kilo43

If you tune into this "film" and (I use the word loosely); you may be mistaken for thinking it's a youtube style spoof movie in which some American reality TV show contestants "act" in a "horror" film.

Watch in amazement as, upon seeing brutal murders & and corpses, they offer visual reactions one might evoke upon seeing a rather more unpleasant-than-usual dog turd on the pavement, no more; a slight wince combined with a very minor twinge of disgust.

The hair is moronically immaculate and they are made up & dressed like a dogs dinner and they can't act their way out of a paper bag yup, it is about as good as a spoof movie.

Right off the bat i'll just say my take on this movie was that the director rather cleverly created this analysis of the human body in it's role as objectified flesh.. first in the sexually titillating role. Flesh as pleasure; flesh to be devoured by the eyes for sexual arousal; flesh as aesthetically pleasing eye candy... and then switches to depict flesh as meat, gore, red raw meat, bone, tendon and skin; flesh in a butcher-block role. I thought that was quite clever actually, and how people couldn't see this was strange because it was so obvious.

Philosophicaly therefore the movie is smarter than it appears, and then tops of the cake with lots of traditional teen horror icing. The homage to Jaws as Dreffus is guzzled alive in the opening scene is another nice touch. Overall i thoroughly enjoyed it. Sure it's no classic, but succeeds in the genre by virtue of both the clever juxtopositioning of the role of the body and the extreme overkill & superbly done gore fest it becomes... and hey.. it's good fun!

How do you take a book which is in the format of a dairy where a man recollects his impressions of experiences, and then convert that into TV comedy/drama? it was a brave attempt; the acting was not bad at all, but it just didn't seem like I was watching 'Charles Pooter'; rather I was watching someone attempt to play Charles Pooter, and in a few places until I tuned out i even found what i considered to be some mistakes in how the performance depicted some sections of the diary - By that I mean the character on screen wasn't acting in accordance with how the emotions of the character would be in the context of the book and the time and social rules and etiquette - I saw this along time ago so cannot relate which actual scenes made me feel this way, but there were a few times when Pooters body language and whole demeanour was just wrong for the incident he was relating to camera (imo) It was a long time ago I saw this, so it is hard to recall exactly which bits i felt were played wrongly - possibly one was Pooter's recollection of the "Cummings is always going, & Gowings is always coming" gaff incident. Possibly it was that.

To my mind some literature simply cannot work in film/TV medium - Some of the more lengthy 'entries' might work excellently if created with cast as flashback type sequences - perhaps that would have been the thing to do - Have Pooter narrate, while the action is done as a series of set pieces.

I am a huge fan of the book but couldn't even sit through this all the way.

In all fairness i should perhaps watch it again, not sure were i could view it tho. The mark given with this review if for brave effort, but ultimately imo it failed to convey the subtle stuffiness of Charles Pooter.