366 Weird Movies Investigates THE LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM (BoyScoutKevin alert)

Rev. Powell · June 09, 2009, 05:59:34 PM

Normally I don't pimp my own reviews on this site, because my site is not strictly b-movie oriented, but I think our own BoyScoutKevin would be unhappy with me if I didn't announce my review of Ken Russell's ultra-fun, tongue-in-cheek horror movie filled with phallic symbols and impaled nuns, THE LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM!

Kester Pelagius · June 10, 2009, 09:28:50 AM

Good review. Though, I have to say, over thought. It may be like the man said that the movie has suggestive "Freudian implications" but I somehow don't think they were consciously put into the movie. This is pure head cheeze. Ultra camp. So bad it's 5 Sarah Palin awesome. ;)

wtffilm · June 10, 2009, 04:13:47 PM

Quote from: Rev. Powell on June 09, 2009, 05:59:34 PM
Normally I don't pimp my own reviews on this site, because my site is not strictly b-movie oriented . . .

I didn't even know you had a site, so thanks for posting this! Consider yourself linked.

Kindest regards,

Kevin P.
http://www.wtf-film.com / http://www.colemanfrancis.com

Rev. Powell · June 10, 2009, 09:01:52 PM

Kester: I really do think Russell put all that Freudian stuff in on purpose. He really seems to enjoy showing off his "book learning" in his movies. The difference with this one, IMO, is he kept it in the background and didn't let it get in the way of telling a fun story.

Kevin: Thanks, I have been slow on networking, but I will link you back.

Kester Pelagius · June 12, 2009, 09:48:28 AM

It's all in the Eye of the Beholder, my friend. Yep, it's all in the Eye of the Beholder.

Rev. Powell · June 12, 2009, 11:07:12 AM

Quote from: Kester Pelagius on June 12, 2009, 09:48:28 AM
It's all in the Eye of the Beholder, my friend. Yep, it's all in the Eye of the Beholder.

Wow, that's quite an honor! I posted a clarification of the review on your article. When I wrote that the film occasionally veers towards pornography, I was thinking specifically of the nun-rape sequence. Also, a lot of my readers are art film rather than B-movie fans, and I suspect they may be quicker to label something pornographic than we are.

BoyScoutKevin · July 02, 2009, 04:20:16 PM

That you, Rev. This is Kev. Thanks for heads up, but I've already seen the review and posted my comments. Of course, the comments are moderated, and I haven't been back to see whether they were accepted. But . . . I might as well post here, some of what I posted there.

This is not a knock on Andrew's review of the film, which I enjoyed, but that is the best review of the film, I've ever seen.

As something of a film review contrarian, I'd like to say there was something I could disagree with, but I can't. I agree with everything that is in the review.

And no, I don't think the film is "overthought." Of course, this comes from someone who has also been accused of overthinking films, as well.

I was going to ask what was borderline pornographic about the film, but I see that question has been answered.

Anyways, I look forward to more reviews from you at that website, and, of course, I always enjoy Andrew's reviews at this website.

Rev. Powell · July 02, 2009, 09:22:17 PM

Quote from: BoyScoutKevin on July 02, 2009, 04:20:16 PM
That you, Rev. This is Kev. Thanks for heads up, but I've already seen the review and posted my comments. Of course, the comments are moderated, and I haven't been back to see whether they were accepted. But . . . I might as well post here, some of what I posted there.

This is not a knock on Andrew's review of the film, which I enjoyed, but that is the best review of the film, I've ever seen.

As something of a film review contrarian, I'd like to say there was something I could disagree with, but I can't. I agree with everything that is in the review.

And no, I don't think the film is "overthought." Of course, this comes from someone who has also been accused of overthinking films, as well.

I was going to ask what was borderline pornographic about the film, but I see that question has been answered.

Anyways, I look forward to more reviews from you at that website, and, of course, I always enjoy Andrew's reviews at this website.

Your comment was approved, and I commented back on it, since you asked about plot holes--I mentioned that I didn't think of any that weren't mentioned on the fansite. The one that bothered me the most was that no one seemed to have heard of Lady Marsh, and the ones that knew her didn't notice she never aged. But the plot holes didn't bother me in this type of movie, they're part of the devil-may-care charm.

Thanks for the compliment, but in defense of Andrew's review (not that he needs me defending him): 1. It was written "a long time ago", and you'll notice he has grown quite a bit as a reviewer since the early days. 2. Andrew is a humorist, I take a serious approach. Comparing those types of reviews is like comparing apples and oranges.