Overall Rating
  Awesome: 19.64%
Worth A Look: 10.71%
Average: 3.57%
Pretty Bad: 28.57%
Total Crap: 37.5%
3 reviews, 38 user ratings
|
|
| Cremaster 3 |
by Greg Muskewitz
"From the cycles of excessive masturbation."
|
An unending rodomontade of self-indulgence of the “arty” variety, meandering along for a slow and excruciating three hours.At least, that’s the running time listed for this experimental masturbation. (Speaking of which, the cremaster is a valve or function, from what I’ve been informed, that assists in the action of an erection, by raising the testicles. Quite a workout, indeed.) I made it a full two-hours, past the two-minute intermission, and as it had gone nowhere in that 120-minute timeframe, and wasn’t going to go anywhere in the foreseeable 60-minutes remaining, once the Indiana Jonesian protagonist (also the “writer/director” Matthew Barney) had the remnants of a smashed up car (which had been taking place since the opening frames) shoved into his mouth, thus causing his rectum or intestines, or something, to seep out from his anus and leek out his teeth amid other fluids, I took my leave. (Explanation won’t help: his teeth were knocked in in an earlier scene at a racetrack.) Most of the movie takes place inside the Chrysler Building and the Guggenheim Museum with nothing particularly relevant or linear occurring, additionally devoid of dialogue, but with the enormous vex of a screeching soundtrack and twangy, elfy song. Apparently the thing is one of a five-part out-of-order cycle, not connected in any other way aside from the director, general pretentiousness, and the other movies’ non-linearity; and from what I’ve read, the longest one in comparison is 72-minutes, with the lowest consumption of time dipping to 40-something minutes. (I did, however, discover that the feminine body that dug its way out of the dirt was supposed to be Gary Gilmore, who was featured in Cremaster 2, with Barney as Gilmore.) I’ve heard some compliments directed at its clear photography (is that the best all that money could buy?), but inspection reveals imprudent and impulsive filming, ignoring even the basest of compositional rules. The cinematography is just as slipshod as whatever is being filmed at a given moment, switched back-and-forth to, drilled over and over, incessantly, into some of the most bottomless depths of tedium. After weighing my chances of catching any of the other four during their run here in San Diego for about ten-seconds (I had never even heard of the cycle until I was in New York for a year, only during which the third one showed without my attendance), the answer was clearer than any photography seen here.[Not to be bothered with.]
 del.icio.us 
link directly to this review at http://efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=6898&reviewer=172
originally posted: 05/05/04 18:50:05
![[printer]](/images/icon/printer.gif) printer-friendly format
|
OFFICIAL SELECTION: 2003 Edinburgh Film Festival. For more in the 2003 Edinburgh Film Festival series, click here.
OFFICIAL SELECTION: 2003 Sundance Film Festival. For more in the 2003 Sundance Film Festival series, click here.
|
 |
USA
25-Apr-2003 (NR)
UK
N/A
Australia
N/A
|
|
Articles 
subscribe to this feed
![[AllPosters.com]](/images/icon/ap.gif){kind=icon}
