anybody else have a hard time writing about stuff they actually like??? when i hate a movie i can run on here & bust out 800 words eazy but some shit like this i watch it and recommend it and think about it but cant even begin to say why - it plays like one of those grungier, artsier tromas, a prank nightmare & chemtrail anxiety blood-vomit with a sick spielberg kink & no way can i even begin to do justice in a blurb so heres some billboard ads i noticed in the background of this classic:the mummy returnsdinner with friends starring greg kinnearsnoops 2002 album paid tha cost to be tha bossdianetics! (seems normal next to everything else)miss congenialitysmiling yellow star face telly savalas (harrassed by a racist cop)DISTURBED - THE SICKNESSa pillsbury doughboy
growing up in a generation that venerates the pioneering genius of auteurs like steven spielberg and george lucas and the cinematic space they created for expertly-crafted mass entertainment made at the highest technical capacity possible, and eventually coming to the realization that what has spun itself out of their legacies has colonized the public imagination and, far from opening up a world of imagination, has restricted that imagination to a paradigm of corporate management, intellectual property and forever-franchises that get re-booted re-made and ripped-off over into eternity; instead of a million different movies as unique and interesting as star wars, we just get star wars heated up again in the microwave every decade or so, gradually drained further of its mystique and potential until nothing is left but ashes and tablescraps. damon packard laments the blockbusters that never were made by the people like himself who were never given a chance because the spielbergs and lucases of the world ensured that they would be the last american directors who would have a license to fail.
Damon Packard was a big movie fan for most of his life. For years, he would spend a lot of his time making short films, and would support himself through various odd jobs like selling watches (which his character also does in this movie). He spent a lot of time basically homeless because he'd make his shorts out-of-pocket. Eventually he'd receive a large inheritance from a deceased relative and he'd go on to make Reflections of Evil. You can see a lot of his life in this movie. You can also tell that over time he became very jaded by the movie industry, the area he lived, and perhaps even life in general, because of the themes in this movie - which could probably even be considered an antifilm. It tackles a lot of themes; some in a very exaggerated/in-your-face manner, others a bit more subtlety: consumerism, politics, chemtrails, drugs, abuse-of-power by police, and more. His reservations about L.A., the treatment of the homeless or mentally ill, and with mainstream movies, seem to be the most significant themes. In life he is even known for his negative attitude towards the movie business and has even explicitly stated that directors have limited control over their work, and that artistic vision is often sacrificed for profit, and that creativity in film basically disappeared after the end of the '70s. This movie is all Packard though. It's disturbing and strange, but also refreshing to see, especially nowadays; but, this underground film certainly won't be for everyone, I'm sure most probably wouldn't even be able to finish it, except maybe fans of experimental film. The plot is hardly discernable - like a lot of experimental film. There's some gross out factors, like, a very long vomit sequence, and revolting overconsumption of food by Bob. A lot of random vintage advertisements, and other footage edited in, dubbed Tony Curtis intro/outro. Between some of the gross out, randomness, some language, and structuring, I could easily see people losing interest. I personally found it engaging and even strangely hypnotic in some spots, and psychedelic in others. There's a lot of memorable scenes (like the amusement park ending) and some social commentary I appreciated. It's done surprisingly well for a low budget underground film, most notably the sound; which, again, could be a turn off for some. Dubbing strange and sometimes accelerated vocal tones, Packards constant yelling, flatulence, and enough disgusting exaggerated eating and slurping noises to give someone misophonia. I personally thought it all worked effectively to create the tone the director seems to associate with aspects of his country and modern cinema. The movie is almost so enveloping that you nearly feel like a mentally ill homeless person on meth or acid after watching it.A must see for fans of experimental film or antifilm. Don't know if I could recommend it to anyone else.
