1965
Directed by Andy Warhol
I, like many film buffs, knew about the notorious Andy Warhol film Empire (eight hours of black and white footage of the Empire State Building). When I started to play Vinyl, I thought "well at least if I have to watch an Andy Warhol film, it was this one" After about five minutes of this movie I found myself wondering what was so bad about watching a building for that long anyway. At least that movie wouldn't have such terrible actors.
There is no plot to this movie although I have heard that is a remaining of A Clockwork Orange. Man, how could this get any worse?
So two to five douches are on the screen at any given time. The camera never moves and it is so cramped, that you get the impression you too are stuffed into a very tiny space. The actors don't seem to know any of their lines and the whole film just seemed like a giant "fuck you; artsy people will eat this up!"
Big thumbs down.
RATING: *----
Interesting Facts:
Most interesting thing about this movie is that it was included in The Book.
This really is junk isn't it?
ReplyDeleteIntriguing junk.. I'm actually glad I have seen it, so i can see what crap it is. It is something of it's time, a rather interesting glimpse of social phenomena (I'm glad the spell check picked up and helped me with that word)... that I feel we should see one of such.
BUT... wait for this..This is one of a series of three... along with Trash, and Flesh. You know I am doing some other 1000 lists as well..
You can guess where this is going can't you? Yes, three list also think we should see one of them, but...
OMG. I would not wish that on my worst enemy!
DeleteI thought you may be interested to know I final tracked down 'Flesh' - the third in this loose trilogy
ReplyDeleteFlesh is actually vaguely approaching a normal film... in that there is better coherence and less out-and-out weirdness.
I will still defend the right of any list to include at least one Warhol.
I am so impressed that you can actually watch these. I can't stand Warhol films.
DeleteA complete waste of time. Only reason I do not call it the worst movie on the list is that we are thankfully spared the sight of free-flying dicks. The actors keep most of the cloth on.
ReplyDeleteNever worked out the story though...
Oh yes, the bar is so low for bad movies on the List. If fecal matter wasn't consumed, I don't consider it that bad.
DeleteActually, the set up here with the one camera and the lighting and the tight space could be quite interesting.
ReplyDeleteBut surely the whole point of making something unrehearsed is for the sense of reality and spontaneity? Instead the actors (who are wooden to the point where we could probably do better ourselves) stare off-screen at script boards, squinting to stumble over dialogue they seem never to have seen before.
Frantic nervous glances every few seconds at whatever's happening behind the camera, the girl on the trunk keeps accidentally knocking things over and gets the giggles at one point when she knocks the beer to the floor. It reminds me of the Goes Wrong theatre productions in London, except that they're deliberately making gaffs played for laughs.
Still as others say, I'm glad I saw it just so I know about it. Andy Warhol was one of the most prominent artists of the 20th century. He made a lot of films as part of his work. Therefore, the list should probably include one of them.