Tag Archives: 1964 Films

1964 Films, Anthony Eisley, Constance Towers, Drama, Film noir, Michael Dante, Samuel Fuller, Virginia Grey

The Naked Kiss-1964

Leave a comment

The Naked Kiss-1964

Director Samuel Fuller

Starring Constance Towers, Michael Dante

Scott’s Review #1,346

Reviewed February 25, 2023

Grade: A

A pure treat for me is seeing a film, especially a classic film, that exudes creativity and a left-of-center approach. In the 1960s, cinema films started to break away from the tried-and-true and safe, telling sinister stories of macabre and unusual human behavior.

Samuel Fuller bravely created The Naked Kiss (1964), a film that goes beyond well-meaning but straightforward offerings. Dusting off the film noir genre, it is riddled with perfections like the tarnished glitter of small-town Americana and the secrets beneath the surface.

It also dares to delve into the lustful and perverse depths of abnormal human psychology, which few films did in the old days.

The film is a B-movie with black-and-white filmmaking, enhancing its power and lurid nature.

Eager to start a new life, a prostitute named Kelly (Constance Towers) arrives in a small town but finds the sunny veneer and the residents’ cheery, wholesome dispositions to be a sham.

Kelly meets the handsome town sheriff Griff (Anthony Eisley), and eventual fiancé Grant (Michael Dante), but ultimately, both men have something to hide.

Hard to believe, but we do anyway, is the haughty incorporation of a secret small-town brothel with one gorgeous prostitute after another. It is led by the evil madame Candy, portrayed by Virginia Grey.

Constance Towers easily carries the film as Kelly. Towers did not make many films but later became well-known in theater circles before becoming a legendary villainess on the ABC daytime drama General Hospital.

Kelly is sultry yet highly learned and intelligent. She is not afraid to use her smarts to get ahead. She calculates and wisely pursues opportunities to stay on the straight and narrow while using a man or two to get what she wants and needs.

Despite this, she is kind and revels in caring for children of all colors and backgrounds. She also watches out for her fellow nurses. One of them, Buff, nearly stumbles into a life of prostitution if not for Kelly daringly describing what her new glamorous life would ultimately become.

Thanks to Towers, Kelly relays every possible emotion to the audience, from comedy to love, horror, and controlled manipulation.

I don’t think I’ve seen any other projects by director, writer, and producer Fulle,r but I want to. Perhaps only a coincidence since the films were made in the same year, but comparisons to Alfred Hitchcock’s Marnie (1964) are noticed.

Kelly briskly combs her blonde hair while looking into a mirror and smirking, reminiscent of Marnie doing more or less the same in Hitchcock’s classic. Both characters are tall and leggy blondes with a secret or two to hide and damaged psyches to preserve.

They also each arrive in a new town, presumably to start over. Boldly carrying a suitcase and wearing a bright grey business suit, they proudly walk down a suburban street with possibilities ahead.

The Naked Kiss is a very progressive and feminist film.

During the first scene, Fuller shows what few directors ever would- a female character with a shaved head. Kelly has been humiliated for the last time and takes her owed $75 from her pimp. Kelly’s honest personality is revealed in this scene since she could have quickly taken $900 from him and fled.

The cagey and spiteful underbelly of suburban life is exposed. A  pointed critique of small-town hypocrisy and the exploitation of women is nearly at every turn.

Another comparison to the masterpiece The Night of the Hunter (1955) is worth mentioning since the use of child characters in haunting form appears in both films.

The theme of pedophilia is powerful and sickening but portrayed with a warped sense of a fairy tale.

Finally, the cinematic use of harsh, glowing white light makes many characters appear angelic, which works tremendously well.

Because of Fuller’s direction and Towers’s great acting, Kelly’s character is portrayed well. As a result, we get a character study to savor and a strong female character to root for. Both aggressively champion their respective areas of expertise.

The Naked Kiss (1964) challenges the rules of early 1960s filmmaking and storytelling. It is a brave journey through humankind’s dark natures, breaking every rule as it progresses.

1964 Films, Ann-Margret, Cesare Danova, Comedy, Elvis Presley, George Sidney, Musical, Musical Comedy, Teri Garr, William Demarest

Viva Las Vegas-1964

Leave a comment

Viva Las Vegas-1964

Director George Sidney

Starring Elvis Presley, Ann-Margret

Scott’s Review #1,280

Reviewed July 24, 2022

Grade: B

A lightweight romp created exclusively as a vehicle for superstar Elvis Presley and his lofty success, Viva Las Vegas (1964) is one of the better Elvis film entries.

This may not be saying much because he’s not the greatest actor in the world. He doesn’t need to be, though. He has enough charisma and chemistry with co-star Ann Margret to elicit a smile or two, and the musical numbers together and separately are entertaining.

That’s really what Viva Las Vegas is about.

Elvis was at his peak in 1964, both musically and physically, so watching the hunky singer croon, dance, and writhe with style on the big screen is not the most daunting task in the world.

The silly story feels forced, obvious, and created on the fly to provide humor, hijinks, and a bit of drama for the leads. It’s not the most substantial part of the film.

The opening camera shots of ‘old Las Vegas’ in the 1960s appeal. The lights and glitter are colorful and attractive, as is the Vegas setting. However, most of the films are disappointingly shot on a studio soundstage.

The sloppily conjured-up story involves a musically gifted race car driver named Lucky Jackson (Presley, naturally). He arrives in Las Vegas to earn enough money for a new car motor so he can win the upcoming Grand Prix race. He befriends a cagey racing rival named Elmo (Cesare Danova).

When he encounters sexy swimming instructor Rusty (Ann-Margret), he considers staying around longer to get better acquainted with the dame. After Lucky loses his winnings in the hotel pool, he’s forced to remain in Vegas, working as a waiter.

He wants to recoup his financial losses but is determined to win Rusty’s heart. Unfortunately, so does Elmo, setting off a chain of events that culminates with the Grand Prix race. Elmo and Lucky try to outwit each other.

To say the events in Viva Las Vegas are predictable is an understatement, as a meager attempt at an invested triangle between Lucky, Rusty, and Elmo is laughable. There is no doubt that Lucky and Rusty will ride off into the sunset together.

Unintentionally I am sure, director George Sidney is no Alfred Hitchcock after all, there exists homoeroticism between Lucky and Elmo. As they lie side by side under the wheels of a broken-down greaser, a titillating thought is, what if the men were to kiss?

Elvis’s enormous fan base was not ready for that scandal in 1964, so the result is a by-numbers boy meets girl, boy intends to conquer girl, a traditional love story.

Sigh.

Expecting a grand musical finale is disappointing because there isn’t one. There is only the race itself, which Rusty and company tepidly watch from an overhead helicopter.

The sequence is adequate, with enough suspense and car wrecks to enthrall the viewer, and Lucky wins the race.

In a rushed final scene, Lucky and Rusty happily emerge from a church on their wedding day. A bouquet is in Rusty’s hand, and everyone is smiling big.

The chemistry between Presley and Ann-Margret is strong and endearing. This is no surprise, given the real-life affair the pair reportedly had. Nonetheless, the sweetest number occurs early on when Lucky tries to convince Rusty, through song, that she is in love with him but doesn’t know it yet.

I gushed at the thought of Marilyn Monroe in the Rusty role, which may have been the original intent. The blonde bombshell died less than two years before the film’s release, likely after the idea was born.

No disrespect to Ann-Margret.

Of course, the main reason to watch Viva Las Vegas is for the tunes. The title track is a super-charged song about enjoying the city of sin, and other numbers appear throughout the film at breakneck speed.

This is a relief since there is little time to invest in the paper-thin plot.

Viva Las Vegas (1964) is a film mainly recommended to Elvis fans who want to see the star in his prime.

1964 Films, Alan Napier, Children, David Tomlinson, Dick Van Dyke, Disney, Elsa Lanchester, Fantasy, Glynis Johns, Hermione Baddeley, Jane Darwell, Julie Andrews, Musical, Robert Stevenson

Mary Poppins-1964

Leave a comment

Mary Poppins-1964

Director Robert Stevenson

Starring Julie Andrews, Dick Van Dyke

Scott’s Review #965

Reviewed December 9, 2019

Grade: A-

Mary Poppins (1964) is a lovely Walt Disney production that shines with zest and an ample supply of good, cheery tunes. A family affair, it will hardly disappoint, with sing-alongs and enchanting stories for miles.

It’s tough to knock a film that has it all, but it sometimes borders on sickeningly sweet wholesomeness with too much schmaltz mixed in.

This can easily be forgiven because of the robust music, dazzling visual effects, and perfect casting, which make the film enjoyable entertainment for all.

The Banks family resides in London, England. The foursome consists of George and Winifred Banks, along with children Jane and Michael. They live a comfortable and happy upper-middle-class existence.

When their nanny quits after the children run away to chase a kite, the panicked George requests a stern, no-nonsense nanny, while the children (now returned home) desire a kind, sweet one. Through magic, a young nanny (Julie Andrews) descends from the sky using her umbrella.

Mary Poppins teaches the children to enjoy chores through tunes with the help of a kindly chimney sweep, Bert (Dick Van Dyke).

Mary Poppins cheerily takes the children on several adventures, teaching them valuable lessons. The drama involves light situations such as the irritable George threatening to fire the nanny because she is too cheerful or a mini-scandal at the bank where George works.

These side stories are trivial and non-threatening since the film is really about the antics of the magically odd nanny and her relationship with the children.

The film is unique because it combines live-action with animation and is magical and inventive. This is most evident during sequences that feature animals, especially the superb scene where Mary Poppins transports Bert, Jane, and Michael into a picture where they ride a carousel and stroll the day away.

The appearance of horses and a fox makes the scene beautifully crafted and filled with joy.

The casting could be no different and is flawless across the board. Standouts are Andrews and Van Dyke, the former appearing in her very first film role.

Not to be usurped by her most iconic role as Maria in the following year’s brilliant The Sound of Music (1965), Andrews possesses a benevolent and delightful spirit that works perfectly in the role, to say nothing of her powerful voice.

Van Dyke, as the romantic interest, is equally well-cast, and together the chemistry is easy and apparent.

Mary Poppins was met with critical acclaim when it was released when Disney ruled the roost and musicals were a dime a dozen.

It received thirteen Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture—a record for any film released by Walt Disney Studios—and won five: Best Actress for Andrews, Best Film Editing, Best Original Music Score, Best Visual Effects, and Best Original Song for “Chim Chim Cher-ee.”

This was quite a feat as the film was up against My Fair Lady (1964), which won the biggest prize.

Rated G and box-office success, Mary Poppins (1964) is a legendary Walt Disney film that uses creative techniques and musical numbers to develop a finely finished product.

The song standouts are “A Spoonful of Sugar”, “Chim Chim Cher-ee”, and “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious”, as each offers candy for the ears and immeasurable fun.

The classic songs and the cohesive sentimentality make this one easy to enjoy with repeated viewings.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Robert Stevenson, Best Actress-Julie Andrews (won), Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Song-“Chim Chim Cher-ee” (won), Best Music Score-Substantially Original (won), Best Scoring of Music-Adaptation or Treatment, Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Color, Best Cinematography, Color, Best Costume Design, Color, Best Film Editing (won), Best Special Visual Effects (won)

1964 Films, Comedy, Dark Comedy, George C. Scott, James Earl Jones, Peter Sellers, Satire, Slim Pickens, Stanley Kubrick, Sterling Hayden

Dr. Strangelove-1964

Leave a comment

Dr. Strangelove-1964

Director Stanley Kubrick

Starring Peter Sellers, George C. Scott

Scott’s Review #958

Reviewed November 13, 2019

Grade: A

Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, more commonly known simply as Dr. Strangelove, is a 1964 political satire black comedy film that satirizes the Cold War and fears of a nuclear conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States.

The film, timely in the 1960s, is as relevant decades later amid the chaos during the 2016 United States Presidential election and the following tumultuous years.

The film is powerful, brave, and essential.

The story centers around an unhinged United States Air Force general (Sterling Hayden) who orders a first-strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.

The plot follows the President of the United States (Peter Sellers), the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and a Royal Air Force (RAF) officer as they try to recall the bombers to prevent a nuclear apocalypse.

The film also follows the crew of one B-52 bomber as they try to deliver their payload.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was fresh in viewers’ minds when this film was released, and President John F. Kennedy was recently assassinated. The United States and the Soviet Union were hardly best buddies.

The film was a robust offering because its political satire was fresh. The ironic controversy between the two leaders, nearly sixty years after the film was released, is unintentionally clever.

The acting is excellent. Peter Sellers plays three prominent roles. Each is quite different from the others. Group Captain Lionel Mandrake, a British RAF exchange officer, President Merkin Muffley (what a name!), the President of the United States, and Dr. Strangelove, the wheelchair-using nuclear war expert and former Nazi.

Each glistens with goodness as the actor chomps at the bit, making them precise and unique, careful never to stray too far overboard into ridiculousness.

Director Stanley Kubrick wisely chooses black-and-white cinematography with stellar results and prominent filmmaking techniques.

As creative and progressive as many 1960s films started to become as the decade blossomed, it feels like it could have been made in the 1940s.

Kubrick, well known for masterpieces such as The Shining (1980) and 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), delivers perhaps the oddest film in his catalog with Dr. Strangelove.

The story does not feel dated, and the dialogue remains crisp and razor-sharp in its delivery and meaning. With fast dialogue delivery and a monotone vocal style, the film is entertaining and humorous. It does not take itself too seriously yet brings a poignant and vital idea to life.

The film keeps gnawing at the viewers that as far-fetched as events seem, the possibility they could become real is more than a bit scary.

Who can forget the final sequence of the looming nightmare of the mushroom clouds, set to Vera Lynn’s hopeful We’ll Meet Again?

Since the film has a 1940s cinema style, the rude awakening that the 1960s produced in nuclear weapons and insecurity hits home in this sequence.

Dr. Strangelove (1964) is pure satire but frightening in its realism and uncertainty about how one crazy leader could lead an entire nation to detrimental results.

The film highly influenced later satires and unique filmmaking styles—Wes Anderson’s creations immediately spring to mind.

One can wonder about the different possibilities offered—in a way, the situation’s absurdity and the unthinkable way it could quickly become a reality.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Stanley Kubrick, Best Actor-Peter Sellers, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium

1964 Films, Alan Napier, Audrey Hepburn, Best Picture Oscar Winners, Bill Shirley, George Cukor, Gladys Cooper, Musical, Rex Harrison, Stanley Holloway, Wilfrid Hyde-White

My Fair Lady-1964

Leave a comment

My Fair Lady-1964

Director George Cukor

Starring Audrey Hepburn, Rex Harrison

Scott’s Review #938

Reviewed September 6, 2019

Grade: A-

Winner of the Best Picture Academy Award (it would not have been my choice), My Fair Lady (1964) is a good product that is based on the stage version, in turn, based on the famous 1913 stage play Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw.

The musical’s central negative aspect is its casting choices. Hepburn and Harrison have only mediocre chemistry, and Hepburn does not sing. However, the film is enchanting and filled with lavish sets, colorful costumes, and earnest songs, making it entertaining for the whole family.

The iconic Eliza Doolittle (Hepburn) and Henry Higgins (Harrison) are household names to every fan of the musical genre.

Set in London, sophisticated and arrogant Professor Higgins, a scholar of phonetics, is intent on proving that the tone and accent of one’s voice determine one’s lot in society.

As an experiment, he chooses flower saleswoman Eliza, with her horrid Cockney accent, and is determined to crown her duchess of a ball.

Unaware of his scheme but soon to find out she has been had, romance eventually blooms as the song “I’ve Grown Accustomed to Her Face” becomes essential.

My Fair Lady is quite the epic, with a runtime of two hours and fifty-two minutes, which is lofty for a film.

The misty London setting adds layers of mystique and atmosphere, and the cinematography drizzles with color and pizzazz, making the overall content look fantastic.

Because of the length of the film and the magnificent trimmings, the production looks like a spectacle, reminiscent of the elegant extravagance of the 1950s and 1960s, when musicals made into films were grand and robust.

It’s no wonder this helped it win Best Picture, Best Director, and many other awards. Hollywood loves this film.

When dissected and analyzed, social and class systems are a large part of the film amid the cheery singing, dancing, and big-screen bombast. Social status and hints of socialism pepper the production, rising way above the fluff it could have been if just a “boy from the good side of the tracks meets girls from the wrong side.”

Eliza’s father, Alfred (Stanley Holloway), a waste collector, is also an opportunist. He sings his story during “With a Little Bit of Luck.” The differences between the “haves” and the “have nots” are evident.

Since the chemistry is limited, I never bought Harrison and Hepburn as a romantic duo. The teacher/student angle somewhat works, though always bothersome, but Henry’s self-assured behavior and superior attitude make him tough to root for.

The controversy surrounding the film includes the decision to dub nearly all of Hepburn’s singing with another singer’s voice. This devastated the actress and cost her an Academy Award nomination. Her snub is especially jarring, given the dozen other nominations it received.

The story is heartwarming and follows the like-minded theme of a hero rescuing a damsel in distress. Hints of Cinderella (1950) and even Pretty Woman (1990) glisten, with only a hint of male chauvinism that does not ruin the experience or reduce the film to a dated guy film, as with Pretty Woman.

“I’m an Ordinary Man” describes how women ruin men’s lives and are not the most progressive or female-friendly of all the numbers.

My Fair Lady (1964) is a film from the past that begs to be viewed on the big screen so that all its qualities can be enjoyed. Like Lawrence of Arabia (1963), it is best viewed in a wide-angle, enormous theater setting to ensure that all its aspects are noticed and enjoyed.

It’s a Hollywood film done tremendously well. Young viewers would be wise to be exposed to this film to delight in the cinematic treats.

Oscar Nominations: 8 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-George Cukor (won), Best Actor-Rex Harrison (won), Best Supporting Actor-Stanley Holloway, Best Supporting Actress-Gladys Cooper, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Scoring of Music-Adaptation or Treatment (won), Best Sound (won), Best Art Direction, Color (won), Best Cinematography, Color (won), Best Costume Design, Color (won), Best Film Editing

1964 Films, Anne Vernon, Catherine Deneuve, Ellen Farner, French, International, International Musical, International Romance, Jacques Demy, Marc Michel, Mireille Perrey, Musical, Nino Castelnuovo

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg-1964

Leave a comment

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg-1964

Director Jacques Demy

Starring Catherine Deneuve, Nino Castelnuovo

Scott’s Review #911

Reviewed June 17, 2019

Grade: A

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964), translated in French as Les Parapluies de Cherbourg, is a daring film. It is unique in that all dialogue is sung recitatively, like an opera or a stage musical.

But wait, there’s more.

The film has colorful and dazzling set designs that enrich the entire experience amid the lovely French culture and atmosphere. Interspersing a melody, the result is a stoic treasure.

The film received an Oscar nomination for Best Foreign Language Film and several other nominations.

The film is divided into three parts and progresses chronologically over six years. Part One is The Departure; Part Two is The Absence and Part Three is The Return, each representing a meaningful part of the story.

Madame Emery (Anne Vernon) and her sixteen-year-old daughter Genevieve (Deneuve) own a struggling umbrella boutique in Cherbourg, France. Genevieve falls in love with Guy (Castelnuovo), a local mechanic, and they have sex the night before he is drafted to war, resulting in an unexpected pregnancy.

Madame Emery and Genevieve must decide what options are best when she is courted by wealthy jeweler Roland (Marc Michel), unaware of her pregnancy. Genevieve and Guy continue to write letters to each other as she softens towards Roland and makes a decision.

An injured Guy returns from the war, and events kick into high gear as the love birds face an uncertain future amid surrounding barriers to their happiness.

To embrace the flavor and pacing of the film takes a few minutes of patience- like some viewers becoming accustomed to sub-titles in general, which the film also possesses, the singing is initially quite jarring but before long is to be embraced and appreciated for its unique nature.

To stress the point, the film is not a standard musical. Songs are mixed in with conventional dialogue, and each line is sung.

With this role, Deneuve gained wider recognition beyond a French audience already familiar with her work. She shines brightly in the lead role and never looks lovelier. The young lady, hardly appearing to be just sixteen (in truth, she was twenty-one), carries the film with a chic and sophisticated style, ideally in tune with the 1960s.

Her magnificent grace and elegance make her the primary reason to tune in. She sings her lines flawlessly and with unforced precision.

The story is unequivocally a basic one of a girl meets a boy, the boy is drafted into the army, the girl becomes pregnant, the girl meets another suitor, and the boy returns home as conflict arises.

The magic is what director Jacques Demy does with the piece.

Everyday life is presented in situational scenes, adding substance and commonalities. Genevieve and Guy are in love and face external and internal obstacles. At the same time, Madeleine (Ellen Farner), a quiet young woman who looks after Guy’s aunt, is secretly in love with Guy, as she adds a secret weapon to the film.

The audience cares for the characters, especially Genevieve and Guy, but the supporting characters add a robust quality worthy of mention.

Anne Vernon is pivotal as Madame Emery. She is stylish and lavish, concerned for her daughter’s well-being, and slyly sees opportunities to save her boutique. Guy’s sickly Aunt Elise provides security and love to those who heed her advice.

Actress Mireille Perrey plays her.

The vivid colors and sets make The Umbrellas of Cherbourg challenging to forget. Stark and florescent painted pinks, greens, and blues, mainly on the walls, provide zest and flavor, a grand style all its own.

The bright, crisp designs evoke a lavish Hollywood musical with a cultured French twist. The result is perfect, and one can easily immerse themselves in the singing and the artistry.

The recurring main song “I Will Wait for You” (the central theme, also known as “Devant le garage”) is delicious and emotional as it appears in many poignant scenes.

Those seeking a charismatic and distinctive experience with nuances and a hint of experimentation will undoubtedly enjoy this fruity and tasty treat.

With a French atmosphere for miles, the film encompasses all that is good and cultured about French cinema.

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964) will entertain and unabashedly knock your socks off with something grand and sizzling flavor.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film, Best Story and Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, Best Song-“I Will Wait for You,” Best Music Score-Substantially Original, Best Scoring of Music-Adaptation or Treatment

1964 Films, Diane Baker, George Kennedy, Horror, Howard St. John, Joan Crawford, Lee Majors, Leif Erickson, William Castle

Strait-Jacket-1964

Leave a comment

Strait-Jacket-1964

Director William Castle

Starring Joan Crawford, Diane Baker

Scott’s Review #650

Reviewed June 7, 2017

Grade: B

Strait-Jacket (1964) stars legendary Hollywood film star Joan Crawford on the heels of her successful “comeback” role in What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? Circa 1962.

Following this film, older actresses achieved some semblance of success in camp-leaning B-horror films, and Crawford led the pack.

Strait-Jacket is a perfect example of this subgenre. The glamorous Crawford sinks her teeth into this film with gusto, playing an ax-wielding former mental patient who has been released to the outside world after a lengthy stay in an insane asylum.

William Castle, a popular director of the time, could churn out films quickly and for very little money, a talent marveled at by studios. In the cult vein, Castle created Strait-Jacket on a dime and with one of the biggest stars in the world- now slowly in decline.

In “real life,” Crawford felt the role was beneath her, yet one would never know it by the brilliant performance she gives, a performance that makes Strait-Jacket better than it ordinarily would be.

We first meet Crawford’s Lucy Harbin (twenty years before present times) as she returns home late one night to a remote area, having spent the weekend out of town. Her husband is a philanderer and has picked up a cheap girl at a bar, making love to her while his young daughter, Carol, pretends to sleep.

In a fit of rage, Lucy decapitates them both while a horrified Carol watches. Years later, Carol (Diane Baker), now a grown woman,  prepares to introduce a recently released Lucy to her intended, Michael, and his affluent parents.

Living on a remote farm with Lucy’s brother and his wife, Lucy, and Carol experience strange occurrences: a dastardly child’s song, cut-out faces from a photo album, and “imagined” decapitated heads.

Castle wisely gives Lucy a makeover, changing her graying, matronly appearance to a sexy, youthful one reminiscent of her days before the murders.

Soon, the film, short at one hour and thirty-two minutes, reaches a climax when Lucy appears to begin chopping new victims to bits. But is everything as it seems?

As a viewer, Strait-Jacket’s appeal is watching Joan Crawford tackle the role. Talented beyond belief, and with expressive eyes and facial features, she owns the role and subsequently the entire film, though Diane Baker is no slouch either.

Crawford, never one to phone in a performance, was happy with any role she received at this time in her career. She gives Lucy grit and vulnerability so that the audience roots for her.

As the film progresses, we slowly wonder if Lucy is hallucinating, still unstable, or perhaps being set up by someone else.

Strait-Jacket is laced with several good scares, as a grizzled farmhand and a vacationing doctor meet their fates. The build-up to the kills is quite well done. A slamming door or a figure in the shadows are all used to tremendous effect and elicit suspense.

To Castle’s credit, he uses elements of fright to make the film better than the writing is.

The plot itself is fine, but indeed not high art, nor anything rather inventive. The “big reveal” at the end is rather hokey and seemingly a play on the Alfred Hitchcock classic Psycho (1960), but lacking the high intensity- the ending is also a tad abrupt.

Strait-Jacket (1964) is a terrific little horror film featuring one of the legendary actresses of Hollywood film history- and that is more than enough for me to recommend this film to both Crawford fans and horror film fans, or ideally both.

1964 Films, Agnes Moorehead, Bette Davis, Bruce Dern, Cecil Kellaway, George Kennedy, Joseph Cotten, Mary Astor, Olivia de Havilland, Robert Aldrich, Thriller, Victor Buono

Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte-1964

Leave a comment

Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte-1964

Director Robert Aldrich

Starring Bette Davis, Olivia de Havilland

Scott’s Review #632

Reviewed April 8, 2017

Grade: B+

The follow-up film, but not a direct sequel, to the surprise 1962 hit, What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte (1964) is a psychological thriller directed by Robert Aldrich.

The film was intended to reunite Aldrich with stars Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. Crawford filmed several scenes, but the tension between the stars proved too much, and Crawford dropped out.

Olivia de Havilland took her place, and reportedly, the filmmakers scrambled to re-shoot the film nearly from scratch.

Shot in black and white, just like What Ever Happened To Baby Jane?, the film is very similar in style and tone, and, rather than Los Angeles as the setting, the setting is now the sprawling southern landscape of the deep south- Louisiana to be exact, a vast estate with a lavish mansion is the featured ominous setting.

The action begins in 1927 at a grand party at the well-to-do Hollis family mansion.

The night is fraught with tension, and secrets are harbored- most notably, southern belle Charlotte (Davis) and her married beau, John (Bruce Dern), plan to elope and steal away into the night together.

When John is threatened by Charlotte’s father, Sam (Victor Buono), he regrettably breaks up with Charlotte, destroying her. Later, John is decapitated and his hand severed, leaving all of the guests only to assume that Charlotte was murdered after she appears wearing a blood-soaked dress.

Due to a lack of evidence, Charlotte is set free.

The remainder of the film takes place during present times (1964) and in the same mansion, now slated to be demolished by the town in favor of a highway.

Charlotte is old and haggard, having lived a life of seclusion. Her father is long dead, and her only company is her dedicated and faithful housekeeper, Velma (Agnes Moorehead).

Frantic at the thought of leaving the safety of her estate, Charlotte asks her cousin Miriam (de Havilland) to visit. Events then become stranger and stranger as past secrets and jealousies are revealed.

Taking nothing away from the talents of Olivia de Havilland, I cannot help but imagine how much better Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte would have been if Joan Crawford had settled into the role of cousin Miriam.

The real-life rivalry between Crawford and Davis made What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? It is a compelling work, and the angry emotions are fresh and authentic.

Interestingly, the characters are reversed in this film—Davis plays the victimized Charlotte, while Crawford would have played the villainous Miriam, and the results would have been delicious.

The plot is decent, but nothing spectacular, and not nearly as splendid as What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? , although certain similarities abound between the two films: a giant mansion, black and white cinematography, a mentally unstable (or assumed to be) character, a character being either drugged or victimized, and two female characters who are related.

To compare the two films, which is impossible not to, What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? Wins in spades. It is the more compelling of the two films.

What sets Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte, well above mediocrity (with fewer actors, it may have been), is the casting of one of the greatest actresses to grace the big screen.

Bette Davis’s portrayal of the victimized Charlotte is fantastic. She encompasses vulnerability, anger, fear, and energy. Her facial expressions and those passionate eyes give so much to Charlotte.

The clever resolution to the film and the plot twist after the film is pretty well-written and surprising, given that the characters assumed to be involved in the murder are not as guilty as one might think, or at least not in the way one might think, and by the time the credits roll, the story has a satisfying, hopeful ending.

Another success of the film is its use of two gruesome scenes, which is surprising since the film predates the lifting of the film censorship rules.

When a severed head comes tumbling down the grand staircase of the mansion, it frightens and is not in the least campy or over-the-top. As John is hacked to death in the opening sequence, his hand is severed from his arm, and it dramatically tumbles to the floor.

The scenes resonate because they were rarely done in mainstream film as early as 1964.

Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte is a fantastic companion piece to the superior What Ever Happened To Baby Jane?

Watching back-to-back is a fantastic late-night viewing.

Successful to the film are top-notch talents such as de Havilland, Victor Buono, Bruce Dern, Agnes Moorehead, and the superior film queen, Bette Davis, which makes any film worth watching.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actress-Agnes Moorehead, Best Song-“Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte,” Best Music Score-Substantially Original, Best Art Direction, Black-and-White, Best Cinematography, Black-and-White, Best Costume Design, Black and White, Best Film Editing

1964 Films, Action, Bernard Lee, Best Film of the Year, Desmond Llewelyn, Gert Fröbe, Guy Hamilton, Harold Sakata, Honor Blackman, James Bond, Lois Maxwell, Scott's Top 100 Films, Sean Connery, Shirley Eaton, Tania Mallet

Goldfinger-1964

Leave a comment

Goldfinger-1964

Director Guy Hamilton

Starring Sean Connery, Gert Frobe

Top 100 Films #72

Scott’s Review #337

22041809

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

By the time Goldfinger (1964) was released, the third in the James Bond franchise, the films were huge successes, and the budget was not to be spared a dime.

The lavish sets prove this, and Goldfinger is one of the best Bond films. It contains all the necessary elements for success: interesting villains, Bond girls, gadgets, and locales.

By 1964’s Goldfinger, Ian Fleming’s franchise had hit its stride and was achieving runaway success.

The intriguing premise immediately sets the tone- 007 is assigned to investigate a massive gold smuggling scheme. The conspirator is Auric Goldfinger (Gert Frobe), who hatches a plot to contaminate Fort Knox’s United States Bullion Depository.

His goal, naturally, is to control the world.!

The adventure takes Bond from the United Kingdom to Switzerland and finally to the United States in  Kentucky and Florida.

The main Bond girl, a villain, is uniquely named Pussy Galore. The film implies that the character is bisexual and she is tough. James Bond becomes intrigued by and smitten with her.

Goldfinger has the honor of containing one of the greatest Bond villains of all time- the title character of Goldfinger. Big and burly, he is menacing-looking, and actor Frobe is perfectly cast.

We first meet the man cheating at gin rummy poolside at a lavish Miami Beach hotel, while Bond looks on from dozens of floors up, with the assistance of Goldfinger’s moll, Jill Masterson.

In one of the greatest scenes in Bond history, a knocked-out Bond awakens to find Jill dead—and completely covered in gold paint! This scene, which occurs early on, sets up the Bond/Goldfinger rivalry outstandingly.

Goldfinger’s henchman, Oddjob, is also a grand Bond villain. He is Asian, menacing, and wears a trademark steel-rimmed hat, which he uses to kill his victims. Jill’s sister, Tilly, seeks revenge on Goldfinger but finds herself a victim of Oddjob’s infamous bowler hat as she flees for her life.

Following 1962’s From Russia With Love, an exceptional Bond film with nary a flaw, Goldfinger excels slightly because it has all the right ingredients and is firing on all cylinders.

Everything flows with precision.

Unforgettable is the climax of Goldfinger at the legendary Fort Knox itself. Goldfinger’s private army, an atomic device, a countdown to destruction, and Oddjob all make for a satisfying and riveting conclusion to one exceptional Bond entry.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Sound Effects (won)

1964 Films, Alan Napier, Alfred Hitchcock, Bruce Dern, Diane Baker, Kimberly Beck, Louise Latham, Martin Gabel, Melody Thomas Scott, Sean Connery, Thriller, Tippi Hedren

Marnie-1964

Leave a comment

Marnie-1964

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Sean Connery, Tippi Hedren

Scott’s Review #180

60000769

Reviewed October 4, 2014

Grade: A

When evaluating Alfred Hitchcock’s many films, Marnie (1964) is one of the more complicated. In recent years, it has earned higher praise than at its release, a la Vertigo (1958).

It features one of Hitchcock’s most complex psychological characters and is as much a character study as a psychological thriller.

Tippi Hedren stars as Marnie Edgar, a troubled young woman who travels from one financial company to another using a false identity and good looks to insinuate her way into a clerical job without references. Over time, she steals thousands from the companies when she gains their trust.

Eventually, she is caught by Mark Rutland, a handsome, wealthy widower and client of one of the firms, played by Sean Connery. Infatuated with Marnie, he strikes a deal with her: She will marry him, but he will not turn her over to the police.

Marnie gives most of her stolen money to her disabled mother, Bernice, in Baltimore- played by Louise Latham.

Why Bernice is crippled, avoids affection with Marnie, and why Marnie despises most men and is terrified of the color red make up the film’s mysterious nature. Diane Baker is compelling as Lil, the sister-in-law to Mark and somewhat nemesis of Marnie.

The film features three scenes I am enamored with each time I watch it. In one scene, Marnie hides and waits in the bathroom until all the employees have gone home for the night. She carefully steals money from her employer’s safe and prepares to leave. Suddenly, she notices an unaware cleaning woman with her back to Marnie, yet blocking the exit.

How will Marnie escape unnoticed? The surprise in this scene is excellent. Hitchcock plays the scene without music, which adds to the tension—brilliant.

In an emotional scene later in the film, Marnie’s horse, Forio, is injured, and a sobbing Marnie must choose between killing her beloved friend or letting him suffer until a veterinarian can be summoned.

It is a heart-wrenching scene.

The third scene takes place at a racetrack as Marnie and Mark are enjoying one of their first dates together before Mark learns the truth about Marnie- the date is ruined when a former victimized employer of Marnie’s recognizes and makes accusations towards her.

Marnie turns from sweet girl to ice queen seamlessly.

A huge controversial aspect of the film is that, while not shown, it is heavily implied that Mark rapes Marnie on their honeymoon. The following day, Marnie attempts suicide but is rescued by Mark.

This scene was filmed carefully so viewers didn’t hate Mark. Perhaps saving Marnie the next morning lessens what he did the night before in the eyes of the audience? This is open to debate.

Hedren is fantastic at showing the complexities of the character of Marnie throughout the entire film and does an excellent job in a demanding role.

As excellent as Hedren is (and she is fantastic), I have difficulty buying her as a poor, icy criminal, and this comes up each time I view the film.

Could this be a result of having identified Hedren as the sophisticated, glamorous socialite in The Birds made a year earlier so many times? This is quite possibly so.

The set of Marnie was reportedly fraught with tension during filming. This tension was mainly between Hedren and Hitchcock, who refused to speak with each other throughout the filming. This may have added to the tension, and Hedren appears anxious.

Could this be art imitating life? As the ending nears, Marnie and Mark align and form a team as they try to avoid the police altogether- Mark more or less becomes an accomplice.

The final reveal seems rushed. It takes place mostly in flashbacks and wraps up quickly. Marnie has blocked much of her childhood from her memory, which seems far-fetched.

Still, Marnie (1964) is a complex, psychological classic Hitchcock film from his heyday.

1964 Films, Charlotte Rampling, Comedy, Documentary, George Harrison, John Lennon, Musical, Musical Comedy, Paul McCartney, Phil Collins, Richard Lester, Ringo Starr, Susan Hampshire

A Hard Day’s Night-1964

Leave a comment

A Hard Day’s Night-1964

Director Richard Lester

Starring The Beatles

Scott’s Review #154

60023947

Reviewed August 18, 2014 

Grade: C

Why this rock documentary, a day in the life film, is considered among the Top 100 films of all time completely escapes me. I’m a huge fan of the band The Beatles, but this is a letdown.

The segments consisting of musical numbers performed by the band are excellent, and, humming along, I enjoyed the black and white filming of the “documentary.” Still, the film is not a documentary in the traditional sense and is very difficult to categorize.

Is it a rock opera, a comedy, a documentary, or a musical? It is somewhat of a hybrid as the viewer journeys through a typical day in the life of a Beatle.

But everything else seems fluff to the point of silliness. Countless scenes of the band running through the streets with adoring fans screaming and chasing after them become irritating. The film has little plot.

The Beatles were a huge band. We get it.

Paul, George, Ringo, and John do a capable job in the film, considering they are non-actors. I’d much rather have been exposed to a straightforward documentary focusing on the background of some of the songs or the band members themselves instead of a lightweight tale of a day in the life of The Beatles with silly attempts at humor thrown in.

A Hard Day’s Night (1964) influenced the 1960s television comedy starring The Monkees.

Oscar Nominations: Best Story and Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, Best Scoring of Music-Adaptation or Treatment

1964 Films, Connie Mason, Gore, H.G. Lewis, Horror, Horror-Camp, Independent, Independent Horror, William Kerwin

Two Thousand Maniacs-1964

Leave a comment

Two Thousand Maniacs-1964

Director H.G.Lewis

Starring William Kerwin, Connie Mason

Scott’s Review #79

26615196

Reviewed June 28, 2014

Grade: B

Two Thousand Maniacs is a 1964 offering by gore director H.G. Lewis set in the South.

The premise surrounds a southern town, ironically named Pleasant Valley, slaughtered and destroyed during the Civil War. It is resurrected every one hundred years to enact revenge on northerners who are unlucky enough to stumble upon their town.

Local townspeople dupe five nice-looking, fashionable tourists headed to Atlanta into making a wrong turn and given the hero’s welcome by the town folk for a festive centennial celebration.

The welcome is, of course, a guise for a sinister plot to dismember and barbeque the tourists as part of the feast of the celebration.

The film takes a bit to get going, there is no killing until thirty minutes into it then excels into high gear as some of the most graphic, brutal deaths ensue.

A woman is tied to a platform as one townsperson after another attempt to hit a bullseye so that an enormous boulder falls, carnival dunk-tank style, stoning her to death.

Another victim has each limb tied to a horse as they gallop in different directions, thus dismembering him.

Still, another is forced into a barrel laced with nails and sent rolling down a hill.

Another has her thumb and arm chopped off and served for dinner.

These are gruesome deaths.

A film like this is done for fun, thus the term horror comedy, but it undoubtedly heavily influenced other macabre films that followed, such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and Deliverance (1972).

The southern rednecks are played to the hilt by mostly actual townspeople, and the cheerful song “The South will rise again” sticks in the viewer’s mind long after the film ends.

The tone is bright and cheerful, and the townspeople, on the surface, seem happy-go-lucky and warm. They even kill with charm.

Two Thousand Maniacs (1964) is a fun, splatter film from one of the genre’s most revered filmmakers.

1964 Films, Bette Davis, Jean Hagen, Karl Malden, Paul Henreid, Peter Lawford, Philip Carey, Thriller

Dead Ringer-1964

Leave a comment

Dead Ringer-1964

Director Paul Henreid

Starring Bette Davis, Karl Malden

Scott’s Review #67

70001706

Reviewed June 24, 2014

Grade: B+

Dead Ringer (1964) is a black-and-white thriller starring Bette Davis in her final leading role before she took on the character and supporting roles.

Davis plays an interesting dual role, and as a massive fan of hers, I believe two are better than one.

The story centers on a wealthy widow and her twin sister, a struggling bar owner. The two have not spoken in decades and renewed their feud at a funeral.

One sister schemes to cause the other’s death, which results in an entertaining game of mistaken identity.

Davis carries this film and is dynamic in every scene. With her eyes, facial expressions, and throaty voice, her characteristic sexy pose with the cigarette is often utilized.

She is simply dynamic.

The story and plot are carefully crafted, and the angles that show both characters are impressive for the time (1964).

The differing lifestyles of the characters also make for a more challenging performance by Davis.

Karl Malden is a treat as a love interest of one of the sisters.