Category Archives: Obscure Movies

S*P*Y*S (1974)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 4 out of 10

4-Word Review: Targeted to be killed.

Bruland (Donald Sutherland) and Griff (Elliot Gould) are two CIA agents stationed in France who prove to be inept at every turn. When they accidentally kill a Russian gymnast defector (Michael Petrovitch) the head of the CIA Paris unit, Martinson (Joss Ackland), makes a deal with the soviets to have the two killed. This would then avoid a dangerous retaliation that could lead to a nuclear war. However, neither Bruland or Griff are made aware of this until they start getting attacked by people from all ends including the KGB, the CIA, the Chinese communists, and even a French terrorist group. In their pursuit to survive the two, who initially disliked the other, form an uneasy alliance.

The film’s original title was ‘Wet Stuff’, but the producers wanted a tie-in with M*A*S*H that had been hugely successful and also starred Gould and Sutherland, so they changed it to make it seem similar to that one, but the attempt failed and the movie became a huge bomb with the both audiences and critics alike. Viewers came in expecting the same irreverent humor, which this doesn’t have, so audiences left disappointed and the word of mouth quickly spread causing it to play in the theaters for only a short while. The irony though is that in countries that hadn’t seen M*A*S*H, like the Netherlands and Germany, it fared better because the expectations going in weren’t as high.

On a comic level it’s not bad and even has its share of amusing bits. The way the defector gets killed, shot by a gun disguised as a camera, was clever and there’s also a unique car chase in which Gould takes over the steering wheel from the backseat while someone else puts their foot to the pedal. The initial rendezvous between Sutherland and his on-and-off girlfriend (Zouzou) has its moments too as he finds her in bed with another guy while a second one is in the bathroom forcing him to have to pee in the kitchen sink. Gould then, who thought she was ‘raping him with her eyes’ when they first met, takes over and gets into a threesome while the dejected Sutherland has to sleep on the couch.

On the negative end the characterizations are poor to the point of being nonexistent. Initially it comes-off like Gould and Sutherland are rivals, which could’ve been an interesting dynamic, but this gets smoothed over too quickly. Having the two bicker and compete would’ve been far more fun. There’s also no sense of urgency. While Sutherland does lose his spy job and forced to pretend to feign illness to get out of paying a restaurant bill it’s then later revealed that he did have the money, but this then ruins any possible tension. Had they been in a true desperate situation the viewer might’ve gotten more caught up in their dilemma, but as it is it’s just too playful. The villains are equally clownish and in fact become the center of the comedy by the final act, which takes place at a wedding, while the two leads sit back and watch making them benign observers in their own vehicle.

The film needed somebody that was normal and the viewer could identify with. Buffoons can be entertaining, but ultimately someone needs to anchor it and this movie has no one. I thought for a while that Zouzou would be that person, and she could’ve been good, but she and her terrorist pals end up trying to assassinate the two like everybody else, which adds too much to the already cluttered chaos. The satire also needed to be centered on something. For instance, with Airplane the humor was structured around famous disaster flicks from the 70’s and all the jokes had a knowing tie-in. Here though it’s all over the place. Yes, it pokes fun of spies, but that’s too easy, and having it connected to let’s say James Bond movies would’ve given it a clearer angle and slicker storyline.

Since it did have a modicum of success in certain countries it convinced screenwriter Malcolm Marmorstein to continue to pursue the formula as he was sure it was simply the botched marketing that had ruined this one, so he wrote another parody script, this time poking fun at the army, just a year later, which also starred Gould, and was called Whiffs, which will be reviewed next.

My Rating: 4 out of 10

Released: June 28, 1974

Runtime: 1 Hour 40 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Irvin Kershner

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Available: DVD-R

The Plants Are Watching (1979)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Communicating with a plant.

Laurie (Nancy Boykin) is deeply into plants and has them placed all over her apartment and even feels she has the ability to communicate with them. Directly below her place lives her sister Rilla (Nancy Snyder) along with Rilla’s boyfriend Robert (Joel Colodner). Laurie doesn’t like Robert and the two are continually getting into arguments. One day Laurie is found dead and the police consider it an accident. Rilla though fears that Robert may be responsible and tries on her own to investigate. She reads up on Kirlian photography that can capture electrical discharges from objects including plant life. Her attempt is to see if the plant that was present when Laurie had her ‘accident’ can tell her through its distress signals from its leaves, which can be detected through the photo process, can lead her to what really happened. However, as she’s doing this a new suspect emerges, Dusty (Ted Le Plat), forcing her to have to go through the difficult determination as to who the real culprit is.

Extremely odd idea for a horror film almost works with a really good and creepy beginning and excellent surprise ending. The Kirlian photo technique was one that I was not familiar with, so the movie is educational on that end as it delves into its innerworkings and history and some of the shots that it shows, including the fingerprints of a psycho compared to a regular person and the different colored light charges that it gives off, are quite fascinating as are the variety of discharges that a leaf can emit from one that is under stress, or sick versus a healthy one.

The setting is limited, mainly due to the low budget, where all the action takes place in the apartment building though this does at least give the viewer a good feel for urban New York City living and helps create a certain ambiance. While the plants never do any actual ‘speaking’ you do through the course of the film begin to see them like they’re characters alongside their human counterparts making the moment where Robert throws some of the potted plants against the wall and thus smashing them seem genuinely disturbing like you’ve just witnessed a ‘murder’ and credit goes to the filmmakers for their ability to bring this out.

Despite one good scare, which occurs during a dream sequence, there’s not enough shocks to completely keep it going. The middle drags quite a bit and the main reason is that there’s no real villain. Robert is initially portrayed as being a possible menace, but he’s just too civil to create any adequate tension. Having Rilla break-up with him and move-out only to eventually allow him back into her bed just dilutes everything. A good horror film needs a threatening dark force and this thing tip toes too much around that.

The film cheats too by ultimately having the plant ‘communicate’ with Rilla somehow by showing her a ‘vision’ of what actually occurred though it’s never explained how exactly it does this. I was okay with her hooking the plant up to a machine and monitoring its stress level whenever one of the two men are in the room and thus having her deduct on her own who the killer was from that, but then spelling everything out seemed too easy. The ending twist though is pretty cool and the scene where she’s trapped in the elevator with no escape is nicely intense and surprisingly grisly though it’s a shame that this same kind of tension and violence couldn’t have been carried throughout. 

Alternate Title: The Kirlian Witness

Released: June 14, 1979

Runtime: 1 Hour 12 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Jonathan Sarno

Studio: CNI Cinema

Available: Amazon Video, YouTube

The Other (1972)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Twin brother causes havoc.

Niles and Holland (Chris and Martin Udvarnoky) are twin brothers living with their mother (Diana Muldaur) and aunt and uncle (Norma Connolly, Lou Frizzell) on an isolated farm. Niles becomes good friends with Ada (Uta Hagen) a neighbor lady who taps into Niles’ special abilities. She teaches him a technique in which he can separate his mind from his body and then have it harbor in another body be it a person, or animal, or even a bird. Ada though fears Niles is using this ability for evil purposes when those around him begin turning up dead. When his mother is found at the bottom of the stairs unconscious and stuck to a wheelchair the rest of her life afterwards Ada tries to convince Niles to give up the game, but Niles insists it’s really his brother Holland that’s committing the acts of violence and not him, but Ada refuses to believe him as she’s in on a secret that Niles is refusing to accept.

Tom Tryon, who had been an actor throughout the 50’s and 60’s, became frustrated at the quality of roles he’d been offered and wanted to try novel writing. After watching Rosemary’s Baby and seeing the reaction it got he decided to write his own horror story basing it on some of the experiences he had gone through while growing up in a small New England town. It took nine different rewrites before he was able to get it published where it became a best seller and allowed him to quit acting and become an author fulltime. When it was bought into a movie Tryon retained the rights to the story, which allowed him to write the screenplay though he later admitted to not liking the finished product and blaming it on the casting and editing, which had cut out a significant portion of the story, over 25-minutes of it, based on feedback from test audiences.

On the surface the film really doesn’t seem much like a horror movie, or at least what modern audiences have come to expect from horror. There’s no gore, several of the killings aren’t even shown and just implied, there’s also no shocks, or scares and the majority of the plot takes place outside in the sunshine versus the darkness of night. Initially viewers didn’t take to it too well and it lost money at the box office with many feeling that Robert Mulligan, best known for having done To Kill a Mockingbird, was not the right choice for this type of material with the biggest complaint being that the movie was ‘too beautiful’ and made more like a drama, which had been my feeling when I first saw it years ago on TV. However, after viewing it again in its complete form without any commercials I was able to get into it more and if one is patient, it can have many benefits.

It still could’ve been played up more, and I didn’t like the setting at all. It was shot in Murphys and Angel Camp, California even though the setting in the book had been a small town in the east. Originally Mulligan had wanted to shoot it in Connecticut, but since the story took place in the summer and they weren’t able to begin production until the fall he felt the leaves changing color would have a negative effect and thus choose to do it in the west, but topography is all wrong as all you get is very dry, brown, parched earth that doesn’t allow for much atmosphere. The eastern autumn foliage would’ve been to its benefit and made it even creepier as it would’ve reminded one of Halloween.

Despite this there are some good moments like the twin’s trip to the circus where they sneak behind the curtains and view the participants of the freakshow including witnessing a fetus floating in a glass jar of liquid, which is a great foreshadowing. Niles ability to view things outside himself like witnessing the point of view of a crow as it flies around the property is well done too though the best moment comes at the end when a baby is found missing during the night that creates a panic and is quite riveting both emotionally and visually.

The Udvarnoky twins was an unusual choice as they hadn’t been in any movies before, nor did anything films afterwards and only became aware of the roles through their grade school teacher who sent in their headshots upon learning that a film was being shot in the area and searching for twins to star in it. Originally the part was meant for Mark Lester, who could’ve done it easily since neither twin is ever in the same shot, but the brothers do admirably especially Chris, who sadly died at the young age of 49 from kidney disease, who’s able to carry the film throughout and in just about every scene though their constant whispering may eventually become irritating to some. Uta Hagen, who was known for being an acclaimed acting teacher as well as for her stage work, but had never been in a movie before, is splendid and the one element that keeps it both compelling and unnerving. Good work too by Victor French in a small, but pivotal bit and a young John Ritter.

Spoiler Alert!

The story was actually given three different endings. In the book we find that Niles is sitting inside a mental hospital as an adult and describing what happened through flashbacks. In the version broadcast on TV Niles is able to escape the fire set by Ada, but then through voiceover is heard talking to his dead brother where he states that they’ll be ‘taken away’ (most likely an institution) and will be able to ‘play the game’ there. In the film though we see Niles looking out his bedroom window before being called down to dinner revealing that he had escaped detection by the others who did not suspect him of committing the killings and thus was still free to kill again, which is the scariest.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: May 26, 1972

Runtime: 1 Hour 41 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Robert Mulligan

Studio: Twentieth Century Fox

Available: VHS, DVD-R

Sunburn (1979)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 2 out of 10

4-Word Review: Couple investigates insurance fraud.

Jake (Charles Grodin) works as a private eye and gets hired by an insurance company wanting him to investigate a case that took place in Acapulco of a man who crashed his car into a building and died. The authorities have labeled it an ‘accident’, which would put them on the hook to have to pay out a large sum of money, so they’d like Jake to travel down there and find out if that were really the case, or if it could be deemed as a suicide. Jake decides to hire an actress from a modeling agency named Ellie (Farrah Fawcett-Majors) to act as his wife. Ellie takes an interest in the case and helps him search for clues while also forming a romance with him, which starts out rocky but becomes stronger as they find themselves sucked further into the mystery and the potential dangers.

The film is based on the 1970 novel ‘The Bind’ by Stanley Ellin, which had a grittier tone than the movie. Farrah’s agent Jay Bernstein felt this would be a good vehicle for her, but wanted the script turned into more of a lighter and comical story that the book did not have. This was at a crucial point in her career as the first film he got her cast in Somebody Killer Her Husbanddid badly with both the critics and public, so it was important that she prove her box office ability with this picture and when this one also bombed she fired him complaining that both movies had been ‘put together with hustle and bubble gum’.

One of the elements that really hurts it is the casting of Charles Grodin, who by his own admission was their sixth choice for the role as they had initially pursued Robert Redford and even Harrison Ford, who would’ve both been way better. Grodin can certainly be funny, but this part doesn’t give him much to work with. He has a few amusing moments when he’s trying to scare away a lizard from entering their bedroom and then in an effort ‘to protect her’ from a further ‘lizard invasion’ agrees to sleep on a nearby chair, which cause him to do nothing but toss and turn the whole night in an effort to find a ‘comfortable’ position.

His character though didn’t seem all that professional as he leaves it up to her to place a listening device into one of the suspect’s phones, but she had no background in this kind of thing, so what would happen if she screwed it up? The insurance company is promising him a lot of money so it should be up to him to do most of the legwork to make sure it gets done right and if any ditzy amateur blonde can be pulled in off the street to do what he does then what’s the point in hiring him to begin with?

Farrah does much better here than her previous film. I enjoyed her dialogue with Grodin and how just because she was hired to play his wife didn’t mean she was automatically going to be one during their off hours when he for some chauvinistic reason expects her to make him a sandwich, which she immediately declines to do. I was confused though why her character would want to get so involved in the case. She’s just there to play a part, so why not just do her job and enjoy the sun? Instead, she constantly puts herself in increasingly dangerous situations for no real reason. She’s gets paid whether the case gets solved or not, so why jeopardize her life over something that she has no emotional or financial investment in?

It’s also hard to believe that such a hot looking lady wouldn’t be in a relationship. It would’ve been far more enjoyable had there been a jealous boyfriend who secretly followed her on her mission and even threw a few monkey wrenches into the investigation, which could’ve added extra spark into a movie that’s otherwise too leisurely. For her to then fall in love with Grodin was equally dumb. The guy could’ve been her father and lacked any type of sexual pizazz. Had Redford or Ford been cast then the romance might’ve made more sense, but such a beautiful woman like her would have no reason to settle for a doofus like him and would simply be there for the payout and then be long gone.

Art Carney is great in support and actually does most of the work making it seem like Grodin’s character wasn’t even necessary and in fact having Carney and Farrah team up would’ve made it unique and more entertaining as Carney despite his advanced age shows a lot of energy particularly when he goes out onto the disco floor. The rest of the cast though gets wasted with many of them having only one or two lines making you wonder why they’d bother to sign on at all.

The film does have one memorable moment where Carney and Farrah, in an effort to escape the bad guys who are pursuing them, inadvertently crash their car into a bull fighting ring and then must avoid the bull who goes after them. This action is both humorous and exciting, but otherwise unless you’re some super Farrah fan the movie offers little else that’s interesting.

My Rating: 2 out of 10

Released: August 10, 1979

Runtime: 1 Hour 45 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Richard C. Sarafian

Studio: Paramount Pictures

Available: DVD-R (MGM Limited Edition Collection)

The Boss’ Wife (1986)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: She comes on strong.

Joel (Daniel Stern) works at a stock firm and wants to impress his boss (Christopher Plummer) with some stock analytics and competes with fellow employee Tony (Martin Mull), who’s a major corporate brown noser. The boss though is not the smartest and misreads everything including thinking that Joel is a smoker, which he isn’t, and giving him the nickname of ‘smoky’. He also thinks that Joel is gay and having a fling with Carlos (Fisher Stevens), which neither is true, but this allows the boss’ wife Louise (Arielle Dombasle) to openly come-on to Joel while the boss, so worried that Joel may come on to him, feigns naivety at what his own wife is doing. Joel tries to avoid the woman because he fears that if he doesn’t, he’ll get caught, which will not only hurt his job advancement, but also his shaky marriage to Janet (Melanie Mayron). 

The film is the product of Ziggy Steinberg who started his careers in the 70’s writing for episodes of TV-shows and then graduating to feature films like Porky’s Revenge and then ultimately Another You, which to date has been the last writing gig he’s done. This film marked his debut as both a writer and director, but the results are so-so. The concept is predictable and better suited for an episode of ‘Three’s a Company’, which he also wrote for, than the big screen. While the attempt is for screwball the pacing is slow and not a lot of gags going on and as satire/parody its target is so obvious and been done so many times before that it hardly seems worth the effort as one could simply watch How to Succeed at Business Without Really Trying and get a lot more laughs. In fact, the only amusing moment comes when Plummer has a toy choo-choo train ride onto his desk carrying drinks and hamburgers and then Stern fumbling around to get ketchup on his burger, which causes a red mess on the boss’ desk.

The acting from the two male leads is adequate. Stern’s character is benign, but he plays it in a likable way making you connect to him and his quandaries. Plummer is quite good particularly with the way he roles his blue eyes every time he comes to a mistaken conclusion to something. Stevens has some good crude moments who initially starts out as Mayron’s employer only to create a haphazard buddyship with Stern while on the train. 

Dombasle though is quite possibly the film’s weakest link. She enters in almost like a fantasy figure and has little dialogue. Why this voluptuous woman would get so focused on Stern for no apparent reason doesn’t make a lot of sense. He does not stand out in any way and therefore a woman like her would overlook and even ignore him. She comes onto him in such a shameless and extreme manner even while in public you could argue she was mentally ill. Even if she’s desperate for sex cause she’s not getting enough from her older husband she could still, with her money, find ways to get it, through like male escorts, than groveling in such a ridiculous level towards a chump like Stern. Later it does come out that she is ‘attracted to men who resist’, which helps explain her motivations a little, but it would’ve been more entertaining had the Mull character paid her, or worked out some deal with her, to come onto Stern in  order to get him into trouble with Plummer, which would’ve offered a nice unexpected twist, which unfortunately the script doesn’t have. 

Spoiler Alert!

The final 10-minutes in which Plummer corners Stern in his rental home with both his wife and Stern’s and the myriad excuses Stern comes up with to try and get out of the jam is sort of funny, but it takes too long to get there. That frantic, hyper-pace should’ve been present from the very beginning and it just isn’t. Stern’s character arc where he finally concludes that the company culture is too conform-ridden for his liking is strained as well. If anything, he should’ve figured that out long before he goes to a company party and asked to where a silly hat like everyone else, which was one of the least problematic things at that place and yet this is where he suddenly decides to ‘draw-the-line’. 

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: November 7, 1986

Runtime: 1 Hour 23 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Ziggy Steinberg

Studio: Tri-Star Pictures

Available: DVD-R, Amazon Video, YouTube

Nothing Personal (1980)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 2 out of 10

4-Word Review: Saving seals from slaughter.

Roger (Donald Sutherland) is a college professor who becomes aware by one of his students, Peter (Michael Wincott), that seals are being systematically slaughtered by a construction company trying to build homes in an area populated by them. Roger then goes on a crusade to stop this and hires the services of Abigail (Suzanne Somers) a young lawyer bent on proving herself. The two though come up with major roadblocks when they attend the stockholder meetings of the company. While the CEO Ralston (Lawrence Dane) seems to listen to their concerns the company still decides to push through their construction agenda prompting Roger and Abigail to find other ways to prevent the homes from going up, which then causes the heads of the company to resort to nefarious means to stop them.

The screenplay was written by Robert Kaufman and sold in 1972 but then languished in the studio’s slush pile as it couldn’t find any director interested in filming it. Then in 1980 after the success of Love at First Bitewhich had also been penned by Kaufman, director George Bloomfield decided to take a stab at this one, but for tax write-off purposes it was filmed in Canada despite the setting being Washington D.C.

A lot of the issue with the movie, which was not well received by audiences or critics alike, and ended up tanking at the box office, is that it’s just not all that funny. The humor is dry and amounts to a few throwaway lines said by the characters just before the scene cuts away and if you’re not listening carefully enough, you’ll miss it though even if you do catch it it’s nothing that’s going have you rolling-in-the-aisles. Would’ve worked better had it been done as a drama, or even a thriller, as neither the comedy or romantic elements add much and in a lot of ways detracts from the main story.

While Sutherland is traditionally a good actor his presence here hinders things. He comes off initially as completely oblivious to what’s happening and only manages to get informed by Peter who’s very passionate about the cause and even interrupts a class that Sutherland is teaching to inform him about it. Sutherland immediately poo-poo’s the news and only after doing more research does he decide to take on the cause, but I felt that Peter, who gets largely forgotten and not seen again, should’ve been the one to lead the charge since he was already heavily into the issue and being a student would have more time on his hands while Sutherland was working a job and therefore shouldn’t have been able to devote his full attention to it like he does. Having a romantic relationship grow between Peter and Somers would’ve worked better as they seemed more around the same age while Sutherland looks to be more like her father.

Somers’ character is quite problematic. Initially she’s someone that wants to prove herself and be taken seriously but then turns into a complete slut almost overnight as she gets in bed naked when she invites Sutherland into her room and immediately makes overtures that she wants to get-it-on. This though is not a proper way that someone who wants to gain the respect of her peers and clients as she moves up in the business world should be behaving and therefore it’s hard for the viewer to take anything that she says or does seriously.

Too much time also gets spent on them fooling around to the point that it seems they’re more into sex than saving the seals. The movie should’ve waited until the very end to introduce some romantic overtures after they had succeeded with their mission when it would’ve been more appropriate, but the way it gets done here makes them seem like vapid juveniles with hyper hormones and not much else.

The film though really jumps-the-shark when the CEO of the company and his trusted assistant, played by Dabney Coleman, resort to criminal means in an effort to stop Sutherland and Somers from shutting down their project. Even going as far as trying to kill them by trapping them inside a barn and then setting it on fire. There are certainly CEO’s out there that can be corrupt, but they have enough money that they’d pay someone else to do their dirty work and would most certainly not be doing it themselves. Supposedly these are successful businessmen that have worked their way up the corporate ladder, so why throw it all away by so obviously going after their foes, which is something that could easily be handled through bribery.

Spoiler Alert!

The ending, which was described by one IMDb reviewer as being of the ‘surprise’ variety and makes sitting through the rest of the movie ‘worth it’, had me more confused than anything. It has Dane and company planning to build more homes on a different site that would require them to kill off more wildlife. They then get a knock at the door and when they open it, it reveals a smiling Sutherland and Somers, but it’s not clear whether they appear in order to stymie this new project or are somehow in on it. Since Dane and Coleman have annoyed expressions when they see them I think it’s meant to show the former, but the IMDb reviewer thought it meant the later and I really couldn’t blame anyone for not being sure, which makes this yet another problem for a movie that already had a ton of them.

My Rating: 2 out of 10

Released: March 28, 1980

Runtime: 1 Hour 40 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: George Bloomfield

Studio: American International Pictures

Available: DVD-R, Tubi, Amazon Video

Double Negative (1980)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 4 out of 10

4-Word Review: Who killed his wife?

Michael (Michael Sarrazin) is a photojournalist tormented by fragmented memories of his wife’s murder. Paula (Susan Clark) is his girlfriend who’s trying to help him sort through these flashbacks, so he can find some answers. However, she too has things to hide as she’s busily paying off a man named Lawrence Miles (Anthony Perkins) who threatens to go to the police about what he knows about the killing. There’s also Lester (Howard Duff) a private investigator who sticks his nose too deeply into the case and finds himself at deadly odds with both Lawrence and Paula.

The film is based on the 1948 novel ‘The Three Roads’ written by Ross Macdonald under his real name Kenneth Millar. Macdonald later went on to have a stellar career writing novels about private investigator character Lew Archer and this story has plenty of potential but gets mishandled and ultimately becomes a misfire. A lot of the problem stems from the production employing three different writers who all had different perspectives on where they wanted the story to go and then relying on director George Bloomfield to cram it all together, which he doesn’t succeed at. The result is a fragmented mishmash that takes a long while to become intriguing and even then, remains interesting only sporadically. Lots of extended scenes particularly at the beginning that should’ve been trimmed and a poor pacing that barely manages to create any momentum.

It doesn’t help that the main characters are wholly unlikable and uninteresting. Clark especially comes off as arrogant right from the beginning when we see her drive by what appears to be Amish people in a horse and buggy fighting through the snow and cold while she enjoys things in her warm ritzy car, which makes her seem detached and uncaring. The scene where she’s trying to procure an important real estate deal and then gets hampered by Michael playing loud music in the other room, so she then excuses herself and promises to be right back. I was fully expecting her to yell at Michael for his misbehavior, but instead she strips off her clothes and the two make love, but it seemed like sex should be the last thing on her mind during such an serious business meeting and what would happen if the clients, who were just a door away and waiting for her return, would walk in on them? 

Sarrazin doesn’t cut it either. I know he’s been lambasted by critics in his other film appearances for being too transparent and forgettable and yet I’ve usually defended him as I feel he can sometimes be effective even given the right material. Here though he falls precariously flat. Some of it is the fault of the writing which doesn’t lend him to create a character with any nuance, or likability, but in either case he’s a complete bore and the viewer isn’t emotionally invested in his predicament. His flashback moments where he sees himself in some sort of prisoner of war camp doesn’t make a lot of sense, or have much to do with the main plot, and seems like something for a whole different movie. 

On the other hand, Perkins is fantastic and the only thing that livens it up to the extent that he should’ve been given much more screen time as the film sinks whenever he’s not on. It’s great too at seeing SCTV alums like John Candy, Eugene Levy, Joe Flaherty, Dave Thomas, and Catherine O’Hara in small parts where with the exception of Candy they’re not comical but instead make a rare turn at being dramatic. Duff is kind of fun and has one great moment, really the only good one in the movie, where he gets trapped in an elevator and must escape being shot by Perkins, who has his arm lodged in the otherwise closed doors, by desperately running back and forth in the closed space that he’s given. Michael Ironside has a memorable bit too as a bar patron who becomes incensed at Sarrazin when he refuses to allow him to buy him a drink. 

Spoiler Alert!

The denouement just leaves more questions and fails to tie up the loose ends as intended. For one thing it shows Sarrazin as being the one who strangled his wife, which I had started to suspect a long while earlier, so it’s not a ‘shocking surprise’ like I think the filmmakers thought it would. It also has Perkins leaving the scene, as he was having an affair with the woman, and even briefly speaking to Clark who witnesses him going, so why he’d insist Clark needs to pay him hush money didn’t make much sense. Sure, he could still go to the police and say that it was Sarrazin that did it, but Perkins fingerprints were at the scene of the crime, so I’d think either way he’d get implicated, and Clark could come forward saying she was a witness who saw him leaving. If anything, Clark should’ve been pushing him to go to the cops versus bribing him to stay away.  

Also, the way it gets shown, Clark comes into the bedroom after Sarrazin has already strangled his wife, so all she sees is him weeping over his wife’s dead body. For all she knew, from that perspective, is that Perkins really did kill the woman and Sarrazin was simply the first to come upon her dead body and thus for it to be crystal clear Clark should’ve entered while he was still in the middle of the act versus when he was already done.

Beyond that is that question of why would Clark want to stay with someone she knew had such violent tendencies? Wouldn’t she be afraid he could get upset at some point and do that to her? Sarrazin even asks her at the very end if she is afraid and her only response is: ‘aren’t you’? This though only muddles things further cementing it as a botched effort. 

Alternate Title: Deadly Companion

My Rating: 4 out of 10

Released: May 12, 1980

Runtime: 1 Hour 36 Minutes

Director: George Bloomfield

Studio: Quadrant Films

Available: Amazon Video

Diversion (1979)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 5 out of 10

4-Word Review: Sex fling becomes problematic.

Guy (Stephan Moore) is a writer who is happily married to Annie (Morag Hood) with a toddler son named Charlie (Dickon Horsey). Annie decides to take a trip with Charlie to visit her parents and Guy stays home to work on a writing assignment. While he’s typing away, he remembers meeting Erica (Cherie Lunghi) at a party some months earlier where she gave him her phone number. Now with the wife gone he concludes this would be a good time to give her a call. Erica is excited to hear from him and they go on a mini date before ultimately ending up in her bed. The next morning, he tries to leave but she won’t let him go easily and insists that she’s not a one-night-stand material and instead wants to have a relationship with him. Guy reminds her that he’s married, but she says he can divorce her, which Guy is reluctant to do as he still considers himself content in his marriage and simply had sex with another woman as a diversion. Erica continues to call him, and his phone is constantly ringing even after Annie returns. Guy tells her it’s a wrong number, but Annie becomes suspicious and the next time Erica calls she decides to pick-up. 

If this synopsis sounds familiar it’s because it was the basis for Fatal Attraction. Producer Stanley R. Jaffee became aware of this short film and was convinced it could be expanded into a feature length movie. He even hired James Dearden, the writer-director of this one, to write the script. However, Paramount, the studio that agreed to finance the film, ordered all existing copies of this one to be destroyed, but fortunately a few survived including a bootleg version that was recorded straight off of an A&E broadcast from several decades back. 

I’m a big fan of Fatal Attraction and didn’t feel this version was as good. Too much time is spent at the beginning of Guy taking his wife and child to the airport, which I didn’t think was necessary. The party scene where Erica gives Guy her phone number should’ve been shown in flashback and the Guy character comes off like a geek that probably would only be able to fantasize about having sex with a hot woman like Erica, but not brazen enough to follow through nor would a woman like Erica want to go to bed with him as she could’ve found a better looking guy just about anywhere. In Fatal Attraction, both participants were equally attractive and working at the same firm, so their fling was more organic and made far better sense. 

Fortunately, in this one we don’t see any of the wild sex, which I felt was good as I thought that got in the way in the remake and became a distraction from the main story. Much of the dialogue though between Erica and Guy is almost word-for-word from what gets said between Glen Close and Michael Douglas though here Erica is portrayed as being this cold psychotic while in the other one Close played the role more as a desperately lonely woman, which humanized the character and helped the story be three-dimensional. 

Spoiler Alert!

My biggest grievance is that it leaves open too many loose ends. There is one scene where Guy calls Annie, while she’s still on her trip and supposedly knows nothing about what is going on, to touch base, but Annie is strangely aloof, and Guy doesn’t know why. She had always been very peppy before, which made it seem like Erica had called Annie and informed her of the affair, at least that’s what I thought, but this never gets confirmed and Annie arrives home later back to her perky self, so why did she behave differently during that one call?

The ending works like a gimmick as it has Annie answer the phone, which may or may not be Erica, while Guy stands nervously by. However, once Annie picks-up the receiver the film cuts to the closing credits, so we never know what happens next, which to me was a cop-out. 

My Rating: 5 out of 10

Runtime: 40 Minutes

Not Rated

Director: James Dearden

Studio: Dearfilm

Available: None at this time. 

The Devils (1971)

devils1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 9 out of 10

4-Word Review: Burned at the stake.

In the year 1634 the governor of Loudon, a small fortified city, dies, making Urbain Grandier (Oliver Reed), a priest with a secretly decadent lifestyle, the one in control. He’s idolized by the townspeople and the head nun at the local convent, Sister Jeanne des Anges (Vanessa Redgrave), secretly has sexual fantasies about him though because she suffers from having a hunch on her back is rarely ever seen outside and Urbain himself doesn’t know she exists. When Urbain secretly marries Madeleine (Gemma Jones) Jeanne becomes jealous causing her to confide to Father Mignon (Murray Melvin) that she’s been possessed by Urbain as well as accusing him of dabbling in witchcraft. This then leads to an inquisition headed by Father Pierre Barre (Michael Gothard) and a public exorcism, which has the nuns in the church strip and perform perverse acts before Urbain and his new wife are arrested and put on trial.

The story is based on the actual event, which was written about in the book ‘The Devils of Loudun’ by Aldous Huxley that was later turned into a stageplay. After the play’s success United Artists became interested in turning it into a movie and signed-on Ken Russell to direct due to his recent success in helming Woman in Love. Russell read the source material and became in his words ‘knocked-out by it’ and ‘wanted others to be knocked-out by it too’. This then compelled him to write an extraordinarily over-the-top script full of sex, violence, and graphic torture that so shocked the studio execs when they read it that they immediately withdrew their initial investment and refused to fund the picture threatening the project from being made even though many of the sets, constructed by set designer Derek Jarman, has already been painstakingly completed, but fortunately for them Warner Brothers swooped-in at the eleventh hour, which allowed the production to proceed.

The film’s release was met with major controversy with many critics of the day, including Roger Ebert who gave the film a very rare 0 star rating, condemning it. Numerous cuts were done in order to edit it down to a version that would allow it to get shown with the original British print running 111 minutes while the American one ran 108. Both were issued with an ‘X’ rating though even these cut out the most controversial scene, known as ‘The Rape of Christ’ segment, in which a group of naked nuns tears down and then performs perverse acts on a giant-sized statue of Jesus. This footage was deemed lost for many years before it was finally restored in a director’s cut version, that runs 117 minutes, that was shown in London in 2002. Yet even today this full version is hard-to-find with Warner Brothers refusing to release it on either DVD, or Blu-ray. They’ve even turned down offers from The Criterion Collection who wanted to buy it. While there was a print Warner released onto VHS back in the 80’s, this same version, got broadcast on Pay-TV, it’s edited in a way that makes the story incomprehensible, and only the director’s cut is fluid enough for the storyline to fully work.

It’s hard to know what genre to put this one into as this isn’t your typical movie and watching it is more like a one-of-a-kind experience that very much lives up to its legend and just as shocking today as it was back then. Yet, outside of all of its outrageousness it is quite effective. Each and every shot is marvelously provocative and the garishly colorful set pieces have a mesmerizing quality. The chief color scheme of white that lines the walls of the inside of the convent seemed to interpret to me the interior of a mental hospital, which helps accentuate the insanity of the frenzied climate. While things are quite over-the-top its ability to capture the mood of the times, the cruel way people treated each other and how they’re all steeped in superstition as well as the dead bodies from the plague that get stacked about, are all on-target and amazingly vivid.

The acting is surreal with both Reed and Redgrave stating in later interviews that they consider their performances here to be the best of their careers. Reed’s work comes-off as especially exhausting as he gets his head shaved and then is ridiculed in a large room full of hundreds of people before burned to death with make-up effects that are so realistic it’s scary. Redgrave, who walks around with her head twisted at a creepy angle, is quite memorable during the scene where she physically punches herself for having sexual fantasies, even puts a crucifix in her mouth at one point and masturbates with a human bone. Dudley Sutton and Murray Melvin with their very unique facial features and Michael Gothard, who initially comes-off with his long wavy hair as an anachronistic hippie flower child, but who becomes aggressively evil as the makeshift exorcism proceeds, all help round-out a most incredible supporting cast.

While the cult following for this remains strong and getting stronger and demand for a proper, director’s cut studio released DVD/Blu-ray is high Warner continues to rebuff the requests. There are though ways to find versions through Bing searches. Streaming services Shudder and Criterion Channel have shown the most complete prints to date, running roughly 111 minutes with most of the controversial scenes, including the Rape of Christ moments though these scenes are of a poorer, grainy and faded color quality since they never went through a professional digital transfer, but overall it’s still one of those movies you should seek-out because not only is it fascinatingly brilliant, but it’s something that could never be  made today and a true testament to the wild, unfiltered cinema of the 70’s that will forever make it the groundbreaking, unforgettable decade that it was.

My Rating: 9 out of 10

Released: July 16, 1971

Runtime: 1 Hour 57 Minutes (Director’s Cut)

Rated R (Originally X)

Director: Ken Russell

Studio: Warner Brothers

Available: DVD-R

Steel (1979)

steel

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 4 out of 10

4-Word Review: They build a skyscraper.

Big Lew (George Kennedy) runs a construction company that builds skyscrapers and is under pressure to get his most recent project, which will be one of the tallest he’s ever been put in charge of making, completed under budget. While climbing onto a metal high beam, one of the other workers with him freezes and refuses to come down. Lew attempts to relax him, but in the process, he loses his balance and falls to his death. Cass (Jennifer O’Neill) is put in temporary charge, but she’s overwhelmed with the demands and thus goes to Mike (Lee Majors) to help take over the project and make sure it gets done in time. Mike used to be a part of the hard-hat team, but an accident caused him to become afraid of heights and forced him to take a job as a truck driver, but when the daughter of an old friend comes calling, he can’t refuse. He assembles a motley crew of misfits who all have eccentric personalities but also know how to build tall buildings and do it right even when put under grueling circumstances. Not all of them know about Mike’s fear and he tries to hide it from them due his concern that they might not respect him anymore if they found it, but while he struggles to keep everyone working at a near impossible pace he must also fight-off the likes of Eddie (Harris Yulin) who’s been tapped by a criminal conglomerate to do whatever he can to hijack the efforts of Mike’s crew and make sure the building is never finished.

The film is for the most part just a TV-movie if not for one brief moment when a prostitute gets into the truck that Lee Majors is driving and takes-off her shirt. It would’ve been best had it been made for that medium because as a theatrical release it didn’t do well and has been largely forgotten without any DVD, Blu-ray, or even a steaming venue to its name. Infact the only thing that stands it out is what occurred behind-the-scenes as stuntman A.J. Bakunas died when attempting the world record by diving off a construction site at 315 feet from the 22nd story where he reached speeds of 115 mph. The jumped looked perfect, but upon landing the air bag split and he died from the injuries the next day.

While his death was certainly regrettable, his father was a part of the 1.000 onlookers who witnessed it, it was not shot in a way that makes it work in the film. While the footage was kept and edited into the movie you only end up seeing a few seconds of it making it seem like it wasn’t even worth attempting if that’s all that was going to be seen. It was also used to kill-off George Kennedy, it was his character’s fall that the jump was created for, but Kennedy’s hard-ass persona is the one thing that gives the story any color and it’s a shame that he hadn’t stayed in all the way through.

The supporting cast if full of familiar B-movie faces and some of them are quite good, but they’re not in it enough. The movie might’ve been more entertaining had the workers themselves carried it, but instead we get introduced to their quirky temperaments, while Majors busily makes the rounds to beg them to come aboard as his crew, but then after that they’re largely forgotten and instead the focus gets put on Majors who is by far the dullest of the bunch and it would’ve worked better had he not been in it at all. O’Neil had great potential, seeing a woman trying her best to head an all-male crew, most of whom weren’t exactly gentile, could’ve made for some high drama and been considered even groundbreaking and the film clearly misses-the-mark by not having taken that avenue.

The building that was used for the film was the Kinkaid Towers in Lexington, Kentucky, which when compared to major skyscrapers in large cities is quite puny and unimpressive. The opening shot capturing it from the ground-up as its half-built doesn’t help to dispel this feeling and if anything seems rather laughable especially when there’s no other tall building around it, so there’s no cosmopolitan vibe at all to it.  However, the shots showing the men walking on the high beams several stories up with seemingly nothing holding them down is nerve-wracking to watch especially for those who fear heights, so in that vein it succeeds, but with everything else it’s rather flat.

My Rating: 4 out of 10

Released: July 25, 1979

Runtime: 1 Hour 42 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Steve Carver

Studio: Fawcett-Majors Productions

Available: DVD-R