The only Dupieux I’ve seen odd Deerskin, and I enjoyed the maddening extent to which it carried forward its central joke. And I liked Magimel in Pacifiction quite a bit.

I know what you're thinking.  Looks can be deceiving.  Yes, technically this is a typical '70s exploitation film, from director Gus Trikonis (The Student Body, Moonshine County Express) who specialized in these sorts of things, but the proper way of viewing this film is something akin to an American giallo.  The film doesn't have the sumptuous aesthetic of a DePalma or a Carpenter, although the recent digital restoration helps considerably.  But the film, written by Charles Griffith (Little Shop of Horrors), is surprisingly self-aware enough to explicate the central rape fantasy metaphor of the slasher flick several years before the slasher flick was a distinct genre, with the erect blade being the surrogate tool for the impotent incel killer.

That's right.  Despite what you see above, this film is a horror film rather than a soft-core porn, about a lonely spazz who just can't handle the flesh.  And, equally surprisingly, somewhat refreshingly, for a film that is full of scantily-clad healthfully proportioned ladies, there's very little actual nudity and even less sex.  If that would make you go out and stab a bitch, so be it.  But I was just fine with the view on my end.  And finally tough guy William Smith (the metaphorical virile opposite of an incel) shows up to lay out the law.  Fun flick, and not nearly as cynical as its sales pitch would suggest.

7/10
 

Andrea Riseborough is definitely believable in the role of hopeless alcoholic, but such roles, and such indie-schtick white trash poverty-porn films, are a dime a dozen.  Turns out that addicts are selfish, emotionally desperate people.  I had no idea.  Predictable and pedestrian.  Go watch (or rewatch) Florida Project instead.

5.5/10
 

Jinnistan wrote:

I know what you're thinking.  Looks can be deceiving.  Yes, technically this is a typical '70s exploitation film, from director Gus Trikonis (The Student Body, Moonshine County Express) who specialized in these sorts of things, but the proper way of viewing this film is something akin to an American giallo.  The film doesn't have the sumptuous aesthetic of a DePalma or a Carpenter, although the recent digital restoration helps considerably.  But the film, written by Charles Griffith (Little Shop of Horrors), is surprisingly self-aware enough to explicate the central rape fantasy metaphor of the slasher flick several years before the slasher flick was a distinct genre, with the erect blade being the surrogate tool for the impotent incel killer.

That's right.  Despite what you see above, this film is a horror film rather than a soft-core porn, about a lonely spazz who just can't handle the flesh.  And, equally surprisingly, somewhat refreshingly, for a film that is full of scantily-clad healthfully proportioned ladies, there's very little actual nudity and even less sex.  If that would make you go out and stab a bitch, so be it.  But I was just fine with the view on my end.  And finally tough guy William Smith (the metaphorical virile opposite of an incel) shows up to lay out the law.  Fun flick, and not nearly as cynical as its sales pitch would suggest.

7/10
 

I see the director also made a movie called SuperCock.

lol

Rock wrote:

Jinnistan wrote:

I know what you're thinking.  Looks can be deceiving.  Yes, technically this is a typical '70s exploitation film, from director Gus Trikonis (The Student Body, Moonshine County Express) who specialized in these sorts of things, but the proper way of viewing this film is something akin to an American giallo.  The film doesn't have the sumptuous aesthetic of a DePalma or a Carpenter, although the recent digital restoration helps considerably.  But the film, written by Charles Griffith (Little Shop of Horrors), is surprisingly self-aware enough to explicate the central rape fantasy metaphor of the slasher flick several years before the slasher flick was a distinct genre, with the erect blade being the surrogate tool for the impotent incel killer.

That's right.  Despite what you see above, this film is a horror film rather than a soft-core porn, about a lonely spazz who just can't handle the flesh.  And, equally surprisingly, somewhat refreshingly, for a film that is full of scantily-clad healthfully proportioned ladies, there's very little actual nudity and even less sex.  If that would make you go out and stab a bitch, so be it.  But I was just fine with the view on my end.  And finally tough guy William Smith (the metaphorical virile opposite of an incel) shows up to lay out the law.  Fun flick, and not nearly as cynical as its sales pitch would suggest.

7/10
 

I see the director also made a movie called SuperCock.

lol

I love Virginia Madsen.

Rock wrote:

Starship Eros

Sounds better than Ultra Flesh from the same year, with a similar sci-fi conceit, but I find it difficult to properly critique these things beyound "Seka has sprite tits."

Jinnistan wrote:

Rock wrote:

Starship Eros

Sounds better than Ultra Flesh from the same year, with a similar sci-fi conceit, but I find it difficult to properly critique these things beyound "Seka has sprite tits."

Ultra Flesh is on my watchlist. I did enjoy Bad Girls from the same director, which has Michelle Bauer in a rare hardcore role.

The robot talks in a generic robot voice. So not as funny as it could have been.

I have seen zero little people in any of the vintage pornos I've watched, so Ultra Flesh could very well be a pioneering movie in that respect.

Tbh I'm also interested in seeing it because I'm trying to see more movies by women directors this year, and Svetlana has a few movies that seem to be well received by my Letterboxd circle.