Mar 2018
Such a special movie for me. The kind that you don't like to watch often because you just don't need to. It's engrained in my mind, right down to certain sound effects and when they're about to happen. Maybe I don't watch it often anymore 'cuz I'm afraid I'll outgrow it. 
Not the case last night, thankfully. As if I didn't already hold the film in high esteem, this latest viewing made me realize what an arthouse masterpiece it is, and that, perhaps, if Roger Watkins were more mentally stable, he could have enjoyed a reasonably successful film career. To think this sucker is as dirt cheap as it is and turned out the way it did shows Watkins does contain some degree of talent.
On the other hand though, his mental state and being high on drugs could also have lended the film its perhaps accidental(?), surrealistic and otherworldly quality. Yeah, undoubtedly that has a hand in it, but I also can't help but feel their is an artistic vision behind all this. A method to his madness. The way the film weaves back and forth between arty porno drama and envelope-pushing horror does seem to be a conscious choice. When the forced participants of Terry's snuff films realize all too late the magnitude of what is happening, it truly feels as if the mouth of Hell has opened. This isnt just some run-of-the-mill exploitation film with producer-influenced violence and gore tacked all over the place . Even I can admit it's a tad talky until things really get going, but it aint boring.
To say nothing of the fact that, for 1972 (when the film was made) what else out there was this fucked up and transgressive? (John Waters?) If the movie were released in the early 70s, when it should have, what would audiences have thought? Would the film be looked at differently, as a truly pioneering extreme horror film with all the meticulousness of an almost Kubrick-ian like director behind the lens -- as opposed to the lost artificact of late '70s 42nd street flash-in-the-pan grindhouse goodness whose urban legend mystique could only underwhelm all too eager horror fanatics -- that it is typically seen as?
Ok, yeah, I'm gushing because I'm a total LHODES fanboy. Most of you will disagree with what I see in it, and that's fine. I bought this on VHS (not a bootleg, because I'm stuck up like that) in what may have been '99 or 2000. It was for sure before Roger Watkins came out of hiding. The allure and mystique from LHODES is long-gone now, but the remaining film is as powerful, dark, disturbing, weird and balls to the wall awesome as ever.
Not the case last night, thankfully. As if I didn't already hold the film in high esteem, this latest viewing made me realize what an arthouse masterpiece it is, and that, perhaps, if Roger Watkins were more mentally stable, he could have enjoyed a reasonably successful film career. To think this sucker is as dirt cheap as it is and turned out the way it did shows Watkins does contain some degree of talent.
On the other hand though, his mental state and being high on drugs could also have lended the film its perhaps accidental(?), surrealistic and otherworldly quality. Yeah, undoubtedly that has a hand in it, but I also can't help but feel their is an artistic vision behind all this. A method to his madness. The way the film weaves back and forth between arty porno drama and envelope-pushing horror does seem to be a conscious choice. When the forced participants of Terry's snuff films realize all too late the magnitude of what is happening, it truly feels as if the mouth of Hell has opened. This isnt just some run-of-the-mill exploitation film with producer-influenced violence and gore tacked all over the place . Even I can admit it's a tad talky until things really get going, but it aint boring.
To say nothing of the fact that, for 1972 (when the film was made) what else out there was this fucked up and transgressive? (John Waters?) If the movie were released in the early 70s, when it should have, what would audiences have thought? Would the film be looked at differently, as a truly pioneering extreme horror film with all the meticulousness of an almost Kubrick-ian like director behind the lens -- as opposed to the lost artificact of late '70s 42nd street flash-in-the-pan grindhouse goodness whose urban legend mystique could only underwhelm all too eager horror fanatics -- that it is typically seen as?
Ok, yeah, I'm gushing because I'm a total LHODES fanboy. Most of you will disagree with what I see in it, and that's fine. I bought this on VHS (not a bootleg, because I'm stuck up like that) in what may have been '99 or 2000. It was for sure before Roger Watkins came out of hiding. The allure and mystique from LHODES is long-gone now, but the remaining film is as powerful, dark, disturbing, weird and balls to the wall awesome as ever.
