Category Archives: 70’s Movies

Something for Everyone (1970)

something1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Charming his way up.

Konrad (Michael York) is a young man with no money, or status, who dreams of one day owning the large Bavarian castle that he spots in the outskirts of a town that he’s passing through. He learns that it’s the property of the widow Countess Herthe (Angela Lansbury), who’s unable to live in it due to lack of finances. He schemes to become one of her servants by getting her regular butler, Rudolph (Klaus Havenstein) run over by a train. He then gets into a romantic relationship with Anneliese (Heidelinde Weis) whose parents (John Gill, Eva Maria Meineke) are quite wealthy while he also becomes lovers with the Countess’ son Helmuth (Anthony Higgins). Konrad hopes that Anneliese’s wealthy parents can use their money to reopen the castle and convinces Annelise to get into a fake romance with Helmuth that will lead to a marriage and then this will hopefully have her parent’s money flowing into the castle to get it reopened. He assures both Anneliese and Helmuth that he’ll remain their lover on the sly, but without each one knowing that they’re having sex with the same man. The elaborate plan though comes to a crashing halt when Anneliese accidentally walks in on Konrad and Helmuth and sees them kissing.

This super black comedy may be one of the darkest every made as it has no let up and absolutely everyone of the characters is a schemer and no better than the others. It’s based loosely on the novel ‘The Cook’ by Harry Kressing, but the story here is much different. In that one the main character is Conrad who spells his name with a ‘C’ instead of a ‘K’ and portrayed as a gaunt man who’s over seven feet tall and dresses in an all black unlike here where Konrad is young and handsome. In the book Conrad uses his cooking skills to get everyone to be ‘eating out of his hand’ with his delectable dishes while in the movie Konrad shows no such talent. The book had a much creepier tone while the film plays it all up for dark laughs and keeps the horror elements completely out.

I’m not exactly sure why there was such big changes made from its source material as keeping it truer to the novel had the potential of making this into a ‘food porn’ movie, which could’ve been visually sumptuous. However, the way it’s done here is still enjoyable with the majority of props going to York’s splendid performance whose boyish smile and dashing looks keeps it all quite engaging no matter what dastardly thing his character does. Reviled by the critics at the time for its ‘glorification of homosexuality’ it’s pretty amazing in retrospect how daring it was as this was filmed in 1969 and quite possibly the first film to ever show two men kissing. I remember in 1982 it was considered still quite shocking when Michael Caine and Christopher Reeve did it in Deathtrapso much so there was a report about it on CBS Evening News under the theme of movies ‘going too far’ while this movie had already been showing it, in a rather gleeful way, 13 years earlier, but maybe that’s all because this was done in Europe and not stuffy old America.

On the flip side I didn’t feel Lansbury had much of a presence. A talented actress for sure, but she doesn’t have a lot to do until well into the second act and even then isn’t real funny, and seems upstaged by the supporting cast who come-off as more colorful. It’s also frustrating that we spend the whole runtime seeing this gorgeous castle in the distance, in this case the famous Neuschwanstein Castle in Germany, but never able to go inside it. The few scenes that were supposedly its interior were instead very obviously shot on a soundstage.

Spoiler Alert!

While the script is full of many crafty twists and witnessing each nefarious character go down in a unique way is quite fun I did feel the way Konrad kills Anneliese and her parents by acting as their chauffer who crashes the vehicle down an embankment didn’t work. For one thing the killing of a wealthy family would’ve lead to a major investigation and since Konrad was driving the car, which he ‘miraculously’ jumps out of before it crashes, but he would still have to come up with a reason for why the car spun out of control. Since he doesn’t have one he would come under suspicion of the authorities instead of getting off scot-free like here.

Having Herthe’s nerdy daughter Lotte (Jane Carr) suddenly become instrumental in the whole thing by exposing the fact, at the end, that she’d been spying on Konrad the whole time and using what she knew to force him to marry her, leaved even further plot holes. The viewer should’ve been tipped off about what she was doing, even subtly, during the story as having her just turn up with all this new information makes it seem like it was tacked-on as a convenience without having it thought through with the rest of the plot. Not sure why Herthe, who was expecting to marry Konrad herself, would’ve gone along with Lotte marrying him instead, or what explanation was given to her in order for her to accept, which again just leaves open even more questions that in a truly well-crafted script should’ve been answered.

something2

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: July 22, 1970

Runtime: 1 Hour 52 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Harold Prince

Studio: National General Pictures

Available: DVD-R, Blu-ray

Silver Streak (1976)

silver

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 8 out of 10

4-Word Review: Murder on a train.

George (Gene Wilder) is a book editor taking a train ride from Los Angeles to Chicago. Along the way he gets into a relationship with Hilly (Jill Clayburgh) who is staying in the neighboring compartment. After a night of drinks they go back to her bed and begin making-out only for George to see a murdered body of a professor, whom Hilly works for as his secretary, get thrown off the train. Nobody else sees it except for him and everyone, including Hilly, believe it was a figment of his imagination, but George persists by doing the investigating himself. He goes to the compartment that the professor was staying in to see if he’s there, but instead he meets two men (Ray Walston, Richard Kiel) who throw him off the train. George then must find a way, in the middle of the empty desert, to get back on the train, so as to warn Hilly, whom he fears may be their next victim.

The script was written by Colin Higgins who up to that time was best known for having done Harold and Maude. He said he had always fantasized about meeting a beautiful blonde on a train and when it never panned-out in real-life he decided to write it into a story. Initially he was expecting an uphill battle to get it sold, but to his amazement it instead set-off a bidding war between Paramount and 20th Century Fox who both wanted to purchase the rights and it ended up selling for a then record $400,000. Originally Amtrak was going to be used as the setting for the Silver Streak, but the company became panicked that the film could cause bad publicity for them and ultimately refused to allow the studio to use any of their trains, so the film crew was forced to go north of the border and use the Canadian Rail System in its place while still pretending that it all takes place in the US when really all exteriors are Alberta, Canada and the skyline that gets seen in the distance that’s supposed to be Kansas City is really Calgary.

The reason the film works so well is that the comedy is on-target the whole way, but also manages to deftly blend it in with some nerve wracking action making the viewer let out belly laughs while also sitting-on-the-edge-of-their-seat at the same time. The pace is brisk with some amazing and very realistic stunt work that not only shows the train crashing through the wall of Chicago’s Central station, but also a few scenes with the character’s dueling it out on the roof of the locomotive as it’s going at high speeds. In fact the only slow spot in the entire movie is when Gene and Jilly make-out in the train car, which goes on too long and may make some people, including my conservative parents who watched the film with me when I first saw it on Showtime in 1982, as thinking this might be more a soft core porn flick than an action thriller and about ready to turn-if-off before it finally gets going with the plot.

Wilder, who was not Higgins’ first choice for the role as he intended it to be played by George Segal, is quite engaging and this was the first of several pairings that he did with Richard Pryor, who doesn’t appear until an hour in, but manages to take over quite nicely and makes a strong, memorable impression. Patrick McGoohan is sinister as the villain and one of the rare instances where in an otherwise comedy the bad guy isn’t funny and instead nasty, usually in comedies it’s considered mandatory that all the characters, even the bad guy, have some amusing moments, or lines, but McGoohan is just mean, which enhances the suspense element. Scatman Crothers, who initially seems to be playing an insignificant roles as the train’s porter, but in the end becomes quite crucial in getting everyone saved. Richard Kiel is good, though he speaks no dialogue, as one of McGoohan’s henchmen, in a role quite similar to the Jaws character that he played in two James Bond films that came out a year later, he even walks around with the same mangled up dental work in his mouth.

Spoiler Alert!

While the film works for the most part quite flawlessly I did find a few tidbits to quibble about. One is the scene where Gene accidentally bursts open the patrician door that divides his room from Jill’s who is busy dressing and doesn’t act startled when he suddenly breaks into her room, which I would think anyone, especially in a state of undress, would’ve responded with a scream and a look of shock, which would’ve made the segment funnier if she had.

Later on a police chief, played by Len Birman in a very bad impression of Mike Connors from ‘Mannix’, tells Gene that they know he’s innocent and have simply been putting-up manhunt posters with his picture on it for his own safety, so they could catch him and get him away from the evil McGoohan and his cronies who want to kill him. However, after he explains this he then hands Gene a gun and some bullets and tells him to come along with his men to help nab McGoohan who is still on the train, but how would this police chief know that Gene could handle a gun and was trained on how to shoot it, let alone even need him since his own men were well armed with rifles and could easily shoot down the bad guy themselves? There’s also another moment where the police chief shoots into a large crowd in an effort to hit McGoohan, which sends everyone into a panic and would be considered a major act of negligence for a cop to do.

Another scene has McGoohan explaining to Jill, Gene, and Richard about how he and his men never meant to really kill the professor, or at least not upfront, but when he did die that’s when they had to immediately ‘get’ a lookalike as an imposter to give everyone the idea that the professor was still alive. However, how exactly where they going to be able to find someone who looked so similar to the professor in such a quick, speedy way and then get him on the non-stop, fast-moving train?

The biggest exaggeration for me though is when Gene unhooks the back part of the train from the engine, while standing on a thin ledge and holding on for dear-life via a small metal rail and then able to successfully hop onto the train car that he had just decoupled from the other one. With them both going at high speeds I don’t think he’d be able to do it. Of course in the movie it gets done by a professional stunt man, who was able to time it, and rehearse it, to make it look easy, but in reality the average person would’ve either slipped, or missed grabbing the rail and thus fallen to the side of the tracks. This though could’ve actually been funny as we would then see Gene’s body roll on the ground and initially make it seem like he was hurt, or injured and then have him look up in aggravation and go: ‘Damn, I got thrown off the train for a fourth time!”

My Rating: 8 out of 10

Released: December 8, 1976

Runtime: 1 Hour 54 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Arthur Hiller

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Video, YouTube

Strange Shadows in an Empty Room (1976)

strange

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 4 out of 10

4-Word Review: Cop’s sister dies mysteriously.

Tony (Stuart Whitman) is a tough-as-nails veteran cop who gets the shocking news that his younger sister Louise (Carole Laure) is found dead at a party she had attended. Initially he presumes it’s George (Martin Landau) a middle-aged doctor whom she’d been having an affair with and who gave her a injection at the party, but later he realizes there might be more to the story than he thought and begins investigating other avenues that leads him to a wild and completely unexpected conclusion.

The film was directed by Alberto De Martino who had done other Italian produced films that were rip-offs of better known Hollywood hits with this one clearly being inspired by Dirty Harry. It was filmed in Montreal and Ottawa, Canada, but done by an Italian film crew making it seem more like an overseas production with very little Canadian elements to it. Overall the quality looks cheap and the story has a lot of twists that don’t make a lot of sense, or are believable.

Two that stood out right away to me is during the party scene where Louise fakes illness simply to get George’s attention to make him come over there and away from his wife. Then when he tries to help her she lets him know it was all a gag. A few minutes later she passes out for real and he responds in a worried way, but you’d think since he got taken advantaged of just moments earlier he’d presume this was just another prank and not take it seriously. Also, at her funeral Tony begins to suspect there’s more to her death than what is known and requests an autopsy be done, but an autopsy is standard procedure that should be done after any unexplained death, especially since the victim was so young, and thus seems absurd that he should have to request it only as her body is already in the casket and ready to be buried.

Whitman, who was nearing 50, looks too old for this kind of thing and it’s hard to imagine he would, in reality, be able to physically keep up with these much younger suspects who force him to chase them around in airports, along crowded city sidewalks, and even in hospitals. He’s not the most ethical guy either as he has no problem drowning one of the men he’s questioning in a sink of water as a method of interrogation, which should normally get an officer in trouble. There’s also no glimpses of his personal life, so we never learn anything about him, or see any other dimension except for his rough cop persona. Most other cop movies, or at least the good ones, do have a few scenes dealing with the policeman’s private side, but here there’s none, which makes the character flat and uninteresting. Having the victim be his sister didn’t make too much sense since she was clearly quite a bit younger than him and making her his daughter would’ve been more believable and more devastating when he has to come to terms with her darker side.

The supporting characters are, just like with Whitman’s, poorly fleshed-out. It’s hard to be intrigued who the suspects are when they all seem alike and say and do nothing that’s interesting. The film does have one long car chase, which has some impressive stunts, but it seemed unnecessary as the man driving away from the cops really didn’t have much to hide and is essentially not interrogated once Whitman catches up to him, and he offers only a little piece to the puzzle, so why tear up the city streets and completely destroy two cars if he’s not in dire trouble? Better to have saved this for the finale with the bad guy who really is the culprit than just some minor player who isn’t seen, or heard of again.

I did enjoy the foot chase through the hospital that comes at the end and even goes through a maternity ward and ultimately onto the roof of the place. The story does feature many twists and I did appreciate the way it shows how policeman can make the wrong guesses on who they think is guilty and go on many long tangents that don’t lead anywhere before they realize their mistake. However, more effort should’ve been made to create unique characters as the ones provided here are wooden and banal.

Alternate Title: Blazing Magnum

My Rating: 4 out of 10

Released: March 9, 1976

Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Alberto De Martino

Studio: Fida

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Video, YouTube

A Perfect Couple (1979)

perfect2

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 5 out of 10

4-Word Review: Meeting through dating service.

Sheila (Marta Heflin) is a singer in a traveling rock band run by Ted (Ted Neeley) who is quite demanding and openly berates and even fines members of the group who do not follow his orders. Alex (Paul Dooley) is a middle-aged Greek man still living at home with his domineering father (Tito Vandis) and extended family who berate him at every turn for not conforming to the family orthodox. Both are single and lonely and decide to join a dating service. From there they get connected and go on a first date at an outdoor orchestra concert where it rains and they both get wet. Despite the mishap Alex pressures Sheila for a second date, but miscommunication causes problems here as well. They eventually go their separate ways by dating other people they meet at the service, but Alex feels the need to try one more time to make it work and thus goes on tour with Sheila’s band as they hit the road, but finds their communal lifestyle is not for him.

The inspiration for the movie came while Robert Altman was shooting A Wedding and intrigued with the idea of what would happen if Paul Dooley’s character in that film started dating Sandy Dennis’ character and thus decided to write a whole movie about them. Problems though started right away during rehearsals when Dooley, who’s allergic to cats, could not handle being in the same room with Dennis, who was a major cat lover and would usually bring her pets to the reading, which would send him into a severe allergic reaction. Even when she quit bringing the felines with her it still caused issues with Dooley due to the cat hairs on her clothing. Altman then cut Dennis from the cast and had the part rewritten for Heflin, who was 33 at the time, but looked much younger like she was only 22 or 23 and thus accentuating the differences between the couple.

The film starts out with the two already on their first date instead of showing them viewing potential dates through the taped interviews that the service had available, which I felt was needed. As a guy I could see why Dooley would get into a young, semi-hot chick like Heflin as lonely guys, no matter their age, can instantly ‘fall-in-love’ with a woman from their looks alone, but both need to agree to the date before they go and I couldn’t understand why Heflin would to go out with a guy who was way older and didn’t seem to have much going for him. Maybe all of the other prospects were total duds and he was the best of the lot, so she decided to give it a try, or maybe she had some sort of father complex, but that’s something that still needs to be revealed and the fact that it isn’t leaves a big gaping logic hole.

The characters are palatable to some extent, but behave in ways that makes them at times quite infuriating. Dooley is especially problematic. Granted he’s playing someone who is socially clumsy and not real slick with the dating thing and trying a bit too hard to make it all work, but still insisting that he enter her apartment even when she makes it quite clear that she’s more comfortable just saying goodbye at the door is creepy. Having him show up at her place unannounced and demanding she see him for a second date and not leaving until she relents makes it even worse. There needs to be someone to tell him that his behavior is out-of-line and this isn’t a way to ‘woo a woman’ and in many cases will justifiably scare them off. Unfortunately the Heflin character doesn’t do this. Even though everything he does makes her quite uncomfortable she never protests it and lets him keep having his way, which makes her as annoying as he is.

Their unique living arrangements brings up even more issues. For Heflin I could understand her situation and it made sense. Sure the band manger is a demanding jerk, but I could see her feeling the need to put up with it because she wanted to break into the rock singing business and felt this was part of the crap she had to get through while she works her way up. For Dooley, his living arrangements are just downright baffling as he plays a 50-year-old who’s still residing at home with his father who’s highly demanding forcing Dooley to become a pathetic, obedient simp when around him. I could understand if the guy was like 20 how this might be somewhat believable, but by 50 he should’ve broken away a long time ago and the fact that he hasn’t needs to be explored and explained as it’s highly unusual and seems to intimate that there’s a serious personality disorder of some kind that begs for analyzation that never comes.

The entire runtime has the two going through every bad date moment you could think of. They have absolutely nothing in common and repeatedly talk past each other, so there’s no constructive communication whatsoever and yet somehow at the end they ‘fall in love’, but how? To make a relationship work there needs to be a connecting bond, but the film fails to show what it is making it quite shallow. There’s also an abundance of music played by the band Heflin’s a part of called ‘Keepin’ Em off the Streets’, which gets way overdone. There’s 12 different numbers, which bogs down the pace and makes it seem like a band’s demo reel instead of a movie.

The only memorable bit is when Allan F. Nichols, who co-wrote the script, appears as Dana 115, one of Heflin’s dates for the night and he has a physical confrontation with Dooley, which ended up making me laugh, but that’s about it. Nothing else happens that is either amusing or insightful. A fluffy movie that doesn’t go far enough to be either compelling or memorable.

My Rating: 5 out of 10

Released: April 6, 1979

Runtime: 1 Hour 47 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Robert Altman

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Available: DVD

The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes’ Smarter Brother (1975)

sherlock

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Sibling solves the case.

Gene Wilder plays Sigerson Holmes, the jealous younger brother of Sherlock, who is upset that his sibling is so famous for solving crimes while he sits in obscurity having not seen as much success though he feels he’s just as smart if not smarter. One day Sigerson gets a case that his brother doesn’t want to get involved in due to him desiring to lay low for awhile. It involves Jenny Hill (Madeline Kahn) who’s a beautiful music hall dancer who is being blackmailed by an opera singer named Eduardo (Dom DeLuise) over a lewd letter she sent him years ago. However, the document proves to be much more than just a letter and is in fact an important paper that foreign powers will pay high price to get their hands on. Eduardo agrees to sell it to the evil Professor Moriarty (Leo McKern), but will only hand it over to him during one of his operas, which Sigerson and his loyal partner Orville (Marty Feldman) plan to attend in order to intercept the paper before it gets into the wrong hands.

Gene Wilder was approached by producer Richard Roth to do a parody of Sherlock Holmes, but Wilder didn’t like the idea of poking fun of what he felt was an iconic character. Roth told him to think about it and then approached him a week later. By this point Wilder said he had come up with a better idea instead of it being about Sherlock it would focus on his jealous brother Sigerson. Roth found the premise intriguing and suggested Wilder begin writing the screenplay which he did while working on Young Frankenstein. Once completed he asked his friend Mel Brooks to direct, but Brooks declined saying he didn’t like working on projects that were not his own idea, so Wilder took the reins himself calling it a ‘terrifying commitment’.

While the movie has some good moments the Sigerson character is not interesting. For one thing he’s poorly defined. One minute he’s cunning and sharp and then the next he proves dimwitted and clumsy almost becoming another Inspector Clouseu. The comedy should feed off the character, but with it unclear whether he’s brilliant or buffoon it never catches its stride and for the most part the scenes with him in it are boring and the audience doesn’t care if he solves the case nor feel that there’s any redemption if he does. He’s also genuinely unlikable particularly with the way he snaps at Jenny Hill making you almost want to despise the guy and hope he doesn’t succeed. Also, if he really is Sherlock’s brother then I felt there needed to be some scenes with them together and the interplay between the two could’ve been amusing if done right, but this never happens.

Wilder directs the film the way most actors turning director do by having the scenes more extended and allowing the actors to drive the pace and momentum versus the editing. With a so-called ‘zany’ comedy like this that doesn’t work and there’s several segments that go on too long until it becomes dull and looking a bit amateurish. The biggest example of this is when Jenny arrives a Sigerson’s place to tell him about the letter. Their interplay doesn’t go anywhere and ultimately in order to get out of it the characters, for some unexplained reason, break-out into song and dance making it seem like its a musical, which it isn’t, but either way it’s dumb and not funny. During Jenny’s music hall show, which Sigerson and Orville attend, she sings a long song there too, which wasn’t needed and saps the comic energy.

There are though some offbeat moments much of which comes from McKern a usually serious actor who shines in his campy part and really plays it up to the point that he becomes the highlight. The part where he goes to a fortune telling machine, that he has inside his residence, is inspired and his visit with Eduardo in which the two strangely fondle each other and even go to bed together that gives off weird homoerotic vibes is good too in a sort of bizarre ‘what am I looking at’ type of way.

The best part though is when a giant saw blade cuts off the back of Wilder’s and Feldman’s trousers causing their bare behinds to be exposed. They then go to a formal dance party and shock everyone who sees their asses with them still not aware that they’re showing. What’s so interesting about this part is that they both have really good looking butts especially Feldman. You’d think with his freaking looking face that his rear wouldn’t be so hot either, but it amazingly is, so in keeping with our current male ass scorecard we still have Dabney Coleman, who bears his behind in Modern Problemscoming in first and Tim Matheson’s in Impulsebeing a close second and then Wilder and Feldman tying for third place.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: December 14, 1975

Runtime: 1 Hour 31 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Gene Wilder

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Available: DVD, Blu-ray

I Love My…Wife (1970)

ilove

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: He’s bored with marriage.

Richard (Elliot Gould) is a medical student when he meets Jody (Brenda Vaccaro) and the two quickly fall-in-love and get married. She then gets pregnant while he’s still in school and they don’t believe they have enough money to financially support a child, so they initially consider an abortion, but at the last minute Richard changes his mind and feels they should have the child. Jody though gains a lot of weight during the pregnancy, which Richard finds unattractive. Once the baby is born she’s unable to burn-off the excessive pounds causing their sex life to go even further into the tank. He has a few flings with some of the nurses before finally setting his sights on Helene (Angel Tompkins) a beautiful model who’s married to a baseball star (Dabney Coleman). At first she resists his advances, but the two eventually bed and then fall-in-love. She insists that Richard leave his wife, so that they can be together and no longer have to meet-on-the-sly. Richard tries to break-up with Jody, but because they have two kids finds that he can’t and instead begins lying to Helene as he plays both women at the same time, which soon turns into a losing situation.

The odd way this thing opens really hurts it and although it does improve a bit as it goes along some viewers may not be patient enough to stick with it. Having the opening credits deal with Richard’s relationship with his mother (Helen Westcott) and the sheltered way that she raised him isn’t funny and because the mother never appears again in the movie it wasn’t worth introducing her at all. Since the wife is the main focus I felt the opening scenes should’ve dealt with their dating period, which the movie breezes over too quickly. The clips from old movies, which get spliced in from time-to-time, add nothing and make it seem too much like Myra Breckenridge, which came out around the same time and best left forgotten. At least in that movie the clips came at predictable intervals, but here it’s sporadic making it seem, when they do get shown, as jarring and out-of-place.

Gould certainly excels at this type of role and he’s quite possibly the only actor who could play a shallow person and still manage to make it come-off as semi-likable. Vaccaro though is the real surprise as she’s usually best at drama and initially I felt she was miscast, but she comes through in making her character complex and even amusing as she goes through her tirades, some of it justified, at Gould. This is also the first movie to ever explore the issue of women who gain weight during their pregnancy, but can’t lose it afterwards and how this could affect their sex life, which I felt deserved kudos for being ground-breaking. The film makes the mistake though of showing too much from her point-of-view to the extent that we start to sympathize with her over the main character and almost start to dislike him in the process.

The introduction of Helene really does help as it’s her presence that gives the story a unique angle. Before this it comes-off more like your typical run-of-the-mill flick about a cad of a husband who can’t stay faithful, which has been done a lot and this movie doesn’t add anything insightful in that vein. However, the affair itself is interesting. For one thing she plays hard-to-get and doesn’t just jump immediately into the bed sheets at Gould’s beck-and-call, which is good as too much of the time, especially in 70’s movies, the women seem way too easy in a way that isn’t realistic. What I liked even more though is that the affair really doesn’t solve anything. Sure he finds her hot and sexy and they do get along, but she also has demands of her own and Gould finds himself in the same quandary as with his wife showing how extra marital flings really aren’t the ‘escape’ that they’re intended, but instead more of a problem.

Spoiler Alert!

The script by Robert Kaufman brings out many harsh truths about marriage and doesn’t insult us with any placid answers. Yet when the movie should go hard it goes soft instead. I liked how Vaccaro, who spent the whole time trying to win him back, finally gives up and starts seeing someone else, but Gould though upset and rebuffed, doesn’t learn anything from it. He goes back to the bar and tries picking-up an attractive stewardess he meets like he’s now making some sort of ‘fresh start’ when the film spent its entire running time exposing how this ‘cruising for chicks’ is a vicious cycle that just leads to more emptiness. Seeing Gould’s character change, or learn from his mistakes and display some regret would’ve been a far better way to have ended it.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: December 21, 1970

Runtime: 1 Hour 38 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Mel Stuart

Studio: Universal

Available: DVD-R (dvdlady.com, modcinema.com)

Cold Turkey (1971)

coldturkey

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Small town quits smoking.

To commemorate the passing of Norman Lear last week at the ripe old age of 101 we decided to review the one film that he directed and was shelved for two years by the studio who didn’t think it would be a hit with any audience and only decided to eventually release it once Lear had success with the classic ‘All in the Family’ sitcom. The story revolves around a small town in Iowa named Eagle Rock. The Reverend Clayton Moore would like a bigger congregation in a more prestigious area as he feels trapped in what he considers a ‘dying’ town with limited employment opportunities. He then hears about a contest that a giant tobacco company is sponsoring where they try to see if there’s a town in America that will make a pledge to agree to quit smoking for 30-days and if they succeed will be awarded $25 million. Merwin Wren (Bob Newhart), who works for a tobacco company, bets that there isn’t a place that would be able to make this pledge, but Clayton, figuring this may be his ticket out and onto greater things, pushes the citizens to sign the pledge, which will then put Eagle Rock on the map.

The location of the film shoot was Greenfield, Iowa, which I traveled to in 2009 and was amazed how similar it still looked after 40 years. The opening sequence showing the town from the south end still had many of the same buildings and the courthouse along with the gazebo in which the reverend makes his fiery speech are all still there and looking almost untouched.

The town itself is really the main star. Lear does a terrific job of showing the people who live there as they really are versus in some idealistic, or romanticized way. Too many other Hollywood productions seem to suffer from the Mayberry effect where the citizens are portrayed as simple and content ‘God Fearing’ folk who are devoid of any complex personality. Here they are frustrated individuals who secretly dream of moving away, or ‘hitting it big’ in some way, but because they don’t have the means to achieve this ultimately find themselves stuck and just trying to make the best of it. The people are no more immune from temptation, or corruption, than the ones living in a big city and if anything are even more susceptible since they haven’t been put in that situation much, but when they are, as evidenced when the place gets spoken about all over the media and everyone from all over descends on it including Lottie (Gloria Leroy) a prostitute under the guise of being a masseuse who services all married men.

Beyond the on-target satire the film also scores with its fabulous ensemble of character actors, many of whom would later star, or guest star, in many of Lear’s TV-shows. Each actor plays a distinct personality from Barnard Hughes the fidgety and nervous doctor who resorts to lollipop sucking, or Graham Jarvis the head of a far-right organization, who preaches about the evils of ‘big government’, but then readily accepts for his group, which is mainly made up of senior citizens, to become a voluntary gestapo-like militia that arrests those who are caught smoking and forcibly search all in-coming vehicles. Pippa Scott though, as Clayton’s much put-upon wife, was my favorite. She encompasses what I think a lot of small town people can feel especially those that weren’t originally from the area, who are stuck in a dead-end marriage and perennially forced to ‘put on a happy face’. Her primal scream, which happens during a dream-like segment on the rooftop of one of the houses while neighbors stand around watching I felt was one of the film’s defining moments.

In the lead roles Dick Van Dyke is terrific mainly because he plays against type. Part of what I felt killed his movie career was that he took too many roles that were just an extension of his Rob Petrie persona in his famous TV-show. Here though he’s the opposite playing an egotistical, narcissists who cares about nothing other than his own career ascension, but manages to do it in a way that’s quite amusing. Newhart plays an unusual role for him as well. Typically he’s a buttoned down, strait-laced guy commenting on the insanity around him, but here he is the nutty one and does a trick with his eyes that gives him a psycho appearance.

Spoiler Alert!

The one flaw is the ending in which all three leads (Van Dyke, Newhart, Hughes) get shot in the middle of a crowd of people standing in the town center. The shootings look fake as they show no bullet hole in their clothing, or blood even just a little bit for authenticity. One shot shows people in the crowd holding the heads of the victims as they lay there in an effort to comfort them, but then in the next shot has the three lying all alone as the crowd essentially abandoned them, which seemed unrealistic that absolutely no one would care. Having an ambulance driver trying to drive-in through the mob, but then maybe stopping to run out and grab the cigarettes that rain down on the town from a helicopter, would’ve been amusing and better explanation for why the three didn’t get the help that they needed.

There’s also one shot showing Newhart sitting up and laughing, but what is he laughing about and why would he be doing this when he’s been injured with a bullet? There’s no answer to this, which makes it come-off as a cop-out ending and like Lear had written himself into a hole that he couldn’t get out of.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: January 20, 1971

Runtime: 1 Hour 41 Minutes

Rated GP

Director: Norman Lear

Studio: United Artists

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Video, Tubi

Made for Each Other (1971)

made

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Couple argues a lot.

Pandora (Renee Taylor) is an out-of-work actress still clinging to her dreams that she’ll one day become famous something she has hoped for since she was a child. Gig (Joseph Bologna) suffers from not being able to find a stable relationship and guilt-ridden over sending the last one into attempted suicide. Both Pandora and Gig attend a group therapy session and this is where they meet. Initially though things are rocky. Gig does not like Pandora’s stand-up act, something she’s been working on for years, and openly tells her it’s awful. They then break-up, but Pandora eventually returns telling him that he was right and she’s worked out the ‘kinks’ from her act, so it’s now improved. To celebrate Gig takes her to his parents (Paul Sorvino, Olympia Dukakis) for Thanksgiving. The parents though don’t approve of Pandora since she’s Jewish and they’re Catholic and they eventually drive her out of their apartment. Gig and Pandora continue to argue once they’re back in the car, but find, strangely, that no matter how the other one annoys them they still like each other’s company.

After the runaway success of Lovers and Other Strangerswhich Bologna and Taylor wrote initially as a play, but then turned it into a movie, Hollywood studios were interested in them trying another script and gave them upfront money to do so. The first film had been based on their real-life experiences of dealing with all of their in-laws during their wedding, which occurred in 1965, and so they decided to base this one on their lives as well, namely what brought them together. Like with their first project the script is quite broad and focuses in on many different people including the parents of each character who have quite a bit of screentime, particularly Sorvino and Dukakis, and who are quite funny. The film also shows the leads when they were infants and many of their childhood experiences, which gets shot in black-and-white, that is also both insightful and amusing.

Unlike with most movies the scenes are quite extended and seemed better primed for a stageplay. The elusive Robert B. Bean gets credited as director, but he never did anything else, which seems a bit curious and there’s been rumors that he was just a pseudonym for Bologna who took over as the actual director. The long takes though are effective and enhance the comedy. The scene inside Gig’s parents house where the tension builds when they slowly realize that Pandora is ‘not their kind’ is quite good and not unlike what could happen in many families homes of that era who closely identified with their particularly religions and not privy to having their kids marry outside of it. Gig’s inability to appreciate Pandora’s stage act and his blunt assessment of it while at a late night cafe is comically on-targe too as any fledgling artist will tell you sometimes family members, friends, and even those really close to them won’t always connect with their artistic endeavors and regrettably become their biggest critics.

Sorvino scores as the abrasive no-nonsense father though ironically he was actually 5-years younger than Bologna who plays his son and for that reason his hair should’ve been made more gray. Dukakis is equally on-target as the super religious mother whose strong faith amounts to a lot of rituals and ends up inadvertently harming her child psychologically like when she catches him masturbating and informs him that if he continues his ‘little thing will fall off’. Helen Verbit as Pandora’s mother is equally amusing playing the over-protective type who wants so hard to shield her daughter from harsh reality that she tells her that her stage act is ‘brilliant’ when it really isn’t and that because she’s her mother that somehow makes her opinion ‘objective’.

The film’s one drawback is the yelling, which there is a lot of. Sometimes confrontational comedy can be quite amusing and this one works most of the way, but how much the viewer will enjoy is up to each individual. Bologna’s shouting is particularly loud and abrasive. It’s meant to funny and done only out of aggravation, but it does tend to get extended especially by the end. Had Taylor shouted back then it would’ve seemed like a ‘fair fight’, but having her run away and cry takes humor out of it and may ultimately ingrate on the audience. The intent is for there to be an offbeat charm, but not everyone may see it that way and thus this thing won’t be for all tastes.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: December 12, 1971

Runtime: 1 Hour 41 Minutes

Rated GP

Director: Robert B. Bean

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Available: DVD-R (Fox Cinema Archives)

Dirty Little Billy (1972)

dirty

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 9 out of 10

4-Word Review: From awkward to outlaw.

Loosely based on the life of Billy the Kid the film centers on a young Billy Bonney (Michael J. Pollard) who moves to Kansas with his mother (Dran Hamilton) and her new husband Henry (Willard Sage). Billy and Henry don’t get along as Henry feels Billy is lazy and doesn’t help out enough with the farm chores. When Henry informs Billy one night that he needs to leave and never come back Billy does just that by hopping onto the nearest train that’s traveling back east only to at the last minute hop off of it and into a nearby small town where he encounters Goldie (Richard Evans) and his girlfriend Berle (Lee Purcell) who run a small gang of outlaws and are holed-up inside a bar run by Jawbone (Josip Elic). Initially Goldie and Billy are incompatible, but eventually Berle softens towards him and even allows him to go to bed with her. When Billy comes to their rescue when they have a confrontation with another gang he’s eventually welcomed into the group and ultimately becomes its new leader.

By the early 70’s the revisionist western, which portrayed the west in a less ideal way focused more on the realism and merged the good and evil theme so that it became less clear who the hero and bad guy were, became all the rage. Films like The Wild Bunch and McCabe and Mrs. Miller were critical darlings and set the standard for all westerns that followed. This film I considered to be one of the best and yet has strangely been overlooked and isn’t even in Wikipeadia’s list of revisionist westerns from that period, which is a real shame as this masterpiece deserves from more attention and if anything should be at the top of the list and figured prominently.

What’s even more baffling is that it was directed by Stan Dragoti a man that started out in commercial photography and had no aspirations for film directing until finally, at the age of 40, getting the offer to direct this one. The film is so highly stylized and has such a strong a precise artistic vision that I would liken this directorial debut to those of Richard Linklater, Quentin Tarantino, or Jim Jarmusch who burst into the film scene with a distinct style that took audiences and critics by storm while ultimately continuing each of their follow-up projects with the same unique approach and theme, but with Dragoti, who was married to supermodel Cheryl Tiegs, that was not the case. The films he did after this were all lightweight comedies that had a generic look and no resemblance to this one. How someone with no background in movies could helm something as flawless as this is hard to answer, but in the music world you have obscure bands who manage to make it big with one song and they end up being called one-hit-wonders and I guess in Dragoti’s case that’s what this movie was to him and his career.

The acting is masterful as well especially Pollard whose career was quite up-and-down. While he had been appearing in TV productions from as early as the late 50’s it wasn’t until his breakout role in Bonnie and Clyde that he came to the attention of audiences and studio heads alike. Trying to subsequently cast him in a film where he’d be the right leading man though was no easy task. The first attempt was Little Faus and Big Halseywhich did not do well at the box office and rumors of him fighting with his co-star Robert Redford didn’t help things. This role though, where his moody presence is put to perfect use, was a terrific fit and despite already being in his early 30’s his boyish face still gave off the late adolescence look that was needed. Lee Purcell is also fantastic in a sort of plain-Jane role where she wears no make-up, but still looks striking and her knife fight with another woman, played by Rosary Nix, is one of the movie’s top moments.

Overall, outside of the gritty visuals that have an almost poetic quality, what I liked most was how the characters didn’t seem locked into their time period like so many other historical type films. Too many other movies trying to recreate past eras end up having people who seem antiquated and not relatable while this bunch, particularly Billy and the outlaws came-off like people who could’ve easily fit-in with the hippies of the 60’s, or anyone that was living outside the system. They were simply looking for purpose and finding it by lashing out at a society that didn’t seem to want them, which in many cases is the common thread of most criminals of today as well.

My Rating: 9 out of 10

Released: October 25, 1972

Runtime: 1 Hour 33 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Stan Dragoti

Studio: Columbia Pictures

Available: DVD-R

Looking for Mr. Goodbar (1977)

looking

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: School teacher sleeps around.

Theresa (Diane Keaton) is a young school teacher trying to get over the break-up with Martin (Alan Feinstein) a married college professor of whom she’d been in a relationship with for several years. Tired of living with her parents (Priscilla Pointer, Richard Kiley) and her domineering father she decides to get a studio apartment near the club scene. She picks-up Tony (Richard Gere) at a bar one night and takes him home. His volatile, drug induced behavior scares her at first, but eventually she enjoys his unpredictable ways. When he disappears for long periods she begins bringing more strangers home finding the one-night-stands to be a liberating change from her repressive catholic upbringing, but the more she partakes in this edgy lifestyle the more danger she puts herself in.

The film is based on the Judith Rossner novel of the same name, which itself is based on the true story of Roseann Quinn. Quinn was a school teacher living in New York City who had a propensity of bringing home men she’d meet from a bar that was across the street from her studio apartment. On the evening of January 1st, 1973 she invited John Wayne Wilson, a man she met at the bar, back to her place for intended sex, but instead it resulted in murder when he was unable to achieve an erection and he felt she was making fun of him.

Rossner read about the incident in a newspaper and became intrigued with the case and intended to write about it for an upcoming article in Esquire magazine, but the editor feared legal action since it was based on an actual case and reneged on the assignment, so Rossner turned it into a novel using fictional names for the real-life people. It got published in 1975 to rave reviews and instantly became a best seller, which caught the attention of writer/director Richard Brooks who had turned other true crime stories into hits such as In Cold Blood and felt he could do the same with this. In fact the film did quite well as it raked in $22.5 million and was the top movie in the country on its opening weekend.

While Rossner openly detested the film version I felt it does a great job of exposing the bleak, lonely existence of the 70’s single’s scene and how sexual liberation can end up being just as much of a trap, if not more, as monogamy. The dim, dark lighting, particularly inside Theresa’s apartment brings out the grim existence, and twisted personalities, of its characters nicely. The viewer feels as caught up in the depressing, aimless world as the protagonist and its the vividness of the 70’s young adult, city culture that makes this an excellent film to see simply to understand the motivations of the people who lived it. While on paper reading about someone that was a school teacher for deaf students during the day turning into a reckless, sexually promiscuous lady by night may seem shocking and hard to fathom, the film seamlessly fills-in-the-blanks to the extent  that you fully grasp, from her stifling family and religious upbringing as well as her painful break-up and insecure body image, to what drove her to it and thus cultivates a very revealing character study.

Keaton, Kiley and Tuesday Weld, who plays Theresa’s older sister who experiments with the wild lifestyle herself, are all stand-outs, but the film also has some great performances from actors who at the time were unknowns. Gere is especially good, quite possibly one of the best acting jobs of his career, as the creepy, but still strangely endearing Tony. LeVar Burton has very few lines, but still makes an impression with his pouty facial expressions as the older brother to one of Theresa’s deaf students. Tom Berenger though turns out to being the ultimate scene stealer as the psychotic who’s so on edge with his personal demons that he lashes violently out over the smallest of provocations.

Spoiler Alert!

While the film is known mainly for its notorious ending, which still packs a bit of a punch, its effect is muted by director Brooks unwisely telegraphing it ahead of time. Virtually the whole movie is done from Theresa’s point-of-view and yet at the very end it cheats it by having a scene between Gary and his gay lover giving the viewer an unnecessary warning about his mental state, which wasn’t needed. For one thing in the real-life incident the assailant was a married man and not gay, so adding in the gay subtext and using it to explain his psychosis could be considered homophobic and armchair psychology. It also hurts the shock value as the audience knows what’s coming versus having them as surprised as Theresa when he suddenly lashes out unexpectedly, which would’ve made for a more emotionally impactful, gripping finish.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: October 19, 1977

Runtime: 2 Hours 16 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Richard Brooks

Studio: Paramount

Available: DVD