cynema

I'm not gonna spend my time talking KABOOM up and up. There is no need. It is, in a way, a return to form from Gregg Araki, and also somewhat exploratory, with genre. It's not his best film, but it's not his worst either. What constantly strikes me about his work is the way so many people who negatively review it, cite all the wrong things as why it's bad. It's as if every negative review of his films, and every negative reviewer is determined to showcase precisely the things which are intentional, to the film, as mistakes or reasons for it's overarching badness. Does POST-MODERNISM really get lost on so many? Case and point: The first review on this page (at the time of my writing THIS review) is titled, "Pointless photoshopped farce perpetrated on your wallet. Take your kids" I mean, yeah. Duh. That WAS the point. It's pointless, photoshopped, vapid, and....YOU MISSED THE RELEVANCE. You weren't IN on the joke and that's your fault. It's social commentary. Surely, you can understand social commentary's place in art? That statement may as well be a blurb on the cover of the DVD, trying to gather attention for it's purchase. It's not really doing it any injustice. Now, like I said, this film certainly isn't perfect, but boy do some people need to better train their eyes.

I'm giving this movie 3 STARS. It may not deserve it. It is, EVEN IN MY OPINION, truly ghastly. The violence is often misogynist, and not lightly, not innocently. Beautiful naked women don't swim in red paint to amuse us in THE NEW YORK RIPPER. There is nothing to give us the impression that the violence is ever less than mean spirited. Well, except for the killer's voice bearing a resounding likeness to a certain iconic cartoon character, but this too, is most likely the exception proving the rule. There is also something quite sad behind all this cruelty. Trouble is, the violence is so unusually bitter, that it may simultaneously be hurting the films ability to get it's deeper, negative connotations across. One cannot imagine that an artist, of Fulci's caliber, would simply produce something this horrible, for the sake of being horrible. Instead, I propose, there is something more here, something that stays with you. Subversion, perversion, deep hatred, a mirror image of the Director's earlier film, intimations of a diseased city, snapshots of 42nd St, at it's worst...Then, of course, there's the killer, stabbing along as he furiously quacks like Donald Duck. Yes, Donald Duck. At times, you can't help but find it's morbidity, haunting, even poetic. Funny? Only in the blackest way imaginable. I realize that it sounds crazy, to assign depth to such a sleaze fest, but I get the impression there is something important going on here. I can't figure AND digest it. Maybe if it could be seen where and when it was made, at the infamous Times Square Splatterhouses of it's NYC namesake? There is of course the reference to Fulci's earlier DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING to consider, and there are subplots about disabled children and prostitution. I don't think I want to spread it out much more than that. Technically the dub isn't the best, but that was the Italian model at this time. The acting isn't the greatest and I'm not always sure the casting decisions were well made either. The cinematography is understated. It is one of Fulci's stronger stylistic pieces, I think. I agree with another reviewer who took the time to describe it's Noirish tone and feel. Indeed, you'll be hard pressed to like a single character. It's just overall, very, very dark. Which is really saying something, coming from me. I can't think of many other films I would say this about, or feel that way about. This is a cruel film. It may be too much for some, but it seems that, maybe that lump I get, in the back of my throat, from watching this; I feel like, maybe that lump is indicative of something brilliant going on.