The Internecine Project

This week I watched:

The Internecine Project (1974).

We meet American economics professor Robert Elliot (James Coburn), a high level government advisor who lives in London. He uses a small network of varied people to spy on businessmen in order to make an illegal fortune for himself. He receives word that he is to be given a very prestigious and powerful job back in the states, but this presents a problem: his network. These people; Ian Hendry (Alex Hellman) a highly placed official in the Foreign Office, a masseur in a very prestigious club, Bert Parsons (Harry Andrews), a scientist, David Baker (Michael Jayston) and luxury call girl Christina Larsson (Christiane Krüger), can all incriminate him. The professor simply can't take the risk of being blackmailed or exposed for his illegal activities, so there is only one solution: they must all die. Being a very clever person indeed, Elliot devises a plan to have all four people kill each other on the same day.

This isn't a spoiler by the way, this is the standard synopsis everwhere. The Internecine Project is one of those interesting movies that is all about the experience. Being along for the ride as it were. Short of detailing every minute of the 89 minute runtime, this movie can't really be spoiled, it has to be watched.

The director, Ken Hughes, who also wrote and directed movies like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968) and Cromwell (1970), handles The Internecine Project with great style. The movies oozes competence in every scene. From cinematography to dialogue to music, everything is where it should be. It is solid expertise rather than eccentric genius, but often enough that is better.

The fact that you are following all the manipulation and murder from the wrong side of the fence really makes this movie stand out amongst the plethora of great 70's thrillers. Normally when you watch the murderer creep up on the victim, you sympathize with the victim, you want them to escape, but in The Internecine Project I found myself wanting the complicated murders to succeed. A weaker script and less competent director would have made this movie a complete mess, but they pull it off beautifully. Sure, the ending is a bit weak but only compared to the rest of the movie.

I have seen reviews complaining about the movie being boring and too talky, but I can't agree. This is not an action movie. Would you add a long car chase to Halloween? A martial arts fight to Psycho? Of course not. The Internecine Project contains what it needs and nothing more.

So, do I recommend this movie? Absolutely. It has never been so tense and exciting to follow people committing grubby murders since I saw The Day of the Jackal (1971). The Internecine Project isn't a masterpiece but it is great in its own way. If you can stand a bit of talking and a lack of explosions, do yourself a real solid and watch The Internecine Project. Oh and I had to look it up, it is pronounced Inter-nee-sign.

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

 

Defense of the Realm

While digging around on Letterboxd again I found:

Defense of the Realm (1985).

This British political cold war thriller stars Gabriel Byrne, Denholm Elliott, Greta Scacchi, Robbie Coltraine and many more familiar faces from British cinema and TV.

Nick Mullen (Byrne) is a hard nosed reporter who doesn't let go once he sinks his teeth into a story. He gets put on a story about an MP who at best cheats on his wife and at worst sells information to the KGB. Nick's colleague and friend Bayliss (Elliott) begs him to sit on the story for a while since he knows the MP personally and can't believe he is a spy. Soon sinister things start happening. Strange men root around in Nick's desk, peoples flats are burgled and tossed but valuables don't get stolen. The more Nick digs, the darker things get and you have to ask: is it paranoia if you really are being watched?

Defense of the Realm has an amazing atmosphere, absolutely first class. The 80's may be remembered for its riotous colors in fashion, but in reality it was a gray decade. Defense of the Realm really uses this in scene after scene. Gray streets, gray buildings and gray people. This gloomy atmosphere is elevated into sheer anxiety and unease by the perfect score. It varies from music to soundscape and is used skillfully to hammer home the fear that lurks around every corner. Something as simple as the appearance of headlights in the background becomes threatening, and this is not something that is easy to pull off. If the delicate balance is off, then the paranoia becomes farcical but Defense of the Realm does it to perfection.

The actors are solid to say the least. Pretty much everyone is either a veteran or about to become a veteran. Defense of the Realm is the second directors credit of David Drury who up until 2017 had a good career in television, both with movies and shows. Defense of the Realm was released in theaters in '86 but is sadly a bit forgotten today. For what is essentially a low budget movie, it is wonderfully shot and put together.

My one and only critique is the lack of a proper cohesive explanation in the end. You do get most things explained, but I missed the significance of the MP in the beginning, and had to look it up afterwards. The one annoying flaw in what is otherwise a great movie.

So, do I recommend it? If you haven't picked up on the glowing tones, then yes, absolutely. Defense of the Realm is one of those movies that makes me upset I haven't watched it sooner. I'm going to have to watch it again to see if I can pick up on things I missed the first time. If you have any interest in political thrillers and the cold war as a setting, please do yourself a solid and watch Defense of the Realm.

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

 

Child 44.

While browsing movies on Letterboxd, I found:

Child 44 (2015).

A movie set in The Soviet Union starring Tom Hardy and Gary Oldman sounded amazing so I sat down and gave it a go.

The story with mild, mild spoilers is this: Leo Demidov (Tom Hardy), hero of WWII is an officer in the MGB, the pre-precursor of the KGB. He is married to the love of his life Raisa (Noomi Rapace), and he is good at his job. A child is found dead, clearly murdered, but Soviet doctrine states that there are no murders in paradise, and that serial killers are a product of capitalism, so the verdict is accidental death. Shortly thereafter Leo falls from grace and is sent to a small industrial town with Raisa. Another kid turns up dead, and he just can't ignore it anymore, state or no state.

If that sounds familiar, the story is inspired by the hunt for real life serial killer Chikatilo.

I was really hesitant to even write about this movie. Child 44 is an interesting mix of quality and problems. The actors are amazing. Tom Hardy, Gary Oldman, Charles Dance (one scene only), Vincent Cassel and more is a great cast. No complaints there, they knock it out of the park.

Visually, Child 44 is amazing. The props department outdid themselves. Everything looks amazing. Sure there are some errors, but unless you are an expert, you really can't tell. Full points here.

The script? Now we're in trouble. The movie is 137 minutes long and it wastes so much time. The initial setup is good, the introduction of Leo and his colleagues is good, but then it goes off the rails a lot. Child 44 is based on a novel with the same name by Tom Rob Smith and I saw a reviewer claim that they took a real page turner and made a clunky, slow and boring movie. I don't agree with that statement, but I can see where that person is coming from.

My biggest problem with the story, is focus. It should be about catching a depraved serial killer in a land where that can't happen, but that is almost a side note when you look at what they spent time on. In the end the inhumanity of the Soviet system is far worse than a person who kills children, bizarre a statement as it is.

Child 44 goes back and forth seemingly unsure of that to do. There are scenes that are really good, and I love Raisa who goes from an unhappy wife to an equal partner essential to the story. But on the other hand they set up things that go nowhere, and other things aren't explained at all.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes and no. I'm still very conflicted. The good parts are really good, but that bad parts come so close to taking over. I do not regret watching Child 44 but it should have been so much better than what we got. I also can't help compare it to Citizen X (1995) which is about the real life hunt for Chikatilo, and is a better movie. In the end you should watch it if the subject matter interests you, otherwise give it a miss.

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

 

The Third Man

This week I watched:

The Third Man (1949).

Holly Martens (Joseph Cotten), an out of work author of western novels, arrives in bombed out Vienna on the invitation of his childhood friend Harry Lime (Orson Welles). Harry has offered him a job, but upon arrival, Martens learns that Lime is dead, having been hit by a car. At the funeral, he meets Harry's girlfriend Anna Schmidt (Alida Valli) and becomes smitten by her. He also runs into the British military police as Vienna is split into four zones administered by the British, the US, the French and the Soviets respectively. The police really wants him to go home, but shocked and saddened by his friends death, Martens starts to ask questions and soon discovers that the story of the accident varies depending on who's describing it. He meets some of Harry's shady friends and things start to take a very sinister turn. He discovers that some saw a third man at the scene of the accident and he becomes obsessed with finding him.

The Third Man was directed by Sir Carol Reed with a young Guy Hamilton as assistant director. Some rumors claimed that Orson Welles shadow directed the movie, but that has been debunked.

The plot and the setting in The Third Man are both good. Finding out what happened to a dead friend is hardly new but it works well especially when married to the paranoid setting of post war Vienna. The movie is rife with people looking suspicious and furtive. Since the black market was not just prevalent but a necessity for the survival of so many, it makes sense that no one wants to answer questions about anything, especially not when asked by a stranger who is also a foreigner. This heightens the sense of paranoia enormously.

The cinematography is amazing, absolutely first class. Some scenes were shot in a studio, but the majority was shot on location in the actual ruined Vienna. Reed used a lot of Dutch angles which when combined with the suspicious atmosphere mentioned above really pushes the fear and uncertainty to new levels. For me, this is the main star of the movie.

Speaking of stars, the actors range from solid to great. Being a thriller/noir from '49 it is natural that the method of acting feels a bit alien to a modern viewer, but once your brain adjusts you can really sit back and enjoy yourself.

The one big issue for me is the music. For the absolute majority of the movie your ears are assailed by jaunty zither music. Nothing bad by itself but the melody is too circus-y meaning that it works well for the few comedic scenes but clashes horribly when the tension surges. A man running for his life should not be accompanied by a happy tune. Audiences back then might have thought it appropriate, but I did not like it.

So, do I recommend this movie? Absolutely! It is a bit slow, but from beginning to end it was a joy to watch. The Third Man is of course a product of its time, but what a product! If you like or can at least stomach black and white movies, do yourself a solid and watch The Third Man.

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

 

Johnny Handsome

Quite by accident, I stumbled across a movie that had completely gone under my radar:

Johnny Handsome (1989).

Johnny (Mickey Rourke) is a career criminal whose face has been severely deformed since birth. His best friend is hard up for money and begs Johnny to plan a heist, something he's really good at. Two others are brought in for the job, Rafe (Lance Henriksen) and Sunny (Ellen Barkin). The job goes wrong and Johnny ends up in prison. There he is put in a program that gives him plastic surgery as a way to rehabilitate him. Police Lieutenant Drones (Morgan Freeman) does not believe Johnny has turned over a new leaf, and the question is, has he?

On paper, Johnny Handsome should be a slam dunk. Apart from the actors I listed above, we also get Forest Whitaker, Elizabeth McGovern and quite a few other faces I've seen before, but there is a fundamental flaw I can't put my finger on. Don't get me wrong, Johnny Handsome is not a bad movie at all, but it is lacking something. Once I was done with it, I went to IMDB like always and saw that Al Pacino was originally slated to play Johnny but despite several rewrites he dropped out feeling that the script would never be able to rise above B-movie status, and he was right. There is of course nothing wrong with B-movies, but unless you set out to make one, something has gone wrong.

The story is pretty good, the actors are by themselves excellent and the cinematography is decent. The dialogue isn't exactly inspired, but this isn't the kind of movie that should have Tarantino style memorable one liners. It's more somber and serious than that.

As I'm writing this, I think the major problem sits in Johnny Handsome himself. We spend quite a lot of time in the prison hospital, yet we don't really know much about him as a person besides his deformed face (excellent make up work btw). His struggle between going straight and dating McGovern, or going back to his old life becomes too shallow. I do think the story is good, but the movies doesn't have enough time to really explore it. I would have liked to see more of Rafe, but he is a shallow and pretty baseline villain who seems to be allergic to sleeves. Sunny is more interesting, and Barkin said she loved that character because she got to be as bad as she wanted without some lame excuse why this poor girl turned out wrong. She's bad and she loves it.

Initially I was disappointed with Johnny Handsome, but it did stay with me. One part of my dissatisfaction is my own fault. It takes place in New Orleans and was made two years after Angel Heart which is one of my all time favorite movies. I subconsciously expected Johnny Handsome to be a bit more like Angel Heart which is dumb. They have nothing in common except location and Mickey Rourke. With that realization I had to rethink it and so I'm writing this.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, but you need to be realistic with what it is. Johnny Handsome is a solid movie about choice and consequence. It sadly isn't as good as it could have been, but that is neither here no there. It is the movie it is, and you can certainly do much worse than watching Johnny Handsome.

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!

 

Top Four part Four, Where Eagles Dare

For Eccentric Sphere number 700, we're at the final part of my top four movies on Letterboxd:

Where Eagles Dare (1968).

This WWII action/adventure/thriller came about because Elizabeth Taylor's kids requested that her husband, Richard Burton, should make a movie they were allowed to watch. So Burton contacted producer Elliot Kastner for “some super hero stuff”. Kastner called Alistair MacLean who gave him the script in six weeks and later wrote the novel based on his own script. The title was Castle of Eagles, which Kastner hated and changed to Where Eagles Dare after Shakespeare's Richard III: "The world is grown so bad, that wrens make prey where eagles dare not perch"

The plot in a nutshell is this: An American general has been shot down on his way to coordinate the invasion of Europe and been taken to Schloss Adler for interrogation. An MI6 team lead by Major Smith (Burton) is sent to get him out before the Germans can learn the invasion plans. Along for the ride is Lieutenant Schaffer (Clint Eastwood), a US Army Ranger. Things start going wrong almost immediately, but Smith is a clever fox and Schaffer a total badass, so we move on towards an exciting finale.

There is something I need to get out of the way now. Where Eagles Dare is full to the brim with errors. Uniforms are wrong, vehicles - including a helicopter, are used that were created after the war, hair styles (particularly the ladies) are wrong, bomb timers are too modern, the list goes on and on. This is something that normally annoys me a great deal, but when it comes to Where Eagles Dare, I don't give a damn! I love this movie despite all the errors.

Where Eagles Dare is the quintessential agents-behind-enemy-lines movie. Pretty much every piece of media that sneaks around in Nazi castles owes something to this movie. Return to Castle Wolfenstein even has a similar cable car. The Dirty Dozen (1967) is older but I don't think it is as influential.

The soundtrack likewise wins the gold medal for this type of story. The rolling military drums that lead into a bombastic score is simply perfect and will stick around in your head well after the movie is over.

Lets look at the actors. Richard Burton's career was on the decline but he was still big enough to get top billing. His health wasn't good and his drinking was bad, but the old theater actor comes out in full force. He is perfect as Major Smith. Smith may be a bit long in the tooth but he has all the experience in the world. He commands the room effortlessly and thinks as fast as Schaffer is with a gun. Clint Eastwood is likewise perfect. Cool as ice and tough as steel, perfect for backing up the older Smith. Another character I need to mention is Mary played by Mary Ure. She infiltrates the castle ahead of Smith & Co. She faces the Gestapo alone and she pulls the trigger without hesitation when needed to. In other words she is the professional she has to be to get the job done. An excellent example of a strong female character.

I could go on, but you really ought to watch this movie yourself. Where Eagles Dare is a bit silly and over the top, but the story is absolutely top notch and there is no shortage of thrills.

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

Top Four part One, Angel Heart

I actually had something else planned for this week, but I was asked why I hadn't talked about one of my top four movies on Letterboxd, and it got me thinking. The reason is simple: I tend to write about movies that are new to me, not movies I've seen a dozen or so times over the years. However, that changes now. If I can place four movies in my 'favorite of all time' then I should expand on them a bit. To be fair, I had a real problem adding only four movies in that category, but four is all Letterboxd gives and I can't change that.

This week we're talking about:

Angel Heart (1987).

This Noir style thriller/horror is based on the novel Falling Angel by William Hjortsberg, and though it keeps quite a bit from the book, it changes more than it retains.

It's 1955, and we meet Harry Angel (Mickey Rourke), a small time private investigator from Brooklyn. He gets a call from an attorney, Winesap, who wants Harry to meet his client Louis Cyphre (Robert De Niro) for a missing person case. Cyphre wants Harry to find Johnny Favorite, a popular singer from before the war, due to an outstanding contract they had. Favorite might be dead, but in either case Cyphre just needs to know where he's at. Harry embarks on an investigation that takes him from a frozen New York to the sweltering heat in New Orleans, and what he finds on the way is a thrill and a half. People get murdered, tensions rise and the question becomes can Angel find Favorite before he goes down for Favorite's crimes?

Directed by Alan Parker who also directed Mississippi Burning, Midnight Express and Evita amongst others, Angel Heart is a masterpiece of tension and foreboding. Besides Mickey Rourke and De Niro, we get Lisa Bonet in her first movie role. Rourke was so good in Angel Heart and his previous movie 9 ½ weeks that those in the know started calling him the new Brando. High praise, but he goes above and beyond in Angel Heart. The role of Harry Angel is not an easy performance, but Rourke knocks it out of the park and then some.

So without spoilers, what makes Angel Heart so good? Besides the acting and directing and the amazing, brilliant soundscape it 's all about atmosphere and detail, both of which this movie has in spades. The constant focus on spinning fans is very important. The use of ice to foreshadow death is clever but it is the use of creepy dreams, visions and recurring elements that really pushes things to the next level. The veiled woman in black, the descending elevator shadow, reflections, the mysterious pentagram jewelry that keeps popping up, it all matters. Add to this all the 'blink and you miss it' moments that explain so much if you only catch it, and you have a masterpiece on your hands. 

Angel Heart is not however a perfect movie. The ending has some unfortunate missteps, but they are so small in the grand scheme that I don't mind. I'm not going to do my usual 'do I recommend it' because it is already in my top 4 favorite list which speaks for itself. Just be aware that Angel Heart contains a lot of graphic imagery so kids should not be present.

Finally I want to mention a Youtube channel called CineG. He has dissected Angel Heart down to the bone and this playlist goes through it in amazing detail. However, DO NOT watch these videos until you have watched the movie first! This is spoiler city and Angel Heart does not deserve spoilers, it needs to be experienced in all its suffocating panicked glory.

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

 

To Live and Die in L.A.

I ran across:

To Live and Die in L.A. (1985),

and it seemed cool, so I watched it.

This movie is based on the novel of the same name by former US Secret Service agent Gerald Petievich, who also co-wrote the script with the director William Fridkin, yes he of Exorcist fame.

Our main protagonist is William Chance (William Petersen), a Secret Service agent with a love for recklessness. His partner Jim Hart (Michael Greene) is a few days from retirement when he is killed at a solo stake out hunting the notorious forger Eric Masters (Willem DaFoe). Chance swears to get Masters by any means necessary, and together with his new partner John Vukovich (John Pankow) they get to work blurring the line between justice and revenge.

All I wrote above is a huge cliché, but being made in '85, To Live and Die in L.A. kind of gets a pass on that. To be fair, the movie is a visual celebration of 80's cinema in general. Chance stares at the ocean while brooding on his partners murder. The sunset shots of L.A. are dime a dozen shots these days, but I think they work.

Besides the names I mentioned, To Live and Die in L.A. also stars John Turturro, Dean Stockwell, Robert Downey Sr, Steve James and more. The names might not mean much to you, but anyone who has watched movies from this era knows their faces well. All told, this movie has some sterling actors, and it shows.

A quick note about the music. If you like 80's music, To Live and Die in L.A. has a great score. Let's leave it at that. It works.

Now lets look at Friedkin. I've seen a handful of his movies by now; The Exorcist, The French Connection, Sorcerer, Cruising, the video for Laura Branigan's song Self Control, and now To Live and Die in L.A.

I've come to understand his style a bit, a gritty sense of realism overlaid with a gloomy, almost grim sense of doom. You get the feeling that, besides the obvious danger, there is something sinister just around the corner, something nasty hovering behind the camera waiting to pounce. With Friedkin you never know if things are going to be alright. They might not be.

To Live and Die in L.A. is no exception. Shots of palm trees swaying hard in the wind, silhouetted against a red smog gives the feeling that things are not well. There is a fair amount of nudity and sex in this movie, but it isn't erotic and exciting. Friedkin makes it all seem tawdry and a bit nasty. It's more about sating a need than emotion, like watching someone wolf down food. It's hunger more then enjoyment. There is also a fair bit of blood, but set against the rest of the movie, it seems almost trivial.There isn't really a good guy here as lines become more and more ill defined as the end increasingly justifes the means.

So, do I recommend this movie? Absolutely. To Live and Die in L.A. is not a masterpiece, it is absolutely an 80's action thriller, from its neon green credits to the music and the frankly cliché plot points, but it's also something more. Lots of movies do the 'tormented maverick out for revenge' thing, but I have rarely seen it done as well as Friedkin does it in To Live and Die in L.A.

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

 

The Conversation

For once I watched a movie that I haven't looked forward to, in fact, I can't remember where I heard of it, but I watched:

The Conversation (1974).

This thriller was written and directed by Francis Ford Coppola and has a pretty good cast. I'd even argue it has an unnecessarily good cast. Gene Hackman is our main star, Harry Caul, which is fine, but his assistant, Stan, is played by John Cazale yet only appears in three or four scenes. Harry's sort of girlfriend is played by Teri Garr and only appears in one scene. Robert Duvall appears in one and a half scene and is uncredited for some reason. Harrison Ford is well cast and has decent screen time. Please understand that I'm not really complaining, but these wonderful actors are wasted in such short scenes. Practically any actor that looks the part would do, and yes, I do get that we're talking early 70's, and some names weren't that big yet, but both Cazale and Duvall were in The Godfather, so it's not like they weren't well known.

Oh well, we're here to talk about The Conversation. Harry Caul is the preeminent electronic surveillance expert in the country. His legendary skills have landed him a job for The Director (Duvall). Harry and his team photograph and record a couple talking in a busy square and their conversation turns very serious. The job done, Harry contacts the client but only gets to meet The Director's assistant (Ford) who pays him, but in a fit of pique Harry refuses, stating he'll only hand over the tapes to the Director personally.

Harry's problem is that he is a very moral man, or at least he tries to be. He is also extremely private and somewhat paranoid. A famous job he did in the 60's led to three people dying, and he feels responsible. He is worried that the couple is in danger, and he becomes torn between his professionalism and the money it brings and his religion and conscience. That is all I'm willing to say to avoid spoilers.

The Conversation clocks in at just under two hours, and despite being a typically slow 70's movie, it isn't boring. There are scenes that I wondered about, feeling that they seemed a bit unnecessary, but there is no wasted space in this movie. Every piece of the puzzle is important, even though they don't make sense at first. Remember, The Conversation was made in a time when the audience was assumed to be watching the movie instead of playing with their phones.

With Coppola's direction and the cast we have, The Conversation is absolute quality, no doubt about that. However, it is a very different creature that either The Godfather parts one and two or Apocalypse Now. It is realistic, almost unpleasantly so, but at the same time it grabs you and demands to watch Harry's conflict to the end.

The sound is also worth mentioning. The music itself is fine, nothing out of place but there is a lot of other sounds as well. There is electronic interference picked up by microphones and this eerie panicked noise that raises the tension mirroring Harry's anxiety perfectly. Superb work there.

So, do I recommend this movie? Absolutely, if that wasn't made clear by the fact that my only “complaint” is that the actors are too good. The Conversation is not made for passive background watching, but if you pay attention, it is a great movie.

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

 

Targets

On a recommendation and a whim I watched;

Targets (1968).

Unusually for this blog I'm actually going to spoil small parts of this movie, there is simply no other way to talk about it. I won't ruin the ending, so don't worry about that.

Targets has two storylines that merge in the end, but until then, they have nothing to do with each other, which is a slightly unusual setup.

In Storyline A we meet aging horror icon Byron Orlok. He is a veteran of countless old-school Gothic horror movies, but times are changing and he's had enough. His brand of horror feels so bland and silly compared to the real life tragedies he reads about in the paper every day. So after completing his latest movie, he quits. This causes quite a problem, because he has engagements he won't fulfill and the director of his latest movie, Sammy Michaels really wants him for his next movie.

The Orlok character is a clear homage to Boris Karloff, and the kicker is, he's actually played by Boris Karloff! Orlok is however pretty different than the real Karloff who never considered quitting. He loved the movie business. The director, Sammy is played by Peter Bogdanovich, who also directed the entire movie for real.

In Storyline B we meet Bobby Thompson (Tim O'Kelly) a normal wholesome young man. He has a good job in insurance. He's married to a great girl, and they live with his parents in their nice suburban home. He even gets along with his parents and likes to go hunting with his dad. The other side of Bobby is a bit darker. He collects guns and has quite an arsenal most of which he hides in his trunk. We quickly realize something is very wrong with him and before you know it, he embarks on a brutal killing spree, which he himself assumes can end only with his own death.

Bobby is inspired by Charles Whitman, who in 1966 committed the University of Texas shooting. In what was essentially a suicide note, Whitman asked to have his brain autopsied, and it showed he had a large tumor. This explained his sudden tendency to violence, his horrible headaches and the vicious killing spree.

In Targets we get no actual reason for Bobby's behavior, but at one point he complains about a headache, so I think we can guess what the reason is.

Targets is produced by the legendary Roger Corman who was impressed with Bogdanovich and told him he could make any movie he wanted but with two conditions. First, the movie had to contain footage from Corman's The Terror (1963) and he had to use Karloff for two days, since he owed Karloff two days of work. Turns out Karloff had so much fun he stayed on for five days for no extra pay.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, I do. Targets is not in my opinion a great movie but it was interesting and pretty suspenseful at times. I do think the two separate storylines confuse the tone of the movie, with the Orlok one being charming and pretty funny, while storyline B is sad and violent. The two parts don't mix well, but the ending works and brings the movie to a satisfying conclusion.

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!

 

Duel

I finally, finally watched:

Duel (1971).

This movie is Steven Spielberg's first full movie. It was originally made for TV and clocked in at 70 minutes, but after his mega success with Jaws (1975), Universal studios asked him to add a couple of scenes, in order to pad out the run time to 90 minutes for a theatrical release.

Before Duel, Spielberg had only directed TV episodes and a few shorts. On that list we find one episode of Columbo, two episodes of Night Gallery and such. This was his first proper movie, but you really wouldn't think so.

Duel is based on a short story by Richard Matheson, and was inspired by a real life event he had with a reckless truck driver.

So what is Duel all about? Despite the name conjuring up images of sword fights at dawn, it is a road movie. The main character is David Mann (Dennis Weaver), a mild mannered, non confrontational salesman from California. One morning he sets out on a long drive in his red Plymouth Valiant to meet a client. On the road, he encounters a rusty, dusty gas truck, a 1965 Peterbilt 281. This old monstrosity drives slowly belching exhaust fumes behind it. Annoyed, David overtakes it, thinking no more about it. Seconds later, the truck thunders past him and resumes driving slowly. Frustrated, David drives past the truck again, and now it is on and David has to fight and drive for his life.

This back and forth is the closest thing we get to a motive for the unseen truck driver. We never see his face, and he and David never interact besides driving. The driver, who was stunt driver Carey Loftin, asked Spielberg what the motivation was and Spielberg answered: “You're a dirty, rotten, no-good son of a bitch”. Loftin replied “Kid, you hired the right man”.

Duel is a mix between a serial killer thriller and a monster movie. We see early shades of Jaws and Jurassic Park in the massive grimy truck. The way it shows up suddenly or waits ahead for David to approach is text book monster stuff, but there is nothing fantastic or supernatural here.

Spielberg does an amazing job switching between claustrophobic shots inside the car, and sweeping shots showing how desolate the area is in Southern California. Spielberg also borrowed a camera previously used in Bullitt (1968) that rode very close to the ground in order to raise the feeling of great velocity, while keeping everyone driving at safe speeds.

I could go on, and in fact retell the entire movie, as it can't be spoiled. The important part is the experience. As a story Duel is actually really thin. You need to be in the Plymouth with David and feel his panic as the giant malevolent truck roars up behind him. Like a roller coaster, you can talk about twists and turns, but until you do it yourself it is meaningless.

So, do I recommend this movie? Oh yes! If you like movies, watch Duel, it's as simple as that. It's no wonder Spielberg's career took off, with this movie as a launch pad. It's so simple, but so brilliantly done, down to the fact that you don't get anything on the driver besides a glimpse of a hand and his boots, because Spielberg wanted the truck to be the villain, and it works. If you've ever been in a car on the highway as a large truck speeds past, you know the feeling of being small and squishy. Now imagine that truck is trying to kill you...

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

 

It's not even the 13th precinct.

I decided to knock another movie off the “I'll watch it some day” list, and watched:

Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)

Written and directed by John Carpenter, Assault on Precinct 13 is one of those movies that have been floating around in my periphery for decades. It has always been mentioned with a certain reverence like, “it's alright, but it's no Assault on Precinct 13”... At least that is the impression I had about the movie.

The movie opens with a group of gangers being gunned down by the LAPD in South Central. We learn that this gang, a mysterious multi-ethnic gang called Street Thunder has stolen a cache of weapons that include assault rifles and suppressors. The leaders of Street Thunder swear a bloody vendetta against the police and (for some reason) the citizens of LA.

We meet Highway Patrol lieutenant Ethan Bishop, who is asked to run the last night shift for a precinct that is moving. It's the final night and everything should be quiet. Suddenly a prison transport bus arrives as one prisoner is very ill, and that is when a man hysterical with fear runs into the station. He is being chased by Street Thunder and it becomes a desperate fight for survival until help can arrive, if it can arrive.

Assault on Precinct 13 is incredibly solid, and I think it's because there was one person at the helm, not a room full of people who all wanted their ideas to shine. The movie is perfectly balanced and if anything would have knocked that balance askew, the movie would have failed miserably. As it is, it is a tense and fun movie. It is competently shot, but it is the actors and the dialogue that really shines. They have great chemistry and it all works so well.

If you are the kind of movie watcher that wants everything explained, then I'm sorry but you're going to be disappointed. What I wrote about the gang is pretty much all you get to know. A fun fact is that no ganger says a single word. Carpenter has admitted that one of his influences for Assault on Precinct 13 was Night of the Living Dead (1968) and he wanted the Street Thunder thugs to have a somewhat zombie like style.

When the movie was released in the US it received a lukewarm reception, but it got an incredibly warm reception in the UK, which spurred a popular reception in the rest of the world, leading the US critics to have to revisit their critique. The UK distributor was called Michael Myers, and a grateful Carpenter wanted to do something nice for him, so he used the name in Halloween.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes. It is a solid action/thriller that despite all the shooting doesn't dwell too much on the killings. Well except for one scene... It's solid and the actors really knock it out of the park. It's not one of Carpenters best but it is good enough. I'm glad I watched it, and I might see it again one day.

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

 

Nighthawks

This week, I watched:

Nighthawks (1981).

Not to be confused with Nighthawks (1978) which is a movie about a gay man living a double life, or the famous painting by Edward Hopper, this action thriller stars Sylvester Stallone, Billy Dee Williams and Rutger Hauer.

We meet Deke DaSilva (Stallone) and Matthew Fox (Williams), two highly effective NYPD sergeants who work on the decoy squad. In other words, they pretend to be vulnerable targets to tempt muggers and then drop the hammer on said muggers. They're tough badasses who always get the job done.

Then we have Wulfgar (Hauer), a freelance terrorist whose brutal savagery has him on the outs with the major terror groups. He goes to New York to prove himself so that the terrorists will beg for his services. DaSilva and Fox are assigned to the new ATAC squad and given anti-terrorist training so inevitably the two sides are going to clash violently.

Nighthawks is an interesting movie. It balances the action with the thriller elements quite well, with neither dominating the film. It's not too long and doesn't overstay its welcome. The actors are all good, the scenery and the cinematography are excellent, so I don't have anything to complain about at all, but there is something missing, and I don't know what that is.

Stallone was still riding high on Rocky when he made Nighthawks, and according to himself he was an insufferable know it all. He did make one cut of the movie and the studio likewise did one as well, so some stuff was lost on the cutting room floor. I really can't say what it is that I'm missing, but whatever it is, it's what's holding this movie from being great.

The contrast between Stallone and Hauer is great. Stallone's dark intense gaze is perfectly matched by Hauer's ice blue eyes. DaSilva is driven but has his limits, while Wulfgar has no limits but is equally motivated. Williams is a great partner to Stallone, staying with him beat for beat without being overshadowed.

This is the first (but far from last) movie where Stallone plays a cop and he did all his own stunts, including climbing down from a hovering helicopter and being winched up to a cable car. All this despite being horribly afraid of heights.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes I do. Nighthawks is good, no doubt about it. Good but not great. Solid but missing an edge, something that makes you want to watch it again and again. That said, I do urge you to watch it. For being a Stallone action movie, Nighthawks is almost subdued, but in a good way. It's nothing like the action movie's he'd go on to make. It has a very realistic feel, with the grimy, dark New York streets and the high quality acting.

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

 

The Perfume of the Lady in Black

I decided on a shot in the dark and watched:

 

The Perfume of the Lady in Black (1974).

 

Directed by Francesco Barilli and starring Mimsey Farmer (Four Flies on Grey Velvet) as the main character Silvia Hackerman.

One could be forgiven for thinking this is a Giallo, but it really isn't. It is Italian and made in the 70's, but it is a thriller/horror movie. There are few to none of the classic Giallo tropes in Perfume.

Silvia is a successful young manager at a chemical plant with a nice boyfriend, Roberto. She does however have a lot of anxieties that sometimes make her hard to deal with. We learn that she had an unhappy childhood, with an absent father in the navy or merchant marine (I'm not sure which). Her relationship with her mother was not good until the mother died while Silvia was very young.

Silvia's life starts getting stranger and stranger and soon enough she starts hallucinating, seeing her mother and others in such vivid imagery that it drives her into a panic. And this is where the movie shines. One could perhaps say that The Perfume of the Lady in Black uses an unreliable narrator, but that would be wrong. An unreliable narrator lies to you, while Silvia herself doesn't know what is real and what isn't. The movie might be lying to us, but Sylvie herself isn't.

Weird things keep happening, with mysterious things appearing in her apartment when she is out. A vase in a shop window vanishes and the owner swears she has never had such an item, only for the vase to appear in her home gift wrapped. It reminded me of the psy-ops the East German secret police, Stasi, used to unnerve and break down people they were after.

Little by little, Sylvia starts to break down, and this paranoia is felt by the watcher every time a person greets her, smiling politely only to stare after her with inscrutable suspicious glances. Some things can only be hallucinations and other things must be real since there is no way Silvia could know about it, unless she imagines things. Ultimately it is very difficult to know what did or did not happen. It could be a story about a mentally ill young woman, or a story about a victim of a sinister conspiracy. The wonderful creepy almost non-musical soundtrack really helps and the actors all do a credible job to create a really strange and creepy atmosphere.

I won't of course spoil the ending but I did not see it coming. In a way, everything makes sense by the end but you could be forgiven for believing that none or almost none of what happened took place.

The Perfume of the Lady in Black is a confusing movie that takes slow burn to a new level, but it had to. In order to slowly ramp up all the mysterious happenings, it needs to show you what is normal first. Some have compared it to Rosemary's Baby, and I can see why, but that isn't totally accurate either. The Perfume of the Lady in Black is it's own thing and you have to deal with it as it is.

So, do I recommend The Perfume of the Lady in Black? Yes and no. I had a great time in the end, but there were several moments when I was asking myself “What am I watching?”. I think it was worth it, but you have to be prepared to watch a really slow, strange film. If you are, go for it, otherwise watch something else. 

 

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

 

Red Sparrow

This week I watched:

Red Sparrow (2018).

Based on the novel of the same name by Jason Matthews who spent thirty-three years at the CIA. It stars Jennifer Lawrence, Joel Edgerton, Ciarán Hinds and Jeremy Irons amongst others. It is directed by Francis Lawrence (no relation to Jennifer) who directed the Hunger Games movies.

The story in a nutshell is this (Mild Spoilers):

Dominika (Lawrence) is a Prima Ballerina until her career is destroyed. Her mother is an invalid and both her doctors and their apartment are payed for by the ballet company, something they will no longer do now that Dominika can no longer dance. Her uncle Vanya, the deputy director of SVR, the Russian foreign intelligence service, wants to help her so he sends Dominika on a “simple mission”. After the mission ends dramatically Vanya talks her into joining a sparrow school in return for the apartment and the doctors being payed for.

The sparrow school is an institute that trains spies in the art of seduction, or rather it trains spies for that role. They learn to shoot, pick locks and other spy stuff as well of course, but the manipulation and sex is the main thing. Failure to graduate means a bullet to the head.

Parallel to this is a CIA agent, Nate Nash who has to flee Russia, but his highly placed mole refuses to deal with anyone else so he has to go to Budapest to introduce a new contact to the mole. Dominika, despite her trainers objections is sent to Budapest as well by uncle Vanya to find out the name of the mole from Nash. What follows is a back and forth as Nash tries to make her defect and we wonder whether she wants to or if she is playing him, everything ultimately culminating in a dramatic ending.

Red Sparrow is like a marble floor, very pretty but cold, hard and uncomfortable. It is beautifully shot and the actors are all great, but the movie lacks passion. Add to this the fact that it is two hours and twenty minutes long and it becomes a slog at times. It's not that the movie wastes time, it's just that there are so many scenes that are boring. I appreciate a slow moving spy drama like Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy but Red Sparrow is too dull at times. There is unsurprisingly quite a lot of nudity and sex in the movie but do not expect titillation, it is all rather unfeeling and tawdry. The action that there is is good but pretty unremarkable and if it wasn't for the ending, I would have been disappointed.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, if you really like spy movies but otherwise not really. Perhaps it is me, but everything that was supposed to be shocking and dramatic, I have seen other movies do better so ultimately it left me with very little. There is nothing really wrong with Red Sparrow and it could be you would like it more, but in that case it has to be your decision to watch it rather than my recommendation.

 

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

The Bloodstained Shadow

I was struggling to find a movie I wanted to watch this week. Ultimately just browsing Youtube, I found:

The Bloodstained Shadow (1978).

The Bloodstained Shadow is a late stage Giallo, so yes, I jumped back in to Italian cinema. The story in a nutshell is this, taken from IMDB;

The body of a schoolgirl is found in a meadow. The murderer is never caught, and years later, a young man named Stefano returns to the island and is reunited with his brother, the local priest.

Now that wouldn't be a very interesting film in itself, so naturally there are several new murders and Stefano is determined to understand what is going on, especially since his brother, the priest Don Paolo receives death threats and his new girlfriend Sandra is also affected.

The movie is co-written and directed by Antonio Bido who does an excellent job with the atmosphere. This is helped along by the movie being set in Venice which is always a dramatic place for any film.

Stefano is played by Lino Capolicchio who passed in May this year and was a proper veteran of the industry. He starred in The House with Laughing Windows, which I covered a couple of years ago here. Ironically he played a Stefano there as well.

Sandra is played by Stefania Casini, who is still working but her perhaps most famous role was as Sara in Argento's Suspiria.

Others include Craig Hill as Don Paolo, Juliette Mayniel, Massimo Serato and many more.

The actors know what they are doing and all give good performances. The music and soundscape is a slightly different matter. It's not that it is bad, it's just that it varies from appropriate to goofy at times.

The mystery is the real star however. I managed to figure out one of the core elements of the plot, but I couldn't see the ending coming and I was very pleasantly surprised. I think it is fair to say that The Bloodstained Shadow is a bit of a slow burn but not so slow it becomes boring. There is a real sense of malice hanging in the air and Antonio Bido did an excellent job in showing enough without needing to overdo it. The murders range from slightly off camera to pretty gruesome but it is nowhere near as gory as some of the more famous Giallo out there. I do have to complain about the amount of jump scares though. They aren't that many but they come on hard together with a serious sound sting so be advised if you are sensitive. That is however the only real critique I have.

So do I recommend this movie? Yes. The Bloodstained Shadow is a great mystery, sitting somewhere on the fence between a classic Giallo and a more “normal” thriller. Fans of either genre should enjoy it. Gorehounds may be disappointed though.

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

Silent Action

I jumped back into the shadowy world of Poliziotteschi movies, this time with Silent Action (1975). The original title is La polizia accusa: il Servizio Segreto uccide, which means; the police accuses, the secret service kills.

The story starts with some arranged suicide/accidents followed by the murder of a master electrician who lives way above his means in a nice big house. The man in charge, Inspector Solmi smells a rat and he's right. A fairly normal murder investigation turns into a maze of conspiracies that includes murdered army officers, oil barons, the secret service, more murders, kidnappings and more. As usual, I won't spoil anything but there are enough twists and turns to satisfy anyone as long as you can follow the plot, which is a little bit tricky.

When Silent Action is good it is great but it has a few problems. On the good side we have solid actors, an interesting plot, an amazing car chase, some snappy dialogue and an overall great atmosphere. It is also fun watch an Italian thriller that isn't centered around the Mafia.

On the bad side we have several odd plot holes, some strangely clumsy foot chases, some needlessly convoluted plans by the bad guys and a truly unfortunate haircut.

The biggest problem is the runtime of the movie. Even though it is an hour and 48 minutes long, conspiracy stories take time to tell properly. A secondary smaller problem is that one really need a fair grasp of Italy at the time. Between fascists, communists, the mafia and corporate interests, Italy was a corrupt mess and it must have taken balls of steel to be an honest cop back then. Fascinating stuff though.

As I mentioned in my post about The Boss (1973) this story really needs a short TV series to really work. I really wish that someone at HBO or Netflix would take a look at some of these wonderful Italian movies and make a True Detective style show. One where every season is a separate story. Then you could get these things done properly.

As it it, Silent Action is a mixed bag for me. A fan of the genre or the time period should watch it, but I think most casual viewers might get bored. The ending is in my opinion the weakest part of the movie, even though it wasn't bad in any way. I don't know if they ran out of time or money, but it needed something extra, and it didn't get it.

Do I recommend it? Yes, with a maybe, as stated above. I enjoyed myself but was left wanting more.

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