Tag Archives: William Castle

Shampoo-1975

Shampoo-1975

Director Hal Ashby

Starring Warren Beatty, Julie Christie, Goldie Hawn

Scott’s Review #1,362

Reviewed May 19, 2023

Grade: A-

Shampoo (1975) is a drama and comedy hybrid that reminds me greatly of a Robert Altman film without the customary overlapping dialogue common in his works.

The political environment against the posh Los Angeles backdrop emotes the vibes of The Long Goodbye (1973) and Nashville (1975) with enough sly satire and humor to generate a comparison.

Of course, the film, nestled in mid-1970s cinema greatness is in the right decade. Further, the 1968 setting is perfect for the Los Angeles mood where the Manson killings, hippies, sex, drugs, and rock n roll were all commonplace.

Listening to the soundtrack of The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane and other familiar bands of the late 1960s makes Shampoo a grand slam of authenticity and richness.

Director, Hal Ashby, who created the dark comic genius Harold and Maude in 1971, hits it out of the park again with Shampoo, a study of love and loneliness and a sense of belonging and fulfillment.

I wasn’t won over right away and the film took me a while to warm up to if I’m being honest but by the end, I was a big fan, especially of the writing. But, some of the slow-build films are the best.

The film takes place against the backdrop of Election night in 1968 when eventually shamed former president Richard Nixon won the presidency. The characters bounce from one election party to the next but barely notice the outcome choosing booze and lust over politics.

Beverly Hills hairdresser and notorious cad George Roundy (Warren Beatty) runs into trouble when his bedroom antics interfere with a possible business deal with the influential Lester (Jack Warden). George is sleeping with Lester’s wife Felicia (Lee Grant) and his best friend and ex-girlfriend, Jackie (Julie Christie), in addition to his current girlfriend, Jill Haynes, played by Goldie Hawn.

Part of why Shampoo sneaks up on the viewer is that it’s not a laugh-out-loud comedy in a physical way. Instead, the intelligent dialogue and the development of its characters are the winning formula.

We first meet George in bed with his older mistress, Felicia, who we assume might be his girlfriend. When he makes an excuse to check on Jill, we realize he is playing the field, but with no ill intent. He genuinely likes the women he beds and despite his antics is feeling empty and mindlessly trudging along.

A wonderful scene atop the Hollywood Hills brings George’s peril to a climax when he professes his love for one of the women but is it too late?

Beatty, who co-wrote the screenplay, fleshes his character’s motivations out well. He really only wants happiness and a successful business. Some of the action takes place in his salon where he meets his conquests.

The scenes between Beatty and Warden work particularly well especially when Lester discovers George in a precarious situation or three assuming he is gay.

Let’s not forget the ladies. The triple bill of Christie, Hawn, and Grant is a force to be reckoned with. Grant is an interesting character since she has all the wealth she wants but instead loves the financially struggling George. Should we feel sympathy for her?

Jill presumably will find happiness with a director smitten with her. They seem like a quality pair and Christie’s Jackie also makes out well at the conclusion of the film.

Surprisingly and effectively, the presidential election is more of a background effect and is largely ignored by the characters who have better things to worry about.

Ashby mostly has the news telecasts and election returns blurred intentionally. The point made is that Nixon’s cheating is a reflection of the self-obsession affecting the United States during that time.

Despite his flaws, the audience nonetheless roots for George. This is a testament to the writing of Beatty and Robert Towne and the rich slow build that Ashby provides to Shampoo (1975) amid a shiny yet tarnished Los Angeles veneer.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Supporting Actor-Jack Warden, Best Supporting Actress-Lee Grant (won), Best Original Screenplay, Best Art Direction

Homicidal-1961

Homicidal-1961

Director William Castle

Starring Jean Arless, Patricia Bresling

Scott’s Review #661

Reviewed July 8, 2017

Grade: A-

Homicidal is a 1961 horror film, shot in black and white, that is a direct homage to the successful Psycho, made only a year earlier.

While some would argue Homicidal is a direct rip-off of Psycho, I see the film as containing elements of Psycho but twisted around so that its unique story is created.

Regardless, Homicidal is a fantastic, edge-of-your-seat film that never drags or slows down and deserves recognition.

The surprise ending is terrific.

The story starts when a tall, leggy, blonde woman confidently walks into a local California hotel to request a room.

There is something mysterious about the woman. She appears to be a woman of some wealth and convinces a young bellboy to marry her for $2,000.

Hesitant, but enamored by the woman, he accompanies her to the local justice of the peace, who marries them in the middle of the night. The woman (Emily) then savagely bludgeons the justice of the peace and flees the scene.

Later, she brags about the murder of a mute and sickly old woman named Helga, who she is caring for.

From this point, other characters in the small town are introduced and we slowly learn more and more about the intriguing Emily (Jean Arless).

Flower shop owner, Miriam (Patricia Breslin) and her brother Warren are central to the story as Warren will inherit a fortune on his twenty-first birthday, the next day. Miriam’s boyfriend, Karl, is the local pharmacist, who Emily appears to fancy.

All of these characters come into play as the intriguing plot develops. Is Warren’s inheritance a motivating factor? Will he be killed? Why isn’t his sister, Miriam receiving any money? Could she be secretly plotting something?

The comparisons to Psycho are endless.

The gender-bending twist during the final act is the most obvious. Arless deserves kudos for tackling both roles in a wonderful, compelling fashion.

The fact that Arless resembles Psycho actress Janet Leigh is another similarity. Otherwise, Miriam and Karl resemble characters from Psycho and Helga could be a dead ringer for Mother Bates. Even some of the sets, specifically a staircase, resemble the one in Psycho.

Director, William Castle, brilliantly adds a gimmick to Homicidal that works very well as the film is about to reach its shocking climax, the action suddenly stops and the introduction of a “fright break” ensues.

At this point, Castle gives the audience forty-five seconds to leave the room to avoid what comes next. We see the clock countdown in real time. What a fantastic idea!

Throughout the film, I noticed some actors, most notably Jean Arless, playing their roles within a melodrama. Suddenly, there is a knock at the door, or a car drives up, and the character quickly turns their head in a fast movement, to look in an almost cartoonish way.

Rather than see this as a negative, this style works for me and adds a bit of humor to the film.

Another positive is the way the film is gruesome in several parts. As a character descends the staircase from a stairlift, the image of the body is shrouded in dark shadows. When the dismembered head topples down the staircase, it is macabre and effective.

The justice of the peace death scene is also well done and will please horror fans with its hefty bloodletting. Surprisingly, only two murders occur.

Certainly not as crafty, and containing a smaller budget (though Psycho was also small), Homicidal is quite a solid effort in a B-movie way.

Success is largely due to the fantastic direction of William Castle, who carves a similar story to Psycho, but in a different way so that his film does not feel like a carbon copy.

Homicidal (1961) is a film for fans of classic, solid, horror films.

Strait-Jacket-1964

Strait-Jacket-1964

Director William Castle

Starring Joan Crawford, Diane Baker

Scott’s Review #650

Reviewed June 7, 2017

Grade: B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Castle wisely gives Lucy a makeover, from her graying, matronly appearance, to a sexy, youthful appearance reminiscent of her days when the murders occurred.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rosemary’s Baby-1968

Rosemary’s Baby-1968

Director Roman Polanski

Starring Mia Farrow, John Cassavetes, Ruth Gordon

Top 100 Films #8     Top 20 Horror Films #4

Scott’s Review #9

60002403

Reviewed June 17, 2014

Grade: A

Rosemary’s Baby (1968) is not only a great film, it’s a masterpiece. Easily one of my favorites in the horror genre, it’s also towards the top of the list of my all-time favorite films.

The beauty of this film is the power of suggestion and subtleties. It has none of the blood, gore, or standard horror frights one might expect.

It doesn’t need them.

The audience knows something is off by clues that are given throughout the film. The closed-off room in the young couple’s apartment, the sweet, but a bit odd elderly neighbors, a strange suicide, a mysterious, horrid smelling, good luck charm. Rosemary’s due date (June 6, 1966- “666”).

The strange, dreamlike conception scene is intense and surreal. Her husband- claiming Rosemary passed out from too much alcohol- begins to become a suspicious man following the incident, but we are confused by his involvement- what are the neighbors up to, we wonder? Are they sinister or simply innocent and meddlers?

In a sinister scene, Rosemary gnaws on bloody raw meat, catches her reflections in the glass, and is horrified by her behavior.

Mia Farrow is frightfully good as the waifish, pregnant, Rosemary, who loses, instead of gains weight.

The film also has a couple of real-life eerie occurrences: the building setting (The Dakota) is where John Lennon was shot and killed, and Director Roman Polanski’s wife, Sharon Tate, in a cameo, was murdered shortly after filming by Charles Manson.

Rosemary’s Baby is similar in theme to other devilish/demon films like The Exorcist (1973) and The Omen (1976).

This is a film that must be seen by everyone and only shines brighter with each subsequent viewing.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Supporting Actress-Ruth Gordon (won), Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium