A Touch of Class.

Review #1443: A Touch of Class.

Cast: 
George Segal (Steve Blackburn), Glenda Jackson (Vickie Allessio), Hildegarde Neil (Gloria Blackburn), Paul Sorvino (Walter Menkes), K Callan (Patty Menkes), Cec Linder (Wendell Thompson), Lisa Vanderpump (Julia Allessio), Michael Elwyn (Cecil), Mary Barclay (Martha Thompson), Nadim Sawalha (Night Hotel Manager) Produced and Directed by Melvin Frank.

Review: 
"Acting is not about dressing up. Acting is about stripping bare. The whole essence of learning lines is to forget them so you can make them sound like you thought of them that instant."

Do you like a comedy of errors? One that wants to have a share of amusement with (presumably) mismatched characters who find their way towards some sort of romance? Welp, this might work out well for you, I suppose. You know the type: one's American while the other is British, one is high-strung while the other is high-tempered, one's married with kids and the other is divorced (with kids too, although they basically disappear from the film pretty quickly). It definitely seems like a film with old-fashioned roots to it (where adultery could not be as broadly covered). Technically this is correct, since Melvin Frank was a co-writer/director for over four decades, with notable co-writing credits including My Favorite Blonde (1942, his debut script with longtime partner Norman Panama), Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House (1948), and The Facts of Life (1960, co-written, co-directed, and co-produced with Panama). The last one is interesting to note, since that film (featuring Bob Hope and Lucille Ball) also featured an affair that unwittingly turns into a romance, although this occurs during a trip between neighbor couples; Frank and co-writer Jack Rose adapted this film from Frank's short story "She Loves Me, She Told Me So Last Night". Frank, alongside Rose and some of the production crew would return with Segal, Jackson, and Sorvino for Lost and Found (1979), which also dealt with the struggles that develop with lust and love between an American and a British person (although this results in marriage as opposed to an affair).

In other words, one might be thinking that they are seeing something familiar when it comes to a romantic comedy like this, particularly when it comes to the bickering. It generally works best when it is set on the chemistry between its main stars and less so when it tries to go farther than cute scenarios for its last third, with an ending that might make you shrug either out of mild acceptance or apathy as opposed to being successfully bittersweet. On the one hand, there is plenty of talent present: Segal, prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s with dramatic and comedic roles with Jackson, who had risen from work in television (1957) and the theater (1964) to add film to her respected body of work that resulted in numerous accolades (starting with Women in Love (1969), which along with this film resulted in an Academy Award for Best Actress). Not to be forgotten in the fracas is copywriter-turned-actor Sorvino, however (an underrated supporting man, particularly here). One finds plenty to find interest with the main couple, with Segal proving fair in resilient smarminess with occasional quips that make for quite a match with an amusing and passionate Jackson that is filled with just as many retorts and allure that makes one almost think they are watching a Tracy and Hepburn film. Sorvino chimes in at times with persistence and some humor (such as going out to walk the dog and returning without the dog), which makes up for an otherwise quiet supporting cast. While this can be an amusing little film with some useful views on looking transparently at a love affair, one always gets the feeling that there is something missing to really make it mean something. Sometimes one cares about the situations with these folks, and other times you are left there shrugging your shoulders, as if it somehow couldn't quite balance comedy and drama for 106 minutes. It is like if a 1940s script escaped from the lab and only changed its pants before it got caught. Does it even matter to know how their affair will turn out? Is it really something with meaningful realism if it comes off as a fitting capstone of mediocrity for a film? Of course I fall into the line that seeing someone with wife and children having an affair only to eat crow by having the affair fall flat is amusing enough, as opposed to seeing them somehow get away with it. This is a film that only seems to be there 70% of the time to make fair wit and a look upon the pitfalls of falling in love - the ultimate take-it-or-leave-it film fitting perhaps with other mediocre romances like Love Affair (1939) with a capable pair in search of much more than they ultimately get.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Shaft in Africa.

Review #1231: Shaft in Africa.

Cast: 
Richard Roundtree (John Shaft), Frank Finlay (Amafi), Vonetta McGee (Aleme), Neda Arneric (Jazar), Debebe Eshetu (Wassa), Marne Maitland (Col. Gonder), Spiros Focás (Sassari), Jacques Herlin (Perreau), Frank McRae (Osiat), Nadim Sawalha (Zubair), Thomas Baptiste (Kopo), and Glynn Edwards (Vanden) Directed by John Guillermin (#726 - King Kong (1976))

Review: 
Admittedly, the first two Shaft films (released in 1971 and 1972, respectively) were fun pieces of entertainment for the right time, being on the forefront of the blaxploitation era - riveting movies that had plenty of action and interesting qualities to go around , with a good deal of credit going to its lead in Roundtree alongside direction from Gordon Parks and writing from Ernest Tidyman (writer of the novels that had featured the character beginning in 1970). For this one, both did not return, with the writing being delegated to Stirling Silliphant (mostly known for his work on projects such as Route 66 along with the screenplay for In the Heat of the Night) while Guillermin was brought in as director. This was the third installement of the series - which proved to be the last of the series for over two decades. It ranks as the weaker of the three Roundtree films in terms of general excitement and foundation, but Roundtree keeps it together long enough to make it most worth a watch. It is evident the makers of this film really wanted to keep things fresh, and perhaps they really thought changing the setting to Africa would rake in a few more box office dollars. After all, both of the previous films had each been made for under $2 million while raking in over $10 million each at the box office, so raising the budget a bit should prove good luck - it did not, since the film failed to make its budget back. The film seems a bit too closed in with trying to make a casual adventure action film, complete with James Bond type gadgets in a stick and a story that tries to cover itself with some subtext involving a bunch of 70s sounding topics while only really doing best with its action sequences, which do their part in giving the film a leg to stand on. It feels a bit too long at 112 minutes, dragging in the middle while not recieving much help from its opening or end in makign a proper powderkeg of entertainment go off. Roundtree is the highlight of the film, containing charm and care without having to say too much, stepping into some comfortable if not entirely challenging shoes. Finlay can't really make this role seem any more than just an "Evil Brit" type, but at least he's passable. McGee is fairly charming, although the others aren't too particularly memorable to go along with. It is a film that meanders in a somewhat interesting setting but with conventional execution and not much else to go along with. On the whole, this is a film that just can't quite get itself into gear enough to make a consistent winner, but it may prove just well enough for people wanting some fair action type without too many struggles. It works best when one doesn't give too much thought to how things go down and just let it happen, whether it involves stickfights, a mild climax, and a little passion to go around.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.