Tag Archives: British

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang-1968

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang-1968

Director Ken Hughes

Starring Dick Van Dyke, Sally Ann Howes

Scott’s Review #1,490

Reviewed August 13, 2025

Grade: B

With a strong connection to James Bond, especially when looking beneath the most obvious details, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968) offers pure escapist fun in the fantasy genre.

Albert R. Broccoli, who produced many of the 007 films, also serves as producer, a surprise given the differing genres. Furthermore, Ian Fleming, who wrote a series of James Bond books, also wrote the novel Chitty Chitty Bang Bang in 1964.

The screenplay was written by the famous British children’s author, Roald Dahl (James and the Giant Peach and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), whose handprint can be noticed as well.

I missed some of the subtle and not-so-subtle trimmings upon my viewing until taking a deeper dive into research. I also did not know the James Bond connection before watching the film.

One day, in rural England, young siblings Jeremy and Jemima meet the striking Truly Scrumptious (Sally Ann Howes), who falls for their widowed father, Caractacus Potts (Dick Van Dyke), despite coming from different backgrounds.

Potts tinkers with various oddball inventions, including the family’s noisy rebuilt car, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, which they name because of its unusual engine noises.

Caractacus tells Truly and the children a fantastical fable about the villainous Baron Bomburst (Gert Fröbe) and his evil designs on the Potts family car.

This becomes the central part of the film and the adventurous events that the family experiences.

For much of the film, events meander a bit more than I would have liked, and there seems not to be a clear direction. There were also too many over-the-top moments, mostly involving Caractacus’s wacky father (Lionel Jeffries) and various bumbling villain accomplices.

While enjoyable, the action felt silly and cartoonish.

After the intermission, the family ‘flies’ by car to a lavish castle owned by Bomburst in the childless nation of Vulgaria. There, they encounter frightened townspeople and the scary Child Catcher, wonderfully played by Robert Helpmann.

The colorful sets and art direction lend a helping hand to the secret of why there are no children in Vulgaria. We experience an odd yet witty toymaker played by Benny Hill and a splendid cat and mouse sequence involving human jack-in-the-boxes.

Later, a hidden grotto beneath the castle explains the mystery of where the town children are being kept and why.

While the Baron and Baroness (Anna Quayle) are unbelievably silly, the romance between Caractacus and Truly takes off and cements my investment in the pair.

Obviously and satisfyingly, they experience a happily ever after send-off after a couple of hiccups.

Van Dyke and Howes have dynamic chemistry despite Howes being a runner-up to Julie Andrews, who turned down the role, fearing it was too similar to Mary Poppins.

Fröbe (the diabolical title character from 1964’s Goldfinger) and the actor who played the familiar Bond character, Q (Desmond Llewelyn), make appearances. 

The Chitty Chitty Bang Bang car is practically a character in itself, boasting special powers and gadgets reminiscent of numerous unique Bond cars, and serves as a good comparison.

Finally, the name Truly Scrumptious is a similar character name, albeit much more family-friendly, to Pussy Galore from Goldfinger.

Of course, since Roald Dahl is involved, it’s no wonder children are in peril.

Other than the award-nominated title song, which is easy to hum and hard to forget, the other songs pale in comparison to this standout. I’d give second place to Trudy’s earnest ‘Lovely Lonely Man, a decent song.

For a family-ready affair with deeper particulars for eagle-eyed viewers to spot, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968) is recommended around holiday time when other pleasant children’s musicals make their emergence.

The film would serve as a perfect warm-up act to the superior but companionable Oliver! (1968).

Oscar Nominations: Best Song- Original for the Picture, ‘Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’

Peeping Tom-1960

Peeping Tom-1960

Director Michael Powell

Starring Nigel Davenport

Top 250 Films #47

Top 40 Horror Films #10

Scott’s Review #127

848669

Reviewed July 22, 2014

Grade: A

Peeping Tom is a brilliant 1960 horror film directed by Michael Powell.

It is a British film released the same year as Psycho. The two films share similarities in that they both feature more character-driven villains than many other contemporary horror films.

Both feature male killers with a sympathetic (to them) female.

Set in London, it tells the story of an assistant cameraman who kills his victims by using a camera with a spike on the end of it as he is videotaping the fear in their eyes, which he later plays back for his own psychological needs.

The killer has emotionally damaged himself, and the film explores this aspect in depth; his father tormented him as a child with weird, traumatic experiments used on the boy for research.

I love this aspect of the film compared with other films of the genre, where the killer typically has no sympathetic aspects and whose motivations are usually explored minimally.

The audience has sympathy for this killer, which, strangely, is absurd and shocking.

Ahead of its time, viewers were initially turned off by the film upon its release. Director Michael Powell’s (ironically playing the terrible father in videotape scenes) career was ruined.

Anna Massey (later to appear in the Hitchcock masterpiece Frenzy, 1972) plays the sweet-natured girl next door who develops a crush on the killer. Her blind and boozy mother is a fascinating character as she suspects and strangely bonds with the killer.

The film has an erotic and voyeuristic quality that has been unmatched in horror.

Peeping Tom (1960) is now widely regarded as a masterpiece, and I concur with that assessment. It is one of the most interesting and unique horror films ever made.

The Innocents-1961

The Innocents-1961

Director Jack Clayton

Starring Deborah Kerr

Top 250 Films #94

Top 40 Horror Films #17

Scott’s Review #639

Reviewed April 29, 2017

Grade: A

The Innocents is a 1961 British psychological horror film that tells a ghost story, based on the novella “The Turn of the Screw” by Henry James.

Although it is a horror film, it contains few traditional elements, such as contrived frights, jumps, and blood. Instead, the film succeeds by using lighting and magnificent cinematography by Freddie Francis.

And, of course, fantastic storytelling and direction from Jack Clayton.

Deborah Kerr gives an excellent turn as a beleaguered governess hired by a wealthy bachelor (Michael Redgrave) to tend to his young niece and nephew, Flora and Miles.

The setting is a lavish yet creepy mansion located outside London. As the Uncle goes away to India on business, Miss Giddens, with no previous experience, is left to tend to Flora and Miles, who both begin acting strangely.

To complicate matters, Miss Giddens sees sinister ghosts lurking around the property. The ghosts are former household servants who have passed away, of whom Miss Giddens has never met.

Miss Giddens is assisted only by the kindly housekeeper, Mrs. Grose, who tells her about the servants’ tragic deaths.

The Innocents, shot in black and white, uses sound to its advantage. This, combined with the interesting camera angles and focus shots—mainly of the ghosts Miss Giddens sees—makes the film unique and scary.

When she hears strange voices, she becomes convinced that Miles and Flora are playing tricks on her, engaging in games with her. The whispers’ sounds are haunting and do wonders for the effects, chilling the viewer as the film progresses.

Is Miss Giddens imagining the voices and visions, or is this an actual reality? Could the children be sinister and playing a vicious prank on her? Could Mrs. Grose be evil?

Nobody else within the household sees or hears anything amiss- or admits to it.

Kerr, a treasured actress, plays the part with emotional facial expressions and genuine fear, so much so that she wins the audience over as we side with and empathize with her character. Still, is she a woman on the verge of a mental breakdown? Does she have past mental problems?

Like her uncle, we know nothing of her past, only that she claims to be the daughter of a minister. How, then, does she have stylish, expensive clothes? Could she only be pretending to be a governess? Has she run away from her past?

The Turn of the Screw is a true ghost story, but The Innocents is a bit different —it relies, successfully, on being more of a character-driven story.

As Miss Giddens becomes convinced that the spirits of the servants have possessed both children, she makes it her mission to rescue them from these spirits. We have an ominous feeling that events will not end well, and they do not.

Several scenes will frighten the viewer, as Miss Giddens sees a haggard ghost (the female servant) quietly standing in the distance near a lake as Flora dances chirpily; the image of the faraway ghost figure is eerie and well-shot.

The film draws comparisons to the classic Hitchcock film Rebecca (1940). Each is set in a large mansion and features complex villains who are portrayed as deceased characters.

Also, the sanity of the main character is in question.

With a compelling story and the nuts and bolts surrounding the tale to add clever effects and a chilling conclusion, the film succeeds as an excellent and intelligent horror film.

With great acting all around, including fantastic performances by child actors, The Innocents (1961) scares the daylights out of any horror fan and uses exterior and interior scenes to make the film an all-around marvel.

Don’t Look Now-1973

Don’t Look Now-1973

Director Nicolas Roeg

Starring Julie Christie, Donald Sutherland

Top 250 Films #103

Top 40 Horror Films #19

Scott’s Review #693

Reviewed October 22, 2017

Grade: A

Don’t Look Now is an exceptional 1973 supernatural horror film that is as thought-provoking as it is intelligently written and directed.

Combined with riveting acting by famous Hollywood stars of the day, the film is simply an anomaly and must be seen to be appreciated. It is also the type of film that can be watched again and again for better clarity and exhibits the age-old “it gets better with age” comparison.

The film is rich with story, atmosphere, and cerebral elements, as well as being highly influential to horror films that followed.

An affluent married couple, John and Laura Baxter (Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie), live happily together in their English country home, raising their two children, Johnny and Christine.

After a tragic drowning incident, resulting in the death of Christine, the devastated couple relocates to Venice, after John accepts a position restoring an ancient church. Soon, Laura meets a pair of elderly sisters, one of whom is blind and claims to be clairvoyant, warning her of imminent danger and that Christine is attempting to contact her from beyond.

Don’t Look Now is hardly your standard horror film, which is the main part of its appeal- psychological in nature, the film holds only one gruesome death- not including the death of Christina, which is a terrible accident- not malicious.

Rather, director Nicolas Roeg quietly builds the suspense to a startling final sequence by using a chilling musical score to elicit a reaction from the audience. We know not what will happen, only that something sinister is bound to.

Due to the successful chemistry between Sutherland and Christie, in 1973, both cream of the crop in terms of film success and marketability, the actors deserve much credit for making Don’t Look Now both believable and empathetic.

John and Laura, each give their character a likable nature and immeasurable chemistry, which makes the audience care for them.

Despite the supernatural elements in the film, at its core, the story is quite humanistic. John and Laura have tragically lost a child and we see them deal with the painful grief associated with this loss.

The famous sex scene between the pair is shocking given the time, but also tastefully done, as Roeg uses a fragmented filming style that mixes the nudity with the couple dressing for dinner.

Visually, Don’t Look Now is a pure treat. The viewer is catapulted to the cultural and wonderful world of watery Venice, where scene after scene features gondola rides, exterior treats of the city, and filming locations such as the famous Hotel Gabrielli Sandworth and the San Nicolo dei Mendicoli church, wisely chosen as shooting locations giving the film an effective realism.

The characters of the elderly sisters, Heather and Wendy, are wonderfully cast. Hilary Mason and Clelia Matania are fantastic and believable as the mysterious duo. Seemingly kindly and eager to help, I was never really sure what the character’s true motives were.

Was Laura paying them for their assistance?

The film never reveals this information, but Heather especially contains a sinister look that shrouds her motivations in uncertainty. Fabulous actress Mason shines in her important role.

As John begins to “see things”, the use of the color red becomes very important. Christine died wearing a red coat and John sees a child wearing a red coat walking around the city, but cannot make out her face.

When he sees Laura and the sisters at a funeral, we begin to question his sanity. But are the sisters up to something and attempting to trick him or is his mind playing tricks on him?

The terrific conclusion will only lead the viewer to more questions.

Don’t Look Now (1973) is a unique, classic horror film, with incredible thematic elements, an eerie psychological story, fine acting, and location sequences that will astound.

Mixing the occult with an unpredictable climax, the film is influenced by Alfred Hitchcock and succeeds in achieving a blood-curdling affair sure to be discussed upon the chilling conclusion.

The film is non-linear in storytelling, which only makes it more challenging to watch and appreciate.

The Red Shoes-1948

The Red Shoes-1948

Director Michael Powell, Emeric Pressburger

Starring Moira Shearer, Marius Goring

Top 250 Films #108

Scott’s Review #683

Reviewed September 19, 2017

Grade: A

The best in the collection of cinematic ballet films, 1948’s The Red Shoes is a highly artistic and influential film, one that is undoubtedly studied in film schools everywhere.

One cannot view The Red Shoes without amazement, and the realization that this piece must have been dissected by legendary director Darren Aronofsky before he created his creepy 2010 psychological thriller, Black Swan, is evident.

The Red Shoes is a British film that imbues it with a transparent element of grace, class, and sophistication, perfectly encapsulating the themes of love, ambition, and jealousy —the Brits do it right.

Director Michael Powell later crafted the odd and controversial 1960 film Peeping Tom, which was sure to have wholly ruined his career, yet he brought his A-game to this 1948 work.

Decades later, Powell is now considered a genius director.

The film is laden with foreshadowing, at least a handful of times during its running time, as we meet our heroine, Vicky Page (Moira Shearer), a bright-eyed young woman with flowing red locks and aspirations of grandeur as she emerges as a fledgling ballerina in the Covent Garden area of London.

Partially due to her aristocratic upbringing and her assertive, snooty aunt, she lands an audition for the ballet company led by the sophisticated Boris Lermontov (Anton Walbrook).

He is immediately enamored of her, yet gives her the cold shoulder, making her question her talent. The key here is the incorporation of trains in multiple sequences.

As Lermontov and Vicky’s lives begin to intertwine, a young music student named Julian (Marius Goring) is perturbed by the plagiarism of his music by his professor, who had conducted Heart of Fire under the guise of it being his work. When Julian expresses his displeasure to Lermontov, he is hired to perform with the orchestra.

The addition of Julian to the plot kicks off a compelling triangle between the three characters, whose lives overlap in a mixture of young love, passion, and jealous rage.

The action takes off even further as the film moves to the gorgeous setting of Paris and Monte Carlo, a treat for any worldly or aspiring world traveler, as the photography and cinematic angles of the lush locales are breathtaking.

As former prima ballerina Irina Boronskaya decides to leave the company to be married, Lermontov creates a new ballet, The Red Shoes, starring Vicky, with music composed by Julian.

This creates enormous pressure for all involved as the film takes a dark turn.

Dashes of influence surrounding the exquisite performance of the famous Swan Lake dance number heavily influenced the 1950s classic An American in Paris (1951).

The long, colorful, dramatic sequence emits lush, vivacious music and performance. This “time out” from the heavy drama encompassing the rest of the film is beautiful and peaceful, and one of the sheer highlights of The Red Shoes.

The film hinges on the dynamic between the three principal characters, as each actor is spot-on and rich in flair.

Incredibly profound are the performances by Shearer and Walbrook, as each actor brings their respective character to life with the perfect amount of fury, ambition, and tension. Still, Goring as Julian is equally worthy of mention. Kudos.

I adore witnessing Moira Shearer dance; her talent and tenacity are astounding. An internationally renowned British ballet dancer and actress, Vicky’s role is ideally suited to her, as the character must have been close to her heart.

Who can forget the most famous scene, where a determined and crazed Vicky finishes her stage performance, Powell firmly holding the camera on her makeup-stained face, her blue eyes wide and hair wild?

Her look of triumph and insanity, lost in the moment, is a grand and unforgettable image that is often repeated in cinema reference books.

Equal parts dramatic, romantic, eerie, lustful, and wise, The Red Shoes (1948) is a classic film made way ahead of its time. Its startling visuals, treasured art and set designs, powerful acting, and compelling story make it a must-see.

No wonder this film had such a profound influence on other masterpieces to come.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Motion Picture Story, Best Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture (won), Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Color (won), Best Film Editing

Maurice-1987

Maurice-1987

Director James Ivory

Starring James Wilby, Hugh Grant

Top 250 Films #111

Scott’s Review #14

60010639

Reviewed June 17, 2014

Grade: A

A brilliant film adaptation of the E.M. Forster novel set at Cambridge University during the turn of the twentieth century, it tells the story of oppression and social norms that took place at the time.

It is a gorgeously shot film, with beautiful landscapes, photography, and costumes.

Reminiscent of the British films “A Room with a View”, and “Howard’s End”, it is a male love story during a time when it was forbidden and lives were ruined because of sexuality like this.

The film’s characters make choices: some repressed, others celebrate, with differing results. In the middle of it, all is a beautiful love story.

Maurice (1987) is a timeless, brave treasure.

Oscar Nominations: Best Costume Design

Far from the Madding Crowd-1967

Far from the Madding Crowd-1967

Director John Schlesinger

Starring Julie Christie, Terence Stamp, Alan Bates

Top 250 Films #183

Scott’s Review #315

70111488

Reviewed January 1, 2016

Grade: A-

A sweeping, gorgeous epic made in 1967, Far from the Madding Crowd is pure soap opera (this is not a negative), done very well, which features a woman with three male suitors and contains many similarities to another brilliant epic, Gone with the Wind.

The cinematography, score, and writing are excellent, and, at close to three hours, are a lengthy experience.

The film is based on the popular novel, written by Thomas Hardy.

The setting is lovely, rural England, the landscape green and lush- mostly farmland, where Bathsheba resides having recently inherited her Uncle’s enormous estate and is, frankly, overwhelmed with the heavy responsibility required to successfully run it.

Three men appear in one form or another to lend a hand and each falls madly in love with her- she had her choice of any of them. Throughout the film, each is given a chance to win her heart, and the trials and tribulations of each occur.

The wealthy neighbor, William Boldwood, is older and insecure. Frank Troy is a bad boy who is a cavalry sergeant, and Gabriel, a former farmer, has lost all of his sheep.

Having only seen this film twice (so far), I notice more and more the similarities to Gone with the Wind. Both are set around the same period (the 1860s) and both films feature very strong, independent, gorgeous female characters with multiple male suitors.

Unlike Gone with the Wind, though, Bathsheba is not self-centered, but wholesome and honest.

Julie Christie was certainly the “it” girl during the time in which the film was made, having recently starred in Darling, and Doctor Zhivago, among others, and Far from the Madding Crowd is a perfect film for her, focusing on her beauty and earnestness.

She is exceptionally cast.

What I enjoy most about the film is we do not know which of the men Bathsheba will wind up with…if any of them. Gabriel Alan Bates) is my personal favorite, but at the beginning of the film, she rebuffs his marriage proposal.

In a heartbreaking scene, one of his dogs goes mad and leads his entire flock of sheep to their death. He then is forced to work as her shepherd, a job beneath him. He is the most likable of the three men and it is fun to root for their ultimate union. But is he prone to bad luck?

Frank Troy is dashing- a clear lady’s man, yet I did not root for him. A character, which I found to have strange motivations, having impregnated, and almost married a young lady named Fanny, only to turn her away based on a misunderstanding, then ultimately change his mind about Bathsheba.

In one scene he manipulates his way into getting the townsmen drunk on brandy, which leads to a crisis. He is charismatic and used to getting his way.

Finally, Boldwood is wealthy and sophisticated and appealing to Bathsheba in a certain way (main stability), but there is also something I find “off” about the character throughout the film- unstable maybe, needy? I did not find his character likable either.

The overlap and the relationships between the men are also interesting aspects of Far from the Madding Crowd. Will they become friends? Would they kill each other for Bathsheba’s affection?

Many emotions run through all four characters, which makes the film rich in character development.

Grand, sweeping, and beautiful are words to describe Far from the Madding Crowd, a film that I enjoy exploring and evaluating upon each viewing.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Music Score

Eastern Promises-2007

Eastern Promises-2007

Director David Cronenberg

Starring Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Watts

Top 250 Films #193

Scott’s Review #205

70059994

Reviewed December 15, 2014

Grade: B+

Eastern Promises is a 2007 Russian mafia thriller directed by David Cronenberg (The Fly, A History of Violence) that stars Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Watts, and Vincent Cassel.

The film is an uneven experience, seemingly meshing two stories together- one fascinating, one unnecessary.

Watts plays a British-Russian midwife named Anna, who works at a London hospital. She attempts to find the family of Tatiana, a fourteen-year-old girl who dies during childbirth leaving a diary written in Russian along with her newborn.

Anna struggles to unravel the mystery surrounding the girl which ends up involving the mafia.

Mortensen plays Nikolai, the mysterious chauffeur to crime lord Semyon, and Cassel plays Kirill, the disturbed, alcoholic son of Semyon.

The plot segues into a story of a somewhat relationship between Nikolai and Anna that is not quite romantic and also a much more intriguing relationship between Nikolai and Kirill as a brotherhood of sorts develops between them.

This relationship is complex- Kirill wants Nikolai to prove he is a straight male by having sex with one of several female prisoners he and his father keep as part of a sex trafficking group.

During this scene, and a few others, the two men seem close, almost too close, given the sexual nature of what is happening during the scene, so this relationship is left vague, but intriguing nonetheless.

The latter story holds more interest to me, whereas the former seems contrived and rather uninteresting. Was the intention of the film to imply a romantic interest between Anna and Nikolai?

I found zero chemistry between the two and wondered if the audience was supposed to root for them as a couple or not.

The four principal characters in Eastern Promises are interesting to unravel. I found the characters of Nikolai and Kirill complex and interesting.

Not so much with the character of Anna. Why did I not find her so compelling? Besides a skimmed over the mention of how she lost a baby what vested interest did she have in mixing with the Russian mafia and putting her mother and uncle in harm’s way?

Sure, anyone would want to find an orphaned baby’s family, but why not just call the police? This seems like a large plot hole. Conversely, Nikolai is a fascinating, layered character played wonderfully by Mortensen.

What are his true motivations? Is he a good guy or a bad guy? His attempts at being accepted by Semyon and the family to join the mob family make him seem dangerous- but his kindness towards one of the Ukrainian prostitutes is sweet.

Kirill is a despicable character, but what is his sexuality? Does that make him get so drunk and angry? How does one explain his conflict over the baby shifting his character too sympathetic?

Ultimately, Nikolai and Kirill are complicated- Anna and Semyon are more one-note.

I would have preferred the story solely revolve around the mafia family and the Godfather-type scenes, specifically the two throat-slashing scenes violently done, and perhaps leave out Watts’s character and story altogether.

A gritty scene that takes place in a steam room pits Nikolai against two rival mafia men. The scene is long and intense. Mortensen performs the scene completely naked, which adds to the rawness and the brutality of the fight.

It is one of the most masculine scenes I can remember watching.

At times compelling, but riddled with plot holes and requiring some suspension of disbelief, Eastern Promises (2007) is an entertaining Russian mafia film that remains a decent watch.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-Viggo Mortensen

The Wicker Man-1973

The Wicker Man-1973

Director Robin Hardy

Starring Edward Woodward, Christopher Lee

Top 250 Films #199

Top 40 Horror Films #28

Scott’s Review #245

60021185

Reviewed May 31, 2015

Grade: B+

The Wicker Man is a cult horror film from 1973 that is considered one of the finest by horror critics.

While the film does not enamor me quite as much as some other favorites in the horror genre (Halloween, Rosemary’s Baby, The Shining, Dressed to Kill, and Suspiria) immediately spring to mind while thinking of 1970s-style horror gems, I cannot help but admire The Wicker Man’s creativity and religious overtones.

Despite not awarding the film a solid “A” rating, I look forward to viewing this film again and, perhaps over time, as some films do, it will see an adjustment in scoring.

Set on an island in the Scottish Hebrides, named Summerisle, a devout Christian (Edward Woodward) named Sergeant Howie travels to the island in search of a missing young girl named Rowan Morrison, thought to have disappeared under mysterious circumstances.

The inhabitants are vague, aloof, or hostile towards the policeman. He immediately is disturbed to notice the group worships Celtic gods and notices other strange acts of worship and sexual behavior (a naked dance), which he resists and disapproves of.

He is tempted by a gorgeous seductress, Willow, played by Britt Ekland- most notably known as a Bond girl in The Man with the Golden Gun, and butts heads with the island leader, Lord Summerisle, played by horror legend Christopher Lee.

As he attempts to locate the missing girl, he uncovers some very dark goings-on around the island as the annual Mayday harvest celebration is about to occur. He deduces that Rowan is slated to be the sacrifice at the celebration and he races to find her before it is too late.

But is there more to the island than meets the eye?

The Wicker Man is not mainstream fare and that is what I admire most about it, as well as its British flare. It strives to challenge the norm in horror and question who is right and who is wrong and who the audience should champion.

Religion and the occult have been portrayed in horror films for eons, but rarely given a normal face. Typically, the villains are scary, horrid, or even cartoonish, clearly defined as bad.

Despite all of the townspeople being in on the sacrifice, they are seemingly ordinary appearing. They raise their kids, farm, run stores, and teach the kids in a classroom setting.

On the surface, they appear wholesome and that is part of what makes The Wicker Man so scary. Rosemary’s Baby did the same thing.

Typically, any sort of satanic overtones or human/animal sacrifices, frighten audiences, especially if the culprits could be their neighbors, friends, or even loved ones. The realness is unnerving.

Differing, controversial, religious beliefs are a prevalent theme throughout The Wicker Man as are elements of good vs. evil.

The film is not predictable. It delves into questions of morals and beliefs- for example, Howie is a virgin- saving himself for marriage and trying to be a good, decent person.

He is the moral center of the film and, in his belief, everyone on the island is either perverted, crazy or a sinner.

By this logic, Howie looks down on others who are dissimilar to him and comes across as preachy. I do not get the impression that the film wants the audience to love Howie- or hate him.

The balance between the old gods (Christianity) and new gods (Celtic paganism) makes the film interesting.

The shocking conclusion involving an enormous, life-sized burning wicker man is terrifying beyond belief and by far the best part of the film, as the hero must come to terms with his fate.

The final thirty minutes are quite spectacular from the final twist through the ending.

My lack of an exceptional grade for The Wicker Man stems from it being a tad too slow-moving. Perhaps a few additional jumps or frights along the way would have been beneficial, but, on the other hand, it is not a scary film, nor does it try to be.

It is, however, quite intelligent and, I suspect will increase my enjoyment with each subsequent viewing.

A fine addition to the relics of classic horror, The Wicker Man (1973) is a creative, mysterious, and left-of-the-center film.

Black Narcissus-1947

Black Narcissus-1947

Director Michael Powell, Emeric Pressburger

Starring Deborah Kerr

Top 250 Films #209

Scott’s Review #688

Reviewed October 5, 2017

Grade: A

A British film made in 1947 that is way ahead of its time, Black Narcissus is a brilliant foray into the mysterious entity of nuns and the bitterness, both from humanity and from the elements, that a group of nuns must face as they attempt to establish a new school atop the hills of the Himalayas.

The film’s look is as fantastic as its story, with incredible cinematography and a foreboding, eerie quality.

Black Narcissus is one of the great treasures of classic cinema.

Based on the 1939 novel by Rumer Godden, Black Narcissus tells the story of revolving jealousy, rage, lust, and tension amid a convent of nuns living in isolation.

Deborah Kerr, fantastic in the lead role of Clodagh, Sister Superior and leader of the group, faces the temptations and anger of men while dealing with an unbalanced nun, Sister Ruth, played terrifically by Kathleen Byron.

The cinematography and the art direction must be praised as the lavish sets are just that- sets. However, the average viewer will be whisked away on a magical experience where it seems the sets are real locales, high atop the Himalayan mountains.

Scenes depict howling wind, mist, and fog in a believable manner. All sets are built and structured, and Black Narcissus was filmed entirely on a set. This tidbit is unbelievable, given the realism, especially since the film was made in 1947.

The lighting in the film is unique, precisely the vibrant colors of the pink flowers and, later, the close-ups of Sister Ruth. A fantastic example of this is her descent into madness during the final act, as her face, maniacal yet lovely, is heavily featured. Her face appears bright and hypnotic.

The main event, though, is the tales the film tells, which are pretty edgy for the year the film was made. Religion is always risky, and the treatment of the nuns as real human beings with actual emotions, even lustful ones, is brazen.

Specifically, Clodagh (Kerr) is a fascinating study as the character teeters on a romance with the charismatic, handsome, local British agent, Mr. Dean (David Farrar), while attempting to forget a failed romance during her youth in Ireland.

Meanwhile, Sister Ruth spirals out of control, leading to a dire climax involving an enormous church bell atop the restored structure.

A slight misstep the film makes is mainly casting white actors with heavy makeup in the Indian roles instead of actors with authentic ethnicity.

This detail is glaring because the makeup used is not overly convincing, and the casting of the gorgeous Jean Simmons as Kanchi, a lower-class dancing girl whom the Prince becomes infatuated with in a subplot, is incredibly guilty.

Still, this pales in comparison to the fantastic story and look of the film.

Black Narcissus is a classic film that contains a bit of everything—drama, thrills, intrigue, gorgeous sets, lavish design, and even a bit of forbidden passion—and brilliantly executes all aspects of the film.

A film admired by critics and directors throughout the ages and explicitly championed by Martin Scorsese, it has the unique quality of getting better with each viewing.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Art Direction-Set Direction, Color (won), Best Cinematography, Color (won)

The Killing of Sister George-1968

The Killing of Sister George-1968

Director Robert Aldrich

Starring Beryl Reid, Susannah York

Top 250 Films #210

Scott’s Review #228

220px-Original_movie_poster_for_the_film_The_Killing_of_Sister_George

Reviewed March 13, 2015

Grade: A-

The Killing of Sister George is a British film drama, adapted from a 1964 stage production that was a risky subject matter to tackle for the times- lesbianism- in the late 1960s.

Directed by Robert Aldrich, well known for directing Whatever Happened to Baby Jane, The Killing of Sister George is a similarly dark tale of loneliness, desperation, and an actress falling from former grace and success to despair, confusion, and anguish.

It also has some witty, crackling, comedic moments to avoid being a true downer.

Sister George is a successful, well-regarded actress on a popular soap opera named Applehurst. Her character is the wholesome presence in a town fraught with manipulation and drama. She is the moral focal point of the show.

In real life, however, George (interestingly called by her character’s name), is troubled.

She is bitter, angry, an alcoholic, and frequently berates and even abuses her partner, Childie, played by Susannah York. A third central character in the film is TV Producer Mercy Croft, who is powerful and confused about her sexuality.

When the soap opera powers-that-be decide to kill off the beloved Sister George, the real George’s life begins to spiral out of control.

As interesting a film as it is and certainly featuring the competent talents of Beryl Reid in the title role, I cannot help but ponder and fantasize how wonderful the casting of Bette Davis- reportedly considered for the role and inexplicably not cast- would have been.

Davis, famous for playing grizzled, mean, unsympathetic characters, would have knocked this role out of the park and, sadly, she did not have the chance.

At its core, the film is a sad character study of one woman’s pain and anguish at being discarded. Presumably unable to be hired anywhere else, her soap opera character is her life.

She loves Childie but is not completely fulfilled by her either, and that relationship is threatened by the vibrant and polished Mercy.

This is an interesting triangle as George does not always treat Childie well, but loves her all the same. Childie is a simple character, childlike, and needs a strong mate to counter-balance the way she is- someone to take care of her.

Without a job or prospects, this would be difficult for George. Does Childie love George or simply want a meal ticket?

The film is understandably rated X for content, presumably for a very explicit sex scene between Mercy and Childie and when a drunken George molests two nuns in the back seat of a London taxi cab.

These scenes are both cutting-edge and admirable in their risk-taking.

The scene set at the real-life London lesbian club (the Gateway Club) and featuring mostly real-life lesbians is great and provides a real-life glimpse into the gay/lesbian world and lifestyle during the period.

A brave, groundbreaking, risk-taking film with and bravura direction from Aldrich, The Killing of Sister George (1968) is a forgotten gem that needs to be rediscovered by film fans everywhere and is an early journey into gay and lesbian cinema.

My Beautiful Laundrette-1985

My Beautiful Laundrette-1985

Director Stephen Frears

Starring Gordon Warnecke, Daniel Day-Lewis

Scott’s Review #1,451

Reviewed November 10, 2024

Grade: A-

My Beautiful Laundrette (1985) is an early LGBTQ+-themed British film directed by Stephen Frears. He would later become well-known for directing The Queen (2006).

Though the film is choppy and contains several stories, the LGBTQ+ story is one of the few in the genre that represents a satisfying and hopeful ending. Later, and admittedly, more defined films, like Brokeback Mountain (2006) and Boy’s Don’t Cry (1999), were harsher and more realistic.

The British flavor, interracial pairing, and class differences make My Beautiful Laundrette a lovely watch. But, it’s also all over the place.

In a seedy corner of London, a young Pakistani, Omar (Gordon Warnecke), is given a run-down laundromat by his affluent uncle Nasser (Saeed Jaffrey), who hopes to turn it into a successful business.

Soon after, Omar is attacked by a group of racist punks but realizes their leader is his former lover, Johnny (Daniel Day-Lewis). The men resume their relationship and rehabilitate the laundromat together, but various social forces threaten to compromise their success.

Omar’s father is an unhappy former left-wing journalist, who has turned to alcohol. Nasser’s daughter, Tania, is meant to be Omar’s future bride, while Nasser is in love with his mistress, Rachel (Shirley Anne Field).

Besides these storylines, there is a complicated relationship between brothers Nasser and Hussein, and a drug smuggling storyline.

While every story has some intrigue and shapes the structure, the male romance is not front and center enough to be completely developed.

Omar and Johnny hold interest because despite differences they connect and are truly in love. Politically, Omar is left-wing, and Johnny is right. Omar is upper class while Johnny is working class. Omar is Pakistani while Johnny is British.

Being 1985 and early in the LGBTQ+ genre, Frears focuses mostly on their romance and less on their differences. There is a brief sequence where Omar treats Johnny as a lowly employee but for the most part, they are in love.

It takes a long time to showcase Omar and Johnny making My Beautiful Laundrette only marginally an LGBTQ+ effort.

There is no mention of the A.I.D.S. epidemic which would have made it a different kind of film.

The romance between Nasser and Rachel is marvelous. They are a couple the audience shouldn’t root for but do anyway. Rachel is the other woman, merely a mistress, but why is she so appealing? Why do Nasser and Rachel connect so well?

Shirley Anne Field pours kindness and empathy into her character while Saeed Jaffrey relays his love for Rachel to Nasser. Yes, he is married but the marriage is traditional and his wife is Pakistani. We know that at another time Nasser and Rachel would have a chance.

When Tania snaps at Rachel and accuses her of being a woman who so easily lives off a man, Rachel reminds her that she does too. Rachel is from a different generation where opportunities for women are scarce.

Field makes the scene her own and wins over the audience which could have been against her.

The Rachel/Nasser romance parallels the Omar/Johnny love story. Both couples live secret lives, hidden from the world and shrouded in secrecy.

This is evident in a powerful scene when the two couples are simultaneously romantic in the laundrette. Neither sees each other at first but the audience sees both couples. This mirrors their mutual love and it’s a beautiful sequence.

While sometimes there is too much to follow, most of the material is poignant and relevant making My Beautiful Laundrette (1985) a film to recommend.

It has an LGBTQ+ presence but is not restricted to that genre offering other nice stories to the experience.

It also leaves one feeling hopeful which is sometimes needed in cinema.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Screenplay

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 it was initially 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 nicely 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 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 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 older woman or Anna. She is younger, more muscular than either, and has the will to survive.

But Die! Die! My Darling! It 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 a viewer, I felt emotionally invested in the characters and couldn’t wait for Patricia to escape and Mrs. Trefoile to give her desserts.

I mostly enjoyed Patricia’s determination and battle with the wicked older woman. Some characters might have cowered to her demands, but Patricia remained strong in what was undoubtedly an effort to provide for 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 accurate glamour shots of Bankhead appear to have been used to show a younger Mrs. Trefoile, 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 fully displayed.

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 Bankhead fans who want to see her stripped down, 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 set 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 in a long-ago era.

For comparison, it reminds me of the British television series Downton Abbey (2010-2015) in terms of its look and feel—a grandiose estate, dutiful servants, and a cast 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, whom I initially couldn’t recall, is best 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 acting, other elements make Rebecca circa 2020 worth watching.

The cinematography captures crashing waves and high cliffs, which provide a haunting mood; the dining room and kitchen sequences brim with goodness and excellent 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 going 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 as satisfying as watching a film with little expectations and finishing it feeling fulfilled, 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.