Like most haunted house films that I have seen, there is a lot that is vague about the set up or motivations of the people involved. Too much exposition is going to slow down the story and undermine the creep factor. "The Legend of Hell House" jumps into the events of the story with a minimum of set up. I think this was a bit of a mistake, there is some excellent back story that comes up in the film, and anticipation of the revelations and horrible events that precede the events told here would make the movie even creepier. On the other hand, there is a lot of weirdness that raises goosebumps because you don't quite know what is happening.
The set up is basic, like "The Haunting of Hill House" a dozen years earlier, this is a story of paranormal investigation of a haunting. There are four main characters, a physicist and his wife, and two mediums, one of which survived a deadly investigation twenty years earlier. This seems like the exact plot of the older film, but that is about as far as the mimicry goes. The haunting, events and explanations are very different. I was impressed by the atmospheric electronic score from the opening, it does not sound like a spooky old house, but more like some otherworldly crashing and humming. These are also some differences in the two movies.
Pamela Franklin is the star of the movie, and I saw her in something else recently. After I looked, I think I must just have been remembering this movie. She appears to have been the British version of Jamie Leigh Curtis in the 60s and 70s. A scream queen for horror fans to follow through the story. These is a lot of sexual tone in this movie. In fact it inspired one of my favorite bad puns. As a ghost pulls back the sheets on Miss Franklin's bed, all that came to mind was she was about to celebrate Hollow Weenie. (Sorry, I can't resist this stuff).
This came out the same year as the Exorcist, It does not have the same level of fright but there are two or three good goose bump moments and a shock or two that should keep you interested. I saw this movie with my Dad's Friend Rusty Phipps. He was a magic enthusiast and he worked at the Hollywood Studios as a grip and stagehand. He was as nuts about the movies as I was and it pissed my Dad off sometimes when he would take me to a show, and then we would see two or three. We actually saw this at a drive in, I think it was the one on Rosemead Blvd. that is no longer there. I would put this on the same level as "Poltergeist". Plenty of boogie men to keep you up at night for a while.
This is a pretty straightforward biography picture, featuring Richard Pryor in a non-comedic role. He is solid and the movie is competently put together. I thought the opening section with a young bike riding Wendall Scott was a terrific st up for what is to come, and the bus ride home from the war when Wendall returns as an adult to his home town was sweet. As I was watching the credits I was interested to see the number of people that were in the movie that I recognized but did not recall being in the film.
I have never been a big racing fan, to me it was always watching someone go in circles for hours. I am in the minority because I know that NASCAR is huge and that the world is full of people that think cars are the greatest thing ever. I remember hanging out with my friend Don Hayes, he was a gearhead that spent a lot of time tweaking his car (A Chevy Vega). I actually helped him and his Uncle paint a couple of cars. We worked on the Vega and his Uncle's 1968 Camero. We painted both of them Nassau Blue. There was a lot of wet sanding involved and we used a lot of masking tape. They wanted a really deep look, so I think they did at least five coats on each of the cars.
Anyway, this is a movie that will play well for people that love car racing. It is actually a better film for showing the progress of civil rights and the way the world changed. There are some ugly moments of racism in the film, but none was as dark as the lynching scene in "The Great Debaters". Most of the scenes in which race reared it's head involve name calling and a few Jim Crow laws. The "N" word is used a lot more than anyone nowadays would be comfortable with, of course it was Richard Pryor, so you know it is part of the vocabulary. The racing was actually shown from some interesting perspectives. The background with bootlegging also was accurate as a lot of the origins of this type of racing had to do with Moonshiners trying to get away from the cops.
We happened to have watched Vincent Gardenia in "Moonstruck" yesterday, and he plays a cheating Italian Husband, in "Greased Lightning" he is the redneck sheriff that turns politician. His character is actually a pretty good illustration of how attitudes changed. It was less about having an open mind then it was about facing the reality that the world is a different place then it once was and that you need to move on with your life and roll with the changes. He is a little comic in the first part of the movie, and more realistic in the last sections.
Pryor is fine,as is Pam Greer,as Wendall Scott's wife. They are the figures that move us through the story but they are not the characters that you will remember. I liked Clevon Little, doing his jive from "Blazing Saddles" in a different time period. Beau Bridges is actually second billed, but he is only in the middle section of the film for any amount of screen time. Whereas I thought he was stiff and over the top in "Swashbuckler" a year earlier, in this movie he is natural and charming without trying to hold the screen. Exactly the kind of supporting performance you want with an actor like Richard Pryor in the lead. For some reason, Julian Bond and Richie Havens are in the movie. As President of the NCAAP, Bond might have been appropriately cast, here he is in only two scenes. He sticks out like a stiff piece of wood in both of them. The second scene he is in is a view of the Grandstand at the big final race, he has no lines, but still is unconvincing as a human being. Richie Havens was underused, but seemed pretty natural in his part. His biggest contribution was to the soundtrack, where he performs a song that narrates transitions from one period of time to the next in the film. He is basically a musical montage layered on top of the visuals.
The movie was directed by Michael Schulz, one of the rare African American film directors in the 1970s. He directed "Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band", the year after this. We of course are some of the few people that treasure that movie despite it's clunkiness. It will come up later in the summer blog. So a year before John Travolta made the phrase "Greased Lightning" synonymous with his dancing and singing in "Grease", Richard Pryor owned the idea with this charming, simple film.
This is the best movie I have watched so far in my blog project. There are films that have higher production values, and maybe a few greater performances, but this is exactly the movie that the makers set out to produce and film. This is a classic example of how a good Science Fiction Idea was caught and made into a good Science Fiction film, without having to reinvent the wheel. There are no dramatic visual effects, there is not an amazing display of technology, there is a simple idea executed well by people who knew what it was they wanted.
A great many clever SciFi movies came out of the seventies. Obviously Star Wars started off a big trend of visualizing the future and making it part of the story. Soylent Green is from the same mold as "A Boy and His Dog", "The Omega Man", "Damnation Alley" and a dozen more; movies whose ideas are the selling point of the story, not just the production design and special effects. Oh, and buy the way, here is the Greenhouse Effect used as a plot device, nearly forty years ago. This is before all the nonsense that the last 10 years are the hottest on record, or that the Himalayan glaciers will be gone in 20 years. In other words, this boy has been crying wolf for a long time. Chicken Little is going to need to show us that the sky is falling and not just ask us to trust him. Skipping past the dispute over whether this is a real concern, the film simply presents a vision of the world as if it is going to come out this way. I did not find it moralizing and pedantic like so many "message" pictures, I found the ideas intriguing and the sadness of the film very convincing. It does not point a finger at anyone and say, "it's the oil companies fault" or "we need to stop the developers" or "the political system is against saving the planet". The story just suggests that a Malthusian nightmare is upon us, without getting political.
Surrounding the plot are references to environments disaster, the usual Big Company conspiracies, technical breakdowns, blatant sexism, but at it's heart are a couple of great ideas. That we don't know what we have till it's gone, and that people should matter. If that is political, then you might see this film in political terms. I thought it was a well made detective story with a fascinating setting, that makes the characters involved much fresher than they would otherwise be. The relationship between Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson is the love story in this movie. That Robinson's character Sol, remembers what the world was like is the moral center of what takes place. And the journey, Heston makes to see the world in a more humanitarian way, both thru the environment and through people is the point of the story. Most people remember the final line of the movie and use it as a punch line. They say it out loud as if they are revealing the twist in a Twilight Zone episode or telling you that Darth Vader is...you know. What they are ignoring is the individualism that this movie is really about. We humans are something that should matter. We just saw the movies moral center turned into a product, anyone who ignores that doesn't get the movie. Like the sucker punch at the end of "Planet of the Apes" this is a film that is about ideas not action.
I have loved Edgar G. Robinson as an actor, even before I knew who he was. The Bugs Bunny cartoons that used his likeness as a gangster, created the stereotypes that most of us have of mobsters in the 1920s and 30s. This is his final performance and he is as far from a tough guy as you can imagine. It is not hard to see him as the intellectual "Book" that assists the detective in investigating his case load. In essence what he is playing is the equivalent of an internet search engine without the technology. He has two great scenes in the movie, one where he shares a meal with Heston, featuring food that the detective will never have seen before, but that Sol can remember and pine over as the past that is lost. He knows what we have lost, and Heston doesn't, until he shares, with Sol this decadent pleasure. It is Sol's trip home however, that really shows to Thorn, what he is losing and what we have all lost. The trip home is the second great scene and it features the biggest art production of the movie, the L.A. Sports arena. That's about as futuristic as anything gets; OK there is a brief image of a computer video game, that was probably dated two years after the movie came out. Like the rest of the film, the Sports Arena is just background for a story, it is not the feature that everyone should be focused on. As a result, the need for "futurism" stays unobtrusively in the background, while the ideas stand out.
Lots of good actors are in the movie, Joseph Cotton shows up for two scenes, Chuck Conners is one of the bad guys, Brock Peters is Heston's boss. I recognized a lot of character actors in the movie that I have seen a million times over the years; Leonard Stone, Whit Bissel, and Paula Kelly are names most people won't remember, but I have always tried to give credit to the no name, credit after the film performers.
This movie came out in 1973, if I saw it with anyone, it was with a my friend Mark Witt, who I have not seen or heard from since the summer of 1975. Mark was not a big movie fan, but he liked some science fiction stuff and I seem to remember that he and I went to the El Rey Theater on Main in Alhambra to see this. It is also possible that this is one of those movies I saw by myself. I am certain that I saw it more than once in a theater. I had no reservations about going to a movie alone, I guess I still don't. Before I got hooked on Gene Hackman as an actor, Charleton Heston was probably my favorite. In the 1970's I pretty much saw everything he was in. Soylent Green stands out as one of the best movies he made. It was not one of the classic epics that he was a part of, but it was one of the three really smart science fiction movies he made. If I can't get the video to post, here is a link to the great title sequence.
Ok, get out the chips and jalapenos, the cheese has arrived and there are gallons of it. This is a good example of how undiscriminating I was as a film consumer, when the weather was hot, I was bored and the theater was air conditioned. At the Earth's Core brought me in because of the name Edgar Rice Burroughs, and the fact that it was sort of science fiction based. Even at the time I knew what crap this was, but that did not mean that I did not enjoy it. There were in fact two other movies from the same producer and stars, that came out in the mid-seventies. I think they are both on this list so you may be reading about them later. I remembered the People that Time Forgot much better than I remembered this (I guess that would be ironic).
This movie has a couple of things going for it that might make it worth your time. First, there is a Victorian setting for the scientists making this journey, and the production design emphasizes that era. I'm a sucker for that early "Steam Punk" type of design. I loved the Nautilus from 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, and the digging machine in this movie is an echo of that design. The costumes of our two heroes are simple but say everything about the fussy professor and the dim but rich and stalwart muscleman that is our lead. A suit like the one Doug McClure wears in this movie would be at home in 1880 England or 1960's or 70's San Francisco.
A second reason to see the movie is the lovely Caroline Munro, a Penthouse Pet that broke thru to B movie stardom in the 1970's. She did several of these cheapo films and had a nice following among male film goers. She is best remembered for a nice part she had in the James Bond film, "the Spy Who Loved Me". I did not have any posters or pictures up on my walls but I have a recollection that she had a nice selling poster like Linda Carter and Farrah Fawcett. That was the last I remember of her although I'm sure she had a fine career that I was just not aware of.
The movie has exploding bird people, giant turtle like dinosaurs, ape like creatures with misshapen skulls, primitive tribal people that don't speak (until after a confrontation scene that would be rendered unnecessary if someone simply said hello and answered) and then they do speak , English (if a bit Tarzanese). The production of the special effects is so cheap that the wires are visible on flying creatures, and the sets are repeated endlessly as our protaganists move through tunnels and jungle that all look the same for a reason.
I can't recall the circumstances of my seeing the movie, I doubt that Dee and I were together, we had just started dating seriously and this would not be a film to impress a date with; although she did make me take her to see Mahogany. The movie is a relic that was creaky when it came out, 34 years later, it has not improved. Still, a lazy evening at a Drive in would be just about right. I can't believe I missed that opportunity with the hot girl I was dating. I'm sure I would remember even less of the movie then.
This was not too much of a surprise when it comes to expectations. It is exactly as I remebered it, a rather gentle summer comedy with a vivid Bill Murray and a cast of unknowns. This came out in the Summer of 1979, which as far as I was concerned was one on the great summers of my life. I had graduated from USC, was getting ready to go back for grad school and did not have or need a job. I had some money saved and I decided to spend most of the summer in the pool. Dolores had a new job and I picked her up after work most of the summer, but that meant that my afternoons were my own and this movie was one of those lazy summer afternoons in 1979. I probably swam in the morning, saw the movie in the early afternoon, went back home and got in the pool, then picked up Dee and went to get food.
Bill Murray stars in his first movie and plays the character that he played in a dozen films since. He is a smartass, quickwitted slouch, who doesn't fit in but everyone looks to as a leader(Stripes, Ghostbusters). This movie has a very genial feel to it. It is a couple of years away from the 80's and the need for nudity to sell even mainstream comedies. There are a few references that are risque, but I have heard much worse in a single episode of Two and a Half Men.
There is not a lot of plot, kids and councelors at a summer camp for eight weeks. They learn about each other, they bond, hijinks ensue and there is a underdog sports theme to boot. No one is out of control and the pranks play as normal practical jokes rather than the kind of actions that demand hideous revenge. There are two or three great scences between Bill and the kid played by Chris Makepeace. These display a nice understanding of what counts for warmth that is not maudlin. Actually all the actors get a couple of good bits. The difference between yesterday's disappointment and todays little jewel is not the caliber of actors but the tone of the story. This movie meanders it's way to the conclusion also, but it is a pleasant walk thru a forrest compared to Nashville's nightmare trek down an urban alley at night with money hanging out of your back pocket. No one is going to get mugged by Meatballs, it won't change the world, just your foul mood.
This is a movie that I saw once in theaters and remembered as being odd and somewhat appealing. After watching it today, i wonder what I was thinking. I know that Altman was a unique artist and had a meandering style, but this movie goes on for nearly three hours and there is not a character you would want to spend ten minutes with. This film is mean spirited and unpleasant. Frankly it has no narrative drive and the only thing that it has going for it is the music.
Ironically, the music is showcased in a manner designed to make you dislike the people who make the music. They are either philandering cretins, lost souls, indifferent businessmen or fakes. The songs are often accurate versions of themes that might be used in a Country Western Concert or bar, but they lack much passion and the way they are filmed seems to suggest that we should pity people that enjoy this type of stuff. I know I listened to "I'm Easy" on the radio a lot in 1975. It was a pretty song that was performed in a plain but honest voice. The scene it appears in in the film is one of the few that reflects any emotion that real human beings might feel. All the women listening are convinced that it was written about them, but after the following scenes you realize it was not about them but to get them. It is a seduction song that works because it sound sincere but it is used in a manipulative way by the character.
There are some other great songs in the film, that are undermined by contrasting scenes and uncommitted performances. Ronee Blakey is an exception in one segment where there appears to be some real life in the audience, musicians and singer. This a film that begs for you to enjoy the soundtrack but skip the movie. Unfortunately, if you have seen the film, the grime and sadness will haunt your appreciation of the tunes.
Obviously this is a slice of life picture, and the brief insights that we have into characters is simply a portrait drawn at that moment. The problem I had was that there were really no pleasant slices of life to go with the bitter view of America that this film wants us to have. Geraldine Chaplin's BBC reporter is supposed to allow us to see that this is a distorted look at our nation, but she is so stupid and unpleasant that we simply want to get out of the scene she is in and move onto whatever is next. Irony and distance will be damned because we can't stand her.
This was one of the films I saw because reviews were so positive and later on the Academy Awards were generous in nominating the movie for five Oscars. Looking at it thirty-five years later makes me mad at myself for not standing up and pointing out that the film makers are naked, there is no beautiful suit and we are all too scared to say so. I did enjoy my brief sighting of two future favorites, who had very small parts in the picture. Jeff Goldblum is doing magic for no reason whatsoever, I don't think he has a line, and if he did, it was certainly not memorable. Scott Glenn appears as a soldier who is in the background of a lot of scenes and he has a part that is ultimately important to the spiteful view of our country. He is accousted at the airport while in uniform, and asked if he killed anyone this week. Later he is unable to prevent a tragedy and walks away, like America did in the Vietnam war. I case you can't guess this is not a fond memory of 1975. Thank God that we had JAWS that summer for us to look back on with admiration.
Well day two of the project was a little different. I had a lunch appointment so I ended up watching the film in two parts instead of one entire sitting. This was not a continuity issue for me since I remember the film well and I think I saw it just a year or two ago, so I knew where I was the whole time. The Day of the Jackal is based on an international bestseller that I actually read when it was on the bestseller list. When the film came out in 1973, I was deep into spy novels and intrigue on an international scale. The idea of an assassin pursuing a well known public figure was very interesting. We had had several political assassinations when I was a kid. I remember them as dramatic and frightening. The year before this movie came out, an American Presidential candidate was shot and nearly killed, so this material was not in the realm of the fantastic but of everyday international tension.
The movie is probably a little long and staid for audiences of today. We have become jaded by action as a substitute for suspense and character. I thought it was great in the suspense department even though you know that De Gaulle is not going to die at the hands of the Jackal. There are several near misses as the French Security police and Scotland Yard are sending information back and forth and each piece of data brings them closer to nabbing the assassin. Today, much of the procedural process would not make sense since our communication technology is so much more sophisticated. Waiting for a photograph, dashing for a telephone, relying on a police officer on a motorcycle to bring in key information is so 1963, which is when this movie is set.
In this story, the killer does rely on murder to escape the clutches of the police, but it is not in the form of a shootout or a car chase. Rather, key witnesses, and associates of the Jackal become victims to prevent them from offering assistance to the police or becoming an obstacle to his accomplishing his mission. Most of these people are innocent of anything other than being in the right place for the Jackal to exploit. He cleverly lifts a wallet, paints his car, seduces both men an women, to stay ahead of a massive French search effort. The interrogation technique that the French Security forces use to even discover the plot and give a codename to the assassin, are probably so politically incorrect today, that the police would be seen as the villains in a remake today. The killer is played by Edward Fox, and up until today I did not realize that he is not the same person as James Fox, even though their names are clearly different. Those two actors are brothers and resemble each other enough, that without looking closely or thinking about it, I just confused them with one another. As a younger man, Edward Fox is very good looking and could have been a good choice as James Bond, if Roger Moore had not worked out, although he would have been criticized much as Daniel Craig was for being blond.
All of the Jackal's personality is conveyed in his planning, improvisation, and ruthless pursuit of his goal. The only hero that stands out is the Police Commissioner, describe by his boss as the best detective in France, played by future Bond Villain Michel Lonsdale. He is just as dogged and ruthless as the Jackal but a lot less lethal for those he encounters. This movie develops slowly, but builds tempo going into the last forty minutes. There are plenty of twists and bits of business that will keep people that have a reasonable attention span involved.
I am pretty sure that I saw this movie with my friend Art, in fact he may have gotten us in for free since he worked at the Edwards Theater. I do know that we both read a subsequent Fredrick Forsyth book, The Odessa File, and we saw that movie when it came out a year or two later. There are a couple of other memories that stood out for me. In the finale,several people have cardboard periscopes to see over the crowd at a parade and public function. I always wondered why I never saw those things here. A periscope like that would be great at the Rose Parade or concert. I guess people here would simply not be patient enough if someone in front of them raised a cardboard tube that might block their view. The Jackal also uses cordite to make his skin gray, and I thought that was an interesting trick but I would never try it. Finally, the trailer for the film tells just enough of the story that it sucks you in, and there is a nice graphic with de Gaulle's profile and a crosshair that is used well in the trailer also.
