Amazon.com essential video

John Waters's goofy, 1990 comedy about a Baltimore girl (Amy Locane) who can't decide if she should remain "good" in her 1954 world or hang out with the motorcycle boys is funny in a scene-by-scene way, but doesn't quite gel into the grand piece the director was hoping for. The cast is exceptionally likable, however, including Johnny Depp as an Elvis type and Iggy Pop as a chattering loony. The best material is set in a fringe world of bikers and losers on the outskirts of town, and Waters writes some hilarious sardonic dialogue for the characters. Cry-Baby is the last of Waters's more undisciplined features; he followed it with the glossier but no less perverse Serial Mom. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (107)

Extremely silly, stupid and bad. It's great!
This movie is so bad it hurts. It's incredibly campy and silly, a wonderful parody. I'd say a definate must for Johnny Depp fans (and I can't say I'm one of them) and for anyone who enjoys a good laugh at stupidly silly films. No smart comedy hear, no deep message or meaning, just a hilarious spoof filled with catchy songs and dance moves. A good rainy day film, or for cheering you up, though I think if you were really in a bad mood this movie would just seem stupid and make you want to scream. Still, not bad when you want a laugh. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone looking for witty comedy or a serious or engaging film, just someone ready for a silly and over-the-top movie filled with song and dance and tons of unbelievabley stereotyped fun characters.

4-stars for a quirky and silly movie. Nothing extrodinary, but still fun!

Cry-Baby Walker Rules
I had seen this movie in the movie theatre as a teenager and it Rocked!! That started my enjoyment of Johnny Depp films. I never watched 21 Jump Street until this movie. The cast is so funny. The TV version I seen added parts that I had not seen in the theatre but cut out parts that were extremely funny. Now I have a copy of the TV version plus the video version which was what I seen in at the movies. It would be really great to get on DVD with both versions together (played together or both on one disc). To this day I can sing every song (I had the soundtrack before the videos) and say most of the words with everyone. It is a funny movie that just won't get old watching over and over!! In fact I watched it today. I just can't say enough about how hilarious this movie. It is the "bad boy" falling in love with the "good girl" just like "Grease" and other great movies like that. I think they did a great job at making it look like the 50s in the movie. It has been my favorite movie since I seen it.

Cry Baby........
I wouldn't recommend this film. I think I got bored. It was so long ago, but I believe I was bored.

He's so hott!
I have been watching this movie ever since I was 6, and now I'm 15. It's great and the best part is that Johnny Depp is in it. I think he's incredibly hott no matter what he wears. This movie should definately be on dvd. What I don't get is why does Johnny and (Amy) make out in the movie when she is still dating the other guy, lol. But, it's a very cute movie. I think everybody who hasn't seen it yet, should!

why on EARTH is this not on dvd?!?!
I thought that this film was great and fantastic for cheering you up. The songs were really catchy and cheesy (in a good way) and Johnny Depp looked incredible. A must for ALL fans. It just makes me wonder what is going through the directors head by not putting this on dvd, it is mazing. ... Read more

Reviews (25)

One for Joe & One for the Lizard
Also known as ANDY WARHOL'S FRANKENSTEIN or ANDY WARHOL PRESENTS FRANKENSTEIN, this early 1970s film is associated with Warhol only in the sense that the pop artist put up the money for the project and because it featured several actors--particularly Joe Dallesandro--who had appeared in various Warhol "factory" films. The film is a calculated effort to create a cult film, even down to deliberate courting of the X rating it received at the time of its release.

The Baron Frankenstein (Udo Kier) is married to Baroness Katrin (Monique van Vooren); they have two children and reside in the obligatory isolated castle complete with secret laboratory, where Frankenstein and his assistant (Arno Juerging) conduct their work. In this particular case, they seek to create both a male and female "monster" for breeding purposes. Unfortunately, when Frankenstein collects a shepherd's head for his male monster, he runs afoul of the shepherd's friend Nicholas (Joe Dallesandro.) The film gives every character a far-out sexual spin: the Baron and Baroness are actually brother and sister and their children are not only the result of their incestuous relationship, they themselves give every appearance of following in the family tradition; the Baron's sex life consists of unfastening the stitches of his female monster and... ahem... shall we say enjoying the pleasures of her internal organs; sexually abandoned by her husband-brother, the Baroness takes lovers (and they are spied upon by the children)--and then decides she wants to fool around the male monster; the lab assistant wants to imitate the Baron's explorations of the female monster; Nicholas rolls around naked with every woman in the village. And so on.

The film is obviously intended to be a bloody, grotesque, and erotic black comedy--but while it's certainly bloody enough and quite grotesque, it isn't greatly erotic and it's not particularly funny. It is also very sloppily made, and worse still it is as slow as molasses in January. The absolute best thing that can be said for FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN is that Joe Dallesandro, who can only be described as a rough-trade dream, has a scene where a lizard runs across his naked [behind]. One star for Joe and one star for the lizard. Recommendation: rent it before you buy it, because for most people one viewing will be more than enough.

WARNING: Do NOT Eat While Viewing This Film
One would be well-advised to heed my warning. This is one of the most violent, perverse, and laugh-out-loud (intentionally) funny versions of the Frankenstein myth. It's also one of my favorite movies (I like it better than its sister production BLOOD FOR DRACULA, though most tend to rate that one a bit higher) and, as far as I'm concerned, the best film to come out of the Andy Warhol-Paul Morrisey collaborations of the 60s and 70s. Udo Kier is astounding as the mad Baron Frankenstein, Arno Juerging is great as his idiot assistant Otto, and Monique Van Vooren holds her own as Frankenstein's wife-sister, whose insatiable sexual appetite is fed by hunky Joe Dallesandro. Poor Mary Shelley could never have imagined that one day her Gothic horror novel would one day evolve into something as hideous as this. But it's all in good fun, as the Baron and Otto sew up beautiful corpses and talk science in the lab. One of the Baron's hobbies is to make love to his female zombie (Morrisey mercifully spares us the more graphic details in this scene). He and Otto go to a bordello for the perfect male "whose overriding urges are sensual". But - oops! - they pick the wrong stud to behead. Instead of Dallesandro, they pick his friend, an aspiring monk who really didn't want to be at a bordello in the first place. When the Baron and Otto find that their male creature is frigid, the plot thickens. This film is NOT for people who are squeamish. The sex and violence is all of such a perverse nature that it isn't the kind of thing you want to sit down and watch with grandma. It's filled with campy humor and super-gory FX (imagine it as it premiered in 3-D!). But, in spite of the usual Warhol-crowd tomfoolery, there is a very real sense of quality to the proceedings. Gorgeously photographed, with a sumptuous score and fine period detail, this is a little too well-mounted to be written off as simply "a camp comedy". Ironically, the final scene is genuinely tragic! Interesting bit of film-buff trivia: This film (as well as DRACULA) was shot at the same time, in the same place (Italy), and with much of the same crew as Polanski's little-known sex comedy WHAT?. Polanski, who has a brief but hilarious cameo in DRACULA, let Warhol's crowd move into his Italian villa, but their eccentricities eventually drove him off. (As he has it in his autobiography: "They were a nice enough bunch, if a bit camp...")

Ain't got nothing if you ain't got love
Udo Kier, Udo freaking Kier. Perhaps my absolute favorite bad actor bringing new life to the story of Frankenstein, utterly unshackled by any semblance of the book itself. Here, we have the anthropomorphic vision of a petulant, tantrum-throwing Baron Frankenstein and his plan to create not one but TWO wombies, male and female, to procreate and spawn a master race of wombies to answer to the will of Udo Kier alone. This scheme is more or less similiar to the one favored by Bela Legosi in the Ed Wood saga, Bride of the Monster. Playing devil's advocate, I never pictured a male wombie with too many active sperm cells, nor a female wombie with an overly active reproductive system, but, who's splitting hairs.

At the outset of the movie, Udo does in fact have the female wombie fully completed, but he needs the final component to complete her male counterpart. To finish his male wombie, Udo in fact needs the proper "nazzum", and nazzums, evidently, are reasonably difficult to acquire. So, Baron Frankenstein, with his sidekick, Otto (the same guy that played his sidekick in Blood for Dracula) sets out for his nazzum. He needs a vigorous nazzum, the kind that frequents brothels and enjoys fornicating with any and every type of woman. At this stage, we have the same slouching Communist stable boy from Blood for Dracula, and his good buddy who wants to go join a convent or something. In the dark, Udo mistakes the the buddy, rather than the whoremongering Communist, for the nazzum he wants, and ends up, much to his despair, with a homosexual nazzum. Great Scott!!!

So, Frankenstein throws the two wombies together, kiss him, kiss him, kiss him, kiss him, KISS HIM, but unfortunately the male wombie with the insufficient nazzum ignores the female wombie. In desperation, Udo throws the male wombie to his wife, Baroness Frankenstein (who looks a little bit like Skeletor with a blonde wig), but, not only does the wombie fail to become aroused, he kills the baroness as well. Good golly miss molly, what a waste! Simutaneously, Otto, the hackneyed sidekick, learns that he has his own Mortal Kombat Fatality--pull out their guts and let them see them before they die trick--which he promptly launches against the housekeeper and the female wombie when they both dispassionately spurn his groping Torgoesque affections.

Udo, disenchanted, runs into the laboratory, kills Otto, then fails to defend himself against the vengeful male wombie. My favorite line: "My experiments will go on. I will not die in wain..."

Campy and gory telling of the famous story
Apparently "Flesh for Frankenstein" has become some sort of a revisionist masterpiece for the high brow set or those impressed by the Eurotrash excentricities of the Andy Warhol moniker that was once attached to this film. Well, I really love this film, but I refuse to accept all the vapid praise that is now being gushed about the genius of the film and its director: Paul Morrissey.

Flesh for Frankenstein is a retelling of the famous Mary Shelley story. Mary Shelley wrote it as a heavily veiled allegory for the evils of then modern science and the hubris of Man. In the DVD extras, Morrissey and some film historian would have us believe that Morrissey was consciously attempting to throw his own slant on the allegory angle. He would have us believe that he was intentionally going over the top with the gore and the sex as an affront to the liberal hippy movement which was clamboring for more of it. This sounds delightfully poignant until you take a closer look at how this film got made.

Morrissey was given creative control to direct several Andy Warhol financed films in Europe. The money that Warhol provided was certainly not without its strings attached though. In fact, Warhol was the king of creative marketing. He and his Factory were making films for fun not profit. That they made money was due to the fact that he had already engratiated himself with the artsy crowd in New York with his airbrushed art and his advertising art (i.e. the now famous Campbell's Soup can). Warhol never took himself all that seriously. He laughed himself all the way to the bank.

Morrissey was doing the same with these films. He was pushing the envelope in gore and sex, but was it for noble artistic intentions? I seriously doubt it. However, since he narrates that it was all intentional, we have no other factual basis to counter his claim.

However, I think, as with many of the now famous artists and poets, writers and filmmakers - their work is famous not because of its original genius, but rather because somebody who has the ear of those who are in power, yet gullible, promoted them as such at the time of their creation or after the fact.

Allowing the film to stand on its own is no crime. When we take a historical look at how cinema was being presented at the time, Morrissey was actually far ahead of his time. That much is true. Hammer Films in England had long been derided as going too far with the gore in their horror films and since they were still going strong at the time this film was made, they really were still the only company doing such films. Along comes Morrissey and he really blew the established film standards to pieces by making this film. Excessive gore, nudity - both male and female, sex acts only slightly veiled, and foul language - it was all in this single film.

The sets and costuming are really masterpieces. The clothing is dynamite when you think of the budget that Morrissey had to work with. And even moreso, the sets are out of this world. They are authentic locations throughout Europe. The set aspect also has me wondering when this film was "really" made. I ask this because the Dr's laboratory is obviously the inspiration for Lou Adler's Frankenfurter's laboratory in "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". TRHPS actually duplicates this set in great detail, down to the glass tank, the tile walls, and the statuary in the room.

What makes this film unable to hold the title of great is the acting, the script, and the editing. I don't buy it that the poor acting is intentional. I think it was all they could get and since the people in charge didn't have any real filmmaking background or lots of money, they simply couldn't get capable actors. Udo Kier, they would like us to believe, is intentionally acting over the top. I've directed lots of regional theatre and I can assure you he's not acting over the top - he's just not a good actor. He has proven that in the 30 years since this film that, while he is better now than before, he is no actor. Dallesandro - he was Warhol's personal pet project. Warhol insisted he be used - and arguably, because of "Flesh", Dallesandro was popular in Europe. Monique Van Voohren - is only one of the worst actresses ever to be filmed. As the both the Dr's wife and sister, she simply cannot do much other than bear her body with belief (the sister/wife aspect is yet another aspect taken for TRHPS). The character of Otto is the only one who can get away with the poor acting in this film - because his over the top style is somewhat expected for the mad scientist's assistant. The "monster" is intended to be more of a stud puppy hunk than a monster (another steal from Richard O'Brien for TRHPS, I think). In fact, the creepiest aspect of the film are the Dr's children. They creep about like little ghouls throughout the film.

The extremely gory climax of the film is, frankly, Morrissey's masterpiece for the flim. With this scene, he obviously takes a page from Shakespeare. The set is simply strewn with bloody corpses in various states. And then there is the anticipation he leaves of with - of what is to come - as the children menacingly begin to come into their own scalpels gleaming.

I won't give it all away, because it is a really fun film. I've bought it for myself and I know I'd previously seen it five times. So my harsh criticism of the high brow aspects of it don't diminish my enjoyment of the film as a whole. It's really a cool film to see, if you know what history is involved in its making.

an interesting and disturbing film
this review is for the Criterion Collection edition of the film.

This film along with "blood for dracula" were filmed back to back in Italy. This one the more controversal of the two originally received an X rating by the MPAA. Is is based very loosely on Mary shelly's novel and follows Dr. Frankenstein creating a male and female zombie and his attempts to get them to breed.

Udo Kier playing the role of Dr. Frankenstein is excelent because the actor is German and has a great German accent.

The Criterion collection has audio commentary and an 18 minute slideshow with photos from the film and its production along woth an audio soundtrack of music from the film. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

T-T-Time for action! ...Jackson
This movie is the best movie starring Carl Weathers since Bucktown. Its great! In Action Jackson, Carl stars as "Jakcson" and let me tell you, this movie has some ACTION! Also its great! You should get Action Jackson and Fortune Dane, cause they are good movies with Carl Weathers and some boobs. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Plot Summary
Plot Summary for
Wild Orchid II: Two Shades of Blue (1992)

Page 10 of 21

Blue is a teenage girl who lives with her Jazz playing father Ham. Ham gets very sick and dies, and now Blue must support herself somehow. Elle, the headmistress at a brothel, talks her into living and working at her establishment. She decides to leave the business and lead a normal life. Elle is hellbent to see that she never has one.

Erotic coming of age flick
This is an erotic coming of age film set in 1958 in the central valley in California.I believe the whorehouse is the big mansion in Isleton that is rented out even today for fraternity formals like the one I attended there in 1985. It has been used in numerous adult films.

Blue McDonald is the teenage daughter to a jazz horn player ( played by Tom Skerrit) who is hooked on heroin. His addiction kills him and Blue is left to fend for herself and falls into the hands of a madame known as Elle.

Blue tries to make herself immune to what she is doing and suceeds- until a boy comes in. A boy she has seen twice before with her father and then on her own.A boy who just sees her as a girl, a girl he wants to know more. Not the whore she is now.

After a disturbing incident with a senator intent on making her the star of a blue flick- Blue is rescued by her madame's muscle nicely underplayed by Robert Davi ( from The Profiler). They leave town so BLue can live a normal life as a high school student- and pick up a real relationship with the boy she likes. Of course the path to love is not smooth....her past comes to haunt her.

Eroticism not gratuitous nudity is the theme- the sex scenes are shot with beautiful camera angles- there is minimal full nudity. Some artful shots in the whorehouse of the various girls working with their clients- very strong voyeuristic angles. As a woman I find the scenes more sensual than sexual- guys may not find the film more than slightly titillating. As typical of Zalman Kings Red Shoe Diaries- this movie plays well for women who enjoy sexuality and sensuality but need a storyline and some acting to sell the whole package.

Wild Orchid 2 is nothing like Wild Orchid with Carrie Otis and Mickey O'Roarke. This does stand on its own as long as you take it for what it is.

Tragic Zalman King erotica
Zalman King follows up the sizzling Wild Orchid with a sequel that is not a sequel, it's about completely different characters in a different setting. But that's OK, I guess it's a sequel of subject matter, in the same way he produces his Red Shoe Diaries series. And this movie does succeed as a tale about misbegotten lovers trapped in a mire of loss and sexual confusion.
I didn't appreciate the attractive Nina Siemaszko (who later appeared in a Red Shoe Diaries episode) the first time I saw her in the role of the tragic heroine of this story. She kind of disappointed after Carre Otis, but you do sympathize with her situation. She and her dad are smalltown southern people. They are very close, then he dies and she is left penniless and without any skills. Enter the madam of the bordello played by Wendy Hughes. She offers Nina a chance at riches and sexual liberation by becoming one of her girls. Nina reluctantly accepts.
She is introduced to a world of sexual deviancy that is not without its victims, as there are girls who try to leave this life and are punished. She plays two roles to one of her young clients, that of mysterious and seductive prostitute, and that of sweet young girl who has fallen in love with him. That he can't tell it's the same person is ludicrous, but it's for the sake of the story. Naturally, family disapproval and heartache follows.
I appreciated Nina Siemaszko more eight or so years after seeing this movie the first time. The unrated version does show a bit more flesh, but is not necessary to appreciate the story. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The 1971 Heat was an early entry in filmmaker Paul Morrissey's tenure as the official director of movies coming out of Andy Warhol's so-called Factory. (Morrissey took the reins from Warhol himself, after the artist had made a number of celebrated underground films.) Factory star Joe Dallesandro plays the William Holden part in what is essentially an unofficial remake of Billy Wilder's Sunset Boulevard. As a former child star named Little Joe, Dallesandro's on-the-skids actor is bedding anyone who he thinks can help his career. Going nowhere, he becomes involved with an aging former star (Sylvia Miles), and while their relationship doesn't do much for his aspirations it contributes to Morrissey's unvarnished portrait of Hollywood hustling that certainly falls below the radar of Wilder's classic. Not a great film but a distinctive and memorable one, Heat extends Morrissey's fascination with the tawdry and humiliating fate of most big dreams, and is more poignant than most of the director's later work. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Plastic slice of life
This is probably the most accessible of the Worhol flicks, and comes across as a seedy voyeuristic experience. Sylvia Miles is fantastic as a whacked-out, washed-up actress of yesteryear, and her sexually-confused daughter is just as off-kilter. It's filled with hilariously weird characters and scenes, most noteably the scene where Joe (Dallesandro) and his landlord (Pat Ast) end up caressing each other in bed, in order for him to get "that discount" on his rent. Another stand-out is the discussion between Sylvia and her daughter over the possibility that her grandson will become a lesbian if he is raised by two gay women! The dialogue seems very natural, and perhaps was largely improvised. The label "art-house film" is appropriate here. More refined than Worhol's/Morrissey's "Trash" and "Flesh", this stream-of-consciousness film should satisfy if you enjoy well-done low-budget independent films.

Never be a gigolo in Hollywood
Change the planet, leave New York City and move to Los Angeles. Bring a youngish beautiful man in a nest of women in heat and you could end up with a gigolo who plays the role well but cannot stand the constant rivalry between the mother, the daughter, the motel manager, and a few others, and he has to leave but to go where ? To go back to the motel swimming pool and a mother who arrives with an unloaded gun and commit the crime of shooting someone without any bullet. But it also reveals that women are looking possession and not just pleasure, and they are ready to do anything to have that possession, which a man cannot accept, no matter how greedy he may be. The end shows how castrating these possessive women can be, but without any smoke from the gun, any blood from the blade. Castrating but impotent, and they end up being hysterical and nothing else. California is nothing but heat and does not in anyway bring liberation or pleasure, just lust, greed and possessiveness, which is another word for greed. In other words this film is the total anti-picture of Hollywood : no gloss, no shine, no stars, no limelights, just hysterics, tears and sunshine. What a life for a man, even one who would like to live off the crop, on the back of the gullible women who need a man as a toy. There is no pleasure in being the toy of a possessive person who does not want to share the toy and prefers ripping it to pieces to sharing it with someone else.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

SHE LIVES THE NEXT BLOCK OVER, AND IS THE APT MANAGER
THIS IS THE BEST OF ALL....AND PAT AST LIVES OVER ONE BLOCK, AND IS THE MANAGER OF HER APARTMENT COMPLEX. I AM CONSTANTLY ASKING PEOPLE IF THEY USE THEIR MOTHERS FOR THEIR MONEY, AND I ALWAYS ASK MY ROOMMATE FOR THE RENT...TWO WEEKS OVERDUE. WHEN WE DONT LIKE SOMEONE, WE DONT WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH HER...AND WHEN YOU LEAVE MY APARTMENT, STOP SLAMMIN THE GOD DAMN DOOR, THE NEIGHBORS ARE COMPLAININ'. MY ROOMMATE PUT HOLES IN THE WALL, AND I ASKED HIM, IF AND WHEN HE IS GOING TO FIX THEM, AND IF HE INTENDS TOOOOOOO....WE TAKE HEALTH FOODS, AND LUV IT. AND I HAD TO ALSO CHANGED MY PHONE 7 TIMES AND SOMEONE TOLD MY GIRLFRIEND PEGGY, THAT I WAS A LESBIAN. BUT LISTEN, SALLY IS A WOMAN, AND HAS NEEDS. SO, I HAVE TO ADMIT, I DON'T PULL ANY FITS AND I FIND MYSELF STOPPING WITH ALL THE FANTASIES. THIS IS HOLLYWOOD, DARLIN, AND WE DONT WANT TO BE WRITTEN UP IN A COLUMN. OH, DONT BE SPLASHIN, IN THE POOL, AND.....I LIKE HAMBURGERS, TOO. ...ME TOO......AND PAT AST, IS LOOKIN' LIKE A BIT OF SEMI HEAVEN, EVERY DAY. SEE YOU ON CHANNEL 11, ON THE BIG RANCH.

A good example of psychological/midnight (pre-sleep) genre
The main atmosphere of the film reminds me of a theatre play. This piece is neither a typical high budget American movie nor a totally underground one.(but a hybrid one) As i indicated above, the director seems to focus on the characters' personalities (like a theatre play) to give some personal messages to the viewer/observer. Whenever i watch the movie, i feel that i'm a doctor in a mental hospital and observing people. All the characters in the movie have some weaknesses in their personalities as it is in real life. And, in my opinion, the impressive presentation of the weaknesses of the different personalities is the underlying factor of the Heat's above - average success. For example, the performance of Sylvia Miles was really haunting. Her acting made me play this DVD three times last week. This role matches her perfectly. i can say the same for other movie characters. it seems like all the people are acting themselves not the roles. Therefore, one can,easily, feel the voyeuristic delight of observing people's daily private life (which is so trendy on today's television programmes) while watching the Heat. As for the subject guy, Joe Dallesandro, in terms of acting, he brings no striking or notable performance to the movie. However, to me, again, i may say that he plays himself. He's destined to act this role. Of course, there's no need to say that he's so young, beautiful and sexy in the HEAT. Being a fan of him can be only reason to watch this movie. However i should warn you that if your intent is to observe Joe's body and sexuality, this movie may not give you enough of his flesh. So, you'd better try 'The Flesh' from the famous Paul Morrissey trilogy. As a bottom line, this is not a brilliant, first class, unforgettable or masterpiece movie example at all. However, if you are into theather play-like, low-budgeted, psychological/midnight(pre-sleep) genre movies featuring a beautiful, long-haired, sexy guy with a swimwear(not showing his flesh excessively), this one is definetly for you! PS: The DVD version of this movie contains an extra material about the intentionally chosen dialogues of a few movie characters taken from the movie sequences. So this helps us more to understand the characters' personalities and their driving forces.

One of the most Quotable movies ever.
After seeing this movie for the first time about 5 years ago, I can say it is probably the most quoted movie between me and a couple friends. The movie follows Joey Davis, a former child star from "The Big Ranch" to a sleezy motel while he looks for his next big break, be it in music or back on TV. The wonderfully repulsive landlady is immediately taken by Joe, who she actually remembers from his youth on TV. Not long after he meets other residents. A curious Jessica (the wonderful Andrea Feldman) inches her way over to him and strikes up a conversation with him because she too remembers him. Almost immediately she begins babbling on about nonsense. She also mentions that her mother, Sally Todd, was on the show with him. As we find out, Jessie does not get on too well with her mom, and makes it clear she's using her for the money. Mom has a problem with Jessie because she's a "Lesbin". Jessie eventually invites Joe over for artichokes she cooks on her hotplate "with salt and peppa". He reluctantly comes over. When he meets the mother she's immediately attracted. Not long after Joe and mom start hanging out as mom claims she can get Joe back in the business. Being pretty much washed up she can only get him so far. Joe seems to alternate between paying his rent at the motel by servicing the landlady, and staying at Sally's servicing her. The movie get 4 stars because there is a bit of draggy dialogue between Joe and Sally, as well as meetings attempting to get Joe an acting job. Necessary for the thin plot, but puts a temporary hold on the endless quotable lines. The movie's ending is one of the most hilarious. Just as you expect tragedy it turns into a hysterical moment. When watching this the first time I was wondering how they would end it. They managed to pull it off perfectly. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

what happened to law and order was a crime
This action picture directed by Armand Mastroianni has a reactionary message, which caters to the right to bear arms lobby. During the escape from a bank holdup Joe Dallesandro loses his accomplice robber brother, and Leigh McCloskey, as a bystander, his pregant wife. However in these days of slippery lawyers and even slippier laws, Dallesandro gets off, since the stockinged mask the bandits wore does not allow for a postive witness identification. Since Dallesandro holds McCloskey to blame for the death of his brother, via enabling him to become a police target, and McCloskey blames Dallesandro for the death of his wife, the stage is set for the titular battle. Mastroianni has little of quality to work with here, with a screenplay that is the standard of "They grow up so fast. One day I left home and she was in diapers, and when I came home she was in her wedding dress", and concerning newspaper gossip "If somebody writes it, somebody reads it". However he does manage to slip in a few nice touches, like the repeated use of the America song - campingly played on a jukebox in a climactic shootout, Dallesandro stubbing out his cigarette in food to show how tough he is, a montage of quick cuts of "No" testimony from the witnesses in the trial, and the opposing parties allow for parallels and cross-cutting. He also alludes to the western in his staging of some scenes - a bar has swinging doors and screens a John Wayne title on TV - and there is an aerial view of the two men approaching each other before the face-off. Although the only actor who gives a reasonable performance is Richard Rust as the put upon County Sheriff, Dallesandro provides the hunk appeal. Still a handsome man all these years after his legendary nude appearances for Andy Warhol and Paul Morrissey, he's certainly the sexier of the two men in their matching tight jeans. Dallesandro's gay epithet to McCloskey at the trial gets the required response, even if McCloskey appears to lack the imagination for it, and Mastroianni's tongue is in full cheek when he has Dallesandro buy a child an ice cream cone. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Playboy - Inside Out 1
This is worth it, if only for the short directed by Alexander Payne (Election). It's hysterically funny! In it a woman drifts into sleep while fantasizing about numerous oddball men coming into her room and doing things to her (such as pouring cream corn over her body). Great work! If you're only into the "erotica" though, you may as well look elsewhere. The only originality here comes from Mr. Payne's sharp wit. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Plot Summary
Plot Summary for
Wild Orchid II: Two Shades of Blue (1992)

Page 10 of 21

Blue is a teenage girl who lives with her Jazz playing father Ham. Ham gets very sick and dies, and now Blue must support herself somehow. Elle, the headmistress at a brothel, talks her into living and working at her establishment. She decides to leave the business and lead a normal life. Elle is hellbent to see that she never has one.

Erotic coming of age flick
This is an erotic coming of age film set in 1958 in the central valley in California.I believe the whorehouse is the big mansion in Isleton that is rented out even today for fraternity formals like the one I attended there in 1985. It has been used in numerous adult films.

Blue McDonald is the teenage daughter to a jazz horn player ( played by Tom Skerrit) who is hooked on heroin. His addiction kills him and Blue is left to fend for herself and falls into the hands of a madame known as Elle.

Blue tries to make herself immune to what she is doing and suceeds- until a boy comes in. A boy she has seen twice before with her father and then on her own.A boy who just sees her as a girl, a girl he wants to know more. Not the whore she is now.

After a disturbing incident with a senator intent on making her the star of a blue flick- Blue is rescued by her madame's muscle nicely underplayed by Robert Davi ( from The Profiler). They leave town so BLue can live a normal life as a high school student- and pick up a real relationship with the boy she likes. Of course the path to love is not smooth....her past comes to haunt her.

Eroticism not gratuitous nudity is the theme- the sex scenes are shot with beautiful camera angles- there is minimal full nudity. Some artful shots in the whorehouse of the various girls working with their clients- very strong voyeuristic angles. As a woman I find the scenes more sensual than sexual- guys may not find the film more than slightly titillating. As typical of Zalman Kings Red Shoe Diaries- this movie plays well for women who enjoy sexuality and sensuality but need a storyline and some acting to sell the whole package.

Wild Orchid 2 is nothing like Wild Orchid with Carrie Otis and Mickey O'Roarke. This does stand on its own as long as you take it for what it is.

Tragic Zalman King erotica
Zalman King follows up the sizzling Wild Orchid with a sequel that is not a sequel, it's about completely different characters in a different setting. But that's OK, I guess it's a sequel of subject matter, in the same way he produces his Red Shoe Diaries series. And this movie does succeed as a tale about misbegotten lovers trapped in a mire of loss and sexual confusion.
I didn't appreciate the attractive Nina Siemaszko (who later appeared in a Red Shoe Diaries episode) the first time I saw her in the role of the tragic heroine of this story. She kind of disappointed after Carre Otis, but you do sympathize with her situation. She and her dad are smalltown southern people. They are very close, then he dies and she is left penniless and without any skills. Enter the madam of the bordello played by Wendy Hughes. She offers Nina a chance at riches and sexual liberation by becoming one of her girls. Nina reluctantly accepts.
She is introduced to a world of sexual deviancy that is not without its victims, as there are girls who try to leave this life and are punished. She plays two roles to one of her young clients, that of mysterious and seductive prostitute, and that of sweet young girl who has fallen in love with him. That he can't tell it's the same person is ludicrous, but it's for the sake of the story. Naturally, family disapproval and heartache follows.
I appreciated Nina Siemaszko more eight or so years after seeing this movie the first time. The unrated version does show a bit more flesh, but is not necessary to appreciate the story. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Blake Edwards directed this homage to both the Old West and the silent era in filmmaking that undeservedly received indifferent reviews and did little business. James Garner is perfectly cast as Wyatt Earp who, his lawman days behind him, is brought to Hollywood in the waning days of silent movies to serve as a consultant on a movie about his life. There, he hooks up with cowboy star Tom Mix (Bruce Willis, in relaxed, low-key mode) and together they solve a murder. Though Edwards includes elements of slapstick, he actually puts together a fairly involving mystery plot and a compelling cast of characters, including Malcolm McDowell, Mariel Hemingway, and Dermot Mulroney. But this is Garner's film, aided by a surprisingly likable Willis performance. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Willis and Garner make a great team
I actually enjoyed this movie tremendously, and I try to catch it whenever it appears on cable. Bruce Willis (who, for the record, looks darned sexy in a cowboy hat) and James Garner have fantastic chemistry - I really wish they'd do another picture together, preferably a western.

The movie does play fast and loose with history - but heck it's not a documentary! Repeated through the movie is the line, "That's the way it really happened - give or take a lie or two." When taken in that spirit, "Sunset" is a very entertaining couple of hours.

Always a pleasure to watch.
I must have been one of the few people who actually saw this film in a theatre when it was released. I got the impression I was the only one who liked it, too, and I'm glad to see now that I'm not alone. From James Garner's always-likeable, always-masculine performance as Wyatt Earp to Bruce Willis's engagingly flirtatious performance as Tom Mix (and wearing some incredible outfits - he manages it beautifully and believably!) to a pretty darned good murder mystery, this film always pleases me. I guess perhaps the mix of old West and silent films confuses some viewers, but I found it very intriguing.

A well made, well paced movie.
Good acting, a good script and well edited. This film captures Hollywood of the day, in it's glory and it's decadence.
Gardner's portrail of Wyatt Earp reminds me (favorably) of Kurt Russell's role in Tombstone.

"Give or Take a Lie or Two."
I happened to catch the last fifteen minutes of SUNSET while flipping through the Western channel on cable. I was so intrigued by the movie that I rented it as soon as I was able to find a copy (not an easy task). The movie stars James Garner as Wyatt Earp and Bruce Willis as Tom Mix. Mix is starring in a movie based on Earp's life and Earp has been brought in to Hollywood to serve as a consultant. The famous lawman and the colorful cowboy quickly become friends and are drawn into a murder mystery that ultimately leads to a shootout on the evening of the first Academy Awards. The movie is funny, has some good action scenes, and even a touch of romance. The film is a tribute to not only the old Westerns, but to the silent movie era in Hollywood. The setting seems very real and there are some great classic cars that are displayed throughout the film. There isn't any sex, hardly any foul language, and the violence is tame. SUNSET is an overlooked gem that's worth mining.

mining nuggets
After raking through the dross of over rated and overpriced Hollywood hype,i found this gem.Fine cast,top story line,fine acting,modest price.A little mystery,a dash of comedy,a bit of Hollywood in the twenties when the studios own'd the police and could get away with murder.I know anyone who is a Jim Garner and Bruce Willis fan won't be sorry with this dvd.
PS.If you like classic cars you'l see some beautiful restored Duesenbergs,Caddys,Packards,Rolls,etc. ... Read more

Amazon.com

"Why do you have to be unconscious?" asks Holly (played by HollyWoodlawn) while fingering the unresponsive crotch of her passed-out junkie boyfriend, Joe (Joe Dallesandro). Joe passes through a series of flaccid sexual encounters until, on account of his drug habit, he hits rock bottom as Holly is forced out of frustration to consummate with one of his discarded beer bottles. A radical and infinitely more compassionate departure from producer Andy Warhol's art-as-commodity (or commodification) discourse, director Paul Morrissey set out to make a reactionary antidrug film (originally titled Drug Trash), but the film instead turned into a sweaty, cinema-verité black comedy about the pitfalls of, to use a popular catch phrase of the time, "dropping out" of society and, inevitably, losing all hope of human intimacy. In this case, dropping out is not so much an escape as it is a further complicity: rather than an exercise in free will, one form of mindless consumer addiction has simply exchanged with another. As a time capsule, societal criticism, and cult oddity all in one, grab this from the trash heap of film history on your way out of a burning building. --Christopher Chase ... Read more

Reviews (12)

Compelling Must-See
I watched this movie last night for the first time and I haven't been able to stop thinking about it since -- in fact, I hope to order the film once I finish this review. I am amazed that no one in my life ever suggested that I see this movie because it is now one of my favorite films. The movie is episodic and inconsistent in a dramatic sense but the majority of it is composed of unforgettable scenes that are generally hilarious, often quite moving, brilliantly acted, and perversely beautiful. Holly Woodlawn, specifically, provides a wonderful performance that, in my opinion, provides a thematic framework for the entire exercise. Ultimately, I find myself considering what or who is really the 'trash' of the film. Holly finds her own kind of treasure discarded on the street -- not only in the form of junk furniture but in the beautiful but impotent human form of junkie Joe. And who stinks more, dirty strung-out Joe harmless in a bath or the shallow, amoral rich couple who exploit him for a brief moment of voyeuristic pleasure? In addition, it might be said that the film documents a type of 'trash culture' that arguably conquered New York in the seventies. Along with and, in a sense, an inverse of Woody Allen's 'Manhattan', this is a classic New York movie. It is truly unique and it should not be missed.

a little gem which is well worth seeing
ANDY WARHOL'S TRASH By C.C.Berg

I first saw this tragic comedy when it was released in Stockholm in 1970, and it is against the background of this period that it should be considered: free love and the birth pill; the hippie flower-power philosophy; the Vietnam war; the drug culture. Twenty-nine years ago this movie had a strange effect on me, I left the cinema with a profound feeling of joy

According to what I have read, the movie is unscripted and the acting improvised, this comes across very clearly. The sound quality is sometimes poor. We are shown a series of 'tableaux', in which some very perturbed, gruesome characters play out their daily life centred on drugs, sex and misery.

Joe, an impotent heroine addict, is constantly looking for his next hit and constantly coming across women who want to make love with him. Joe and his 'wife', sweet Holly Woodlawn, a frightful transvestite (and powerful actress), live in a run-down apartment furnished with what Holly finds in the garbage.

These two characters and the fauna who surround them get into the most absurd and unlikely situations. The movie is sprinkled throughout with humour and grim reality, a dichotomy which works disturbs and delights. One finds oneself passing from disgust to a belly laugh in a matter of seconds and this is where the strength of the movie lies.

To be brief, here is a little gem which is well worth seeing, an absurd drug-sex comedy with much artistic talent. For adults only.

Proverbial Van Down by the River
Despite the gracious full frontal male nudity which is shocking now days, this film is boring! Even though D'Allesandro (the random hung naked guy of many Morissey / Warhol films) is every inch (literally) gorgeous (despite crawling around looking like a homeless man), nothing prevents the crawling creeping restless boredom of this film. (If that was the intent of this film, well then-well done.) If nothing else it serves as a prompting for a liberal's worst nightmare awakening: that hippies and alt. culture are hated for some good reasons. It serves well too as a proverbial "van down by the river": it will deeply motivate you to do something with your life and never end up like this. Nancy Reagan should've thought of this film when she was telling kids to just say no.

TRASH,TRASH,TRASH!!
The movie is really trash. The movie starts out showing Joe Dallesandro's [rear] and Geri Miller go-go dancing naked. Later on in the movie we meet Holly Woodlawn a trash collector who is a transvestite and a former prostitute. More graphic nudity and sex come up when Jane Forth and her husband come in the story. An all right beginning,middle, and end but the story is terrible.

Exploring the junky side of the moon
This film deals with drugs, very precisely heroin. We are in the post hippy period when drugs became an addiction after having been a life style. The drug addict is reduced in his sexuality, in his thinking and in his social life. He only survives in a hostile environment. But that was in 1970. The environment of the drug addict is either looking for easy kicks by flirting with drugs (high-school students for example), or for sexual kicks among young middle class couples or people who try to use the uninhibited life of the drug addict to have physical contacts with them or to beef up their own boring and fading relations, or for some advantage they can get from them in exchange of some welfare money (social workers for example). This leads to the sad conclusion that drug addicts who look for a certain liberation in a trip beyond limits find themselves entirely trapped in a fake world where alienation is demultiplied by their addiction. The film is of course also a piece of art by the fact that it refuses any kind of special effects or heavy production and the pictures only speak because they are plain, simple, and yet tremendously worked on by the simple technique of the camera, physical acting and voices. The expressivity of the film comes from those simple elements and the realistic revealing dialogue that goes along with it. The feeling we get is that of a totally poignant fatality that pens up the drug addict in a fully lost battle for survival. There seems to be only death at the end of the road.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU ... Read more

Reviews (32)

another unusual film.
This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD version of the Film.

This film, another by Paul Morrissey and Andy Warhol is less disturbing than their previous release, "Flesh for Frankenstein."

This film is also a loose adaptation of the book.
Set in the 1920's or 30's Dracula is dying. To survive he must drink the blood of a virgin. He has become too notorious in Romania to approach any women and there are few virgins there. So he and his caregiver drive to Italy as they believe that there are more virgins there. He stays with a family that has 4 daughters, when asking some them if they are virgins, they lie and he becomes very sick from drinking their blood.

The film has excellent music which deserves to be in a better film. The Criterion collection special features are sudio commentary by cast and crew. There is also an 11 minute slideshow of production and publicity photos backed with selections from the musical score.

not as bad as frankenstein but still disturbing. Great Music
This review is for the Criterion Collection edition of the film.

This film, also recieved an X rating by the MPAA and was heavily cut for the R rated version.

The film is a loose and more modern adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel. In this version set in 1920's Europe, Dracula is dying. He must drink the blood of a female virgin to survive. Hhe is too well known in Romania to get close to any women and virgins are rare, so he and his servant drive to Italy as they believe the influence of the Roman church would encourage women to remain chaste. He then stays in the home of a family with 4 daughters. He interviews them, but they lie about being virgins and Dracula gets very sick from drinking their blood.

The film is violent and has several disturbing sex scenes in it.

The music in the film is very nice though and it seems unfit for a movie of this type.

The DVD special features include audio comnmentary and an 11 minute slide show of publicity photos with the excellent musical score in the backround.

Boring, pompous and about as scary as "My Three Sons".
The tag-line for this movie should be changed to "Who Kier's?".
BLOOD FOR DRACULA is a major disappointment, especially compared to its companion film FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN. In this painful bore from director Paul Morrissey, Dracula (Udo Kier in a blank, mechanical performance which makes the viewer pine for Christopher Lee or Gary Oldman) heads to England in search of "where-gin" blood. The only problem is, the Count winds up in a house full of promiscuous young women, who are of no use to him. Sounds good so far doesn't it? Well yer wrong bucko!
There's not enough blood & gore- especially compared to FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN. There's a decent amount of female nudity but nothing that stands out enough to make you want to punish yourself by sitting through the whole movie. This is nowhere near as bad as Warhol/Morrissey's collaborative non-movie TRASH, but it's still no good. The movie is not a recommended starting point if you're a "where-gin" to horror films; even though BLOOD FOR DRACULA is a "horror" in every other sense of the word.
If you're after an interesting, original & entertaining vampire film I recommend the 1987 Kathryn Bigelow movie NEAR DARK or the 1974 Hammer film LEGEND OF THE SEVEN GOLDEN VAMPIRES, which successfully combined the horror & kung fu genres. But don't waste your time with this- unless you happen to be a pretentious, quiche-eating ponce. But what would you expect from a movie presented by a guy who managed to turn a Campbell's Soup Can (of all things) into serious "ART"?! (Maybe I should put one of my empty Speights bottles in a glass case and pay gullible schmucks two bucks apiece to look at it).
BLOOD FOR DRACULA doesn't really qualify as horror or softcore erotica. Its touches of "humor" aren't funny, so the end result is a cheap, boring and poorly acted snoozefest. There ARE some boobies but nothing to justify sitting through this. If that's what you're after you'd probably be better off renting ELVIRA: MISTRESS OF THE DARK (even though its a comedy) and pausing the tape at regular intervals. At least we can remain thankful that the Warhol/ Morrissey camp didn't get to have their wicked way with R.L Stevenson's DR JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE or Gaston LeRoux's PHANTOM OF THE OPERA!

I wanna hold ya til the fear in me subsides.
Udo Kier, God bless him. In terms of bad actors, Udo is like a deity, hovering at the skyline of the cosmos alongside such titans as the guy that played Prof. Brown in Pieces. I don't imagine I have to point out the fact that Udo should be in EVERY movie ever made.

This is about the worst Dracula ever. Shades of Buffalo Bill. It begins with Udo sitting in front of a vanity mirror (oblivious to the fact that he casts no reflection, I guess) painting black dye over his hoary white hair with a house painting brush large enough to cover a gutter. This chilling, otherworldly scene sets the tone for all that follows. Dracula must embark on a quest to secure the coveted, now-infamous wirgin blood to maintain his eternal existence. So, Dracula, saying goodbye to his SISTER, fetches his toadie, packs up in the ole' family scar, and takes to the road. Operation: Wirgin Blood has now begun; the game is afoot.

Eventually Dracula finds this estate, where the farmer has in his care a whole throng of absolutely hideous daughters. Now, by the father's account, these are all good, clean, corn-fed wirgins, just what a vampire needs. Aha, the hawk strikes. Meticulously, Udo begins moving in on the daughters. It must be stated that, though he is Dracula, Prince of Darkness, Udo has no shapeshifting abilities, no invulnerabilities, no sorcery, no demonic magnetism, and no super strength. When trying to seduce the wirgins doesn't work, Udo chages tactics and tries to overpower them physically. Come, see this movie, watch Count Dracula get slapped around like a schoolyard sissy by his unarmed female prey. Eventually, Dracula's persistence pays off, and he scores, but much to his horror, minutes later when he's puking over the edge of the guest room bathtub, he realizes that the wirgins are not wirgins at all, and the blood, much like mayonnaise, is killing him!

There is in fact one wirgin daughter, who has fallen under the spell of the stable boy. The stable boy is the consummate, inviolate piece of garbage. Slouching, foul-mouthed, a malingering lowlife rapist who spends his free time spewing mouthfuls of ill-informed Communism. So now we have this "hero" set against the wicked devices of Count Dracula. Operartion: Wirgin is now compromised. Dracula must proceed carefully. A little while later, the Communist stable body comes at Udo with an ordinary, garden variety wood axe---the bane of every self-respecting Incubus. He begins chopping Dracula apart, limb by limb, while the vampire runs like the wind, limbless with his evil cape streaming behind him. In the end, the stable scum chops him down to pretty much a body and a head, and Udo is like, "You fool, you can't kill me, I'm not one of you!" It is uncertain as to exactly what Udo meant by that obtuse statement, but that was probably because you have to be a vampire to understand it.

Short of another Udo Kier classic, the House on Straw Hill, otherwise known as "Expose", this is probably about the best of the Udo legacy, with Flesh for Frankenstein coming at a very close second. This is the one of the worst movies ever made. Oh yeah, baby. Look for the upcoming sequel, Operation: Wirgin vs Plan 9 From Outer Space.

Turn the ax on yourself!
All right, lets begin with the admission. I hated Blood for Dracula. I'm going to say some bad things about Blood for Dracula. Maybe you liked it. Maybe you might think I missed the point. Put simply, it was terrible, and not in the good way. I love camp and absurdity. I love movies that are so bad they're good. But this movie was so bad it went past good and just got bad again. Why? Let's start with our "hero" Mario the handyman or "Vampire Hunter Stalin" As I call him. Mario engages in a threesome with two incestuous, bi-sexual sisters (which, amazingly, is not even close to cool enough to redeem the film in any way) and casually tells them of their youngest sister, "I'd sure like to rape the hell out of her!" He starts to rape one of those sisters later on and stops only when she puts him out of the mood by saying, "I love you." (Or something to that effect, I believe, as the sound quality was not top notch it was tough to tell.) In addition to this he applies absurdly uneducated interpretations of the communist revolution to his every social interaction. He interrupts having sex with a woman to inform her that when the revolution comes she'll be poor and powerless (apparently he can't even keep it up without talking about communism). He rapes the aforementioned little sister (a fourteen year-old girl) and justifies it to her own mother who catches him in the act by saying it's better then her being food for the virgin-hungry Dracula. (This scene, by the way, is carried from beginning to end, with no sense of directorial restraint; it even goes so far as to have Dracula lick her "virgin blood" from the floor after they leave.) Of Mario's two major positions in life (pro-rape, pro-communism) only his communism receives any moral opposition and his rape of the little girl only upsets her own mother because he's a handyman and thus of low status. The movie portrays the most absurdly powerless and ineffectual Dracula ever, who seems identifiable with only in comparison to his Marxist, rapist foe. When the latter kills the former I was torn between jubilation at the death of the one and anger that the other would likely survive. I found myself wishing he'd turn the ax on himself, but no such luck. I was really hoping that the film could end in the death of every single character. As Mario wanders off with the fourteen year-old girl (presumably to rape her again while explaining the importance of destroying the aristocracy) I could only take comfort in the fact that the movie was actually ending. The characters were terribly developed and entirely unlikable. The sex and nudity, which seems to be many people's major selling point for the film, is random and unimportant to the "plot" and to be quite frank, not that sexy. The acting was poor, even in light of the fact that they were obviously directed to overact. Of the characters, the only one I could identify with in the slightest was Dracula's sister. Instead of going with him to find virgin blood, she decides she'd rather just stay home and die. Bravo! I think she must have read the script. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Rather Dissapointing
I bought this video because I wanted to see Tom Sizemore in a starring role (apart from the "Relic"). Though both stars are known for their abilities, they seemed like guests in the film. Awkward acting, and poor directing. The ending is very good, at least we have some reactions from the cast, bun in conclusion, I wouldn't judge TS by this movie. He is a lot more than he seems to be in this one. Definitely recommended for his fans, truly handsome and with lots of sensual scenes.

Nice to see TOM SIZEMORE in the spotlight...
Pamela Gidley plays Eloise, a down and out chick who is looking for a job, can't keep a boyfriend, has a crappy apartment and has really bad luck. Tom Sizemore plays Lenny, a sweet but annoying guy who can't get a decent job w/out screwing it up. When they meet it, they fall for each other and start a hot-and-heavy, ill-fated romance. After going through a LOT of trouble, Lenny thinks of a plan to make some money...but of course things don't go as planned. Its nice to see Tom Sizemore (Heat, Saving Private Ryan, True Romance, Natural Born Killers) get a lot of screen time and play just a regular guy instead of his usual roles ~ He is a wonderful and underated actor who played the part of Lenny well. I don't know much about model/actress Pamela Gidley, but she pulled her role off well also. She has a certain spunk and charisma that works for her. Although the acting wasn't "Academy Award" winning, it has poor direction, a semi~bad script, and its cheaply made ~ its a good movie to watch late night when your flipping through channels. Die hard Tom Sizemore fans will love it, although it may dissapoint your average movie buff (the sex and nudity seems to subsitute for a good script) Watch out for a small role played by Debi Mazar & Margaux Hemingway! ... Read more

Amazon.com

This 1968 production from Andy Warhol's Factory found director Paul Morrissey still defining his style and particularly open to Warhol's own process of shooting extended takes with minimal editing. Factory star Joe Dallesandro plays a hustler working to earn money for his wife's girlfriend's abortion. The long trail of transvestites, drugs, and debauchery doesn't just drag a viewer down but rather adds up to a kind of transcendent curiosity about itself. Intelligent, well-constructed, and at times lyrical, this is one of the best of the Morrissey-Warhol collaborations. The cast includes a couple of actors in Warhol's orbit who later broke into mainstream movies and television, including Patti D'Arbanville. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (8)

SIMPLY BEAUTIFUL
The movie as well as the hunk are beautiful! I fell in love with Joe as soon as I saw his body that no other guy can compete with.
The story is very good. Sensitive, fragile and desperate. We do not loose any minute with this film as Joe keep us under his spell all the way.

Joe Dallesandro Has A Magnificent Physique
........This is not a great film. It's interesting, however, and I'm not sorry I ordered this DVD. As a New Yorker, it is always interesting to see the Big Apple back in the '70s or '60s. Seeing Joe walk up streets that I know so well makes this picture mean more to me. I've seen the hustlers of 42nd Street and hookers jumping in and out of cars, I've seen the sleaze of the City. That life-style was never fascinating to me. The sexual part was, but the lurid, impersonal part was not. After reading John Reichy's "City of Night," I was prepared to move from the midwest to Gotham with a wealth of knowlege. Believe me, as a young, attractive novice, I encountered much of what was in that book!

Joe Dallesandro, with some acting lessons with Stella Adler or Uta Hagen might have made an exceptional actor. Many of the people who reviewed him, I think, were dazzled by his beauty and his incredible, natural body (he sports an incredible bush of pubic hair). How refreshing that is considering all the shaving of private parts these days! Any woman or man who looks at Joe cannot help but look at him without having the SAME admiration for him as they do for the au natural statue for Michelangelo's David. I remember when my body was similar to that!

I don't recommend this picture for the "art" of it, but if you want to appreciate a modern depiction of the perfection of the male human form...Dallesandro is your model.

Body Pride
We are at the end of the hippy revolution. Andy Warhol explores the body-pride of the young males. This new feeling finds its roots in the cult of the body, of physical strength and muscular building. We are before body-building but after Woodstock where the body was religiously considered as the mark of God on us. This body-pride is taken to the extreme of believing that a man has to live for his body but also by his body. His body is the only riches he naturally has and he must live from it. So he exploits his body and by doing so exploits the fantasms of other men and women, the fantasm that a beautiful body has to be worshipped and the body-pride can be without any guilt transmuted into sex. The main character exploits this vein and makes a comfortable living out of it. But Warhol goes one step further and transforms the nudity of the male body into something banal and in no way provocative. It is a beauty to be looked at and not to be ashamed of. He even gives a rare scene where the nude father plays with and feeds his little baby. That was a real revolution in those days. The father was more than a man. He was a father and as such could take care of the baby he had born to life, just as much as the mother. The film hence gives some very precious scenes on this cult of the male body as a source of beauty and pleasure. It is the total lack of shame and modesty that makes this nudity, complete or in the process of revealing itself by undressing, something normal, unshocking and revealing in us some kind of purity by the capability to look at it without being in anyway roused to some kind of carnal desire. « We are not queers » as one character says, just proud of our well trained and sculpted bodies.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

best of his one liners
this is good - the white flashes are supposed to be there (previous review), it's a powerful movie - anyway this surprised me, it's not what you might expect. you'll like it!

For Joe Dallesandro fans only
If you are looking for a good story and character development, this movie dissapoints. The story is rather thin and slow with more focus on Joe's good looks. A irritatating aspect of the DVD was white flashes occuring at innapropriate moments during the movie. ... Read more

Description

An incredible retracing of the evolution of Reed's remarkable career over three decades. Filled with interviews with Reed, his friends and some of the major artists influenced by Reed including David Bowie, David Byrne, Patti Smith, Suzanne Vega, Dave Stewart, Philip Glass and more. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Lou the Artist
This PBS video makes the case that Lou Reed is not just a guy who makes thrilling rock music. He is an Artist (with a capitol A) in the great modernist tradition who experiments with his life in order to test the limits. This sounds forbidding, but this documentary is fun and unpretentious and exhilarating.

should have concentrated on his early career
Lou Reed, like many artists, peaked early. He put out a few interesting solo albums, but by the mid seventies, his creativity had dried up. It would have been better to have spent more time on the early Velvet years, and skimmed over the years following 1975. It's amazing, though, to see that the film makers could line people up to heap praise on Reed's arid, barren pieces of his later period. Just shows how bogus the art and music world is. The filmmakers should have sought out impartial commentators, at least that would have rung true.

The Icon In Context
The strong use of vintage footage, and interviews of contemporaries places Lou Reed in his proper cultural context.

Iconic Isolation

Lou Reed's lack of need to fit himself into a readily commercially exploitable groove, and stay there for more than a minute, his keeping away from a recognizable group aside from the Velvet Underground places him in niche by himself. The information provided about Reed, his music and the influences on him removes him from that isolation.

Interesting On Many Levels

This video is intellectualy, musically and photographically interesting.

Intellectual and Artistic Roots

The examination of Reed's poetic roots dating back to Reed's time at Syracuse helps to explain the literacy of his lyrics. The material covering his interaction with the Warhol Factory also gives some depth to what Reed was doing with the Velvet Underground. How he fit into the New York art scene, and how he didn't fit into the San Francsico art scene, provides some insight into his personality.

Musical Development

The roots of Reed's music, its development, its changes are fairly well covered. This video is somewhat lacking in covering the period after "Rock and Roll Animal" and before "New York". This is one of it's few failings.

Eye Candy +

The videographers made excellent use of the vintage footage available. What they did on their own is also quite interesting. Although some might see it as a gimmick the use of a dissolve from a older portrait to a contemporary video still of the interviewee was effective. It helped to reinforce in the viewer's mind just who was being interviewed.

A must see!
'Rock n' Roll Heart' captures everything that is magical about Lou Reed both as a musician and an icon. The documentary charts his career from the Velvet Underground to his current position as an elder statesman of the rock scene. There are key interviews with John Cale, David Bowie, Patti Smith, David Byrne and Thurston Moore, illustrating how Reed's influence has remained strong through time. The director also focuses on the main influences on Reed which range from Delmore Schwartz to Andy Warhol. Overall, an excellent film.

Great documentary on an American Classic
This is an oustanding documentary on Lou Reed. Although I would have liked to see a little more about the Velvet Underground, especially their break up. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Drago real person to watch in "Guncrazy"
Character actor Billy Drago (Delta Force II , In Self Defence) keeps this girl-meets-boy-who-loves-guns tale afloat. Though not cast as a bad guy as his roles in movies usually call for, he brings this special talent to his screen persona. And it's perfect for him. He plays the minister of a snake-handling religious group. He's done cult/religious leaders before (Never Say Die) with Frank Zagarino and Robin Smith (Solar Force). He's always been able to create a twisted charismatic leader or powerful, sadistic villain. If for nothing else this movie is worth watching just to see him do what he does best. Worth a look.