Death Line.

Review #2458: Death Line.

Cast: 

Donald Pleasence (Inspector Calhoun), Norman Rossington (Detective Sergeant Rogers), David Ladd (Alex Campbell), Sharon Gurney (Patricia Wilson), Hugh Armstrong (The Man"), June Turner ("The Woman"), Clive Swift (Inspector Richardson), James Cossins (James Manfred, OBE), Heather Stoney (W.P.C. Alice Marshall), Hugh Dickson (Dr. Bacon), Jack Woolgar (Platform Inspector), Ron Pember (Lift Operator), Colin McCormack (Police Constable), James Culliford (publican), Christopher Lee (Stratton-Villiers, MI5) Directed by Gary Sherman (#1199 - Poltergeist III)

Review: 

I did want to so this film last October but honestly didnt have time. Hey, what's another year when talking about a British-American effort. This was the feature film debut of Gary Sherman, who actually described himself as an artist in search of a medium from a young age. He studied at IIT's Institute of Design and one professor told him that instead of design, he was the type that should aim to be a photographer. One of the ways that he was working his way through schools was play in a band and they inquired about trying to record at Chess Records. Sherman's ability to read music helped him in getting to sing backing vocals and lurk around the place, which intersected with him finding an 16mm Arriflex camera at school when work wanted to assign someone to photograph people at work. He ended up becoming a filmmaker when it came to a chance decision to film a recording session involving Bo Diddley at the studio. The result was a 30-minute short called The Legend of Bo Diddley in 1966. He then was asked to do a "music performance film" for The Seeds (among other groups) and the result was that he was asked by an ad agency if he wanted to shoot ads and commercials for them; he moved to London by 1968 apparently due to his experiences at the 1968 DNC. Years later, when working in London, his producing partner Jonathan Demme kept telling him to make a movie. While writing essentially stuff for themselves, John Daly of Hemdale Film came up and suggested to write something somebody would want to make, which, well, why not horror? Sherman came up with the story while Ceri Jones wrote the screenplay for a production that was financed internationally between Paul Maslansky, Alan Ladd Jr and Jay Kanter. Apparently, American International Pictures bought the film out from the financiers in what was called "cross-collateralization" (or bullshit in Sherman's eyes) and they essentially hacked the film away for American release as "Raw Meat", complete with a lurid poster making it look like a zombie movie that Sherman hated completely. At any rate, while the AIP experience burned him out a bit, Sherman did eventually make a few more theatrical films when not doing work on commercials, most notably with Dead & Buried (1981).

Sherman apparently was influenced by the classism he saw by the British (specifically in how apparently construction of certain tunnels saw mistreatment for the workers) alongside the legend of Sawney Bean. The legend apparently was about a person that was said to be the head of a Scottish clan in the 16th century that cannibalized over a thousand people in a span of 25 years. It was the kind of thing that could be found in the literature of the streets (you might recognize that The Hills Have Eyes [1977] took its own inspiration from the tale). So in essence you get two stories: the strange world of the outside world through class and the underworld toil for survival. Power matters, I suppose. Undeniably, the movie has one really entertaining presence: Donald Pleasance, who practically never seems to fail in the great art of scene-chewing with the confidence to back whatever needs to happen for the particular role. Its hard to toe the line of competent and odd for an authority figure, but he achieves that with such gusto that you can't help but smile at seeing him basically stumble into weird things beyond the usual fare. This basically covers for the fact that Ladd and Gurney are merely just okay, since they don't get much to really do when not engaged in banter (maybe there is something about the differences between Pleasance and Ladd in interrogation, but it doesnt really go anywhere). Apparently, Lee wanted to do the movie to be on the same set as Pleasance, even taking scale pay. Of course, Lee and Pleasance* have a bit of a height difference (eight inches), but its just as well to have him there for a moment not needing to bare fangs. Sherman wanted Armstrong for the cannibal right from the jump, even when the possibility of casting Marlon Brando (the first agent of Brando in Kanter approached him), but Brando had a family emergency so Sherman got Armstrong. He doesn't get to say much,  but his weary beaten-down nature makes for a relatively capable performance in evoking some pity for the lone creature of the dark. The movie rides on atmosphere and dwelling on what matters most for the supposed "British dignity" that is sometimes curious and yet sometimes feels a bit wanting, though it at least is paced fine at 87 minutes despite its puzzling ending. As a whole, Death Line is a solid first effort from Sherman and company that might inspire interest in what it ends up showing in its realm of having one solid performance carry things to the finish line in relatively quirky and sometimes involving horror for the season.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next: Halloween extravaganza.

*Famously, Christopher Lee was one of the people who rejected the role of Sam Loomis in Halloween (1978).

Catch Us If You Can.

Review #2403: Catch Us If You Can.

Cast: 

Dave Clark (Steve), Barbara Ferris (Dinah), David Lodge (Louis), Robin Bailey (Guy), Yootha Joyce (Nan), David de Keyser (Zissell), Clive Swift (Duffle), Ronald Lacey (Yeano), Hugh Walters (Grey), Michael Gwynn (Hardingford), with Lenny Davidson (Lenny), Rick Huxley (Rick), Mike Smith (Mike, and Denis Payton (Denis) Directed by John Boorman (#565 - Zardoz, #975 - Deliverance, #1210 - Excalibur, #1915 - Exorcist II: The Heretic, #2224 - Point Blank)

Review: 

The 1960s had plenty of room for rock and roll bands to get their shot, so of course here is a movie coming off the heels of the "British Invasion". The Dave Clark Five actually started as a backing musician group in 1958 before becoming their own real band in 1962 in London that had each member play varying instruments (Clark for example, played drums while also being the manager and song co-writer while the vocals were done by Mike Smith). The band had a handful of songs that made the charts, most notably with "Glad All Over", and they were the second group to go on the Ed Sullivan Show after the Beatles had done so in early 1964 (apparently, one band manager of the time argued that the early success of the Clark Five was actually a rival to the Beatles). The band disbanded in 1970, but Clark kept on with another self-titled band for a few more years. Apparently, the impetus for the movie that became known as "Catch Us If You Can" in some markets and "Having a Wild Weekend" in places such as America was because Nat Cohen had missed out on producing A Hard Day's Night. He found a producer with David Deutsch to helm the movie. The movie was written by playwright Peter Nichols, who apparently did it in need of money. The result of a script that Nichols labeled a "pretentious odyssey about middle-aged entrepreneurs exploiting young talent, crammed with irony, philosophic overtones and three-syllable words" was filmed with apparently few of his words actually filmed, probably because of having to work with actors that weren't particularly experienced. The director would be John Boorman, a clerical instructor in the British Army-turned-journalist-turned-newsroom man-turned-documentary filmmaker. Catch Us If You Can wasn't a major success, but Boorman followed it up with 1967's Point Blank (as co-written by Alexander Jacobs, who was an assistant to Deutsch on the aforementioned Catch movie) and 1968's Hell in the Pacific.

I do wish I liked the movie, but for whatever reason, my memory of the film started to diminish in what I actually liked about it the more it stuck around in my brain. Being sandwiched between band-related ventures such as A Hard Day's Night [1964] and Head [1968] (speaking of movies featuring groups with curious observations about people that are far better than Catch Us If You Can) probably does not help matters. It isn't so much that the movie isn't a subdued mess, it just so happens the movie is a puddle of ideas that only come across in vague terms that aren't helped with the lack of one commanding performance. You have Clark and Ferris going around in episodic adventures encountering varying levels of weird people (read: British) that is sometimes curious but not nearly as interesting as it believes itself to be. Ferris had a handful of roles in her career, mostly in the 1960s, and she does relatively fine in hurried timing, as one does when the camera (read: Boorman focusing on the actor) likes to focus on her worries in the prism of youth. It might be taken as being a commentary of fame and the culture of the time that mostly involves a bunch of weird people, I suppose. It just doesn't feel incisive enough to really make any interesting observations beneath the obvious that is pretty hollow (oh don't go with "but that's the point", even movies that like to talk about hollow people at least have venom) and it barely feels enthusiastic enough to make one inquire further of the Clark Five (get it, they play stuntmen in the film rather than musicians). It just comes and goes with the vibes of someone trying to make the best of muddy thoughts that is too elusive to actually hold on to. At least it looks nice and has a few "heh" gags, at least, mostly in strange timing and the ending is at least elusive enough to invite curiosity, but it just never feels like a complete experience. As a whole, it might be more of a curiosity for the road later travelled with Boorman than as some sort of great experience, which is both a blessing and curse for those who like to check out movies now celebrating sixty years.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Excalibur.

Review #1210: Excalibur.

Cast: 
Nigel Terry (King Arthur), Helen Mirren (Morgana Le Fay), Nicholas Clay (Sir Lancelot), Cherie Lunghi (Queen Guenevere), Paul Geoffrey (Sir Perceval), Nicol Williamson (Merlin), Corin Redgrave (Duke of Cornwall), Patrick Stewart (King Leodegrance), Keith Buckley (Sir Uryens), Clive Swift (Sir Ector), Liam Neeson (Sir Gawain), Gabriel Byrne (King Uther Pendragon), and Robert Addie (Prince Mordred) Directed by John Boorman (#565 - Zardoz and #975 - Deliverance)

Review: 
The legend of King Arthur is a myth that has lived on in various forms of media for centuries, such as in prose or in novel form. Naturally it has served as something to adapt to the world of film, each having their own sort of style to tell the tale - whether involving a comedic take (A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, itself an adaptation of a novel from Mark Twain), or as an adaptation of a Broadway musical in Camelot (1967), or as a parody in Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975). In 1969, John Boorman had wanted to make a film about the Merlin legend. His plans to do the film with United Artists did not come to pass owing to the scope of the script (for which he wrote with Rospo Pallenberg), with the studio offering him the chance to do an adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. While Boorman did not end up doing an adaptation of such material, he incorporated set design and imagery ideas from that stalled attempt for this film, which is based off the prose Le Morte d'Arthur by Thomas Malory. It is obvious that Boorman clearly wanted to make the definitive version of the legend, utilizing its 140 minute run-time to try and make a big grand story spectacle from life to death. It reads a bit like a history paper written in a fever dream by someone who really wants to get all of this information down before it flashes away - it may seem a bit long, but that's because he really wants to wow you with all that is going on. The spectacle does tend to outweigh the actual characters at times, and a lesser made film would buckle under the pressure - but Boorman manages to keep it all together to make an engaging fever dream of a movie.

The film has an interesting look to it, owing to the lighting choices (such as the forest scenes or parts involving the sword) that occurred due to production having rain fall on each day of the shoot, filmed entirely in Ireland. The result makes it seem like one is watching a otherworldly type of movie, with eerie and fitting cinematography from Alex Thomson. The aluminium on the knights glistens well at times, especially. The key highlight of the film is Williamson, who can switch from clever wit to foreboding when needed, wise and tricky as one would hope. He sells the film well whenever he pops up on screen, that is for sure. Terry (who dabbled in film on occasion when not on the British stage) has the task of trying to play the man of the myth from adolescence all the way to a withered man without seeming lost in the tale - he does just fine with that. Mirren (also known for her work in the theatre) isn't given too much depth with her conniving part, but at least she is game to have some scheming fun for her moments. Clay and Lunghi don't fare as great, each being a bit passive while not having too much chemistry of sorts with Terry, whether friend or lover. It doesn't come to the point where it undercuts the film as a whole, but it feels more haphazard than it probably should. Geoffrey ends up having to try and help carry the film a bit for the film's last half, and while he does seemingly make the role grow from when he is introduced, he can't help make it seem that the film could run out of steam when it tries to give focus on the Grail. The others of the cast fill their roles when required (including early performances on film for Stewart and Neeson, which is neat in some way). The film promotes itself on nobility and comradeship from its fabled Knights of the Round Table, where the king embodies the land he and his subjects walk on. It is a film that indulges in sets of armor, violence and a sense of hope, juggling itself amiably as an epic that merits its own place in entertainment among fantasy films. Perhaps it doesn't hold up as well as it should with some of its narrative workings, but it makes up for it with plenty of fun, spectacle and a fairly game cast that works out a quest of the legend and comes up with most of the right ideas in time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.