Category Archives: Foreign Films

The Appointment (1981)

 

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 8 out of 10

4-Word Review: Business trip turns deadly.

Ian (Edward Woodward) is the father of 14-year-0ld Joanne (Samantha Weyson) who is set to have an all-important violin solo and wants to make sure that her father is there. However, Ian is forced to make a business trip and not able to attend, which upsets her. That night he has strange dreams that seem to warn him of impending danger. The next morning, he sets out on his drive, but notices things are eerily similar to what occurred in his dream the night prior. Is he speeding into a deadly scenario and can he turn around before it’s too late?

This was originally intended to be a British TV-Movie, but when production received a large investment from one of its backers it allowed them a bigger budget for the special effects convincing the producers that this would work better on the big screen. Sadly, despite the excellent effects, they were unable to find a distributor, and it soon fell into obscurity. For a long time, many considered it a ‘lost film’ until Sony was able to retrieve a quality print that allowed it to be released onto Blu-ray where it’s now achieved a new and fervent fanbase.

The film is effectively spooky, but what grabbed me most was its vivid depiction of parenting a teen daughter, which many people who’ve been through it will say is far scarier than any horror movie. The inner dynamics in which the father attempts to exert authority but ends up emotionally manipulated by his moody daughter is completely on target. These moments are actually the creepiest particularly the prolonged, unblinking stare that she gives him while in the living room.

The car accident is masterfully choreographed featuring amazing camera work like the shot from underneath the speeding vehicle during the tire blowout. Having the car go off the cliff and land in a tree and then watching Woodward teeter upside down is equally compelling and even more impressive when you factor in that this was all done decades before CG or AI was even a thing. If there is one reason to see the film, and repeat viewings, it would be for this sequence alone.

However, the dream sequence that comes before it dilutes some of its impact. Too many moments from the accident get played out during the nightmare, so when the viewer finally gets to the real thing it becomes redundant. I did like the use of the big dogs, and I felt that the dream should’ve just had them, but nothing about the car, so that way when we finally do get to the accident it comes off as fresh and surprising.

The script does have its share of confusing imagery that muddles the story. While the death of the car mechanic is imaginative, I didn’t understand the point of it as he seems to be working on the car at the exact same time that Woodward is driving it. The opening scene involving a young schoolgirl going into a forest and getting ‘snatched’ by an evil spirit is equally convoluted. Sure, it’s scary, but what’s the point? Had it been Joanne it would’ve made more sense that she got connected with some evil force years earlier and now this has allowed her to do cruel things, but because it wasn’t her it just adds to more unanswered questions.

Spoiler Alert!

The ending is adequate, as it shows Joanne petting the evil dogs, which implies that she had some connection to her father’s freaky death, but I would’ve liked more of a conclusion. For instance, did she intentionally wish for the accident to occur, or did the entity come up with the idea on its own?

The film portrays her as being self-absorbed and desperate for attention, but if that were the case then killing her father would’ve worked against this. Narcists want validation, but this can only occur if other people are around to supply it and with the dad dead that was no longer going to happen. Would’ve made more sense had he been put on the brink of death only to be saved by a rescue team. He could then have come home in an injured, shaken state and be told if he ever crossed her again, he’d get the same treatment.

Or it could’ve gone the other way, where the father does perish, and then Joanne comes home to her teary-eyed mother who gives her the bad news. She could then warn her traumatized mom by saying: ‘You better make sure you’re always supportive, or otherwise the same thing will happen to you.’

My Rating: 8 out of 10

Released: 1982 (Direct-to-video)

Runtime: 1 Hour 29 Minutes

Not Rated

Director: Lindsay C. Vickers

Studio: First Principle Film Productions

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, The Criterion Channel

Thirst (1979)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Kidnapped by vampire cult.

Kate (Chantal Contouri) is an unmarried career woman living in Melbourne, Australia who gets kidnapped by a group calling themselves ‘The Brotherhood’. They take her to their isolated retreat where they try to brainwash her into becoming a bloodsucking vampire like them. She resists their pressure tactics forcing them to use even stronger psychological methods. Dr. Fraser (David Hemmings) is against this feeling it has have gone too far, which puts him at odds with Mrs. Barker (Shirley Cameron) who’s obsessed with trying any technique she can to break poor Kate down.

Shot on location in Montsalvat, which is a scenic artists community located in Eltham, this marks one of the first vampire movie to come out of Australia and for the most part it’s quite unique. The part that impressed me is the psychological angle that gets inside the head of the protagonist using her home as a motif and showing how the walls cracking during one of her hallucinations helps to symbolize the breaking down of her personality. So many other vampire films have a character transforming, but never the changing thoughts and attitudes inside their head that has to come with it.

This is also one of the first vampire films I know that has a sound connected to the bloodsucking. Most other movies emphasize solely the visual act, but here there’s a loud slurping noise, which is kind of gross, but also effective as it makes the act that much more vivid and thus more horrifying. My only complaint, which was a defect with a lot of films from that era, is the color of the blood, which here is bright red though in reality it’s much darker. It appears almost like Kool-Aid and probably was and there should’ve been more of it around her mouth when she sucks or drinks it and not just on her bottom lip.

The tone is a bit unstructured. At points it seems to want to aim for satire as it turns the vampire locale into a factory where is produces blood and packages it into cartons like a dairy does with milk. It even gives tours of the facility to the public, which is funny, but also perplexing. What are the people thinking when they see victims strapped to walls while big machines suck the blood out of them? Wouldn’t someone in the tour become alarmed by this and go to the police?

The same goes for Kate’s attempted escape, which comes off as too easy. There’s only one guard and the fence gate is wide open allowing her to simply walk out. Mrs. Barker and her gang do ultimately catch-up with her but why allow someone to roam the countryside so freely? What are the perimeters? Are they on some sort of island? It seemed to make more sense that there would be an electrical fence of some kind and armed guards standing outside, which would’ve made her escape more perilous and exciting.

Spoiler Alert!

There are some really cool deaths with the best being Henry Silva’s where he grabs onto a helicopter as it goes high into the air only to fall-off and get electrocuted on some power lines. Mrs. Barker’s demise, in which she falls into a vat of blood, comes as a close second. The Dr. Fraser character though kind of ruins things as his placement seems a bit too convenient. It’s his efforts that allow Kate to breakout, but it’s supposed to be her movie and therefore she should be driving the action and not allowing some supporting member to do it for her.

The final twist doesn’t work as it has Fraser, her supposed ‘savior’, taking her to an isolated cabin only to then turn on her, which I had already predicted was coming. Would’ve been more of a surprise if Kate had through her own fortitude found a way out and comes back to civilization and then seen in her home with a friend making it seem that everything was back to normal only to then have Kate’s sudden urge for blood consume her and she attacks her friend. This scene does come, but it’s much earlier and then she for whatever reason returns to the vampire place when it really should’ve been put in as the final twist.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: September 28, 1979

Runtime: 1 Hour 33 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Rod Hardy

Studio: New South Wales Film Corporation

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

 

The Awakening (1980)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 1 out of 10

4-Word Review: Queen possesses his daughter.

Based on the 1903 Bran Stoker novel ‘The Jewel of the Seven Stars’, the film centers around Matthew (Charlton Heston) who is at an archeological dig in Egypt in 1961 along with his assistant Jane (Susanah York) and his wife Anne (Jill Townsend) who is pregnant with their child. One day he and Jane come upon a lost tomb that houses Queen Kara. When the tomb is opened it unleashes her spirit, which resides itself in the baby that Anne is carrying. The delivery is painful and at one point puts Anne into a trance, but the baby survives even though at first it was considered still born. Anne takes the child and leaves the country while also divorcing Matthew. Eighteen years later Matthew is now married to Jane and working at a college professor in England. He reunites with his daughter Margaret (Stephanie Zimblast) but finds her displaying odd behaviors and eventually realizes that she’s possessed.

The movie seems intent on stealing ideas and effects from The Omen, as well as The Exorcist. The scares and effects are light and at times non-existent, which is the biggest thing going against it. When there is a killing, it comes off as very routine, or something stolen from another, better movie, particularly the sequence dealing with York falling from a balcony. The on-location shooting, shot mostly in Egypt, is picturesque, but that’s unfortunately about the only good thing I can say about it as everything else fall flat and is boring.

Heston’s presence doesn’t help things. During the opening sequence, when he’s supposed to be ‘younger’ he already looks too old, like he’s better prepared to be a grandfather than a father expecting a newborn. The only thing that changes when he gets ‘older’ is that he grows a goatee, which in some ways actually makes him appear younger. York has the same problem. During the modern-day scenes, she has longer hair while in the segments when she was supposed to be younger, she has short hair, which makes her appear older and the styles should’ve been reversed.

Townsend, this marks to date her last film appearance, doesn’t change at all between the two time periods and looks more like Zimblast’s older sister than her mother. My biggest gripe is the way her eyes never blink when she’s in her trance, which would’ve caused severe damage to the cornea and potential vision loss. Meaning that when she does ultimately snap out of her trance it most likely would’ve blinded her though here it has no effect.

Zimblast is the best thing about it. The scenes done with her inside her therapist’s office are effective and it would’ve worked better had she been the main character all the way through. She could’ve been like Linda Blair in The Exorcist, an otherwise nice person who doesn’t understand why she’s having these strange thoughts and impulses, and the viewer could’ve gotten wrapped up in hoping she could find some answers before it’s too late. Making it a mystery about what was causing it would’ve been more intriguing than spelling it all out right away.

Spoiler Alert!

The ending is a huge letdown as it has Heston dying while Zimblast goes completely into queen mode but then cuts to the credits. This then leaves open a whole plethora of questions. Like what happens to her? Does she go out and terrorize the world as this queen, or remain in the tomb and if so, what does she do there? Is she ever able to fight off the spirit and come back to being herself? This is stuff we needed to see and not just have left hanging, which makes the viewer feel unsatisfied and like they’ve only seen half a movie.

My Rating: 1 out of 10

Release: October 31, 1980

Runtime: 1 Hour 45 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Mike Newell

Studio: Orion Pictures

Available: 

 

 

Loophole (1981)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: Robbing an ‘impenetrable’ vault.

Mike (Albert Finney) is a career safe cracker who finds their last job unrewarding as the loot was less than expected. He decides their next project will be breaking into a bank safe that is supposedly impenetrable, but with one unknown loophole as it’s housed near a main sewer line. He comes up with the idea that he and his men will go into the sewer tunnels and drill holes through the brick walls until they can get underneath where the safe is and then drill through the floor of that until they can get inside. Of course, once they get into the safe it will set off alarms, but the police will not suspect anyone’s inside as the safe door will still be locked shut. In order for their plans to work they’ll need the assistance of Stephen (Martin Sheen) an architect who will be able to locate where the safe is while they’re tunneling underground. At first, he resists, but pressure by his wife (Susannah York) for him to maintain their affluent lifestyle eventually gets him to agree.

The film starts out in a highly unusual way in that with no backstory, or set-up, or even credits jolt the viewer right into a robbery in progress, watching in detail as Mike and his assistants break into a safe, which is disconcerting.  I almost thought there was some sort of glitch in the streaming of the film, and I had somehow come into it in the middle half and completely bypassed the beginning and this goes on for about 5-minutes. Without knowing who these characters are, or why they’re doing it, it’s not interesting or captivating. The result is off-putting and gives the production an amateur vibe.

When the story does finally come into play it still remains fairly awkward. I was surprised that Finney, who had taken a 4-year break from film acting, would choose this one for his ‘comeback’. The character he plays here is dull and one-dimensional and offers no real arc, or emotion. It’s interesting to an extent to see that he lives in affluence with a family, but the woman who plays his wife looks too similar to York, who plays Sheen’s spouse and thus it gets confusing at times, and more effort should’ve been made to make her distinct from the other.

Sheen does better as at the very least you see some change occur in the person he plays and some drama, at least at the very beginning, in his scenes. I liked how he’s resistant to the plan initially by constantly desribing himself as ‘an honest man’, which allows for some tension, but the way he ultimately caves is disappointing. There is the fact that he’s unemployed and in need of the money, but there still should’ve remained friction all the way through. If honesty is truly important to him then there should be lingering guilt about what he’s getting into and evidence of an inner struggle versus him ultimately just becoming ‘one of the guys’.

The robbery itself is pedestrian and been done before in other films. Having their truck get a flat tire, in order for the crew to slide through a trap door of the vehicle and into the manhole cover of the sewer without being detected, seemed too risky especially since it gets done in the daytime instead of under the darkness of night. At one point even the police drive by, which could’ve backfired as once the robbery has been committed, and the investigators realize how it was done they’ll immediately backtrack to the truck and research from the license plate who owned or rented it. Making it probable that they might not have been able to get away with it and would ultimately be caught.

Spoiler Alert!

The most disappointing aspect should’ve been the most exciting. It has to do with the sewer tunnels flooding during an unexpected rainstorm. Finney and his colleagues decide to wade their way through it, but Sheen hangs back insisting he’d rather stay in the safe though this will risk him getting caught once the bank opens on Monday morning.  Watching the water push up through the hole in the floor of the safe eventually creating an entire pool, which gives Sheen less and less room to stay above it, is quite intense, but then the film sells out in the most horrible fashion I’ve even seen, where he’s shown ‘waking up’ inside his own bathtub with absolutely no explanation of how he got out of the safe. If that’s not a copout I don’t what is and seriously ruins the film to the extent that I suggest no one bother to watch it as the stupid ending just destroys the whole thing.

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: March 13, 1981

Runtime: 1 Hour 45 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: John Quested

Studio: Goldcrest Films International

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Fawesome, Plex, Roku, Tubi, Amazon Video

 

Evil Under the Sun (1982)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 4 out of 10

4-Word Review: Who killed the actress?

Hercule Poirot (Peter Ustinov) travels to a luxurious hotel in the Adriatic Sea in order to investigate a diamond that was purchased at Tiffany’s and given to a famous actress named Arlena (Diana Rigg) but later found to be a fake. When Poirot arrives at the resort, he finds the actress to be quite bitchy and disliked by everyone, including Daphne (Maggie Smith) the resort owner who resents Arlena’s fame, as she herself tried out to be an actress at the same time as Arlena, but her career never took off.  There’s also writer Rex (Roddy McDowall) who wants to publish Arlena’s biography, which she now refuses to sign-off on. Producers Odell and Myra (James Mason, Sylvia Miles) resent Arlena because she won’t star in one of their plays, Christine (Jame Birkin) hates her because she’s too flirty with Christine’s husband Patrick (Nicholas Clay), while there’s friction between Arlena and Linda (Emily Hone), Arlena’s 15-year-old stepdaughter, who resents her caustic ways. When Arlena does turn up dead while at the beach it’s up to Poirot to figure out, from the plethora of suspects, which one did it.

This was the second installment with Ustinov playing Poirot after the success of Death on the Nile, and the film starts out with plenty of potential. The exotic locale, filmed on the Balearic Islands, is definitely stunning and a chief asset. The comedic touches, particularly the acerbic interplay between the characters, is another strong point, and helps to make the first hour fun, despite the fact that nothing much happens you’re waiting for the murder to finally happen to the point you begin to wonder if it ever will.

While the production values are high the soundtrack gets overblown. It has a sort of show tune vibe to it, which isn’t bad, but not a good fit for the material. Sure, it’s about an actress who’s starred in some stage productions, but this is something that requires music that helps build suspense, and the stuff here not only doesn’t do that, but actually becomes intrusive. When the characters of Patrick and Myra are boating over to the dead body lying on the beach, the music should’ve been soft and menacing, but here it’s upbeat and booming and this is equally true when Poirot retraces the steps of the killer, where the sound should be downbeat and lowkey and not the reverse.

Spoiler Alert!

The biggest issue I had was with the mystery itself. Normally Agatha Christie does a great job of weaving an elaborate crime, but the resolution here is less than satisfying. While I had never read the 1940 novel of which this is based on, I quickly deemed the Birkin character as being the culprit and the most obvious suspect, so finding out it was her offered no surprise. The way Poirot solves it requires extreme guessing with no proof, like the fact that Birkin has a bottle of sun lotion, or changes the time on Linda’s watch, which is stuff that can’t be fully proven and in a lot of ways a stretch to even deduce. The whole signature thing where the killer (Birkin’s husband) signs his name in the hotel registry, which is a different name that how he signs his cheque, but Poirot is still able to confidently proclaim it’s the same handwriting seemed sketchy too as it didn’t look the same to me.

End of Spoiler Alert!

While the ending is a big letdown the performances by the women are splendid and help keep it entertaining through the lulls. Rigg camps it up perfectly and I enjoyed Smith whose ability to convey droll humor is second to none. Miles is really great too especially her oversized hats, Hone, who’s only ever been in two movies, is fun as the teen who doesn’t hesitate to speak her opinion. Birkin is also excellent particularly because at the time she was a big sex symbol, but here downplays that by covering up her body and coming off as someone who is drab and insecure.

My Rating: 4 out of 10

Released: March 5, 1982

Runtime: 1 Hour 57 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Guy Hamilton

Studio: EMI Films

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Video, Fawesome, Plex, Roku, Tubi, YouTube

 

Five Days One Summer (1982)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Mountain climbing with niece.

The year is 1932 and a Scottish doctor by the name of Douglas (Sean Connery) arrives in the Swiss Alps for a vacation with a young woman named Kate (Betsy Brantley) whom he introduces as his wife. The truth though is that she’s really his niece and the two have run off together for a few weeks so that they can endeavor in their affections without the prying eyes of Sarah (Jennifer Hilary) who Douglas is actually married to. The two hire a guide by the name of Johann (Lambert Wilson) to help them climb the mountains. He eventually becomes aware of Kate and Douglas’ ‘arrangement’ and tries to convince her to leave him, which she starts to consider after realizing that Douglas isn’t quite the man she thought he was, but when she brings up the topic of breaking up Douglas refuses to listen insisting that despite the wide age gap the two are ‘perfect’ for each other. Johann then comes to the conclusion that it’s up to him to make Douglas change his mind and plans on doing it while guiding him up the steep climb of Maiden Mountain.

This marked the last film to be directed by the legendary Fred Zinnemann and while the story itself is weak the climbing segments are both breathtaking and intense. The actors were forced to do many of the stunts themselves and everything is quite authentic with nothing done inside a studio or in front of a green screen. The bird’s-eye shots inside an icy canyon that Connery almost falls down into and which Johann spots the shoe of a dead body, is visually impressive and helps the movie standout. If you watch the film for only these moments you should still go away quite entertained and enthralled.

As for the script, which is based on the short story ‘Maiden, Maiden’ by Kay Boyle, it doesn’t work as well. The source of the problem stems with how Kate falls for Douglas. The film fails to have any adequate explanation for why she ‘loves’ him so much and the fact that she starts having these feelings for him as a young child, even though he is already a full-grown adult, ceases to make much sense. Children can certainly like adults in their lives for a variety of reasons, but it’s usually through admiration, or respect, but not as somebody they want to be with romantically. Here though, even while under the age of 10, she’s quite possessive of him and very upset when he leaves, which makes it more like a weird obsession and that she has psychological issues.

Had it been centered around some sort of event, like Douglas had saved her from an animal attack, or accident, or fire, as a teenager and she started to have feelings for him that way, it might’ve been easier to buy into. Or, she could’ve been shown dating men her age, but finding them to be immature and irresponsible, and thus she turns to Douglas because of his money and prestige, but the film doesn’t show or elude to either of these scenarios and thus making Kate a very weird one-dimensional, enigma that at times even comes-off as creepy and unhinged particularly as she angrily glares at Douglas’ wife when she first meets her.

Connery’s character isn’t so great either. It’s hard to sympathize with a guy who beds his brother’s daughter and openly cheats on his wife while she’s living with him in the same home. Johann, the guide is also off-putting. He’s stiff and robotic showing little emotion except for anger and frustration, so the viewer doesn’t care much for him as well and thus by the third act with no one to really root for you become detached from the proceedings causing the climactic finish to have no impact at all.

Spoiler Alert!

The photography at the end is still quite good, but what should’ve been gripping, like watching the two hang on for dear life while boulders and rocks slide down the mountainside all around them, fails to elicit much concern because they’re both unlikable. Seeing one of them fall from the mountain is realistic looking, it resembles even at a distance, a real man and not a dummy, but being coy as to which man it was, didn’t really heighten the tension, or suspense, making this come-off more like a misfire despite the amazing action and cinematography.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: November 12, 1982

Runtime: 1 Hour 48 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Fred Zinnemann

Studio: Warner Brothers

Available: DVD-R (Warner Archive Collection), Amazon Video, YouTube

 

 

Shirley Valentine (1989)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Trying to find purpose.

Shirley (Pauline Collins) is a middle-aged woman married to Joe (Bernard Hill) and having two grown children but feeling like her life lacks purpose. While her marriage started out well the passion has now faded and the two find themselves at odds sometime for the most minor of things. Seeking change Shirley jumps at the chance of getting out of working-class England by taking a trip with her friend Jane (Alison Steadman) to Greece. During her vacation she meets up with bar owner Costas (Tom Conti) where he takes her on his boat and the two make love. When it’s time for her to return back home she instead skips out on taking the flight and remains in Greece while taking a job as a cook at Costas’ restaurant, but Joe won’t let go of his marriage and travels to where Shirley is now living in an attempt to woo her back.

The film is based on the stage play by Willy Russell, but with some big differences as the play had only one character, Shirley, and a running monologue. Some of the monologue remains by having her routinely break the fourth wall and speak directly to the camera, which most of the time works and isn’t a distraction. It even helps tie-in some loose ends by allowing us to understand Shirley’s inner motivations, but I didn’t like how the film ‘explains’ her running commentary by having her get ‘caught’ by some of the characters, like Costas, speaking out loud to herself and having them walk away thinking she’s gone ‘a bit batty’. Other films have done a similar concept but play it off more like time just freezes and thus allows the protagonist to speak their thoughts for a bit and I felt the movie should’ve stuck to this same rationale.

The acting is excellent with Collins reprising the same role she had played onstage. Her matter-of-fact delivery and the terse little frown she exudes when she’s with someone she secretly can’t stand help expose her character’s down-to-earth sensibilities though I could’ve done without her nude scenes from both the front and back. Conti is also good playing a Greek man with authentic sounding accent at least I felt it was though other critics weren’t all in agreement.

The story itself is a bit slow with Roger Ebert describing it as a ‘realistic drama of appalling banality’. However, for me that’s what made it work. There’s a lot of people like Shirley out there longing for some point to why we’re here and not able to find the satisfaction through the normal social functions of marriage and raising a family. Too many times, we’re told that having a family should be fulfilling and make us ‘happy’, but for some people that’s not always enough and sometimes just makes things worse especially in Shirley’s case where the kids, now adults, treat her like someone to be taken for granted.

I also liked the way it explored loneliness. Most films that deal with this subject usually portray the person as being the one at fault by having them afflicted with poor social skills, or behaviors that cause others not to want to be around them. Here though it’s Shirley’s ‘friends’ that are the annoying ones and could turn off most anyone. Just having people around doesn’t mean one is actually connecting, and the film deftly examines how a person can be smart and friendly and yet still fall through the cracks.

Spoiler Alert!

The trip sequence, which takes up the third act, is well done as Shirley’s loneliness doesn’t just automatically end with a change of scenery. The fling that she has is okay, but when she decides to stay on and overhears Costas feeding another woman the same lines he had given her about coming onto his boat, I thought she should’ve responded with a hurt, or angered look. Instead, she’s amused, but I’d think most other people in the same situation would’ve felt used and taken advantage of.

I did like the husband coming to Greece at the very end, but I believe his character should’ve been more toned down earlier. The way he gets so extremely upset at not being served the meal he was expecting and then throwing the food on her lap made him seem mentally unhinged. In some marriages people just grow apart. They can both be good people, but through no one’s fault, have much in common and I think the film could’ve approached it that way versus having him blow up in a very over-the-top way that was almost frightening.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: August 24, 1989

Runtime: 1 Hour 49 Minutes

Rated PG-13

Director: Lewis Gilbert

Studio: Paramount Pictures

Available: DVD-R (Warner Archive Collection), Amazon Video, YouTube

The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea (1976)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 4 out of 10

4-Word Review: They dissect a cat.

Jonathan (Jonathan Kahn) is a 14-year-old who lives with his mother (Sarah Miles) and nanny Mrs. Palmer (Margo Cunningham) in a beachfront house along the sea after the death of his father three years earlier. Jonathan enjoys his friendship with a group of boys lead by Chief (Earl Rhodes), but his mother does not approve due to Chief’s anti-social sentiment forcing Jonathan to have to sneak out on the sly to see them. One day Jonathan finds a peep hole in his bedroom wall that allows him to see inside his mother’s bedroom, and he begins to peer in on her when she’s undressed, and this creates an unhealthy arousal. When his mother begins a relationship with a sailor named Jim (Kris Kristofferson) he becomes jealous and conveys as much to Chief who devises a sinister plan to ‘solve the problem’.

Lewis John Carlino had a highly respected career as a screenwriter garnering 4 Academy Award nominations for best screenplay, but his three forays as director weren’t as successful and all started out well but ended up just missing the mark. This one was no exception as many critics at the time felt the problem lay in adapting a novel, that was written by Yukio Mishima, which was set in Japan, and trying to convert it to English society. The cultures differences that make up the complex Japanese society that were so integral to the characters in the book gets completely lost in the translation leaving the viewer feeling cold, detached, and genuinely confused when it’s over.

The on-location shooting filmed in Dartmouth, Devon, England, is excellent and the one thing that helps the movie stand-out particularly the isolated hillside house that gives the atmosphere an almost surreal-like feel. There’s also a really creepy performance by Rhodes who nails it as a highly intellectualized kid who displays no moral compass and effectively comes-off as a very believable young sociopath. However, these moments gets coupled with some very disturbing ones dealing with animal cruelty which includes a very drawn-out scene involving the killing and dissecting of a cat as well as putting a firecracker in a seagull’s mouth and while no animal was actually harmed during the production it still left many audiences at the time upset and will very likely do the same with viewers today.

The film’s biggest flaw though is that it doesn’t interpret the character’s actions in any way that helps makes sense of their motivations and for the most part they’re all quite two-dimensional. Jonathan’s arousal at seeing his naked mother needs much better explaining. Most kids aren’t this way, so what is it about his psyche that causes him to enjoy it without any guilt or shame? The movie gives us no clue, nor does it explain how his father died and when you add in the boy’s weird behavior and you start to wonder if the Jonathan maybe had something to do with it, which would’ve opened an interesting subtext if even brought up subtlety, but the script fails to touch on it.

The book makes the reasons for the son’s actions clearer. For instance in the novel the boy losses respect for the sailor when he sees him jump into a water fountain, which he considers to be undignified and the movie really needed to have some similar moment as the kid, like in the book, is initially in awe of the man, but it’s never totally clear what creates the deadly shift. Also, when the son is caught peeping in at his mom the response by his mother in the book is different as she feels the boy should receive a severe punishment, but the sailor, in hopes of becoming ‘friends’ with the kid whom he’s now helping to raise, resists, but the film flubs this scene too by treating it almost like a forgettable throwaway moment that has no impact versus one that would’ve helped reveal the sailor in a more in depth way.

Spoiler Alert!

The ending, which should’ve been a shocker, falls flat as well. In the novel it’s made clear that the boys plan to drug and dissect the sailor just like they did with the cat and they even bring along the tools to do it, in the movie we only witness him drinking the spiked tea. The camera then zooms way out showing the boys at an extreme distance where it’s not obvious what they’re doing. To really make a memorable impression we should’ve seen the boys stab the sailor several times with their knives, which would’ve been far more startling. I felt too there needed to be a reaction from the mother. Does she find out what they did, or does his violent demise remain a mystery? How does her relationship with her son evolve, or devolve afterwards? These questions remain unanswered making the movie seem less like a story and more as a concept that’s never adequately fleshed out.

My Rating: 4 out of 10

Released: April 5, 1976

Runtime: 1 Hour 45 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Lewis John Carlino

Studio: AVCO Embassy Pictures

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Video, Plex, Roku Channel, Tubi, YouTube

Educating Rita (1983)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 5 out of 10

4-Word Review: Trying to better herself.

Rita (Julie Walters) is a young working-class woman who finds her job as a hairstylist and marriage to Denny (Malcolm Douglas) to be unrewarding. Denny wants her to have a child, but she fears that will just tie her down more. In an attempt to ‘better herself’ she decides to enroll in Britian’s open university where she takes a course in English literature.  Frank (Michael Caine) is a disillusioned college professor who lost the zeal for his job years earlier and has now taken to the bottle. Rita wants him to be her tutor, but Frank initially resists only to eventually agree. Despite their contrasting personalities the two ultimately form a bond and Frank uses Rita’s passion for learning to reignite his own dormant desires that allows him to breakout of his loveless relationship.  However, Rita too begins to see things differently when her roommate/friend tries to commit suicide and she realizes that things aren’t always greener on the other side of the fence.

The film is based on the play of the same name by Willy Russell that premiered in London in 1980 and also starred Walters in the title role. Unlike the movie the play had only two characters and everything took place inside the tutor’s office.

The story’s theme does have an inspiring quality, which is what galvanized the critics to it, but the main character and her transition is a bit hard to believe. On the surface she’s quite likable and well played by the star, but her ambition seems awfully extreme. It would’ve helped had we seen the moment when she first got the idea to go back to school versus having it just briefly be discussed. Wanting to learn a trade in order to make more money and move out of one’s humble surroundings is both commendable and understandable but becoming well versed on the plays of Henrik Ibsen isn’t really going to do that. To pay the bills she’s still going to be stuck working as a hairdresser, which was supposedly the boring routine she wanted to get out of. Expanding one’s literary knowledge may allow her to have lofty conversations among elites at posh parties, but as a whole she’d still be in her same predicament financially.

The Pygmalion-inspired theme was unnecessary. Without sounding snotty I couldn’t buy into the idea that this working-class woman with a limited education could learn to fully appreciate the great literary works or would even want to. The story acts like all that is needed is a great deal of enthusiasm and you can do accomplish anything, but history is full of people who jump into lofty goals with the best of intentions and still fail. Realistically I think this type of person would’ve eventually gotten overwhelmed and realized she was in over-her-head. To solve this the character should’ve been modified to being someone who was middleclass with a literally background, but who had to drop out because her parents died forcing her to go to work at the factory in order to make ends meet, but still longed to get back into what she really enjoyed and thus hired a tutor to help her, which would’ve been for the discerning viewer easier to swallow.

Rita’s ultimate transition is more off-putting than inspiring. I didn’t like her change in hair color where she goes from blonde to brunette, which makes her seem like a different person instead of someone who’s evolved. There needed to be more challenges and roadblocks. A brief spat with her husband, in which he throws her books into a fire, blows over too quickly and she’s able to grasp the complex material, even able to write in depth term papers with a relative ease that didn’t come off as wholly believable. Having her get a bad grade in a course and using this to reassess her goals would’ve allowed in a broader angle and not have been so fanciful, which the film starts to become.

Caine plays his part wonderfully and he certainly is much more into this role than he was in Blame it on Rio, which he did the same year. However, his character’s motives were difficult to understand. I thought this would’ve been the classic case, which can occur with a lot of academics in higher education, where the students aren’t into learning and are apathetic, which frustrates the professors, and this then turns them to alcohol. Here though that didn’t seem to be the case making him come off more like he was just tuning out on his own accord and thus making him less relatable. I also felt he should’ve been fired much sooner as the young adults attending his classes knew that he was drunk, even verbally said as much, so he likely would’ve been reported, and for him to then on top of this get a second chance when he fell over inebriated during a speech, seemed rather implausible.

I did enjoy the scenes involving Frank’s girlfriend Julia (Jeananne Crowley) and her relationship with a married man named Brian (Michael Williams) and how every time Frank comes into the room, and they are there Brian pretends, as a ‘cover’, that he is speaking to someone on the phone. These scenes, which becomes a running-joke, were amusing, but near the end Frank informs Brian that the phone was disconnected and thus revealing that he was in on their charade. This though doesn’t jive because with the old fashioned rotary phone, such as the ones shown here, there would always be a dial tone when one put the receiver to their ear, except of course if the service had been cut and thus Brian would’ve already known that it had been disconnected when he didn’t hear the tone and no need then for Frank to explain it.

My Rating: 5 out of 10

Released: May 3, 1983

Runtime: 1 Hour 46 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Lewis Gilbert

Studio: Columbia Pictures

Available: DVD, Blu-ray

Hitch-Hike (1977)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 5 out of 10

4-Word Review: Couple picks up killer.

Walter (Franco Nero) and his wife Eve (Corinne Clery) are constantly bickering about Walter’s alcoholism. They go on a trip to Los Angeles and on the way pick-up Adam (David Hess) whose car is stranded on the road. Unbeknownst to them he’s a robber who has doubled-crossed his partners and absconded with a suitcase full of $2 million dollars. It doesn’t take long before Adam has a gun to both of their heads demanding they take him to Mexican border where he plans to escape while also killing them in the process. As the two try desperately to figure a way out they are also being secretly followed by the two young men whom Adam betrayed and who are now intent on extracting a revenge.

One of the biggest problems I had with the movie is that it’s supposed to take place in California but was actually shot in the mountains of Gran Sasso in Italy, which looks nothing like the state. I realize that California has a varied topography but the locales here are screaming southern Europe and the highway signs are done in blue, which anyone living in the U.S. would know is fake as here they’re green, which only accentuates the off-kilter look of the production. Since where they’re driving to makes no real difference to the plot I would’ve just had it be some city in Italy like Rome, which would’ve helped the authenticity.

The other problem I had is that, at least the version I watched, it’s spoken in Italian. Normally I prefer movies that are subtitled versus dubbed, but I could’ve sworn years ago I saw it in English, but what’s available on YouTube, which is the only service currently streaming it, doesn’t offer that, which is a big shame. Not so much because of Nero or Clery, but more Hess as his own voice is not used, which then defeats the whole reason for having him. He’s best known for playing the sadistic killer in The Last House on the Left, and he has an excellent way of being menacing, but because we don’t hear him actually speak in his native tongue all of that gets lost and the creepy energy that was supposed to be there by casting him gets completely wasted.

Spoiler Alert!

The story, which is based on the unpublished novel ‘The Violence and the Fury’ by Peter Kane, doesn’t get off to a good start as it features two people, particularly Nero, who are not likable, and thus the viewer really doesn’t care about their predicament making the tension mediocre at best. There are also elements that are stolen from better known movies like the mysterious truck that keeps chasing them during their drive, with the identity of the driver hidden, that’s taken straight from Duel. Loopholes abound as well as we later learn that Hess is the driver of the truck, but how was he able to avoid being shot by his cohorts earlier with a gun aimed right at him and how was he able to hijack the truck as he had been without any vehicle? Maybe he was able to hitch a ride with a truck driver, just like he did with the couple, and then do away with the driver once inside, but this is stuff that needs to be shown as otherwise it comes-off like the filmmakers are just making up the rules as they go with no concern whether it’s logical.

The twist ending is limp as it features Nero setting the car on fire with his injured wife inside and putting Hess’s dead body next to hers in an attempt to make it look like both he (Nero) and she died in the blaze, but there were such things as dental records back then, so after the coroner examined the charred bodies he/she would determine that it wasn’t really Nero who died and thus the authorities would continue to search for him. Seeing him then become a hitchhiker himself leaves open too many questions and comes off like a cop-out where the filmmakers ran out of ideas and thus decided to just end it there.

End of Spoiler Alert!

The moment where Nero is forced to watch Hess make love to his wife, and witnessing the humiliation and anger in his eyes, is the film’s best moment. Watching Clery, the only person you sympathize with, is entertaining both with her clothes on and off. However, the film lacks any character development, and the plot is quite strained with a lot of moments where the story, much like with the car ride, doesn’t seem to be going anywhere and if anything, just driving itself around in circles.

My Rating: 4 out of 10

Released: March 4, 1977

Runtime: 1 Hour 44 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Pasquale Festa Campanile

Studio: Explorer Film ’58

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, YouTube