Koli Reviews

Hellhole Women (1981)

Franco's 'hamage' to 1,000 Days of Sodom

[4/10 · 27 November 2005]

I can't help thinking that this is Franco's 'hamage' to the Marquis de Sade's "One Thousand Days of Sodom". People (in this case women) abducted to serve as slaves to a privileged elite? Check. Kinky sex? Check. Torture including whipping? Check. Victims chosen at random to be killed? Check.

Thank goodness Franco didn't go the whole hog and introduce cinema audiences to the delights of coprology (and indeed coprophagy), another perversion that crops up repeatedly in de Sade's tediously long and disgusting saga.

I rather hoped that this film would fall into the 'so bad it's good' category. But even the acres of naked flesh and numerous sexual encounters didn't make up for the dismal dialogue, dreadful acting, elusive plot and - just to put the tin hat on it - dubbing AND English sub-titles (a belt and braces approach missing from the women's costumes). The Alsation gave a very professional performance though.

Of course I could be wrong about the de Sade angle. After all, I failed to realise that the actor playing the head warden at the 'prison' was a trans-sexual. I must pay more attention to the size of people's hands in future.

According to another reviewer, the film was banned in the UK. Well it clearly isn't any more, though I fancy that the nipple-needling scene was cut to satisfy the censors. On the DVD I watched, it was only clearly visible on the Spanish trailer (which, in case you're wondering, I watched to compare it with the English one).

The DVD also features an interview with Jess Franco, though you'll need better Spanish than mine to understand it. Unless I'm much mistaken it's neither dubbed nor sub-titled. And it points out that the person sodomising the character played by Franco is Ajita Wilson disguised using a moustache. Kind of ironic, given that (s)he had had the requisite appendage surgically removed.

Anatomy of Hell (2004)

Not just flesh for the sake of it.

[8/10 · 30 July 2005]

Some contributors to the message board for this film have labelled it 'pornography' and (therefore) dismissed it. It would be wrong to write this film off, though, because it is not simply flesh for the sake of it. (As to whether it would be right to dismiss a film merely because it's pornography, well that's another debate.)

If you crave action movies of the sort routinely churned out in Hollywood this is probably not for you.

If you enjoy the self-conscious, 'sea-side postcard' sex comedies of the sort favoured by British filmmakers this will probably not be your cup of tea.

If conventional, hard core porn films are your bag then this is probably one to avoid.

But if you want to have some of your assumptions challenged, hear some provocative ideas and see some highly provocative images, this just might be worth renting.

Some of the philosophical discussions went over my head (though it's clear from some of the reviews that scholars of philosophy will pick them up), and a few of the graphic images left me cold. But Catherine Breillat is a highly intelligent writer and director with interesting, controversial ideas that deserve to be heard.

Comparisons have been made with 'Salo' - mainly in the context of determining which is more offensive or appalling. This is an interesting angle. I haven't seen 'Salo', but I've just finished reading 'The 120 Days of Sodom' by the Marquis de Sade, on which it's based. I have to say that this was the most repulsive novel I've ever read, and I wouldn't describe myself as squeamish. I know that 'Salo' is set in the mid 20th century (ie almost 200 years after de Sade wrote the book), with Nazis in place of the four 'heroes', but I gather that in lots of ways it's faithful to the novel. If it's anything like the novel it really is far more repulsive than Anatomie de l'enfer. Some of the scenes in the latter offend our sensibilities because we've adopted certain cultural norms; there's nothing intrinsically horrible about them. (Here I'm not referring to the misuse of the garden tool, as there's definitely something repellent about violating a sleeping woman.) But the strongest scenes in 'Salo' depict practices that are objectively disgusting and offend people of all cultures and upbringings. There's no redemption in de Sade's novel; the 'heroes' don't leave the château more enlightened than they were when they entered.

So I can understand why parallels would be drawn but cannot help thinking that these two films are in very different categories.

The Stepford Wives (2004)

Shouldn't a parody be funny?

[6/10 · 29 May 2005]

I gave this 6 out of 10 because I quite enjoyed it. Highlights were the performances of Roger Bart, Glenn Close and - at times - Nicole Kidman. The script was hardly sparkling but there were some comic moments - the book club scene, for example.

But I cannot accept that this is such a good parody that logic can be allowed to fly out of the window. Supporters have slated critics who pointed out that the film is riddled with inconsistencies. But no one can deny that there is a major inconsistency here, when we are first told that the women have been replaced by robots and later that, no, they were simply the victims of mind control that can be reversed remotely.

After watching the deleted scenes on the DVD and listening to Frank Oz's commentary on the film (also on the DVD), I came away thinking that he didn't have a clear idea of what it was meant to be. He said that the scene with Bette Middler as lawnmower was deleted because it was too comedic, when he wanted something darker. I thought the deleted scene was quite entertaining and that, if we are asked to excuse the gaffes because IT'S JUST A PARODY, it should have been kept in. Oz does talk about continuity in his commentary, but it's at the micro level - ensuring that remote controls are in the correct hand when filming resumes, giving Kidman the same hairstyle when she returns for something filmed during post-production - and not at macro scale.

But despite the best efforts of Midler, Bart and Close this really wasn't that funny. I laughed at the AOL joke (even though I'm a loyal customer) but it wasn't that original. The opening scenes, with reality TV shows, were quite promising, but after that it was downhill all the way.

If this had been a lot funnier I would have forgiven the macro scale continuity howlers.

Roll (2004 TV Movie)

Low-budget fun as footballer seeks his fortune in the city

[7/10 · 17 January 2005]

Mat Spirogolou's (Toby Malone) family know he is a talented footballer, and are pleased when he secures an audition to join a big club. They hope that when he arrives in the city his cousin will look after him.

But the cousins are like chalk and cheese: one a naive farm boy, the other a streetwise spendthrift who has managed to get mixed up with drug dealers and gangsters. Mat is unlikely to have a quiet evening in before his big day.

Having missed his cousin George (Damien Robertson) on arrival in the city, Mat encounters further trouble when a young biker takes him for a ride in more ways than one.

Toby Malone, probably better known for his work in theatre, puts in a commendable performance as the bucolic teenager. There are telltale signs of a low budget, but as with so many other low-budget movies there's more fun, seemingly more spontaneity, and more charm, than there is to be seen in the average Hollywood blockbuster.

Batbabe (1995 Video)

Check the box before buying

[3/10 · 2 January 2005]

Do make sure you have the right version before buying or renting this movie in the UK. The 18 (abridged) version is decidedly soft-core and ordinary. I'm told the 18R version is one of the first hardcore movies approved for sale in the UK, albeit in 'sex shops' only.

Batbabe (and her portly companion, based on Robin the Boy Wonder) have the chief of police's home under surveillance, and they witness some action next to the swimming pool. Batbabe and companion are captured by the baddies, and end up being forced to spectate as the gangsters indulge in sex in a number of position - some girl/girl but mostly boy/girl. In the abridged version it's all fairly typical of the soft-core genre; nothing that hasn't been seen in a hundred other movies. Will they escape? I'll resist the temptation to include a spoiler.

The picture quality on the DVD was fine, though the sound didn't seem too good: the dialogue (and we're interested in what the characters are saying, right?) was quiet compared to other sounds.

About Schmidt (2002)

You don't have to be old to enjoy this.

[8/10 · 18 April 2004]

There seem to be a few comments here to the effect that people who don't like About Schmidt are young, and that, by implication, you have to be getting on in years to appreciate it.

However, if you look at the voting demographic you'll find that, although females under 18 mark it down, males in that age group like it as much as anyone. And the other voting figures don't reveal a distinct age-related bias either way.

Equally, I would hesitate to suggest that intelligence has a lot to do with the extent to which you are likely to enjoy it. I know highly intelligent people who didn't get it at all. I think it's much more to do with expectations: some of us enjoy thoughtful films that focus on relationships and the delusions to which we can fall prey, while others demand action, a clear narrative, comedies that strain every tendon to squeeze humour out of any given situation, or rip-roaring pace.

In summary, it takes all sorts. If you don't like this movie, fine. But don't dismiss it as bad or pointless.

Lust for Freedom (1987)

Absolutely dire

[1/10 · 18 April 2004]

There may be messages here about the importance of freedom, but they were lost amid guffaws prompted by the abysmal quality of this movie. The screenplay was awful, the acting for the most part dreadful, the editing appalling.

Melanie Coll is marginally better than most in the film, but hers is hardly a sparkling performance. Many of the rest of the cast appear to be enthusiastic amateurs.

It appears that the censors have forced cuts to the version put on to DVD in the UK in 2004, probably because of excessive violence. But the cuts were made with sheep shears rather than anything sharper, so the viewer is left wondering how the action has moved on so quickly and inexplicably.

Don't waste 90 minutes of your life on this garbage.

Of Freaks and Men (1998)

Bleak but refreshingly different and evocative

[8/10 · 6 April 2002]

In an era in which the video shop shelves and TV schedules are dominated by formula-pap, it is refreshing to find a film that stimulates thought for days afterwards. The question is: what's it all about? Is the film commenting on life in pre-revolutionary Russia, on the exploitation of 'freaks', on the corrupting power of pornography, or perhaps none or all of these? I came away from it thinking that the film was primarily about the ways in which film-making can be misused; that it examined the role of those drawn into 'the pornography industry' whether exploiter, exploited, or idealistic artist more interested in technique than subject matter. In thinking about that interpretation I found myself pondering the role of Putilov, seemingly an idealist; would it not be more accurate to describe him as amoral, as the artist determined to remain aloof from the degradation and humiliation required for completion of his projects?

I think the film raises questions about the extent to which the film-maker can remain untarnished by the moral issues that he purports to examine objectively and from a detached perspective. If Putilov agrees to co-operate in the filming or photography of the naked, frightened Siamese twins or of the whipping of a young woman can he really escape responsibility for their plight? Is he really entitled to walk away with his reputation intact? The immoral Johann is easier to condemn: he is a sadist who will kill at the drop of a hat to preserve his way of life and business. A jury would take much longer to decide its verdict on Putilov.

Rude Boy (1980)

Grittily realistic 'docu-drama'

[7/10 · 13 May 2001]

It is genuinely difficult to work out where the drama ends and the documentary takes over. When I sat down to watch it I had no idea whether Ray, the fan who becomes a roadie, was an actor or the genuine article. The stilted nature of some of the conversations, and self-conscious grins accompanying them, indicate contrivance, but it's as if real conversations are being reproduced for the camera. Only afterwards did I discover that Ray Gange was acting and had written the script.

The film provides an insight into the world of punk rock in the late seventies. The Clash were more musically adept, and more politically aware, than most punk bands of the era, but the rebellious swaggers and the anger were typical enough. The concert footage is entertaining, and only marred by the fact that much is filmed from the back of the stage. It features much of the band's best material, from White Riot to Tommy Gun to London's Burning.

This is a nostalgic treat for old punk rockers, and a useful introduction for those who, in the late 70s, were too young or allowed punk rock to pass them by.

Every Breath (1994)

Pointless and nasty

[4/10 · 1 March 2001]

Dodgy plot, dodgy script, dodgy almost everything in fact. The most compelling performance is that of Joanna Pacula as Lauren, but even that does not rescue this pointless and nasty film. The director's implicit invitation to viewers is not merely to suspend disbelief but to suspend judgement.

Presumably it is intended to be steamy and menacing, but although the film has its erotic moments they are few and far between. This sort of thing has been done better by lots of others. Don't go out of your way to see it.

Independence Day (1996)

Derivative Sci-Fi No-brainer or Great Satire?

[26 December 2000]

Commentators who like this film seem divided: some applaud ID4's special effects and dismiss those who slate its lack of character development, implausible science, and US-centred chauvinism. Others hail it as a great spoof, and insist that the references to War of the Worlds, Alien, Star Wars and so on are satirical.

Anyone who makes a successful movie has to be intelligent, and that lends credibility to the spoof theory. It's easy to believe that there is more going on than meets the eye. But the intelligence of this fim is largely visual: it's in the special effects rather than the script. If this were truly a spoof of the sci-fi films of the 50s and 60s, and the disaster movies of the 70s, I'd expect to discern more wit in the dialogue. But the dialogue was entertaining without being razor-sharp.

So I reluctantly conclude that this is a film to be enjoyed for its action rather than than fun it might be poking at earlier Hollywood genres. And enjoyable it is: the special effects are special indeed.

Who cares that the security in the White House is so lousy, that the aliens clearly bought their computer software from Microsoft, and that the rest of the world is supposed, yet again, to believe that only Americans have the heart and know-how to save us?

One thing that does irk me, though, is the stereotypical portrayal of non-Americans. I can just about stomach the plummy accent of the British officer in the Iraqi desert - after all, Sandhurst graduates do often speak like that. But Africans running through the bush with spears? Now you really are pulling my leg. Or was it a satirical reference to Zulu?

Pretty Peaches (1978)

A saucy little peach of a film.

[9/10 · 20 March 1999]

Pretty Peaches is difficult if not impossible to find in a British video shop. New video censorship legislation in the mid-80s saw to that. It goes further than most adult films of the period in pushing out the boundaries. After 1984 it was beyond the boundary.

You don't often hear of a film featuring explicit treatment of enemas. Pretty Peaches did. Every other scene in the film, mandatory orgy included, fades from the memory long before that particular episode dims. The plot is of course secondary to the main action, but the story of the girl who suffers amnesia following a road accident is novel and also helps to make this a cut above the ordinary. See it if you get the chance.

Crimes of Passion (1984)

Suspending your disbelief is the only option.

[7/10 · 27 February 1999]

Suspending your disbelief is the only option if you're not going to be disappointed by this movie. There are so many implausible events, baffling motives and unanswered questions that in the end you just have to accept that some things are never going to be explained - and go with the flow.

I enjoyed Kathleen Turner's performance as Joanna Crane and China Blue - though I never quite worked out why she found it so essential to have this mysterious alter ego, nor why an apparently well-balanced, sane individual so readily placed herself in danger. On a more mundane level, it wasn't clear how the demented priest managed either to identify China Blue's address or get to it (there was no evidence that he had a car, for example). And why didn't she simply call a constable - perhaps the nice young man she handcuffed to her bed - at the first sign of trouble?

Other puzzling events in the film included China Blue's abortive journey on her way to a threesome. Abortive, because the female half of the couple alleges that the ears of a prostitute should be no go areas for tongues (something to do with germs). Why ears I'm not sure. Perhaps she mistakenly thought she heard someone saying that some prostitutes' clients liked to "stick it in her ear".

Titanic (1997)

Rarely has a three hour film seemed so short. It canters.

[8/10 · 3 January 1999]

The cinema viewer may well wonder whether there can be any real suspense when it is clear from the beginning of the film that the central character, Rose (Kate Winslet), will survive the disaster that befalls the Titanic. But suspense there is, not least because we don't know whether her lover will make it. There is also action, social (class) comment, drama, historical notes - not least several comments on the cause of the initial impact and why it was so disastrous - and good old fashioned romance.

Rarely has a three hour film seemed so short. It canters. The romance at the centre of the plot develops quickly and my attention was held not only by developments in this story but the events that, taken together, spelt disaster for the 'unsinkable' ship, and then the aftermath of the ship's collision with that famous iceberg.

Kate Winslet was simply gorgeous and put in a fine performance, as did Leonardo di Caprio as Jack Dawson. The make-up of the older Rose (Gloria Stuart) was one of the less convincing aspects of the movie, but it seems churlish to draw attention to such a detail; in any case, it's to be expected that an 87 year old will need a fair amount of facial recontouring and war-paint to play a woman of 101.