Showing posts with label Lee Grant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lee Grant. Show all posts

November 26, 2022

Valley of the Dolls.

Review #1931: Valley of the Dolls.

Cast: 
Barbara Parkins (Anne Welles), Patty Duke (Neely O'Hara), Paul Burke (Lyon Burke), Sharon Tate (Jennifer North), Tony Scotti (Tony Polar), Lee Grant (Miriam Polar), Susan Hayward (Helen Lawson), Martin Milner (Mel Anderson), Charles Drake (Kevin Gillmore), Alexander Davion (Ted Casablanca), Richard Angarola (Claude Chardot), Naomi Stevens (Miss Steinberg), and Robert H. Harris (Henry Bellamy) Directed by Mark Robson (#1797 - Home of the Brave)

Review: 
In 1966, Jacqueline Susann saw her first novel published in Valley of the Dolls. She had aspired to become an actress at a young age in the 1930s, and she got to appear in a handful of stage shows and television, but likely her most known quality was in commercials, which she wrote, produced and starred in for a number of years; she also had a habit of downing amphetamines (calling them "dolls") around this time, which apparently started not long after her son was diagnosed with autism and put into an institution when he was 3. In 1962, at the age of 44, she was diagnosed with breast cancer. She then made a pact with God to say that she would prove herself to be the best-selling writer in the world if she was given ten more years of life. Often called the first "brand-name" novelist, Susann became quite the show-woman in promoting books, and her first published work was Every Night, Josephine! in 1963 (inspired by letter she wrote to her pet dog). Valley of the Dolls, the work she is most famous for, came in 1966. Years after steamy novels like Peyton Place succeeded with readers (not with critics), Valley of the Dolls was a twenty-year odyssey in the lives of three young women who all happen to fall prey to drugs called "dolls" that featured other characters inspired by real-life stars such as Ethel Merman, Carole Landis, Judy Garland and Dean Martin. Fifty years after its release, the book has sold more than 31 million copies, and it inspired a film, a "continuation novel", two TV adaptations and a parody with Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970). A book into the process of making Valley of the Dolls called one of the most beloved bad book and movies of its time was written by Stephen Rebello in 2020. Robson was an interesting choice to direct. The Montreal native honed his craft as an editor before he became a director, directing 34 films from The Seventh Victim (1943) to Avalanche Express (1979), with a number of the films seeing him also serve as a producer. Harlan Ellison, Helen Deutsch, and Dorothy Kingsley were brought in to work on the script, although Ellison hated what they did to the book and requested his name taken off - imagine a book that already sees a character kill themselves and another go off the wagon ending on a breezy note. Two further adaptation of the five novels Susann wrote have followed: The Love Machine (1971) and Once Is Not Enough (1975). In 1974, after over a decade of a battle with cancer, Susann died in 1974 at the age of 56.

Just like the film adaptation of Peyton Place (released in 1957 with Robson as director) and Sex and the Single Girl, the book really is steamier than the film it came from, since the book featured elements of homosexuality in both men and women. Of course, the movie takes place in the current day rather than the book timeline from the mid 1940s to the mid 1960s. Jacqueline Susann saw the film on a cruise ship premiere, and she thought it was crap, although she kept that opinion to herself so to not give the movie an early thrashing...which came plenty (probably didn't help that the casting wasn't what she wanted, since she wanted people like Ursula Andress, Bette Davis, Shirley MacLaine and Elvis Presley for the lead roles). The movie and book ended up reflecting each other: audiences dug it while critics trashed it. The movie is an explosion of gloss and grooviness that looks like it was processed in the 1950s that makes a tale of sexual liberation and the entertainment industry seem quite amusing. Adultery, divorce, addiction and deviancy seem like something pulled from the silliest of moral stories.  It's no wonder why she didn't care for it: it's a movie that doesn't know what foot to put in front of the other and looks like a soap opera run amuck. Parkins is just the everyman character, firmly in the middle of weirdo things happening around them with the appeal of a broomstick stuck in a schmaltzy molasses. You might say a normal-ish person is the ideal among all the weirdness, but ordinary isn't always fun. Apparently, Duke wanted to do the film to help transition her into more adult roles, since her role was the most dynamic (she had won an Academy Award for playing Helen Keller in The Miracle Worker and she also had her own TV show). She even gets the opportunity to sing (dubbed by Gail Heideman). The funny thing is that the movie nearly walloped her career, although really, she does pretty well in the art of eating the screen. She eats the screen in all the ways one would hope. Tate is okay, at least because Burke and Scotti are blander. Judy Garland was originally cast in the role later played by Susan Heyward, and promotions were done with that in mind, and she would get to sing a song, which was pre-recorded. After a week, she suffered from her dependence on alcohol and Demerol that saw her get fired from 20th Century Fox. Apparently, on the final day, Robson made her wait until 4pm to film her scenes after making her wait since 8am, in the belief that she would be upset and drunk at the time (so yes, if you believe the account from Duke about Robson, the latter sounds like an asshole). Heyward, an Academy Award winner, is decent in terms of vaunted confidence without particularly having much to really do besides one scene of Duke fighting her over who has the fake appendage on and how to go on. Grant seems to be shuffling through as if the paycheck is just tempting enough to go on. Eh, the movie is as it is: silly but mostly watchable, if one accommodates it being more for the experience rather than a full collection of interesting people. Sure, people think it may be a camp classic with its stylistic kitsch or maybe a revealing look into the struggles of women, but in the end, it all boils down to an absurd and amusing affair that can be thought of as a fantasy for whoever is watching: the gossip-obsessed people desiring a pop event, or people looking for a silly crappy movie to watch (or maybe gay people that look to reclaim the film as a camp classic, but I will let you decide that, since I'm not here for that). In that sense, 55 years has given Valley of the Dolls is overwhelming in the best and worst ways that could only come from a certain time and certain perspective. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Well, we have reached the ninth and final film of Turkey Week. I really wanted to scrap the bottom of the barrel in terms of movies fitting for the label of "turkey" for Turkey Week. Since the first two Turkey Weeks had eight reviews, I wanted to try and include at least one more movie than what I did before, and I can say that there were a few candidates that missed the cut that may be considered for next year

The Scarlet Letter (1995), Turks in Space, Sidekicks, Verotika, An American Hippie in Israel, The Legend of the Lone Ranger, and The Conqueror

Any and all suggestions are welcome for next year.

September 7, 2021

Airport '77.

Review #1720: Airport '77.

Cast: 
Jack Lemmon (Capt. Don Gallagher), Lee Grant (Karen Wallace), Brenda Vaccaro (Eve Clayton), Joseph Cotten (Nicholas St. Downs III), Olivia de Havilland (Emily Livingston), James Stewart (Philip Stevens), George Kennedy (Joseph "Joe" Patroni), Darren McGavin (Stan Buchek), Christopher Lee (Martin Wallace), Robert Foxworth (Chambers), Robert Hooks (Eddie), and M. Emmet Walsh (Dr. Williams) Directed by Jerry Jameson (#1195 - Raise the Titanic)

Review: 
See, one knows they are dealing with a product movie, because what other movie have the year titled on it? Of course, by this point, the Airport films (1970, 1975) have now evolved past even having an airport involved in the actual plot, since now it deals with the Navy helping to find a fancy plane that crashed near the Bermuda Triangle. The true star is Albert J. Whitlock, who provides the special effects within matte paintings, which is probably the most interesting part of the film (besides having scenes shot in a water tank in Florida, I suppose). By this point, the Airport series has managed to ditch the attempt at thrills, really. You know what you are getting into if you've decided to pick the third film of a series dedicated to making planes and flying as boring as humanely possible. Exposition is the true terror of the sky when it comes to stuff like this, and it is probably not surprising that four writers (Michael Scheff, David Spector, H. A. L. Craig, Charles Kuenstle) were hired to do the film. Jameson may have been more of a TV director than a feature film man, but at least he fitted the occasion of helming disaster-fare (such as TV movies involving hurricanes and elevators in trouble). Even The Poseidon Adventure (1972) managed to evoke some sort of interest within trouble in the waters with a sinking ship, mostly because there is more gusto given by the actors along with better time spent in the water.

Apparently, Lemmon took the role because of he thought it would be fun to do a "blatantly commercial cartoon" (of course, he also was coming off a failure with Alex & the Gypsy and apparently told his agent to accept the next high-paying offer, so...). Eh, he is technically better as a pilot in the acting scale than Heston or Martin, in that he isn't beholden to hammy overtones like the others were - him and Vacarro at least look like they want to be there and act together with believability. Of course, Lee accepted his supporting role because he wanted to work with Lemmon. They do get to share a scene together at least, so one can at least consider the contrast of tastes for certain acting presences over others (i.e. I am always curious to see a movie with Lee in it). This is mostly apparent because he shares most of his segmented time paired with Grant, who gets to play the jealous spouse that also gets to panic the most when disaster strikes - yeah, I don't get it either (apparently, the television version adds more of her, so there's that). At least you get to see her get hysterical and be punched out after trying to open a hatch? Why exactly was Kennedy in this movie? He spends about two minutes in the movie, and he also is the only actor to actually spend any screen-time with Stewart, who might as well have filmed his stages in a box. One can't quite tell which actor is phoning it in more, but I imagine Stewart was quite comfortable with making a movie where he didn't have to speak much and could make a check worthy for his grandchildren to enjoy - this was his fifth-to-last role on film, after all. Cotten and de Havilland are okay, but one isn't really here to see traditional actors if McGavin is jawing exposition right in front of you, right? Honestly, although the film doesn't have as much to generate in weirdo character stuff, at least one can appreciate the small role done by Walsh, who actually had been appearing in a handful of films in bit parts for almost a decade (with this being right before better stuff such as Blood Simple).

At least you can say the Navy wouldn't be embarrassed by participating in this film. The credits even list that the rescue operations are actually utilized by the Navy in similar emergencies, so one can at least appreciate seeing the USS Cayuga being used for something that isn't a waste of time (granted, scenes filmed in water isn't exactly the most interesting thing to watch but your mileage may vary). Look, the movie is no better and no worse than the previous two features in terms of mediocrity. Sure, there are probably a few more things to make fun of here, but it is the same kind of blah movie from before that made money in a time where people were ripe for seeing these kind of movies (making over $90 million on a $6 million dollar budget). Naturally, Airport had to continue with The Concorde ... Airport '79 (1979), so one can only wonder where the adventure of mediocrity can go from there.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

February 16, 2014

Movie Night: In the Heat of the Night.


Review #544: In the Heat of the Night.

Cast
Sidney Poitier (Virgil Tibbs), Rod Steiger (Bill Gillespie), Warren Oates (Sam Wood), Lee Grant (Leslie Colbert), Larry Gates (Eric Endicott), James Patterson (Lloyd Purdy), William Schallert (Webb Schubert), Beah Richards (Mama Caleba/Mrs. Bellamy), Peter Whitney (George Courtney), Kermit Murdock (H.E. Henderson), Larry D. Mann (Watkins), Quentin Dean (Delores Purdy), and Anthony James (Ralph Henshaw) Directed by Norman Jewison (#127 - Rollerball and #273 - The Cincinnati Kid)

Review
The movie has two notable moments, a quote: "They call me MISTER Tibbs" (Which would also be used as the title for the sequel), and when Tibbs slaps Endicott back, eliciting shock. The movie has other brilliant moments as well, such as when Steiger and Poitier share a scene inside Steiger's character's house, which turns from the two drinking to them talking about loneliness, which is a poignant scene just for the two and their interactions in that and their other scenes in the movie. The actors are good, especially Poitier and Steiger. They have a good deal of tension in their performances, and the supporting cast is fitting for a film with tension like this. The last scenes may end the movie maybe too quick, but the movie still has tension, and a good deal of entertainment value to it. In the Heat of the Night is such an influential film when it all boils down to it, and this is a really slick but classic film.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.