Thundercrack! (1975) 158m
The credits begin, as promised by the film's title, with thunderbolts lighting up spooky tree branches and an old mansion on a rainy night; although in fact we're looking at camera flashbulbs, a watering can, a drawing of a house, and a twig. Independent San Francisco film-maker George Kuchar must have been thought he was dreaming when he was given the opportunity to not only write but also star in this two-and-a-half hour epic directed by Curt McDowell. Sure, the budget of THUNDERCRACK! is low, but at least it had a budget, which was a quantum leap from the 8mm home movies that somehow got Kuchar onto film society programmes.
The backbone of the story is simple enough – diverse characters take shelter from a storm in a mysterious old house and have kinky encounters with each other – but, figuring that this was his chance to shoot the works, Kuchar throws in just about every lapse of taste he can. In the tradition of most Southern Gothic, the characters all have secrets and repressed memories which spill out into the open and set them against each other. Kuchar gives himself the plum role as an agitated animal trainer, turning up late in the piece to put in place the last outrageous subplot. What sets THUNDERCRACK! apart from other fringe cinema is its cross-pollination of black comedy, melodrama, spoof, and hardcore pornography. It is that last category that gets the most attention which is why, despite only containing 15-20 minutes of sex, THUNDERCRACK! will be forever tagged as an odd porno movie. There have been arthouse efforts, considerably more polished than Kuchar's opus, that have attempted to incorporate actual sex into legitimate films, but their attempts to 'casually' drop these scenes into the narrative don't really work because we know about them beforehand and spend the non-pornographic sections of the movie anticipating them.
I think that THUNDERCRACK! succeeds where these other more 'significant' films fail (you can't convince me that any such highbrow film isn't exploitation at heart) because everything in it is so patchy and off-the-wall that the sex scenes, though surprising at first, become just another part of the overall weirdness. On any level other than 'underground' or 'cult', however, it's far less successful. I admire Kuchar and McDowell for reaching so obviously above their means – THUNDERCRACK! has an unexpected sense of conviction – but the fact is that this is a film that's more famous for being made than it is for being good. The actors are all novices (Marion Eaton simpers her way through most of the dialogue as a faded Southern Belle with stick-on eyebrows), the sets are claustrophobic (generally there are only three walls in each room), and the score, which features a chord-pounding piano, wears out its welcome long before the end. I'm not a fan of Kuchar's work, but I like him in THUNDERCRACK!. His carefree, comedic tone manages to keep it enjoyable, although at 158 minutes it's not an easy watch for those who are uninitiated with alternative indie pictures and more than likely the kind of thing that Trash collectors like to put on the TV just to see the reaction of their friends. Speaking of which: I haven't read any trivia books about the hit TV series FRIENDS, but I'd like to know who came up with the name 'Chandler Bing' for one of its characters, given that two of the characters in this movie are named Chandler and Bing. Coincidence? Probably no more than one of the producers of the film bearing the handle John Thomas.
sburridge@hotmail.com
========== X-RAMR-ID: 34183 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 846044 X-RT-TitleID: 10002402 X-RT-AuthorID: 1305
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews