William L
At some level, I like where Kuchar's narrative and aesthetic design takes the film, as it uses deliberately rough-edged quality in its production value and shooting style as a means of lampooning Hollywood as a whole, particularly its obsession with packaging sex for mass consumption. But it is also commits the cardinal sin of small-budget films - leaving out in the open its complete conviction that they, the outsider amateur, are an elite group of divinely inspired artists that have been endowed by the universe to use their unrelenting talent to show commercial filmmakers that they are truly lesser beings, the scum of the earth. Kuchar is so in love with himself that it's suffocating. (2/5)
Rated 2/5 Stars •
Rated 2 out of 5 stars
01/23/21
Full Review
s r
1001 movies to see before you die. Some original stuff, but ultimately bizarre. It was on YouTube.
Rated 1/5 Stars •
Rated 1 out of 5 stars
03/31/23
Full Review
Audience Member
The laughable lack of coherence is perhaps what stands in the way of Mr. Kuchar's (supposed) point that movie nudity is an uncomfortable thing to perform or ask for.
Rated 2/5 Stars •
Rated 2 out of 5 stars
01/17/23
Full Review
Audience Member
A quite strange 1966 short movie that barely makes sense, but has its appeal due to experimental camera work and avant-garde sexiness.
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
01/28/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Avant-garde pop-art film short about sixties free love.
Rated 2/5 Stars •
Rated 2 out of 5 stars
02/15/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Kuchar's technical and creative skills are put to great use in this melodramatic, tragic yet oddly hilarious short film: his stunning title and production design; his ingenious inventory of odd and unflattering camera angles; and his insatiable talent at adapting the glamorous concerns and emotional extremes of Hollywood flicks to the realistic and banal proportions of his neighborhood friends.
Rated 5/5 Stars •
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
01/17/23
Full Review
Read all reviews