You Can’t Watch This

The Rev. Baron wrote:
I dare you to sit through: Headless Eyes (1971, dir. Kent Bateman).
If memory
serves, this was distributed by Magnum. I used to have a copy, but I’m
pretty
sure I shed it around the same time I parted ways with the Whoopee
Boys.
Remember the Whoopee Boys, Jon?

So, it’s late and I’m still operating on October 30th, but since it is technically the 31st, HAPPY HALLOWEEN!!!!

Headless Eyes- Dir. Kent Bateman 1971

I’ve got a friend who swears that Prince is from the future. The theory is that his music is just too good, and his persona is just too weird for him to possibly be from anywhere humans have already been. I’m going to extend that further and say that those extra-large VHS boxes you sometimes find in the horror/sci-fi section of a video store are also from the future. They must be extraordinarily well done period pieces that were sent back in time as a joke (and a pretty good one, at that); they’re just to crappily perfect to be of our world.

When you see something like “Headless Eyes”, it’s hard not to think that it is, in some ways, as beyond you as it is behind the times. Yeah, the sound is bad–even terrible in parts. Sure, the story is all off center and ultimately without any sense of poignance. However, after viewing this film, it’s hard to call it “bad”. With all of its negatives, there’s really no explanation as to why it was so good–except that it knows something I don’t.

The Plot: Pretty basic, really. An artist gets one of his eyes scooped out with a spoon while trying to steal $65. Said artist then becomes obsessed with eyeballs, and begins killing folks to amass an eyeball collection. He then uses these eyes to create “art” that no one really likes.

After his commercial failure has been well established, one girl comes into his gallery/trinket shop to tell him how much she loves his art (this girl looks an awful lot like the one who scooped out his eyes earlier in the movie, but I can’t be sure it’s the same actress, or even if it’s supposed to be the same girl–it doesn’t really matter either way). He befriends this girl and they talk about painting and secluded spaces. Then our eye-gouging protagonist follows a a blond lady to a meat processing plant and the movie ends. That’s really the way it goes down; I couldn’t spoil the ending if I tried.

What Makes It Watch-able: This movie, for some reason, has soul. Maybe it’s the naturally beautiful 70s chicks. It might even be the horrible looped audio or the bad-ass cars or even the gelatinous art. Whatever it is, as soon as I thought the movie was about to start getting unwatchable, it threw something else my way that I wanted to see (a crappy effect, a mobile made from eyeballs, etc.).

Even after the movie was over, I was still glued to the screen by a pretty awesome trailer (following the feature in true trailer fashion); I was also compelled to check out IMDB, which featured a blurb that director Kent Bateman also had a hand in “Teen Wolf, Too!” and several episodes of “Valerie” (”The Hogan Family” for those who don’t know) and “Family Ties”. That’s right, people who’ve already put it together, the director of “Headless Eyes” is the father of Jason and Justine Bateman! What a world!

I wish I had this movie on DVD, cause the VHS I rented was just plain old. If this movie were to be rereleased, however, I’d suggest some changes to the cover art. As it stands, no one would rent it. Since the cover doesn’t really represent the movie in the first place, might I suggest:

Times I had to avert my headless eyes: 0
Breaks necessary to complete viewing: 1
Overall rating from 1 to 10: 6 (but 7 on Halloween)

Bookmark to:

Hey, y’all. My video store doesn’t have “King’s Ransom” or “Strangeheart”, but don’t worry, I’ll find them-even if I have to bite the bullet and get a netflix account.

“Persuasion” is on the horizon (and I’m a little worried about it, as I’ve heard it’s around 4 hours long and all about something boring). “Headless Eyes” is in my living room and waiting to be viewed (most likely tonight).  The newest addition to the Dare List is a film called “Chuck and Buck” that I’ve read some reviews about; it sounds like it might be the one to finally register in the “times I had to avert my eyes” section. We’ll see.

Anyway, just wanted to let everyone know where I’m at on the list, and what should be coming soon.

-JN

Bookmark to:

Matt wrote:
“A Million to Juan” saw it circa 1997 hungover on a
Saturday. Kept
watching cause I figured it couldn’t get any worse. Lost that bet.

A Million to Juan- Dir. Paul Rodriguez 1994

Haiku for Juan Lopez:

Juan gets a million
Former woes those of many;
Plot flaws take a toll.

This review contains several spoilers, so if you’ve never seen “A Million to Juan” but are planning to watch it in the near future, avoid the “Plot” section.

Okay, this is the kind of movie I like to see: something that is pretty bad in many ways, but has some qualities that are undeniably admirable. Paul Rodriguez directs and stars in this strange and in many ways surprising film that, though its downfalls are obvious from the beginning, I think was genuinely worth watching.

My knowledge of Rodriguez as an actor is based on a few of his numerous small and supporting roles in larger films as well as a few random appearances on TV shows. Well, actually, I also remember him from “The Whoopee Boys” 1986 (now THAT film is a 7 course crapfeast I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy). After sitting through “Whoopee Boys” about 6 years ago, I will never be able to consider myself a Paul Rodriguez fan; but as “A Million to Juan” held my interest for an hour an a half, I can see myself avoiding his work less in the future than I have in the past.

The Plot: Paul Rodriguez is Juan Lopez, a down on his luck Mexican raised, though U.S. born, single father living in East LA. He can’t seem to hold a job or scrounge enough to feed his kid or pay his rent. One sunny afternoon while selling oranges on a street corner, he is handed an envelope from an unseen person in a mysterious limousine. The envelope ends up containing a check made out for $1,000,000, and a letter saying that he can “use the check however he wants, but must return it at the end of 30 days”. Oh, the letter also promises a “present” at the end of the month for participating in the “experiment”.

Once the check is verified authentic, people just start coming out of the woodwork to give Juan stuff. He gets a Benz, some new threads, and I think some baseballs and a gym bag for his son all by just showing people the check.Unfortunately, just flashing a million dollar check doesn’t seem to help Juan’s status in the US or get him any closer to his immigration adviser, Olivia (Polly Draper), who Juan has a big crush on.

Pretty soon, it’s time to give the check back, which Juan does gladly, as it hasn’t seemed to help him do much of anything. In a weird turn of events, however, Juan and Olivia get together and receive a shack to turn into a restaurant (thus fulfilling the promise of a present in the letter).

What Makes It Watch-able: At least Rodriguez tried, and you can tell he really had something to say about something. If this movie was funny (and you’d think it would have been, seeing as how it’s categorized as a comedy), it could have joined the ranks of “Brewster’s Millions” and “Trading Places”. If it would have taken itself more seriously, it might have been more like a Mexican “Do the Right Thing” (yes, I just compared “A Million to Juan” to “Do the Right Thing”). Too bad the two funniest things in this movie were cans: the first, an aerosol can of patron saint air freshener, the second, an empty can of Diet Crystal Pepsi. Too bad any real drama about the Mexican experience in a border state was overshadowed by terrible jokes and ludicrous situations.

I feel for the Rodriguez. I’ve made a few shorts that just didn’t come out as I planned, and more than a few that couldn’t make my intended point because, in the end, they were just too muddled. The love story in the movie was laughably fast-paced and dumb. The main story in this movie was slow and unfunny. The deeper meaning was hazy, and the morality was confused. The movie on a whole, however, seemed a heartfelt attempt that just kept missing the mark. I would literally watch it again (though not for a while).

Times I had to avert my eyes: 0
Breaks necessary to complete viewing: 0
Overall rating from 1 to 10: 6

Bookmark to: