Friday, May 29, 2009

80's Flix Response: Altered States


As I have mentioned in earlier posts, my brother is trying to watch the fifty top-grossing films from every year in the 80's and write about them at his blog, 100 Weeks of 80's Flix. Yesterday, he watched Altered States and I decided I would watch it as well, and then chime in with my response. I just ask that you read his take first.

#34 Altered States

Alright, I knew that this movie was going to be weird, but I was not prepared for a movie that was clearly based around the very concept of weirdness. Not only is there a completely laughable scene when the main character devolves into a monkey-man and fights with a dog, but there is a shot that spends nearly a minute zooming out to reveal a 7-eyed goat-headed man hanging crucified from a cross. On top of that, most of the scenes that weren't hallucinations contained layers of dialogue and sound that were completely unintelligible.

That being said, I did enjoy this movie. Not in spite of those things, but actually because of them. Sure, most of the special effects looked completely ridiculous by todays standards, but that's excusable. The weirdness builds a manic energy that mirrors William Hurt's character's obsession with this concept of unlocking the memories held within atoms. The plot seems completely simplistic (a scientist may be going too far!), but I believe that works to the film's advantage. You don't have to worry about following along with a complex plot while all of this insanity going on. It really allowed director Ken Russell to let loose, overwhelming the viewer's senses. You can bet that if he could have installed something that released scents in your face and various apparatus that poked and prodded you in the theater, he would have.

My Verdict
3.5 Stars
It is hard not to get caught up in this film's wake as it charges forward with little to no interest in plot or character development. Even as the film becomes laughably absurd, it is still hard not to enjoy yourself. Unfortunately, this film now seems entirely dated. The sound and visual aspects are clearly the most important parts of this film, but they do feel 29 years old at this point. I'm sure if I saw this movie in 1980 I would have been properly shocked into enjoyment.

2 comments:

  1. I knew you'd appreciate it more than I would. Pretty much the same toughts on the film, just a different overall enjoyment level.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That picture reminds me of Heath Ledger's "Joker;" creepy!

    ReplyDelete