'Trash'
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
Staggeringly bad dialogue and endless acid-trip visuals that evoke more of the pukey feeling than the 'preeehty colors' aspect of tripping.
On the other hand, naked Charlotte Rampling. It doesn't make it worth watching on its own, but as a "do your own MST3K" it's got its amusements.
That, and wondering what the hell John Boorman was smoking back then. I bought the DVD because a) cheap and b) there's a commentary track by Boorman. I was hoping he might have an explanation - no such luck.
I love the commentary. So many scenes where all he can say is "I...have no idea what I was trying to do here. Sorry."
Weren't you describing the DVD commentary of Zardoz at one point, Jess? Where the director, John Boorman, doesn't have a clue what the fuck is going on either?
[xpost!!]
I love the commentary. So many scenes where all he can say is "I...have no idea what I was trying to do here. Sorry."
Ah, see I didn't even get that far with it - mostly he was talking about the locations where it was filmed when I gave up. When I'm in the right frame of mind I'll need to give another go. Lord knows it's gotta be better than the dialog.
I was just checking out John Boorman in the IMDB. His next two movies after making Deliverance were Zardoz and The Exorcist II: The Heretic.
That's quite a backslide there.
Oh man, Zardoz... I saw that as part of a double feature with Logan's Run. *shudder* For the longest time I thought it was just me that didn't get what the hell was going on in that movie. Man, was it bad, bad, bad.
Oh man, Zardoz... I saw that as part of a double feature with Logan's Run. *shudder* For the longest time I thought it was just me that didn't get what the hell was going on in that movie. Man, was it bad, bad, bad.
Oh dear. Talk about an eye-searingly bad double-bill for the fashions alone. Lots and lots of horrifically dressed pretty on display.
I was just checking out John Boorman in the IMDB. His next two movies after making Deliverance were Zardoz and The Exorcist II: The Heretic.
And wasn't Excalibur the next one? The man does interesting work, but when he's bad, he's spectacularly bad. Exorcist II is visually amazing, but oh my god is it excruciating in pretty much every other respect.
Boorman wanted to direct a live-action LoTR in the 70s: [link]
Weren't the Beatles considering starring in a live-action LoTR before that?
eta:
The Fellowship of the Fab Four? According to an interview given by director Peter Jackson to the Wellington, New Zealand "Evening Post", the Beatles wanted to film "The Lord of the Rings." "It was something John Lennon was driving and JRR Tolkien still had the film rights at that stage, but he didn't like the idea of the Beatles doing it, so he killed it," Jackson told the "Evening Post". In the Beatles version, John would have played Gollum, with George Harrison as Gandalf, Paul McCartney as Frodo, and Ringo Starr as Frodo's friend, Sam.
the Beatles wanted to film "The Lord of the Rings."
Let the filking begin!
"It's been a hard day's night on Weathertop"
"Frodo in the Sky with Eagles"
"Suddenly, I'm not half the Witch-King I used to be . . . "