Fatal Frames (1996) from Tuna
Fatal Frames (1996) is now my choice for the worst human experience containing photography or characters.

I really tried to watch it, but, after the first 30 minutes, I had to fast forward through it for the exposure. An American director is brought to Rome to make a rock video for Stefania Stella (played by Stefania Stella). At the same time, someone is making snuff films, and all of the victims are women known to the American. Stella speaks in very broken English, but that is only a minor distraction compared to trying to follow the plot, and the real low point of the film is the photography.

We have about four "styles" of lighting/photography:
  • Hand held blue
  • Hand held orange
  • Hand held grainy B&W
  • Oversaturated color

NUDITY REPORT
Stefania Stella was seen "naked" (breasts and buns) in a blue filtered sex scene, but she is wearing thong underwear!
I could see no pattern to the choices of lighting, other than the snuff stuff was in grainy B&W, and was very graphic. The killer Ginzues the women with a machete. I can think of absolutely nothing good to say about this film.

DVD info from Amazon.

  • Widescreen

  • no features
Scoop's notes:

This movie was nominated as "best picture" in the International Fantasy Film Award at Fantasporto. It was narrowly edged out by David Fincher's "Se7en". Also nominated was "Lawnmower Man 2". Man, Fincher was lucky to pull that one out, eh?

Actually, there were some other pretty good films screened. The best actor and actress, for example, were Rupert Everett and Helena Bonham Carter. I guess they just had a very eclectic selection.

I wonder if the director of this film demanded a recount. If not for those dimpled chads, he could have taken Fincher down.

The Critics Vote

  • no reviews online

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it a dismal 2.8, and that's overrated.
IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is an F.

Return to the Movie House home page