Category Archives: Foreign Films

The Passion of Anna (1969)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 8 out of 10

4-Word Review: Lonely little island retreat.

This is an intriguing film that seems quite similar to Roman Polanski’s Cul-De-Sac. Both films have a unique atmosphere and take place in a remote island setting and deal with a turbulent undercurrent that brews just underneath its deceivingly placid exterior.

Here we have Andreas (Max Von Sydow) living a lonely existence on an island retreat. He meets, by chance, Anna (Liv Ullmann) who is still grieving from the death of her first husband. The two form a tenuous relationship that slowly unravels as the dark corners of their personalities are eventually exposed.

In many ways this film has all the right ingredients. It wraps you up in its surreal nature and adds interesting effects. There are some creepy elements including a mad killer running around the island killing and torturing all the animals. Things work at a deliberate pace and leave no clue as to where it is headed. The characters are unpretentious and introspective. They are open about their faults and failures and give good reason as to why they have them. There are also fascinating cutaways to the actors themselves who help explain and interpret their characters motivations, which is a novel idea that gives the viewer a deeper understanding of the characters and adds an extra dimension.

Unfortunately it doesn’t come together and leaves no real emotional impact. There are a few good twists, but you can’t help but feel that it should have gone farther. There a certain scenarios that get touched on, but are never explored. For instance there is Andreas’s relationship with Elis (Erland Josephson).  Andreas has taken a loan out from him, but has also had an affair with his wife. This of course has some potential for fireworks and there is a moment where it begins to sizzle, but it never goes back to it. The same thing can be said for many of the other segments including the identity and reason for the animal killer.

Overall this is an outstanding experimental-like movie. It is not one of director Ingmar Bergman’s best, but it is still richer and more deeply textured than eighty percent of the other movies that are out there. The crisp and revealing dialogue alone makes it worth it and Bergman displays the most realistic perspective on the union of marriage.

My Rating: 8 out of 10

Released: November 10, 1969

Released: 1Hour 41Minutes

Rated R

Director: Ingmar Bergman

Studio: United Artists

Available: VHS, DVD

Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears (1980)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Three women three stories.

            Some Russian lady friends of mine suggested I review this film, which is a favorite of theirs and awarded the Oscar for best foreign film of 1980. The story deals with three women who room together at a boarding house and detailing their hopes, dreams, and personalities and then the second half examines them several years later and showing how much they have evolved.

The film has a definite European flair in that characters are well-rounded and believable. I found myself liking them right from the beginning and genuinely interested in their fates.  Lyudmila (Irina Muravyova) is engaging and amusing in her attempts to snare a man with prestige and money. Katerina (Vera Alentova) is equally interesting in the other way. I liked seeing how she starts out as shy and naïve, but blossoms into a strong, successful, self-assured woman by the end. The film takes its time in telling the story, letting you get to know the characters and allowing the scenes and situations to gel without the need for any quick edits, or cuts. I also thought director Vladimir Menshov does an excellent job with the women’s aging, which is natural but impressive without any use of make-up. At first I thought the movie had been filmed over a several year period in order to make the aging look so realistic, but that was apparently not the case. In discussing this with my Russian friend she tells me that the women were already in their 30’s when this was filmed, but even if that was the case then making them look so youthful at the beginning is still a successful feat.

The film is not a completely dour drama and manages at times to have a nice light-hearted touch with good amounts of humor. Lyudmila’s schemes are delightful at the beginning, but I also enjoyed the old man who joins a singles social club and then complains that all the women in his age group are ‘old hags’ forcing the program director to offer him a spot in a younger age group of women between 35 and 50 and he still complains that he would like them ‘even younger than that’, which only goes to prove that there’s always ‘dirty old men’ in every culture no matter where you go.

If you are expecting the film to deal with the oppressive aspects of the communist regime you won’t find it here. Most foreign films, especially those that won awards at the time, usually had this as their running theme, but here it doesn’t even touch on it. Yet I was still able to find traces of it including a scene near the beginning where a couple on a city sidewalk is told by an official that they are showing too much affection. There is another segment where Katia is being interviewed at her job in a factory by a news program. The interviewer exclaims that because Katia has shown signs of being creative that the task of a machine fitter is a ‘perfect’ job for her, which I found funny. She then asks Katia if she will be going to college, so she can get a degree and come right back to the same dreary factory and work as an engineer. I found this to be funny also, but my Russian friend tells me that the title of engineer in her country at the time was a highly regarded position that paid well, even though in America the idea of going to college is so that one can get a good education and not have to work in a factory at any level.

Another part of the film that may confuse American audiences is when Katia finds that she has become pregnant by a man that she is not married to. When she tells him the news he refuses to pay any support and she does not take him to court in order to force him. My friend explained to me that in Russia the single woman will typical not demand support from the man as this is apparently a source of ‘pride’ in their culture although many women here will find that difficult to relate too.

On the technical end the film looks like it was done on a miniscule budget. The color is faded and the images are fuzzy. Everything is filmed in places that show little that is interesting aesthetically. I thought with the word ‘Moscow’ in the title that there should have been more images of the city and scenes done at certain exotic locales to allow the viewer to get familiar with the region. There is a bit too much music. Although it is not in every scene the majority of the film has music going on underneath the conversations almost like a radio playing in the background and in my opinion it gets distracting.

My biggest complaint is that the second half spends too much time focusing on Katia and no one else. The synopsis for the film from several different sources describes this as a story about THREE women, but the by the end it is really only about one. I was disappointed as I found Lyudmila fun and I wanted to see more of her and the third woman, Antonina, is barely shown at all to the point that we get to know little about her.  Katia’s late-blooming romance goes on too long and seems a bit forced. Having her old boyfriend suddenly reappear and try to get back into her life is strained and the fact that he initially didn’t recognize her seemed hard to believe.

The story and scenarios are not original and have to varying degrees been done many times before. Unlike other Russian classics that I’ve liked including Solaris and Stalker this film lacks anything profound and comes off as a typical drama that is passable and entertaining, but not great.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: February 10, 1980

Runtime: 2Hours 22Minutes

Rated NR (Not Rated)

Director: Vladimir Menshov

Studio: Mosfilm

Available: VHS, DVD (Region 1 and 2)

Murder By Decree (1979)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Jack the Ripper exposed.

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

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

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

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

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

SPOILER WARNING!

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

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: February 9, 1979

Runtime: 2Hours 4Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Bob Clark

Studio: AVCO Embassy Pictures

Available: VHS, DVD

The Nanny (1965)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 5 out of 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Rating: 5 out of 10

Released: October 27, 1965

Runtime: 1Hour 31Minutes

Rated: NR (Not Rated)

Director: Seth Holt

Studio: Hammer Productions

Available: DVD

The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane (1976)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: She is all alone.

Rynn (Jodie Foster) is a 13-year-old girl living alone in a big house in the countryside. Her father has leased the place for three years from nosy landlady Mrs. Hallet (Alexis Smith) and her adult son Frank (Martin Sheen) who continually makes lecherous advances towards Rynn. No one has seen her father and when anyone asks for him she comes up with excuses, which starts to make everyone in town suspicious. She meets fellow teen Mario (Scott Jacoby) who she lets in on her secret and the two devise a plan that will rid them of the meddlesome Hallets.

Although she has stated in interviews that this is the least favorite out of all the movies that she has done I can’t think of anyone more perfect for the part of an independent headstrong young woman than Foster, who has always carried that persona. Despite the vast age difference she easily carries the picture from her older co-stars. There is even a nude scene involving her character although it was done by her older sister Connie working as a body double. This was done despite her adamant protests as was a scene where she goes to bed with Jacoby, which she has said made her extremely uncomfortable and probably explains her dislike for the film.

Sheen is menacing as the perverted Frank, who enjoys ‘younger girls’ and his ongoing banter and advances with Rynn is consistently creepy and tense. Alexis Smith is excellent as the mother and her worn face and attitude gives her a witchy presence and it is too bad she couldn’t have remained for the entire movie. I also found Jacoby engaging and amiable and I really enjoyed his character, which I found a bit surprising since he is best known for playing dark, sinister characters in Rivals and the TV-movie Bad Ronald.

The on-location shooting, which was done in both the Canadian province of Quebec and in Maine, is excellent and gives one a nice taste of small town life on the east coast. There is some nice synthesized music that gives the film a dark tone. The premise is offbeat and to some extent, at least during the first half, it is enough to keep you intrigued.

My main issue with the film is the fact that not enough happens. Almost all the action takes place in the main room of the house, which eventually becomes dull, especially visually. There are no scares, or shocks and the twists aren’t all that clever, or surprising. In fact the final twist I saw coming long before it happens. There are times when cutaways would have been helpful and spiced things up particularly when Rynn talks about a visit from her mother and her ‘long red finger nails’, which we never see and is just described. The conclusion leaves A LOT of unanswered questions making this thing empty and incomplete. The final shot is one very long take of a close-up of Foster staring at a subject while the credits role by, which eventually becomes annoying and it would have been better had they done a freeze-frame instead of forcing her to sit and stare at something way longer than humanely possible. Also, composer Mort Shulman is badly miscast as the policeman. His acting abilities are clearly limited and he shows no presence or authority and makes the scenes he is in weak.

It is hard to know what genre to put this in. It is really not scary and the mystery angle has too many loopholes to being taken seriously. The story, based on a novel by Laird Koenig, seems rather tame despite some dark elements and geared more for teens, or young adults.

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: December 25, 1976

Runtime: 1Hour 40Minutes

Rated PG (Brief Nudity, Mild Cursing)

Director: Nicholas Gessner

Studio: American International

Available:  VHS, DVD, Netflix Streaming

Happy Birthday to Me (1981)

happy2

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

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

            Virignia Wainwright (Melissa Sue Anderson) attends a private school where she is a part of a snotty clique whose members start getting killed off just before her 18th birthday. Due to a freak accident suffered years before she has blackouts causing suspicions that she may be the culprit. With the help of her psychiatrist Dr. David Faraday (Glenn Ford) they try to come up with some answers.

Despite being listed as a slasher film and having gained a loyal cult following I found the gore factor to be disappointing. The killings are quite brief and the camera quickly cuts away before much blood, or anything else is shown. The famous shish kebab murder that is captured on the film’s poster is poorly executed. Apparently there was more footage of the killings, but in order to get an R-rating director J. Lee Thompson was forced to cut a lot of it out. However, it would be nice to get a director’s cut version as I am sure today’s horror fans may feel cheated otherwise. The grossest sequence for me wasn’t the killings at all, but instead the scene where Virginia undergoes brain surgery and her skull is vividly cut open and one can see the brain pulsating and expanding inside. The deaths really didn’t seem all that creative and clever despite the film’s reputation and if anything my favorite death scene didn’t involve one of the killings but instead was the part where Virginia and her mother are riding in a car that goes off a bridge and then fills up with water, which is surprisingly intense.

I also had some major issues with the film’s opening murder that features a young girl getting strangled while inside her car. For one thing the killer’s hands didn’t seem to be all that tight around her neck and when the girl manages to escape there are no marks around her neck even though realistically there should be. Also, when she escapes she runs for only a few feet and then stops behind a nearby parked car and acts like she is now ‘safe’ even though most people would run several blocks and probably wouldn’t stop until they found someone else that could help, or the police. The victim also speaks, but if someone has been strangled as severely as she has her voice would have to be effected by it and she might not be able to say anything, or at least speak in a very raspy tone, which is not the case here.

For the most part I found the film to be boring and predictable. I never once got scared, or even all that intrigued. The movie is jammed with every cheesy 80’s horror movie cliché that you can think of. Normally film’s from this genre run no more than 90 minutes and sometimes even less. Going 110 minutes as this one does is much too long for a plot that is paper-thin.  However, the very macabre ending is excellent and almost makes up for it. The surprise twist isn’t bad either although a bit implausible.

Anderson, best known as Mary Ingals from the long running TV-show ‘Little House on the Prairie’, isn’t bad. A shot of her at the end where she is carrying a birthday cake and looks up and smiles is both chilling and sexy and quite possibly the film’s pinnacle. There is no nudity although director Thompson teases the viewer by having her undress to get into the shower, but the camera never gets past her bra and panties.

Hollywood icon Ford is wasted and his tired appearance is almost sad. His wardrobe features him wearing an open shirt showing his bare chest and it looks ridiculous for a man his age. There is another scene where the police dig up a skull on the school’s grounds and the Ford character asks to take a look at it and the police promptly hand it over to him, which I found to be equally ridiculous as that is a crucial piece of evidence that would only be handled by a forensic expert.

If anything Sharon Acker as Virginia’s alcoholic mother Estelle gives the best performance.  Her overwrought slightly hammy scene near the end gives the film some much needed energy.

There were a few other loopholes and inconsistencies that irritated me enough to be mentioned here. One is that years earlier Virginia had a birthday party and all her friend’s snubbed her and didn’t show up, so they could instead go to a party held by a girl who was more wealthy and popular, which made me wonder why then would Virginia want to remain friends with them like she did.  Another part involves a member of their clique named Alfred (Jack Blum) who the girls initially think is storing the severed head of one of their murdered friends. They later realize that this was simply a realistic looking plastic mold that he had made to resemble her, which makes them feel ‘relieved’ enough to continue to socialize with him. However, anyone who makes plastic molds of heads from someone they know that has just been killed seems just as creepy to me and enough to make most normal people concerned, which the characters here are not. There is also no explanation at the end for how the killer, whose identity I will not divulge, was able to come up with such an elaborate and realistic disguise. The gory effects are also not convincing and could have used Tom Savini’s help

Like I said I found the film’s ending to be pretty cool and enough for me to suggest this film to horror fans, but only if they are willing to stick around for it.

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: May 15, 1981

Runtime: 1Hour 50Minutes

Rated R (Violence, Language, Adult Theme)

Director: J. Lee Thompson

Studio: Columbia

Available: VHS, DVD, Amazon Instant Video

Seance on a Wet Afternoon (1964)

seance on a wet afternoon

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Psychic is a phoney.

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

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

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

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

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

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: November 5, 1964

Runtime: 1Hour 55Minutes

Rating: NR (Not Rated)

Director: Bryan Forbes

Studio: Artixo Productions

Available: VHS, DVD (Region 1 & 2)

The Bliss of Mrs. Blossom (1968)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Lover in the attic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: September 11, 1968

Runtime: 1Hour 33Minutes

Rating: NR (Not Rated)

Director: Joseph McGrath

Studio: Paramount

Available: VHS

Venom (1982)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: Kidnappers versus deadly snake.

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

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

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

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

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

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: January 29, 1982

Runtime: 1Hour 33Minutes

Rated R (Mature Theme, Violence, Language) 

Studio: Paramount

Director: Piers Haggard

Available: DVD

Dona Flor and Her Two Husbands (1976)

dona1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: One is not enough.

This is an oddly structured Brazilian film that became a world-wide hit due to its explicit, edgy storyline.  It details the account of a woman named Dona Flor (Sonia Braga) whose first husband Valdomiro (Jose Wilker), was a bit on the wild side. After gambling away all of their money he dies. She becomes determined not to make the same mistake twice, so she remarries another man who is a doctor (Mauro Mendonca) and a much more responsible mate, but also stiff and boring. Problems ensue when the first husband, who she misses because he was more erotic and exciting in bed, comes back in the form of a ghost who only she can see.

The movie on a whole is well made. The characters are all likable and the theme music, which is played throughout the film, is appealing. The on location shooting is also quite distinctive. It really gives you a genuine, rare flavor of a small Brazil village and the people who inhabit them.

My main complaint with the film is that it takes the entire first hour just too illustrate her marriage with her first husband and the second hour to show her mourning and eventual remarriage. It’s not until the FINAL FIFTEEN MINUTES that the scenario the whole film is based on actually happens. When it does it is lively and funny, but the majority of the movie is surprisingly low key and melodramatic. The highly touted sex scenes are overrated. They are too brief and spread out very thinly.

Braga does well in her star making vehicle. She is able to convey both a simple, sweet nature as well as a sultry, sensual one. She has a pretty face and really does look great naked.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: November 22, 1976

Runtime: 1Hour 50Minutes

Rated R

Director: Bruno Barreto

Studio: Embrafilme

Available: VHS, DVD (Director’s Cut)