Follow us
Facebook Page
Vampira and Me (U.S.A.2012 – 106 minutes – Director: R.H. Greene)
Rating: 
In 1953, Maila Nurmi attended a Hollywood costume ball as the Morticia Adams character from the New Yorker cartoons, hoping she could convince an executive to make a television program based on the Adams Family. Ahead of her time (it would take ABC another 10 years to finally make that program), Nurmi still captured the attention of a producer, but he didn’t want her to star as Mortician Adams; rather, he asked her to host late-night horror movies, and she created a new character, a glamour ghoul with a wicked sense of humor named Vampira. Once a well-known figure, Vampira is sadly now most notorious for her brief appearance in a b-movie she hated (Ed Wood’s Plan 9 from Outer Space), followed by Nurmi’s lawsuit with 80s late-night horror hostess Elvira over the use of her likeness (it was determined by a court that Elvira was just a close resemblance). However, Vampira’s television work has always had a cult following of devotees, including documentarian R.H. Greene, who befriended Nurmi in the 1990s and conducted an interview with her about her life and career. After recent archival discoveries, Greene finally decided to make a film about his friend, combining archival footage and stills of Vampira herself, that interview, audio interviews with others who knew her, and era-related images and video. Together, Vampira and Me is a loving, fitting tribute to an extraordinary and fascinating woman.
But calling Vampira and Me a documentary might be giving the wrong impression, at least in regards to how most think of a documentary about a once-living person. Instead, Vampira and Me should probably be thought of as an artful homage made to a loved one. Yes, Vampira uses archival footage and narration to document a notable person, but in a very selective, protective way, painting her as both hero and victim, often both simultaneously, which some documentarians might take issue with. That’s not to say the film is without merit – in fact, it’s probably a far better film than something that might have been made by an outsider – but it should be understood where the film comes from. Everything is from Nurmi’s perspective, and when individuals are made to look like villains, they aren’t given the chance to explain their sides. Put together by Greene in a stylized way that only focuses on the film’s subject, this is the story of the feisty, iconoclastic Vampira. It turns out her story has been neglected for far too long, and it clearly deserved to be told.
Juan of the Dead (Cuba, Spain 2011 – 94 minutes – Director: Alejandro Brugués)
Rating: 
A Cuban zombie comedy, I walked into Juan of the Dead expecting a Cuban version of Shawn of the Dead, but despite the similarity in title and comedic nature, it’s actually a very different film. When the undead take to the streets of Havana, most Cubans flee the overrun island in homemade boats, but a small ragtag band of zombie slayers stay behind, not only trying to survive the apocalypse but also make some money in the process. Blending horror and comedy with plenty of political and zombie-movie references, writer/director Alejandro Brugués aspires to make something both entertaining and thought-provoking. But while some really great ideas are present, such as a hilarious dance sequence between a zombie and a living person handcuffed together, not everything is as effectively executed as others, with a few gags going on for too long or simply falling flat. Campy, gory and satirical, Juan should still play well to late-night audiences who are used to ignoring a few flaws in their search for outrageous laughs.
Pincus (U.S.A. 2012 – 79 minutes – Director: David Fenster)
Rating:
A semi-autobiographical film about a slacker named Pincus who is supposed to be taking care of his ailing father, Pincus director David Fenster decided to combine a script he was working on about a man’s self discovery with his own father’s real-life struggle with Parkinson’s. The result is not only painfully self-indulgent, but it also makes Fenster look like a bit of a douchebag if he’s anything like his lead character. The son of an established and reputable contractor, Pincus takes over the family business, signing up for projects only to neglect them. His only “worker” onsite an alcoholic German friend whom he allows to live in the work sites, Pincus seems set on sabotaging the only lifeline he will have once his father is gone. In addition to abandoning his professional responsibilities, he leaves his father for extended periods without someone to look after him, which is only slightly worse than when he tries to be a good son. When Pincus actually spends time with his father, he’s either yelling at him as if he’s a child or subjecting him to random new-age treatments suggested by his yoga teacher, whose class he takes only because he is hoping to sleep with her. But the lead character isn’t the only thing annoying about this film. The heinous sound quality of the overly loud soundtrack is headache inducing, and the trying-to-be-artsy, open-ended conclusion has no place in such an aimless, artless film. Plus, the use of Fenster’s real ailing father feels like a gimmick in extremely bad taste. Poorly made, narcissistic and arguably exploitative, I can’t imagine Pincus meaning anything to anyone other than those involved.
11 Comments
Being mean is not the same as being clever.
@Phil Lord (who I must point out is the producer of Pincus): I wasn’t trying to be mean or clever; I just felt it was an irritating film about an irritating person, and my responsibility when writing reviews is to be honest. Of course, it’s just my opinion. But congratulations on having your film screened in the festival.
I agree with Phil Lord, this review just seems plain mean and overall it’s
just depressing. It looks less like engaging film criticism and more
pedestrian like an IMDB user review (which I assume was not the
intention, Mr. Clark). I guess in the days of the internet though,
everyone with a blog, a wifi connection and as you say an “opinion” are
suddenly film critics.
You say the film is “arguably exploitative”, which I agree could be
true. I wish you would have actually made an argument instead of just
taking an insipid quip without backing up your claim. You seem to
infer that David Fenster has a ways to go in his filmmaking, which may
be true as well, but I’d argue you have an even further way to go in
your film criticism. With trite reviews like this, I don’t think Film
Comment or Cinemascope are going to come calling anytime soon, John C.
Clark. Hey, but that’s just my opinion. But congratulations on
getting your review on IMDB.
First, I meant no sarcasm when I congratulated Mr. Lord on getting his film into LA Film Fest. I see how it could have been read that way, but I greatly admire the festival and the variety of films they offer, and I know it’s no small feat to be accepted.
Next, yes Mike, it is a short review where I don’t go into every element, but capsule reviews are common when attending film festivals, and in this case, I didn’t think Pincus needed any more than a short review stating that it was a self-indulgent, poorly made film. Perhaps it’s a “trite” review, but it was just as trite a film in my opinion, and I felt there were other films at the festival deserving more attention. In fact, I mostly avoided writing negative reviews for this year’s fest because I wanted to focus on the positives, but I was asked by 2 people to review this film, and 2 other individuals I spoke to at the festival said very similar (and even harsher) things. So I wrote a review and tried to bury it as much as I could on a page with 2 other reviews. Those looking for reviews of the film might find mine, but it’s unlikely many will stumble across it.
Finally, you point out the “arguably exploitative” line and my lack of clarification, and in hindsight, I completely agree with you. As I had limited time and didn’t like the film, I didn’t research the background behind how his father became involved; clearly, I either should have done said research or simply left out my ambiguous pondering. I don’t want to edit the review in hindsight because these comments will make no sense, but I will be sure to be clearer about any ambiguous thoughts in the future.
John,
Go take your smug schmaltz back to the cine-plex where the rest of the sheeple can read your reviews. Leave us biohemes alone. We don’t need your reviews, go make a film of your own!
Bohemians I meant because I’m stoned right now unlike Jogn C. Clark who needs to go back to the school of the radical.
I think “Pincus” is a great film, it explores a father-son relationship under the stress of a terminal disease in realistic terms. Even with the best intentions people have personalities, they have bad days, they struggle with life and they take these emotions out on their loved ones — “Pincus” illustrates this with great nuance and realism.
It also shows the isolation that comes with devoting oneself to becoming a caretaker for someone in need of assistance 24-7; the loss of one’s place in the universe because all they know is taking care of their loved one and anything they were before that is just a distance memory.
The universe of this film is far more complex, adult, and intimate than most films that were at the festival. It’s like buying flowers for a sick loved one and being at the register looking over all the cards and realizing that a get well card is not a option. If you’ve lived that complex moment than you’ll understand “Pincus” and if you haven’t than you shouldn’t be writing a review for it.
There’s no hiding the above review is mean and makes no effort to understand the film. I can only assume from the loaded language and the quick judgement that John C. is in his early 20s; he doesn’t know that he doesn’t know.
I’m glad you enjoyed the film Jean-Pierre. Everyone has different tastes, and I’m glad the film spoke to you. However, it didn’t speak to me, and if you do a quick Google search of “Pincus review,” you’ll find that of the 4 reviews that currently show up on the first page, 3 of them (Hollywood Reporter, Indiewire and Turnstyle) are negative, with those reviewers having basically the same problems. Sure, they are “nicer” to the film than my review, but I’m clearly not the only one who disliked “Pincus”. So we should just be able to agree to disagree without resorting to personal attacks. I’m sure you often disagree with a friend about the merits of a film and you don’t resort to judging them because of it.
As for these personal attacks, since we’re making assumptions, I can only assume the backlash is coming from people who are somehow tied to the film – I’m sure it hurts to have someone tell you they hated something you or someone you know worked on. But my assumption may of course be wrong, as are your assumptions about me. I am not in my early 20s, and I have experienced great personal loss. I would have loved “Pincus” had it dealt with its topics in the mature and complex way you’ve stated, but I don’t think it did. And I am not the “cine-plex” guy that Lee Lynch thinks I am; in fact, I’m more often than not told that my tastes are too “arthouse” and that I should embrace mainstream films more.
I have no ill will toward anyone involved in the making of Pincus (in fact, I actually enjoyed Phil Lord’s directed films, which is why I recognized his name in the comments and wondered if it could be the same person). I simply hated the movie “Pincus”, so I wrote a short review bluntly stating as much. If you disagree, feel free to write your own review.
Could it be THE Phil Lord, would it be the Phil Lord???????? Yeah it’s Phil the big shit hollyweird director, but kissing his ass won’t dig you out of the hole you dug for yourself. I wish they could teach taste in that random school you went to, because then maybe you would know that so called “art-houses” are dead, and said trite review is yet another nail in the coffin. I hope your happy with yourself (and Vampira’s tits). Can you please try and redeem yourself by describing an art-house film you don’t hate? Actually, I don’t want to see your list because i know it includes Eat, Pray, Love. Plus, you wouldn’t know an avant-garde film (the proper terminology) from Vampira’s comic book cartoon-camel toe.
BTW hate is a pretty strong word, I think it should be reserved for a film like Twilight, don’t you? Oh but you have a weak spot for camp, gore, and Vampires… how could I forget? (Of course smoking copious amounts of weed effects your short term memory.)
John, If you actually tried making a film (that short you made in undergrad gathering dust in your closet doesn’t count) then you would have more compassion for a filmmaker like Fenster, who is a young jewish director that believes in spreading love, unlike your sad-sack hateful self. Last time I told you to go smoke weed, but I think you need shrooms instead, or maybe shock treatment. Then maybe, just maybe your “Borg pallet” might finally be tickled….
I’m pretty articulate when I’m not stoned huh John?
I’ve been dry for awhile so I suggest you zip your lip this time. You don’t want to unleash the Kraken….
PS. Enough with the Google search crap.
obviously, you didn’t click on my name at the top of the page or you’d know that I almost exclusively review art house films, and when I do review mainstream movies, I tend to hate them. but again, I’d rather focus on the positive than the negative, so I try to mostly review art house. and i use “art house” instead of “avant-garde” because it’s a broader term, as my focus tends to be on foreign and independent films
but since you want proof that I’m not a “cine-plex” reviewer, here are my top ten lists for 2011 ( http://tonightatthemovies.com/indexhold/?p=17985 ) and 2010 ( http://tonightatthemovies.com/indexhold/?p=6377 ). Of course, I’m sure you’ll still find something to complain about in one of them…
Below the thunders of the Cine-plex
Far far beneath in the abysmal art-house,
His ancient, dreamless, uninvaded sleep
The Kraken sleepeth: faintest projector lights flee
About his shadowy sides; above him swell
Huge images of millennial growth and height;
And far away into the sickly light,
From many a wondrous screen and secret cell
Unnumber’d and enormous taste
Winnow with giant arms the slumbering auteur.
There hath he lain for ages, and will lie
Battening upon huge yuppies in his sleep,
Until the latter fire shall heat the deep;
Then once by man and critics to be seen,
In roaring he shall rise.