Category Archives: Movies Based on Novels

Dirty Mary Crazy Larry (1974)

Posted on January 2, 2012 | 4 comments

dirty1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 5 out of 10

4-Word Review: Fast cars fast women.

During the 70’s car chase movies were all the rage.  Smoky and the Bandit, Convoy, Vanishing Point, and Two-Lane Blacktop were just a few.  Most of these films followed the comedy adventure blueprint closely resembling the politics of the time where the police were the befuddled authority figures and those being chased symbolized the downtrodden masses looking to break free from the values and customs of yesteryear and find their own identities. Dirty Mary Crazy Larry is pretty much the same as the rest with a few notable exceptions the biggest being its very downbeat ending, which was quite talked about at the time of its release and one of the main reasons this film continues to have a strong cult following today.

The story is based on the novel by Richard Unekis called The Chase. It involves an out of work race car driver named Larry and his mechanic (Peter Fonda, Adam Roarke) who decide to rob a grocery store to make ends meet. Much to their dismay they are accompanied by a hooker named Mary (Susan George) and the three spend the rest of the film riding in Larry’s Dodge Charger with a powerful V-8 engine and avoiding the relentless pursuit of the police.

The screenplay follows the book pretty closely, but does make a few ill-advised changes. One is that in the book the two leads characters were career criminals who robbed for a living. I thought this made more sense and gave the characters a little more grounding.  I didn’t understand why a race car driver and his mechanic would suddenly be pushed to robbery, or what lead them into their fix. The robbery is executed in much too sophisticated a way for a pair of novices as they kidnap the store manager’s wife and daughter and then threaten to harm them unless the manager opens up the store’s safe. They also rig his home phone up to a tape recorder device so every time he calls home he hears the voice of the two and thinks they are still there even though they had already hit the road.  Criminals who had done this all their lives would be brazen enough not only to come up with this idea, but to also pull it off.  People with no background in robbery most likely would not.  There is also no explanation as to why they chose this store and how they planned the whole thing out, which would have helped.

Another change that was made was the addition of the Mary character.  In the book it was just the two men, which made it more gritty.  Although easy on the eyes the character serves no fundamental purpose to the story line.  All she does is have very redundant arguments with Larry that quickly become tiring.  I began to realize that these shouting matches were put in solely as filler material and it ends up getting inane.

Although I have like Peter Fonda in other films, most notably Easy Rider, I did not feel his laid back persona fit this part.  Larry is indeed a potentially interesting character as it is a person who can only find solace when he is taking extreme risks and driving real fast, but Fonda seemed unable to bring out this edginess effectively and his incessant gum chewing ends up becoming real annoying.

Vic Morrow probably gives the film’s best performance as the sheriff.  Normally the police are portrayed as bumbling idiots in this type of genre, but here they were a little more human and I liked the way that he was a bit of a non-conformist himself in the relentless way  he pursued the trio.

I also liked the attempt by the film makers to put in more realistic elements to a car chase that is never shown in most movies. One particular scene involves a pick-up truck that has nothing to do with the chase pulling out and getting side-swiped by Larry’s car.  For a minute the film becomes somber as they think they may have killed the other driver, which is good. Too many chase films always show other drivers and pedestrians miraculously getting out of the way and never being hit or injured even though in reality a lot of them probably would. The subject of seat belts also comes up, which is another pet peeve that I have with these films.  The occupants of these cars are never shown wearing them and with the stunts that they do they would all end up injured and killed without them.  They don’t wear them here either, but at least Larry does mention to Mary that she should put one on and there is also an amusing scene where a big yellow billboard stating ‘There is only one word for people that don’t wear seatbelts…STUPID’ which is shown briefly just before one of the out-of-control police cars goes careening through it.

Of course the best thing about the film and the one thing that has made this film so famous is the notorious ending, which is a downer for sure. If you consider this a spoiler then please don’t read any further, but the truth is when I first saw this film many years ago I already knew it was going to have a downbeat ending, but it kept me more intrigued because I didn’t know how it would happen.  Unless you count the film’s opening shot there is no foreshadowing of it and it happens very suddenly where the victims end up not knowing what hit them, which is also realistic.  Personally I loved it and most other viewers seem to also.  Too many chase movies have the good guys being able to escape one close call after another when in reality the odds will catch up with you sooner or later and with this film that is what happens, which in some ways can be considered ‘refreshing’. The scene is captured well and features one of the best explosions I have seen and without any of that tacky computerized special effects. I also liked the way the film ends very abruptly after it happens without any denouncement.

Normally I argue against Hollywood remakes, but this is one instance where it would be a good thing.  One of the main problems here is the film’s low-budget.  Although I felt they captured the central California countryside nicely (it was filmed in and around Stockton) the indoor sets are quite bland and dull. A bigger budget, tighter script, and some flashy camera work could work wonders here.  Too many times Hollywood seems driven to remake films that were already good the first time and only ends up tarnishing the original instead of remaking films that didn’t quite work on the first run and trying to make them better.

My Rating: 5 out of 10

Released: May 17, 1974

Runtime: 1Hour 33Minutes

Rated PG

Director: John Hough

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Available: VHS, DVD, Amazon Instant Video

4 Comments

Posted in 70's Movies, Cult, Fast Cars/Car Chase, Low Budget, Movies Based on Novels

Tagged , , , ,

The Innocents (1961)

Posted on January 1, 2012 | 5 comments

innocents 1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Children frighten their governess.

Legendary British actress Deborah Kerr plays Miss Giddens, the governess hired to care for two children at a sprawling English estate. However, the children are not exactly as they seem. Strange occurrences and behaviors begin to manifest as well as several ghostly sightings, which leads Miss Giddens into believing that the children may actually be possessed.

The film is based on the Henry James novel The Turn of the Screw. I have not read the book, but those that have feel this is a pretty satisfying adaptation. I did like the slow, methodical pacing. It helps to build the tension as well as enhance the mystery. Things are revealed in deliberate layers, which kept me intrigued throughout.

Director Jack Clayton shows a marvelous handle on the material.  The estate that they chose for the setting is perfect and captured well in glorious black and white by famed cinematographer Freddie Francis.  There is a lot of spooky imagery throughout including a creepy nightmare sequence in the middle.  The garden with its hulking, strange statues is used quite effectively especially in the haunting finale.  The music also grabs your attention right from the start with a very eerie song that is played before you see a single image on the screen. The song is similar to the one used in Rosemary’s Baby.  In fact there are several things here that reminded me of that film as well as The Shining.

Kerr was a good choice for the increasingly frightened governess.  I loved that scared expression on her face, which becomes progressively more frequent. Yet she is also effective when the character decides to become proactive by taking matters into her own hands and singlehandedly trying to ‘cure’ the children herself.  This also helps make both the character and the story a more multifaceted because you are never sure if this stuff is really happening or all just inside her head.

What really impressed me the most though was the performances of the two children especially Martin Stephens who plays Miles the young boy. His character shifts through many different moods, playing an innocuous child one minute and then a menacing, volatile one the next. He does each one flawlessly and becomes practically mesmerizing in the process.  Pamela Franklin is also fine in the role of Flora. This was her film debut. Eight years later her career would peak playing her signature role as Maggie Smith’s nemesis in The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie.

Another thing that I liked about the children is that they are initially portrayed as being normal and even engaging.  This is unlike other films with a similar theme like Children of the Damned or Children of the Corn where the kids are given creepy features right from the start. Here it works better and is more chilling to the viewer because the children’s dark side is unsuspected.

Unfortunately, despite the film’s impeccable technical quality, I still went away feeling unsatisfied. Part of the problem is that nothing really happens.  The ghosts appear but then do nothing but just stand there, which quickly becomes tiresome. One scene in particular has the camera constantly cutting back to the lady ghost standing across the lake until she starts to look like a mannequin, which I suspect she was.  The buildup is good, but I would have liked more of a payoff.  The ending is much too vague and gives no explanation as to why this was happening, if it was happening, or whatever became of the main character.

I couldn’t help but feel that this story would have worked better as an episode from one of the old horror anthology series like The Alfred Hitchcock Hour or even The Twilight Zone where it could have all been compacted into an hour. A hundred minutes seems like much too long for such little to happen. It is also interesting to note that in 1972 a film came out entitled The Nightcomers starring Marlon Brando that attempts to speculate what happened to the children before the main character of the governess arrives and before James’s original story begins.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: December 25, 1961

Runtime: 1Hour 40Minutes

Rated NR (Not Rated)

Director: Jack Clayton

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Available: VHS, DVD

5 Comments

Posted in 60's Movies, Black & White, British Movies, Foreign Films, Ghost Story, Movies Based on Novels, Mystery

Tagged , , , , , ,

John and Mary (1969)

Posted on December 31, 2011 | 2 comments

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 4 out of 10

4-Word Review: Sex and then relationship.

Considered provocative at the time this film detailed the new phenomenon of the one-night-stand, a fad in the late 60’s early 70’s that quickly went out of style upon the release of Looking for Mr Goodbar in 1977.  The story here details a rather nondescript man and woman (played by Dustin Hoffman and Mia Farrow) who meet at a singles bar and then go back to his place for sex.  The rest of the film involves them considering whether it can grow into a relationship.

The first ten minutes are pretty good. It nicely analyzes all the expected awkwardness one must have of waking up the next morning and not sure who you’ve been sleeping with. I liked how the John character secretly goes through Mary’s purse to find out more about her while Mary does the same with his telephone messages. Unfortunately after this segment Director Peter Yates unwisely decided to put in voice overs of their thoughts. This adds nothing to the proceedings and ends up being heavy-handed. It also takes away one of the fundamental points of good film-making, which is learning about characters through subtle visual observation.

The film is also no where near as sophisticated or daring as I think the film-makers would like us to believe. I expected, and would have like, the male character to have been a life-long swinger who has had many of these flings and now suddenly finds himself attracted to this woman and wants to go in a different direction. Instead we get a Hoffman character portrayed as being someone who has never done this before and only does so at the coaxing of his much more liberated friend.  This leads him to act all shy and unsure and coming off like an extension to the character he played in The Graduate. The end result is getting a very boring, bland person who responds to things in all the predicted ways instead of giving us a fresh new perspective by delving into the mind of someone living a lifestyle many of us have not experienced.  I also got a strong feeling that the film-makers had done very little research into this topic, thus giving the viewer no new insight whatsoever.  It ends up coming off like one of those trendy ‘statement movies’, but with no idea of what statement it actually wants to make.

There is no chemistry between Hoffman and Farrow at all.  Nothing is shown that would indicate why these two would want to pursue this thing any further. I actually found the scenes involving the side-story of Farrow’s affair with an older college professor (Michael Tolan) to be more interesting and filled with stronger more snappy dialogue.

In the end this ‘provocative drama’ deteriorates into being an uninspired love story. It concludes with the tired, cliche ridden scene of having John madly driving around the city of New York looking for this mysterious woman who he is convinced he is in love with despite the fact that he still does not know what her name is.  It is easy to see how, in Hoffman’s very distinguished career, why this film remains one of his lesser known efforts.

On the technical side this film is actually well done.  I liked how it inter-cut between the present day and the past as well as analyzing the previous relationships of the two characters. This film also offers a nice chance to see a young Tyne Daly as Farrow’s roommate.  Cleavon Little from Blazing Saddles fame appears briefly as a would-be film director.  Olympia Dukakis  has an amusing, non-speaking bit as Hoffman’s activist Mother.  This also marks the film debut of character actress Marian Mercer.

My Rating: 4 out of 10

Released: December 14, 1969

Runtime: 1Hour 32Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Peter Yates

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Available: VHS, DVD

2 Comments

Posted in 60's Movies, Drama, Movies Based on Novels, Movies that take place in the Big Apple, Obscure Movies, Romance, Sex

Tagged , , , , ,

The Anderson Tapes (1971)

Posted on December 29, 2011 | 2 comments

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 8 out of 10

4-Word Review: They can hear everything.

In Sean Connery’s long and storied career in which he has played in a wide variety of films, The Anderson Tapes somehow always gets lost in the shuffle, which is unfair as it is really an offbeat gem waiting to be discovered and appreciated.  Fortunately in October it was finally released to DVD and the print is excellent and there is now discussions of a remake, but see the original first.

It involves a man by the name of Duke Anderson (Connery), who upon being released from prison, seeks to borrow money from the mob in order to finance a high scale robbery of an apartment building that is filled with affluent tenants. The problem is that Duke is being tailed by the government who, through means of sophisticated electronic devices, are able to record everything he says and does.  Even by today’s standards I thought the gadgetry and the way it was used was quite clever.

Many things help make this film stand out. One is the very distinctive music score by the legendary Quincy Jones.  It has a weird electronic, techno quality to it that nicely compliments all the gadgetry in the story.

The casting is also interesting.  Martin Balsam, who made a career playing typical, everyman characters, appears here as a flaming gay interior decorator, which he does hilariously well. Comedian Alan King gets cast in a serious role as the crime boss. Even the casting of Connery is offbeat.  Usually he plays characters with strong personalities who are very much in control.  Here he plays a character who is constantly forced to compromise and trying desperately just to hold everything together  he even ends up getting rejected by his girlfriend (played by Dyan Cannon) for another man and all Connery’s character can do is stand there looking dumbfounded.

The script has some really sharp dialogue. This is probably the third or fourth time that I have seen this film and yet I was still impressed by some of the great lines that I hadn’t caught from the previous viewings.  One should actually make a point to watch this film twice just so they can take in all the great writing, which coincidently was done by Fran Pierson the same person who did Dog Day Afternoon.

The most unique thing about the movie though is the actual robbery sequence, which is made memorable due to director Sidney Lumet’s innovative approach.  It is told in semi-flashback form where you see a scene of the robbery and then it cuts to a scene where the victim recounts what happened to the police, which makes for some creative segues. The robbery victims are full of odd quirks and quite amusing.  Two of the best ones involve Margaret Hamilton best know as the wicked witch from the Wizard of Oz who plays a cursing, argumentative elderly woman in this her final film role. I also like the bedridden, paraplegic young boy (Scott Jacoby) who is far more resourceful than anyone thinks and ends up single handily ruining all of their well thought out plans.

This sequence also edits in scenes of the police force quietly getting set-up to raid the building.  I especially like the shots of the S.W.A.T. team members sliding along a rope from one high rise rooftop to another.  It is photographed in a realistic way so you see them dangling high in the air with nothing but the street below, which made me cringe a little.  This is also a great chance to see Garret Morris in a pre-Saturday Night Live role playing the head of the S.W.A.T. team.

There is very little that I didn’t like in this film that I otherwise found to be original and engaging from start to finish. However, of the two issues that I do have, one is the ending, which in typical 70’s fashion was a bit of downer. It does have a twist to it, but it is not as clever as I think the film-makers thought it was.  There is also a glaring factual error that in a film as sophisticated and polished as this should never have happened.  It deals with a woman on a phone stating that she is calling from Wichita Falls, Kansas.  Now Kansas does have a city of Wichita, but Wichita Falls is actually in Texas.

I highly recommend this movie not only to those who may be fans of Connery or director Lumet, but also to those who enjoy movies with an offbeat story and approach.

My Rating: 8 out of 10

Released: June 17, 1971

Runtime: 1Hour 39Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Sidney Lumet

Studio: Columbia Pictures

Available: VHS, DVD, Amazon Instant Video

2 Comments

Posted in 70's Movies, Dry Humor, Heist Movies, Movies Based on Novels, Movies that take place in the Big Apple, Offbeat

Tagged , , , ,

Funny Farm (1988)

Posted on December 27, 2011 | 1 comment

funny1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: Novelist moves to country.

Uninspired comedy about a man named Andy Farmer (Chevy Chase) who receives an advance from a publishing company, which he uses to quit his job and buy a cabin out in the country with his wife Elizabeth (Madolyn Smith) in order to write his novel. Unfortunately the local citizens are eccentric in very clichéd ways and their time there is spent dealing with one crazy misadventure after another.

Right from the start this film proves to have no footing in reality. Publishing companies only pay advances to authors who are already published and proven. They do not shell out $10,000 to some average unpublished Joe with only a vague idea for a story. Many publishers won’t even look at a finished manuscript from someone unless they are already represented by an agent and have some sort of track record, which renders this entire premise as ridiculous.

The movie starts off too quickly with them moving to the country without any set-up. The characters themselves are extremely bland and the script does not take advantage at all of Chase’s cynical, sardonic humor, or impeccable comic timing. Smith is certainly pleasant on the eyes, but things could have been more interesting had they been played-up as spoiled city slickers like the Lisa Douglas character from the TV-series Green Acres and then forced to adjust.

The humor is sloppy and uninspired and shows no level of sophistication. It is thrown in haphazardly without any consideration for story progression, or character development.  Much of it is not funny and the whole thing seems like a stretched out episode from the old Newhart TV-series and in fact the film was shot in Vermont were that series took place. The only mildly amusing moment comes when Andy goes fishing with some of the men from town and ends up accidently throwing them all overboard and even that is worth only a small chuckle. The final segment were Andy and Elizabeth convince everyone in the town to act like people from a Norman Rockwell painting and have them study covers from old issues of the Saturday Evening Post, as  they think this will make things seem more appealing to prospective buyers, is utterly preposterous.

The only time this film has any possibilities is when Elizabeth ends up not liking the story that Andy has written. Being a writer myself and having dealt with other writers I can attest that this can happen more than you think. In fact famous horror novelist Richard Laymon stated that his number one rule of things not to do was giving your manuscripts to friends and family members to read because it can create needless acrimony. Things get dicey when Elizabeth writes a story that sells, but the sterile script by Jeffrey Boam fails to take full advantage of this scenario and the results become as disappointing as everything else.

I did like that it was shot on location. The cottage is nestled away in a scenic area and the viewer gets the feeling that they are ‘getting away from it all’ along with the characters.  Capturing it during all four seasons is another plus. I also thought that the realistic looking stuffed squirrel was cool and I wish I could find one of those for myself.

Sadly, this was director George Roy Hill’s last film. He had much more success with Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Slapshot, and The Sting to name just a few. None of his genius shows up here as it is quite mechanical and formulaic.

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: June 3, 1988

Runtime: 1Hour 41Minutes

Rated PG

Director: George Roy Hill

Studio: Warner Brothers

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

1 Comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Cold Climate/Wintertime Movies, Comedy, Movies Based on Novels, Movies with a rural setting

Tagged , ,

The Choirboys (1977)

Posted on December 20, 2011 | 1 comment

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: These guys are crude.

I’ve been a fan of author Joseph Wambaugh ever since I was fourteen and read ‘The Onion Field’, which I found to be incredibly gripping.  Wambaugh, a former policeman turned author, usually writes stories about cops that are laced with drama as well as humor.  ‘The Choirboys’ novel had all of these ingredients and rose to the top ‘New York Times’ bestsellers list. Unfortunately the film version did not do quite so well.  Wambaugh hated it and continues to lambast it even in interviews today.

Most others disliked the film as well although there are a few who liked its outrageous humor.  As any good reviewer I wanted to be open-minded.  The film has languished in obscurity for decades.  It was released to theaters just two days before Christmas in 1977 and then faded out quickly.  It has never been shown on broadcast television. It was released to VHS on 1993, but copies of it are rare.  It has never been released on DVD, but just recently it has become available on the Netflix streaming option as well as Starz Play. So if you still want to see this film after reading this review, then that is where you can find it.

The film, like the novel, starts out with a scene from the Vietnam war where we see a soldier trapped in a cave and panicking as the enemy moves in.  It then cuts to the present day where a group of policemen who, after a grueling day of work, routinely let loose by having what they call ‘choir practice’ in the evenings.  This is simply a code word used as an excuse for hard partying and practical jokes, which takes up the whole first half of the film.  The second hour turns dramatic as that same soldier that was trapped in the cave, and is now one of the policemen, has a frightening flashback which leads to tragedy.  His police buddies try to cover it up and the rest of the movie deals with the subsequent investigation.

One of the biggest drawbacks to the film is the incessant amount of pranks and juvenile behavior that is shown, which quickly becomes  redundant.  I did like the part where one of the jokes goes too far and one of the men yells out “let’s get out of here before somebody calls the cops”.  I also like the statement George DiCenzo’s character says to a prostitute as he is having sex with her.  It is very anti-PC, but a laugh-out-loud moment nonetheless.  The rest of the pranks are dull and unimaginative. Director Robert Aldrich could have cut ninety percent of it and still made his point. It all ends up making cops look like inane buffoons without balancing it with their humanity like the novel did.

The second hour deals more with the drama, but really isn’t much better.  The lighting is dark and shadowy.  The shot composition has no visual flair and ends up looking more like a cheap TV show than a movie.  The editing is very choppy and the film fails to find a good pace or momentum.

There are a few bright spots.  I really liked the Burt Young character. Many people remember him best from the Rocky movies.  Here he plays an incredibly grungy, crass police sergeant who exposes a tender side at a completely unexpected moment.  I also liked Don Stroud’s performance as the unhinged policeman.  In many ways I felt he carried the majority of the movie.  Perry King is also good as a cop hiding a dark side.  He does real well in these types of parts and reminded me of his performance in The Procession of Joel Delaney. The movie also stars the very durable Charles Durning, which is also a good thing.  As of this writing he is now eighty-seven years old and has four, yes four, projects on his slate for this year alone.

The film though does not live up to the novel and reading the book in this case would be the much better choice.  Normally I dislike Hollywood’s recent penchant for remaking old films, but in this instance I would applaud it.

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: December 23, 1977

Runtime: 1Hour 59Minutes

Rated R

Director: Robert Aldrich

Studio: Universal

Available: VHS

1 Comment

Posted in 70's Movies, Crude Comedy, Movies Based on Novels, Obscure Movies

Tagged , , ,

Stay Hungry (1976)

Posted on December 19, 2011 | 1 comment

 

stay hungry 2

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: Read the book instead.

Craig Blake (Jeff Bridges) is a young southern man left alone with his butler in a big mansion when both his parents die in a car crash.  He works at a shady investment firm run by the con-man Jabo (Joe Spinnell).  They have managed to purchase all the other buildings on a block except for a workout gym. Craig is told to meet with the owner of the gym named Thor (R.G. Armstrong) and transact a purchase, so the firm can use the space to build a high-rise office complex.  However, once Craig meets with some of the people working there, including Joe Santo (Arnold Schwarzenegger) who is a body builder and uses the gym to prepare for the Mr. Universe title, as well as the pretty receptionist Mary Tate (Sally Field) he starts to have second thoughts about going through with the deal.

The film is based on the 1972 best-selling novel of the same name by Charles Gaines. There are quite a few differences between the book and the film, with the novel being much better. In the book there is no real estate firm, or potential acquisition of the building. Craig is simply bored with life and goes to a gym on a whim and uses the idea of bodybuilding as a way to find an identity. The book also features a camping trip that the group goes on and a fascinating psychedelic experience that Craig has when he takes an illicit drug that was completely cut out of the movie. The book has much richer characterizations and a profound philosophy that is devoid in the movie.

The film is poorly paced. Nothing really seems to happen and it only comes together at the end and by then it is too late.  Director Bob Rafelson tries to make the movie take on too many things. It shifts awkwardly between drama and sardonic comedy, but fails to achieve any type of cohesion, or momentum.  The flow is more like a European style of filmmaking where the story is told in a more relaxed pace and features long takes and side conversations. However, the dialogue isn’t interesting enough to carry it and the film focuses too much on the relationship between Craig and Mary, which happens too fast and doesn’t seem to have enough chemistry.

I also didn’t like how the character of Craig is portrayed. Bridges gives his usual dependable performance, but he has no southern accent even though he is from the area and everyone else speaks in a very thick one. He talks and acts much more like he is from the west coast and, like the viewer, acts as if he is some detached stranger that is just passing through with no real roots in the area, people, or customs. I think the Hollywood producers intentionally did this because they figured mainstream audiences could not relate to a southerner, who are still straddled with the unfair stigma of being hick, redneck, and racist. So the character was modified to bring broader appeal, but in the process becomes unrealistic and a bit annoying.

On the technical end it is okay although the budget looks limited. Filming on-location in Birmingham, Alabama helps, but I would have liked to have seen more of the area. There are a few unique scenes that make it somewhat enjoyable. One includes Craig stealing a painting off the wall of an office and another involves a throng of half-naked body builders spilling out onto the streets of the city and holding up traffic. There is also a very violent altercation at the end between Craig and Thor that features them battling with each other while using equipment from the gym. The action here is choreographed and edited nicely and looks genuinely real. There is also a brief moment where Field and Bridges go water skiing that was done by the actors themselves and not stunt doubles.

Schwarzenegger is appealing in what is considered his first official acting debut since in his previous two films his voice was dubbed and he had no speaking lines in the other. I liked the way the character is humanized here and shown with a different side to him including having him play the fiddle in a country band. Field is good playing a very feisty and rambunctious character. It also features her in a nude scene although it is from the back only. Woodrow Parfrey also deserves mention as Uncle Albert simply because his eccentric acting style always grabs your attention even in the smallest of roles. He also is the film’s narrator and speaks with the most authentic, best sounding Southern accent out of everyone.

R.G. Armstrong is by far and away the most memorable part of the film. He wears a hilariously awful wig throughout and is slimy in a real goofy way in every scene he is in. His best part comes when he has sex with a couple of prostitutes while on some of the workout machines. He also did, at age 60, his own nude scenes, so you have to give him credit there.

stay hungry 1

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: April 23, 1976

Runtime: 1Hour 42Minutes

Rated R

Director: Bob Rafelson

Studio: United Artists

Available: VHS, DVD

1 Comment

Posted in 70's Movies, Dry Humor, Movies Based on Novels, Movies that take place in the South, Movies with Nudity, Quirky

Tagged , , , , ,

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962)

Posted on December 19, 2011 | 6 comments

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Living in the past.

This is a classic horror film that managed to resurrect the sagging careers of acting legends Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. It also spawned a whole new ‘psychobiddy’ genre of films. The movie is based on the 1960 bestselling novel by Henry Farrell.

The story takes place almost exclusively in an old, rundown Hollywood mansion where two aging, feuding sisters live. Baby Jane Hudson (Davis) was at one time a big child star, but never managed to cross-over to adult roles. She lives in a fantasy world, refusing to move on with her life, and takes out her frustrations on her crippled sister Blanche (Crawford), who at one time was a big movie star until a horrible car accident left her bound to a wheelchair.

The real-life feud and animosity that the two stars had for each other is now legendary. Some of the things the two said about the other is hilariously over-the-top and too many to quote here, but well worth checking out. When you hear of all the incredible things that the two did to each other behind the scenes you almost become amazed that the film was ever able to get made. I wished that a documentary had been filmed examining the movie’s production as that could have been almost more entertaining than the film itself.

All things considered, Davis is nothing short of fabulous here. She should have won the Oscar hands down and she pretty much steals the film. She also wore gaudy make-up that gives her an almost ghost like appearance. Crawford is very good as well, but her role is not as flashy. Sadly for her this was her last hurrah as her alcoholism took its toll and her roles after this were in B-movies while Davis went on strong for the next twenty years.

Of course some may argue that the real star was director Robert Aldrich. I liked the bird’s-eye shot of Blanche spinning around in her wheel chair in frustration and terror. It is brief, but gives the viewer a very unnerving feeling. The scene where Baby Jane does an old rendition of one of her routines that she did as a child in front of a mirror that she has set-up in her living room that is also surrounded by stage lights is a nice directorial touch. The campy opening that takes place in 1917 that shows Baby Jane at her peak is memorable as is the very offbeat climatic sequence on a crowded beach. I also got a real kick out of all the Baby Jane toy dolls.

Victor Buono deserves mention as he was nominated for the supporting Oscar for his role as Edwin Flagg, the fledgling composer who Baby Jane hires to help resurrect her stage show. Although best remembered for his comedic skills he was also quite good in his serious parts and his immense girth always made his presence known. I enjoyed how they form this weird quasi-relationship that is based solely on each other’s lies and delusions.

I did have a few complaints to what seemed to me to be some serious logistical flaws. One is the fact that Blanche is stuck in her upstairs bedroom with no way to get downstairs. You would think that with all the money that they once made that they would’ve been able to afford building either an elevator, or a chair lift. It also seemed implausible to believe that Blanche had been stuck in her bedroom since 1935 when she had her accident, until present day 1962, which is what the film seems to imply. As much as I liked the African-American housekeeper Elvira Stitt (Maidie Norman), who is well aware of Baby Jane’s psychosis and has no trouble standing up to her, I thought it was awfully dumb the way she set down a hammer that she was holding right in front of Baby Jane and then turned her back to her, which allowed her to be attacked that anyone else could have predicted would happen. I also felt there was a little too much background music that at times got a bit melodramatic.

Still, this is a great film that his highly entertaining from beginning to end. With the exception of some of Baby Jane’s ‘dinner surprises’ the film is devoid of any real scares and there is no gore, which may disappoint today’s younger, more jaded viewers. However, the film has a very strong, dark psychological undercurrent, which proves to be immensely fascinating and will be appreciated by those who are more sophisticated. The film’s theme, which is that of Hollywood’s fickle, vicious cycle of fame, is universal and as strong today as it was back then.

It is interesting to note that the director’s 18 year old son William, who appears at the end as a lunch attendant at the beach, produced  29 years later the made –for-TV remake of this film that starred the Redgrave sisters, but was not as good. Also director Aldrich later made two variations of this same story. One was Whatever Happened to Aunt Alice which he produced and starred Geraldine Page and Ruth Gordon and also the British classic The Killing of Sister George which he also directed.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: October 31, 1962

Runtime: 2Hours 14Minutes

Rated NR (Not Rated)

Director: Robert Aldrich

Studio: Warner Brothers

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

6 Comments

Posted in 60's Movies, Black & White, Black Comedy, Classic, Movies Based on Novels, Psychological, Thrillers/Suspense

Tagged , , , , ,

Open Season (1974)

Posted on December 17, 2011 | 7 comments

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: Humans are their prey.

This is the type of film that has a really great concept, but ends up being ruined with its poor execution. It is based on the novel ‘The All-Americans’ by David D. Osborn, who also co-wrote the screenplay. The story involves three ‘All-American’ suburban family men (Peter Fonda, Richard Lynch, and John Phillip Law) who once year go on a ‘hunting trip’ except here they hunt people. They typically pick their victims up at random and then drive them to their isolated hunting lodge in the woods. They feed and entertain them for a week and then give them a few supplies as well as a compass and tell them that the highway is twenty-five miles north.  If they are able to make it to the highway they are free and if not the three men will hunt them down like animals. The victims are always given a thirty minute head start, but none of them ever make it. The movie focuses on a man and woman (Alberto de Mendoza, Cornelia Sharpe) that are having an affair and are kidnapped by the three outside of a truck stop.

The beginning is well-done and quite easily the best part of the whole film. It goes back in time to when the three men where in college and accused of gang raping a young lady.  To the shock of the girl’s mother the prosecuting attorney tells them they have no case because these boys are great athletes with stellar reputations and nobody would believe they would do something like that. I liked this part for two reasons. One is the fact that at least we are given some sort of history to these culprits. A lot of movies never do this and you always wonder how these psychos where able to get away with it for so long. At least here we are given a backstory and somewhat plausible one at that.  Many sociopaths have been able to fool people for years simply because they smart enough to play the respectable role in society and bring out their deviance only when it is completely safe to do so. Also, athletes, especially in the past, where given much more leeway and many of their transgressions would get over-looked. So to me this made a lot sense and helped get me into the movie right away. I also liked the imagery used over the opening credits as well as the very haunting music score.

I also liked how the film then cuts to the present day showing the men at a neighborhood block party and interacting with their wives and kids. The three actors are perfect for their parts.  They were all B-actors who’ve made a career playing sleazy characters and fall into the roles easily. Richard Lynch is especially good. In real life he once set himself on fire in 1967 while taking LSD and his scarred, pale, and rough looking face always makes a creepy impression. Director Peter Collinson does some good camera work with detailed bird’s-eye view shots that show how sprawling the forest is and indeed gives the viewer a very remote feeling.

Unfortunately the rest of the film goes downhill. Part of the problem is that there is just too much talking.  In fact the whole middle section is spent with a lot of drawn out conversations that aren’t interesting, or well-written. It saps the tension out of the film until there isn’t any left.  It isn’t until the very end that they finally get around to letting the victims go out into the woods and then tracking them down. However, this too is poorly handled. The action is limited and not well choreographed. The whole sequence goes by too quickly and comes off like it was nothing more than an after-thought that fails to take advantage of its immense forest setting.  In fact for a film with such a sadistic and exploitive theme there is actually very little violence to speak of and no gore at all. The three bad guys also end up becoming quite banal and one-dimensional. They show no distinctive personalities whatsoever as they agree with each other on everything and seem to do nothing more than laugh and guffaw and each other’s juvenile jokes and antics.

If you are interested in watching this film then please don’t read any further as it may be considered a spoiler:

The film’s twist ending is weak as well. It features actor William Holden (a very accomplished actor and why he took this role, which amounts to nothing more than a cameo, I will never know) playing the father of the girl that the three men raped in college. He secretly followed the men on their hunting trip and decides to have his revenge by gunning them down just like they had done to all their victims. Again, the action here is handled in an unexciting and unimaginative way. I couldn’t buy into the fact that these men, who supposedly fought in Vietnam, would panic so quickly and act like a bunch of scared children the minute they found out that they were being shot at. They show no savvy or survival skills and allow themselves to be easily picked-off in an uninspired fashion.

I have always enjoyed Deliverance and I liked how this film used a variation of that theme where instead of the civilized man going out and coming to terms with the savage of the wilderness they instead go into the wilderness to come to terms with their own, inner savage. More action, better tweaking of the characters, and a faster pace and this film could’ve been a cult classic as the ingredients are all there. As it is now though I think it is much too bland to interest or intrigue anybody.

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: November 1, 1974

Runtime: 1Hour 44Minutes

Rated R

Director: Peter Collinson

Studio: Columbia Pictures

Available: VHS

7 Comments

Posted in 70's Movies, Action/Adventure, Kidnapping Movies, Low Budget, Movies Based on Novels, Movies with a rural setting, Obscure Movies, Outdoors, Thrillers/Suspense

Tagged , , , , ,

Charley Varrick (1973)

Posted on December 16, 2011 | 3 comments

charley

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Charley outsmarts them all.

Charley Varrick (Walter Matthau) is a crop duster and former stunt pilot who in order to make ends meet robs small banks in and around the state of Nevada. He does this with the help of his girlfriend Nadine (Jacqueline Scott) as well as a young, quick tempered man named Harmen Sullivan (Andrew Robinson). Unfortunately the latest bank that they rob was a front for the mob and the money they take was already stolen cash and the mob is soon hot on their trail as are the police. Worse is the fact that Charley and Harman don’t seem to see eye to eye on anything, which leads to a lot of intense confrontations and intrigue at every turn.

Initially I felt Matthau may have been miscast. We are so used to seeing him in comedies that watching him in a movie that features gritty violence seems almost unsettling. However, as the movie wears on and the story gets more intricate I started to really enjoy Matthau’s character and felt he was a perfect fit. I loved how he is so laid back and unassuming and yet in his own subtle way still manages to outwit everyone, even the dangerous mob. The film definitely feeds off of the confrontations between Charley and Harman who are diametrically different in every aspect. The fact that Charley manages to get the upper hand on the otherwise violent prone, out-of-control young man makes it all the more pleasing.

Robinson again gives another outstanding performance. The guy is an amazingly intense actor, who has never been given his just recognition. The guy stole the film in his most famous part as the killer Scorpio in Dirty Harry and he practically does it here as well.

Woodrow Parfrey another unfairly over-looked character actor gives a delightful performance as the timid bank manager stuck between the mob and the police. The conversation that he has with the mob boss Maynard Boyle (John Vernon) out near a cow pasture where they ascertain that the cows may have it better in life than the humans is memorable.

The only actor that didn’t quite hit the mark with me was Joe Don Baker as the mob hit man named Molly. I liked the character who was this extremely cold, calculating killer smoldering underneath his calm façade with a nasty penchant for violence and sadism as well as an odd moral code. Baker seems to be having a lot of fun with the part, but I would have liked the character to have been bigger physically and a few more scenes showing just how mean and threatening he really was. Although politically incorrect to the extreme the scene where he ‘convinces’ the Sheree North character to go to bed with him is amusing.

The cinematography seems to be lacking. Nevada can be a scenic desert state if captured right, but that wasn’t done here. The majority of the action takes place in a dusty trailer park, which is expectedly bland visually. The bank that was chosen for the opening sequence was very ordinary as was the locale. I think they should have scouted around for something a little more exotic as the opening shot should always be something that should grab the viewer in and that certainly didn’t happen. Despite being directed by the legendary Don Siegel this whole thing had a little too much of a TV-movie look.

Another beef I had with the film is the segment where Charley goes to bed with a woman named Sybil Fort (Felicia Farr) who is the secretary of the mob boss that Charley wants to get into contact with. Charley barges into her apartment after disguising himself as a flower delivery man and then threatens to harm her if she screams. Then, just a little while later they go to bed together and she behaves like she has suddenly gotten really ‘in’ to him. I know in the post-sexual revolution 70’s and in Hollywood’s effort to always seem ‘sophisticated’ and ‘relevant’ it was common for characters of the opposite sex to go to bed together even if they had just met. Sometimes though this ritual seemed to border on the absurd and this scene here was a perfect example. This woman had no idea who this man was and who had threatened her just a short while before. Also, Matthau does not have the face or physique that most women are going to get the ‘hots’ for. My only guess is that this was meant to be an inside joke since Farr in real-life was the wife of Jack Lemmon and therefore they thought it would be fun to have Matthau go to bed with his best friend’s wife and also possibly live out a private fantasy. Either way it came off as dumb and forced.

Despite all of this it is an entertaining and fun movie especially for those who enjoy a story that emphasizes a clever battle of wits. A remake wouldn’t be a bad idea if it could give it a little more visual flair and a slightly better choreographed action.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: October 19, 1973

Runtime: 1Hour 51Minutes

Rated R

Director: Don Siegel

Studio: Universal

Available: VHS, DVD, Amazon Instant Video

3 Comments

Posted in 70's Movies, Action/Adventure, Dry Humor, Heist Movies, Movies Based on Novels, Movies with a rural setting, Robbing Banks

Tagged , , , , ,