Red-Barracuda
A rejoint le févr. 2002
Badges11
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Évaluations5,1 k
Note de Red-Barracuda
Avis2,3 k
Note de Red-Barracuda
This low-key documentary centres on a former Soviet era medical facility called the Kuyalnik Sanatorium. In the present day, this brutalist edifice has evolved into a health farm, located near Odesa in southern Ukraine. It finds itself in a state of repair and with a dwindling and aging clientele, reduced somewhat further by the ongoing Russian-Ukraine war.
The film essentially follows several staff and guests around the resort. Its very much of the slice-of-life variety, with nothing too dramatic happening at any point. All that being said, there is an actual air raid, where all the have to assemble in the basement shelter and the war is a constant player on the periphery. Its presence is almost surreal at times, given the laconic goings-on in this strange, isolated building acting as an unusual contrast. The tone of the film is a mix of sadness and wistfulness but also hope. The very fact that this place continues to operate, regardless of the horrendous situation in the region, is somehow encouraging. You want it to survive.
The film essentially follows several staff and guests around the resort. Its very much of the slice-of-life variety, with nothing too dramatic happening at any point. All that being said, there is an actual air raid, where all the have to assemble in the basement shelter and the war is a constant player on the periphery. Its presence is almost surreal at times, given the laconic goings-on in this strange, isolated building acting as an unusual contrast. The tone of the film is a mix of sadness and wistfulness but also hope. The very fact that this place continues to operate, regardless of the horrendous situation in the region, is somehow encouraging. You want it to survive.
I remember when I was eleven my best friend at school got me to watch this on video. We hardly watched any movies together either, so it sticks in my memory a bit. I must admit, I recall not finding Hysterical all that good, even way back then as a kid. Having just rewatched it for the first time since, I have to conclude that that wasn't a very unfair assessment. Its essentially a spoof of the horror genre in general, with riffs on various films such as The Exorcist, Jaws, The Shining etc. It stars the Hudson Brothers, who I know nothing about out with this movie. Seemingly they were teen idol pop stars in the early 70's and moved into TV comedy sketch territory. This movie was clearly designed to launch them into a film career in the 80's. This plan seems to have epically failed and they subsequently disappeared from cinema immediately afterwards. The story has a writer move to a coastal town to live in a lighthouse and before long discovers that it is the source of a haunting which is plaguing the local town. Two paranormal investigators are brought in to try and sort it out.
Its not really very surprising that the Hudson Brothers failed to ignite after this. While the humour is abundant, its hopelessly delivered and clunky throughout. People mention that the Hudsons were probably trying to emulate the Zucker-Abraham-Zucker team that made Kentucky Fried Movie and Airplane or Mel Brooks who hade made a successful career out of film spoofery but in this film, the Hudson's more closely resemble Britain's Cannon and Ball, who made one unfunny move, The Boys in Blue, and then disappeared from our cinema screens forever more. The jokes here just aren't very good and the Hudson's aren't delivering them very well. There's a surprisingly good support cast on hand and there are some memorable side characters such as a guy on a bike who keeps on telling anyone and everyone that 'they're doomed'. But its slim pickings all round though really. All that being said, despite its poorness, it is a likeable enough endeavour and has a goofy charm of sorts, so its hard to truly dislike.
Its not really very surprising that the Hudson Brothers failed to ignite after this. While the humour is abundant, its hopelessly delivered and clunky throughout. People mention that the Hudsons were probably trying to emulate the Zucker-Abraham-Zucker team that made Kentucky Fried Movie and Airplane or Mel Brooks who hade made a successful career out of film spoofery but in this film, the Hudson's more closely resemble Britain's Cannon and Ball, who made one unfunny move, The Boys in Blue, and then disappeared from our cinema screens forever more. The jokes here just aren't very good and the Hudson's aren't delivering them very well. There's a surprisingly good support cast on hand and there are some memorable side characters such as a guy on a bike who keeps on telling anyone and everyone that 'they're doomed'. But its slim pickings all round though really. All that being said, despite its poorness, it is a likeable enough endeavour and has a goofy charm of sorts, so its hard to truly dislike.
This one came out in the middle od the ongoing real life Zodiac Killer murders. One of the motivations in making the film lay in an elaborate scheme to catch the killer himself. The idea being that the real Zodiac Killer would simply be unable to resist attending the premiere at San Francisco's RKO Golden Gate Theater. Audience members were given the chance to win a motorbike in a raffle by answering the question "I think the Zodiac kills because ..." but unbeknownst to anyone there was a guy hidden in the raffle slip box comparing the various handwriting with the Zodiac Killer's! Needless to say, this well-intended scheme did not work and the murderer would remain unknown and unpunished.
The movie itself is a very low budget affair which includes several real details of the case, with taking several large liberties as well. It's a combination of true crime with an exploitation film. It must have been relatively salacious for its time, with graphic - yet unconvincing - depictions of some of the murders and so it operates like an early slasher film in the second half of the movie, once the killer's identity is revealed (I did say it took liberties!) and follows him around killing various people. It has to be said that it does have a certain scuzzy charm though and it does get better as it goes along.
The movie itself is a very low budget affair which includes several real details of the case, with taking several large liberties as well. It's a combination of true crime with an exploitation film. It must have been relatively salacious for its time, with graphic - yet unconvincing - depictions of some of the murders and so it operates like an early slasher film in the second half of the movie, once the killer's identity is revealed (I did say it took liberties!) and follows him around killing various people. It has to be said that it does have a certain scuzzy charm though and it does get better as it goes along.
Données d’analyse
Note de Red-Barracuda
Sondages effectués récemment
Total de 1 sondage effectué Total de