Reflections of Evil

Reflections Of Evil is without doubt one of the most intellectually challenging and demanding films I've seen since the golden days of the underground scene in 1960-70. I can agree with the opinion that it does come down very hard on the viewer, but as demanding as it is it's also refreshingly relieved from all the Hollywood main stream production values that has been the obvious and only choice for much to long. Personally I'm quite fed up with all that, and I strongly recommend everyone who feels the same way to take a good look at Damon Packards film.

As difficult as it might seem to be for an average viewer to agree with the narrative style, it's well worth the effort to put up with it. On the other hand, if you are at all familiar with the work of Bunuel, Kenneth Anger, Morrissey, productions from "The Factory" and overall experimental film making as such, you will probably find the use of overdubed sounds and the visual compositions as an effective audiovisual exclamation to the very quintessence of the various ideas.

This aggressive and abusive in-your-face tale of an over consuming, over developed and high speed accelerating culture bursting in it's own gloating can be very hard to accept, and I can understand why the main stream viewer have serious problems with the daring and provoking approach of this film.

But It's not a question whether you like it or not, that's hardly the point. The point is that it truly is a most remarkable piece of work, and probably more related to experimental, over expressive and self dissective art form culture than anything else.

Either way it is indeed impossible to ignore a film like Reflections Of Evil, and if you are at all interested in what's happening on the true alternative scene of independent film making today it definitely is a must see. For all you others, take a refreshing holiday from Hollywood with Damon Packard as your tour guide and host. I personally guarantee you a unique film experience!

I watched the whole movie. Not a lot of people can say that. This has to be the most obscure, most inscrutable, and downright strangest movie I have ever seen. The DVD also comes with Packard's previous work, but for God's sake don't look at that!!!

This movie should be watched!!!! I think that Damon Packard could be called a genius. There is no other film like this one. His camera angles and editing techniques are phenomenal! I really dug the 70's parts. I really can't explain what I think of the Film. I really think someone needs to give Damon Packard 4 million bucks to make an even greater film. MAD PROPS Damon!!!

No matter how awful a film may be there will always be fans extolling its virtues on IMDb. In fact, to read reviews on IMDb is fascinating because almost every one has some viewer claiming it's either the greatest work of art they've ever witnessed, or the most useless dreck they've ever sat through, and oftentimes it's the same film being reviewed! Case in point, "Reflections of Evil." This grotesque home movie actually has champions, believe it or not. It seems that even a movie that is supremely tedious, wretchedly-filmed, non-acted, gross, badly written and directed, can still find a fan base as long as it's weird. It's the Andy Warhol-effect. He once made a film 24 hours long, hours of which entailed a camera trained on a man while he slept. Weird idea, therefore I'm sure even it would find supporters in this forum.

But really, c'mon: "Evil" is Reflections of Garbage. It's a dumpster of old footage and cheap film stock, used to present a story about a shambling, elephantine wacko who spends most of his time on camera wandering and eating... and wandering... and eating. Interspersed with this is some friend of the director being filmed prancing around various L.A. locations in a nightgown with a shell-shocked look on her face. The filmmaker, presumably gaining financing through a trust fund, relative's will, or some other sudden source, appears to have no idea what to do with the opportunity, therefore the "film" he makes go everywhere and nowhere. It's a made-up muddle.

But, I will say a few things in its favor, even though it's on a historical basis rather than the quality of the film. It does use extensive street locations in Los Angeles. When this stuff is seen twenty-or-so years from now it will be interesting, nostalgia-wise. As is, in reverse, the cobbled footage from ABC television that features promos from the summer of 1969. Then there is the dead-on 1971 flashback at Universal Studios with a good Spielberg impersonator and a correct time reference (He WAS making 'Something Evil' at the time, as shown). And the promo steal of Tony Curtis talking about Charles Bronson but being dubbed to say "Packard" is straight -out pirate film-making. But to relay this collage content is to hint that there is something worthwhile in this mishmash. There isn't.

I've heard of going outside the lines. This bizarre film goes outside the known universe.

The whole thing plays out like a psychotic episode. In washed out cheap film, we witness a sick obese man who wears many layers of clothing like he's homeless, (but he's not) suffering from a life threatening eating disorder making him eat like he's always feeling starved, who wanders around Hollywood, peddles watches, yelling at anybody he sees. He hobbles around like a beached whale, and frequently cracks his skull on the pavement. He's middle aged, but still lives with his nagging mother. Are we to laugh at him? Pity him? Hate him? Who knows?

Whereas an art house director partially assembles a jig saw puzzle for you and gives you the remaining pieces to figure out the meaning, this director just takes the jig saw pieces and throws them all over the place, landing anywhere they might, some lost forever. The "non-structure" structure is taken too far, and becomes a nuisance. It was actually entertaining to see old footage of some vintage 1971 TV programming, and I wonder how he found all this stuff. It jumps on to the screen at spasmodic intervals. The obese guy's late sister pops in occasionally going OD with hippies or dancing around in an angel dress. Vignettes mock Steven Spielberg and Universal Studios. The director makes a caricature of himself as the deranged obese guy. There is some attempt to attack the movie industry, and bash people who just vacantly stare at whatever is on TV; an apathetic couple watches the Movie of the Week (in 1971) while outside their house, the heavy guy (in 2002 ?!?!) yells and pukes.

Nothing fits together. How all this relates to the eating disorder or the hippies and drug overdose victim is anybody's guess. A lot of it looks like a couple of guys with cameras wandered through Hollywood, and filmed anything they saw: helicopters, birds, posters advertising a Sandra Bullock movie, and mentally ill people. Apparently the film was meant to say something about disturbed people and their eccentric behavior, but does it mean-spiritedly and poorly. The value of viewing this is solely for the curious novelty of how odd it is. Nothing more.