Ninth Configuration

Written and Directed by William Peter Blatty.  Stars Stacy Keach, Scott Wilson, Jason Miller.
1980, 118 minutes, Color, Rated R.
Also exists in 99 minute, 112 minute and 140 minute variants.

This is a worthwhile film, but pretty idiosyncratic--almost fatally so.  It takes a LONG time to make clear what is actually going on, but it's pretty effective if you stick with it.  Lots of ideas on the nature of good and evil, and in many ways it's a more effective expression of the same core ideas found in THE EXORCIST.   Interesting cast.

This was apparently released in a couple of versions.  The DVD I initially saw was Blatty's preferred cut, though it was in non-anamorphic widescreen. The quality was pretty rough overall.

Fear and Trembling

Written and Directed by Alain Corneau. Stars Sylvie Testud, Kaori Tsuji, Taro Suwa.
2003, 107 minutes, Color, not rated.

This is about a Belgian woman who dreams of working in Tokyo, only to find the reality somewhat different that what she expected.  Extremely well acted, rich in detail (the Japanese culture is interesting by itself, Japanese culture shock even more so), and emotionally satisfying--I liked it a lot.  I may come back and write more about this one.

Crimson Rivers Duology

Directed by Mathieu Kassovitz. Written by Jean-Christophe Grange and Mathieu Kassovitz.  Stars Jean Reno, Vincent Cassel and Nadia Farès

A French movie done in the style of a "big American action film", so we have a glossy look, continuous graphic violence and limited character depth. It is very watchable, has many great set pieces, and Jean Reno always helps a movie, but it was a tad more preposterous than it needed to be.  It's a serial killer type of thing (sort of).  Anyway, I liked it.

CRIMSON RIVERS 2: ANGELS OF THE APOCALYPSE

Directed by Olivier Dahan.  Written by Luc Besson.  Stars Jean Reno, Benoît Magimel and Christopher Lee.
2004, 97 minutes, Color, Rated R.

This is quite a bit dumber than the original and plays up the US Action film style even more, but it's not boring.  It must be said, however, that the film's climax is extremely unsatisfying.

THE LITTLE GIRL WHO LIVES DOWN THE LANE

Directed by Nicolas Gessner.  Written by Laird Koenig.  Stars Jodie Foster, Martin Sheen.
1976, 100 minutes, Color, Rated PG.

It is difficult to talk about this movie without using spoilers, so I will be cagey here.

In THE LITTLE GIRL WHO LIVES DOWN THE LANE Jodie Foster plays Rynn, a 13 year old girl who is quite able to take care of herself, and she is borderline astonishing in the role. She brings a reality to the character that is impressive. The story is truly original, being compelling and intricately plotted. It is a "small" story in that there are only a few characters, but each is distinct and memorable. True, the villains of the piece are a bit too over the top but this is a minor quibble. The film is bolstered so much by Foster's performance (and character) that it's hard to fault the occasional missteps, such as the funky music that not only dates the film but is inappropriate to the story. Like Andrew Powell's score for LADYHAWKE.

It is only upon reflection that the full implications of the story sink in. What kind of character is Rynn? She is not an innocent by any stretch, but is she "bad"? This is a valid question given the events of the film. I think that she is not bad but I wonder how she is going to turn out. Perhaps I mean that I do not think she is bad...yet. Does she get to put the events of the film behind her and live happily ever after, or has she put herself on the road to becoming a sociopathic misfit? It's tough to say. I'd like to hope she turns out okay, but it's more likely that there will be a price later for dealing with all that she has. Come to think of it, catching up with Rynn now would probably be an interesting story.

I was astonished to find nudity in THE LITTLE GIRL WHO LIVES DOWN THE LANE. Initially, I thought that perhaps we were dealing with a European version of the film, but after doing a little digging discovered that the original US version also contained the scene in question. Why the astonishment? The movie was and is rated PG. The nudity is of Jodie Foster's character (though it is a body double) who is 13 in the movie. Someone also utters the word "fuck", which was also in the US theatrical version. Crazy. The 70's were crazy, I tell you.*

* The MPAA used to allow the word "fuck" in PG-rated films. ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN uses the word multiple times, as does A BRIDGE TOO FAR. Both of these instances, plus LITTLE GIRL's use the word in a non-sexual manner, as in "don't fuck it up" or "I'll blow your fucking head off". This seems to be the rule of thumb for the use of the word in PG-13-rated films as well--limited to once or twice and only in a non-sexual context. MANHATTAN was given a R-rating for using the word once, though admittedly the rating may have had more to do with the plot point of a middle-age man having an affair with a high-school aged girl. SIXTEEN CANDLES also uses the word, as well as just about every other profanity, but was only rated PG. In that case it was originally rated R and re-rated on appeal without having to make any cuts.

ROLLOVER

Directed by Alan J. Pakula.  Stars Jane Fonda, Kris Kristofferson, Hume Cronyn.  Written by Howard Shaber.
1981, 116 minutes, Color, 1.85:1

According to Leonard Maltin ROLLOVER is an example of "economic science fiction", which I can go along with.  It is an engaging movie.  It stars Jane Fonda and Kris Kristofferson and their romantic pairing was the focus of the film's marketing which truly is not the most interesting thing about the film.  Fonda's role could have been played by anybody as it is a nothing role with no depth and Fonda does absolutely nothing with it.  Actually, the movie would have worked better if it had been played by a lesser star, since the plot was apparently molded to make her a more active part of things.  Kristofferson impresses* as a Wall Street cowboy who stumbles upon a financial conspiracy, and if the movie had been able to concentrate on his investigations it would have been much better.  As it is, Fonda also stumbles upon the conspiracy, so we get to see her investigate as well.

Spoiler:

The plot itself is about what would happen if Arabs pulled ALL of their money out of Foreign banks at the same time (it would be bad), and indeed this is what happens at the end (and it is bad).  Such an action would essentially plunge the world into a worldwide depression.  As the film ends that's where we stand, although it should be pointed out that this occurs directly due to something that Jane Fonda's character does.  So, really, it's all her fault.

End Spoiler:

* I've been thinking that Kristofferson is underrated as an actor.  He doesn't make typical choices in his acting, and is never less than 100% believable in everything I've seen him in.  The fact that he could so convincingly play a Wall Street financial wiz is truly impressive, considering the whole southern shitkicker vibe he puts out.  I do like him better in a beard, however.

LIFEFORCE

Directed by Tobe Hooper.  Written by  Dan O'Bannon and Don Jakoby.  Stars Steve Railsback, Peter Firth, Mathilda May.
1985, 116 minutes, Color, Not rated.

Ah, what a mess of a movie, and yet very watchable throughout due to the variable special effects and nudity.  The movie plays like a long-lost Quatermass story, and if it occasionally does not make sense it is more than made up for by the aforementioned nudity and special effects.  Even in the full-length 116-minute version of the film, it moves along briskly, so if you hit something that doesn't work particularly well you are moving onto the next thing soon enough.

The plot deals with ancient space vampires and is part science fiction, part mystery, and part horror film.  These elements do not always mesh together well with the horror elements feeling the most forced.  The movie has a great concept and this carries the day for quite a while into the running time, but ultimately it degenerates into little more than a zombie movie.  I used to think that I didn't like Steve Railsback in the film, as I thought he was miscast, but I've changed my mind.  All things considered, I think he did quite a good job, and that many a different actor would have completely embarrassed themselves. 

The DVD was one of the earliest released and is not 16X9 enhanced.  As a result, the image is grainy and somewhat fuzzy, though the 5.1 sound is a definite improvement over the LD.   More recently, MGMHD has shown a truly beautiful Hi-Def version of the longer European cut several times.   For that matter, they've also shown the shorter R-rated 101 minute version in Hi-Def. The full version features more explanation and doesn't plaster credits over the approach and penetration of the alien ship at the beginning, and is the preferred version.  The image is crisp and colorful and greatly enhances the viewing experience.  Truly, a quality presentation will almost always make a mediocre movie enjoyable.  Screen captures are from the HD version.

LONG WEEKEND

Directed by Colin Eggleston, Everett De Roche.  Stars John Hargreaves, Briony Behets.
1978, 92 mins. Color. 2.35:1.

Spoiler!
LONG WEEKEND is an Australian horror film from 1978.  It was filmed in Panavision and is about an arguing couple who have QUITE a back story going for them--she's just had an abortion and the father was another man.  In fact, the father was the husband of the woman that her husband was sleeping with.  Yes, in fact, they were SWINGERS! The couple go on a long weekend to camp by the beach.   The gist of the film is that man in general is a conspicuous consumer, and the husband in particular is simply bad for the environment.  During the course of the movie he: kills a kangaroo, starts a fire with a carelessly discarded cigarette, shoots a sea otter, litters, starts chopping down a tree "because it's there", and more.  The environment fights back during the weekend.
End Spoiler! 

Truly, aside from the hugely melodramatic back story shared by the couple this is one well-made little thriller.  The two leads are quite good, and the tension is nicely modulated throughout.  Well worth seeing.  Rated R for violence, language and brief nudity.

IMAGES

Written and Directed by Robert Altman.  Stars Susannah York, Rene Auberjonois.
1972, 101 minutes, Color, Rated R.

This 1972 Robert Altman movie is quite unlike any other Altman film I've seen, and is probably the closest he ever came to making a horror film.  It uses the same techniques as found in horror films, but it's not quite a full blown scare fest.  It is nevertheless unnerving.  It's about a woman who is either going crazy or being haunted by ghosts, and it's pretty open to interpretation as to which it is.  (Although Altman spoils the fun almost immediately in the extra features by telling you what he thinks it is.)  Full of striking images and a playful attitude towards reality, this is probably my new favorite Altman film, followed closely by THE LONG GOODBYE.

KISSED

Directed by Lynne Stopkewich.   Written by Angus Fraser and Lynne Stopkewich.  Stars Molly Parker.
1996, 78 minutes, Color, Rated R.

That's a dead mouse in her hand.

This is probably the best movie about a woman who likes to make love to corpses that you will likely ever see.  Flippancy aside, you might well asked WHY you would want to see such a film.  Fair enough.  While it is NOT an exploitation film (there is a certain lyrical quality to the woman's actions, and considerable time is devoted to developing why this could develop) there are nevertheless times that the woman chucks her clothes off and rubs herself all over dead people, which is not, as you would think, something you see everyday.  Surprisingly, the film does not dwell on these scenes and works overall as a character study of a somewhat--well, I don't want to call her deranged--DIFFERENT person.

Molly Parker is exceptional in the lead role.

MARNIE

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock.  Written by Jay Presson Allen.  Stars Tippi Hedron, Sean Connery, Diane Baker.
1964, 130 minutes, Color, Rated PG. 

MARNIE was among the last of Hitchcock's films that I saw.  I avoided it for many years thinking, incorrectly as it turned out, that it would not interest me.  Critics seem to be pretty divided on it--either they think it a total misfire, or that it is Hitchcock's last masterpiece.  Truffaut calls it a "flawed masterpiece", and Daniel Spoto dispenses with the "flawed" appellation and flat out calls it a masterpiece.    As far as I 'm concerned, I find myself squarely in the masterpiece side of things.  It is undeniably old-fashioned, and this was held against it when new, but as more time passes it is easier to accept it for what it is.  

Hedron is very good in a largely unsympathetic role.  Her performance is full of hard edges and is a little bit shrill, but that is what the role was so I have a hard time faulting her for it. Grace Kelly considered coming out of retirement to play the role but ultimately decided not to.  With her in the role the movie would have been different as I think she would have been softer and thus more sympathetic. 

 

This was the last time that Hitchcock worked with his usual crew; his director of photography and editor would both die suddenly after this movie, and Hitchcock would fire Bernard Hermann from TORN CURTAIN (and Hermann provides a majestic, lush score for MARNIE).  Because the crew of this film has been together for so long there is an elegance to the execution that is truly exciting to see.  Albert Whitlock provided matte paintings for the film, and from an effects standpoint MARNIE is much more assured than THE BIRDS.  We are usually aware when we are seeing an effect in THE BIRDS, in MARNIE the opposite is true.  That said, the rear-process work is horrible in this film, and the reason for this is hard to ascertain.  Was it because Hitchcock had lost interest in the project by the time they came to be filmed?* Or just an assumption that movie audiences of the day wouldn't care?

Still, for sheer cinematic effectiveness the overall picture stands amongst Hitchcock's best, and surprisingly stands as the logical progression from THE BIRDS, which I always found experimental in construction and execution.  MARNIE is perhaps more experimental in that the characters do not operate on logic, but instinct and emotion.  I suppose this is why so many critics found it silly back in 1964.  I thought it was just grand.

*There is an oft-repeated tale that Hitchcock propositioned Hedron during the making of the film, she rebuffed him, and he lost interest in the film.  Certainly, there is an unevenness to sections of the film suggesting to me that Hitchcock rushed through scenes simply to get them over with (which is why Truffaut calls it flawed),