‘Female Trouble’ lands at a point where your able to get the best of both world…a technically proficient picture thats not afraid to be controversial, hammy and hilarious…I think depending on your preference for Waters works, you’ll either absolutely love the coherency of this one, or feel its the worst of both worlds for losing its edge and favouring more structure. I however enjoy this one, and do rewatch pretty regularly.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/female-trouble/1/
I have no original thoughts on this one. It’s been mined to death. Its the cinematic equivalent of delirium manifest. I like it.
I watched the ‘rifftrax’ version here, it almost certainly enhanced this.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/fun-in-balloon-land/
Probably the peak of John Waters grittier, rough and ready ‘gross out’ era of film making, I have a long and fond history with ‘Pink Flamingos’. In the UK it was notoriously banned and hard to come by for a number of years, but I secured a copy in my teens and treasured it right up until Criterion VERY kindly restored and released it on UK shores uncut…A release that I cant quite believe ACTUALLY still happened.
It was the film I always went to when my friends said they wanted to see something ‘weird and a bit fucked up’. It was the film I showed my partner of now over 13 years as a ‘first date’ night ‘cuddle movie’. My figuring being if she enjoyed it, she was probably the one for me.
The film marks the beginnings of a clear refinement in John Waters works as a film maker, that rough and ready punky, sleazy B-movie influence is still VERY present and prominant, but unlike ‘Multiple Maniacs’ this entry feels a bit more streamlined, theres the air that lessons were learned from the last shoot and the balance between technical ability and the tone and vibe that endears me to Johns work feels a bit more rebalanced after ‘Multiple Maniacs’ chaotic look and feel.
The film follows Divine as ‘Babs Johnson’ a notorious sleaze fiend who declares herself ‘The Filthiest Person Alive’ who, along with her children and senile Egg adoring mother shack up in a trailer park in the middle of nowhere to lie low while on the run for previous demeanous.
Enter, ‘The Marbles’ a young couple who see ‘Babs Johnson’, see her ‘filthiness’ and want a shot at the title themselves, deliberately antagonising Babs and her family, spying on them while also trying to prove that THEY are in fact the filthiest people alive.
and…thats basically the movie an increasingly disgusting and hilarious game of oneupmanship culminating in arguably one of the most disgusting scenes ever put to celluloid.
And…like I say, this feels like a sturdier work all round honestly, and a lot of issues that I had with Johns work prior to this film seem to be addressed here.
For a starters the script actually feels much more coherent and clear. theres a definite 3 act structure present, while it still does feel a little bit like a series of vignettes and ‘happenings’ it kind of works to the plots favour because we get to see the two families wage war against each other on a one on one basis. the narrative feels much tighter, theres less totally off plot random tangents present here, the act shifts DO ramp up consistently across the runtime. the tone is consistently over the top and manic without losing sight of ultimately what its trying to portray.
The dialogue is TREMENDOUS. an infinitely quotable movie, lines like ‘The Couch! IT REJECTED YOU!!!’ or ‘SOMEONE HAS SENT ME A BOWEL MOVEMENT!!!’ are simply wonderful, and to this day I still cant restrain myself from quoting this thing whenever it enters my thoughts.
The characters are all shallow, base level beings. which is PERFECT because the tone of this movie is excessive and aggressive, this isnt a film that NEEDS deep set, lore driven complexity. This film has a character who’s credited as ‘Pa-pa-ooh-mow-mow’ and is affectionately referred to by fans as ‘The Signing Anus’. I dont believe we need all that much depth here.
Of course the film does trade on themes of excess and chasing the ‘fame’ of notoriety (something that would be further developed in many of Waters later works) But I feel here we have the most crystalized take on that vision.
Honestly? theres very little I dislike about this film from a script perspective. a scene of animal cruelty, and the general feeling that it *maybe* could have had one more pass through on the edit just to tighten up some of the scenes a little more in terms of pacing is about as bad as it gets…which, given how bad this COULD have gotten, really isnt that big of a problem.
The direction too also gets a bit of a refresh. Scenes here feel a bit more considered, both in terms of character placement within the scene, there interactions with the set and how scenes will play out for the camera. ‘Multiple Maniacs’ felt a bit jumpy and french new wave, and im not entirely convinced that was totally on purpose in every instance. This feels much more considered as a work. By studio standards, its atrocious. But to me? this still carries that sense of unpredictability that Waters earlier works had, it still has that raw dirty grittiness I love about his early work. It just seems a little bit better thought out in terms of HOW to shoot whats being shown than previous attempts.
Direction of the cast too also seems to have had an uptick. the cast utilize the set spaces they’re in much more effectively, they use props regularly, it feels like they had a better budget to do more takes, have more locations, and they had the time to actually talk the cast through the scenes rather than just shooting on the fly (which…make no mistake, they still did alongside giving direction) which seemed commonplace prior.
On the cine front, shots are much more considered, John seemingly still didnt *fully* understand at this point WHY shots were shot the way they were compositionally, but he knew enough to know how to structure a scene by this point, and his cinematic influences really start to shine through here. i’d say some of his best compositional work appears in this movie. Later films would offer higher quality film stock, lenses and DOP’s to help craft the story visually…But ther image of Divine pointing a loaded pistol down the barrel of a lense is a hard burned image into my subconcious, that will not be leaving anytime soon.
On the whole, the compositions arnt amazing, but that 25% of shots where he DOES land a winner. its an astounding work honestly. sequences are a little rough and ready, sometimes cutting a bit too soon, sometimes, a bit too late. dialogue editing is also a little all over the place. B-roll here seemingly consisted mainly of just ‘filming wide and hoping for the best’ which…is a novel approach, but one that has mixed results here…this isnt a pretty film. But in many ways it really isnt supposed to be. and that rough assembly does lend itself to the brief of the movie, which is to unsettle, shock and disgust the audience.
Performance wise, this is the film that put ‘Divine’ and Mink Stole on the map. Both give probably the greatest performances of their respective careers as Connie Marbles and Babs Johnson. Both have tremendous levels of pent up energy which erupt quite spectacularly and beautifully in the 3rd act. they arnt afraid to throw themselves into GENUINELY disgusting situations. its astounding and its absolutely no surprise they both got a decent share of work off the back of this movie. Thats not to do a disservice to the rest of Johns usual wrecking crew. who all give rock solid, over the top performances that again. are probably some of the absolute highlights of their respective careers. I cnat say there isnt a *bad* performance in this…but thats kind of the point.
As for the soundtrack? its another tried and true 50s and early 60s jukebox selection for the score, and…Im not 100% convinced its a perfect fit for this movie, when it works, it works kind of well. But given John has a thing for this kind of music, and given…’How the hell do you even PICK music for a film like this?!’ I think it comes out pretty decent all being said.
Im really quite bias with ‘Pink Flamingos’ I have a lot of very happy memories watching it with friends and family. Its an imperfect work, but in many ways its imperfections are what really help it to nail the brief. If your into exploitation cinema or cult films. This ones kind of a must, its not for the feint at heart. But I struggle to think of a work that really truely manages to capture filth, quite like this does.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/pink-flamingos/2/
One of John Waters first feature length films to achieve something more than a small distribution. ‘Multiple Maniacs’ Is raw, offensive and about as open and honest a film can be about its directors loves and influences…Sometimes to its own detriment.
The film follows ‘Lady Divine’ the operator of a ‘Sexual Circus’ freakshow that travels the nation showcasing freaks, geeks and sexually liberated misfits engaging in all MANNER of gross out awful things, that ramp up as the show progresses. This all culminates with ‘Divine’ herself appearing and basically robbing the audience under threat of mass murder.
After escaping from their latest ‘spree’ divine is informed that her lover has been seeing another woman on the side. This leads to a confrontation, some anal penetration, a resolution to murder her lover with her NEW lesbian lover…and a rape scene that…Im not going to describe here purely for how surreal the entire event really truely is (I dont wanna spoil THAT little encounter).
One of the things I love about this film, is also one of the things I feel holds it back terribly. The script itself is SUPER raw, incoherently raw, the ramblings of several drug addicts (and they WERE drug addicts at this point in time) made cinema.
The plot itself is quite basic, but the film cant keep focus on what it wants the audience to really ‘lock’ into and pay attention to. it’ll jutt off into extended scenes of Devine and Mink Stole talking about the stations of the cross and crucifixtion while divine gets Rosary beads inserted into places they shouldnt.
there are LONG LONG sequences of characters just talking border nonsense while lying in bed nude. it’s almost a certainty that these scenes exist to pad the runtime to feature length. But the script problems here run deeper than that. At times, it feels much less like a movie, and much more like a series of shots that John Waters had basically een stockpiling for debauched or debased things you ‘couldnt do on film’ at the time…presented one after another with about 15 minutes worth of story interconnecting them. As such, the act structuring is all over the place, the tone jumps all over the place between ‘Roughie’ cinema, French New Wave, Experimental art house, and at time, genuine B-movie exploitation.
This film makes a LOT more sense when you know what Waters was watching in theaters at the time, and what was influencing his film making, especially when the drug use is thrown into the mix. But the end result is still a deleriously messy production the likes of which ABSOLUTELY hadnt been seen before this point.
And of course, that isnt to say that the scripting is entirely awful. The debauched scenes Johns come up with here are hilarious, strange, deranged, and often quite cinematic and watchable. the dialogue feels incredibly strange andis hilarious for the most part…But given almost EVERYONE involved in this film WAS deeply troubled or strange. its always delivered so naturalistically and real. These people arnt actors in the traditional sense. Which again, only adds to the rawness and realness of the production.
Because of its rather ‘thrown together’ nature, it makes it a pitted film of peaks and troughs. the highs of this film are utterly delightful fun and exactly what I expect from a John Waters movie. The lows, had me drumming my fingers waiting for the fun to start again.
The direction is frantic, manic and high energy. The inexperience from Waters at this point lends the film a whole new dynamic, a sense of unpredictability, which in 1969/1970 must have been INCREDIBLY thrilling. Even now the sense of having NO idea what the hell is going to happen next is wonderfully compelling, and I imagine for people unfamiliar to ‘Waters’ Ouvre (Or people coming to this who’d only previously seen ‘Hairspray’) this must have been like having the switch flipped on an electric chair.
That being said, the gritty rawness of Waters directional choices does backfire at times, with some fairly long tracking shots causing a crashing pause to proceedings here and there, and the lack of understanding of framing resulting in some very interesting compositional choices, Some absolutely inspiring as an experimentation on the layout of a shot…But a lot of it feels ‘off’, and not in an intentional way…In a ‘not knowing what your filming or the point’ kind of way.
Direction of the cast is stiff. But thats a trait that carries through ALL of Johns movies. and its one I love quite dearly.
The cine is a mess, a vipers nest of quick cuts, mixed ability editing and badly composed/cropped sequences. Like I said earlier. When he gets onto a good thing, its an astounding work that pushes the boundaries of taste and decency to its limit resulting in some genuinely compelling cinema. When it misses. It feels like French New Wave cinema directed by Ray Dennis Steckler. That being said, Waters does nail the lighting for about 90% of this movie, getting a decent even coverage and exposure in most of his shots and some really nice natural light work makes the cast and locations really ‘pop’
The performances are 99% of the reason to watch a John Waters movie and this ones no exception. Divine RELISHES the opportunity to star in this thing, giving 110% from her first frame on scene to her last, something that would only ramp up even further as her career progressed. She’s a tinderbox in this film and as the movie goes on the fire only gets higher and higher. A fab performance both physically and in terms of her delivery.
Edith Massey delights as the local bar owner…it wasnt much of a stretch for Massey, given…she worked in a bar around this time. But its always delightful to see Miss Edie on screen. and I think her work heres great. The usual Waters ‘wrecking crew’ of Mink Stole, Cookie Mueller and David Lochary are all great fun here, though a little more subdued than their later appearences would be. they’re all still larger than life here, very animate, very vocal and very physcially keen to really get into the set space of the movie. Any movie this gang appear in almost always gets a BIG boost as a result.
And finally, the soundtrack. Which I cant really comment on here because the original score has had to be replaced with a ‘copyright friendly’ version for the criterion Bluray…But…its fine, its basically a jukebox mix of 50s and early 60s bops. It helps act as a nice ‘squeaky clean’ contrast to this movies darkest perversions. I had a soft spot for it.
I adore ‘Multiple Maniacs’ enthusiasm and utter relishment for the disgusting, the depraved and the morally questionable. However, it really does feel like a film where the film makers had waited so long to make a ‘go’ on the whole ‘get a film out there’ thing. that they just…threw EVERYTHING they possibly could at the screen without even pausing for a second to review and refine the work they were making. As a result it feels more like a disjointed series of events rather than a coherent work. a test run of things that do and dont work in the medium of film.
While I do have a soft spot for the film overall, its a bit TOO incoherent for me. and I found myself just kind of waiting for a point to arrive…which it never did…leaving me just kind of bewildered in a good way…but ultimately non plussed.
Absolutely recommended if you like the works of John Waters, This one isnt one I regularly revisit. But I still kind of dig it all the same.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/multiple-maniacs/1/
The ‘B-feature’ on a dollar tree ‘Elviras Movie Macarbre’ double feature I grabbed recently ‘The Werewolf of Washington’ doesnt really do anything *too* new or original with the ‘wolf man’ subgenre…But its a somewhat robust (if not a tad slow) watch that kept me hanging around till the end.
The plot follows a congressman by the name of Jack who’s having an affair with the presidents daughter who, while trying to find help after his car experiences difficulties, finds himself cursed to the ‘Wolfman’ life. Seemingly this doesnt effect him too much to begin with, but eventually he claims his first victim, causing the feds in DC to go into high alert thinking a serial killer may be on the loose. Jack is semi aware of whats going on and the rest of the plot is basically him trying to find a cure to his lycan habits while trying to hold down a day to day government office job AND keep his murdering down to a bare minimum.
And…its a bit of a frustrating watch really, because in my mind with a pitch like ‘The Werewolf of Washington’ I was envisioning a kind of ‘Troma by way of Mark Pirro’ with a wolfman running for office and murdering the competiton…or something to that effect.
Instead? this is actually just a kind of pedestrian speed ‘wolfman’ movie that just so HAPPENS to be taking place around government officials…Which…y’know…thats FIIINE. it means the film does what is says on the tin…But in terms of creative asperations, its pretty lacking.
The scripts a bit of a crawl at around 85 minutes. its act structuring is a bit sluggish, it hangs in one gear and pace through the whole runtime and its act shifts arnt particularly clear. most of the film is pretty repetative, its spent following Jack to conferences, business meetings and date nights, with only the occasional mercy break for the audience where he’ll transform and kill a couple of people in fairly over the top ways…
tonally, its a bit all over the place as well, its a horror comedy predominantly. But i’d say the mix was 75-25 horror to comedy…which isnt a great balance because it left me wondering just how much of the comedy was planned from the start, and how much was from Dean Stockwell realizing this was a VERY dry script without at least a couple improved zingers. its humour really is more from a lightened tone than actually penned jokes. Stockwell manages to rework some deliveries to help aid that, and I feel it does help give the film a bit more character than it was originally intended to. Without the humour, this would have been an INTERMINABLY dry watch.
The dialogue is lengthy, dull and trudging, this is a film that is VERY much into telling rather than showing. and while I do think they give the characters just about enough depth to make me care about them, I cant honestly say they left much of a lasting impression.
As for the direction, its…fine too. it (mostly) follows the traditional rules of studio grade direction, shots mostly felt like they had some thought put into them, considerations were clearly made for B-roll footage and the transformation sequences for Jack and the wolfman, while VERY dated, were at least clearly considered and well handled.
Direction of the cast too was fine. I do wish there’d been a bit more physicality in this thing, at times it feels like a wake. But its clear that the cast were well informed about how sequences were to play out, and it seems they were encouraged to experiment with the set and props at hand…which is always a nice thing to see.
The cine is a bit beige honestly, while planning for the sequence structure was clearly a consideration, the film really struggles to ‘wow’ me outside of the wolf man ‘hunt’ sequences…and even then, that didnt ‘thrill’ me, it just stood out more than the many MANY office, and living room seqences in this thing.
The edit seemed a little rushed too, im not sure if its because it was the ‘Elvira’ version and they had to make cuts to fit into the TV schedule, but there were some noticable cuts where the scene was cut either WAY too early or WAY too late. Composition is acceptable, though again, outside of the transformation sequence and a couple of the wolfmans ‘hunt’ scenes…its all a bit drab and lifeless. just wides and mid wides occasionally cut into with no really passion behind the eyes.
As for the cast? Honestly, Dean Stockwell is about as good as it gets. he’s giving a belivable and fairly grounded performance, but he’s surrounded by cast members who clearly just wanted the paycheck and a go at the craft service. He’s great. Everyone else? dead eyed deliveries, dry dialogue performances and physicality thats comparable to rigamortis.
I cant recommend ‘The Werewolf of Washington’ its not bad, its just *too* average to really be worth your time. If your a sucker for wolfman movies and havent seen this one, MAYBE give it a go…But if your not totally enthralled by the genre, you really can do better elsewhere. This is fine…but FAR from ‘great’…or even really ‘good.’
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-werewolf-of-washington/
NOTE: This is a review for the ‘Theatrical’ cut of this film, and is really more of an addendum to my main review for the film which can be found under the ‘Producers’ cut.
Its got to be approaching 2 decades since I sat down and watched the theatrical cut of ‘Halloween – The Curse of Michael Myers’…and having rewatched it tonight, I can see why.
The film is basically the inverse of the ‘Producers cut’, neither particularly make much sense, or hold much coherency. But at least the ‘Producers cut’ bothers to try and give us a story, TRIES to give the audience something resembling a 3 act structured piece that TRIES to pay something of a tribute to Donald Pleasence and his portrayal of doctor Loomis.
The theatrical cut is hideous frankly, an incoherently arranged mish mash of half baked ideas hastily recut together, with very little rhyme or reason. Honestly? it feels like they started editing it, got about a third of the way in, and then they were told the money had run out and that they had to recut the whole thing to make it make sense within their means.
The main plotting, which just about makes sense in the ‘producers’ cut, here? is non existant. We get introduced to characters in the first act, who’ll basically dissapear till about 10 minutes off the end, and then even when they do return, its only briefly before they get lost in the mix. Michael in this cut is seemingly just popping in and out of existence depending on what the editors needed him to do. Sometimes he’s under the control of a cult, sometimes he’s stalking people who are in his house, sometimes…he’s just…there…with no real explanation.
Loomis is the same, they basically bring him in in this cut, almost exclusively to have him sit in Tommy Doyles house, say one, maybe two plot progressive things…and then he’s written out till the last 10 minutes of the movie more or less. His ENTIRE reason for being in the film is cut from this version.
When they cant decide how to transition the end of one scene into the next, they’ll play super slowed down, bit crushed audio cues and flash cuts of stuff that was cut out of this version of the movie to disorient viewers into not quite realising we’ve transitioned to a new location briefly. which is an AWFUL way to move your film along and has essentially left me with a ‘flash’ headache.
there isnt really any kind of act structuring here, it literally just feels like ‘happenings’ hard cut together…you get a vague sense that its something involving runes and it may possibly be tied into some kind of bloodline cult. But its just, so badly assembled I dont know how anyone took ANYTHING away from this thing when it first came out.
The direction here is pretty decent, it has a distinctly mid 90s feel to it (given…that WAS the year the thing came out) I quite like the visuals here, it feels especially halloweeny, something that is missing from some of the later entries in this franchise. I will also say, the one good thing this film has that the producers cut is SORELY missing is the deleted scenes and gore sequences.
There were seemingly reshoots between the ‘producers cut’ and the theatrical release, and as such, the theatrical cut gets some pretty nice and gory kills that are 100% missing from the ‘producers’ cut. They’re really well handled, particualrly the main ‘electrocution’ sequence.
In an ideal world, those gore reshoots would be reinserted into the ‘producers’ cut to create a best of both worlds situation…but unfortunately, currently thats not the case.
Direction of the cast is a little slapdash, everyone feels a bit awkward and delivery isnt as confident or naturalistic as i’d like.
The cine is solid enough, but that horrendous edit really does burn any goodwill I could have had towards it.
As for the performances, well…having seen the other cut, I know Donald Pleasence really puts in a good turn here as Loomis…But you wouldnt know that from the theatrical cut, because they removed all his better moments. an intro credit for Paul Rudd here yeilds similar results which is a real shame.
Probably the most dissapointing aspect of this is the soundtrack, because this film is seemingly ashamed of using the ‘Halloween’ theme tune…preferring instead to embrace experimental screeching noise and alternative/grunge music. this is one of the few Myers led Halloween entries to not have the Halloween theme in the intro or credits…which is frankly just bizarre to me.
The theatrical cut, to me? is hideous. its an aggressive, noisey, badly edited, badly sequenced, poorly executed cut of a film that was struggling to begin with. quite possibly the worst outcome of a bad hand it was possible to get.
I’ll be sticking with the producers cut going forward, but I really would love to see a version of this that takes the strengths from both and slams them together, we may then finally get a cut of this thing that isnt frustrating.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/halloween-the-curse-of-michael-myers/1/
TYTD Reviews 