Without a Trace (1983)

Posted on March 4, 2024 | 1 comment

without

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Her child goes missing.

Susan (Kate Nelligan) works as a college professor while also raising her 6-year-old son Alex (Danny Corkill) as a single parent. Alex normally walks 2-blocks to his school every morning in their Brooklyn neighborhood, so Susan thinks nothing of it when she waves goodbye to him as he turns the corner towards his school while she goes the other way to her job. However, when she returns home and finds that he’s not there she begins to worry. She calls her friend Jocelyn (Stockard Channing), who has a daughter the same age as Alex, only to learn that Alex never showed up to school that day. She then immediately calls the police and Detective Al Manetti (Judd Hirsh) becomes the lead investigator in the case to find the child.

The story is loosely based on the real-life case of Etan Patz who disappeared one day while walking to school on May 25, 1979. Not only did he become the first child to appear on a milk cartoon for missing children, but it also inspired Beth Gutcheon to write a novel, which was a fictionalized account of the his case that was later purchased by producer Stanley R. Jaffe in the amount of $350,000 to turn it into a film, of which Gutcheon was hired to write the screenplay.

While the film has a riveting quality that keeps you watching it does also have a certain ‘genteel atmosphere’ that critic Leonard Maltin complained about in his review, that keeps it a bit sterile for its own good. The film acts like child abduction is almost a novelty that’s rare to happen and shocking when it does though kids can go missing each and every day in this country. The detective states that children can be sexually molested by adults though if children came forward about it they’d ‘never be believed’ or ‘taken seriously’, which is something that I think has certainly flipped the other way in this day and age. He also brings up the subject of child porn, which gets called ‘chicken porn’ here, and parents respond in a naive way to this concept, which again is something I think most adults in this era would’ve been familiar with its existence and not act like they’re being told about something completely new they had never heard about.  The police also ‘set-up-shop’ in the women’s apartment turning it into a virtual police station and remain there day-and-night for 6-weeks, which I couldn’t see happening now.

The sequence with a psychic, played by Kathleen Widdeos, I found unintentionally laughable. Her ‘visions’ are quite vague and when she gets pressed to give something specific, like the license plate number of the car, or identity of the kidnapper, she can’t. Yet the mother acts relieved when the psychic says the child is still alive, but since her ‘information’ is so nebulous she could be a con artist making it all up and no one would know the difference.

David Dukes, who plays the ex-husband and father of the child, who at this time was best known for playing the man who tried to rape Edith Bunker, in a memorable episode of the classic TV-show ‘All in the Family’ of which he received several death threats, plays the only character that shows any emotion and thus the only one who stands-out. The movie also examines the detective’s home-life, which I didn’t feel was needed. Normally I say it’s good when we learn more about a cop’s private side, but since he wasn’t the film’s protagonist I didn’t find it necessary and only helps to lengthen the film’s runtime, which was too long anyways and could’ve neatly been told in only a 90-minute time frame instead of 110 minutes.

I did come away liking Nelligan’s performance, some critics at the time labeled her as coming-off as ‘cold’, but I felt she did alright, but was kind of disappointed that Stockard Channing didn’t get the lead instead. At the time Nelligan was considered the up-and-coming star while Channing had been mostly relegated to comedy including two failed sitcoms, but in retrospect Channing has become the better known actress and proven to be highly versatile, so seeing her in the part of mother would’ve been quite interesting and she might’ve even been able to do it better.

Spoiler Alert!

My biggest beef though is with the ending, which is much different than in the actual incident. In the Patz case his body was never found and it turned into a cold case for many years before a man named Pedro Hernandez came forward in 2012 and confessed to the crime. Here though the boy gets found alive having been kidnapped to help take care of a man’s disabled adult sister, but it’s very hard to fathom how much help a 6-year-old could be expected to give an adult woman nor has there ever been in the annals of crime where a kidnapping has been done for this reason. Having the kid immediately answer the door of the home he is supposedly being ‘confined in’ hurts the tension and would’ve been more suspenseful had the police had to search the place before finally finding him hidden somewhere. Also, if the kid is able to open the front door then what’s stopping him from running out at some point and finding help?

The fact that a neighbor woman named Malvina Robbins (Louise Stubbs), who lives next door to the kidnappers and keeps calling the police about it, but they ignore her, really hurts the credibility of the Manetti character who we’re supposed to like and he’s portrayed as being ‘super dedicated’. If that’s the case then he should’ve followed-up on every single lead he could’ve even if he thought some of them might be ‘cranks’ it shouldn’t matter because you just never know. The fact that he doesn’t do this even after she calls the police hundreds of times makes it seem like a dereliction of duty who should be investigated for not  following up and certainly not some ‘hero’.

I realize most audiences want some sort of resolution and making a movie like this that doesn’t have one might prove frustrating, but in real-life a lot of cases like these don’t get resolved, or if they do the findings are a grim one. To have a movie stay realistic the whole way only to tack-on a feel-good ending does a disservice to the many parents whose missing children never come home and thus hurts it from being as insightful and compelling as it could’ve been.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: February 4, 1983

Runtime: 1 Hour 50 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Stanley R. Jaffe

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Available: DVD-R, VHS

1 Comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Drama, Kidnapping Movies, Movies Based on Actual Events, Movies Based on Novels, Movies that take place in the Big Apple, Obscure Movies

Tagged , , , , , , ,

The Gambler (1974)

Posted on February 29, 2024 | Leave a comment

gambler

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 5 out of 10

4-Word Review: Can’t control his addiction.

Axel (James Caan) is a college professor with a serious gambling addiction. He enjoys making bets on anything and everything whether it’s in a casino, over the phone betting on sports games, or out on the street playing one-on-one hoops with the neighborhood kids. No matter how much he loses he can’t stop from continuing the same pattern. When he owes $44,000 to the mob and they come looking for him and threatening his life he’s forced to ask his mother (Jacqueline Brookes) for the money and despite her disapproval she gives it to him out of her life savings, but then instead of paying off his debt he just uses it to gamble some more.

The screenplay was inspired by writer James Toback’s own life experiences and was initially written as a semi-autobiographical book before he decided to turn it into a script. The film is intriguing to a degree as gambling addiction is not anything that I’ve ever fully understood, so trying to fathom why some people would put up such huge sums of money to make a bet that they know they have a very good chance of losing, and even if they do lose will still continue to go on making bets anyways is baffling to me. Toback makes good efforts to try to explain the psych of a gambler’s mindset, which mainly gets revealed through Axel’s lectures to his class and at one point during a conversation with his bookie (Paul Sorvino) where he admits he could beat him with safe bets in competitions he was sure to win, but that this wouldn’t give him the same adrenaline rush, or ‘juice’, that placing a more riskier bet would.

Even with these explanations it still becomes gut wrenching watching him spiral out-on-control and dig himself deeper and deeper in a hole until you feel almost like turning away as it becomes genuinely painful, and frustrating, at seeing someone self-destruct the way this guy does. There are some very powerful moments including the scenes where the mother begrudgingly takes her money out of the bank to help him for fear he may lose his life if she doesn’t and her pained expression on her face as she does it really gets etched in your mind. Axel sitting in a bathtub listening to the final moments of a basketball game that he’s also bet big money on where the final score doesn’t go the way he wanted is also quite compelling.

The acting is strong with Caan giving a great performance that Toback originally wanted to go to DeNiro, who campaigned heavily for it, but director Karel Reisz choose Caan instead, only for Caan to state in later interviews that he hated working with him. Comedian London Lee, wearing an incredibly garish bowl haircut, is good in a very sleazy sort of way and Burt Young has a dynamic bit as an enforcer who tears up a lady’s apartment when her boyfriend is unable to repay what he owes. James Woods can be seen in a small role as a flippant bank teller though overall I still felt it was Brookes who steals it as the concerned mother and I was surprised she was not in it more nor that she didn’t get an Academy Award nomination as she really should’ve.

Despite a few powerful moments the pace is slow and there’s a lot of periods where it gets boring and nothing much happens. A lot of the blame goes to the fact that the main character has very little of an arch. He starts out already with the addiction gripping him and we can see what a problem it’s causing and the rest of the movie just continues to hit home this same point until it becomes redundant. It would’ve been better to have seen him before he had gotten into the whole gambling fix took over his life and personality, which would’ve created a far more interesting and insightful transition.

My Rating: 5 out of 10

Released: October 2, 1974

Runtime: 1 Hour 51 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Karel Reisz

Studio: Paramount

Available: DVD, Amazon Video

Leave a comment

Posted in 70's Movies, College Life, Drama, Movies that take place in the Big Apple

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Fast-Walking (1982)

Posted on February 25, 2024 | 1 comment

fastwalking

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Guard helps prisoner escape.

Based on the 1974 novel ‘The Rap’ by Ernest Brawley the film centers on prison guard Frank Miniver (James Woods) a pot smoking man who’s unhappy with the low pay of his current job and helps supplement his income by pimping prostitutes to the local Mexican laborers. Wasco (Tim McIntire) is a prisoner at the jailhouse Frank works at who has many outside connections. When a black political prisoner William Galliot (Robert Hooks) arrives at the prison Wasco fashions to have him assassinated by Frank, but Frank has other ideas. He’s already made a deal with Galliot to have him sprung from the inside and in so doing he’ll be given a cool $50,000. Wasco become aware of this other deal, but insists that Frank follow his plan, or he’ll put a hit on Moke (Kay Lenz) an attractive, sharp-shooting lady friend that Frank’s been sleeping with who is also Wasco’s girlfriend. Will Frank choose money over the girl, or will he have a plan-B of his own?

Filmed on-location at the old Montana State Prison building in Deer Lodge, Montana the film has an interesting look to it, which helps accentuate the characters. The American west has always had the allure of escape and individualism, so the rustic landscape here brings out not only Frank’s need to get out of the shackles of his dead-end job, but the prisoners as well. The small town setting has a sort-of renegade vibe where everyone is eager to  push-the-envelope of the law and feeling more than confident that they can get away with it. The guards seem almost as corrupt as the men they incarcerate and in some ways even worse. The entertainment is not seeing good conquer evil, but more with which side will manage to out con the other.

The story takes its sweet time getting told with the entire first hour spent just showing Frank’s on the job frustrations before it even gets to the prison break plan. It works more as vignettes than a plot with one amusing moment taking place in the visiting room with one prisoner named Ted (Sydney Lassick) more fascinated with Moke taking off her panties underneath her skirt than with what his own wife (Helen Page Camp) is saying who sits directly in front of him. The cat-and-mouse game that Frank plays with Moke who each challenge the other with their rifle skills with Frank shooting flat the tire of Moke’s motorcycle from a long distance only to have Moke do the same to Frank’s tire on his jeep while he’s driving it is a lot of fun too.

The acting is excellent and the film’s main driver. Lenz looks great, both with her clothes on and off and this marked her career peak as her roles after this were of the supporting variety, or stymied in obscure, low budget flicks. Tim McIntire is also quite good in his second-to-last feature before his untimely death. He spouts a lot of dialogue, which seems almost like a never ending rant at times, but he conveys it in such a snarky, articulate way that it’s still fun to listen to though I was confused why, being a prisoner himself, he was allowed to sleep in the same room as the guards and even socialize with them out in the open. At first I thought he was a guard since he’s given a lot of their responsibilities including lowering the lever each morning that open up the other cell doors. I could only presume that given the corrupt environment and the fact that he was Frank’s cousin that he was given some under-the-table leverage to get these perks and privileges, but it would’ve helped had it been explained better, or given some backstory.

It’s also interesting seeing M. Emmet Walsh here doing yet another nude scene. He has an aging, out-of-shape body type that you’d think no one on this planet would want to see naked, nor would ask to, and yet in a span of 2-years his bare body figured prominently in two different films. In Straight Time he gets his pants pulled down while chained to a fence overlooking a busy highway, which I thought was edgy enough, but here he again gets shown sans his clothes this time from the front side where you get to see underneath his bulging belly his little wee-wee dangling about as he stands outside the front door and yells at Woods who is pulling away, which makes for an image you may want to forget, but might have problems doing.

As for the action there’s not much of it. Sure there’s a couple of shootings, which are quick, and a few fleeting scenes of prisoners falling to their deaths, but that’s about it. No riots, rapes, knife fights, or prison yard fist-fights all stuff that most viewers have come to expect with these types of movies and thus unless they get into the subtle quirkiness may leave disappointed. The inmates are also strangely docile and respectful of authority and even though they greatly outnumber the guards and at times could easily over power them they don’t, which makes it seem not as gritty as it could’ve been though others may not mind this and instead enjoy the film’s offbeat quality including Lalo Schifrin’s bouncy score.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: October 8, 1982

Runtime: 1 Hour 55 Minutes

Rated R

Director: James B. Harris

Studio: Lorimar Productions

Available: DVD-R (Warner Archive), Amazon Video

1 Comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Movies Based on Novels, Movies with Nudity, Prison Flicks

Tagged , , , , , ,

Three Men and a Baby (1987)

Posted on February 23, 2024 | Leave a comment

threemenbaby

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Infant on their doorstep.

Peter (Tom Selleck) is an architect, Michael (Steve Guttenberg) is an artist, and Jack (Ted Danson) is an actor. All three live in a large apartment in downtown Manhattan. None are married and spend most of their time, when not working, hosting lavish parties and dating beautiful women. One day a baby gets left at their doorstep while Jack is away starring in a movie that’s filming in Turkey. Peter and Michael find the infant and attached note stating that it’s from one of Jack’s previous girlfriends whom had a brief fling with while starring in a play. The two men have no idea how to take care of it, which leads to many amusing mishaps. Once Jack returns they find themselves in even more chaos when drug dealers appear at the apartment looking for a package of heroin that had also been delivered there.

This is the American version of the French hit Three Men and a Cradle and while I’ve been routinely critical of most Hollywood remakes from European films this one, which was directed by Leonard Nimoy, makes many improvements on the story. There’s nothing that’s hugely different, but there’s enough small changes to the plot that helps fill in the caveats from the first one.

One of the things this one does better is it shows the men’s partying side, which the first one didn’t do as well as it started pretty much right away with the baby’s arrival and only elaborated about their wild ways while here, in perfect movie fashion, we see it. Although a bit garish, I enjoyed Michael’s artwork that gets drawn all over the outside walls of the apartment and creates a rather surreal look. There’s also definite strong 80’s vibe that permeates almost every shot at the beginning from the colorful lettering of the opening credits to the theme of ‘Bad Boys’ by Gloria Estefan and the Miami Sound Machine, which was a big band back in the day. There’s even Guttenberg doing a corny imitation of Robin Leach from ‘Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous’ though anyone that didn’t live through the decade will most likely not get that one.

The characters are much better defined with each having a distinct personality. While his movie career never really took-off Selleck shines as the leader of the group due to him being the oldest and at times the most stern. Guttenberg, with his boyish face, is perfect as the immature and clueless one while Danson scores as the eccentric actor. I liked that the men continued to work their jobs even as they looked after the baby, while in the first one they would just call in ‘sick’, which became excessive and unrealistic. In fact probably the funniest moment in the whole movie, at least for me, is when Danson is on stage rehearsing a play with the baby strapped to his back.

Even the drug dealing scenario gets handled better. In the first one the guys return the drugs to the dealers by putting it into one of the babies diapers and then tossing it into a trashcan in a park, but here the men use the opportunity to catch the crooks in the crime by having Guttenberg secretly filming them as they take the drugs back and there’s even some legitimate tension as they try to outrun them when the bad guys catch-on to the scheme. I also liked that the dealers infiltrate the apartment while a babysitter is there as in the French version the infant gets left alone and even though it was supposedly only for a short time was still irresponsible.

There’s a girlfriend character as well, or in this case ex-girlfriend, gets added for Selleck, she gets played by Margaret Colin, and reveals how Selleck just automatically presumes because she’s a woman she’ll know exactly what to do with a baby even when she states she doesn’t. This I felt finely observed how the different sexes can misjudge the other, or project characteristics onto them that they may not actually have.

Spoiler Alert!

Even the ending is a bit better though there’s still the issue of the girlfriend leaving a helpless child at someone else’s doorstep without warning, or making sure there would be someone there to take care of it, which in the real world would be dangerously reckless. At least though there’s more action as the three rush to the airport to try to stop the plane the girlfriend is on with the baby while in the French version the three guys just sit at home moping around, which isn’t as interesting.

It’s still problematic that the girlfriend, played by Nancy Travis who speaks with an accent, moves into the apartment with the bachelors to help take care of the kid. This though goes against the title as it states Three MEN and a baby, so I felt the Travis character should’ve just given up her parental rights and let the guys do all the parenting since they had become better at it anyways.

End of Spoiler Alert!

The only change that I didn’t like is when Danson brings his mother, played by Celeste Holm, to see the baby and tries to get her to agree to take care of it for awhile. In the French version the Jacques character tries the same ploy with his mother only to learn, to his shock, she has no interest in raising another kid and wants to spend her retirement having fun like traveling the world, which I felt was a good statement on ageism and how not all seniors want to be stuck being homebodies. Here Holm’s acts like a strict parent who doesn’t want to be bothered with a kid because Danson needs to ‘grow-up’ and learn to amend for his mistakes though if she was really a proper parent she probably should’ve warned him when he was younger to always wear a condom, so he wouldn’t have gotten himself into this mess in the first place.

This is also the scene that became a bit notorious back around August of 1990 when a rumor started that an image of a little boy, who it was said had killed himself in the place where it was filmed, can be seen in the window that Holm and Danson walk past. Granted it does look a little spooky at first, but upon second glance you can plainly see that it’s actually a cardboard cut-out of Danson wearing a top hat. The whole film was shot on a soundstage in Toronto and not a house where any boy past or present had ever lived.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: November 23, 1987

Runtime: 1 Hour 42 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Leonard Nimoy

Studio: Touchstone

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Video, YouTube

Leave a comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Comedy, Movies for the Whole Family, Movies with Nudity, Remakes

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Three Men and a Cradle (1985)

Posted on February 19, 2024 | 1 comment

threemencradle

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Stuck with a baby.

Pierre (Roland Giraud), Michel (Michel Boujenah), and Jacques (Andre Dussollier) are three bachelors living in a swanky apartment who routinely bed hot women and throw wild parties. During a party one of Jacques’ friends informs him that he has a package and wants to have it delivered to their apartment for safe keeping. Jacques agrees and then goes flying off to Japan for a month as an airline steward. Pierre and Michel then find a baby at their doorstep that gets left by Jacques former girlfriend. Thinking this is ‘the package’ they begrudgingly bring her in and try caring for her despite having no idea what they’re doing. Meanwhile the actual package also gets delivered, which is a small box secretly full of heroin, which they think nothing of until the dealers arrive looking to pick it up and mistakenly take the baby instead.

A highly insightful look at bachelors and their ineptness and downright ignorance at infant care is brought splendidly to screen, at least with the first act. There’s many keen moments as they run around to pharmacies not knowing what sized diapers to get the kid, or the type of baby food, thinking it’s ‘all the same’ and needing to constantly go back and speak to the female druggist for clarity.  In fact the first 30-minutes are probably the funniest and could’ve just kept it at that theme and been a success though having Jacques away so much starts to make it seem like the title should’ve just been ‘2 Bachelors and a Cradle’ since the third one is little seen until much later on.

I also really adored the kid who is able to somehow cry on cue. Most infants are understandably hard to control, but this one reacts to the scene and situations perfectly and is in it surprisingly a lot. In most other films dealing with babies they usually get only shown in a crib for a few seconds here and there, with these shots spliced in, but here she’s like a genuine character that’s in it almost as much as the main ones. We also see her grow where at the end she’s doing her first walk and it’s cool that the ‘music’ done over the closing credits amounts to recordings of her baby blabbering.

Where the film starts to fall-off a bit is with the drug dealer side-story. I think the baby chores that the men had to go through could’ve been enough to carry it and adding in the crime thing made it seem unnecessarily exaggerated. It’s also ridiculous that the dealers tear up the entire apartment, and I mean they literally ransack the place cutting up and breaking all the furniture to the point that’s it’s an extraordinary mess. Then suddenly a little later it all goes back to normal, but how could they find the time to clean it all up while also taking care of the kid? This clean-up would’ve quite frankly taken many weeks and buying all new stuff, so this should’ve at least been shown, but instead it gets portrayed like they’re genies who can seemingly turn a trashed place into a clean one with a snap-of-a-finger.

The characterizations are rather weak as Pierre and Michel respond to things too much the same way and have very little distinction between them and could’ve easily morphed into being one person. The idea that these guys could just call off from work for not only days, but weeks at a time without even giving an excuse as to why and not lose their jobs for it seemed implausible. Granted the French culture isn’t a workaholic one like in America, but it’s pushing the bar to the extreme here and might’ve been more amusing seeing the guys taking the baby to their work and trying to somehow still get things done.

Spoiler Alert!

My biggest beef though comes with the girlfriend named Sylvia, played by Philippine Leroy-Beaulieu, who has the audacity to leave a helpless infant on somebody’s doorstep, walks away, and doesn’t think anything of it. What’s to say some stranger couldn’t come along and snatch the kid up before the occupiers of the apartment find it? What’s to guarantee that the guys in the apartment are even going to want to take the baby in, or if they do won’t inadvertently harm the child since they have no training on how to handle it? The fact that she returns months later with this bright beaming smile demanding to see her baby immediately like she’s some loving mother entitled to her kid whenever she pleases makes her seem even more outrageous. In most jurisdictions her behavior would’ve been considered reckless child abandonment and her parenting privileges taken away. Instead of handing over the baby she should’ve received a very stern lecture

Granted the film tries to make-up for this by having her return to the apartment saying she can’t keep up with the mothering duties and agrees to hand the baby over to the men. She also gets shown lying in the baby’s crib in a fetal position in order to symbolize that she’s immature, but still for a playful comedy this has some serious undertones that it glosses over, but are still readily there if you think about it.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: September 18, 1985

Runtime: 1 Hour 46 Minutes

Rated PG-13

Director: Coline Serreau

Studio: Soprofilms

Available: DVD

1 Comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Comedy, Foreign Films, French Films, Movies with Nudity, Obscure Movies

Tagged , ,

A Boy and His Dog (1975)

Posted on February 14, 2024 | 1 comment
Version 1.0.0

Version 1.0.0

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Surviving after nuclear holocaust.

The year is 2024 and the landscape of the U.S. has been turned into a wasteland due the after effects of a nuclear war that occurred in 2007. Vic (Don Johnson) is an 18-year-old that wanders around with his telepathic dog named Blood (voice of Tim McIntire). Blood helps Vic find women to rape while Vic scavenges for food for their survival. One night while watching an X-rated movie at a makeshift theater Blood is able to gain the scent of a woman nearby named Quilla (Susanne Benton). Quilla and Vic eventually have sex, but then she disappears to the underground society that survives inside a biosphere. Vic decides to follow her there while Blood remains above ground waiting for Vic’s return. Once Vic arrives he finds everyone there to be in whiteface and dressed like people living on the farm during the turn-of-the-century. He meets Lou (Jason Robards) along with Dr. Moore (Alvy Moore) and Mez (Helene Winstone) who all three run things. They convince Vic to stay there as he has a ‘purpose’ of becoming a stud and impregnating the young women since the men there can no longer do so. At first Vic is excited about his newfound ‘job’ as he is always quite horny, but after he finds out the details of what he must do he relinquishes his duty, but realizes it may be too late.

The story is based on the novella of the same name by Harlan Ellison who wrote the original screenplay that was later finished by director L.Q. Jones who used his own money to help get the film financed. While the movie does have some intriguing and memorable visuals, logic-wise there are some holes. One of the biggest ones is that, at least hypothetically, there would most likely have been a nuclear winter, which is what would be created after a nuclear war due to so much soot being blown into the atmosphere that it would block out most of the sunlight for several decades and create a night time effect and for this reason the outdoor scenes should’ve been filmed at night in order to replicate the ongoing darkness.

Vic’s conversations with his dog, which all gets done telepathically, is odd too and never sufficiently explained. How does this dog attain this ‘gift’ and why is it only him and not other mutts that can do it too? It would’ve been better had it been explained that some modern invention had been created that would allow communication between owners and their pets, but even this fails to explain how the dog manages to be so incredibly smart. Don’t get me wrong the voice-over work by McIntire is delightful, but how did the animal get so well-read that he even knows the Latin origin of words? Is there a dog college that teaches them this?

Vic’s extreme urges to have sex all the time seemed out-of-place too. Granted he’s a young guy with raging hormones, but psychologically when a person is in a desperate situation, in this case simply trying to survive in a hostile environment with very little food, then a person’s most basic needs come first and it’s all they’ll think about. Finding something to eat, they’re forced to go out each day and hunt for something, and acquiring shelter for sleep, would be their pressing needs and what would occupy their minds most day-in and day-out while the sex need would become secondary and only have his focus once the other needs were met, but in this story the sex urges seem to take precedent, which doesn’t make sense from a human behavioral perspective, nor where he’d get the energy to do it since he’s pretty malnourished to begin with.

The X-rated movie that they watch at a ‘theater’ is goofy too as it amounts to nothing more than a grainy black-and-white stag film from the 50’s even though technically by 2007, which is when the bombs dropped, there was porn on the internet and explicit DVD’s some of which would’ve probably survived the blast and thus they’d be watching those instead of something found in grandpa’s ancient collection. Though this is what makes the movie entertaining not so much for what it gets accurate in their predictions, which isn’t much, but more what it gets wrong.

The one thing though that really stands-out, at least for me, and makes the movie memorable, though this apparently wasn’t the case with the film’s initial test audience who called these scenes ‘slow’ and ‘boring’, are the moments that take place in the underground society. The look of everyone walking around like robots and resembling farmers from a bygone era has a kitschy flair like something out of a Federico Fellini movie. Hal Baylor, as one of the main menacing robots that can’t seem to ever go down even when being directly shot at, steals every scene he is in and helps create some definite tension. I also got a kick out of everyone wearing white face, which I thought was to explain their pale complexions due to not be out in the sun, but it seems to be instead obviously painted on, so I’m not sure what that was meant to represent.

The twist ending is terrific and the film’s final line, which Ellison detested and tried having taken out, is a keeper. While its attained a cult following there are still the detractors who feel its ‘misogynistic’ though I don’t really see it.  Sure Vic sees women as sex objects and ‘conquests’, but there’s guys out there that are like that. Quilla is conniving and duplicitous, but some women are like that too. The movie isn’t saying that all men and women are like this, but in environments that are as desperate as this one it will tend to bring out the worst in human nature, which was all the film was trying to convey from my standpoint.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: May 15, 1975

Runtime: 1 Hour 31 Minutes

Rated R

Director: L.Q. Jones

Studio: LQ/Jaf Productions

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Video, Pluto, Roku, Tubi, YouTube

1 Comment

Posted in 70's Movies, Black Comedy, Cult, Movies Based on Short Stories, Movies with Nudity, Sci-Fi

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Blood Relatives (1978)

Posted on February 11, 2024 | Leave a comment

bloodrelatives

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: First cousins become intimate.

Based on the Ed McBain novel of the same name, but with the setting changed from New York to Montreal the story centers around police inspector Steve Carella (Donald Sutherland) who takes on the case of a teen girl named Patricia (Aude Landry). She arrives at the police station, in a bloody condition, late one night saying that she and her cousin Muriel (Lisa Langlois) were attacked in an alley by a strange man. When the cops arrive at the scene they find Muriel dead. Initially Patricia can not identify who the man was, but later after the funeral, she comes forward to say that it was her brother Andrew (Laurent Malet) that did it. She details how he and Muriel were having an illicit affair despite being first cousins and when Muriel tried to break-up with him due to having a romance with her boss (David Hemmings) he snapped and killed her and then tried to do the same with Patricia since she was a witness, but she managed to escape. Carella though still has his suspicions and when he finds Muriel’s diary he begins reading it, which confirms the affair, but also something even more sinister that was lurking beneath the surface.

This film received a very limited release and was only shown in the theaters for a few weeks before it was removed and has basically sat in obscurity ever since. Much of it may have to do with the incest theme and a couple of really odd moments. One scene was when Donald Pleasance, who appears briefly as a suspect and speaks in a Canuck accent, admits to having an on-going affair with a 13-year-old named Jean (Tammy Tucker) despite him being 46. Carella then goes to the girl’s home to interview her not so much about her being a minor having sex with an older man, but instead in order to vouch for his alibi that he was with her the night of the crime. She’s told that her answers can help get him ‘off-the-hook’ and ‘prevent him from going to jail’ if she can confirm his whereabouts and the whole sex thing she’s having with him is apparently ‘not a big deal’ (they even end up releasing Pleasance once they determine he wasn’t the killer), which for many viewers today will find quite baffling.

Plot-wise the pacing is poor. It starts out alright and is even riveting as we see this young, blood stained teen girl running through the dark streets that’s littered with trash everywhere. However, the flashback moments, done while Carella reads the diary, don’t have the same compelling impact and tends to slow everything down and even manages to turn it into a soap opera. Even though Sutherland is the main character there’s long stretches where he’s not in it and doesn’t seem to have much else to do, but interrogate the witness, particularly Patricia, again and again. His relationship with his own family isn’t captivating though here too there’s an odd moment where his own teen daughter (Nina Balogh) describes her and her father as potential ‘lovers’ as they’re walking outside in public, which again would be deemed a pretty cringey line if said between father and daughter in virtually any other movie.

The acting by Langlois I found to be terrible and helped drag the whole thing down especially during the second act when Sutherland all but disappears. Granted she’s gone on to have a rather successful career and maybe she just needed more experience in order to find her footing, but she delivers her lines in a flat monotone manner and her pretty face seems unable to show any other expression than a vapid smile. Even when she’s getting stabbed she continues to smile and doesn’t even scream, which came-off as unnatural. Though she did very little else after this I felt it was Landry who was the better actress. She is very convincing and has an angelic looking face, so you really see her as an innocent though equally effective when her character’s dark nature comes out later.

Spoiler Alert!

The twist ending I figured out while there was still an hour to go and most other viewers should start to see it well before the ‘big reveal’ occurs. The main issue with Patricia being the ultimate killer is that it really doesn’t make much sense. Supposedly she was intensely jealous of her cousin’s relationship with her brother, but why? Woman usually get envious of someone if they consider them a rival to a person that they have affections for, so is the film implying that she too was having a sexual relationship with her brother, if so it doesn’t confirm it, but should’ve.

A better way to have ended it, in my view, would’ve had Muriel get pregnant, she actually does think she’s pregnant earlier, but it turns out to be a false alarm. Instead it should’ve been the real thing and Andrew would’ve become upset at this and coerced Patricia to kill her in order to get him off-the-hook. He’d promise her that they’d get into a relationship in return (this version would make clear that she had intimate feelings for him and he knew it), but then after the killing gets done, he reneges, which gets her upset, so she implicates him to the police. This scenario would’ve at least given clear motivations to the characters, which is otherwise murky. Sure it would be pretty tawdry and sleazy, but the story was going in that direction anyways, so it might as well go all the way with it.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: February 1, 1978

Runtime: 1 Hour 40 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Claude Chabrol

Studio: Filmcorp

Available: DVD (Region 2) (Dubbed), DVD-R (dvdlady.com)

Leave a comment

Posted in 70's Movies, Foreign Films, Movies Based on Novels, Movies from Canada, Obscure Movies, Police Drama

Tagged , , , , , ,

Cutter’s Way (1981)

Posted on February 5, 2024 | Leave a comment

cutter1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Friends help catch murderer.

Richard Bone (Jeff Bridges) driving his old beat-up car, a 1966 Austin-Healey, which breaks down in a dark alley during a late night rain storm. From behind comes another vehicle where the driver dumps something into a nearby garbage can that turns out to being the dead body of a young girl. Since Bone’s car is still at the crime scene the next day when the authorities arrive he quickly becomes suspect number one. Bone’s friend, Alex Cutter (John Heard), a Vietnam vet struggling with alcoholism and PTSD, takes on the process of investigating the case to help get his friend out of trouble. The two soon hone in on a rich local businessman named J.J. Cord (Stephen Elliot) whom Bone swears was the man he saw driving the car that dumped the body.

The film is based on the 1976 novel ‘Cutter and Bone’ by Newton Thornburg. Producer Paul Gurian bought the rights to the book and asked struggling screenwriter Jeffrey Alan Fiskin if he’d be interested in adapting it to a screenplay. Since Fiskin was broke at the time, he last sold a screenplay, Angel Unchained, 10 years earlier, he was forced to shoplift the book in order to read and adapt it. David Field from United Artists was open to backing it for $3 million, but only if they could find a big-name star. Gurian then went to the home of Jeff Bridges, where he got attacked by one of Bridges’ dogs thus motivating Bridges to accept the part unseen in order to avoid a possible lawsuit. The film was released in the Spring of ’81 where it fared poorly with the critics and the studio was ready to scrap it only for it to pick-up good reviews a few weeks later. The studio then decided to place the film in their ‘classics’ division where it got retooled from it’s former title of ‘Cutter and Bone’, which they felt made it seem like a comedy about surgeons, to it’s current one and then rereleased it in the fall of that year were through good word-of-mouth it managed to recoup a modest profit.

Director Ivan Passer has stated that his motivation for directing the film was to go against what he felt was the ‘cripple mania’ at the time where film characters would get maimed usually through being in the war and then come back better, stronger people. Here he wanted to show that it didn’t make them better, but instead more dangerous.

While Heard certainly gives a good performance, it was originally intended for Richard Dreyfus, I felt he was too much of a caricature of an angry, wounded war vet and I didn’t find him interesting at all. Bridges was his usual transparent self and thus the interactions between two not all that captivating. Elliott is rather blah as well as the bad guy since for most of the runtime he’s only seen from a distance and never has any lines of dialogue until the final 9-minutes, though this does at least give him a certain creepy/mysterious vibe. Out of everyone I was most intrigued with Lisa Eichorn who plays a woman who bounces between the two friends and seems to want to play-off them both.

The emphasis is on the character study with long takes of Heard snarly at everybody he meets including the next door neighbor’s whose car he crashed into and the the subsequent police report, which goes on too long and doesn’t help the film or story move forward. The mystery isn’t as intriguing as it could’ve been because elements of it fall into place a little too conveniently. Bridges witnesses the killer driving away and then right away the next day spots the guy in a parade. Then a couple of days later the friends are talking about the case at a restaurant where the guys’ wife (Patricia Donohue) is sitting right next to them and overhears everything, which again is letting things fall too neatly into place without much effort.

There’s also questions about why the killer didn’t just run Bridges over with his car when he had the chance in order to avoid any witnesses. Also, Bridges is able to recognize the killer/driver, but when I saw the scene it was impossible to see the face of the driver. The viewer’s perspective should be the same as the protagonist, so if he’s able to get a good look at the culprit then we should’ve too.

Spoiler Alert!

Since everything is tied into circumstantial evidence I was hoping for some unexpected twist at the end. For instance having Bridges’ house get burnt down not because of Cale like they initially thought, but instead from the neighbors still angry over their car. The final confrontation in which Bone apparently shoots Cale (the screen fades to black and we only hear the noise of the gun going off) leaves more questions than answers. Does Bone and to an extent Cutter, who was there in the room with him, now go to jail for this? Seems like that should’ve been confirmed one way or the other and leaving it vague is like showing the viewer only half of the story.

cutter2

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: March 20, 1981

Runtime: 1 Hour 49 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Ivan Passer

Studio: United Artists

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Video, Pluto, Freevee, Roku Channel, YouTube

Leave a comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Buddy Movies, Drama, Movies Based on Novels, Movies with Nudity

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Travels With My aunt (1972)

Posted on January 31, 2024 | Leave a comment

travels1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 4 out of 10

4-Word Review: Kooky lady cons nephew.

Henry (Alec McCowen) is a middle-aged bank manager who attends his mother’s cremation where he meets his kooky Aunt Augusta (Maggie Smith). She invites him over to her residence where he finds that she’s living with a black man named Wadsworth (Louis Gossett Jr.) who works as a fortune teller. It is here that she receives a package holding the severed finger of her longtime lover Visconti (Robert Stephens) and told that she must deliver $100,000 in ransom in order to see the rest of him alive. She convinces Henry to go with her to Paris to meet the kidnappers demands and in the process the two go on a wild jaunt across the globe that ends with them in North Africa.

The film is based on the novel of the same name by Graham Greene that was originally intended for Katherine Hepburn in the lead. Director George Cukor, whose career was winding down at this point, had worked with Kate in several projects from decades earlier and felt this role would be the right fit though she disagreed, but then decided that if she could rewrite the script, she’d consider doing it. Jay Presson Allen, who had done the original adaptation, which Hepburn didn’t like, gave full control over to her to rewrite it anyway she’d like, but ultimately the studio felt she was too old for the part especially since she was expected to play a younger version of the character during flashback sequences and they didn’t feel she at her advanced age could come effectively as someone in their early 20’s, so the part went to Smith instead.

Maggie to her credit is quite good and although she was only in her late 30’s really seems quite old during the sequences where the aunt is portrayed in the present. There’s even realistic wrinkles on her face especially around the cheekbones that gives the character the look of someone in their 70’s and 80’s. In the flashbacks she comes-off equally effective as a youthful free-spirit. Unfortunately her daffy character was for me a turn-off as she’s too much of an eccentric caricature that’s more obnoxious than amusing and building a whole film around her doesn’t work.

Henry is equally perplexing as I couldn’t understand why he’d believe this nutty lady when she tells him the mother he had always known wasn’t his biological one. For all he knew she was a goofball that shouldn’t be taken seriously unless she can supply more evidence, which she doesn’t. Most rational people would’ve kept her at an arm’s length instead of galivanting across the continent with her especially whom he had just met. In the book Henry is portrayed as being bored with his life and longing for adventure, but the film doesn’t make this clear, so his motivations and personality become muddled. Also in the book he was in early retirement, which would help explain why he had so much free time to go traveling, but the movie doesn’t bring this up either, so you wonder what he told his employer that would allow him to be off of work for so long and not get fired.

Having the Aunt and Henry bicker about, as their personalities were quite opposite, could’ve been fun, but this doesn’t get played-up. Too much time gets spent on this outlandish James Bond adventure that gets more ridiculous and unbelievable. The flashbacks bog down the pace and weren’t really needed and everything should’ve remained in the present day. The coin flip ending, in which Henry can’t decide what he wants to do moving forward, go back to his old life or continue on with his aunt, is a cop-out and only done because they couldn’t figure out how else to end it, so they do a freeze-frame of the coin in the air and the  let the viewer feel-in-the-blanks, which was far different than the novel. There Henry becomes a changed man who enjoys the excitement of getting involved in illegal activities, but because the film was not centered around him, which it should’ve been, we don’t witness any type of character arch making the whole thing quite trite and saved only by the brief appearance of Cindy Williams who plays a free-spirited hippie that he meets on a train.

My Rating: 4 out of 10

Released: December 17, 1972

Runtime: 1 Hour 49 Mintutes

Rated PG

Director: George Cukor

Studio: MGM

Available: DVD-R (Warner Archive)

Leave a comment

Posted in 70's Movies, Black Comedy, Movies Based on Novels, Movies with a train setting, Road Movies

Tagged , , , , , ,

Camera Buff (1979)

Posted on January 27, 2024 | Leave a comment

camera1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Husband’s hobby ruins marriage.

Filip (Jerzy Stuhr) is a factory worker living in the small town of Wielice, Poland. To celebrate the birth of his newborn child he decides to buy a camera to record the event and watching him grow. Because he’s the only one who owns a camera in the town he soon comes to the attention of his boss (Stefan Czyzewski) at the plant he works at who asks him to film an upcoming jubilee celebration that they’re having at the factory. Filip reluctantly agrees, but soon finds himself enjoying the filmmaking process and he begins to record everything around him including some of the corruption that he sees, which gets him into trouble. His wife Irka (Malgorzata Zabkowska) also does not like his newfound hobby as she feels it’s taking too much time and attention away from her and the baby. As his marriage begins to disintegrate Filip is forced to make a hard decision: give up something that he enjoys in order to conform and get along with those around him.

This marks one of the earlier efforts from famed filmmaker Krzysztof Kieslowski. When originally released it was met with a lukewarm response, but as his fame grew it has been reassessed as a classic.  What stood out for me was the interminable grayness that permeates every shot and really helps to hit home for the viewer the bleakness of the everyday living situation of people in a communist country and allows one to understand the need of Filip to find an outlet for his frustrations. It’s darkly amusing how he has to spend so much money, 2-months of his salary, in order to afford this tiny little contraption that can be held in the palm of one’s hand and can only do the most basic of film recording that isn’t even in color and offers no zoom or focus and yet is considered a ‘prized possession’ amongst everyone else around him.

I did appreciate the way it brings out the positive things about movies. The fact that a man who loses his mother can still go back and see the recordings of her that Filip did with his camera to make it seem like she was essentially ‘still alive’ was quite touching and one of the reasons why I enjoy films so much personally in that it has a quality of ‘holding time in place’. The scene where a dwarf worker, who had become the subject of one of Filip’s movies, became so overcome with emotion at seeing himself on the big screen in what had been until then a very ordinary and anonymous life for him, was equally moving.

On the negative side the film tends to go overboard with the dramatics. Having his wife get so upset at the way he enjoyed filming everybody at the jubilee that she goes home and smashes a mirror that cuts her hand was too extreme of a reaction and unintentionally made it seem like she had far more internal issues than just her husband’s hobby. The segment where a woman (Ewa Pokas), an amateur filmmaker herself who works as a judge at one of the festivals he submits his film to, gets so overcome by one of his movies that she leans over and kisses him was overdone as well especially when she later admits she didn’t think much of his movie and only said she liked it to motivate him to continue making more and getting better at it.

The wife’s behavior was the most perplexing. If she really loved the guy then she should be supportive of his hobby since she could see that it made him happy. The fact that she immediately dislikes what he’s doing and openly wants him to fail at it, so he could then turn all of attention back to her and the baby made her seem selfish and that their subsequent separation was a good thing since ultimately they didn’t have much in common. Their conversation where he tells her that he needs more in life than just ‘peace and quiet’ and she looks at him blank-eyed like she can’t fathom what else that would be hits-the-bullseye as there are many people out there, and I’ve known some, who just can’t relate to the artistic endeavors that others may have, which is all the more reason why their marriage was far from ideal and therefore better to expose the flaws of it now then go on living a lie that they were ‘a great couple’ when they really weren’t. The film though seems to parlay the message that it’s a ‘sad thing’ when the marriage disintegrates, but I saw it as a positive because now he has the freedom to pursue his artistic aspirations and meet people who better connect to his interests. The marriage as it was, was nothing but a trap that was holding him back.

Spoiler Alert!

The ending has Filip giving up on his moving making hopes and even destroying the negatives of one of them that was set to be delivered to a TV-station. He does this when he finds out that his last film cost some of the people at his factory to lose their jobs and thus having him conclude that the whole idea was a ‘mistake’. I saw it as the opposite. His movies brought joy and inspiration to people that hadn’t had much of that previously. Sure, it also brought him some trouble, but that was to be expected when living in an environment where self-expression was taboo, but to completely throw-in-the-towel as he does was unnecessarily defeating. I would’ve wanted him to continue on with his new hobby while learning how to be more sophisticated at it to avoid the problems he had earlier. His movie making was not the problem instead it was the flawed society that he lived in.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: November 16, 1979

Runtime: 1 Hour 57 Minutes

Director: Krzyszlof Kieslowski

Studio: Zespol Filmowy

Available: DVD, Blu-ray

Leave a comment

Posted in 70's Movies, Drama, Foreign Films

Tagged , , , ,