Sea Fever

Quite by accident as I was reading Reddit, I found:

Sea Fever (2019).

We meet Siobhán (Hermione Corfield), a young marine biologist working on her doctorate. As a part of the doctorate studies she has to go on a field trip on the ocean, including a scuba dive. The problem is her personality. There are introverts, there are those who are anti-social and then there is Siobhán. She doesn't even want to eat birthday cake with her colleagues, she's that withdrawn.

A husband and wife team, Gerard and Freya own and run a fishing boat and have agreed to take Siobhán along for a fee they badly need since times are tough and they are broke. They owe their crew unpaid wages, so any money is welcome. In their financial desperation, they sail to an exclusion zone knowing there won't be any other fishing boats in the area. This is where things take a turn for not only the worse, but for the catastrophic.

Sea Fever is a the second Irish horror movie I know I've seen. It's directed by Neasa Hardiman, a veteran director, and I think it shows. Making a movie in a cramped trawler isn't easy, studio or not, but she makes it work.

Story wise, Sea Fever isn't all that special, a seasoned horror fan will have seen it all before in some variety, but the sum of the parts works well. There are a couple of minor issues though. First off, they make a big deal about how Siobhán dislikes company but that goes away pretty easily and is never an issue again, so why even include it? The worst part is when things go wrong. The hull of the boat is affected and a greenish-blue slime is leaking through. What does Siobhán do? She pokes it with her naked finger... A marine biologist should know how many things in the ocean are poisonous, and if it can leak through treated wood, you shouldn't poke it with your finger!

The cast is excellent, absolutely no complaints there, and I was engrossed enough to not even remember if there was any music, so that is actually a good thing. I loved the overall atmosphere on the cramped trawler out on the gray ocean, having a sense of claustrophobia on the open sea is a pretty cool concept. The special effects are good, quite up to par, and the science is faulty, but what horror movie doesn't have shaky science?

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, Sea Fever is a competent horror movie throughout. I'd say it works best for those who only watch horror casually since it will feel fresh to them, or to horror fans who want to watch it all. I found this movie from a Lovecraft subreddit, and sure I can see why that connection fits, but it's Cthulhu light at best. Sea Fever combines elements of Alien, The Thing and a few other isolation horror sources in a way that produces a film worth watching. Not a masterpiece but absolutely good enough.

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

 

Sleuth

During a discussion about Michael Caine, a friend recommended:

Sleuth (1972),

so that is what I watched.

Andrew Wyke (Laurence Olivier), a rich and celebrated author of murder mysteries (think Agatha Christie) invites Milo Tindle (Michael Caine) to his country manor for a chat. Turns out that Milo is having a relationship with Andrew's wife, Marguerite. Andrew isn't opposed to this affair as he has a girlfriend of his own, but he is concerned that Milo isn't rich, and can't afford Marguerite's expensive lifestyle. The last thing Andrew wants is for Marguerite to come back once he's finally rid of her. Andrew has a plan, and this plan is dangerous.

Sleuth is directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz who amongst many works co-wrote and co-directed Cleopatra (1963). This was his last film as he was both ill and suffered an accident on set confining him to a wheelchair.

Wyke's expansive manor is the sole set of Sleuth and it is a magnificent setting. The large old manor is filled with not only games of all sorts but also automata that move and make noise. Personally I wouldn't stay a day in a house filled with those soulless staring horrors, but I'm not an eccentric author.

The core of Sleuth are Olivier and Caine. Caine was the third choice for the role and was ecstatic to play against the great Olivier. When they met Caine asked how he was supposed to address Olivier. He answered: "Well, I am the Lord Olivier and you are Mr. Michael Caine. Of course, that's only for the first time you address me. After that I am Larry, and you are Mike."

Later on after an emotional scene Olivier told Caine "I thought I had an assistant, Michael. I see I have a partner." Caine said this was the greatest compliment he had gotten as an actor. High praise indeed.

I am doing my damnedest to avoid spoilers but it is hard. The dialogue is superb, and both Olivier and Caine are perfect. In fact, I can't say anything about the score as the only music I even noticed was when Olivier plays “Anything Goes” at full volume. This is how engrossed I got.

So, do I recommended this movie? Absolutely! Sleuth is an amazing movie from beginning to end. I do need to point out that it is 168 minutes and you have to pay attention throughout. If you are screwing around on your phone you're going to miss everything, but it so worth it. I wanted to watch a really good movie and I wasn't the least bit disappointed. Sleuth is a bizarre masterpiece worth every second of your time, but do try to watch it without looking it up. This movie doesn't deserve any spoilers.

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

 

Two Richard's and a Roger.

Quite by chance I saw a movie clip with Roger Moore, Richard Harris and Richard Burton, so I sat down and watched:

The Wild Geese (1978).

A wealthy banker hires an unscrupulous mercenary, Colonel Faulkner (Burton) to put together a team in order to rescue Julius Limbani, the president of an unnamed African country. There has been a coup and Limbani is being held by the new dictator. Faulkner gets in touch with his old friends Captain Janders (Harris) and Lieutenant Fynn (Moore) and together they assemble a team of veterans who although highly experienced are a bit long in the tooth.

A simple synopsis, but to avoid spoilers I'll keep that short. The Wild Geese is a bit over two hours long, so I'm sure you can guess things don't go entirely smoothly for the mercenaries. We do spend a lot of time on the setup, the planning and the execution, but that only eats up half the run time.

I have no technical complaints, it is a very nicely put together film, although it has the typical over-powered grenades that fling bodies around like rag dolls. There is an odd part where they plan to hit the compound where Limbani is held at predawn, but the raid happens when the sun is high. My other and bigger complaint is the scene on the bridge. In a nutshell, the mercenaries are attacked while crossing a bridge and instead of getting off the bridge they just stand there, something experienced soldiers wouldn't do. Then as the team becomes separated as the bridge is out of order, they shout plans as where to meet up again, but there is no water! The river bed is completely dry and it would have taken them ten minutes tops to cross. Very silly and some frustratingly bad writing in an otherwise good movie.

It is the actors that are the biggest draw here. Burton, Harris and Moore in one movie is a real treat. Burton especially is showing his age, but he still has his old steel here, which goes a long way to sell the character. Moore, who was in the middle of his Bond career adds the charm and Harris the heart. A really good trio and apparently they all worked well together. Moore did request fewer lines when acting with the two others and explained the request with: "You don't seriously expect me to act against these guys?"

The rest of the actors are good, again no complaints although everyone else is overshadowed by the trio, even though a few are given quite a lot of screen time.

Still trying to avoid spoilers, I feel I should point out that this is not a fun movie. It is very grim at times even though the soundtrack is trying to sound upbeat with an almost comedic tone. Being a movie about mercenaries it is also pretty bloody, but it doesn't wallow in gore in any way. It is a kind of classy brutality if that makes sense.

Beyond what you see on screen it is also almost miraculous that they managed to keep both Harris and Burton sober during the shoot. Both were heavy, and I do mean heavy drinkers, but they stayed sober the entire time with the help of copious amounts of soda and jumping around. According to IMDB Harris told Burton: “"Whenever you feel like a drink, do like I do, jump up and down." For the rest of the production, both men were seen daily in all sorts of unlikely situations hopping like kangaroos”.

So, do I recommend this movie? Absolutely. The Wild Geese is one of those movies that is grim and violent, but it is also really good. It's not a feel good adventure but a lesson in how cold and brutal the world can be and why being a mercenary is not a fun job. The movie does telegraph some things that happen if you're paying attention, but it is done very well.

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

 

Horror of Dracula

For the longest time I thought I had seen this movie, but I hadn't, so I watched:

Horror of Dracula (1958).

This is Hammer Horror's first Dracula movie and yes it stars Christopher Lee as Dracula and Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. The reason I thought I'd seen this is due to the somewhat confusing movie titles. I had seen Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966) and Count Dracula (1970). Since they all pretend to be in the 1800's and because Stoker's book has been retold in film as much or more than Batman's origins, I got confused.

Now that we're on track, lets look at Horror of Dracula, or Dracula as it was originally called. They changed the name to avoid confusion with Dracula (1941) starring Bela Lugosi. (See what I mean with the titles?) In this version we get most of the familiar names, but a lot has been changed. Jonathan Harker arrives at Castle Dracula to be the librarian instead of as an estate agent. He is also there to straight up kill Dracula whom he already knows is a vampire. There are other such changes as well. Dr. Seward is only a doctor and doesn't hunt vampires. Lord Arthur Holmwood loses his title and is married to Mina, while Lucy is his sister and is engaged to Harker. Also, Dracula doesn't go to England. These changes were done for financial reasons as Horror of Dracula had a fairly small budget. At first I was a bit surprised and confused at the changes, but they work. The script writer Jimmy Sangster did a very good job shrinking the story without losing the important and impactful parts.

The score is a somewhat typical 50's bombastic affair that works well to heighten the scenes. Not something I'd sit down and listen to, but not unpleasant by any means. Visually Horror of Dracula is a feast. Stylish, elegant and well shot, I have no complaints whatsoever. The cinematography isn't amazing but solid. It does what it is supposed to do.

It is the actors who really shine here. Lee is great in his first outing out of the ten times he played Dracula. Elegant and charming when he needs to but wildly feral when angry. The rest of the time he's a dark towering menace that commands the room effortlessly. Cushing is likewise superb. He brings together the steel of the vampire hunter with a gentle sympathy for those afflicted by Dracula. Michael Gough plays Arthur Holmwood who accompanies Van Helsing for a lot of the movie, and serves as a bit of audience surrogate at first as he needs things explained and then, once he is convinced, joins in to end Dracula.

Horror of Dracula is also as far as I can tell, the first movie where the victims really show his seductive powers. They wait for him with both fear and excitement. Tame by today's standards but I have to assume that in '58 it was pretty scandalous to show a lady make herself ready to receive Dracula in her bedroom. There is no burglary here, no hypnotism to hide behind, they want him, in fact they act almost like addicts desperate for a fix. Today we're used to vampires being sexy but back then it was another story.

So, do I recommend this movie? Absolutely. Hammer made a lot of movies back in the day, and while some are not terribly good, Horror of Dracula is great. Watch it without expectations and just enjoy the spectacle. If you only want to watch one film where Lee plays the count, make it this one.

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

 

There is so much more to learn.

I have recently been watching Middle-Earth lore videos and they are really fascinating.

J.R.R. Tolkien wrote a lot in his lifetime. Pretty much everyone has heard of The Lord of the Rings trilogy as well as The Hobbit, or There and Back Again. Some have heard of the Silmarillion as well, but there is a massive list of books in his name. Some are his letters, some are poetry and some are things his son Christopher edited together. Full list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien_bibliography

But back to the videos. I have been watching a few different channels, but In Deep Geek is one I'm confident in recommending. There is other stuff on there as well, but I haven't watched those. What I like is that everything is based on Tolkien's actual writings, there is no guess work or 'your guess is as good as mine' things presented as fact.

Here is a playlist of almost 200 videos to start with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAMI2M4Uu44&list=PLVTclEEyY1SKFumpT86h-y6jikkEUKIAH 

 So, if you like Middle-Earth and want to learn more, like what were the Barrow-Wights? Or what was The Watcher outside Moria? Perhaps you want to learn why Sauron had no idea The Shire existed or indeed what Pipeweed is, then make yourself comfortable and enjoy.

 

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

   

The People Who Own the Dark

This week I watched:

The People Who Own the Dark (1976).

This Spanish thriller, with an admittedly great title, is not really what you would think from the front cover or the blurb. A small group of powerful and influential men head to a large old villa (called a castle) for some debauchery. The owners of the house have procured some willing women but just as the drug fueled festivities are about to begin, the house is shaken by a massive force. When the party-goers come up from the cellar they find the maids completely blind. Being the men they are they soon realize that there has been a nuclear war. When they head down to the local town, they find that everyone there has also been struck blind. The synopsis states that “soon they discover the existence of a sinister group called The People Who Own The Dark”. This statement is misleading but not entirely false.

The blind villagers are the people who own the dark, even though the promotional material wants to make it look like there is something deeper and even more sinister. What is interesting is that the main antagonists in the movie are the blind villagers who act essentially like zombies. They move in groups and attack the main characters furiously. (They have some reason for this, but that is spoiler territory). The blind do function better than one might think even though they can't see, which gives them a very menacing presence.

The People Who Own the Dark is a pretty well made movie despite the vague element of exploitation and sleaze. There is barely any nudity and the blood is fairly muted. It is the psychological elements that stand tall. Partially the horror of Nuclear Armageddon and partially the fear of being targeted by a large group out to kill you. There is also the element of general survival what with the radiation and all.

The actors are all veterans and the director León Klimovsky who also directed The Werewolf vs the Vampire Woman handles things competently. There is nothing more to really say on that matter, either for or against the movie.

The exploitation element is a bit odd to be honest. Since the movie was never going to use it, why was it included in the first place? It could just as well have been a hunting weekend or someone's birthday. This is even odder when you factor in the clumsy marketing attempt that focuses on just that element that then barely shows up. If you sat down and watched The People Who Own the Dark because you were in the mood for some 70's sleaze you'd be pretty damn disappointed.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, it is actually pretty good. By using a horde of blind people that can think instead of the tired, cliched shambling horde of the undead, we get a pretty neat and scary threat. The movie is a bit too short to really explore the situation the main characters are in so we don't get any deeper message, but what is there is well worth watching. The People Who Own the Dark was never going to be a masterpiece or even a cult classic, but I for one was not disappointed.

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

Night Moves but not Bob Seger

Because I liked The Conversation (1974) a friend recommended:

Night Moves (1975).

Harry Moseby (Gene Hackman) is a Hollywood private investigator who is hired by an aging minor star to find her runaway teenage daughter Delly (Melanie Griffith). He finds out from Delly's on/off boyfriend Quentin (James Woods) that she left for Florida where her stepdad Tom (John Crawford) lives. With his own marriage teetering on the edge, Harry goes off to find the runaway but he will find more than he expected and in more ways than one.

It is worth pointing out that The Conversation and Night Moves are completely different movies. The only thing they have in common is Gene Hackman as a private investigator and being made in the mid 70's. Both movies are good but The Conversation is in my opinion better by a clear margin.

First off, the actors are all great. This was Melanie Griffith's first credited movie role, and as she wasn't even planning on becoming an actor, her portrayal of Delly is very good. To be fair, a teenage girl playing a teenage girl isn't exactly a strenuous job, but she is good.

Night Moves is also technically well made, even though you won't find any stunning visuals. I'd say that is more because they wanted a realistic, intimate close up feel rather than a sweeping cinematic experience.

However when I was done watching I couldn't help feel Night Moves was missing something. It might be I overlooked something subtle, I'm not sure. I love a movie that doesn't have to spell it out to the audience in ten foot tall letters, but being so subtle that important things are missed isn't good either. I am pretty sure a scene has to have been missing though. When Harry arrives in Florida he meets Delly and Paula (Jennifer Warren) who is stepdad Tom's girlfriend. Tom, a pilot, is off in his pontoon plane as Harry arrives, but we see him land on the water by his house. Then in the next scene they are all talking like old friends, but we never saw Harry and Tom meet, and that feels very odd in a movie that takes such pains to show small mundane details.

My other complaint is that the “big thing” falls a bit flat when it is finally revealed. Everything makes sense and there aren't any plot holes, it's more down to how the movie deals with it. I'm having real trouble explaining this without spoiling anything here. Imagine if Luke Skywalker upon learning that Vader is his father had shrugged and said “well, shit”. Underwhelming but technically correct. My Luke example is an exaggeration, but it points to how Night Moves felt in the end.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, I do. Despite my complaints, Night Moves is a good time. It stands tall as a good example of why 70's cinema was so great. Night Moves is one of those movies that are all about the experience, a ride if you will. Sure it has a few problems, but it is genuinely a good movie. It is a product of its time for all the right reasons.

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