416. Scorpio Rising (1964)

Running Time: 28 minutes
Directed By: Kenneth Anger
Written By: Kenneth Anger
Main Cast: Bruce Byron

THIRTY MINUTES OF RADIO

Well folks, "Frightfest 2011" will resume tomorrow, but tonight, it's double feature night. Our first film of the evening actually isn't even a "feature" at all - at a length of 28 minutes, I easily drop my list of remaining movies by one....but was it THAT easy?

The film is "Scorpio Rising" and it opens by establishing that it's going to have something to do with bikers. In fact, the films opening titles aren't your usual white lettering on a black background, but rather silver studs spelling out the title and director's name, on the back of a black leather jacket. The film has no dialogue and thus no characters are ever established, but instead the film uses 1960s pop/rock & roll tunes to accompany it's images. As the film opens, we see a man working on his bike and that's immediately followed by several different men getting dressed in their "hog gear" (lots of leather, complete with jackets, belts and caps). Footage is inter cut with scenes of "The Wild One" starring Marlon Brando and we see a man lying on his bed, with pinups of James Dean splattered all over his wall. From there we go to the biker underground, where homosexuality, Nazism and religion are toyed with. Scenes of obviously homosexual bikers, inter cut with scenes of Jesus walking with his apostles are included, making the bold assumption that Jesus and his twelve were a group of gay men.

You know what, I'm sick and tired of this "innovation = greatness" idea. Just because McDonalds was the first restaurant to make and market a hamburger, doesn't mean that Burger King's isn't better. Just because Nike perfected the running shoe, doesn't mean that it doesn't make your feet hurt. Sure, "Scorpio Rising" had some before it's time ideas and in fact, when the film was screened in L.A., the theater owner was arrested for public obscenity. But just because "Scorpio Rising" was risque, innovative and "before it's time", doesn't mean that it's great. This was one of the biggest piles of trash that I've had to sit through in my continued effort to watch all of the films in THE BOOK and I'm not afraid to say that. Oh, don't worry fans of this film, that's just my opinion and lucky for you, opinions aren't fact and especially don't worry, because I'm sure you'll find all kinds of articles scattered throughout the interwebs, praising "Scorpio Rising", but not here.

THE BOOK makes note that without "Scorpio Rising", Martin Scorsese wouldn't have used pop music the way he did in "Mean Streets"and David Lynch wouldn't have found inspiration in the song Blue Velvet. Okay, well lucky for me that's the only thing I liked about this movie - the music. The music was great! In fact, if you want to experience "Scorpio Rising", go ask your Mom and Dad (or depending on your age, your Grandma and Grandpa) if you can borrow some of their old records. Ask for their record player too (you'll need that), give the records a spin and listen to Elvis Presley, Bobby Vinton, Ray Charles, The Angles, The Crystals and Little Peggy March sing their hearts out. Then, flip on your television and find some old biker movie or maybe even that episode of Roseanne where Dan sells the bike shop, mute the television and there you have it - that's "Scorpio Rising" in a nutshell, minus the homoerotic undertones.

I know, I know, I harp on this fact like a broken record, but this is the kind of movie I'm talking about when I say, "How in the hell did this movie make it into THE BOOK and ___________ didn't??" The music was fantastic and in fact, this movie was kind of like listening to the radio for an hour and a half. I applaud Kenneth Anger for making a controversial film in a time when controversial films weren't accepted. I applaud him for putting his ideas on film and presenting the final product to the world and for pushing the envelope. And, if he was an inspiration to the likes of Scorsese and Lynch, then I'll even applaud him for that. But his film was shit and that, my friends, is that.

RATING: 1/10 I BEG the BOOK to give me a short film that's worth my time. However, this is the first film since my return that's gotten a bad rating and I was beginning to think that I had on a pair of invisible rose colored glasses. I'll be back in a matter of hours to give my thoughts on another relatively short film, though it's not a short film. Get it?

MOVIES WATCHED: 338
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 663

October 24, 2011 11:15pm

Read More

813. Reversal of Fortune (1990)

Running Time: 111 minutes
Directed By: Barbet Schroeder
Written By: Nicholas Kazan, from book by Alan M. Dershowitz
Main Cast: Jeremy Irons, Glenn Close, Ron Silver, Annabella Sciorra, Fisher Stevens

THE CASE OF CLAUS AND SUNNY VON BULOW

Taking a respite from both "Frightfest 2011" and my ongoing taking in of the majority of the 1960s films, I decided to let my wife do the picking last night and after perusing through the streaming portion of Netflix, we finally landed on "Reversal of Fortune".

The film tells the story of Claus and Sunny Von Bulow. On December 21, 1980, while preparing for Christmas at their palatial estate in Newport, Rhode Island, Sunny Von Bulow (Close) was found unresponsive by her husband Claus (Irons) and taken to the hospital. At the hospital, it was deduced that Sunny was more than likely drugged and that an overdose of insulin was the likely the culprit. As the day's passed, it was also becoming more clear that Sunny was slipping into a persistent vegetative state. As Sunny lay comatose in a hospital bed, her children (Claus' step-children) hired a lawyer to investigate possible foul play, which they believed had been committed by Claus. The couple had been having marital problems, and in the event of Sunny's death, Claus stood to inherit $14 million. In court, Claus was found guilty and sentenced to thirty years in prion. This film tells the story of Claus' appeal, using flashbacks and showing multiple scenes in conjunction with multiple accounts of the same incidents. It could be argued that the films real main character is Alan Dershowitz (Silver), Claus' appeals attorney and really the focal character of the entire production. The film details Dershowitz' detailed legal work and the work of his assembled legal team, including Sarah (Sciorra), his prize student.

This probably won't be a particularly lengthy review, as I simply don't have a whole lot to say about this film. "Reversal of Fortune" met my expectations and it's as simple as that. I wasn't necessarily blown away, although I did find the performances, specifically those of Jeremy Irons and Ron Silver, to be phenomenal. Jeremy Irons was particularly excellent, earning his Academy Award statue ten fold. I wasn't disappointed by the film either, as it was as solid as a rock. However, I guess I was a little disappointed, in retrospect, that I didn't enjoy it more than I did. This is one that I've had my eye on for quite sometime and when it began streaming recently, I remember thinking that I wanted to watch it right away. It's the type of film that you'd expect out of Hollywood and it's definitely the type of film you'd expect to see getting nominations at the Oscars and the Globes.

I did, however, really enjoy the manner in which the story was told. I liked that they gave us different scenes from different character perspectives. I wish we could have got to see more scenes inside the courtroom, but actually, the manner in which things unfolded, worked really well. I liked that they made the focal point of the film Alan Dershowitz and let us get close to that character, which allowed me as a viewer, to have more of a neutral view of the whole Von Bulow incident. Had they simply let the story unfold, without the character of Dershowitz, then it would have come more naturally for me to pick a side, whereas with the "Dersh" character in there, it was much easier not to do that and just simply hear the story and take your sides at the end. For what it's worth, if anyone cares and simply basing this opinion on what was portrayed and told ON THE FILM, I leaned more toward the side of Claus' innocence. But then again, I have absolutely no knowledge of the real case, the real characters or the real situations, so that opinion isn't worth much.

RATING: 7/10 It wasn't really able to crack that '8' barrier and break into that upper echelon of film, but it was still a fine night at the movies and one that I'd recommend.

MOVIES WATCHED: 337
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 664

October 22, 2011 9:23pm

Read More

939. The Blair Witch Project (1999)

Running Time: 86 minutes
Directed By: Daniel Myrick, Eduardo Sanchez
Written By: Daniel Myrick, Eduardo Sanchez
Main Cast: Heather Donahue, Joshua Leonard, Michael C. Williams

FRIGHTFEST 2011: 2 of 5

"Frightfest" rages on with the second installment of my tribute to horror, in preparation for Halloween. This time around we jump from 1982 to 1999 and take a look at an innovator in the world of cinema and the first ever (i think) "found footage film" - "The Blair Witch Project".

In October of 1994 three student filmmakers disappeared in the woods near Burkittsville, Maryland, while shooting a documentary...A year later their footage was found...

As the film opens, we're presented with the above statement and the film begins. Heather, a college film student, prepared to make a documentary about the Blair witch, assembles a three man crew, consisting of herself, Josh and Mike and heads into the woods near Burkittsville, Maryland. Prior to actually getting into the woods themselves, Heather and the crew interview some locals about the myth of the Blair witch and we're given a few details about what supposedly happened. Some believe the myth, some don't. The myth involves the murder of seven children in the 1940s and also involves a witch who was hung to death in the 18th century. After the interviews, the crew does indeed make their way to the woods, where they hike to a cemetery of sorts, where seven piles of rocks are laid out in memorial of the seven slain children. Once they have the footage they need, the trio head back to the car, but seeing as how they're not experienced woodsmen and have hiked very deep into the woods, they soon find themselves lost. Soon, the food diminishes, tempers rise and things start to go bump in the night.

In my opinion, there are several key factors that make "The Blair Witch Project" a huge success, not just in profits at the box office, but also success in pure genius movie making. The first key element is the marketing. I remember when this film was released and I remember that ominous voice over, reading the line from above: "In October of 1994 three student filmmakers....". I remember reading things like "scarier than The Exorcist" and "the scariest movie of all-time is a true story" and I can even remember me and my brother turning to each other, when they'd play the tv spot and asking, "Is this movie really real?" In 1999 we'd pretty much seen it all as far as horror films go. Corn syrup had been spilled on movie sets for decades in an attempt to scare us and make us want to sleep with the lights on. Here you have a couple of amateur filmmaker's seemingly saying to themselves, "What can we do to really give people a fright?" And the answer was simple - provide us with a smidgen of doubt. Let us think for a second that maybe....just MAYBE this is really found footage. "A Nightmare on Elm Street" was OBVIOUSLY a movie, because "By God, there's that boy from 21 Jump Street". Any horror movie always ended and audiences could go home, calming themselves down by telling themselves that, "It's only a movie". However, when it came to "The Blair Witch Project", there was that smidgen of doubt - "It was PROBABLY a movie, but I've heard rumors that they really found that footage and that those three poor students were heinously murdered." "The Blair Witch Project" gave us a horror film that MIGHT, just MIGHT be real. Of course, the cat was later let out of the bag and it was a movie, but during marketing time, they had a stroke of brilliance and it worked.

The second key factor to success when it comes to "The Blair Witch Project" is that these same amateur filmmaker's didn't underestimate their audience. They realized that people DID have a brain and if you gave them a black screen, with people screaming that they could use their imaginations and conjure up things much more frightening than anything they could commit to celluloid. I commend them for sticking with that attitude and never giving us too much. There's never anything on the screen that is physically (to the eye) scary. All of the fright and scare that comes out of "The Blair Witch Project" came from your own mind. When you went to bed that night, after watching the movie, YOU were the one to blame for sleeping with the television on, because these filmmaker's technically didn't SHOW you anything worth being afraid of. It was all on you! Take for instance "Paranormal Activity", which gets a little silly at the end with the main character (the female) being dragged across the room by an imaginary ghost and then coming back to life, with evil in her eyes and attacking the camera. I mean, that's just going too far - that's underestimating your audience, in my opinion.

There are even other factors, in my opinion, that make "The Blair Witch Project" a phenomenal film. You have, with this movie, not only a horror movie, but also an experiment in human interaction. The recipe is simple - take three people, throw them into an unknown place, scare them, raise their tempers and sit back & enjoy. You also have the three actors ad-libbing their lines and basically saying what they'd say if put into that situation. As far as I'm concerned, these three were all amazing actors, putting on a hell of a show and selling a movie. Say what you will about "The Blair Witch Project", but as far as I'm concerned, it's brilliant. Maybe I'd classify it as a guilty pleasure, but I'm not ashamed to admit it. I think it gets a bad wrap for a couple or reasons - one being that it's a horror movie and two being that it had, what I hear is, a really shitty sequel. Luckily, I haven't seen the sequel and based on the horror stories I've heard about it ("horror stories" in a bad way, not a scary way), I'll steer clear of it.

RATING: 10/10 As it stands right now, this is a TOP 5 caliber choice for my next TOP 20 and I'm not ashamed to admit that. I might get flack for that, but I say what I mean when it comes to my opinions on film. Great movie!

MOVIES WATCHED: 336
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 665

October 21, 2011 12:14am

Read More

371. One-Eyed Jacks (1961)

Running Time: 141 minutes
Directed By: Marlon Brando
Written By: Guy Trosper, Calder Willingham, from the novel The Authentic Death of Hendry Jones by Charles Neider
Main Cast: Marlon Brando, Karl Malden, Ben Johnson, Katy Jurado, Pina Pellicer

ROLE REVERSAL

As we make our way through the "Frightfest 2011" festivities, from now until Halloween, I'll also be peppering in some other odds and ends to kind of split up all the gore. Today, I took to the streaming portion of Netflix and a western starring and directed by Marlon Brando - one that I've been eye balling for quite some time.

The films plot is pretty cut and dry, but as the film progresses small pieces of storyline are continually thrown in and it actually gets to be a pretty intricate little revenge story. Brando plays Rio, the quick drawing, easy-going, bad ass outlaw, who along with Dad Longworth (Malden) opens the film mid-bank robbery. Once the loot is got, Dad and Rio take refuge, but our quickly found out and are on the run for their freedom and their lives. When they come to a standoff with the law, the two make a deal that Dad will go get a couple of fresh horses, while Rio stays behind and holds back the cavalry. When Dad reaches his destination, a lone ranch where he plans to steal two horses, he has a change of heart, steals one horse for himself and leaves Rio to fend for himself. Rio is captured and sent to prison, where he spends five years brooding over the fact that his best friend back stabbed him. After five years, he has enough and escapes, swearing revenge on Dad Longworth if it's the last thing he does. When he finally happens upon Dad, he finds that Longworth is now the Sheriff of Monterey, California. Dad lies about the past to save his own hide, because surely Rio has held a grudge and he'd stand no chance against a vengeful Rio. Rio plays it cool, stating that no hard feelings are to be had, but secretly he plans to kill Dad....that is until he falls in love with Dad's step-daughter (Pellicer).

Let's talk about Marlon Brando. Up until today, I've never really been giddy about his acting skills. Sure, he was good enough, but I had never really bought into people who tried to sell him as the greatest actor who ever lived. This is only my second encounter with Brando as I work my way through the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" book and even after watching "On the Waterfront" earlier this year, I still wasn't convinced that this guy was anything worth writing home about. Then I see a Western today called "One-Eyed Jacks" and Brando sells me. I mean, this guy not only sells me the car, but he sells me the stereo system, the new paint job and all the trimmings. Long story short - Brando was amazing in this movie! He plays his character to perfection, personifying everything that Rio should be. The film opens with him chewing on a banana. You think, oh here sits a guy who's relaxing, enjoying some fruit, taking it easy...but as the camera pans out you realize that he's in the middle of holding up a bank! He's quiet in it. He says more with his eyes than he does with his mouth and I realize that the things I'm spouting sound so cliche, but they're the God's truth.

Another particular scene is when Rio meets up with a fellow named Bob Emory (Ben Johnson) and the duo, along with a couple other guys plan a bank heist. At this point, Rio has just escaped prison and is searching relentlessly for Dad. Rio finally gets word from Emory that Longworth is the Sheriff of Monterey and wants to know if Rio would like to stick up the bank in Monterey. At this point, Rio is steaming man. He's not saying a single word, but you can see the anger in his eyes, at the fact that Dad has become a Sheriff and profited at Rio's expense. His answer to Emroy, a simple "Yep".

The storytelling in "One-Eyed Jacks" is really great too, as they manage to really make you believe that Marlon Brando and Karl Malden are going to tear each other apart if given the chance. It also takes the old west, stereotypical roles and gives them a spin, as the Sheriff here is actually the bad guy and the outlaw is the one we end up rooting for. Now, the big downfall of "One-Eyed Jacks" is the length, as this thing, at times, just seems to drag on FOOORREEVERRR. There are some scenes and segments that are really slow and other times things move along nicely, wrapping you up in the story and really working to get over with the audience. I read somewhere, just now, that Brando shot an additional FIVE HOURS of footage that he wound up scrapping. My God, even the footage that remained wasn't all necessary and if they could've just snipped a few hairs here and there, I think it would've made the film much tighter and a lot more smooth and this COULD HAVE ranked off the charts, as far as my rating system goes.

RATING: 6.5/10 I may or may not be undercutting this one, but the parts that dragged, really dragged. The acting from Brando and Malden is sensational and the storytelling is top notch, if only it had been a little shorter.

MOVIES WATCHED: 335
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 666

October 20, 2011 6:02pm

Read More

684. The Evil Dead (1982)

Running Time: 85 minutes
Directed By: Sam Raimi
Written By: Sam Raimi
Main Cast: Bruce Campbell, Ellen Sandweiss, Betsy Baker, Hal Delrich, Theresa Tilly

FRIGHTFEST 2011: 1 of 5

Today, I kicked off "Frightfest 2011" by heading to the DVD shelf and grabbing "The Evil Dead". It's a film we own, simply because we found it for cheap, at a time when my wife and I were on a horror movie binge. Will it hold up and maintain it's spot on my DVD shelf or was it deemed a worthless purchase and be gotten rid of?

The film opens with a group of college age students, in a car and headed to a cabin for a weekend in the woods. Sounds like a typical horror film opening to me. We have Ashley (Campbell), his sister Cheryl (Sandweiss), his girlfriend Linda (Baker), his best friend Scotty (Delrich) and Scotty's girlfriend Shelly (Tilly). Once they cross the rickety, wooden bridge that leads them to the cabin, they, at first, have no idea of the horror that awaits them. Almost immediately upon entering the ominous looking, wood cabin, weird things begin to happen. For instance, the clock stops on it's own and the cellar door opens and slams shut, without being touched. When Scotty goes to inspect the cellar, he and Ash find a collection of things that peak their interest. Among the items is a "Book of the Dead", a dagger with a skull on the end of it and a tape player. When they bring it upstairs and play the reels that are loaded in the tape player, they unknowingly resurrect demons upon the area, bringing even the trees to life. From here, the shit really hits the fan, as certain members of the quintet are possessed.....and we'll leave it at that.

You know, I, just today, watched a trailer for a horror movie that is to be released in January called "The Devil Inside Me" (i think) and after watching "The Evil Dead", I got to thinking. It always tickles me how hard modern day "horror masters" try so hard to give us "the scariest movie of all-time", but almost always end up failing with a *THUD*. No name directors are handed millions of dollars to try and give us our next fright and they can never come through. But then, you look at a movie like "The Evil Dead", with a budget of a mere $375,000 and a really simple formula, and realize that it's scarier than anything that Hollywood has put out in the past 20 years. Now granted, I'm a twenty-seven year old who's grown out of his fear of horror cinema, but I can still admit when a film really gives me a little bit of fright and this one totally delivers. Hell, I haven't seen "The Exorcist" in a while (soon to change that, check back later this month), but I'd be willing to say that "The Evil Dead" is right up there, on par with it, as far as being scary. The make-up and effects are off the wall, sometimes silly, but usually creepy and the sound effects and music only add to heighten that terror.

The book makes note that with the addition of the two sequels, today "The Evil Dead" is laughable, at best (I'm paraphrasing), but I haven't seen "Evil Dead II" or "Army of Darkness" in ages and can barely remember a thing about them, so I guess as a standalone picture, "The Evil Dead" is a damn fine horror movie, if you ask this blogger. Horror movies haven't been my cup of tea for a long time and in a way, I've really grown out of them. But I'm still ready and willing to admit when someone (Sam Raimi and crew) do a fantastic job of evoking thrills and chills and really putting me on the edge of my proverbial seat. It's also funny to realize that when it was made, Hollywood wouldn't touch "The Evil Dead" with a ten foot pole, citing that it was far too gruesome. Fast forward about 20 years into the future and Hollywood hands over the helm to "Spider-Man", a big summer blockbuster, to none other than Sam Raimi. Bottom line is this: IF you're looking for a good scare, then "The Evil Dead" is a top notch choice. However, I'm not sure I'd label it a "must see", but that's just me.

RATING: 7/10 That's a rating on the horror movie scale. It's a solid scary flick and one that I would recommend...to the right people.

MOVIES WATCHED: 334
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 667

October 19, 2011 6:04pm

Read More

432. Obchod na korze/The Shop on Main Street (1965)

Running Time: 128 minutes
Directed By: Jan Kadar, Elmar Klos
Written By: Ladislav Grosman, Jan Kadar, Elmar Klos
Main Cast: Jozef Kroner, Ida Kaminska, Hana Slivkova, Martin Holly Sr., Frantisek Zvarik

GOOD FRIENDSHIP, EVIL SURROUNDINGS

Continuing our trek through the 1960s, we come to "The Shop on Main Street", yet another Holocaust movie from the "1001..." book and another fantastic one, at that. Lets jump right into it, shall we.

Tony Brtko (Kroner) is an easy going, Slovak carpenter living in Czechoslovakia right around the time of the Nazi occupation. He lives with his nagging wife Evelina (Slivkova) and his loyal dog Essenc. His wife is constantly trying to persuade him to get a real job and earn more money, so that they're not so poor, a task that would be relatively easy for him, seeing as how his brother-in-law, Markus (Zvarik) is a Nazi. However, Tony holds a grudge against Markus and it isn't until Markus and his wife come to Tony's for dinner one night, that Tony finally decides to take Markus' help. Markus hands over to Tony control of Lautmann's sewing shop, owned by the very elderly and very deaf Mrs. Lautmann (Kaminska). Basically, Tony is named Aryan controller of Lautmann's shop and will basically take control of all her assets and profits. Tony sees this as an opportunity to shut up his wife and make a few bucks and he graciously takes the gig. However, when he first confronts Mrs. Lautmann, she is very confused and can't understand what her intentions are. A Jewish sympathizer, Mr. Kuchar (Holly Sr.), intervenes and cuts a deal with Tony: If he takes care of Mrs. Lautmann and leaves her to her shop, then the Jewish community will, in turn, take care of him monetarily, providing him with a weekly payment, simply for leaving Mrs. Lautmann be. Tony agrees, but doesn't breathe a word of the deal and instead, trots off everyday to the store to be a companion to Mrs. Lautmann and fix things around her place.

SPOILER ALERT!

There's really a lot more I could put into that plot description, without giving anything away, but that's plenty to inform someone who has never seen the film. In a word, I thought the film lived up to the title of the book and is certainly a must see. It may not be the best film I've watched, but I'd still call it a must see, just because it was so powerful. There really isn't any bad to talk about, so we'll skip right into the good and I'll gush a bit. The cast did a fine job and I especially liked Jozef Kroner. If anything, this book can certainly take credit for really opening my eyes when it comes to the Holocaust and making me even more aware of the horrors that went on during that time period. Every film I've watched from the book that has dealt with the subject of the Holocaust, has been a fine one and I look forward to seeing more. One of the small details that was a really heavy line for me, was when Mrs. Lautmann, in her confused state, as she watched her friends and neighbors loaded on to trucks and taken to the camps, she compared what was happening to the "end of the world". It really makes you think what these people must have been going through and how scary everything must have been and how most of them must have been thinking that this was it for them.

The final half or quarter of the film is so well done, so dramatic and so powerful that it really draws you in and doesn't let go until the credits roll. Tony begging and pleading with Mrs. Lautmann to hide and to not let the Aryan's see her, Tony then realizing that is he's caught, they'll both be punished and telling her that "it's you or me", trying to shove her out the door and into the menacing hands of the enemy. In the end, Tony accidentally kills Mrs. Lautmann when he tries to hide her in a closet and then hangs himself. The final scene is Mrs. Lautmann and Tony, dressed in their best duds, skipping down the main street as happy as ever. I think, maybe, it hints at the fact that this was really the closest relationship that Tony had ever experienced - the day's he'd spend with Mrs. Lautmann, shouting in an effort to try and get her to hear him. I think the final scene may also be trying to say that, at this time, death may have been a better option than living. That, at least, in death you may find a piece of happiness and that in the world at that time, there was absolutely no happiness or joy to be found.

RATING: 8/10 Again, one where quibbling over numbers is so irrelevant. It's a great film and that's that and it's one that I wouldn't be surprised to see make the next TOP 20 list.

MOVIES WATCHED: 333
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 668

October 18, 2011 7:02pm

Read More

368. Splendor in the Grass (1961)

Running Time: 124 minutes
Directed By: Elia Kazan
Written By: William Inge
Main Cast: Natalie Wood, Warren Beatty, Pat Hingle, Barbara Loden, Audrey Christie

SEXUAL REPRESSION, PRE-DEPRESSION

Unintentionally I picked another Warren Beatty film, as we make our way deeper into the cinematic offerings of the 1960s. This time around we're dealing with Beatty's first feature film, as he stars opposite an absolutely radiant Natalie Wood.

Bud Stamper(Beatty) and Wilma Dean a.k.a. Deanie Loomis (Wood) are two high-schoolers in love. When the film opens, the two love birds are parked near a raging waterfall and making out like love birds do. Except our tale is set in Kansas, circa 1928 and it takes place during a time when kissing is as far as you'd better go, lest you be outcast from society - especially if you're a woman. Deanie is all about upholding her family's name and keeping her name and reputation clean and virginal. All that Bud seems to really care about is getting past kissing and on to more serious love making. Bud represses his urges though and the two make for a cute, ultra popular high school couple. When Bud can't take fending off his urges any longer, he pleads with his father to let him marry Deanie, so that the two can consummate their relationship, but Bud's successful father, Ace (Hingle), only wants the best for Bud and certainly wants him to go to Yale in the fall. However, Ace gives Bud some advice - If you absolutely can't repress your urges, then find a girl who isn't so "good". Bud puts his relationship with Deanie on the back burner and begins to mingle with the school whore, in an effort to "cool himself down". Ultimately, this action makes Bud unhappier and sends Deanie over the edge.

SPOILER ALERT!

Man, it was wild seeing such a young Warren Beatty and realizing how much he resembled Montgomery Clift. As far as the cast goes, you really couldn't ask for better performances from the stars on parade here. My personal favorite was Pat Hingle, who, with careful delivery and an boisterous performance, knocked one out of the park as Ace Stamper. The screen seemed to glow a little bit brighter when Natalie Wood was on it, though I can't say I necesarilly cared for her character too much, although it was clear that Wood was giving it her all. Beatty burst onto the scene with vigor as Bud Stamp, playing his character cool, but also getting the most out of him. When you look at the characters themselves, you find that me and the book seem to differ in opinion a bit. The "1001..." book states, and I quote, "...a film in which the characters register as authentic individuals, acting and reacting in a register that is far from the Hollywood cliche." In my opinion, that doesn't really ring true. Do teenage girls often times end up in mental institutions for three years when their sweethearts break it off with them? Do they go on a rampage, screaming and jumping into the middle of a lake? To me, these performances were very Hollywood cliche, maybe straying a little here and there, but never venturing too far outside the lines of very dramatic performances.

As far as the story itself goes, they had me hooked well into the halfway point of the movie. I was very interested in these kids and what would happen to them and how their lives would ultimately be effected. Then, Deanie has her meltdown, jumps into the lake and she's carted off to the mental hospital. Bud ends up going to Yale and falling for an Italian waitress and from that point on we're basically on auto pilot as we cruise through the rest of this two hour and some odd minute film. It's a film that could have used some trimming. The climax comes way too early and then we're left to wade through the rest of the movie, as our characters do unimportant things. I get where they were going though. The overall message of the film, as I understood it, had to do with dealing with what life hands you. Though you may be popular and happy while you're in high school, it can all change at the drop of a dime. Boyfriends and girlfriends can go astray. Life may not hand you the hand you were expecting, but you don't grieve. You take the good with the bad and you find the strength to soldier on and whatever comes, you make the most of it. It's a nice message and it's one where they needed that lengthy final act to show what happens to these characters and how far from they end up, from where they thought they would. But it does drag at the end, and I think the message could have been conveyed a little bit quicker.

RATING: 6.5/10 Not a BAD film and hell, Pat Hingle's performance and Natalie Wood's radiance are enough to see it alone. I was just expecting something better, maybe.

MOVIES WATCHED: 332
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 669

October 16, 2011 11:09pm

Read More