Category Archives: Offbeat

Eat the Rich (1988)

eat the rich

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 5 out of 10

4-Word Review: Rich feed the poor.

This is an extremely garish mixture of loud music, ugly visuals, and shock comedy. The story is about a waiter, a gay man with a real fun bitchy attitude, who gets fired when he refuses to suck up to the arrogant clientele. He gets revenge by banding together other misfits who return and kill everybody and then feed the dead bodies to new unsuspecting patrons.

Sounds gross and tasteless, but it really isn’t. There’s no nudity or sex and no graphic violence or gore. A little bit more of these things would have actually helped. At least it would have solidified it as the underground shock comedy it seems to be striving to be. Instead it’s cluttered with no real objective or foundation. At times it plays like biting social commentary and at other times nothing more than a silly gross out teen flick

By the time you get to the way off-base ending it becomes obvious that the filmmakers were trying to be outrageous simply as a way to get noticed. There is no real insight to the have and have-nots of society. They simply came upon the idea because they felt it would appeal to the type of audience they were looking for.

This is too bad because had it been a little more polished it might have been a stronger film. Believe it or not there are some clever bits. The jabs at the Queen are a riot. The scene involving terrorism and the Middle East crisis is a true original. The rich characters are so over-the-top obnoxious you have to laugh-out-loud.

The true scene stealer though is Nosher Powell. He is a former stunt man/ stunt coordinator who worked on many of the stunts in the early James Bond movies. Here he plays a sort of Teddy Roosevelt times ten a ‘working class’ politician who bullies everyone and everything. The actor has a rather rough, amateurish delivery which only adds to the saltiness of the character.

My Rating: 5 out of 10

Released: April 22, 1988

Runtime: 1Hour 30Minutes

Rated R

Director: Peter Richardson

Studio: Recorded Releasing

Available: VHS, DVD, Amazon Instant Video

Squirm (1976)

squirm

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review:  Worms invade a town.

A thunderstorm knocks down some power lines, which creates a surge amongst the worms in the earth and prompts them to come out of the dirt and go on the attack. Thousands upon thousands of them descend onto a small southern town filling up stores and homes and viciously biting those that get in their way.

A bizarre but interesting idea for a horror movie that manages to succeed mainly because it keeps it relatively believable. The worms stay regular size and the rationale behind it has some logical backing. It does take a while to get going and the real scares don’t occur until the very end. The subplot involving the tracking down of some skeletal remains doesn’t add anything, but the film is well crafted enough to build a weird atmosphere. The climax which features a home filled from floor to ceiling with millions of squirming worms is a unique sight.

R. A. Dow, who plays Roger the bad guy, is equally memorable. He looks menacing to begin with, but when he falls into a pile of the worms and gets all sorts of them eating into his face and he starts to look genuinely frightening. He then goes through the rest of the picture as this creepy worm-like man that is enhanced by the excellent make-up effects by the renowned Rick Baker.

Don Scardino makes for an interesting good guy/lead. He is not brawny, good looking, or even cool, but instead brainy and at certain points quite timid. At times he gets a bit too wussy, but he is at least a refreshing change to the blow-dried stud muffin. He resembles the film’s writer/director Jeff Lieberman and may have been cast simply for that reason.

Patricia Pearcy is capable as the love interest. She is a bit too country and certainly no beauty, but manages to be distinctive nonetheless. Fran Higgins as her younger sister Alma possesses one of the homelier looking faces you will ever see. Having her paint her nails and wear high heels so she can look ‘sexy’ seems almost cruelly comical.

The opening storm segment is weak with the falling power lines looking too much like they are miniature replicas. Lieberman’s recreation of the small town southern people is clichéd and stilted. The music is effective except for a part where a child sings a creepy little tune that doesn’t quite work or fit.

The close-ups of the worms are awesome, but I didn’t care for the sound effects used that sounds like squealing pigs. The noise effects created to resemble their squirming comes-off too much like sloshing water.

Overall the film manages to be effective. It’s certainly no classic, but successfully original.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: July 30, 1976

Runtime: 1Hour 30Minutes

Rated R

Director: Jeff Lieberman

Studio: American International Pictures

Available: VHS, DVD

Daisies (1966)

daisies 1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Girlfriends rebel from society.

Two young women (Ivana Karbanova, Jitka Cerhova) who are both named Marie decide that society has nothing to offer them and that they will not comply with its norms. They then proceed to jaunt through the streets of Prague causing havoc and destruction everywhere they go and with everyone they meet while also trying to find themselves and their true purpose in life.

This film is similar to Ingmar Bergman’s Persona, which was released the same year. Both films rely heavily on quick edits, jump cuts, bizarre imagery and unconventional narrative structures. The only difference is that at least Persona had a story behind it and two interesting characters. This film has neither. The two women behave too strangely to be relatable and the scenes seem disconnected. This is one film that takes the avant-garde, experimental approach to the most extreme. The result is a bit off-putting and took me until the halfway mark before I could get into it. Others may not even make it that far. Personal taste will gauge how much one gets into it as well as how much they get out of it.

On a completely visual level it is fascinating. The film goes from being black-and-white to color and then back again at random intervals. There is one scene in a restaurant where the scene changes to a different color filter each time a character speaks a different line of dialogue. The segment showing photos of a variety of butterflies done at a rapid fire pace is also interesting. The best part is probably near the end when the girls walk into a banquet hall and proceed to eat up all the food that is in it. In fact the film shows an amazing amount of eating. It seems like every other shot has the girls stuffing their mouths with some sort of edible. However, instead of making you hungry it ends up kind of grossing you out.

If there is anything that got on my nerves it was director Vera Chytilova’s use of sound. There was too much repetition of noises. For instance in the opening scene there is what sounds like a squeaking door that is implemented after each actress says her line that quickly becomes irritating. The slobbering, chewing sound as the girls eat the banquet food is overdone as is their background whispering that occurs near the end.

Many feel this is a movie about budding feminism and I would agree on that for the most part. I enjoyed how the women did not feel that they needed a man in their life to ‘be whole’ and in many ways seemed to manipulate and make fun of the male characters, or simply become bored with them especially when the men would convey to them their ‘undying love’.  However, to me it was more about the rebelling and disdain of the communist regime and living in an environment that promoted hard work and not much else. I liked the segment at the end where the two women proceed to be ‘good’ instead of ‘bad’ and try to clean up the mess that they made while trying to convince themselves that working hard will make them happy even though it really doesn’t.

I’ve seen a lot of weird sixties movies, but this one tops them all by a mile. It certainly doesn’t seem dated and easily transcends its era. Not only was it ahead-of-its-time, but I would maintain that it STILL is.

Although the runtime is listed as being 74 minutes the version I saw, which was from Czech New Wave, came out to being only an hour.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: December 30, 1966

Runtime: 1Hour

Not Rated

Director: Vera Chytilova

Studio: Ustredni

Available: DVD

Doin’ Time on Planet Earth (1988)

doin time on planet earth 1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 5 out of 10

4-Word Review: Weird people don’t belong

Ryan (Nicholas Strouse) is a teenager who has always been ridiculed as being ‘weird’, but finds that he may actually be an offspring to aliens from another planet. This may be the case with all the other weird people too. He and his fellow ‘weirdos’ must now band together and return to the planet that their forefathers came. Charles and Edna (Adam West and Candice Azzara) are the two that are heading the mission.

This is definitely an original idea that is on the most part handled well. The humor is certainly quirky and on the whole not bad. The problem is the fact that it is treated too lightly like it is nothing more than a harmless joke. A deeper, darker underlying theme might have given it more stature and not made it seem so silly and forgettable. It also places too much emphasis on the kids high school life, which makes it seem at times like just another redundant ‘jock vs. geeks’ thing. There is also has too much of that 80’s look, which gets annoying.

Technically it could have used a bigger budget. The quirky humor gets you through it, but the sets are poor and the special effects tacky. The editing is choppy and the color schemes ugly.

The lead himself is the blandest ‘weird’ person you will ever see. He really doesn’t seem that strange at all. The weirdest trait he has is that he has booby trapped his bedroom so anyone that doesn’t knock gets caught in a net. This seems more like a trait of someone who is immature than weird. He is also way to clean cut. A weird person should have a little more of an eccentric style or look. It also doesn’t help matters that the actor who plays him is quite poor and never went on to play anything else.

The presence of West and Azzara help a lot. Azzara’s outrageous beehive hairdos and fingernails alone make it fun. West seems to act like this is nothing more than some campy walk through, but it is still nice to see him doing something more than just a token appearance. Martha Scott is the real surprise as she really seems to get into being a bitchy, snobby mother-in-law.

If your expectations are moderate and you are just in the mood for something that’s just a little bit different than this might fit the bill. There are a few good chuckles and a higher than usual quotient of movie references.

My Rating: 5 out of 10

Released: September 14, 1988

Runtime: 1Hour 25Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Charles Matthau

Studio: Cannon Film Distributors

Available: VHS

Rhinoceros (1974)

rhinoceros

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: People turn into rhinos.

Much maligned film is really not as bad as its reputation states. Yes the scenes and scenarios are at times awkward and stilted. The sets and color schemes run from being drab to horribly garish. The music is loud and obnoxious and doesn’t fit the mood of the film at all. Also despite having the name in its title and being all about rhinos you never actually see one. Sure it’s low budget, but even some stock footage of one from “Wild Kingdom” would have helped.

Yet even with all this the film still has its moments. It’s based on the Eugene Ionesco play and involves everyone getting turned into a rhinoceros. Zero Mostel, Gene Wilder, and Karen Black all resist, but slowly unravel to the ‘peer pressure’ and wanting to be ‘part of the crowd’. The outrageous premise is simply a front to examine the human phenomenon known as conformity, both on those that do and those that don’t. It is rare that anything tackles this subject with any serious study, yet this one does. The observations are, believe or not, quite interesting and accurate and Wilder really does make a terrific non-conformist.

The best part though may actually be one of filmdom’s most bizarre scenes ever. It features Wilder and Mostel alone in a room where Mostel slowly turns into a rhino. The scene goes on for well over twenty-five minutes and features no special effects or makeup. It relies totally on Mostel and his acting range to pull it off. He gives it an amazing amount of energy and seems more than up to its weird demands. It’s definitely worth a look for this scene alone.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: January 21, 1974

Runtime: 1Hour 44Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Tom O’Horgan

Studio: American Film Theater

Available: DVD, Amazon Instant Video

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

Q (1982)

Q

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 5 out of 10

4-Word Review: Giant bird eats humans

In celebration of cult writer/director Larry Cohen turning 72 on July 15th all this month on Mondays I will review five of his films that he did during the 80’s. Now Cohen will probably never win an Academy Award and may never be mentioned in the same context as Spielberg, Kubrik, or Hitchcock, but the man has had one hell of a career nonetheless. He has been writing for either television or movies since the late 50’s and continues to churn out creative, innovative stories and scripts. Not all of them are completely successful and some of them do misfire, but his ability to survive in the difficult, competitive Hollywood landscape and make his movies on his terms with virtually no studio interference is an amazing achievement in itself and therefore deserves recognition.

larry cohen 3

This film like most of his others has a completely outlandish plot this time involving a giant lizard-like bird that is actually the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl brought back to life and nesting inside the top crown of the Crysler Building in downtown Manhattan. The bird lays a giant egg and feeds itself on unsuspecting people.  Jimmy Quinn (Michael Moriarty) is an out-of-work lounge singer who comes upon the bird’s nest accidently while running from the cops after a botched jewelry store robbery. He decides to use his knowledge of the whereabouts of the bird to his advantage and demands that the city pay him a million dollars before he leads them to it.

Despite the crazy plot the execution is rather conventional. There are long periods of seemingly unending dialogue that is not interesting and does not propel the movie along. The bird attacks are too brief and needed to be strung out more. The movie would have worked much better and had it had a consistent tongue-in-cheek approach and editing that was more kinetic and lucid-like.

Moriarty saves the film with entertaining, edgy performance. This is a man who is known for his erratic behavior off-screen, which pretty much killed his career. In 1971 while performing on stage in a play in Houston he suddenly broke from character and told the audience as well as his fellow cast members that he felt tired and didn’t want to continue and then promptly walked off stage and went home. He was also fired from his most famous role as Ben Stone in the hit series ‘Law and Order’ for similar types of odd incidents and yet that is exactly why he is so perfect here. He gives the thing a much needed boost of weird energy and I especially liked the part when he leads two of his partners in crime up to the bird’s nest and when the bird starts feeding on them he climbs down the ladder shouting:

“Eat them! Eat them! Crunch! Crunch! Eat them! Eat Them!”

I also enjoyed when he is sitting at the bargaining table with the city and police officials demanding a million dollars before he tells them the whereabouts of the bird and insisting that it all must be tax free because:

“I’ve never paid taxes before in my life and I don’t intend to start now.”

His character is lazy, conniving, cowardly, bombastic, self-centered, egotistical, talentless, and deluded and yet strangely endearing and I even felt a bit sorry for him at the end. Candy Clark as Joan his more grounded and conscientious girlfriend makes for a good contrast.

I wasn’t as crazy about David Carradine as the tough New York cop who deals with Jimmy during his investigation. Carradine seems too aloof and detached and this doesn’t help to create any tension. Richard Roundtree as his partner is much better and I would have had him the sole investigator and cut Carradine out completely.

The special effects are a little bit better than what I had initially feared for a low budget 80’s flick, but they are not real great either. The bird when shown flying through the air just doesn’t seem gigantic or frightening enough and ends up looking like a poor man’s Ray Harryhausen creation. The final shootout with the bird was clearly done on a matted screen and looks very tacky. I actually thought the baby bird that comes out of the egg was the only halfway scary and effective moment in the whole film.

What Cohen does get right is reflecting the ambience and culture of the New York neighborhoods and crowded street culture. The aerial footage of New York’s skyline is also spectacular.

My Rating: 5 out of 10

Released: October 29, 1982

Runtime: 1Hour 33Minutes

Rated R

Director: Larry Cohen

Studio: Larco Productions

Available: VHS, DVD, Blu-ray

Tilt (1979)

tilt 2

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 4 out of 10

4-Word Review: She’s a pinball wizard.

Brenda (Brooke Shields) who goes by the nickname Tilt is a 14-year-old pinball machine champion. When she becomes fed up with her overbearing father she decides to run away from home. She meets Neil (Ken Marshall) a man in his 20’s who is struggling to establish himself as a country music singer. He schemes to use Tilt’s pinball talents by hustling pinball patrons at bars and arcades around the country, but his real motivation is to have Tilt beat Harold Remmens (Charles Durning) who is nicknamed ‘The Whale’ due to his immense weight. The Whale is an arrogant bar owner who seems unbeatable at pinball and due to a few run-ins that he has had with Neil the two have become bitter enemies. Neil hopes to shatter his ego by having him get beat by an adolescent girl in a so-called pinball showdown, but Tilt has other ideas.

It is easy to see why this movie bombed at the box office and basically sat on the studio shelf for years. It seems to have no idea what audience to play too. There are too many adult references in it to make it suitable for teens especially preteens, but the story itself is so vapid that adults will be bored with it. The concept is offbeat enough that it might have worked as a comedy, or even parody, but director Rudy Durand approaches it as a standard drama, which due to the subject matter seems almost awkward. The 110 minute runtime is much too long for this kind of material and although it manages to move itself along it is never all that interesting with extraneous footage that should have been cut. Having faster cuts, juxtapositions, and even a non-linear narrative would have given it more energy and cinematic flair.

Having the action revolve solely around pinball games isn’t interesting. It is hard to follow the games and the constant footage of showing the inside of the arcade game as they are playing it becomes monotonous and fails to elicit any excitement. They is never any explanation as to what special skills Tilt or The Whale have that allows them to be so good, but it might have been a little more enlightening had one been forthcoming.

Shields is terrific and helps keep things afloat. She looks cute and wears pants with the words ‘pinball champ’ stenciled along her rear. Her ability and confidence at sharing scenes and holding her own with her much older adult counterparts is what makes her so special. One of the best scenes is when she hitches a ride with an ornery trucker (Geoffrey Lewis) who complains about the lack of morals in today’s world, but then turns around and tells her he has condoms in his shirt pocket and invites her to a rendezvous in the nearest hotel. Tilt says she will just as long as she can do it with both him and his wife, which gets her immediately booted out of the truck for being a ‘pervert’.

Marshall doesn’t have as much charisma as his younger female co-star and his Texas twang was a bit too strong for my taste. He travels the country and stays in the same hotel room with the girl knowing full well that she is only 14, but makes no sexual advances, which of course is good, but I kept wondering if this where the real world that he would most likely have tried something. I also found it strange that Tilt’s father (amusingly played by Gregory Walcott in a brief bit) wouldn’t have every police force in the country looking for her and once caught Neil would be thrown in jail even if he didn’t do anything because most likely no one would ever believe him.

Durning is excellent as always and gives the part a nice hammy turn and makes the movie, at least when he is in it, like the campy comedy that it should be. The little dance and moves that he makes while he plays the pinball games are amusing. His stomach bulges out even more than normal making it seem almost like he is pregnant. When Neil meets him after several weeks of not seeing him and states “You look like you have lost some weight” is the film’s one and only funny line.

The film’s final sequence in which Tilt and The Whale get together late at night in an empty bar and challenge each other to a pinball contest is the best scene in the whole movie. Their banter and interactions with each other gives the film a unique flavor. The surprise twist that occurs at the very end is cute and endearing and helps give this otherwise flat film more points than it deserves.

Also, look quick for Lorenzo Lamas and Fred Ward in small roles.

tilt

My Rating: 4 out of 10

Released: April 3, 1979

Runtime: 1Hour 50Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Rudy Durand

Studio: Warner Brothers

Available: VHS

The Idiots (1998)

the idiots 2

By Richard Winters 

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: This is so retarded.

The Idiots is another shocking, controversial, and highly original work from filmmaking maverick Lars Von Trier.  This one involves a group of disenchanted people in their 20’s and 30’s, who decided to rebel from society by acting like they are mentally retarded.

Although certainly not in the best of taste, there are some funny bits here. The comedy works well because amidst all of the outrageousness it is also very revealing about human nature. One of the best segments involves an affluent couple who wish to purchase a large, upscale home.  As they are touring the place they are informed that a group of ‘retards’ live next door. The couple put on the politically correct facade by saying that wouldn’t be a problem even though their facial expressions say otherwise.  When the group pretending to be retarded pays them a visit the couple quickly runs off.  Another funny part, which may actually be the most outlandish of the whole film, involves a group of tough, tattooed bikers who help in very graphic fashion one of the group members pretending to be mentally handicapped go to the bathroom. The group’s visit to a factory is also hilarious.

The majority of the film though is actually quite serious and yes, even thought provoking. Von Trier does a good job of analyzing things from different angles while supplying no easy answers. It was interesting how the group mocks society for all of their rules and customs and yet when one of their own members starts to act erratic they tie him to a bed and refuse to free him until he ‘settles down’, thus proving that even they themselves need certain rules of behavior in order to function even if they don’t want to admit it.  Some other strong dramatic scenes involve the father of one of the members who tries taking his daughter from the group and back home with him.  There is also a revealing segment involving one of the members who decides to ‘drop back into society’ and return to his job as a college professor despite the protests from the other members.  The group also comes into direct contact with people who are actually mentally handicapped and how each of them responds to this is fascinating.

The characters are nicely fleshed out.  All of them show distinct personalities and evolve in interesting ways as the film progresses. Karen (Bodil Jorgenson) acts as they catalyst.  She comes upon the group by chance and acts as a sort of ‘conscience’ for the film.  Initially she is shocked and confused by the group’s behavior, but because she is stuck in an unhappy relationship and grieving the recent death of her son, she decides to tag along. Eventually she starts to see the benefits of ‘spassing out’ which is the group’s term for ‘finding your inner idiot’.

I liked how the film challenges the concept of true rebellion and shows how complex the fabric of society really is. Everyone would like to ‘drop-out’ at certain times and there is even a need for it, but finding the right place can be complicated. I have often felt that the true nonconformist is either living on the streets, is in prison, or a mental institution and the film pretty much comes to this same conclusion, but without advocating ‘fitting-in’ with the establishment as the answer either.

My complaints for the film centers mainly on the over use of the hand-held camera, which tends to get distracting after a while and gives the film a needless amateurish feel. I know with Von Trier’s ‘Dogma 95′ manifesto the hand-held camera is a major factor, but I think he could back off a little with it. There is also a ‘gross-out’ segment at the end where the group member’s start to drool out their chewed up food, which I found completely disgusting especially the way the camera captures it in close-up. The pacing is pretty good, but it does drag a little at times and I felt the film went on about twenty-five minutes too long.

Obviously this is a film that will not appeal to everyone and in fact I would say that the majority of people may find it off-putting.  That doesn’t mean it is a bad film because I think it is a pretty good one and I liked it overall.  However, what makes it a good film is the fact that it works off of its own vision and makes no compromises in doing so.  For most viewers especially American audiences who are used to a ‘mass-appeal’ approach to film-making, this type of concept may not connect. 

the idiots 3

My Rating: 8 out of 10

Released: May 20, 1998

Runtime: 1Hour 57Minutes

Rated R

Director: Lars Von Trier

Studio: Zentropa Entertainments

Available: VHS, DVD

My Dinner with Andre (1981)

my dinner with andre

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 5 out of 10

4-Word Review: Talking can be interesting.

 
Rare is a film that can be categorized as being daring by what it doesn’t do than by what it does yet this is a film that fits that instance. This is a story about two old friends (Wallace Shawn, Andre Gregory) who meet at a fancy restaurant and have a long, pleasant conversation. That’s it. No big revelations, no cutaways, no side story, no fights, no jokes, and certainly no added cinematic effects. The men merely have the same type of conversation that two educated men on the same intellectual level might also have. Then after two hours they call it a night and go home.

Does this mean that this is a poor or boring movie? No, not really. Sometimes the best directing is just the guts to stick with a concept that is unusual. That is what Louis Malle does here and you have to give him credit. On its own simple terms it actually does succeed. One’s mind certainly does wander at times, but somehow you never lose complete interest. The simple framing and editing are actually effective.

The two stars are competent for what they are doing yet they do not seem to be the best of actors. At times they seem to be simply mouthing their lines and there is no nuance in their delivery. Gregory has a nice deep, resonate voice that almost seems like a radio announcers. He does most of the talking so at least he is pleasant to the ears. Shawn is the exact opposite. His voice is screechy and annoying. Yet he does supply an engaging voice-over narrative at the beginning, which is so fun you wished they had kept it going throughout.

The idea of following a real, genuine conversation is a good one. Sometimes it is interesting to observe all the threads a conversation between any group of people takes. However the conversation here isn’t real. It is clearly scripted out and that hurts it. The first hour is especially poor. It consists mainly of Gregory talking about some wild, fantastical experiences of his. It comes-of as forced and extended. Having some cutaways throughout his talking would have helped because a lot of what he talks about is very visual.

The second hour is better because Shawn gets more involved and they have a real discussion. The topics are more expansive and philosophical. They range from how one perceives reality to the very essence of our being. Of course anyone with some existential friends could have the same conversation, but at least it makes the film more stimulating.

In the end this is an interesting experiment that halfway succeeds. It would have helped had the two men, who seem to be playing themselves anyway, been allowed to have a more natural and impromptu discussion. Even adding a few more people into the mix wouldn’t have hurt. They could have also given it just a little bit more of a visual flair. Although watching the very good way that they listen to one another is a sight in itself. Their listening skills are so good that it almost seems unreal. It is unfortunate that everyone can’t have these same types of skills

My Rating: 5 out of 10

Released: October 11, 1981

Runtime: 1Hour 50Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Louis Malle

Studio: New Yorker Films

Available: VHS, DVD (The Criterion Collection), Amazon Instant Video