Cult Review
Senior Film Conservator

If you like movies that feel like a dusty book pulled off a library shelf, sure. It’s for the folks who enjoy slow-burn character studies and don't mind a bit of stiffness in the acting. If you need explosions or a snappy pace, you will absolutely hate this. It moves like molasses in January. 🐌
Georgi Zhzhyonov is carrying the whole thing on his back. You can tell he’s trying to find something human in a script that feels like it was written by a committee. There’s a scene about halfway through where he just stares out a window for what feels like five minutes. It’s weirdly hypnotic.
The pacing is… well, it’s not exactly modern. It’s closer to Eastward Ho! in terms of how it expects you to just hang out with the characters while nothing much happens. Sometimes that’s nice. Sometimes I just want them to get on with it.
There’s a moment of conflict that reminded me a little of the messy dynamics in Flesh, though they are totally different beasts. The tension here feels a bit more forced, like the director was poking the actors with a stick to make them look worried. 🤨
It’s not a masterpiece. It’s not a disaster either. It’s just a film that exists in its own little vacuum. If you find yourself on a rainy Sunday with nothing better to do, it’s a fine way to kill 90 minutes. Don't expect to remember much about the plot next week, though.
It lacks the sharp wit of Two Flaming Youths, but it has a certain earnestness. I kinda respect that. Even when it’s boring, it’s *trying* to say something. I’m just not sure it always knows what that is.
Anyway, watch it for the faces. They’ve seen some things. Or maybe they just wanted to go home and eat dinner. Hard to tell. 🤷♂️
Year
1932
IMDb Rating
—

Editorial
Deciphering the legacy of transgressive cult cinema.
Community
Log in to comment.