Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 2:16 am
Saw this today. It is getting a presumably brief NYC theatrical run. I have little to add to the Salon piece I posted above. Taken as nonsense, it's ok. In fact, those few scenes not involving dialogue or acting or lighting or shot blocking are fine. And the devil really is in the details--I hope that eye-gouging device is available on eBay. Also the final shot is almost worth the price of admission. I just wish DA would hook up with some professional film technicians. I can forgive dumbass dialogue and bad acting (existent in most of his flix), but the bad "process" is hard to forgive.
EDIT: saw it a second time and I'm raising my grade to B+. It has more personality than most of the stuff, horror or otherwise, that is coming out. The days of rich film stock are over--and never coming back. If this had been shot using 70s techniques it would be among DA's better films.
EDIT: saw it a second time and I'm raising my grade to B+. It has more personality than most of the stuff, horror or otherwise, that is coming out. The days of rich film stock are over--and never coming back. If this had been shot using 70s techniques it would be among DA's better films.