Category Archives: British

Four Weddings and a Funeral-1994

Four Weddings and a Funeral-1994

Director Mike Newell

Starring Hugh Grant, Andie MacDowell

Scott’s Review #1,444

Reviewed October 8, 2024

Grade: A-

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) is a surprisingly fresh and delightful romantic comedy and one of the better offerings of the 1990s. It is likely an inspiration for Love, Actually, from 2003, which I have seen recently, and they would be paired well together.

Both are British or set in the London area and have an English sophistication often lacking in American rom-coms.

The key to Four Weddings and a Funeral’s success is the writing. Storylines about real life emerge and relatable, awkward, and flawed characters grace the page. Lovelorn audience members who may have lost love or suffered from loneliness may relate most.

This is a huge win for a genre that often plays it safe or revels in predictability. Crisp writing goes a long way.

The main couple are played by Hugh Grant and Andie MacDowell and made them household names plummeting them to a successful decade in similar films, especially Grant.

Lovable Englishman Charles (Grant) and his group of friends seem to be unlucky in love. They frequently gather at parties or weddings never finding what they truly want, linking them together for life.

When Charles meets a beautiful American named Carrie (Andie MacDowell) at a wedding, he thinks his luck may have changed. But, after one magical night, Carrie, deemed ‘slutty’ returns to the States, ending what might have been a wonderful long-term relationship.

As Charles and Carrie’s paths continue to cross usually at someone’s wedding and one funeral, Charles believes they are meant to be together, even if their timing always seems to be off.

Grant shines in his role despite believing his performance was hideous, at least before the film received many accolades. Mike Newell, the director, provided conflicting direction making it hard for Grant to play the role in a particular way.

His stuttering and confusion, though, are what makes his character so endearing.

MacDowell is good too. It’s not clear why she doesn’t drop everything right away and date Charles or why she chooses an older Scottish guy to marry but the story-dictated situations only make the characters shine brighter.

Once the first wedding occurred I found myself hooked. I couldn’t wait to find out what three nuptials would be forthcoming and who the funeral was for.

Could it be a main character or even Charles or Carrie?

That makes Four Weddings and a Funeral compelling especially as the supporting characters are fleshed out.

We get to know Fiona (Kristin Scott Thomas), a bitchy friend who seems to judge everyone she meets. Her snobbery is slowly replaced with vulnerability when it’s revealed that she has always loved Charles.

Other characters like Tom (James Fleet) and Scarlett (Charlotte Coleman) are comic relief while a same-sex couple, Gareth and Matthew (Simon Callow and John Hannah), and Charles’s deaf brother David (David Bower) are part of the group with no judgments about their sexuality or disability.

In 1994 this was a searing victory and a feeling of inclusion is apparent.

The icing on the cake is a spectacular soap opera moment when a bride and groom are about to take their vows only for one party to admit their love for another character. Hysterics, a meltdown, and good old-fashioned drama commence and make the scene satisfying.

I didn’t expect to enjoy Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) as much as I did. Audiences agreed and the film was rewarded with two surprising Oscar nominations.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay

All of Us Strangers-2023

All of Us Strangers-2023

Director Andrew Haigh

Starring Andrew Scott, Paul Mescal, Claire Foy

Scott’s Review #1,439

Reviewed September 22, 2024

Grade: A

A moody, dark-lit experience, All of Us Strangers (2023) is a dreamy affair in all the best ways. It’s a bit of a ghost story combined with a love story and can be challenging to explain. 

Especially noteworthy are some elements like the lighting and mood which serve as enhancers. The lavish setting of London, England, and its surroundings are presented as lonely and depressing.

Loneliness is an encompassing description of the film summing up the character-driven story set mostly in an enormous yet almost vacant luxury high-rise apartment.

The vacant building is an effective backdrop to the main character’s experience.

We get inside his head and travel down a tunnel of self-reflection and acceptance just as he does. It’s unclear what is imagined or real, raising the stakes and catapulting the viewer into a world of questions.

The best pleasure comes after finishing the film and wondering how all the pieces come together or even if they do. I wasn’t sure what happened in the conclusion but the overall experience left me thinking. 

The British film follows a lonely screenwriter named Adam who works as a television writer. He develops an intimate relationship with his mysterious male neighbor while revisiting memories from the past involving his parents.

Andrew Haig directs the film and Andrew Scott plays the screenwriter from which the story is his vehicle. Paul Mescal plays his neighbor and love interest.

Haigh is best known for efforts like 45 Years (2015) and Lean on Pete (2017). Both are quiet films and character-driven. All of us Strangers is the best of the trio, though.

The film also has some teary moments of sweetness mostly shown through an LGBTQ+ lens but the film is not only for members or allies of the community but for anyone with a heart or craving something cerebral.

Viewers who have lost parents far too soon before feelings are expressed and only cherished memories remain will find All of Us Strangers to resonate mightily.

Specific to the LGBTQ+ community, what gay man wouldn’t want to travel thirty years into the future and have deep conversations with his parents about his lifestyle? Having missed those prominent years because of death. 

In the story, Adam’s parents died in a car accident when he was a child. Since he never ‘came out’ to them he travels to their house outside of London and imagines conversations with them separately and together. 

The best scenes are between Andrew Scott and Claire Foy who plays Adam’s mother. They are lengthy and poignant and brilliant acting by both are showcased. 

In an ideal fantasy, his mother would leap into Adam’s arms and champion his lifestyle becoming his most ardent supporter. Haig writes the scenes better than that as real-life situations might play out with conflict and misunderstandings.

The mother wants to understand and support but has hesitancies and ideas about a lifestyle different than Adam’s. The scenes become tense and complex not because of shouting but because of a deep struggle for understanding.

Not to be outdone by Foy’s performance in the unique relationship between father and son deliciously played by Jamie Bell. 

Adam has resented his father’s emotional distance for years never forgetting how he needed his father’s support as a child and never got it.

In a powerful scene, Adam and his father embrace. The embrace is one that Adam needed as a child.

The film is for everyone because why wouldn’t anyone want to visit their dead parents years later? Even if still alive there are things between parent and child never said or expressed. 

So many scenes are emotional, poignant, and meaningful in All of Us Strangers. 

The finale is trippy and made me recall David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive (1992) where what is real may not be and who we think a character’s life is all about may not be so.

Though wrapped in fantasy, All of Us Strangers (2023) is focused on grief through a deep emotional lens and uses superior acting to tell its story.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Film, Best Director-Andrew Haigh, Best Lead Performance-Andrew Scott

Love Actually-2003

Love Actually-2003

Director Richard Curtis

Starring Hugh Grant, Emma Thompson, Liam Neeson

Scott’s Review #1,438

Reviewed September 8, 2024

Grade: B

Love Actually (2003) is a British romantic comedy perfect for watching around the holidays, especially on Christmas Eve. Perhaps even on Valentine’s Day, the setting is tinsel-laden and filled with holiday merriment and sweetness.

It involves an ensemble cast of dozens but surprisingly not hard to follow. The myriad of stories had me naturally more invested in some than others, preferring the heavy drama to the silly side plots.

The film begins beautifully as a voice-over narrator sets the stage and message of love. He ruminates about pure and uncomplicated love of lovers, and friends, and points out that the messages from the 9/11 victims were messages of love and not hate.

The story then switches among the interconnecting “love stories” of many people.

The quick segment nearly left me in tears and to let the poignant message sink in.

I was pleasantly surprised to find nine stories some of which intersect with others. I am a fan of this type of storytelling but not all of them connect with others which might have made it too confusing or even better layered.

Some stories are not given a lot of exposure but the balance feels close to right.

I preferred the first half of Love Actually to the second. I had heard of the film and finally watched it twenty years later but anticipated more of a sappy romantic comedy than anything of substance, especially since the rom-com master Hugh Grant stars.

I immediately felt an emotional connection to stories like the United Kingdom Prime Minister (Grant) and his romantic connection with Natalie (Martine McCutcheon), a junior member of his household staff. This ‘boy meets a girl from the wrong side of tracks’ felt authentic and laden with possibilities.

Another win is the love story between Sarah (Laura Linney) and handsome creative director, Karl (Rodrigo Santoro). Their buildup and near tryst after a Christmas party had me in their corner, and rooting for the pair to overcome an obstacle involving Sarah’s dependent brother.

Finally, my favorite couple is writer Jamie (Colin Firth) and his Portuguese housekeeper, Aurélia (Lúcia Moniz). Their sweetness and innocence are gleeful and true and rooting for them to get together despite language barriers was easy. 

Richard Curtis, who directs and writes the screenplay, misses an opportunity when he creates an unfulfilling love triangle between newlyweds Juliet (Keira Knightley), Peter (Chiwetel Ejiofor), and best man Mike (Andrew Lincoln). Initially unclear if Mike is smitten with Juliet or Peter the traditional route is chosen instead of an LGBTQ+ presence.  

In one story, the horny British lad named Colin (Kris Marchall) unsuccessfully tries to woo British women and decides to go to America to get laid. Predictably, he meets one hot woman after another in the mid-west USA.

This story is hokey and could have been dropped altogether in favor of more screen time for the more interesting stories.

In the final act, I was disappointed when the film teeters too much towards cheesy with a tepid Christmas pageant where many stories come to a head.

This culminates with a silly chase throughout Heathrow Airport where one character jumps security and outwits inattentive airport personnel to catch his love interest before she leaves on a flight to New York.

Since 9/11 is mentioned in the beginning this tired plot device is surprising given the times of heightened terrorism and deserved respect for airport security.

Curtis rips off Paul Thomas Anderson’s Boogie Nights (1997) in the epilogue by using the same song, ‘God Only Knows’ by the Beach Boys, and the same wrap-up of what happens to the characters.

Despite the thievery, I did enjoy seeing what happens in my favorite stories.

Love Actually (2003) wobbles a bit by trying to have all nine stories pack a punch but the effort is nice and the message of love closes out the film.

We know happiness and Christmas miracles usually don’t pan out but it’s nice to escape and pretend they do.

Die! Die! My Darling!-1965

Die! Die! My Darling! -1965

Director Silvio Narizzano

Starring Tallulah Bankhead, Stefanie Powers, Peter Vaughn

Scott’s Review #1,437

Reviewed September 2, 2024

Grade: B

Die! Die! My Darling! (1965) is a British horror film released under this name in the United States but originally titled Fanatic in the United Kingdom. This was frequently done for marketing purposes.

The film follows a young woman played by Stefanie Powers who wanders into the clutches of an old wacko played by legendary actress, Tallulah Bankhead. The once-sultry actress is unrecognizable as an elderly, hobbling old crone who is a religious freak.

She blends well into the 1960s trend of a once sexy and acclaimed actress going the horror route sans glamour or makeup. Bette Davis did the same thing most notably in 1962’s What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? who Bankhead’s character is similar to.

One could argue that Davis led the pack with heavyweights like Joan Crawford, Joan Fontaine, and Veronica Lake.

Patricia Carroll (Powers) plays an American woman who travels to London to marry her boyfriend, Alan (Maurice Kaufmann). While there, Patricia decides to visit Mrs. Trefoile (Bankhead), the mother of her deceased ex-fiancé, to pay her respects and chat with the woman before marrying Alan.

Upon arriving, however, Patricia discovers that Mrs. Trefoile’s grief over her son’s has transformed her into a lunatic and the woman plans to ‘save’ Patricia by holding her prisoner and helping her see God’s light.

Mrs. Trefoile’s staff—the housekeeper, Anna (Yootha Joyce), the groundsman, Harry (Peter Vaughn), and the mentally challenged, Joseph (Donald Sutherland)—are along for the ride.

The film is a perfect late-night watch and should not be taken too seriously. Once Patricia is locked in the upstairs bedroom of the quaint English cottage, it’s no surprise that she will eventually escape.

The fun is watching her many attempts at freedom and the inevitable conclusion.

Director Silvio Narizzano provides some genuine thrills and peril that would make Hitchcock proud. When Patricia crafts a makeshift rope by tying bed linens together to climb down the side of the house, I hold my breath, hoping she will make it as she carefully scales past two characters chatting near a window.

The comical element is how she cannot physically overpower the old woman or Anna. She is younger and stronger than either and has the will to survive.

But Die! Die! My Darling! isn’t meant to be analyzed but merely enjoyed. Narizzano fulfills that request with a nice set design of the cottage interiors, superior acting by Bankhead and Powers mainly, and real moments of peril the audience can enjoy.

As the viewer, I felt emotionally invested in the characters and couldn’t wait for Patricia to escape and Mrs. Trefoile to get her just desserts.

I mostly enjoyed Patricia’s determination and going toe-to-toe with the wicked old woman. Some characters might have cow-towed to her demands but Patricia remains strong in what undoubtedly was an effort to provide 1960s feminism.

This counterbalances nicely with Mrs. Trefoile’s old-fashioned religious fanatism. It’s the old versus the new especially when Patricia admits she’s not into religion.

Bankhead is the highlight and I could only imagine Davis playing the role instead. Bankhead plays the part magnificently and real glamour shots of Bankhead appear to have been used to show a younger Mrs. Trefoile who used to be an actress.

The film is a cat-and-mouse affair and begins with a quick graphic of a cat chasing a mouse. Fans familiar with Hammer Horror Productions can rest assured that the cheap but effective sets are on full display.

A creak here and there and battered couches and walls only enhance the experience.

Die! Die! My Darling! (1965) is recommended for horror fans or fans of Bankhead seeking a glimpse of her stripped down and only three years before she died at age sixty-six.

Rebecca-2020

Rebecca-2020

Director Ben Wheatley

Starring Lily James, Armie Hammer, Kristin Scott Thomas

Scott’s Review #1,430

Reviewed June 30, 2024

Grade: A-

Impossible to compare to the legendary 1940 Alfred Hitchcock film, I tried very hard to take the 2020 retelling of Rebecca based on its merits. After all, it’s been eighty years and other attempts have been made mostly forgotten or irrelevant.

Aware of lukewarm reviews by other critics I desperately washed those aside and settled in for a macabre, dark ghostly British thriller.

The film is quite good! Feeling fresh and with a polished cinematic look, I’d describe it as a modern British offering despite being set long ago.

For comparisons, it reminds me of the British television series Downton Abbey (2010-2015) in look and feel. A grandiose estate, dutiful servants, and rank and file of other wealthy and not-so-wealthy characters.

A young newlywed (character nameless) arrives at her husband’s imposing family estate on a windswept English coast and finds herself battling the shadow of his first wife, Rebecca, whose legacy lives in the house long after her death.

The lead actress, Lily James, who at first I couldn’t recall who she was, is most known for Downton Abbey and the 2023 film The Iron Claw.

The character she plays, the insecure second Mrs. de Winter is confused, and haunted requiring terrific acting. James hits it out of the park on that front.

Emotionally abused by her employer, wickedly played by Ann Dowd, she is instantly heroic and likable so we are happy when she graduates from servant to queen bee.

I cringed at first when I realized that the gorgeous and lovely Kristin Scott Thomas was playing the pivotal role of the villainous Mrs. Danvers. Known for the film The English Patient (1996) where she played the romantic Katharine Clifton, I wasn’t sure she’d be able to go so dark.

Boy, was I wrong? It took me a bit to channel out the dastardly performance by Judith Anderson from the original and accept Scott Thomas. She gets better with each scene and even forces the audience to sympathize with her.

Finally, Armie Hammer is good in the lead role of Maxim de Winter. Handsome, sophisticated, and wealthy, he peculiarly fancies a lady’s maid who inexplicably becomes his wife.

We wonder what he sees in her when his deceased wife ‘Rebecca’ was gorgeous, affluent, and a perfectionist. Rebecca was presumed to have drowned in a terrible boating accident but as events unfold we wonder if there’s more to the story.

If only the characters communicated with each other it would have eliminated confusion. Maxim refuses to talk about Rebecca. If his true feelings were revealed he’d have a different kind of second marriage.

Besides the story and the acting, other trimmings make Rebecca circa 2020 worthy of watching.

The cinematography captures crashing waves and high cliffs that provide a haunting mood. The dining room and kitchen sequences brim with goodness and wonderful meals.

The art direction and set design are overall flawless in the presentation.

The costume party that Mrs. de Winter eagerly plans and hopes will admonish the house of any thoughts of Rebecca go wrong which for viewers is a delight because the scene is already rich.  With help from Danvers a regal red costume is designed and prepared to showcase Mrs. de Winter.

When she confidently descends the staircase the startled crowd gasps with fright at the similarities between her and Rebecca. Maxim angrily dismisses her to change outfits while Danvers smirks in the background.

She’s won round one.

The Danvers/Mrs. de Winter feud is my favorite aspect of Rebecca (both original and 2020 versions) so it’s delightful to see it work so well with Scott Thomas and James.

There is nothing quite so satisfying as watching a film with little expectations but finishing feeling fulfilled and still thinking about it the next morning.

I’ll always watch 1940s Rebecca as a treasured friend but Rebecca (2020) quite capably offers a modern spin with good acting and lavish production values.

10 Rillington Place-1971

10 Rillington Place-1971

Director Richard Fleischer

Starring Richard Attenborough, Judy Geeson, John Hurt

Scott’s Review #1,424

Reviewed March 22, 2024

Grade: A

Richard Fleischer has directed films such as Dr. Doolittle (1967) and Soylent Green (1973) that are remembered better than 10 Rillington Place (1971).

That’s a shame because the film is one that I hadn’t seen nor heard of but is chilling, macabre, and masterful in its bleakness and atmosphere.

It’s also wonderfully acted.

One can’t help but notice the stark similarities to Frenzy, an equally disturbing and great 1972 film by Alfred Hitchcock.  Did this film influence the master of suspense to create that one? Only he knows the answer to that question.

Mostly set in one dreary apartment building in London named 10 Rillington Place it tells the true story of the British serial killer John Christie (Richard Attenborough), who committed many of his crimes in the tall terraced house, and the miscarriage of justice involving his neighbor, the simple-minded Timothy Evans (John Hurt).

Timothy was used by John as a scapegoat for the murders.

John is a seemingly model citizen but a killer, as the audience witnesses in the first scene. He poses as a kindly doctor who convinces naive women that he can cure whatever might ail them whether it be aches and pains or making a pesky pregnancy go away.

He usually strangles them to death and buries them in a makeshift graveyard in the pretty garden in front of his residence.

The main story in 10 Rillington Place follows John as he cons a pregnant bride (Judy Geeson) struggling financially to utilize his help and medical methods. John’s dutiful and clueless wife, Ethel (Pat Heywood) slowly discovers her husband’s shenanigans but will she fall prey as his next victim?

Of course, Richard Attenborough steals the show as the demented killer with a calm, cool, and collected exterior. As an average-looking Joe type, he can use his trusting appearance to his advantage.

I’d trust him.

Attenborough became an Academy Award-winning director for 1982’s Gandhi so he knows his craft well. He also directed Cry Freedom in 1987 and Chaplin in 1992.

In actor mode, he is phenomenal in the crazed killer role. His greatest skill is his demeanor. Thoughtful and pondering he never plays psycho or nuts. He is careful but that’s part of his creepiness. With every noise, he peers out the window drawing the living room curtain ever so slightly revealing his face.

Hurt and Geeson are terrific as the young couple with the cards stacked against them. They are simply looking for tranquility and the means to raise their child.

Simplicity is a winning formula and most of the film is subdued thanks to Fleischer’s laid-back direction techniques.

The look of 10 Rillington Place is perfection. The colors are muted and faded giving a dank and depressing look. Even a bright red velvet sofa appears dark and dreary.

As Timothy and Beryl agree to lease the top floor flat this will not bode well for them and somehow we can just sense this.

Towards the end of the film, it is almost too much to bear with the knowledge that John strangles a toddler to death and unceremoniously stuffs the child, wrapped in a blanket in a washroom.

Brilliantly, the murders rarely happen onscreen and with none of the principal characters. That’s what’s so haunting about the film and reminds me of Hitchcock’s Frenzy.

Remember the scene where the necktie killer lures a female victim upstairs to her death? There is silence and a shot of the staircase for seemingly an eternity until the killer descends the stairs.

We know what’s happened.

What we don’t see is sometimes much more frightening than what we do see.

The ghastly reveal at the end of 10 Rillington Place that the story is based on real-life events packed a punch since I didn’t have this knowledge going into the film.

Thankfully, 10 Rillington Place (1971) has received its just desserts in terms of praise and achievement in recent years. This proves that great films are like cream and rise to the top…..eventually.

The Wolves of Willoughby Chase-1989

The Wolves of Willoughby Chase-1989

Director Stuart Olme

Starring Stephanie Beacham, Emily Hudson, Aleks Darowska

Scott’s Review #1,418

Reviewed January 20, 2024

Grade: B+

The Wolves of Willoughby Chase (1989) is a British dark fantasy film directed by Stuart Orme in his theatrical directorial debut. Most notably a rock video director, I am unsure if Orme ever directed another film.

The film is based on the 1962 novel of the same name, written by Joan Aiken which was quite popular with children during the 1960s and beyond.

Similar to the book, the film is set in an alternate history version of nineteenth-century England where wolves roam the countryside. The animals prance around the wintery landscapes causing fear for those humans who spot them.

The experience is playful and escapist with similarities to both Oliver! (1968) and The Witches (1990). Especially in regards to the former some of the action takes place in a bleak workhouse where children are mistreated by adults.

Predictably and satisfying, the evil adults get their comeuppance while the nice children and warm adults live happily ever after. This is a main part of the fun of watching the perilous situations.

The plot centers around two young girls. Bonnie (Emily Hudson) is the daughter of Lord and Lady Willoughby, who live at the grand yet cozy country estate named Willoughby Chase. Lady Willoughby (Eleanor David) is ill, and the couple plan to recuperate basking in the warm sun along the Mediterranean.

In urban London, Bonnie’s cousin, Sylvia (Aleks Darowska), is leaving her impoverished Aunt Jane (Lord Willoughby’s cousin) to keep Bonnie company while her parents are away.

While on the train, she meets a mysterious man, Mr. Grimshaw (Mel Smith) whom they decide to bring back to Willoughby Chase after falling unconscious when wolves attack the train.

Meanwhile, Bonnie and Sylvia’s cousin, Letitia (Stephanie Beacham) is their new governess. She is evil and determined to get rid of the children so that she inherits money and the estate.

Billed as a children’s film, as Oliver! was, some of the sequences may be too much for younger kids. The ferocious wolves may cause fright while a scene involving one of the girls being locked in a chest might cause nightmares.

There is a presumed drowning and another character catches on fire.

For adults, particularly those who enjoyed the book as youngsters the dangerous situations are light fare and merely make Bonnie and Sylvia more heroic and justified in escaping the adult’s clutches.

The art direction and set designs are also a big part of the fun. Numerous scenes of winter and snow-covered roads and pathways are what make The Wolves of Willoughby Chase a perfect watch for a frigid January evening.

I’m not sure if the film would feel as atmospheric in July or August.

The estate where much of the action takes place has a warm and cozy feel. It made me want to curl up by a raging fire with a good book.

There’s an undertone of class distinction when the servants are all dismissed to save money and I questioned why Sylvia and her aunt didn’t simply live on the estate. The poor living amongst the rich is a perfect setup for more meaningful storylines but the intent is more for The Wolves of Willoughby Chase to be fun.

Beacham is delightful while slightly over-the-top playing a fiendish character. Most known for appearing on television’s ‘Dynasty’ the actress has also made British horror films.

I assumed she planned to kill the parents and the girls but what about the aunt?

It doesn’t matter much because her plan is foiled and the girls are reunited with their loved ones.

The Wolves of Willoughby Chase (1989) contains a nice musical score that enhances the adventures. The film is a bit too scary for kids but perfect for young adults and older.

The Rainbow-1989

The Rainbow-1989

Director Ken Russell

Starring Sammi Davis, Paul McGann, Amanda Donohoe

Scott’s Review #1,409

Reviewed November 5, 2023

Grade: A-

Continuing my exploration of more obscure films by the British director comes The Rainbow, a 1989 picture adapted from a 1915 D.H. Lawrence novel.

Russell fans will know that he also adapted 1970s Women in Love from Lawrence so there is a tie-in between films.

Even though The Rainbow was made nearly two decades after Women in Love, it’s a prequel. The antics of the Brangwen sisters are explored as they grow up in rural England specifically one sister’s burgeoning sexuality and desires.

One could take The Rainbow as a feminist film that centers mainly on the eldest sister.

Born to a rich landowner, played by Christopher Gable, in the final days of the Victorian era (the late 1800s), Ursula (Sammi Davis) blossoms into a beautiful young woman full of imagination and promise.

She is quite free-spirited and begins to feel trapped by her surroundings. Still, her life changes when she has an erotic experience with Winifred (Amanda Donohoe), an adventurous and bisexual teacher.

From that point on, Ursula puts all of her passion and creativity into the pursuit of sexual fulfillment. She prefers men and develops a relationship with the dashing Anton (Paul McGann).

But she is constantly frustrated and continues to suffer from anguish and under-fulfillment as her development years go by.

Davis is delightful and mesmerizing as the lead character. Her flowing blonde locks which she eventually cuts give her a wholesome schoolteacher persona. But she is peppered with sassiness and experimentation which Davis flawlessly executes.

Donohoe, who starred in another Russell film, the bizarre The Lair of the White Worm (1988) smolders with sophistication and sensuality. Winifred easily takes Ursula under her wing and teaches her the pleasures of sex.

Eventually marrying Ursula’s wealthy Uncle Henry she doesn’t decline into dull matrimony but remains a mentor and source of temptation to Ursula.

McGann, as Anton brings a boyish yet masculine flavor to the film and succeeds as the main love interest for Ursula. Becoming a soldier, he smolders most during his plentiful nude scenes running around forests and up mountains with Ursula in tow.

These scenes are the zestiest as Russell plugs his all-too-familiar bizarre sequences of lust and bare flesh into the film.

There are many nude scenes to salivate over turning the prim and proper Victorian upper-crust characters into horny animalistic creatures.

The dynamics between Ursula, Anton, and Winifred are my favorite because it’s not played as a traditional love triangle with one pair to root for. It’s more sexual and interesting than that.

Not everything in The Rainbow works, however.

Even though I’m very familiar with Women in Love the connection to that film is tough to capture. Gudrun (the other sister) is the main focus in Women in Love but only has a small role in The Rainbow. To make matters more confusing, Ursula (in The Rainbow) is more similar to the character of Gudrun (in Women in Love).

Also, Glenda Jackson (who plays Gudrun in Women in Love) is cast as the mother in The Rainbow. The role is unspectacular especially compared to the brilliant portrayal Jackson did in Women in Love.

She doesn’t have much to play except being their mother.

I finally decided to stop thinking about Women in Love and enjoy The Rainbow on its own merits.

Admittedly, the final sequence does satisfy as Ursula forges ahead to a new life which brings us back to the start of Women in Love.

Reminiscent of E.M. Forster’s adaptations like A Room with a View (1985), Maurice (1987), or Howards End (1992), the quaint English cottages, landscapes, and villages are wonderful and capture a specific time capsule.

The Rainbow (1989) transported me to another time and offered a character study meshed in sexuality, coming of age, and feminist power.

The House That Dripped Blood-1971

The House That Dripped Blood-1971

Director Peter Duffell

Starring Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing

Scott’s Review #1,408

Reviewed October 31, 2023

Grade: B+

Any horror project including Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing is worth a watch and The House That Dripped Blood (1971) features both actors though sadly not in any scenes together.

The British horror anthology is spooky and perfect for the Halloween season. The action surrounds a hulking house where bad events occur regardless of who inhabits it.

The film is divided into four short stories explaining the circumstances surrounding the individual inhabitants.

The production is low budget which is perfect for a film like this but the title makes it seem bloodier and gorier than it is.

All of the stories were originally written, and subsequently scripted, by Robert Bloch.

Below is a summary, review, and rating of each vignette.

Framework: B+

Shortly after renting an old country house, a well-known film star Paul Henderson mysteriously disappears and Inspector Holloway (John Bennett) from Scotland Yard is called by a local Sergeant to investigate.

Inquiring at the local police station, he is told some of the house’s history.

He soon learns how four tenants met macabre fates.

The ‘Framework’ sequence goes between the vignettes and provides good context but is more or less just the interplay between Inspector and Sergeant.

This serves as an introduction to each chapter and ties the events together.

Method for Murder: A-

Charles Hillyer (Denholm Elliott) is a struggling writer who specializes in horror stories. He and his wife Alice (Joanna Dunham), move into the house thinking it will serve as inspiration. Charles creates a devious character named ‘Dominic’ after he ‘imagines’ seeing him outside a window.

Charles soon starts to see Dominic, who begins stalking and tormenting him.

My second favorite of the four chapters, I all but guessed the ‘twist’ from the get-go but was surprised at the ‘twist on top of a twist’ which pleased me.

It’s great when a villain thinks they’ve gotten away with murder only to be murdered themselves.

Waxworks: B+

Retired stockbroker Philip Grayson (Cushing) moves into the house with plans to read, garden, and relax. Though initially he occupies himself with his hobbies, he quickly becomes lonely. One day, while wandering around town, he happens upon a wax museum.

Grayson explores the museum and finds a sculpture of a dead woman he had been in love with. The museum’s proprietor explains that he based the likeness of the sculpture on his late wife, who had been executed after murdering his best friend.

Despite featuring Cushing, it’s a moderately good story but lacks the compelling nature of a couple of the other vignettes.

It’s less about the house itself and more about the wax museum and obsession is the subject matter.

While decent, Waxworks didn’t blow me away either.

Sweets to the Sweet: A

Widower John Reid (Lee) moves into the house next along with his odd young daughter Jane (Chloe Franks). John hires former teacher Ann Norton (Nyree Dawn Porter) to tutor Jane. Ann bonds with Jane, she helps Jane get over a fear of fire.

Ann suspects John of abusing Jane but is there more to the story? Why doesn’t he let Jane play with other children or toys and do his best to keep her isolated?

Is there something wrong with Jane?

This is the best installment and has a resemblance to The Innocents (1961) featuring a governess and a spooky child. Viewers will find themselves switching alliances with the characters as the story rapidly moves along.

The Cloak: B+

Finally, horror film actor Paul Henderson (Jon Pertwee) moves into the house while starring in a vampire film being shot nearby.

Irritated by the lack of maturity or talent from the cast and crew he decides to purchase a realistic cloak worn by his character (who happens to be a vampire). The shop he makes his purchase from is run by the enigmatic Theo von Hartmann (Geoffrey Bayldon) who eerily offers him a black cloak.

This one plays like a Hammer Horror Dracula installment and is good but not great. Less happens within the confines of the house than I’d like and Paul is an unlikable character.

The action on the movie set and in the shop are the best parts.

The Boy Friend-1971

The Boy Friend-1971

Director Ken Russell

Starring Twiggy, Christopher Gable

Scott’s Review #1,407

Reviewed October 27, 2023

Grade: B+

With each Ken Russell film, I see the expectation is for something wacky and I sit back for a schizophrenic roller coaster ride.

His finest efforts like Women in Love (1970), The Devils (1971), and Tommy (1975) offer bombast and weirdness in their way.

The British director decided to take on The Boy Friend (1971), a reworking of a 1953 traditional musical of the same name by Sandy Wilson, and turn it upside down on its ass. Those expecting a conventional affair with cheery sing-along numbers in perfect symmetry will be disappointed.

The messy project has its ups and downs and meanders off course on more than one occasion. With jagged storytelling and dragging sequences, it makes up ground with the sizzling visuals and costumes and offers the audience a glimpse of theatre drama and shenanigans both onstage and offstage.

On its own merits and considering the director is Russell it gets a marginal thumbs up but is nowhere near as fantastic as his other works.

Causing a bit of confusion, the plot is divided into three levels. Level one tells the main story, where, in the south of England in the 1920s, a struggling theatrical troupe is performing a musical about romantic intrigues at a finishing school for young women in the south of France.

The cast awkwardly strives to impress a visiting famous movie director with hopes of fame and fortune. They giggle, improvise, and scheme to get noticed at the risk of upstaging the other cast members.

Next, there is the musical itself. Four of the girls at the school are very forward and acquire boyfriends, but Polly, played by 1960s supermodel Twiggy, is shy and has nobody to take her to the carnival masked ball that night. Tony (Christopher Gable), a messenger boy from a dress shop, brings her a costume, and they fall in love.

Finally, there are extensive fantasy sequences in the film, during which the characters’ dreams and hopes are enacted in music and dance sans dialogue.

Glenda Jackson, who won an Oscar for Russell’s Women in Love returns in an uncredited appearance as the theatre star who Polly must fill in for when she breaks her leg.

The crux of the film is the romance between Polly and Tony. While there is some chemistry between the duo they never completely take off as the centerpiece either.

The cleverness is in the reveal of the twist within the stage production cementing the pair’s connection, as characters in the play.

Nonetheless, there are too many other things going on to care about the lovebirds for very long.

The musical numbers got my attention, especially towards the end of the film. My personal favorite ‘It’s Nicer in Nice’ kickstarts the action with high-caliber energy and shout-outs to other geographical cities in comparison to Nice, France. It’s a fun regional experience with great culture and an upbeat rhythm.

The chirpy ‘It’s Never Too Late to Fall in Love’ follows soon after offering a gleeful ending.

The fantasy sequences waste story potential and offer no plot direction but are fun to watch anyway. Dripping with colors and razzle-dazzle the chaotic events are dreamlike and foot-stomping.

Twiggy, with little to no prior film experience, is quite impressive in the lead role. Her voice is strong and her acting skills are more than adequate. What might have been a disaster is not thanks to her talents.

Even though other Ken Russell films are tighter and linear The Boy Friend (1971) is worth the watch, especially for his diehard fans.

Oscar Nominations: Best Music, Adaptation, and Original Song Score

The Satanic Rites of Dracula-1973

The Satanic Rites of Dracula-1973

Director Alan Gibson

Starring Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, Joanna Lumley

Scott’s Review #1,405

Reviewed October 16, 2023

Grade: B+

The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973) is the eighth film in the Hammer Horror Dracula series, and the seventh and final one to feature Christopher Lee in the starring role. It also unites legendary horror actor Peter Cushing with Lee for the third time.

So, the territory and storyline are hardly unchartered and a film like this is for a targeted audience.

For those unclear, Hammer Horror films are a series of low-budget British films produced by the London-based company featuring gothic and fantasy-type films.

Their heyday was from the mid-1950s until the 1970s.

The Satanic Rites of Dracula comes at the end of the horror genre reign of terror but is enjoyable nonetheless. It’s redundant in a way because I’ve seen so many of them by now that there’s little intrigue anymore.

It’s not a surprise anymore what’s going to transpire in the film.

I love these films mostly because of the low budget and the creative and sophisticated sets and art design. But the main selling point is the Lee/Cushing pairing.

After a Secret Service agent barely escapes an English country estate where satanic rituals are being held and later dies Van Helsing (Cushing) is asked to investigate.

He seeks the seven hundred-year-old count (Lee), who is dead and living in London with his vampire bride and a breed of other undead women dressed in red robes.

Van Helsing’s granddaughter Jessica played by Joanna Lumley is introduced as well as another Secret Service agent, Murray (Michael Coles).

The team naturally winds up at the English estate where they discover shenanigans led by a female Chinese vampire (Barbara Yu Ling). They grapple with fire and brimstone as they determinedly attempt to take down Dracula once and for all (yeah right!).

The film is silly but in the best of ways. I enjoyed the very beginning and ending most of all. When the Secret Service agent runs down the vast estate driveway amid darkness the mysterious pursuing motorcycle men provide intrigue, and the plot is hatched.

As fans know well the finale will result in a fiery showdown between good and evil and the benevolent Van Helsing destroys the villainous Dracula with a strong stake to the heart.

This technique is used a few times during The Satanic Rites of Dracula and in comic fashion, a stake and hammer always seem to be at the ready.

But the fun is good besting evil after all and delightful is seeing a vampire’s fangs come into view as the unsuspecting victim gasps in shock or shrieks in terror.

By 1973 Cushing and Lee could probably deliver their dialogue in their sleep and the motivation doesn’t seem to be there. Lee barely appears until the final act.

The introduction of Lumley, well-known to Absolutely Fabulous fans is wise and breathes new life into the familiar characters. She brings a Nancy Drew-type appeal especially as she sneaks into the estate basement to investigate peculiar noises.

A hoot for Hammer Horror fans or fans of British horror but it’s not one of the best in the series. Enjoyable mostly for additional tidbits like howling wind, creepy noises, and lavish drapes, furniture, and various set pieces.

The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973) is a nice watch in October around Halloween.

Mahler-1974

Mahler-1974

Director Ken Russell

Starring Robert Powell, Georgina Hale

Scott’s Review #1,404

Reviewed October 15, 2023

Grade: A

Anyone brave and open-minded enough to expose themselves to a Ken Russell film is in for an experience in great cinema. The British director frequently fuses music, odd visual sequences, and vivid colors into his art.

There is a specific mood one must be in to flourish in the moment and the dream-like perplexities of a film of this ilk but the result will be an appreciation for creativity in filmmaking.

My personal favorite Russell film, and I’m still getting my feet wet in all things Russell, is Women in Love (1970) followed by The Devils (1971), a journey into madness.

Hardly straight-laced, Mahler (1974) conceptualizes the music of the famous Austro-Bohemian composer and delves into the life and times of the man.

Gustav Mahler (Robert Powell) is returning to his home in Vienna, Austria following a stint conducting at the Metropolitan Opera in New York. Traveling via train with his wife, Alma (Georgina Hale) he reflects on pivotal moments in his life.

Mahler dwells on memories of his overbearing father, of his once powerful but now failing relationship with Alma, and of the anti-Semitism that forced him to convert to Catholicism.

A garish sequence also reveals the death of his child.

A side story on the train features Alma’s lover, Max (Richard Morant), also on the train, urging her to leave Mahler and get off with him a couple of stops before Vienna.

Russell shifts time quite often so that at first it’s tough to figure out what is happening and more specifically if events are in the past or the future.

But once acclimated it’s easy to reflect on the stages of life and the various players. Better still is to ruminate about the happenings after the credits have rolled.

The best films require some ponderance after they end rather than simply forgetting them fifteen minutes later and Mahler is one of those films.

Knowing Russell, (has anyone seen The Devils?), he sometimes incorporates religion into his work. Mahler, a Jew, is forced to relegate his religion to get his work showcased. So, there is religious conflict and debate.

Mahler’s conversion to Catholicism is expressed by a wacky fantasy sequence in which he undergoes a baptism of fire and blood on a mountaintop, presided over by Cosima Wagner (second wife of the composer, Wagner).

The character wears horrid black lipstick and other odd attire like a Prussian helmet and a bathing suit with a cross on the front and a swastika on the rear.

The sequence is one of the best and technically brilliant with fire, rocks, and mountains on display. It’s also choreographed amazingly well and features unique musical compositions.

The style of Mahler (the film) is visual and artistic but also a chance for classical music fans to appreciate the compositions. Also, for novice fans eager to be introduced to quality music the film is equally as important.

I love my rock n roll like any other red-blooded American but the chance to soak in classical pieces from Mahler and Wagner is a pure treat in cultural goodness.

British actor Robert Powell is cast exceptionally well bearing a stark resemblance to the real Mahler. Oftentimes morose and sullen he is a tortured artist. But the expressions in his work like the song cycle Songs on the Death of Children reveal his complexities.

Powell is successful at exposing the audience to the emotional nuances that often pair with great artists.

Georgina Hale as Alma is just as good. Staunchly supporting her husband but yearning for her slice of the happiness pie she is also conflicted.

Mahler (1974) is a film about filmmaking and art appreciation. Thanks to Russell’s vision he challenges the conventional viewer with a unique journey through the weird and wild but more importantly, the chance to revel in something of brilliance.

The Devils-1971

The Devils-1971

Director Ken Russell

Starring Oliver Reed, Vanessa Redgrave

Scott’s Review #1,403

Reviewed October 4, 2023

Grade: A

Ken Russell, most famous for directing the outstanding Women in Love (1970) and The Who’s Tommy (1975) creates a disturbing opus about perversion and scandal amid the Roman Catholic church during medieval times.

The film’s graphic portrayal of violence, sexuality, and religious blasphemy ignited shocked reactions from censors, and it originally received an X rating in both the United Kingdom and the United States. It was banned in several countries, and heavily edited for exhibition in others.

This alone will pique open-minded and curious viewer’s interests. It sure did mine.

The film is ironically entitled The Devils (1971) and stars Russell stalwart Oliver Reed who also appeared in the aforementioned films.  Reed leads the charge as a sexy, rugged man who beds many women and is the center of a convent full of nuns’ nasty and naughty thoughts.

Vanessa Redgrave also appears as a lustful and evil nun with a hunchback.

During the period of seventeenth-century France, Father Grandier (Reed) was a priest whose unorthodox views on sex and religion influenced a passionate following of nuns, including the sexually obsessed Sister Jeanne (Redgrave).

When the power-hungry Cardinal Richelieu (Christopher Logue) realizes he must eliminate Grandier to gain control of France, Richelieu vows to destroy the man. He portrays Grandier as a Satanist and spearheads a public outcry to destroy the once-loved priest’s reputation.

The Devils is outrageous and bizarre in only the best of possible ways. Who doesn’t love a healthy dose of nun orgies and simulating fellatio on a large candlestick? One nun violently masturbates as another looks on giggling sadistically.

The camera simply loves Reed and Redgrave who it’s interesting to note are not a couple in the film. These British actors were in their heyday in 1971 and both portray roles that must have challenged them tremendously.

Despite being British the film takes place in France getting off to a naughty start with a nearly nude dance performed by skinny Louis XIII (played with wacky delight by Graham Armitage). Rumored to be gay the king traipses around in colorful costumes and later shoots protestants dressed as gorillas for sport.

There are themes of exorcising and burning at the stake and mentions of the warring Catholics and Protestants so there is a seriousness amid the antics and shenanigans.

It took me a little while to become fully immersed in the chaotic land of Loudon, a town in western France where the film is set. In truth, a second viewing really helped me settle in and have a sense of what was going on.

The best films really are like fine wines.

Attempts by Russell to irritate and incite the overly religious are quite satisfying in a wicked way. As much as he mocks religion by making the traditionally sexually conservative filled with lust and animalistic sexual prowess there is much more going on.

Beneath the surface, he challenges the ridiculousness of religion which cinema lovers will embrace and delight in. There are history lessons to be had though and the film provides exceptional details of the political upheavals and tyranny that occurred.

The thunderous musical score by Peter Maxwell Davies is fabulous especially during The Devils final act when a major character endures a broiling on a wooden stake.

Those possessing the wonderful Blu-Ray version of the film can be treated to various outtakes, cast interviews, and behind-the-scenes information.

An added delight for knowledgeable film fans is the inclusion of character actor Murray Melvin, famous for playing Reverand Runt in the classic Barry Lyndon (1975). He plays Father Pierre Barre.

The Devils (1971) is a perverse and operatic extravaganza of lunacy. It’s caked with sex and nudity and blasphemy that I loved every bit of. The dangerous tone can be studied and thought about long after the film ends.

The Return of the Musketeers-1989

The Return of the Musketeers-1989

Director George Lester

Starring Michael York, Oliver Reed, Kim Cattrall

Scott’s Review #1,401

Reviewed September 24, 2023

Grade: B

The Return of the Musketeers (1989) is the third Musketeers film directed by Richard Lester, following 1973’s The Three Musketeers and 1974’s The Four Musketeers.

George MacDonald Fraser wrote each screenplay.

This is key to mention because a strong continuity flow helps the film be fun and charming. The results of the same person directing and writing resonate on screen in several ways. The characters feel truthful and their motivations are clear.

A rich sense of the history of the characters is apparent making the film a pleasing adventure for fans of the franchise.

After ambitious Oliver Cromwell (Alan Howard) overthrows the king, Cardinal Mazarin (Philippe Noiret) enlists a down-and-out D’Artagnan (Michael York) to rally the Musketeers against him.

Porthos (Frank Finlay) accepts the mission at once, but Athos (Oliver Reed) and Aramis (Richard Chamberlain) hesitate at first. Eventually, the three reunite, but they are soon torn apart by infighting and a situation from their past.

They get a chance at redemption when they are sent to England to save the life of King Charles I (Bill Paterson).

There is some slapstick play to endure making The Return of the Musketeers feel juvenile at times when characters are bopped over the head or otherwise trip and fall in silly form.

For this type of adventure film, the plot is too complicated and veers in different directions a shade too often. I wondered more than once if I was in France or England.

This makes the minor characters difficult to keep track of and Christopher Lee’s character of Comte de Rochefort once again has little to do.

The costumes and the French setting are a major victory and the history lessons provided especially the British and French kings and queens are more than fulfilling. We delved into our history books to determine which King Louis reigned when and who was aligned with the film (it’s Louis the XIV during the 1600s).

The point of the film made fifteen years after the second film is to please fans and the result is a swimming success. I’m a sort of fan with my hubby being a big fan and we both enjoyed the resurfacing of familiar characters.

It feels like old-home week. The reunion of the musketeers feels like witnessing a family reunion. As D’Artagnan, Porthos, Athos, and Aramis embraced each other we felt the warmth along with them.

Since the characters played by Raquel Welch and Faye Dunaway (Milady) were dead a creative idea was to introduce her daughter to the story, Justine played by Kim Cattrall. Athos also has a son named Raoul, played by C. Thomas Howell.

This provides a further nod to history and introduces compelling lead characters who have a connection to familiar characters.

It is also an example of good writing and storytelling. Despite the characters being new to the audience we already care about them based on their tie to other beloved characters.

Making the film more sentimental, a sad occurrence happened while filming. Actor Roy Kinnear who plays lovable Planchet died following an on-camera accident in which he fell off a horse.

His role was completed by using a stand-in, filmed from the rear, and dubbed-in lines from a voice artist.

The film is dedicated to him.

Reuniting most of the original cast years later makes The Return of the Musketeers (1989) a warm experience. Beautiful costumes locales and history raise the film above expectations considering it’s a third installment.

The Monster Club-1981

The Monster Club-1981

Director Roy Ward Baker

Starring Vincent Price, Donald Pleasence, John Carradine

Scott’s Review #1,378

Reviewed July 16, 2023

Grade: B

Any horror feast including Vincent Price and Donald Pleasence is worth a watch and The Monster Club (1981) features both actors though not in any scenes together.

The British horror anthology is uneven and a tad too silly with only two of the three chapters recommended. They are based on the works of the British horror author R. Chetwynd-Hayes.

The graphics and art direction are surprisingly superior for such a low-budget production.

In between chapters, there is a jarring and unnecessary musical performance by one of the creatures. While sort of fun, it takes away from the continuity and feels thrown in rather than serving any real purpose.

Below is a summary, review, and rating of each vignette.

Prologue: B

Author R. Chetwynd-Hayes (John Carradine) is approached on a city street by a strange man (Vincent Price) who turns out to be a starving vampire named Eramus.

He bites the writer and takes the confused man to an odd club. It’s a haven for supernatural creatures as they dance, drink, and carry on together.

Eramus introduces three stories about his fellow creatures of the night.

This chapter is relevant to tie the chapters together and any scene involving Price is good in my book. It also serves as a learning experience to explain the different types of creatures but little more.

The Shadmock: A-

Angela (Barbara Kellerman) is a financially struggling woman who takes a job at a secluded mansion owned by Raven (James Laurenson), a creature called a Shadmock.

Along with her greedy boyfriend (Simon Ward), they hatch a plot to steal Raven’s great wealth after he proposes to Angela. When she is caught unlocking Raven’s safe his demonic whistle comes into play at the expense of Angela and her boyfriend.

This chapter has a great setup and an unrequited love vibe. With a Beauty and the Beast comparison, the audience sympathizes with Raven. All he wants is love and the ultimate climax is heartbreaking with the knowledge that he is being duped.

I longed for Angela to come to her senses, dump her boyfriend, and be carried away by Raven but it’s horror after all, and not romance.

Starting slowly, the grotesquely exquisite gothic mansion and the fine luxuries contained are fun to feast one’s eyes on and the sinister conclusion is not to be missed.

The Vampires: B-

A shy young boy (Warren Saire) from a kind family of vampires lives a lonely life where he is bullied at school and his father (Richard Johnson) spends little time with him.

The father is hunted by a team of vampire killers led by Pickering (Donald Pleasance) who attempt to drive a stake through the father and kill him. But the tables are soon turned.

This chapter is cute but uninspired adding more humor than horror to the mix. Pleasance isn’t given a great role and neither is former ‘Bond girl’ Britt Eklund as the supportive mother.

It pales sharply against ‘The Shadmock’ and ‘The Ghouls.

The Ghouls: A

A movie director (Stuart Whitman) scouting locations for his next film pays a visit to an isolated village, Loughville, where the sinister residents refuse to let him leave.

While imprisoned by the ghouls, he meets Luna (Lesley Dunlop), the daughter of a ghoul father (Patrick Magee) who agrees to help him escape. But can Luna or the resident police be trusted?

The Ghouls is my favorite because it feels the most unpredictable and I love the early shots of a movie production studio. The ghostly-looking creatures are appealing because there is an ambiguity about their motives and the secrets beheld in the village.

It’s also fun balancing the sophisticated style of the movie producer against the drudgery of the villagers. Also, the inclusion of actor Magee from A Clockwork Orange (1971) is a win.

Epilogue: B 

At the end of the film, Eramus cheerfully tells the other club members all the imaginative ways that humans have of being horrible to each other and declares that humans are the most despicable monsters of all.

Thus Chetwynd-Hayes is made an honorary monster and member of the club.

The quick chapter is a clever wrap-up to the story and culminates as a bit of a ‘message’ about kindness and humanity.

The Lady Vanishes-1938

The Lady Vanishes-1938

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Margaret Lockwood, Michael Redgrave, Dame May Whitty

Scott’s Review #1,303

Reviewed September 30, 2022

Grade: A-

The Lady Vanishes (1938) is a film directed by Alfred Hitchcock that I’m embarrassed to admit that I’ve only seen once. Nonetheless, it resonated well with me after that sole viewing and its influence is palpable.

It’s a film made when Hitchcock was still making films in his native Britain before he took over Hollywood during the 1950s and 1960s. You may wonder why a dusty old film made in the 1930s and not a household name is important but The Lady Vanishes is.

If the film had not been made and more importantly not been a box-office success, films like Vertigo (1958), Psycho (1960), and The Birds (1963) might never have been made.

The Lady Vanishes followed three rather unsuccessful efforts by Hitchcock, whose success assured his new film career in America was a go.

The film is not as brilliant as the others mentioned but is pretty damned close. It serves as a blueprint for other Hitchcock films to come.

The train sequences alone conjure thoughts of Strangers on a Train (1951) and North by Northwest (1959) while the romance between the lead actors would become a staple of Hitchcock films.

Finally, the subdued but noticeable inclusion of gay characters, is forever a good debate among cinema lovers, especially Hitchcock fans, as to whether it is or isn’t showcased.

So, The Lady Vanishes is to be celebrated for its influence but also holds up well on its own two feet.

On a train headed for England, a group of travelers is delayed by a dangerous avalanche. Forced into a hotel in the lush European country, beautiful young Iris Henderson (Margaret Lockwood) befriends an elderly woman named Miss Froy (Dame May Whitty).

When the train resumes travel, Iris suffers a bout of unconsciousness after being hit by a potted plant and wakes to find the old woman has mysteriously disappeared. The other passengers vehemently deny that Miss Froy ever existed causing Iris to wonder if she has lost her marbles.

Iris determinedly begins to investigate the matter with the help of another traveler, Gilbert, (Michael Redgrave) as the pair begins to search the train to uncover clues. Naturally, the pair fall in love.

They uncover a mystery, political intrigue, and a who’s who of peculiar characters with secrets to keep hidden.

Lockwood and Redgrave have fantastic chemistry. It’s no secret that Hitchcock intends to bring them together even though Iris is to be married when she returns home. Both Lockwood and Redgrave are easy on the eyes which helps make them rootable.

The pacing of The Lady Vanishes is very good but nowhere as astounding as the sequence of events in North by Northwest, the film it most resembles. That’s why the rough cut analogy springs to mind- the film is a perfect warmup act to the 1959 masterpiece.

From an LGBTQ+ perspective, my money is on the characters of Charters and Caldicott. Ferocious cricket enthusiasts, whose only initial concern is to get back to England to see the last days of a Test match. The ‘friends’ proved so popular with audiences that they returned to the film Night Train to Munich 1940, also starring Lockwood.

Needless to say, the revelations at the end of The Lady Vanishes surprise and satisfy with political, and espionage overtones. Frequently, there is a McGuffin or a who cares about the plot element in Hitchcock films.

The plot shouldn’t be overthought in the film as the real fun is the trimmings that make the suspense so strong. The wit and snappy dialogue make the characters a pleasure to watch.

Providing strong character and stiff upper-lip British humor The Lady Vanishes (1938) is a terrific effort and is the most fun to watch to point out the many elements that make up the Hitchcock masterpieces.

Quadrophenia-1979

Quadrophenia-1979

Director Franc Roddam

Starring Phil Daniels, Leslie Ash, Sting

Scott’s Review #1,269

Reviewed June 23, 2022

Grade: A-

Fans of the British rock band, The Who will perhaps be mystified by the film Quadrophenia (1979). More specifically, The Who and fans of the exceptional oddity-filled musical film Tommy (1975) will be surprised and somewhat disappointed that Quadrophenia is not patterned after Tommy.

I was uneasy when I realized that very few of the songs from the groundbreaking album of the same name would not be incorporated and that the band themselves would not be appearing.

But that apprehension was short-lived.

Instead, Quadrophenia the film quickly grasped me for the storyline alone and makes up for the lack of music with a gripping tale of teenage angst and conflict amid the streets of London.

Reportedly, the story is at least somewhat derived from the life of Who member Pete Townshend and the concept behind Quadrophenia in the album is the same in the film.

To classify Quadrophenia as a musical or musical drama (I decided to do both) is most generous because that only enhances the fact that it almost isn’t either one. But since it is based on the album and was co-written by Townsend, I decided to throw caution to the wind.

An insecure and angry London youth, Jimmy Cooper (Phil Daniels) escapes the dullness of his mailroom job and the chilliness of London and joins the Mods, a sharply dressed gang constantly feuding with their rivals, the Rockers.

When the Mods and Rockers clash in the coastal town of Brighton, England, it leads to both trouble and an encounter with the lovely Steph (Leslie Ash) whom Jimmy has become smitten with over encounters at the grocery store where she works.

Returning to London and his life of drudgery, Jimmy, who aspires to be like handsome and charismatic Mod leader Ace Face (Sting), becomes even more disillusioned and longs to return to Brighton.

Quadrophenia the film is exceptional because it gets the mood of the lead character right and the audience will undoubtedly respond in turn. He feels that his life is going nowhere and most people can relate in some way to being stuck in first gear or reverse and unable to get out of the mud.

In Jimmy’s mind, his parents are assholes and the girl he longs for is out of his league and therefore out of reach. It’s typical adolescence 101. All he needs are the pimples and a bad hairstyle and he encompasses what it feels like to be a teenager.

This may sound comical but anyone remembering youth will undoubtedly find a glimmer of pain and panic.

Filmmaker, Franc Roddam gets it right.

The best part of the film occurs in the final fifteen minutes when finally and blessedly superior songs by The Who commence, most notably the astounding Love, Reign O’er Me.

In addition to the brilliance of the actual song is the way it’s included. As the camera provides a birds-eye view of the stunning cliffs as Jimmy rides recklessly on his scooter it’s a perilous scene with hints of danger.

Will he crash and burn?

Finally, the scooter is seen crashing over the cliff-top, which is where the film begins with Jimmy walking back against a sunset backdrop. It’s unclear what happens to Jimmy and interpretation can be used.

It raised Quadrophenia from a very good film to an exceptional one.

Another treasured Who song, The Real Me, is included early on amongst the title credits. Other songs appear but are either shortened and/or different versions of what’s expected.

Sometimes fun and comic, other times showing the ugliness of gloomy London and the pains of growing up, Quadrophenia (1979) excels at reminding its audience what it’s like to be restless and unhappy.

Life usually changes for the better but the film is an important reminder of feelings at that age.

The V.I.P’s-1963

The V.I.P’s-1963

Director Anthony Asquith

Starring Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, Louis Jourdan

Scott’s Review #1,263

Reviewed June 4, 2022

Grade: B+

The V.I.P.’s (1963) is a sweeping drama set against a foggy London airport. It’s a good film but hardly a masterpiece as the trials and tribulations of the stranded passengers are explored and sometimes intersect in standard ways.

The film is formulaic and offers little surprise but I enjoyed it and was entertained by the parade of stars shuffling through the vast airport.

Some stories are more interesting than others and the film has a soap opera style with glamorous and rich characters.

One wonders if The V.I.P.’s influenced the creation of the film Airport (1970) seven years later, but the film itself is patterned after 1932’s Grand Hotel both distributed by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.

Real-life couple, and Hollywood A-listers, Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton star and are the main draws of the film.

The all-star cast also features Louis Jourdan, Maggie Smith, Rod Taylor, Orson Welles, and the scene-stealing Margaret Rutherford.

Inclement weather has delayed a flight from London’s fabulous Heathrow Airport to New York City. A cross-section of elite passengers (V.I.P.s) impatiently wait to board the plane as they experience various life crises in the airport.

The main storyline surrounds Frances (Taylor), a gorgeous woman fleeing a loveless marriage to her millionaire husband, Paul (Richard Burton), and in love with the dashing Marc Champselle (Jourdan).

Supporting stories feature a dotty duchess (Rutherford) who has fallen on hard times, and a handsome businessman (Rod Taylor) trying to thwart a hostile takeover.

At the same time, his secretary (Smith) lusts after him, and Gloria (Elsa Martinelli), an aspiring actress, and her money-grubbing producer, Max (Welles).

Despite the heavy-sounding plots the film is not overly severe and provides comical moments peppered in small doses. This secures the pacing and offsets too much doom and gloom.

The big soapy moments belong to Liz and Richard and rumor has it that the idea for the screenplay came to the writer Terence Rattigan because of a real-life situation.

Actress Vivien Leigh was planning to leave her husband Laurence Olivier for another man but was delayed at Heathrow Airport.

How scandalous!

Nonetheless, Taylor stoically gives an acceptable performance as a conflicted actress in love with a man other than her husband. The setup plays out as tired as it sounds except for the juicy reality that Taylor and Burton were married providing the only interest.

Taylor and Burton have terrific chemistry though she also does with Jourdan. Still, there is something uncompelling and unsatisfying about the story.

Shockingly, they are all upstaged by Rutherford who steals the entire film resulting in her surprising Best Supporting Actress victory. She may have won because of the Academy’s tendency to sometimes award an older actor with the prize for a lifetime body of work.

Her riveting story is my favorite as she desperately seeks a way to save her historic home.

The actress hits a homerun providing the much-needed comic relief and the liveliest of performances. Her peril offsets her cleverness and her performance is filled with heart.

Many critics hastily insisted that Rutherford was the only reason to see The V.I.P.’s. Personally, the combination of an airport, peril, and big stars was more than enough to have me hooked.

The only addition that might have made the film better was an enormous fire or a hijacking crisis.

The V.I.P.’s (1963) will only appeal to fans of Taylor and Burton or those seeking something sudsy. Otherwise, the film is not too well remembered.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Supporting Actress-Margaret Rutherford (won)

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+

Not the best-known film adaptation of the famous 1910 French novel by Gaston Leroux, but the most horrific.

Hammer Horror Productions getting their hands on this is a significant win since the story is perfectly 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 wonderful 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. It’s impressive to notice the astounding achievements the Horror films obtained by making lemonade out of lemons budget-wise. The limited funds necessitated creativity which can be 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 main 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 in an early scene when the camera follows the characters on the misty streets of London, the darkness and shadows becoming prominent as they walk through streets and dark alleys.

Fisher, now five years into his association with the production company 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 are 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, and despite the locale being switched from Paris to London for obvious reasons, the main 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 and his character’s backstory reveal is humanistic and impressive. 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 nor the best choice for the role. She’s rather bland and unmemorable.

The Phantom of the Opera (1962) falters when it ends too suddenly, though 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.

Modesty Blaise-1966

Modesty Blaise-1966

Director Joseph Losey

Starring Monica Vitti, Terence Stamp, Dirk Bogarde

Scott’s Review #1,243

Reviewed April 9, 2022

Grade: B

Loosely based on a British comic strip of the same name, Modesty Blaise (1966) is a campy, over-the-top escapist film that features a relaxed style but a convoluted plot.

The story doesn’t matter much and the film feels based on the James Bond film series with some Dick Tracy and Brenda Starr comic elements thrown in.

Throughout the action, I chuckled at the situational comedy antics of the characters. Both heroes and villains get mixed up in one hokey situation after another and all the actors seem well aware that they are not performing Shakespearean comedy.

They forge ahead, making it as much of a zany offering as humanly possible.

Much of the film is reminiscent of television, Get Smart, a foolish but sweet-natured 1960s spy-genre offering.

I challenge the odd decision to make a film of this genre a bloated one hour and fifty-seven minutes. A spry ninety or ninety-five minutes would have been ample time to wrap up the experience and allow audiences to head for the exits.

This might prevent some from realizing how silly a film they’d just sat through

Modesty Blaise is not a traditionally good film but grooviness and pizazz are the main attractions as characters indulge in an orgy of colorful situations, and preposterous setups.

Lavish locales like Amsterdam, and London, and the roaring beaches off the coast of the Mediterranean Sea bring the film back from going too far off the rails and pepper it with some cultivation.

If one is in the right mood Modesty Blaise is a chuckle fest but if aching for high art don’t waste your time. The psychedelic and groovy art design and Mad Men-like sets won me over.

I quickly forgot to try and piece together the complicated plot.

I didn’t care who was who or who was trying to outwit who and why. And I was okay with that.

Gorgeous Italian actress Monica Vitti leads the charge followed by the dashing English actor, Terence Stamp. Together, they make a lusty and good-looking pair though Vitti gets no acting accolades.

Her looks are the primary reason for her casting win.

The actress plays a beautiful former criminal named Modesty who decides to go straight and work for the Secret Service. They send her to infiltrate a ring of jewel thieves but is not especially respected by the stuck-up older regime.

She shrugs it off and offers her best services.

Soon after she joins the gang, sophisticated and dangerous head honcho Gabriel (Dirk Bogarde) grows suspicious of his new charge, Modesty realizes that British Intelligence gave her a mission they could care less if she survives.

She then enlists her former partner, Willie (Stamp), to help her out of her peril while outsmarting both sides.

Most of the action scenes are ludicrous and the likelihood of any of the stories being true is slim to none. Plenty of sequences are set on a luxury yacht or some other water transportation and Vitti and Stamp clad in as little as possible.

I smirked at more than one James Bond nod though I dare say some influence on the still-to-be-made Diamonds Are Forever (1971) is noticed.

If I’m making Modesty Blaise out to be a terrible film, it’s not.

The gimmicky angle of having Modesty appear with a different hairstyle in every sequence is clever and enjoyable (my preference is for her as a blonde).

When she is imprisoned in a spiraling-colored basement cell and must climb out the roof for help it’s one of the best-looking set designs I’ve ever seen. The creative team gets an A-plus for expressiveness and imagination which is why Modesty Blaise is so fun.

Cartoonish criminals Gabriel and Clara, played by Dirk Bogarde and Rossella Falk, are deliciously wicked. I was amazed at Gabriel’s towering purple cocktail and craved trying a sip of it to see exactly what he was drinking.

Satisfyingly, both main villains get their comeuppance.

The film is foolish, campy, and a silly time wrapped up in amazing artistry from a creative team that deserves more credit than they probably received.

Modesty Blaise (1966) is a messy film but enjoyable. I found it endearing more than I probably should have. It’s the guiltiest pleasure in a chest of sub-par spy comedy films.

The Curse of the Werewolf-1961

The Curse of the Werewolf-1961

Director Terence Fisher

Starring Oliver Reed, Clifford Evans

Scott’s Review #1,219

Reviewed January 15, 2022

Grade: B

Oliver Reed who was later famous for films like Oliver! (1968) and Women in Love (1969) made his first starring role in the low-budget Hammer Horror film, The Curse of the Werewolf (1961). He carries the latter third of the film simply because his character doesn’t appear until then.

The film is sectioned into parts and is only a little over one hour and thirty minutes long. The finale is the best chapter and the others, while good, move too slowly considering the brief running time.

This is the first werewolf film to be colorized and was heavily censored upon release.

Hammer horror regular director Terence Fisher is at the helm so there is a soothing and secure feeling for the viewer. We know the quality will persevere and I adored the setting of Spain with its gothic steeples and flavorful culture.

The Curse of the Werewolf is above average but not one of the best in the Hammer series.

Reed plays Leon Corledo, a man with brutal and macabre origins. He is adopted and raised in the home of a kind and respectable Don Alfredo Corledo (Clifford Evans). When he leaves Don Alfredo to find work, Leon discovers that he has increasingly violent urges.

Although these fits are somewhat calmed by Leon’s love for the beautiful Cristina (Catherine Feller), he regularly transforms into a werewolf, terrorizing the Spanish countryside.

Before the central part of the story, Leon’s mother is imprisoned and raped by a homeless beggar gone mad. Unfortunately, she gives birth on Christmas when the werewolf curse is started. She soon dies and little Leon is taken in by Don and his motherly housekeeper, Teresa.

The middle sequence explains how Leon as a little boy escapes out his bedroom window to kill animals thinking it’s all just a dream. Don and others try to hide Leon’s secret.

The curse doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Why does the Christmas holiday make an unwanted newborn “unlucky” and a vicious werewolf? Why is Leon the only werewolf around? Surely, others are born on Christmas day.

Reed is the main draw as the handsome Leon and he makes a lovely mate for Cristina though too few scenes of them exist. It’s not explained why they fall in love other than both are beautiful and Cristina’s current intended mate is boorish.

But, then again, The Curse of the Werewolf is not a love story so we accept some details with a grain of salt.

Any fan of Hammer horror films wants blood and mayhem and there is a good smattering of each. The dastardly Marquis Siniestro who humiliates the beggar and nearly rapes the servant girl (Leon’s mother) gets it in the back from her with a jagged mirror and the death is bloody and satisfying.

Later, a slutty girl with designs on Leon is ravaged to death by him after he turns into a werewolf on a night with a full moon.

The finale is bittersweet and almost tender when Don must make a horrible decision to kill his son with a silver bullet made with a crucifix to prevent the tortured Leon from killing anymore and suffering a life of misery and regret.

The Curse of the Werewolf (1961) is not as satisfying as the Hammer horror films featuring Dracula or containing Christopher Lee or Peter Cushing.

Nobody will ever usurp Lon Chainey Jr.’s frightening portrayal of the wolfman decades earlier but it’s fun seeing Reed take center stage in the film.

There’s also enough to keep Hammer fans entertained.

The Brides of Dracula-1960

The Brides of Dracula-1960

Director Terence Fisher

Starring Peter Cushing, Yvonne Monlaur

Scott’s Review #1,218

Reviewed January 9, 2022

Grade: B+

It’s always impressive to me what Hammer Film Productions do with such a limited budget mostly from a set and art direction perspective. With small funds, they can create gloomy yet beautiful set structures that are highly creative and appear lavish.

To the savvy viewer, this tidbit can make each film a treasure trove of enjoyment if only to look beyond the central activity and notice the style.

The Brides of Dracula (1960) is no exception.

The film is a sequel to the 1958 film Dracula (also known as Horror of Dracula), though the character of Count Dracula does not appear, and is instead mentioned only twice. As fans of these films know Christopher Lee portrays Dracula. Instead, the vicious vampire at the film’s center is Baron Meinster, a disciple of Dracula played by David Peel.

The villain even bites his mother played by Martita Hunt making her undead and terrifying to the residents of a Spanish village.

Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) is the hero and must drive a stake through the heart of the vampire baron before he deviously makes innocent Marianne (Yvonne Monlaur) his bride.

Cushing is a familiar part of Hammer horror film lore leading the charge as the film’s hero. I love the character because he is heroic and unflinching, always calm, cool, and collected in the face of sheer horror.

The sets are gothic and brilliant, especially the gloomy castle owned by the Baroness and her son. When she invites Marianne to spend the night the girl is treated to a stylish room and a ravishing dinner served by a threatening servant named Greta.

The exteriors are as good as the interiors and portray the village within Transylvania as cozy and homespun. Outside the prominent inn run by the locals is inviting as much as it feels forbidden and haunted.

When Marianne is abandoned in the village by her terrified coach driver we know that secrets or living creatures are waiting to be unearthed.

These atmospheric additions will compel audiences to tune in and enjoy the horrific moments.

Speaking of horror, The Brides of Dracula feels enough like camp and not scary, and comic elements exist throughout. No better example of this is the bumbling and boozy Doctor Tobler played by character actor Miles Malleson.

While many moments are over the top especially when a vampire character bares their fangs in the best hammy way, the film never feels foolish or amateurish.

A huge misstep is naming the film The Brides of Dracula when no Dracula is ever to be found. I incorrectly assumed that the Baron was Dracula until after the final credits had rolled. It’s a sneaky way to capitalize on the name recognition of Dracula.

There are too many fun moments in the film to harbor much resentment. Of the brides, my favorite is Gina, played by Andree Melly who looks the most frightening.

The Brides of Dracula (1960) is an entertaining and pleasing chapter in the Hammer horror catalog. The expected elements include a crucifix and a healthy dose of holy water.

The 39 Steps-1935

The 39 Steps-1935

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Robert Donat, Madeleine Carroll

Scott’s Review #1,212

Reviewed December 26, 2021

Grade: A-

Before Alfred Hitchcock conquered American audiences in the 1950s and 1960s he made a slew of British films many of which are overlooked gems.

The 39 Steps (1935) is a film nestled among that category, providing thrilling escapism and a spy-tinged subject matter that has an everyman on the run.

The plot pattern is very familiar because Hitchcock would use it later in his American films like The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) and The Wrong Man (1956) to name only two.

Rather than any sort of carbon copy, The 39 Steps instead is a pure delight for any fan of Hitchcock because the viewer can see facets and ideas the director would later bestow on his other films. There is enough originality though to please anyone looking for a good thrill.

It is very loosely based on the 1915 adventure novel The Thirty-Nine Steps by John Buchan.

The story centers on Richard Hannay (Robert Donat), a Canadian civilian on holiday in London. He unintentionally becomes involved in preventing an organization of spies nicknamed “The 39 Steps” from stealing British military secrets.

After being mistakenly accused of the murder of a counter-espionage agent, Richard flees to Scotland and becomes tangled up with an attractive woman named Pamela (Madeleine Carroll) while hoping to stop the spy ring and clear his name.

It’s a simple story but one that immediately compels the viewer to root for Richard since we know he is innocent. Perhaps he can find a bit of romance along the way with Pamela and stop the bad guys in the process. So there is little ambiguity with how the story is supposed to wind up.

The fun is getting there.

Assuming this isn’t one’s first time watching a Hitchcock film and nearing a hundred years since The 39 Steps was made I sincerely doubt it, there are oodles of sequences to enjoy. If one asks “does this scene seem familiar?” it is because many of them are.

The London music hall theatre and the London Palladium brim with recognition especially after a catchy tune that Richard cannot forget come into play. It’s too easy not to think of Doris Day’s hit “Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be)”, featured as a key element of The Man Who Knew Too Much, or even the London setting itself.

To switch for a moment to another Hitchcock masterpiece, North by Northwest (1959), the frequent dashing across the lands by foot or by locomotion comes into play in a big way in The 39 Steps.

I loathe spending too much time with comparisons because The 39 Steps delivers some goods on its own merits. The action that takes place in the Scottish Highlands is fantastic and a treat for anyone who has been to the lovely and picturesque area.

And Richard’s daring trip aboard the Flying Scotsman expresses train to Scotland is a compelling adventure personified.

The chemistry between Richard and Pamela is decent but not great. It’s not the focal point of the film so I didn’t necessarily mind that. The clear intent was for her first to fear him but then have the characters fall in love. We never really get there but it seems the purpose.

The main villain is Professor Jordan (Godfrey Tearle) who Richard tries to prevent from sending secrets out of the country.

Sure, there are better quality Alfred Hitchcock films to bask in once he got his groove decades later and one can assuredly boast that Vertigo (1958) and Psycho (1960) are superior films.

But The 39 Steps (1935) is a blueprint of what brilliance the director had in his head at this time and it’s a pure treat to witness.

Tales from the Crypt-1972

Tales from the Crypt-1972

Director Freddie Francis

Starring Joan Collins, Ian Hendry, Robin Phillips

Scott’s Review #1,200

Reviewed November 25, 2021

Grade: A-

Tales from the Crypt (1972) is a delicious British anthology based on stories from the EC Comics series. Each of the five chapters is eerie storytelling that offers horror fans glimpses into the minds of depraved and devilish characters with sinister motivations.

The sheer joy is witnessing their comeuppance.

This film is the predecessor to Vault of Horror from 1973 and can easily be watched as a companion piece.

Below is a summary, review, and rating of each vignette.

Intro

Five strangers are suddenly compelled to go with a tourist group to view old catacombs.

Separated from the main group, the strangers find themselves in a room with the mysterious Crypt Keeper (Ralph Richardson), who details how each of them may die.

…And All Through The House- A

Joanne Clayton (Joan Collins) brutally kills her husband Richard (Martin Boddey) on Christmas Eve to get her hands on their insurance money.

She prepares to hide his body but hears a radio announcement of a homicidal maniac (Oliver MacGreevy) on the loose.

She sees the killer (who is dressed in a Santa Claus costume) outside her house, but cannot call the police without exposing her crime.

Her daughter is upstairs in her bedroom, unaware.

This is my favorite chapter and is non-stop action. Collins is terrific as the greedy English woman put in peril. The audience will cheer for her to get her just desserts especially after she callously disregards a lovely Christmas gift her husband bought for her.

Reflection of Death- B+

Carl Maitland (Ian Hendry) abandons his family to be with his secretary, Susan Blake (Angela Grant). After they drive off together, they are involved in a car accident. He wakes up, having been thrown clear of the burned car. He tries to hitchhike home, but everyone he meets screams with horror when they see him.

This vignette is slightly confusing as far as the timeline of the events but compelling as we wait to see what Carl’s face looks like and what has happened to Susan and his wife.

Poetic Justice- A

James Elliott (Robin Phillips) lives with his father Edward (David Markham) across from the home of elderly dustman Arthur Edward Grimsdyke (Peter Cushing), who owns several dogs and entertains children in his house.

James hates Arthur’s ramshackle lawn and embarks on a scheme to rid the neighborhood of the old man.

I love seeing Cushing play against type as a kindly grandfatherly character and this chapter is the ultimate revenge fantasy and quite satisfying to see what happens to James.

It’s also a perfect watch on Valentine’s Day since the holiday comes into play.

Wish You Were Here- A-

Businessman Ralph Jason (Richard Greene) is on the verge of financial collapse. His wife Enid (Barbara Murray) notices the inscription on a Chinese statue the couple owns.

They are granted three wishes. Enid decides to wish for a fortune and, surprisingly, the wish comes true, but with dire results.

This one wonderfully cascades a chain of events that leaves the characters in peril. The theme is once again about greed specifically surrounding insurance money. The fast-paced nature is appealing and the ancient Chinese wishes leave one character into eternal suffering.

Blind Alleys- A-

Major William Rogers (Nigel Patrick) becomes the new director of a home for the blind and exploits his position to live in luxury with his dog Shane, while his drastic financial cuts on food and heating lessen the residents’ living conditions.

Led by George Carter (Patrick Magee) the residents revolt after a fellow resident dies of hypothermia. Rogers and Shane are locked in the basement where Rogers must navigate through a maze of razor blades and a now ravenous wild dog who will hungrily eat his owner.

Though far-fetched, Blind Alleys is delicious fun and contains my most hated character. This is all the more satisfying as he ‘gets it’ in the end!

Finale

After completing the final tale, the Crypt Keeper reveals that he was not warning them of what would happen, but telling them what has already happened: they have all “died without repentance.

The conclusion does nothing more than put a satisfying cap for the viewer as each character once again pays for their shenanigans.

Stage Fright-1950

Stage Fright-1950

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Jane Wyman, Marlene Dietrich, Michael Wilding

Scott’s Review #1,160

Reviewed July 9, 2021

Grade: A-

Stage Fright (1950) is a British film directed by Alfred Hitchcock before his American invasion.

The film feels like a hybrid British/American project with the leading lady, Jane Wyman, being American, but otherwise is set in London with many British actors.

Hitchcock mixes plenty of film noir influences with the typical thrills and suspense creating an excellent product that flies under the radar when matched against his other films.

Wyman is cast as an attractive aspiring actress who works on her craft by going undercover to solve a mystery. There are Nancy Drew elements and it’s fun to watch Wyman, who would become Mrs. Ronald Reagan before he entered politics and later would become President of the United States.

She reportedly divorced him because she had little interest in entering the political spectrum by association.

The action gets off to a compelling start with two characters driving in a car in clear peril. Hitchcock loved driving scenes like these. It is learned that the police think actor Jonathan Cooper (Richard Todd) is a murderer, and now they’re on his tail.

He seeks shelter with his ex-girlfriend Eve (Wyman), who drives him to stay in hiding with her father, Commodore Gill (Alastair Sim).

He explains that it was his lover, the famous and snobbish actress Charlotte Inwood (Marlene Dietrich), who killed the victim (not coincidentally, her husband). Convinced Jonathan is innocent, Eve plays detective and assumes multiple disguises, slowly developing feelings for Detective Inspector, Wilfred O. Smith (Michael Wilding).

Once embroiled in a web of deception, she realizes that Shakespeare was right and that all the world is a stage.

Wyman is the Hitchcock brunette as opposed to his later fascination with the blonde bombshell. Therefore, her role is more sedate and astute than the sex appeal that would come with Hitchcock’s later characters.

Eve closely resembles the character of Charlie whom Teresa Wright played in 1943’s Shadow of a Doubt. They are both astute and investigative with a mystery to unravel. Interestingly, they both fall for detectives.

All the glasses! Hitchcock’s fetish for women wearing glasses is on full display, especially with the character of Nellie, a cockney opportunist played by Kay Walsh. Look closely and one can spot several minor or background ladies sporting spectacles and even Eve dons a pair as a disguise.

Pat Hitchcock, the director’s daughter, plays a small role as she would in Strangers on a Train (1951) and Psycho (1960).

Speaking of Strangers on a Train, there are similarities to mention.

Both involve a tit-for-tat exchange where one character is requested by another to kill someone in exchange for either a payoff or another form of motivation.

Marlene Dietrich is as sexy as ever in the pivotal role of Charlotte. She is self-centered, self-absorbed, and thoughtless, constantly mispronouncing Eve’s fictitious name and barely noticing that she is covering for her regular maid/dresser.

But is she evil and capable of killing her husband?

Stage Fright has a thrilling finale. In the climax, the audience finally finds out who has been telling the truth who has been lying, and what explanations are revealed. There is a pursuit, an attempted killing, and a shocking death by way of a falling safety curtain, in the theater naturally.

What one would expect from a Hitchcock final act.

The focus on theatrical stage actors is a nice topic and adds to the existing drama as the implication of playing various roles comes into play big time. So is the prominence early on of the Big Ben landmark in London and other location trimmings.

Stage Fright (1950) doesn’t get the love saved for other Hitchcock masterpieces and that’s a shame because the film is excellent.