1970
Directed by Alejandro Jodorowsky
Frequent readers, why don't you guess if I liked this film? Go on, guess!
What a horrible way to spend two hours. This was absolutely disgusting. I have seen plenty of nauseating visuals in the name of art but this has gotten to be near the top of the list. Forget all the senseless violence in the actual film. What I found most disturbing was that the director's young son, who couldn't be more than eight, was naked for most of the film. What kind of parent would let their son be on screen with full frontal nudity like that? With all the creeps out there, I am not even sure that should be legal.
I won't go into the plot too much. Mostly, it is an extremely trippy allegory of Christ and really, how many of those do we have to see? I personally wanted to throw in the towel with RoboCop.
RATING: -----
Interesting Facts:
Originally was an underground film until John Lennon discovered it, fell in love with it, and urged his friend to take charge of distribution.
Good morning Amanda..
ReplyDeleteAnd welcome back .. it's been a while since we heard from you. All is well I trust?
What, you didn't love this one? I'd have thought that you would hav...
No, sorry, I cannot keep this up.
It's pretty awful isn't it?
Isn't there another Jodorowsky out there we are supposed to watch? (Pause to check)
Ah, not quite.. there is another on one of the other lists I'm chasing...
In 'The Guardian 1001 movies to see before you die', they inflicted 'Holy Mountain' on us. Not as bloody, but in terms of weird and heavy handed Christ allegory, and gratuitous nudity, much much more boring.
Anyway .. we are supposed to be talking about this one. Except I don't really want to because it was .. so lacking in interest.
I feel bad knocking a film for being odd. I can - and have - take(n) weird and frequently defended some of the odder experimentals.. but this one? I find it difficult to find a way into defending it..So I don't think I'll bother.
Poor poor John Lennon....What happened Man?!
ReplyDeleteUgh I have no idea
DeleteHey Ray!
ReplyDeleteYeah, I am going through a break up which means I am watching a ton of crappy movies and not any 1001. I am just going to lean into this cliche.
This is just felt like a film made for druggies but masquerading as true art. Blech.
This immediately entered my top 10 of worst movies on the List. Just awful.
ReplyDeleteThis film is pretty weird, which doesn't have to be a bad thing. There's a thin line between artistic genius and madness. And just because you're an artist, that doesn't mean your base instincts are necessarily artistic. Some bits were interesting, creative or well stylised. Other bits were clumsily executed or came across more like a comedy parody of its own genre.
ReplyDeleteFor the boy, I'd say European attitudes towards nudity are different, including of a child of a pre-sexualised age, particularly in an era with less awareness/paranoia of paedophilia. They wouldn't do it that way now, I'm sure. There are far more troubling ethical aspects to how he made the film.
Overall, I didn't find it particularly difficult to get through, but I couldn't entirely explain why anyone bothered. It was OK.