Reviews

While this was well made, it could've been better. I enjoyed the interviews done with various people, sound editors, at least one composer and directors; more archival footage of actual interviews with Humphrey Bogart, Orson Welles, Stanley Kubrick, etc., would definitely have increased the quality of this documentary. Although, I do realize that there may be no footage that exists, or at least that could be found in time, where those individuals who are no longer with us talk in detail about the sound (voice, sound effects and music) and all of the editing involved in their specific films, their overall body of work, their own influences, etc. I think it would have been a great idea if the story of sound was told chronologically. It jumped around quite a bit (Although, not wildly; still...), it would have made more sense to not have gone exactly chronological only to jump back to something, a radio broadcast, TV show, movie, whatever, that influenced someone with its sound & that influenced them professionally, in a specific movie or movies of their own. And this played a little more loose & fast with the chronology than I think is reasonable.

Claymation, a form of animation that few people seem to know even exists, is the entire movie. And animation, as a whole, seems to be particularly looked down upon by many people because of the perception that animation is only for children. That's...apparently...what the creators of this film had originally intended. I find that to be particularly ignorant and short-sighted.

With that out of the way, I do however not believe that the following is because of or in spite of this. While I do find that this film may be okay for older children, I would say no younger than 10, the concept of evil is examined in some detail in this film and while many younger children may just find this film simply unappealing, too complex for them to grasp, perhaps just as many, I think it's likely, could find the film disturbing.

Good luck!

This film, in my opinion, belongs in a genre that, for lack of a better term, I call "Great Film, Horrible Story!"

In terms of the acting, the script, the cinematography, the directing, all of the stuff, which is all academic, that you can go to college & learn, perhaps even earn a degree in, much, if not all, of that stuff in this film, & in others that belong in that genre mentioned above, is awesome! And yet such films are so well made not just because of the academic stuff, that other films seemingly don't care about at all. They are also so well made because they have a purpose that is universal & transcendent across cultures, across time. And it is rather common for said films to be on the rather low budget side of things. Unfortunately, this is the reason that it can be very easy for such a film to be underrated, even virtually unknown. I find that to be so annoying that it creates within me what you might call a "pet peeve"; especially when a film, such as this one, is held in comparison to other films that are, for example & specifically, far more popular and they suck! There are dozens of teenybopper flicks, rom-coms, big budget Hollywood blockbusters that come to mind... That disparity is not what makes this, & other similar films, such a beautiful example of the art form of film-making; but, it does highlight the reality that it would be a great thing if people stopped giving a damn about trash and actually paid attention to films that matter.

There is an unfortunate aspect for a film being a part of this newfound genre. Sometimes, ..in spite of all of the positive qualities that a film has, the film, or some aspect of the film, can be to much for some people - to much violence, to much gore, to much politically incorrect language, etc. And that's the other aspect of this that puts such a film into this newfound genre; what comes off the screen, the story, can be to much for some people. So, let's say that a film is excellent and underrated. As soon as it starts to receive the notoriety that it deserves it is lambasted for being... _'too real'_ ... or some other bullshit excuse. I don't know, maybe that's ironic. I do know that the people that do it are sad & pathetic! Still, if some people can't take the heat, they should stay out of the kitchen. I do believe that it is true that some films should just never be seen by some people.

It reminds me of just how sad & pathetic IMDb is for removing my review of this movie that I posted years ago! Am I the bad guy?! Did I do something wrong¿?

It seems that Ridley Scott took a page out of the book of George Lucas to make this busted mess of a sequel, by waiting decades to make the damned thing. And when he finally did it he doesn't even direct it, which, granted, perhaps it had always been his intention to not direct it anyway... For cryin' out loud, he hands it off to to an absolute hack, a guy who, supposedly, is a 'Blade Runner fan', as if that alone magically makes him qualified?! Supposedly, Ridley Scott didn't direct 2049 because of a scheduling conflict with something else that he was doing. Well, I believe that, while waiting decades to make the sequel is a morbidly massive FAILURE, still, 2049 would have been a better movie if Ridley Scott had waited another six months, maybe a year, & he could have directed it himself. Ridley not directing this film is why Vangelis (Evángelos Odysséas Papathanassíou) pulled out of the project. And I am not criticizing the work done on the score & soundtrack by Hanz Zimmer - he actually did a fine job; I just think that would have been better if Vangelis had done this film - and now we'll definitely never know... (R. I. P. Vangelis)

There was a number of bad choices made in the casting of the roles for this movie. I don't believe that any one specific casting of any of the cast stands out as particularly horrible and I am not referring to any of the cast returning from the original film. Honestly, though, the acting done by everyone in this film was stale, at best, including Harrison Ford, Edward James Olmos, etc. I really do wholeheartedly believe that they could have done a much, MUCH, much better job choosing a more, demographically, diverse cast. Which, granted, is a problem that the original film faced &, itself, blundered on. It really seems like they knew that just making 2049, & actually getting it released, no matter how good the movie was, i.e., no matter how terrible of a job they did on it, was going to be the only relevant factor in how much money this busted mess of a sequel made; because of the fact that it would ride the coat-tails of the first film and the devoted fans of the first film are the only people on planet Earth who matter, in the context of this film. And, perhaps, that's a double-edged sword; as the first movie flopped financially, initially; only making money in subsequent years with the deluge releasement of the different versions of the original film. Obviously, this movie is, as it has been; doomed to meet the same fate! Perhaps 'the Blade Runner curse' has doomed 2049, too; that seems fitting...

It seems definitive to me that the worst thing about this movie is that Scott, Villanueva, the studio executives who stumbled blindly forward in making this poorly made film did not heed Syd Mead's advice about creativity, imagination, foresight, etc., "Hubris kills!"

Having heard so many positive things about this film, over a period of so many years, gave me the impression that I would enjoy this film. And I did not. The plot was okay, the acting was okay - they were both substandard & actually quite disappointing. The worst thing about the film was obviously the stupidity of the characters, which, I believe, can & should be chucked up to the script. The 2nd worst thing about this film, a very close second, is the directing. This may have been Scorsese's worst film. Of his entire career. I'm not kidding. And I hope that it was!

There are multiple scenes in this film that should never have been filmed. Period. Full. Stop. The Carradines' scene, first & foremost, is the most obvious; having David & Robert Caradine in this movie was an absolute 💯% waste. Their one scene was absolutely worthless &, besides the fact that it should never have been in the script...in the first place, the nice way of saying it is that it should have ended up on the editing room floor & into dust bin of history. While it may be the most obvious because of the shooting, the one that I think deserves to have been never even considered to be in the script, at all, & if not that, at least, hacked away from the rest of this movie after it was filmed, more than any other scene in the entire film, is the anti-semitism scene. WTF did that POS scene add to the script, to any character or any relevant narrative in the entire film?!

I actually lost some respect for Martin Scorsese because of that scene; and it's not like I know the guy personally or ever even met him. It was just so incredibly dumb!

There are a few scenes in this film that legitimately should never have been filmed in the first place, in a sense well before they would/could have been edited out & into the dust pin of film history...long, long before they reached public consumption. The music, too, especially in the second half of the film as it contains an easy 60% of the music that should, also, have never even been considered for this movie. It's distracting, it's boring and it's annoying as hell.

I am actually sort of amazed at how much I did not like this film. I did not honestly conceptualize the idea that Martin Scorsese could make a really terrible & legitimately bad movie. That was an idea that I just never gave any thought to.

I didn't know about the celebrities until they started showing up. Vaguely funny. I can say that I saw it & make a conversation piece out of it. That's about all it's good for.

The actors seem to reasonably try, relatively well, with a substandard/subpar script. Their one FAIL are the accents; they were annoying. The actors seem to try to hard to make themselves sound like they were from New England. The worst part of the film is the scene at the end with the magistrate. I don't know much about Maine state law; but, I get the impression that, like how it is in my state, the judge/magistrate would appoint a public defender even if the defendant waved their right to one. Which is to say that even if the defendant chose to ignore the public defender & make every effort to defend themselves, the public defender would be there anyway & would probably try to make an effort. No such luck with this shoddy piece of film-making. And I do believe that it is reasonable to assume that the defense and the prosecution would, in such a hearing, make every reasonable effort to present witnesses, if they have pertinent evidence. So, what about the mail-carrier, from the beginning of the film, who supposedly witnessed the murder about to happen??

I guess not, eh?!

The funniest part of this 'docu-comedy' are the ones-liners by Phil Rosenthal in moments when things look bleak. Such as "K&R insurance" (kidnapping & ransom insurance); apparently it happens often enough over there that not only do they have an abbreviation for it, they evidently actually do sell this form of insurance to tourists who travel to countries where this is an issue of some concern, such as Russia. And commenting about the creepiness of "Gorky Studios", where it seems that the horror movie "Saw" may have been filmed... And commenting about the relatively young age of the kids doing rehearsals. Etc.

Costume Designer Elena Starodubtseva was an interesting character. I felt the tension & difficulty that was obviously in the room...between her & others in general, especially Phil Rosenthal. She seemed to have a burning desire to not get along with people. Maybe the job description that she was given by whoever hired her, for her job, is a different job description than the one given to costume designers elsewhere, such as in Hollywood; but, by giving a damn about fashion, the way in which she did, I can not begin to see how she was not doing a massive injustice to the show. She was very self-absorbed, very arrogant. She obviously didn't care about the show. At all. And only seemed to care about how she would be perceived if the characters wore clothing that was not 'fashionable'...

And while I am not entirely certain how they do it in Russia, I quite heavily get the impression that she goes to a hardware store to buy her make-up! I just can not honestly imagine Russian's selling paint, spackle & paste, of that thickness & type, in pharmacies or beauty supply stores. With that, easily, 40lbs of makeup on her face, ..honestly, she barely looks like a human being. Tammy Faye Baker is salivating with jealousy, spinning in her grave, no doubt! (Phil is, obviously, a very smart guy; there's no way in hell he didn't notice this about Elena Starodubtseva. But, maybe it was considered to be to harsh to bring up... Maybe he just needs to grow a pair.)

This movie received quite a bit of criticism from a number of people, that I encountered, pretty much from the very moment of its release & for a while after that. They obviously perceived this movie just to be a Bush bashing & nothing else; they probably didn't even watch the movie before bitching about it, as social cuck-servative crisis actors often do. This is actually a very thoughtfully well written, acted and directed film. To those who criticized the film, while it was really not a criticism of Bush - at all - political correctness still had them crying, moaning, pining & groaning about it having been released before he left Office. And, yes, his character in this faux documentary is assassinated in this film.

I reviewed this movie previously & my review is gone... Dafuq?!

In an interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson, on 'StarTalk', Michelle Fournet said that their intention is to not have a conversation with animals, such as whales; it is their intention to study animals in their natural environment, deciphering their language while never allowing the animals to know that they are there. In this documentary...it is more or less completely the opposite! They say in this documentary that after studying whales songs for so long it is their intention to (re)create whale songs, themselves, and play them to the whales and, then, see what, if any, response that they get from the whales due to their, attempt to obtain, communication with them. The only difference being that, in this documentary, they are trying to fool the whale(s) into believing that the humans are in fact not human; that the whale(s) are, in fact, having a conversation with another whale. (Yea, maybe I missed the part in that interview where they said that they were trying to do this in the rest of their research - but, only do that in this documentary... But, I don't think so!)

Well, perhaps I should bother to mention that I don't know that whales are, necessarily, cognitive & freethinking, sentient, beings; but, even if they aren't, & certainly if they are, they are, it's pretty obvious, nonetheless certainly aware of human existence by the very reality that human beings have been polluting the environment, on an industrial scale, for about 300 years...& to a lesser degree for a lot longer! (The Industrial Revolution began in Europe in, approximately, the year 1730.) Humans have actually been polluting the environment for thousands of years; they have only been doing it on such a widespread systematic scale, at an industrial level, for only about three centuries. For example: Some people say that dogs are cognitive & freethinking, sentient, beings; others say this only about certain breeds of dogs. Some people say this about cats, too. Well, whether they are or are not, dogs & cats know that by licking our faces in the mornings as we are asleep, barking/meowing at us & waking us up, that we will get up & feed them, that we will take them/let them go outside, to go to the bathroom, to meet their friends, get some exercise, chase a ball, etc.

So, they know that we are there whether or not they are cognitive, freethinking & sentient! Trying to hide ourselves from their gaze only serves to waste time as we foolishly tell ourselves that we are doing something for some _'greater good',_ when we are expressing a willful ignorance about what we are, and have been, actually doing. While I am glad that the narrative was different for this documentary, than it apparently was for that interview, there was some obvious lack of professionalism involved in the work of both of the two scientists focused on in this documentary, in particularly, however, that Michelle Fournet! This was made even more gratuitous when the aim of Michelle Fournet's research shifted rather intensely, from trying to focus on one whale, that they apparently chose at random, to casting a wider net...trying to talk & listen to multiple whales at the same time, which actually makes a lot more sense. It seems that they initially did not give much thought to how to conduct their research, before this specific field work began. I get the impression that they believe, & that at least Michelle Fournet believes, that critical thinking skills are not a good idea, to even have access to them, when conducting scientific field work.

Maybe this field of study is very worthy of the philanthropic money donated & high tuition costs of the universities, & which is obviously needed, to conduct this kind of work. Unlike a number users talkin' trash about this film on here, I do believe that it is worth it. But, what I don't believe is that this field of study truly needed a documentary; especially one that gives it such a bad name. Or maybe it's just these two very boring scientists... Michelle Fournet, specifically, appeared to be quite devoid of a specific critical thinking skill, specifically that of common sense, when they dumped fuel from the motor of their boat, during this documentary, polluting the environment that the whales live in! I understand that a specific 'rule of thumb' applies to medical doctors & may not apply to those in other areas of science; but, maybe it should...

'Do. No. Harm.'

The racist undertones of this film are obvious enough, that, although I didn't notice it back in the 80's when I initially saw this film, it is really impossible to just dismiss those glaring indications...without being morally bankrupt. And if someone who is racist saw this film, well, they obviously wouldn't dismiss those indications; they would embrace them. And, inevitably, make bigoted remarks justifying them, too.

I have heard others talk about & make reference to the racist bigotry in this film; but, I never heard anything from the creators of this film, Ralph Bakshi & Frank Frazetta, themselves talk about character development, about why the characters are set-up the way that they are, what inspirations for the characters did they have & use to mold & develop the characters, etc. I've seen clips of Ralph Bakshi being interviewed, about his career in general; but, I haven't seen anything specific about Fire & Ice. And I have seen nothing but fan-made crap about Frank Frazetta; and only on YT. I have seen no interviews with Frank Frazetta. At all. I am agitated, further, by this - because, overall, the animation, the story, the voice acting was all quite well done in this film.

A documentary would be nice...

I identify with the main character, John LeTour; even though I've never been a junkie. He seems to know more about what he doesn't want out of life than what he does & I relate to that.

I saw Paul Schrader give a talk/lecture about his directing style, the inspiration for a number of his films, etc., and he evidently based much of this entire film on a friendship that he had with a drug dealer that he knew, going back sometime, before the film was made. That I can not relate to. At all. So, watching this film and then, even more so, years later, seeing that talk/lecture provided me with a sensation of peering through a window into...an alternate reality or some 'sorted' world entirely alien to my own.

Maybe that's what movies are for. Maybe that's what makes them so awesome. Maybe that's why I enjoyed this movie so much...

The acting is bad, the story is worse, yet the worst thing of all is the directing. The cinematography was actually mediocre/substandard - clearly, the best thing about the movie; which blows my mind... Clearly that was an accident! I could type for an hour about all of the really bad and dumb things that are in this movie. There are a virtually endless list of examples for how the director, perhaps in the editing most of all, really screwed up; such as in how things don't make sense from one shot to the next and from one scene to the next. But, I don't wanna bore myself to sleep and I am rather certain that no one else wants me to do that to them, either.

So, take my advice and don't waste your time seeing a movie that should never have been made.

The acting, the directing, the story, the cinematography, all of that academic stuff was quite good. The worst thing about the film, the only thing that I didn't like is how the movie ended. Very literally, this thing ended somewhere between about two-thirds & three-quarters of the way into film. There was no ending. The movie just stops...right at the cusp of a pivotal scene and, then, with no point or explanation for doing so, credits roll.

It's absurd. Maybe I saw an early cut of the film that has this senseless ending, considering the reality that this is...otherwise...an excellent film. Which is strange, at least for me, too, since I typically don't like movies where the characters are stupid. And there are some very stupid characters in this film; a lot of very bad decisions were made throughout this story. I've seen a few people say that this story is very 'Shakespearean'.

It's true!

The acting, the directing, etc., it was all garbage; but, clearly & undeniably, the story is the single worst thing overall about this movie. There are far, FAR, far to many individual things to actually bring up; but, the absolute worst thing about this movie is the absolute abandonment of critical thinking, that was obviously undertaken to make this piece of cinematic trash. The only thing that would have made this movie better would be if it had never been made.

Clunkers like this make money; even if it is straight to video, like the Starship Troopers multiple disasters, there will be a(t least one) sequel. Guaranteed.

A film with not the worst story that I have ever seen and not the worst acting that I have ever seen, it was lame; but, not as terrible as it could have been. Probably the worst thing about it is the fact that it was so damned predictable. That made it boring. And nothing is worse than boring.

One of the things that I like about this movie is its length. There is a lot of story here and, to a point, I am glad that they included as much as they did. I understand why Scorsese went with Netflix instead of just a regular film studio; although it was released, both, in the theaters and on Netflix. It makes a lot of sense to break a movie up into two films, certainly if it was only to be in theaters - because of this kind of length. On their internet-connected devices people can pause, get up, go to the bathroom, watch half the movie & watch the other half later, etc. In a theater 🎭 it makes it more complicated and more difficult, whether or not the film is broken up into two parts, because of this kind of length.

With that said, this film plods along with such a slow moving story, at times, that the actors, in particularly Robert Dinero, seem to have a difficult time keeping up their energy, portraying their characters with the emotional legitimacy needed to make & keep the characters & story interesting. There were moments when I looked & had, half jokingly, thought that Robert Dinero had fallen asleep. Or maybe that was just me projecting how tiresome it got to sit through this entire 3.5 hour long film. I like this film, to some extent; I just didn't like it very much.

Both films, but, especially the second one, are like the illegitimate spawn of some episode of 'the Twilight Zone' and a porno movie.

Surreal. Absurd. And ridiculous. Pathetic.

One of the things that I, & I have heard that many others, have noticed about foreign films, in general & European films specifically, is that they seem to care less about logic, such as that of a straightforward storyline, & more about melancholy, such as the day-to-day meanderings of a characters day-to-day life. American films & American film-makers, by comparison, seem to be more politically correct, caring more about the happy ending that nobody, or as few as possible, will be offended by, i.e., the sugar-coated happy ending; which isn't particularly logical. Although, you might think otherwise when you realize that that particular type of happy ending is what is likely to make the most money 💰.

The reason for this difference in film-making is supposedly due to the differences held by, believed in, supported by, etc., the audience(s) on one side of the Atlantic verses the same thing(s), types of thing(s), by the audience(s) on the other. I do sometimes prefer European films, over American ones, due to the fact that while the motivation & intent of the American film-makers may be more logically based, i.e., money, the actual storyline, character development, etc., of the American-made movie is likely to be the most illogical thing that I can possibly imagine. Versus the European-made film that seems to depict reality more realistically, which is often times rather illogical due to the fact that reality, itself, does, sometimes, not make a whole lot sense. So, as much as European film-makers may not care about logic...they still seem to care about it more than their American counterparts do.

This film, "Nymph()maniac(: Vol. I)", definitively seems to care less about what makes sense & more about just explaining the main character...in all of their glorious & vulgar details. Which is to say that it doesn't matter if the character, their habits, idiosyncrasies, etc., make any sense whatsoever. A lot of European films do this. And while this can be a refreshing take on story-telling & film-making, such as in comparison to that American 'style', this European 'style', definitively & without a doubt, can be clumsy, obnoxious, oafish; at times, even quite boring. Ultimately, that is why I did not like this film very much.

...other than to make a conversation piece out of it with someone, other than myself, who has also seen these overrated films. Everytime John Wick is shot, stabbed, bounced off of the hood and/or the windshield of a vehicle he seems to take some degree of injury. But, where as most anyone, specifically in the real world, would be dead relatively quickly, John Wick is obviously immortal. This idiot does not know when to throw in the towel and just give it up and he can not die. In this installment, for example, he is thrown off of the roof of a building 🏢, that is at least 10 stories high, bounced off of the roof on the edge of the building here, bounces off of an awning there, etc., landing in the alley below relatively weak & in apparent pain - with evidently no broken bones - still very much alive!

All of these films, not just "Parabellum", are a live-action cartoon filled with gratuitous gore-porn.

They're really not worth it!

I only saw the first movie because I knew so many people who'd seen it & I got tired of hearing so much about it...without having seen it. I only watched this thing because I was curious. It is likely that I will watch the 3rd one just to say...'Eff it, let's just watch it already!'

John Wick is a gore-porn franchise. It's extremely pointless.

This movie is riddled with a quite a few plot-holes and the movie suffers, as a whole, because of it; especially the 16,000 pound elephant in the room: Secrecy! From the documentaries that I have seen, from what I have read, any person working for any secretive organization, CIA, organized crime, whatever, ..that is at least not an idiot, especially people who are the most dangerous & are therefore generally regarded as the most hated/feared, i.e., assassins, they do not allow themselves to have/be directly connected to any material object; automobiles, boats, homes, whatever. In the real world, if you get the license plate # off of a car that belongs to such a person & run it you're basically going to find information that tells you nothing about who that person is. Usually, ..it's registered to a dummy company that exists on tax records & is, maybe, on file with another company, maybe a delivery service. And if you could dig & find out you'd find that while that other company is a different company, at least on paper, it's really just a front for the same person.

It is common for these companies to have a physical address in the same country where the person in question lives. But, if you were to go to that physical address you'd find that it's a warehouse or a small 'hole-in-the-Earth' office in a building that's been abandoned for 15 years. It's common for these physical addresses to be located on some open-air loading dock that is so 'out-in-the-middle-of-no-where' that nobody in their right mind ever goes out that way. Or on a closed loading dock, where you have to have ID to even be on the property & perhaps more than that. In such locations, buildings can sit abandoned for decades. So long as the company that is registered at that physical address has its rent, taxes, whatever, paid, consistently, on time, how much in bad shape the building is does not matter. At all.

And, often, these companies are not registered, such as for tax reasons, in a part of the world where the person in question lives. The person in question might live in North America... Somewhere. With that physical address, somewhere, in North America. But, the registration of that company, for those tax reasons, might be in Antarctica. Or Brazil. Or somewhere in Europe. Or the Cayman Islands.

So, when John Wick was in the gas station, at the beginning of the movie & the Russian psychopath chats him up, did that guy put a tracer in/on his vehicle to find him later to steal the car? Or did he get the vin/plate #, run it & track him him down that way?¿ Regardless of how they did it, the fact that they were able to find him so easily implies how little thought went into, at least, that part of the script. Especially since John Wick is a guy with no security, whatsoever, on the home that he lives in... Seriously, how about a motion sensor security system to sound an alarm any time anything larger than a medium-size dog comes on the property! If John Wick is a person who is so good at what he does, then, the bad guys shouldn't have been able to find him. At all. And if John Wick is not that good, then, the title character would never have lived long enough to see even the beginning of this movie; because, he would have been taken down long before the story in the movie got started.

And then there's the car that John Wick has immediately before going into the hotel. It's gone & replaced by a different car when he leaves, with no explanation for what happened to the previous vehicle. And there is the scene near the end when John Wick stabs himself with a knife, as it is in the other guys hand, evidently, just to get the knife away from the guy. Dumb. And then there's the scene right at the end where he stumbles into the dog pound, to get medical supplies, & staples himself back together (Really dumb!), inevitably bleeding DNA all over the damned place! As if someone wouldn't show up for work in the morning, see the mess, call the cops... To say nothing of the SUV at the beginning and at the end of the movie! (I gag just thinking about how much of a person's DNA would be all over the inside of any of the vehicles that the title character was in throughout this film!)

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a shoot'em-up action flick that does not do this; but, in order to enjoy a shoot'em-up action flick that is written this poorly you need to suspend your support for/belief in reality. You need to not care that the movie sucks. And I think that's extremely stupid!

I prefer reality.

It could have been an interesting film; but, it just didn't work very well. The story was very convoluted. It was implied early on that the team H/Boss was working for had some connection to the main antagonists, perhaps they even were the main antagonists, responsible for the murder that set the story in motion. And there was no real point in making/implying that connection other than to throw twist into a story that didn't need it.

Maybe I'll watch the original some day; I hope it's better than the remake.

It wasn't as terrible as it could have been; but, it was definitely not as good as it should've have been. The worst problem with the movie was the acting. More involvement of the title character with fellow college staff would likely have been nothing but helpful; especially given the acting of the college-age punks who were, not entirely...but, almost entirely, just dead-space going back and forth, throughout the film.

The two epilogues at the end were far more enjoyable than I expected them to be. If they make more films, or even a TV show, from this narrative & storyline, as touched on in the credits, I would inevitably watch it; albeit with a high degree of trepidation. I yearn for them to do justice to this story, though; which means that they should just leave it the hell alone if they otherwise would just end up butchering it.

This is a soft-core porn(ographic) film.

Period. Full. Stop.

In fact, there are multiple scenes throughout this film, especially towards the end, that very much make this movie look like a hard-core porn(ographic) film that is cut down; spliced & diced, to make it into a movie that would get passed the censors & play in the few hole-in-the-earth theaters that ever carried it following its release. Those scenes consistently, throughout the entire film, involve the main characters, all women, with their tops ripped off as they are being sexually assaulted; it happens about every two god-damned minutes. This is a porno film!

Look, I'm no prude; but, if I had known what type of movie this was, before I watched it, then, it's likely that I would have moved on, never bothering to waste my time. Which, damn straight, would've been for the best! Still, even if I hadn't of moved on; even if I had watched it anyway, at least I would be consciously aware going in about the stupidity of this mistake.

Undeniably, this is one of the worst movies that I have ever seen; definitely a "Top 100"...