Category Archives: 1962 Films

The Notorious Landlady-1962

The Notorious Landlady-1962

Director Richard Quine

Starring Kim Novak, Jack Lemmon, Fred Astaire

Scott’s Review #1,390

Reviewed August 16, 2023

Grade: B+

If viewers can overlook The Notorious Landlady (1962) ‘s messy nature and intermittent schizophrenic pacing, the film is enjoyable.

It’s not platinum status, but it’s a decent enough flick, especially for Kim Novak and Jack Lemmon fans, who were big stars. This is the third and final film that the duo starred in.

Like the film, their chemistry fluctuates, but it is appealing to see Novak in a comic role, whereas the genre is familiar territory for the funny Lemmon.

After her husband mysteriously disappears, Carly Hardwicke (Novak) finds renting a room in her lovely London apartment impossible because everyone assumes she’s responsible.

American diplomat William Gridley (Jack Lemmon) is new to the city and desires to live with Carly. It doesn’t hurt that Carly is easy on the eyes. William becomes smitten with her, unaware of her troubles.

When his boss, Franklyn Ambruster (Fred Astaire), learns what Gridley has stumbled into, the two men try to clear her name. A series of lies and misunderstandings catapult events into a compelling mystery.

Even though neither William nor Carly is British, the foggy locale works well and provides a foreign mystery. They reside in a courtyard-type home, from which neighbors can see in or out to other apartments. This comes into greater play towards the end of the film.

This is just one example of Alfred Hitchcock’s influence on 1954’s Rear Window, which director Richard Quine heftily borrows. He’s wise to do so since he secured Novak, fresh from her role in Vertigo (1958) two years earlier.

Shit, even the title ‘The Notorious Landlady’ borrows the title of the 1946 Hitchcock masterpiece, ‘Notorious.’

There’s also a secret locked door that Carly references and forbids anyone from entering, adding suspense and foreboding.

Despite the tepid chemistry between the stars, I ultimately enjoyed their romance. It’s a hard sell that the gorgeous Carly would fall head over heels for the everyman William, but she does.

They win me over during a dramatic scene where an attempted romantic dinner of steaks goes awry, and instead, a massive fire erupts. The burgeoning lovers cling together in a sweet embrace that cements their appeal.

The tension is supposed to be about whether Carly murdered her husband and has designs on William. Red herrings like kitchen poisons and the like make an appearance, but I was more interested in the impending mystery of said husband than really believing she’d want to kill William.

The last act introduces a threatening character, an unexpected villain, and a race to save another character in dangerous peril.

A courtroom scene also adds to the tension.

The central storyline is satisfying, edge of your seat, and suspenseful. I assume Quine was going for it.

The Notorious Landlady shifts genres a whopping three times in the story! The tone is all over the place: first, romantic comedy, then suspense and drama, and finally, slapstick.

During the finale, when Carly and William race to a retirement community and scramble to stop an out-of-control wheelchair, I half expected Laurel & Hardy or The Little Rascals to make a cameo.

Poor Fred Astaire has little to do and struggles to be relevant compared to Novak and Lemmon’s characters. At times, I even forgot he was still in the film.

The Notorious Landlady (1962) is an entertaining vehicle and a must-see for fans of Novak or Lemmon eager to see a largely forgotten film that offers something fun.

The Phantom of the Opera-1962

The Phantom of the Opera-1962

Director Terence Fisher

Starring Herbert Lom, Michael Gough, Heather Sears

Scott’s Review #1,254

Reviewed May 12, 2022

Grade: B+

It’s not the best-known film adaptation of Gaston Leroux’s famous 1910 French novel, but it is the most horrific.

Hammer Horror Productions’s acquisition of this is a significant win since the story is ideally suited for the horror genre.

I’ve not yet seen the 1925 silent film version of The Phantom of the Opera starring Lon Chaney, which I hear is terrific, so I cannot compare that to this.

The possibilities for a macabre telling are endless. Terence Fisher, a familiar director in Hammer films, is back at the helm to mix the dreariness of a musty London theater with the creepy face mask of its lonely and wounded inhabitant.

I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating in this review: The horror films achieved astounding achievements by making lemonade out of lemons budget-wise. The limited funds necessitated creativity, seen in every series frame, especially the colorful sets and costumes.

The Phantom of the Opera (1962) is no different and even better than some others in the brilliant mix of mood and sympathy for its primary victim, specifically the luminous and disfigured ‘phantom’ played by Herbert Lom.

Dastardly Composer Lord Ambrose D’Arcy, wonderfully played by Michael Gough, and his bullied backer, Harry Hunter (Edward De Souza), struggle to find a replacement for the female lead in their new opera after she quits and flees town in the wake of a gruesome theater murder.

When a new prospect, the virginal Christine Charles (Heather Sears), disappears after the advances of Ambrose, Harry cautiously investigates, unaware that there is a lonely figure inhabiting the theater.

Meanwhile, a mysterious masked man (Lom) who is eerily familiar with the opera holds Christine captive and offers to groom her to play the part.

He is a mix of crazy and passionate, and his plight is sympathetic when what he’s been through is finally explained.

The atmosphere sets The Phantom of the Opera apart from similar films of the 1960s, even Hammer films.

This is never more evident than in an early scene when the camera follows the characters on the misty streets of London. The darkness and shadows become prominent as they walk through the streets and dark alleys.

Five years into his association with the production company, Fisher has hit his stride. A limited budget might reduce another director to a fretting basket case, but the result and ease he parlays to The Phantom of the Opera is quite beautiful.

Many scenes are set in the theater, adding a foreboding element to the events. Dusty yet brimming with musicianship and artistry, it’s fun to watch the characters sneak around and scheme within the confines of this structure.

Therefore, the mood and trimmings are exquisite without actually being so.

The music sequences are impressive without going on for too long. Although the locale is switched from Paris to London for obvious reasons, the foremost being that the actors are British, this doesn’t hamper the overall experience.

The best and most gruesome scene occurs when a poor chap swings across the theater stage in a neck rope, dead as a doornail. The creaking sound of the rope as the man swings back and forth is chilling and dubious.

Lom is my favorite actor in the film. His character’s backstory is impressive and humanistic. Who can’t relate to being cheated out of work that is rightfully theirs?

Gough, also familiar to Hammer Horror fans, is tremendous as the treacherous main villain.

Sears is okay, but perhaps not the greatest actress or best choice for the role. She’s rather bland and unmemorable.

The Phantom of the Opera (1962) falters when its ending is too sudden, and many Hammer films suffer the same fate.

This film is not for those expecting a grandiose Andrew Lloyd Webber-style musical, but for fans of down-and-dirty horror, it’s just what the doctor ordered.

The Music Man-1962

The Music Man-1962

Director Morton DaCosta

Starring Robert Preston, Shirley Jones

Scott’s Review #929

Reviewed August 9, 2019

Grade: A

The big-screen offering of The Music Man (1962) is based on the 1957 Broadway musical of the same name, written by Meredith Wilson, and one of the most upbeat Hollywood renditions of stage productions.

Featuring talented stars like Robert Preston and Shirley Jones, the former appearing in the stage version, the film was one of the biggest hits of the year to be watched and re-watched whenever the mood strikes for sing-along tunes and a cheery story told from a purely Americana viewpoint.

In the summer of 1912, deceitful traveling salesman Harold Hill (Preston) arrives in River City, Iowa, intent on swindling the town folks out of their money. Masquerading as a traveling music instructor, he plans to trick parents into enrolling their kids in a marching band and selling the instruments.

He uses scare tactics to incorporate fear into the gullible parents and romantically sets his sights on the local librarian, Marian (Jones). Marian, distrustful of men, slowly falls in love with Harold, and his plot is eventually discovered, resulting in a witch hunt.

Of the plethora of musical releases bombarding Hollywood throughout the 1950s and 1960s, The Music Man arguably possesses the catchiest tunes and spirit.

It is impossible not to hum along to or tap one’s foot to the songs, which stick in the viewer’s heads for days after watching the addictive production.

My favorites are “Seventy-Six Trombones”, “Gary, Indiana”, and “Pick-a-little, Talk-a-little” as each has distinctive melodies, rhymes, and rapid-fire dialogue.

The soundtrack always pleasures the gloomiest days and speaks volumes about the legs the musical contains.

Besides the tunes, The Music Man’s best aspect is its romantic storyline. Preston and Jones’s chemistry is complete, and they are perfectly cast.

The studio wanted “a big name,” so Preston nearly didn’t make the cut, which would have been a shame. By infusing life and humor into a character who could be perceived as dastardly, he tips the likability scale and makes the character the hero.

Jones is a treasured singer and is just as good as Preston, playing the mousy and serious Marian. Her “slice of the Midwest” innocence and blonde hair portray her as corn-bred, but the actress makes the character work for her. Together, the duo is sensational.

The best sequence in which the pair appears is the remarkable “Marian the Librarian,” a sneaky and naughty number—the most adult rendition. Their mutual attraction becomes evident, and the film brings the audience to its knees at this moment.

The musical is purely a slice of Americana, which may limit its popularity across oceans, but it works and feels authentic. This is no surprise, given that composer Willson hails from the Midwest.

With an uplifting message and a nostalgic ode to a country once filled with promise and innocence, the film is arguably even more critical in today’s divisive environment.

The piece wisely does not celebrate small-town cliches but instead offers a wholesomeness. The townsfolk sing and dance together and celebrate life as a neighborly bunch; this nuance is refreshing.

The supporting cast adds flavor and comedy to the production. A very young child actor, soon-to-be-famous director Ron Howard, offers a heartfelt performance of “Gary, Indiana.”

Character actors Paul Ford and Hermione Gingold offer delightful hysterics as Mayor Shinn and his wife, Eulalie.

Oklahoma (1955) and Picnic (1955) are thematically similar, at least from geographical and time-period perspectives, but distant relatives in mood and drama. All three could be watched in one marathon weekend.

The Music Man (1962) provides the most warmth and, at its conclusion, will fill even the most stone-faced individuals with beaming smiles.

The film version is a perfect example of a stage musical successfully brought to the silver screen with energy and gorgeous singing and dancing.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Scoring of Music-Adaptation or Treatment (won), Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Color, Best Costume Design, Color, Best Film Editing

The Manchurian Candidate-1962

The Manchurian Candidate-1962

Director John Frankenheimer

Starring Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey

Scott’s Review #852

Reviewed January 3, 2019

Grade: A

The Manchurian Candidate (1962) is an enthralling film that perfectly captures the political landscape of the time and continues to be relevant in present-day politics. Taut mysterious and filled with great twists and turns, the film flows nicely and climaxes with a shocking crescendo.

With compelling performances by all and a brilliant musical score, the film fires on all cylinders and can be watched and enjoyed repeatedly.

Events began in 1952 during the bloody Korean War. A United States platoon consisting of several men is accosted by the Soviets and sent to communist China for experimentation.

Three days later, the men return as if nothing happened, and Sergeant Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey) is proclaimed a hero and awarded the Medal of Honor for saving the men’s lives. When the war ended, the men returned to the United States to resume their everyday lives.

Years later, Captain Bennett Marco (Frank Sinatra) suffers from recurring nightmares in which Shaw murders two missing soldiers in front of a panel in a bizarre brainwashing demonstration. When another soldier in the platoon has the same nightmares, Army Intelligence begins an investigation.

Further complicating the plot is Raymond’s ambitious mother, Eleanor Iselin (Angela Lansbury), and her attempt to use any means necessary to guide her husband, Senator Iselin (James Gregory), to further power.

The Manchurian Candidate is a film that requires attention to appreciate and understand.

The plot is highly complex, but that is a testament to the film’s composition and hardly a complaint. The viewer must stay on course to appreciate the intricate details.

Director John Frankenheimer is fantastic at adding unique dramatic effects and imaginative film-making. A prime example is the brainwashing sequence, as dialogue is interspersed between what the soldiers think is happening (a peaceful grandmotherly horticulture demonstration) and reality (a dastardly experiment involving murder and programming).

Despite Sinatra being billed as the lead in the film, the most treasured props go to Lansbury as Eleanor and Harvey as Shaw. Raymond is the most developed character, and he has several sides. He is primarily a loner who appears cold and harsh due to his being programmed to assassinate.

A sequence involving the love of his life, Jocelyn (Leslie Parrish), and a romantic summer they share is beautiful and innocent, contrasting with the dismal and manufactured “new Raymond.”

Lansbury has never been cast in a more challenging role. Eleanor is determined to stop at nothing to ensure her husband will reach the presidency and connives and cheats her way to the top. Still, the part is written as such to avoid making her a complete one-note character despite her ways.

In an eerie scene close to the finale, she vows payback for what has been done to Raymond and then plants an incestuous kiss on his lips. An odd and disturbing moment, the scene also justifies in her mind the lengths she has gone to get what she wants.

The musical score is lovely and contradicts the dour backstabbing and espionage throughout. Romantic and sweet melodies abound, and classic hymns like The Twelve Days of Christmas and The Star-Spangled Banner are included in the film.

As a result, The Manchurian Candidate’s score feels multi-faceted, patriotic, and artistic with enchanting results.

The Manchurian Candidate (1962) is a stellar film with a perfect blend of thrills, deceit, politics, and creative filmmaking to make it a bold classic. The final sequence is jaw-dropping in its finality and brutality.

Remade in 2004 with a great cast yet a poor script, avoid that one at all costs and enjoy the power and lasting effects of the original.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actress-Angela Lansbury, Best Film Editing

Dr. No-1962

Dr. No-1962

Director Terence Young

Starring Sean Connery, Ursula Andress

Scott’s Review #667

Reviewed July 27, 2017

Grade: A-

Watching the 1962 film that launched the James Bond franchise into the legendary status it has since become, Dr. No is rich in history and a blueprint for what the Bond films would encompass in the decades to follow.

Admittedly, while more essential than the more sophisticated and fleshed-out chapters to come, the film is nonetheless a superb entry in the franchise and a chapter to be cherished on its own merits.

Charismatic Sean Connery, soon to forever be identified in the role of James Bond, fills the role with a masculine confidence oozing from the screen in every scene.

His performance in the role is so seamless that one might assume he had been playing Bond for years rather than being a novice.

And who can forget the character’s first entrance- in a casino, confidently gambling and introducing himself to Sylvia Trench, a character initially slated to be his steady girlfriend?

The film version of Dr. No is adapted from the first Ian Fleming spy novel of the same name, which is clever. As the years passed, the Bond films were modified from the originally written pages, so it is cool and original to have them closely mirror the book.

Lacking a hefty budget, the action is set in London and Jamaica and at Crab Key, a fictional island off Jamaica.

When Strangways, a British Intelligence Chief, is killed and his body taken by assassins known as “the Three Blind Mice,” who also steal files related to Crab Key island, and a mysterious man named “Dr. No,” Bond is summoned to his superior’s (M) office in London and tasked with determining whether the incident has anything to do with radio interference of missiles launching in Cape Canaveral.

Naturally, it does, and the adventure sets off a series of dramatic events involving henchmen, scrapes with death, and Bond’s bedding of more than one beautiful woman before facing the ultimate showdown with the creepy title character., who is missing both hands.

Notable and distinguishable to the film are the fabulous, chirpy, child-like songs featured. From the tuneful, harmonic, nursery rhyme, “Three Blind Mice”, sung calypso style, to the sexy and playful, “Under the Mango Tree”, both are light, yet filled with necessary mystery.

The fact that the former is featured at the beginning and end implies that the same villains are joyfully singing the happy tune, is a good indicator.

Dr. No is also inspired by the introduction of the crime organization SPECTRE, which any Bond fan knows very well and is a staple of the franchise.

As Dr. No, Joseph Wiseman is well cast, though sadly, we only see him in the latter part of the film. Much more character potential is left untouched, though the mystique of knowing the man exists but not what he looks like is worth mentioning.

Admittedly, the assumption that the audience will not be witty enough to realize that Dr. No and Miss Taro (a villainous secretary) are Caucasian actors wearing unconvincing makeup is silly.

Why the choice was made not to cast authentically ethnic actors is unclear. My guess is the powers that be wanted to go a safer route due to the uncertainty of the franchise at that time.

Still, for a first try, Dr. No gets it just about right.

What woman in 1962 was sexier or cast more perfectly than Ursula Andress as the gorgeous and fiery sex kitten Honey Ryder? This casting was spot on, and who can forget her sultry introduction to the film as she emerges from the roaring waves on the beach in a scantily clad bathing suit?

The set designs and locales also work well in the film.

The sets are contemporary, specifically the spacious prison apartment in which Bond and Honey briefly reside. Sleek and sophisticated, the sofa, rug, and tables exude luxury and class.

Dr. No (1962) is a worthy film on its own merits and a fantastic introduction to the world of James Bond and the many trademark elements and nuances that the films contain.

To Kill a Mockingbird-1962

To Kill a Mockingbird-1962

Director Robert Mulligan

Starring Gregory Peck, Mary Badham, Robert Duvall

Scott’s Review #468

1051852

Reviewed August 25, 2016

Grade: A

To Kill a Mockingbird is a 1962 film based on Harper Lee’s renowned novel. It was released only two years earlier, in 1960.

The novel was groundbreaking, and the film is equally so. Race and racism are front and center in the storyline. The film is still a marvel because it tells the story through the eyes of a child—in present-day terms, an adult—as she reflects on her experience.

The film is set in the 1930s in a small Alabama town.

We follow the lives of Atticus Finch, a respected lawyer and father, and his two young children- Scout and Jem.

Gregory Peck, as Atticus, is the moral center of the film. Scout (Mary Badham) narrates, and her innocence makes the story much more compelling and less like a preachy vehicle for a social topic.

The Finchs are a tight family unit as Atticus is widowed, leaving Jem and Scout motherless. A poor black man-Tom- is accused of raping and beating a white woman, also poor, coached into the accusations by her racist father.

We accept that the woman had designs on Tom and, when caught by her horrified father, was beaten, with Tom left to take the blame.

Much of the film, but not too much, takes place in the courtroom, as we hear testimony by the poor woman, her father, and Tom.

Not to be missed is that every juror is a white man- a sad reminder of the racism that existed and one argues still exists, though not as blatant in today’s modern world.

One cringe when the black attendees are forced to sit in the upper portion of the courthouse, an obvious way to demean and lessen them, and which speaks volumes for the town- we realize Tom does not have a chance, yet we hope against hope for his acquittal.

Wisely, I do not feel the point is the trial’s outcome—we know what will result. But the film teaches us a lesson about reality: life is often unfair and painful.

The after-effects of the trial are the most exciting part of To Kill a Mockingbird.

Gregory Peck was awarded the Best Actor Oscar in 1962 for his role as a liberal, progressive, and honorable man who can do no wrong and is an excellent example for his children.

A black maid, Calpurnia, works for him, and he treats her like family. I could not help but think she is the mother figure in Jem and Scout’s lives.

Atticus does the right thing, treating everyone fairly and living a moral life. He is an excellent example, and it is no wonder Peck won the trophy.

A subplot involves a mysterious neighbor, Boo Radley, feared by the town kids but turning out to be a protector and companion to Scout and Jem. This role was the first for acclaimed actor Robert Duvall- the actor has a tiny yet important role and does a great deal of expressive acting without uttering a line.

The title of the film is poignant and essential to the ending.

The film is really about Jem and Scout and their quick journey into the pains and unfairness endured by adults- once innocently enjoying the summer, playing games, and making friends with a visiting young boy, they are exposed to evil and a hate-filled racist town, which they slowly come to realize exists.

Filmed in black and white, this quality enhances the picture. The blowing leaves and dark shadows add much to the impressive cinematography and give the film a dark quality that color would have ruined.

The 1930s time period is very authentic.

To Kill a Mockingbird is a timeless film with an important message about the world. Children and adults of every generation should view it as a lesson in empathy and compassion.

The film is not ugly or raw but is truthful and still feels fresh. It will resonate with all audiences patient enough to give it a good watch.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Robert Mulligan, Best Actor-Gregory Peck (won), Best Supporting Actress-Mary Badham, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium (won), Best Music Score-Substantially Original, Best Art Direction, Black-and-White (won), Best Cinematography, Black-and-White

Lawrence of Arabia-1962

Lawrence of Arabia-1962

Director David Lean

Starring Peter O’Toole, Alec Guinness, Omar Sharif 

Top 100 Films #82

Scott’s Review #355

60028312

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

Lawrence of Arabia (1962) is quite a grand film that must be seen on a large screen. This will ensure full appreciation of the enormous scale of the production.

Numerous shots of objects in the distance are featured, and the small screen dulls the experience.

An excellent film from top to bottom and groundbreaking at the time by the scope and vast proportions of the production, Lawrence of Arabia achieves its place in the annals of cinema history.

It’s a treat to revisit from time to time.

The film is divided into two parts with an intermission, as with epics that last nearly four hours.

Peter O’Toole stars as T.E. Lawrence, a bored British Army Lieutenant who talks his way into a transfer to the Arabian desert.

As the film opens, it is 1935, and Lawrence has just been killed in a motorcycle accident. While this concept of revealing the ending and working backward is common in current films, it was novel in 1962 when the film was made.

While in Arabia, Lawrence successfully bonded bitter rival tribes to unite against Turkish oppression during World War I. He meets two young guides and other central characters there: Prince Faisal (Alec Guinness) and Sherif Ali (Omar Sharif).

Much of the film features the battles between the rival tribes and Lawrence’s struggle to achieve peace.

Many location sequences of Lawrence and company traveling miles and miles of hot desert are featured.

Some complain that Lawrence of Arabia is too slow-moving a film, but that is its selling point. I find the scenes of the group languishing across the desert incredibly lush and rich in meaning.

The intense heat and beating sun are fantastic in their cinematic grandeur. The film is meant to take its time—precisely what an experience in the Arabian desert would be like—and the mountainous dunes and swirling winds are brilliantly filmed.

David Lean is the king of the sprawling epic, and Lawrence of Arabia is his crown achievement.

Lawrence is a well-written, layered, and complex character. He is not easy to describe or understand, which is also to the film’s credit.

The sheer weight loss that O’Toole went through over the two years it took to film Lawrence of Arabia is impressive enough, but he is also a tortured soul emotionally.

An epic film, Lawrence of Arabia (1962), requires a half-day of dedicated viewing but is worth every minute.

For a reminder of what an actual, breathtaking film looks like sans the oversaturated CGI and quick edits, one should take a deep breath and appreciate this work of art for its majestic look.

Oscar Nominations: 7 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-David Lean (won), Best Actor-Peter O’Toole, Best Supporting Actor-Omar Sharif, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Music Score-Substantially Original (won), Best Sound (won), Best Art Direction, Color (won), Best Cinematography, Color (won), Best Film Editing (won)

Burn Witch Burn (Night of the Eagle)-1962

Burn Witch Burn (Night of the Eagle)- 1962

Director Sidney Hayers

Starring Peter Wyngarde, Janet Blair

Scott’s Review #316

220px-Night-of-the-eagle-poster

Reviewed January 1, 2016

Grade: B

Burn Witch Burn, retitled for U.S. release from the original British title Night of the Eagle, is a 1962 black-and-white horror film.

It is based on a 1943 novel entitled Conjure Wife.

The film is quite decent and delves into the fascinating and arguably unusual subject of witchcraft. It’s careful not to be too dark a film, and it resembles more of an extended episode of the Twilight Zone. It’s a good episode.

I enjoyed the film’s wit and charm. It never took itself too seriously and added humor and lightness.

Norman, a psychology professor at the local university, is intelligent, successful, and well-adjusted. He has a blonde, pretty, sophisticated wife named Tansy.

The perfect housewife, she coordinates Friday night bridge parties with fellow professors and staff and a Mrs. Cleaver type, the mother character from the famous 1950s television series Leave it to Beaver.

When Norman discovers Tansy is practicing witchcraft and possesses various charms, dolls, and weird things, he forces her to destroy all of them.

This leads to a series of bad events.

Norman is accused of rape by a student, and other dire circumstances occur. Tansy assumes this is a result of the destruction of her witchcraft.

Burn Witch Burn is a fun film that doesn’t take itself too seriously despite its heavy subject matter. Tansy certainly does not look like the stereotypical witch. She is more like a PTA mom; we almost cheer for her.

At the same time, the film is not so over-the-top that it becomes ridiculous, either. I found it entertaining but not a masterpiece or scary.

As the film progressed, I found the action confusing from a story-line perspective, but that was admittedly okay. I went with it and enjoyed it.

For instance, the plot thickens when an enormous eagle affixed to the front of the university building comes into play or the sinister university secretary’s motives are revealed.

The special effects and ambiance of the thunderstorm are worth mentioning. The heavy storm was crucial in making Burn Witch Burn a compelling horror film. It added a heavy dose of spookiness to the events, and the atmosphere was spot on.

Burn Witch Burn (1962) is a fun, late-night horror flick that does not take itself too seriously. It is a worthy film for horror fans to enjoy.

An underappreciated British horror flick.

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?-1962

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? -1962

Director Robert Aldrich

Starring Bette Davis, Joan Crawford

Top 100 Films #71     Top 20 Horror Films #18

Scott’s Review #193

70048556

Reviewed November 14, 2014

Grade: A

Baby Jane kicked off a trend, prominent throughout the 1960s, of aging Hollywood actresses starring in horror films (interestingly, Bette Davis and Joan Crawford each did two—the others being Dead Ringer and Strait-Jacket), with varying degrees of success.

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane (1962), directed by Robert Aldrich, stars Davis and Crawford as, ironically enough, two aging Hollywood actresses, Jane and Blanche Hudson.

Jane (Davis), a child star in the 1920s nicknamed Baby Jane, with an adorable signature song, “I’ve Written a Letter to Daddy,” has long since faded from the spotlight but continues to dress in her Baby Jane costume, consisting of a little girl dress with hair in curls and ribbons.

Blanche, however, garnered her success as an adult in the 1930s until a tragic accident, which left her wheelchair-bound and subsequently ruined her career, became a popular film star, much more popular than Jane.

Blanche and Jane now while away the years away in a crumbling mansion in Los Angeles. Blanche is entirely dependent on her unbalanced sister for care. Jane is resentful of Blanche’s success and popularity and plans to re-launch her career in her once-famous alter ego.

The film has macabre comedic elements but never veers too far over the edge into camp or foolishness. It is also a very psychological film, as Jane mentally abuses Blanche and plays mind games with her to gain the upper hand.

Davis had a ball with this role as her appearance alone is frightful- a grown woman of a certain age in blonde curls, pancake makeup, and a baby doll dress- she looks hideous!

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane reminds me quite a bit of Billy Wilder’s masterpiece Sunset Boulevard in several ways- both feature successful stars of years past with delusions of returning to their former fame, both feature older women more than a tinge unbalanced, both films are set in sunny Los Angeles.

Two of the film’s supporting actors are well cast, adding much to this film and must be given recognition- Victor Buono, later made famous for his role of King Tut in the popular late 1960’s television series Batman, is highly effective as the opportunist sloth, Edwin Flagg, who aids Jane in her comeback attempt.

Maidie Norman as the Hudson sisters’ black housekeeper, Elvira, loyal to Blanche but never a fan of Jane’s, slowly becomes wise to Jane’s sinister plot and does a wonderful acting job when she stands up to the manipulative sister- for 1962, a black maid verbally assaulting a white woman employer was still somewhat taboo and kudos to the film for bravely going there is a highly effective scene.

The fact that Davis and Crawford famously despised each other in real life gives the audience an edge in scenes where the two women fight and claw at each other physically and verbally.

The film has wonderfully quotable dialogue- “We got rats in the cellar,” Jane utters matter-of-factly as she serves Blanche a cooked rat on a bed of lettuce for lunch one day and cackles fiendishly when she hears Blanche screams of disgust.

One aspect of the film that has taken me three viewings to become aware of and that I love is the musical score throughout the film- it features multiple and creepy versions of Jane’s signature song, “I’ve Written a Letter to Daddy,” with varying tempos.

This film must use suspension of disbelief. Why does Blanche not pound and scream at her bedroom window to alert the neighbor of trouble instead of casually tossing a note out the window?

Blanche struggles to descend steps by sliding down them and then cannot slide across the floor to escape the mansion, which is silly. The film is so gripping that I happily overlook these errors and instead enjoy the suspenseful film with two actresses, rivals onscreen and off-screen, that make this film a bit too realistic, a realism that makes for delightful film watching.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actress-Bette Davis, Best Supporting Actor-Victor Buono, Best Sound, Best Cinematography, Black-and-White, Best Costume Design, Black-and-White (won)

Gypsy-1962

Gypsy-1962

Director Mervyn LeRoy

Starring Rosalind Russell, Natalie Wood

Scott’s Review #37

567360

Reviewed June 18, 2014

Grade: A

The film version of the iconic Broadway production is a huge success, mainly due to Rosalind Russell’s superb performance as Mama Rose, a muscled, driven stage mother in the Depression-era show business world.

She is mesmerizing in the role and reminiscent of Joan Crawford and Bette Davis, who would have been wonderful in it.

Russell carries the film with her bombastic, loud, and determined performance- her children will become stars, and Rose will get the stardom and spoils she so richly deserves.

She uses every nook and cranny to her advantage- from borrowing money from her father to scraping leftover Chinese food scraps and stealing silverware.

Rose’s daughters, Baby June, and Louise (Natalie Wood) are in tow to help her achieve her goals- June the talented one, and Louise along for the ride.

When circumstances develop, Louise blossoms and becomes the famous Gypsy Rose Lee.

From masterpieces “Everything’s Coming up Roses” and “Some People” to her heartbreak at being a driven stage mom, Russell’s performance makes the film.

Her best scene comes at the climax. Rose finally admits that she has spent her life needing to be noticed, hits an empty theater stage alone, and has an emotional breakdown.

Natalie Wood and Karl Malden certainly add depth to their characters, especially Wood, who goes from mousy wallflower to seductive stripper Gypsy Rose Lee.

From a casting perspective, I am not sure Wood was quite right for the role- the second time in two years this would occur (her casting in West Side Story being the other misstep), but she was an enormous star at the time and was awarded juicy roles.

Gypsy (1962) is one of the great Hollywood musicals from the 1950s/1960’s heyday.

Witty, smart dialog helps this film emerge at the top of the list of similar types of films.

Bravura!

Oscar Nominations: Best Scoring of Music-Adaptation or Treatment, Best Cinematography, Color, Best Costume Design, Color