← Back to Reviews
in
Well, here it is, my 100th movie for 1972. Moving onto 1969 after this to keep up with the directors I introduced myself to for this purpose. Then I'll probably move onto a 40's or 50's year. I knew that Pink Flamingos was controversial for adult topics, and I had seen movies in that vein before, like the previous year's A Clockwork Orange (let's be honest. As soon as the MPAA's new rating system came around, Kubrick saw it as a new form of creative freedom). I went into this knowing nothing about the plot, however, and now I'm prepared.
In this first entry in John Waters' Trash Trilogy, Drag queen icon Divine plays "herself" as a criminal hiding under the name Babs Johnson, taking care of her baby-fied mother, her friend Cotton and her son, Crackers. Proud to be self-proclaimed the filthiest person alive, the title is soon up for grabs when a married couple who specialize in kidnapping and selling women challenge them. This leads to a plethora of gruesome, disgusting and supposedly riotous situations.
What in everyone's ass did I just watch? I mean, I've seen my fair share of weird movies, be them comedic ones like this or more serious ones like Jacob's Ladder or more introspective ones like Being John Malkovich. This is literally just a bunch of dicking around with no real sense of art. This is amateur filmmaking and amateur humor that Disney entendres and Dav Pilkey have shown more comedic appeal in. I mean, first of all, some of this stuff isn't "gross-out comedy." It's just gross. At least Peter Steele had the decency to blur the photo of his own anus when he used it on Type O Negative's second album's cover. I don't need to see someone opening up that thing in broad daylight. Literally any sexual scenes or the few bloody scenes involved are just rooted in being gross for gross's sake, hiding behind the excuse of "commentary" when the farthest thing I feel right now is enlightened.
Second of all, the characters just get on my nerves. They constantly do things that are supposed to be abnormal and wild, but this doesn't add to the comedic value at all. The build up to stuff like incestuous oral sex and vulgar language during these situations does literally nothing for the sex-joke lover in me. This is coming from a guy who's spent a good 10% of his adult life on "that's what she said" and "describe your sex life with a Spongebob quote." None of these people can act that well, and they spent most of the movie yelling and complaining. In fact, Edie is just so utterly annoying. I spend a lot of time online, so sometimes I'm dealing with whiny babies in adult costumes trying to act like adults and failing. I don't need whiny babies in adult costumes acting like actual whiny babies. The moment she started fake-crying like a baby, I was whispering "NO. NO. NO."
OK, so the four question method:
1: What is the goal of this film? To be an exercise in poor taste as advertised on the poster.
2: Does the film meet it's goal? Unfortunately, a bit too well.
3: What did this movie sacrifice in order to meet its goal? Easy. A focus on PLOT, GOOD ACTING, TECHNIQUE AND ACTUALLY BEING FUNNY.
4: Do other aspects of the film make up for the sacrifices? Considering that I watch a lot of weird movies all the time, I have to say no. Weirdness is literally all the movie has.
Looking through other reviews concerning its "successful attempt at parodying the filth popular at the time" and how "it's just so weird and unique," that really isn't enough for me at all. This movie's going to have its lovers and haters for the rest of eternity, and I typically love weird stuff, and I've even given weird erotic movies like Blue Velvet and Videodrome 100/100. But this is an instance where I have to join the haters on the spectrum of polarization. I will give it points for boldness and some seriously effective scenes, which was the intent. But like I already said, this is nothing but an amateur movie full of amateur actors. They say the next John Waters movie, Female Trouble, tackles some of the same themes with the same cast, and is a much better movie as well. God, I hope that's true, because now that I bothered to deal with the first movie in the thematic trilogy, I have to see the other two.
= 27
John Waters needs 2 more films to qualify for a directorial score.
Pink Flamingos
(1972) - Directed by John Waters
--------------------------------------------
Black Comedy / Gross-Out Comedy / Sex Comedy / Queer Cinema / Exploitation
-------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Black Comedy / Gross-Out Comedy / Sex Comedy / Queer Cinema / Exploitation
-------------------------------------------------
"I swear I'm gonna puke if you don't stop doing that!"
Well, here it is, my 100th movie for 1972. Moving onto 1969 after this to keep up with the directors I introduced myself to for this purpose. Then I'll probably move onto a 40's or 50's year. I knew that Pink Flamingos was controversial for adult topics, and I had seen movies in that vein before, like the previous year's A Clockwork Orange (let's be honest. As soon as the MPAA's new rating system came around, Kubrick saw it as a new form of creative freedom). I went into this knowing nothing about the plot, however, and now I'm prepared.
In this first entry in John Waters' Trash Trilogy, Drag queen icon Divine plays "herself" as a criminal hiding under the name Babs Johnson, taking care of her baby-fied mother, her friend Cotton and her son, Crackers. Proud to be self-proclaimed the filthiest person alive, the title is soon up for grabs when a married couple who specialize in kidnapping and selling women challenge them. This leads to a plethora of gruesome, disgusting and supposedly riotous situations.
What in everyone's ass did I just watch? I mean, I've seen my fair share of weird movies, be them comedic ones like this or more serious ones like Jacob's Ladder or more introspective ones like Being John Malkovich. This is literally just a bunch of dicking around with no real sense of art. This is amateur filmmaking and amateur humor that Disney entendres and Dav Pilkey have shown more comedic appeal in. I mean, first of all, some of this stuff isn't "gross-out comedy." It's just gross. At least Peter Steele had the decency to blur the photo of his own anus when he used it on Type O Negative's second album's cover. I don't need to see someone opening up that thing in broad daylight. Literally any sexual scenes or the few bloody scenes involved are just rooted in being gross for gross's sake, hiding behind the excuse of "commentary" when the farthest thing I feel right now is enlightened.
Second of all, the characters just get on my nerves. They constantly do things that are supposed to be abnormal and wild, but this doesn't add to the comedic value at all. The build up to stuff like incestuous oral sex and vulgar language during these situations does literally nothing for the sex-joke lover in me. This is coming from a guy who's spent a good 10% of his adult life on "that's what she said" and "describe your sex life with a Spongebob quote." None of these people can act that well, and they spent most of the movie yelling and complaining. In fact, Edie is just so utterly annoying. I spend a lot of time online, so sometimes I'm dealing with whiny babies in adult costumes trying to act like adults and failing. I don't need whiny babies in adult costumes acting like actual whiny babies. The moment she started fake-crying like a baby, I was whispering "NO. NO. NO."
OK, so the four question method:
1: What is the goal of this film? To be an exercise in poor taste as advertised on the poster.
2: Does the film meet it's goal? Unfortunately, a bit too well.
3: What did this movie sacrifice in order to meet its goal? Easy. A focus on PLOT, GOOD ACTING, TECHNIQUE AND ACTUALLY BEING FUNNY.
4: Do other aspects of the film make up for the sacrifices? Considering that I watch a lot of weird movies all the time, I have to say no. Weirdness is literally all the movie has.
Looking through other reviews concerning its "successful attempt at parodying the filth popular at the time" and how "it's just so weird and unique," that really isn't enough for me at all. This movie's going to have its lovers and haters for the rest of eternity, and I typically love weird stuff, and I've even given weird erotic movies like Blue Velvet and Videodrome 100/100. But this is an instance where I have to join the haters on the spectrum of polarization. I will give it points for boldness and some seriously effective scenes, which was the intent. But like I already said, this is nothing but an amateur movie full of amateur actors. They say the next John Waters movie, Female Trouble, tackles some of the same themes with the same cast, and is a much better movie as well. God, I hope that's true, because now that I bothered to deal with the first movie in the thematic trilogy, I have to see the other two.
= 27
John Waters needs 2 more films to qualify for a directorial score.