Spoiler warning. This review contains spoilers, as, if you don’t know, these reviews are basically my notes scribbled down as I drink and watch a film…
The first review of a new notepad. You’ll be able to tell your grandkids you were there. They’ll probably ask what notepads are. The winner of the vote was Starry Eyes. I’m hoping for something surprisingly good, like Bounty Killer turned out to be.
Better typeface this week. Old school horror.
What kind of hipster hell party is this? There’s at least one fedora and someone mumbling poetry. Someone has a film camera. Ok. I’m guilty of the last two. There’s something about the fact that you have to be careful about your shots.
Mr.Bowtie is a bad example of someone trying to act twice their age. And just acting badly anyway.
Early doors, but this film smacks of people trying to be clever. Hopefully I’ll be wrong and they’ll actually be clever. I would rather watch good films you know. Please think about that when you vote.
I’m getting a bit of a Pi vibe from this, which may be a good sign. Love that film. Bought it on DVD from Woolworths because it said Cyberpunk on the cover somewhere.
Was that Sharon Tate on the wall there? Is that some kind of portent?
Creepy boss is creepy.
I’ve always thought of Hollywood as some kind of vile meat grinder. Bus loads of young people are brought in and stripped down to lifeless husks. I can’t imagine many stars are found because they just turn up and try hard. It’s as nepotistic as the aristocracy. Clooney – celebrity family. Jolie – acting dad. Of course, exceptions will always exist, to perpetuate the dream machine. Like people who become rich from nothing. They’re a drop in the ocean of old, establishment money.
In the current climate, the phrase “meeting with the producer” has such a different connotation. I wonder if the writers knew. Does and did everyone in Hollywood know this was happening and just accept it as part of the game?
I’m actually watching this film. With my eyes and brain.
Wow. Her friend is asking if people still do the whole casting couch thing. Seriously, how prescient is this? If I’d have watched this last week, I’d have thought it clichéd.
The ukelele – the idiot violin.
Outside the core cast, there’s some pretty bad acting, and it’s annoying. The lead actress is good, but it seems like, a lot of the time, she’s acting against a brick wall.
I think the widening of the financial gap between the Indies and the big Hollywood films is growing dangerously. It gives us expectations of all films. I went to see Thor:Ragnarok last night (loved it) but you compare the production values of that against this and you end up with an unfair prejudice. This film can’t hope to compete in that way against Thor, but it shouldn’t be expected to. It’s like of Runcorn Town faced off against Man City. The cost of the players decides what happens.
I’m kind of wandering off point, but basically our expectations of what movies are is dictated by the amount spent, and we should be able to see films in isolation (although this film does have an intercontextuality that kind of precludes that sort of isolation in a way).
Creepy boss actually seems a decent sort.
Tertiary characters in limited budget films. Are they generally so bad because they’re friends of people involved in the making of the film – producers, directors etc, as opposed to being cast in the usual fashion?
Also, I forgot to mention. The lead referred to herself as an actor. It’s not usually the case that people refer to female actors as actors. The term actress is actually incorrect and demeaning.
I think I get where the Pi vibe is coming from. It’s the antagonist being in decay, both morally and physically, with a dread inevitability.
The producers PA seems to come from a stable of demonic assistants.
Dread inevitability. Bug has it too. Taking the lead and making them grotesque. And The Fly. It’s all about fingernails, teeth and hair. Like porphyria. May. That’s another one.
Have to say, for all my previous cynicism, this goes into the pleasant surprise column. It’s not a horror film in the classic sense, but it uses the genre to explore a theme, an idea.
So, according to IMDB, one of the cast is Gene Simmons’s son. Just look for the one trying to make money out of everything and everyone.
I think the fact that Sarah’s so middle class at the start makes the fall so hard.
I think jealousy exists everywhere, but I can imagine, in Hollywood, with groups of people all struggling to make it, it’s far stronger. Sarah hurting her friends is a conscious execution of a subconscious desire. The killings are very brutal, but I think they have to be, for the film, they need impact, to show how low Sarah has sunk.
I think one criticism of the film would be how drastic Sarah’s arc is but obviously the movie is limited by running length.
I think the wannabe director is a bit of a nature boy. His project’s just a way of getting women.
Whilst there is obviously a story in the sexual predation of the producer, it seems to be an allegory for the cannibalistic nature of Hollywood itself, and how self serving the people in it can be in climbing the (sober edit – the sentence ends there. At a guess, it would have been ‘ladder’).
Catering was be Dino Fantazis, and, as I actually enjoyed this, I hope they were well catered for.
Sarah’s transformation at the end reminded me of the Man Who Fell to Earth.
The music is pure 80s horror.
Oh, got to say, Sarah was well cast. They could have gone for a bubbly airhead, but they chose someone who would get the audience on-side and then have that ‘golden age of Hollywood’ look at the end.