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.

Point Blank.

Review #2224: Point Blank.

Cast: 

Lee Marvin (Walker), Angie Dickinson (Chris), Keenan Wynn (Yost), Carroll O'Connor (Brewster), Lloyd Bochner (Frederick Carter), Michael Strong (Stegman), John Vernon (Mal Reese), Sharon Acker (Lynne), James B. Sikking (hired gun), and Sandra Warner (waitress) Directed by John Boorman (#565 - Zardoz, #975 - Deliverance, #1210 - Excalibur, #1915 - Exorcist II: The Heretic)

Review: 

"I don't think it does, but what it is, is what you see." - John Boorman

There was a time where a star could just say to let the director get his privileges right then and there. John Boorman had made his film debut with Catch Us If You Can (known as Having a Wild Weekend in the U.S.). That movie was a vehicle for the band The Dave Clark Five that had a few good notices. Anyway, Boorman was sent by who else but Irwin Winkler (producer of Double Trouble, soon to be released in 1967 and, well, the Rocky films) to meet Lee Marvin when the latter was in the midst of filming of The Dirty Dozen (also released in 1967) because Winkler was interested in having Marvin read for a script he had seen. Boorman (who was interested in making more ambitious films in Hollywood) and Marvin didn't really care for the script but were intrigued by the lead character. Anyway, Marvin bargained for approval of the script and cast in order to want to star in the film, which would be done by MGM and with those privileges granted to him, he immediately deferred it to Boorman. Officially the script was credited to Alexander Jacobs (future writer of one more Boorman film with Hell in the Pacific), David Newhouse, and Rafe Newhouse, but Boorman and Marvin essentially cultivated their own vision of what is basically a loose adaptation of the 1962 novel The Hunter, as written by Donald E. Westlake (writing under the name Richard Stark). Westlake would write two dozen books with the lead character (referred to as "Parker") prior to his death in 2008. It actually wasn't the first adaptation of a Westlake novel, as Jean-Luc Godard did a loose unauthorized adaptation of one of Westlake's other novels to mash up with The Big Sleep (1946) for what was called Made in U.S.A (1966). In 1999, a loose remake was done (i.e. a second adaptation of the book that renamed the character to Porter) that had Mel Gibson play the lead in what was called Payback, which has two distinct versions (as provided by its director in 2006). Boorman made a crack about how the script for that film seemed to resemble the one he and Marvin threw out.

There is an alluring quality to be found in its elusive energy within a clearcut revenge thriller. It is the kind of film where dream and memory really could be more than meets the eye. It is a sleek feature packed with a grimly captured atmosphere with a lead actor clearly ready to meet the challenge in basically playing a myth of a figure. The movie was a modest success with audiences and has since become a cult classic with plenty of admirers, theories and studies about it. Of course one could ask Marvin about what he thought about seeing it on screen around the time of the 1980s: he found it "very unpleasant", one made "for the violence" that saw him shocked at what was shown, particularly from himself, with him ending that thought by stating, "See, there is the fright; and this is why I think guys back off eventually. They say, 'No, I'm not going to put myself to those demons again.' The demon being the self." I probably should see more Marvin films, but even I know his hard-lined appeal from the jump of a film where he practically glides in violence, and it perhaps best comes out in the sequence (involving where the money went) where he doesn't talk (as guided to that point by Marvin) and instead lets Acker essentially ask and answer the questions herself. The fact that he is surrounded by a tremendous supporting cast helps matters in a way that one could only, well, dream, particularly with the grace of Dickinson and the magnetic slime of both Vernon and O'Connor (each had varying level of experience in films and theater, but the former is given the "Introducing" credit) to go with Wynn and his own type of foreground expressive presence. This is a 92-minute film that is uptight to the core that has boiling dedication seen within distinct sounds and color (take a look at the scene of Marvin just walking and see what I mean). By the time the film departs, one knows they have watched a worthwhile noir drenched in commitment from cast and crew for a pretty good time.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Exorcist II: The Heretic.

Review #1915: Exorcist II: The Heretic.

Cast: 

Linda Blair (Regan MacNeil), Richard Burton (Father Philip Lamont), Louise Fletcher (Dr. Gene Tuskin), Max von Sydow (Father Lankester Merrin), Kitty Winn (Sharon Spencer), Paul Henreid (The Cardinal), James Earl Jones (Kokumo), Joey Green (Young Kokumo), Ned Beatty (Edwards), Karen Knapp (The Voice of Pazuzu), and Dana Plato (Sandra Phalor) Directed by John Boorman (#565 - Zardoz, #975 - Deliverance, and #1210 - Excalibur)

Review: 

"The sin I committed was not giving the audience what it wanted in terms of horror ... There's this wild beast out there which is the audience. I created this arena and I just didn't throw enough Christians into it."

I was waiting for this day to happen, if you can believe it. I knew damn well what I was getting into when it came to the sequel to The Exorcist, which I remember being a fine film, if not exactly one I went back to again and again. Maybe it was one of those times where I stick more to my comfort horror picks than anything, but yes, the things that stuck with me was the voice of the demon (maybe the devil) by Mercedes McCambridge or maybe the lead performance by Ellen Burstyn. It was good, but the fact that it was nominated for multiple Academy Awards makes its reputation perhaps a bit too lofty when compared to other features of its time. Of course, others will remember William Friedkin and his direction of material that had been written by William Peter Blatty based on his 1971 novel of the same name, and it should be noted that neither had spoken about it being a horror film, instead viewing it as a movie about the mystery of faith. Uh, okay. However, you do not get to see none of them in the sequel, since Blatty and Friedkin clearly had better things to do (such as suing each other and Warner Bros because of disputes over profits and credits) and the only actors to return from the original was Blair, Winn, and von Sydow (who is given more mention than Jason Miller, whom the film practically ignores). Somehow, it should only make sense that a director that didn't even like the first film was recruited to do the sequel, and the studio actually thought they could aim for a PG rating rather than an R, if only because they didn't want to be as controversial as the original was when it came to being rated an R (because some people thought it merited an X, proving that taste is selective).. No seriously, Boorman though that he could make a "kind of riposte to the ugliness and darkness of The Exorcist" - you know, the guy who turned down The Exorcist for Zardoz. William Goodhart was tasked with writing the script, one that was aimed for the metaphysical, but this script ended up with rewrites from Rospo Pallenberg and Boorman, albeit with no credit to them (Blair has stated that Pallenberg directed a good chunk of the film, probably because of Boorman suffering from Valley fever for a number of weeks). The final product came about after attempts were made to tinker with it due to bad preview screenings, which didn't really help matters. You know how bad the reviews were? Apparently, when studio executives went to see the film, the audience members got so mad at what they were watching that they chased down the executives down a street. The film was successful on its $14 million budget, but the reputation was so horrendous that a third Exorcist movie wouldn't happen until 1990, directed by Blatty. While the fact that the film turns 45 years old this year seems like a good reason to cover it, the fact that there is a new Exorcist film out for release in 2023 seems like another good reason to get back into the spirit, regardless of who is directing it, I guess.

You know, I wanted to give things a chance, if only because I am reminded that Martin Scorsese stated that the film got a bit of a bum rap upon release, noting its interesting question about the great goodness drawing all evil and all of that stuff that I'm sure would make a nice essay to get drunk with. Sure, a movie trying to frame the first film with "look, what really happened that night?" is a bit shaky, but there is potential. Then the synchronizer and its strobe light come into the picture, which starts the giggling process, complete with see-through glass for the "institution" and a silly sound for the device to boot. Somehow, seeing Richard Burton watch as Louise Fletcher puts on that ridiculous contraption alongside poor Linda Blair makes it apparent just how ridiculous making a sequel can be. It makes me wonder if Blair's appearance in the Exorcist parody Repossessed (1990) would be any less embarrassing, honestly. The fact that Burton (cast because Jon Voight dropped out) drank heavily as the film production wore on makes this only more offbeat. Remember this: Burton did the film as a "paycheck movie" so he could do better things like Equus (1977), a movie about a teen being treated for blinding horses in a stable. Hell, Blair has stated that she doesn't know what the film is actually about, does that tell you all you need to know about this movie? You have a scene that goes on for a bit about Pazuzu and Africa before it ends with a shot of James Earl Jones growling that does a cut to a shot of a leopard. The barrage of locusts doesn't help matters out, either. Honestly, it isn't the lack of gore or exploitation angle that makes things so baffling, it is the fact that it is so bland as a horror movie to the point of coma. In other words: the audience may be a bit weird in what they think they want, but when they know what kind of bullshit won't fly with them, they will tell you very clearly. One feels like they are watching two different movies smashed up into one, as if they couldn't make up their mind as to who to lend their focus on beyond zigzagging everywhere with its alleged main trio of Blair, Burton, and Fletcher, with the latter either suffering the most because of a lack of things to do or benefitting from the lack of dumb shit to do besides maybe playing the "science" lead, which amounts to a bag of sand in screen presence. If Blair was put through plenty of tough things for the original, she gets to have the pleasure of being put through the wringer in a role that even a more quality actor would have been doomed to fail. She seems lost in a wholly different movie than the one that is actually happening, as if being in a movie about silly teenagers would actually be more up her alley than the gobbledygook present (she didn't put on the makeup for the demon as with the first film, by the way); she seems confused, and you would be too, which results in a sad performance that satisfies no one. Burton gets to wander through a paycheck movie with mild dignity that somehow seems too nice for trash like this, as if the movie needs someone to take this material less seriously. Okay, so you are probably wondering how the plot goes. Well, aside from a failed exorcism or so, you get to learn about psychic healers that Pazuzu likes to target while a heretic priest resists the urge of a succubus that looks like Linda Blair before the house from the original goes belly up in locusts. Oh, and there's a scientist that had these powers who now spends time trying to target locust swarms. Got all of that? In its attempts at trying to play with the story elements of the original, it demystifies the test of faith that made a solid first movie.

 

You know who I was most curious to see? Beatty and Jones, because each get to wait over an hour to show up. Yea, maybe the fact that there isn't much to say about them makes them seem better, unless Jones being in a locust suit and spitting some fruit onto a row of spikes counts as embarrassing. The only one who has any sense of dignity is von Sydow, and he is in it for flashback scenes of all things. That is this movie in a nutshell: things happen, and you just go with it to see how stupider it can get. The best possible director for this kind of movie may not have been someone like Boorman, honestly. It needed someone who was willing to work in the parameters of what the script entailed with their own sense of imagination, whether that involved keeping the script as it was or going even more gonzo. Maybe it should have been made as a straight-up exploitation copy of the original instead, because it probably would've looked as cheap as this film feels, which is astounding considering the multimillion-dollar budget on this film. It feels like an exploitation movie that thinks it is high class with no sense of awareness. If the original had the hint of elegance within its material, this movie is like a bastard fifth cousin that came from outer space. The Ennio Morricone score may be the only thing about the movie that makes any sort of sense. This is the kind of movie that will make people who though the original was the greatest horror thing since sliced bread hate the idea of sequels (and perhaps challenge the very nature of God itself) and make people who thought it was fine remind oneself the merits of the original. In short, the only thing scary about it is the idea a sequel worse than this exists. It is an incoherent mess from start to finish in the most amusing ways possible.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Literally anything will be better than this film. So it is time at last for Underworld (2003).

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.

Deliverance.

Review #975: Deliverance.

Cast: 
Jon Voight (Ed Gentry), Burt Reynolds (Lewis Medlock), Ned Beatty (Bobby Trippe), Ronny Cox (Drew Ballinger), Ed Ramey (the Old Man), Billy Redden (Lonnie, AKA the Banjo Boy), Bill McKinney (Mountain Man), Herbert 'Cowboy' Coward (Toothless Man), James Dickey (Sheriff Bullard), and Macon McCalman (Deputy Sheriff Arthur Queen) Directed by John Boorman (#565 - Zardoz)

Review: 
It's interesting that the film (released 45 years ago this month) was adapted onto the screen by the writer of the novel himself, James Dickey, who also has a minor role in the film as well. Notably, the stunts were done by the actors themselves, with insurance not being given in order to cut costs. It is evident early on how rough the film looks and feels, and there is a haunting sort of tone to the environment and atmosphere of the movie, right down to the river. The use of Dueling Banjos (arranged and recorded by Eric Weissberg and Steve Mandel though without the permission of the original writer, Arthur "Guitar Boogie" Smith) in the beginning of the film is incredibly fitting. This is a brutal film that manages to be consistent in its pace once it gets the ball rolling by the first hour, with its run-time of 110 minutes being an acceptable length.

The core four cast (Voight, Reynolds, Beatty, and Cox) do a fine job in how well they play off each other, particularly during the beginning parts and the scenes in the rapids; there is never a moment where their actions feel fake or unnatural, with their fear seeming quite real, with the most famous scene involving the group and the people they find in the mountains. Coward and McKinney are fine villains; stereotype or not, they definitely evoke a good sense of realistic fear. The rest of the cast doesn't have much time on screen, but they certainly do leave an impression, such as Redden and his banjo performance along with Dickey and his appearance near the end. The ending of the film is poignant in how it goes in line with the rest of the film in terms of its shock and awe, with the final shot of the film reflecting that. For some, the film likely detracts from its theme with the amount of violence it has, but I found that the movie was fairly focused enough with its characters and sense of timing that it falls as a classic.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Zardoz.

Review #565: Zardoz.

Cast
Sean Connery (Zed), Charlotte Rampling (Consuella), Sara Kestelman (May), John Alderton (Friend), Sally Anne Newton (Avalow), and Niall Buggy (Arthur Frayn / Zardoz) Directed by John Boorman.

Review
...This is a hard movie to grade. This is also a hard movie to not make fun of. Is this a movie with a inventive premise, an incomprehensible plot, or just a dated movie that while unique, is really silly? The answer could be either one of the options, all of the options, or even none. Sean Connery is decent, though the same can't be said for his costume, which exceeds uniqueness and branches into hilarious territory. The absurd nature of this movie manages to overrun the plot, for better or for worse. Keeping an open mind would help in order to watch this movie, but much like writing notes on a notepad for this movie, it doesn't really help all that much. The set designs look nice, it certainly showcases itself well, and it is fun to look at. It may be- Sorry, is a weird film, but it works if you're looking for something to think about late at night, whether for the plot or just what led Boorman to making this. The rating given for this movie came after a short period of deliberation (which involved debating over whether to give it a 7 or 5 stars), so I settled on a middle ground that shows one more thing: It can regarded as a decent experiment gone mostly right...or a middling disaster. Take this movie under consideration...with a grain of salt.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.