Review: Scorchers
Half
an OK movie strapped onto a crap half, this steamy, melodramatic 1992 David
Beaird (the mediocre “Pass the Ammo”,
with Bill Paxton and Tim Curry) flick is too obviously based on a stage play.
The irritating half features the shrill goings on of a nervous bride (Emily Lloyd-
irritating as always) on her wedding night, as her husband (James Wilder) and
incredibly nauseating Prairie-shit father (appalling stage actor Leland Crooke,
reprising his role, and sounding like a scummy, white Uncle Remus, in his best,
phony bayou accent) try to calm her down. The better half centres around a
local bar, run by crotchety James Jones, practically lived in by drunken
British stage actor Denholm Elliott (who hangs by the jukebox specially stocked
with his favourite classical music), and occasionally frequented by virginal
preacher’s daughter Jennifer Tilly (showing Lloyd how to act properly shrill) who has a beef with the
local madam (Faye Dunaway).
Dunaway
probably the best performance in this somewhat unhappy period of her career.
She and Elliott are particularly excellent here, and both Jones and Tilly are
favourites of mine, but the rest is utterly worthless, I’m afraid and will drag
the rating right down. Screenplay by the director, whose play the film is based
on, and clearly wants to be a Tennessee Williams classic. Not the softcore
titilator the title suggests, though it is a tad sensual and bawdy at times.
Rating:
C-
Is there a reason why iMdb rates this illiterate rambling as a "Critic" review? I despair. The film is an underrated classic, for exactly the reasons you dislike it. I will never visit your blog again, but thank you for helping me to understand the naysayers of this fantastic movie: you just make me like it even more.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, thanks for reading. In response to your question, it's probably because I submitted it to IMDb like any other critic/reviewer tends to. You'll have to take it up with them I guess. Also, I do have one question just in case this comment somehow reaches you: If my review is 'illiterate', how do you know that you like the film for all the reasons I disliked it? ;)
DeleteSearching for explanations of what I had just seen, I read your review. The unusual opening with the monologue was on one hand a warning but somehow it also made me curious: what on earth is this? But when the wedding scene came I made up my mind: bad, bad movie. Despite the atmosphere in the bar the acting, dialogue and storyline weren't interesting. What does interest me: why are there - shown above in the reaction someone left behind, the illiterate one - so many people who want to make us believe that this is great (10/10 showed the IMDB more than once)? Are they stockholders in this disaster? But to be honest: tonight I'll be watching it again. Just to be sure and: to question myself.ooking forward to your sincere opinion. Ferry (Netherlands)
ReplyDeleteYes, it's curious how some will go over the top in raving about a film when you and I seem to be somewhat ambivalent at best about it. I'd like to think it's just differing opinions, but occasionally I do have cynical thoughts. Thanks for reading.
DeleteThanks for writing! The reviews and your reaction. I'll be reading you. Am I correct: you watch and write one movie (critic) a day? I can do the first part but writing about it is an effort.
ReplyDeleteI probably do watch a movie a day (sometimes more), but the review generally won't be up for a while (I take notes while watching) and I also generally only post once every two days, sometimes even less often. I'm actually slightly behind on posting reviews at the moment, so I've got a little bit of a backlog.
Delete