Do you guys think the director actually tried to make a bad film on purpose? Or perhaps a satire on Hollywood and commercialism?
shareIt's an homage to the old Russ Meyer films like "Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!" and the like. You can't call it bad when it was meant to be like that. That's be like calling Troma movies terrible when they're supposed to be that way on purpose.
shareI disagree, it CAN be called crap even if it's meant to be bad. It looks terrible, haven't seen it all the way through - so I can't comment of it's artistic or not. But I'll HAVE to see it because Maynard is in it.
shareThere are some great looking bodies on display, but the dialogue and intentional randomness of this film is just sad.
shareIt has to be crap if Corey Feldman is in it.
It's neither.
It is what it is. A 60 minute film involving a bit of silliyness, a bit of fun, and Maynard James Keenan.
There's no point in over-analysing this film, because it transcends the basic film formula.
It IS crap insofar that the creators seems to think that whatever they might think of and put on screen is hilarious and oh-so-clever, when there's nothing that have not been done to death. They try to make a non-pretentious movie, but all the same time, giving them the pretention to subject us to just about anything because, hey, we're so smart, right ? Just like your drunken uncle who won't stop telling bawdy jokes at parties even if it bothers everyone.
It's no better than the poor "whatever-fad-movies" that crops up regularly…
[deleted]
[deleted]
One Word: Crap!! I yust don't wanna watch it again.
shareIt would have been good if it weren't for all the CKY/false teeth/retard crap which just got really annoying and was never funny. If it had just been girls, guns, cars, swearing, Dee Dee, Jello, and Maynard then it would have kicked ass.
Oh yeah, also, that song during the credits blew.
You; blow me, now.
[deleted]