Two legendary schlock directors made a film so bad it took another two people to bash it. Gaming legend Sandy Petersen continues his series of Herschell Gordon Lewis reviews, but this time Ken joins in.
Sadly, it did a lot more damage to us than we did to it. It’s 68 minutes of pure heck as we hit the dance floor at the Monster A Go-Go.
Another viewer at about the 30 minute mark.
#1 by jason farrell on February 22, 2010 - 12:03 pm
Quote
My latest experiment is to try and scientifically determine the dullest movie ever made. So far,
I’ve got FROZEN ALIVE in front, followed closely by the Italian “monster” “movie” PANIC. But, from your dual description, it looks like a more deadly gunslinger just walked in the tavern.
Wish me luck!
#2 by El Santo on February 22, 2010 - 1:44 pm
Quote
Don’t declare the experiment concluded until you’ve done high noon with Andrei Tarkovski’s [i]Stalker[/i], Jason. SEE! A lot of pretty landscapes fail to distract your attention from four of the most vacuous and uncompelling characters ever presented on the big screen! SEE! Moping and misery done as only the Russians know how! SEE! A clever and intriguing premise turn into an unspeakable ordeal of soul-harrowing tedium as not a single goddamned thing happens for 160 minutes!
#3 by Chris S. on February 23, 2010 - 9:58 am
Quote
You guys have never seen Mindwalk (1990), have you? Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: a politician (Sam Waterston), a poet (John Heard), and a particle physicist (some Norwegian woman) spend an afternoon wandering around a French city discussing morality, reality, and the nature and meaning of human endeavor. Pablo Neruda is quoted at length. And then it ends.
It’s not a genre movie, of course, but it is very pretentious, and very, very dull. Impossibly dull. Cosmically dull. It will usher you into previously undreamt of worlds of dullness.
#4 by jason farrell on February 23, 2010 - 10:08 am
Quote
Tarkovski. I’d forgotten about him. My brother (a knee-jerk arthouse aesthete) once tried to chloroform me with Tarkovski.
(soft whimpering, only auidible in the far background).
Still, I thank you for your suggestion. I thrive on tedium, it’s true…but we’ll see how much grit I have left
after Tarkovski.
#5 by jason farrell on February 23, 2010 - 10:14 am
Quote
Chris S: In a weird turn of events, I saw MINDWALK in the last sixty days or so on Showtime Beyond. And, fine sir, it is certainly in the upper tier.
Was that set in a French city? I didn’t catch that; I was too busy bleeding out of my ears.
#6 by Chris S. on February 23, 2010 - 10:54 am
Quote
They’re knocking around Mont Saint-Michel in Normandy, France. It’s a tidal island covered in some truly staggering medieval architecture. But, I guess that really sums up the film. It’s so boring you can’t even appreciate the beautiful setting. Everything’s lost in a thick yellow fog of smugness.
#7 by Read MacGuirtose on February 23, 2010 - 12:58 pm
Quote
Actually, yeah, I’ve seen Mindwalk. Now, I’m definitely not the sort of moviegoer that insists that every movie must be full of action. In principle, I don’t see anything necessarily wrong with a movie that consists entirely of people talking, as long as it advances the plot and involves interesting characters. But since Mindwalk doesn’t really have any plot to advance, and the characters aren’t much developed… yeah. It’s like overhearing a long, rambling conversation by pretentious strangers. Every once in a while they touch briefly on a subject that sounds like it might be sort of interesting, but since you don’t have any context for it and don’t know anything about these people, there’s never any compelling reason to pay attention or care.
#8 by Jason Farrell on February 23, 2010 - 8:00 pm
Quote
Well, Read, if you’re “definitely not the sort of moviegoer that insists that every movie must be full of action” then perhaps you ought to test that core belief…against Tarkovski’s STALKER.
Go on, dig in. At 160 minutes, there’s plenty for everyone.
#9 by Read MacGuirtose on February 23, 2010 - 8:49 pm
Quote
Whoa, hold on now, saying that not every movie necessarily has to be full of action isn’t the same as saying that I’d necessarily like any movie that doesn’t have action. After all, I’ve already expressed my negative opinion of Mindwalk, and you can’t get more action-free than that. (Although it’s only 112 minutes, so I guess it only has 70% the tedious, uneventful banality that Stalker apparently contains…)
#10 by lyzard on February 23, 2010 - 11:04 pm
Quote
Um…I kinda like Stalker…
#11 by Read MacGuirtose on February 24, 2010 - 1:11 am
Quote
I don’t have any opinion on Stalker, per se, since I’ve never seen it… I was just assuming from the other posts here that it was the same kind of movie as Mindwalk (though for all I know it’s not). So it’s really Mindwalk the description of “tedious, uneventful banality” was aimed at.
#12 by Jason Farrell on February 24, 2010 - 6:23 am
Quote
Borrowed STALKER from my highbrow brother. Obvious mistake.
Watching it right now, in twenty minute increments.
Senses transfigured, far is near and near is far…
It’s like being in an alternate universe.
An alternate universe where nothing, ever, happens.
#13 by Jason Farrell on February 24, 2010 - 1:09 pm
Quote
By my watch, I’m on the sixth hour of STALKER.
I’ve never known a movie before wherein the characters seem as bored as I am.
I wish the director had inserted little items to break-up the monotony, like MAGILLA GORILLA episodes. Or something.