4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
Not sure what other reviewers are looking for, but this accomplishes what it sets out to do.
1 October 2022
So I always am baffled by the amount of viewers that come on and watch some b-rated horror movie and are absolutely appalled by it's lack of quality and performance. Folks, what do you think these movies are made for? Do you think the director and actors were truly going for an academy award? How is it we're all taking a movie seriously when the actors and creators clearly didn't even take it seriously at the time of making it?! Get real!!!!

So, then, let's get real. These movies are made to be campy. It's trying to entertain us at our most primordial levels. It has cheesy one-liners, attractive women, an over the top villain and silly gore scenes. It's great for high schoolers who want to have this movie rolling in the background while drinking cheap lagers and smoking weed. It's back to the vein of grindhouse and drive-in horror. I'm glad these movies are being made and I'm glad this movie was made.

At a moment when I didn't want to have to do too much thinking this movie absolutely delivered ... and I appreciated it! I have to think all day at my job and with the stressors of life, it's so nice to have a flick that's just be like, "hey, I got you. Chill out and just unwind." It's fun! I can tell the staff and actors were having fun when making it! The female actors who were willing to do it all were the real MVPs, here. Also want to recognize whoever did the musical score. Loved the little captions at the beginning which were in true grindhouse fashion.

Don't go to a greasy burger joint and complain it's not beef wellington. Don't go to an adult league after hours softball game and complain it's not MLB. Rate a movie for it's designated audience and intended purpose. Thank you!
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A man stuck in the past
10 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I'm giving this movie five stars. For the first forty five minutes of the film I was thinking it was more like a one star movie. My respect for the film grew as I continued to watch it. At one point in the film, Lorraine Warren said about George Lutz, that one needed "a lot of padding to deal with him." Funnily enough, I thought this was a great description of Daniel Lutz of whom is the main subject in this documentary. Throughout the film, Daniel Lutz, kind've dishes the goods on his now deceased stepfather. However, he also seems to embody all of the brooding, dark, narcissistic qualities he hated about his step father. More than anything, there's this sense of a damaged man. He's super macho, shifty, evasive and seems to be having this self pity party. He's clearly putting on a very cool guy image for the film. It's hard to connect with him let alone believe him. He flips out over being asked to take something as simple as a lie detector test. He's obviously exaggerating his experiences and he lays on this thick level of intensity in everything he says to the point that you fear for anyone that dare question him. He seems to be doing okay in his life, and yet he acts as if he's completely been screwed over.

By the end of the movie, one kind've walks away to see that behind all of the sensationalism of one of the biggest mass media tales of the 1980's, there was a very real family tied up in it all. Tragically, all of the hoopla from the mass media frenzy even seems to have implanted this major confusion and identity crisis on the people who were involved. Throughout the film, you realize that Danny Lutz, is both trying to reveal himself to be a real person, and at the same time, almost acting out some anti-hero protagonist character in the very movies he proclaims to hate. You can't help but sense a real lack of authenticity from him. He doesn't want to be the Amityvill kid. But when you put the camera's on him, he's very much the amityville kid on hyper overdrive. They interview and tape discussions with all of these paranormal investigators, some of whom don't even seem to believe the events at Amityville occurred.

Then there's all of these weird scenes with Danny dropping all of these crazy guitar solos. Did Danny agree to do this movie to launch his music career? Admittedly they're pretty good licks, but it's for a genre of metalhead music that hit it's peak in the early nineties and has declined ever since. This only furthers the understanding that this poor guy is doomed to always be stuck in the past.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Takes itself a bit too seriously
30 June 2013
There's a lot to like about this film. As I've seen with other IFC releases, in order to save money, filming seems to always be inside with no extras and always playing with black and darkness. They're probably filming either in a single studio, or at night. I don't want to pick on the film for this. Most likely, the budget was limited. Anytime a nice stylized great looking film (which this movie is) can be made on a minimal budget it should be celebrated. So I want to celebrate the successful culmination of this movie. The movie was also super knowledgeable about all of the equipment and methods used in creating sound in film back in the seventies.

Now, what brings me to write this review is to just give fair warning to the person that decides they want to shell out the money to see this on the big screen as I did at my local art-house theater (these are hard times, and so when you don't feel like you got what you paid for, it does indeed hurt). I would recommend you pass the movie and wait for this to appear on IFC Channel or Netflix. I was attracted to see this film by the idea that it was a movie about the sound studio of some 1970's Italian grind-house horror film. In the trailer, there were these scenes of men repeatedly stabbing cabbage and slicing watermelons for their sound effects. It seemed like a totally fun idea! But once I saw those scenes in the movie, there was really just an awkwardness and disconnect to the whole thing. Everything was so obsessively singular in the perspective of the awkward our-of-place Englishman. As a result, the watcher feels awkward and out-of-place throughout the entire film.

I don't want to go on in too much detail so I'll just say this. When given a pretext and a brilliant idea that could've made this movie a total joy to see, the director and producer just decided to take themselves too darn seriously. Making slasher grind-house movies in the seventies (and in Italy) must have been total no-limits decadent absurdity. The content and subject of said films was disturbing, but the delivery was so over-the-top horrible you couldn't take it seriously if you tried. Yet despite some attempts, this film doesn't quite appreciate the absurd factor of the class of films to which is the focal point of this movie. To the contrary, the tone of this film is very dark, disturbing and a bit overbearing. The entire time I watched it, I just kind of felt frustrated along with the protagonist. Bottom line, I just didn't enjoy it. At one point in the theatre the DVD skipped and I was excited at the prospect that maybe the film house might throw in some free tickets to come check out another film. But when I walked out of the theater all employees were conveniently gone, and there was just a clear path to the exiting doors. Shucks.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
To be totally honest . . . I didn't like it.
15 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
No disrespect to the photographers or makers of this film. And its for them I give any stars at all. The scenery and the shots were top-notch if not some of the best ever. But like every ski/snowboard movie ever made there is always some attempt at trying to find substance. The most recent Warren Miller movies have really tackled the search for substance quite profoundly with worldly travels and meaningful encounters with other cultures.

Art of Flight fails on its attempt at substance greatly. The first endeavor starts in Alaska. The snowboarding is awesome, the talent is definitely there . . . but then they take us to an off moment where they show what the snowboarders do when they're not snowboarding. Suddenly we're transported to the Palin ranch where a snowboarder is firing a shot gun to decapitate a tree, blowing up a propane tank and then starting the mother of all bonfires.

They then go to Chile, pay marginal lip service to the earthquake victims of Chile . . . but the presence of anyone actually Chilenean is minimal.

They then go to the Patagonia, and the only Argentine we see is a crazed old man making oddball "there's a devil in that thar canyon!" like comments. All in all, these snowboarders are awesome at their craft, but they're young and cocky. It doesn't feel as if there's any respect for the landscapes they encounter, but rather its just some cocky rock stardom attitude at "having been there done that and watch me break dance on the top of this mesa" type attitude. Also, while snow mobiles might be fun, I was so NOT entertained during the whole snow mobile portion. Snowmobiles are fun as hell to ride, but boring as hell to watch. Again, for a sport that utilizes nature greatly, it's amazing how much resources and oil was burned in the making of this film. The name "Art of Flight" seems like such a transcendental and fun name for a snowboard film, yet most flying occurred in a helicopter. This film may appeal to anyone 18 or under, but for anyone 25 and up you'll love the views but probably find the snowboarders to be daft and dumb as I did. Stick to the latest Warren Miller movies with Johnny Mosely offering a well written and excellently delivered narratives instead.
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed