Latest product :
Recent product
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Rape-Revenge. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Rape-Revenge. Tampilkan semua postingan

Lipstick

DECEMBER 29, 2007

GENRE: RAPE-REVENGE (?)
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Female Cop: "Did he urinate on you?"
Rape Victim: "What?"
Female Cop: "Did he urinate on you, or defecate?"
Rape Victim: "They DO that?"
Female Cop: "....some do."

Now, not that I find rape funny, but exchanges like this should only be delivered by good actors. When it's two BAD actors saying them, as is the case in Lipstick, then it just becomes sort of silly, which is a problem that plagues the entire film. It takes itself deadly serious, but there are so many elements that make me chuckle that it doesn't work in any genre.

Chris Sarandon plays a music teacher who makes truly atrocious music (think Brian Eno, only worse). We have to endure this nonsense several times throughout the film, and even though it's acknowledged as terrible (albeit more or less in passing), it's still a major distraction. But since he's one of the few good actors in the film, he actually pulls off making you believe HE thinks the music is good, which of course, again, just makes it funnier.

There's also a line of dialogue straight out of the most exploitative revenge film: "He tried to kill me with his cock!" Now, if this was a Ruggero Deodato movie, that line would probably be in the trailer. But when it comes from a bad actress in the middle of an otherwise pedestrian, SERIOUS scene, it's just jarring.

The revenge segment is limited to the film's final moments. In fact, if anyone bothers to check this one out, I highly urge you not to read Netflix or Blockbuster's description of the film, as it details things that occur in the film's final 15 minutes. Which is unfortunate, because not only did it spoil what was a bit of a surprise at the end, but also made me think the film was indeed more of a typical rape-revenge thriller, instead of an occasionally ludicrous courtroom drama.

What say you?

{[['']]}

Slashed Dreams

NOVEMBER 1, 2007

GENRE: CRAP, HORROR? RAPE-REVENGE (?)
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK!!!)

At long last, October is over! I can go back to the standard, sane, simple, single movie a day. And I feel even better about that when my daily movie is as bad as Slashed Dreams (aka Sunburst), because I don’t want to run the risk of watching another film that might turn out as boring and pointless as this one for at least another 24 hrs or so.

This may be the most plodding movie I have ever seen in my life (certainly the worst offender for HMAD). LITERALLY nothing happens in the film. Except a rape. Nice, huh? We watch 2 folks sort of shuffle about the woods for nearly an hour (swimming, frolicking, eating...) before a couple of rednecks harass them (very tamely. One of them actually seems borderline nice). Later on, they come back and hit the guy a few times and rape the girl (at least, we are told as much. It’s sort of hard to tell if the guy is raping her or just hugging her. It’s certainly the least graphic rape scene ever committed to film, so it’s got that going for it at least). Then Robert Englund shows up, philosophizes about tea, the boyfriend tries to fight the rednecks, who both run away, and then the good guys go swimming. The end. I’m not exaggerating, that’s the movie. No one dies or gets jailed for their crimes. And the heroes barely seem perturbed afterwards. You could almost remove the scenes with the rednecks entirely and the film would just seem like the filmed version of a Bartledanian novel.

As you can probably tell from that image, the movie was very poorly retitled from Sunburst sometime after Nightmare on Elm St, in order to try to give the film some cash-in value. Usually, this is certainly fine by me, but there are two problems with it this time: 1. It’s the most obvious retitling I’ve ever seen (I wish I could convey how ridiculous the little zooming animation on the green box looks), and 2. Englund’s not even the fucking bad guy! He’s some hippie (heh, OK, so maybe he is). He doesn’t even show up until the final 10 minutes or so. Come on now. This is purely a scam.

His reaction to being told that his friend was raped is pretty astounding. The boyfriend tells him she was raped, and Englund doesn’t ask anything like “Who did it?” or “Where did they go?” He just asks if the girl has had some food yet. At first, I thought he was going to turn out to be an even worse villain, but no, he just makes her some tea and then more or less exits the film again.

This movie is also stuffed with folk music, most by a female singer. Terrifying, perhaps, but not in the intentional way. If not for my little safety that I can qualify (and judge, unfortunately for the filmmakers) a film as horror if it is presented as such (which being on the Chilling Classics set certainly does), I wouldn’t even consider it horror at all. It’s Rape-NonRevenge, a thankfully obscure genre that is hopefully comprised entirely of this one sorry film.

Oh there’s a bear scene too.

What say you?

{[['']]}

Bad Reputation

AUGUST 23, 2007

GENRE: RAPE REVENGE, SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

I think I might have to take time out of my life to learn about the process of making a movie anamorphic for the DVD release. It must be an extremely difficult and time-consuming process that adds significantly to the budget, because otherwise there is NO FUCKING EXCUSE for any DVD pressed in the past few years to be released non-anamorphically, such as Bad Reputation. There is no discernible reason for not making your DVD 16:9 ready. If you have a 4:3 TV, it will still appear at the correct ratio, so what is the fucking problem here?

Plus, it sends a message of “we don’t care” to the viewer. If you don’t want your film to at least LOOK good, what’s that say about how you feel about its content? I am sure DP Forrest Allison doesn’t want everyone who owns a 16:9 TV to watch his compositions zoomed in or stretched horizontally. Sorry, Forrest, that’s what Maverick left us with, because they were too lazy to check their compression settings when they pressed the master DVD.

Anyway the movie itself is OK. There are some nice little nods to slasher classics (the school’s name is Smith’s Grove) and combining the rape revenge story with a standard slasher climax is pretty interesting. Unfortunately the direction is unforgivably boring. The whole benefit of shooting a film on DV (and for the record, they do a nice job with the lighting quality of the darker scenes, usually a low point in any DV film) is the freedom to move the camera more, as well as shoot lots and lots of coverage due to the low cost of DV tape compared to film. But that’s a benefit Jim Hemphill and his crew did not take advantage of, as the camera is more stationery than your average Kevin Smith film. Not that they need to “Bay it up”, but watching entire scenes go by from one angle or two angles without any camera movement is amateurish, and severely lessens the impact of more than a couple events (such as when the main girl argues with her mother early on).

It’s saved by the script though. There are so many oddball and uncommon touches throughout the film that the directorial blandness can be almost forgiven. For example, early on a dude dry humps his girlfriend. After they ‘finish’, they stand up to talk, and while they do, the dude spends the whole scene wiping off the visible cumstain on his jeans. What the hell? Hahahaha. Amazing. There’s also some choice dialogue, like the girl's mother randomly berates the Pico Blvd hookers. Look, everyone knows that the really trashy whores in LA are all on Cahuenga. There's also the strangest response I've ever heard to a girl asking if a guy likes her dress. "Like I like breathing!" he replies. Either this guy has an odd oxygen fetish, or he is actually telling her that he considers her appearance akin to something he does without noticing he's doing it.

The film skimps a bit on the gore though. One character is killed via head bashing (on a toilet – bodily fluids are pretty common in this one), but we see no blood after the body is thrown to the floor. And in another head bashing scene, we are treated to purple paint thrown on the wall? OK. There’s a pretty good beheading though.

And I couldn't tell if it was a meta-reference to Jason or not, but there's a moment during the climax that made me laugh out loud due to its stupidity. The girl, in another slasher reference, wears a hockey mask for some of her final rampage. That's fine, I would have preferred something more obscure, but that's just me. Anyway, at one point she is seen downstairs with some of the other kids. We cut to a bedroom, where two of her bullies are fooling around, and suddenly... she's hiding in the closet! So she snuck into the bedroom without them seeing her, and then got into the closet, then peeked outside of it? What the hell? I know the real Jason teleported a lot, so like I said, maybe it was an intentional joke. If not, yikes.

All in all, a decent enough no-budgeter, but it’s a shame such a great concept was used on such a technically lazy film. But hey, it's still a rape-revenge film, so all... one of you who voted for it in my genre poll, consider yourself served!

What say you?

{[['']]}

The Virgin Spring (aka Jungfrukällan)

JUNE 1, 2007

GENRE: RAPE-REVENGE
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Look, it doesn’t matter what I watched today. I could have watched Psycho for the first time and I’d still have trouble finding anything to say. Because, just two short hours ago, I was shoulder to shoulder with one Mr. BRUCE WILLIS. Not only did I talk to him, I shook his hand. How many times in someone’s life do they get to shake the hand of their childhood (and current) idol? Five, six, tops. As a lifelong movie nerd (obviously) there is little that could possibly top something like that. Fuck yeah!

Anyway, it’s sort of putting the film down to classify it as rape-revenge, as those films are more exploitative and such. But The Virgin Spring, which is based on a ballad (I wish more films were based on ballads. I think a great film could be made out of "Hanging By A Moment".) is more or less the ORIGINAL rape-revenge film (Last House on the Left was an acknowledged modernized version of the story, and then of course Chaos was likewise an update of Last House), so it definitely has a place in horror history. Maybe I should make a new genre called “Roots”. Or, I dunno, “Stretching It”. But everything I watched this week was more or less garbage so I felt I had to watch something with any merit (other than “it’s good when you’re drunk!” type praise).

Little needs to be said about the movie, it’s a classic and there are plenty of other, likely better written, reviews on the web if you really need to be sold on watching it.

Instead I will ponder this: Why does every Criterion commentary suck? With a few exceptions (Chasing Amy sticks out, and obviously Armageddon) they all sound like they were recorded under duress. The speaker almost never has anything to do with the actual film, and they don’t even seem to be watching it. Just write all the shit down and let us read it!

I also wish the DVD had an extra of Bergman walking around a morgue, being EXTREME. The DVD is definitely lacking for it.

...Dude I just fucking talked to Bruce Willis! Not even on a computer this time! Who the hell cares about horror movies at a time like this? Like, I still remember watching Die Hard for the 1st time when I was 9. I was sitting on the couch waiting for my Dad to come home so we could head up to Maine for the weekend (I used to live in Mass, btw). Who the fuck thought that 18 years later I'd be sitting there chatting with the guy about part 4??? It's fucking surreal.

Also, I'm taller than him.

What say you?

{[['']]}
 
Support : Creating Website | Johny Template | Mas Template
Copyright © 2011. blog baru buat - All Rights Reserved
Template Created by Creating Website Published by Mas Template
Proudly powered by Blogger