CULTEGUY Reviews

The Killing of America (1981)

To defend the movie

[8/10 · 12 April 2011]

Okay, I have watched a box set of 'Mondo' movies, pretty much every 'Faces Of Death' movies and 'Shocking Asia' movies. This film is not in the same genre, as it is an accurate view of events-- not set up, nor really exploitive in any other sense that the nightly new is exploitive (actually, these days, it's probably tame as an exploitation document.) The film was never released, outside of New York, in America. People in America saw it. Some of the garbage in the beginning and the middle may have been a little set up (I just don't know.) Also, the scene that was supposedly captured by a security cam with decent sound may have been reenacted. Most of the film is straight forward American news coverage.

We can see some of the footage shown here (and then some) on a documentary about a serial killer or crazed gun man or psycho every weekend on some documentary on MSNBC. But, I try to go on the mind frame of the release date. In that, it's powerful stuff, material that we sat through in the 70s on the boob tube. It's not fabricated, and some of it could benefit for students-- especially the Kennedy brothers coverage-- for students for reports.

Note my screen name, I'm a little jaded and wasn't offended cause I've see a lot worst. But, the critics and the people here shouldn't lump this in with 'Faces Of Death' because it is mostly full of real footage-- and the footage that may not be real is of no concern to us now. The footage that is important is historically important to our country.

It is true the film shows horrific acts of violence (nothing edited from news casts covering them though,) and offer no narrative. The film maker wasn't Michael Moore, and they weren't exactly Errol Morris either (but, in Morris's case, people don't hammer his 'reenactments' as exploitive.) I pretty much think the audience gets it with out an announce of what the film maker thinks.

This was the Uncut version of the movie, and like I've said, it's probably footage Americans have seen before, for the most part, Uncut. It's no more a 'snuff film' than seeing a bunch of Iraquis getting whacked out for holding cameras that I saw on the news the other day is.

The movie's dated, so I'll give it a 8. Yet, if I'd seen the movie when it came out I would have gave it a 3.5 because it's a real horror movie. Check it out if you can find it though.

The Last House on the Left (2009)

At least it differed from the original

[7/10 · 15 August 2009]

Well, face it Garret Dillahunt, while putting in a pretty stellar performance here, is no David Hess. But, I'll give the guy a break because we just can't have that kind of sleaze that we used to in the good old 1970s, as evident to all of the people who are disturbed (and complaining) about the rape scene (a pivotal scene that was SUPPOSED to be disturbing.) Those people complaining I'm guessing hadn't seen the original and realized that the sleaze factor had been toned down. Yes, there is a psychologically draining rape scene, but they cut back on the hour of endless sexual abuse in Craven's original (plus some of the less PC killings at the end.) Now, that said, this version is different from the original, which, to me, is good. I own the original, and if i want to see it I'll watch it again. Sadi was a little less sensitive to the girls-- which, good or bad, is at least different. Krug is more of a hillbilly in this than a street thug. And it increasing became better because the methods of taking revenge on these animals made the film.

I gave it a 7, exactly what I'd give the original-- which basically was nearly ruined by bumbling bad actors as cops and cheesy music (I wish Wes would edit some of that out.)

REC (2007)

Ohhh, yeah!

[9/10 · 5 October 2008]

Richard Christie on the Howard Stern Show gave this movie props, so I sought it out. (Props, without any English subtitles, which I have.) I say this movie contains spoilers, but all you have to do is look at the message board and realize it's a zombie movie. I didn't know it going in, but any avid horror movie fan could figure it out from the first 'horror' sequence. And, pretty much true to my other reviews, I won't give anything else away. (Excepting the review I did on another board on "Brokenback Mountain" where I give away the gay cowboys 'Do It,' I'm still sorry for the people who were mad at me for giving it away.) (REC,) I think, achieves something that we have tried in Amereca, and failed. It was tried with "The Blair Witch Project," and I hate a movie that uses 'home' looking cinematography as a tool. Not the creator (as is often misrepresented,) but the mastermind behind the zombie phenomenon, George Remero, tried it in his last 'Dead' movie. I admittedly want to see that movie again because I couldn't get into it, and after all George is the man. I din't see "Cloverfield" though, and I don't think I want to now.

What's Cult talking about? Is Culteguy drunk? Not since this mourning. But what someone was inspired to do was to make, basically, a "This is Spinal Tap," or Christopher Guest's more recent films, and make a serious horror movie. Awesome idea, being as most of the 70's drive in movies were ripped off from different cultures ("Friday The 13th 2 was considered a rip off of Italy's Mario Brava's "Bay Of Blood," that was a sequel!) We could finally find inspiration from our own culture.

We tried it in the aforementioned movies, and we got it wrong. Now we're stuck remaking (in the works now) a film from Mexico that was inspired by our own films. Sorry Hollywood, you can't get it right.

This bone-tingling, chill inducing flick wasn't even released here. It will prick at your mind long after you see it, and you will not even consider it a 'zombie' flick, just sheer claustrophobia. The actors aren't bad for the sake of 'homage,' and it's not some cheesy DV movie that I could make myself.

I gave it a 9 instead of a 10 only because it's been done in different ways before, and, I kind have knew what was coming after seeing as many horror movies as I have.

That last part being said, whereas I predicted what was going on right up to the end, I've never been generally as creeped out in the deliverance of the scenes or the end.

Also, in all the chaos, the film is aptly titled, and the end explains the necessity of the camera being there like few film have.

I highly recommend it.

PS: The lead who plays the reporter is yummy looking too.

Expired (2007)

Boy, better than I expected!

[8/10 · 21 September 2008]

I was afraid, and very afraid, about the film. Then, while watching it, I felt for the main characters. Each and every one of them.

I guess this is why they are called; SPOILERS; I rooted for the couple. They were good for each other. The misconception (that I even think Ebert mention,) is that S. Moron's character is abused, but she's too nice to know she's abused until the end. J. Pat.'s character is a low-class version of Nicholson in 'As Good as it Gets," but he can't get better without HER! There is only verbal violence, but not physical-- and you keep thinking, from critics and other posters here, that there be a "Star 80" type of ending.

When there isn't, you wonder to yourself, a bit, weren't these people helping each other? Isn't this Red and Kitty Foreman for our generation? To keep it family entertainment-- I've had a girlfriend actually do stuff to me whilst watching some crazy web stuff. The "X-Files" dude is not a sex- addict, and I can't buy this guy being one either. He's a jerk that could use a shrink, but seems to be getting over his anger through his relationship with this woman... And it doesn't work out.

Sam Morton's character seems to be too nice, and at the end she seems to get over it-- so her psychology is intact. How is this a full length feature about her abuse? She unscathed, whereas he is still unhealthy and mean, whereas he was on the road to health while with her (with her, and outside of being with her, but in public while being with her.) SPOILERS, No more! We're doomed! Used to be John Cassavetes or Martin Scorsese were considered 'indie films,' but it was because everything we saw back then was in the theaters, and we didn't want to see anything in the cinemas that wasn't a cold, hard hit. Films like this are being slammed for being 'Indie," and it seems certain actors being in the film are being submitted toward the films as a genre.

If it were slapstick, without the overt dramatic overtones, this film would not only not considered clichéd, it would be parodied by the next 'Something' Movie parody to parody a parody movie. No hit there, and no real way that it could be seen as a interesting film here. And, it's a shame, because film like this well set on the shelf while crap like that gets released and DVD (always unrated version)released within a month.

Don't promote this, promote them... Watch the American film industry go bankrupt like the rest of America, okay? 8.0

Paris, Texas (1984)

A beautiful film

[10/10 · 17 October 2003]

I'm not a film snob-- mostly a film buff (there's a difference.) I'm also a film student, and many other inspiring directors may thing that I should be flogged in the testicles with a bull pizzle for never seeing a Wim Winders' film. Now that I have, maybe they're right. The film was the embodiment of isolation. Character action (Travis getting into the back seat of the car, Travis not speaking, Travis getting rejected from his son when he wants to walk him home, etc,) as well as lighting. Notice when Travis's brother (an impeccable performance by Dean Stockwell) takes him to the 'Rancho Motel' near the beginning of the film. A dark green tint is used, showing how distant this all seems in the eyes of the protangonist. Once they're actually in the room, the walls are pale, white, bland-- like a mental hospital. But when Travis looks into the mirror we see a cool blue, and when his brother appears we see the same. The super-8 footage is the biggest heartbreaker. The child, distancing himself from his father, wakes up... No more than that, I hate spoilers. As I've mentioned, Stockwell was amazing, almost very cool. We know he loves his son, but he really cares about his brother no matter what. Because I'd never really known where he came from outside of "Blue Velvet," it was very interesting to see. Harry Dean Stanton I've always known, and has always been on my top 10 underrated actors of all time list (I'm not giving the whole list, sorry, but I will say the writer of this film, Sam Shepard, is also on it.) He never needed to speak, his facial expressions and body movements often did the speaking for him. His name was Travis (like "Taxi Driver," but don't let that throw you. It's a different isolation here folks.") Travis is apt because he was a travesty, he was messed up. He sinned and he wasn't even seeking forgiveness, rather, solace. (When his bother is upset with him about flying, he says "It's alright if you leave me.") Apart from that, this film needs a DVD release. No extras, fine, but the print that I saw was the VHS crapped out version... With cinematography like this, it deserves more.

Dawn of the Dead (1978)

This is one of the greats!

[10/10 · 19 April 2003]

I've finally decided to write a review of this one. But, first I would like to say, I'd loved to have seen this one in a drive in, with popcorn & beer, next to a honey... Miss those days. This movie should be seen by anyone serious about making films. I'm not a sci-fi fan, an f/x fan, apart of the zombie cult-- juat a film fan.

I first saw this in my teens, in a really ragged out beta format. I know some things differed from the version I recently saw (I think there were some zombie hooters in that one.) Here's a quick breakdown:

Acting: Alright for the type, actually quite good.

Cinematagraphy: Brilliant, more than you'd expect.

Gore: It's a damn Zombie movie!

Narrative: Trapping some members of a SWAT in a mall with a pregnant woman... Zombie's being there because it's something they remembered. The world gone mad outside the mall... Power shopping. Good stuff.

People, I would put this movie out myself-- totally uncut (150+ mins.) and issue it to film schools. Should be in a power pack with "Document of the Dead." Should be cheaper and easier to get than Amazon's 30-80 dollar price.

Movie's more likable than most of the genre, and may even be better classified as an action movie. You'd be more disappointed in NOTLD if you're not at all a fan of the sub-culture, so seek it out. Hell, your mom probably even saw it and liked it.

Rated X (2000 TV Movie)

You have to give this one to them

[22 March 2003]

It's been a while since I've seen this, so I'll keep it short. I saw the film, and read the book. I guess the idea of making the film came a little too close to the "Boogie Nights" success. Both brothers, however, show that they are good actors, even if Charlie's trying a little too much to be Hunter S. Thompson (unless the character was actually like that.) It's a good movie about the porn industry whereas "Boogie Nights" wasn't really about the porn industry, which was used mainly a subplot (or one of many... I loved that film, I just don't think these two movies should be compared-- this is a straight bio-pic.) The demise of the Mitchell brothers wasn't the demise of porno. But, it should be noted, the demise of film making (for real) in porno. They tried like hell to make real films, and probably could have (some might say, with the budget, should have.) So the characters made a fairly respectable film that came along a bit too late.

The Thing (1982)

Carpenter has officially blown me away

[10/10 · 17 March 2003]

I've known who John Carpenter is since I was a kid-- a very young kid. My parents let me watch "Halloween" and "Escape From New York," which was one of my late father's favorites, maybe too young for some, but with a crowd that made them 'just a movie.' Yet, when I tried to watch "The Thing" at a young age, I was so disturbed I couldn't bare it. It didn't have the hero of Snake, or the novelty of Michael. Not that it was overtly realistic, but it started a little too slow, and then the whole things with the dogs happened... We had too many dogs at the time for me not to be disturbed... I quit, and hung it up until yesterday.

Now, I'm in film school, last semester we had an assignment to match the lighting techniques in "Halloween," and since I've revisited many of my old Carpenter favorites (and realize I still know "Escape From New York" by heart, and it's been years since I've seen it.) But, given the IMDB high ratings every time I went to his name, I decided to check it out.

"The Thing" is bar-none one of the most brilliant films I've ever seen, and certainly the best John Carpenter movie out there. The F/X are one thing, a brilliant thing, but the film doesn't rely soley on them at all. The cinematographery and the narrative are the leads. (Take out "The Thing," and you still have a story. The sub-plot alone could be the story-- guys cracking up under stressful conditions in the wilderness.)

The film looks pitched in low key light under extremely high key weather conditions. The interior scenes look like they were done at the same location, although they weren't. That pitch helps with the clausterphobic atmosphere, but also the dark mood of the story even before it happens.

I won't go with any spoilers, I am against them. But, the film's narrative starts at a level of distant, unaware, and unsure charactors and ends in a dark level of distant, unaware, enlightenment. Nothing else matters to the lead. Kurt Russell in no way displays the heroics 'I don't give a damn' attitude he did as Snake. He's burned out and it doesn't matter any more. He's still the hero, and not an anti-hero, because in the end he did all he could do. His means, in the end, did not justify his end-- and he states that well before the film ends.

The gore was harsh, but is well worth it, and amazingly real in and unrealistic circumstance of the main plot. I'm not a Sci-Fi fan, I rarely get scared by a movie (and there are some moments that honestly scare the hell out of me, even when they are predictable. It's the old Hitchcock 'bomb under the desk' trick.)

Also, the DVD is highly recommended. The documentary is a little slow, but ends up very interesting, especially when talking about the F/X, done by one man who was about seven years younger than me at the time.

Lastly, I want to mention that like many brilliant achievements by previously known directors, the film has much the same feel as some of his previous works at first-- music, shots, and pacing especially. When you realize, however, that Carpenter didn't embark in the same direction as usual, realize that he didn't use tactics that had already worked before-- by himself or anyone else-- on probably the biggest budget he had had before that time. Instead, Carpenter went darker and more realistic than ever before. That's rare with independent directors of today.

Putney Swope (1969)

Next to "Dr. Strangelove" (which would make and excellent double feature,) my highest rating for a comedy

[10/10 · 8 January 2003]

If you get a chance to get a hold of this lost (for many years) gem, I doubt you will be disappointed. PS has an odd blend of social satire and ultra-cool blaxploitation-- even hints of slapstick, but it's so odd that it was not only ahead of it's time, nothing has been seen like it since.

I strongly disagree with people who say that the film is dated, especially with Spike Lee's "Bamboozaled" (SP?) a few years back which was a misfire of trying to capture the same message. (Good filmmaking, disjointed script.)

Robert Downy's direction is brilliant, allowing many of his actors to improvise, the film gets better as it goes along and the jokes swagger from hit or miss one-liners that are as forgiven as those found in a Mel Brooks comedy, to sheer non-PC 'I can't believe they just said that' fun.

Favorite parts, the commercials. The film switches from gritty black and white depictions of the ad agency to beautiful (perhaps 16mm) color and gets away with it.

I refuse to hint at any spoilers, but if you get the chance to see the DVD version be sure and watch the Downey interview (but leave it until after the movie.)

My vote 10/10-- most underrated film of the late 60's, early 70's. Thank you Prince.

Cocksucker Blues (1972)

Not necessary

[6/10 · 3 January 2003]

I like the Stones older music, not so much in love with the dudes that I would defend them though. This movie starts good, or fair enough. I didn't mind initial scenes of excess-- was to be expected from what I had already heard about the film...

Problem; heroin taking, groupy fondling, and much of the gabbing wasn't done by the Stones but by some dude, who knows who the hell he was, who was enjoying the excess. So I have to agree with Mick and the gang, this movie's exploitive in that it features them, and keeps cutting to some scumbag getting his kicks from the attention he got out of association. Not my bag.

The Stones are stoned, who cares. Best line, when Mick is messing with some 16MM cameras and looks up at the documentarian, in a very stoned out scene, saying 'Do you wear the same socks everyday?'

Worst is the scene that looks like something out of a Bucky Beaver 8MM porn stag film... Don't worry ma, I didn't see anything because obviously they hadn't invented razors back then...

Rent "Give Me Shelter" instead (if you haven't seen it on DVD.) Trust me, if you were missing out I'd tell you.

Joe D'Amato Totally Uncut (1999)

Interesting, but porn and gore are totally cut.

[7/10 · 24 October 2002]

This documentary is as unique as it's subject. And while D'Amato's staple was erotica, the film manages to show some decent clips of the films you may remember from old time, late night Cinemax... One problem... Joe did hardcore porno at times mixed with softcore erotica, even mixed in his gore films. The gore films are cult classics, going for like $20 a pop for a dubbed copy on the net (not peanuts for 20 year old films, folks.) I want to see why those are cult classics. Also, as sweet as Joe seems (he did seem more elegant than one might expect,) the dude liked to shock. Both "Caligula: The Untold Story" and "Emanuelle in America" show us hardcore rape, snuff, and beastiality (in both, you'd be suprised how far he goes in "Caligula II" with that one, if you can track down an uncut print.) Although these scenes may be disconforting in a documentary of a persons career, hey, he did it... Also, I would have liked to see more interviews of people Joe worked with... Maybe that's just me wanting to see what Laura Gemser looks like these days... I still think she's a goddess and one of the sexiest women ever to grace the genre.

Baise-moi (2000)

Forget Porn-- Junk is Junk

[22 August 2001]

Take "Thelma and Louise," more graphic violence, and a little Porno on a shoe-string budget and call it art. Try to do it in America and you'll be dubbed an 'exploiter.' Yet, if you come from France to America it's 'underground, avant-garde, cult, etc...' However, the film is what it is-- unoriginal and not very good (with exception of a few well crafted scenes.) The acting is as good as it gets, but that can't be commended do to the shabby screenplay and overall overtly don't-we-have-balls, pseudo- arty tone thrown at the audience. If you want a film with guts and erotica, check out "In the Realm of the Senses" instead. If you want to see a homage to exploitation that would've made the likes of Jess Franco and Joe D'amato proud, be my guest. (And prepare to, perhaps, get bored-- cause it's all been done before.)