ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

ofumalow People who hate this seem to be disappointed that it fails as a graphic horror film, despite its serial-slaying storyline. People who like it take it for what it is: An art film in the most slow, minimalist, rigorously formal, non-naturalistic mode, closer to "Last Year at Marienbad," "Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant," et al. than any regular genre flick. I'm not saying films of this nature, which apply a very abstract technique to narrative cinema, can't be dull as dishwater or inexcusably pretentious when they fail. But for me, "Corpses" really does cast a hypnotic spell, its disconnections from period accuracy and melodramatic norm enigmatic rather than just arbitrary and annoying. Though I can understand why some folk would think it has exactly those last qualities. This movie is like an Andy Milligan bloodbath directed by Terence Davies--which is a wonderful combination by my taste, but naturally would be off-putting or simply incomprehensible to others. Regardless: Amidst several very stiff (yet nonetheless effective) amateur performances, soap opera veteran Marj Dusay is amazing in her long, stock-still late monologue about the family's sinful past. I can't believe this was made by a 22-year-old director; it's got the astringency of 70-year-old Dreyer or Bresson. Not to say it's an achievement equal with theirs--but I am very fond of it.

supnav-1 We just finished watching this film and are in the process of poking out our eyes. The only bright part of this movie was the superb acting performance by the baby. Fat bastard's cameo helps, along with Elmer Fudd hunting with Bob Newhart but nothing can redeem this travesty of the silver screen. No, those actors were not in the film, but making fun of the dead script, hollow characters and aggravating plot line was the only way to get through 90 minutes of sheer boredom. Watch for the historical inaccuracies that abound. Director-producer-editor Andrew Repasky McElhinney need not worry that anyone would ever copy or redistribute his masterpiece. We have just signed up for electro-shock therapy - please pray for us!

hausrathman A declining aristocratic family, rife with secrets and sexual intrigue, finds itself being systematically murdered in this utterly pretentious piece of garbage. This film asks many questions like "Who is murdering these people?" and "Why are they being murdered?" but the only question I found myself asking was "How could a New York Times film critic could buy into this tripe?" The title got me interested, but the quote on the box from a New York Times critic made me take a look. After seeing the film all I can say is "Cancel My Subscription!" How a critic from a major publication could take this film seriously is beyond me. The photography has an interesting early- 70's European feel, but that's the only compliment I can muster. While the film makes it plainly obvious that writer/director Andrew Repasky McElhinney has seen a lot of foreign films, it isn't so obvious that he understood them. McElhinney's style is as forced and unnatural as it is laughable. He tends to set his actors in static poses and forces them to disclaim the stilted dialogue the flattest possible manner. This film could be featured in the old Saturday Night Live "Bad Cinema" skit. I can't say for sure whether the acting is bad. The overall effect of the acting is bad, but I believe the actors probably delivered exactly what Mr. McElhinney wanted. I know the list of films I have reviewed here on this website must make me look like the worst kind of cinematic philistine, but, trust me, I went to Film School. I appreciate a good art film. This isn't one. I thought I would be able to say this is the worst, most pretentious piece of crap I have ever seen, but then I saw McElhinney's first film: Magdalen. Geez.WARNING TO HORROR FANS. Don't be fooled by the title. This is not a horror movie. It is horrible, but it is not a horror movie.

drij I missed this film at the 2002 (2003?) Philadelphia International Film Festival and being a fan of horror film-- and always fond of the local arts-- I was excited to see this made it onto DVD. Sadly, this film managed to put me to sleep. Twice. I'm sorry to say there isn't a single good thing about this film. The acting is atrocious; every character speaks in the same drunken, wispy tone, and none of them speak to each other, instead giving high school grade monologues that drone on indefinitely. The photography and editing are lackluster, and it seems that no one bothered to think about consistency of color. No matter, though, because this film did remind me that M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village" is due out soon and is of a similar theme.