Godzilla vs. Megalon.

Review #2558: Godzilla vs. Megalon.

Cast: 

Katsuhiko Sasaki (Inventor Goro Ibuki), Hiroyuki Kawase (Rokuro Ibuki), Yutaka Hayashi (Hiroshi Jinkawa), Robert Dunham (Emperor Antonio of Seatopia, Seatopian agent on motorcycle; Gorō Naya as Japanese voice of Antonio), Kotaro Tomita (Lead Seatopian Agent), Wolf Ohtsuki (Seatopian Agent), Gentaro Nakajima (Truck Driver), Sakyo Mikami (Truck Driver's Assistant), with Tsugutoshi Komada (Jet Jaguar), Shinji Takagi (Godzilla), Hideto Date (Megalon), and Kenpachiro Satsuma (Gigan) Directed by Jun Fukuda (#1668 - Ebirah, Horror of the Deep, #2070 - Son of Godzilla, #2525 - Godzilla vs. Gigan)

Review: 

Oh, poor Jun Fukuda. It's not easy making four Godzilla movies where the highlight is either a mediocre Son of Godzilla or one brimming with mockery amidst the use of stock footage. With this film, the 13th Godzilla movie, you've got a clash of ideas and ambitions all bubbling to the surface: All Monsters Attack (1969)'s original villain was going to be a giant mole cricket before a series of reworkings (one involving pairing it with other monsters under the command of hostile alien invaders) led to, well, a giant beetle. Now, you might wonder what the hell "Jet Jaguar" plays into it. Togo had a contest for kids in late 1972 that apparently resulted in a robot called Red Arone (apparently, it looked something like this). Shinichi Sekizawa did a few story ideas but did not have time to actually write a script, which fell to Fukuda to write the screenplay for a film that reportedly took just three weeks to shoot. As you probably would guess, extensive stock footage is utilized, whether that is films from nearly ten years ago with Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster (1964) to others such as Invasion of Astro-Monster (1965) and Godzilla vs. Gigan (1972). In some ways, this movie has been credited as giving the perception of kaiju movies as being a bit campy or comedic, with the 1976 American release by Cinema Shares having a poster featuring Godzilla and Megalon...fighting on the World Trade Center (because if one is going to straight up "spoof" the King Kong (1976) poster, you might as well go all the way, even if it reeks of hackery). It was also featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000). It even had a primetime broadcast on NBC in 1977, albeit in a form that was cut to less than an hour. Thankfully, with the modern age, you can just watch the damn movie with subtitles like a normal person (Criterion or otherwise) *. Fukuda got one more Godzilla movie to do with Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla (1974). 

I first saw footage of the film in what else but James Rolfe's "Godzilla-a-thon" years ago (the one that briefly recapped each movie up to 2004*), so I had an inkling of what was going to come. It sure is a shame about the "camp" label, mainly because that label always seems to be used for a tired argument very now and then about movies they want to find a longwinded way of just saying "silly"*. You'll never believe this: it's an 81 minute Godzilla movie with a few silly moments, a few familiar things, fairly forgettable humans (with one exception?) and a pretty bog-standard quality that reminds you that there are better movies out there. Look. you get to see a flying two-feet karate kick from Godzilla and a goofy robot that doesn't even change its expression with Jet Jaguar, a suddenly sentient being that can grow really really tall (I'm sure there is a measurement in feet or "meters", but Movie Night does not recognize the latter). The irony is that for all the interesting visuals (the bits not from 1970, anyway), I could not find one interesting thing to say about Saskai, Kawase, or Hiyashi (you think modern Godzilla movies have dodgy human characters? Watch this movie and get back to me). They are there, they show up, they remind you that even robots have more to really say than kid actors, and so on and so forth. It is delightfully preposterous in ways that are entirely easy to see coming: dudes wearing what appear to be a toga (Dunham, complete with some chest hair) dealing with an underground kingdom that send monsters rather than negotiate (we are past the part the military not mattering) and Godzilla (don't ask about the suit, at least they tried making it seem freshly new) basically taking longer than a superhero to show up in the film. But when it does get moving, there are some amusing parts that remind you that even a bad Godzilla movie (with one Emmerich-sized exception) can at least be an amusing time. Not a movie for serious analysis or fans of good films, but if you like watching Godzilla or. monster mashes, maybe you'll have a time worth noting.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

(Jet Jaguar's) song of the day!

*No, I will not budge on subtitles over dubs. I didn't give a shit who was doing the English dub of, say, The Boy and the Heron, so it is either original dub or nothing. You can also bookmark this and call me an idiot if I pull a hypocritical move.

*I love the old Cinemassacre. No comment on the AVGN Movie though.

*Unrelated, probably. You can call it a conspiracy theory, but I firmly believe that a good deal of critiques of horror movies with "misogyny!" is actually just folks looking for an easy punching bag because they don't have anything better to do with their time. And there is no "campy" horror, that's just "comedy-horror", so stop it!

For the purposes of having a reference of previous Godzilla movies, inquire here: 

The original 1954 classic and its decent 1955 sequel

King Kong vs. Godzilla (1962) - Godzilla fights King Kong to a relative draw.

Mothra vs. Godzilla (1964) - Mothra joins the mash!

Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster (1964) - A monster so important it made the title

Invasion of Astro-Monster (1965) - Nick Adams in: Spaceman's Adventure

Ebirah, Horror of the Deep (1966) - Terrorists, lobsters, and more.

Son of Godzilla (1967) - A real family drama

Destroy All Monsters (1968) - Mash like it's 1999 in Monsterland

All Monsters Attack (1969) - Children and Minilla have to fight their own battles instead of Godzilla

Godzilla vs. Hedorah (1971) - Trippy environmentally hip fun for the whole family

Godzilla vs. Gigan (1972) - Godzilla towers and a clip show all in one

White Lightning.

Review #2550: White Lightning.

Cast: 

Burt Reynolds (Bobby "Gator" McKlusky), Jennifer Billingsley (Lou), Ned Beatty (Sheriff J. C. Connors), Bo Hopkins (Roy "Rebel Roy" Boone), Matt Clark ("Dude" Watson), Louise Latham (Martha Culpepper), Diane Ladd (Maggie), R. G. Armstrong ("Big Bear"), Conlan Carter (Deputy), Dabbs Greer (Pa McKlusky), Lincoln Demyan (Warden Sims), and John Steadman ("Skeeter") Directed by Joseph Sargent (#557 - Jaws: The Revenge)

Review: 

I imagine that no summer really starts unless you pick a movie with either good ol' boys or a star you are fond of. Burt Reynolds* had slummed around in television for several years (which included lead roles on Gunsmoke and Dan August) and a few movies of varying quality (100 Rifles [1969], Sam Whiskey [1969]), but it was his talk-show appearances that really got him noted attention before, well, Deliverance [1972] rocketed him into a name for film. Gradually, the films would rise in stature as a leading guy, with 1973 seeing him star in Shamus, The Man Who Loved Cat Dancing, and this movie, which he had worked with the producers previously with Sam Whiskey [1969] (incidentally, that film and Lightning had the same writer with William W. Norton). And yes, this is the movie that Steven Spielberg almost directed. As noted in a 2001 interview, he spent over two months on the film, scouted locations and was on the cusp of doing casting but he came to the realization that he "didn't want to start my career as a hard-hat, journeyman director", instead wanting something a bit more personal. He instead made a play for doing The Sugarland Express, which he ultimately made in 1974. It instead fell to Joseph Sargent (more of a regular TV director than a film director). It might have been his most noted film of the 1970s if it wasn't for his subsequent direction of The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974). In 1976, Reynolds returned for Gator, which retained Norton as writer but with a twist: Reynolds as director (Norton was a character unto himself: he later became a would-be gun runner to the Irish National Liberation Army in the 1980s and shot an intruder in his home).

It's a match made in heaven for those who love a Southern tale of 101 minutes filled with a few car chases and a relatively game Reynolds in the reeds of a decent cast that holds it together for a pretty sobering time. Because, yea, it's a movie about getting one over the law, but don't forget that it starts with two guys getting shot on a boat (which is actually captured pretty well for a movie that basically makes one feel the sweat every now and then). It's a bout of obsession and hokum in trying to dodge both the sheriffs and those who don't like the idea of someone working as an informant (in this case the Department of the Treasury), and it is fun even if it meanders along for what could've really been a devious time, but hey, it is a good hellraiser movie. Before you got the Smokey and the Bandit rendition* of Reynolds, you get the inner workings of someone who was homing in gritty charm without straining in credibility of being a man of single-minded determination that is compelling and fun to see him crack through the conman stuff (it isn't easy playing friend and in one case, seducer). Beatty doesn't get as much time as you might think around Reynolds, but he makes for a quality adversary in the vein of a sundown town chief that clearly believes they are the knight of a community and that nobody deserves to be in their way: it's the kind of jagged confidence that is worth respecting from someone like him. The rest of the cast is fairly decent, rounding out the edges of small-town folks who play the line of swindler and swindled to varying effect. It's the kind of movie where the stunts of folks such as Hal Needham (a long-time friend of Reynolds, he first met him during production of Riverboat years prior) shine best, mostly with one particular car stunt in the film: the jump onto a moving barge. It isn't a great movie by any means, but it always end up doing something curious every now and then to make it worth a look, particularly on a warm summer day looking for familiar faces. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*I probably give Reynolds a bit of leeway when it comes to what I want to see from him. Hell, City Heat and Striptease have been on the shortlist for months!

*Lest we forget the hair, which was still natural around Deliverance: Burt Reynolds On Toupees, Trump, and Why He’d Never Work with Paul Tho | GQ. Also, if you look hard enough, you'll see Diane Ladd (spelled "Diane Lad" in the credits) and her daughter, Laura Dern, in this film.

Cleopatra Jones.

Review #2511: Cleopatra Jones.

Cast: 

Tamara Dobson (Cleopatra Jones), Bernie Casey (Reuben Masters), Shelley Winters (Mommy), Brenda Sykes (Tiffany), Antonio Fargas ("Doodlebug" Simpkins), Bill McKinney (Officer Purdy), Dan Frazer (Captain Crawford), Stafford Morgan (Sergeant Kert), Mike Warren (Miller Anderson), Albert Popwell (Matthew Johnson), Caro Kenyatta (Melvin Johnson), and Esther Rolle (Mrs. Johnson) Directed by Jack Starrett.

Review: 

Okay, I guess I should have heard of this movie earlier with a title like that. But maybe it is apt to get around to a movie made for Warner Bros. that wanted to cash in on the blaxploitation craze that came around with movies such as Shaft (or, if one wants to go with the one that came out a bit earlier, Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song [1971]....or earlier with Cotton Comes to Harlem [1970]). Max Julien wrote the story (he originally wanted to a spy movie for Columbia Pictures) and co-wrote the screenplay with Sheldon Keller while also producing the film with William Tennent. At the helm as director was Jack Starrett, the sometimes actor/sometimes director behind such movies as Run, Angel, Run! (1969) and Slaughter (1972). Apparently, Julien envisioned his long-term girlfriend Vonetta McGee for the role, but the considerable casting call from Warner Bros. led to the eventual pick of former 6'2 model Tamara Dobson. The Baltimore native actually started out as a beautician in her studying at the Maryland Institute College of Art prior to being discovered, as, well, a 6'2 person who could model that later saw her involved in commercials. Rated PG, Cleopatra Jones was a decent hit with audiences and inspired a sequel with Cleopatra Jones and the Casino of Gold in 1975. Sadly, those were Dobson's only starring roles, with her other film appearances (Norman... Is That You? [1976], Chained Heat [1983]) being supporting roles before she eventually became a commercial property owner; she died in 2006 at the age of 59.*

With big hat brims and big fur robes (apparently, the fashion was done by Giorgio di Sant' Angelo) and choices that might as well have come from someone wanting to do a James Bond movie (right down to having a climax in a junkyard), how could you not like this movie? Hell, the Corvette Stingray is modified so our leading lady's hair is not impeded to go along with a "CLEO" license plate and karate chopping people. Not bad for a "Special Agent to the President" that had to deal with all of this mainly because she got a poppy field to be destroyed via airstrike (in the intro to the film), I suppose. You know, it may not be a great movie, but I love stuff like this every now and then: a movie that just cuts loose and throws any damn thing to the screen with commitment of entertainment that shows the best of both worlds in terms of "the times" (namely in ass-kicking in the name of community). Admittedly, Dobson is more interesting for the stuff around her/action set pieces than her acting, which is pretty green. The community part is more important anyway when you've got some charm displayed by the support around her, mostly in the sheer ridiculous nature that comes with Winters, who not only has big hair (hey, wigs were cool) but also has an interesting gender balance of male henchmen and, uh, female servants. At least when one goes for hammy (hey, Winters had two Academy Awards already, you can do anything), you get some entertainment value (PG rating or not, you still get scenes featuring people being shot or thrown to their deaths). Casey makes a solidly sensible pairing for the small time you get to see him with Dobson. You get some adequate slice of life from folks such as Fargas or the Popwell/Kenyatta connection or the varying levels of "how funky is this white cop?*" from others for a movie that doesn't strain in hokum for its 89-minute runtime, which is more than can be said for lesser action films. It might not hit all of its marks, but it will do just fine winning converts on a late-night watch around the bend.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day

*Interestingly, Dobson believed that the character of Jones was not so much a "women's libber" but instead saw her as a "very positive, strong lady who knows what she has to do" (in this case defending the neighborhood from drug pushers)

*No joke, the movie ends right as the police captain mildly raises his fist to say "right on!" 

Badlands.

Review #2496: Badlands.

Cast: 

Martin Sheen (Kit), Sissy Spacek (Holly), Warren Oates (Father), Ramon Bieri (Cato), Alan Vint (Deputy Tom), Gary Littlejohn (Sheriff), John Carter (Rich Man), Bryan Montgomery (Boy), Gail Threlkeld (Girl), and Charley Fitzpatrick (Clerk) Written, Produced, and Directed by Terrence Malick.

Review: 

"I tried to keep the 1950s to a bare minimum. Nostalgia is a powerful feeling; it can drown out anything. I wanted the picture to set up like a fairy tale, outside time, like Treasure Island. I hoped this would, among other things, take a little of the sharpness out of the violence but still keep its dreamy quality. Children's books are full of violence. Long John Silver slits the throats of the faithful crew. Kit and Holly even think of themselves as living in a fairy tale. Holly says, "Sometimes I wished I could fall asleep and be taken off to some magical land, but this never happened." But she enough believes there is such a place that she must confess to you she never got there." - Terrence Malick

I suppose there's no better way to start with a director as curious as Terence Malick than to just go with their debut. Born in Illinois but raised in the South, Malick studied at Harvard for philosophy and graduated with a bachelor's degree before electing to study further at Oxford University's Magdalen College. However, he left without a degree due to a disagreement over his thesis, which soon saw him travel back to the States to teach philosophy at MIT and do freelance journalism. However, he apparently felt that he wasn't a good teacher when it came to "the sort of edge one should have on the students", so he decided to focus on studying at AFI because of his liking of movies "in a kind of naive way". He made his first short film with Lanton Mills in 1969. Malick's agent got him freelance work revising scripts, which saw him do uncredited drafts for Dirty Harry (1971) and Pocket Money (1972). Malick raised half of the money by approaching people outside of the film industry (alongside using $25,000 of his own savings) while the other half was raised by Edward R. Pressman. Malick described in an interview prior to the release of the film that books such as The Hardy Boys and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, had influence on the script (at least one that he realized influenced him after doing the script). The movie was more a critical darling than an audience hit at the time, but so it goes. Malick continued his career with Days of Heaven (1978) before curiosity reigned over exactly what he was doing before his next film with The Thin Red Line years later in 1998; at any rate, he has directed nine features and one experimental documentary in over five decades as a filmmaker. 

The real events were curious in themselves: Starkweather murdered eleven people in Nebraska and Wyoming in 1958 at the age of 19 that saw him accompanied by his 14-year-old girlfriend in Caril Ann Fugate (with Badlands, Sheen was 32 and Spacek was 22). Fugate claimed she was a hostage, not knowing until later that her mother, stepfather and sister had already been killed by Starkweather. Sentenced to life, she served 18 years in prison* while Starkweather (once quoted as saying dead people were all on the same level) got the electric chair. Those events have inspired a few other movies such as The Sadist (1963) and Natural Born Killers (1994)*. With Badlands, you get a pretty curious film because it isn't so much just a violent film as it is one that has a strange nature to looking out of time within what actually is seen and heard, mainly because it is more Spacek's film than anything. How else would one understand the type to string along with Sheen unless you hear the underlying journey told by Spacek? There is a haunting nature to the way she navigates the film in terms of passivity that isn't merely just naivety but instead is something that seems removed from, well, you or me. With Sheen, it's much easier to look at him and understand how he could corral certain things to go his way with his magnetism of nonchalance (incidentally, he believed it was the best script he had ever read). They are two empty souls that think the gun as a magic wand (okay that came from Malick) that traverse through the landscape with the same kind of weary nature that we can only hope we don't see in ourselves. They end up as doomed figures hurtling through oblivion that can only be understood by actually viewing the film rather than just seeing images of it and its landscapes. The drama isn't in the chase or in the conflict between these people, nope, instead it is a movie of people who are just in their own element of actions and impulses, which for some might be spookier than a straight-crime movie. But so it goes. As a whole, Badlands is a curious film to see unfold in all of its interesting elements that come from what you see and hear in a spree of morbid curiosity. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Fugate is still alive, as evidenced by a not-too-distant documentary about her: ‘It’s about more than just a crime’: what if a teen killer was actually a victim? | Documentary | The Guardian

*And even a Springsteen song.

Dillinger (1973).

Review #2382: Dillinger [1973].

Cast: 

Warren Oates (John Dillinger), Ben Johnson (Melvin Purvis), Michelle Phillips (Billie Frechette), Cloris Leachman (Anna Sage), Harry Dean Stanton (Homer Van Meter), Geoffrey Lewis (Harry Pierpont), John Ryan (Charles Mackley), Richard Dreyfuss (Baby Face Nelson), Steve Kanaly (Pretty Boy Floyd), John Martino (Eddie Martin), Roy Jenson (Samuel Cowley), and Read Morgan (Big Jim Wollard) Written and Directed by John Milius (#323 - Conan the Barbarian [1982])

Review: 

"Films are always pretentious. There's nothing more pretentious than a filmmaker. You know, an egotistical filmmaker who thinks that they're doing God's gift to humanity or something – it's just entertainment. It's not really too much different than the carnies."

Sure, let's focus our attention to another writer-turned-director. John Milius loved to read and from a young age, he did his own short stories that he could "write in almost any style" (Hemingway, for example). One of his early loves was surfing (he once called it a religion of his), but he apparently was guided to film when encountering a marathon screening of the films of Akira Kurosawa.  He studied at the USC School of Cinematic Arts (as taught by Irwin Blacker) and persisted studying there even with an attempt at trying to volunteer for the Vietnam War (which did not work out due to asthma); he has stated that his writing style was guided by his favorite works in literature with Moby Dick and On the Road. Milius started writing scripts in 1968, and he soon found a job with commissions and the story department of American International Pictures. He did a few re-writes with The Devil's 8 (1968), for example. 1972 saw the release of two of his scripts into film: The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean (he wanted Oates to play the lead instead of Paul Newman) and Jeremiah Johnson. He did uncredited contributions on Dirty Harry (1971) and thus wound up being the first draft writer for the sequel Magnum Force (which was radically changed). By this point, Milius wanted to be a director to have control with his scripts and thus asked AIP if he could direct a film for them, and the result was he chose to do a gangster film over other apparent choices in Blacula or Black Mama, White Mama; the result was Dillinger (1973). Over his career, Milius directed six more movies and wrote a handful of others, whether that was his efforts with the deeply personal Big Wednesday (1978) and Red Dawn (1984).

The real story of Dillinger (once described by Milius as a "pure criminal") goes as such: the Indianapolis native had done a handful of petty thefts before entering and later leaving the United States Navy. He served jailtime for nearly a decade on an assault he did in a botched robbery before becoming a more noted criminal upon his release in 1933 that would include the first of dozens of bank robberies (as done by him and his eleven known co-conspirators in his gang) that saw ten killed and plenty injured; Dillinger was charged with the murder of a cop in that time. The manhunt had agents of the Bureau of Investigation (which soon evolved into the FBI) involved such as Melvin Purvis, since one of Dillinger's crimes was stealing a car and dragging it across state lines. Dillinger was in fact shot and killed on July 22, 1934 after a tip-off. To quibble with the historical accuracy of fact meeting fiction with Dillinger can be researched for oneself (or just look at the "Historical accuracy" page on Wikipedia, I suppose^). Exploits of Dillinger proved an inspiration for various films such as Public Hero #1 (1935), Dillinger (1945; Lawrence Tierney played the title role), Young Dillinger (1965; Nick Adams played the lead), and even later on with Public Enemies (2009; Johnny Depp played the lead)*. Milius was clearly interested in making a folk tale about how people just gravitated to paying attention to a criminal as devastating as Dillinger. In fact, J. Edgar Hoover, the director of the BOI/FBI for over four decades, wrote a statement renouncing gangster films prior to his death (which is read in the credits by Paul Frees): "Dillinger was a rat that the country may consider itself fortunate to be rid of, and I don't sanction any Hollywood glamorization of these vermin. This type of romantic mendacity can only lead young people further astray than they are already, and I want no part of it." In later years, Milius considered the film to be one that is "very crude, but I do find it immensely ambitious", one in which a lack of budget meant being creative with shots and timing.** 

Sure, one might think about Bonnie and Clyde (1967) in terms of sheer audacity, but Dillinger is a movie with quite the punch in crude mayhem that does not wish to sympathize with its main focus but instead just shows the chaos and appeal that could come with a man ready to rob the time he lived in. Oates was a regular in countless Western TV shows and movies and clearly was a pro when given material to actually work with, and this is a pretty neat highlight for his timing here. He has this energy to him that grabs your attention with a certain type of charm that comes with cocksure attitude that knows who to have eating out of the palm of his hand. Johnson actually was quite older than the actual Purvis***, but he is such a pro at this that one wouldn't even think about it because he just has that understated type of charm that might as well be playing in a Western to give it his efforts. It probably works best to see him in the scene where he questions a youth about their perceptions of Dillinger when compared to the government-men chasing him that might as well be a shadow in the eyes of the public that could only have wonder at an outlaw bucking the system (at least, up to a point, this isn't Robin Hood). The rest of the cast make a relatively fine ensemble in the bits and pieces you see them when interacting with, well, the larger-than-life Oates, whether that involves the worthwhile time observing Stanton or even seeing the soon-to-be-prominent Dreyfuss. It is an interesting type of folk tale of mayhem and the nature of idols that come from the meanest and leanest of sources held together by commitment from Milius and Oates to really make it a tale worthy of the drive-in and beyond.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

^Truth vs. Fiction: The Bank-Robbing Style of Warren Oates as Dillinger » BAMF Style. Also, if you like a different insight: Experience of my famous uncle, Melvin Purvis, with Hoover's jealousy and with Nazi Hermann Göring - PMC

*Incidentally, Roger Corman's New World Pictures was behind a semi-related Dillinger film with The Lady in Red (1979). He later produced the 1995 TV "speculative fiction" movie Dillinger and Capone that had Martin Sheen as Dillinger and F. Murray Abraham as Al Capone!

** One year after the release of the film, a television movie was written by Milius (albeit co-written by William F. Nolan) called Melvin Purvis: G-Man. It had Dale Robertson play the title role in the pursuit of Machine Gun Kelly. Dan Curtis directed it along with another TV movie involving Robertson as Purvis with The Kansas City Massacre (1975), although Milius was only involved with the first of the two (and didn't even like making it).

***Purvis was born in 1903, for example. He really did have a strange life when you consider that in the three decades after he left the Bureau, he served in the U.S. Army during World War II and even rose to colonel, bought out a person to solely own a radio station, and, well, dying in 1960 by the gun that his fellow agents gave to him when he left the Bureau. Compared to Hoover, Purvis sounds like a neat person. Also, before I forget, *Academy Award winning actor* Ben Johnson.

Coffy.

Review #2352: Coffy.

Cast:

Pam Grier (Nurse Flower Child "Coffy" Coffin), Booker Bradshaw (Howard Brunswick), Robert DoQui (George "King George"), William Elliott (Officer Carter), Allan Arbus (Arturo Vitroni), Sid Haig (Omar), Barry Cahill (Officer McHenry), Lee de Broux (Officer Nick), Ruben Moreno (Captain Reuben Ramos), Lisa Farringer (Jeri), and Carol Locatell (Priscilla) Written and Directed by Jack Hill (#1654 - Blood Bath and #1740 - Spider Baby)

Review: 

It probably has been long enough to finally cover a Pam Grier movie, isn't it? Well, I figured it would be best to go with the one with the catchy enough title, which was in the middle of Grier's tenure with American International Pictures. Born in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Grier got involved in stage productions as a teenager before going to Los Angeles to work the switchboard at American International Pictures. Anybody who makes their debut (in a bit role) with Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970) clearly has good fortune on their side. Jack Hill soon casted her among the leads for New World Pictures' The Big Doll House (1971) when he liked what he heard and saw when she participated in a "cattle call" for actors sent to read for parts (he has been quoted as citing her "authority"). The movie was a hit, and Grier was soon cast in the not-quite sequel The Big Bird Cage (1972), which was sandwiched between a handful of supporting roles. Coffy came about because Larry Gordon lost the rights to the film Cleopatra Jones (1973) and AIP wanted to make a movie to beat it to the market. This one was released in May, two months before the release of Cleopatra Jones. This would be the first non-prison lead movie for Grier that would lead to a handful of further feature roles for the remainder of the 1970s. While her leading roles dwindled in the next couple of years, there have still been enough highlights for a lifetime, as evidenced by Jackie Brown (1997). This was the third of four movies made with Hill. They returned to make Foxy Brown (1974), one that Hill had less control over as a movie that was initially aimed to be a follow-up to Coffy.

I find myself wondering just how much fun one can have with movies of this time period, one that dance the line between timeliness and allure with their style and character presence. As it turned out, there is plenty of each to be found with this movie, which manages to excel in general excitement with a snappy lead that exudes charm and style from the get-go while managing to have a tight conviction in showing a system in all of its bleak facets that would make one go for the idea of trying to strike back at it. It is lurid enough to actually make a quality vigilante movie for 90 minutes of sheer pulp that can't just be labeled as sleazy. Unlike certain movies of its time, you've got a lead who isn't a certain type of expert or playing it for humor but instead one wrapped in the terrors of what they believe themselves is important to do versus the conflict in seeing it actually play out. So yes, Grier kicks ass and looks good doing it, but there is more to her in terms of timing and conscience for how she handles herself that is quite curious to see play out on screen. It just so happens the supporting cast around her is scuzzy enough to make the experience worth seeing vigilance play out all the way to the grisly end (this is a movie that has a character killed by being dragged around with a rope before saving the gnarly-ness for last: shotgun to the groin). It isn't even a movie that wraps itself up in a neat bow, because at the end of the day, the disgusting drug trade and other purveyors of the sewer known as crime will still be around somewhere the law can't quite reach (whether by chance or deliberately) but so it goes. As a whole, it is pretty easy to see how Grier became such a star to see and hear with how much she is wrapped up in making this role more than just straight exploitation by playing it as an avenging angel with resilience that is devastatingly breathtaking in more ways than one.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Wicker Man (1973).

Review #2289: The Wicker Man.

Cast: 

Edward Woodward (Sgt. Neil Howie), Christopher Lee (Lord Summerisle), Britt Ekland (Willow MacGregor; Annie Ross as voice and Rachel Verney as singing voice), Lesley Mackie (Daisy), Diane Cilento (Miss Rose), Ingrid Pitt (Librarian), Lindsay Kemp (Alder MacGregor), Ian Campbell (Oak), Russell Waters (Harbour Master), and Aubrey Morris (Old Gardener/Gravedigger) Directed by Robin Hardy.

Review: 

"When you get into The Wicker Man, Tony and I decided to do a film which was kind of a reverse Hammer film -- a Hammer film which was actually about, or used, the reality of all the witchcraft nonsense that Hammer had used. And there we decided to do a story which used the old religion as part of a game -- in other words: if you could understand that the clues we littered about the script were telling you that we were in a pagan world, then you started to realize and indeed dread what was going to happen."

Sure, you never really know what is going on in the eyes of certain religious folk. The genesis for what became this film was a desire by Christopher Lee to make something different from the Hammer films that he had been doing for over a decade. He met with Anthony Schaffer (the writer of Frenzy and Sleuth) and came to an idea to work together. Robin Hardy, who had a film company partnership with Shaffer for over a decade (where he did commericals and information films), became involved as a director. In 1971, the rights to the 1967 novel Ritual, as written by David Pinner (he had turned it from an intended film treatment to a novel) were purchased; as Pinner put it, "the basic idea and the structure" of his book is in The Wicker Man, albeit with less humor; one piece of research Shaffer used was James George Frazer's The Golden Bough. Owing to the situation of the studio behind the film (i.e. a buyout), different versions of the film persisted: the original release was 87 minutes after trimming was forced upon Hardy. The movie received a few notices even with limited press, but one magazine soon called it "the Citizen Kane of horror movies". In 2013, "The Final Cut", apparently the most complete version possible of the film intended by Hardy (read further about the weird history here). Hardy returned to write and direct a film thirteen years later with The Fantasist (1986) before serving as writer for The Bulldance [1989]. Shaffer apparently wrote an idea for a follow-up film in "The Loathsome Lambton Worm", which would've somehow involved considerable effects sequences and basically undoing the ending of the first film.  An American rendition of the Wicker Man was released in 2006 to a distinct reception from anyone who saw it, you might say. That same year, Hardy's novel Cowboys for Christ was published that dealt in similar ideas of paganism and Christianity with American interlopers. Five years later, it served as the basis for the 2011 film The Wicker Tree, which was directed by Hardy with a cameo appearance by Lee. He attempted to make a third film but nothing came out of it prior to his death in 2016 at the age of 86.

You really do have to just go with the film with as little to know as possible, which is amusing to say for a film where the one big shot of the film is so hard to forget. The horror that comes out in a film like this is one of sacrifice where the clues really are just in sight for those who look beyond saying the obvious about man and their devotion to a power beyond themselves. The film is all about people who have a reverence for the music (yes, really) and the rituals of an old one that requires a love and fear relationship with nature and to appease it when the time is right in ways that simply clash when it comes to the reckoning of sacrifice. You know how much Christopher Lee loved doing this film? He actually did the film for free, complete with doing a publicity tour all about getting critics to see and talk about the film. Lee plays the game with all of the air required of an actor with commitment and pride required that demands he play it right to the bone of someone who you really believe could live among the animals. Leader and devotee, his charisma may be at its peak here. Woodward was cast because after the role was rejected by David Hemmings and Michael York. His commitment (and subsequent appreciation of the film) is quite apparent for a role that with a lesser actor would've been just played it completely for bland rigidness, but he manages to come off completely fascinating because of just what we see in his reaction to the place around him in matching dedicated belief, particularly with the sequence between him and Lee about the practices of the island and which gods are alive in the modern parlance. The rest of the cast does well in selling the devotion needed for a film that doesn't play anyone out as just a kook but instead lets it all out (some with more flesh than others). The ending is the perfect way to close it all out in the logical conclusion of trying to tie the community all the way together in faith, complete with one great last shot in the sun. It is a devilishly unnerving movie to see play out and while I'm not sure if it is my favorite Lee film, I sure can see why he was all in on making it all count where it mattered most in commitment, which matches well with the direction and writing for a solid thrilling folk tale.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next up: with a week to Halloween, the slate of films before October 31 promises to be spectacular, ranging from Cat People (1982) all the way down the line. 

Blackenstein.

Review #2125: Blackenstein.

Cast: 

John Hart (Dr. Stein), Ivory Stone (Dr. Winifred Walker), Joe De Sue (Eddie Turner), Roosevelt Jackson (Malcomb), Andrea King (Eleanor), Nick Bolin (Bruno Stragor), Karin Lind (Hospital Supervisor), Yvonne Robinson (Hospital Receptionist), Liz Renay (Blonde Murder Victim), and Don Brodie (Police Lieutenant) Directed by William A. Levey.

Review: 

It is easy to say a film is bad, you know. But you really need to appreciate the interesting and good films by taking in some truly crappy fare from time to time, and if there ever was a genre that delivers such "palette cleansers", horror is the one to do it, especially because 500 words of saying a film sucks is better than 20. But at least there are some interesting stories to talk about when it comes to films that inspire, uh, nothing. The film was written and produced by criminal lawyer Frank R. Saletri in the only film he is credited with, although apparently, he had others in mind (lawyers getting into film, oh my). In 1982, Saletri was murdered at his residence in a crime that has apparently never been close to being solved. This was the film debut of director William A. Levey. Going from a film like this to something like Skatetown, U.S.A. (1979) is, well, a thing. As I'm sure you can guess, this was a film made to capitalize on the success of films such as Blacula (1972), although it is funny to mention that it managed to come out just a few weeks after the release of Scream Blacula Scream (1973) but this wasn't a particular box office hit. God only knows what kind of further films Saletri would have come up with. You might recognize that the electrical set from the original Frankenstein (1931), as designed by Kenneth Strickfaden, is present here. The film title actually goes by "Blackenstein the Black Frankenstein", while the film poster went with "Black Frankenstein". The fact that the film credits are run from bottom to top is the icing on the cake for amateur stuff.

Somehow, in an attempt to cash in on the success of such films like Blacula (1972), the filmmakers managed to make a film that would make a great pairing with Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter (1966) or Dracula vs. Frankenstein (1971)...to snooze with. It makes you appreciate the filmmaking methods of AIP, because at least they know the dangers of lingering on scenes for way longer than they need to be. The gobbleygook sci-fi stuff can't even make me catch my eyes from dozing, because it is coming in such a bland project that is telegraphed in painstaking fashion. Levey apparently served as editor and made a 78-minute film that might as well feel like 98, and the home video release apparently has an 87-minute version (only the theatrical version is the cleanly restored one, amusingly). Terrific. To make sense of the plot is simple: "Blackenstein" (a guy who had his limbs blown off but got the one VA attendant that gives him crap for going to Vietnam before getting this treatment) goes around killing people in the night while receiving injections in the day that takes as long for the doctors to figure out something is up (oh gee who could've switched the stuff out) as you think it would. Despite the lead doctor being a "Nobel Prize winner" in DNA genetic codes, he is either really foolish in his hiring practices or really, really, oblivious. Somewhere in all of this is a guy with a tiger-striped leg and an old woman receiving treatment to try and be younger. Did I mention our title character has a big fro and a black turtleneck to go with a lumpy head that looks like someone drunkenly drawing the Karloff makeup? Reportedly, Sue was cast because he was a client of the producer once and wanted to get into films. With a thankless role that might as well have been played with a burlap sack on his head, you might call it the least definable Frankenstein monster ever, and the fact that the only thing he does is kill folks (either related to revenge or not) seems apt for a film dedicated to make money. Even sleaze films with gore have the semblance of ideas, this one is just lousy as both a Frankenstein hack and as a cheapie. Now don't get me wrong, the cash grab can make some good entertainment, but one would have the same result in spending money to make this film by instead renting a bus to drive around the country while having your head stuck out the window yelling obscenities at nuns. On that note, that's a good place to say to avoid this one.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Next: The Mummy Returns.

The Vault of Horror.

Review #2120: The Vault of Horror.

Cast: 

"Midnight Mess" segment: Daniel Massey (Harold Rogers), Anna Massey (Donna Rogers), Michael Pratt (Clive), Erik Chitty (Old Waiter), and Jerold Wells (Waiter)

"The Neat Job" segment: Terry-Thomas (Arthur Critchit), Glynis Johns (Eleanor Critchit), Marianne Stone (Jane), and John Forbes-Robertson (Wilson)

"This Trick’ll Kill You" segment: Curd Jürgens (Sebastian), Dawn Addams (Inez), Jasmina Hilton (Indian Girl), and Ishaq Bux (Fakir)

"Bargain in Death" segment: Michael Craig (Maitland), Edward Judd (Alex), Robin Nedwell (Tom),

Geoffrey Davies (Jerry), and Arthur Mullard (Gravedigger)

"Drawn and Quartered" segment: Tom Baker (Moore), Denholm Elliott (Diltant), Terence Alexander (Fenton Breedley), and John Witty (Arthur Gaskill) Directed by Roy Ward Baker (#1742 - The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires and #2106 - Scars of Dracula)

Review: 

You might remember that EC Comics was behind the Tales from the Crypt series of horror anthology comics. As created by Al Feldstein and Bill Gaines (with a good deal of art by Johnny Craig), it ran from 1950 to 1955. But there were two other horror comics that ran alongside it with The Haunt of Fear and The Vault of Horror. Of course, the comic book industry was the target of certain people thinking about the harmful effects of children (read: losers) that saw the eventual demise of the horror comics, but the legacy lived on with film anthologies that shared the name of the comics. Milton Subotsky of Amicus Productions had gotten his partner Max Rosenberg to get the rights to Crypt because he was a big fan of the comics, and this soon led to Tales from the Crypt (1972), which cribbed from two Crypt stories, two Haunt stories, and one Vault story ("...And All Through the House"). It was the fourth of seven anthology horror films made by Amicus, which they did first in Dr. Terror's House of Horrors (1965); Vault, released as the penultimate one (From Beyond the Grave [1974] closed it out), is the only of the group without Peter Cushing in it. Funny enough, with this film that shares the name of Vault, all but one story is cribbed from stories originally seen in Crypt (with the exception of "The Neat Job", which came from Shock SuspenStories). Keen eyes will note a shot is seen of a character reading a book that shows a cover of the Crypt film (well, what film wouldn't be complete without a novelization). Subotsky co-produced the film and also wrote for it. 

I would say that the film is probably on par with Crypt, which has its own degree of recognizable faces to go with quick wonky ideas for horror (which may or may not be a bit more amusing when compared to the previous effort) that may or may not be up your alley. Each of the stories, when one considers the moments spent after each story that set the next one up (the main setup of all is five characters meeting in a sub-basement), each last for varying lengths. The first story is "Midnight Mess", runs for roughly 17 minutes. The fact that it features two actual siblings for actors to go with a reveal of just what goes on with a weird town...oh hell, it is full of vampires, complete with the use of a jugular vein for a specific purpose. I was fine with it, but obviously it is the climax that makes a pretty decent punchline more than anything in particular. One wishes for four longer stories rather than five short ones. "The Neat Job" is about 15 minutes long that goes with a setup of cleanups and neurosis that, well, I think you can see where it could go when you have a specific comedic type in Terry-Thomas. It is very, uh, predictable. "This Trick’ll Kill You" is about 15 minutes and involves magicians trying to get that one great trick in their sleeves, even if it involves murder. I enjoyed it just fine, mostly because Jurgens makes a quality cad to make the pursuit and result all the more involving, particularly with that final moment in a ceiling. "Bargain in Death" is the shortest story at roughly 11 minutes, which namely involves a mostly quiet Craig awaiting the chance to rise from the grave after coming up with an insurance fraud scheme, but things go awry with the setup of arising from the dig. Easily the least memorable. "Drawn and Quartered", combined with the denouement, is the longest story at 25 minutes. This is the fun one, although it is probably the most obvious because it sees a man get the power of voodoo in his painting hand. Baker (a year away from being most famous with his role as The Doctor on Doctor Who) has a strange quality to him that is unnerving in the ideal sense, and the revenge aspect of the story is at its most obvious and amusing. Of course, the ending is as contrived as one can think when you need to protect a painting of yourself, but, well, you get the idea, they are short stories with macabre ends for each lead actor because obviously the ending has to be similar to the one from the previous film about storytellers and the dead. As a whole, it is a step down from before in Amicus, lacking great star power or a real spine tingler story to really make the results worth it. Folks who like to complete their run through anthology or 70s Brit stuff might find something useful here, but it would only be as filler rather than as a classic. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Island of Lost Souls.

Theatre of Blood.

Review #2116: Theatre of Blood.

Cast: 

Vincent Price (Edward Lionheart), Diana Rigg (Edwina Lionheart), Ian Hendry (Peregrine Devlin), Harry Andrews (Trevor Dickman), Robert Coote (Oliver Larding), Michael Hordern (George Maxwell), Robert Morley (Meredith Merridew), Coral Browne (Chloe Moon), Jack Hawkins (Solomon Psaltery), Arthur Lowe (Horace Sprout), Dennis Price (Hector Snipe), Milo O'Shea (Inspector Boot), Eric Sykes (Sgt. Dogge), and Diana Dors (Maisie Psaltery) Directed by Douglas Hickox.

Review: 

"I think of myself as an interpretive director. I'm a narrative director, basically. An audience should become totally involved in the film, the actors and the story. They shouldn't be aware of the director at all or of how things are done."

I'm sure you are familiar with The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971) or its sequel. That film was directed by Robert Fuest with Vincent Price as the star that involved deaths with a bit of a theme to them (mostly in the original, which honed familiarity to the plagues). Fuest was actually asked about doing this film but declined by saying he didn't want to be "the guy who makes Vincent Price theme killing movies" (irony, as Fuest basically doomed his career by directing The Devil's Rain two years later). Instead, the film was directed by Douglas Hickox. He had directed a variety of musical shorts and commercials before becoming a feature director at the age of 41 in 1970. He directed a handful of films that had name actors star, whether that involved John Wayne in Brannigan (1975) or Burt Lancaster in Zulu Dawn (1979) to go with a few television shows before he died in 1988. Stanley Mann and John Kohn came up with the idea for the film before Anthony Greville-Bell wrote the screenplay. Apparently, Price later listed the film as one of his favorites he ever made. The theme for this film, if you didn't already guess, involves an actor-turned-killer going around reenacting the words of William Shakespeare while trying to get revenge of a considerable group of critics that apparently denied him the honor he most wanted as an actor to the point where it looked like he killed himself years before; this all starts with a man getting stabbed by a mob of people...on March 15, the Ides of March, the same day that Julius Caesar was murdered (as also covered in the Shakespeare play of the same name). As probably guessed, the film was a British production done on location, complete with filming a decent chunk at the Putney Hippodrome Theatre (auditorium, stage area, exterior) in the last significant use of the building before it was demolished in 1975.

Now this is one that seems practically made for folks like me, or at the very least people who adore Vincent Price in his element. How could you resist the urge for a film that has him act out the words of William Shakespeare going around trying to do creative death sequences? It manages to be better than both Phibes films when it comes to great theatricality in the face of amusing horror, and I would actually argue that it is Price at his best possible moment as an actor. The fact that the film also happens to contain a few other noted names in British cinema also helps make for a diverting film of pathos and humor in the best way. The 104-minute runtime is paced pretty well when it comes to Price and the others around him, mostly because it goes from the jump on ideas before eventually settling to some exposition and then its fiery climax. Price moves along from scene to scene by also getting to do a bit of dress up, which at one point sees him act as a hairdresser. This is the kind of material he was born to play in terms of horrific charm that is more than just scene-chewery but flat-out dominance of composed elegance. He had saved a whole bunch of films before from just being blank mediocrities or just fine B-films (at least until his roles became a bit slower by the mid-1970s), here is one just for him to hold in lunacy. Of course, folks like Rigg do pretty well too, since she plays support in derangement for a semi-significant part that is fairly fun as well. Hendry is the leader among the folks trying to avoid the ax, which mostly involves tempered snobbery that lends interest for the ones who are less fortunate (such as Morley, who gets to be a bit flamboyant right before having to realize that he is being fed pies...made from his dogs), while O'Shea plays the resident authority figure trying to make head or tails of it.  The buildup for the climax does slow the film down a bit when it comes to some oddly included exposition (hey, a man looks like he jumped into the Thames, who needs explanation?), but at least the ending seems just about on point for one more enduring line about critics and the nature of performances. This was a film released in the midst of a decade that saw horror perhaps shift a bit grislier away from the stuff that made Price an attraction, but everything still mostly clicks here for enjoyment that has also not aged after a half-century because of its entertaining composure and timing that is held in check by one really damn fun actor for all it is worth. It isn't a perfect film, but it probably is up there as one of Price's best showcases, and that is a really good thing to say from a horror perspective.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next: Cabin Fever.

Redux: The Exorcist.

Redux #037: The Exorcist.

Cast: 

Ellen Burstyn (Chris MacNeil), Max von Sydow (Father Lankester Merrin), Lee J. Cobb (Lieutenant William F. Kinderman), Kitty Winn (Sharon Spencer), Jack MacGowran (Burke Dennings), Jason Miller (Father / Dr. Damien Karras, S.J.), Linda Blair (Regan MacNeil; Eileen Dietz as stand-in), Father William O'Malley (Father Joseph Dyer), Barton Heyman (Dr. Samuel Klein), Peter Masterson (Dr. Barringer), with Rudolf Schündler (Karl, House Servant), and Mercedes McCambridge (The Voice of Pazuzu) Directed by William Friedkin.

Review: 

From my review on April 22, 2011: 

To be honest, I found this film to be a little underwhelming. The first hour is just talking, and building up to the Exorcism. It finally comes, and we do see the scariness in the Devil. I felt underwhelmed for the first half, but the second half helped. The acting is decent, with some scare from Regan and special effects that hold up to this day.

"When [William Peter Blatty] wrote this book he knew that I had a background in documentary films as well, and he wanted the story to be filmed as realistically as possible, and so did I. We did not want to make a scary horror film or a fantasy film. At that time as well as today, the public knows very little about exorcism, little to nothing. Everything that is known about it is sensationalized in the public, and certainly the film I made contributed to that; there is no question about it. Because people regarded it as a horror film. But I made the film as a believer." - William Friedkin.

Admittedly, there are a handful of reasons one could do to look back upon The Exorcist in 2023. For one thing, the film (released in late December) is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. Another thing is that 2023 is also the beckoning of a new "Exorcist film", specifically one that is serving as the first of a new trilogy that follows just the original film, complete with a returning cast member from before that makes its premiere on the very first Friday of October. Another is the fact that it seems appropriate to look back upon the career of its director William Friedkin, who passed away in August. But for me, I think the best reason of all is the fact that Movie Night's very first review of a film in the horror genre way back over a decade ago, was this very film. Granted, it wasn't the first horror film I ever saw, because in addition to those R-rated action films, I watched a few horror films before I was even 15, as one might do, but it certainly was a big film that one can hold up within the horror genre...and I guess I really set it up so highly in my head that it only seemed good enough for an 8/10 rating. The quantity and quality of the review is obvious, so here is a chance to re-write that wrong. The film is adapted from William Peter Blatty's 1971 novel of the same name, which was inspired by events that had allegedly been occurred in 1949 with a boy named only "Roland Doe". Blatty had heard about it when studying at Georgetown University (studying in English, which he also did for a master's degree at George Washington University), but what set him on the path to write it was seeing the film adaptation of Ira Levin's novel in Rosemary's Baby (1968), which pleased him right until the ending involving the resolution of the unborn child. Once a comic novelist and a screenwriter for comedies, the resulting success of the novel was tremendous, to put it lightly, and he got his wish to have William Friedkin serve as director with the success of The French Connection (1972). Friedkin was raised in the Jewish faith, but he found himself more welcoming of the teachings of Jesus as a declared agnostic. As such, when it came to influences, one film cited was Carl Theodor Dreyer's Ordet (1955). As such, Friedkin hired actual priests to appear in the film along with serve as technical advisors. Over four decades later, he would direct a documentary titled The Devil and Father Amorth (2017), which featured Father Gabriele Amorth, an exorcist for the Diocese of Rome that had mentioned Friedkin's film in his first book (An Exorcist Tells His Story). Friedkin worked closely with Blatty on the screenplay (the latter served as both screenwriter and producer). Blatty would write two further novels involving faith with The Ninth Configuration (1978) and Legion (1983), for which the latter served as the sequel to the aforementioned Exorcist; Blatty spearheaded the film adaptations of both novels as director in 1980 for Configuration and 1990 for the now retitled Exorcist III. Forty years after publishing the novel, Blatty did a revising of the novel that added a new chapter.

The original cut of the film lasted 122 minutes after Warner Bros. suggested cuts in order to fit more screenings, which Friedkin did. However, in 2000, a "The Version You've Never Seen" version was released that features a handful of cut sequences from before, most notably with the final scene that seems more in line with the book, which results in a runtime of 132 minutes. The mysteries that matter most to the film, true to Friedkin's word, are ones of faith, goodness, and the one of inexplicability. It is is a carefully built film on intense scale that is best enjoyed with great patience. Calling it the first of anything in horror is perhaps a too bit lofty to use, because of previous great horror films such as Psycho (1960), but I'm sure you can see the importance of a film like this beyond just calling it a film about possession, because it is a film of sacrifice and finding one's faith. The power of that comes with the cast to hold up such tremendous production values, for which I'm sure you would already guess. There were a variety of actors considered for key roles in terms of the desires of Warner Bros., such as asking Audrey Hepburn first about the leading role (she declined, as did a few others) or the late switching of Stacy Keach for Jason Miller (playwright of That Championship Season). Both Burstyn and Miller were big on doing these roles (the former was quoted as believing it to be destiny to play the role and the latter, who had studied for the priesthood, felt that he was Karras). Friedkin got his way with the casting of both actors and the rest eventually fell into place, which even included a critic of the book in O'Malley. Each of the core cast succeed in drawing a film of dread within atmosphere that is homed in realism as much as one can expect when seeing vomit or a cerebral angiography or whatever strikes a nerve in the realm of anxiety, moral or otherwise. The film is as much Miller's film as it is one of Burstyn & Blair when it comes to the driving point because of how he draws you with such intensity that comes from a great array of guilt and wavering spirit. Don't get me wrong though, Burstyn and Blair do just as well, with the former's sense of fear for her loved one shining through with the scattered innocence/corruption of Blair providing great terror. True, there is a certain voice quality in dubbing that can only come from an Academy Award winner in McCambridge and a minimal use of a double for intense scenes, but I think you know what I mean when I say that Blair went through the whirlwind and survived with a useful performance. Von Sydow and Cobb provide grizzled support that you greet for those familiar with those actors or voices (the former in aged makeup, of course). It is a film that builds in the terror of what enfold before you get to that exorcism, and it probably stands to reason that any film since this one involving exorcisms or possession has considerable ground to cover when it comes to trying to play distinct from this one. None have probably stokes half of the controversy that comes with its tone of haunting qualities or religious fervor, for better or worse. The sacrifice made at the end, now combined with the revised ending, makes it all the more involving as a film fit for its age and genre, a useful lesson for horror through and through.

In the end, what is about The Exorcist that makes it endure so vividly in reputation? There are a variety of factors, but the most important is that Friedkin and company had the faith required to craft a film as straight to the line as they wished to do that struck a nerve within the viewer of the time that works just as well now because it respected its viewer with patience and craftsmanship to make for a worthy unsettling time. It is probably hard to figure just which Friedkin film ranks among his best, but it is perhaps The Exorcist that endures most when it comes to the realm of looking forward to the season of horror or perhaps the time to look upon one's faith, and that is perhaps worth more than anything in the material sense.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Well, the clock is soon to strike 12 on October, so why not get a head start? October will be quite the showcase to show a wide variety of horror films from the past such as The Monster to the current year within The Exorcist: Believer. We shall see how many films get a spotlight here and what finds its way for the first week of November.

Turkish Delight.

Review #2069: Turkish Delight.

Cast: 

Monique van de Ven (Olga Stapels), Rutger Hauer (Eric Vonk), Tonny Huurdeman (Olga's Mother), Wim van den Brink (Olga's Father), Hans Boskamp (Shop Manager), and Dolf de Vries (Paul) Directed by Paul Verhoeven (#002 - RoboCop, #632 - Total Recall, #1922 - Starship Troopers, #2046 - Flesh and Blood)

Review: 

Admittedly, there has to be a good reason to cover an erotic romantic drama film, particularly since this is probably the first review where one can accurately call it the biggest skin flick ever covered here. But why the hell not? The only real guideline for covering world cinema or any kind of movie is it has to be something interesting or promising enough (religious films and other certain films have a separate wall to try and get over). But the most important thing to know is that it actually ranks as the most popular Dutch film of the 20th century. No, seriously, the amount of people who have been known to see the film when it first came out a half-century ago corresponds to about a quarter of the population of the Netherlands. Obviously, film festivals won't tell you the whole story, but the country's film festival inducted it into the "Canon of Dutch Cinema". It is based on the 1969 novel of the same name (Turks fruit, in its native Dutch) by author/sculptor Jan Wolkers, who based the character of Olga of two of his wives and a separate woman. I'm sure you can tell that the book had quite a bit of fame to it by the fact that in one of the posters, the biggest part of the posters is Wolkers and the name of the book, and a cursory glance at a synopsis sees that that the film retains a good chunk of the overall structure from the book (of course, the book doesn't lend the man a name).

Do I need to say that the film is a hell of a trip for an adult to watch? You've got a film that goes from a revenge fantasy involving shooting someone in a dream going right to a scene of that same man, uh, well, finding a way to thrust his frustrations out. One will find folks finding horse's eyes in food or perhaps finding the best way to express their feelings in being in a room with certain folks is to throw up. Or perhaps you will find something to think about more than what's on the surface of cutting off hair from down under. Hauer had made his debut in television with Verhoeven's Floris television show in 1969. There of course would be numerous collaborations with the director, and both he and van de Ven starred in Verhoeven's next feature with Keetje Tippel. This was the film debut for van de Ven. Incidentally, this is the second of five films with Verhoeven as director where Jan de Bont (van de Ven's husband, coincidentally) shot the film, and he also had shot Blue Movie, the other big Dutch film involving sex that generated controversy first in 1971. All of this is a bit of window dressing to go for the fact that they make the ideal pairing to show the true qualities that comes within love in its thrusts and decay. You have the impulsive and energetic sensibilities expressed in van de Ven to go along with the raw coarse energy of Hauer that shows exactly how these two could ooze in and out of each other's lives without a sense of false notes. It is the type of erotic film that does not shy away from showing everything that comes in seeing both raw passion and debauchery. The intensity that come from these two could probably be used to generate heat for a grill, to put it lightly, although you can say that the other actors (the ones not involved in taking their clothes off) do their part pretty well in showing the contrasts that come within what people call "normal life", whether that involves telling the same jokes or reacting to the type of person their daughter has brought to their world. The film rewards those who look beyond images of sex and sees the side that comes out with looking on both sides of someone keeping a pigeon or marking the ultimate end of two star-crossed lovers for what makes a capable 108 minutes. With most of the marks and scratches you could expect from a film made by such a marksman in frank honesty, Turkish Delight is the kind of film to recommend for those who are mature enough to understand the passions of the day and especially those of the night, for which it endures heavily within its Dutch origin for pretty good reasons.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Son of Godzilla, because, well, why not?

The Friends of Eddie Coyle.

Review #2063: The Friends of Eddie Coyle.

Cast: 

Robert Mitchum (Eddie Coyle), Peter Boyle (Dillon), Richard Jordan (Dave Foley), Steven Keats (Jackie Brown), Alex Rocco (Jimmy Scalise), Joe Santos (Artie Van), Mitchell Ryan (Waters), Helena Carroll (Sheila Coyle), Jack Kehoe (The Beard), Margaret Ladd (Andrea), and James Tolkan (The Man's Contact Man) Directed by Peter Yates (#506 - Bullitt, #927 - Krull, and #1197 - The Deep)

Review: 

In 1970, George V. Higgins saw his first novel in The Friends of Eddie Coyle become published. Formerly, he had served his native Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a deputy assistant attorney general alongside as an Assistant United State Attorney. Higgins dabbled as a novelist when not involved in private practice in law that distilled the words that he would hear from gangsters and made them the kind of thing you would hear in a great potboiler. Better writers than me can lend you some context within the scene of Boston and gangs (as presented here). It made some sense to have Peter Yates as director, as his third effort with Robbery (1967) had given him a chance to direct Bullitt (1968), a movie packed with a car chase so notable that I'm sure those who view it now will talk about with fanfare; Yates directed a variety of genres besides crime of course, but, well, we are here to talk about a film that was underappreciated by audiences in its time. This is the first of only two adaptations of a Higgins book, with the only other one being Killing Them Softly (2012). Paul Monash wrote the screenplay while serving as producer. Of the films that Yates made, he stated that the three films he was most proud of was Breaking Away (1979), The Dresser (1983), and this film.

When it comes to the grimy classics of a decade as ideal for grimy films as the 1970s were, you can't really go wrong with this one. Life is hard, but it sure is harder if you are stupid, as is reflected within the dialogue that is told with such dedicated efficiency. Before you get to films of the region such as The Town (2010) or The Departed (2006), you might want to consider this one when it comes to looking at the people that dwell in the corners of crime. This isn't merely just the big-timers or two-bit hustlers, it involves folks wrapped firmly in the middle, the kind that are referred to with irony as having friends. It rewards those who value character presences such as Boyle or Keats to serve in the lines behind the immeasurable Mitchum. One of the cast members actually was formerly involved in organized crime within the East in Rocco, who was linked loosely with the Winter Hill Gang in the Boston area that had seen him accused of being involved in an assault on a diner owner. Apparently, when Mitchum had asked to see a local gangster for research, Rocco tapped him to see Howie Winter, who was still part of the gang. Of course, Mitchum having an accent that has been looked upon favorably among select folks in the region is not a surprise given the veteran actor's immense talent that relies heavily on seeing this one man in the time he has remaining in such a weary existence that knows his strengths and weaknesses when it comes to the life put upon him. This includes moments spent with Carroll to remind oneself of just what is really at stake when it comes to playing information or not (it isn't a movie built on overt violence, basically). Only Mitchum could waltz right into a role like this with such natural skill that it seems that nobody could have done it better. He may be a hustler of guns, but he is our hustler and his dilemma matters more than anything to us, particularly since we know the game that comes in Boyle, who provides such a worthy mobster presence in subtlety on the level of a snake. Jordan is the leading authority (with pretty good results) to watch upon these distinct elements of crime that is thoroughly unglamourous. Violent or not, you know what kind of underworld you are in with this film in folks such as Keats and Rocco that obviously accomplish what is required in the shades of laying out plans in their own scope that can only go the way things go with the unending world of crime moving on with or without the best laid-out plans working right. The robbing aren't the most important part, because it is a slow boiler all about seeing what happens to Mitchum as a battle of pride, one that works out to effective drama with no sense of false note moral by its end. In that sense, it is a worthwhile crime film wrapped firmly in its Boston surroundings for a worthwhile time of grime. Bleak and unflinching, it stands worthy of its time rather than one that flinches away.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.