In yesterday's New York Daily News, as a tie-in to the Dukes of Hazzard movie, there was
an article about a film genre the writer referred to as "trash movies", as he believes this
is how the Dukes movie will be regarded. Based on his selections, I would say that his
"trash" is what many others have referred to as "camp" or "so-bad-they're-good." Most
of the usual suspects were mentioned: Valley of the Dolls, Caligula, Mommie Dearest,
Showgirls, Striptease.
But there was one movie among them that struck me as a curious choice: Q, directed
by Larry Cohen. First of all, I was surprised because all those other films were big-
budget, studio films with high expectations, presumably made with the best of in-
tentions. On the other hand, I believe Q is a low-budget horror movie that probably
never got much of a wide release and, to this day, has probably been unseen by a
large percentage of filmgoers.
The other thing that baffles me is, though I've never seen Q, I've heard and read
only positive things about it. In fact, I took a class in college called Sociology of
Film, and our textbook had high praise for Larry Cohen's films, especially It's Alive,
God Told Me To and The Stuff. He was described as a smart, provocative film-
maker working in a genre not usually taken very seriously, but he and his films
deserved a great deal of respect.
So, can anyone weigh in? Has Q been done a disservice by being lumped in with
those other movies? Is it worth seeing? Whatever happened to Larry Cohen?
I appreciate any forthcoming comments.
I forgot to mention the backhanded compliment given to the great Michael
Moriarity in this article. It said, if ever awards were given out for great over-
the-top performances in cheesy horror movies, he would've easily won. A
little snarky, no? There's another question: Where has Moriarty been? The
last time I saw him was playing James Dean's father. Anything since? Thanks.
an article about a film genre the writer referred to as "trash movies", as he believes this
is how the Dukes movie will be regarded. Based on his selections, I would say that his
"trash" is what many others have referred to as "camp" or "so-bad-they're-good." Most
of the usual suspects were mentioned: Valley of the Dolls, Caligula, Mommie Dearest,
Showgirls, Striptease.
But there was one movie among them that struck me as a curious choice: Q, directed
by Larry Cohen. First of all, I was surprised because all those other films were big-
budget, studio films with high expectations, presumably made with the best of in-
tentions. On the other hand, I believe Q is a low-budget horror movie that probably
never got much of a wide release and, to this day, has probably been unseen by a
large percentage of filmgoers.
The other thing that baffles me is, though I've never seen Q, I've heard and read
only positive things about it. In fact, I took a class in college called Sociology of
Film, and our textbook had high praise for Larry Cohen's films, especially It's Alive,
God Told Me To and The Stuff. He was described as a smart, provocative film-
maker working in a genre not usually taken very seriously, but he and his films
deserved a great deal of respect.
So, can anyone weigh in? Has Q been done a disservice by being lumped in with
those other movies? Is it worth seeing? Whatever happened to Larry Cohen?
I appreciate any forthcoming comments.
I forgot to mention the backhanded compliment given to the great Michael
Moriarity in this article. It said, if ever awards were given out for great over-
the-top performances in cheesy horror movies, he would've easily won. A
little snarky, no? There's another question: Where has Moriarty been? The
last time I saw him was playing James Dean's father. Anything since? Thanks.
