bregund Like all character actors, you don't know her name but you've seen her face a million times, and here she shines as the owner of a seedy hotel filled with an assortment of weirdos. I found myself wishing that the film were funnier or edgier like a true black comedy, but it is Paul Bartel's first film and overall it's pretty effective. I kind of wanted Cheryl and George to get together, so it's a letdown when you learn that it's just not going to happen, for reasons that are too bizarre to write down; just watch the film, you'll see what I mean. As far as the rest of the film is concerned, there are some details that are so specific that they must have come from someone's real-life experiences, so in that respect there is a lot of authenticity here; Bartel manages to build a fully-functioning world, not as effectively as John Waters, but it's here nonetheless. It's an entertaining ride, and predictable in parts, but it's a step up from a B movie.

Predrag "Private Parts" tells the story of the runaway teen Cheryl Stratton (Ayn Ruymen) and her stay in her aunt's shady San Francisco hotel. Cheryl's story is not one of those pleasant coming of age films knee deep in moral values or road movies that enlightens the viewer about the importance of the journey. No, director Paul Bartel, in his first feature, has something completely different in mind, as he presents an extraordinarily bizarre tale of voyeurism, sexuality, and passionate murder. The voyeuristically loaded opening credits apply camera flashes and exposed body parts, which cue the audience in the direction of the story's sexual nature. The subsequent scene presents the sexual nature of the film in a much more tangible manner, as Cheryl sneaks a look at her friend and her boyfriend. However, Cheryl finds herself caught peeping. It places her in an awkward situation, which she avoids by leaving after she has stolen her friend's money. Here "Private Parts" pays homage to "Psycho (1960)" with similarities such as having a girl with stolen money seeking room and board at a hotel. Additional parallels to "Psycho" emerge as the film unfolds; for example, there is an intriguing bathroom scene.This was a very odd movie, and I really enjoyed it. The story may not be all that unique, but it's told with flair, originality, and a dark, comic undertone that kept me interested throughout (the seediness and squalor of the characters quickly overshadows that of the hotel and its surroundings). The really interesting aspect for me was how, as the movie started, it just seemed a series of loosely connected events and strange details not really leading anywhere, but later on I began to realize this wasn't the case, as there was a sly subtly in the hinting of the material in terms of the various relationships and past occurrences with the hotel and its residents. Bartel made a number of films, some of them not so great, but when he's working with material that suits him, as is the case here, wonderfully tacky things ensue.Overall rating: 7 out of 10.

runamokprods Both an unsettling horror film, and a very dark comedy, this is my favorite Paul Bartel film.Avoiding the sometimes too overt self-congratulatory humor of "Eating Raoul", this story of a "nice" young girl who comes to stay at her aunt"s creepy hotel, only to be surrounded by all sorts of disturbingly depraved types frequently leaves you both laughing and cringing (in a good way) at the same time. Only the less than stellar (in fact sometimes near porn film level) acting keeps this from being a classic of disquieting, semi-surreal cinema. But there are scenes and images that stick with me, and Bartel creates a lot of atmosphere with his use of music, compositions, and light.

Polaris_DiB This is a bizarre one. Somewhere in here is a very disturbing, very good movie. The traces of it are so strong, it must have just left the room, and it's almost as though if we hurried we could catch it. But we got distracted in this room full of perversities that we're stuck here only with a sickening sensation deep in our stomach. In other words, I can't really tell if this movie was successful at what it was trying to do or not. The back of the DVD box promised "camp", but there's something different going on here.Basically, this movie fits smack-dab in the middle of Psycho and Peeping Tom conceptually. A sexually frustrated young woman, escaping from her abusive roommate, goes to stay in her aunt's hotel. This hotel is filled with various unsettling characters, including a gay priest, a half-dead alcoholic, and a obsessed photographer. It's a Wonderland without an Alice--and quite literally, a character named Alice is alluded to, a woman who inhabited the hotel but is already dead. Without Alice we're given Cheryl as our protagonist, but herein lies a problem: Cheryl is just about as insane and perverse as the other people in the hotel are, meaning there's very little real sanity to be gleaned from this movie.Now, there's this whole theory about storytelling that says you can only have a sane person in insane situations or insane person in sane situations, but not both. I'm not too sure I really agree with that philosophy, but this movie makes a good case-study for comparison. The thing is, Cheryl is a believable character by all means--remember that one woman who married the stalker who almost killed her? These things do happen. But she's NOT relatable, and so its hard to really understand what we're supposed to get from this movie. Her relationship with George is disturbing, sure, but to what purpose? And I'm not really getting the point of the transgendered twist.I think the filmmakers had watched precisely those movies Psycho and Peeping Tom, along with other sexploitation and horror movies of the time, and decided to make their own exploration into sexual anxiety. However, I'm not entirely sure what they were to have discovered and revealed, here. There is, however, the lingering sensation that they were attempting SOMETHING. At any rate, neither am I too sure I want to know what that is, either.--PolarisDiB