|
 Some of the
taglines for this movie crack me up. The older copy at the skeezy video
rental place in town had a cover that read “You don't have to go to
Texas for a chainsaw massacre!” That left me giggling in the aisles
with sadistic glee every time I saw it. The newer copy of this movie,
all cleaned up and posing as a presentable piece of filmmaking history,
has a cover that reads: “Pieces...it's exactly what you think it is.”
For my purposes, that tagline is more
telling (though not quite as clever) because this movie is, indeed,
everything you think it's going to be and more, and if you know what I'm
talking about and that interests you, then you should watch this movie
immediately. All others should stay away.
I mentioned the second tagline of this movie, listed above, to my friend
once, and he said “Well that doesn't help you if you don't know anything
about the movie and you don't know what you think it is.” Yes, dear sir,
you are correct. Someone coming into this movie “blind” as in having no
previous knowledge of what the movie were about, will be at a
disadvantage (if they were actually physically blind, they'd have an
advantage, because they wouldn't have to see the horrible acting, though
they'd still have to hear the horrible dialogue). I mean that. This
movie might have horrible acting and dialogue, and someone with no
knowledge of what this movie was about or how it fit into a sleazy
little niche in film history won't find much to enjoy here, but we the
degenerates see a movie cover with a bloody, half-naked woman and a
tagline that reads “it's exactly what you think it is” and we know we're
in for a treat.
This movie was made for about five dollars (ok, it was probably more
than that, but not much more, methinks) with a largely unknown cast, by
director Juan Piquer Simón. His dirty fingerprints are all over this
film, and I love it. He knew how to make some grade A sleaze! This
movie pays lip service to credibility at some points, but at other
times, it dances out in left field, and we love it for that. At one
point, an Asian character randomly appears on the street and starts
doing kung-fu moves for no apparent reason. It's a classic WTF moment
that happened because the actor was in some of the producer's other
cheaply made kung-fu movies, and apparently he was available that day
for filming, so why not use him? It's this kind of laissez-faire
attitude toward plot and storyline and acting that make watching this
movie so much fun. Have an actor lying around who knows some kung-fu
moves? Put him in the movie. Why not? Who cares about the plot!
Let's have fun!
|
I only mention the above
incident because it's indicative of the kind of movie we're
watching here. “Pieces” isn't supposed to be some deep,
meaningful commentary on the state of society (though the
ending does seem to be attempting to get some kind of
message across and I'm sure someone somewhere wants to write
a Master's dissertation on how “Pieces” relates to the rise
of the early feminist movement or some such bullshit).
“Pieces” is a movie about nudity, sleaze, tits, and
over-the-top gore. That's it. If you're looking for an art
film, go elsewhere. |
|
 |
The acting in this movie is so atrocious
that were this movie not to unintentionally enjoyable in other ways, I
would have turned it off immediately. Well, I guess that's not true,
the little kid in the
beginning is ok, but other than that, it's amateur night at the acting
class kids, so don't expect too much. Speaking of the opening sequence,
you've gotta love how the mother in the opening is talking on a
push-button phone even though the prologue is set in 1942. And how she
asks her son to get her a plastic trash bag, even though they weren't
invented yet at this point in history. If that doesn't tell you what
kind of movie you're watching (and the title and cover of the film
didn't do the trick already) then you're probably not going to enjoy the
experience. I, on the other hand, was laughing my ass off (and
thinking, “cool, he decapitated her and put her head in the closet!”)
Likewise, when Linda Day-George, playing the most unconvincing cop in
film history, shrieks melodramatically after finding a mutilated victim
in a bathroom stall, I was too busy thinking “Cool! He sawed a chick in
half!” to be bothered by the horrible performance on display.
Actually, as terrible as this movie is in every other aspect, the
special effects are pretty cool. There are a few horrible editing
mishaps to be found throughout the film (water bed massacre, anyone?)
but other than that, this movie has some cool, grisly grue on display.
The aforementioned decapitation, though cheesy, is pretty spiffy. The
“girl sawed in half” sequence is bloody and nasty. Who hasn't wanted to
see a girl get sawed in half? Let's be honest, magicians who promise to
perform this feat are playing into our baser instincts and they never
really deliver, but this movie shows us something icky that we all want
to see (or I presume we do, if we rent the movie... if you rent it by
mistake and don't actually want to see anyone get sawed in half, I would
assume you would see some of the atrocious acting on display, realize
your mistake, and turn off the movie before this happens). I'm told
that the “saw the girl in half” effect was accomplished through use of a
pig carcass, and if so, the pig did not die in vain, as this is one of
the highlights of the film (and indeed one of the best gore effects I've
ever seen in any movie). That's about it. The acting is horrible, the
gore is awesome, the script is unintentionally hilarious, and the ending
is brutal and nasty. If this sounds like your cup of tea, then drink
up.
Everything about this movie is bad. Haven't you been listening?
Don't watch it. Go do something productive instead, like balancing
your checkbook or scrubbing your toilet.
It's exactly what you think it is.
|
