cinema history class: survive! (1976)

The session: "April is the Cruelest Month -- Cardona's Catastrophes"
Four movies by the two Rene Cardonas -- father and son

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 4: Survive! (1976)
Directed by Rene Cardona

My Level of Prior Knowledge:
I hadn't heard of this.

Plot:
A charter flight crashes in the Andes, and the survivors have to resort to cannibalism to stay alive.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
Survive! is brutal in its simplicity. I've seen a bunch of disaster movies -- Earthquake was one of my earliest experiences at a movie theater. And they all manage to work relationships into the narrative. They tell the stories of people dealing with, well, disasters. But they include character development, so we care about the people and experience the pathos. But that's just not so with Survive!. It's not character driven at all -- unless the situation itself is the star (an astute observation that Dave made). At the end of the film, I couldn't have even given the names of any of the characters.

Having said that, I should acknowledge that Keith showed us the English language version of this film. The Spanish language version, which was a half hour longer, probably did include character development. And we did get the faintest hint of that, as we saw the father of one of the airplane passengers pleading with local officials to keep searching. And there was a tiny bit at the end as he waited patiently to see if his son would emerge from the helicopter that was carrying survivors. I don't know if I would have enjoyed the longer version with more character development. In a sense, it wasn't needed. This was the version without the gristle.

A lot of the film was done very well. Watching the plane crash, I almost felt as if I was there with them. The miserable cold feel of the film was captivating.

Ratings
Me: 8
Bob-O: 8.8
Christina: 9.4
Dave: 9.5
Ethan: 9

stoopidstats: another move!

It's been known for a while that the Athletics (baseball team) is going to be moving to Las Vegas for the 2027 season (if not sooner). That gives me something to look forward to -- StoopidStatularly thinking. The move doesn't mean a new franchise, and probably won't mean a new team nickname (the franchise has already moved twice and kept the nickname "Athletics" both times. But the move to Las Vegas promises to make them the first team there, and the first team in the state of Nevada. So that will add a level of interest (for me, anyway) to my annual process.

But this past week, baseball announced that the A's are leaving Oakland after this season. They're not moving to Las Vegas right away, since their stadium won't be ready for 2025. Instead, they'll play three years in Sacramento -- or West Sacramento, depending on which article I believe. This, of course, teases me with a variety of possibilities.

Specifically, how will the team be branded for the three interim years? Assuming they keep the nickname "Athletics," there are a few possible names for the team starting next year. As a disclaimer, let me note that I'm just a guy pulling thoughts out of his ass. I have no insider information.

Oakland Athletics: The team could, of course, keep the "Oakland" branding, which will disappoint me, since it means that nothing will be new until the move to Las Vegas. Which is where we were before last week. I think it's unlikely they'll keep this name. For starters, the Oakland fan will be feeling burned already, and keeping the Oakland branding is unlikely to assuage the bitter feelings and will make Sacramentonians will feel unappreciated and less likely to buy tickets.

Sacramento Athletics or West Sacramento Athletics: These possibilities would probably be the coolest since either one would represent a new location in the team's name. And the location would only be in use for three years (probably between 180 and 270 wins) before being abandoned for Las Vegas. These would have the advantage of creating extra merchandising opportunities as fans could gobble up the short-duration uniforms, caps and other merchandise.

California Athletics or Northern California Athletics: The franchise could go for a broader regional appeal. This would give them the same merchandising opportunities as "Sacramento" or "West Sacramento." If they use "Northern California," it would also represent a new location for my list.

Las Vegas Athletics: This would interest me to some degree, though practically speaking it would simply accelerate the "Las Vegas" moniker by three years. It wouldn't make sense to me, unless the franchise is trying to get started early on building fan loyalty. It would also annoy me because I'd be left in a quandary. If a team is labelled as Las Vegas but plays in California, I'd have to decide whether to have my statistics reflect them as being in California or Las Vegas.

As a side note, they'll be playing for three seasons in a stadium with only 14,000 seats, which is tiny by current Major League baseball standards. Of course, it's well more than enough to hold their current fan base, so I guess it should be fine.

stoopidstats 2023: shifting ranks (win-wise that is)

 This post is way, way way overdue, since the 2024 season has already begun. For those who are interested, the equivalent post (following the 2022 season) is here.

That said, I finally updated my win/loss tables, and the rankings (by total wins) of franchises, locations, states and nicknames. The delay? Well, aside from life getting in the way, there's the fact that baseball-reference.com, which is my source for data has been updating its database. A couple years ago they (I think, following the lead of Major League Baseball) made the decision to include the Negro Leagues within the umbrella of Major League. I have heard lots of arguments for and against this decision, but the bottom line is that I (for stoopidstats' purposes) don't want to be second-guessing my source of data. At any rate, the record-keeping for those leagues left a lot to be desired. The research is ongoing, and the historical record is being revised. With the changes that occurred since the end of the 2022 season, it took me a while to get around to updating my files.

But now I'm done. And here are the changes:

By Franchise

Four teams moved up in rank. Below, I am showing how their win totals changed (along with the analogous changes for the franchises they passed. Notably, the Rangers moved up from 20th to 19th by passing the Mets. This came one year after The Mets moved from 20th to 19th by passing The Rangers. Meanwhile, congratulations to The Dodgers, The Rangers, The Brewers and The Rays!

By Location

Two locations moved up in rank. Below, I am showing how their win totals changed (along with the analogous changes for the locations they passed. Meanwhile, congratulations to Milwaukee and Tampa Bay!

By State (or State-like Entity)

No states moved up or down the ranks in 2023. Yeah, I'm almost disappointed. But it is worth noting that, as of the end of the 2023 season, Texas teams have had a grand total of exactly 4,000 wins.

By Nickname

Three nicknames moved up in rank. While two of those moved up only one place, the third ("The Guardians," in its second season as an official team nickname) moved up fourteen places. It can be expected to move up another nine or so places in 2024, but we'll see. None of the sixteen nicknames that moved down in rank have been in use for decades. The most recent uses of any of them were in 1948 -- The Homestead Grays and The Philadelphia Stars. Meanwhile, congratulations to "The Nationals," "The Rays" and "The Guardians."

cinema history class: nightmare in badham county (1976)

The session: "TV Terrors from the 70s"
Four weeks of made-for-TV horror movies from the 1970s

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 4: Nightmare in Badham County (1976)
Directed by John Llewellyn Moxey

My Level of Prior Knowledge:
I wasn't aware of this movie, thogh I think I may have seen part of it on TV in the middle of the night. Back when I was in college.

Plot:
Two college women are taking a roadtrip in the deep south, when they get on the bad side of a crooked (dare I say evil?) sheriff, they end up as slave labor on a prison farm.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
It's easy to dismiss Nightmare as a mindless exploitation flick. But that would be doing it an injustice. Of course there's a heavy dose of exploitation (especially in the theatrical version, which is what Keith showed us), but the film has a near-perfect mix of action, exploitation and drama, so it almost transcends the genre. 

The one drawback for me is that I had trouble distinguishing between two of the guards, which caused me some confusion. One guard, Dulcie, was somewhat kind while another, Greer, was invariably cruel. Because they both had red hair, I had trouble distinguishing them from each other, so I couldn't understand what the screenplay was attempting to accomplish. Of course, the other guys in the class weren't confused at all, so maybe it's just me.

The cast was full of big names -- Chuck Connors, Tina Louise, Robert Reed, Della Reese, Ralph Bellamy. I'm tempted to make some joke about it being like an episode of The Love Boat, but that wouldn't be fair. These actors turned in really strong performances. It was especially fun seeing Chuck Connors as a bad guy, since he spent so much of his career as a heroic stoic.

There's an unrelentingly gritty and menacing quality to the movie, so anyone who wants a feelgood movie experience would do well to avoid. But it's really a well-done movie for what it is. Overall, this was much better than it had any right to be.

Ratings
Me: 9
Bob-O: 9.7
Christina: 9.8
Dave: 9
Ethan: 8.5
Joe: 10
Kursat: 9.9

cinema history class -- catching up

 I've kind of gotten behind on my writeups of Keith's class. Things have been hectic and I've fallen behind. Behind enough that it doesn't make sense for me to try to create posts for each of the six movies that are missing. But sometimes we in the class use this blog as a reference for what we have seen, so I don't want to just skip these entries.

So, for the sake of completeness, the following are the movies we have seen since my last post.

Session: Giallos in Honor of Mrs. Zuber
Week 3: Crimes of the Black Cat (1972)

Session: Giallos in Honor of Mrs. Zuber
Week 4: The Weekend Murders (1970)

Session: TV Terrors from the 70s
Week 1: The Night Strangler (1973)

Session: TV Terrors from the 70s
Week 2: Devil Dog -- The Hound from Hell (1978)

Session: TV Terrors from the 70s
Week 3: The Last Dinosaur (1977)

cinema history class: the black belly of the tarantula (1971)

The session: "Giallos in Honor of Mrs. Zuber"
Keith's mother-in-law passed away, so this month of giallos is dedicated to her.

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 2: The Black Belly of the Tarantula (1971)
Directed by Paolo Cavara

My Level of Prior Knowledge:
I think I'd heard of it, but I'm not sure. All these giallos have poetic titles that reference animals.

Plot:
Women are being stabbed to death, and a conflicted investigator is trying to solve the mystery.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
I'm really not a huge giallo fan, but this was a great bit of psychosexual mystery, and a really good (arguably great) movie. Whereas many giallos have confused and confusing endings, this did a good job of tying together the loose ends. There were little touches that I really appreciated, though I probably missed some. I would have totally missed the bit with the lost contact lens if not for the fact that Joe pointed it out -- and he said he missed it the first time he saw the movie.

I have to wonder why there were so many redheaded women. Was it for distraction? Was it because they looked dramatic against drab backgrounds? I wouldn't mind except that so many similar-looking women made the plot confusing.

One thing I found particularly disturbing is the fact that the murder victims were apparently paralyzed but kept conscious before being stabbed -- a particularly cruel touch. But it did serve the purpose of connecting the movie with its title.

But spiders aren't insects, damnit!

Ratings
Me: 9.5
Bob-O: 9
Christina: 9.4
Dave: 9.4
Ethan: 8.5
Joe: 10

cinema history class: the bird with the crystal plumage (1970)

The session: "Giallos in Honor of Mrs. Zuber"
Keith's mother-in-law passed away, so this month of giallos is dedicated to her.

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 1: The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (1970)
Directed by Daroio Argento

My Level of Prior Knowledge:
This is one of those movies that I was peripherally aware of -- primarily through my association with Keith and this class. But I really knew very little about it beyond the basics.

Plot:
After witnessing a murder, an writer decides to involve himself in the investigation -- with terrible consequences for himself and his lover.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
By way of full disclosure, I should note that I have, sadly, come to realize that I'm not really a big fan of the genre. I can't exactly say why. I remember, back in 2017, The Quad Cinema (in Manhattan's Greenwich Village) was having a Bava festival -- showing the films of Mario Bava. Ethan and I saw half a dozen or so Bava giallos, and I was less than enthralled. It has been suggested that I overloaded myself, seeing too many of the films in a short period, so maybe there's that.

At any rate (and trying to factor out my general disinterest in the giallos), this is a good mystery. There were many twists and turns, and I really had no idea where it was going until the end. There were a lot of red herrings, and I loved the sense of artistic voyeurism. Tony Musante, known for his performances in some great Spaghetti Westerns, turned in a really strong performance, but the real kudos go to Suzy Kendall who played the girlfriend. There's a scene near the end, where she is alone in her apartment trying to keep the murderer from breaking in. That scene is pure adrenaline and suspense, and Kendall made it.

I'm not sure what it says about how movies have trained me that, during the final scene -- almost an epilogue -- I kept expecting something shocking to happen. Maybe the plane would explode, maybe the flight attendant would reveal herself as the murderer. Something. After Carrie and other movies with endings that did the same, it just didn't feel right to me to have the movie end with a clear ending.

I'd like to note something about giallos. They tend to have poetic, intriguing titles that are peripherally related to the plot, but that don't really tell you what the movie is about. This is a good example -- the title is a reference to a specific -- and important -- element of the plot. But it doesn't really give much away. Unlike, say, Slumber Party Massacre, the tile of which kind of tells the audience exactly what to expect.

Ratings
Me: 8
Bob-O: 9.6
Christina: 9.6
Dave: 9.7
Ethan: 8.5
Joe: 10

cinema history class: the wild bunch (1969)

The session: "And the Train Kept a Rollin'"
We look at Spaghetti Westerns with an eye toward trains and how they helped change the West

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 4: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Directed by Sam Peckinpah

My Level of Prior Knowledge:
I knew of this film and its reputation for being very violent and very good. But I knew nothing about the plot. I think I had imagined it to be something like The Magnificent Seven. I was wrong about that

Plot:
As the old West is making way for the new, an aging gang, used to the old ways, tries to pull off one last glorious robbery.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
The Wild Bunch is, in one important way, the odd man out in our annual month devoted to Spaghetti Westerns: It's an American film, and therefore not a Spaghetti Western. I actually asked Keith about his choice when he first told us what he would show. And his explanation was that this movie, despite being American, owes a lot to Spaghetti Westerns. In fact, he told me, Sam Peckinpah said he never would have made The Wild Bunch if not for Sergio Leone's The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

Having gotten that explanation from Keith, I was expecting to see something that felt like a Spaghetti Western. But I didn't get that. The fact is that The Wild Bunch feels very much like an American Western. I never would have mistaken it for its Italian-made relatives. What it does owe to them, however, is the extreme violence. The violence isn't brutal the way it is in the Italians' films. The torture that we expect from Corbucci and Leone is absent -- or at least largely so. And yet the violence itself -- most of it through repeated gun battles -- seems to be unending. There's a lot more of it than the Italian films had.

There is definitely a theme to this film. We have a bunch of men coming to terms with their own obsolescence. There are frequent references to the fact that the world is changing. The heroes as such, are thieves and killers. But they stick to a code of honor and the story is told from their perspective. And the audience (or at least I) can't help but sympathize with them and hope that, if they can't stop the world, they can at least leave it on their own terms. And this movie, making its point about the changing world, is the perfect one to close the session on, because the civilizing of the west was a major theme in all the movies Keith showed this session.

A great cast makes this a really great movie.

Ratings
Me: 9
Bob-O: 9.8
Dave: 9.8
Ethan: 9.5

cinema history class: navajo joe (1966)

The session: "And the Train Kept a Rollin'"
We look at Spaghetti Westerns with an eye toward trains and how they helped change the West

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 3: Navajo Joe (1966)
Directed by Sergio Corbucci

My Level of Prior Knowledge:
I'd never seen this film, though I was aware of it and the fact that it starred Burt Reynolds.

Plot:
In the South, a lone Indian (well, biracial, half Indian/half White) seeks revenge on the white gang who killed his wife.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
One of the unusual things about Navajo Joe, as far as Spaghetti Westerns go (and judging from my experience), is that it involved Indians. For some reason, the Italians behind Spaghetti Westerns generally uninterested in that element of the history of the American West, and Indians are generally not a theme. But here the titular character is half Indian. But, for all intents and purposes, he's fully Indian.

The other thing that I found odd is that there's actually a good guy (that being the titular Navajo Joe). My line is that,  American Westerns that have good guys and bad guys, Spaghetti Westerns have bad guys and worse guys. The heroes are morally ambiguous at best. But in Navajo Joe, Joe is an unambiguously good character. I don't like that. One of the things I like about Spaghetti Westerns is the fact that the heroes are really anti-heroes. I also like that in TV shows -- The Americans, Boardwalk Empire, and The Sopranos, to name a few.

Burt Reynolds does a good job showing off his athleticism, getting into and out of tight spots. And it's fun to watch him outsmarting the rest of the characters (and the other characters outsmarting each other and themselves). And I especially liked the ambiguous ending.

The film does suffer from having too low a budget. I noted in class that Corbucci never did get the great epic feel that Leone managed to put into so many of his films, Keith explained that that was a function of him being on tighter budgets. I have to wonder what he could have done with more money

Ratings
Me: 8
Bob-O: 9
Dave: 9.3
Ethan: 7

cinema history class: duck, you sucker! (1971)

The session: "And the Train Kept a Rollin'"
We look at Spaghetti Westerns with an eye toward trains and how they helped change the West

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 2: Duck, You Sucker! (1971)
Directed by Sergio Leone

My Impressions Going In:
I'd seen his film a few times before and thought very highly of it..

Plot:
In rural Mexico, a thief and a revolutionary join forces in pursuit of their goals.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
Where Once Upon a Time in the West (Leone's prior film, and the movie we saw a week before this), showed us the taming of the West, Duck You Sucker (one of the film's alternate names is Once Upon a Time...the Revolution) went a step further  into modernity. Set during the Mexican Revolution, we see motorcycles, trucks, and what looks like a distant cousin of a military tank. And yet, with the guns, horses and rural settings, it still maintains its identity as a Western. In fact, the opening sequence depicting Juan and his sons robbing a stagecoach clearly declares he film's identity as a Western. But, as Spaghetti Westerns go, there's a distinct maturity to it. So many of the Spaghetti Westerns center on a protagonist (and likely an antagonist as well) with superhuman gunslinging abilities. So much so that many of the movies have a comic book quality. That's absent here. Instead of deadly accuracy, we see the protagonists use machine guns and explosives to cut their enemies down.

In many ways, Duck is also a classic buddy film. Two guys meet as antagonists. But there's enough overlap in their goals that they find themselves working together, often against their better judgement. They are supremely mismatched -- Juan the dirt poor thief who is trying to support his numerous kids (and dreaming of a big score) is working with John, an erudite Irish revolutionary who finds himself fighting the Mexican revolution after becoming a fugitive in his native Ireland. And somehow they develop a grudging respect for each other.

It all wraps itself up into an amusing, if not particularly deep story.

Ratings
Me: 9
Bob-O: 9.8
Dave: 9.8
Ethan: 9.5
Joe: 10

cinema history class: once upon a time in the west (1968)

The session: "And the Train Kept a Rollin'"
We look at Spaghetti Westerns with an eye toward trains and how they helped change the West

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 1: Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)
Directed by Sergio Leone

My Impressions Going In:
I'd seen his film a few times before and thought very highly of it..

Plot:
A widow fights to keep the land her husband died for, while a mysterious gunman fights his own little war for reasons nobody understands.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
By the time Sergio Leone had made his third Spaghetti Western, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, he had pretty much perfected the genre. But more than that -- he had figured out how to turn Spaghetti Westerns into epics.

And, with Once Upon a Time in the West he continued in that mode -- making a sprawling movie that tells a compelling story but is still bigger than simply the story it tells. It's meant to be an exemplar of is time, making a grand statement about the taming of the Wild West, with the railroad being the major catalyst. In the opening (which, by the way, is among the best opening scenes in cinema history) and second scenes, we see a world where the law is irrelevant and guns rule the day. As the  movie closes, a town is being born out of scraggly desert as a host of hopeful people cooperate in the enterprise. In between, we see the tension between he lawless avatars of the old west and the disciplined civilized people who finally tame it. While I'd seen this movie several times before, including once on the big screen, I had never really caught on to the level of its ambition. It took Keith's email (about  the session) and his introduction to make me make the connection.

Charles Bronson, as Harmonica, is playing to his strength as a man of few words. But the real stars are Jason Robards, who steals every scene he's in, and Henry Fonda. Fonda is in the unfamiliar position of playing an evil antagonist. But he does such a perfect job, one almost wishes he would have made a career out of it.

In some ways, One Upon a Time is more ambitious than The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, which was Leone's prior effort. Yet I don't think it quite lives up to the high standard set by its predecessor. While Good/Bad/Ugly is a 10 in my book, Time is just a shade lower.

Ratings
Me: 9.8
Bob-O: 9.8
Christina: 9.7
Dave: 9.8
Ethan: 8
Evelyn: Good Movie
Joe: 10

cinema history class: i, the jury (1953)

The session: "Yuletide Noir"
An abbreviated session (two films) featuring Christmas-based films noir.

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 2: I, the Jury (1953)
Directed by Harry Essex

My Impressions Going In:
I had never heard of this.

Plot:
A hard-boiled private detective hunts for his friend's killer. But didn't foresee where the clues would take him

Reaction and Other Folderol:
I do have to note that we were watching a flawed release of ItJ. The image was grainy, and the sound kept going out for a half a second (or so) at a time. I try not to let that cloud my judgement, since it's not really a flaw in the movie itself. Of course, I am only human.

Nothing in the movie really grabbed me. It did what it had to do as a film noir -- beatings and all. There were some really well-done scenes, notably the fight on the outdoor stairs. I had a hard time accepting Biff Elliott in the role of Mike Hammer. His voice and face didn't really convey the hardened character that I imagine Hammer to be, and he just wasn't believable as the fight-happy brute.

It was fun seeing a pre-Flintstones Alan Reed, and listening that gravelly voice, But I kept wanting him to let out a hearty "Yabba Dabba Doo." But, alas, he was still a decade away from that.

Ratings
Me: 6.5
Dave: 9.4
Ethan: 7
Joe: 10

cinema history class: lady in the lake (1947)

The session: "Yuletide Noir"
An abbreviated session (two films) featuring Christmas-based films noir.

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 1: Lady in the Lake (1947)
Directed by Robert Montgomery

My Impressions Going In:
I had never heard of this.

Plot:
A private detective decides to become a writer. But his efforts only get him embroiled in another murder case.

Reaction and Other Folderol:


LitL does well as a film noir. It's got that crisp, clever dialogue and the surprising plot twists that the genre requires. So I found myself surprised several times. And the denouement definitely caught me off guard. But the thing is that all that doesn't really make it stand out as film noir. It establishes it as one of many really good films noir out there.

What makes this movie special is that Montgomery used it to experiment with a "camera as protagonist" approach. Essentially, the movie is all POV, seen from the vantagepoint of protagonist Philip Marlowe (played by director Robert Montgomery). Montgomery's idea was to recreate the style of the novel,. which was told in first-person. As a result, we rarely actually see the protagonist. He only appears when he looks in a mirror or when he delivers a monologue. It was an interesting technique, but it could be disconcerting at times.

And in case anyone asks, I do think this counts as a Christmas movie. At least it dies if Die Hard does...

Ratings
Somehow I neglected to write down the ratings for this, so those are lost to time. My bad.

cinema history class: i, marquis de sade (1967)

The session: "Porno Month...Well, Sort of: de Sade Month"
We watch films inspired by the works of the Marquis de Sade.

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 4: I, Marquis De Sade (1967)
Directed by Richard Hilliard

My Impressions Going In:
I had never heard of this.

Plot:
Convicted of murder, a psychotic writer, believing himself to be the Marquis de Sade, remembers his exploits

Reaction and Other Folderol:
I really puzzled over this grade. IMdS can't really be said to be a good movie. The story is thin, the acting is uninspired. And it's really frickin' ugly. But there was something about it that had me interested. Enough that I still found myself thinking about it days later.

It was really odd how the script worked its way around Los Angeles, cutting back and forth between the unfolding story and the protagonist in jail, with his de Sade fantasies. The ugliness (both visual and plotwise) reminded me of a Russ Myers film. And I kept reliving the final scene.

It's not a good film. But it is interesting.

Ratings
Me: 6
Bob-O: 5.5
Dave: 8
Ethan: 4

cinema history class: eugenie de sade (1970)

The session: "Porno Month...Well, Sort of: de Sade Month"
We watch films inspired by the works of the Marquis de Sade.

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 3: Eugenie De Sade (1970)
Directed by Jesus Franco

My Impressions Going In:
I had never heard of this.

Plot:
A beautiful woman and her creepy stepfather have an extended affair and commit murder.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
The big problem here is that the story is just too damn flimsy. The beautiful cinematography can't make up for that. It's actually obscene in its beauty. Bob-O described the film as a sort-of pornographic film noir. And I guess there's something too that, though this lacked the rapid-fire clever dialogue of noir. I wanted to like it, but had a hard time getting into it.

Ratings
Me: 4.5
Bob-O: 8.6
Dave: 9.5
Ethan: 6