The Virginity Hit (2010)
★ / ★★★★
Four desperate friends (Matt Bennett, Zack Pearlman, Jacob Davich, Justin Kline) made it a tradition that they would only smoke weed using a special hookah when each of them lost their virginity. When all three but Matt finally had gone all the way, they decided they would help him out and document every step of the way. But when they found out that Nicole (Nicole Weaver), Matt’s girlfriend, had cheated on him with a frat guy, Matt and his friends had to find other means for Matt to experience his first sex. Written and directed by Huck Botko and Andrew Gurland, “The Virginity Hit” interestingly adopted a faux-documentary style but completely missed the mark. In the end, it felt like a cheap imitation of Greg Mottola’s “Superbad” and Paul Weitz’ “American Pie” but with characters who took idiocy to the next level. The crux of the movie’s so-called dramatic tension could have easily been solved with a teaspoon of intelligence. For instance, when Matt and his friends heard rumors that Nicole had been less than loyal, not one of them bothered to approach Nicole and ask her version of what happened. They immediately decided to take the cruel path. That is, pretend they knew nothing of the rumors, convince Matt to take Nicole on a date for their anniversary, have sex with Nicole for revenge, and broadcast it over the internet. The characters thought it was all fun and games. I was shocked that not one for them stood up against what was happening and express how mean-spirited it all was. There were also some “funny” scenes like the teenagers stealing from a store, breaking into people’s private properties, and other misdemeanors that could potentially land them in court to get sued or, worse, in jail. I tried to see that perhaps it wanted to comment on rampant youth and its relationship with YouTube culture. However, I didn’t feel as if the directors had full control of their material. Its in-your-face approach was its only technique. The filmmakers should have known that the ability to pull back was an essential weapon in order to highlight the positive feedback of certain videos uploaded on YouTube and people taking pleasure in watching other people’s suffering and humiliation. There was not one character to root for here. I wanted to root for Matt because he was the one who was pushed around. There were some scenes that almost portrayed him being forced to have sex just for the sake of losing his virginity. Why did they care anyway? It was none of their business. I thought it was sad and I couldn’t help but feel angry for him. I kept waiting for Matt to stand up to his friends. Even if he wasn’t successful in his attempt, I would have ended up liking him because it meant that he had a voice and he wasn’t afraid to use it. But he didn’t. Some people had their lives ruined by the things portrayed on this film. It was too bad the material failed to take that fact into account.
★ / ★★★★
I think the reason why this film gained a cult following is because of the controversy it garnered when it was released in the mid 1970’s. Depiction of homosexuality in films may have been a bigger deal back then but from today’s standards, I think this is a very weak experimental directoral feature by Derek Jarman. Sebastiane (Leonardo Treviglio), a Roman soldier, was exiled by the Emperor to a place where homoeroticism is abound. Since he refuses all sexual advances, especially from a superior officer named Severus (Barney James), most of the men torture and humiliate him in multiple ways to “encourage” him to surrender his Christian ideals and personal preferences. Despite its interesting premise, too bad the execution was lackadaisical. Throughout the entire picture, the audiences are asked to observe the lives of the exiled people as live like pigs. Although aesthetically the men may look beautiful (seductive music, slow motion and all) but I found it difficult to care for any of them. I really despised it when the camera would linger for literally about five minutes just to admire someone’s body. It’s just as bad as objectifying women and I did not like taking any part of it. Moreover, while I do give this film for being entirely in Latin, I couldn’t forgive its bad acting. I couldn’t see any passion in the actors eyes whenever they’re angry, passionate or sad. I also failed to see tension in their bodies whenever they’re supposed to be “fighting” one another. I literally caught myself rolling my eyes and thinking, “Wow, that’s so lame.” I read a review from Netflix that “this film will not appeal to everyone, especially homophobics and conservatives, but [he or she] would recommend it to those that like art house or queer cinema.” Don’t get me wrong, I do enjoy LGBT films and art house pictures once in a while but this is just one of those movies that I will (most likely) never watch again. I expected some sort of a social and cultural thesis with regards to homosexuality or the feeling of alienation where something natural is treated as abnormal but I didn’t get either. With its complete lack of depth, I’m going to say to not even bother with this supposed cult classic.
The Last House on the Left (2009)
★★ / ★★★★
I’m not going to say that this was predictable because I saw the 1972 version directed by the legendary Wes Craven. Garret Dillahunt, Riki Lindhome and Aaron Paul star as the three criminals running from the law who eventually come upon Sara Paxton and Martha MaxIsaac. After a series of numbing humiliations and assaults, with the help of Dillahunt’s son (Spencer Treat Clark), Paxton’s parents (Tony Goldwyn and Monica Potter) find out what happened to their daughter and they crave bloody vengeance. I must say that this was more thrilling the 1972 version. It was smart enough to tweak some of the details from the original to keep those who’ve seen the classic guessing. I also liked the fact that Dennis Iliadis, the director, provided some sort of backstory of Paxton’s character so the audiences will be able to sympathize with her more during the more gruesome scenes she has to go through. It has a different feel than most slasher movies coming out in 2009 because the camera tends to linger on the characters’ faces in silence to fully get the picture on how a particular character is feeling after or while going through a trial. However, what I didn’t like about it was that it’s a bit lighter than the original. Some of the implications are gone because this modern version feels like it wants to garner a wider audience. In other words, it’s more commercial in its storytelling, use of music and violence. When the credits started rolling, I asked myself whether I liked the film. The answer would be a “Yes.” But I also asked myself whether this modern interpretation of the original was necessary in the overall scope of horror cinema. The answer would be a resounding “No.” Yes, the classic may be dated but an upgrade is far from necessary. For a horror picture, this “House” has the thrills, blood and suspense but watching that gruesome rape scene again made me sick to my stomach. (But then again maybe that’s the point: To place shame on the audiences due to their willingness to pay ten bucks to see something brutal.)