SCREEN-L Archives

June 1995, Week 1


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
David Smith <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 31 May 1995 21:55:02 +0100
text/plain (22 lines)
David Desser wrote (5/22):
>   I can't at all understand why you might be surprised that a low-budget
>genre film would be unable to make "a credible cinematic statement," or why
>you think such a statement would by unwitting or unintentional.  Have you
>not seen the brilliant ealy films of Joe Dante, John Carpenter, not to
>Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorsese?  I'm sure PUPPET MASTER is no
>DARK STAR, but why can it not have great interest in a manner both witting
>and intentional?
The kindest thing one can say about PUPPET MASTER is that is uneven. It
generates a modicum of interest but soon founders on formulaic slug-fests.
As I said before, Sutherland lent a touch of class to this otherwise unre-
markable bit of shlock. It certainly did no harm to his reputation since he
actually appeared brilliant in comparison to the general air of moronic self-
indulgence that soon pervaded the film. Still, there were interesting nuggets
there that the director and others failed to develop, and we must ask if they
even noticed the potential of those ideas.
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]