Superwonderscope

I quite don't get the negative reviews. Sure, it's an ultra-low budget movie, as too many of independent LGBT movies are. It's clunky at some point, some actors are horrendous, way too long for its storyline. Some parts have nothing to do with the main plot line (as for the couple with Luzandra). It's one subplot too many. But... it offers people you can relate to, not your average gay-themed movie with unthinkable twinks and gym queens running all over the place. It's about real people. It covers perhaps way too much ground for its own good (HIV, lesbian clichés, coming out, etc.). Predictable at some point and a bit preachy but it's sincere and earnest. And for that, it was quite nice to watch an indie movie not sacrificing itself for the LGBT market.

This is absolutely preposterous.

Iused to like M. DeCoteau's a lot : back in the 80's, his TV movies (SKELETONS was a good one), LEATHER JACKET LOVE STORY was a good departure. And his formula-movies with guys in boxer shorts, well, some of them were interesting. The first BROTHERHOOD, the 4th installment was more ambitious, but I think i prefer THE FRIGHTENING best. That was... a decade ago, almost.

But here, there is nothing left. A bunch of half-naked dudes wandering in the woods. The thinnest plot possible, an extremely (+ long & stupid) first scene. And the guys just do.. nothing. First of all, they just can't act, so... You have to wait for the last 10 minutes to get the point of this story.

It is BORING. Just plain boring. It not even badly shot, but a giant bore. The fake blood on the screen is hilariously bad. No scares, no excitement. BROTHERHOOD V : ALUMNI was the pit. The 6th part has first of all nothing to do at all with the whole Brotherhood concept. It just exists to put guys in briefs on a screen. At some point, the director has to ask himself why on earth always shooting over and over and over and over the same scenes year after year after year? Ican think of the money thing (the director's gotta eat), but where is the creativity, the fun? Nowhere in sight anymore.

Conclusion : I'm actually a pi**ed-one DDC fan.

A group of Italian students in Turin decide to shoot a documentary regarding a case of demonic possession. Of course, things go awry as the shooting begins.

Recent Italian horror outings were navigating between the mediocre and the awful . But I must admit that LONTANO DALLA LUCE (or DEMON'S TWILIGHT as advertised at the Cannes Film Market this year) is beyond everything. One of the worst attempt at revigorating a genre in a country where Dario Argento remains the last director in activity (and what activity if you have watched the horrible LA TERZA MADRE); Poor storyline, hilarious acting, lame dialogues, amateurish camera-work makes this movie unwatchable. Watching this garbage was a painful experience on a big screen, and almost every viewer -except three of us- left the theater after 20 minutes.

No gore, one ridiculous sex scene, shot in DV... and a subject that has been shot a hundred times. No originality and worse, it contains nothing recommendable for an allegedly 'horror movie' advertised as "the return of Italian Gothic style à la Mario Bava". There's nothing worse than a promise of horror without any horrific moments.

This movie is not even sure to hit the direct to video market.It's not scary at all. It contains no surprises... it's just painful and extremely boring. Like a movie shot by cinema students that went for all the stuff that should be avoided in order to shoot a good scary movie.

I just don't understand how the team behind LONTANO DALLA LUCE managed to raise some money to shoot this junk - and how some producers actually think they will make money out of it.

Absolutely atrocious.

Not since LEGION OF THE DEAD or HOUSE OF THE DEAD has the Teutonic gore-fest sank so low. High expectations, low results. The gore is indeed fun and very graphic. The rest is absolutely appalling. Awful actors who can't play properly. And ohmygod the talking and talking and talking ... where does it end, really? Why this interminable talking? Why this torture to the poor viewer?

102 minutes reduced to 15 or so gory effects, one bus accident and a screenplay lost in the wilderness.

Austrian mountains, where the movie has been shot, are very beautiful indeed.

So, just forget the movie. Pack your bags and go ski in Austria. Better investment, than buying or renting this turkey. Really.

... from the 90 mn of the Psychotronic Man, you easily have 30 mn of driving through the countryside with annoying bad country music.

That leaves, say, 60 mn of pure movie. Pure indeed.

This is not a movie. This is not an essay about a movie. This does not bear any resemblance with art or cheesy fun or anything connected with the movie business.

There are some movies which are so bad you can find them amusing, fun, easy to follow because of their badness... well, fascinating stuff. The only fascinating thing here is the will of the director to show us how good the psychotronic man is at driving a car. He is, definitely. He's the best to lead you on the way to total boredom.

This is probably one of the only movie in all movie history where a blank screen can be a better spectacle.

IL DOLCE CORPO DI DEBORAH bears a strange resemblance with Umberto Lenzi's COSI DOLCE...COSI PERVERSA. Same lead actress (Carroll Baker), same plot, same twist ending. Made the same year...who is the copycat? Not important after all, the Lenzi's flick being far more superior in suspense & quality.

For about an hour or so, we follow newlywed Carroll Baker and husband Jean Sorel thru the Swiss Alps, Geneva, the swiss countryside... guess the Swiss authorities paid a lot to make their country have a sufficient screening time to get noticed. No plot at all, just beautiful shots of the mountains & the city. Then some hot sex scenes between Baker & Sorel. Then back to some über-chic club. Then some more hot sex. And, oh, there's Luigi Pistilli accusing Sorel of driving his ex Susan to suicide. That's the beginning of the plot. then they're getting scared by strange phone calls. Oh, er!

La Baker is viewed under any possible shot (no frontal nudity, though :these are the 60's), she can scream all right. But she really doesn't know what she's doing. Obviously, the screenplay either, as it doesn't know how to handle such screen presence. The editing doesn't help, as it jumps from flashy 60's shots of a nightclub atmsophere (flashy camera angles, too) to loooong face to face dialogues between the two leads. No rythm is given, which leads to some boredom after the first half hour.

The last 30 minutes are a bit more satisfying, as the suspense grows thicker, the rythm accelerates and the story really begins. Too bad it comes too late.

Romolo Guerrieri is not a great director here. He's just a man following Luciano Martino and Mino Loy's orders : show more Carroll Baker and to the hell with the story (who cares anyway). No special talent, no great use of the anamorphic screen (Cromoscope here). No specific direction of actors. Just plain average.

But it's not bad (in a Mattei way), it's always fun if you're into some 60's/70's sexploitation mood. (S)Exploitative indeed : the black stripper as an arty-sex show is ridiculously long and may seem infuriatingly mysoginistic today. Mizar's strip in Giuliano Carmineo's PERCHE QUELLE STARNE GOCCE SUL CORPO DI JENNIFER? avoids this trap by eing a victory over machismo. This is pure pre-giallo routine.

But you can't help looking at screen wondering how come someone like Carroll Baker made this in 1968 after HOW THE WEST WAS WON, CHEYENN AUTUMN or HARLOW.

Better stick to the Lenzi territory for some sexy-giallo stuff. COSI DOLCE...COSI PERVERSA is a really better choice.

Superwonderscope says : 5

High Expectations-Lower than low results. Just another cute-family-movie that makes me wanna yell 'LAST REEL, PLEAAAAAAAASE' every couple of minutes.

I just don't get how people like Whoopi and Loretta could read, enjoy and accept such a script suffering of terminal cuteness. What is it all about? That african american women are born to suffer, bring babies to the world, clean up the mess their husband is doing and go to church and pray god, sing gospel (of course, every african american woman sings gospel). That african american men are born to be pathetic losers waiting for wellfare, prison or being unfaithful to their wives, being alcoholic,etc,etc... wait... is this being human? nah. The script doesn't know where to go so it makes every character having something bad to confess or to suffer from. Something's got to happen to them in order to keep the audience awake. Which I hardly did here.

So Loretta knows how to scream. So Whoopi can be pouty. LL Cool just looks at everyone, his face screaming "look, I can act like an alcoholic" but it still doesn't work. Toni Braxton is, well, Toni Braxton. And Jada is, hum,well, like what she's been doing these past few years...her best part being Scream 2, I guess. These characters are just one-dimensonial and caricatures of what human beings really are. And this happy end where everyone forgives everyone and all is good in the end, right? Yuck. I remember a time where a director such as Charles Burnett was really directing and having a point of view.

There is nothing wrong doing a family movie but a movie that looks like a tv movie should stay where it belongs : on tv. No swearing (that's BAD), no sex (that's WORSE), God is good, family is good, going to church is good, not going is bad : the character that dies wasn't going and keeping poor Whoopi out of it! No wonder he's considered so mean by almost everyone! That is, I guess, the whole point of the movie.

Being a believer -which I'm not- is probably a great thing. To give a moralizing point of view is sickening. To achieve such a low quality in movie making is beyond redemption. Go rent KILLER OF SHEEP or JESUS OF MONTREAL.

This movie is a just another turkey stuffed with so many clichés that the hoven is about to explode before Thanksgiving.

Superwonderscope says 1

I was quite puzzled after seeing Rosanna Arquette's first directorial effort. Highly difficult exercise in documentary, she's trying to explain the choices and the feelings of 30-something to 45-ish actresses in H'wood. Choices of being at the same time mother, actresses, raising kids, leading artists and...why some just quit.

From Her introduction on THE RED SHOES to the final words of Jane Fonda, I could sense and feel what she was trying to do and express but...I couldn't see the point.

Some actresses here made some very interesting comments (Martha Plimpton is both hilarious and utterly clever). Some anecdotes are sometimes insulting for them (Adrienne Shelly's experience and Melanie Griffith's)others funny or even rewarding for the audience (Theresa Russell, for that matter). There's always something to learn from these artists. You can hate them for being soooooo serious (Sharon Stone, i really do love you but... don't take yourself so seriously, please!) or love them for being so lucid on their job (especially Alfre Woodard and Anjelica Huston). The most rewarding is (indeed) Debra Winger saying that she didn't say no to her acting career, but she said yes to some other stuff that she left apart doing her job.

But after all these comments and laughters and angers expressed...what's the meaning of all this? All I could feel is empathy for some time but I was also annoyed as the camera was always revolving around Rosanna Arquette. Not because she was the interviewer but...the her point of view was too self-centered. And it has no conclusion. As if we saw a rough cut of the documentary (or "experience" as the credits pretentiously say), waiting for some guiding line or some editing.

As a photography of what's going on in the head of actresses between 30 and 50 y.o in this new millenium : excellent cast, fascinating comments :all good. As for the rest SEARCHING FOR DEBRA WINGER proves that it's not with some good intentions that you make a good movie. It still needs something deeper. And a better light, please! Emmanuelle Beart has never been uglier on a screen. Rosanna needs a real camera operator (even if she was the B team C.O) and a decent D.P.

Superwonderscope says : 6

Semana Santa is jaw-droppingly bad. It's so wrong in so many ways I don't where to begin. So, let's see...Mira Sorvino, whose judge husband has been shot while protecting her, goes from Madrid to Seville for her cop job. During the holy week (Semana santa, see?...everybody begins to fall sleep..told u it was bad in so many points, even from the beginning), a killer executes his victims like bulls in a bullfighting arena. She teams up with male chauvinist pig Olivier Martinez and nice Feodor Atkine. Soon she discovers she'll be the next target of the killer (who wears a red robe). Why, oh but why?

Why..;that's the questionthat has been in my head the whole movie.

Q :Why did go to see that A : Because i love Mira Sorvino (i even excuse her for that AT FIRST SIGHT crap)

Q : Why were we only 8 people in the theater this saturday on the first week end of release? A : ah-ah-ah. Spider-man got relaesed the same day. But also the fact that the movie has been blast with execrable reviews.

Q : Why this movie has been made? A : Money I guess. But boy did Mira need the money.

then...why???????????? first of all, there's always something wrong with european co-productions. here you got a french-english-german-italian-spanish-danish production. yi-ha.

Then it wants to play on the same playgroung as US thrillers/slashers/whodunit/mysteries/whatever. Even VALENTINE, though unnecessary and badly scripted and shot, was much better in the suspense and the fun.

Then , to give some credit to the story, the screenwriter wanted to add some political sight to the story. Wrong : done in flash-backs in a Traffic-like photography, it's certainly the most interesting thing i n the movie. Could have stick to it, it wouldn't have to sit through the whole movie. Better go straight to Guillermo del Tros's THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE (El espinazo del diablo)for some clever fun.

Then the homophobia. Bullseye! The first victims are S&M drug addicted gay twins who got stabbed to death. The annoying olivier Martinez goes to a dating agency held by a badly shaved overweight transvestive with a blond platinum wig. Calls mira Sorvino's character a big dyke all the time. Do we need this kind of stuff? Nah. Just needless offensive remarks, just like ol'times.

Then the suspense. Yipee. No apparent motive. The first murders are plain illusion as they're a representation of a famous painting. But no. And the revelation of the killer (a horrible fascist, of course) could have been done from the beginning as he appears at the end of the movie as, I guess, it was time for the director to say "weel, time to finish that damn movie. let's reveal right now who the killer is and why he kills".

Then the director thinks he's a director. Wrong : no sense of suspense, no sense of directing the actors, no knowledge of change of pace. A Giant, mega-bore. The scenes of the holy week are needless (maybe a co-production rule saying : ok, shoot in Sevilla but show some creditsof this beautiful and historical town with the celebrations of Easter. There we are : a mystery movie for tourists!)

Then the actors. All wrongs. Mira Sorvino bores herself to death : she does practicly nothing except getting stabbed in the right hand. Everything she did best (the Replacement Killers, Mighty Aphrodite...) were like they never existed. Olivier Martinez...hello, anybody here? When the producers will learn that he's not an actor but a mannequin with no ability of speech nor feelings? Feodor Atkine, bland and transparent. Only do we pay great respect to Alida Valli, one of the greatest actress this last century (and I hope for some more roles in this current one). She's tha main attraction here as she's the only one to give life to her poor lines. I won't mention the other actors as they're only one-sided characters, uninteresting and shallow.

Incoherent direction, inconsistent actors, implausible plot. Idiocy incarnated.

Superwonderscope says : 1

Very rare but highly improbable giallo, that's about it. This movie is part of the late entries into the giallo genre and obviously hasn't much to say.

A lady in black (close shot on the black hose she wears)kills several young ladies (wearing undies, as usual) with no apparent motive (oh, really?). Except that the ladies are all related to a picture on which they appear altogether. The detective( John Richardson)penetrates the world of a very rich family where everything seems to be, well...mysterious.

Oh well, very usual indeed. Vice always finds home in the italian haute-bourgeoisie, loads of lesbian scenes & female nudity, and murders scenes piling up in a very tired way (all razors except one strangulation). The resolution is completely absurd (and the explanation of the sole survivor is utterly funny as she doesn't seem to be convinced of what she says).

The director has no sense of rythmn (essential in that genre) and lacks of strength when it comes to direct. The actors are like robots doing their thing over and over, lead by british actor John Richardson (and genre veteran)who was on the decline of his career.

The suspense does work anyway and for those who know the Giallo tricks, it's nevertheless obvious who's doing what. The director although tries to give a different tone (a comic one) with John Rochardson's sidekick, as if he wasn't interested in the suspense : that's why maybe the murders scenes are so mechanical and uninteresting.

For genre lovers only, IL VIZIO HA LE CALZE NERE has very few appeal on all levels even though the version I've seen is a 71 mn running time and appears to be heavily cut.

has been shot in Techniscope 2.35:1. Watch out for the horrible pan and scan version

Superwonderscope says : 4

I've always been a great fan of any Mocky's work. These last years have been increasingly difficult as he's unable to get any decent budget. This one is nearby a zerobudget...but you still get the flavour of his earliest works.

5 candidates for the french presidency are killed one by one by members of a secret society lead by "L'araignée" (The Spider). Everyone has got a spider tattoo on his wrist and are all driven by money...except the leader who oviously has another plan in mind. Mocky played a detective on the tracks of what may be a policital-mafia-financial-whatever plot to take over power in France.

Usual subjects...some funny moments (two of the candidates end up lovers) but it's more or less same stuff as before. Everyone is rotten and corrupted (police, jounalists, candidates...) and few are escaping MOcky's bullets. It's technically lousy, most of the actors can't seem to act properly, the dialogues are lame , the plot has more holes than ten thousands golf playgrounds altogether. No doubt : this is 100% Mocky.

But...that's his style , whatever anyone may say. And if agree to forget all the flaws (technical or narrative), it's still funny and devious. He's probably the only french director alive able to fight the political correctness that is paralyzing the french society.

The parallel with the political campaign in 2002 for the french President is obvious and even if the targets are easy, it's always refreshing to know that someone still cares to push the right buttons.

Superwonderscope says : 5

Filmed in glorious Schlock-O-Rama, it's inept from B to Z. Hilariously inept, shall I say.

I must admit it's my first Santo experience (beside the other hilarious but decently done LAS LUCHADORAS CONTRO LA MOMIA) and, boy, i don't think I'll go further. This fiendish plot of paying ransoms for each barrel of petrol produced to a secret organization who wants to rule the world with robots (?????) is WAY beyond any fiendish plot ever made. The songs are crappy, looong and the lipsync bad enough to make you laugh and forget about the watch.The catch fights are very looooong (the first one last for more than 7 mn) and obviously some stock shots from previous santo movies have been used.

More holes in the plot than any swiss cheese (who cares about the pllot in a Santo movie anyway?), near-zero budget -the switchboard the girl uses at the beginning is same used but three different girls in three different places in the movie), bad acting, bad hairdos, El Cheapo!costumes, El Sleazo! big-breasted heroines, bad FX...depending on the mood you're in, it's either boring and annoying or cheesy fun. As for me, I began with choice n°2 but quickly the n°1 took over.

Superwonderscope says : 2

PS : the mexican copy has another title : Santo en el Oro Negro

This movie suffers from terminal cuteness.. Even treating such a horrible subject, Gérard Jugnot does what he's been doing for over 20 years : playing and directing average french citizens facing not so ordinary situations(of unemployment in Une epoque formidable, of the sects in Fallait Pas, of being a father of a famous actress in Meilleur espoir Féminin...etc.,etc.). Treating in a comic way a serious subject.

This flick is plain silly...a long road to clichéness with an ability to open doors that have already been opened 50 years ago. The germans are bad, sex-crazed people.Deportation is horrible. Every french citizen was pro-german during the war and pro-De Gaulle in 1945. Daaah? The best part is when he's taking the 3 jewish children nearby the swiss border. The french people living there are supposed to have a strong accent (as the kids). But all the adults don't. It is simply both stupid and hilarious (but unintentionally, of course).

Because it wants to tell us about a tragic event and deliver a message of hope we're supposed to love the movie? Nah. It just falls flat on every level : ludicrous dialogues, comedy, drama, war, suspense (ooooohhhh, are the poor children going the get caught by the nasty nazi??? Nah.)...everything is over-demonstrative and SO predictable. This tearjerker is a huge success in France where most of the official critics just love that sense of cuteness. It is beyond redemption, really. This movie deserves a slap in the face to wake it up a bit...but no...terminal cuteness indeed.

And not even an accurate use of the Scope A.R to higher the note a bit. Pfff.

Superwonderscope says : 1

Long, long, very long and boring pseudo-horror spanish movie hits the bottom of the barrel. A zombie is created for the vengeance of Silvia Solar against the men who drove her husband to suicide. This zombie takes his time to climb up the stairs to his female naked victim then suddendly rushes onto her and strangles her off-screen. Pathetic. Even of a euro-sleaze product, it's not titillating enough to be fun to watch, not enough horror moment to sustain attention. All you get is...nothing happens on the screen. Huh...not really : watch out for the mannequins in their wild 70's clothes, dancing for a fashion show in the caves of the gothic catsle where it all happens. It lasts 5 looong minutes but it's a blast.

But afterwards...Yes, it is boring as hell and as boring as any most of Eurociné's horror flicks filled with hideous women taking their clothes off all the time coz' there's nothing else to do and coz' the screenplay has been lost somewhere in the rest rooms.

Printed on toilet paper, played by idiots, written by stupid : it is pure 70's nonsense with not enough wild moments to keep it interesting til the very end. Better watch LA TERRIFICANTE NOTTE DEL DEMONIO to get some real and devious fun.

Superwonderscope says : 2

In competition at the Brussels Fantasy Film festival 2002.

Here's another teen slasher coming down the screen. Curiously, it is not an inept one. No flashy camera angles, no genre parody nor blink-and-you'll-miss-it effect. Just a good old scary story of teenagers getting killed by a strange and very strong killer. A nerdy guy gets by mail a totem that guarantees him 3 wishes. he doesn't believe in it at all but decides to get one for a try. He wishes to go to the prom with the local beauty queen...and succeeds. For a second one, he wishes her to fall madly in love with him...and she does. But the bodycount starts getting bigger all around the campus and seems closely related to the (fake?) totem.

Having a nerd playing the hero is a pretty good idea (and the film does have very good ideas for itself as the killer really knows how to scare and kill its victims). All the actors (including sexy Huntley Ritter (Voodoo Academy, Bring it On)) are doing a good job though no awards will ever be given them to. Meat Loaf is just another cop with a very few scenes. Fun to see him in here but his acting skills are...hum...well, y'know.

Richard Wenk knows how to scare people from time to time and the storyline, though not revolutionnary, follows a very well known path. The suspense is also well handled as the final twist is unpredictable but really preposterous! Murders scenes are ingenious and originals which in this genre is quite a tour de force.

In conclusion, a very forgettable movie but competent and fun to watch.

Superwonderscope says 6

Groundbreaking horror movie aimed at teen-age girls but definitely taken over by gays for its incredible homo-erotic scenes. The DVD is indeed highly recommended, especially for its original running time (are included the infamous scenes hat Charles Band did not wanted first because of its gay context) but also for the comments of David DeCoteau.

It's near zero budget with cheesy FX and sometimes ridiculous make up FX (poor Debra Meyer!). It's sometimes VERY badly acted. The camera does what it can do for a 16mm shoot (the FX are in 35mm). It's a grainy copy. It has no blood. It has half naked men caressing themselves in the middle of the night (among other things). It has a devious priest throwing a poisonous wine onto the bodies of the young guys tied up in a chapel. It has Ben Indra doing things with his crucifix. It has voodoo dolls with human heads.It has a lot of over-the-top action and basically a storyline but no screenplay. In other words : WAOW.

VOODOO ACADEMY sets all the basics of a new sub-genre that gave David DeCoteau, a real master of the B-Z grade movies, a unique point of view as a film maker.(just watch THE BROTHERHOOD 1 & 2, FINAL STAB and THE FRIGHTENING...you'll what i'm talking about)

And, oh, yeah, it is pure fun. So forget everything you know about moviemaking. Be open-minded. It's no Citizen Kane. But it's no Joel Schumacher either (thank god)...just a natural mix of John Waters and Roger Corman.

Superwonderscope says 8

Some american friends told me once that what makes a french movie is : a train scene, a love scene, some T&A in an arty way, a sex scene, a quarrel scene and some candid stuff about Paris bein' THE most romantic place on earth.

No doubt, MA FEMME EST UNE ACTRICE is a french movie. You got it all here. Does that make a good movie? No.

The director, Yvan Attal, is also the lead here. He's married in real life with Charlotte Gainsbourg who is also...his wife in this movie. As he's also the screenwriter, he decided to keep their first names to tell the story of a sports reporter married to a beautiful & successful actress. What seems to be a good idea in the beginning ends up in a dead end. You just stick with his idea all along and nothing else happens. He's just jealous of what may happen off set with some other actor ( the great Terence Stamp, the only one being professional around here). And...that's about it.

Yvan Attal is over-acting (and this is beyond cliché) the jerky jewish jealous husband. His sister (director-turns-actress Noemie Lvovsky) is doing the same job as the pregnant wife (married to a catholic) who hysterically wants her soon-to-be-born son to be circumsized. Only their parents seem to be well balanced.

It looks like a french imitation of Woody Allen's works (a la Radio Days)or, for the worst, Neil Simon's, but with no talent shown, no rhythm, except for Charlotte Gainsbourg luminous interpretation : she's the real asset here. If you add a few homophobic lines, some more clichés about Arabs who are unable to talk except with their fists, blondes who look like Vampire Vixens from Venus with no brains at all...you'll get a boring movie about an actor speaking about what is life being married to a gorgeous actress.

It may have been an interesting premise : actors speaking about their life...as actors... it's just another french flick, pompous and pretentious filled with clichés. It brings nothing new to what you may think about the actors world : you may adore them but they're just like everybody else. Thrilling, huh?

I'll make up a new genre especially for that movie : the Uncomedy.

Superwonderscope says : 2

Pathetic french wannabe-comedy where three friends decide to help a fourth one (Catherine Jacob) who just lost her lover(Yvan le Bolloc'h) who apparently went away with a skinny woman (Aleesandra Martines). They'll use any trick (huge diet, blasting the woman's home, dirty phone calls , ruining her job) to make the lover come back at home. Needless to say, that will have terrible effects on the heroïne's life.

What may be a good idea for a screenplay is just another Gaumont-bourgeois-comedy made by and for 40-something women. Florence Quentin, director-writer, used to be Etienne Chatilliez(Tatie Danielle, Le Bonheur est dans le pré) screenwriter. She should go back to only writing for others. She has no ability of directing anything but a TV movie for sunday evening. Catherine Jacob can be REALLY funny when a real director is behind the camera : consider Bertrand Blier's Merci la Vie, Patrice Leconte's Les Grands Ducs or Pascal Thomas' Les Maris les Femmes Les Amants and you'll see a real actress at work. Here, she just does her fat woman deciding to go slim again routine and it's exhausting. Check nout the body double half her size for her bare scenes : it's a blast!!!! Same for Michel Laroque & Garance Clavel, back to the funny looks & faces that made them famous here in France.

No originality, ugly photography, badly scripted and directed...it looks like a one-joke short extended to an hour and a half "movie". Just to say that most of the men are pigs and women -if they stick together- can be the worst creatures on earth to avenge their honor by destrpying lifes. Nothing new, really and all but cliché-ridden, gross caricatures of human beings. The punchlines fall into oblivion, the timing is always in a hit-and-miss situation...Except a line or two, you won't get many laughs.

The tagline for J'ai faim!!! (translation: I'm Hungry!!!)is "a diet comedy". Indeed : you get a screenplay on the diet, 0% sense of comedy -timing and a laugh-free product.

Superwonderscope says : 2

Worst thing ever committed on celluloïd, this piece of trash has been committed by shlockmeister extraordinaire Max Pecas. This was a summer vacation and someone said "hey, why don't we make a movie out of it"? So...as everyone was already in vacation, some stupid camera operator took a camera and wam-bam-thank-you-ma'm : you got your movie.

This thing I hardly call a film has nothing in it : no screenplay, no actors (even beautiful Brigitte Lahaie did it for free and only for the friendship she got with Max Pecas), no professionnal acting...plain nothing, really. A white screen would have been better.

It's sexist, boring, homophobic in the worst way...conservative in its way of depicting relationshsips (extra-marital affairs are BAD, sex outside marriage is BAD, marriage is GOOD, etc.). The movie is repellent, disgusting...I was thinking : go away, disappear, desintegrate!!!!!!!!! But no, the movie was still in front of me and as I don't leave a theater until the very end of a flick, I had to endure this torture til the very end .A real piece of cinematographic garbage...it has to be seen to be believed.

It's the only time I've ever been ashamed going to a theater, pay for a movie and trying to go out of it without being recognized. Even the last Max Pecas flicks about St tropez (Deux enfoirés à St Tropez, for example) were bad but fun in a certain way. This one is painful to watch and seem to be made by a bunch of amateurs. Avoid avoid avoid avoid avoid avoid avoid avoid.

Last Gasp of the Giallo genre by the end of the 70's, "Ursula's sister" will be on top of the list of european trash & sleaze fans. But boy this one was tragically bad & boring.

It's an utterly lacklustre attempt to mix sex & violence. From an uninteresting story (two sisters going on vacation by the sea are fighting over their father & mother relationship while a maniac kills young girls with a huge dildo (!!!!) right after they made love), Enzo Milioni's effort has a reminiscence of Jess Franco's early 70's works (The Bare Breasted Countess or Lady dracula) but with no talent shown. I rarely use my fast forward option on my remote but here I found a pure gem. Neverending dialogues by the sea, uneffective editing killing most of the suspense, cars chases at 50m/h that last at least 4 minutes (even with the beautiful sights of the Amalfi coast)are really too much for me.

Bad acting, bad dubbing... only Barbara Magnolfi seems out of this world, her eyes lost as if she didn't actually realize what she was doing. Even handsome Marc Porel at his worst is in this huge pile of crap.

Except the hotel location and the deep blue sea, it seems obvious that the budget was low, so were the expectations of the producers, I guess. But the TV-like cinematography doesn't help at all.

The only different thing are the sex scenes : they're all on the verge of an hardcore movie. Which is strange for an italian thriller of 1978. But besides the excitement for male straight viewers, it doesn't bring anything to this flick. It's not even titillating as the actresses & actors don't seem to believe in what they do. It's pure Sexploitation and totally useless...and not even fun!

On the top of all this nonsense, the score is simply atrocious. Horrible 70's italian muzak : mix of bad funk and Morriconesque women vocalizing surrounded. The murders scenes (no gore at all, by the way -not enough budget) are mixed with a tremendously funny violin that tones down all the thrill you might get. Oh, and there's the song sung by Yvonne Harlow (what a pseudo!) with the worst lipsync in all movie history. Gotta be seen to be believed.

Sexist stuff & simply trash...Just plain boring & insulting for the viewer.

Superwonderscope says 2

Sergio Martino's effort "Your Vice is a closeted room and only I don't have the key" is a crossover between the giallo genre, horror and sexy atmosphere as they were many during the 70's in Italy. It's (very)freely adapted from Edgar Allan Poe's The Black Cat while keeping a giallo narrative structure for an hour and so...then move back to the Poe territory. Il tuo Vizio... has quite daring visuals for one hour, Martino's usual trademark in his early 70's works : wild camera angles, edgy editing. Then it suddendly cools down as the story sticks around with the Black Cat thing.

The screenplay developped a maniac on the loose killing young girls (again) in a very nasty way (gore galore!) while Anita Strindberg fights with drunken & debauched husband Luigi Pistilli. he's a no good writer who writes all night...only one sentence over and over. Then comes sexy Edwige Fenech who stands for Strinberg's cause...before sleeping with her husband and the delivery man. Lesbian scenes, straight scenes, stuntss,sex scenes, murders scenes, sex again then murders...this is a very well known territory that brings up finally some good surprises in the end.

This is definitely Anita Strindberg's best work to date. She is absolutely fantastic as the cheated wife who goes over the edge, showing every human emotion with a professionalism rarely seen on the screen. Too bad her career went dry after 1975, she was a real winner here with great acting capabilities. Miss Fenech got a THEOREM-like character but still very eager to drop every clothes she got. She gets a very bitchy part here which is very unsual in her career as she went along either with victims characters or sexy ones. Oh, and there's still weird Ivan Rassimov as the mysterious stranger (as usual) snooping around Strindberg's house : he was already in Martino's previous TUTTI I COLORI DEL BUIO.

Apart from the screenplay's weaknesses and incapacity of bringing something fresh and new to the Poe's story, this Martino flick is quite memorable and fun to watch.But as it tries to link several genres, it really doesn't know where to go and who to please and finally ends up as a curisoity from the 70's. Nevertheless a gem strictly for genre addicts.

Superwonderscope says :7.

I really don't get why Dario Argento's last effort had so many bad reviews around here and in the press. I just watched the italian DVD last night twice and, yes, it's not his best flick. But why so much hate? I guess many people await too much out of it and dislike it not because of the movie itself but I think they expected too much...as usual with the great masters of fear (Carpenter, Romero, Craven...). Some people got to understand that people change, so is their art and perception of representation of life. Dario Argento made a splendid turn when he did LA SINDROME DI STENDHAL : he made a masterpiece of fear with new narration & visual standards. NON HO SONNO follows naturally that path when using the giallo scheme.

First : the italian dubbing is atrocious. Go for the english version in DD 5.1 on the DVD.

Actors seem o-so-better suddendly. Kudos to Max Von Sydow & sublime Rossella Falk, the best written parts here. Von Sydow's old detective character is one of the best argento ever written...any resemblance to him as an ageing director who remembers the good old times of the giallo maybe? Chiara Caselli has a poorly developped character compared to the rest and she does what she can...practicly nothing. And boy does she have acting capabilities (Zuppa di Pesce, for example). Stefano Dionini seems ill at ease but much better in the end. Gabriele Lavia still shows some strength in difficult roles (as in Profondo Rosso...but it's kinda logical to find him in such a character regarding Profondo Rosso)

Story is not that bad, but it depends on the mood you're in. If you're fed up with Argento's auto-citations well, you'll hate NON HO SONNO. If you're a true fan, you mgiht get a kick out of it. While TRAUMA was a "best of" his previous movies, NON HO SONNO works as a modern PROFONDO ROSSO -the killings are almost the same, the way the people die as well- but it soon leaves a very known territory to follow a new one. And I won't give any spoilers here : you'll find out by yourself.

The murders scenes are elaborated : the terrifying train sequence at the beginning is the best example. But every time the killer strikes you feel fear growing. It's very gory sometimes (Mrs Gallo's murder is simply unbearable)but I wonder about the cuts it might get for the export. OPERA, TRAUMA, PHANTOM OF THE OPERA got severely cut out of Italy. Sergio stivaletti's FX work are top of the art and still very nasty : definitely not for the faint hearted.

The suspense...well, it works, actually. Still the same Argento territory : the family is the root of all evil and he pushes the limit of the bearable one more time as the movie reveals the identity of the killer at the very end. Several scenes are very suspensful-even if i saw it at home- and the rock soundtrack provided by GOBLIN goes along very well.

You could say that Argento went back to a genre he mastered for 20 years. He knows every trick the screenplay can offer and what the cinematography can bring. he knwos when to accelerate the rythm and when to cool it down to provide more psychological depth. The first hour is the strongest one as the second one gets slower but more cored on the characters. Dario Argento let his old wild and modern camera away to focus on where the characters are, how they move, what they express on the front of the camera. More classical in his way -and boring for some of the hardest fans- but, in the end, more interesting. Even if it will never be as good as its model PROFONDO ROSSO.

I still wonder if Max Von Sydow's character Ulisse Moretti is not in fact Dario Argento trying to solve his own puzzle of life. Who knows?

Superwonderscope says 8.

"The Weapon, The Hour and The mobile are the 3 most important things you need to know about a murder" say Renzo Montagnani. It's also the title of this classic giallo.

It's not a revolution of the genre but a classic expression of what a good suspenser must be. No crazy & wild camerawork but a genuine suspensful screenplay, with sharp dialogues & excellent, coherent and plausibles twists. Where directors such as Umberto Lenzi who rather play upon the incredible twists & turns a giallo is supposed to bring then on flashy camera angles, Francesco Mazzei choose the simple way.

Discreet yet precise camera work, less murders and actors than usual but a gloomy script revolving around a priest having two affairs at the same time with two women. When he decides to stop both, he gets killed in his church.

The cleverness of it all is in the way the script chooses to focus on the relationships between the characters than to elaborate murder after murder. The tensions between all of them are more visible than usual. At the same time, it also shows the private life of the detective investigating the case. Disenchanted but always professionnal, he gives some touch of humour which always hit the mark.

Some scenes ar quite surreal & nightmarish as when the nuns decide to expiate the crimes the priest committed before he died. They just whip their bare back with screaming preys til they faint. Just incredible. the other FX are very effective and the murders scenes look impressive : master Carlo Rambaldi (King Kong, ET) did it again.

The actors are all first rate : Renzo Montagnani proves he really can act, Eva Czemerys is always as magnetic & mysterious than in Giuseppe Bennatti's poor L'ASSASSINO HA RISERVATO NOVE POLTRONE and Bedy Moratti shows some incredible capacity to be both & strong at the same time in one single scene. Amazing actress.

L'arma, l'ora, il movente is a superior giallo in quality. Sleaze addicts & euroschlockers will be disappointed but movie buffs will certainly go for this very entertairning and chilling suspenser til the very end.

Albert Pyun gives us here the most disjoncted movie he ever did, a gigantic sing-along-schlock-o-rama that goes all the way. This story of 4 babes in a pseudo punk-rock band Vicous Lips that go to a in club 'The "Radioactive Dreams" as in Mr Pyun's second flick) is simply hilarious.

Near-zero budget allows to create the impossible :from so-so FX of spaceship to the great venusian beast created by master Greg Cannom to monsters & make up extradordinaire by John Carl Buechler and the Chiodo Bros, this is quite unbelievable. it is sometimes beyond criticism and that's why it has to become a cult movie. Almost invisible now, grab it if u can (it sometimes appears under the title "Pleasure Planet"). This is a wild ride, a mix of sci-fi; comedy; musical with some T&A and some half naked bodybuilders + outrageous make up.Something for everyone indeed.

Some fast editing, good photography and bad acting surrounds the whole movie. And as usual, the fabulous & Pyun regular Linda Kerridge erupts with beauty & flair , her eyes saying "what am I doing here?" . A surreal & nightmarish vision.

Vicous Lips is a masterpiece from outer space and deserves to be nominated for the best worst movies ever. An 8, definitely.

Best french comedy since Tonie Marshall's Venus Beauté(also starring Nathalie Baye), Ca Ira Mieux Demain tells the story of a growing circle of friends who simply goes wrong for some stupid reasons. Elisabeth (extraordinary Jeanne Balibar) wants to get rid of a furniture and put it in her cellar. Following a friend's advice, she decides to buy some plastic to wrap it up and protect it...but other people's advices on the same matter will have a strange effect on everybody's life...especially Elisabeth, making her paranoïa getting bigger and bigger.

This is the story of some loonies that easily might be one of us, slightly distracted by the possibilities of life. It has an unsual way of describing the relations between the people surrounding our existence : a couple (Nathalie Baye & Jean-Pierre Darroussin) is on a verge of breaking up after every conversation, a cello player (Isabelle Carré) gets meaner and meaner with her friend Elisabteh, an old lady (danielle Darrieux) a former curtains specialist, will play a more important part in Elisabeth's life than she expected...just because of that damn furniture. Sounds crazy, uh? But so is life, and that's precisely what Jeanne Labrune shows us here but in a hilarious way. Divided in 7 days, the everyday's adventures of our heroes follow a path we sometimes ourselves take. With the difference that what happen on the screen is much more funnier...that's the magic of the movies, ain't it?

Sometimes cruel, always funny and deadpan, this is a comedy about the unexpected. Highly recommanded!

8/10