Faceless (1987)

The Movie: The great cosmetic surgeon Doctor Frank Flamand (Helmut Berger) seems to have it all. Unfortunately, while on a shopping trip with his wife, Nathalie (the amazing, and terrifying, Brigitte Lahaie), and sister, Ingrid (Christiane Jean), he runs into the only case he failed. The woman in question is not amused at having her face destroyed, and she has a surprise for the good doctor; a vial of acid. In a nasty twist of fate, Ingrid saves her brother and gets the face full of acid instead.

With the help of their mute (and probably inbred) thug, Gordon (Gerard Zalcberg); Frank and Nathalie start kidnapping beautiful women to serve as “donors” to transplant and rebuild Ingrid’s face. This isn’t too big a change for them, as it seems that this is how they have already been collecting materials for Flamand’s miracle treatments. A talk with Dr. Orlof (long time movie veteran and Franco regular Howard Vernon) gets them in touch with Dr. Karl Heinz Moser (veteran actor Anton Diffring in one of his last roles), a former Nazi surgeon who is the only doctor to have performed a true face transplant.

The complications start when our villains kidnap the coked-up model Barbara Hallen (pin-up actress and Bond girl Caroline Munro). Her wealthy father Terry (Telly Savalas) calls in an old friend, the private detective Sam Morgan (Christopher Mitchum), to go to Paris and find her. Now the race is on as Morgan slowly but surely tracks Barbara’s whereabouts and uncovers Flamand’s house of horrors. Will he reach her before she gets her face-ectomy?

The Review: Jess Franco is definitely one of the most interesting directors to have appeared in the last century, in every sense of the word. Starting in the early 1960s, and to my knowledge still making movies, Franco has turned out a very large body of work. Among other things, Franco is known for his very low budgets, his having at least dipped his hand into every traditionally low-budget genre and sub-genre, his fetishistic little touches (such as the cabaret acts that are frequently included in his films), and his penchant for sleaze. That brings us to our current review.

Faceless is a homage/remake/rip-off/take your pick of the 1959 French move Eyes Without a Face. Now, the latter is widely and justly recognized as a subtle, haunting and artistic (in a good way) little movie. The former, on the other hand, is a Franco flick and therefore exploitation, pure and simple. That doesn’t mean, however, that Faceless is not worthwhile. If you’re into exploitation films, Faceless is definitely well worth a look.

In regards to basic structure and script, Faceless works out well. The story is well written and well blocked. It flows more or less believably from its major points until the ending. The ending, admittedly, is rather ambiguous; frustratingly so for some people. However, I, personally, don’t have any problems with it.

The cast is great, particularly the villains. Of course, the standout for me is the extremely talented Brigitte Lahaie. In fact, the fact that she starred in it was my main motivation for seeing Faceless in the first place. As I’ve said before in other reviews, Lahaie is an extremely talented actress. She is particularly good as a villain.

The majority of Lahaie’s movies that I have seen have been horror movies; and the majority of her roles which I have viewed involved her doing “Really Scary,” which she does really well. Her Nathalie Flamand is extremely well done; elegant and sophisticated, and yet twisted and dangerous in a way that can’t always be defined. She is in turn subtly, and very blatantly, threatening. I find that one particular scene stands out, where she is chewing out Gordon for being ‘naughty.’ The thing is, Gordon stands at least a head or two taller than Nathalie, and he has enough body mass for at least two of her; yet he is obviously cowering in terror. What’s more, it does not look ridiculous or incredible at all. Through sheer presence, Lahaie conveys effortlessly who is truly the greater danger.

The other two main villains are also good. Berger as Frank Flamand is equal parts charm, sophistication and monstrousness. Ingrid is more of a presence; most of her behavior is based more off of interaction with the other two than in and of herself. Yet the three do great together. The relationship is delightfully twisted; we get a definite vibe of an incestuous ménage a trois. However, what’s really fascinating is that the relationship as a whole is probably as healthy as a relationship between three bloodthirsty sociopaths could possibly be. There are some dysfunctions, of course; there’s a bit of strain between Nathalie and Frank at times, particularly when her klepto tendencies start biting them on the collective ass. Nevertheless, the three give the impression of being utterly devoted to each other in every way.

Mitchum as Detective Morgan isn’t quite as morbidly fascinating, but he provides a fairly solid hero we can get behind. He does have some less sympathetic traits; he’s a bit amoral in pursuit of his goals, and does tend to think a bit much with his fists; but these traits help to establish him a bit more as a human being than as a simple story trope. Differing is wonderful as the ex-Nazi doctor, with some truly good lines: “Deep down I’m a real sentimentalist.”

There is some debate over how much Faceless fits into Franco’s traditional oeuvre. I am still only familiar with a small fraction of the man’s works, but I’ve noticed a few things. The production is much slicker and comes off as a slight bit more mainstream. Likewise, there’s little if any actual nudity; which could be a good or a bad thing depending on your point of view. I’m still on the fence. Considering the almost obsessive presence of female nudity Franco is known for shoveling into his films, on one level this does seem like a slightly odd omission. Then there are the scenes in the New Wave dance clubs where the Flamands stalk some of their victims; which are an interesting twist on the traditional Franco cabaret scenes.

One exploitation element which Faceless does very well is the gore. Particularly effective for me, personally, are the two face removal scenes we are witness to. Admittedly, they affect me so badly because they are too much like something I’ve experienced. I’ve been wide awake on an operating table before, and it’s not an experience I’d care to repeat, even vicariously.

Finally, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the theme song, Destination Nowhere. It is used a lot throughout the movie, to the point where it sticks in your brain like a flu virus, or a Katy Perry tune. Damn it, not again! Out of my brain Perry! Sigh, guess I’ll be fetching the steel wool when I finish writing this.

So in conclusion, Faceless is a pretty solid, decent, well made and fun little exploitation flick. Gore, sleaze, twisted romance, unnecessary surgery and fistfights abound. If these appeal to you, then by all means watch Faceless.

Teeth (2007)

The Movie: Dawn O’Keefe (Jess Weixler) is a teenage girl with some major issues. Her family situation is not good, first problem being her mother’s (Vivienne Benesch) serious and possibly chronic illness. Then there’s her stepbrother, Brad (John Hensley), who fits every stereotype of the teenage thug and harbors a not-so-secret letch for her.

But the biggest issue on Dawn’s mind is sex. She is a spokesperson for a Christian abstinence group called the Promise. Dawn believes whole-heartedly in the Promise’s philosophy, but that is shaken up by the arrival of a new member, Tony (Hale Appleman). The mutual attraction is almost immediate, and with it comes the fantasies. The two start dating while trying hard to stick to the group’s tenets.

Unfortunately, the advice “ignore it and it will go away” works every bit as well with teen hormones as it does in any other situation. That is to say, it exacerbates matters. A private swim in the woods turns into date rape, and that’s when Dawn’s troubles really begin. It turns out that Dawn has vagina dentata, teeth in her vagina. Now, a teenage girl who, through forces internal and external, knows next to nothing about her body must figure out what’s going on and how to control it.

The Review: Fair warning, I’m really going to psychoanalyze this one. Now, I have been fascinated by sex ever since I discovered, at a very young age, that boys and girls have very different anatomy. This has gotten me into some trouble over the years. No, not like that. I’m not on any list, I’ve never had to deal with any legal charges, and despite what some of my friends claim I’m not a sex fiend.

Admittedly, a fair portion of my fascination is pretty much the same reasons why anyone else would be interested in the subject. However, much of it comes from my fascination with humanity in general, how they act and react to things and why. That, I’m pretty sure, is mainly due to the difficulties I have always had understanding, dealing with and relating to my fellow talking monkeys. Another thing that I learned very young is that sex is probably the ultimate button-pusher issue for the human race. Don’t believe me? Stand in the middle of a crowded room and shout the word “penis” at the top of your lungs; then note the reaction you get.

One of the many universals I have come across is a fear of female sexuality. Vagina dentata, the “teeth” of this movie’s title, is definitely a widespread theme. While the specific examples I’m familiar with all come from Native American myths, the movie’s contention that it was found among the ancient Greeks, Egyptians and Celts is not out of the question. After all, vagina dentata is the nightmare of a patriarchal mindset, and the ancient Greeks were chauvinists probably beyond the wildest dreams of our culture’s chauvinists. However, while I am familiar with these themes; what really got me about Teeth is that it’s the first time I’ve ever encountered them employed from the female point of view.

The problem our heroine, Dawn, has, is that she is caught between two extremely destructive views of sexuality. On the one hand is the Promise. No offense meant to anyone (well, maybe a little), but I personally think that the whole abstinence only philosophy is bullshit. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have any problems with the concept of abstinence in and of itself. After all, there are countless valid reasons to avoid sex outside a committed relationship; and many others for why teenagers should probably avoid sex entirely. And, if you truly believe that sex should be reserved only for marriage and intend to live by that; allow me to say with full sincerity that that is your business and more power to you.

However, I feel that a resolution like that is only valid when you truly make it for yourself. To do that, you need to know all the facts and be fully aware of what it is you are swearing to. That’s where my problem with the abstinence only movement comes in; it insists that you make a serious vow, but is completely antithetical to what you need to make that vow. Instead of making sure its adherents have what they need to do it, the movement instead relies on ignorance, misinformation and outright lies; not to mention guilt-tripping and fear-mongering, to get its way.

The abstinence only view’s solution is to ignore it. Unfortunately, not only are there teenage hormones to deal with, but it consists of the unfortunate kids being told on a regular basis “don’t think about sex.” To demonstrate the effectiveness of that: don’t think about elephants! Now, what’s the first thing that popped into your mind? Exactly.

On the other hand, Dawn has the attitude of her nonbeliever peers to deal with; the view that sex is purely a tool of male pleasure and dominance. Ironically, the two views feed off of each other. As the Promise and its ilk is all about making the “right choice” at any cost, the teens’ ignorance must be reinforced, lest knowledge lead to them making the “wrong choice.” Note how in Dawn’s anatomy class, they are taught about the male reproductive system, but the textbook diagram for the female reproductive system is covered up. Then there’s the insistence from both sides that females are supposed to be weak, submissive and vulnerable, and it ensures that Dawn is unable to survive outside the ideological bubble.

Dawn’s teeth problem provides us with a metaphor for her sexuality. Living in forced ignorance, with the very real dangers of sex on one side and the ideological lies and boogymen on the other, of course Dawn will find sex to be a terrifying and unpleasant thing. However, a powerful clue is revealed when one of her classmates actually seduces her, instead of attempting force or coercion.

In all the other unfortunate incidents before this, Dawn was scared and/or angry. Here, Dawn is really worried about what will happen to her suitor; but the noises he is making are definitely not shrieks of pain, and a good time is had by all. Unfortunately, said suitor is then stupid enough to take a phone call and brag to a friend about winning a bet that he would get Dawn into bed, while he is in the process of schtupping her, and the moron gets what he deserves.

Herein lies the crux of Dawn’s issue. Up until this point she has pretty much been a perpetual victim, both of her body and of others’ designs on same. However, once she starts actively trying to learn about what’s going on, a funny thing starts to happen. Suddenly, she is no longer the victim; and once Dawn discovers that she has control over her teeth, what was once her weakness now becomes a source of strength.

Jess Weixler has to carry the movie in her role as Dawn, and she does it wonderfully. She gives us a very likeable and identifiable character, an utter necessity for a film of this sort. However, Dawn isn’t perfect, either. I think the scenes that really affected me the most are the ones where Dawn is picked on by her classmates. On the one hand I couldn’t help but feel sorry for her, who of us hasn’t been signaled out for abuse by their peers at some point? On the other, there was a small part of me that insisted that she did have it coming to her; what with her constant proselytizing and saying truly stupid things. However, I did find myself cheering for Dawn all through the movie.

Ironically, while Teeth has all the elements of a good exploitation flick, it really isn’t an exploitation movie at all. There is a small bit of nudity, but it is not at all gratuitous. Likewise, the gore is used very sparingly; although what is there is very effective, especially if you’re male. Teeth does have a very pitch black, deadpan sense of humor, but ultimately it is a serious horror movie that plays it straight. For that reason alone I have the utmost respect for it.

So in conclusion, Teeth is a well made, effective horror movie. It has a good cast, especially its lead, and very well written, if unconventional, plot. Ultimately, Teeth is to be commended for putting a female spin on what was until now a uniquely male nightmare, and doing it very well. Definitely worth seeing, but males beware.

Meet the Feebles (1989)

The Movie: The Feebles Variety Show, a major theater troupe run by Bletch the walrus (Peter Vere-Jones and Doug Wren) is about to do its biggest performance of all, the one that will get it televised attention. This could mean big things for everyone involved. Unfortunately, the cast is riddled with problems and corruption that threaten to derail their big appearance.

Wynyard the frog (Brian Sergent) is a drug-addicted Vietnam vet who is suffering from flashbacks and withdrawal. This affects his performance as a knife-thrower, and he goes through a lot of assistants. Harry the rabbit, the show’s MC, is showing the symptoms of what could be a major STD; you know what rabbits are like. This is compounded by the bottom-feeding (literally), muckraking, tabloid journalist of a fly (Brian Sergent) who is constantly hovering around looking for scandal stories. Sidney the elephant (Mark Wright) is facing a paternity suit from Sandy (Stuart Devenie), a chicken in the chorus.

Into this cesspool of corruption walks Robert, “Wobert,” the hedgehog (Mark Hadlow), a wide-eyed innocent who is delighted to finally live his dream of being involved with the Feebles. He falls for Lucille, the poodle and chorus-girl; who Arthur the worm (Peter Vere-Jones), the kindly old stage manager, helps set him up with. Unfortunately, this budding romance hits a snag in the form of Trevor the Rat (Brian Sergent), Bletch’s henchman and main drug dealer. Trevor has been making pornos in the basement, and he thinks Lucille will make the perfect fresh new star.

Meanwhile, Sebastian the fox, the stage director, is determined to do a number of his own. Bletch doesn’t feel that it will go over well; and while I, personally, rather enjoy the number, I’m with Bletch on this one. Throw on top of all of this Bletch and Trevor’s drug supplier cheating them, which brings them into a conflict with gangsters, and Bletch has his hands full.

But the biggest monkey wrench in the works is Heidi the hippo (Mark Hadlow), the star of the show and Bletch’s longtime girlfriend. Heidi is already insecure and unstable; but she completely loses it when she finds out that Bletch has been cheating on her with the scheming Siamese, Samantha (Donna Akersten), and worse, intends to replace Heidi with her. It all comes to a head when Heidi discovers Bletch’s catch of automatic weapons…

The Review: Has this blog really been up for a whole year? It has! I know it’s not much, but I am rather proud of it just the same. For those of you who have been with me for that time, I greatly appreciate it and you. For those of you who are joining me for the first time, I have three things to say: welcome, it’s great to have you, may the gods have mercy on your soul. And now for the review.

Many people today are familiar with Peter Jackson due to his production of Lord of the Rings and his remake of King Kong. However, those who only know these movies have no idea who Peter Jackson is. Long before his achievement of Hollywood stardom, Jackson was known for making bizarre, low-budget, tasteless films for which he gained a cult following. His magnum opus was probably Dead Alive/Brain Dead, a movie that is both hilarious and, in my opinion, one of the most viscerally disgusting films ever made.

Another of his cult hits was Meet the Feebles. Meet the Feebles is a movie about the perils and pitfalls of show business. It involves sex, violence, suicide, nudity, paternity suits, pornography, exploitation, murder, drugs, Vietnam flashbacks, organized crime and shooting sprees. However, what really makes Meet the Feebles the truly twisted work it is, is that all of this is done with muppets.

That’s right, muppets. Not the capital M Muppets that Jim Hanson trademarked, but characters who look like they would fit right in with them. Note that I said “look like;” Jim Hanson’s Muppets, while fairly adult, and twisted in their own right, generally emphasized the positive aspects of human nature. The Feebles, on the other hand, are in many ways their mirror opposites; reflecting all that is evil, unhealthy and wrong with humanity.

And that’s the real element about this movie that makes it so memorable. The basic plot and subplots in Meet the Feebles, whether individually or all together, are ones that I have run across in many movies. However, when the characters are cute, furry animals, it puts a whole different spin on it. Well, not all of them are cute; Trevor is rather repulsive and the fly makes me want to gag. Still, there are all sorts of things that can be done that you couldn’t do with human actors. This lends a note of the surreal to the whole mess which makes all of the well-used conventions seem new again.

For example, paternity suit; a mother tries to make the father of her illegitimate baby fess up and take responsibility. I mean, that’s something we see all the time; unfortunately, all too often in our everyday lives in some cases. But when the deadbeat dad is a big blue elephant and the mother is a chicken maybe a tenth his size? And the baby is a bizarre hybrid of the two? You have to admit, you’ll never think of paternity suits the same way again.

And that is just one of the many truly bizarre sights you will see in Meet the Feebles. We get an S&M themed porn being made with a cow and a cockroach; and it inadvertently becomes a snuff film when the cow accidently sits on the cockroach. There are Vietnam War scenes played out with frogs and cats. And then we get the climax, where a hippo mows down a cast of cute, furry extras on stage with a machine gun. Tell me, how many other movies can you think of with scenes like the ones I just described?

And yet, what really got me throughout my viewing of Meet the Feebles is just how dark it all is. This is a funny movie, but it’s the kind of twisted humor people will shun you for. Through it all, there is the definite sense that some truly terrible things are going on; and while we may laugh, we still cannot help but feel for some of the characters.

Heidi the hippo is the character who really stuck out for me. Yes she becomes a monster at the end, but she is really a victim. She’s an involving and sympathetic character, which makes her rampage tragic as well as bizarre. I found that there were some other characters who, during the shootout at the end, I was really hoping would survive. Not only that, but there were a few I felt bad about when they were mowed down. Of course, there were also a few I was actively hoping would get their heads blown off, and I wasn’t disappointed.

So in the end, with Meet the Feebles we get a unique movie. It is a collection of major exploitation movie elements thrown together; a tragedy full of elements that make you want to laugh, and a comedy that makes you want to cry in spots. And to top it all off, it is played out by characters who look like they belong on the Muppet Show. If you have a relatively strong stomach, a really twisted sense of humor, and a taste for the truly bizarre, you should take a look at this movie.

Pink Flamingos (1972)

The Movie: Divine (the late cult movie figure), after being named “Filthiest Person Alive” by the tabloids; moves to Baltimore with her traveling companion, Cotton (Mary Vivian Pearce), senile egg-obsessed mother (Edith Massey), and son, Crackers (Danny Mills), under the pseudonym Babs Johnson. They set up in a trailer out in the middle of nowhere in the hopes of hiding out for a while. Unfortunately, news of their presence in town reaches the wrong people.

Raymond (the late David Lochary) and Connie (John Waters regular Mink Stole, last seen on this blog way back in the beginning in my review of But I’m a Cheerleader) Marble are an extremely perverted couple who are convinced that they are the filthiest and most depraved people in the world. They certainly have a lot in favor of their argument. Their main source of income is a black market baby ring where they kidnap teenage hitchhikers, have their butler, Channing (Channing Wilroy) impregnate them, and sell them to lesbian couples. They also use some of that money to fund heroin dealers at elementary schools. In his free time, Raymond likes to expose himself to women in the park; which occasionally nets him some cash in the form of their dropped purses.

Hearing that their rival is in town, the Marbles are determined to eliminate her and claim the title of “Filthiest People Alive” for themselves. To locate her, they hire Cookie (the late Cookie Mueller) to seduce Crackers for the information they need. She succeeds, but it comes at a price; Crackers makes her have sex with him with live chickens between them.

The Marbles begin their vendetta, but they are in for a nasty shock. Divine didn’t earn her title by being a pushover. Once she and her family realize that the Marbles are gunning for them, they decide retaliation is in order. Things are about to get really ugly in ways no sane person can imagine…

The Review: Oh gods I hate my brain, or at least certain parts of it. I swear, it seems like certain thought processes have minds and personalities of their own, I’ve even given a few names. Well, recently I heard from a part of my brain that seems constantly out to hurt me. I’ve long suspected I’m a bit of a masochist, although it’s probably a common human motivation. After all, every one of us has times when we feel the compulsion to do something we know isn’t a good idea. We know it’s very bad for us, we know we’re going to really be hurting and hating ourselves for it afterwards, and yet still we really want to do it.

Anyway, this sado-masochistic part of my consciousness pointed out that if I wanted to review truly out-there movies, I needed to do at least one John Waters flick; and that there was no option but to review his magnum opus. Therefore, I was compelled to do something I swore I never would and rewatched Pink Flamingos so that I could do a review on it. Now other parts of my brain are curled up in little balls crying, or screaming in agony and horror. The things I do for my readers. You’re welcome, by the way.

You may be familiar with John Waters for films such as Hairspray (probably his most well known) and Serial Mom. However, his early films from the seventies and early eighties, those were something else entirely. How to get this across…

Well, let me just start by saying I rarely use the f-word. Not that I have anything against swearing, I just feel it is way overused. I had my lesson in the use of effective swearing in high school sophomore gym class, when a classmate overheard me using the word ‘damn.’ His reaction should tell you about my reputation at the time, he insisted I say it again so that he could be sure and tell people he had heard it come from my mouth. My vocabulary has expanded greatly since then, but I still try to keep the f-word in reserve so that when I do use it, people know that I mean it.

I tell you this so that the full impact will sink in when I say that the best adjective for an early Waters flick is ‘fucked-up.’ His more recent movies may diverge from the beaten path, but his early ones come nowhere within sight of it. We’re talking really low budget (Pink Flamingos was made on only $10,000), little to no actual acting talent, and long meandering dialogue. Divine, Waters’ leading lady for a lot of his films, was actually a 300 pound transvestite; and the rest of his cast, mostly friends and associates, look like the kind of people you could expect to find hanging around a bus station because they were exactly that kind of person.

As for what his movies were about, oh gods it’s hard to believe even after seeing it. The best way I can describe an early John Waters film is that it is like digging through an outhouse on a really bad drug trip, and even that doesn’t come close. He really went out of his way to be as weird and grotesque as possible, and his cast was willing to do things in front of the camera that many of us would probably have trouble doing in private. Watching one of these movies is definitely an experience you cannot forget, no matter how much you try.

Pink Flamingos is Waters’ most notorious film, and the one that made Divine an underground sensation. Just reading my synopsis of it provides only the smallest of hints of what you are in for. Ultimately, the whole point of the movie is to shock you, and it does just that. There are very few societal taboos that aren’t broken, often in graphic detail. All of our main characters are repulsive in their own way, often in a fashion that has to be seen to be believed.

And yet, it is apparent that Waters has talent. There are some seriously funny parts; my favorite a scene that just had Divine walking down the street with the camera following her and taking in the reactions of everyone she passes. Pink Flamingos is clever, but it is all the more vile for being so clever.

I’m not sure what else to say, so I will end on this note; Pink Flamingos is one of the few movies that could honestly be called the ultimate cinomasochistic experience. If you’re really into bizarre films, movies that go places you never thought it possible for them to go, you should see it at least once. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to see about taking a long shower and finding some steel wool to scrub my frontal lobe with.

Sucker Punch (2011)

The Movie: A young girl who we will know only as Baby Doll (the adorable and hot Emily Browning from Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events) is placed by her abusive stepfather in a psychiatric institution so that he can get rid of her and get a hold of her inheritance. Poor Baby Doll has already had to cope with her stepfather, her mother’s death, and the death of her little sister as well; but much worse is in store for her. It turns out the institution is actually a cabaret, which is in turn a front for a brothel. Owned by the sleazy Blue (Oscar Isaac), the girls are trained by Vera Gorski (the sexy Carla Gugino of Watchmen and Sin City) and then exploited to make Blue money. Baby Doll’s stepfather paid Blue specifically to make her disappear, so she faces a particularly dire fate in only five days.

Baby Doll escapes into a series of fantasy realms where a wise old man (Scott Glenn) gives her the means to escape. To do it, she has to get a hold of five items. Four other girls; Sweet Pea (Abby Cornish), her little sister Rocket (the versatile Jena Malone), Blondie (the gorgeous Vanessa Hudgens of the High School Musical Movies), and Amber (Jamie Chung), agree to help her in the hopes that they can escape as well. But the hurdles for the five girls succeeding start to mount, even as the lines between fantasy and reality start to blur. Can they succeed?

The Review: I present another first for this blog; this is the first time I went to an in-theater movie with the intent of reviewing it. Sucker Punch came to my attention mainly due to the conflicting opinions about it. All the critics seem to hate this movie, while several friends have raved to me about how great it is. I became curious to see it for myself and maybe throw my own two cents into the mix. So what’s my verdict? Well, if I had to sum up Sucker Punch in one word I would say this; it’s a mess. Sucker Punch is a bizarre, surreal, schizophrenic, anachronistic mess of a movie that spends a very large portion of its running time looking like the fever dreams of a highly caffeinated fan boy with severe A.D.D. That’s not to say, however, that it’s an entirely unentertaining mess.

I will start with the cast, since they are probably the best part of the movie. Browning works as the protagonist. Her facial expressions alone convey far more than words ever could. Cornish is also good; she gives us a convincing and fully fleshed-out human being of a character with all the good and bad that entails.

Jenna Malone is one of those actors who I regularly see in a lot of movies, but have trouble recognizing because she gets so deeply into her roles. In fact, in Sucker Punch I was only able to pick her out through process of elimination; I knew she played one of the protagonists and was able to rule out all the others. This is a good thing, by the way. I find that my favorite actors tend to be the ones who are able to get so far into their roles that it’s hard to remember we’re watching them and not their character. It’s easy to see why Malone has had so many roles up to this point, and I hope she gets many, many more.

Isaac does a good job of providing us with a villain who is slimy, sadistic; and who ultimately we love to hate. Gugino also gives us a convincing character. All Hudgens provides to this movie is screen presence, but as the script really doesn’t give her much to work with, it’s probably less her fault than it could be. Chung doesn’t even provide that, pretty much only being eye candy. I’m not familiar with her, so she might have some acting talent; it’s just not visible in this movie.

One of the critic’s major complaints about Sucker Punch is that it’s sleazy and exploitative. I’m on the fence with this one. The outfits the ladies wear aren’t that bad, I see far more revealing outfits weekly at the local YMCA. Although I must confess, being big on bellies and thighs, I can’t help but enjoy the outfits Browning wears during the fantasy sequences.

However, there is a, ever so slight, attempt at sleaze. It’s not much, and this is where my conflict lies. If you’re going to make a piece of sleaze, then by all means do it. But follow through; don’t chicken out at the last minute. I have a problem with the movies that try to create “safe sleaze;” you can have sleazy, or you can have safe, but you can’t have both. In fact, I find the hypocrisy of those kinds of movies far more disturbing than the blatantly honest sleaze pieces. However, there are far worse offenders in this than Sucker Punch. There’s just enough to touch on the subject, and that’s about it.

The fantasy sequences make some great stand-alone set pieces. They’re obviously CGI, but some of them still look amazing. My favorite is the anachronistic WW1 battlefield with its zeppelins and clockwork Germans. There are also some interesting little surreal touches, such as the bunny-faced mech Amber pilots in the WW1 scene. On the downside, I really don’t like the style of combat most action movies use these days; with the camera shaking and then suddenly turning away just as the character strikes a blow. The use of that technique definitely lessens my enjoyment.

Finally, I would say that Sucker Punch’s biggest failing is that it tries to do way too much at once. The themes are all legitimate ones that have worked well for other movies: finding strength in unexpected places; using fantasy to escape from and/or deal with an unpleasant reality; the thin, blurry line between fantasy and reality; gaining strength from a position of helplessness. I have seen all of these themes done and done well in other movies. However, while they are present in Sucker Punch, they tend to get lost beneath everything else.

Watching this movie, one gets the impression that Zack Snyder, who both wrote and directed it, had no idea where he wanted to go or what he wanted to do. It seems like Snyder had some disparate ideas for scenes and storylines, and tried to mix them all together into one movie. As a result, it can be hard to make sense of what’s going on. There are so many different layers of fantasy, reality and delusion blurring together that by the time of the “big reveal” at the end, said reveal loses a lot of its effect because you’re still trying to make sense of everything else you just saw. Individually, some of Sucker Punch’s components work very well. However, the resulting mess is unable to rise above the sum of its parts.

So in conclusion, Sucker Punch is a mess, but not an entirely unentertaining one. While the movie doesn’t work as a whole, there are several independent parts of it that are worth seeing. Yes, I’m well aware that I am damning this movie with faint praise. However, you have to admit, it’s far more generous than many of the other reviewers are willing to be.

Flesh Gordon (1974)

The Movie: The Earth is, as the esteemed scientist Professor Gordon (John Hoyt) puts it, in big trouble. A sex ray beamed from space has been striking the Earth, causing all struck by it to engage in unrestrained sexual orgies. Civilization can’t survive when the president of the U.S. neglects his duties to lock himself in the bathroom with the vice president, or the world’s pre-eminent scientist is distracted because he found his wife in bed with the garbage man. Fortunately, Flesh (Jason Williams), the professor’s son, has located the planet the beam is coming from; and he is returning from playing ice hockey for the U.S. in Tibet to help find a solution.

Meanwhile, as Flesh flies home from Tibet he meets Dale Ardor (Suzanne Fields), who we automatically know will be “the Girl” for Flesh. Unfortunately, trouble strikes almost immediately as the sex ray hits the plane in mid-air. The pilots decide they would rather join the on-board orgy than handle the controls (that innuendo was not intentional, I swear), and when they and the passengers go down, so does the plane (okay, that one was). Fortunately, Flesh and Dale are able to bail out. Even better, they happen to land outside the home of Dr. Flexi Jerkoff (Joseph Hudgens), an old friend of Flesh’s father and a brilliant scientist. Jerkoff has also been investigating the sex ray, and he has built a spaceship to take him to its source. Our three heroes set off for the planet Porno to put a stop to the ray.

Unfortunately, their plans to save the Earth put them afoul of Porno’s ruler, the evil Emperor Wang the Perverted (William Hunt). Even with the aid of the outlaw (and flamboyantly gay) Prince Precious (Lance Larson), true heir to the throne of Porno, our heroes’ task will not be easy. Penisaurs, lesbian amazons, hermaphrodite gladiators, Wang’s cannon-fodder troops and deathtraps, and the Great God Porno; all stand between our heroes and victory. Will Dr. Jerkoff figure out how to use the Power Pasties to end the threat of Wang and his sex ray? Will Dale be able to avoid being molested by everyone but the men she wants to molest her? Can Flesh keep his pants on long enough to save the Earth?

The Review:

“Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Sex madness perils planet! Hey, scram you horny joiks!" -Paperboy

For my current offering, I present one of my truly guilty pleasures. By that, I mean that I feel extremely guilty about the fact that I enjoy this movie; or at least, some people feel that I should. Now, I’m not all that big on porn movies. Mostly this is due to my attitude toward the two main elements that people go to these movies for. After a certain double date in high school I came to the conclusion that when it comes to sex, any sex; if it doesn’t involve me, I’m not interested. Now I have since seen some stuff out of curiosity (“oh, so that’s how that would work”), but I have mostly retained that attitude. For me, with the very rare exception, watching other people screw is at worst kind of repulsive, and at best rather dull.

As for the other main element, I must confess that I am something of a connoisseur of the female form and its infinite variations. However, I don’t care how good looking the women in question are or how much we get to see of them; if a movie doesn’t have more to offer I lose interest quickly. Admittedly it doesn’t have to be much more, and I do enjoy female nudity in my movies; but it’s really not worthwhile when that’s all the movie in question has to offer.

Flesh Gordon is one of the only three pornographic movies (the others being Deep Throat and Behind the Green Door, which I have yet to get my hands on) that are widely recognized as classics in and of themselves. There is a reason for this; Flesh Gordon actually works as a movie, not just as a vehicle for vicarious sexual shenanigans. It is obvious that a lot of effort went into this film, and one also gets the impression that somebody had a lot of fun making it.

Flesh Gordon is a spoof of the old Flash Gordon serials of the 1930s. One of the main reasons that it works is because it is exactly what a spoof or a parody should be. Flesh Gordon sticks very close to the original that it is parodying, only tweaking it a bit so that the elements used are slanted to their most ridiculous extremes and/or to be sexual. All of the major (and the majority of the minor) plot points are nothing that, at their core, you wouldn’t find in this parody’s model. A handsome, square-jawed hero; a hapless damsel; and a brilliant but slightly unhinged scientist travel to another planet to stop a threat to Earth. Once there, they have to deal with monsters, death traps, and an evil supervillain with powerful super-science at his disposal. The only real differences are that the threat to Earth is an aphrodisiac ray, the monsters are, among other things, penisauri, and the villain is more blatantly sex-obsessed than his models from the pulps and serials.

Unfortunately, that accuracy is applied to the character of our heroes as well. I say unfortunately, because as characters the heroes in this genre tended to be uniformly bland. Flesh is pretty much your standard square-jawed, upstanding fighter, defined wholly by the fact that he’s tall, strong, handsome, and every female he encounters inexplicably lusts after him on first glance. The movie does something clever with that last one, in the scene where Flesh, Dale and Jerkoff first meet Prince Precious. When the obviously gay Precious first beholds the heroic Flesh, he follows the exact same script the majority of the female characters do in reaction to him. We even get a glimpse of the two enjoying a “romantic” (i.e. blatantly sexual) interlude together.

The character of Dale has the same problem. Like her sisters in the serials she is basically a dumb bimbo whose only purpose is to serve as eye candy, be constantly rescued by the hero from being molested by everyone and his brother, and be forced into marriage to the villain. Albeit, in that last one the heroine is usually the one who wears the wedding dress. Also, even when Dale in Flesh Gordon is completely nude (which she is for much of the running time), she’s still not wearing much less than her models from the pulps did.

Another way in which Flesh Gordon adheres to the original, and does it extremely well, is in the look and the setting. With the exception of obvious little tweaks (such as the heroes’ very penis-shaped rocket ship, or the strategically placed drills on Wang’s robots), the settings and props look exactly like they came out of an old Flash Gordon serial. They are all amazing; which isn’t too surprising considering they were put together by some of the best sci-fi effects people of the time. The scene where the swan-shaped airship of Amora, Queen of Darkness (Mycle Brandy) flies across the night sky is just beautiful.

The same thing can be said of most of the stop-motion creatures in the movie as well. There is this one metallic insect–thing that’s just amazing. Best of all is probably the Great God Porno. The model would make Ray Harryhousen himself proud, its movements and facial expressions have personality in and of themselves. Combined with the voice and script they give it, it is both beautiful and very perversely hysterical.

The final strength Flesh Gordon has is its humor. This is a seriously funny movie with some really good, if perverse and often juvenile, jokes. Despite what you may think, they’re not all (or even mostly), sexual. There are plenty of bad ones, of course, but there are enough good ones that you forget about them rather quickly. From the Volkswagen key used to start the heroes’ rocket, to Wang’s various titles (“Your Impotenance” and “Your Assholiness” are my personal favorites), to how Jerkoff escapes from Wang’s lab to the Great God Porno; if you aren’t laughing at some point during this movie, you don’t have a sense of humor. What’s more, unlike some other movies of this type, there is no mean-spiritedness whatsoever.

Finally, I must address the pornographic elements; since this is, after all, a porno. My copy of Flesh Gordon, which is supposed to be the “re-edited, uncensored” version, mostly has softcore elements. However, I have heard that this movie was originally shot with hardcore scenes, but the director was forced to edit them out before the movie was released. I actually think the movie is all the better for it. While nudity abounds and there are plenty of softcore scenes, I get the impression that the pornographic elements were back-burnered in favor of the story; that the makers of this movie seemed to be more concerned about having fun spoofing Flash Gordon than they are about making pornography. I could be wrong; but even if you don’t care for pornography there are plenty of other things to be enjoyed about Flesh Gordon.

So in conclusion; Flesh Gordon is crude, perverse, twisted and juvenile. It has its frequent moments of cleverness, and very well done settings and props. In short, I find it to be a lot of fun, even if it is a porno. There is plenty to enjoy even for people who aren’t into pornography. I thoroughly enjoy this movie; and while I’m probably going to Hell for that and other reasons, I understand that all the best people are going to be joining me there anyway. If you have a really warped sense of humor and aren’t easily offended, this one is definitely worth a viewing.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988)

The Movie: Hollywood, 1947; cartoon characters, called toons, live in a nearby place called Toontown and act out cartoons in the same way human actors act out movies. Cartoon producer R. K. Maroon (Alan Tilvern, in his last role) is having problems with one of his top celebrities. Roger Rabbit (voice of Charles Fleischer) keeps flubbing his part, and Maroon is convinced that it’s because he is too distracted by his wife, Jessica (voice of Kathleen Turner). Maroon hires detective Eddie Valiant (Bob Hoskins, who was also Smee in Hook and Mario in the Super Mario Brothers live action movie) to obtain some incriminating pictures of Jessica so he can prove to Roger she’s bad news.

Eddie has a history. He and his brother used to be the top cops in Toontown, renowned for their competence and nobility. Unfortunately, all that changed when one malicious toon killed Eddie’s brother by dropping a piano on him. Now, Eddie refuses to go near Toontown and has as little to do with toons as he is able. Unfortunately, due to his depression and alcoholism he is down on his luck, so he has no choice but to take Maroon’s money. He gets some compromising pictures of Jessica with Marvin Acme (Stubby Kaye), the prankster-like owner of the Acme Corporation, and Roger is suitably upset. It all goes downhill when Eddie finds out the next day that someone murdered Acme by dropping a safe on his head, and all clues seem to point to Roger as the culprit.

Eddie starts to have his doubts when he meets Judge Doom (Christopher Lloyd, probably best known for his role in the Back to the Future movies), the sadistic lawman determined to bring Roger to justice. Doom has done the impossible, he has discovered the recipe for a substance called the Dip, which can destroy toons. Combined with Doom’s sadistic weasel henchmen, Roger looks screwed.

Eddie discovers that Acme’s will was missing, and that the will was the most probable motive for his murder. Against his will, Eddie is dragged right into the middle of it when Roger himself comes to his office and claims that he was framed. Pursued by Doom and his weasels, Eddie must find the will, and soon, or it will be the end not only of Roger, but of all of Toontown as well.

The Review:

“Is that a rabbit in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?”
-Dolores

Like many other people, I saw Who Framed Roger Rabbit at a fairly young age. Then I didn’t see it again until college; my school had a few regular events that showed interesting movies. Admittedly, at the time it didn’t make a big impression on me. However, my mind was mostly focused toward other issues; specifically the issues that led to me obtaining the coveted title of Nine-Fingered Menace. In the past two or three weeks Who Framed Roger Rabbit came up on my Netflix queue and I sat down to watch it again. I was surprised to find one burning question lodged in my mind for nearly the entire movie: “how the hell did I manage to miss all of this?”

Who Framed Roger Rabbit works on many levels due to the simple fact that it is one of those movies where multiple levels of stuff are happening. While I haven’t really been able to test it, I’m sure you could go through the movie many times and each time notice something you didn’t catch on an earlier screening. There are numerous cartoon characters, both well known and obscure, from Disney, Warner Brothers and probably a few other sources as well, constantly carrying out their business in the background and foreground. The same goes with the live extras. Even some of the major characters can sometimes be glimpsed in the background while the one or two of the others are doing something unrelated in the fore.

And there are plenty of other details as well. There are odd, risqué little messages on men’s room walls (“for a good time call Allyson Wonderland”) and in other obscure locations; such as the oven Roger gets roasted in during the cartoon he films at the very beginning of the movie being of the “HotterNelle” brand. There are also lots of little cultural references. Roger Rabbit is at its core a noir, and it somehow manages to shoehorn in almost every trope of the genre.

Finally, there is a practice, as old as animation itself, where the animators slip in risqué details that you won’t notice because they go by too fast. It’s not done so much anymore, because with DVDs you can play the scenes frame by frame and catch them easily. I have only heard of one or two of these details in this movie, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were more. I can attest that the rumors involving a scene of Jessica Rabbit are true.

That’s it for the small details; the big ones are just as impressive. One thing that caught my notice was the relationship between Roger and Jessica Rabbit. Jessica is the personification of what 99.99999999+% of us heterosexual males fantasize about, but know in our heart of hearts we’re never going to get. Roger, on the other hand, is the exact opposite not only of Jessica, but of the kind of man we’d expect to see with someone like Jessica. He’s short, he’s goofy, he’s spastic, obnoxious and socially awkward. In other words, he’s us to some extent.

And yet, the really odd thing is that while everything about Jessica screams femme fatale, she is obsessively in love with only one man, Roger. She has no interest in any other man; she doesn’t even pretend to seduce Eddy to get him to help like her character type would in any other film; she just asks for his help and drags him along. It’s clear that none of the human characters understand what she sees in Roger, but it’s also clear that it’s not just Jessica. Early on Betty Boop makes an appearance, and when identifying Roger’s wife for Eddie she expresses some envy that it was Jessica who landed Roger. Obviously this is wish fulfillment; but for us dreamers at least, it gives us a small ray of hope.

For my next analysis, I must offer a minor spoiler alert, because I’m going to have to reveal the villain’s plan. It’s not a major spoiler; even if you haven’t seen this movie, if you possess even the smallest fraction of the intelligence I’m convinced my readers have, you will already have connected most of the dots by the big reveal. Still, if haven’t seen this movie and spoilers still bother you, skip ahead HERE.

Still there? Okay, what I find most notable about Doom’s ultimate evil plan is that it is based on a historical event. Basically, he wants to wipe out Toontown in order to build a freeway; and among other things he has bought the streetcar line so that he can dismantle it. Beginning in the 1930s, General Motors and some of the other major automobile companies started buying out streetcars and other public transportation in America’s cities in order to dismantle them, so that people would depend on their products instead. It wasn’t 100% successful, but it’s why these kinds of systems are so rare these days.

The world Doom describes that he is trying to bring forth; one of isolation, cheap, disposable commercialism and instant not-so gratifying gratification; is of course our present day society. What I find so perversely ironic about this coming from the villain is that Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a Disney flick, and Walt Disney himself was one of the main architects of our commercialist society. I don’t know if the screenwriter was conscious of it or not, but there is definitely some subversion here.

End Spoiler Alert

One final thing I should bring up is that despite the ad campaign around it, Who Framed Roger Rabbit is not a kids’ movie. My parents wouldn’t let me or my siblings watch it for years, and I’m now in a position to see why. First of all, there are a lot of adult elements here, most of which would go right over the heads of younger viewers. There are also a few rather disturbing elements as well. I’m rather jaded about what I see in my movies at this point, but the scene where Doom first uses the Dip still bothers me.

Overall, Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a fun, well made movie. It has a great cast, great special effects, and a good storyline. It works well as both a noir and a rather perverse little comedy. If you haven’t seen it in a while, definitely worth a rewatch. Just be sure to keep your eyes open for the not so obvious details.