jonbecker03

i didn't give this picture any stars because it doesn't deserve any stars. it was perhaps the most boring picture i have ever seen. i'm very angry and depressed at the current time. this review is supposed to be at least ten lines long so i will see what i can do to extend it. not only is this film boring, it is cold. i see it as symbolic of bourgeois society as a whole. i don't know what i detest most about the bourgeosie, their simpering sentimentality or their deadening practicality. this film certainly epitomizes bourgeois sentimentality. we shouldn't care whether individual a or individual b wins a medal at the olympics or whether the medal is gold, silver, or bronze. to hell with the olympics, with all athletic competitions, with competition period. what the bourgeoisie values actually has very little value. and if mr. hugh hudson were here with me in this room, i would tell him what a silly bourgeois ass he is........

if you are a director, do you wanna know how to make a great film? bang the production designer, that's how. yeah!! sure, peter bogdanovich is an auteur. he's a mother, my favorite film director after billy wilder and Orson Welles. and Boris Karloff does a bang up job in one of his few serious, "straight" roles. not to mention Tim o'Kelly, who REALLY does a bang up job. (He. He.) nonetheless the heart and SOUL of "targets" is Polly Platte's production design. or perhaps the heart and soul of "targets" is the synergy between peter bogdanovich and Polly Platte. they married in 1962 and divorced ten years later. i guess that in 1968 things were going hot and heavy between them, before that simp Cybill entered the picture. Polly Platte's work on "targets" is an achievement for the ages. actually, it's hard to see where Polly's work ends and peter's begins. each interior set is a masterpiece of modern (or postmodern) art. at times, Platte seems to be parodying the middle class's taste in interior decoration. yet her own taste is so exquisite that the the parody comes off as CLASSY parody. (the art direction is like something out of a "dragnet" episode. however, it's much better as well as more self-conscious than that.) the location work is like a series of masterpieces of FOUND art (the oil refinery with its tanks, the drive-in with its partially-gone-to-seed screen and back screen area). each shot is framed as if it were a photo-realistic painting. of course cinematographer Lesli Kodaks had a hand in all this. (he may be the only cinematographer to merit the designation: "genius.") however, the real genius behind "targets" appears to be Polly Platte, who ISN'T recognized as one of the greatest production designers. she was nominated for the best art direction academy award for "terms of endearment." yet she did so many things in Hollywood that her career as a production designer tended to be ignored. she did a little of this and a little of that. Platte designed the costumes for seven films. she was credited as executive producer, producer, co-producer, or associate producer on twelve pictures. she was involved in writing five movies. ms. Platte also had two acting roles in films. she was credited as "production coordinator" on "voyage to the planet of prehistoric women." and she even served as Nancy Sinatra's stunt double on "the wild angels." yet she should be remembered primarily as a stellar production designer and as peter bogdanovich's REAL muse. Polly Platte. not Cybill shepherd. Cybill shepherd may have looked like a model (which she was). nonetheless, ms. Platte was probably better in bed than ms. shepherd. the look and feel of "targets" is that of two people REALLY collaborating........

Mano's isn't a bad film. really. it all depends, of course, on how one defines a "bad" film. as far as i am concerned, a "bad" film is one that is boring and/or annoying/disturbing. Mano's kept my attention and didn't really contain anything that i found annoying or disturbing. Harold p warren wasn't much of a film maker, but he somehow managed to maintain the narrative flow in this picture. he is continually throwing something at us that is freaky and/or entertaining. (albeit, i am a b film fanatic and a lover of horror films. if i see a film of this type, i WANT to like it. i TRIED to like Mano's, giving the film every benefit of the doubt, and i succeeded.) now, there is much in this movie that a film school instructor would rate as amateurish and technically inept. but within the context of Mano's, this amateurishness and incompetence WORKS. incompetent cinematography, art direction, and editing can have their charms, and in Mano's they definitely DO have their charms. Robert guider's idiosyncratic photography definitely has its charms. he shot using a hand wound sixteen millimeter camera. as a result, he comes up with some delightfully unusual effects. the film's color scheme is interesting. one could dismiss the cinematography as b movie hackwork, but that would be too cruel. the technical "lapses" actually help to create the funky, grungy atmosphere that is essential to the film's "success." (and i contend, uncynically, that it IS a "success.") tom Newman designed the sets, and these are sets of a kind that one is unlikely to find in a Hollywood motion picture. the "funky"/"grungy" aesthetic of the cinematography is echoed in the set design. the film takes place in the desert, at the roadside compound of a polymerase, polytheistic cult. the members of the cult are funky, grungy people. bohemians who have chosen to live off the beaten path, in frankly offbeat surroundings. and these surroundings have a charm of their own. one might think of the master and his cult as progenitors of the Manson family. if you want to imagine what the decor in Mano's is like, imagine a compound whose rooms have been decorated by members of the Manson family. the scrappy editing adds to the fun. smooth, "professional" editing would not have worked on Mano's. but the rough- Hew editing of Ernie smith and James a Sullivan succeeds brilliantly. the choppy, idiosyncratic cutting seems to bring out the power in the film (or whatever power the film possesses). (Sullivan served as production manager on the "eye creatures." he was the assistant director on "zontar: the thing from Venus." he was unit manager on "curse of the swamp people" and he actually directed the john agar starred "night fright." these are all "good" pictures, as far as i am concerned. and as far as i can ascertain, James Sullivan's contributions to these films were effective. the man knew what he was doing. even if he didn't know what he was doing, what he was doing WORKED.) all in all, the cinematography, set design, and editing of Mano's conspire to create a dark, evocative mood. think of Mano's as a "mood piece." in that light, the mood that Mano's creates is an interesting one. Mano's is a funky, grungy trip to an imaginary place located somewhere in roadside America. it succeeds at what it attempts. even if it succeeds in a way unforeseen by its creators, nonetheless Mano's is a film that succeeds in creating and maintaining a distinctive atmosphere. what more should one ask of a motion picture?