Category Archives: Foreign Films

Why Shoot the Teacher? (1977)

why shoot the teacher 2

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 8 out of 10

4-Word Review: Not a good job.

If you hate your job then watching the escapades of Max Brown (Bud Cort) dealing with his should make you feel a lot better about yours, or even lucky. The setting is 1935 and Max has traveled to an isolated farming community in Saskatchewan Canada in order to live out his dream of being a school teacher. The problem is that he must live in the dingy basement of the school that has no running water and an outhouse that gets regularly overturned by the rowdy school children, sometimes with Max in it, and he is only paid $20 dollars a month for his efforts, which even back then was a paltry amount. What is worse is that the district can’t even afford to pay him so instead gives him promissory notes and forces him to be dependent on the generosity of the townspeople for his food. Since he had to borrow money for his train ride up there he is unable to go back and forced to spend the harsh Canadian winter all alone while dealing with difficult students and indifferent parents and adults.

Cort really shines. The fact that through all his diversity he still remains civil and upbeat makes the character quite appealing even though he does evolve and at times compromises from his initial ideals. The best example of this is when he eventually, despite his initial reluctance, uses the strap on one of the older bigger students while the rest of the school children watch through the school windows. Although Cort is best known for his starring role in Harold and Maude I’d actually say this is his best all-around performance.

Samantha Eggar another under-appreciated and underused performer is terrific in support as Alice Field a woman transplanted from England who like with Max finds herself alienated and unconditioned to the harsh climate. She also has a really amusing line when she states “Canada is a nice country…sometimes…in the spring.”

Filmed on-location in the tiny town of Hanna, Alberta the sprawling wheat fields create a tremendous sense of isolation as well as a distinctive sense of natural beauty. The story is filmed during all three seasons, which makes the viewer feel like they are battling the rigorous Nordic climate right alongside Max. One of the funniest moments is when the word ‘Spring’ is flashed on the screen while a raging blizzard goes on behind it making Canada one of the few places that can make Minnesota, where I am originally from, seem like a mild climate.

The film is wonderfully vivid and creates a rich multi-textured tapestry of life on the prairie. By keeping everything on a realistic level it helps recreate what life must have been like for a lot of rural school teachers during the period, which is what makes it so fascinating. The film’s faded washed-out color and archaic low budget technical approach only helps to accentuate the look and feel of the period. There are shades of Wake in Fright here that also dealt with a man teaching school in an isolated school house while battling the elements and I found it interesting to note that Ted Kotcheff who was the director of that film was listed as a production consultant on this one.

My only complaint about the film was the misleading title. There is no shooting of any kind of the teacher, or even any talk of it. Why they came up with that title, which is based on the book with the same title is a mystery. Unfortunately it may give some people the idea that this is a violent film when nothing could be further from the truth and may turn-off potential viewers from enjoying this endearing slice-of-life comedy/drama.

why shoot the teacher 1

My Rating: 8 out of 10

Released: June 23, 1977

Runtime: 1Hour 39Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Silvio Narizzano

Studio: Lancer Productions Limited

Available: VHS, DVD, Amazon Instant Video, YouTube

Going Places (1974)

going places

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 9 out of 10

4-Word Review: Guys with no morals.

Two small time hoods (Gerard Depardieu, Patrick Dewaere) spend their days roaming the streets, robbing stores, and molesting women. In some ways this is truly an amazing film in what it is able to get away with. The two main characters are immoral, ignorant, insensitive, and brutal and the women are demeaned and degraded. The overall content is vulgar and perverse and yet somehow this thing comes off as a lyrical, offbeat delight that is pure entertainment.

It’s a definite original with every scene being an ingenious comic set-up. The scenario structure and use of locations is perfect. The pacing is fluid and director Bertrand Blier’s eye for detail near brilliant. The two hours move along like a breeze. It never gets boring and I actually almost wished it could have been longer.

The comic threads are hilarious and they get funnier and funnier as they go along. The guys’ constant, futile and very explicit attempts at getting a frigid woman (Miou-Miou) excited are a particular standout.

This is the type of black comedy that should be used as an example for all others. It’s consistently unique and manages to balance the ugly elements with the lighthearted without going overboard on either. It even throws in a surreal angle without a hitch.

Veteran French actress Jeanne Moreau has one of her finest latter career roles playing a lonely lady in desperate need of male attention. Her scene is well played out and even has a shocking conclusion. Depardieus ‘friendly’ conversation with a shopping mall security guard is another standout. The ultimate joke though may be in the film’s title as these guys are truly going nowhere.

My Rating: 9 out of 10

Released: March 20, 1974

Runtime: 1Hour 57Minutes

Rated R

Director: Bertrand Blier

Studio: Universal Pictures France

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

Loot (1970)

loot 3

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 8 out of 10

4-Word Review: They are all greedy.

Every Friday this month I will review the Top 5 best and most outrageous black/dark comedies from the 70’s. There were many to choose from, but these five have stood the test of time and remain as potent and hilarious as they were when first released. Today’s film was written by Joe Orton who died before ever seeing his play made into a movie and despite being top-notch in every aspect remains unjustly overlooked and hard-to-find.

The story deals with Dennis and Hal (Hywell Bennett, Ray Holder) two friends who decide to rob a bank next to a funeral home and hide the stolen money inside the coffin of Hal’s late mother. Problems ensue when Inspector Truscott (Richard Attenborough) starts to suspect the boys have something to do with it and incorporates brutal interrogation tactics to get the truth out of them. Then there is Nurse Fay (Lee Remick) who may have had something to do with Hal’s mother’s death and is inclined to want a piece of the action. All of this occurs inside Hal’s house, which is also a bed and breakfast run by Hal’s Father McLeavy (Milo O’Shea) who remains oblivious to all of the shenanigans and only worried about getting a decent burial for his departed wife.

The film is fast and funny and retains all of Orton’s dark and acidic wit. It is full of one-liners, sight gags, odd characters, and bizarre, unexpected comical twists, with ninety-eight percent of it being clever and funny. The best is the funeral procession when Dennis, who is driving a hearse that is carrying the deceased, finds out that the vehicle has lost its brakes and careens down the streets at high speeds with all the other cars in the procession try to keep up with it while driving equally fast.

Director Silvio Narizzano shows a terrific grasp on the material. Unlike Entertaining Mr. Sloane the only other film adaption of Orton’s work this film has a terrific pace that starts with a bang and never lets up. Narizzano also infuses a lot of imaginative camera angles, edits, and set design to give the thing a nice edgy, off-color feel. Outdoor action is nicely balanced with the indoor scenes to create a good cinematic feel and it never seems like a filmed stage play. There are some interesting homoerotic overtones as well including having Dennis and Hal blow a hole in the bank wall, crawl through it and take the money, then crawl back out and stuff it into the coffin while being completely naked.

Remick has one of her most interesting and unique performances in her already illustrious career as she is quite amusing looking almost like Marilyn Monroe with her dyed platinum blonde hair and authentic sounding British accent. Attenborough is memorable playing against type. Usually he is best at meek and passive types, but here he almost steals the film as the aggressive Inspector with a Hitler mustache. His best moment comes when he picks up a glass eye from the floor and in one brief second sticks out his tongue and licks it, which is done in vivid close-up.

The bouncy, psychedelic score by Steve Ellis helps give the proceedings attitude and personality. Why this film has never been released on DVD or Blu-ray is a mystery. The humor remains sharp and a whole new throng of fans could be acquired if they were just able to see it.

My Rating: 8 out of 10

Released: May 1, 1970

Runtime: 1Hour 41Minutes

Rated R

Director: Silvio Narizzano

Studio: British Lion Film Corporation

Available: VHS

Improper Channels (1981)

improper channels

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 1 out of 10

4-Word Review: The system is screwed.

Jeffrey Martley (Alan Arkin) is a middle-aged man soon to be divorced from his wife Diana (Mariette Hartley) who is driving along in his car with his 5-year-old daughter Nancy (Sarah Stevens) when he is forced to put on the brakes quickly in order to avoid hitting another vehicle. Sarah, who was not wearing a seatbelt since there were no such seat belt laws at the time, falls to the car floor and hits her head. It is a minor bruise, but Jeffrey takes her to the hospital as a precaution. As the doctors are examining her social worker Gloria (Monica Parker) overhears Jeffrey’s conversation with the medical staff and thinks that the injuries may have come from child abuse. She takes the child out of his custody and puts her into a protected foster home while she uses the help of a computer expert (Martin Yan) to come up with as much dirt from Jeffrey’s past as she can in order to prevent him from getting her back. Jeffrey and Diana hire a lawyer and try to fight the charges, but find that the system is against them.

This is a wretched attempt at satire that never gets off the ground. Director Eric Till’s bland direction makes this thing look like a TV-movie and the majority of it is more like a drama. The comedy is not very funny and the little that there is comes off as forced and out of place. Jeffrey’s and Diana’s situation becomes more harrowing as it goes along and this thing probably would have worked better and been more riveting had they kept it at a realistic and dramatic level all the way through.

The social workers are portrayed as being completely inept, incompetent, and malicious without any balance making me wonder if the writers had a major grudge against them in real-life. Gloria’s boss Harold Cleavish (Harry Ditson) is particularly unlikable and comes off as an all-around prick in every way. However, he does get the film’s one and only funny line when he chastises Gloria for believing that the social services profession is about helping people:

Harold: I have been in social services for 9 years and in that time I haven’t helped anyone and I hope to God that I never will. If you really want to help humanity then become a prostitute.

Hartley is a wonderful actress and I will never forget her Emmy award winning performance in a guest spot on ‘The Incredible Hulk’ TV-show unfortunately her career never took off despite a great debut in Sam Peckinpah’s Ride the High Country. Today most people probably know her for her Polariod commercials that she did with James Garner back in the 80’s. Even so she is great here and gives the material more effort than it deserves. Arkin who has played the man against the system many times seems strangely reserved.

The most annoying thing about the film is the ending where Jeffrey turns-the-tables and tries sticking it to the system. Having an average man who works as an architect and has no special computer experience break into the computer systems of the social welfare office and erase his records and send everything on the fritz is too exaggerated. Having him dump out streams of computer printout paper from the office windows and line the city streets with it is too goofy and unbelievable to be even slightly humorous. The filmmakers display a limited and confused understanding of the technological revolution and treat it like it is nothing more than a passing fad that can be easily taken down by the common man. The pat and silly wrap-up makes light of an otherwise serious issue and thus makes the entire production stupid and pointless.

My Rating: 1 out of 10

Released: April 17, 1981

Runtime: 1Hour 32Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Eric Till

Studio: Crown International Pictures

Available: VHS

The Idiots (1998)

the idiots 2

By Richard Winters 

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: This is so retarded.

The Idiots is another shocking, controversial, and highly original work from filmmaking maverick Lars Von Trier.  This one involves a group of disenchanted people in their 20’s and 30’s, who decided to rebel from society by acting like they are mentally retarded.

Although certainly not in the best of taste, there are some funny bits here. The comedy works well because amidst all of the outrageousness it is also very revealing about human nature. One of the best segments involves an affluent couple who wish to purchase a large, upscale home.  As they are touring the place they are informed that a group of ‘retards’ live next door. The couple put on the politically correct facade by saying that wouldn’t be a problem even though their facial expressions say otherwise.  When the group pretending to be retarded pays them a visit the couple quickly runs off.  Another funny part, which may actually be the most outlandish of the whole film, involves a group of tough, tattooed bikers who help in very graphic fashion one of the group members pretending to be mentally handicapped go to the bathroom. The group’s visit to a factory is also hilarious.

The majority of the film though is actually quite serious and yes, even thought provoking. Von Trier does a good job of analyzing things from different angles while supplying no easy answers. It was interesting how the group mocks society for all of their rules and customs and yet when one of their own members starts to act erratic they tie him to a bed and refuse to free him until he ‘settles down’, thus proving that even they themselves need certain rules of behavior in order to function even if they don’t want to admit it.  Some other strong dramatic scenes involve the father of one of the members who tries taking his daughter from the group and back home with him.  There is also a revealing segment involving one of the members who decides to ‘drop back into society’ and return to his job as a college professor despite the protests from the other members.  The group also comes into direct contact with people who are actually mentally handicapped and how each of them responds to this is fascinating.

The characters are nicely fleshed out.  All of them show distinct personalities and evolve in interesting ways as the film progresses. Karen (Bodil Jorgenson) acts as they catalyst.  She comes upon the group by chance and acts as a sort of ‘conscience’ for the film.  Initially she is shocked and confused by the group’s behavior, but because she is stuck in an unhappy relationship and grieving the recent death of her son, she decides to tag along. Eventually she starts to see the benefits of ‘spassing out’ which is the group’s term for ‘finding your inner idiot’.

I liked how the film challenges the concept of true rebellion and shows how complex the fabric of society really is. Everyone would like to ‘drop-out’ at certain times and there is even a need for it, but finding the right place can be complicated. I have often felt that the true nonconformist is either living on the streets, is in prison, or a mental institution and the film pretty much comes to this same conclusion, but without advocating ‘fitting-in’ with the establishment as the answer either.

My complaints for the film centers mainly on the over use of the hand-held camera, which tends to get distracting after a while and gives the film a needless amateurish feel. I know with Von Trier’s ‘Dogma 95′ manifesto the hand-held camera is a major factor, but I think he could back off a little with it. There is also a ‘gross-out’ segment at the end where the group member’s start to drool out their chewed up food, which I found completely disgusting especially the way the camera captures it in close-up. The pacing is pretty good, but it does drag a little at times and I felt the film went on about twenty-five minutes too long.

Obviously this is a film that will not appeal to everyone and in fact I would say that the majority of people may find it off-putting.  That doesn’t mean it is a bad film because I think it is a pretty good one and I liked it overall.  However, what makes it a good film is the fact that it works off of its own vision and makes no compromises in doing so.  For most viewers especially American audiences who are used to a ‘mass-appeal’ approach to film-making, this type of concept may not connect. 

the idiots 3

My Rating: 8 out of 10

Released: May 20, 1998

Runtime: 1Hour 57Minutes

Rated R

Director: Lars Von Trier

Studio: Zentropa Entertainments

Available: VHS, DVD

The Luck of Ginger Coffey (1964)

the luck of ginger coffey

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: He needs a job.

Ginger Coffey (Robert Shaw) is a middle-aged man living in Montreal whose dreams and ambitions far outweigh his grim predicament. He moves from one low paying job to another convinced that his lot in life will improve. His wife Vera (Mary Ure) decides to leave him and Ginger tries to win her back while juggling two jobs and hoping to get a promotion in one that never seems to come.

As a vivid look at the daily lives of the everyday working class this film hits a solid bullseye. The conversations between the co-workers and the monotonous and sometimes demeaning job interview process and Ginger’s on-going arguments with his wife and daughter are all true to form. There is no pretension and director Irvin Kershner keeps everything at a bare-bones minimum giving it almost a documentary style and making the viewer feel immersed in the bleak environment. The outdoor shots of the city are unexciting and cinematically unappealing, but help reflect the grim level. Watching Ginger get kicked out of his apartment and have to carry what is left of his belongings and then place them on the outside sidewalk while he goes in to visit his daughter in her school is quietly powerful.

Robert Shaw is excellent. This is a man who had by all accounts had a very dominating and proud personality in real-life and usually played characters with the same traits, so seeing him play against type and succeed is interesting. What is really effective is that he makes the character very human and likable despite his constant goof-ups, which keeps the viewer compelled to his situation.

Ure, who at the time was married to Shaw in real-life, gives an equally outstanding performance. Her perplexed facial expressions are perfect and the fact that we see her character grow and become more confident is good.

I also must mention Liam Redmond as Ginger’s cantankerous boss, who is nicknamed by his employees as ‘Hitler’. Ginger’s rushed job interview that he has with him is one of the film’s highpoints as is the moment when Ginger dashes away from him when he is caught making a personal phone call.

The only real complaint I have with the film is the ending, which is for the most part non-existent. I have seen vague wide-open endings in my movie viewing lifetime, but this thing is a cop-out and really boring one at that. I think when a viewer has spent nearly two hours empathizing with his difficult  and precarious situation that they deserve some sort of finality, or at least a hint of what became of him and whether he ever did find that ‘luck’ that he was so convinced was out there.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: September 21, 1964

Runtime: 1Hour 40Minutes

Not Rated

Director: Irvin Kershner

Studio: Continental Distributing

Available: YouTube

Antonia and Jane (1991)

antonia and jane 1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Friends aren’t always friends.

Jane (Imelda Staunton) is a depressed single woman slipping into middle-age and jealous of her lifelong friend Antonia (Saskia Reeves) who she feels is prettier and gets all the breaks. Jane pours her thoughts out to her therapist (Brenda Bruce), but the twist is that Antonia sees the same therapist and is having the same problems only in reverse as she is jealous of Jane. The first half-hour looks at things from Jane’s point-of-view while the second half shows it from Antonia’s.

The element that really makes this movie so enjoyable is the cutaways. Everything talked about during their sessions is recreated visually. These recreations are all quite funny. Some of my favorites are when Jane talks about a trip to Canada and we see her pushing over a tall pine tree with one hand. There is also the segment where Antonia’s 10-year-old son gives a raunchy stand-up comedy routine to his friends during his birthday party. The part where the two find themselves trapped in an old French war movie complete with them speaking fluid French and subtitles is quite creative as is the many different and colorful outfits that the two wear each year when they get together for their annual visit with the other.

Somehow friendships between females are quite different than the ones of their male counterparts. Harbored jealousies and insecurities seem to always lurk beneath the surface no matter how ‘happy’ their facades and this film explores them with biting and accurate detail as well as showing how skewed people’s perspectives can sometimes be. I also found myself digging the name Antonia and wondered why we don’t hear more women named that so…

Memo to all young couples and parents to be: Let’s get a few more  Antonias out there and a few less Ashleys. Thank You.

The Howard character played by Bill Nighy is also quite amusing. Jane meets him at an art exhibit where he displays big blown-up black and white photographs of twenty-four different naked rear-ends. The two go down the line and analyze each and every one, which in a strange way I thought was kind of interesting. I also got a kick out of the way he asks Jane out on a date.

Howard: Are you involved in a long-term monogamous mutually self-absorbed sexual relationship?

Jane: No.

Howard: Me neither.

In an effort to keep the quirkiness going the two women characters sometime do strange things that at times makes them hard to relate to and is the film’s only real weakness. For instance Antonia tells Jane that she is having an affair with Jane’s husband and Jane becomes very supportive of it and attends their wedding even though most people would probably want to kill their friend if they told them that and the unfaithful husband to boot. There is another scene where Antonia meets a stranger at a theater and goes back to his place for sex and even allows herself to get tied up during some kinky bondage games, which most viewers will consider being too reckless and putting oneself into too vulnerable a position with someone they don’t even know.

Usually films that seemed obsessed with tying everything together get overdone and annoying, but here the ironies are hilarious and become funnier as it goes along. Strangely it is the very end where the film loses it flamboyance and instead gives us a nice, simple scene of genuine human affection that leaves the strongest impact in this very offbeat and entertaining gem.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: November 2, 1991

Runtime: 1Hour 15Minutes

Rated R

Director: Beeban Kidron

Studio: Miramax

Available: VHS

Exotica (1994)

exotica

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 8 out of 10

4-Word Review: Obsessed with a stripper.

This is a fascinating and engrossing character study interweaving different characters and stories together until they become one. Bruce Greenwood plays Francis an accountant who frequents a strip bar and becomes fixated on a particular dancer named Christina (Mia Kirshner). Elias Koteas is the club D.J. who notices this obsession and becomes jealous since he at one time had a relationship with her. Thomas (Don Mckellar) is the nebbish pet shop owner who has a secret as well as a key between the three.

This is thoroughly compelling stuff that’s impossible to predict. The characters are believable, exposing traits you just don’t see in them at the start. Much like people you’d meet and get to know in real life each scene becomes like a piece to the puzzle.

Director Atom Egoyan may be a little too obsessed with tying everything together taking the final scene one step too far. Yet he still creates an interesting subtext. He seems to show how interconnected we all are to one another and how we can relate on different levels. The simple fact that we are human connects us no matter how ‘disconnected’ we may feel or be.

The sex club atmosphere is also taken from a different angle. He shows a much more complex and psychological motive behind it and how sex is only one element in it.

Like with Egoyan’s other films this thing is filled with a lot of philosophical banter and is quite humorless with a tendency to be a bit ‘heavy’. However, unlike The Sweet Hereafter it keeps moving and doesn’t get completely bogged down in it.

On the technical end the lighting is too washed out. The music selection is good, but oppressive. Overall though the film achieves what it wants too. It keeps your attention and remains thought provoking throughout.

My Rating: 8 out of 10

Released: May 16, 1994

Runtime: 1Hour 43Minutes

Rated R

Director: Atom Egoyan

Studio: Miramax

Available: VHS, DVD, Blu-ray

Visiting Hours (1982)

visiting hours 2

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: He doesn’t like women.

Deborah Ballin (Lee Grant) is an outspoken reporter who does a news segment dealing with domestic violence that angers misogynist Colt (Michael Ironside). For revenge he attacks her inside her home, but she manages to escape and gets treated at the local hospital. Unfortunately the psychotic Colt continues to stalk her inside the hospital, which causes her, other patients and the hospital staff to fear for their lives.

The script is predictable and unimaginative. It sticks to the tired 80’s slasher formula like it is a religion. The set-up is awkward and rushed while the rest of the film dealing with Colt’s perpetual stalking becomes prolonged and redundant. The scares lack excitement and the frights are non-existent. The only potentially interesting part that could’ve allowed this film to really stand out is when Deborah is taken into the operating room and put under anesthesia and thinks that the surgeon arriving to do the operation is Colt in disguise. The film teases the viewer with this possibility, but then chickens out.

The only novelty is having a 55-year-old actress as the heroine as opposed to the youthful, virginal looking types that get cast in these things in-part because of their screaming abilities. Having Grant playing a self-assured, confident character is refreshing change of pace for the genre, but then the film compromises even this by having Deborah’s young nurse played by Linda Purl become the target of Colt’s evil rage and by the end it’s Purl who has the most screen time.

Ironside is a competent actor and it is no surprise that he would be cast in the role of a killer due to his menacing facial features. He is talented enough to make the scenes he is in interesting despite the fact that he says less than 15 words during the whole film. Still the cutaways showing the reason for his mental illness being due to him witnessing as a child his mother throwing boiling water on his father is hooky. Also having him wear a small bell around his neck that rings every time he moves if awfully stupid for a person with a habit of stalking people.

The film has a similar concept to Halloween II that also dealt with a killer stalking a victim while inside a hospital, but here at least they use an actual hospital that is lighted the way a real hospital should be. The foot chase between Grant and Ironside that has them going to all areas of the building reminded me a little of the chase between Genvieve Bujold and Lance LeGault in the film Coma although that one is still far superior to the one here.

There are few mildly intense moments at the end that helps save this from being a complete boring waste, but still does little to make up for the rest of it that falls flat. Oh yeah, William Shatner also appears here in a pointless and dull role as Deborah’s boss.

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: May 21, 1982

Runtime: 1Hour 43Minutes

Rated R

Director: Jean-Claude Lord

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Available: DVD

Frantic (1988)

frantic

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Where is his wife?

Dr. Richard Walker (Harrison Ford) and his wife Sondra (Betty Buckley) travel to Paris where he is to take part in a medical conference. They find when they get to the hotel room that they have a suitcase that looks like theirs, but is the wrong one. They call the mistake into baggage claims, but think nothing more of it. As Richard takes a shower his wife gets a call and then disappears. When Richard gets out of the shower he can’t find her anywhere. Asking around he finds some clues that leads him to believe that she was kidnapped and that it may have something to do with the mysterious suitcase.

The film starts out well with an interesting premise and some good Hitchcockian touches, but eventually it becomes just another conventional thriller that gets overblown and is full of loopholes. One that really annoyed me the first time I saw it has to do with Richard going to a local bar to ask if anyone has any information. He does this twice and both times a bar patron that is sitting next to him overhears the conversation and comes up with a crucial bit of information. If this were to happen once it would be considered a really lucky break, but to happen twice makes it seem too convenient and coincidental. However, the biggest plot hole is when the bad guys come to the hotel to kidnap the wife and hold her for ransom until they get their suitcase when instead they should have just taken the suitcase since it was RIGHT THERE to begin with.

Ford’s brash demeanor doesn’t seem particularly right for the part. Normally he can get away with it and even make it charming in a caustic sort of way, but here it doesn’t work. I did like that everything is seen from his point of view and the viewer is as perplexed as he is about the circumstances. One part has him crumpling up a piece of paper and eating it and I kept wondering how many takes they made him go through on that one before they got it right.

Emmanuelle Seigner, who at the time was director Roman Polanski’s girlfriend, comes off best. The two married about a year after the film was released and now 23 years and 2 kids later they are still a couple. She plays Michelle who Richard meets along the way and helps him find the bad guys with her inside information. I liked her youthful appeal and the contrasting ages and perspectives between her and Ford’s character make their scenes together interesting. However, the punk outfit she wears does nothing for her and looks tacky and at this point woefully out of style.

The on-location shooting in Paris helps give the film an extra appeal. I realize this is mainly because of Polanski’s exile there, but it is to the film’s benefit. I liked how the viewer mainly just sees the street scenes and local pubs and roadways giving the whole thing a sort of tourist perspective.

There is one exciting and very well filmed sequence showing Richard walking on a narrow and steep rooftop in order to get into Michelle’s apartment that proves to be the film’s most intense moment. Otherwise this thing never clicks and tends to get less suspenseful as it goes on. For basic entertainment it is okay, but there is little if any payoff. This pales badly alongside Michelangelo Antonioni’s L’avventura, which is another film with pretty much the same premise, but instead that one takes things in a much more offbeat, fascinating, and mind-expanding direction.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: February 26, 1988

Runtime: 1Hour 59Minutes

Rated R

Director: Roman Polanski

Studio: Warner Brothers

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Instant Video