Unmade Beds (1980) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

Between the mid 60's and the mid 80's, there was a massive amount of underground filmmaking coming out of New York and Paris, most of it incoherent nihilistic gibberish generated by guys who wanted to be Godard.

Frankly, I'm not convinced that the world needed one Godard, let alone an entire movement, but Godard had a very fine photographic eye, and so does Amos Poe, the director of this film. The film can best be described as a series of black and white photographs that move. As such, it can produce some striking images which are reminiscent of Godard's films.

Mind you now, the film is made by a guy who wants to be Godard in 1980, and the subject matter is a bunch of people who wanted to be Godard in 1959. This leads you to a film which is possibly an homage to Godard, possible derivative of Godard, and possibly a parody.  



Probably not parody, because I don't see much sign of a sense of humor, but if it isn't parody, it is a pretty good unintentional one. Do you remember how SCTV used to make fun of Bergman? Well, if SCTV wanted to make fun of Godard, what would be in the film?

  • a bunch of guys wearing sunglasses and horizontal-striped shirts, sitting around smoking cigarettes in close-up
  • obviously posed shots. Here's the cover: a guy sits in a peacock chair in his underpants and socks, smoking an unfiltered cigarette, wearing a scarf, his sunglasses tilted up to the crown of his head. Next to him, a woman in 1950's style lingerie, ala Anna Magnani in The Fugitive Kind. (By the way, the woman is Debby Harry, of Blondie fame, and she plays a character named Blondie)

DVD info from Amazon.

  • no widescreen

  • no color

  • small stills gallery

Well, that's what you have here. Homage or parody? Beats me.

Now that I think about it, Godard was probably engaged in a lifetime of irony and self-parody anyway, so parodying him would be a pretty pointless task.

The film looks pretty cool when you view the stills gallery, but it's just typical pointless rambling, which must reflect the pointless rambling of our universe, or something like that. Frankly, the great wisdom of the film must be too deep for me.

The Critics Vote

  • no reviews online

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: not enough IMDb voters to generate a score 
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 a D. I can't recommend it as a worthwhile way to pass your time. It has some very evocative and interesting photography, but cinema is, after all, more than just people posing for photographs. Or is it?

Return to the Movie House home page