Category Archives: Cult

My Bloody Valentine (1981)

my bloody valentine

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 2 out of 10

4-Word Review: A Killer with heart.

After 20 years a small Canadian mining town of Valentine Bluffs has decided to hold another Valentine’s Day Dance. The previous ones were canceled due to one ending in bloodshed by a psychotic mine worker named Harold Warden. Now he is locked away so they think it is safe except the killings start happening again and this time the killer tears the hearts out of the victims and delivers them in heart shaped boxes to their relatives.

This movie has a cool looking poster and a deliciously macabre concept and has also attained a strong cult following including Quinton Tarantino, but I unfortunately was not impressed with it. I found it to be excruciatingly boring and a major strain just to sit through. The direction and writing are uninspired creating predictable scenarios and delivering all the expected teen slasher movie clichés with a monotonous regularity.  Nothing is distinctive or scary and it fails to deliver any suspense or tension. It can’t even make effective use of its unique mine shaft setting. The final sequence takes place there, but it is nothing spectacular. The constant delivering of human hearts in candy style boxes soon loses its effect and eventually becomes stupid especially with the corny poems written on the attached note cards.

The young victims are dull and stereotypical. They look like caricatures from all the other slasher horror films except here they speak with thick Canadian accents. One of them looks like an overweight version of Meathead from ‘All in the Family’. There is also a ‘class clown’ type of character that resembles very closely the ‘class clown’ character from Friday the 13th . Here he does nothing but crack dumb jokes and watching him eventually get decapitated is the film’s single most gratifying moment.

The sheriff character is a real loser. He wears a big belt buckle and dopey haircut that makes him appear to be some middle-aged buffoon who has just stepped out of the 60’s. His logic is also flawed. He decides not to warn the town that a killer is on the loose even after he has killed a couple of people as he is afraid it will create too much of a panic, so instead he waits until seven more people die and the citizens all go into a panic anyways.

Usually in even the poorest of horror films the killings and gore can at least keep things entertaining on a tacky level and yet here they are as dull as everything else. Also, since when has going into a dark and dingy cave been considered a great place to have sex? To me it seems absurd and yet several of the teen couples go into the mine for distinctly that purpose.

Remade in 2009.

My Rating: 2 out of 10

Released:  February 11, 1981

Runtime: 1Hour 30Minutes

Rated R

Director: George Mihalka

Studio: Paramount

Available: VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Instant Video

 

Chopping Mall (1986)

chopping mall

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: Killer robots on prowl.

A new high-tech shopping mall installs robots as their night security team. They are programmed to apprehend and subdue any intruders, or anyone not showing them their security badge. A bunch of teenagers who work at the mall during the day decide to hang out and party there at night, but find that the robots have run amuck and are now trying to kill them. Locked into the place for the whole night the teens try fighting them off while desperately looking for a way out.

This was writer/director Jim Wynorski’s second feature and the beginning of an almost assembly line string of direct-to-video/B-movie features that of this writing now equals 94 and many of them done under a pseudonym. Wynorski shows some flair by injecting comedy into the proceedings including an engaging opening sequence done over the credits that includes a lot of sight gags and a good up-tempo synthesized score that fits the mood and action. There are also some fun cameos including Paul Bartel and Mary Woronov who appear at the beginning and recreate their roles from the hilarious cult hit Eating Raoul. You can also spot Mel Welles from Little Shop of Horrors fame as well as perennial B-movie favorites Dick Miller as a janitor and Gerrit Graham as a technician.

It was filmed at an actual mall in Sherman Oaks, California, which makes for an interesting backdrop and good authenticity. I also liked how the teens, both the men and women, are very resourceful and come up with different and elaborate ways to combat the robots. The female cast is attractive with a decent amount of nudity. The special effects aren’t bad either. I was impressed with the exploding head sequence as well as the burning body moment. My only quibble in this area is that they were able to break the glass of the storefront windows, which happens several times during the course of the film, much, much too easily.

The biggest problem with the film is that it just isn’t scary or suspenseful enough. The only time there was any real tension is towards the end when the Kelli Maroney character hides underneath some shelves at a pet store and is forced to keep quiet from the lurking robot while a  snake and spiders crawl all over her. Despite some interesting directorial touches it still comes off as mechanical and formulaic and even though the running time is short I still found myself getting quite bored with it. There is also never any explanation for why the robots go haywire, which I felt was a major oversight.

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: March 21, 1986

Runtime: 1Hour 17Minutes

Rated R

Director: Jim Wynorski

Studio: Concorde Pictures

Available: DVD, Amazon Instant Video, YouTube

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge (1985)

nightmare on elm street 2

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 4 out of 10

4-Word Review: More dreams more Freddy.

A new family has moved into the house on Elm Street where Nancy from the first film once lived and who is now locked away in a mental institution. The family’s son Jesse (Mark Patton) starts to have the same reoccurring nightmares dealing with child murderer Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), but this time Freddy wants to overtake Mark’s entire body and use it as a killing machine to the other youths in the area.

As sequels go this one is okay. I liked the idea that it is a continuation from the first one and not just a reworking of it. Trying to evolve the idea to the next level by having Krueger actually possessing the kid is interesting and the scene where Kruger’s head pushes out of Jesse’s stomach is good. However, it also gets away from the whole dream element that made the first one unique and turns the thing into just another slasher formula. Freddy only appears for 13 minutes during the 84 minute runtime, which isn’t enough as the pace and tension starts to ebb towards the middle. A little too much focus is put on Jesse and his emotional quandary at knowing what this evil spirit is trying to do, which turns it into more of a drama than a horror film. The climatic sequence that takes place in the boiler room where Freddy used to work when he was still alive becomes a bit too melodramatic and not that scary.

I would have liked some flashbacks showing what Freddy was like when he was alive and before he got burned and some history showing what might have lead him into becoming a child murderer in the first place. I also couldn’t help but wonder why Freddy only seems to torment the dreams of the teen characters. Why not Jesse’s parents as well? One could argue that as a child murderer Freddy was only interested in terrorizing young people, but then why not get into the dreams of Jesse’s younger sister Christie (Angela Walsh), which he never does.

Spoiler Alert!

This film also has one of the biggest plot holes I have ever seen and far more glaring than the ones you usually see in most other films of this genre. It all has to do with a party sequence in which Jesse turns into Freddy and starts killing off the other teen attendees. This was not dream, but reality, which was witnessed by many other people including Lisa’s parents. Yet at the end when Jesse somehow returns to ‘normal’ he boards the school bus where his friends make statements to the effect that he should just ‘forget about’ the party incident and everyone is ready to move on, but how does that happen? With the amount of carnage seen by the viewer the police and media would certainly have to investigate and the parents of the victims would want answers. Just ‘forgetting about’ something like that would not be a realistic option and the filmmakers attempts to gloss over what ends up being the movie’s biggest event is patently ridiculous.

End of Spoiler Alert!

Director Jack Sholder spends a lot of time focusing in on Krueger’s glove with its finger-like blades, but the more I saw them the less scary they became. The blades look awfully thin and flimsy and have no ridges or teeth on them. They look so dull that they would barely be able to cut through butter let alone human skin.

I did like that the lead victim was a male this time and it was nice seeing a teen character with sophisticated tastes as I spotted Jack Kerouac’s ‘On the Road’ novel laying on his bedside table. The scenes inside the high school and some of his conversations with his friends seemed less cardboard than usual. I also liked that Jesse manages to make friends with Grady (Robert Rusler) who initially comes-off as a stereotypical bully, but the scene where Grady speaks with his mouth full of food during a cafeteria sequence is a bit gross.

Jesse’s dealings with his harsh baseball coach (Marshall Bell) gets a bit over-the-top and forcing the boys to do pushups for hours underneath the hot sun would most likely get him fired especially these days. However, watching him get tied up and stripped naked and then whipped by towels in a sort of S & M death sequence is a highlight.

The story and special effects is still creative enough to raise this above the average 80’s slasher film although not all of them are effective. David Chaskin’s screenplay has some intriguing elements, but ends up biting-off-more-than-it-can-chew and creates too many loopholes to be satisfying.

My Rating: 4 out of 10

Released: November 1, 1985

Runtime: 1Hour 24Minutes

Rated R

Director: Jack Sholder

Studio: New Line Cinema

Available: VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Instant Video

Funny Games (1997)

funny games 3

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 8 out of 10

4-Word Review: Killers like playing games.

A family is tormented by two young men (Arno Frisch, Frank Geiring) who break into their home and proceed to play ‘funny games’ on them. These games are cruel and humiliating in nature. They are ‘played’ simply to prove that they can. As the film progresses and reveals some very unusual narrative devices it becomes obvious that the real ‘funny games’ are those played on the viewer by writer/director Michael Haneke.

Clearly this is long overdue as it is a revisionist look at the very violent psycho/thriller genre. Last House on the Left and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer have both handled the violence and dehumanization theme quite well before, which thus minimizes some of this film’s shock value. Yet Haneke shows an astute awareness of his craft and its manipulative nature. He cuts into all the accepted formalities and conventions of the genre and film making in general that you have to give it high marks. There is one scene, where the camera literally stays locked on the carnage for several minutes that the repugnance of violence really does hit home as intended.

funny games 2

The whole thing is supposed to shake the viewer into reevaluating their own viewpoints. It’s an almost ongoing assault questioning their views on justice, tolerance to violence, prayer and other cosmic forces and even their own fragility. It also tries to force them to analyze why they view these types of films and find them entertaining.

Like the heavy metal music played over the opening credits this thing is raw, abrasive and filled with anger and rebellion. Haneke is clearly upset. Upset at irresponsible directors who make violent films and an overly tolerant public that watches them.

This is an ugly film with an unrelenting nature and flashes of contempt. The average movie goer will probably not like it. However, it you are a connoisseur of cutting edge cinema then you may find the whole thing refreshingly provocative.

funny games 1

Frisch and Geiring as the two killers look and act so much against type that they become two of the most chilling and memorable villains in screen history. Also, Susanne Lothar and Ulrich Muhe who play the husband and wife victims are actually married in real life.

An American version, which was directed by Haneke as well and stars the beautiful Naomi Watts and follows this one almost scene-for-scene was released in 2007.

funny games 4

My Rating: 8 out of 10

Released: May 14, 1997

Runtime: 1Hour 48Minutes

Not Rated

Director: Michael Haneke

Studio: Attitude Films

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Instant Video

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

nightmare on elm street

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Freddy’s in their dreams.

Teenager Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) starts having nightmares about a strange man (Robert Englund) with burned skin, a green and red sweater and wearing a glove with sharp finger-like blades. She finds out that her friends are having the same type of dream and that this man is a former child murderer named Fred Krueger who is reaching out from his grave to attack them.

This movie has been parodied and imitated so much over the years that one forgets what an original idea this was. Writer/director Wes Craven uses stark, shadowy lighting and a distinctive music score to build a great horror atmosphere. The name Freddy Krueger, which he named after a childhood bully of his, is inspired. The scene where he appears in a dark alley as a midget with extremely long arms is a creepy image and possibly the scariest moment in the film. The pace is good and the scenarios imaginative making this well above average when compared to a typical 80’s slasher film and a definite classic.

The special effects are also quite creative and although not completely successful still a lot of fun to watch.  I loved the whole bathtub scene as well as the segment where Glen (Johnny Depp) gets sucked inside his bed, which creates a big hole in his mattress where a giant flow of blood comes gushing out of it and covers the entire ceiling and walls of his room. It may not make complete sense, but cool to look at nonetheless. The part where Tina (Amanda Wyss) gets pushed up the wall and ceiling of her room by an invisible force while being slashed is quite scary to watch despite the fact that when a close-up is shown of her skin getting cut it looks more like it is made a of clay and her bloodied body on the floor appears like it where drenched with a bucket of red paint.

heather 2

Langenkamp is fantastic in the lead and I would nominate her as the all-time best heroine of a slasher film. Her face is beautiful, but also quite expressive and she seems to show genuine emotion and far exceeds the typical cardboard scream queen. Her presence and not that of the villainous Freddy, whose screen time here is more limited than you think, is what carries the film. There is also a fun in-joke when she looks in a mirror and states “God, I look like I am 20”, which is funny since despite playing a teen character she really was 20 at the time of the shooting.  (I realize on the DVD commentary she states that she was 18 or 19, but the truth is she was born July 17, 1964 and this was filmed between June and July of 1984, so she was either 20 or very, very close.)

It’s great seeing Johnny Depp in his film debut. He still looks boyish at 50, but here looks like he is barely 10 years old. It is amusing seeing him play a sort-of doofus and he also gets a good line when after hearing Tina and her boyfriend having sex in the other room states “Reality sucks”.

amanda wyss

I also enjoyed Wyss for her amazing piercing blue eyes, but having her willingly go to bed with Rod (Jsu Garcia) an obnoxious, crass, Fonzi wannabe makes her character seem kind of stupid.

John Saxon is competent as Nancy’s father who also works as the town’s police chief, but I couldn’t say the same for Ronee Blakley as the mother. She was unforgettable with her brilliant performance in Nashville, but seemed to be miscast in every film that she did afterwards and it should probably be no surprise that she hasn’t been in any film since 1990. I also didn’t care for her sprayed-on tan look either.

Despite being an enjoyable film there are a few logical inconsistencies that I feel should be addressed. One is that I would argue it is virtually impossible for someone to know that they are in a dream when they are dreaming even though the characters here do. It should also have been better explained how the Freddy character is able to come out of the dream and into real-life, which gets confusing.  The part where Nancy states that she hasn’t slept in seven nights, but doesn’t show any physical or psychological signs of it are too much of a stretch.  Also, I had to chuckle at the part where Nancy comes home to find that her mother has had bars placed on all the windows of the home for added security, but then doesn’t bother to lock the front door as Nancy is able to walk inside without having to use a key.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: November 16, 1984

Runtime: 1Hour 31Minutes

Rated R

Director: Wes Craven

Studio: New Line Cinema

Available: VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Instant Video

Orgazmo (1997)

orgazmo 2

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Super hero porn star.

This is a funny satirical mixture of super hero movies and Boogie Nights and a definite improvement over Trey Parker’s earlier feature, the sleep inducing Cannibal the Musical though not as funny as his later ‘South Park’ TV-series. Here he plays a Mormon bible salesman who inadvertently gets involved playing a super hero named Orgazmo in porn movies.

Has a definite look and feel of a really cheap direct-to-video product. The special effects are awful, the fight scenes are fake looking, and the acting, with the exception of Michael Dean Jacobs who does a great job playing a really slimy porn director, are quite poor. Yet it is structured well enough to keep you consistently amused.

The porn scenes themselves are so over-the-top that they are an absolute riot. Yet despite its subject matter and a cast of actual porn stars there is NO FEMALE NUDITY. In fact the only nudity you will see are close-ups of hairy male rear ends.

Religious people especially Mormons are made to look so simplistic and sterile that it is sure to offend anyone involved in that area. Yet since most of them won’t bother to watch this film it probably won’t hurt. Overall it is good natured and not bad for its type.

Has a plethora of porn and cult celebrities in cameo roles. The best by far goes to Ron Jeremy who not only gets involved in a funny debate about the merits (and demerits) of porn, but is also in a big kung fu showdown. Also has Troma producer Lloyd Kaufman as a doctor with beautiful porn star Jill Kelly as a nurse who doesn’t say anything but still commands your attention. ‘South Park’ co-creator Matt Stone can be seen as a crew member. His lines aren’t particularly funny, but the way he says them is.

orgazmo

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: September 6, 1997

Runtime: 1Hour 34Minutes

Rated NC-17

Director: Trey Parker

Studio: Focus Features

Available: DVD, Amazon Instant Video

Meet the Applegates (1990)

meet the applegates 1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 4 out of 10

4-Word Review: Bugs turn into people.

Giant Brazilian Beetles take human form and disguise themselves as a typical suburban family. The father beetle Richard (Ed Begley Jr.) gets job at a nuclear plant, which he plans to use to destroy mankind and thus save their species and the rainforests from human progression.

This cultish-like comedy pretty much kills itself from the beginning by having a farfetched premise that it never bothers to explain. Just how do these giant beetles learn to take human form? Nothing is shown or mentioned. Even a really, really stupid explanation would be better than nothing at all.

The film does have a few good points, which allows you to stick with it despite the complete absurdity. One is the fact that it tackles the very serious issue of environmentalism. If anything it gets the general viewer a little more aware of the problem and by putting the bugs in human form makes them sensitive to their situation.

The film also has its witty moments as it analyzes the different habits of both bugs and humans. The best part may actually be a rather simple bit when the bug wife Jane (Stockard Channing) is not in the mood for sex so Richard grabs a science magazine with large pictures of insects and then ‘gets-off’ on it in the bathroom. There is also a side story dealing with the wife’s obsessive use of credit cards that is right-on-target.

Yet within all the offbeat humor there is also an amazingly high level of inconsistencies. These bugs seem to know a lot about certain technical gadgetry, but then not in other areas. They respond to some things in an odd creature-like way and then at other times like a regular person would. The scenes involving sexual relations between these bugs and other humans seem very unnatural and highly preposterous.

The acting runs hot and cold. Begley can be good in offbeat and nerdy roles, but as a family patriarch he just does not cut it. Robert Jayne as the son Johnny is terrible. He has a dazed expression on his face throughout like he was hit on the head a few times and acts like he was never in front of a camera before. On the plus side it’s nice to see Stockard back to doing comedy as she has a good knack for it. Dabney Coleman is fun even though he is pretty much wasted though seeing him dressed in drag and calling himself ‘Aunt Bea’ is genuinely funny.

Overall the film looks rushed and may have had studio tampering. The special effects are cheap and although some of it is passable most of the time it is downright deplorable. The ‘feel good’ ending is excruciating. Director Michael Lehmann seems to be another casualty to the dreaded sophomore jinx. Heathers, which was his first feature was a great success, but even though this film has its moments it cannot come together as a whole.

meet the applegates 2

My Rating: 4 out of 10

Alternate Title: The Applegates

Released: November 8, 1990

Runtime: 1Hour 30Minutes

Rated R

Director: Michael Lehmann

Studio: Triton Pictures

Available: VHS (as ‘The Applegates’)

Where’s Poppa? (1970)

wheres poppa 2

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 9 out of 10

4-Word Review: Mother has to go.

A beleaguered Gordon (George Segal) is a man who must take care of his invalid mother (Ruth Gordon). Despite being a handsome young lawyer he has literally become trapped by this very difficult woman. The majority of the film takes place in a 1940’s styled apartment. It’s gray, dusty bleakness permeates every shot and shows just how lodged Gordon is in his mother’s world. He is a normal man that is slowly being sucked into madness. He is becoming mad because the world he lives in and life in general is driving him to it. The wall between what he really wants to do in life and his obligations have become so thick that going crazy may be the only real answer.

In fact madness maybe pretty much is what this film is really about. It seems to be saying that there is a certain functioning normality to it and at times even a necessity for it. Everyone in this film conveys their own unique form of madness. There’s the overzealous war general (hilariously played by Barnard Hughes) There’s also the henpecked brother/husband Sidney (Ron Leibman) who goes to almost absurd lengths to make sure everyone is happy. Even innocent, conservative Louise (Trish Van Devere) opens into the crazy world when explaining her rather unique honeymoon experience. The film delves so deeply and consistently into the world of the absurd that at times the senile Mother really doesn’t seem so nutty.

This is the film’s genius. It takes everything we have always accepted and turns it inside out. It takes some of life’s most depressing things and then makes it into an inspired and creative masterpiece. A trip to the old folk’s home has never been considered by many to be funny or memorable, yet a trip to Paul Sorvino’s old folk’s home is. In fact it maybe one of the funniest scenes you’ll ever see.

Writer Robert Klane and director Carl Reiner show an amazing grasp of their material, which is crucial for its success. Everything is fluid and consistent in tone. It shows how you can indeed have an offbeat idea, do it in an offbeat way, and still succeed without compromising.

My Rating: 9 out of 10

Released: July 9, 1970

Runtime: 1Hour 22minutes

Rated R

Director: Carl Reiner

Studio: United Artists

Available: VHS, DVD

Little Murders (1971)

little murders

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review:  They shoot at people.

Patsy (Marcia Rodd) is a woman who practices the art of positive thinking despite her dismal urban surroundings. She meets Alfred (Elliot Gould) who is very detached and dropped out of society and no longer shares any hope in humanity, but she decides to marry him anyways and ‘reform’ him.

For a black comedy this one has got to be tops. It stays on a grimly humorous level from the beginning and doesn’t let up especially with its wicked ending. Everything gets the offbeat treatment and if it starts out conventional it is soon turned upside down until it is absurd. The funniest scenes involve Patsy taking Alfred home to meet her parents where things become very odd until they are absolutely hilarious. The wedding scene is also a classic where Donald Sutherland plays a hippie minister and gives a speech about masturbation that is as outrageously funny today as it was back then. Yet it is the surreal scene of seeing Alfred riding a subway car while dripping with blood and nobody saying anything that leaves the strongest impact. The targets that this film satirizes are just as potent today as they were back then. The film also manages to dig a bit deeper than most and successfully analyzes the myriad of societal complexities while not siding with any particular social movement or philosophy.

Rodd is terrific in her film debut and Gould is good in a surprisingly restrained performance. Jon Korkes is also excellent as an infantile adult son in an over-the-top send-up of grown children still living at home. However, it is Vincent Gardenia that ultimately steals it playing a hard-liner conservative father who finds himself becoming literally imprisoned by the increasingly insane world around him.

Although still potent this outrageous story seems to have lost some of its zing through the years and doesn’t seem to be as offbeat or ‘out there’ as it once did. It also lacks any type of cinematic flair and at times seems to be nothing more than a filmed stage play.

However, for fans of black comedy and relics of a bygone era it doesn’t come much better than this. Although it has softened a bit there are still enough bizarre and funny moments to please those with an acquired taste.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: February 9, 1971

Runtime: 1Hour 50Minutes

Rated R

Director: Alan Arkin

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Available: VHS, DVD

Special Effects (1984)

special effects

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 5 out of 10

4-Word Review: Murder her on film.

Snuff movies have become the thing of urban legends and apparently tapped into society’s morbid curiosity. It is really surprising how many movies and TV-shows have dealt with the topic especially recently. It all started in 1971 with the film Snuff that purportedly dealt with an actual murder of an actress done in front of the camera even though it was faked and not very good, but the film’s tagline ‘Filmed in South America where life is CHEAP’ is at least amusing. There have been films that have tried to make it look very convincing particularly the disturbing ‘Guinea Pig’ series from Japan as well as Cannibal Holocaust that got director Rogero Deodato taken to court to prove that he didn’t actually kill his cast. Although there have been executions, assassinations and suicides that have been recorded and sometimes put into documentaries there has yet to be a performer murdered in front of the camera for commercial purposes.

In today’s movie writer/director Larry Cohen takes this concept and gives it an intriguing spin. Neville (Eric Bogosian) is a down-and-out filmmaker. His last picture bombed at the box office and he is looking to make a buzz with his next project. He is fascinated with the capturing of the killing of Lee Harvey Oswald and how movies can never quite recreate death in the same way. Struggling actress Andrea (Zoe Tamerlis) answers an ad and shows up in his apartment/studio for an audition. Neville uses the allure of potential fame to get the women into bed with him, which he usually films with a camera hidden behind a two-way mirror. During the sex Andrea begins to belittle him, which angers him enough that he strangles her. Realizing that he has the murder captured on film he decides to use it to his advantage. He disposes of the dead body and then hires another woman named Elaine (also played by Tamerlis) who looks just like Andrea to star in his next film. He will then incorporate the scene of the murder into the movie. Audiences will think it was done with special effects and be so impressed with how realistic it looks that it will give Neville numerous accolades for his film making skill and bring him back to the top of the directing world.

Cohen uses the story as an excuse to expose the seedy, unglamorous side of low budget filmmaking many of which based on his own observations from working in the business. One of the more startling revelations that he shows is how the movie world is such an allure to some people that they will completely sell-out to get into it even if it means losing their dignity. This comes to a head in what is probably the film’s strongest scene when Neville is very rude and brash with Elaine when he first meets her. He shouts at her like she is sub-human and simply a piece of property, but the prospect of starring in a movie is so strong that she doesn’t walk out of there like most people would probably want to do. What is worse is the fact that Neville is aware of this and realizes he can get away with it.

The movie also looks how demeaning it can sometimes be being a filmmaker as well. Having to work and deal with various personalities and egos as well as fighting to remain in control of the project and vision. He also shows how exhausting the research phase of a production can be and how breakthroughs and inspirations usually come about by complete accident. The extended scene dealing with them trying to find an actress who resembles Andrea and auditioning hundreds of different women without any luck only to come upon Elaine by complete accident when they go to a Salvation Army store is a good example of this.

Cohen also infuses some creative camera work and directorial flair. The opening sequence showing Andrea prancing around topless in what looks to be the Oval Office of The White House has panache. The shot showing rows upon rows of hundreds of headshots of young and aspiring actresses, which includes an amusing one of Dustin Hoffman in his Tootsie character, lining the floor is impressive. I also liked the way Neville’s apartment is captured when Andrea first walks into it as well as extreme close-ups of circuit breakers being put back into a circuit box, which is really cool.

Tamerlis is fantastic in the lead. She shows a great awareness and natural acting ability in front of the camera. She plays the dual roles with two very distinct personalities and accents both of which are good. Her presence makes the film more interesting and the scenes that she is not in lack the same energy.

Bogosian easily conveys the obnoxious sarcastic personality of his character, but at times his facial expressions seem to be either lacking or over-exaggerated. Brad Rijn who plays Andrea’s husband who later gets involved in Neville’s project is weak and annoying. In some ways he seems to be the right pick for someone playing a country hick, but he has no charisma and looks too scrawny especially with his clothes off.

For a low budget 80’s flick the film has enough twists and a good enough pace to be marginally entertaining. The only thing that I really didn’t like was the synthesized electronic music score that drones on endlessly like in one of those 80’s porn flicks. I think the reason I liked the scene where Andrea’s dead body is shown inside a parked car in a lonely area of Coney Island is because it didn’t have any music and instead used the natural ambience of the location, which helped make it distinct and should’ve been done with the rest of the movie.

My Rating: 5 out of 10

Released: November 16, 1984

Runtime: 1Hour 33Minutes

Rated R

Director: Larry Cohen

Studio: New Line Cinema

Available: VHS, DVD