Category Archives: Mystery

Harper (1966)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 9 out of 10

4-Word Review: New-age private eye.

            Detective Lew Harper (Paul Newman) is hired by Mrs. Sampson (Lauren Bacall) a rich woman whose husband has gone missing. She wants a private eye to find him instead of the police due to the fact that her husband was involved in certain illegal business activities, which she doesn’t want to come to light. Harper finds himself immersed in a complex web of intrigue dealing with an array of shady characters, twists, and danger.

Newman is terrific and the Harper character is the perfect private eye for modern audiences. Watching him get out of bed in his dingy, cluttered apartment at the beginning and get ready for the day is excellent and builds characterization in a visual, subtle, and believable way. His cool, laid-back, and detached demeanor is a great contrast to the hyper, jaded, high-strung L.A. types that make up the assortment of suspects. His cynical style attaches the viewer to him right from the start and the banter that he has with everyone is marvelous.

The supporting characters are superb as well and very well-defined. Bacall gets one of her better later career roles as the bitchy eccentric wife. She gets quite a few quotable zingers particularly between her and her step daughter Miranda (Pamela Tiffin) that are close to classic. I also got a kick out of Shelley Winters playing a parody of herself as a way past her prime Hollywood star who is now overweight and an alcoholic. Harper’s attempts to get information out of her by pretending to be a hick who is totally mesmerized by her is quite amusing.

Director Jack Smight is at his directorial peak here. The on-location shooting is splendid. I particularly enjoyed the modernistic building that fronts as a church, but is really used as a cover for criminal activity. It sits out on a sandy hilltop and leaves a strong visual impression as does Harper and Miranda’s car ride along a very winding desert highway to get there. I also liked his ability to capture an abandoned airplane hangar making it almost as evocative to the eye as the foot chase that happens in it. The whole production is consistently slick with color schemes, set design and editing that are all top notch.

William Goldman’s script, which is based on the novel by Ross Macdonald is sensational and one of his best in his already legendary career. The dialogue is sharp one can view it for the lines alone and might need to re-watch it again simply to pick-up on all of them as there are so many your liable to miss some. The mystery is also intriguing and nicely layered to the point that it will keep you guessing and impossible to figure out and fortunately there is a minimum of loopholes. I saw this before and knew the outcome, but still found it an enjoyable and involving ride.

My complaints are few and fortunately do not taint the quality of the picture, which is otherwise high. I didn’t like that Harper had an ex-wife Susan (Janet Leigh) who he is constantly trying to win back. The woman seemed a bit cold and snippy and not the type I would think Harper would fall for, or want to put up with. Having him act so needy to win back her affections hurt the ruggedness of the character who is appealing because of his independent and self-assured nature. There is another scene where a man is shot dead and Harper goes through his coat pockets in order to get some clues to his identity. He finds a matchbook listing a nightclub, which Harper goes to in order to ask questions from the patrons, but I kept thinking it would have been much easier had he just went through the victim’s pants pocket and taking out his wallet and looked at his driver’s license.

If you are looking for a nifty mystery done in the best crime noir tradition then they don’t come much better than this.

My Rating: 9 out of 10

Released: February 23, 1966

Runtime: 2Hours 1Minute

Rated NR (Not Rated)

Director: Jack Smight

Studio: Warner Brothers

Available:  DVD, Amazon Instant Video

The Drowning Pool (1975)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Way too much water.

            Detective Lew Harper (Paul Newman) travels to New Orleans in order to help Iris (Joanne Woodward) an old love of his who has now married and living in a large southern mansion that is controlled by her husband’s domineering mother Olivia (Coral Browne). Iris asks Harper to track down a former servant who she has fired and is now sending notes to her husband threatening to describe one of her elicit affairs. Initially Harper thinks it will be a simple straightforward case, but finds many twists and turns including the presence of an oil company looking to buy the land the mansion sits on for drilling. There is also Iris’s over-sexed teen daughter Schuyler (Melanie Griffith) who is always present when there is any trouble as well as the town’s sheriff Broussard (Tony Franciosa) who takes an unusual interest in the well fare of Iris and her daughter.

By itself this is an okay mystery although it takes a while getting there and there are too many characters popping in out of nowhere threatening harm to Harper to point that almost becomes formulaic. Compared to the first Harper this film pales in comparison. It lacks the snappy dialogue that made the first one so fun. The supporting characters are not as well defined, or as interesting and the overall production values are not as slick. I was amazed that with a script written by Tracy Keenan Wynn, Walter Hill, and Lorenzo Semple Jr. that it could be so overall ordinary, but it is. That doesn’t mean it is not passable, or entertaining, but it lacks the zing from the first.

I also didn’t like the change of location. Harper with his very detached approach worked better with the jaded Hollywood types. Here he just seems out-of-place. The mansion setting is boring and predictable. However, the scene where Harper is taken by boat along a swamp and to a pit bull farm where the animals are trained for dog fighting is special.

As for the supporting characters Richard Jaeckel, who has appeared with Newman before in several good scenes including the drowning one in Sometimes a Great Notion, is good as ‘bullet head’ a corrupt policeman who is constantly harassing Harper. Harper later turns the tables playing a game of Russian roulette with him that is great. Murray Hamilton is also quite good as the evil oil baron Kilbourne and the all red jumpsuit that he appears in is something else.

On the female end you have to love Melanie Griffith as the devious, nympho teen. She plays that type of part so well that I don’t think there is any other actress that could ever do it better. I did not like Gail Strickland as Mavis who is Kilbourne’s wife.  When we first see her she is a conniving, cocky, flirtatious woman, but then in a later scene turns into a whimpering, whiny mess begging Harper for help when she barely knows him. This extreme contrast didn’t work with me and I thought that a woman who marries a rich, but shady businessman and has been involved in some underhanded maneuverings herself should have a little better ‘plan B’ in place and not sink to such a pathetic helpless level the minute things unravel. Woodward is wasted in a boring role that allows for very little range. I wished she had played Strickland’s part as I think she would’ve made it more interesting.

The one scene that really stands out and makes this movie special is the part where Harper and Mavis are trapped in a hypo-therapy room in an old, abandoned asylum. Newman does most of his stunts here including being sprayed by a fire hose while locked in a strait jacket. The sequence where they plug up all the drains and then turn on all the showers in an attempt to float up the pool of water and escape out the skylight is amazing as is the moment where the gallons of water comes rushing through the door toppling furniture and people. This scene is incredible on many levels and should make it into the top twenty of best movie moments ever.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: June 25, 1975

Runtime: 1Hour 48Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Stuart Rosenberg

Studio: Warner Brothers

Available: VHS, DVD, Amazon Instant Video

Zig Zag (1970)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 5 out of 10

4-Word Review: Framing yourself isn’t good.

            Paul Cameron (George Kennedy) is an insurance agent and family man who learns that he is dying from a brain tumor and has only a few months to live. In order to provide money for his wife and children he sets himself up as the kidnapper of a wealthy businessman in an unsolved case that offered a $225,000 reward for anyone leading to the conviction of the culprit. After he is found guilty at his trial he faints and the doctors there decide to do experimental laser surgery to remove the tumor. The operation proves to be a success forcing Paul to go on a battle to prove his innocence, or risk spending the rest of his life in jail for a crime he did not commit.

Although he has done well in supporting roles Kennedy proves to be quite weak as a leading man as he shows almost no emotion in any of his scenes. When he is told of his tumor he takes it in a very matter-of-fact way without getting upset at all, which seemed unrealistic. His performance is dull and the few times that he does get upset it comes off as forced. His presence hurts the film and a more engaging, eccentric actor could’ve made it more interesting.

Eli Wallach as Paul’s attorney is terrific and the one thing that injects some energy. He is dynamic throughout and is fun to watch even during the slow parts. It was nice to see him doing a scene with his real-life wife Anne Jackson. As of this writing the two have now been married for 64 years, which has to be one of the longest marriages in Hollywood history.

The supporting cast features a long list of familiar character actors making it like spot-the-star. They include: Dana Elcar, Douglas Henderson, Steve Ihnat, William Marshall, Joan Tompkins, Robert Sampson, Leonard Stone, and Walter Brooke in an interesting duplicitous part.

Richard A. Colla’s direction is impressive. The film opens with a diverting cinema verite-style scene showing Paul going through the examination process before entering the prison, which seems unusually elaborate touch for what is otherwise just a gimmicky script. Another innovative part is when Paul is shown planting evidence at the scene of the crime and only the sounds and ambiance of the locale is heard without any music, which is more effective.  Unfortunately the direction and story become much more conventional towards the middle and it is not as interesting. The film tries to be too many things and does not come together as a seamless whole. The courtroom scenes were too extended for my tastes as we know Paul is innocent, but wants to be convicted anyways, so his many prolonged conversations with his exasperated lawyer who does not know of his scheme seem rather pointless. However, when Paul is cured and then goes on a mission to find the real killer it becomes exciting as the mystery itself proves to be complex and intriguing.

The twist ending did not go over well with audiences at the time of the film’s initial release. It’s a downer for sure, but after seeing so many tacky happy Hollywood endings in my lifetime I can’t say I totally hated it. As a budding screenwriter I enjoy irony and the ending here certainly has that. It’s slickly handled and although I saw it coming others may be genuinely surprised by it. My only complaint is that it’s a bit abrupt and could’ve and should’ve been extended in some way, or given a more effective closure.

If you like a movie with a lot of twists then this film may be worth seeking out. The legendary Roy Orbison sings the title tune during a party scene and it sounds like some of his best stuff. I am surprised it didn’t chart and I wished they had allowed the viewer to hear the complete son before cutting away.

My Rating: 5 out of 10

Released: September 11, 1970

Runtime: 1Hour 45Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Richard A. Colla

Studio: MGM

Available: VHS (as False Witness), DVD (Warner Archive) 

Dirty Hands (1975)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Their plans go awry.

Julie Wormser (Romy Schneider) is married to Louis (Rod Steiger) who is rich, but also 18 years older and suffering from impotency. A young, virile man by the name of Jeff Marle (Paolo Giusti) comes into her life and the two become lovers. They conspire to murder her husband and run off. However, their elaborate plan quickly unravels leading to many unexpected twists and turns.

Story-wise this is one of the better Hitchcock imitations. There are a lot of twists that are interesting and surprising. They are also well-explained and make sense. Nothing is thrown in that is implausible or creates loopholes.  The script is like traveling on a curving, winding road in a fast car and I found myself delightfully surprised, intrigued, and entertained with each new revelation. The film takes its time in explaining each detail and plot point. I liked how the investigators are given almost as much screen time as the culprits and writer/director Claude Chabrol has everything well-thought out and even manages to get you to care for these people at the end.

Schneider is stunning. I loved her blonde tinted hair and chic outfits. She has a sultry nude scene at the very beginning, but it is only from the backside. This was pretty much her vehicle. Her character goes through a wide-range of emotions and she does a great job of conveying each one. Her facial expressions especially as the case unravels and she is being interrogated by the Judge and questioned by her lawyer are captivating to watch and perfectly realized.

Steiger is always fun. His ability to display raw intense emotion is second to none. The character was a bit cardboard as written, but Steiger manages to make him human and I had genuine sympathy for him towards the end. He does tend to border on over-acting at times, but he injects life into the scenes that otherwise could have gotten boring and slow.

Although Chabrol clearly put a lot of care into the script the visual element is lacking. The camera work is conventional and unimaginative. Certain scenes are too dark and shadowy while others look bright and splotchy. The majority takes place in an exquisite looking French Chateau, but Chabrol fails to take advantage of this. The lack of visual style makes the thing look almost amateurish and the grainy, faded DVD transfer does not help. I also felt the dialogue between the two investigators seemed stale and derivative. There was also a part were Julie complains to the investigators that they have dropped into her house for a visit at much too late an hour and then, only a minute later, she is seen walking out of her house and it is broad daylight. Also, when she hits her husband over the head and supposedly kills him in his sleep he is still seen breathing.

If one is looking for a sharp mystery done in the Columbo style then this pick could be a fun, escapist evening. Schneider’s beauty and acting will carry the rest, but just be prepared for production values that are on a TV-movie level.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: March 26, 1975

Runtime: 2Hours 1Minute

Rated PG

Director: Claude Chabrol

Studio: New Line Cinema

Available: DVD

Bullitt (1968)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 8 out of 10

4-Word Review: A great car chase.

    A police detective by the name of Bullitt (Steve McQueen) is hired to protect a state witness who is set to testify against the mob. Problems ensue when the witness is killed and Bullitt makes it his personal mission to find the killers even if it means bending the rules.

    A renegade cop going against the system may seem like an old formula now, but here it is fresh and convincing. McQueen is gritty and authentic in his role and you find yourself caught up in his mission. The mystery is intriguing and even a bit complex. The car chase is incredible and still holds up today against any other car chase out there. You are made to feel like you are in the car with him and as it goes down the steep San Francisco hills you start to think you are on a roller coaster. The camera work and cinematography is excellent and the entire production is slick from beginning to end.

    Robert Vaughan who plays Chalmers is one of the prissiest characters you will ever see and expounds a vocabulary that you won’t likely ever hear in real life. The character is incredibly pretentious and you look forward to his comeuppance, which he eventually receives although I wished it had been a little bit more.

     Jacqueline Bisset as Bullitt’s girlfriend Cathy is unnecessary and almost like an intrusion. Her little ‘speech’ that she gives along a roadway after witnessing a crime scene does nothing but bog the movie down. Supposedly she was put in to ‘humanize’ the Bullitt character and show his softer side, but he’s an outstanding character without it.

      As mentioned the slick camera work is very good, but it does start to resemble another great McQueen picture that came out around the same time The Thomas Crown Affair. The film also loses its momentum after the car chase and the climatic foot chase along an airport runway is not as exciting.

     This is still a terrific cop thriller that set the standard for all others. McQueen is always great and here he really delivers. The car chase alone is worth watching and shouldn’t be missed by any self- respecting action fan.

My Rating: 8 out of 10

Released: October 17, 1968

Runtime: 1Hour 54Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Peter Yates

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

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

Still of the Night (1982)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 4 out of 10

4-Word Review: This teddy bear bleeds.

Successful psychiatrist Sam Rice (Roy Scheider) finds himself immersed in a tangled web of murder and deceit. One of his patients, wealthy art dealer George Bynum (Josef Sommar), is found murdered. A mysterious woman named Brooke Reynolds (Meryl Streep) visits him and states that she was George’s mistress and Sam suspects that she may be the killer. He tries to do his own investigation, but the police start to doggedly tail him thinking he may know more than what he is letting on.

This was yet another homage to Alfred Hitchcock, this time done by writer/director Robert Benton, who is an excellent filmmaker in his own right.  This one has all of the style, but none of the substance.  The concept is slickly handled, but it misses Hitch’s flair as well as his wry sense of humor.

Normally I have never been too impressed with Scheider as a leading man.  He has always seemed transparent and his range of characters as well as emotions that he can convey are limited. Here though, as an evasive middle-man, his acting abilities work quite well and I actually found him perfect for the part.

Streep does not fare as well.  Her acting is almost always impressive and I admire her prolific career, but this is one of her few roles that takes no advantage of her talents. She seems to have an almost ghost-like presence. I didn’t find her character to be compelling, nor intriguing. I had no interest in her fate nor her relationship with Rice.

Joe Grifasi was a poor choice as the lead investigator Joseph Vitucci. He showed none of the characteristics of a seasoned police detective and looked and acted more like a disheveled kid just out of college. The rest of the supporting cast is dull and cardboard. It would have been nice if one eccentric character had been put in to liven things up.

Probably the most interesting aspect of the whole movie is a nightmare segment that the George character has that comes in the middle of the story. I liked some of the creepy imagery that was used including a bleeding stuffed teddy bear. I also enjoyed how afterwards Sam debates the dreams meaning with his mother Grace (Jessica Tandy) who also has a background in psychology, but I thought it was a bit of a stretch when she suggests he go to the police about it as dreams can be interpreted in many different ways and hold no relevancy in a court of law. I thought it became even more far-fetched when at the end Sam uses some of the symbolism in the dream to figure out the identity of the killer.

The film has a few plot holes and certain things that just don’t add up.  Some of the ones that hit me was when Brooke talks about seeing George off in a cab that night and then the next morning reading in the papers that he had been murdered, which is preposterous.  Most newspapers go to press between ten and midnight, the dead body might not yet have even been discovered until later that day, or even a few days later. There is also a segment where Sam makes a $15,000 purchase on a painting he doesn’t even want at an auction simply so he can use it as an excuse to write a note on the bidding card warning Brooke that the police are after her. Also, when Sam does not find Brooke at her apartment her friend tells him that she is at her parent’s house in some town called Glen Cove, but she is not sure of the street name and yet Sam is able to find the place in the middle of the night with hardly any effort. Also, I found some of the conversations that George has with Sam during their sessions to be unintentionally funny.

There is enough intrigue to keep you somewhat interested, but the result is mild. I did like the idea of building the tension up through slow subtle means instead of the quick shocks that you see done in a modern suspense movie, but it is still slow going. The music played over the opening credits is more suited for a romance and does nothing to create the right mood for a thriller. The lighting in literally every shot is dark and shadowy, which certainly helps with the atmosphere, but after a while it gets to be too much. I was also not impressed with the climactic sequence. The protagonist is too helpless and defenseless and does not fight back, which severely limits the action. Having it occur at an ocean-side house does create a nice ambience, but the chase that is involved there could have been more extended and the camerawork during the segment is unimaginative.

My Rating: 4 out of 10

Released: November 19, 1982

Runtime: 1Hour 33Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Robert Benton

Studio: MGM/UA

Available: VHS, DVD, Amazon Instant Video

The Notorious Landlady (1962)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 4 out of 10

4-Word Review: Landlady could be killer.

            William Gridley (Jack Lemmon) is an American who has arrived in London and looking for a place to stay. He rents a room from a home owned by Carly Hardwicke (Kim Novak) a gorgeous woman who Bill immediately becomes smitten with. The problem is that many people think Carly has killed in her husband even though his body has not been found. When Bill gets word of this he becomes determined to investigate the case and prove her innocence.

You would think a script written by Larry Gelbart and Blake Edwards would be funnier and full of zany scenarios and slapstick, but instead it gets grounded in a lot of dialogue for much of the first hour and forty-five minutes and only starts to get interesting during the final fifteen. The conversations lack any wit, or sharp one-liners, and the premise plods along at a much too leisurely pace. There is a segment where Bill accidentally sets fire to the patio, but I think this was simply thrown in for some action as there is very little else of it. The plot is formulaic and fails to add any new twist or perspective and once it is over it is easily forgettable. Lemmon’s character is bland and transparent and more than a little naïve since he falls in love with her immediately and is then convinced that she is innocent even though he has only known her for a day.

The best part comes at the very end where the two find themselves at a recital for a group of senior citizens that are all sitting in covered wheelchairs. This scene gets drawn out amusingly and includes a bit where an old lady named Mrs. Dunhill (Estelle Winwood) is pushed down the side of a hill, which is nicely captured in a silhouette style with Bill chasing after her. Winwood, who was already seventy-nine at the time, hams it up perfectly as the daffy old woman.  Of course all this comes much too late to really help the picture, or story, but at least it saves the film from being a complete bore, which it otherwise would have been.

Novak gives a surprisingly strong performance and a convincing British accent that I wish she had spoken in for the entire duration.  She was always a stunner, but here she may look her all-time best. One scene taken with her in the bathtub was highly risqué at the time and doesn’t leave much to the imagination. British character actor Lionel Jeffries is engaging as the inspector, but Fred Astaire is essentially wasted as Bill’s boss. The production values are decent, but the results are middling.

My Rating: 4 out of 10

Released: July 26, 1962

Runtime: 2Hours 3Minutes

Rated: NR (Not Rated)

Director: Richard Quine

Studio: Columbia

Available: VHS, DVD (Region 1 & 2)