Change Your Image
Cinerama88
Reviews
The Scarecrow (1982)
Moody and sultry...
This unusual little film has a way of staying with you afterwards. Indeed, you will feel compelled to watch it again and again for its plot subtleties and seemingly (deliberately?) inadvertent sexual tension.
Veteran nasty John Carradine doesn't disappoint. The two young lads are realistic, if overly naive, but Tracey Mann is very fetching here and seems to float along the ground as she walks, unaware of her innocent yet animal-like appeal. You can't take your eyes off of her! You almost want to travel downunder to see if you can find someone just like her! Based on the brilliant novel "The Scarecrow" by the late Ronald Hugh Morrieson, there is inevitably much from it that cannot be included in the film--particularly the private thoughts of young Ned Poindexter, Pru's brother.
Savour this treat!
Selling Innocence (2005)
Predictably stereotypical...
**SPOILER ALERT** As expected, I found the plot of this TV-movie reflected the typical, negative, knee-jerk reaction toward anything smacking of "child exploitation", a topic which has unfortunately been savagely overblown--particularly in the North American media--and which seems to become even more paranoic every time a child is victimized--even if such victimization had absolutely nothing to do with the internet.
First off, I always find it a stretch to see teenage characters being portrayed by actors and actresses in their twenties (in this case actress Sara Lind who was either 22 or 23 years of age--a la the hard-to-swallow "believability" of Beverly Hills, 90210).
Under the circumstances, Miss Lind did her best, I suppose, but c'mon...her school "friends" were from another dimension entirely and didn't appear to match her personality whatsoever. In reality, nothing is so black and white when it comes to accepting another person's choice of hobby or occupation. In fact, it seemed to me that most of the other girls in the plot were more jealous than "outraged" over Mia's modelling site.
Momma--played by Mimi Roger--was equally dense even when "clues" stared her right in the face. Really: how dumb are some of these parents anyway?! Worse, though, are the ones who don't seem to have a clue what their kids are doing out late at night: probably spray-painting graffiti everywhere! Wake up!
Plot holes in "Selling Innocence" were everywhere as well. If (16 or 17-year-old?) Mia was so concerned about her mother finding out about her online activities, why was she so careless to leave her $27.000 pay statement (in it's already opened envelope yet!) right under her keyboard where Momma could so easily stumble onto it?! How dumb was that? Then the notion that a modelling agency would risk exposure and/or legal action by refusing to close down a retired model's website at the model's request, is just plain ridiculous to say the least.
Yes, no doubt such a policy may indeed exist with the most hard-nosed or just plain reckless (perhaps offshore-owned) outfits, but the majority of such online modelling agencies have more than enough models to pay their bills, so the loss of one model here and there is par for the course. No model stays forever and no one should expect them to, either.
More common than not as well is the fact that many online modelling sites are managed and overseen by the PARENTS of these children, who themselves then have a stake in their earnings, and who--for better or worse--are even the main motivating factor in pushing and promoting their offspring toward what they hope will be eventual fame and fortune--whether or not it ever actually turns out that way in the end.
However, what I found most bizarre within the plot of "Selling Innocence", was the blatant way in which a member of a so-called "child assistance agency" is revealed to be Gabriel, the mysterious stalker and presumably the assailant of a previous model. Now how unbelievable would that be in real life? Okay, so truth can indeed often be stranger than fiction, but I ended up shaking my head at the end of this slice of baloney.
So, listen up, girls: if you want to be an online model--great! Go for it! But, first get your parents approval, have a plan, aim towards a specific time frame when you want to move on--or out--and, of course, check out the agency first by determining how your photos or videos will be used and that you be able to repossess your material if you decide to quit. Then get it in writing. Don't be stupid, and you won't become exploited. If Madonna and Britney could take charge of their careers, there's no reason why YOU can't take charge of yours--no matter if it's nowhere near that stratospheric altitude.
Best of all, though, is to find out from other online models how they succeeded--or didn't succeed--in the business, before you commit yourself.
Online modelling is not for everyone, of course, but, let's face it: being paid $27.000 beats flipping burgers any day.
To summarize: know what you want, keep your eyes open, and know when to say "No!"
Swimming Pool (2003)
Hidden Agendas
**SPOILER ALERT**
A well-crafted film, but deliberately left puzzling to those viewers who, to their peril, might have accepted the ride at face value.
At the outset, we have Sarah, a middle-aged, seemingly stuffy murder-mystery author, clearly unhappy since she feels she's become a "series formula writer", but also bothered by something ELSE which is never truly addressed.
Her publisher suggests she spend some time alone in one of his homes in the south of France; presumably a quiet place where she can hopefully write something completely different--more "emotional" than anything she's ever attempted before.
Sarah readily accepts his offer; indeed her entire persona changes when she phones him from France, telling him smilingly that she feels a lot better than when she was back in London.
Still, her solitude seems to get the better of her once again until she climbs under the bed blankets but then suddenly gets up to open the window. This is the moment where she invents the imaginary "Julie" as the centre of her next plot.
Sarah is obviously "winging it" as she allows her youthful nostalgia and personal experiences of the swinging sixties entertain the notion of a sexy, young free spirit coming into the picture as the total opposite to what Sarah herself has now become.
That "Julie" is entirely a figment of Sarah's imagination can be quickly determined by the many clues the viewer is presented with: notice when "Julie" is on the phone to her father soon after she has met Sarah, he has mysteriously hung up, nor at any other time during the film can Sarah ever reach him by phone to discuss "Julie".
Then, there are the numerous obvious poolside "dream sequences" where Sarah and even "Julie" act out-of-character: all clear giveaways that something is not quite real here. Not even someone as supposedly "sleazy" as "Julie" would really have come home with that one particularly unappealing, bald-headed guy three times her age!
Note also that Sarah never seemed concerned that "Julie" might discover she was secretly being written about behind her back, nor did "Julie" even seem overly perturbed upon discovery that Sarah had sneaked into her bag and borrowed her diary! Come on! In reality, nothing short of a vicious scene between them would have ensued! Not to mention a close up look of that very diary clearly shows that it is written in English! Hardly likely for a French girl presumably logging down her personal thoughts!
Enigmatic, reappearing props like the big white "egg" on the dresser, some of those unlikely, odd-ball supporting characters, "Julie's" "mother's tell-all" hand-written manuscript, and even the red-herring of the swimming pool itself all scream out at the attentive viewer not to believe all that one sees.
All right then, so what IS the ultimate "message" of this film? I will hazard a guess that Sarah, for reasons that are perhaps deliberately left unclear, was either jealous of or had a grudge of some kind against her publisher's REAL daughter, a happy though rather plain-looking, even plump girl who only appears at the end of the film and who Sarah never actually speaks to directly; a girl who looks absolutely nothing at all like the "Julie" character that Sarah had created for the new book. It seems clear that Sarah has no children of her own. Could this be the clue to everything?
And why did Sarah almost INSIST that her publisher give this book to his daughter, even having signed it especially for her? Did she intend to "shock" her with the fictional, promiscuous "Julie", and was this simply a way for Sarah to expose her OWN secret perverse nature by the characterizations she chose? One can only guess.
All told, however, this film's smooth, dreamy texture was a pleasant surprise.
Matchstick Men (2003)
Fool me once...shame on you! Fool me twice...
**SPOILERS BEWARE**
Films about con games, their perpetrators and victims, are always fun to watch, having previously enjoyed such gems as, for example, "House of Games", "The Last Seduction", and "The Usual Suspects".
Having seen those films, however, I must admit that I've begun to develop a very suspicious nature in trying not to be conned myself as each scene plays itself out.
That being said, I have to confess I'm always skeptical of any plot where one of the bad guys has some sort of "illness" or "physical defect"--such as, for example, the "limping" Kevin Spacey in "The Usual Suspects". Thus Nicolas Cage's portrayal in "Matchstick Men" as a slick conman afflicted with what seemed like a combination (!) of both OCD and Tourette's Syndrome was pretty heavy-handed. That by itself set off alarm bells in my head right from the get go.
I think it's reasonable to suggest that, even with the right medication, I don't believe anyone could consistently manage to be so focused and deliberate enough to survive as a slick film-flam artist while simultaneously staving off the crippling symptoms of those aforementioned diseases.
The partner-in-crime to such a person--in this instance, Frank, played by Sam Rockwell--would be hard-pressed to link himself up with such a liability for too long. Inevitably, he'd see the need to turn against his mentor and bail out for his very survival.
Then, beyond the blatant storyline gaps already mentioned by an earlier commenter such as the fact Cage never phones his ex-wife, etc., their latest victim Chuck, played by Bruce McGill, just didn't look like a typical "fish" to me. In fact, I thought he looked too much like a cop, didn't you?
Well, okay, so he wasn't a cop after all, but still he just seemed too trusting. NOT the kind of guy I'd even attempt to con in the first place.
I confess, though, that I was totally blindsided by the brilliant performance of Alison Lohman. She had me fooled virtually to the very end--even to the extent that I still wasn't sure she was actually 14 or pretending to be. I, too, could even smell the bubblegum!
Still, the characterizations kept me fascinated and the effects weren't too shabby either.
Bottom line: don't trust ANYBODY! Not even a 14-year-old!
End of the World (1977)
I fell asleep...
I fully agree with everyone who thought this film was pretty awful. One wonders why someone as astute as Christopher Lee (of all people!) would risk humiliating himself by participating in this lemon in the first place. Oh, well. What do I know?
But thank heaven for the fast-forward button! The scientist and his wife spent so much time wandering around and staring at each other without saying a word! Maybe they got paid per line of script and the producers wanted to save money?!
In truth, though, my main motivation for seeing this film was because Sue Lyon appeared in it, and, as expected, she was as fetching as ever --in spite of not having much to say or do.
In my opinion, Sue has the prettiest face of all, no matter what angle you look at it. It's flawless. Too bad this must have been one of her last films, since she certainly deserved better than this.
Maybe not the "worst" film of all time, but it definitely ranks among them.