Out

I checked out this movie from the local library and was intrigued by the plot summary written on the back. That was as good as it got! This film is a rambling mish-mash of unconnectable plots and dialog and doesn't make the slightest attempt to live up to it's own selling points.

How respectable actors like Peter and Danny became involved in this putrid mess will forever remain a mystery. They must have been drugged and kidnapped.

If you're a good, conscientious human being, you will make an effort to buy up any and all copies of this intellectual black-hole and have them destroyed with large caliber hand-guns.

This movie is a true horror.

There seems to be a point to this movie, but I have not figured it out yet. There is some kind of conspiracy going on, every time dynamite explodes people's personalities change (like a person with multiple personality syndrome) and the ending provides no explanation to what has been happening during the movie. It's hard to enjoy a story if you don't know what has happened. If you enjoy unusual plots that you have to look deeply at to figure out, you will love this movie. As for me, I can do without it.

The best birthday present of 2007 is not Deadly Drifter. I suppose being a film major has made my friends avid DVD buyers for me as gifts, this year was no exception. They thought they were getting me an art film with Danny Glover as the lead. Well, this film aka Out was nothing more than a load of poppycock and nonsense.

I must admit though I've never seen a more talentless cast, insanely horrendous cinematography. I can't help but wonder how high the director was when he made this film. Should I have been tripping on acid or heroine?

Warning: Do not watch, you will lose brain cells, your liver may fail, and your kidneys may cease to function.

A friend of mine bought this on DVD for £1. We sat down to watch it a few days ago after 30 minutes I realized that this was one of these type of abstract films. One where the meaning is not immediately apparent, that said however I still found it to be poorly written and the actors sleepwalking through their roles. This is one totally ridiculous mess and after 20 minutes you will be dumbfounded at how ridiculous the plot and film is, if you manage to stay awake this long. If you are buying it as a Danny Glover fan DO NOT BOTHER, he is only in the film about 10 minutes. This film was obviously made on a shoestring budget and it really shows.

A number of years ago, I attended an exhibition at a renovated, cavernous railroad terminal which had been made into an exhibition and performance facility. There was a show which featured avant-garde art, films, and the "headliner" was Charlotte Moorman. At that time, probably in her mid- to late-30's, Ms. Moorman, a Julliard post-grad alum and concert cellist, had earlier made a name for herself by playing in a concert topless. She was briefly arrested for this and given probation. (I've always pictured how this must have actually been quite fascinating - since she was a "busty" lady, I imagined that she had to be very deft, and careful, in moving the bow across the strings to avoid injury to herself.)

She had then become described as a performer of the "mixed-media" genre, and as a performance artist. I swear, her performance that day was exactly as I describe (I'll certainly never forget it; my mouth wouldn't close until hours later).

First, she destroyed an in-tact piano. An assistant handed her a full-size sledge hammer, and she beat-the-hell out of the instrument (she swung the tool as deftly as Alan Ladd and Van Helfin swung their axes removing a stump early during "Shane"). Then, the assistant handed her a small, hand-held sledge, with which she pulverized the smaller components which her larger tool had dislodged from the instrument.

This accomplished, the assistant now brought her cello and a very large burlap sack. She was wearing a long dress, and proceeded to lie on the floor, crawl completely within the sack, and draw her cello into it. For about five or ten minutes, she wriggled, totally hidden within, stuck an arm out, drew it back in, and did likewise with a stockinged leg. Finally she played some notes (no more than 5 or 6), and you could see the movement of her bow and the outline of the instrument. What she played was not particularly tuneful. She then emerged from the sack, her assistant took same and the cello/bow, and she took a bow as if she had just completed a concerto. And, she did not crack even a semblance of a smile during any of these proceedings.

I'm not an exceptional storyteller, but I promise what I've just described will make more sense, and be more logical to your understanding, than this movie. Strangely, though, in its pretentious, vague, incomprehensible way, this duo-titled flick holds a weird sort of fascination - as did Ms. Moorman's performance. I advise viewing it, just so you can say you did. I'm not sure I'd give it 5 stars; I'd rate it 4-1/2, but since this site does not utilize "halves," let's call it a "4." And I think its fascination may be a bit greater now, than it would have been in an earlier viewing, since nearly a quarter century has elapsed since its filming.