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.

The Verdict (1982).

Review #1935: The Verdict.

Cast: 

Paul Newman (Frank Galvin), Charlotte Rampling (Laura Fischer), Jack Warden (Mickey Morrissey), James Mason (Ed Concannon), Milo O'Shea (Judge Hoyle), Lindsay Crouse (Kaitlin Costello Price), Edward Binns (Bishop Brophy), Julie Bovasso (Maureen Rooney), Roxanne Hart (Sally Doneghy), James Handy (Kevin Doneghy), Wesley Addy (Dr. Towler), Joe Seneca (Dr. Thompson), and Lewis J. Stadlen (Dr. Gruber) Directed by Sidney Lumet (#035 - 12 Angry Men, #036 - Network, #404 - The Anderson Tapes, #1065 - Deathtrap, #1446 - Murder on the Orient Express, #1450 - Dog Day Afternoon, #1545 - Before the Devil Knows You're Dead)

Review: 

A combination of a director known for his crafting of actors into diverting character dramas and a powerhouse star and script surely would work out for a fair classic, you might say. The movie is an adaptation of the 1980 novel of the same name by Barry Reed. In addition to writing for American Bar Association Journal alongside novels, Reed had his own legal practice in Boston, Massachusetts and he had a reputation for specializing in medical malpractice, personal injury, and civil litigation. Interestingly, one of his proteges was Jan Schlichtmann, a lawyer noted for his own case that became a book and film about a lawyer taking on a big name (in this case, two companies sued for leukemia deaths), which you might know as A Civil Action (1998). Right before publication of The Verdict, producers David Brown and Richard D. Zanuck purchased the film rights. The two hired David Mamet to write a screenplay based on the book. By this point, Mamet was noted for his array of off-Broadway plays in the 1970s such as American Buffalo. The first produced screenplay by Mamet was the 1981 adaptation of The Postman Always Rings Twice. It shouldn't be too surprising that there were numerous choices for directors and main stars: James Bridges was the initial choice for director and Robert Redford was the first-pick star, but when Bridges became busy with Urban Cowboy (1980), the producers went with Arthur Hiller as the potential director...before a disagreement with Mamet saw him depart (of course, Zanuck wasn't particularly big on the ending of the original script, which ended before the jury came back with the verdict). Jay Presson Allen came in to try and deliver a new script, and when Bridges had time at last to do a project, he also seeped his fingers into writing for the film, but it all went for naught when Redford and Bridges had disagreements over the nature of the main character (Redford irked at the idea of playing the character with the flaws as written). Not long after, Lumet was asked to do the film, and he elected to go back to the original Mamet script, complete with Paul Newman as star. 

Admittedly, the legal aspects of the film aren't completely on the level, as I suspected from a cursory bout of research. For the record, if you are suing a hospital and they offer you a settlement, your lawyer cannot simply reject the offer (without even consulting the clients), and the opposing council doesn't go around telling the client about offers either. But I suppose if you can buy a film that hinges its big finish on having the jurors challenge their doubts in their beliefs, institutions, and the law itself, you can do almost anything. But the movie as a whole is pleasant as a stone-cold thriller of possible redemption as baptism by fire, utilizing its 129 minutes to general effectiveness. It relies heavily on the performance of Newman, in his only appearance in a feature film with Lumet as director. He pulls off a great performance, plundering the depths of redemption in an understated and powerful manner that never blusters or hits a false note from start to finish, one where burying the case is not the end of his own road. Sure, one could put the highlight as the last scene in the courthouse or even the final shot with a rejected call, but the best one might be a sequence where Newman is taking photos of his client (a comatose victim) before he processes what he is doing when the photo is developing and snaps himself to action without having to say a word. It isn't so much as chewing the scenery as it is just a case of a damn good actor being accompanied by pretty decent support in the cast besides him. Rampling makes a quality counterpart to Newman, since each are wayward spirits to begin with, and the last sequence where they share time together (i.e., not just stare at each other) is quite effective in its shock, while Warden accompanies Newman as the long-suffering lawyer pal in useful character presence. Mason (in the twilight of his career) is the ideal foil to Newman, bringing dignity to a role of slime, which goes just as well for O'Shea in steely impatience. As a whole, it is more of a thriller of the lead character rather than a straight-boiled court drama, which results in a slow burn experience that ultimately shows Lumet and Newman in their proper environments: rehearsed excellence, one that has endured well for itself after four decades. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.