A young man’s presence is repeatedly requested at the arranged time.
POD 366, EP. 112: LOVE ONE MUTANT INFLATABLE SUMMER SEX DOLL AFTER ANOTHER
366 Weird Movies may earn commissions from purchases made through product links.
Discussed in this episode:
Inflatable Sex Doll of the Wastelands (1967): A hit man seeks revenge on the gangster who killed his girlfriend in this dreamlike pinku noir. If the trailer gives you Branded to Kill vibes, good call: the director of this one was a co-writer of that one. Pre-order Inflatable Sex Doll of the Wastelands from Deaf Crocodile.
Love Me (2024): Read Gregory J. Smalley’s review. The strange post-apocalyptic romance between a smart buoy and a satellite comes to Blu-ray. Buy Love Me.
Mutant Aliens (2001): A lesser-known (but typically strange) Bill Plympton animation is a sexy tribute to alien invasion films of the 1950s. The Blu-ray includes two classic Plymptoon shorts, “Hot Dog” and “The Cow Who Wanted To Be A Hamburger.” Pre-order Mutant Aliens from Deaf Crocodile.
One Battle After Another (Fall 2025): It is almost impossible to believe that Paul Thomas Anderson could convince Warner Brothers to back another Thomas Pynchon adaptation (the story comes from “Vineland”) after Inherent Vice (brilliant as it was) flopped mightily in theaters; perhaps that’s why the promo material says it’s “loosely” based on Pynchon. We shall see how much postmodern absurdism finds its way into the final product, but we have to confess we’ll be watching it in any case. Variety has written a couple of articles about this one; here’s the latest.
Summer Wars (2009): Read Gregory J. Smalley’s review. This 4K UHD steelbook of the virtual reality-themed anime from Shout! Factory is (currently?) an Amazon exclusive. Buy Summer Wars.
WHAT’S IN THE PIPELINE: No guest officially scheduled for Pod 366 next week, but Greg and Giles will return with more discussion of the week’s weird news and releases. In written reviews, Shane Wilson will review the Japanese black comedy Monday (2000) on Monday, Enar Clarke joins Radley Metzger in The Lickerish Quartet (1970) on Tuesday, Giles Edwards spends his Wednesday rebuking Greg over his blindness towards Tommy (1975), and Gregory J. Smalley himself falls into an Omni Loop (2024) on Thursday. Onward and weirdward!
55*. IN FABRIC (2018)
366 Weird Movies may earn commissions from purchases made through product links.
“Nothing attracts attention like a little red dress.”–Laura Bush
DIRECTED BY: Peter Strickland
FEATURING: Marianne Jean-Baptiste, Fatma Mohamed, Leo Bill, Hayley Squires, Julian Barratt, Steve Oram, Richard Bremmer, Jaygann Ayeh, Gwendoline Christie

PLOT: Sheila, a divorced bank teller, gets ready for her first newly single dating experience by visiting the local department store and splurging on a red dress; a series of unusual, life-threatening occurrences ensue, all seemingly related to the dress. While attempting to return the outfit to the store, she learns that the model who wore the dress for a promotional catalogue was later killed in a traffic accident. Later, the frock finds its way to meek appliance repairman Reg and then his assertive fiancée Babs, both of whom have strange encounters with a mysterious sales clerk and a pair of inappropriately nosy bank managers.
BACKGROUND:
- In Fabric was Strickland’s fourth narrative feature. We have previously reviewed two of those, The Duke of Burgundy and Berberian Sound Studio, as well as the follow-up, Flux Gourmet. Mohamed has appeared in all of his movies.
- An early draft of the script featured six people receiving the fateful dress and facing the consequences. Strickland realized this would require a six-hour film to give each character their due. In order to secure studio support, he trimmed the screenplay accordingly.
- The setting of Thames-Valley-upon-Thames is modeled after Strickland’s hometown of Reading. The fictional Dentley and Soper’s department store was inspired by Jacksons, a Reading retail mainstay for more than 130 years until it closed in 2013.
- Winner of the 2019 Méliès d’Or, awarded for outstanding achievement in European science fiction, fantasy, and horror films.
INDELIBLE IMAGE: Strickland successfully dodges the silliness factor associated with trying to showcase a demon-possessed piece of clothing. As it flutters in the rafters, creeps under doors, and swirls about in erotic delight, the dress reads as dramatic rather than laughable. But when it comes to outrageousness, the garment takes a back seat to the craziness going on at the store that sold it. After the doors close for the evening, the saleswomen begin the delicate process of bringing the mannequins to the back of the house, removing the clothes, and gently bathing the dummies with sponges and tongues. The intensity ramps up as the fake human is revealed to have a very realistic pubic mound, and eventually it begins to menstruate. It’s a sight that moves the proprietor to indulge in full self-gratification. One does wonder what goes on in the store’s sporting goods department.
TWO WEIRD THINGS: Prepping the mannequin; the erotic power of washing machine maintenance
WHAT MAKES IT WEIRD: We are always up for a movie about a homicidal haunted object. A haunted house, a haunted bed, even a haunted tire have all earned a spot in our august halls. (Haunted bulldozers and motorcycles, not so much.) So a haunted dress is totally welcome to join the party, but it has to bring something extra. In Fabric delivers two such elements. One is the bizarrely creepy department store that is a portal to hell, watching over its customers with an attitude that is both patronizing and carnivorous. The other is an earnest sympathy toward its characters, neither of whom have class privilege or easy socialization, and who turn to retail to give them a lift. In Fabric knows that these are decent folks looking for a break, and turns their exploitation by retail and advertising into a horror show.
Original trailer for In Fabric
COMMENTS: Sheila could use a win. Her ex-husband has taken up Continue reading 55*. IN FABRIC (2018)
CAPSULE: ARCANA (1972)
366 Weird Movies may earn commissions from purchases made through product links.
DIRECTED BY: Giulio Questi
FEATURING: Lucia Bosé, Maurizio Degli Esposti, Tina Aumont
PLOT: An enterprising widow and her son try to make their living practicing witchcraft.

COMMENTS: Arcana begins with a message “[t]o the spectators: this movie is not a story, but a game of cards. Both the beginning and the ending are not to be believed. You are the players. Play well and you will win.”
We open onto a busy city street; a figure emerges from a manhole cover then a group of men quickly construct a blanket fort around the hole, in which they all huddle together to observe the passers-by. I won’t spoil the ending (unbelievable as it is), because seeking out this unique movie proves to be worth the effort.
For all intents and purposes, Arcana is basically a lost film. After distributing only five prints, the production company went bankrupt and the film never made it into theaters in any major cities. Attempts to find a workable print for restoration have so far been unsuccessful. At the end of his life, even Questi himself was apparently trying to locate a copy. It’s a real shame, as Arcana reveals the obscure auteur in fine form, working again with frequent collaborator, editor and co-writer Franco ‘Kim’ Arcalli. There’s donkey levitation, frog regurgitation, and Questi’s trademark obsession with chickens and eggs, but this isn’t your typical Satanic horror film. The narrative unfolds in two parts, but as we’ve been warned, the beginning and the end are not to be believed. Is there a middle? What does it all mean? Let’s consult the cards, shall we?
Imagine I’m handing you a tarot deck – shuffle the cards thoroughly, then cut the deck into thirds. First we’ll examine the card to my left, representing the past: Death, a skeletal figure brandishing a scythe. A man known only as Tarantino has died, leaving behind his wife and son in straightened financial circumstances. Vague insinuations imply he may have been the victim of a bizarre scam. His widow (Bosé) never confirms nor denies this. She simply complains of how he left them in poverty and declares the pension checks hardly worth claiming.
The middle card reveals to us the present: mother and son riding The Wheel of Fortune, eking out their living in what at first appears as a phony psychic con, a la Nightmare Alley. Mrs. Tarantino desperately seeks wealthy clients to pay top dollar for their new-age therapy. Her son (Degli Esposti), a young man in his late teens or early twenties, grows increasingly disgusted with both his mother’s money-grubbing ways and the petty pathetic lives of their clients. He possesses actual psychic ability, but completely lacks compassion and pity. Mother agree that many of their clients are unpleasant and stupid people, but they’re also rich, so she begs her son not to frighten them away.
As the film progresses, various seekers of arcane advice consult with Mrs. Tarantino in a series of subtly surreal scenes. Red velvet curtains surround her psychic parlor, aglow with crimson lampshades in what would today be called a “Lynchian” style. The son continues to rebel against her, interfering in their client’s lives in ever more disturbing and intrusive ways. His mother repeatedly warns him that he risks the wrath of Hell, but part one ends with a violent confrontation in which the son demands his mother reveal all her secret wisdom.
A classic Arcalli montage follows, an extended dialogue-free trance in which the mother dances with a multi-generational family all solemnly dressed in black. They move from side-to-side in unison, in slow shuffling steps, to the mesmerizing tune of a lone fiddler traversing a landscape of barren dunes. Elsewhere curious onlookers watch men with a rope pulley hoisting a donkey onto the roof of a church.
And now, the card to my right, a possible future: The Tower, a teetering structure ready to topple. Groups of armed soldiers roam the city arresting people at random. Subway laborers revolt over unsafe work conditions. An overbearing patriarch concerned with the respectability of his family, wakes in the middle of the night to find his relatives all making out with each other while the grandmother feeds upon the baby’s blood. “We make a good team,” the son tells his mother after orchestrating this last escapade, “they’re all scared shitless.” She laughs in reply.
As the two leads, Bosé and Degli Esposito both give equally intense performances despite the threadbare storyline. Aumont, as their gullible client, harbors a secret she’s afraid her fiancé will discover. As she demands to know what will happen in her future, Mrs. Tarantino becomes more and more reluctant to tell her. Her entanglement with both mother and son soon leads to tragedy.
So, what does all this Arcana mean? Have we played the game well? We may not believe in the beginning or the end, though they both present more gritty realism than the surreally fanciful middle. Or perhaps, as the mother tells the nervous young bride, there is nothing more the cards can tell us. Re-shuffle them and return them to their box, for we should prefer not to know everything.
WHAT THE CRITICS SAY:
CAPSULE: TOMMY (2017)
366 Weird Movies may earn commissions from purchases made through product links.

DIRECTED BY: Jordan Stowe-Merritt
FEATURING: Emma Hallinan, Marcel Jortzik
PLOT: A parent mourns the loss of her pinball-playing son—but has the kid returned as a ghost?

WHY IT WON’T JOIN THE APOCRYPHA: We had retired this section explaining why individual movies wouldn’t make the List after we completed the first 366 entries, but Tommy stirs us to revive it. What in the world are our readers thinking in constantly promoting this pedestrian British hokum for inclusion on our sacred List? Are you all a bunch of idiots who just don’t get the mission of this site? Our own correspondent even stated that Tommy was “like something out of a bad acid flashback” with a “non-stop assault of insane imagery” resulting in a film that was “bizarre to the point of self-parody.” I’d like to know what the hell movie he was watching! These complaints are not to impugn the movie itself, which is well-enough-acted and shot (if way too short for a feature presentation)—but it’s nowhere close to one of the weirdest films of all time.
COMMENTS: In 1969, the cacophonous British rock and roll band the Who dropped a double-album-length “rock opera” about a messianic deaf, dumb and blind kid who could miraculously play pinball. In 2017, a team of fellow Brits dumped this faithless adaptation in which (spoiler alert) you never even see the title character. That’s right, apparently this revisionist version of Tommy takes place after the deaf, dumb and blind kid has turned into a dead, dumb and blind kid. And there is no pinball in the film whatsoever! It comes from a no-name director and is performed by a (capable) cast of unknowns, but with no cameos from the Who or “rock ‘n’ roll” celebrities (which would have been a great idea.)
Instead, this time the story focuses on a couple who are grieving the death of the woman’s son in a new house that may be haunted. It’s a cut-rate affair, with just two main actors, two main locations, and no vintage pinball machines in sight—they obviously blew their entire budget just getting the rights to the IP. And, at about 20 minutes in length, it’s actually less than a third of the length of the original album. There’s not even much weirdness to be found. Sure, there’s a de rigueur ambiguous horror movie ending that saves you the trouble of having to spend money on a spectral special effect. And there’s the fact that the couple here buy their bananas in bag form (thanks to sharp-eyed YouTube commenter grilledcheese2084 for picking up on this and commenting “WTF, who buys bagged bananas?”) An even more subtle dollop of surrealism occurs after Ryan leaves the pub and races home to check on Lucy: if you look closely, you’ll notice that he’s driving on the left side of the road. This was probably accomplished by reversing the film in post, but however they did it, it adds a subtle note of unease that was desperately needed.
And, of course, Tommy‘s weirdest choice is to use none of the Who’s original music at all. A bold gambit, for sure, but one I can’t say I entirely agree with.
Still, despite those meager surrealist touches, the entire thing is a slapdash slap in the face to Who fans. Who can believe Pete Townshed and Roger Daltrey (who made such an impression as Franz Liszt) would have allowed their psychedelic phantasmagoria to be turned into what is little more than a YouTube short, a “Tommy” adaptation in name only? The pinballcentric material is inherently strange enough that it could have produced a really weird movie, in the right hands. Maybe Hollywood can do a proper reboot someday? I’m not sure who would be capable of helming such an effort; the late Ken Russell would have been perfect. But as it stands, this Tommy is not only deaf, dumb and blind—but also lame.
Tommy recently came out in a 4K UHD edition from Shout! Factory—are these guys desperate enough to release anything?—despite the fact that you can watch it for free (split into two parts) on YouTube (see below). I seriously doubt that you’ll see anything different on that disc, but if you’re foolish enough to spend good money on it, be our guest!
WHAT THE CRITICS SAY:
![Tommy - 50th Anniversary Edition 4K Ultra HD + Blu-ray [4K UHD]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41LfWZpsiwL._SL500_.jpg)