Category Archives: Drama

The Subject Was Roses (1968)

subject was roses

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: This homecoming isn’t happy.

Tim (Martin Sheen) arrives home from the war to find that things aren’t going well with his parents John and Nettie (Jack Albertson, Patricia Neal). Their aloofness towards each other slowly becomes more apparent and seems to come to a head when Tim decides to buy his mother a bouquet of roses and his dad pretends it was his idea. When Nettie realizes it wasn’t John who bought them she leaves the house and doesn’t return, which causes John to panic and try to find her.

This movie has a compelling quality to it and is the old-fashioned type of drama that they don’t seem to make anymore. The characters are real and believable and will probably remind one of their own parents, or even themselves and their marriages. The dialogue has a great conversational style and the viewer feels like they are eavesdropping onto an actual household. The action happens slowly, but deliberately and is devoid of any neat and tidy wrap-ups.

However, the film is also a bit frustrating. We are never explicitly shown what it is that is troubling Nettie so terribly. We are given some definite hints of things bubbling just underneath the surface, but there is nothing that completely comes out into the open. The viewer becomes primed for some great revelation, but when it doesn’t come and the characters end up remaining in the same situation as when it began it makes the whole thing seem pointless.

Neal is outstanding and the main catalyst for why this works. This was her first film after she had suffered several near fatal strokes in 1965. Although she does very well one can still see some subtle effects of it like the way she walks and her speech being just a little bit slower, but in context with the role it makes her seem older than she really is and therefore better for her role. I was surprised at how physically demanding the part was including having her dance rigorously around the living room with Sheen as well as having to aggressively fight off Albertson’s unwanted advances. Her sad and pained facial expressions leave the most lasting impressions.

Although it was Neal who I felt should’ve won the Oscar it was actually Albertson who did. His performance, which he recreated from the Broadway play that also netted him the Tony, is solid especially for doing a character that at times is off-putting. He does get the film’s best line “The humping that I am getting isn’t worth the humping that I am getting.”

The story takes place in the 1940’s and is basically a loose autobiographical story of Frank D. Gilroy who wrote both the award winning play and screen version. For the most part it succeeds with its retro look, but the music by Judy Collins doesn’t fit. Personally, I love Collins as a vocalist, but her raw, moody folk music sound seems out of place for a 40’s setting and takes the viewer out of the story in the process.

Transferring a story done for the stage to the big screen is never easy, but director Ulu Grosbard manages to make it cinematic. None of it was done on a soundstage, but instead the apartment was built inside a warehouse in the same Bronx neighborhood where Gilroy grew up and painstaking detail was done to give it an authentic lived-in look. The scenes done at their lakeside cabin is also effective as it captures the blossoming spring time landscape and gives a nice soothing feeling. You also get to witness Sheen skipping stones across the lake several times something that I could never get the hang of myself.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: October 13, 1968

Runtime: 1Hour 47Minutes

Not Rated

Director: Ulu Grosbard

Studio: MGM

Available: VHS, DVD (Warner Archive)

My Dinner with Andre (1981)

my dinner with andre

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 5 out of 10

4-Word Review: Talking can be interesting.

 
Rare is a film that can be categorized as being daring by what it doesn’t do than by what it does yet this is a film that fits that instance. This is a story about two old friends (Wallace Shawn, Andre Gregory) who meet at a fancy restaurant and have a long, pleasant conversation. That’s it. No big revelations, no cutaways, no side story, no fights, no jokes, and certainly no added cinematic effects. The men merely have the same type of conversation that two educated men on the same intellectual level might also have. Then after two hours they call it a night and go home.

Does this mean that this is a poor or boring movie? No, not really. Sometimes the best directing is just the guts to stick with a concept that is unusual. That is what Louis Malle does here and you have to give him credit. On its own simple terms it actually does succeed. One’s mind certainly does wander at times, but somehow you never lose complete interest. The simple framing and editing are actually effective.

The two stars are competent for what they are doing yet they do not seem to be the best of actors. At times they seem to be simply mouthing their lines and there is no nuance in their delivery. Gregory has a nice deep, resonate voice that almost seems like a radio announcers. He does most of the talking so at least he is pleasant to the ears. Shawn is the exact opposite. His voice is screechy and annoying. Yet he does supply an engaging voice-over narrative at the beginning, which is so fun you wished they had kept it going throughout.

The idea of following a real, genuine conversation is a good one. Sometimes it is interesting to observe all the threads a conversation between any group of people takes. However the conversation here isn’t real. It is clearly scripted out and that hurts it. The first hour is especially poor. It consists mainly of Gregory talking about some wild, fantastical experiences of his. It comes-of as forced and extended. Having some cutaways throughout his talking would have helped because a lot of what he talks about is very visual.

The second hour is better because Shawn gets more involved and they have a real discussion. The topics are more expansive and philosophical. They range from how one perceives reality to the very essence of our being. Of course anyone with some existential friends could have the same conversation, but at least it makes the film more stimulating.

In the end this is an interesting experiment that halfway succeeds. It would have helped had the two men, who seem to be playing themselves anyway, been allowed to have a more natural and impromptu discussion. Even adding a few more people into the mix wouldn’t have hurt. They could have also given it just a little bit more of a visual flair. Although watching the very good way that they listen to one another is a sight in itself. Their listening skills are so good that it almost seems unreal. It is unfortunate that everyone can’t have these same types of skills

My Rating: 5 out of 10

Released: October 11, 1981

Runtime: 1Hour 50Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Louis Malle

Studio: New Yorker Films

Available: VHS, DVD (The Criterion Collection), Amazon Instant Video

Before and After (1996)

before and after

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 8 out of 10

4-Word Review: Son is a murderer.

This is a solid drama based on the novel by Rosellen Brown detailing how a family copes after their teenage son Jacob (Edward Furlong) is accused of killing his girlfriend.

Thoroughly engrossing and believable from beginning to end and full of intriguing plot twists. It is fascinating how it examines things from a completely unique perspective namely the family members of the perpetrator, which is rarely ever done. The story is also interesting in that it gets the viewer too become quite attached to Furlong who plays the accused. The film forces the viewer to face and question their own moral judgments, which is good since many films these days seem timid at digging too deeply into anything of a serious nature or forcing the viewer to confront any of their own preconceived notions.

On the negative end the film lacks cinematic style and at times almost looks like it is a TV-movie. Meryl Streep is okay as Jacob’s mother, but this is definitely not one of her better performances. There is a love making scene between her and Liam Neeson that looks mechanical and is completely unnecessary. Viewers who have had family members or friends that have been victims of crimes may find themselves upset with some of the moral conclusions.

Overall this is a strong drama that presents a lot of issues that are timely and haven’t been done anywhere else. Despite a lack of flair or visual style it is still an excellent piece of storytelling with an outstanding performance by Furlong.

My Rating: 8 out of 10

Released: February 23, 1996

Runtime: 1Hour 48Minutes

Rated PG-13

Director: Barbet Schroeder

Studio: Caravan Pictures

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Instant Video 

The Border (1982)

border

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 8 out of 10

4-Word Review: Border patrol isn’t easy.

Charlie Smith (Jack Nicholson) is a guard new to the border patrol who must learn to deal with the ugly realities that come along with his profession including becoming more and more pressured to get involved with the corruption that goes on there.

This is a stark presentation with an authentic atmosphere that at times makes it seem like a documentary. The viewer becomes submerged in this intelligent study on a serious and important issue with a result that is nothing short of enlightening. Unlike most other Hollywood movies nothing is over-the-top or melodramatic. It doesn’t try for shock value nor resort to clichés. The narrative is straightforward and uncompromising while offering no easy answers or annoyingly false wrap-ups.

Director Tony Richardson takes an expectedly humanistic approach and yet doesn’t seem inclined to push any type of agenda. This film has a look and feel different from any of his other films. He is known primarily for his wacky comedies (Tom Jones, The Loved One) and yet this film is grainy and grim. Much of that is due to the excellent use of natural lighting. This film has a very serious tone throughout and yet for some reason doesn’t end up being oppressive like some of those other ‘important’ pictures. It is also well paced with a riveting and compelling finish.

Nicholson gives a sensitive and sincere performance and a rare turn seeing him underplay everything. Valerie Perrine is very good as his wife and having her spend lavishly while oblivious to the poverty around her makes for interesting insight. Warren Oates is top-notch as always in support as Charlie’s supervisor. His character is brimming with a potential confrontation with Charlie and it is unfortunate that the movie doesn’t pursue this further.

Overall this is a strong picture that deserves more praise and attention and one of Nicholson’s best performances.

My Rating: 8 out of 10

Released: January 31, 1982

Runtime: 1Hour 48Minutes

Rated R

Director: Tony Richardson

Studio: Universal

Available: VHS, DVD, Amazon Instant Video

The Birthday Party (1968)

the birthday party 3

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 8 out of 10

4-Word Review: Tear up the newspaper.

Since tomorrow will be my birthday I wanted to come up with a film that had birthdays as its theme and found this bizarre but fascinating obscurity. It is the story based on the play by Harold Pinter of Stanley Webber (Robert Shaw) a mysterious and private man who takes up lodging in a rundown British seaside house. He rents an upstairs room from Mr. and Mrs. Bowles (Moultrie Kelsall, Dandy Nichols) who are quite odd themselves. One day two men dressed in black suits (Patrick Magee, Sydney Tafler) come to pay Stanley a visit. They know something about Stanley’s past and their presence frightens him to the extent that it causes him to have a nervous breakdown.

On the surface this film shouldn’t work. There is an excessive amount of talking with dialogue that doesn’t say much and at times seems absurd. The set is drab and dirty with the camera seemingly locked down inside of it. There is never any explanation about Stanley’s past or what he is running from nor who the men are or what they know about him. The ending is elusive and the viewer will go away feeling more confused than they did at the start.

However, it is these ingredients that make the film so thoroughly intriguing. The seemingly banal dialogue is simply a façade for underlying thoughts and feelings. What Stanley is trying to run from is unimportant because it is really not about him at all and is instead more about ourselves, human nature and the quandary of our existence. It’s an examination of people’s futile attempts at trying to escape from who they are only to have society and life catch up with them. The set could be a metaphor for the inside of Stanley’s head. The grimy and decayed place symbolizes his decayed soul and the men in black suits are his conscience coming to haunt him.

Once you adjust to the eccentric narrative it then becomes a fantastic film for observing subtitles and nuance. Director William Friedkin shows a keenness for detail not only visually, but with the sound as well. The way the Magee character tears up a newspaper and the sound used for it could actually unnerve some viewers. Stanley’s meltdown scene is very unique and overall the direction is superb for such difficult material.

This movie was years ahead of its time, but for some it may be off-putting. However, it should be enjoyed by those who crave the avant-garde. It is also a rare chance to the see the normally strong-willed Shaw playing a very weak and vulnerable character. Nichols is also a stand-out playing an Edith Bunker type with a perverse streak lying just beneath the surface.

the birthday party 1

My Rating: 8 out of 10

Released: December 9, 1968

Runtime: 2Hours 3Minutes

Rated G

Director: William Friedkin

Studio: Palomar Pictures International

Available: VHS, DVD (Region 2)

The Oscar (1966)

oscar 1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 2 out of 10

4-Word Review: Actor’s career on decline.

Frank Fane (Stephen Boyd) is a flippant, self-centered, and arrogant man who makes a living by setting up gigs for his stripper girlfriend Laurel (Jill St John) at local strip joints. By pure chance he watches the rehearsal of a play and in a fit of frustration jumps onto the stage to show the actors how to perform a knife fight when he doesn’t think they are doing it right. This impresses Sophie (Eleanor Parker) who uses her influence to get him signed to a contract at a big movie studio that makes Frank a star almost overnight, but as the years pass the quality and quantity of his roles diminish.  His overspending begins to catch up with him and just when he thinks his career may have faded he gets nominated for the Oscar. He feels a win will revive his career and will stop at nothing and use every dirty trick he can in order to influence the vote.

Adapted from the Richard Sale novel this is high drama at its worst. The scenarios are over-the-top and soap opera-like while bearing little relation to reality. The characterizations are on a kindergarten level and a composite of every Hollywood cliché and stereotype rolled together. The dialogue sounds like it was taken from a 50’s B-movie and comes off more like rants and speeches than anything any real person would actually say. Any attempt at gaining any insight into the behind-the-scenes world of Hollywood is lost with a script that becomes wildly off-center until it becomes absurd and ludicrous. Famed science fiction writer Harlan Ellison who scripted this mess was completely out of his realm here and the film is so botched, over-long, and redundant that it isn’t even good for laughs.

If the film had a glossy visual quality to it then it could at least be entertaining on that level, but director Russell Rouse shows no visual flair, or imagination. The scenes are lighted too brightly, which washes out the color and makes the sets look flat and one-dimensional. The music is too loud and used in a heavy-handed way similar to the canned laughter on some sitcoms. Every time there is some dramatic revelation, or shift the music comes booming out in order to alert the viewer who apparently was perceived by the filmmakers to be too dumb to pick up on it otherwise.

I did like Boyd in the lead. He has good looking chiseled features and parlays the necessary arrogance of the part, but the character is wholly dislikable and only gets worse as the film progresses and having to spend two hours watching a jerk be nothing but a jerk is too much.

The only time he shows any slight compassion is when he finds a fellow actor (Peter Lawford) down on his luck, but it is too extreme to believe that a one-time headlining movie star could one day fall to the point that he would have to wait tables to make a living and thus makes this moment as ridiculous and everything else in the movie. An ‘A’ list actor may fall down to becoming a ‘B’ list actor, or having to go from movies to guest spots on TV-shows, or even doing commercials, or infomercials, but having to become a waiter at a restaurant just isn’t plausible.

Elke Sommar gives a sincere performance and her German accent is sexy, but her character becomes too much of an emotional yo-yo. One minute she loves Frank then the next minute she hates him, only to quickly fall in-love with him again and then hate him shortly after that. Parker, as Frank’s mistress on the side, is good, but wasted despite looking as elegant as ever.

Tony Bennett is badly miscast as Frank’s best friend Hymie. This was to date his one and only film role and he may be a great crooner, but as an actor he is uncharismatic. Milton Berle fares almost as poorly playing Frank’s agent. Initially it was interesting seeing him take a dramatic turn instead of being the perennial comic ham, but his acting skills appear limited and his drama becomes as hammy as his comedy.

Ernest Borgnine gives the film’s only real solid performance as a shady and conniving private detective. The scene where Frank slugs him and it sends him flying backwards and toppling over his desk before crashing against the back wall is the film’s only good moment unless you count St John’s opening striptease.

Lots of cameos by famous stars and celebrities including famed costume designer Edith Head in a non-speaking part and gossip columnist Hedda Hopper in a part she did just before her death.

A good movie can inspire the viewer and expand their thinking and imagination, but this film had the absolute opposite effect. It made me feel like my mind had been sucked away by a giant vacuum. I felt depressed after watching it and continued to feel depressed the next day when I woke up.

oscar 2

My Rating: 2 out of 10

Released: March 4, 1966

Runtime: 1Hour 59Minutes

Not Rated

Director: Russell Rouse

Studio: Embassy Pictures Corporation

Available: VHS, YouTube

Windows (1980)

windows 3

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 1 out of 10

4-Word Review: She’s obsessed with her.

Emily (Talia Shire) is attacked in her apartment by a rapist (Rick Petrucelli) and when the police come to investigate the crime she starts to fall in love with Bob (Joe Cortese) the handsome police captain. Little does Emily know that her friend Andrea (Elizabeth Ashley) was behind the attack. She is a closet lesbian with a secret psychotic obsession for Emily who hired the man to rape her and record it, so Andrea could get-off on listening to the sounds of Emily moaning during the struggle. Now that Emily is going out with Bob it makes Andrea angry and her behavior becomes more dangerous and erratic.

For a thriller this film is extraordinarily low-key to the point that it also comes off like a drama, but fails on both ends. There is no mounting tension and little if any scares. The only one that they do have is when Andrea sticks Emily’s cat into a freezer and later it drops out of it like it was a Popsicle, which is actually unintentionally funny. There is also hardly any music. Ennio Morricone was hired to be the composer, but they don’t use him as much as they should. An amazing amount of the movie deals with the natural street sounds and ambience from life in New York, which is interesting for a while, but does nothing to elevate the tension, or create any excitement. Famed cinematographer Gordon Willis in his directorial debut seems more interested in capturing the New York skyline and creating shadowy interiors than actually making a movie with an original story, or interesting characters.

Shire is so quiet and awkward that she seems to be in a mental stupor. Her screen presence here is transparent and lifeless and it is easy to see why her leading lady status was brief. Cortese is no better as the male lead and the romantic side-story has no energy or chemistry and only helps to bog down an already boring story. Intercutting this with Andrea’s visits to her psychiatrist (Michael Lipton) successfully creates the first thriller to have no suspense whatsoever.

Ashley seems like the perfect choice for a homicidal lesbian, but the part is written in a way that doesn’t allow her to go over-the-top with it, which she should have although you do get to see her wearing quite possibly the biggest pair of sunglasses that I have ever seen. It might have worked better had the viewer not been aware from the start about Andrea’s psychosis and instead only revealed it at the end as a twist.

The climatic sequence between Emily and Andrea would be laughable if it weren’t so mind numbingly stilted and prolonged. The scene goes on for almost twenty minutes and features the two women standing in front of a window with Emily weeping incessantly while Andrea rambles incoherently. How anyone who was involved in the making of this movie would think anyone would flock to see this dull and contrived thing should have their brains checked. Has an air of pretense to it like it is trying to be a ‘sophisticated’ thriller, but it is pointless. If ‘Mystery Science Theater’ were still around this would be a great candidate for it.

My Rating: 1 out of 10

Released: January 18, 1980

Runtime: 1Hour 36Minutes

Rated R

Director: Gordon Willis

Studio: United Artists

Available: DVD, Amazon Instant Video

The Caretakers (1963)

the caretakers 2

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Doctors with opposing viewpoints.

Two doctors working at a psychiatric hospital come at odds with each other over how to treat their patients. Dr. Donovan MacLeod (Robert Stack) believes in a more humanistic approach in treating mental illness including group therapy and more patient freedoms. Dr. Lucretia Terry (Joan Crawford) is hard-lined and exacts rules on her patients that have severe penalties if broken. The film examines their infighting and how it affects their patients.

Director Hall Bartlett has a nice cinema-verte style to the material that manages to avoid being ‘Hollywoodnized’ or overtly sanitized. The subject is approached in a matter of fact way and the patients are not portrayed as ‘crazy’ or ‘scary’, but instead as sick people looking to get well and learning how to do it. The opening sequence done over the credits and featuring all sorts of moody artsy drawings have an excellent avant-garde flair.

Polly Bergen is effective as Lorna a middle-aged mother and housewife who suffers a nervous breakdown and begrudgingly becomes a member of Dr. MacLeod’s therapy group. Some of her acting particularly when she is having her breakdown is theatrical and over-the-top, but I did like the way Bartlett shows things from her perspective allowing the viewer in a visual sense to feel what she is going through and makes one compassionate and sensitive to her condition.

It is great to see Crawford as always and the scene showing her in a leotard and teaching the other nurses judo lessons is a gem and much too brief. I was hoping to have her play up the part of the heavy more making her almost like a Nurse Ratched, which she could have easily done to perfection, but unfortunately the script doesn’t take advantage of it. I was also disappointed that we never see Crawford ever dealing directly with her patients, which seemed to me should have been necessary.

Stack in the lead is terrible and completely wrong for the part. The role required a man with a more youthful appeal instead of the middle-aged Stack who never displays the kind of sensitivity and compassion that his character supposedly has. Instead he delivers his lines in a stiff and monotone fashion and comes off like he came from the old school of acting.

The scene where his character allows the patients to go to an outdoor park for a picnic and mingle with the staff unsupervised seemed to be pushing the plausibility meter to the extreme. It also makes him look like a complete schmuck who should have known better especially when one of his patients leaves the picnic and runs away while he chases after her in a panic.

The supporting cast is outstanding showcasing many up and coming stars and is one of the major highlights for watching the film. Barbara Barrie is great as the silent and troubled Edna. Janis Paige is excellent as the brassy prostitute Marion. Susan Oliver gives one of her best performances as a young nurse who is just learning how to deal with those with mental illness and Robert Vaughn is also effective as Lorna’s long suffering and confused husband. This is also a great chance to see a young Van Williams before he starred as the Green Hornet as well as the beautiful Sharon Hugueny whose promising acting career was cut short when she was hit years later by a speeding police car.

If you come to this film looking for genuine insight into the illness you will be disappointed as it goes only to the most elementary level into the area of psychiatry. MacLeod’s speeches about how his group therapy can be a ‘cure’ to mental illness are shallow and almost laughable. However, for the era the film manages to be gritty and slick enough to pass as entertainment.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: August 21, 1963

Runtime: 1Hour 37Minutes

Not Rated

Director: Hal Bartlett

Studio: United Artists

Available: VHS, DVD, Amazon Instant Video, Netflix streaming

Girl with a Suitcase (1961)

girl with a suitcase

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 9 out of 10

4-Word Review: She likes shy guy.

This movie will start off a week long theme of romance movies in celebration of Valentine’s Day, which will be on the 14th. One romance movie from each decade will be reviewed starting with this sleeper from Italy that is well worth seeking out.

The story is about Aida (Claudia Cardinale) a young woman who is abandoned at a gas station after having a fight with her boyfriend. When she eventually tracks him down at his house she finds that she is actually more attracted to his younger brother Lorenzo (Jacques Perrin). Although Aida is more worldly-wise and Lorenzo shy and sheltered the two slowly form a bond that becomes emotionally compelling.

This is one of those films that despite being made over 50 years ago is still amazingly fresh. The characters are believable and reveal different layers of themselves in interesting ways. Claudia has never looked more beautiful and her performance here may be her best. Perrin is also excellent and the viewer cannot help but emphasize with him. The film packs some very powerful scenes and imagery that stays with you long after it is over and it manages to do it in a natural way that never seems forced.

If I have one complaint it is the fact that it becomes bit protracted especially at the end. Shaving the runtime by 30 minutes would have helped and possibly even made it stronger. However, Valerio Zurini’s direction is still top-notch.

The film features two fascinatingly fractured characters that are played to the zenith by the two leads. This is a film that deserves way more attention. The script, direction, and black and white cinematography are superb.

My Rating: 9 out of 10

Released: February 9, 1961

Runtime: 1Hour 55Minutes

Not Rated

Director: Valerio Zurlini

Studio: Ellis Films

Available: VHS, DVD

Wake in Fright (1971)

wake in fright 3

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 8 out of 10

4-Word Review: The middle of nowhere.

To an extent this is a one of kind film that is handled in such a raw and unpretentious way that it is like no other film you have ever seen before. The opening shot alone is amazing. You see a birdseye view of an isolated schoolhouse in the outback where our main character teaches. The camera then turns at a full circle and you see that there is absolutely nothing for miles in any direction. The desolation is mind boggling and it’s isolation at its purest.

Not only does this very inspired shot get its point across, but it also becomes the essence of what the film is about by trying to get you to understand the ruggedness of its characters by immersing you into their environment. It’s an uncompromising film full of startling images.

The story deals with a British schoolteacher John Grant (Gary Bond) who, through a loss in gambling, becomes trapped in the isolated outback town of Bundanyabba. He is cultured and educated and his sensibilities can’t mesh with the raw simplistic elements of the people in it.

It’s a highly intriguing viewpoint that not only captures man’s ever daunting task at dealing with nature, but also the overall reality of his existence and even himself. It makes you feel you are right there experiencing the same onslaught with him. There are also some interesting low key scenes proving that one of the biggest hurdles one must fight when in these places is actually just the boredom.

I do have to warn readers that the film has a very prolonged brutally explicit kangaroo hunting scene that features the actual killing of the animals. It even shows the men physically beating up on some wounded kangaroo’s and then viciously slashing their throats in a mocking fashion. Although I do feel that these scenes leave the viewer with the intended strong, raw impact and I like the lighting during the nighttime hunt that allows for a surreal element I still admit this may be a very difficult watch for some and may turn them off from viewing the film altogether. Apparently there were quite a few people that walked out of the film during this scene when it was shown at the Cannes, so be prepared.

Star Bond is excellent. You can relate to his anger and defiance at being somewhere he doesn’t want to be as well as feeling his desperation, exhaustion, and eventual surrender.

For many years this film sat in almost virtual obscurity, but after an exhaustive worldwide search a print of the film was finally found in the back of a Pittsburgh warehouse in a canister with a ‘to be destroyed’ label on it. Fortunately the print was saved and the restoration process is fantastic with colors that are bright and vivid. Director Ted Kotcheff captures the region in all of its rustic, desolate glory including the incredible crystal blue sky.

Reportedly many Aussies dislike the film as they feel it creates a negative stereotype. However, I don’t see it that way. I love the county and people and consider this more of a portrait of what happens when people are stuck in an isolated environment, which technically could be anywhere.

wake in fright 2

My Rating: 8 out of 10

Alternate Title: Outback

Released: October 13, 1971

Runtime: 1Hour 49Minutes

Rated R

Director: Ted Kotcheff

Studio: United Artists

Available: DVD (Region 1 & 2) Blu-ray, Amazon Instant Video