Satisfaction (1988)

Satisfaction. Upon finishing this film, words are difficult to really formulate on the sole reaction to this film. There were intense moments, 1980s hair, a lackadaisical approach to real-life though it seemed our characters came from a troubled past (hint: see the Bateman broken home), and there was tons (not an over-exaggeration) of cowbell. As our 80s teen-drama begins, Justine Bateman (looking overly man-ish) is a hard nosed rocker ready for her big break the summer before college. She has graduated with a punk attitude and is ready to take over the world. With a riled graduation speech, and her gang of misfit chicks, this modern-day "Jem and the Holograms" grabs a local keyboard nerd and the stage is set for great tunes, young love, and awkward chemistry. Add to the mix a relationship years too soon, a young Liam Neeson, a drug problem, and inevitably an attempted Julia Roberts' rape scene, and you have the homogeneous film, Satisfaction.

Is this film any good? Those reading this review - do you really want to know? First, this was 1988, where writing was second nature to just filling in plot points. This is a prime example. Watching Satisfaction there are these blatantly obvious moments where those involved with the production knew they just didn't have enough to work with. Case in point: the volleyball scene. A group of angry, scorched band mates decide they want to challenge a bright sunny day with volleyball, hilarity should have ensued, but instead we were bombarded with a montage scene that could rival that of "Team America, World Police". The entire scene doesn't fit. Which basically snowballs the rest of this film. It is a juggle between horrible acting, overplayed songs, and cheese. Plain cheesy. Going beyond the atypical review where we can break down the characters, where we can find the guiding light of honesty within film, and talk about the social necessities of youth, music, and the hardships of realities - it just doesn't happen in Satisfaction.

When this doesn't happen then what are you left with? There needs to be something that audiences can relate to - that audiences can grow into, but nothing arrives. We only have five major players in this whole film, and none can escape the paper bag that they have been drawn into. Cliche after cliche attempts to push through the overbearing live performances that our characters cannot control. They do not know music, their stances and expressions push away from realism, but again, who expects that with Satisfaction? Look at the box art. This is candy, old candy. Candy that has been sitting at your grandmother's house for years past, just waiting for that perfect time to enjoy.

If it feels that I am being overly harsh with this film, fair not, I wasn't the only one. Being a box office bomb (not to mention Justine's first major motion picture) and further demonstrating the failed Julia Roberts' acting ability [ie: Eat, Pray, Love], this was renamed for television in hopes to find further viewers that would be fooled by the clever name change "Girls of Summer". Satisfaction provided nothing that the title suggested. Its bland story was heavily bolded by the dubbed singing and faux-guitar playing that each member of this film attempted to accurately portray. Does it speak anything about Satisfaction when Liam Neeson, to this day, still claims not to have seen this movie? I wish I could only be so lucky.

Found in my "Destroy all Movies: Punks in Film" book, Satisfaction provided no, none, extinct satisfaction. The mix-matched group of girls coupled with the overly boozy Neeson just seemed and felt too cookie-cutter for any real originality to occur. There was no character development, no creative music, and our director - one Joan Freeman - used simplistic shots and classic 80s cut-scenes to force unheralded drama onto the viewers. There is no reason why this couldn't have been a lighter romp, but with the undercurrent of broken homes, drug use, and a big F**k You to the world, this pushed the dark envelope too much for the safe boundaries. I cannot stress this enough, but the entire volleyball scene just ruined the film for me. Not only were these supposed good singers, but they couldn't understand the basics for volleyball? Were we dealing with idiots that were victims of happenstance? It just didn't work.

Alas, Satisfaction you are getting a yellow highlight with black mark - never to be seen or suggested again. I end on this one question. Using this as your resume, how did both Justine Bateman and Julia Roberts' ever find work again? Does a pretty face outweigh talent? The world may never know...

The Satan Killer (1993)

Had the unique opportunity to watch this direct-to-video Virginia made movie yesterday, and needless to say it was horrible and funny all at the same time. Don't be upset by the box-art, neither one of these characters are in the actual film (there are ones that look like them, but less glossy). This is a low-budget, curse word laden feature that made the 80s glorious, but instead fell well behind the times and was released in 1993. In that sense, it just doesn't work. The horrible budget, the lackluster visuals, and the story that feels like it is cookie-cut direct from other, big budget stories, cheapens the entire need to ever go visit Virginia Beach. I am surprised that VA Beach even allowed this to happen.

First, let me say that I am proud to have this at my Video Store, and if you still have a VHS player, come and check this low-budget atrocity out. I do not think that this is the last you will see of The Satan Killer, but I will not be watching this movie again. I laughed quite a bit, but man - who edited this slice of trash.

I went into this film no expectations, and I actually came out of this film with less exepectations. This was like the action-version of The Dead Next Door which only lives due to the cultish nature of the film. If you like films like the one mentioned or Troll 2, then this may be right up your alley. Hey, I am going to suggest it to you if you come and and say "I need a good VHS to watch tonight". But, I am not going to rate it well here. Found in my "Destroy All Movies" book, it is getting a pink mark. I just changed my idea right there. I was going in with this film to give it a yellow mark, but I changed - due to a slight appreciation for the unexpected humor. I also liked the Doug Wilder banners flashed all around.

This would be a great addition to MOVIE DAY. I will keep it until then!

Salvation!: Have You Said Your Prayers Today? (1987)

Despite a prior comment about not being able to pull screens direct from VHS, the Internet has proved that theory wrong again. After the purchase of this film (eBay circa 2011 at $5), the discovery of the full length film online seemed more realistic for the 13-hour work days life has been presenting. So, with laptop in hand the journey with "Punks on Film" began. Like any good family sitting down to watch the television, a young Viggo Mortensen (demonstrating his overacting chops pre-Hollywood) gathers with friend Lenore Finley (possible misunderstood love interest) and insanely religious wife Rhonda Stample (played by actual wife and singer Exene Cervenka) as they watch a religious broadcast by a very tone Stephen McHattie. They argue, they fight, they discuss - like the good reverend - on what makes this world tick. And like the bomb, a plan is vaguely formed, and off the two go to do wrong in an unjust world. The ultimate goal is to prove something to somebody and put a end to the televangical ways of McHattie, or is it. Through difficult scenes that felt like they were pasted together by pre-schoolers, this "punk" film nearly disintergrates in your hand. In one instance, there are two very strong actors fighting against each other. Viggo, playing the greasy Jerome Stample, yells and curses at everything. Armed with a bottle in his hand and an anarchist mentality, nothing will stop him from completing his goal. On the other side, we have McHattie, eager to spread the good word even if it means getting his hands dirty in the process. He is tossed and turned, and follows the venue of Mortensen, yell at everything - show no true emotion, and slowly navigate through this mediocre script.

SALVATION! Does have hope to it. Despite the feel and l0w-budget nature of this film, it tries to speak to both a young and religious audience. It tries to show the corrupt nature of the business of Jesus, and shows that those who are saved can fall and those who are not saved may never be saved. There is a heart in this mix, and throughout the viewing there is this feeling of independence and dedication. Director Beth B. has a voice in this VHS release, it feels muted at times, but it is there. She over lights some scenes, doesn't care about lighting in the next, and pushes our characters from one side to the next without giving our audience any rhyme or reason. This is a roughly compiled film, but - as mentioned before - there is heart. This is a punk film. There is no doubt about the quality of the cannon, but what could have been this extremely cult-ish film, eventually misfires into being lost to VHS forever.

Look at some of these scenes. Although Davalos takes a secondary role as Lenore, she portrays the crux of the story. It is her temptation that nearly brings the Reverend down and pushes Mortensen to the bring of hysteria. But like any good 80s low-budget features, she plays this great tormented character early, but slowly is forgotten about as the film progresses. There is one point where one finds themselves asking, "Where did Lenore go from earlier in this film?" There is such a focus on her and Mortensen, that to lose that push demonstrates the changing tide of this film. In fact, you could almost pinpoint when this film moves in a new direction. When Mortensen puts on one of McHattie's jackets, SALVATION! moves from fighter to conspirator.

Weirdly. Exene Cervenka is randomly in this movie. She plays Viggo's wife who would rather be with McHattie then with her husband. In fact, up until nearly the end, there is this feeling that she doesn't even have a role in this hodgepodge flick, but then, like an angel in the night, she arrives. Ready to save the day and protect her television savior, she slowly becomes the cash cow that he has been waiting for. Through a choppy reality ending we see what really happens when God arrives in the form of money, sex, and power.

Is this a good movie? Not particularly. I could see Beth B.'s vision, but it didn't translate well to the screen. There were too many moments that needed to be crammed into the 80 minute time slot. Could it have been the horrid editing or Beth B. trying too hard to say too much at once. I consider it the latter. Her actors were mediocre, the story seems strong, but could have found better footing, and the scenes felt cheap. This is an independent release, there is no question there, but what should have been a strong jab toward religion and television priest turned into a jumbled mess that has been seen time and time again. Originality disappeared to overacting and shoddy direction. SALVATION! is a mess of a film, but despite the music element to it, it did have heart. It did try hard to produce something that would be controversial coupled with conversation starter, but time was not on the side of this film. 1980s film making hurt the longevity of this film, and sadly Beth B. has not quite found her feature footing ever again.

Found in this really cool book (shameless plug here) called "Destroy all Movies: Punks on Film", I am excited by the 3 VHS line-up that I have coming up. The next two are quintessentially 80s films that will reopen my eyes to the bad cinema but great originality that the 80s provided. Sadly, I cannot stand behind SALVATION! despite the heart, and it is going to get a black mark with yellow highlight. Not to be watched again. Sorry Viggo fans, this wasn't his stepping stone to stardom.

W (1974)

Alas, what I have discovered is that with VHS tapes, you cannot capture the screen. So, I am merely left with the illustrious box art. Not bad. Like this movie. Outside of BLUES BROTHERS this is my only Twiggy, as a main actress, movie. This film, released in 1974 is dated, I mean really dated, but the story isn't that bad. It kept my attention and had me guessing until the very end. Even the ending seemed more sick and twisted then I originally thought a PG movie could handle. Despite the horrible beach scenes, there was quite a bit of gold nuggets in this film. Not quite a green mark with stars, but most obviously a pink. I could highly suggest this film to friends and anyone who has a VHS player, this is well worth the time. It was good to see Twiggy within her glory, and this was a decent little film. Surprisingly, it had some meat to it.

Found in my "Videohound 2002" this ends my long run of "W" and now I am onto Punks in Film, with a small 3-round VHS run about to happen. This is going to get interesting. None the less, pink mark for "W", I cannot wait to see if other people choose to check this film out. Well worth it!

The Wages of Fear (1953)

One doesn't just watch The Wages of Fear, one must experience it. The intensity of the truck rides, the expressions and sweat of our characters, the virtual unknown of what lurks next on this road through Hell merely scratches the surface of what to expect from this Clouzot classic. Made in 1953, The Wages of Fear proves that cinema is timeless. This singular film proves that stories told nearly 58 years ago still ... still ... remain as effective today if told with passion, excitement, originality, and most importantly, creativity. From buckling heroes to nervous antagonists, from sandy bars to international hobos, from 1950s bomb to sexual failure, this film, one can proudly say, has everything. Running in the nearly 2.5 hour mark, there is a preconceived notion that French films could not, will not, can not keep a viewer on the edge of the couch. The Wages of Fear proves that theory wrong.

This is not a film about good people. The concept of there being a "diamond" in the rough within The Wages of Fear is difficult to grasp. As one of our characters exits a plane, dressed in a Sunday best suit, the aura of corruption begins to exude. Clouzot surprisingly does something rare in common cinema today, but very effective in this film. He begins deconstructing his characters almost immediately. The first image that begins this conversation shows our anchor Yves Montand possibly in love with a woman who works at the local spot (aka the bar). There is a bizarre, nearly animal-like connection between the two that leads the viewer into assumptions. A mistake one should never make while watching a Clouzot film. Are these two in love? What is their desire? As this question is asked, Clouzot's beautiful wife is heading upstairs with the bar owner, giving us a completely new impression of her worth (see her in Diabolique, please). This continues to happen as the film unfolds. Mario (Montand) finds her annoying and seemingly distraught whenever he and Mr. Jo (our devil in the white suit) are together. This is a small part of a bigger picture, but it remains lucid in the back of your mind as our travels begin.

The journey - to take two truck loads of nitroglycerin nearly 900 miles over rocky terrain. Any slight jarring of the liquid could possibly cause an explosion (or a sudden change in temperature). If that doesn't immediately pull you into the film, I am not sure if you are suited to watching movies. But before these bombs take flight, there are a couple of defining scenes that shape the rest of this thriller. One is the introduction of future long-term friends, Mario & Luigi. Laugh as you must, there must have been someone higher into the brainchild of Nintendo who had recently seen this film. The similarities (as backwards as they may seem) are eerie. Secondly, Mr. Jo. To this viewer, he was one of the most compelling characters of this film. A high-roller with nice suits and flashy money coupled with an arrogant attitude, that fits within the deconstruction theory mentioned earlier. In one scene he is ready to shoot Luigi, in the next, running scared up a mountain. Who is Mr. Jo? With a lacking back story, he begins as a big fish in a small pond, but ultimately ends as nothing more than just another rat infesting the city. Weird.

Rounding out this group of "misfits" is a muscle-man named Bimba, whose fear is shown immediately as our group begins the journey. It is his reaction to a nearly dropped canister of nitroglycerin that sets the tone for the rest of the truck ride. His eyes, his shoulders, his fear just comes through the screen as he drops his glass - giving us the sense of realism and danger instantly.

For nearly two-hours, Clouzot keeps us in the trucks. With side shots and infamous close ups to our drivers, we are given a claustrophobic story complete with a bomb. The road is jagged, the danger is unknown, and all we have as viewers is what our characters give to us - and that is all we need. Instantly, the roles are reversed. Mr. Jo, our hot-headed juggernaut, begins to crumble. The idea of having so much danger strapped to the back of your car is too much for him to take within the first fifteen minutes. He is sick, sweating, and scared to accelerate even when life depends on it. His original layer of "bad-ass" has been wiped away, and his true colors (thanks Cyndi Lauper) shine through. What makes this interesting is that Luigi's character jumps in where Mr. Jo fails. That introduction, semi-bad blood scene that started this film takes fuller shape. The quintessential glass being half-empty or half-full falls into their lap. Luigi isn't afraid to push the truck, while Mr. Jo consistently stops, questioning his ability to go further. In one scene, he scampers away like a scared dog, showing us that muscles and money do not always equate to self-confidence.

My question to you: Which of these faces would your rather have jetting through the thick of a mountain? The dark Luigi, or the smoking Mario (yep, explosives are still riding behind him in this shot)? As bridges fall, rocks block, and oil sinks, it is up to the drivers to bring us to our destination. Which do you think makes it?

Danger lurks everywhere in this film. It isn't just two trucks repeating themselves from one destination to the next, Clouzot provides just enough tricks to keep audiences guessing until the very end. We are not given pre-destined characters from the start. Nobody is defined as the sole winner of this mission. From the opening credits, I did not see each event unfolding, nor did I see the different situations. As modern Hollywood spoon feeds each scene to you, Clouzot did an amazing job of giving us the same spots, but with different results. Especially when it came to the oil-slicked ending. Or rather, the less emotionally attached finale. That will pull your mind further into this tale. The sudden de-appreciation for two central character. Clouzot doesn't extend the inevitable, he merely says to his audience, "That is how life is..." Rather nonchalant and ominous together. The photo below represents one of my favorite scenes. Outside of the Criterion created iconic image of the two men, drenched in oil, looking as if life has handed them a knuckle sandwich, the bridge scene takes the cake. The beauty of the first pass, knowing what dangers lurk, to the devilish second pass, with egos and unknowns taking the wheel. Not only is it beautifully filmed, but within that one scene (two if you are counting), but we learn the most of our characters in one instance. Showing the value of Clouzot, but also the story AND the power of our actors.

I must warn about this film, not in a negative sense, but merely quality control. The original Criterion version of this film, the cover contains the infamous oil scene, is a horrible transfer and disastrously translated. I had the unique opportunity to watch both, and the newer release (I believe the original is out of print) is by far a stronger quality than the latter. Not only with visuals, but merely the dialogue seems less wooden. I am glad the revisited this film and gave it a stronger quality release that it so deserved.

Overall, in case you were reading a completely different blog, I loved this film. I already know several people who will find this gift waiting for them this year. The Wages of Fear is one of those films you want other people to experience, you want them to be on the edge of their seat, waiting to see the pipe-less adventures of Mario & Luigi. I cannot wait to watch this film again. The experience, the horror, the fears, the explosions - it just had everything a modern cinematic wonder would obviously lack. It impresses me that films without technology still rank as stronger films. The ultimate question being, has technology really helped us improve our movie-going experience. Could you imagine The Wages of Fear in 3D? Disgusting. This was a brilliant slice of movie making. Found in my "Videohound 2002" book, this nearly wraps up my Ws and I am headed to the world of anarchy, piercings, and punks. Full steam ahead. Blue stars with green highlight all the way!!

Wag the Dog (1997)

Can a movie created in the late 90s still speak to a voting audience in the late 2000s? Prior to "Wag the Dog" my answer would be "no", but watching, and now re-watching it for a second time in the past week, this film could be watched today, watched next year, or even watched prior to the next four elections, and it would continue to feel current, real, and modern in today's political/cinematic world. The power of the dialogue, the intense chemistry of the characters, and the constant interruption of the television generation into the political world will continue to keep "Wag the Dog" out of the black hole of cinema – it will not be dated, never forgotten, and forever enjoyed. As we continue to allow CNN to give us our news, this film will remain as vivid as America's apple pie.
Act I: The Chemistry of the Characters

Robert DeNiro and Dustin Hoffman could play chess for three hours, and it would capture my attention from beginning to end. DeNiro is a powerhouse of an actor, not just because he can play the tough gangster type, but also because he can take a character like Brean and give us simple, verbose, and intelligent.
His range can be seen throughout this film. He commands each scene that he is in, focusing our attention on each of his words and lingering on his next move. In my eyes, it is more powerful than "Goodfellas" or "Casino" because of his subtle nature. The scene that stands out for me in "Wag the Dog" that requires viewing for DeNiro's talent is that between CIA Agent William H. Macy and DeNiro discussing the honesty of the war on Albania. To me, this shows the power of his talent.

Jumping onto the other side of this film, there is Dustin Hoffman. While DeNiro pulls his obvious strengths with this film, Hoffman makes "Wag the Dog" more than just a political film. Listening to the commentary, Hoffman discusses the fact that he nearly didn't make this film because he couldn't find Motss's character. Thankfully he did, due to his compelling portrayal; we are taken from political conspiracy cinema to this raw human drama. The final act was sublime due to both DeNiro and Hoffman's chemistry, but also because we believed Motss' words. As audience members, we wanted to see him tell his story (knowing that he never would). It was the human element, the Motss' true self, that we were drawn to, and Hoffman stayed true to those moments until the very end. This isn't your typical Hollywood happy film, this basis itself on – albeit conspiracies – but honest conspiracies. Could you survive the greatest hoax ever and promise not to tell a soul? Surrounding these characters, we had Willie Nelson, Denis Leary, Anne Heche, Kirsten Dunst, William H. Macy, John Michael Higgins, and – who could forget – Woody Harrelson. These are our players, and they take us from scene to scene with the greatest of ease.

Act II: The Writing & the Directing

David Mamet. Does anything else need to be said? Having been a full time follower of his work, I was not surprised to see that it was his quick-witted words coming from our characters' mouths. It is the fast-paced level of intellectual banter that transforms "Wag the Dog" into the powerhouse that it is. It works because you finish watching the characters actions and it is the words you find yourself quoting for weeks after.
Mamet's political punch to this film was reminiscent of Kubrick's ideas behind "Dr. Strangelove". The two were films that were absurd, but it was also the ideals that they were satirizing that makes both viewable today; just as powerful as they were when they were released. Mamet's words with Barry Levinson's direction takes "Wag the Dog" into perfection. There are no heroes, there are no villains, and we know so little about the characters that it is simply the story, or the words, that pull us into this film. The beats are hit, the angles are crisp and tight, and our characters are perfection – possibly the best casting in years. With this in mind, we have only the third act remaining – cause, as everyone knows – there is always a third act!

Act III: The Final Thought

Overall, "Wag the Dog" is perfect. Very few films in my eyes fully carry the honor of being watchable at any time, any decade, or any political year – but "Wag the Dog" does. Watching with a group of friends, I was surprised as to how many had not seen this feature, remembering that it had been birthed nearly 11 years ago, it still seemed surprising. "Wag the Dog" overturns those political conspiracy theories and makes you laugh, think, and realize the impact of our commercial media.

It was enjoyable to hear the current terms like "plumber" and "commercial president" in this 1997 film, boasting the truth that this film was made before its time. Looking back, there are those that could complain about our premise being too cliché, that the same conspiracy theories have been done again and again, but to me, this was fresh. This entire film was fast-paced, amazingly acted, and media driven. In the commentary, it is talked about how it is rumored that the media doesn't even check sources any further, and this is a glowing example of that regime.



Another old review found, but now never forgotten. Found many years ago, this film still gets a green mark with blue stars. I will always revisit "Wag the Dog" whenever time permits itself. Brilliant.

WR: Mysteries of the Organism (1971)

The American Dream is Dead.

Philosophical film. Each scene, side by side, brings upon new sensations, new bold images, political messages, honest truths about our culture all with the underlining sexual messages that make "WR: Mysteries of the Organism" more than just your average documentary. Released in 1972 overseas and deeply rooted within art-house cinemas, "WR" is not a film for mass audiences, though; one could argue that it carries more honest truths today than it did when originally conceived. Watching it today, in 2008, nearly thirty-six years later, it is difficult to watch. Not that there is anything wrong with this cult masterpiece, it is a film that is not as "modern" with its voice as it is with its message. As I do believe that this is an important film to watch, it may not initially show itself to you right away. Like myself, it took nearly two viewings to fully understand the scope of "WR: Mysteries of the Organism" - nearly the same viewings that it took when originally watching "8 ½" or even "Obscure Object of Desire" - it isn't a film for just afternoon viewing - prepare yourself for cinematic intelligence on a grand scale. This film forces you to think, look within the images, to break outside of your mold, and forces yourself out comfort zone. This is "WR: Mysteries of the Organism", who would want anything else.
How deep does psychology have to go? As the film asks this question, it feverously jumps from an American visual to a Yugoslavia political. We go from our Reich-ian feminist who is in love with the ice-skater, to the simple stroll of our Warhol performer in New York, than haphazardly back to the demonstration in Yugoslavia. As our sexual moments continue throughout, Makavejev uses them wisely (and symbolically) to make political and individual statements. It is this juxtaposition that makes this film bold and expressive; growing into more than just your average "I am Curious" moment. As any of our scenes nearly climax (literally and figuratively), Makavejev takes the moment to pull us back into the "why" of the scene. It isn't American cinema, in which skin is used to fill theater seats, there is a point to the sex, and just as we think there is no rhyme to the reason, we are pulled back into Makavejev's flamboyant mind. In essence, he is answering the age old question, "do sex and politics really mesh"? Then, seemingly out of nowhere, he pulls away the carpet giving us more than the original tantalizing scenes, but replacing them with horror and grotesque ... again - with a point. To stress again why "Mysteries of the Organism" demands more than one viewing (nearly right after the initial viewing) is because it isn't just your average entertainment only film, Makavejev has put himself within the feature - giving us a short glimpse of personal ideals, sexual exploits, and the power of politics ... all within only about 85 minutes. It is enough to give anyone a headache, but also excitement for what was missed.



Orgon Therapy? Madness or Sane formulations? "WR" questions Reich's ideals through faux-cinema and a sense of documentary styles. While some of the history is shown through factual images, i.e. Stalin as a symbol of sex, it is the directed images that really add the value to "Mysteries of the Organism". The drama of the characters that are represented demonstrate real life - the choices made and the consequences that follow. It is more than just a handful of powerful scenes ... it is the option for viewers to discuss, have opinions, and agree/disagree. As I throw out these random thoughts of this film, it only seems to fit that of our director. This is not a linear film, but consistent imagery posted with symbolism. Listening to the audio commentary, it seems to add the glue to these random tangents. Criterion's addition of Richard Durgnat's words (read by Daniel Stewart), help the free-associated viewer deal with the deeper changes and movements within the film. Overall, Criterion's addition of this film to its collection continues to show their excitement towards groundbreaking cinema, nearly forgotten through the modern CGI-explosive cinema bombarded today, "WR: Mysteries of the Organism" is difficult to watch, nearly too smart for my initial view - it is challenging because of the bold words, the wild symbolism, and that wild scene that uses the song "Kill for Peace". Whew, perhaps this paragraph was random thoughts, but it seems to work with this feature.


Overall, in hopes not to bore the average reader, "WR: Mysteries of the Organism" is part black comedy, documentary, political collage, philosophical essay, and a bit of science fiction. While these words hardly scratch the surface of what "WR" has to offer, this film is bizarre in a phenomenal way. This isn't your average art-house picture, but instead a film that demands debate and pulls you within the film - pushing your mind, focusing your eyes, and challenging your intelligence. Using political scenes that are dated, Criterion's release gives you the opportunity to explore from different angles, so that you can see the universal language that "WR" uses. This is a challenging film. It seems to be pulling from every genre, in a way that is difficult to explain. The final scene of this film still remains in my mind, the stern Stalin image that leads us into a darker world. I still don't think I fully understand what Makavejev was trying to say, but what astonished me about this film is that I didn't want to just put it aside. "WR" pulls you, it yanks at your heartstrings, it opens your eyes, and one viewing is never enough for such a subtle (or is it?) engrossing film. While it would not be for everyone, it still remains relevant today, and I am excited that Criterion has chosen to add it to their collection. "Mysteries of the Organism" is an excellent film for those angered by the idiosyncratic destinies of Hollywood.

This is an old review, and no changes have been made upon watching it again. Green mark with blue stars - this is one of those films that if I showed for FILM CLUB, well, I don't think I would have many left sitting when it was done. Yet, I thought it was powerful and challenging, just what every good film should be.