amoamasamatluolueisluei
Joined Apr 2006
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.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews1
amoamasamatluolueisluei's rating
Ken Russell has made some excellent films over a long career. He has also made some bad ones, but we can forgive him for that. This 'film', however, is unwatchable. I am at a loss to explain the positive comments posted on this site.
Let's be clear about what we're dealing with. This film is shot on a hand-held camcorder. The 'actors' appear to be random friends of Mr Russell. The plot is non-existent. Everything about this film is horribly, horribly wrong, from Russell's own heart-breakingly awful acting to the shoddily arranged orgy of inflatable dolls and dinosaurs. Post-modern? Now come on, that's no excuse. Not for THIS. Ironic? Post-ironic perhaps...? let's hope so.
This is not the Ken Russell we know and love; not at all. If you are new to his films, do not start here--start anywhere but here. If you like his films, my advice would be to avoid this like the plague, since it may well spoil your appreciation of his classic works forever.
Claims that the film contains complex symbolism etc. etc. etc. are unfounded. The cultural references, which an intelligent man like Russell should be in complete command of, are lazy and childish. And even to a person such as myself, who adores 'The Devils' and all its spawn in the realms of cult trash film-making, 'The Fall of the Louse of Usher' seems in extremely poor taste throughout. It leaves an unpleasant taste, even were it not for the sad fact of its having been made by one of Britain's greatest directors of the 60s and 70s. And so i have called it unwatchable. I have lent it out twice, and twice i have heard the same---neither could sit through it. I'm sincerely unsure whether i ought to admire those reviewers who have had the patience to watch it through, more than once as it may be.
As i conclude, i am still unhappy. This is because words cannot describe how awful this film is. It is simply beyond my power to explain. If it has found a sympathetic audience amongst some (as it seems to have done), then i suppose i am glad. But Ken, what were you thinking? Obviously this film went straight to DVD and had no general release. If you really wish to see it, try to rent it; buying it at full price is a significant risk, as you may, like me, end up hiding it away in a cupboard so you don't have to see it on your shelf beside classics such as 'The Devils', 'Women in Love' and 'Gothic'.
Let's be clear about what we're dealing with. This film is shot on a hand-held camcorder. The 'actors' appear to be random friends of Mr Russell. The plot is non-existent. Everything about this film is horribly, horribly wrong, from Russell's own heart-breakingly awful acting to the shoddily arranged orgy of inflatable dolls and dinosaurs. Post-modern? Now come on, that's no excuse. Not for THIS. Ironic? Post-ironic perhaps...? let's hope so.
This is not the Ken Russell we know and love; not at all. If you are new to his films, do not start here--start anywhere but here. If you like his films, my advice would be to avoid this like the plague, since it may well spoil your appreciation of his classic works forever.
Claims that the film contains complex symbolism etc. etc. etc. are unfounded. The cultural references, which an intelligent man like Russell should be in complete command of, are lazy and childish. And even to a person such as myself, who adores 'The Devils' and all its spawn in the realms of cult trash film-making, 'The Fall of the Louse of Usher' seems in extremely poor taste throughout. It leaves an unpleasant taste, even were it not for the sad fact of its having been made by one of Britain's greatest directors of the 60s and 70s. And so i have called it unwatchable. I have lent it out twice, and twice i have heard the same---neither could sit through it. I'm sincerely unsure whether i ought to admire those reviewers who have had the patience to watch it through, more than once as it may be.
As i conclude, i am still unhappy. This is because words cannot describe how awful this film is. It is simply beyond my power to explain. If it has found a sympathetic audience amongst some (as it seems to have done), then i suppose i am glad. But Ken, what were you thinking? Obviously this film went straight to DVD and had no general release. If you really wish to see it, try to rent it; buying it at full price is a significant risk, as you may, like me, end up hiding it away in a cupboard so you don't have to see it on your shelf beside classics such as 'The Devils', 'Women in Love' and 'Gothic'.