GSeditor
Joined Feb 2000
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges9
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews53
GSeditor's rating
Use of miniature cars in one car chase sequence is fun to watch and there is also one fun reference to Roger Moore (who was playing James Bond in those years), but that's all there is to recommend in this otherwise mediocre action/adventure film obviously produced to ride on the popularity of the Indiana Jones films.
The plot concerns an American burglar who is hired by an Istanbul-based British guy to steal an ancient sacred artefact from a hidden temple in the Middle East so as to prevent it from falling into "wrong hands" (!). A guy in Arabic dress is monitoring them and he curses that the damn westerners are trying to steal their heritage. Well, actually he is quite right from an objective point of view, but the point of the view of the filmmakers is that of colonialism so he is the villain of the movie! It is also ridiculous to have them riding camels (!) in central Turkey of 1980s.
The cast is interesting 'though: An aged Luciano Pigozzi, a familiar face from countless great Italian horror movies from 1960s often in the role of creepy butlers, is on board and Aytekin Akkaya, who had played Cüneyt Arkin's sidekick in the notorious "Turkish Star Wars" Dünyayi Kurtaran Adam plays the main villain.
The plot concerns an American burglar who is hired by an Istanbul-based British guy to steal an ancient sacred artefact from a hidden temple in the Middle East so as to prevent it from falling into "wrong hands" (!). A guy in Arabic dress is monitoring them and he curses that the damn westerners are trying to steal their heritage. Well, actually he is quite right from an objective point of view, but the point of the view of the filmmakers is that of colonialism so he is the villain of the movie! It is also ridiculous to have them riding camels (!) in central Turkey of 1980s.
The cast is interesting 'though: An aged Luciano Pigozzi, a familiar face from countless great Italian horror movies from 1960s often in the role of creepy butlers, is on board and Aytekin Akkaya, who had played Cüneyt Arkin's sidekick in the notorious "Turkish Star Wars" Dünyayi Kurtaran Adam plays the main villain.
A copy of this long thought to be lost legendary movie, which hadn't had a video release during the video boom years, was finally reported to be found last year and eventually appeared online.
It is a very unusual erotic horror film as it is evident from the very beginning with its opening with a quote from Marcuse: throughout the film, lectures on the psychoanalytic theory of Eros and Thanatos (which was the movie's original title in its first and banned version) are heard first from a lawyer who argues that his client is insane, and then from the director of a mental hospital. The basic thesis of the lawyer and the screenwriter is that deviant behaviors are rooted in childhood traumas caused by family or authority figures. It is debatable whether the film was sincerely shot with the aim of promoting such a thesis or whether it is an exploitation film that uses this as a front; I think that both arguments are valid. Regarding the exploitation aspect, the sado-erotic horror/violence scenes contain mise-en-scènes that might be memorable, but the recently surfaced version appears to be a 'trimmed' version: the fotoromanzi edition of the film in my collection is more daring.
More on its versions: As detailed in Curci & Di Rocco's Visioni proibite book, Eros e Thanatos was flatly and firmly rejected by the censors. The filmmakers then submitted a self-cut and slightly re-edited new version titled Raptus. The censors grudgingly approved that version with even further cuts. Some of the shots ordered by the censor to be cut, such as a killer caressing the dead body of victim (which is visible in the fotoromanzi edition) is missing in the newly surfaced print. On the other hand, some of the scenes which the filmmakers themselves had reportedly cut to appease the censor, such as a flogging scene, is present here.
-Kaya Özkaracalar.
It is a very unusual erotic horror film as it is evident from the very beginning with its opening with a quote from Marcuse: throughout the film, lectures on the psychoanalytic theory of Eros and Thanatos (which was the movie's original title in its first and banned version) are heard first from a lawyer who argues that his client is insane, and then from the director of a mental hospital. The basic thesis of the lawyer and the screenwriter is that deviant behaviors are rooted in childhood traumas caused by family or authority figures. It is debatable whether the film was sincerely shot with the aim of promoting such a thesis or whether it is an exploitation film that uses this as a front; I think that both arguments are valid. Regarding the exploitation aspect, the sado-erotic horror/violence scenes contain mise-en-scènes that might be memorable, but the recently surfaced version appears to be a 'trimmed' version: the fotoromanzi edition of the film in my collection is more daring.
More on its versions: As detailed in Curci & Di Rocco's Visioni proibite book, Eros e Thanatos was flatly and firmly rejected by the censors. The filmmakers then submitted a self-cut and slightly re-edited new version titled Raptus. The censors grudgingly approved that version with even further cuts. Some of the shots ordered by the censor to be cut, such as a killer caressing the dead body of victim (which is visible in the fotoromanzi edition) is missing in the newly surfaced print. On the other hand, some of the scenes which the filmmakers themselves had reportedly cut to appease the censor, such as a flogging scene, is present here.
-Kaya Özkaracalar.
I adore Prometheus and had been looking forward to a sequel. Covenant lacks Prometheus' grandiose ambiance, mood and atmosphere and many intriguing questions regarding the motivations of the Engineers left unanswered in Prometheus are ignored in Covenant, so I was disappointed in these regards. And yet, seen on its own terms, Covenant is quite satisfying as a space-monster(s)-on-the-loose movie. It's pretty violent and gory. Yes, it recycles elements from Alien especially, but does not do it in a lackluster manner.