I was watching Polyester last month, and on one of the extras, Tab Hunter said (or somebody said that he said) that he was so impressed with Divine’s performance that he invited him to play in his next movie (which is this one). So I bought the bluray. By amazing koinkidink, I’d also gotten Eating Raoul, so I’m having a mini-Bartel festival here.

It’s Divine!

This is most amiable. It’s a straight-up old-fashioned parody of a western movie — I guess it references both classic westerns and spaghetti westerns. It feels a bit out of time — it’s from 1984, but it has a 70s vibe going on?

It’s funny, but it’s not hilarious.

And it’s a musical?

Edith Massey was apparently supposed to play this part… and they’ve kept the lines. You can just picture her saying all this stuff.

But I dunno. The movie was going quite well for about 45 minutes, and then it turns… more serious? Nastier? I mean, the *crack* gag is fine, but then to kill off the pianist? (Oops spoilers.) It just seems… mean, and isn’t that funny.

Apparently the movie bombed, and I can totally see why. It’s a hard movie to peg down. It’s not a Zucker/Abrahams/Zucker thing, and it’s not a John Waters thing, it’s not a Mel Brooks thing, and it’s not a straightforward parody, and it’s not an exploitation movie… instead it lives in a kind of uncertain state of uncertainness. As they say.

They do to!

The performances are wonderful, though, and without the scenery chewing from, well, everybody, there wouldn’t have been anything at all. It’s probably Divine’s greatest performance, really?

There’s also a lot of plot happening in the last half, and… it’s not that interesting? There’s still some good gags, but they mostly fall flat betwixt the plot machinations.

The first half of the movie is great, and the final scene is wonderful.

Lust in the Dust. Paul Bartel. 1984. ⚃

I’ve been hearing about this movie seemingly my entire life, but I’ve never gotten a handle on what this is supposed to be. That is, I’ll be reading an interview with somebody, and they’ll be mentioning this movie, and everybody agrees that it’s genius. But I’ve never seen it, and I’ve never looked the film up on the interwebs.

But while doing some shopping on the Criterion web shop I saw this and bought it, and now I’m watching it.

And…

… I realise that I thought that this movie was directed by the guy in Cold Souls:

I.e., Paul Giamatti, but that’s because if the beard and because the director was called Barthes. Not Bartel.

Is everybody as confused about everything, or is it just me?

Anyway, roll film.

Heh heh — this is some John Waters-like kinda thing?

And… this blu ray is in 16:9, but nothing was shot in 16:9, so Criterion has mangled the film!?

Yeah, it was 1.85:1 originally… they’ve cut the edges! Shame! Shame!

Huh, I just checked the liner notes — they claim that the original aspect ratio was 1.78:1 (i.e., 16:9)? I’d like to believe them, but… it would be a really unusual aspect ratio for 1982. Like really.

ANYWAY! ROLL MOVIE I SAID!

OK, this is more broad comedy than John Waters — it’s not unlike, say, Airplane? But a bit more… more.

It’s funny. But it’s… it’s kinda choppy? The jokes come at you fast, but then there are pauses where you’re just going “hm” while enjoying the, er, acting… It’s like… a bigger budget, straight, studio version of John Waters. I.e., a lot slower and less insane.

Hey! That’s the guy from Star Trek!

It really is the Star Trek guy.

I guess this is the type of film you should be really stoned to watch? And then everything would just be getting funnier and funnier… But unfortunately, I’m not, and I’m just getting bored with this. I mean, the funny bits are genius, but the movie lacks zip.

I kinda want to give this a ⚅ because of the concept, but the movie really, really drags, so it’s really more of a ⚁ film. So I’m going with:

Eating Raoul. Paul Bartel. 1982. ⚃

Hm… are they using CGI in this chapter? They’ve doubled the budget again, so perhaps sending a helicopter up to shoot some footage was just too cheap now…

And the cinematography has changed quite a bit again.

Hey! How come he has a new shirt since the previous movie!? No blood stains on the collar!

This movie does not look as good as the second movie. Everything is just kinda washed out? It’s the same cinematographer, though.

The first movie had quite a bit of plot, and the second had, too — but this one is just, like, an extended action sequence? They could have added two hours to the second movie and that would have been these scenes.

But they’re good action scenes and all, so I’m not complaining. It’s just kinda odd is all.

OK, now we’re getting plot.

The more they develop the crime syndicate thing (modelled after the Vatican?) the sillier it gets.

All these movies have cute puppies.

Kitten!

This movie ups the humour in the action scenes, which is nice. But the scenes in between the action scenes just isn’t that compelling — several of them just kinda drag, and that hasn’t been the case in the first two films, really.

And things just don’t look as real as in the second film. I mean — this probably is a real shot? But it doesn’t look like it is, and it’s the same with a lot of the shots…

So from now on every shot of Keanu’s hand is going to be a special effects shot?

It’s weird that a huge increase in budget would lead to them using more CGI… I mean, it looks good, but…

It’s getting really video gamey now — the bad guys have levelled up and have magic armour that means that you have to shoot everybody a lot to make a difference.

OK, now they’re getting more effective guns, too.

And then we end with a … knife fight? That seems to go on forever? That’s anticlimactic.

Oh, OK, it’s not the end yet. Still 20 minutes to go?

*sigh*

This isn’t as good as the second movie. The second movie just looked really good, and didn’t have any boring bits. This feels like it’s treading water at times — it’s bit flabby. Not hugely, though. If they’d dropped, like, 15 minutes of the scenes where people are standing around talking about Rules and The Table, then it would have been a whole lot less boring.

John Wick 3: This Time It’s Personal. Chad Stahelski. 2019. ⚂