But like I said, this is not a film critique. If it were, I would evaluate the premise, character development and acting, plot, dialogue, pacing, photography, music, visual style, ending, and message. I figure there are already skads of those.
All of what you are saying is true - but the film? It's destined to become a camp classic. From the opening scene of the egg splitting it just gets sillier and sillier. We played a game trying to identify the 'homage' scenes: long hallways of Kubrik's The Shining, Carrie level buckets of blood, needle injection from Requiem for a Dream, those trembling palm trees, and yes, the King of Grind, Rodriquez with a dash of Dario Argento's pseudo-psycho.
Nothing subtle here - Dennis Quaid's character named Harvey??? Really? I would have cast Jane Fonda in there somewhere, even if it was just the. voice on the phone.
Aging, disposable women - it's a timeless topic, isn't it?
But like I said, this is not a film critique. If it were, I would evaluate the premise, character development and acting, plot, dialogue, pacing, photography, music, visual style, ending, and message. I figure there are already skads of those.
All of what you are saying is true - but the film? It's destined to become a camp classic. From the opening scene of the egg splitting it just gets sillier and sillier. We played a game trying to identify the 'homage' scenes: long hallways of Kubrik's The Shining, Carrie level buckets of blood, needle injection from Requiem for a Dream, those trembling palm trees, and yes, the King of Grind, Rodriquez with a dash of Dario Argento's pseudo-psycho.
Nothing subtle here - Dennis Quaid's character named Harvey??? Really? I would have cast Jane Fonda in there somewhere, even if it was just the. voice on the phone.
Aging, disposable women - it's a timeless topic, isn't it?
I loved the monstrousness of it.