Les Carabiniers (1963, Jean-Luc Godard)

A Godard war film. Of course, you can expect lots of politics, a completely impersonal and detached sort of film, one which doesn't have a rosy view of human nature, and contains satirical elements. Essentially, "Les Carabiniers" is a film that attempts to be neither involving nor formally compelling, and inhabits a world of its own, really. It's dark and vicious and ugly, but stops for comic set-pieces and unabashedly dark satirical digs at war-mongerers and violence in general. It's not really an anti-war film, it's an anti-'war film' which completely subverts all of the conventions of the genre.

As far as Godard's ouevre goes, this is unquestionably one of his least satisfying works, and competes with "Made in U.S.A." for the title of his worst 60's film. The jokes are smug and self-satisfied (without being interesting, as much of Godard's work is), and the politics are similar to what made Godard's Marxist period in the late sixties/early seventies so unbearably aggravating. "Les Carabiniers", with its plot concerning two peasants drafted into the king's army, whose victories on the battlefields lead to their execution as traitors, offers little of worth narratively or even on a technical level, with some interesting experimental editing and typically Godard-ian attempts to remind the audience that it's just a movie shining bright amidst a muddle of superficial and rather stupid political satire and scatter-shot attempts at disconnect and surrealism.

"Les Carabiniers" was originally regarded as a disaster, but is now acclaimed by many. Neither consensus has it right, but I'd say that the critics who lambasted it in the 60's were a bit closer to the truth than those who praise it today. It's an important film to see when studying Godard as an auteur, but it is indicative of his worst rather than his best work.

Burn After Reading (2008, Joel & Ethan Coen)

I'm not the only one to notice the pattern in the Coens' filmography: "Blood Simple." was followed by "Raising Arizona", "Fargo" by "The Big Lebowski", and "No Country for Old Men" by "Burn After Reading". The main concern one had about this film is whether it would be an "Intolerable Cruelty" or a "Big Lebowski" for the Coens. Let's put it this way: the reviews have been mixed, especially from major mainstream media critics. Guess what other Coen comedy received mixed reviews and was accused of being a somewhat tired mess? Yep, "The Big Lebowski".

The Coens' sense of humor is very distinctive, and I'm not talking about stuff like "Intolerable Cruelty" (this one the mainstream media liked, go figure) and "The Ladykillers", which featured numerous commercial concessions. I'm talking about the vicious, cruel, misanthropic farce that gets self-important critics' knickers in a twist. Describing "Burn After Reading" as a screwball spy farce makes it sound much more "Austin Powers" than it is. There is a lot of silliness, but the sort of silliness one finds in a Howard Hawks comedy, not in most comedies that have been made recently. It's a screwball comedy but a pretty dark one.

This is most certainly an acquired taste. It is not going to go down well with people who can't laugh at murder, things going terribly wrong for innocent people, or the Cones' trademark dialogue that pops up even in 'serious' movies like "Fargo" and "No Country for Old Men". However, "Burn After Reading" was seemingly tailor-made for my cruel sense of humor, as I found it to be easily the most inspired comedy script in a long time. It's a conspiracy espionage thriller with no stakes, nothing to fight over, a bunch of complete fools and idiots caught in the middle of it ("a league of morons" if you listen to John Malkovich's character), and disastrous consequences for just about everyone. Take out the jokes and you could have a tragedy but as it stands this is the funniest movie the Coens have made since "The Big Lebowski", if not the best, and that includes "O Brother, Where Art Thou?".

One really shouldn't know anything about the plot or how it unfolds prior to seeing it, as this is a film which is far more intricately-plotted than most critics are giving it credit for. The basic concept is that Frances McDormand and Brad Pitt's characters come across a disc they think contains top secret intelligence. What follows is, as described above, a thriller with no stakes and a bunch of idiots. It's one of those movies where you really shouldn't be laughing (for ethical reasons) but are, and it will have you laughing through your disapproval for basically the entirety of the film after the opening fifteen minutes or so, which are rough in comparison to the rest of the film, and to be honest the only thing that keeps this film from being absolutely brilliant and the Coens' best movie since "Lebowski". Just don't go in expecting a movie that looks as beautiful as many of their movies do- Lubezki is no Deakins, at least not based on his work here, and the Coens are very clearly attempting to emulate in many ways the look of the sort of thriller they're basing this on. It's functional, well-shot, and well-directed, but the writing and acting are the main attractions here.

Of course, "Burn After Reading" will be dismissed as having little worth and for being a disposable farce by many. Well, if only they knew how hard it is to do comedy well. I'd reckon this was harder to write than the (admittedly tremendous) "No Country for Old Men", which was adapted from a novel that might as well have been a screenplay if formatted correctly. The movie may not start brilliantly (not that it isn't good even early on), but once the Coens start firing on all cylinders they never stop, and the dream cast certainly doesn't either (Brad Pitt has a smaller role than most cast members here, but he is absolutely brilliant in the role), showing tremendous comic skill that few would have guessed most of them had. The final scene may very well be one of the best I have seen in a long, long time.

"What a clusterf-ck!", indeed.

American Gigolo (1980, Paul Schrader)

"American Gigolo" really is slick and stylish. As slick and stylish as any film could be, so you really wonder whether this is Schrader's film or Jerry Bruckheimer's? If you look solely at the screenplay, it almost fits into the typical Schrader exploration of any given 'seedy underworld'. You could even argue that Julian and Michelle are in a way similar to Travis and Betty. Looking at the final product, however, I see a slick Hollywood mystery-thriller that's actually far more interesting for its romantic sub-plot than for any of the suspense parts.

Don't get me wrong, in places "American Gigolo" is a quality character study, and the romance is as well-written as you could ever expect from a major, mainstream Hollywood production, but the suspense thriller portion is just so banal, expected, and predictable that it really takes away from an otherwise very good film. Perhaps most worthy of praise here is Richard Gere who gives one of his best performances here, and I certainly cannot even begin to imagine John Travolta in the lead role.

It sounds like I'm criticizing how stylish this film is, I'm really not. It's pulled off pretty darn well in comparison to how many films of this sort have ended up, and you have to admit Gere's wardrobe is impressive. The film is well-shot and well-acted and for the most part quite well-written (although this is far, far from Paul Schrader's best work as a screenwriter). My comments on the film's slickness are really just a natural reaction to this film coming right after "Hardcore". Indeed, it seems like this film is a signpost for the early 80's (the dud of a score proves it) where in Hollywood even homicide cases with a Gigolo as the main suspect are glamorous rather than gritty.

A lot of people hate this film, but it has also gained a large cult following and a respectable following from film critics and aficionados, even landing a spot on the 'They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?' top 1000 list, and I can't really understand why anyone would have such extreme feelings about a film that is just watchable and entertaining. I don't think Schrader did his best work here, but it's not his worst either and the film as a whole is so unimposing and forgettable that I find it hard to believe it has so many fans and so many detractors.

Risky Business (1983, Paul Brickman)

"Risky Business" may ultimately be a well-liked film but it is now perceived by many as a dated relic, remembered more for Tom Cruise dancing to "Old Time Rock and Roll" than for its sharp satire, excellent dialogue, and stylish visual sensibility and use of music. Thankfully it remains a widely-praised film among critics (there is not one negative review on Rotten Tomatoes) who seem to appreciate it more than modern audiences, specifically younger modern audiences. Most insulting of all the dismissals is the suggestion that this is little more than a male fantasy flick.

Paul Brickman (also responsible for writing Jonathan Demme's greatest film, "Handle with Care") achieved something truly great here- he took the much-maligned, generally moronic high school sex comedy and turned it into something much more, a surprisingly effective romance with some really dark, contemplative moments, as well as a healthy dose of irony and symbolism which elevates the script to a whole new level. Moreover, this is more of a movie about 80's materialism and suburbia (and the satire here is wonderfully understated and played just right, just obvious enough for the less intelligent or less focused among us to notice but not heavy-handed at all) than about teenagers having sex. Even the large part of the film that deals with call girls, pimps, and the teen male fantasy is loaded with irony and satire. Only in its most superficial elements is "Risky Business" a teen sex comedy.

Of course one could say that Brickman is having it both ways- "Risky Business" was a massive hit within the exact same capitalist system he's satirizing here, but that doesn't harm the finished result of the film itself, which is still as sharp and bitter as it always has been. I know nothing about Brickman but I assume that he's either lazy, disillusioned, or just as rich as he wants to be because his lack of a lengthy career as a director is surprising; "Risky Business" boasts fine cinematography but also a dark, dreamlike style full of what Dave Kehr of the Chicago Reader describes as 'sinuous camera movements and surrealistic insinuations'. Brickman's handling of tone is also superb- the movie is never too dark, never too sunny, always maintaining a tone of 'haunting, lyrical satire' to quote Dave Kehr yet again (because his capsule review says all there is to be said about the film in a short paragraph, go search for it). Also contributing to the atmosphere is the amazing Tangerine Dream score and the effective use of popular songs.

I don't want to sell the film short on its superficial merits either; it you want to laugh this is a very, very funny film, and it works fine on the basic level of a comedy (though it's not anywhere near as raunchy as some fans of the genre would probably want it to be). Tom Cruise makes for an excellent lead and the supporting characters and actors are all memorable as well (who doesn't love Guido the Killer Pimp?). "Risky Business" is perhaps the only truly great film that can be called a 'teen sex comedy', and remains a completely worthwhile film so many years after its release.

The War Game (1965, Peter Watkins)

For some reason nuclear war has come to be viewed as a dated threat, a relic of the cold war paranoia. Let's take a look at some of the countries currently possessing nuclear weapons: Russia, the United States, Israel, Pakistan, India... Not exactly some of the most historically peaceful states. I still view nuclear war as a possibility; it is not likely, but it is still possible and still worth being afraid of. The thought of a few states having leverage over the rest of the world as a result of possessing nuclear weaponry is a frightening reality.

Legendary British TV and film director Peter Watkins' hypothetical 'documentary' on the results of a nuclear attack on Britain in the 1960's won the Academy Award for Best Documentary, even though the Academy knew very well that it was fictional. Still, I would argue that it deserved the award, not only for its unquestionable quality, but as it is frighteningly, terrifyingly educational on the known, scientifically accurate facts it presents on a nuclear attack's effects on the human body and on any given city- even if the attack took place at a distance.

Watkins' film is brilliant. It is all the more effective now as the world slowly forgets Hiroshima and Nagasaki, slowly forgets the scale of the horror and destruction which can result from the use of such weapons. The film is an expertly constructed, brutally effective drama, filmed as a documentary and, aside from the events 'documented' being hypothetical, is completely accurate on all of its details, with information taken directly from experts and from nuclear test sites. As much as it is not a real 'documentary', it is one of the most frighteningly realistic ones ever made. The film is so horrifying, so disgusting, so disturbing, that it was not shown by the BBC, who originally commissioned it, until the 1980's, following the success of the similar but fully dramatized "Threads", a film that is possibly even more effective in its portrayal of the horror of nuclear war.

"The War Game" is an undisputed classic and completely deserving of its reputation. It's 46 minutes of pure, undiluted horror, and is one of the best 'horror' films ever made. While the dumb, self-satisfied gorehounds are looking for obscure Chinese films which focus on faked or real torture, while they are praising the stupid, braindead "Cannibal Holocaust", this terrifying pseudo-documentary on a very real and very scary subject is left relatively neglected. One of very, very few films which are actually 'scary'.

Gone Baby Gone (2007, Ben Affleck)

Adapted from the (very good) novel by Dennis Lehane, "Gone Baby Gone" is a powerhouse of a directorial debut from Ben Affleck, and is an unexpectedly excellent, powerful crime drama with, thankfully, a sense of realism and authenticity required not only for the film to be good but for the subject matter to feel deserving of dramatization as opposed to ending up as mere sensationalism.

Although Dennis Lehane is quite a talented author I find much of his work suffers from long passages of prose which ultimately prove to be purely masturbatory and do nothing to enhance the novel. If you're going to do that sort of thing you better be darn good at it but a lot of his work ends up coming off as sub-Elmore Leonard. On the other hand he can boast a brilliant sense of character, setting, pace, and the ability to write stunningly realistic and involving dialogue. One doesn't need to look past his episodes for television masterwork "The Wire" to see this. All that's needed to adapt one of his novels well for the screen is a talented, intelligent screenwriter and as much as "Mystic River" was praised to the high heavens, and as much as I love Clint Eastwood's work as director, "Mystic River" was simply a flat, bland screenplay filled with flat, bland characters which was adapted from a novel with nothing but involving, interesting characters. Do Ben Affleck and Aaron Stockard succeed in not only staying true to the novel in style and sensibility, but bringing the characters, the dialogue, the sense of authenticity to the screen?

Yes, they do. This screenplay is a triumph. It's about as good as it possibly could have been, and considering the subject matter and all that could have gone wrong, how much of it could have felt sensationalist, how the twists and turns in the tale could have felt like a cheap soap opera rather than proper drama, it's just an incredibly intelligent and tasteful script. Similarly Ben Affleck's debut effort as director (er... not counting a certain short from the early 90's...) is quite excellent, showing not only the quality handling of actors which you might expect from an actor-turned-director, but a wonderful ability to use shots to their full effect, a real sense of position and narrative place, a real sort of naturalistic style. There's one wide, far-away shot late in the film, coming after an especially claustrophobic scene, which is just beautifully-shot.

The Kinzie/Gennaro novels are Lehane's attempt at hardboiled genre fiction. They usually contain more humor, more self-conscious style, and more general light-heartedness than "Gone Baby Gone" did. Lehane successfully created a hardboiled crime novel which dealt with very touchy subject matter (an investigation into the potential abduction/molestation of a child) but never felt like a genre piece unworthy of its subject matter. It never felt sensationalist, and being Ben Affleck's favorite novel it's not all that surprising that he manages to bring the same sort of sensibility to the film version of the story- it's both a tremendously effective genre piece and a powerful piece of drama. This is genuinely good, exceptionally well-acted stuff, featuring one of two excellent Casey Affleck performances from 2007.

Quarantine (2008, John Erick Dowdle)

"Quarantine" is a remake of the Spanish film "Rec", which has gained a large cult following and even plenty of critical appreciation. I unfortunately was busy during "Rec"'s only screening in my city so I went into "Quarantine" without being able to compare it to the original film. I imagine the original film is fairly similar, given that the film is shot from the perspective of a news crew, but the acting and writing may very well be quite different, and perhaps better.

I suppose it would be incorrect to call "Quarantine" a zombie movie, as the 'zombies' are still technically alive, but considering what the 'zombies' do in the movie they are still basically zombies. They bite, they groan, and do other zombie-like things. The movie opens with a news crew shooting a special on the local fire department. Late that night the department gets a call, they respond, the news crew and the firemen enter the building where there is some rabies-like disease spreading and end up trapped in there, 'quarantined' if you will. The first few scenes at the fire department have already been compared to the similarly uneventful opening scenes in "Cloverfield", but Drew Goddard's script for that film was far, far superior to this one, which is packed with stilted, unrealistic dialogue. Of course, people complained about the characters in "Cloverfield" being annoying, because they could have been real people, they talked like real people, and were annoying like most real people are, so I imagine those people will be pleased that we get CHARACTERS here. Yep, CHARACTERS defined by the character outlines. Simply not very good writing.

All that said, the first stages of the film are actually quite engaging and suspenseful, and the development of the events at the quarantined building is very intriguing, and the first few kills are pretty surprising and fun. Of course, the camera does shake quite often in "Quarantine", but other than the last half hour which sees the movie degenerate from suspenseful horror thriller to what a faithful "House of the Dead" movie might have looked like (it literally largely consists of zombies randomly appearing in front of the camera, and at one point I instinctively pressed on my coke bottle; I must have been subconsciously reminded of the experience of playing that game at arcades), with all the motion you can expect from that sort of perspective, the camera is relatively un-shaky compared to "Blair Witch" or "Cloverfield". The most relevant comparison is to "Diary of the Dead" (both zombie movies shot this way), and there's really no question that "Quarantine" is superior in almost every way imaginable to Romero's latest (disappointing) effort.

"Quarantine" gets off to a reasonable start, picks up some real momentum, then turns into a live action video game, and as everyone knows it's no fun watching others playing a video game, and the lead actress' histrionics get quite aggravating. The movie on the whole is short enough to be harmless and entertaining, but given the quality of the concept and the middle section of the film, I'm disappointed that the director and writers missed the chance to make this a genuinely chilling and claustrophobic film, and it really ends up being more an action film than a horror film.

Oh, and there's an absolutely shameful ripoff of the greatest 'jump' moment of all time from Robert Wise's 1963 film "The Haunting".

The Dark Glow of the Mountains (1984, Werner Herzog)

"The Dark Glow of the Mountains", available on DVD in a collection of some of Herzog's lesser-known documentaries and shorts, is an uneven but fascinating doc, and while it is perhaps not as good as it could have been given how it features the great mountain climber Reinhold Messner, who climbed all 14 8000 meter peaks between 1970 and 1986, and was the first to climb Mt. Everest without oxygen tanks (he used small oxygen bottles, but repeated the ascent in 1980 on a tougher route without any oxygen whatsoever), it is still a fascinating and unique sort of documentary, examining the psychology it takes to get people interested in doing this sort of thing.

It's a Herzog doc so you can expect two things right off the bat: some stunning images and some inane contrivances. Herzog made a couple of documentaries where he didn't feature such contrivances, but this is not one of them. Essentially he sets up a conversation with the subject and asks about something he thinks affected their psychology then gets the reaction from them. This may be a standard documentary technique, but Herzog most certainly scripts many of these scenes in his movies, or possibly just tells the subject what to say. It's obvious and distracting and unnecessary, as the movie itself does nothing but discuss the exact same things discussed in that conversation here, but still Herzog feels compelled to include this scene to make things ultra-obvious for the audience. For a director so often seen as an art-house favorite he sure seems like he's pandering sometimes.

In spite of that one big flaw, this is an excellently-shot and structured film, and one which provides some insight into Messner's character and psychology. It's interesting and fairly short, but I can't help feel that Herzog didn't accomplish as much as he should have done here. Still a fascinating and completely unique document.

From Russia with Love (1963, Terence Young)

"From Russia with Love" really grows on you. I didn't like it the first time I saw it, only tolerated it on my second viewing, but since have enjoyed it thoroughly on all subsequent viewings. Although I'm a bigger fan of "Dr. No" I think than many others, "From Russia with Love" is a better overall effort, mostly thanks to the sharp and witty script. This movie is funny, charming, sexy, thrilling, and fairly well-plotted, although I don't particularly care for the way it was wrapped up.

Sean Connery is a great Bond, that's not even in question, but it's so striking how especially good he is in these first two films. There's a real enthusiasm here and it feels like more than just professionalism. Likewise, Terrence Young directs the film very well, as he did with several other Bond features. The film moves at a fast pace and is never remotely boring.

I think what's impressive and different about "From Russia with Love" is that it features Bond as a spy rather than an action hero. Sure, the action here is spectacular but it's not the main focus of the film, and although Bond is not a realistic character as far as espionage fiction goes, I find the more humble and simple entries in the series to often be better.

"From Russia with Love" is the first Bond film scored by John Barry. No further comment is necessary, as Barry's Bond scores are consistently brilliant and are simply legendary, and it goes without saying that this is a major improvement over the "Dr. No" score by Monty Norman.

"From Russia with Love" is certainly one of the better Bond entries, and one that is a more focused and complete entry than most of these films. It has some problems, sure, but it's still one of the better entries even if it began the tradition of veering away from Fleming's Bond.

Sleuth (2007, Kenneth Branagh)

Calling this film a 'remake' is not only misleading, but also incorrect. Harold Pinter had never seen Anthony Shaffer's play performed or seen the classic 1972 film version directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, starring Caine and Laurence Olivier and penned by Shaffer himself. The 1972 version of "Sleuth" is an epic, 138 minute long battle of wits and egos, and is generally pretty much flawless.

2007's 86 minute long "Sleuth" is about as different as could be. Pinter wrote this script from scratch, using Shaffer's original stage script as the basis for it, and this is obvious right from the beginning. Anthony Shaffer was an immensely talented thriller writer ("Sleuth" was one of three truly great screenplays he wrote, the other two obvious standouts being "The Wicker Man" and Hitchcock's "Frenzy"), but other than using interesting subtexts, he was not exactly an intellectual writer. Pinter, on the other hand, is precisely that- an intellectual. Pinter does not write thrillers with subtext, he writes material driven almost entirely by thematic content which loosely fall in certain genres. What Pinter has done here is taken Shaffer's clever battle of wits and turned it upside down, making the dark subtext of battling male egos and perhaps even fetishism the main driving force of the film. This is a darker, more intellectual "Sleuth", one far colder than Shaffer's vision. It is distinctly Pinter's work.

The film is most interesting visually in the first half, where we are introduced to this cold, hi-tech version of the old country house we remember from the first film. The art decoration and set design in this film are simply fabulous and suit Pinter's vision perfectly. We see several shots through Wyke's surveillance equipment, establishing his cold, distant view of the world, alone in his large, empty residence. After the opening act, the film occasionally seems awkwardly-shot and I do have to question the use of the 2.35:1 screen format. It worked in the original film but this version seems to be going for a more depressing, claustrophobic feel and the width works against it, particularly as closeups become more common towards the end of the film.

I have no major qualms with Pinter's variation on Shaffer's play, but it is by no means superior. This concise and to the point version is much darker and more mean-spirited than the original play was. It starts at ugly and just gets uglier from there. Some may consider this a comedy, but there is little humor here, and the script is not too concerned with coming off as witty and dives straight into the battle of egos part, substituting ugly, straightforward insults for the witty degradation Shaffer's version had. Michael Caine and Jude Law are both excellent here, but neither are as inspired as Olivier and Caine were in the 1972 version.

I mentioned earlier that this was a darker, more intellectual "Sleuth". That is certainly true, but that does not mean that it is a better "Sleuth". This film is much more flawed than the previous film version was, and though it is a good, interesting, and different take on Shaffer's play, it doesn't measure up to the the 1972 film. On its own, as a standalone film, it is quite good, though not among 2007's best.

This Man Must Die/Que la bête meure (1969, Claude Chabrol)

Following a number of fairly mediocre efforts from the early to late sixties, Chabrol got right back on track with the excellent "Le Biches", and followed that film with "Que la bête meure", an intensely involving revenge drama with the emphasis on psychology and character over action and violence.

The film opens like any revenge thriller would (albeit probably better-shot and acted than most of them), with a child being killed in a hit and run and his father vowing to track down and kill the perpetrator. The tale slowly becomes more and more psychological, however, and ends up being a variation on a Greek tragedy, as others have noted. Chabrol is rarely content with following the expected routine (when he is his films can be dismal), and "Que la bête meure" is far from routine, as we end up spending more than an hour with the all the main characters in place and even together most of the time. The script is carefully written to avoid plot issues (outside of the contrived and silly first clue the main character gets, I can't think of any major issues I had with the script), and the dialogue is as deliberately orchestrated as Chabrol's direction is, building the suspense and drama gradually.

After the nearly continuous camera motion in "Les Biches", Chabrol takes a different approach to this film. It's less stylized and more natural, with the shot composition never feeling contrived as it sometimes did in Chabrol's immediately preceding effort, although there is some very good and very deliberate work around when we first meet the villain. Chabrol also uses close-ups to great effect, particularly in the scene late in the film with Paul and Charles on a sail boat.

What is striking about "Que la bête meure" is that while it deliberately builds suspense it also refuses to work as a thriller, and this is most clearly seen towards the end of the film when we get the standard twists but they're so subtle and low-key that one barely pays attention to them. The plot doesn't really matter here, the film is about much more, about the moral implications of revenge, about the nature of man, and it does well to apply these preoccupations to its characters so that we are never far removed from the emotions they are going through, in particular the main character Charles, played by Michel Duchaussoy.

After a string of disappointing features the last two years of the sixties saw two strong efforts from Claude Chabrol which helped keep him as relevant to cinema as he is. "Que la bête meure" is not a perfect film, and it may not even necessarily be a great film (although I think it qualifies), but it is engaging and enjoyable and far from empty. It leaves one thinking about it well after it has finished playing.

The Sinister Urge (1960, Ed Wood)

"The Sinister Urge" is proof if any was ever needed that Ed Wood was a completely and utterly inept writer and director. He does, of course, have a surprising number of fans who actually like some of his work ("Bride of the Monster", I have to admit, isn't really all that bad of a film), but "The Sinister Urge" is so chock-full of Ed Wood clichés (redundant dialogue, amazingly bad acting, and taking hypocritical preaching to a whole new level are but few of the features of this film).

I've seen "The Sinister Urge" several times in its "Mystery Science Theater 3000" version, which features some of the funniest and most seemingly random riffs in the history of that show- one scene features Mike and the bots breaking into song... but I won't spoil that for you. Tonight I watched this film without their aid and it is a prime example of complete cinematic incompetence. From start to finish the script is unbelievably bad, not even in an earnest "Plan 9" sort of way- there's only the occasional laugh here, unless you can find humor in something so pathetically horrid. Similarly, Wood is incapable of even a second of flair in his direction of the film.

There are people in this world who will tell you with a straight face that this is a fine film, an indictment of the seedy world of pornography (oh let's face it, compared to what we have going now, the porn industry in 1960 was one big huge convent). These people are absolutely, unequivocally NUTS. One only has too look at Wood's filmography to see that he had already written several smut films, including notorious early nudie Western "Revenge of the Virgins", prior to this film's release.

"The Sinister Urge" is one of the most boring, plodding, miserable excuses for a film in all of cinema. I'm not a big fan of picking on Ed Wood, to be honest, but this is proof (along with the many other films of his that aren't widely known) that Wood is an astoundingly incompetent director.