why, why?


are there any other films done entirely in split-screen, or is this the only one to so employ such a shameless gimmick?

reply

The Woodstock documentary uses it, in a much less cheesy way.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066580/


reply

Why all the hate for this movie? I thought it was very interesting. Cheesy at parts, yes, but still very interesting.

reply

Horrible!! So nerve-wracking!! Couldn't stand it but just a little while until I knew for sure it was going to last the entire film!!

reply

Imdb sez Brian DePalma's "Sisters" released the same year was the direct inspiration for this Duo-whatever.

"Klaatu barada nikto"

reply

The Boston Strangler!

Wicked, Wicked is playing at this moment on Turner Classics. I have fallen in love with their Underground Night!
I wonder how the Carradine family took the fact that they named "the old bad" after them?

THANK YOU ROBERT ALDRICH

reply

check this out http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0220100/

4 screens at once.

reply

[deleted]

are you specifically talking to me?

reply

There was film about 5 or 6 years ago, maybe more, that employed split screen times two. That is, the screen was divided in FOUR quadrants w/ different angles on the story going on the entire time. Doesnt anyone remember that one? It was a moderate success, as I recall (critically and at the B.O.)

reply

It was called Timecode...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0220100/

reply

yeah, that's the one, thanks! maybe some who viewed 'wicked wicked' will check it out now.

reply

Why not? Why not? :^) An interesting technique which, at times, really works. At others it seems to be filler. But overall interesting.

Warhol used this technique in some of his work. Two films, run simultaneously. Start first one, start second one at some random time after the first.

At least with this one, it's synch'ed so you'll see the same frames next to each other with each viewing!

reply

The early Brian DePalma documentary "Dionysus in '69" and Andy Warhol's "Chelsea Girls" spring to mind.

reply