Change Your Image
danaandra12
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Out of the Blue (1980)
Thoroughly unpleasant film.
SOPHIE'S CHOICE, for example, isn't a fun film, by any means, so there are obviously grim films that are great movies, but when a film is simply about the lives of human garbage and how they affect those around them, it's truly an unpleasant experience to watch it. I'm a huge fan of Dennis Hopper, and Don Gordon, and Linda Manz was brilliant in DAYS OF HEAVEN, but OUT OF THE BLUE has none of what any of these actors brought to any other film they were ever in. Hopper plays a man who's in prison because he plowed into a school bus full of kids with a semi. For some reason, he's being release after five years. His junkie wife (Sharon Farrell) and dirtbag friend (Don Gordon) are among those welcoming him home. It doesn't take long for all of their lives to descend to even greater depths than before. Meanwhile, Linda Manz, playing Hopper's daughter, is a perennial runaway teen. She loves Elvis, and punk rock etc, but she's a damaged mess. How can she not be? Raymond Burr plays a psychologist she talks with after being arrested for stealing a car. Burr provides the only respite from the scumbaggery, as the only likable and decent human being in the film, but he's only in two scenes. The ending, which I won't spoil, is the only possible outcome to everything that happens. It's fairly well-directed, but a lot of things are really left unexplained. After so many great films that Hopper either acted in or directed, this one is a mystery. It really needn't exist.
Under the Skin (2013)
Please stop evoking the name of Kubrick
No spoilers here, because there's nothing to spoil. You go into this film with the foreknowledge that the main character is an alien. Without knowing that ahead of time, this film would be even more incomprehensible than it already is. Apparently the novel it's based on has all the details you keep waiting for as the film progresses. You keep waiting to find out who these people are, where they came from, and what they're doing, and you never find out any of these things. I don't need to be hit over the head or have my hand held, but I would appreciate a semblance of a story. That so many people are comparing this film to the work of Kubrick is another mystery. Stop it already. This film is like nothing Kubrick ever did. Others are making comparisons to David Lynch. Nope. Sorry. No Lynchian touches here either, unless you consider the character who's vaguely similar in appearance to the Elephant Man Lynchian. Some people are talking about how this film is so beautifully shot. I guess so. The shots of Glasgow are nice, but make the place look pretty grim. A few of the special effects shots are well done, but baffling. One can only make assumptions about what's happening. But truthfully, the cinematography isn't so groundbreaking or unique that it deserves special mention, and in the end, it's all for naught because the director decided to not bother telling us any of the story. Instead, he presents us with a disjointed and ultimately repetitive series of scenes that leave one asking, "What the hell was all that about?" One of the biggest disappointments I've had with a film in a very long time.