Showing posts with label Dorothy Neumann. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dorothy Neumann. Show all posts

October 13, 2025

Private Parts (1972).

Review #2440: Private Parts (1972).

Cast: 
Ayn Ruymen (Cheryl Stratton), Lucille Benson (Aunt Martha Atwood), John Ventantonio (George Atwood), Laurie Main (Reverend Moon), Stanley Livingston (Jeff), Charles Woolf (Jeff's dad), Ann Gibbs (Judy), Len Travis (Mike), Dorothy Neumann (Mrs. Quigley), Gene Simms (First policeman), John Lupton (Second policeman), and Patrick Strong (Artie) Directed by Paul Bartel (#955 - Eating Raoul, #2231 - Death Race 2000)

Review: 
"If you wish you hadn't seen it, it's bad bad taste. If you feel you were brought dangerously close to the edge, but at the end you were made to laugh or learn something, then it's good bad taste."

It really is a terrible thing to be called Private Parts, if you think about it, so imagine if that was your film debut. This was the case for one Paul Bartel. Born in Brooklyn but raised in Manhattan and New Jersey, Bartel had an interest in film from a young age and apparently spent time assisting cartoonists at UPA, as one does when fascinated with marionettes before they turn 10. He studied at UCLA and made short films that got him a scholarship to study film in Rome. The Secret Cinema (1966), a short detailing a woman being secretly filmed by manipulators around them, was his first prominent short film. Gene Corman served as producer of the movie, a cheapie meant to be for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. The working title of the movie was "Blood Relations" before MGM president James Aubrey suggested the change. Go figure: local newspapers saw "Private Parts" and said, nope, too shocking to print, which defeats the whole purpose of a title (in some places, they just called it "Private Arts"). The movie was written by Philip Kearney and Les Rendelstein (screenwriters of this, Strange Invasion [1965], and nothing else), who apparently knew a few oddballs in the underworld of Los Angeles; they were UCLA guys around the same time as Bartel, who apparently did some re-writes to the script. Premier Productions was the distributor of the movie, but actually it was just a subsidiary of MGM, who apparently was embarrassed by the sex and violence but wouldn't just sell it to someone who actually cared. Well, given that they were in the business of doing a horror movie, what exactly were they expecting, Rosemary's Baby?* Bartel appeared in a variety of movies (cameo or supporting, as one expects from a character actor) while often appearing his own directorial efforts, of which he made a total of nine movies before he died in 2000 at the age of 61.

It's a neat little sleazy movie that happens to have a change in mood right around the climax that Bartel stated had an impact with why test audiences were not as big on it as you might expect. He once stated that you had to "be detached from the film and not take it seriously" in order to appreciate it, which may prove fascinating for a movie that does seem pretty relevant more than ever. Sure, some people probably know who their neighbors are (anonymity is the goal but not expected), but there are likely some secrets best not worth knowing everything about; basically, this is a movie for those who like to pair their movies with Psycho or Peeping Tom. It has a few moments of gore but is also just as amusing in the weird spaces that you see for 87 minutes. This is the first and only credited movie for Ruymen, who had done a handful of theater productions and even getting on Broadway with Neil Simon's The Gingerbread Lady*. She did a handful of television appearances over the next few years and has mostly spent time directing for the small stage. She pulls off an interesting performance here, mainly because she has the fascinating challenge of playing eager youth without just being a final target. She does pretty well in balancing that tightrope, doing so with a certain shaky type of charm to go with the foibles of youth that can make one chuckle just as much as grimace. Undeniably, Benson shines the best among the cast, proving to be unsettling without having to strain to make one get the idea as one might expect from a character depicted going to funeral to take photos. You know something is a bit up with her from the jump but you are entranced at the self confidence that comes in that type of belief of self-righteousness about the nature of men and women. It also happens to be the only movie for Ventantonio, who is fairly unsettling, albeit for a movie that relies plenty on having an unsettling feeling on what one is allowed to see. You get plenty to see in images and other things in the landscape two-fold: a person we first see observing someone having sex and a person we soon see observing others from their abode while you also get some side moments with eccentrics (one of them played by Bartel, naturally) to remind you that there can be just as much unease without bloodshed. Uneven or not, there is at least something for everyone even for a slasher film that likes to show a mirror at the world and chuckle a bit at what we see in malaise. Look, there are people who don't respect horror and then there are those who are willing to believe that comedy just doesn't work with horror. But Private Parts (1972) is a neat little movie that happens to dwell in the macabre with eccentric energy that might be right up your alley for a strange time in the horror season.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Hey, we don't hate Rosemary's Baby here, I just think it's funny to rag on it. Or Hereditary. Or people who call Sinners anything other than straight horror. No it isn't a musical, stop lying to yourself.
*The play actually lasted just five months on Broadway. The only other movie with Ruymen in it was Jaws, she played a nurse and didn't get screen credit.
*I do find a bit strange Wikipedia terms it as "LGBTQ-related film", since we are talking about a movie where someone injects blood into an inflatable sex doll full of water. Not exactly something you'd want to fly the flag for, you know?

October 18, 2023

The Undead.

Review #2113: The Undead.

Cast: 
Pamela Duncan (Diana Love/Helene), Richard Garland (Pendragon), Allison Hayes (Livia), Val Dufour (Quintus Ratcliff), Mel Welles (Smolkin), Dorothy Neumann (Meg-Maud), Billy Barty (The Imp), Bruno VeSota (Scroop), Aaron Saxon (Gobbo), Richard Devon (Satan), and Dick Miller (The Leper) Produced and Directed by Roger Corman (#368 The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, #852 - The Terror, #931 - Not of This Earth, #1007 - Attack of the Crab Monsters, #1039 - Five Guns West#1042 - War of the Satellites, #1136 - Gas-s-s-s, #1147 - X: The Man with the X-ray Eyes#1186 A Bucket of Blood, #1423 The Wild Angels, #1425 The St. Valentine's Day Massacre, #1674 - Machine-Gun Kelly, #1684 - Creature from the Haunted Sea, #1918 - House of Usher, #2030 - The Trip)

Review: 
Somehow, I think I am a bit generous with Roger Corman. He managed to make films in a variety of genres as either a director or a producer that later saw him receive a variety of nicknames such as "The King of Cult". 1957 alone saw him direct/produce eight films. He was not above using a few familiar actors from film to film, as this and Attack of the Crab Monsters (released a month apart from each other) share three key actors (Duncan, Garland, Welles). Apparently, the inspiration for the film came in the wake of the Bridey Murphy craze, in which a series of articles written by William J. Barker told about a woman who was put in a trance of "hypnotic regression" that had her speak about her alleged past life. The hypnotist, Morey Bernstein, wrote a book that was published in 1956. That book would be turned into a film that very same year, but I'm sure you don't need me to invite mockery upon the idea of "past reincarnation". The film was written by Charles B. Griffith and Mark Hanna, with the former remarking that it was "in iambic pentameter" before having to rewrite it upon the time of shooting because Corman (who had sent it out to various people on the street) was worried that folks wouldn't  understand. Griffith was the co-writer on It Conquered the World (1956), Gunslinger (1956), Not of This Earth (1956), and Flesh and the Spur [1956], with all but the first being written with Hanna, and people familiar with Attack of the 50 Foot Woman (1958) will note that Hanna wrote the film that had the same star from this one. This sets of the film were done in a converted supermarket (along with a few things shot in a house nicknamed "The Witch's House" in Beverly Hills) and shot in less than two weeks. 

Okay, so here is how they get to the whole "past lives" thing: a psychic researcher is so damn curious about past lives that he hires a prostitute for $500 to undergo a trance (for 48 hours) to access her past life all while his former teacher stands there. This trip turns out to be one of the Middle Ages (an English-speaking place, specifically) in which her past self is set to die as one accused of being a witch, and the idea of escape attracts the attention of both good and bad witches and a few others such as, uh, Satan. It may all sound like a good deal of hooey, and, well, it kind of is, but if one knows what they are getting into with Corman and his crafty hands, you may actually have an odd and offbeat time with this to enjoy. This is the kind of movie that features a dance in a graveyard to go with an absolutely silly portrayal of Satan that might as well be fit for the dinner theater, where at least one expects a loose wall for a set. The film is loopy and just barely over an hour to throw whatever what one does to try and throw the book against lapses of logic that perhaps would make a wonky double feature with, say, The Terror (1963). Most of the people here have their foibles with this dialogue (or in the case of Barty, having a ball in playing it silly), but there is a sort of weird state to it all that seems entertaining regardless, as if acting on a cloud is more suitable than trying to lean all the way into iambic pentameter. Duncan at least makes the effort of worried tension, which only results in amusing sequences such as the one near the end about one should stay or go within an execution. At least Hayes seems suitably rough-and-tumble for the part. I'm not even sure what the deal is supposed to be with Dufour when it comes to the buildup to the climax, because even the best sci-fi mumbo jumbo probably wouldn't explain his motivations (perhaps you are curious: he goes back to the past under the same hypno-whatever as the prostitute had and in the commotion over whether the past girl will head to the chopping block didn't think to wonder what would happen that link to the past wound up dead with him still there). When it comes to ratings, eh, a 6/10 hereisnt a positive review, but it matches what I feel about the film. As a whole, it isn't a particularly good winner, but I did find some curiosity with the idea of doomed fates and weirdo motivations in half-baked hokum that comes out in the early years of Roger Corman and company trying to play trends to the masses. It barely ranks in horror, but it makes curious spectacle all the same.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.
Next: Dracula 2000...and something else for Thursday.

October 21, 2016

The Terror (1963).


Review #852: The Terror.

Cast: 
Boris Karloff (Baron von Leppe/Eric), Jack Nicholson (Andre Duvalier), Dick Miller (Stefan), Sandra Knight (Helene/Ilsa), Dorothy Neumann (Katrina the Witch), and Jonathan Haze (Gustaf) Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors and #684 - It Conquered the World)

Review: 
It figures that I get to a Roger Corman movie for this month, and it just so happens to have Jack Nicholson in one of his earliest roles, alongside Boris Karloff. The idea for the movie came not because of a really great idea for a movie, but because Corman wanted to take advantage of sets left over from another production of his, The Raven. In fact, Karloff's scenes were done in three days, and he later described Corman as having "the sketchiest outline of a story.", which is amusing. One thing I can say is that there are some good looking sets, and some moderately entertaining effects. The movie is a bit of a mess, suffice to say, but what do you expect? In addition to Corman, there were four other people who directed parts of the movie (Francis Ford Coppola, Monte Hellman, Jack Hill, and Jack Nicholson), with an 81 minute run time as well. The movie runs at such a strange jumbled pace, with a small cast making up the characters and plot twists being revealed here and there, which one should remember was written for the price of $1,600. You might as well make a flow chart for the movie, or set up a bingo card of things that happen (witch being struck by lightning got me bingo)...and what is The Terror anyway? (the answer to this is placed under your floorboard). I especially love the climax where Karloff and Knight "fight" each other right before a flood happens. Karloff does what he does best in a role as strange as it would be for anyone not named Boris Karloff, and he has quite the screen presence. Nicholson can't really give his character much charisma, but he tries his best to make for an adequate performance. Honestly this isn't a terrible movie, just a strangely cobbled one that could be entertaining to watch late at night before going to bed, which is easy considering this is in the public domain. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.