Schwenkstar
A rejoint mai 2004
Badges4
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d’aide sur les badges.
Commentaires31
Évaluation de Schwenkstar
James Dearden, the Oscar-nominated writer for FATAL ATTRACTION and son of directing legend Basil Dearden, crafted this very effective and slick short thriller - his second after 1977's CONTRAPTION.
The film is drenched in atmosphere due to the splashes of saturated, vibrant colors Dearden lights upon the screen, the rainy streets which reflect these vivid and lush illuminations, and the eerie music that is unsettling without being overpowering.
The plot is short and to the point with small twists and turns to keep you interested from beginning to end... it's not a plot that is startling original - it's all based on the fear of hitch-hikers that seems to plague many horror and suspense films - but it's told with style and gusto.
However, the most interesting aspect is that this short film would later be re-made in 2001 as LEFT TURN by Sean Ellis, the Oscar-nominated writer-director of the short film CASHBACK (2004).
The similarities are startlingly - not only is the plot meticulously reconstructed in LEFT TURN scene for scene, but the atmosphere of the film itself is reconstructed - the Mario Bava-inspired lighting, the rainy atmosphere, the British locale, the yellow rain coat of the hitchhiker, and so on.
Which one is better? The remake is certainly more stylish and more horrific - simply because it went more shock and terror - but the original is more restrained and disquieting. It most likely will come down to the taste of the individual viewer.
It would be nice, however, if Sean Ellis gave at least *some* credit (he gave none) to this film for which his remake is based upon...
The film is drenched in atmosphere due to the splashes of saturated, vibrant colors Dearden lights upon the screen, the rainy streets which reflect these vivid and lush illuminations, and the eerie music that is unsettling without being overpowering.
The plot is short and to the point with small twists and turns to keep you interested from beginning to end... it's not a plot that is startling original - it's all based on the fear of hitch-hikers that seems to plague many horror and suspense films - but it's told with style and gusto.
However, the most interesting aspect is that this short film would later be re-made in 2001 as LEFT TURN by Sean Ellis, the Oscar-nominated writer-director of the short film CASHBACK (2004).
The similarities are startlingly - not only is the plot meticulously reconstructed in LEFT TURN scene for scene, but the atmosphere of the film itself is reconstructed - the Mario Bava-inspired lighting, the rainy atmosphere, the British locale, the yellow rain coat of the hitchhiker, and so on.
Which one is better? The remake is certainly more stylish and more horrific - simply because it went more shock and terror - but the original is more restrained and disquieting. It most likely will come down to the taste of the individual viewer.
It would be nice, however, if Sean Ellis gave at least *some* credit (he gave none) to this film for which his remake is based upon...
One of three gialli that Luciano Ercoli directed, and this one is probably the weakest of the set, but nevertheless is still an above average entry into the genre.
The plot is convoluted to say the least, adding an unnecessary amount of elements that add only confusion rather than mystery to the proceedings. Admittedly, the ending does come as a surprise, but this is merely because its revelation is so complex that it borders on ludicrous. The climax also is rather weak and drawn out, lapsing into a violent battle of fist and cuffs that is very much over the top.
Despite this, the characterizations are better than what is usually expected for the genre, and the film does make you want to keep watching if only to see how all the multitude of story elements work together in the end (even if it is preposterous). Another plus is that it avoids depictions of exploitative sleaze that pollutes most films of this particular genre.
On a whole, not a bad watch. Entertaining with some interesting plot twists to sustain your interest, but in the end it isn't too memorable and makes little logical sense.
The plot is convoluted to say the least, adding an unnecessary amount of elements that add only confusion rather than mystery to the proceedings. Admittedly, the ending does come as a surprise, but this is merely because its revelation is so complex that it borders on ludicrous. The climax also is rather weak and drawn out, lapsing into a violent battle of fist and cuffs that is very much over the top.
Despite this, the characterizations are better than what is usually expected for the genre, and the film does make you want to keep watching if only to see how all the multitude of story elements work together in the end (even if it is preposterous). Another plus is that it avoids depictions of exploitative sleaze that pollutes most films of this particular genre.
On a whole, not a bad watch. Entertaining with some interesting plot twists to sustain your interest, but in the end it isn't too memorable and makes little logical sense.
Italian horror maestro Mario Bava establishes the common motifs of the Giallo genre in this landmark film, often argued as single-handedly creating that said genre (I would argue "The Girl Who Knew Too Much" did, but either way it's still Mario Bava as the author and inventor).
From a historical standpoint, this film is very important to film scholars and genre enthusiasts - we see a new genre in the making.
However, if we remove the film from the historical context that surrounds it, the film is admittedly rather shallow as Bava certainly prefers style over substance.
Indeed, the plot's major flaw is that it lacks any protagonist (or any character in general) for the viewer to identify with, thus causing a lack of focus - we are shown a multitude of characters with no real connection to one another, thus no wholeness is established.
However, the visuals are staggering with rooms bathed in bright florescent lighting, costumes given bold hues, sets and props made of singular colors (the red mannequin), and smoothly executed camera shots. It is this visual bravura that elevates the film beyond it's rather exploitative plot to the realm of aestheticism.
The film is at its most enjoyable when viewed within its historical context, but those who are unfamiliar with the giallo genre may be underwhelmed by it's rudimentary plot, but even then the visuals should still keep the viewer engaged.
Essential viewing for giallo aficionados but those who are unfamiliar with the genre should watch a more well-rounded film like "Deep Red" as an entry point.
From a historical standpoint, this film is very important to film scholars and genre enthusiasts - we see a new genre in the making.
However, if we remove the film from the historical context that surrounds it, the film is admittedly rather shallow as Bava certainly prefers style over substance.
Indeed, the plot's major flaw is that it lacks any protagonist (or any character in general) for the viewer to identify with, thus causing a lack of focus - we are shown a multitude of characters with no real connection to one another, thus no wholeness is established.
However, the visuals are staggering with rooms bathed in bright florescent lighting, costumes given bold hues, sets and props made of singular colors (the red mannequin), and smoothly executed camera shots. It is this visual bravura that elevates the film beyond it's rather exploitative plot to the realm of aestheticism.
The film is at its most enjoyable when viewed within its historical context, but those who are unfamiliar with the giallo genre may be underwhelmed by it's rudimentary plot, but even then the visuals should still keep the viewer engaged.
Essential viewing for giallo aficionados but those who are unfamiliar with the genre should watch a more well-rounded film like "Deep Red" as an entry point.
Sondages récemment effectués
Total de2 sondages effectués
