Guessing Movies Wrong with crumbsroom

[Jinnistan]

Minus 10 points for Janson

[Takoma1]

Regarding The Headless Eyes:

At first I thought, am I really going to watch this film? But gosh darn if spoons aren’t the most under-rated utensil out there and a woman uses one in the first two minutes to gouge out the eye of a burglar.

Having lost his eye to the flailing spoon-woman, Arthur naturally turns to murder. Taking the eyes of his victims and . . . balancing them on blocks of ice? As art?

Sometimes a low-budget film has an element that endears you to it, and in this case I did like the point of view shots, such as Arthur looking up at the people who crowd around him when he first loses his eye, or the swaying shot as Arthur admires two of his victims from a rocking chair, or the camera following him as he chases a victim through a long line of hanging laundry.

Another “pleasant surprise” of low-budget films can be an image or a scene that because of its lack of polish actually comes out pretty disturbing. For me that was the sequence between Arthur and a prostitute who offers him help when he seems disoriented. Arriving at her place they have a humorous exchange (“What do you do?” “I’m a hooker. Couldn’t you tell? Yeesh, no wonder I couldn’t score tonight!”.) But suddenly Arthur decides to kill her, stabbing her in the neck. The scene cuts to an obvious Psycho homage--we see her feet in the bathtub as bloody water swirls down the drain. But disturbingly, we then pan up to see that she’s actually still alive and gasping for breath as he holds her down under the shower’s spray. Unlike the previous victims, this woman was nothing but kind to him, and the brutality of her death is surprisingly upsetting.

The film does at least want to do something interesting with its protagonist. He’s upset when he kills, and oscillates between helplessness and aggression. He says things like “No one likes aggressive women,” and grows bitter as his knick-knack shop fails to draw attention to his “real” art. His reluctant interest and involvement in a young art student is maybe a touch predictable, but I feel like most “tortured killer” films involve a love interest who will inevitably test the depth of the killer’s murderous instincts.

That romantic subplot, however, gets very little screentime, and quickly the film returns to his stalking of an actress, including following her to some sort of drug(?) deal.

I did appreciate that generally the film didn’t sexualize the killings or the victims. His repeated targeting of women victims suggests that maybe he is avenging himself on both the woman who blinded him and his estranged wife. So it’s gendered violence, to be sure, but without the sexually exploitative stuff that I don’t enjoy even ironically.

Some of the low-budge stuff, though, is the kind that isn’t so great. There’s a weird third-person monologue in which the main actor sometimes seems to slip into a strange vaguely-European accent that just pushes the film to a place that’s too silly. Also, there’s a repeated audio flashback of the main character squawking, “MAH EYE!!!!!!” in this high-pitched voice and I just could not help laughing.

I mean, for all the smack talk about it and its low IMDb score, it’s certainly worth watching. It’s a brisk 78 minutes with very few lulls in the action. For the most part it feels like a sincere effort and it’s surprisingly effective in several of its sequences, especially the first and last murders.

Like, how could you hate this movie? It either gets things right or it gets them hilariously wrong. I wasn't bored, that's for sure.

[crumbsroom]

Regarding The Headless Eyes:

At first I thought, am I really going to watch this film? But gosh darn if spoons aren’t the most under-rated utensil out there and a woman uses one in the first two minutes to gouge out the eye of a burglar.

Having lost his eye to the flailing spoon-woman, Arthur naturally turns to murder. Taking the eyes of his victims and . . . balancing them on blocks of ice? As art?

Sometimes a low-budget film has an element that endears you to it, and in this case I did like the point of view shots, such as Arthur looking up at the people who crowd around him when he first loses his eye, or the swaying shot as Arthur admires two of his victims from a rocking chair, or the camera following him as he chases a victim through a long line of hanging laundry.

Another “pleasant surprise” of low-budget films can be an image or a scene that because of its lack of polish actually comes out pretty disturbing. For me that was the sequence between Arthur and a prostitute who offers him help when he seems disoriented. Arriving at her place they have a humorous exchange (“What do you do?” “I’m a hooker. Couldn’t you tell? Yeesh, no wonder I couldn’t score tonight!”.) But suddenly Arthur decides to kill her, stabbing her in the neck. The scene cuts to an obvious Psycho homage--we see her feet in the bathtub as bloody water swirls down the drain. But disturbingly, we then pan up to see that she’s actually still alive and gasping for breath as he holds her down under the shower’s spray. Unlike the previous victims, this woman was nothing but kind to him, and the brutality of her death is surprisingly upsetting.

The film does at least want to do something interesting with its protagonist. He’s upset when he kills, and oscillates between helplessness and aggression. He says things like “No one likes aggressive women,” and grows bitter as his knick-knack shop fails to draw attention to his “real” art. His reluctant interest and involvement in a young art student is maybe a touch predictable, but I feel like most “tortured killer” films involve a love interest who will inevitably test the depth of the killer’s murderous instincts.

That romantic subplot, however, gets very little screentime, and quickly the film returns to his stalking of an actress, including following her to some sort of drug(?) deal.

I did appreciate that generally the film didn’t sexualize the killings or the victims. His repeated targeting of women victims suggests that maybe he is avenging himself on both the woman who blinded him and his estranged wife. So it’s gendered violence, to be sure, but without the sexually exploitative stuff that I don’t enjoy even ironically.

Some of the low-budge stuff, though, is the kind that isn’t so great. There’s a weird third-person monologue in which the main actor sometimes seems to slip into a strange vaguely-European accent that just pushes the film to a place that’s too silly. Also, there’s a repeated audio flashback of the main character squawking, “MAH EYE!!!!!!” in this high-pitched voice and I just could not help laughing.

I mean, for all the smack talk about it and its low IMDb score, it’s certainly worth watching. It’s a brisk 78 minutes with very few lulls in the action. For the most part it feels like a sincere effort and it’s surprisingly effective in several of its sequences, especially the first and last murders.

Like, how could you hate this movie? It either gets things right or it gets them hilariously wrong. I wasn't bored, that's for sure.

Kudos to a true 15 pointer!

I think you mostly nail my feelings, even though I get a little more rapturous about these kinds of movies since they are exactly in my wheelhouse. It has considerably more craft than most give it credit for, it has a sense of humor, and it also is stupidly ridiculous at times (which I like, since I'm fine with drastic shifts in quality and tone from scene to scene). I also don't feel the violence is overly exploitative and more hints towards ugliness than actually shows it. While I didn't actually expect you (or anyone) to watch it, I felt that its use of violence wouldn't be something you would find as bothersome as you might in similar films.

All the overtly hostile criticisms to it, even from within the horror community, once again make me feel that too many people are really unable to separate what works in films like this from what doesn't. It's easy to just look at it and make assumptions that its lack of sheen or its primitivism directly translates to garbage. This is just more proof that too many people just don't know how to movie. But for me this is very much the kind of oddity I hope to find while trudging through endlessly empty like minded films. Far from any kind of masterpiece, to be sure, it's got some juice in its veins. There is a legitimate attempt to do something here, regardless of their financial and sometimes artistic limitations. I'd put it in the same club as the consideraby better, but way considerably meaner, House on Dead End Street. I'm a fan.

[Takoma1]

It has considerably more craft than most give it credit for, it has a sense of humor, and it also is stupidly ridiculous at times (which I like, since I'm fine with drastic shifts in quality and tone from scene to scene).

It was a lot better than I expected based on what you'd said about it. I would say that the main reason I'm not a fan of tonal shifts, especially in lower-budget films like this, is that it feels like it implies a lack of control or focus from the filmmaker. The film is already kind of "fighting" the stuff that comes with a lower budget (not as good supporting actors, cheaper looking sets/costumes, etc), and the tonal shifts to me often convey a sort of amateurism. But I think that the film is actually better than what it shows in those sillier moments. Like that part where the news reporter is interviewing people and he gets talking to the older lady (and if she is an actress she deserves an award--I kind of assumed she was a real person they found while filming) and she goes into a classic "older person telling a long story" mode and the reporter eventually has to be like "SO ANYWAY!". To me that was intentionally funny. But the monologue with the weird accent? That was more like, "Did the actor make that choice? And did the director really think that was cool?".

I also don't feel the violence is overly exploitative and more hints towards ugliness than actually shows it. While I didn't actually expect you (or anyone) to watch it, I felt that its use of violence wouldn't be something you would find as bothersome as you might in similar films.

Well, like I said, the film never treats the killings as opportunities for tearing the clothing off of the women. Aside from seeing the first woman's underwear while she struggled on the bed I don't even remember there being nudity. And the film makes the very important distinction that it's not the women who are at fault or to blame for the killings. The first woman is defending herself. The prostitute is just trying to be kind to someone who looked troubled. One victim is just a secretary trying to do her job. It's clearly the killer who is the problem here, or the "alternate self" that came to the forefront after he lost his eye. And ultimately the killings are in service to his own ego as an artist.

All the overtly hostile criticisms to it, even from within the horror community, once again make me feel that too many people are really unable to separate what works in films like this from what doesn't. It's easy to just look at it and make assumptions that its lack of sheen or its primitivism directly translates to garbage. There is a legitimate attempt to do something here, regardless of their financial and sometimes artistic limitations.

It surprises me that people wouldn't like this or at least appreciate what it's after. It feels like a distant cousin to something like God Told Me To. It's low budget but it's not inept and it manages to work in some effective scenes of horror/gore. I agree that you can tell there is effort. I do still think that the sillier stuff hurts the film because it blurs the line between which parts of the film are intentionally funny and which are "so-bad-it's-funny". Had they just done away with a few of those elements, I think it would actually be a much more effective film. The killing of the prostitute is really the standout sequence for me (spoon self-defense notwithstanding), and the progression from humor to horror is really well done. So, again, why did we have to get a monologue with a silly accent? Why not take a little more time to explore the fact that he says he wants people to appreciate his art, and yet a single person complimenting his work sends him into a crazy emotional tailspin?

[Jinnistan]

I'll settle for a Peabody, I guess.

[crumbsroom]

I'll settle for a Peabody, I guess.

What's the award they give to filthy liars???

[crumbsroom]

I would say that the main reason I'm not a fan of tonal shifts, especially in lower-budget films like this, is that it feels like it implies a lack of control or focus from the filmmaker. The film is already kind of "fighting" the stuff that comes with a lower budget (not as good supporting actors, cheaper looking sets/costumes, etc), and the tonal shifts to me often convey a sort of amateurism.

Amateurism isn't a dirty word for me. Can it be frustrating if you think the movie is almost there? Sure. But I look at it with the hope that the amateur won't fall into the trap of 'making things work' all the time. I like the endless possibility that exists in art when people aren't being edited, and because they don't necessarily know any better, maybe throw as many bad ideas out there as good. Maybe even more. It breaks up the sometimes monotony of worth.

I guess my opinion on this here is pretty strongly affected by the fact that a lot of times I just look at a lot of films as primarily being artifacts of a bunch of people just going out there and making something. Recordings of that enthusiasm. Or that sometimes misguided gumption. I really think the parts they flub can have a curious beauty all their own. Also reflect a kind of vulnerability. I guess I just like things aesthetically that are a little marred in a way. It doesn't really bug me thinking about whether or not the movie could be better. I'm real good at shrugging and just eating up whatever is in front of me. As long s there is something interesting or honest there.

That said, I agree that this probably actually could have gained a lot more respect as being a decent movie if it had trimmed the goof off shit. And I'd probably like to see that movie. But I also want to see this kind of shittier version, with dumb accents, and looped screaming and an (amazing and annoying) score that drowns out stretches of dialogue.

[Death Proof]

What's the award they give to filthy liars???

A Wharton diploma.

[Jinnistan]

What's the award they give to filthy liars???

I think they give Peabodys for fiction.

Whatever you do, don't give me an Emmy. I can't even.

[crumbsroom]

Whatever you do, don't give me an Emmy. I can't even.

[Captain Terror]

um... did anyone verify that Takoma's review met the 500 word minimum? I expect this game to adhere strictly to its rules.

Oh, who am I kidding? As if she'd let a detail like that get by her. She probably wrote 501 words just to cover herself.
Subtract 15 points from me for trying to be a tattle-tale.

[crumbsroom]

um... did anyone verify that Takoma's review met the 500 word minimum? I expect this game to adhere strictly to its rules.

Oh, who am I kidding? As if she'd let a detail like that get by her. She probably wrote 501 words just to cover herself.
Subtract 15 points from me for trying to be a tattle-tale.

rules lol

I should deduct points simply for assuming such a pedestrian thing as rules.

[Takoma1]

Amateurism isn't a dirty word for me. Can it be frustrating if you think the movie is almost there? Sure. But I look at it with the hope that the amateur won't fall into the trap of 'making things work' all the time.

I don't mind a bit of amateurism either. But I expect a story to either flow or be joyfully disruptive. I kind of need to be in one mode or the other as a viewer, and getting a mash-up of the two styles tends to pull me out of what I'm watching.

That said, I agree that this probably actually could have gained a lot more respect as being a decent movie if it had trimmed the goof off shit. And I'd probably like to see that movie. But I also want to see this kind of shittier version, with dumb accents, and looped screaming and an (amazing and annoying) score that drowns out stretches of dialogue.

I'd be happy to watch either the "good" version of this film or the crappy/crazy version. But I found it frustrating at times that it landed somewhere between the two.

[Apex Predator]

What's the award they give to filthy liars???

President of the United States

[Jinnistan]

President of the United States

DP's joke was much better.

[Death Proof]

DP's joke was much better.

Once in a while I whip out a good zinger.

[Apex Predator]

DP's joke was much better.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P00HMxdsVZI[/youtube]

[Jinnistan]

I doubt I'll click that.

[Jinnistan]

2 points

Let's try Mark of the Witch.

Wait. Did Capt Terror already guess that?

[crumbsroom]

Let's try Mark of the Witch.

Wait. Did Capt Terror already guess that?

Nyet.

I guess I'm bumping that one up to four points.

This is what I get for having faith in people.

[Jinnistan]

One clue please: is it vintage 70s or one of these recent trendy horror films made to look vintage 70s?

[crumbsroom]

One clue please: is it vintage 70s or one of these recent trendy horror films made to look vintage 70s?

vintage

[Apex Predator]

4 points

Nene?

[Rock]

Anguish?

[crumbsroom]

Nurp.

Let's make it six points.

[Rock]

Schizo?

[Apex Predator]

6 points

At Midnight, I'll Take Your Soul?

[Jinnistan]

I can't figure out how to use the IMDb keywords to solve anything. I try to look up "horror" "playing cards", and Evil Dead pops up. So I wade through stuff like "object in vagina" and hit the keyword for playing cards again, and it gives me a list of over 5000 films.

I feel like I'm playing Wheel of Fortune in Mandarin.

[Takoma1]

Can't imagine this will help anyone, but this is all I got from this movie.





5 points

No Blade of Grass?

[crumbsroom]

No Blade of Grass?

nice

[Takoma1]

nice

There are a LOT of biker gang films from the 60s/70s. A LOT.

[Apex Predator]

I can't figure out how to use the IMDb keywords to solve anything. I try to look up "horror" "playing cards", and Evil Dead pops up. So I wade through stuff like "object in vagina" and hit the keyword for playing cards again, and it gives me a list of over 5000 films.

I feel like I'm playing Wheel of Fortune in Mandarin.

I used it to solve the house of cards clue here earlier.

Mind you, it doesn't work as well as the see every trailer in existence that Takoma uses. But it is useful.

[crumbsroom]

I can't figure out how to use the IMDb keywords to solve anything. I try to look up "horror" "playing cards", and Evil Dead pops up. So I wade through stuff like "object in vagina" and hit the keyword for playing cards again, and it gives me a list of over 5000 films.

I feel like I'm playing Wheel of Fortune in Mandarin.

I believe in you!

[Takoma1]

Was this one guessed already? It's City of Women.

[crumbsroom]

Was this one guessed already? It's City of Women.

Wasn't guessed.

Had to check but yes, this is correcto.

[Jinnistan]

Had to check but....

Aha! Even crumbs needs a cheat sheet! Sacrebleu!

[Jinnistan]

Aha! Even crumbs needs a cheat sheet! Sacrebleu! J'accuse!

[Captain Terror]

You posted this on July 22. I watched City of Women on July 12. Please deduct every last goddamn point I have.

[Captain Terror]

it doesn't work as well as the see every trailer in existence that Takoma uses.

A few years ago my office situation was such that I had enough down time to engage in this approach myself, and there's nothing like that feeling when you make a positive ID. It's especially rewarding when you start with a bare-bones google search such as "horror movie snake" or something, and 3 hours later you find a match. I miss those days.

[Rock]

You commit an error. I can defend the position.

What are the odds this guy's twirling his mustache as he writes this?

[crumbsroom]

Now back to 2 Points

[Death Proof]

Now back to 2 Points

Prom Night

[Apex Predator]

Now back to 2 Points

Tales from the Crypt?

[Takoma1]

This one is Count Yorga, Vampire

[Torgo]

[Takoma1]

Hells, yeah!

I found it by accident.

I'd been nervous to research that one because I was like "Is that the . . . bloody handle of a toilet plunger?!" and didn't want to think about the implications.

It's the broken leg of a chair.

[Jinnistan]

Now back to 2 Points

The Manitou

[crumbsroom]

Pretty sure I'm out of pictures for that one that wouldn't immediately give it away

[Rock]

Asylum?

[crumbsroom]

3 points