SOLSTICE (2008) d. Daniel Myrick

Reviewed by Rick Trottier

It is often the case that creative influences spring from wells deep in both the conscious and unconscious mind. For every designed artistic element of a film or a novel, there are spontaneous aspects that make the outcome even more absorbing and profound. As a result, people on the critical end of the creative process get to examine the cornices of the inventive soul that the film maker or novelist may not be aware of. For example, to the end of his days, J. R. R. Tolkien passionately disavowed any conscious knowledge of incorporating allegorical material in THE LORD OF THE RINGS, but it is clearly there. Such may be the case with Daniel Myrick’s newest directorial effort SOLSTICE. There are components of the film that show Mr. Myrick’s customary care and skill when it comes to classic story telling and compelling imagery, but after careful consideration there are other, more subtle ingredients that he “may not” have intended that are just as marvelous.

SOLSTICE is the story of young Megan Taylor and her friends who are gathering, as they have in past years, at the Taylor summer home in the bayous of Louisiana for Summer Solstice. The difference this Solstice is that Megan’s twin sister Sophie is unable to join them after her untimely death on Christmas Eve. It isn’t long after her arrival before Megan is haunted by ghostly happenings and spectral sightings, and before long friends and neighbors alike are drawn into a maelstrom of unexplainable occurrences that all seem to point to the presence of Sophie’s spirit.

SOLSTICE is a very good film with numerous strengths. From a purely technical aspect, it is a colorful, crisp and thoroughly attractive film that shows a purist approach to camera work. Whether they are set pieces, character scenes or action sequences, they are well composed, thought-provoking and artistically rendered. In some cases there are craftily constructed dissolves or subtly shifting focuses that force the eye to other corners of the scene. Coupled with this finely sculpted imagery is a multi-layered story co-written by Myrick, Ethan Erwin and Marty Musatov, that starts off stranded in the heart of grief, moves into the periphery of the paranormal and patiently allows that ethereal whirlpool to draw it towards the center of fear. At the same time, a mystery begins to parallel the ghostly tale and like the Solstice Moon begins to eclipse it. Before long, ghost story and murder mystery are delightfully entwined with plot twists and shifting character interplay that makes the story intricate without being convoluted. Daniel Myrick coaxes some solid performances from Shawn Ashmore and Tyler Hoechlin, but it is Elisabeth Harnois who is the focus of the film and her dual portrayal of Megan and Sophie is powerful and convincing. Lastly, a very simple but haunting score adds the final veneer to a movie that feels as much like classic 1950s horror films such as THE HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL as anything we’ve seen since that time. Just as THE MIST conjured nostalgic images of THEM or THE CRAWLING EYE, SOLSTICE felt like a paean to motion pictures like I SAW WHAT YOU DID or CASTLE OF BLOOD.

Lurking underneath all of these wonderful qualities was another layer of joy waiting to be unearthed. If this wasn’t Daniel Myrick’s purposeful effort at creating a subtle, sophisticated, modern adult take on the SCOODY DOO cartoons of the late 1960s, than his subconscious must have hijacked some of the creative process. Here are just some of the similarities. The film is set in an imposing, lovely, yet ominous southern “mansion” surrounded by miles of eerie bayous and swamps. Five “young people” journey to the mansion in an SUV, accompanied at times during the story by modern “groovy” music. Along the way, they meet the “creepy old guy” who continues to show up at moments of conflict. A local young person befriends and helps the team in their quest. Just as the ghost story develops and more occult clues are found, it becomes obvious there is a mystery underlying the original thread.

There are some obvious differences between classic SCOOBY DOO and SOLSTICE, but these set of similarities just didn’t seem to be coincidental. In no way am I suggesting that any of this cheapens SOLSTICE or makes it “hokey”, rather the reverse. To co-write a screenplay and direct a film that works on so many levels, not the least of which is to invoke a Saturday morning cultural icon of 40 years ago is a singular achievement. With its old-style, patient story telling, dependence on visceral and intellectual scares, lack of gore, nudity and other cultural banes and with its perfectly crafted dose of nostalgic iconography, SOLSTICE may be as close as you’ll find to a true, first-rate Saturday Night TV Movie of the Week experience that the whole family could sit down and enjoy.

There are small weaknesses here and there. The character of Mark is the “Alexandra” (Josie & the Pussycats) of the movie and is such a prick and so unlikable that he steals some of the carefully crafted empathy that is built between the viewer and characters like Megan and Christian. With the exception of an interesting commentary by Daniel Myrick, SOLSTICE has a fairly limited extras menu. In most cases, when the film is this good, it doesn’t detract from the product to have a lean set of goodies, but I found myself really wanting to see and know even more about this project. “You can’t have everything” is a lesson I learn a little more bitterly every year.

Between BELIEVERS and SOLSTICE, Daniel Myrick has brought forth two very different but both very enjoyable projects in the last two years. It is to be hoped that this is just the head of a torrent of other brilliant offerings to come. It is too bad the “paint by numbers” types that blindly guide the tiller of the Film Industry can’t see that motion pictures can be made that use tried and true techniques and don’t have to ape the trendy crap that oozes across the Silver Screen today. I’m going to sit back and look forward to THE OBJECTIVE and hope that Mr. Myrick will make it 3 for 3.

www.geniusproducts.com
www.gearheadpictures.com

I'M FROM HOLLYWOOD (1989) d. Lynn Margulies & Joe Orr

Written by Mark Nelson

It's 1981. I'm 7 years old, and take a look at my hometown newspaper after school one day. On the front page is a picture of Andy Kaufman wrestling a woman in the lobby of my local three-screen movie theater. HUH? What was the funny guy from TAXI doing in my small NH town? According to the accompanying article, he'd gone to see SUPERMAN II there, and decided upon an impromptu wrestling match in the theater's lobby afterward. I was ticked off when I read this, as I'd had my father take me to see SUPERMAN II there the night before Kaufman showed up. If I'd waited a day, I could've seen (maybe even MET) Andy Kaufman. It's something I've always remembered, as Kauf's appearance in my tiny, out-of-the-way town has always mystified me.

Cut to a decade or so later, and I come across I'M FROM HOLLYWOOD on Comedy Central. Suddenly the bizarre woman-wrestling incident at my hometown theater so many years earlier made sense. This documentary revealed Andy Kaufman: Comedian to also be Andy Kaufman: Wrestling Heel. I watched I'M FROM HOLLYWOOD whenever it showed up on Comedy Central, which for a while was often. I just couldn't get enough of Kaufman's villain put-on being taken so seriously by the wrestling fans of Memphis, Tennessee. Like so much of Kaufman's living satire, his actions seemed pretty genuine to the casual or unsuspecting observer. For those in the know, however, Kaufman's put-ons were hilarious in their deadpan devotion to his deep-cover prankery.

I'M FROM HOLLYWOOD presents the full saga of Andy Kaufman's numerous early-80s run-ins with Memphis wrestler Jerry "The King" Lawler, both in the ring and on local TV programs (this saga is perhaps best known for the LATE NIGHT WITH DAVID LETTERMAN appearance by the dueling duo, in which a fight broke out on-air). Interspersed throughout the verbal and physical smack-downs are interviews with Kaufman's friends and colleagues (including Marilu Henner and Robin Williams) conducted after his death, giving their memories of this strange period of is career in mock bewilderment. That they were willing to posthumously continue the joke Kaufman had started years earlier is a testament to their friendship and sense of humor.

I'M FROM HOLLYWOOD was co-directed by Lynne Margulies (aka Lynnie Legend), Kaufman's girlfriend during the later part of his life. She provides a video introduction the piece, and is joined by Kaufman partner-in-crime Bob Zmuda for a funny and fascinating audio commentary, which continues over footage of full matches between Kaufman and Lawler, viewable separately from the film as bonus features. The commentary is a surprisingly candid recounting of the whole wrestling period of Kaufman's career. This is one of the few times I've heard Kaufman insiders publicly expose the mechanics behind his madness.

The only beef I have with the otherwise-wonderful disc is that at times the video is marred by a stuttered-motion effect when people are moving horizontally across the screen. I've confirmed with Legend House that this was an authoring error on the initial run of the disc, and that future pressings will be corrected. This was a bit distracting at times, but I was honestly so happy to have this that I was able to over look the anomaly for the most part.

I'M FROM HOLLYWOOD is highly recommended for fans of Andy Kaufman, performance art, absurdist and anarchic comedy, rabble rousing, pro wrestling, and name-calling. You know who you are.

www.legendhouse.net

MIDNIGHT MOVIES: FROM THE MARGIN TO THE MAINSTREAM (2007) d. Stuart Samuels

Written by Mark Nelson

Some of my favorite movie-house memories are of seeing odd, strange, and rare film prints unspool after the Witching Hour, screened by my college film society and in the hipper theaters of Boston. These screenings brought me old favorites, long-read-about obscurities, and things that no sane programmer would run in the more respectable 7 & 9PM showings. Euro-horror, mondo-documentaries, 60s counterculture epics...all were given their due on the big screen, devoured by an audience of cinemaniacs hungry for something different.

Long after the respectable film-goers were home and safely home in their beds, the late-night cinematic thrill-seekers would emerge C.H.U.D.-like from the dark corners of the city, to converge upon the flickering forbidden images of the Midnight Show.

Sadly, it seems that the tradition of the Midnight Movie has evolved into something different these days, with films like ERASERHEAD and WILD IN THE STREETS being passed over for popular mainstream blockbusters of the 80s and 90s, the audiences more interested in a nostalgia trip back to 10 years ago, filled with the thrill of laughing at old clothes and hairstyles, lacking the cinematic curiosity and adventurousness that caused a generation of Midnighters to expand their horizons by the light of a flickering screen.

So it is perhaps quite appropriate at this time that we see MIDNIGHT MOVIES: FROM THE MARGIN TO THE MAINSTREAM, as both a fascinating look at the phenomenon, as well as somewhat of an epitaph for it as well. MIDNIGHT MOVIES chronicles not only the histories of the films that made their initial mark via Midnight showings (EL TOPO, ERASERHEAD, PINK FLAMINGOS, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW, THE HARDER THEY COME), but also talks to the theater owners and distribution men who made sure audiences got to see these things in the first place. That MIDNIGHT MOVIES focuses more on the distribution and exhibition of the films, rather than their production histories (though that is covered with some amusing anecdotes from the original filmmakers as well) sets this doc apart from other cult movie examinations, and in my mind gives it a leg up on the competition. MIDNIGHT MOVIES takes you from that first screening on EL TOPO in NYC, to the genesis of the ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW phenomenon and beyond. Interviewed are Alejandro Jodorowsky, David Lynch, John Waters, Richard O'Brien, Perry Henzell, along with clips of their infamous works.

If I had one complaint about the presentation of MIDNIGHT MOVIES on DVD, it would be the lack of additional interview clips as a supplement to the main feature. Surely there were more anecdotes and stories the filmmakers captured from this gathering of icons that would be interesting to hear.

I had a blast with MIDNIGHT MOVIES: FROM THE MARGIN TO THE MAINSTREAM. It was nice to see the unsung heroes of underground cinema get their moment in the spotlight, and it made me more than a tad nostalgic for those late-night big-screen walks on the wild side.

www.anchorbayentertainment.com

EYE OF THE BEAST (2007) d. Gary Yates

Reviewed by Rick Trottier

Giant monster movies have been a staple of the horror genre since the 1930s when KING KONG spread stamping ruin across the screen. During the 1950s and 1960s, murderous monsters of every shape, size and description savaged towns, cities and continents for every reason imaginable. Whether they were classics like THEM or less impressive efforts like THE GIANT GILA MONSTER, giant monster movies started making their way to drive-ins and then Saturday afternoon or late night television. It is there that cult classics like THE GIANT MANTIS and FROM HELL IT CAME would leave their indelible mark on the minds of horror film lovers forever. EYE OF THE BEAST, part of Genius Products’ “Maneater Series” and originally airing on the Sci-Fi Network, feels very much like one of those flawed but fun favorites of old.

EYE OF THE BEAST is the story of a small, Canadian fishing village named “Fell’s Island” and the horror that lurks beneath the surface of the lake. Marine Biologist Dan Leland, played by James Van Der Beek, is sent to Fell’s Island to determine why the fishing stocks are in such steep decline. Before long, Dan teams up with local fisheries officer Katrina Tomas, played by Alexandra Castillo, and as people start to disappear, body parts are found and boats are broken into matchsticks, the legend of Fell’s Island appears to be true.

Taken as just a drama, EYE OF THE BEAST has a story with some surprisingly complex conflicts intertwined into its monster movie premise. There is strife between the white local fishermen and their Indian counterparts. In addition, Dan Leland’s character becomes the focus of hostility as he is viewed as a potential threat to the deteriorating fishing industry. Dan is at odds with the reputation-conscious heads of his Science Department NORA, who are not interested in “tales about sea monsters”. Finally, Officer Katrina Tomas has her own demons buried deep within her memory which come forth even as her affection for Dan grows. All of these conflicts make the story a great deal more interesting than one would have expected from a low-budget “giant squid movie”. However, just like the monster flicks of old, EYE OF THE BEAST is more about the characters than it is about the monster and the archetypes created, some very similar to the characters in JAWS, are the real focus of the film. Another wise choice the film makers exercised was to insure that citizens either disappeared at the hand of the monster and/or we got to see it in action every now and then, keeping the premise upper most in the viewers’ minds. It is at the end of the film during the climactic battle with The Beast that mistakes are made.

Whether it was a function of a lack of funds or poor film-making skills or subscribing to the misbegotten philosophies of modern camerawork/editing or all the above, what should have been the pinnacle of the film was incomprehensible. All the final battle scenes were shot too dark, too close, were shot on the back of a leaping kangaroo and were edited too rapidly. The argument might be made that since the budget was low and special effects had to be used “judiciously”, the only way to make the battle scene work was to “cover up” the inherent visual weaknesses. If that is the case, I present Exhibit A: THE BERMUDA DEPTHS. I can’t imagine that TV movie had much more of a budget than EYE OF THE BEAST, and yet the battles with the giant turtle in that film were easily seen. Hell, all of that film was easily perceived, because people still knew how to shoot scenes back in the late 1970s. It may also be said that part of the experience of watching a giant monster movie, or any horror film of yore on an old TV in the 1960s was the reality that the film was going to look like crap. That may be so, but it doesn’t have to be that way now. There is no reason that I had to replay the final battle of EYE OF THE BEAST five times to get a sense of some of what was happening. With today’s technology, it should have been a slam dunk.

Like the rest of the “Maneater Series” so far, the extras menu of EYE OF THE BEAST is empty. Of all that series, a commentary about making a “giant squid movie” was a must. It simply can’t cost that much money to have the director rattle off a few lines in an interview or to author a commentary that would help to explain some of the triumphs and travails of making a monster movie. Listen to me folks; engender some cheap good will among the consumer and stick in some baubles other than trailers. Trailers make you feel like you’re getting the hard sell. A small but fun set of extras makes the viewer feel like the film was an “enterprise”, not a “tourist trap”.

Overall, EYE OF THE BEAST was a surprisingly enjoyable viewing experience. Maybe it helped that I went in with low expectations and maybe it helped even more that the way had been paved by the many “drive-in classics” I have endured over my life. If you go in with a light heart, a beer in one hand and a fillet-o-fish sandwich in the other, you too will probably enjoy EYE OF THE BEAST.

www.geniusproducts.com

P2 (2007) d. Franck Khalfoun

Reviewed by Rick Trottier

The setting of a film will often determine the nature of the characters’ interactions with each other and their surroundings. For example, in Alfred Hitchcock’s PSYCHO, there were a variety of interior and exterior sets running the gamut from mundane to moody to malevolent, each causing the character to react to their environment and eliciting a visceral response from the viewer. However, in Hitchcock’s ROPE, the exceedingly simple settings forced the onus of conflict to be initiated and maintained by the characters alone, creating a very different type of film, despite the premise of murder being the link between the two. In P2, the simple setting and small number of the characters establishes a compelling conflict that makes for a tense horror/thriller for the balance of the film until P2 veers off into another genre, to its detriment.

P2 is the story of workaholic Angela Bridges, played by Rachel Nichols and her attempts to extricate herself from the office on Christmas Eve. As “Murphy’s Law” asserts itself and one bad thing after another happens, Angela’s problems are immeasurably increased when it becomes obvious that her predicament has been partly created by a calculating stalker bent on controlling her. Before long, Angela is in a fight for her freedom, trapped in the firm’s parking garage and with only her feisty resolve capable of saving her life.

P2 begins patiently, as we watch Angela’s day descend into the abyss with increasing speed, causing the viewer to feel that delicious sense of inevitable approaching disaster. Rachel Nichols portrays Angela’s character in a complex vein. We feel sorry for with her terrible plight and yet, Angela’s corporate coldness and brusque bitchiness make her a somewhat unsympathetic character. When the bottom drops out and she is fully in the clutches of Wes Bentley’s character Thomas, the character interplay between the two and the intensifying drama played out in scene after scene is the strength of the film. Wes Bentley gives just as complex a performance as Miss Nichols does. Thomas is alternately the pathetic loner, the manipulative sicko and the violent psychopath. Thomas’s machinations swap between wooing Angela, gently bullying her and violently terrorizing her and the interaction between the create forceful conflict. Coupled with some very impressive camera work that draws forth every last drop of dynamism from the commonplace nature of a parking garage and the patient pacing of this film, P2 was a gripping and unpredictable movie for roughly three-quarters of its length. After carefully crafting a film where setting, characters and story were sinuously woven together, director Franck Khalfoun or The Suits pulling the purse strings or both allowed this fine film to end on a sour note.

Any film that tries to emulate potentially realistic occurrences, despite being a work of fiction, must maintain its sense of logic. One level on which P2 began to go wrong was when Thomas begins to threaten Angela’s life in earnest. To so meticulously have created his menagerie where Angela could be confined, only to throw it away by trying to kill her derails the story’s forward progress. I can hear my colleagues now saying “not everything has to make sense”, but in this case, it does! Why would bland, everyday Thomas want lovely, stylish Angela so much, only to destroy her? If he was that much a maniac, it is unlikely he would have maintained his camouflage for long in his job in the firm. The other problem was that P2 devolved into an action film towards its latter stages. This shift of style shatters the wonderfully uncomfortable yet palpable relationship that had been forged between the characters and it was done simply to bring some “bangs and flashes” into P2. The disappointment on my face must have been obvious by the time Angela and Thomas had their “car duel” in the parking garage. If it sounds funny, it is, but that is the problem. P2 had developed such a serious, sinister and sadistic tone by then, that to chuck it away for the sake of ramping up the adrenaline response was a real shame. Had the director, writers and producers taken a lesson from Hitchcock’s ROPE, they might have noted that a film doesn’t have to end with car crashes, eye gouges and flames to be powerful.

P2 has an impressive collection of extras that will delight anyone interested in digging beneath the surface of this film and movie-making in general. In addition to commentaries by the director and other crew, there is a featurette called “A New Level of Fear: The Making of P2”, a short feature called “Designing Terror”, where P2 special effects designers discuss the tricks of their trade and “Tension Nouveau” which is a profile of director Franck Khalfoun. For a film that was not a box office smash, nor a modern classic, this is a remarkable array of goodies that will illuminate the darker corners of this film’s past.

Choosing a simple yet forbidding setting like a parking garage and putting two capable actors to the test in a taut and grueling story was the reason why P2 was a very worthwhile viewing experience for the balance of its run. It is too bad it didn’t stay that way. It is never obvious why a film gets hijacked and runs off into the tall grass on its own, but I always feel an overwhelming sense of ennui when that happens. It reminds me of when I would be listening to the radio as a youth and just as my favorite song was coming to its closing bars, the DJ would start talking over the music. We like our satisfaction to be complete, and although that can’t happen in life all the time, it would have been nice had it been the case with P2.

www.summit-ent.com/
www.p2themovie.com/

HALLOWED GROUND (2007) d. David Benullo

Reviewed by Rick Trottier

Vince Lombardi once said that an offensive line’s success was dependant on them working as a team and not getting off the blocks “like a typewriter”. Putting together a successful feature film is a little like that for it is essential for everyone in the cast and on the crew to do their job well or the end result can be flawed or even a failure. HALLOWED GROUND, written and directed by David Benullo and starring Jaimie Alexander, is an example of a film that has A LOT of strong components, but just enough technical flaws to ruin an otherwise impressive effort.

HALLOWED GROUND is the story of troubled drifter Liz Chambers who is stranded in the town of Hope, a place of dastardly deeds over a century ago. It is not long before history repeats itself and Liz must do battle with malevolent minions of a preternatural preacher cloaking themselves in “faith” and doing “God’s Work” in their town. Souls and skins are at stake in a town where even the cornfields hold dire menace.

At first, it seemed like HALLOWED GROUND was going to be a tired “scarecrow come to life as an unstoppable slasher” film, but it took a pleasant left turn and invoked the Power of Pictures like THE WICKER MAN. Soon, the story was the tried but true “town of miserable creeps against the unaware newcomer” and from that point the story became a lot of fun. Added to the excitement was an evil soul that can swap bodies, which provided from some predictable but still enjoyable plot twists. Jaimie Alexander’s character Liz was plucky and tough but not invincible and unbelievable. Liz’s escapes from dire peril are managed by good fortune as much as by hard work. Ethan Phillips of STAR TREK: VOYAGER fame added a small but sinister performance and the other actors do their jobs efficiently. It was in the nuts and bolts of HALLOWED GROUND that things went terribly wrong.

When John Carpenter made THE FOG, he knew that much of the film would be taking place at night, so he carefully lit scenes so that they “looked dark” but so that you could SEE what was happening. William Friedkin’s THE EXCORCIST was similarly lit with skill and forethought. When the scenes of HALLOWED GROUND take place in full sunlight, they may be a little overexposed at times, but at least I can SEE what is happening. Once the action goes indoors or shifts to night, the film becomes visually incomprehensible and that was INFURIATING because I wanted this film to work by then. Unlike most of its contemporaries that utilize herky-jerky camera work and horrendously composed close-ups, HALLOWED GROUND didn’t have too much of that nonsense, so its chances of success were higher, but not if the cinematographer can’t correctly light and shoot “atmospheric” scenes. Someone needs to explain to the film makers of today that there is a BIG difference between mood and darkness.

Added to these visual flaws were problems with the audio mix which could have either been the film or dvd sound mixer. During regular speech, the audio was a little weak, but it could be heard. Once people started whispering or talking low for dramatic effect, I had to smash down the “volume up” key on my remote or engage the subtitling key. Some may point to my declining hearing as the culprit, but to prove my point, I popped in superbly mixed dvd like Dario Argento’s SUSPIRIA and realized I could hear everything in that film. Clearly, the person at the controls of the audio in one of the stages of production didn’t know their job or was asleep at the wheel. If you can’t see a film properly, nor can it be heard as it should be, a film isn’t going to work no matter how good the story is or how good the performances are.

Like so many direct-to-dvd movies out there today, the extras menu is as empty as my cat’s stomach after she has just coughed up a hairball. When you take into account the technical problems and the bareness of the extras menu, this film screams “cheap” and not in a good way. An interview with comely Jaimie Alexander would have been a nice addition or since David Benullo was writer and director, it is likely that he had some interesting things to say in a comentary. Maybe the producers didn’t want him to spill the beans.

Just as Lombardi’s Green Bay Packers wouldn’t win a championship until they solved their teamwork issues, films like HALLOWED GROUND can’t be the successes they should have been without all the production pieces being put in their rightful places. Hollywood is remake-mad right now, why doesn’t someone remake this film with exactly the same story, the same cast and the same direction, but with some money behind the nuts and bolts? What you would have is a horror movie that might make back its investment and be a worthwhile trip to the theater, but I suppose we can’t expect The Suits to do something like that. Taking money away from their new ivory backscratchers would be money wasted in their small, pig-like eyes.

www.geniusproducts.com

THE EROTICIST (1972) d. Lucio Fulci

Reviewed by Rick Trottier

There is a fascinating difference between the average American sex comedy and a sex comedy made in Europe. While there was the occasionally subtle or complex American offering, most followed the rule of three S’s; make it straightforward, simple and stupid. European erotic escapades were just that, whimsical farces layered with social or political commentary that made them not just deeper than their mundane American cousins, but a lot better too. THE EROTICIST (aka THE SENATOR LIKES WOMEN) was directed and co-written by the infamous Lucio Fulci, and like some his westerns, this film has a lot going for it.

THE EROTICIST is the story of Senator Giancinto Puppis and his attempts to become President of Italy. During the complicated Parliamentary election process, it becomes clear that Senator Puppis is embroiled in a sex scandal due to his penchant for grasping the buttocks of women. Before long, the Senator’s rise to power becomes enmeshed in the inveigling for influence of the Italian Police, the Military, the Clergy and the Mafia. Player’s hands wash others’ hands while scratching backs and slipping on kid gloves and after a while it is evident that no one is pure anymore in the filthy game of politics.

Taken just as a sex charade, THE EROTICIST is funny in and of itself. Watching Senator Puppis, played by Lando Buzzanca, with his sweating face and bulging eyes as he tries in vain to stop himself from groping the women around him is wonderfully tongue in cheek. Underneath the façade of sex comedy is a biting political satire where not one icon of Italian society is safe. There are the ludicrous machinations of all manner of clerics, who labor to fuel the rise of their hand-crafted candidate, while at the same time are thoroughly in bed with murderous gangsters “canonizing” the potentially uncomfortable witnesses to “perversion”. While all this is occurring, the police and the army smell “coup d’etat” and can’t keep their fingers out of the dirty pie. Lust for power, lust for privilege and lust for money are portrayed as far more serious sins than the lust for women in this smart, silly and sardonic morality play. Each character is a fabulously funny archetype and their unpleasant grotesqueness is reminiscent of medieval cartoon figures carved in their perversity on Monastic cornices and friezes.

Added to the razor sharp story and finely honed performances, THE EROTICIST is a feast for the eyes as well. The sumptuous interior sets and picturesque exteriors, beautifully restored by Severin Films are replete with bright colors, crisp lines, cunning camera angles and superb cinematography. Even the timelessly elegant fashion styles of the rich and powerful were considered carefully when this film was shot, so that watching it more than 35 years later; this film does not feel dated. Rather it is the opposite, since the cynical eye of this movie is just as relevant now. Leaders today have learned nothing from the scandals of yesteryear and the abuses of power that were so brilliantly mocked in THE EROTICIST are still taking place.

The extras menu of THE EROTICIST is small but splendid. A 42 minute featurette “A History of Censorship” with the star of film, Lando Buzzanca, cinematographer Sergio D’Offizi and makeup artist Gianneto De Rossi abounds with interviews on more than just the subject of censorship. It is a frank look back at Italy, Italian cinema and the film making process that will delight any serious movie lover. THE EROTICIST can be watched in Italian with or without English subtitles, depending on your language skills. More than anything, the chance to see a supremely colorful film shown in its correct aspect ratio is the real prize of THE EROTICIST.

Americans never really got it when it came to sex comedies, and we still don’t today. In a fun film like EUROTRIP, there are some lip-smackingly salacious scenes, but as is all too often the case, a romance and tender-heartedness has to eclipse the plot. European sex comedies were about more than sex and they rarely devolved into an unwanted romance. They applied coat after coat of thinly veiled critique until what emerged was something akin the theatre on the Big Screen. The promise of naughtiness may have brought you to see the movie, but watching a film like THE EROTICIST left you a bit savvier by the end. There aren’t many American sex comedies that can say they did that.

www.severin-films.com