Klutzy flower shop worker Seymour grows a bizarre plant to impress a pretty co-worker and save his job. Turns out the plan thrives on blood. Oh, and it talks.
Ah, Roger Corman. His films feel like twisted art experiments. But instead of trying to reinvent narrative or challenge the tropes of cinema, he tried to complete each film as quickly and cheaply as possible. There are many Corman stories. Having finished The Raven early, he shot The Terror on the same set, with the same actors, and without a script. Going on location is expensive, so why not shoot two films? The script for the second film wasn’t finished so he brought the writer along and made him a principal character.
Here, Corman had a better than fair script. It felt like a stage play adaptation, and I thought it was. The sets were reused and the actors well rehearsed therefore principle photography took only two days. That’s right, 48 hours. I like a low budget quickie maybe a bit more than the next guy, but come on Roger. You’re taking the fun out of it.
Jack Nicholson has a very small role as a masochistic dental patient. All of the performances were good if two dimensional, but it felt rushed. We could have gotten to know the Joe Friday-esque detective and the hypochondriac mother better had the pace been allowed it to breathe. Not that I would argue for a much longer version.
Overall, The Little Shop of Horror isn’t bad. Silly, rushed, and not as funny as it could be. I suppose I need to see the remake now. AMRU 2.5.
No comments:
Post a Comment