Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

retrogames The whispering for dramatic effect is just as stupid as the dialog in this talky no budget nonsense. It looks like its mainly improvised by a group of actors (and im using the term loosely) who owed somebody a favor, why else would they be in this turkey.Even on a bargain $1.00 DVD this is a waste of cash, if your a fan of any of the names associated with this movie, do yourself a favor and avoid it, there's no plot, no style and no movie here. Just a complete mess of different talky scenes that make no sense, maybe someone thought this was art...and remember this was made before taking a dump in a fish tank was considered art, so maybe this inspired someone after all!

caa821 A number of years ago, I attended an exhibition at a renovated, cavernous railroad terminal which had been made into an exhibition and performance facility. There was a show which featured avant-garde art, films, and the "headliner" was Charlotte Moorman. At that time, probably in her mid- to late-30's, Ms. Moorman, a Julliard post-grad alum and concert cellist, had earlier made a name for herself by playing in a concert topless. She was briefly arrested for this and given probation. (I've always pictured how this must have actually been quite fascinating - since she was a "busty" lady, I imagined that she had to be very deft, and careful, in moving the bow across the strings to avoid injury to herself.)She had then become described as a performer of the "mixed-media" genre, and as a performance artist. I swear, her performance that day was exactly as I describe (I'll certainly never forget it; my mouth wouldn't close until hours later). First, she destroyed an in-tact piano. An assistant handed her a full-size sledge hammer, and she beat-the-hell out of the instrument (she swung the tool as deftly as Alan Ladd and Van Helfin swung their axes removing a stump early during "Shane"). Then, the assistant handed her a small, hand-held sledge, with which she pulverized the smaller components which her larger tool had dislodged from the instrument. This accomplished, the assistant now brought her cello and a very large burlap sack. She was wearing a long dress, and proceeded to lie on the floor, crawl completely within the sack, and draw her cello into it. For about five or ten minutes, she wriggled, totally hidden within, stuck an arm out, drew it back in, and did likewise with a stockinged leg. Finally she played some notes (no more than 5 or 6), and you could see the movement of her bow and the outline of the instrument. What she played was not particularly tuneful. She then emerged from the sack, her assistant took same and the cello/bow, and she took a bow as if she had just completed a concerto. And, she did not crack even a semblance of a smile during any of these proceedings. I'm not an exceptional storyteller, but I promise what I've just described will make more sense, and be more logical to your understanding, than this movie. Strangely, though, in its pretentious, vague, incomprehensible way, this duo-titled flick holds a weird sort of fascination - as did Ms. Moorman's performance. I advise viewing it, just so you can say you did. I'm not sure I'd give it 5 stars; I'd rate it 4-1/2, but since this site does not utilize "halves," let's call it a "4." And I think its fascination may be a bit greater now, than it would have been in an earlier viewing, since nearly a quarter century has elapsed since its filming.

Dire Wolf Would be interesting to know if Peter Coyote and Ronald Sukenick were old friends. I'm wondering if Peter assisted Ronald in writing it. The movie contains many elements similar to what Peter experienced during his days in the 60's. To understand, read "Sleeping Where I Fall". How many movies/writers has Peter influenced and inspired to write of his, and others personal experiences from the 60's. Sometimes I wonder if Peter is trying to tell us something which he is unable to openly acknowledge. Is Peter telling us in a "code" what happened back then and that someday it will all come to light? Someday, maybe after his death, a manuscript will surface telling us what it was he was saying. The basic theme of being directed by a mysterious entity to commit acts reminds me of the Manson family. Peter, who was your Charlie? I think the movie is a cult classic. A brief glimpse into what many experienced in the 60's. Magic, wonder and a profound peek into the depth of being.

mistobog-cara I too expected more out of this film, being that it featured Danny Glover and Peter Coyote prominently on the DVD cover. Boy was I wrong! It was the biggest waste of 88 minutes I can remember spending.In the beginning, there was talk of various characters being secret agents, but it became so bizarre and irrational that I could only describe it as a dream while one is also sick with a fever. Scenes changed, characters names and memories did, as well. It was like a dream that kept changing speeds and subjects, or a bad trip on a hallucinogen, or a wandering mind locked in uncontrolled schizophrenia while perhaps also unconscious.I would have turned it off after 10 minutes if I had any idea that it would have ended the way it did. I was holding out hope that in the end, the main character (Coyote) would awaken out of a coma (hence the original title "OUT!") or would have come out of his schizophrenic nightmare. That would have helped to make a little sense out of it, but no, that was not to be. His girl dives into the ocean, he stares at an amusement park, the camera does a slow pan across the pier and water, and fade to black. No explanation of what the movie was about, not even a hint. What an absolute waste!