There was a time in the early 2000s when this aired fairly regularly on some cable TV channels. It's how I first came across it, though I never saw the whole movie, and I've been curious to see it ever since. Of course, this was also before I was fully aware of what Full Moon Pictures was. Now that I've watched 'Sideshow' in its entirety for the first time - well, it's safe to say this is far from a horror must-see. On at least some level it's still possible to extract some cheeky fun, but I wish it would have tried even just a little bit harder.
Naturally the chief draw is in the visuals. The makeup, prosthetics, costume design, and effects all look pretty fantastic. Full Moon isn't exactly known for high-brow or well-financed films, yet it seems clear that of everything here, the budget was at least wisely put towards the most important aspects. Less well executed are the fates that befall the characters, and the overall concept is unremarkable - but at least on paper it's a sly little romp.
The problem is that outside of the most fantastical elements, there's a definite paucity of care applied elsewhere. The production design and art direction at large seem to have been approached with a "bare minimum" mindset, and Fred Olen Ray's direction similar feels very hands-off and unbothered. The writing that stitches together the visuals into a narrative form - the dialogue, the scenes, the overall story - is as thin and flat as ancient parchment pressed under cinder blocks; I think an amateur who has never written a screenplay before could probably match if not exceed Benjamin Carr's contribution. The cast is given very little to work with beyond apparent bland descriptions of their characters, so it's hardly surprising that the acting doesn't come off well. Nor is it surprising that the acting depicting the sideshow performers is more nuanced and meaningfully spirited than that for those portraying the hapless teens. It seems like Phil Fondacaro was at least having fun in 'Sideshow,' though from an outside perspective it's just as possible that he was simply high on one illicit substance or another during filming.
In hindsight, one is better off seeing this the way I first did: incomplete, in bits and pieces, with just enough of a glimpse at the visuals to be delighted at the possibilities. Once you actually sit to watch 'Sideshow' all pretense and mystery fall away, and so do the rose-tinted glasses. This may actually have had better results if it were a silent film, for then the visuals would have been further accentuated and the meager storytelling further deemphasized. Oh well. I guess if you stumble across this it's not the worst way to spend 75 minutes, but given that all resources and effort were seemingly expended almost exclusively on the visuals, there's scant inducement to watch this except on a passing whimsy.
Naturally the chief draw is in the visuals. The makeup, prosthetics, costume design, and effects all look pretty fantastic. Full Moon isn't exactly known for high-brow or well-financed films, yet it seems clear that of everything here, the budget was at least wisely put towards the most important aspects. Less well executed are the fates that befall the characters, and the overall concept is unremarkable - but at least on paper it's a sly little romp.
The problem is that outside of the most fantastical elements, there's a definite paucity of care applied elsewhere. The production design and art direction at large seem to have been approached with a "bare minimum" mindset, and Fred Olen Ray's direction similar feels very hands-off and unbothered. The writing that stitches together the visuals into a narrative form - the dialogue, the scenes, the overall story - is as thin and flat as ancient parchment pressed under cinder blocks; I think an amateur who has never written a screenplay before could probably match if not exceed Benjamin Carr's contribution. The cast is given very little to work with beyond apparent bland descriptions of their characters, so it's hardly surprising that the acting doesn't come off well. Nor is it surprising that the acting depicting the sideshow performers is more nuanced and meaningfully spirited than that for those portraying the hapless teens. It seems like Phil Fondacaro was at least having fun in 'Sideshow,' though from an outside perspective it's just as possible that he was simply high on one illicit substance or another during filming.
In hindsight, one is better off seeing this the way I first did: incomplete, in bits and pieces, with just enough of a glimpse at the visuals to be delighted at the possibilities. Once you actually sit to watch 'Sideshow' all pretense and mystery fall away, and so do the rose-tinted glasses. This may actually have had better results if it were a silent film, for then the visuals would have been further accentuated and the meager storytelling further deemphasized. Oh well. I guess if you stumble across this it's not the worst way to spend 75 minutes, but given that all resources and effort were seemingly expended almost exclusively on the visuals, there's scant inducement to watch this except on a passing whimsy.