Showing posts with label Peter Sasdy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter Sasdy. Show all posts

November 25, 2023

The Lonely Lady.

Review #2150: The Lonely Lady.

Cast: 
Pia Zadora (Jerilee Randall), Lloyd Bochner (Walter Thornton), Bibi Besch (Veronica Randall), Joseph Cali (Vincent Dacosta), Anthony Holland (Guy Jackson), Jared Martin (George Ballantine), Ray Liotta (Joe Heron), Kerry Shale (Walt Thornton, Jr), Sandra Dickinson (Nancy Day), Lou Hirsch (Bernie), Ed Bishop (Doctor Baker), and Shane Rimmer (Adolph Fannon) Directed by Peter Sasdy (#1159 - Taste the Blood of Dracula)

Review: 
I didn't have this film initially in mind for Turkey Week 4, you know. I thought to myself, hey, what was the next film adaptation of Jacqueline Susann's works after Valley of the Dolls (1967). Well, The Love Machine (1971) did seem like an idea, but I found my way to something that might as well be part of it all. The Lonely Lady was a novel released to stores in 1976 by the hands of Harold Robbins. He dedicated the book to Susann (who had died in 1974). Robbins was notable as a writer in his own right, of course; born and raised in New York to Jewish emigrants, he served in the U.S. Navy for a time before going on to work a variety of jobs that even included Universal Pictures. He started writing in 1948 and basically wrote melodramas for the rest of his life, which would see various film adaptations that went from King Creole (released in 1958, after changing the title from the book) to The Adventurers (1970) to The Betsy (1978). He was the kind of racy book writer that lived a life so colorful that had people such as Stephen King say didn't want to end up like him as a "nightmare". Needless to say, Robbins led a strange life that probably would've made for its own film, even if he liked to fib about his upbringing; he died at the age of 81 in 1997. And then there's Pia Zadora. Born in Hoboken, New Jersey to a violinist and wardrobe supervisor, she actually was an actor from a young age, which included what else but Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (1964). She later married Meshulam Riklis, who wanted to push her as an actress, complete with financing from his company. This would culminate in Butterfly (1982), a film that saw her get critical savaging and a "Newcomer" Golden Globe. Fake-Out (1982) isn't even remembered as the follow-up, because, well, the next one was this film. It all aligns together because Riklis helped out the logjam that Universal Pictures had when it came to doing a film based on that Robbins book that had stalled for years despite having Susan Blakely in mind to star. The eventual screenplay credit went to John Kershaw and Shawn Randall with a story credit for Ellen Shepard. Peter Sasdy never directed another theatrical film after this failure, which had the dubious honor of having an ad campaign lead by John J.B. Wilson, the guy behind the Golden Raspberry Awards who "liked" what he saw (Zadora apparently said that receiving a nomination but not winning would've been something she "hated" - take one guess how that worked out). Robbins called the film crap but liked the fact he received $600,000 before it opened.

I should mention that Zadora called the film a turkey upon release. She had one more star role in her with the B-flick sci-fi musical Voyage of the Rock Aliens (1984) and has since been more known for her musical career. It is kind of like watching a perverted cousin of The Oscar (1967), another film involving an awards ceremony setup (but that one had the actual Oscar statuette). It actually is a short film at 92 minutes, and if you avert your eyes as the ridiculous amount of sex scenes, it is even shorter, unless one really needed to see a guy shoot a pool ball at a naked woman on a table. I think the preening title song has the most life next to Zadora when it comes to such ridiculously lowkey acting around it all. Holland is probably the only "normal" person in the film, which includes plenty of perverts and lurid attempts at hard-hitting dialogue that has the impact of light cat scratching. Bochner and Cali might as well be mailing it in from downtown. Zadora may have been the target of criticism because, well, title character, but who could have helped this film? She really tries to show the trouble and toil that come with an industry that seems to value the body of a woman over a body of work and where it can lead someone to go down the road of shame. Of course, skin showing aside, there is nothing for anyone to grab on to because the dynamics of the film are skewed into lame soap opera with no sense of dignity or interest. For a "writer", you see exactly one line of dialogue that she suggests, which really can apply to dubious choices of any kind: "Why?". I can't tell what is most embarrassing in the opening sequence: Zadora supposed to be playing a high schooler among other near 30-somethings or, well, the garden hose moment. The fact that the particular sequence has Ray Liotta (a future member of being in even worse material than this) making his debut is probably a testament that if you can make it there, you can...escape to anywhere. The movie dives into the mud early, puts oil all over said mud and decides lighting a match would be better than the garden hose to top it off. Calling the film silly trash is actually a bigger joke than you think, because this is the kind of movie you show to someone who thought Valley of the Dolls lacked that cheesy factor. The closing sequence takes the cake for such empty dramatic heft that Zadora gamely tries to make stick, for better and certainly for worse. I especially like how she just leaves the ceremony to no one around, as if the film was about to hang itself in shame. The points that the film that stop one from going all "zero stars" is mostly on her shoulders, because the script and director failed her most of all. As a whole, it is a lurid and ridiculously terrible time to spend for all the reasons you would expect, but Zadora at least seems like she deserved better than the reviews of the time gave her. It isn't the worst of anything, but if you love some Hollywood trash, you have something to consider.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.
Once more on Turkey Week, let's consider some religion. The Left Behind (2014) kind.

November 7, 2018

Taste the Blood of Dracula.


Review #1159: Taste the Blood of Dracula.

Cast: 
Christopher Lee (Count Dracula), Geoffrey Keen (William Hargood), Gwen Watford (Martha Hargood), Linda Hayden (Alice Hargood), Peter Sallis (Samuel Paxton), Anthony Corlan (Paul Paxton), Isla Blair (Lucy Paxton), John Carson (Jonathan Secker), Martin Jarvis (Jeremy Secker), Ralph Bates (Lord Courtley), Roy Kinnear (Weller), and Michael Ripper (Inspector Cobb) Directed by Peter Sasdy.

Review: 
Oooh, a Dracula film. October already had Interview with the Vampire and Dracula vs. Frankenstein for some vampire action, but I've had a desire to go back to the Hammer Dracula films, which I last covered in 2016. With this review, there is only two other Hammer Dracula films left with Lee in the main role (Scars of Dracula and Dracula A.D. 1972), although there were two other Hammer Dracula films without Lee (The Brides of Dracula and The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires). In any case, I'll try to get around to those in due time. 

Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968) was a fine piece of entertainment, having a collection of cliches and flair that worked out to make it work for the franchise. It had a few interesting characters along with some compelling moments with a worthwhile climax. The development of the sequel certainly had a bit of a bumpy road to it, since the original intent was to not have Lee back as Dracula. By this point in time, Lee was not particularly interested in continuing to play the role for Hammer Films, although if he was given the right amount of salary, he certainly would come back. With a desire to not pay him (or perhaps tired of having to try and convince Lee to come back), the original script by Anthony Hinds featured Bates being the main villain, since he drinks the blood of Dracula before convulsing and beaten to death by the people who bought Dracula's belongings. Yes, right before Dracula perished in the previous film, he happened to encounter some random guy and perished right in front of him and he got the idea to collect not only the powder of his blood but also his cape and brooch. In any case, the idea to have Bates (infused with the spirit of Dracula) as the villain was vetoed by Warner Bros, the American distributor for these films, who wanted Lee back. He certainly seemed fine with the film, describing it as having "Good cast, good production, good story -- except that Dracula didn't really belong in it!". He wasn't too fond of having the films be made so closely with the others, and he felt that audiences grew tired of it, which he said could apply to him as well. In one account, he was apparently convinced to keep doing the role in part because the producers would tell him about the people that would lose work if he didn't keep doing the role for more films. In any case, 1970 was quite the year for him as Dracula. Not only did he play the role in this film, he also played the role in Count Dracula (directed by Jesús Franco that was released one month before this film) and Scars of Dracula (released by Hammer Films six months after the success of this film).

There isn't much of Dracula this time around, with bare dialogue but quite a few shots of Lee and his hypnotic eyes. Honestly, I could care less about the conflict between the elders and their offspring and the hypocrisy from the former - I'm more interested in the ridiculousness of the fact that Dracula is getting revenge for his servant (Bates) being killed by the group - as if Dracula suddenly cares about anybody other than himself. Actually, it's strange that he is brought back at all through a ceremony where someone drinks the mixed blood of himself and Dracula. Would Dracula have been brought back if the other guy hadn't been killed quickly by the elders? When I think about Dracula films, I don't think about scenes involving an old man drunkenly trying to whip his daughter for seeing her boyfriend, I instead think about the Count trying to somehow use people to get what he wants. Perhaps it is supposed to be a reflection on the times, but really it just inspires my eyes to wander for what should be a more interesting horror film. Lee (in his fourth turn at the role for Hammer) doesn't really have much to do, but he at least shines when he needs to show some presence. At least he speaks a few words more than he did when compared to the other films. Keen plays an unsavory hypocrite okay, but waiting for his character to be stalked by Dracula proves more interesting. Hayden, Corlan, and Blair make up the young group who encounter Dracula in their own respective ways, but none of them are too particularly interesting to follow along with. The ending is a bit ridiculous. This time around, it's not the sun, water or a stake that gets him, instead it is him being taken down by a church being restored to its sanctity and being overwhelmed by its power that makes him fall and crumble into dust. The film feels like a mess, feeling confused over where it wants to go as a film. It isn't too particularly scary nor over-the-top to make it other than just something to pass the time waiting for Dracula, though at least there is some moments of blood and gore through its run-time (95 minutes for the uncut edition and 91 for the cuts in the US release) that may prove fine for others. I found the movie to be pretty average and not quite as good as the other previous installments. It isn't the best or worst of the bunch, and perhaps it will serve its purpose if you're in the right mindset for it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.