Cast: Peter Falk, Peter Boyle, Allen Garfield, Gena Rowlands, Warren Oates, Paul Sorvino, Sheldon Leonard
A fictional retelling of the infamous Boston Brink’s Company robbery on January 17th, 1950, of $2.7M, cost the American taxpayers $29M to apprehend the culprits with only $58,000 recovered.
The film feels fact-based and amazingly recreated, Sticking to the facts. though it also feels like the film has no personality. Which is evident as neither do the characters.
Just as the characters never come off as interesting just there to do a job or complete a mission no real character to them. As it’s supposed to be a comedy though the jokes are far away and many calamities happen in the caper.
We never get to know any of the characters or their quirks to see how they might be funny or add to the proceedings. Even when given more of a comedic scenario. It feels so basic with no excitement that it just comes across as flat.
Technically there is nothing wrong with it, But it comes and goes very easily without too much to remember. The cast is good, the production design is beautiful and the movie-making is good. It just feels like a project that was exactly where everyone did what was needed but nothing more or nothing less.
The film looks great from a production design stand pony and it feels like you are in that time.
This was a film that was originally set up under director John Frankenheimer who left after problems with the studio. William Friedkin took over the project but threw out the original script and ordered a new one. So it wasn’t exactly a for-hire job.
The film just seems to lack any spontaneity or any humor that many of the characters and situations the characters find themselves in and that the actors are clearly capable of but seem reigned in a bit.
Story By: James Wan, Jason Momoa, and Thomas Pa’a Sibbert
Based on the character AQUAMAN created By: Paul Norris and Mort Weisinger
Cinematography: Don Burgess
Editor: Kirk Morris
Cast: Jason Momoa, Patrick Wilson, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, Amber Heard, Randall Park, Nicole Kidman, Temuera Morrison, Dolph Lundgren, Martin Short, Indya Moore, John Rhys-Davies, Jani Zhao, Pilou Asbaek
Black Manta seeks revenge on Aquaman for his father’s death. Wielding the Black Trident’s power, he becomes a formidable foe. To defend Atlantis, Aquaman forges an alliance with his imprisoned brother. They must protect the kingdom.
Luckily, this film isn’t as bad as it had been predicted or advertised. So what does work in its favor is that it feels kind of a bit like a retread of the first film as it has pretty much the same cast of characters who survived the first film, and essentially the same villain only this time who has managed to acquire more strength and power Through supernatural means partially being possessed, but still determined to take down Aquaman and Atlantis if he can.
Amber Heard who plays Aquaman’s wife in this film her role is either severely cut down from before or meant to just be a placeholder as a love interest. As she is barely in the film and is in an action or two, but really, given nothing to do and not too much importance.
The film plays more like a buddy comedy with Aquaman teaming up with his half-brother, who has been in prison and they learning and going through their differences to trust one another, and to join together, to save Atlantis, thus allowing his brother to get his honor back throughout.
This sequel like the first film has quite a bit of comedy. However in this film, the special effects are a little more distracting as they are not as impressive in fact, while watching the film, it feels like you’re watching a video game demo almost rather than a film. This is good when it comes to the action sequences when it tries to do the dialogue scenes it doesn’t quite fit as well.
If the film had maybe tried to give Aquaman a different villain, this film might have been worthwhile, but with it feeling like a retread, it kind of limits itself.
I am impressed that they managed to make Aquaman so dynamic on the big screen as before he had been either a minor character or more of a laughing stock at with his limited abilities and costumes in the past.
This is a film where you can see the budget on screen, but somehow it limits itself which is a shame because there seem to be so many possibilities as you’re watching the film instead of what you get, which is ultimately disappointing.
This is a shame, as I was one of those who enjoyed the original way more than I expected to, but like the sequel to Shazam this film just feels like what you thought the first film was going to be it doesn’t improve, and in fact, it’s worse.
This is a shame, considering the impressive cast and Jason Momoa just looks like a badass superhero either way.
Cast: Tobin Bell, Shawnee Smith, Synnove Macody Lund, Steven Brand, Octavio Hinojosa, Michael Beach, Renata Vaca, Joshua Okamoto, Paulette Hernandez
A sick and desperate John travels to Mexico for a risky and experimental medical procedure in hopes of a miracle cure for his cancer only to discover the entire operation is a scam to defraud the most vulnerable.
These films have certainly come a long way to be the 10th film. This is a franchise that I never quite foresaw making it this long, but the company behind it, Lionsgate seemed determined to keep going as long as they can.
Some films in the series are better than others, most of them have been pretty solid and admire that film that at first seems to be a one-off of shocks that as the films have continued through various different directors. Each film helps to mythologize not only the main character behind it all but has allowed it to grow and spread into a weird kind of movement throughout these films.
While the films have at certain points become a little predictable, they still manage to shock with either their gore or how it all ties together.
Unlike a franchise like Friday the 13th where it seems like more of the same with a few curves thrown in but still the same blueprint this at least tries with each film to have its own flavor even though like Friday the 13th franchise I prefer the sequels, but respect the first one after all it is the original.
This sequel is better than the one that came before it. Which was SPIRAL actually had Samuel L Jackson, and Chris Rock in those films so some of the bigger names in the franchise. That comes across more like Friday the 13th part five. When a curveball is thrown, that could set the films on a different path.
Who knows the future of the franchise as this one is actually a prequel to where it all started even before the original saw movie started.
This has all the requisite things you would expect from a movie plenty of plenty of traps and plenty of tension. What’s this one a little bit apart other than characters who have perished in previous sequels, is the return of Tobin Bell, in the lead role, and Shawnee Smith as his assistant.
Here we get the requirements of the film the film does offer Tobin Bell, more of a dramatic arc throughout to see and get into the mindset of what set him off and the consequences.
So it gives him a kind of respect as he has been the face of this franchise for so long, as well as of course the voice here he gets a chance to stretch his drama muscles and be in the film throughout not just in pieces.
As well as bringing him back, there is a certain better quality of the film, where it feels a bit more grounded and going back to basics, rather than stretching the believability and managing to keep it small scale.
Watching this film reminded me that while most of the sequels, and the first one seem to be based on revenge that might be the catalyst, there is a message behind it, and truly in its own twisted ways it shows more of the evilness of the characters who were caught up in the game and their selfishness he does give them a fighting chance even if seemed rigged to fail it’s never quite personal. That involves characters who have a history with one another.
This would be a fine starting point though it is better maybe to watch them in order.
The film gives the franchise fans exactly what they want and expect only here it go back to basics.
Based on The Motion Picture “DAY OF THE DEAD” By: George A. Romero
Cinematography: Anton Ogbyanov
Editor: Damien Drago and Ivan Todorov
Cast: Jonathan Schaech, Sophie Skelton, Jeff Gum, Marcus Vanco, Lillian Blankenship, Shari Watson, Ulyana Chan
A small group of military personnel and survivalists dwell in an underground bunker as they seek to find a cure in a world overrun by zombies.
Why? It must be for the money and trying to continue in the franchise but this is a disgrace. It’s not exactly another remake but has a similar type of story. As far as having one zombie subject kind of different from the rest and using him for his blood which might be an anecdote to zombieism (yes the film Is that ridiculous) it also keeps the theme of having most of the action happen in a kind of compound with military types all around.
This film is bad across the board. The acting is subpar and no notable performances or recognizable faces. The directing is horrible as is the storyline. The sets look exactly like sets even when they are supposed to be streets and classrooms. No one acts or makes rational decisions. Even the naysayers.
The only thing o can say was decent is the zombie make-up applies to Jonathan Schaech as the main zombie of the tale. It is nothing too special but for this production impressive. His is the only ok performance but then again he is playing a zombie. As his character makes no sense before he turns he was a test subject giving blood to a medical school. Yet obsessed with one of the students for no reason. To the point of hurting himself over her and then he tries to rape her. She is saved by the zombie invasion and then once he is discovered and captured he still seems to have the same agenda.
The film tries to throw in a romance. This only explains why the main Character gets away with so much. When others would have refused her requests.
The other characters come off as weak cliches with no characterization besides their looks, attitudes, and relationships with one another. Like the flirtatious guy with muscles who the filmmakers find a reason for him to be only in a t-shirt.
The film doesn’t add anything new to the genre. In fact, it embarrasses the genre by not adding anything to it and failing in all ways. Even if bad usually there is some kind of excess to make up for it. This film doesn’t offer that either
Cast: Thomasin McKenzie, Anne Hathaway, Shea Whigham, Siobhan Fallon Hogan, Marin Ireland, Sam Nivola, Owen Teague, Brendan Burke
The stagnant waters of Eileen’s dull, stifled life as a solitary worker at a juvenile detention center in 1960s Boston, are unexpectedly disrupted when the institution brings in a new psychologist, the vibrant Rebecca. The fervent enthusiasm that blossoms between the two women almost immediately gives way to a closer relationship, until their fragile connection takes a dramatic turn.
The first act of the film seems to be drenched in character as we build up, not only the title character of Eileen, but her circumstances with obvious deep trauma and depression in her life, and what she has to deal with in her day-to-day until Anne Hathaway’s character comes into her life a blonde bombshell of the upper crust, upbringing, and beauty who takes an interest in her and kind of seduces her at first it seems like a friendship or maybe a mentor relationship but it seems the valves and something more and this is where the films first half is strongest clues as to what is to come But never dis PLAY them outright
Then, when the twist does it fits into the mood of the film, but it is such a left turn that it almost seems ridiculous that you’re questioning yourself. Is this one of Eileen’s fantasies that we have seen earlier, even though those usually involve more death or suicide, in their own way, it is all real.
In the end, the film, like a wannabe noir that ends up as a drama, with a kind of ridiculous third act the third act could’ve been believable, but but the way it comes about just feels so silly
Especially the first half of the film, so in tune and stylish, even if at times, Anne Hathaway’s character seems more like a caricature of Femme Fatale movies. She still comes off as believable in the end, even though her actions seem rather far-fetched.
I will admit, I never read the original book so maybe it’s better explained there, but the way it’s put on screen there always seems to be attention and intention that is going to happen but the film always seems to fall short, or never reaches the peak that it presents
The actors are all great, and Hathaway is memorable, as is Shea Whigham, who is believable as her mentally unbalanced and constantly drunk, who is a burden but seems in his own way, trying to educate the young Eileen
I have to say, Thomasin McKenzie totally walks away with the film as she portrays this innocence and you see her falling you see her heartbroken you see her hopeful, but then also you can kind of see her more angry and vengeful side and she plays it so well, just through her facial reactions and physicality as it seems like she is truly being awakened, and the beast is out of its cage to a certain extent either that or in desperation for survival her instincts finally come alive and it’s truly a revelatory performance, not that from what I’ve seen so far she’s ever given a bad performance, but this one truly felt like a showcase for her and her talents finally.
I wish the suicidal ideation or fantasies off a little better throughout the film as it does enhance the character and maybe gives us a peak into her mentality, but for the film, I thought it would play off the scene where we think it’s a fantasy and then realize it’s reality or maybe You know in another universe or telling of the tail the whole act is a fantasy that she uses to finally take action even though when it’s own way it does though it’s not a fantasy it seems to be the push or the thing she needed to run and live her life
Even though her way of tidying things up, will still lead to her, needing to keep being on the run so to speak and Hathaway’s character, we are at a loss as to what becomes of her.
As Hathaway and her character come in like a guest star and leave that way. Where we are left wondering so many things.
The film tries in its own way it it tell a story and makes itself useful to a certain degree, but it just seems to fall short as the audience is because they were expecting something better, especially with how strongly the first half was presented in the film, seems to not take advantage of its strength that could’ve made the film a lot more memorable and stronger.
The film is well directed by not as sharply directed as one would expect from director William Oldroyd, who has captured passion, deceit, double crosses, and cold hearts in his previous movie LADY MACBETH. As this seems to lack a strong payoff to what has been building throughout.
Cast: Willem Dafoe, Christopher Walken, Asia Argento, Annabella Sciorra, Victor Argo, Gretchen Mol, John Lurie
In the not-too-distant future, two New York businessmen plot to play two multinational rival corporations against each other, with a little help from a shady Italian street woman, to obtain an important Japanese businessman for the company they work at, only things are not always as they appear.
Abel Ferrara is a talented writer and director who always seems to dip his toe into things that could be seen as shocking. It might be that is just his interest in the stories that he wants to tell. Nowadays he makes more personal, dramatic, artistic films, but for a time he seemed to be a provocateur when it came to cinema stories of the streets of New York, in particular, starting out with more horror films, then seemed to have a period where it was mostly crime related films.
He is a filmmaker of interest who is very unapologetic, though I will admit since his movie, BAD LIEUTINENT, and his one studio-made film a remake of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, his films have been for me at least hit or miss. Unfortunately, it feels like they usually miss or fail to make a connection. Though he’s a filmmaker where you can always find something of interest in his films or his filmmaking.
I remember at the time being interested in this movie, more to see Asia Argento and I felt because she looked very enticing, and the story sounded somewhat interesting. Not to mention liked the cast of it mostly being her Willem Dafoe and Christopher Walken, even though at the time it seemed like Willem Dafoe and Christopher Walken were almost in everything so seeing them in yet another film wasn’t that enticing but with her as the added attraction.
As I had only seen pictures of her and not really seen her in a movie, not to mention with Abel Ferrara directing, I knew it would be dark and troubling, but reading the synopsis of the story and plot it never quite gelled with me, especially from people who have seen it They just didn’t seem like it was worth going to movie theaters to check this movie out.
Watching it now. Almost 25 years later I’m kind of glad I didn’t see it in theaters. It’s not a bad movie, but I would’ve been greatly disappointed and it would’ve probably been more forgettable to me. I would’ve seen it as more experimental and artistic, so it would also show how the story could be told more on a limited budget, especially one that is set in the future and kind of cyberpunk. As after all, it is based on a short story by William Gibson. This might be why the film seems so rebellious and Avant Garde or striving to be different.
The film has a lot of cutaways of digital video and photography that we come back to throughout the story.
There is a lot of eroticism and a few scenes of sex on display. One of the themes of this film seems to be fantasy and how much you let it take over especially as you know the truth but you want to believe.
It seems like the film is more about all these vipers being hustlers on their own, being brought together to take down a big fish, and slowly turning on each other, as at the center of it one makes the dangerous decision of not only trust, but love, especially with somebody who works as a professional seductress were acting is their professional, so you never know when they’re being genuinely Trust or telling you what you wanna hear to their own satisfaction
It seems like the camera is as captivated with Asia Argento as much as The characters are as it always seems to be exploring and exposing her allure, so while it doesn’t provide her an acting exercise where we see her day-to-day. this is a goddess movie. Where it seems the allure and the strength of the film is on the femme fatale and how the audience feels about her as a film and its own wife fetishizes her to a degree, making the film and the protagonist see her more as a goddess.
There is Something about Asia Argento, her films, and her career. I’ve always been kind of in awe, but she rarely got a chance to shine or have that career-defining performance. It was more she was in hit movies, but you don’t, in particular, remember her performances or character, because you could point out movies like LAND OF THE DEAD or MARIE ANTOINETTE or XXX, yes she was in those films as a cast member, but none of her performances stand out.
Even when she directed her own films such as an adaptation of the book THE HEART IS DECEITFUL ABOVE ALL THINGS. which were more controversial and shocking, she made a little impact, but never long-lasting unfortunately, as they were artistic, but seemed more poised to shock. so I always look at her career as a kind of example of promises made, but never quite capitalizing on all the talk, hype, or Fame. there might’ve been more personal reasons as to why her career stalled at a certain point, but I still find her talented, beautiful, and stunning and half the time when I watch some of her movies. It was just to see her in it And she looked sensational and in most of them captivating.
It’s also interesting that the film has great actress Gretchen Mol featured in a small but important role throughout as at the time she was also considered an ingenue in the acting world, the next big thing or flavor of the month at the time, though she is displayed for less in this film.
The film comes across as a futuristic tale that had an idea that was original but did not have the budget for the ambitions of the script so it feels like the third act is made to put the story of what actually happens or happens from scenes we’ve seen earlier as flashbacks or memories to explain it all.
It’s an interestingly constructed film with a good soundtrack. that uses a lot of it looks to be handheld video and a bunch of scenes, or at least the beginning of digital video being used and more professional films.
Offering a third-act explanation of everything by pointing out what was evident in playing sight from before now that might be because I just didn’t have enough money to finish and film. Actually, it is very creative but can be seen as frustrating to someone in the audience who is traditional filmmaking or is used to having, their hands held to end to the end
Does it have an ending? Strangely it feels somewhat unfinished. This would be a film that definitely could stand the case of being remade.
A bit disappointing but creative. Its artistic flourishes seem born out of not having the budget that was expected and making the best out of the situation. Though definitely a film where the camera is in love with Asia Argento. As much as the main character. As it spotlights her almost fetishistically.
Written By: Marcello Coscia, Rafael Romero Merchant, Bruno Di Geronimo and Marie Claire Solleville
Story By: Marcello Coscia and Rafael Romero Merchant
Cinematography: Gugliemo Mancori
Editor: Enzo Alabiso and Antonio Ramirez
Cast: Carroll Baker, Jean Sorel, Luis Davila, Alberto Dalbres, Marina Coffa, Anna Proclemer, Liz Halvorsen
A troubled race-car driver plots to kill her ex-husband at the behest of his new wife, but their scheme quickly goes awry.
Made in 1970 you can forgive it for feeling like a Tales from the Crypt episode, which it might’ve inspired. While watching, you might even see its influences as you see where it’s going.
This film is a Giallo that isn’t as sensationalistic as it feels. Typically, there isn’t anything quite special or eye-catching about it, except for maybe the third act.
This offers a twist to the tale that does feel more like a newer story or more of a p pulp novel, ask a noir in the daytime a more plot twist in a European thriller, driven by sex and lust. It could almost be a film built on the erotic. Even though the film ends up being more about seduction than sex.
While there is nudity the film never is quite as sexy as it should be
The film tries to be extravagant, (as after all the female main character is a race car driver) yet offers a few thrills along the way as it focuses more on the tenor of committing a crime, but being afraid of getting caught afterward, while in the clear so that you might, or your accomplice might be your own worst enemy, even though during this film, Nicole bricks at and look continuously guilty
One of a series of films directed by Umberto Lenzi and starring Carol Baker that seems like in story and quality. They are more basic examples of the Diallo film genre that tend to be more sensationalistic in their approach, and more stylish than this one ultimately ends up
This film isn’t bad, but not necessarily essential watching as it is just entertaining enough
Cast: Rebecca DeMornay, Vincent Spano, Frank Langella, Donovan Leitch, Judith Chapman, Benjamin Mouton, Gail Boggs
In this variation on director Vadim’s own, more acclaimed Et Dieu Créa La Femme (1956, the same title in French), the vamp Robin Shea marries charming carpenter Billy Moran, only to get out of prison, but soon decides to seduce James Tiernan, who runs for state governor.
The remake was directed by the original director Roger Vadim. Tries to keep the same bets but in more modern dressing and fashion.
The film almost feels pornographic as the sex scenes are that graphic and feel more realistic. The original was a bit more coy. This goes for the jugular a bit. Though this version might be more explicit it Contains the same quality that the original did. An eroticism.
Which makes it feel more like a softcore movie. Stretching to be more of a mainstream dramedy and relatable. This comes across more as a straight-to-cable or horn video at the time. Trying to cash in on the original’s fame.
While star Rebecca DeMornay is certainly attractive and works In the role. She isn’t at the level of the bombshell that was Brigitte Bardot. She comes across as certainly more intelligent, but she is familiar to the audience. As she was the fantasy girl in RISKY BUSINESS. Here she is more down to earth, still a bit dangerous, but somewhat familiar. At least she is fleshed out character-wise.
The film almost feels like a step down for her from RISKY BUSINESS. As the subject of the lust humanizes her more, she is still desired more physically than anything. Where in the previous she remained a mystery. Here she is given a backstory and is all the more relatable, but still treated and shown in more of a carnal way throughout. That thought the material was never quite strong feels cheapened.
Of course in my teenage years when I first saw this film. This was a cable classic like finding a hidden treasure. Though was treasured more for its erotic Value. Sort of like Demornay’s character.
The quality might be a little off as Roger Vadim didn’t write this version only directed it and trusted the screenwriter to modernize it and make it more American. Which would explain the rock n roll angle. Though comes off as barely resembling the original and more in name only, with the two male leads obsessed with the free-spirited female character, against their better judgments.
The cast is respectable throughout. Though don’t know if they signed up more because of the director. All involved deserve better than this. Most of the main stars have sex scenes. Even if they are hinted at or more shown afterward. It Reeks of someone older trying to show that they are still hip and can be cool, embarrassing themselves in the process
This version does expose one essential truth about both films. Your interest is tied to its star no matter what story the film offers. So while it might try to have an extra amino of Merit at heart they are Star making films in the same way a teen idol or a TV star trying to make the move to the big screen and the film is built around them while giving them room to flex their acting muscles. Still, pay up the qualities of what the audience likes about them and hopefully have that built-in audience waiting for them and expose more to their charms
Juliette Hardy is sexual dynamite and has the men of a French coastal town panting. But Antoine, the only man who affects her likewise, wouldn’t dream of settling down with a woman his friends consider the town tramp. While Antoine’s away, his younger brother Michel, who worships Juliette, proposes to her. But what will happen when Antoine returns?
I saw the remake or reimagining from the 1990s first Which seemed to Focus more on Sex scenes and what the director Roger Vadim (who directed both the original and the
Remake) could get away with In The new modern age of cinema at the times. Which seems to be what both versions of heartbeats are.
Roger Vadim has always been interested in presenting the image of beautiful women on screen and more carnal delights. As A provocateur in artistic clothing. As a Frenchman also more interested in relationships and characters rather than necessarily plot lines. Creates more of a mood and atmosphere in his films as well As style than anything of deeper substance.
Here he makes the film all about the beauty of Brigitte Bardot which helped make her a star but also limited her to a degree. Making her a bombshell but especially more foreign gem export, at the time. Never truly let her acting talent come through and thus she never really got a chance to prove herself and was stuck more as an image and star. To be ogled, etched, adored, lusted after but never given anything deeper. As you want to possess and protect without knowing much about her.
Though the film through its critics and characters shows that there can never be a female character. Who is beautiful and her every action or decision not judged and a bunch of people talking or telling what she should be or should be doing. Everyone has an opinion about their relationship and their behavior.
She is a Symbol of unattainable beauty that men want by their side and women want to be.
It shows a changing moral code in a more innocent time. That showcases desire amongst the other things going on in the character’s lives. Every decision is questioned and Idealized
Women of beauty but never actually Considered for their other qualities. Who is Commonly Used and Judged. When their lifestyles and so-called attitudes don’t match the refinement they are expected to have. In other words when they show any traces of being human or normal.
The film offers Elegance but at times has a revealing peek-a-boo quality.
What might have once been seen as racy comes across as tame or classic like boudoir photos for couples. Luckily the film is not as exploitive as expected by the poster or reputation.
As Though Bardot’s character can’t be with the one she wants. she agrees to a marriage of convenience to truthfully a rebound relationship with a man who does love her and seems to pay the price. Only for her to stay and seemingly to stay in his life. Her behavior is troubling to many in his family.
Though she has many suitors and many men who desire her. It’s also about values, especially of character. As the rich man whom she Talks to, he has the power and means to give her what she wants and he truly only desires her more when she resists and thinks she is considering it. She knows he only wants her truly for her beauty and to have her just as he wants the shipyard that her husband owns.
Though her husband might not be Rich. he truly loves her and wants to make her happy. He appreciates her for who she is, who she knows she can control. Once her old lover his brother comes back the only man she has ever truly loved and has feelings for. she keeps flirting and tries to seduce him more throwing her marriage in his face.
As she is a Small Town beauty stuck and weighing the best out of her options. As Everyone is living in the moment. They reveal Themselves to be Broken characters seeming to punish themselves and never think about tomorrow.
The film pushes cinematic rules at the time and conventions. Though she is the main character the film never gives her drive or reason more just a fantasy of certain expectations and given none, other than beauty and what she can provide.
What I thought going in was that, You’re worth more than a smile and some nice words that Don’t focus on anything more penetrating than your beauty.
You deserve non-broken promises, Actions, and pampering not to owe or be paid back later
But done out of caring and love.
Even her old lover finds her hard to resist. even though he tries and when he fails jealousy comes with it. She loves her husband but is weak when it comes to her attraction to his brother who consistently disrespects her to others.
She seeks to not be so lonely all the time, Though shows a fair amount of glimpses.
The relationship started before she ever really met him. He had a crush when she was dating his brother.
In the end, everybody gets screwed and the only honest character seems to be her husband
Having to deal with the repercussions of her actions. As Every decision is judged.
No matter what she does or carries herself. As it is seen as lustful by other men and shameless by other women.
If he can’t have her or truly control Her, no one can as he almost kills his brother over her and then in the end. When she chooses to dance and have fun. He views it as disrespectful and wants to kill her even as he is seen as the romantic one.
They Make each other crazy, though it is seen as romantic when he slaps her as he is taking control and she has seen how much she believes he loves her by almost shooting her.
Even the man who desires her eventually is scared of her power but also has the overview to see everyone’s true emotions. Knowing it will come to an explosion eventually. He steps in to defuse the situation but pays for it violently.
This is a movie to talk about more than necessarily watch and praise what is on screen. Though you just see it to see how it is presented and the subjects that come up.
Maybe people back in the past felt the way the modern version plays. A wolf in sheep’s clothing meaning it tries to have artistic resonance and show at the time the vhs gong sexual attitude and more open nature of European films and relationships. Not necessarily show sex scenes but plenty of titillation and many excuses to show a bouncing Bardot in risqué states of undress and tight clothing as well as an open sexual attitude and willingness.
This film also seems to be almost a tribute to the beauty of Ms. Bardot and writing a film around her and maybe the filmmaker’s obsession with her made it into drama.
Phoebe is an obsessed fitness nerd who gets her big break on a sleazy workout video. After being ridiculed by her co-stars, Phoebe befriends a mafia princess wild child, who teaches her how to murder her way to the top.
This is a low-budget independent horror comedy. That takes place in the 1980s and is made like a straight-to-home video horror film Of That Aesthetic. However, some of the characters being covered in tattoos feel a little more modern-day. Either way, it feels like a lost USA UP ALL NIGHT movie
The film is full of exploitation and just has an overall trashy tone. Though it is actually a fun and ridiculous film. That won’t be for everyone or their tastes. Though if you go with it, you won’t be disappointed.
The film is filled with violence, sexual innuendo and plenty of nudity as well as acting that isn’t always perfect, yet fits the film and milieu like a glove.
What works for the film though is that you can tell that the filmmakers. Truly have a love of these types of movies and showcase their passion for them. While making the movie their own. No matter how silly the film might be. As truly at times it feels like it is only a very short distance from using the same script and easily making it into a more adult-minded film.
Especially in one scene where a character played by the hilarious Jessa Flux not only wants to have sex but show her breasts and have people look at them. When to her horror the man she was about to hook up with refuses to even look at them and she has a breakdown.
The film is inventive with not only a serial killer on the loose but a main character who seems to have a mental break and can’t help killing others in her path.
What helps the film is that most of the actors are so dedicated to their roles that they win you over with their characters and performances. Especially the lead played by Kansas Bowling.
The film never goes over the top to shock or disgust. It seems more devoted to keeping the audience interested. It moves fast enough to not ever be confusing. Though stops off for some extended comedic bits at times.
This film came together from it appears crowdsourcing (going by how many associate producers are credited) to make it become a reality that shows a lot of love and trust went into the film. It seems to have given all those who believed in it, what they asked for and expected. As it delivers that to a specific audience and hopefully gains more wandering eyes along the way. In this instance choose not to give it a grade. As not to dim any light on creatives and filmmakers out there whose sensibilities might be a little more singular.
In the end, you get what you expect. This film was never made to win awards and gives the audience exactly what they expected and hopefully what they came for. It’s an homage while also being a film that could have easily fit in, in the time period showcased.
Cut To The Chase 