Seven Blood-Stained Orchids.

Last night I decided to finally watch:

Seven Blood-Stained Orchids (1972).

When someone makes a movie in a particular genre they have to make a choice whether to color within the lines or to go wild. Veteran director Umberto Lenzi stays within the lines in this Giallo, but that is not a bad thing.

We get the bog standard Giallo killer, complete with trench coat, hat and leather gloves, all in black of course. The killer is on a murdering spree against a specific group of women, and since the police are as useless as always in these movies, it is up to fashion designer Mario Gerosa (Antonio Sabato) to solve the mystery. In typical Giallo fashion, Mario hunts the killer alone and unarmed, as they always do for some reason. I mean, at least carry a pocket knife?

I have seen a handful of Lenzi's movies and they have ranged from quite good to pretty awful, so it was with some hesitation that I gave Seven Blood-Stained Orchids a go, but luckily this is one of the good ones. Most of the actors are veterans as well, many were familiar faces from Italian cinema, and it never hurts to work with seasoned professionals.

The sound was actually good. A lot of the music is the standard jazz of the era, but when the killer is on the prowl, it is genuinely pretty creepy. The cinematography is nothing special, but like with most things concerning this movie, it is good enough.

The standout in Seven Blood-Stained Orchids is the main plot. It is a good investigative mystery, and it doesn't cheat. On top of that, the mystery genuinely drew me in, I had to know what was happening. The clues are interesting and Mario is a good and clever main hero. I didn't know Italian fashion designers had detective training, but in Mario's case, he clearly does.

The killer is smart, daring and ruthless, even intentionally cruel at times. Killing isn't enough, the victims need to feel fear first, which heightens the tension for the viewer. I wasn't able to solve the mystery until Mario does, but that's okay, I like it when I can figure it out, but it's not necessary.

There is some nudity in Seven Blood-Stained Orchids, but nothing too sleazy, all the nudity makes perfect sense. Most kills are half off camera, but there are a couple that aren't and one in particular is very gruesome, so be warned. Then again, if you are interested in Gialli, this kind of stuff probably won't bother you too much anyway.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, without a doubt. There are a few Gialli that I'd rank as good beginner movies and Seven Blood-Stained Orchids is one of them. It's nowhere near one of the best, but because Lenzi chose to color within the lines, he made a stylish and solid Giallo. Well worth seeing.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Nine Guests for a Crime

I've been wanting to get back to the Giallo genre for a while, so yesterday I watched:

Nine Guests for a Crime (1977).

The plot is simple. We begin by witnessing a group of men brutally gunning down a young man and burying him on a beach. Then we meet a family sailing to a villa on an island. The patriarch, the wealthy Uberto, and his young wife Giulia. There are Uberto's three children; Lorenzo, Michele and Patrizia, and their spouses; Greta, Carla and Walter. The ninth member of the party is Uberto's sister Elisabetta.

We learn instantly that there is bad blood between Lorenzo and Michele, their relationship has been troubled since childhood. Patrizia has visions and everyone thinks she's crazy. On top of everything else, everyone is sleeping with everyone else, sending the tension up through the roof. There is so much hate, bitterness and resentment in the party that it is a miracle they are capable of even looking at each other. Soon enough a mysterious killer starts picking them off one by one in the usual Giallo fashion.

Nine Guests for a Crime (great title by the way) has a lot in common with Five Dolls for an August Moon (1970), with a similar luxurious house on an isolated island and a mysterious killer on the loose. Nine Guests is however a more solid movie than Dolls, even though it lacks Mario Bava's elegant touch.

Nine Guests is directed by Ferdinando Baldi, a veteran director and I think that experience shows in a good way. The actors are likewise an experienced bunch, I have no complaints. The music is fine for what it is and there are some, but not many, fantastic camera shots.

The biggest problem is the dialogue. Like every other Italian movie of the time, it was dubbed in post, but I don't know why it is so mismatched with what is going on. At one point one of the women is drowning, but she is known for her practical and tasteless jokes so no one is too alarmed at first. Uberto realizes she's actually in trouble and snarls at his sons “Don't just stand there, go help her”, to which the reply is: “Yeah, you're right”, in the most laconic tone of voice. It's like Uberto had said “No, you're wrong, we had pizza on Tuesday, not Monday”, and the answer is “Yeah, you're right”. Same tone of voice. There are several instances of this weirdly mismatched tone, but to be honest that is my biggest and essentially only complaint.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, absolutely. For being a low budget Giallo, Nine Guests for a Crime is smartly written and well put together. It doesn't try to reinvent the wheel, and they respect the viewer enough not to cheat, even though there are a couple of minor details I'd have liked to have been given. I think Nine Guests is a good beginner Giallo if you are a bit on the sensitive side. There is nothing straight up sleazy going on and the murders are pretty, but not completely, bloodless. I'd say it goes closer to a “normal” thriller than most Gialli, but it is still and unmistakable member of the Giallo Family. I had a really good time, and I think you might as well.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

They put a WHAT in it?

Once in a while, you come across something that straddles the border between madness and genius. 

What I have for you today is a car with the Merlin engine from a Spitfire! A WWII fighter engine in a car is inspired, but what it is inspired by, is anyone's guess.

When I saw the guys trying to start the car, which by the way requires a checklist, I realized that practically no one could steal that car, it is that complicated to start. It is also ear splitting loud. So enjoy this video, it is something else.

That's that and all that. Join me again nest time and until then, have a great week!

   

 

  

The truth is out there

 For centuries, people have been obsessing over the Roanoke mystery.

In short, in  1585 Sir Walther Raleigh created a colony in Roanoke in what is today North Carolina. He returned to England for supplies but when he came back, the entire colony was missing. The buildings were there, but every man, woman and child were gone with no sign of battle or struggle. On a post someone had carved the word "Croatan".

Since then the mystery has endured. People from historians to horror writers have puzzled, speculated and dreamed about what happened, but now we finally know. 

Below is a really interesting documentary about this mystery, I highly recommend it.

Direct Youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY7sYjSDT2I

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week.  

Billion Dollar Brain

Following on the last couple of weeks, I watched the third and final Harry Palmer movie:

Billion Dollar Brain (1967).

In this movie, Harry (Michael Caine) is tasked with infiltrating a mysterious organization that wants to overthrow communism. The trouble is, this might start WWIII. Harry goes to Finland, where he meets an old acquaintance Leo Newbigen (Karl Malden). Leo is well placed in the organization and recruits Harry. They also visit Riga and eventually Texas. Action, espionage and danger lurks around every corner. I'm avoiding spoilers again.

The very first thing I noticed is that the intro sequence has a very strong James Bond style. Caine was actually worried that he'd be trapped in the Palmer role like how his good friend Sean Connery was with Bond. I haven't read the book yet, but the movie's plot has a very strong Bond feel as well. In fact, the main villain is like a Bond villain if that villain had completely lost his mind. It is seriously a bonkers plan.

As a native Finn, it was seriously cool to see how my home town of Helsinki looked a decade before my birth. So similar and yet so very different. Harry walks past places where, as a kid I played, and visits locations I know very well. For some reason they chose to film certain scenes in Turku Castle, and considering Turku is 168 km west of Helsinki, that is a bit odd. There was nothing about the scenes that even required a castle...

When Harry visits Riga, they shot in the Finnish city of Porvoo, located some 50 km east of Helsinki. This is understandable since in the 60's Riga was actually in the Soviet Union and filming there would have been impossible. I just have no idea why they chose to pretend that Turku Castle was in Helsinki.

Overall, Billion Dollar Brain is an okay movie, the recurring characters are played by the original actors which is always nice. The other actors are good as usual, even veteran actor Ed Begley who chews the scenery so hard its a miracle he didn't lose his teeth in the process. I guess you have to do that if you're playing a fanatic with megalomania.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes and no. If you want to complete the Harry Palmer trilogy or see what Finland looked like in '67, then sure. Billion Dollar Brain is not a bad movie, it is just not very good either. It was directed by a very unwilling Ken Russel and it shows. The balance is off, the plot is ridiculous, (though that may be the fault of the book), and I get the feeling the plot didn't even need Harry to begin with. Not great not bad, just kind of in the middle mediocre. I'm glad I watched it, but the two previous movies particularly Funeral in Berlin are so much better.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Funeral in Berlin

Continuing from last week, I watched:

Funeral in Berlin (1966).

Harry Palmer (Michael Caine) returns and this time he's sent to Berlin to vet KGB Colonel Stok (Oscar Homolka) who intends to defect to the west. Always a tricky situation, since he has to find out if the defection is genuine, and if it is, he needs to make it happen. In Berlin he connects with his old friend Johnny Vulkan (Paul Hubschmid). It was Vulkan Harry schemed with when he got arrested and sent to prison and then to the intelligence service. Soon enough he also meets the beautiful Samantha Steel (Eva Renzi), and the game becomes a great deal more difficult, not to mention dangerous.

Funeral in Berlin is directed by Guy Hamilton, who amongst many other movies has directed four James Bond films. In 1966 he had only directed Goldfinger, although Funeral in Berlin was his 13^th movie overall.

Where I found The Ipcress File to be good but flawed, Funeral in Berlin is a stone cold spy thriller. You can feel Hamilton's touch and it feels good. Palmer is essentially the same free-wheeling smart mouth he was in Ipcress, but he feels a bit harder and more cynical, though not in a bad way. The other actors are all solid, but apparently Eva Renzi was incredibly difficult to work with. She was rude to Caine and argued constantly with Hamilton, even telling him how to light her. This did no favors for her career, and although it was far from ruined she earned the title “difficult to work with” which can sink an actors career surprisingly fast.

As I'm writing this, I'm trying to remember the soundtrack, but I can't. I firmly blame the excellent story and the atmosphere that at tines is thick enough to cut with a knife. Even scenes that are apparently unimportant feel really tense. The Cold War paranoia really is omnipresent.

In order to avoid spoilers I won't mention any plot details beyond what I have already done, but I want to point out that at times the story is a bit hard to follow. It all makes sense in the end, but there are a lot of moving parts and unless you're really paying attention you might get a bit lost. This is the kind of critique I never know how to feel about. On the one hand, it is a good thing if the audience can follow the story without taking notes, but on the other hand I like a convoluted story that doesn't hold my hand and over explains everything. Suffice to say that Funeral in Berlin is somewhere in the middle I suppose.

So, do I recommend this movie? Absolutely! If you have any interest in spy thrillers Funeral in Berlin is a must watch. It has its flaws but overall it is an excellent movie that is well shot, well directed and a top shelf pick in its genre. They even shot scenes at the actual Check Point Charlie! How's that for realism?

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have great week!

 

The Ipcress File

Ever since I got into consuming spy media, I've been meaning to watch:

The Ipcress File (1965),

and last night I finally got around to doing so.

Based on the debut spy novel by Len Deighton, this British spy thriller is directed by Sidney J. Furie and stars Michael Caine, Nigel Green, Guy Doleman, Sue Lloyd, Gordon Jackson, Frank Gatliff and many more.

We meet Harry Palmer (Caine), an army sergeant who got into legal trouble in Germany but instead of prison was recruited by what I'm guessing is SIS (it isn't mentioned outright). He's a bit of a rogue, has a glib mouth and a tendency to do what he wants. Although this is the 60's so he's actually pretty polite by modern standards. I'm sure it was shocking back then.

An important scientist is kidnapped and it is up to Palmer's unit to find him. Since Palmer is, let's say unconventional, he gets results that quickly spiral out of control and everything heads towards a dramatic climax. That's as far as I can go without spoiling anything.

I'm not very used to 60's cinema, I generally prefer the 70's, but The Ipcress File is good. Low budget to be sure, but they did a lot with what they had. Being British, this isn't a roaring action movie, it's much more subtle than that. What I found interesting is that there isn't really much of a motivation for the bad guys, nothing overtly explained at least.

Michael Caine is brilliant as always, and the rest of the cast is good. Lots of familiar faces for those that watch older British TV and movies. The soundtrack is likewise nice and the cinematography is excellent. I keep saying it, but older movies were shot so much better than modern ones.

There are a couple of interesting facts about this movie I want to share:

The main character in the novel isn't named so Caine & Co had to come up with a name. The producer Harry Salzman and Caine agreed that Harry is a boring name and Caine went to school with a Tommy Palmer who was also apparently boring so the name Harry Palmer was born.

Harry wears glasses which was unusual for a tough guy back then, and he's also an accomplished cook. These two facts together made the movie hard to distribute in the US. It seemed distributors were worried the American audiences would think Harry was gay. For wearing glasses and cooking. Different era indeed, especially since Harry is a real skirt chaser.

The director and the producer fought constantly, to the point where Caine and Salzman had to jump in a Rolls-Royce to chase down a bus. Furie had stormed off and gotten on that bus, and they desperately needed him back.

So, do I recommend this movie? Oh yes! It is a bit dated but in a fun way. It's not quite up to the quality of Tinker Tailor, but what spy drama is? The Ipcress File does what it does with style, and I look forward to checking out the other movies in the Harry Palmer series.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!