Bliss Bibliographic Classification Movie Reviews
I started out on the wrong foot with this film. I made the classic mistake of rushing to get a film for the weekend, not finding what I wanted and grabbing something that I thought was the continuation of another series entirely. Not until the action opened on an entirely different cast of players did I figure out my mistake. Being doubly grumpy does not make me a friendly viewer.
The film starts out with college student Kris (Ashley Lawrence) receiving a call about a house she had inherited. Since Kris had never known her original family, she jumps at the opportunity to learn about her past and dashes off, without her friends, to investigate. She arrives and is promptly badly spooked (people who know this series will recognize the house as belonging to Phillip Coventry [Bruce Payne], the warlock). A grand thumping at the door announces the arrival of... Kris's college friends. Among them her boyfriend Michael (Paul Francis), her best friend and apprentice witchlet Robin (Boti Ann Bliss), and her high school buddy Jerry (Jan Schweiterman). "Great!" thinks me, "Yet another college student hack-and-slash film."
Well, it is and it isn't. Don't mistake me; 'End of Innocence' has a twenty-five word or less plot, an unknown cast, and the requisite gratuitous nudity and violence. Nevertheless, surprisingly, the film isn't cheesy at all. Director Eric Freiser stays with fairly understated and subdued effects, rather than immense splashes of gore and parts. This makes that acting more prominent, and several of the cast really turn in professional jobs. Coupled with a setting that actually is interesting, and good film work, this makes the story far more believable that many similar efforts.
The end result is an enjoyable rendition of a classic grade B horror flick - forgettable, but fun. Definitely an R rating, but not excessively so. I would suggest seeing parts one and two first. Then you won't have to spend the time I did figuring out what is going on.
And that's when the trouble started. Upon looking at the cover, I noticed that Julian Sands was NOT on the cover. Puzzled for about 17 minutes, I soon realized that Bruce Payne had REPLACED Julie as the Warlock. Okay...you cannot REPLACE the Sands. The Sands IS the Warlock. No duh. And what exactly is Julian doing that's more important than the role that made him a household name? It's not like he's constantly busy... I knew I was in for a horrible night of horribleness.
Needless to say, I liked the movie. It seemed kind of different than the first two films, as in the atmosphere of the movie, the settings, the characters, the plot...oh, yeah...I know why: JULIAN SANDS IS NOT IN THIS MOVIE!!! Apart from that, everything was spiffy. Bruce Payne is good as the Warlock, but nobody can beat Julian Sands. That's the same as trying to replace the Beatles with Wesley Willis, whatever the hell that means.
Another thing that bothered me was that all the female characters seemed to become topless at some point except for the only one that was remotely attractive amongst the group of ragtag teenz. The cute little blond wicca was kewl...
The DVD is exciting, too. I forget the special features, but I do remember that the trailers for Warlock 1 & 2 are hidden in the Lions Gate logo on the main screen. Mmm...Sandy.
Overall, this movie is good, but not as good as number one or number two. Thank you.
This is a pretty good movie for a seriel killa flick. It was certainly than that jobber of a flick called Dahmer..dont go there word life! and was a faster pace film than Ed Gein..Word Life. Its not that scary untill you get to the exucation scene and that will scare the word life heck out of you. I was watching this movie at aroun 1 a.m. and when they went through the exucauton scene it literally scared the heck out of me. I had to put a Cubs NLDS series game against Atlanta on in the background just to be able to get calm downed. So it will haunt you a little bit. I'd say its worth a purches on dvd because it does have meat and nudity so its a good flim. F-Buindy but long live the moovie.
Ted's road to crime starts off with petty theft before graduating to being a Peeping Ted before he takes his obsessions one step further; soon feeding his interest in BDSM, & committing muggings which soon escalate to murders, rapes & necrophilia (amazingly which NZs censors left in). The gruesome FX are by none other than Tom Savini who also appears in the movie as a cop.
Bundy also drives the now stereotypical serial killer car- a yellow VW Beetle, which he uses to abduct & murder college girls, usually by asking for assistance while wearing a sling. Somehow Bundy is able to charm the ladies even though in his blazer & red bow tie he looks like the King Of The Dweebs.
Unlike Dahmer or Gein, Bundy knew what he was doing was wrong. He just doesn't care. But wait a minute: David Lane & his band of outdated fogeys would have us believe it's movies like THIS that are directly to blame for creating people like Ted Bundy!
The violence in the movie is very graphic and disturbing. But is real life violence subtle? Or entertaining? That's another one of the SPCS's problems: they seem to think all films are for *entertainment*. How many Kiwi familes would sit down in front of the box on a cold winters night with a bowl of popcorn & watch ONCE WERE WARRIORS (RP16 in NZ) together purely for *ENTERTAINMENT*? Personally, when I have kids I'd prefer they watched NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (also RP16) over WARRIORS. (By kids I mean age 13+. I don't want to be misinterpreted as irresponsible).
In spite of the gore, this film doesn't glamorise Bundy & try to turn him into an anti-hero; though admittedly the film makers didn't take into account the feelings of the victim's familes; which may be a springboard for some to criticise or condemn the picture. That said, it's strangely gratifying at the end watching the scumbag get his comeuppance.
Now, you'll notice that I haven't really been mentioning Burke in my review: that's because when you watch this- he really DOES become Ted Bundy for the duration of the film. Burke would almost certainly have gotten an Oscar nomination if the Academy weren't so egotistical, selective & yes, wimpy.
TED BUNDY is an excellent movie, certainly not recommended for the faint-hearted; but for people with an interest in serial killers this is a must-see. Just don't watch it straight after dinner.
This is a shocking film and the cruelty that Ted inflicts on his female victims defies belief. Ted Bundy is played exceptionally well by Michael Reilly Burke in a deadpan manipulative way when he is acting normal with his girlfriend and others, but when he is out killing (which comprises about 95% of this movie) his character opens up in leaps and bounds with lashing of black humor. Check out the scene where he tries to explain the "rape gear" during an interrogation with a detective or how he plays a cop to get a woman into his killing vehicle of choice (a bright yellow Volkswagen Beetle) at the shopping mall.
Bundy is one dominating and controlling character and the film does disturb and is extremely sexually graphic in nature. Instead of delving too much into Bundys background, the investigation or his psychology, the director goes for straight out exploitation. So how does it pan out? The truth is that this film does nothing to honor Bundys victims, treats women very badly (except for the twist ending) and IS exploitation through and through. It is often funny and hilarious in a black sort of way. Is it morally right? NO! Is it political correct? NO! Does this film have a message? NO!........... but it sure as a hell is a ton of fun in a "Texas Chain Saw Massacre" sort of way. In short the exploitation films of the 70s have just been given a revamp in this great low-budget murder-fest that never tries to be anything more than what it is - adult popcorn fodder, and for that it gets five stars.