Eyes Wide Shut - 1999

I am going to take a guess here about my history with Stanley Kubrick.  I seriously don't remember at this point.  I have no fucking clue when I saw what, exactly.  I know that I bought 2001 and Clockwork Orange in the year 2001 or 2002.  I know this cause I have these weird boxsets that  included a 70mm (or 45mm for Clockwork) film frame, the CD Soundtrack, and a booklet.  So I probably had seen them around the late 90's because I knew who Stanley Kubrick was when Eyes was coming out.

I'm going to go out on a small limb and say...there's a chance that Eyes Wide Shut may have been the first movie by Kubrick I saw.  When I was this age, 13 or so, I was beginning to get really into film, and I might have recognized that this was a movie veteran, well known, and that this was his new film.  Since I don't specifically remember seeing 2001 or Clockwork the first time, there is a very small chance I rented this when it was a new release and watched it, and it made me interested to his other movies.... just a possible situation.   Not guaranteed.

Eyes Wide Shut will forever be remembered I think for three unfortunate things.  Number one, Stanley Kubrick's last movie.  Number two, the sex club part of the movie.  Number three, it was Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman as a couple at the time, and they were having their first big film together, and they broke up soon afterwards.  All these things have tainted the legacy of the film, but what is the movie besides these things?  I hadn't seen it since the very early 2000's and I revisited it cause it's on Netflix.

First of all, it's not a great movie.  Let me just start with that.  You can't really expect every single thing the man touches to be gold, and the plot of this just doesn't bring loads to the table.  What you have here is perhaps a fantastical and surreal vision of the falling apart of a married couple.

Nicole Kidman, as Alice early in the film admits to husband Tom Cruise, as Bill that she had fantasies about a man she saw randomly.  In his pain and anger, he goes out into the night and eventually finds his friend and pianist Nick Nightingale at a club.  He sticks around and they talk, Nick mentions he's going to another gig, that he has to be blindfolded for it, and there's a mystery to it.  Pushed on by curiosity, Bill decides to attend the event, which is the big sex club scene about an hour into the movie.  When he's discovered as someone not wanted there, he gets targeted and eventually threatened, then kicked out.

Aside from that 20 or so minutes of the movie, the rest is all pretty much based in reality.  Bill is trying to cope with his distraught feelings after the admission of his wife, and in the meantime he's a busy doctor, begins to have suspicions and fear after the threats made at him in the club, especially when a woman he was talking to there ends up dead.  But, spoilers here, the best part of the movie is the ambiguity it leaves as to the whole affair.  The woman?  A drug addict prostitute who possibly killed herself.  The man following Bill?  A tail his friend put on him to make sure Bill was safe and didn't endanger the sex cult.  Eventually, his life returns to normalcy, he confesses all to his wife Alice, and though he has nothing really to confess to, it's all symbolic of how much he was willing to go through because of the admission she made earlier.  And she forgives him, although I guess in a way it's her just acknowledging the true nature of what happened in the relationship.

Well acted, certainly well shot, with tremendous feelings of tension at time, and a lot of bizarre qualities to it, one still has to admit this movie felt unfocused.  There's a lot of unnecessary parts to the film, and there's a lot of unclear motivation from Bill about what he's doing and why.  When he goes to a prostitute in the beginning it makes sense.  The sex cult makes sense.  Revisiting the prostitute later and bringing her a gift, didn't make sense.  Getting interested in a shopkeepers daughter, didn't make sense.  Not to mention there's basically no need for any of the hospital scenes, for a lot in the beginning, and some other small things.

As a last film, since you can't really count A.I., this is a fairly weak end to the Kubrick legend.  It is his look at relationships, I guess, and has some nice imagery and certainly will stick with you.  But like I said, unfortunately, the brazen and twisted scenes at the sex club are the only things one will end up taking away from the film, and that actually has very little to do with the film in the end, and was more metaphoric in existence in the first place.  It ends as it began, two rich white people who hit a minor bump in the road just keep on going, and we're left to assume everything is fine, and this was a brief diversion in the flawless lives of two beautiful, pretty much perfect peoples lives...

It's not an easy film to stick up for, and I kind of doubt I'll be in a rush to see it again.  The sex party did remind me a lot of the kink scene I go to sometimes, but other than that, it held no real value for me.  I give it 3 stars, mostly for the technically well made factors.

On The Beach - 1959

Alright, so I'm getting to some Netflix DVDs that have been on my list for a long ass time, and I had something I don't quite remember for like 4 weeks and just returned it to get On The Beach.  I sat, I put it on, I forgot how old it was and was surprised it was black and white, and I was...  entertained!  How nice, am I right?

My friend asked me at some point what I was watching recently, and I told him On The Beach.  I was about halfway through the movie.  He asked, "Should I add it to my Q?"  After all, I had described the film as it reads:  some post-apocalyptic thriller in Australia.  It does sound fucking cool.  But what was my response to his question?  "I don't know, it depends how much you like talky black and white character dramas.  It's well shot and has some great acting, but overall it's a bit long."

And honestly, I could just leave the review at that, but let's muster something here....

An American submarine comes up around Australia.  The crew disembarks and talks to the locals, and learns that while they've been underwater, the bomb went off and most of the Earth's population has died of radiation.  The radiation is slowly spreading all over the world, so it seems that in time it will infect Australia as well.  They pick up on a signal being sent from somewhere in America about 45 minutes in, and decide to go investigate.

And it's, like I said earlier, very well done in parts.  Gregory Peck, Anthony Perkins, Fred Astaire, Ava Gardner, it has the great cast one could fall in love with.  Filmed in gorgeous back and white with sometimes amazing shots.  The acting, sometimes it's just there and is fine, but sometimes its amazing and nuanced and makes the film wonderful.

With something so bleak, I wondered where the movie would go.  When they board the submarine and take off for America, there is a sense of palpable tension to the film.  They get to America, San Francisco, and they need to investigate where the signal is coming from.  Some spoilers present here.  They end up finding the signal is being sent by a coke bottle caught in a window drape.  They leave America and head back.  Back home, soon the first of their Australian people has the radiation sickness.  They then discover they're all going to die, and so they all make choices.  Stay and die in Australia, or get on the boat, and head towards the mainland?  And eventually, well everyone dies.  Which for 1959, was pretty fucking dark.  This is a very dark, very bleak movie.

Spoilers over.  Considering the plot, this movie should be recommended to anyone who enjoys these types of films.  There were some odd choices made, however, and some minor things I didn't like.  The American guy is so strikingly "good guy".  Anthony Perkins wife is ridiculously fragile and has some vague mental thing that's never explained.  There's endless dialogue at times, while at other times no one ever expresses more than slight concern that the whole world has died in the beginning of the movie.

In the end, it's a great mix between classic 50's dialogue heavy, and chilling dark view of the future and what humanity would seem very likely to do in the case of true hopelessness.  I think it's up there in terms of the more "realistic" end of the world films, and if nothing else, I think it totally nails it on some of the character turns.  I give it....  I guess 4.5.

The River Niger - 1976

Sweeeeeet.  I saw this movie, and when it ended last night, I could've sworn it said copyright 1970.  I was impressed for it to have been made in 1970, but instead it's 1976 and I get to continue my 1976 marathon.  Motherfucker, I will watch at least 76 movies from 1976.  That' my new stated goal.  76 movies from 1976, tracked and in this blog.  And I am at.... 19.  I am not going to count 1976 movies I've seen separate from this blog.  I'm sure in TOTAL I have seen a lot more, probably about 50ish or something.  I'm talking about ever in my life.

So I am already a quarter of my way through to 76 movies, given I am 19 out of 76.  Wow, that's seriously weird, 19 is exactly one fourth of 76.  Super cool.  With knowledge of 18 other movies from the same year, I will have to say in retrospect this movie felt a little older.  However, it was also a change, given that this is a straight drama.

The Swinging 70s boxset has led me to some strange and odd circumstances.  I've watched films that I would normally not watch at all.  I've stepped out of genre, I've gone into romance, drama, biopic, and comedy.  There have been a few of the strange or weird, there may even be a few horror or thriller types to come.  But the reason I thought this would be fun is that it's gonna be such a mixed bag in watching this boxset.

The River Niger is a family drama piece.  Roger Ebert reviewed it, and I have to agree with his thought that it felt soap-opera in it's scope.  It's a operatic family drama in that it crams a lot of things into one flick, with a lot of issues touched on, brought up, dialogued, and some are heartfelt whereas others exist just to exist and make the rest seem more dramatic.

James Earl Jones, Louis Gossett Jr, and others lead a well acted story of a father figure, John, whose son is due home from the war soon.  John's son Jeff was in the air force, and comes home with a bit of hostility to him.  John is an alcoholic, Jeff didn't like the air force and washed out, John's wife has cancer, John goes missing for a short time, Jeff's bride gets hit on by some local gangs, there's a drug war going on....it's a load of problems heaped onto the flick to dramatize it all up.

Obviously the strengths here are many.  James Earl Jones turns in a fantastic dynamic performance of a pained and free-spirited man.  He's a poet and a painter, a philosopher and a father.  He loves his wife, he lives his life, and just wants everyone to be happy.  Various other characters are given enough to deepen their characters, and everything plugs along until the inevitable conclusion that slightly misfires as to what the end meaning truly was.

There was two extremely good moments though.  John is a poet, and when he reads his poems, it's a shining moment to the film.  As a lover of poetry, I liked the poems immensely.  There is a sweetness to them, a yearning, and a passionate soul evoked, which James Earl Jones brings out with a silent strength and a resilience we admire.  It's the type of moment where with every flaw a character may have, all is instantly forgiven, and we want to just sit and stare in awe.  This type of thing would normally elevate it an entire star.  Which leaves me with another...2.5?  3?  I guess another 3.  It had other good moments as well.  So a 3.

They Call it Murder - 1971

What a name.  They call it murder.  Could it be any more over the top?  It's so serial.  In fact, I had a thought especially towards the end when everything is wrapping up, that this movie seriously reminded me of old radio shows that I used to listen to.  I don't know if I ever said on here before, I used to listen to and enjoy radio mystery shows, especially Broadway Is My Beat and Philip Marlowe.

Mostly, this is an average whodunnit mystery cop flick.  There was not a lot of other factors going for it.  But it did well with the actors and with the style.  The main detective is human and also inspirational.  He's easy to like and we know he'll get his man, but it takes him a while to get there.  The hardest part is keeping who's who straight, and when the crime actually gets laid out for us, I had to admit I didn't quite "get" what happened.  However, the film does offer nice little split screen action shots of parts happening to illustrate his narration.

In this way, this felt like a classic mystery to me.  You've got all the normal steps to set it up.  In the beginning, there is a body sunk to the bottom of a pool.  Detective Doug Selby arrives on the scene to a group of suspects, each one insisting on their innocence.  The cast is diverse and intense, featuring only the second appearance of Leslie Nielsen on this blog, Jim Hutton, Ed Asner and Jessica Walter.

I took this murder mystery off the Swinging 70's boxset, and I have to say it did keep me interested in some ways.  The acting, the plot, the twists and turns are decently done.  I did guess correctly at some of the ways the plot would eventually go, small spoilers I guess, it follows a simple logic:  the known actors are probably the ones involved in the plot.

There were parts that were hard to follow, and there was a bit of plot convenience.  The spun tales in these mystery films always seem so far fetched, people go through such crazy schemes for relatively nothing.  I subscribe to the idea that fact is more interesting than fiction though, and I am sure that complex as this film may be, the real life schemes people come up with are equally or more crazy.

I think I liked this?  It's hard to say.  It's not my usual foray, and it's nothing I'd recommend, nothing I'd watch again.  But it reminded me of those radio shows which I did like, and it felt like something that was...well written.  Which obviously is necessary, and it makes sense given this was based on a book.  I hope at the same time there's not a ton of these on the set, cause this is a bit of chore to work through.  I give it 3 stars.

Witchboard - 1986

Am I still doing my 1986 marathon?  I guess I'm not, huh?  I started a 1976 marathon, I started watching a bunch of boxsets, I stopped writing in this blog as much, a lot of things have happened.  My life is quite complicated.  Lots of half finished projects.

My blog research shows me my 1986 marathon actually ended pretty much in 2016.  I suppose I only did it around my 30th birthday.  Ultimately, 1986 is a not-too-obscure year for me to marathon films from.  I also sound way nerdier and weirder when I tell people I am marathoning 1976 movies, and that I'm going to essentially be doing so until I turn 40 in 2026.  It's been almost a year since I saw The Wraith, the last 1986 movie reviewed in this blog.

I had my friend Jason over last night.  He was depressed and anxious, and having girl issues.  We went to Burger King, drank many a beer, and I put on Witchboard in the background.  Overall, I paid more attention than him, and I'm deciding it was enough attention to warrant a blog entry about it.  A movie like this really doesn't deserve much more attention than the meager amount I was willing to give it, after all.

In the beginning of Witchboard, a group of friends are at a party and eventually they bust out the ol' Ouija board and decide to conjure some ghosts.  The main girl gets infested by a ghost, and the rest of the flick you can pretty much guess at.  It's friends and unknowing female host running around, ghost icing people, Ouija scenes that give vague answers and then promptly end in a jump scare that is not scary, and some good old fashioned dull dialogue.

The kills were meh to terrible.  I do like watching movies with someone who loves bad horror, cause we watched the last death in the movie like 4 times. Clearly it was one of the terrible deaths.  Which gives this some culty drinky smoky type appeal, but there's faster paced, more effects films out there for you and your stonified friends.  Even other films by the same director, such as Night of the Demons.

It wasn't that bad, it wasn't that good, 1.5 stars is about right.

Return of the Family Man - 1989

What happened to South Africa?  South Africa, in the 80's, was a upcoming film location, it seemed.  Suddenly in the 80's, flicks were popping up filmed in Australia and Canada and South Africa and more.  Google shows me some of the known South African movies recently.  District 9...yeah.  Okay.  I guess it's not that unknown of.

Well, anyways, back to the subject at hand.  Return of the Family Man is filmed in South Africa and they spend the whole movie quietly pretending it's America.  Which is pretty awesome, I might mention.  I love how, in older movies like this, they just casually pretend it's America.  Obviously trying to succeed in America by doing this, but now they'd do the opposite.  Emphasize it's South Africa in order to succeed.

Return of the Family Man has a couple of groups of people coming together at a junked out house in the semi middle of nowhere, tricked there by some resort thing they bought into.  Okay, it's original enough, I'll go with it.  Meanwhile, a bus transporting criminals is derailed when serial killer "The Family Man" kills the guards and escapes.  He begins his journey home, home ends up being the same house where the group of people is staying.

It's a simple enough story, and it works with the subject matter.  The killer is given enough screen time to be interesting, and he's well acted enough for it to not be a total mistake.  Some parts and the some of the pacing is a bit wonky, but all in all, nothing goes off the rails.  The kills are pretty decent too.  It's not super memorable, it's not out to hurt anyone, but it could have easily been worse.

Return of the Family Man was forgettable, but fine, ultimately.  Nothing much to say.  2.5 stars.

Open House - 1987

Jofer Jeff saved me again on a night where I wanted an inconsequential, by the numbers blah as fuck horror film.  And this is so damn unknown and uninteresting I can hardly find anything about it online.  So, win!

Adrienne Barbeau is in this?  Wow!  We start the movie with an extremely subpar, soft core porn type feel.  Idiotic 80's women are being murdered as they tour open houses in some vague suburban town somewhere.  Yes, that is in fact the entire plot of this movie.  It's pretty great, really.  In the meantime, there is a local radio show that's a suicide prevention Life Line type call in thing, and they're receiving occasionally weird calls from maybe the killer.

It's got some interesting deaths, it has some terrible acting, it has lots of bizarre clunky writing factors that go into it, and suffice to say it's NOT GOOD.  Pacing was weird, acting is hit and miss, the killer at the end was kind of a dumb sequence.  Yeah, I dunno.  And yeah, we're keeping a short review this time.  I gotta pay attention to Amityville 3D which is on right now.  1 star.

Get Christie Love! - 1974

I popped this movie in about three times.  I didn't pay too much attention for any of those three times.  But that's as much as this is going to get, and I feel like I gleaned enough from it to write a pretty reliable review.  Returning to the much loved 1970's boxset here.

Get Christie Love! is a TV special based on a TV series turned movie.  This was the early 70's, and black hero and heroine films were making it big on the market with such films as Shaft, Sweet Sweetback's Badass Song, Big Bird Cage, Coffy, etc.  This was a attempt to have black people being the focus of both comedy and action, as both an experiment in progression and exploitation, but ultimately won out on the progressive side.

Sparked by this, many things jumped on the blaxploitation bandwagon, and tried to cash in on the craze.  Get Christie was a light made for TV version of a cash in.  It did what it could without being able to get a high a rating obviously.  The blaxploitation in the theaters would normally be action packed, have some nudity, and would have lotsa use of bad language.  Get Christie had to settle for less than this, and yes, it does feel that way as well.

A really likable main actress Teresa Graves plays Christie Love.  Christie is a funny, charming, charismatic young black woman working for the police department.  She's tough, good at talking the talk and walking the walk.  The series was only the second TV show to have a black female lead character, and in that way it will always be seen as progressive.  

All this aside, is it a great movie?  Hm.  Meh.  It's okay.  There's nothing "wrong" with it per say.  It's averagely interesting.  It's got a drug trade, it's got some action scenes, it's got a few chuckles.  It was probably better in the 70's.  It's pretty much what you expect from a 70's TV show.  It was successful as a show, but was soon canceled as Teresa Graves quit acting.

I would not recommend it unless your primary interest is the blaxploitation and 70's type films.  I give it 2 stars.

Friday the 13th Part 3 - 1982

Getting home last night, I was again confronted with the recent phenomenon of desiring to watch a classic slasher.  I wanted the whole shebang.  I wanted death count, masked killer, the look and feel and essence of the 80's, and I specifically wanted it in the form of a Friday the 13th movie.

A while back on this blog, I randomly watched and reviewed Friday the 13th Part VI and Jason Goes to Hell and the Friday reboot.  I also did watch Jason takes Manhattan, which I did not review.  Some of these I watched because I simply hadn't seen them in a long time.  Some I watched because I had never seen them before at all.  Yes, dear reader, I had never seen Manhattan or Hell before the last few years.  I know.  Crucify me.

Friday the 13th Part 3 was the first to gimmick the franchise.  In this one, it was filmed in 3D and also it way ups the stakes in showing that Jason is un-killable and will survive just about anything you can do to him.  It invented the now classic look to Jason as well.  It joins him with the hockey mask and the machete, whereas in previous Friday part 2, he had a bag over his head and used a large variety of weapons.

Part 3 isn't as bad as one might think.  It's plot certainly is bad though, and HOW many times have we fucking seen this?!  Recite it with me here:  Several Friends Go Out To The Woods To a Remote House / Camping Trip.  Ugggggghhhghghghghghg.  I GET IT.

To continue my brief breakdown of horror I started in Iced I was thinking about masks a lot as I watched this.  I think I can take a shot at exactly why killers wear masks and why we're afraid of them.  We are all afraid of the instincts within us.  We're afraid of the animal impulse, the desire for blood or for vengeance, to overpower someone with rape or death or control.  We know from history we're entirely capable.  Humans having been acting in animalistic ways towards other humans for years.  And a mask is symbolic of someone making the choice to abandon their humanity.  Whatever mask it is, it's inhuman.  It's embracive of the instinct, it's embracing the animal, the desire we have within all of us.  Especially in movies like this and in Halloween where, as soon as the mask is partially removed, the killer stops everything and struggles to get it back on.  Masks are essential for them to survive.  To keep on being who they are.  Because to show their face is to admit their humanity.  So for the love of fucking god, in the next goddamn Star Wars film, have Kylo Ren put his goddamn mask back on!

The deaths are plenty and they are done well.  Creative to standard, there's a lot of them, and most of them are spread out within the last 40 minutes of the film.  Jason has a lot of screen time, and for a few parts of the film we actually follow him instead of the dumb blond or the hunky beefcake he's going to kill.  The characters are all averagely annoying, not very well written, and the dialogue is either non-existent or terrible.  There is supposed to be nudity, but the YouTube video I watched had it blurred out...?  The fuck?

So that's your "Horror Movie Breakdown" there, rating the normal things one would look for in a horror film.  It has mostly successes though, things in the "plus column" so it stands out as above average.  The 3D effects that would have been used, I didn't get to witness since I'm watching it in 2D, but let me sum it up in one word:  Gimmicky.  Unnecessary.  Stupid.  Okay, more that one word, but all three do apply.

Still though, it's a fun sequel, I can see why they made another, and it helped define Jason for years as the killer we picture when we hear Friday the 13th.  3.5 stars...?  Hmmm....  4 stars.

Blood Frenzy - 1987

We have been down this road before.  This is the tried and true "porn director makes a real movie" trope.  I wonder if porn directors are still trying this nowadays?  This was one of  13 projects listed for director Hal Freeman for 1987, check the whole list here:

 1987Best of Caught from Behind (Video) 

 1987Caught from Behind 7 

 1987Earthquake Survival (Documentary) 

 1987Erotic Dreams (Video) 

 1987Games Couples Play 

 1987Loose Morals 

 1987Love Notes (Video) 

 1987Restless Passion 

 1987Star Cuts 61: Keisha (Video short) 

 1987Sweet Nothings 

 1987The Million Dollar Screw (Video) 

 1987Young and Innocent 

 1987Blood Frenzy 

Now, IMDb does state that Earthquake Survival is an hour long "how to survive" documentary hosted by Shelley Duvall, but aside from that we have quite a bit of porn. Was he trying to branch out? Who knows.

Blood Frenzy plays out and follows the cliched name it has.  It is a horror slasher, sort of continuing my recent line of horror slashers.  The Prey and Iced and hopefully more are coming soon, as I need a dramatic tone shift from the 70's boxset every once in a while.  

YouTube users go through and create entire playlists of terrible slashers.  I'm watching a bunch from this user Jofer Jeff and pretty much just watching anything that I haven't seen before, which is most of them.  I also watched The Night Brings Charlie, Silent Madness, and I watched 1992's Winterbeast, still contemplating if Winterbeast should have a review.  I'll settle for a mini review here:  Terribly awesome, so bad it's fantastic with terrible effects and acting, great Ray Harryhausen type claymation, awesome monsters, great cult night weed smoky movie with nonsensical plot.  4 stars.

Blood Frenzy was similar in the way that it's terribly acted, minimal, filmed in the desert with a small cast.  They're supposedly all mental patients and thus get asked to act, which was a mistake cause most of them cannot.  The kills are average, the pacing is okay, the scare factor is zilch, and nothing really interesting happens the whole movie.  When the best part of your entire movie is the hint and beginning of a lesbian sex scene...yeah your movie sucks.

It's fun though, it could be worse, and it has the cheesiness factor that you can enjoy for drinking and watching with buddies.  I give it a B movie 2 stars.

Mr. Sycamore - 1975

Returning from a bit of a break, I watched Mr. Sycamore last night.  This is the movie on the boxset which I would have to say I was the most excited about.  I remember leafing through the boxset's booklet early on when I got the set, reading through the different movies synopsis.

Mr. Sycamore, I was going to try to find the exact wording and I couldn't, had a very short synopsis.  It basically said that the main character John became obsessed with the idea of becoming a tree, so he goes into his backyard and "plants himself" and awaits the metamorphosis.

And yeah, that is what happens.  No, it's not all that happens though.  In fact, I had a eerie feeling pretty early on, because by minute 20 or so, John has already made up his mind and he was already in the backyard.  It was then I knew, some dumb crap will probably happen to throw all this shit for a loop, cause otherwise this movie would barely make 30 minutes.

And it does.  I will say, this movie never went full on bad, but it has many unnecessary and extraneous moments.  There's a whole bit of "comedy" about the mental hospital coming for John with a straight jacket.  There's a "groovy" surreal bit where he watches a woman ride a horse.  But most interestingly, and perhaps even well done, was a bit of a deep dive into the relationship between John and his wife Jane, who generic names aside, have what appears to be a very deep and loving relationship.  We can see the true depth of feelings Jane has for John as he gets more and more into the tree idea, which would obviously point to future marital problems.

This being 1975, I was genuinely curious to see how this movie would end.  A big part of me suspected he would actually turn into a tree.  After all, the movie had already stepped into surreal territory once, and obviously it wasn't going to end with the main character going to the hospital, killing himself, or waking up.  Spoiler warning, in the end John does turn into a tree.  His wife comes and touches his leaves.  Pan out.  Credits.  Okay...?

In the end, I wasn't sure exactly if I liked this or not.  I will categorize it as something that if you watch it when you're young it would probably stick with you.  It reminds me a bit of all the bizarre weird shit I saw on the other boxset.  The movie with the whale song dude.  The weird movie with the aliens.  Alien Prey.  By the way it's been a full year since I finished Sci Fi Invasion and reviewed it!  My god time flies.

Maybe this movie could have actually been on that set...?  It felt thematically similar wherein it has an interesting premise, but for some reason it's hard to follow, and it leaves you with a general feeling of "wait...what?"  It has an ambiguity about it and I won't lie, it's an ambiguity I am growing to really appreciate.  For some reason, these movies have stayed with me.  I guess it's the perfect amount of bizarre feel, unanswered questions, strange but likable characters, and at times parts of the film that were actually quite good.  The acting, the way the characters interact, it's actually really good in a lot of these films.  It feels heartfelt.

This movie was based on a play, which again points to things I normally enjoy.  Dialogue is cryptic yet refreshing, enigmatically pushing forward.  I don't want to sound like I'm hyping this movie too much though, cause it certainly was a bit boring and very difficult to love.  But I did like it, and I do give it 3.5 stars.  Which seems awfully high, but who cares.