ads

Slider[Style1]

Style2






It's hard to judge and rate this movie really, since it isn't one that features a plot and is not a typical movie in any way. It's an '60's underground, no-budget, artistic movie, like for instance Kenneth Anger and Andy Warhol also used to make.
 
You can basically interpret this movie any way you want to, since the director George Kuchar also leaves this pretty much open to your own interpretation. It's not a movie with a plot but also not one with any clear themes in it. I think this movie is showcasing all of the struggles Kuchar went through being a film-maker. The difficulties of getting a movie off the ground, waiting for that one right phone call and finding the right actors for the roles, the right directing approach, the right make-up. Perhaps he with this movie tried to vent out some of his frustrations with the whole film-making scene. But that's just my interpretation of it all.

It's a nicely shot film, with some good editing and of course unusual and special camera-work and angles. This isn't anything you are accustomed to seeing, which doesn't make this movie easy to watch but fascinating nevertheless.

Not the best and definitely not the most accessible genre example out there but it's still well worth a watch if you're into these sort of underground artistic movies from the '60's.

7/10

About Frank Veenstra

Watches movies...writes about them...and that's it for now.
«
Next
Newer Post
»
Previous
Older Post

No comments:

Post a Comment


Top