gwendolyn8 Reviews

Creepshow 3 (2006 Video)

Surprised by the hate, thought it was the best installment in the series

[8/10 · 3 June 2023]

For the record, I am 47, and am a lifetime fan of both the franchise and the genre. This movie has some problems, but I thought that a lot of it was great.

CON's

• There is a *lot* of unexamined misogyny in the film that made it difficult for to watch for me, but honestly, it's not that different from most films at the time (or even today).

• The brief animated intro was both weak and bad and set up low expectations for the rest of the film.

• The first story (out of five) is by far the weakest and also set me up to expect that the rest of the movie would be as bad.

PRO's

• The other four stories turned out to be so unexpectedly strong that even though I was only planning to watch half the movie one night and the second the next, I was sucked in and wound up watching all the way through.

• I consider it a rare treat when a movie has no well known actors but everyone winds up totally nailing their roles (not counting the first one which was so poorly written it was hard to assess the acting). In particular, the main character in the radio story (the second story) and the main character playing the doctor doing community service (the last story) were total standouts.

• The special effects on the gore were all totally solid and faithful to the spirit of the originals and the genre.

Citizen Ruth (1996)

unlikeable characters, only upsetting things happen

[2/10 · 28 February 2022]

I'll start by saying that it's a movie about abortion that was written and directed by men which already says it all, right there. I will continue by saying that it attempts to be "an equal opportunity offender" by making fun of "both sides" of the abortion debate while revealing itself to have an exceptionally poor understanding of it.

It's also very homophobic, and portrays child sexual abuse as being no big deal and a punchline the two times it comes up (there is also other sexual misconduct).

There is a whole sexual relationship Burt Reynold's character has with a 12ish year old boy who is in his custody that is supposed to be funny. There are also two truly horrible things that happen at the end that are portrayed as being part of a happy-ish ending suggesting that the writer / director didn't even realize that these were terrible things and were just all part of the humor.

There is a lot awfulness like that throughout the movie where it would be one thing hey understood they were portraying something disturbing and it was a deliberate artistic choice rather than feeling like the filmmakers so badly don't understand their own subject matter that they just didn't see a problem with it.

Beyond that, every character is totally unlikeable, and only upsetting things happen the entire time (whether the writer / director realize it or not). This movie is very hard to watch, but I don't think that that was an intended choice.

Jesus Shows You the Way to the Highway (2019)

Disabled perspective

[10/10 · 19 March 2021]

This movie was completely fantastic (as was it's companion movie, "Crumbs", by the same director and starring the same actor). I saw someone describe it as a "WTF thriller" which is about as accurate description as I would be able to come up with.

From a disabled perspective, it was fantastic to see the amazing Daniel Tadesse (a medically different person) thriving in the lead role playing a three dimensional character who is heavily in love with his wife who is heavily in love with him.

Though I consider it minor, it is worth noting that unlike "Crumbs" which made no references to Tadesse's body, his character's height is repeatedly referenced throughout the film, often derogatorily and including multiple uses of the word "midget" (though, it's worth noting, that as this is an international film and given the way that the lines were delivered, it's not clear that the people making the movie were aware that it is considered a slur in some places).

Also, it is important to pass on that as soon as the credits start playing the screen starts strobing in a way that can be very dangerous (and at worst, fatal) to people with epilepsy and / or people with strobe sensitivities.

On the whole, I think that this movie was completely fantastic and look forward to seeing more work from this pair.

Crumbs (II) (2015)

Disabled perspective

[10/10 · 19 March 2021]

Even if the movie had not starred a medically different person, I would still have loved it, as it was hands down one of the most brilliant and different films I have seen in forever, and it really made me want to visit Ethiopia.

As a disabled person, I strongly enjoyed not only seeing a medically different person in the lead role, but seeing them portrayed as a fully three dimensional character whose body is never commented upon. He is just a regular person, exceptional only in the unusually loving and devoted relationship he has with his fiancée.

Anyone who likes this movie may also enjoy it's spiritual sequel (not a literal continuation of the story, but a movie by the same director with the same actor with some of the same imagery) called "Jesus Shows You the Way to the Highway". That said, it's worth mentioning that that movie does include a number of references to the main character's size, including some derogatory, and the credits and the end have heavy strobing which can cause seizures (including fatal seizures) in people with epilepsy and / or strobe sensitivity.

In short, this was a fantastic movie with excellent acting, excellent directing, an excellent storyline, and excellent representation.

Final Destination (2000)

Very fun concept mostly makes up for plot holes and bad writing

[7/10 · 3 August 2019]

This movie is not for critical thinkers, but the concept is great and highly entertaining. Seven people who escaped a plane crash die off through humorously elaborate "accidents" as death reclaims the people who cheated it. Outside of that, there are major plot holes all over the place and lots of things that don't makes any sense even with a suspension of disbelief.

I just watched this movie from 2000 in 2019 because it has become such a cult classic I was curious to see what everyone was referring to all this time when it came up on a streaming service. The writing frequently made my brain hurt, but it was ultimately fun and worth it. In short, fun if you can turn off your brain.

Re: Mind (2017–2018)

I liked it

[8/10 · 8 March 2018]

I'm a little surprised by all of the harsh reviews. When I saw it on Netflix, I kept thinking how dumb it sounded, but it kept pushing it and pushing it and finally I was hard up for something to watch and tried it and it wasn't bad. I watched it some more and it wound up really growing on me.

I thought that everyone gave a pretty solid performance and that the writing was solid. I was satisfied with the resolution of the mystery at the end (a few things are left unresolved, but most of it is fully explained) and liked the way the writing tied everything all together in the final two episodes.

Librianna, Bitch of the Black Sea (1979)

not as bad as the other reviewer seems to feel

[6/10 · 19 August 2016]

Hey, it's just a goofy, silly, sweet 1970's porn. It's got ridiculous stuff like badly dubbed maniacal laughter while three people are standing in a room and none of them are laughing. That said, the movie seems fairly in on the joke itself- it's pretty goofball and was intended to come across as such to then current audiences. The whole thing is your basic flimsy porn story line premise with pretty tame and vanilla (though fully explicit) sex scenes.

I will mention that I take issue with the other reviewer panning the looks of the actress, she's fine and if anything it's the male lead who (at least by modern standards)is kind of goofy looking, but at the same time, who cares? It is what it is.

Despite the poster, there is very little femdom, but it does come up as a gag where a Russian interrogator is into being whipped, so he has the women he interrogates tie him up and beat him. This is a throwaway joke about 2/3 of the way through the movie and is revisited again towards the end.

On the whole, personally, the movie poster was by far my favorite part of the movie, but the movie itself is a silly and sweat slice of American sexual history. It is what it is, and it's currently available for free on Xhamster (which to be clear is a porn site and has all the risks of watching anything on a porn site, though they're pretty mainstream).

Orgasm Inc. (2009)

OK in some respects, but treats female sexual dysfunction like it's just made up

[6/10 · 5 July 2015]

It was definitely OK on some levels, but the biggest problem was that it almost entirely treated female sexual dysfunction like it was just a psychological issue (stress, relationship problems, etc) or a sex ed issue (adult women not knowing where their clitoris is, etc). Only at the very end when discussing a testosterone patch specifically for women suffering from low libido after a hysterectomy were physiological causes even acknowledged to exist, and then only obliquely.

The basic gist is that if you're looking for a film that covers the dire state of pharmaceutical sex research, ranging from the fact that almost no professional in this film was able to talk without giggling, squirming, and hiding their faces, or how the industry has labeled low libido as a "disease" just to sell drugs to healthy women who just need porn and a vibrator and a partner who does their share of the housework, then this is great.

If you're suffering from low libido for non-psychological reasons and are looking for something to validate your problems and give you hope for a solution, this film is absolutely not for you.