Category Archives: British Movies

A Passage to India (1984)

Posted on August 13, 2012 | 1 comment

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Unjustly accused of rape.

An older woman (Peggy Ashcroft) and her son’s fiancée Adele (Judy Davis) travel to India to visit him as he works as a British Magistrate there. During the course of their visit they come upon the harshness of British rule, the unusual climate, and a rather unexpected criminal trial.

Like with most of Lean’s films the gargantuan approach cannot equal the story. You sit through two hours and forty five minutes only to feel slighted when it is all over. The story plays a lot like To Kill a Mockingbird only it is stretched out more and has a different location. That is not to say it isn’t entertaining, because it is, but only in the most general of ways.

The first hour is downright breezy. It does hit on certain inhumanities and inequalities, but it is all handled with kid gloves. It also seems very similar to Gandhi, which came out only a year earlier. The second half, which involves the court trial, seems almost jarring when compared to the first. It does get more intense and multifaceted, but just when it seems to be getting intriguing it fizzles with a wrap up that is too neat and tidy.

Lean’s films have always had a sort of running theme involving the characters coming to terms with the full scope of their personalities. Yet here their changes seem too abrupt and severe. Adele starts out as a very interesting person. She is independent and idealistic and then having her turn into a confused and bullied woman without any real explanation doesn’t mesh. The same can be said for Aziz (Victor Banjeree) the man she accuses of rape. His character is so benign and affable at the beginning that having him turn so angry and vindictive in the second half seems overdone understandable to some degree, but still overdone. Of course everyone can have these traits at times, but here it gets heavy- handed.

The two best characters consist of Mrs. Moore (Ashcroft) and Fielding (James Fox). Ashcroft is compassionate and strong and it is nice to have an older character where their age isn’t completely embedded into their persona. Fielding is strong and stalwart as well and his very proper sensibilities help keep the whole thing stabilized.

Legendary actor Sir Alec Guinness is badly miscast. Although some of his dispensed wisdom is fun he never completely comes off as a native and the part should have been played by an actual native of the country.

Out of all of Lean’s films this may actually be his weakest. The cinematography is okay, but it is not as sumptuous as some of his others. I wanted to be shown more of India and given a broader perspective of the region. There also could have been a little more action and the characters placed in a little more physical danger. The part where Adele is chased by some wild monkeys is unconvincing especially when you never see her or the monkeys in the same shot.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: December 14, 1984

Runtime: 2Hours 45Minutes

Rated PG

Director: David Lean

Studio: Columbia Pictures

Available: VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Instant Video

1 Comment

Posted in 80's Movies, British Movies, Court Drama, Foreign Films, Movies Based on Novels

Tagged , , ,

Two for the Road (1967)

Posted on June 3, 2012 | 1 comment

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Couple examines their marriage.

This is a unique and diverting look at a couple (Albert Finney, Audrey Hepburn) traveling the French countryside while dissecting their turbulent marriage. The road of course represents their long and winding relationship. It cleverly cuts between when they first met, which seems to have been on the same road, to twelve years later. The edits between the two stages are creative as is the majority of this fluid and entertaining movie. It wants to be silly, fluffy, serious, complex, exotic, avant-garde, and romantic all at once and most of the time it succeeds proving what an over looked, unsung genius director Stanley Donen is.

It’s a movie made for couples, but probably those who have been married for quite a while and can relate to the characters here who have been through the rough spots and have learned to accept their partner and the flaws that come with them. This film tries to dig a little bit deeper, which helps it stand out. It also has a more relaxed European attitude, especially in regards to ‘indiscretions’.

On the negative side the film contains a lot of old fashioned sexist attitudes. For instance the man is expected to be mechanically inclined and in control of every situation, which becomes very apparent in the scene where he has to get underneath the car to fix it while she sits on top of the vehicle without any care or inclination to what he is going through. The man is also expected to be the sole provider of the family while the woman does the majority of the child rearing.

Audrey, who wears an amazingly high number of stylish, chic outfits, looks more like a runway model sporting the latest fashions than an average housewife on a country drive. I realize that they wanted to accentuate her beauty, but it ends up being a distraction at the same time. If the intention of the story is about an average couple going through average marital problems then at least have them look the part.

The Henry Mancini score is pleasant as usual, but eventually gets overplayed. It’s also not as introspective as it wants you to believe, but on a slickness level it gets an “A”. Also, watch for Little Ruthie who is the world’s most obnoxious child.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: April 27, 1967

Runtime: 1Hour 51Minutes

Rated NR (Not Rated)

Director: Stanley Donen

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Available: VHS, DVD

1 Comment

Posted in 60's Movies, British Movies, Drama, Foreign Films, Moody/Stylish, Road Movies, Romance

Tagged , , ,

The Offence (1972)

Posted on May 25, 2012 | 4 comments

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 8 out of 10

4-Word Review: Interrogate the child molestor.

Well respected, longtime police detective Johnson (Sean Connery) becomes so burned-out by all the sickening crimes that he has seen through his career that he snaps during the interrogation of a suspected child molester (Ian Bannen) and ends up beating the man to death.

Based on the stage play by John Hopkins this film has lots and lots of talking and some may say there is too much of it. The script is split into three drawn out conversations between two people. One is between Johnson and the suspect, the second is between Johnson and his wife (Vivien Merchant), and the third is between Johnson and the man brought in to investigate the incident, which is played by Trevor Howard. By the end even the most patient viewer may feel a bit talked out and it gets especially trying when you realize that the same issues are being discussed over and over again.

Yet that is not to say that this is a poor film as the visual element is excellent. In many ways you can appreciate the production for its visual style alone. Director Sidney Lumet displays a good handle on the material and it’s technically sharp on all levels. The lighting is well composed with the center that is bright, but the corners that are shadowy much like the human psyche and society. The overall grayness helps bring out the depression and isolation of the main character. The pacing is slow, but deliberate. Each scene builds to an intense crescendo. The music soundtrack resembles that of a one tone alarm that keeps building to a higher pitch much like the alarm ready to go off in Johnson’s head. The character’s inner tension is made even more vivid by Lumet’s use of interposing the bright light of the interrogation room over the screen. It is hard to imagine this film being any better crafted and it is a terrific training tool for the inspiring filmmaker.

Despite being talky the script in itself isn’t bad as it makes you aware of the ugly side of police work. It focuses not on the system or corruption, like a lot of other police films, but more on the actual work itself. It questions whether someone who is bombarded with the daily gore and societal sickness can remain sane and whether ‘leaving it all at the office’ is even possible. Every officer may eventually suffer scars from his job experience.

In a way this may be Connery’s best role. He shows his usual tough exterior, but also has moments where he unravels into a helpless, scared man. Bannen does an equally good job as the suspect. You are never really sure if he is guilty or not. The fact that he gives off a leering grin even after being beaten gives this film an added edge.

This is an oppressive and unrelenting movie filled with stark and unpleasant imagery that may stay with you long after it is over. Yet it is also expertly crafted and brings up some serious and important issues that are as timely today as they were back then.

My Rating: 8 out of 10

Released: January 11, 1972

Runtime: 1Hour 52Minutes

Rated R (Mature Theme)

Director: Sidney Lumet

Studio: MGM

Available: VHS, DVD (Region 1 and 2), Amazon Instant Video

4 Comments

Posted in 70's Movies, British Movies, Drama, Foreign Films, Moody/Stylish, Movies Based on Stageplays, Psychological

Tagged , , ,

The Odd Job (1978)

Posted on May 16, 2012 | Leave a comment

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 2 out of 10

4-Word Review: Hired to kill him.

            Arthur Harris (Graham Chapman) comes home one day to celebrate his wedding anniversary only to find that his wife Fiona (Diana Quick) is leaving him. He becomes so despondent that he decides to kill himself. He has a lot of problems doing it, but then he receives a knock on his door by a man (David Jason) looking for some ‘odd jobs’. Arthur decides to hire him to be his killer, but when his wife decides to come back Arthur is thrown into a state of panic trying to avoid being killed.

Normally I love British comedies and this one seemed to have all the ingredients to being a hilarious one, but it never gels. The opening bit where the couple is arguing and Arthur insists that they are ‘happily married’ even if she doesn’t think so is full of great English wit, but everything after that falls into a lull. The jokes become long and elaborate where so much time is spent building the set-up that getting to the punch-line becomes trying. The restaurant scene is particularly drawn-out and unfunny. The ‘zany’ chase sequence in the zoo is derivative and flat.

Quick was not a good casting choice as the spouse. She is too young and beautiful a wife for such a nebbish man. A good comic character actress who was more frumpy and dowdy would have been a better fit. Quick doesn’t show any comic ability, or timing as her affected responses and facial expressions become annoying and tiring. There is also no motivation for why the character decides to come back to her husband and although this is absurd comedy there still needed to be one otherwise the writing comes off as forced and sloppy, which it is.

Chapman doesn’t completely work in his role either.  It seemed strange that he would want to kill himself when a super-hot lady neighbor is more than willing to go to bed with him and even strips off your clothes and hops into the sack before he goes running off in fright. There is also the issue that killing oneself because your wife as left you seems extreme. Most men would probably celebrate if this happened to them and it is hard to relate to a protagonist that seems so pathetic. A stronger motivation, like having him killed in a staged murder, so his family could collect on some life insurance money would have been more effective. There is another part where the police become aware that someone is trying to kill him and for some reason Arthur does not tell them of the bizarre scenario when they ask him about it even though to me it made more sense to let them try to apprehend the man instead of continuing to live in fear of being killed.

The music, which is soft and melodic, was a terrible choice as it does not fit the quirky theme, nor complement the fast-paced comic scenarios. The tacked on ‘surprise ending’ is horrible and pretty much cements the film as a misfire. During his Monty Python days Chapman was famous for walking onto the screen and telling the audience that the sketch they were doing had become too absurd and would now end and I wish he had done that here.

My Rating: 2 out of 10

Released: September 3, 1978

Runtime: 1Hour 27Minutes

Rated PG (Brief Nudity)

Director: Peter Medak

Studio: Columbia-EMI-Warner

Available: VHS

Leave a comment

Posted in 70's Movies, Black Comedy, British Movies, Farce, Foreign Films, Obscure Movies

Tagged , , ,

Murder By Decree (1979)

Posted on April 20, 2012 | 1 comment

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Jack the Ripper exposed.

Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Plummer) is asked to investigate the killings of prostitutes by Jack the Ripper and the clues lead to a massive conspiracy that goes all the way up to the British Royalty.

This rendition of the Holmes versus Ripper theme is fun and handsomely produced. My favorite element was the recreation of the dark, dingy, atmospheric streets of old London. The fog, lighting, and sounds of carriages going over the cobblestone streets is perfect and I wanted to see even more of it. The killings are surprisingly graphic, the strangulation of a woman near the beginning looks  quite realistic as does the stabbing of another man in which you can see, from the side, a sword going right through him.

The supporting cast is a treat and includes an almost unrecognizable Anthony Quayle in a beard and a wig, as well as John Gielgud, David Hemmings, Genvieve Bujold, Donald Sutherland, Frank Finley, and Susan Clark. Clark gives the strongest performance in the crucial role of Mary Kelly. She speaks with a believable British accent despite the fact that she was not a native. Sutherland is the only one that is wasted as his character is dull and his screen-time limited.

Both Plummer and James Mason in the role of Dr. Watson are terrific actors, but I don’t know if I was completely sold with them in these parts. Plummer is too polished, handsome, and always displaying a sneering type of grin that I never pictured Holmes having. I would have wanted the character to be just a bit more aloof, awkward, and detached.  Mason is fine, but the chemistry between the two doesn’t seem genuine. I expected more comic interplay. There is some, but not enough. The best moment is the pea scene, which is a howl and written by Mason.

The case is elaborate and well thought out. Normally I find with these types of stories that if you aren’t paying careful attention, or miss one line of dialogue that you become lost and confused, which fortunately did not happen here.  It stays intriguing and the logic is sound for the most part. The wrap-up at the end in which Holmes explains the case and solves the mystery while discussing it in front of the Prime Minister (Gielgud) is satisfying and complete. However, I got a real kick out of the fact that when Holmes starts his dissertation he has a cut on the side of his face from an altercation that he had with Ripper the day before, but in the fifteen minutes it takes him to delivery his speech it turns into a scar before your very eyes.

SPOILER WARNING!

The few misgivings that I had here was that it does not stand out from the myriad of other films that have been done on the same subject.  The mystery and conspiracy angle is interesting, but speculative with no bearing on the actual case. The fact that they turn the Ripper character into being just a couple of idiots who didn’t know what they were doing is clever in one way, but disappointing in a other because it destroys the mystique that has become the Ripper legend and becomes anti-climactic in the process.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: February 9, 1979

Runtime: 2Hours 4Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Bob Clark

Studio: AVCO Embassy Pictures

Available: VHS, DVD

1 Comment

Posted in 70's Movies, British Movies, Foreign Films, Moody/Stylish, Mystery

Tagged , , ,

The Nanny (1965)

Posted on March 24, 2012 | 1 comment

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 5 out of 10

4-Word Review: Kid doesn’t like nanny.

            Bette Davis plays a nanny to an upper-class British family whose oldest son Joey (William Dix) is accused of accidently killing his younger sister. Joey, who is only 10, is sent away to a home for disturbed children. When he returns he accuses the nanny as the one who did the killing and a psychological game of cat-and-mouse ensues.

Davis is sensational. She plays a type of character that she has never done before and the results are fascinating. She is much more subdued and evasive than usual and she falls into the role of the unassuming nanny in a seamless fashion. The different setting works well for her and I commend her tenacity for taking on a project that was not glamorous. She even puts on some thick eyebrows for her part and at times, especially at the beginning, she starts to resemble her most hated rival Joan Crawford.

Dix is amazingly good as the kid and it is a shame that he did only one other picture after this one. I liked the independent nature of the character and he plays off Davis quite well and showed no signs of being intimated by her. Making the adversaries have such extreme age difference and personalities gives the story an interesting edge that helps carry the picture.

The evocative black and white photography helps accentuate the dark-tone. The British setting along with the expected formalities of that culture, particularly that from the father character Bill (James Villers) give the film some distinction.

The first act though goes on way too long. We are given the general premise right up front and then have to spend the whole first hour going through the scenario that Joey doesn’t like his nanny and is suspicious of her again and again until it becomes derivative. When the second act does finally come about it seems too late. The revelation isn’t all that clever or creative and the climactic sequence desperately needed more action and punch. The final result is unsatisfying. The viewer is given an intriguing premise that it can’t sustain to the end ultimately making this a misfire despite the outstanding presence of Davis and some high production values.

There is also the issue of the three-year-old girl who is adorable and an absolute scene stealer and yet right up front you are made aware that she is killed, which makes the proceedings rather depressing. Having to then watch her actual death is disturbing and, for its time period, rather vivid and startling.

My Rating: 5 out of 10

Released: October 27, 1965

Runtime: 1Hour 31Minutes

Rated: NR (Not Rated)

Director: Seth Holt

Studio: Hammer Productions

Available: DVD

1 Comment

Posted in 60's Movies, Black & White, British Movies, Foreign Films, Movies Based on Novels, Mystery, Psychological, Thrillers/Suspense

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Seance on a Wet Afternoon (1964)

Posted on February 26, 2012 | 2 comments

seance on a wet afternoon

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Psychic is a phoney.

Myra Savage (Kim Stanley) is an emotionally unbalanced woman and failed psychic who comes up with an idea that she hopes will revive her career. The plan is for her husband Billy (Richard Attenborough) to kidnap Amanda Clayton (Judith Donner) who is the young daughter of a rich businessman. They will then place her at a strategic location and hold a public séance at which time Myra will ‘miraculously’ predict her whereabouts. This will then, they hope, make her famous and world renowned, but of course things don’t work out as expected.

This is indeed a unique and unusual film that taps into some rare qualities. First and foremost is the black and white cinematography. Every camera shot and angle has a certain evocative flair that is well captured and vivid. The on-location shots pick up just the right amount of ambiance and lighting with each setting. The music score is great and helps create excellent tension. You also will love the little girl that they kidnap. She is adorable without it being forced. Her matter-of-fact sensibilities are a great contrast to Attenborough and Stanley whose characters are child-like and pathetic.

Yet the film doesn’t completely work. The story is handled in a plodding and methodical way without any twists or surprises. There is very little action, some definite slow spots and the conclusion is limp.

If you watch it for the performances then you will be more intrigued. Stage actress Stanley gives a rare film appearance here. It is easy to see why she took the role even though she was known to dislike doing films. The takes are long and give almost unlimited possibilities in creating a character, which is what all stage actors enjoy. She does well and at times may remind one of another legendary actress Geraldine Page who would have also been perfect for the part. Attenborough proves almost her equal. His expressions of shock and worry are memorable. The interplay between the two is fun especially towards the end when this otherwise passive man stands up to the domineering woman.

Overall there are some unique moments, but it is just not suspenseful enough and results in being only slightly above average.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: November 5, 1964

Runtime: 1Hour 55Minutes

Rating: NR (Not Rated)

Director: Bryan Forbes

Studio: Artixo Productions

Available: VHS, DVD (Region 1 & 2)

2 Comments

Posted in 60's Movies, Black & White, British Movies, Drama, Foreign Films, Kidnapping Movies, Moody/Stylish, Movies Based on Novels, Psychological

Tagged , , , , , , ,

The Bliss of Mrs. Blossom (1968)

Posted on February 25, 2012 | 1 comment

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Lover in the attic.

This wacky film nicely exudes the mod, experimental wave of filmmaking that permeated the era of the late 60’s. The story takes place in London and is about a clothing manufacturer’s wife named Harriet Blossom (Shirley MacLaine) who one day calls her husband Robert (Richard Attenborough) while he is at work to tell him that her sewing machine has broken down. Robert sends his lowly assistant Ambrose Tuttle (James Booth) over to their house to help her fix it. Harriet is a bit bored with life and feels neglected by her husband, so she not so subtly seduces Ambrose and then hides him in the attic where he soon takes up residence.  He comes out only when Robert is away, but the unexplained strange noises that Robert hears and the many close calls make him think he is going insane and leads him to a nervous breakdown.

Director Joseph McGrath’s highly visual style is the real star. The lighting, editing, camera angles, set design, and costumes are creative and imaginative.  The home that was chosen for the setting has a nice architectural flair especially the attic and billiards room, which seems to be draped by a large stain glass window. Certain film professors show this movie to their classes as an example of how stylish direction can help accentuate a story as well as deftly define its era. I was disappointed to see that although McGrath is still alive he hasn’t done a film since 1984, which is a shame as it is obvious from this that he is quite gifted and I would have liked to see him doing more.

This is generally considered a vehicle for MacLaine, but to me her performance isn’t interesting. I think she is a first rate actress, but her character here is the only normal one in the film and she acts more like an anchor trying to corral the craziness around her. Booth, as her lover, goes to the other extreme, but doesn’t fare any better. He is too clownish and is always wearing various disguises and going through different personas, which makes the character unrealistic and cartoonish. If anything, out of the three main leads, it is actually Attenborough who does the best. His nervous and confused facial expressions are priceless. The scenes were he comes home from work and to ‘unwind’ pretends to be a conductor of a large orchestra while listening to a loud record, is amusing.

The colorful supporting cast though, full of legendary British Pros, is what steals the film. Some of them appear just briefly, but they still make a memorable and funny impression. Barry Humphries, playing a male character and not Dame Edna, is good as an art dealer. John Cleese, in one of his very first roles, is engaging as an argumentative postal clerk.  The best however is far and away Freddie Jones as the snippy, suspicious, relentless detective that will leave no stone unturned in his pursuit of Ambrose, who once he moves into Harriet’s attic proceeds to completely drop of society and disappear.

Although generally entertaining the plot doesn’t go anywhere and is simply a set-up for a lot of absurdity. What is worse is the fact that this based on a true story that in its own right was very intriguing.  In the real-life incident that took place in 1913 a 33 year old woman by the name of Dolly Oesterreich met a 17 year old named Otto Sanhuber. She, like the character in the movie, was a bored wife of a wealthy textile manufacturer, and took in the young man as her ‘sex slave’, which he readily accepted. To avoid possible suspicion she had him move into their attic, where he remained for five years and despite some close calls was never caught.  When the Oesterreich’s moved to Los Angeles in 1918 Dolly made sure that their new home had an attic as well and Otto then took up residence there and the deception continued until 1920 when Otto finally ended up killing the husband.

Of course none of that happens here. In fact Ambrose is fond of the husband and considers the three to be one big happy ‘family’, which is offbeat for sure, but not particularly satisfying. Again, this film does have some funny moments. I thought the scene where Robert invents the world’s first inflatable bra only to have the system go awry during an exhibition, which forces the model’s breasts to grow to unbelievable proportions before they go floating in the air, to be hilarious.  Still the end result of this production can best be described as cinematic soufflé.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: September 11, 1968

Runtime: 1Hour 33Minutes

Rating: NR (Not Rated)

Director: Joseph McGrath

Studio: Paramount

Available: VHS

1 Comment

Posted in 60's Movies, British Movies, Farce, Foreign Films, Movies Based on Actual Events, Quirky, Sex

Tagged , , , ,

Venom (1982)

Posted on February 23, 2012 | Leave a comment

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: Kidnappers versus deadly snake.

            Phillip Hopkins (Lance Holcomb) is an 8-year old boy and son of a wealthy couple. When his parents leave for a trip the family’s maid and chauffeur (Susan George, Oliver Reed) conspire to kidnap the boy and hold him for a ransom with the help of a ruthless gunman (Klaus Kinski).  Unbeknownst to any of them the boy has mistakenly acquired a black mamba snake that escapes from his cage. As the culprits try to pull off their crime they become trapped in the house by the deadly reptile that starts to attack them one-by-one.

For starters the cast is one of a kind. Besides the performers listed above the film also has Sarah Miles as a Dr. with a serum to help fight the snake’s poisonous venom. Nicol Williamson appears as the police negotiator and Sterling Hayden, in his last film role, plays the boy’s grandfather.  How anyone could manage to direct a cast with such legendarily huge egos and eccentric personalities seems hard to fathom and probably explains why original director Tobe Hooper left the production after only ten days of shooting and was replaced by Piers Haggard. Supposedly Reed and Kinski were at odds with each other during the entire production and their animosity clearly shows on screen. For the most part the talents of the cast is wasted with a script that is limited and filled with characterizations that allow for no range.

I did like Hayden in the scene where he is forced to go searching for the snake in a darkened room and armed with nothing more than a lamp and a makeshift weapon. George is also fun playing a duplicitous character for a change and I was disappointed that she gets killed off so soon. However, she does make the most of it with a very theatrical death scene. Probably the best performance in the whole film is that of the boy. He has a very sweet, young looking face and the widest most innocent pair of blue eyes you’ll ever see and the kind that most casting directors would kill for. The kid plays the frightened part well and does an effective asthma attack. He hasn’t done much since, but I am sure that if he wrote a book dealing with his experiences on the set and his interactions with that cast that if would most assuredly be a best-seller.

The set-up is good and I found myself riveted to it for the first half-hour. I liked the idea that an actual mamba snake was used. There is a part where the snake is slithering towards the camera and opens its wide, black mouth and hisses straight at the camera, which could be enough to get most viewers to jump out of their seat. Director Haggard uses the novel idea of shooting scenes from the snake’s point-of-view and he does it through a fuzzy and slightly distorted lens to help replicate the snake’s vision. The only problem I had in this area is that the snake is seen slithering throughout the picture inside the home’s venting system, which is shown to be very clean and spotless, which didn’t make sense to me since the home was old making me think that the metal piping would be more corroded and rusted.

Despite the excellent concept the film’s second hour is quite boring. The characters don’t have enough to do and spend most of the time standing around. The interplay between Kinski and Williamson brings no tension. There is one cringe inducing scene where the snake crawls up Reed’s pant leg, but overall the scares are quite sparse. The climatic sequence is too convenient and becomes more of a disappointment then a shock. It is hard to say if the film would have been better if Hooper had stayed on or not. Reportedly none of the footage that he shot is in the final cut. The film is based on a novel by Alan Scholefield, which I suspect is probably more intriguing and after watching this makes me interested in reading it.

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: January 29, 1982

Runtime: 1Hour 33Minutes

Rated R (Mature Theme, Violence, Language) 

Studio: Paramount

Director: Piers Haggard

Available: DVD

Leave a comment

Posted in 80's Movies, British Movies, Foreign Films, Kidnapping Movies, Movies Based on Novels, Thrillers/Suspense

Tagged , , , ,

Entertaining Mr. Sloane (1970)

Posted on January 26, 2012 | 2 comments

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: The first gay marriage.

Based on the Joe Orton play of the same name, this film deals with a handsome young stranger named Sloane (Peter McEnery) who becomes a lodger at an isolated household in the English countryside. He is on the run from a murder he committed and feels this will be a safe haven due to the only other inhabitants being a quirky old lady name Katherine (Beryl Reid) and her equally quirky father Kemp (Alan Webb).  Katherine, or Kath, takes a sexual interest in Sloane despite their wide age difference, which Sloane doesn’t mind as he uses this to manipulate her. When Kath’s brother Ed (Harry Andrews) arrives and takes an amorous interest in Sloane as well, he does the same thing to him. Then Kemp recognizes Sloane as the killer and Sloane is forced to kill him, which culminates with ironic results.

Playwright Orton was years ahead of his time. His plays always had a dark, sexual, even explicit nature to them and his characters were always perverse and amoral in a darkly hilarious way. It is unfortunate that he was bludgeoned to death in 1967 by his jealous gay lover and his career was cut short. However, this adaptation done by screenwriter Clive Exton seems to miss the mark. The dialogue is endless with very little action. The other adaptation of Orton’s work that was made into a film, Loot, was much more lively and full of a lot of campy, zany humor as well as quick edits and imaginative camerawork. This film is visually dull and all the action is jammed into a cramped, dark house with bland decorations. It never really gets going until the final 15 minutes when you get to see the world’s very first gay marriage performed, but by then it is much too late.

For 1970 this film does seem edgy and even controversial in certain parts. The gay erotic subtext is quite strong especially the way the camera scans Sloane’s tan, half naked body. There is also Ed’s pink Cadillac that he drives around, which I got a real kick out of. I liked the way it squeaked as he drove it and was constantly bouncing up and down.  There is also his very provocative hood ornament of a naked man that the camera hones in on. The best part comes when Ed washes his car and is more focused on the ornament, which he lovingly caresses with his towel, than the rest of the vehicle.

However, 40 years later this stuff seems pretty tame and there are too many segments where nothing happens and is handled too conventionally.  It seemed like director Douglas Hickox really didn’t get, or appreciate the material enough, or interpret it in some interesting way because the final result is nothing more than a filmed stage play. The music that is used is terrible and almost enough to get you to turn off the film. It also gets overused and played over scenes when it isn’t needed and hurts the film’s mood in the process.

The biggest problem with the film may actually be with actress Reid herself. Don’t get me wrong this is a wonderfully unique actress who has done some memorable work. I especially liked her in The Killing of Sister George, and she is quite good here as well. However, I do have two issues. The first is a small one. It involves the fact that the character wears dentures. In one scene Sloane supposedly knocks them out and breaks them, but then Reid turns around and screams and you can see that she still has teeth in her mouth.  The other, much more serious issue is the fact that near the beginning of the film she is seen walking through a cemetery in broad daylight wearing a see through blouse. Now with some woman this can be quite sexy and I certainly wouldn’t complain, but when they are 60 and looking more like 70 this is a bad idea, even for perversely comical purposes as it is here it is still a bad idea. What is even worse is when she turns around and a gust of wind blows up her skirt and you can see her entire bare backside, which might be enough to make some viewers sick.

Now, before anyone accuses me of ageism let me relate an interesting experience that happened to me. Back in 2003 I was home from work and decided to take in a movie. I was living in Chicago at the time and I went to the neighborhood theater to see the interesting French mystery Swimming Pool starring Ludivine Sagnier and Charlotte Rampling.  It was a Tuesday and little did I know that it was senior discount day and the place was packed, literally, with people all looking well over the age of 70. The lady that sat beside me looked to be at least 80 and came in using a walker. The film featured an abundance of nudity from the young and attractive Sagnier, which I thought might shock and offend the seniors, but no one reacted to it and everyone went on enjoying the film. Then, towards the end of the movie, 58 year-old actress Rampling starts to take off her clothes and this indeed elicited a nervous response from the crowd. The lady next to me even said ‘oh dear’. In all fairness Rampling didn’t look all that bad naked, but it still hits home the point that even old people don’t want to see other old people naked.

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: July 27, 1970

Runtime: 1Hour 34Minutes

Rated R

Director: Douglas Hickox

Studio: Continental Distributing

Available: VHS, DVD (Region 2)

2 Comments

Posted in 70's Movies, Black Comedy, British Movies, Foreign Films, Gay/Lesbian, Movies Based on Stageplays, Movies with a rural setting, Obscure Movies

Tagged , , , , , ,