Burnt Offerings

Tags

1970's, Bette Davis, Burgess Meredith, Burnt Offerings, Dan Curtis, Eileen Heckart, Horror, Karen Black, Lee H. Montgomery, Mystery, Oliver Reed

Film Title

Burnt Offerings

Director

Dan Curtis

Starring

• Oliver Reed as Ben Rolf
• Karen Black as Marian Rolf
• Bette Davis as Aunt Elizabeth
• Lee H. Montgomery as Davey Rolf
• Burgess Meredith as Arnold Allardyce
• Eileen Heckart as Roz Allardyce

A haunted house horror/mystery that uses suggestion and enigmas to raise tension and atmosphere, Burnt Offerings is a seriously underrated chiller. Unease and the raising of hairs on the back of the neck are guaranteed in this effective movie.

The Rolf family; husband and wife Ben and Marian, their 12-year-old son Davey and elderly but sprightly Aunt Elizabeth, decide to take a summer vacation. They find a large house that is asking for tenants in California’s countryside. The house is marvellous, big in size and area, but a little dilapidated. Still, the reasonably cheap price to stay for the summer is very tempting. After meeting the slightly unusual brother and sister Arnold and Roz Allardyce, who own the house,  Marian becomes insistent on staying there. Ben is not so sure, especially as they ask them to take care of their elderly mother. She never comes out of her living quarters, so they are just required to bring meals to her door. Ben eventually agrees after seeing how much Marian would love it. Upon arrival, have left for some vague reason. Making the place their own for the time that they have, the family settle in nicely . But the house soon reveals that it’s not the most hospitable place for guests and seems to have something evil inside it. Marian is the main person who is influenced in a malevolent manner by the old house, becoming obsessed with it, rejuvenating the old place and behaving alarmingly alienated towards her family. Other strange events unfold like a seemingly possessed Ben nearly drowning Davey in the pool, the greenhouse of dead flowers slowly coming back to life and Marian’s insistence that the house needs her. Everything seems to link to the very house itself, which appears to wield a strange power over all that enter. But just what can it want with the family and in particular Will any of the family truly discover the sinister secrets and shocks of the house? Or will the house itself get them before it is too late?

The creeping thrills and strange mystery are kept to a good level of skill by director Dan Curtis. The set up boats all the usual hallmarks of a haunted house movie, bit the mysterious approach and the fact that we aren’t hit over the head with overt explanations, makes Burnt Offerings a good and under appreciated entry into the genre. Just how and why the house is tormenting them is the main mysterious crux of Burnt Offerings. It is only gradually that the real intentions of the house come into the light. The photography is one if the highlights of Burnt Offerings; enveloping events in a dream like haze that starts out quite nicely and joyfully, then little by little gets to an ominous level of chilling intensity. I also liked how it was different from some haunting movies. In a lot of them,  the haunting is designed to scare the people out, the malevolence actually wants to trap them for its own insidious purpose. To spoil the intention and designs of the house would be a major disservice to the creepy tone and uncomfortable events of Burnt Offerings. I will say that it is something very alarming and disturbing, yet done with degrees of exceptional subtlety and bubbling menace that make it pretty satisfying. The house is pretty much a character itself, though one that you really are t sure of. You know it’s evil because we’re in a horror movie, but the ways that it influences all, particularly Marian, is still pretty unsettling and spooky stuff. The slow burning pace is largely excellent in developing the evil of the house and building up numerous enigmatic angles. One little problem I had was that Burnt Offerings gets a bit leisurely in the middle half of the picture, when it should have some oomph in its engine. Saying that, it is redeemed quickly by what follows and the sensational climax of what is a really compelling horror mystery. Up and down strings and the old classic music box sound are in abundance, making Burnt Offerings suspenseful even when nothing unusual is happening. It’s that hint that something sinister will transpire that the score really works on.

Oliver Reed is his usual intense self as the husband under siege from the house, his dramatic approach lending itself well to the character’s eventual descent into tormented horror. Karen Black makes for a marvellously and genuinely creepy leading lady. Playing Marian, who becomes almost immediately entranced with the house, her unusual tics and mannerisms slowly emerge into something very alarming. It’s a credit to Black’s talent that you buy into how unusually obsessed and spine chilling Marian becomes, as her once genial persona starts to get more peculiar, mercurial and generally unstable as time passes. The great Bette Davis brings her professionalism and grand standing to the part of energetic Aunt Elizabeth, who is really the first to suspect something amiss in the house. It’s a supporting role, but when you have Davis, even in smaller roles she displays her immense talent and steals the scenes she is in. Lee H. Montgomery does the frightened child act well, while the brief but very memorable appearances of Burgess Meredith and Eileen Heckart as the unusual siblings who own the house, makes a deep impression and spooky one at that.

Spooky entertainment and creepy thrills abound in this slow-burning but extremely eerie horror film. If you like some haunted house horror, with mysterious overtones and good cast, Burnt Offerings is probably the flick for you.

Dressed to Kill

Tags

1980's, Angie Dickinson, Brian De Palma, Dennis Franz, Dressed to Kill, Keith Gordon, Michael Caine, Mystery, Nancy Allen, Thriller

Film Title

Dressed to Kill

Director

Brian De Palma

Starring

• Angie Dickinson as Kate Miller
• Michael Caine as Dr. Robert Elliott
• Nancy Allen as Liz Blake
• Keith Gordon as Peter Miller
• Dennis Franz as Detective Marino

A mystery thriller with a lacing of dark humour, Brian De Palma’s Dressed to Kill is a relentless excursion into sinister mood and sleight of hand tricks that are for the most part strikingly done. The plot gets a bit overwrought, but the various surprises and mood is what this movie is all about.

Kate Miller is a dissatisfied and sexually starved housewife in New York, who can’t escape her feeling of loneliness. Although she has her young and bright son Peter, her marriage is largely devoid of much passion or excitement. She attends therapy with a psychiatrist by the name of Dr. Robert Elliott, where she unloads her problems to him. Although she flirts with him, he rebuffs her because of professional ethics and wanting to keep a distance. Later, the bored Kate visits a museum, where she is pursued and herself pursues a mysterious man, culminating in a sexual encounter. After this, Kate plans to leave but shockingly discovers that her conquest appears to have contracted a sexually transmitted disease. Reeling, she runs out of his apartment and heads for the elevator, contemplating what to do. Kate’s troubles get a lot more deadly as she is slashed to death in an elevator by a mysterious blonde woman, whose appearance is obscured by dark glasses. Just after the horrific murder, streetwise hooker Liz stumbles upon Kate and briefly catches a glimpse of the killer. Liz is then suspected of the killing, the main detective on the case not believing that there was someone else in the elevator. Desperate to prove her innocence and scared for her safety, Liz teams up with Kate’s smart son Peter(who is already investigating by himself through his collection of devices he has made) to uncover the identity of the killer, before Liz ends up the next victim of her slaying. Meanwhile Dr Elliott keeps getting threatening phone messages from a patient of his, who may very well be the killer and someone who enjoys taunting him. Things turn out pretty unexpected for everyone involved.

It’s an overblown film to be sure, but that is why it attracts in the ways that De Palma uses that melodrama. To be honest, I don’t think he is going for a really subtle approach. And given his signature style, he’s not just going to tone it down, he’s going to go to places that shock and surprise with his liberal use of theatricality along the way. What we are left with is a film that is more concerned with mood and atmosphere than plot, that still bears that feeling of tension, mixed with archness that De Palma does so well. The perverse yet riveting atmosphere is apparent in the dreamy, surreal soft focus of two pivotal scenes pulls you in, while obviously paying a debt to Hitchcock’s iconic Psycho. But the most sterling example of craftsmanship is the museum scene. In it Kate catches the eye of a stranger and the two engage in a stalking game that plays out spectacularly and seductively. The roles of cat and mouse switch between the lonely Kate and the stranger, ultimately making us part of the voyeuristic tapestry at work . Without barely a line of dialogue, De Palma pulls out every trick in the book; finding an array of expressive angles and movements to put us in the moment and tell a story simply through visual impact. It’s a scene where everything comes together as an example of pure cinema that should be celebrated. I think to appreciate Dressed to Kill it is best to watch it a few times to take in how well crafted it all is. You genuinely notice little bits that seemed trivial at first, yet have a massive bearing on the creeping proceedings, something which Brian De Palma chooses to have fun with. So for all the head-scratching moments that don’t make sense, the hints and symbolism of Dressed to Kill gleefully toy with our ideas of what we think we know. This frequently is the case of us being devilishly lead astray and made to believe one thing( when in fact it’s something quite different) and that’s where quite a lot of the watchability of Dressed to Kill lies. The macabre humour seeping through Dressed to Kill also adds to this; finding irony in pretty dark and perilous situations before turning up the chills for effect. Granted, some instances feel a bit much, the level of dark comedy is a welcome and quite unexpected quality put into often sardonic effect here. Dressed to Kill is a little bit over praised at least in my book, but that shouldn’t detract from the fact that it’s still a pretty nifty and swift thriller of panache that still made an impact on me. A gloriously grand and frequently alluring score plays into the dark and sexually prominent tones of the film right off the bat.

Angie Dickinson is very effective( especially given the fact that most of her performance has no dialogue). Through the little nuances of her face, we witness her boredom and sadness with her marriage, as well as how she craves sexual excitement. A beautiful woman with an aura of class and sexiness, Angie Dickinson plays the ill-fated woman exceptionally. Michael Caine is rightfully detached and urbane as the psychiatrist who seems relatively calm, but who may in fact be something else. With sublime subtlety, Caine brings a level of class and maybe a touch of enigma, without going overboard which is a credit to his abilities as an actor. Nancy Allen is pretty good as the quick talking Liz, who is sucked into the most twisted case and must prove her own innocence. The part is pretty much a standard hooker with a heart of gold trope, but Allen plays it well and makes her a likable girl sticking to her wits. The unlikely hero role of Kate’s investigating son Peter is filled out splendidly by Keith Gordon, whose gawky appearance and unwavering collection of detective moves make him a relatable down-to-Earth teenager looking for answers in his mother’s death. In a flashy supporting role, Dennis Franz provides a lot of the sardonic humour as a tough-talking and hard-boiled detective, with a seasoned attitude to match. He’s not in the movie a lot, but when he is, Franz is a delight as the salty and uncouth man investigating the baffling murder.

Silly as parts of it get, Dressed to Kill stands out for its visual impact and De Palma verve on display. Logic is not exactly present, but the fun of Dressed to Kill lies in its often shocking and macabre content that ratchets up suspense and sprinkles it with a knowing, ironic wink. At tad overrated in my book, but still a highly effective and surprising thriller displaying the skill of Brian De Palma.

Body Double

Tags

1980's, Body Double, Brian De Palma, Craig Wasson, Deborah Shelton, Gregg Henry, Melanie Griffith, Mystery, Thriller

Film Title

Body Double

Director

Brian De Palma

Starring

• Craig Wasson as Jake Scully
• Gregg Henry as Sam Bouchard
• Melanie Griffith as Holly Body
• Deborah Shelton as Gloria Revelle

An outrageously and stylishly updated reworking of Vertigo and Rear Window, Body Double dials up the lurid material and shocking content. It may bite off more than it can chew, but Body Double is by and large a spellbinding example of Brian De Palma’s signature direction and his gleefully unapologetic content.

Jake Scully is a B-movie actor with a big problem. As he often stars in horror films(frequently as a vampire) he has to be in confined spaces. The trouble is that his latent claustrophobia has evinced itself of late and has lost him jobs. Out of work, things get worse when he finds his girlfriend cheating on him. He moves out and is struggling to find a job, when he meets the charming Sam Bouchard. Also an actor, he takes pity on Jake and takes him under his wing. Sam is currently house sitting for a rich friend and offers Jake the place to stay. Jake jumps at the chance and is taken to the panoramic house in the Hollywood Hills. Sam points out that there is a display that will interest him in one of the houses nearby. With a telescope, Jake views the sultry dancing every night of Gloria Revelle, a beautiful, young housewife. What starts as just a glancing curiosity slows gives way to increasing obsession on Jake’s part. Added to this is his realisation that a strange-looking figure is also observing Gloria with ill intentions. Continuing to grow more infatuated with her, Jake follows her and observes her, once again seeing the grotesque figure looming large. Sadly, through his obsession , Jake is unable to stop Gloria’s brutal murder at the hands of the stalker. As the only witness, he can’t do much as the police know that he was also covertly watching Gloria and didn’t report what he saw. Jake can’t help but feel guilty about his indirect involvement and how he could have prevented the murder. Yet various things are not adding up and what seemed coincidental may in fact be pre-meditated. Still shocked, he finds himself more determined to unravel events that look very untoward and discovers a link between the slaying and the world of X-rated movies. Desperate Jake is soon lead into the dark recesses of the adult film industry, where the gorgeous porn star Holly Body may hold the key to everything.

As is befitting of a film by Brian De Palma, Body Double sports oodles of visual effectiveness and cinematic flourish from the very start. He frequently teases and tests us with what we are witnessing and how true it is, best envisioned by a series of scenes in which we believe we are watching the film, only for it to reveal that it’s the making of a film in the story. A fantastic example is when Jake makes his way on to a porn set and it is played out to the tune of Frankie Goes to Hollywood’s ‘Relax’. At first it just appears to be part of the filmic story, before pulling back to show that it’s an adult production within the confines of the plot. We, as the audience, are permitted to be unwitting voyeurs throughout Body Double, whether we like it or not, due to the use of point of view shots to illustrate the illusion of watching. I must confess that in the latter half of Body Double things start to feel a bit rushed, especially in comparison with the slow burn of the earlier pacing. But the outrageous core and De Palma stamp ensure you keep watching as it redeems itself once Holly takes centre stage and brings a much-needed shot in the arm. So it does get uneven in stretches when it could have been tighter and a bit more coherent, but I found myself very engrossed by Body Double that I can somewhat overlook its collection of flaws and bask in the sheer unpredictability of it all. Body Double is a sly beast that is very mysterious and shrouded in red herrings, that you may not quite realise at first glance. Brian De Palma is very impish in what he presents, frequently reeling us into a twisted fantasy that has its tongue jammed firmly in cheek. He is not caring about whether you squirm or find the content repulsive; this is his vision and what he wants to put out there, like it or not. If anything, the winding plot takes a backseat to the directors love of things cinematic and how manipulative the medium can be. A major plus in Body Double(along with the luscious cinematography) is the mood-setting music, courtesy of Pino Donaggio. Using an electronic pulse to produce a slinky and scintillating ambiance, its music that really gets its talons into you and gorgeously sets a scene. The score is akin to the dance that Gloria performs; it invites you in yet knows how to tease and be mysterious.

Craig Wasson is a bit of a wooden actor, yet that very thing is used to great effect in playing the unlucky and low-rent star, caught in a web. His very ordinariness and nothing too special appearance plays in well to the way that he becomes utterly besotted with someone he barely knows and then more than a little suspicious that something stinks. Gregg Henry lends an ingratiating and seemingly supportive presence as the actor who helps Jake, but who may be very different behind it all. Melanie Griffith appears late in the film, but immediately makes an impression as the seductive but brighter than you’d think adult film star. While being obviously attractive, Griffith digs into a street smart attitude and subtle vulnerability of a girl who knows how to handle herself, but doesn’t quite realise the extent of how deep she’s in. Both a smart and confident performer( watch as she reels off just what she will do and not do in a movie) and a pawn, the part of Holly is memorably envisioned by Melanie Griffith. Seen with not much in the way of dialogue, Deborah Shelton is still extremely enigmatic and beautiful as the ill-fated woman, whose demise throws Jake into a tailspin.

I wouldn’t say Body Double is the best film from De Palma, yet it definitely displays some of his finest visual direction and penchant for referencing Hitchcock in typically daring style. Body Double, though uneven, is still a very intriguing thriller that reels you in to the mystery and sleazy aura that if builds so well as it surprises you with some very serpentine twists.

Obsession

Tags

1970's, Brian De Palma, Cliff Robertson, Geneviève Bujold, John Lithgow, Mystery, Obsession, Thriller

Film Title

Obsession

Director

Brian De Palma

Starring

• Cliff Robertson as Michael Courtland
• Geneviève Bujold as Elizabeth Courtland/Sandra Portinari
• John Lithgow as Robert Lasalle

An unearthly and mysterious homage to Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo, Obsession comes courtesy of Brian De Palma and displays him at some of his most overwrought and haunting. Complete with a spellbinding score and slowly more twisted story, Obsession has a lot in it that won’t leave your mind in a hurry.

Michael Courtland is a wealthy real estate developer in New Orleans with a great business, along with a beautiful wife Elizabeth and daughter Amy. Then out of nowhere to destroy this idyllic life, Elizabeth and Amy are kidnapped by criminals, who demand a very high ransom for their release. Going to the police and desperately trying to get his family back, Michael agrees to a rescue mission that looks like it could be successful. The plan is to take a briefcase to the drop point with fake money and a tracking device implanted, thereby leading the police and Michael to the whereabouts of his captured family. Unfortunately, the attempt to retrieve Elizabeth and Amy goes horribly wrong and after a lengthy chase, the kidnappers along with Elizabeth and her daughter die after their car crashes into the river. Over a decade later, Michael is still haunted by the loss of his family and totally obsessed with the memory of them. On a business trip to Florence with colleague and best friend Robert Lasalle, Michael visits an old church where he and Elizabeth first met. To his surprise he comes across Sandra Portinari, an art historian who is the mirror image of Elizabeth. Although completely at a loss as to why Sandra looks so much like his late wife but seeing that this could be a second chance, Michael gets completely infatuated by Sandra. The sprightly and effervescent Sandra returns the favour and the two fall quickly in love, though it is very obvious that Michael wants to recapture something that he had with Elizabeth through Sandra. Though Robert is concerned for his friend as he finds the whole thing very uncanny and worrying, Michael goes ahead and brings Sandra over to New Orleans with plans to marry her. But Sandra quickly grows fascinated by Elizabeth and begins acting odd, as if something about her predecessor is behind it. It looks as though history may well repeat itself with more fatal incidents, just as Michael believes he’s been given another shot at life. What follows is something that you will most definitely not be expecting.

Brian De Palma revels in channeling Hitchcock for this film, and does a pretty commendable job at emulating him. The devil is in the detail and the archness of De Palma’s approach, which genuinely makes for good viewing in this most twisted mystery. It can be said that Obsession gets a bit overly clever at times and has maybe one twist too many in its bag of tricks, but regardless of that it is a very compelling mystery thriller. The sprinkling of an atypical romance that eventually becomes disturbing allows the film to be one that is sure to reap benefits of repeat viewing. The screenplay from Paul Schrader is purposefully mysterious and knows exactly when to keep its cards close its chest.  And even when it goes overboard, the largely visual story is there to bolster things in an exquisite way. Almost everything in Obsession is shot through a shimmering filter that renders events in a fantasy and otherworldly aura from the very start, for a mystical experience that is not what it always seems. The employing of this form in the cinematography and direction of De Palma is sumptuous and extremely captivating, with nary a frame wasted to paint its unnatural and spooky on a large canvas. Many scenes are free of dialogue which gorgeously lets us fill the blanks in and allows the visuals that abound to weave this particularly dark story, which has a romance in it that takes on another connotation as the rug is pulled from under you. The use of Bernard Herrmann to score the film further evokes Hitchcock, as Hermann scored some of the Master’s best films. Here he imbues things with a deep choral angle that sounds like a returning vessel to the world of reality, while accentuating the hypnotic impact Sandra takes over Michael and later the presence of Elizabeth on Sandra herself. The score is ever-present in the film and it would simply bot have half the impact it does without the mournful yet eerily romantic music from Hermann.

Cliff Robertson is credible in the lead role of a man whose life is shattered, then is given what he believes is another shot through whatever intervention it is. Robertson may be a tad too subdued at times, but his stoic face and gradual shifts in temperament within the chilling story, fill in any gaps and still make it a very good performance. Geneviève Bujold is stunning in the dual role that merges as one on more than a few occasions. Bujold is beautifully ethereal and almost angelic in the best possible way, lending well to the haunting vibe of the overall story and the possibility of a spirit, at least in Michael’s mind, returning once more. You can’t take your eyes off her when you see her on screen as either Elizabeth or Sandra. It is Bujold that sticks most in the memory once Obsession has finished for her transfixing work. Stealing the scenes whenever his presence is required is the versatile John Lithgow, seen here as a disreputable businessman with the gift of the gab. An extrovert with a suspicious mustache, reptilian smile and slightly unusual glint in his eye, he’s a man you can’t help but find funny but also quite hard to read, which is where the excellence of Lithgow’s work lies.

So if you can handle the often overwrought story and sleight of hand tricks and unusual twists are your sort of thing, Obsession should work for you as a sinister yet beautifully filmed mystery, from the skillful hands of Brian De Palma. It definitely deserves notice at least from where I’m standing.

Blow-Up

Tags

1960's, Blow-Up, David Hemmings, Drama, Jane Birkin, Michelangelo Antonioni, Mystery, Sarah Miles, Vanessa Redgrave

Film Title

Blow-Up

Director

Michelangelo Antonioni

Starring

• David Hemmings as Thomas
• Vanessa Redgrave as Jane
• Sarah Miles as Patricia
• Jane Birkin as The Blonde

An adroit movie that really gets the brain working with its examination of images and a different picture of Swinging London, Blow-Up is a confounding puzzle that registers on many levels and calls for attention. This is largely down to the sense of mystery and intelligent probing that is present, especially from the masterful camera of Michelangelo Antonioni.

Thomas is a dismayed, cool and bored fashion photographer whose view of Swinging London is coloured with nihilism and gloominess. He wishes to find something full of life to shoot, instead of the blank-faced and dead-eyed models he photographs on a daily basis. While his life is one of seeming glamour and everything you could ask for, the void of emptiness is becoming prominent and larger. Between fashion shoots, he photographs more realistic situations, such as men in the mines for a book he plans on publishing eventually. One day while in the park, searching for an image to complete his book, he happens across an intimate moment between an older man and a young, attractive girl. He snaps a few shots of them, before being harangued by the woman named Jane, who desperately wants the photos he has taken. When she comes to visit later on, he gives her the wrong film after she attempts to seduce him nervously as a way to acquire the photos. When he enlarges the photos he took in the park, upon closer inspection it appears that there is a man holding a gun and also a dead body in the background. Slowly, he becomes obsessed with what he may have captured on film and strangely comes to life again. The biggest question is has Thomas really discovered a murder? Or is it that he just wants something arresting to photograph and has fabricated this?

Michelangelo Antonioni is the master behind the camera who casts a deep spell on you with this ambiguous and provocative film. His depiction of life in the Swinging 60’s is anything but fun and games, instead heading in the direction of disillusionment and isolation. This is that sort of movie that will send your brain in multiple directions, thanks to the thematic value and layers of possibility that lie housed in it. The very essence of imagery and how accountable our eyes can be is fascinatingly brought to vivid life, leaving a good amount of room for uncertainty. The whole impact of Blow-Up takes in photography and vision well and also has something of an existential undercurrent that is evinced gradually. The ennui of Thomas’s life presents many interpretations regarding whether what he sees in the images is actually there or someone a thing he has projected himself. Yet like all the best film makers, Michelangelo Antonioni skilfully plays his cards close to his chest and leaves it up to the audience to question what is actually occurring. Anybody searching for clear answers and big reveals will not find them as Blow-Up is purposefully maddening and ambiguous, which is the biggest strength of the picture overall. The very fact that you can’t be quite sure if what Thomas captures is real or illusory is exciting yet deeply insightful at presenting an outsider’s perspective of the 60’s and how for some it wasn’t the bright time often depicted in media. Although it has colour aplenty scattered in various frames and the iconic fashions of the era( as well as liberated sexuality), Blow-Up is more concerned with showing the dissatisfaction with the world, especially in a time of change. Alienation seeps into Blow-Up, and it becomes understandable why Thomas would want something of life to photograph, which ironically comes when he thinks he’s uncovered a murder. There are so many parts to Blow-Up that really engage the mind and I am sure will be fascinating and provide more insight on other viewings. To some modern viewers, Blow-Up will seem meandering, but it’s deliberate pacing is in fact key to the film in capturing the boredom that the not always likable Thomas feels and how he springs to life when he believes he has discovered something. In the end, the whole mystery aspect of Blow-Up takes on a different tone with the feeling of not being able to trust what you see playing heavily on the uneasiness. The mod soundtrack strikes the counterbalance of action and liveliness with the feeling of being listless and something darker being under everything that is seen as fantastic at the time.

As the alienated and uncomfortable Thomas, David Hemmings is fantastic casting. He possesses a certain hollow-eyed melancholy and is sometimes hard to gauge, which figures in well as to whether or not the character is simply projecting his thoughts into reality. The character isn’t always the nicest or easiest person to relate to, but Hemmings grabs the attention with the listless angst becoming something bordering on possible madness as the movie progresses. A young Vanessa Redgrave makes a mark in only a couple of scenes; portraying the attractive woman in the photographs. There is an awkwardness and fretfulness to her, mixed with a strange sexuality that only heightens the picture’s idea of reality and perception. Sarah Miles appears as the neighbour of Thomas, who he obviously likes but never acts upon it. Jane Birkin features in a small but memorable part of a giggling girl who with a friend has an interesting photo shoot with Thomas.

A strange and abstract film that is one that will imprint many images on the mind and call for many watches, Blow-Up is a provocative and unusual film which deconstructs many ideas and gets you to question the validity of what you see.

Gaslight

Tags

1940's, Angela Lansbury, Charles Boyer, Gaslight, George Cukor, Ingrid Bergman, Joseph Cotten, May Whitty, Mystery, Thriller

Film Title

Gaslight

Director

George Cukor

Starring

• Ingrid Bergman as Paula Alquist Anton
• Charles Boyer as Gregory Anton
• Joseph Cotten as Brian Cameron
• Angela Lansbury as Nancy Oliver
• May Whitty as Miss Thwaites

A mystery thriller from Hollywood’s Golden Age, Gaslight holds up thanks to strikingly eerie direction, outstanding sets and superb acting, that add up to a film of chills.

It is Victorian times in London and a renowned opera singer Alice Alquist has just been found strangled in her home. Her young niece Paula, who found her body, is sent away to recover from the shock. Years later in Italy, Paula is a vibrant lady who has been training in music, but doesn’t quite have the passion for it. Her thoughts are elsewhere as the suave composer Gregory Anton has taken a shine to her and they have begun a relationship. Before too long, the couple are married and contemplating where to live. Gregory insists on going back to London and while Paula is obviously apprehensive of returning to the house where the horrific events unfolded, she agrees. Once back in the house is when strange happenings begin to happen, especially for Paula. Gregory informs her that she is forgetful and implies that she has been stealing things, of which Paula has no memory of. The new maid Nancy is impertinent and saucy around Gregory, while seemingly holding disdain for the mistress of the house. At night, the gaslights in her room dim mysteriously and she hears noises coming from the locked up attic. It is here that we learn that Gregory is the one orchestrating these events in order to drive Paula over the edge, while he searches for something that remains in secrecy. Little by little, Paula becomes withdrawn, paranoid and terrified of what she will become as her frail hold on events withers away and Gregory’s cruel plan begins to have results. But she may just have an ally in Brian Cameron, an Inspector for Scotland Yard begins to take an interest in Paula, as he smells a rat and isn’t convinced that Paula is going insane. It all boils down to whether or not he can help Paula or she can deduce the sinister plot afoot.

Meticulous craftsmanship is employed in every sense of the word by the great George Cukor, who wrings out the suspense in teasing suggestion as well as getting to the female heart of the story of manipulation. His hand is most definitely sure in his painterly brush strokes to suggest the menace that will engulf Paula slowly and cruelly after a deceptively sunny opening. Cukor’s biggest success is his hold on the tension and threatening shadows of the story, as Paula is slowly slipping into paranoia in accordance to the nefarious plans of Gregory, which he cloaks in significant mystery. All of it leads to a very satisfying conclusion that bubbles with menace and reversal of fortunes. There are a few little foibles in the film, like some dates stretches and leaky plot points, but in the long run, these skirmishes are of the minuscule variety that can be easily forgotten when considering the taut effectiveness of the overall movie. Gaslight is also a splendid evocation of Victorian London with rolling banks of fog and billowing candles is strikingly rendered, plus there are the expressive and well-designed sets to admire. This is the kind of movie where the visuals and story are largely of a stellar standard, in the tradition of MGM, who at the point of this film where churning out pictures of splendor and excellent, of which Gaslight qualifies easily. The cinematography is simply a marvel of spooky atmosphere, with certain shots bringing a flickering and shimmering malice and creepiness to the film in reference to the title. A supremely grand score begins with quiet and haunting notes of encroaching terror and then switches things up to heighten the spiraling descent of Paula.

The great Ingrid Bergman is the star attraction of Gaslight, contributing a thoroughly sensitive and strong portrayal of a woman being driven to near madness by her husband’s schemes. Bergman’s role is an emotional one that she plays wonderfully and that immediately gets you to sympathise with her. Bergman gets across a clarity, radiance and wrenching vulnerability that fit the part admirably, it really isn’t a surprise that she won an Oscar for her tortured and exquisite role here. It has to be one of her finest parts in an illustrious career of greatness. Charles Boyer is nastiness and insidious charm personified, emerging as an oily wolf in sheep’s clothing that is doing everything in his power to convince both his wife and everyone else that she is mad. There is something just very eerie about Boyer and his work here, which is perfectly employed within the character as the niceness of his personality slips into a more cruel being of malevolence and subterfuge. In what is probably what you’d call the hero role, Joseph Cotten makes for a very moral and good-hearted presence as the inspector who could be Paula’s saviour in all of this underhandedness. Angela Lansbury made her debut here at the age of 17 and boy does she have fun with the role of the sassy and rude maid, who sneers and flirts her way through the house with a glint of mystery in her eyes. May Whitty is on delightfully dotty form as the nosy next door neighbour who is always after a bit of scandal or gossip.

Some elements aren’t what they once where, but these are minor things that are papered over in the creeping mystery and excellence of Gaslight. An old-fashioned chiller, it’s a rewarding exercise in tension and ambience.

Gone Girl

Tags

2010's, Ben Affleck, Carrie Coon, David Fincher, Gone Girl, Kim Dickens, Mystery, Neil Patrick Harris, Patrick Fugit, Rosamund Pike, Thriller, Tyler Perry

Film Title

Gone Girl

Director

David Fincher

Starring

• Ben Affleck as Nick Dunne
• Rosamund Pike as Amy Elliott-Dunne
• Carrie Coon as Margo Dunne
• Tyler Perry as Tanner Bolt
• Neil Patrick Harris as Desi Collings
• Kim Dickens as Detective Rhonda Boney
• Patrick Fugit as Officer James Gilpin

Based on the addictive novel by Gillian Flynn(who also wrote this screenplay), Gone Girl, under the calculating and precise direction of the excellent David Fincher springs to unnerving life as a mystery of perceptions plays out in dark and surprising fashion.

Nick Dunne, a former writer who was laid off in the recession, comes home on the morning of his fifth wedding anniversary after a drink with his sister Margo, to discover that his beautiful wife Amy is missing. There appears to have been a struggle as the living room is in disarray, but this is just the tip of the iceberg. The case of Amy’s disappearance captures the public’s imagination as she is the basis behind a highly successful book series created by her parents, entitled Amazing Amy. Yet this case of Amy’s vanishing is not going to be a cut and dry case like everyone first thought. Nick’s behaviour, which seems somewhat apathetic and shifty, is interpreted by the media in a negative light and the finger of suspicion points his way due to his seeming lack of empathy or care. Other things don’t add up like a large pool of blood that someone mopped up and the detectives, Rhonda Boney and her partner James Gilpin, become suspicious of Nick’s actions. Most damning of all is the fact that Amy’s life insurance was bumped up significantly just before her vanishing and the biggest shock is a diary of Amy’s is discovered with ominous writing. It slowly comes to light that behind the seemingly happy marriage lay resentment and angst for both Nick and Amy. Soon Nick is in hot water as people turn on him and the voracious media descends on him, who speculate that he was behind his wife’s disappearance and possible murder. But just what has happened to Amy? To tell you all that would spoil the shocking surprise, so you better get watching to find out.

David Fincher is one of my favourite working directors. He has this innate ability to infuse his movies with a clinical and detailed view that engages the brain and keeps you on edge. Those skills are exhibited in Gone Girl to a high degree, as he directs with a scalpel like dedication to the material that busts apart the supposedly idyllic nature of marriage to expose something rotten. His fingerprints are all over this film and his attention to the little things that people may think of as just innocuous, stands this film in good stead as nothing is as it seems. Gillian Flynn adapts from her own book and I found this to be a very good string in Gone Girl’s bow, as we are getting the author’s seal of approval and her vision brought to the screen. Having read the book, I can say that the movie is very faithful to the source, with only the slightest changes here and there for good measure. Flynn does a golden job of the script that pulls into question with some dark humour the way that the media jumps on things and can easily make villains and victims with just a few choice words. Gone Girl is one of those movies that is hard to talk about as so much of it hangs on the mystery of everything, but I’ll do the best I can to describe my feelings and promise there will be no spoilers. All I’ll really say is that Gone Girl emerges as a twisted and compulsive film in which so much of it challenges our views of what we see and how there is not always a simple answer to everything( very much so in this dark exercise in tension and mounting curiosity). The visual essence of the film adds another thing to gild an already impressive lily, with the muted blues and burnt golds playing a key part in setting the mood of the film and sustaining a great deal of uncertainty that Nick( and the audience) finds themselves in. A throbbing, electronic score captures the growing surprises of the narrative of which there are a good many and really sets the dark and ghoulish mood of Gone Girl. Even when we get flashes of the happier times that Nick and Amy had in the past, there is something uneasy and ambient about the score that suggests otherwise.

Ben Affleck is marvellously effective at putting the audience on edge as to what Nick’s intentions and feelings are. One minute we pity him and the next we are not sure of him as he is very ambiguous and Affleck plays that to the hilt. The casting of Affleck is pretty inspired as he himself has been at the centre of the media circus regarding his own private life, so maybe that in turn brings more to the part. As good as Affleck is, the biggest standout star of Gone Girl is Rosamund Pike, in what is a career defining performance. Like the film itself, Rosamund Pike’s portrayal of the beautiful missing Amy is hard to go into without giving away key parts of the story, but like before I’ll try to be concise. Rosamund Pike is quite simply a marvel in this movie, in every sense of the word. The part of the elusive Amy is a dream one for an actress and Pike makes it her own, adding an opacity in the beginning to give her a deep mystery. Yet as the story goes on the character is shown significantly different in each part, as Pike masterfully pulls away the layers of the character to reveal someone who is very different and more unpredictable that initially thought. Rosamund Pike has been seen in the past in largely supporting roles, so the challenge of playing the lead of Amy just goes to show how fantastic she is in adapting to the part so well. Rosamund Pike is just spectacular in the role and makes a very deep impression. The other members of the cast are no slouches either and sink their teeth into meaty roles. Carrie Coon was appropriately sarcastic yet loyal as Nick’s sister whose the person to go to for advice, though her belief in her brother does take something of a bashing in the process. Tyler Perry was a welcome surprise portraying Nick’s lawyer, who has a reputation for getting people off even when the evidence is stacked against them. There is something arch and winking about Perry’s work, as he knows exactly how to play the media to get a result. Neil Patrick Harris oozes a strange sort of smarmy charisma and pining as someone that connects to Amy’s past and then we have a well cast Kim Dickens and Patrick Fugit playing the scrupulous detective and her partner, respectively.

An almost forensic and highly compelling examination of what is behind the surface image and the accountability of the media on the people it preys on, Gone Girl is simply put a mesmerising thriller, boasted even higher by the direction of David Fincher and the two central performances from Ben Affleck and especially Rosamund Pike.

April Fool’s Day

Tags

1980's, Amy Steel, April Fool's Day, Clayton Rohner, Deborah Foreman, Deborah Goodrich, Fred Walton, Griffin O'Neal, Horror, Jay Baker, Ken Olandt, Leah Pinsent, Mystery, Thomas F. Wilson

Film Title

April Fool’s Day

Director

Fred Walton

Starring

• Deborah Foreman as Muffy St. John
• Amy Steel as Kit
• Ken Olandt as Rob
• Thomas F. Wilson as Arch
• Griffin O’Neal as Skip
• Deborah Goodrich as Nikki
• Jay Baker as Harvey
• Leah Pinsent as Nan
• Clayton Rohner as Chaz

A very witty and suspenseful slasher, that is also a mystery in its overtones, April Fool’s Day brings the fun factor to the genre and the fact that it’s a bit different stands it in good stead.

On the weekend just leading up to April Fool’s Day, a number of college friends; Kit, Rob, Arch, Chaz, Nikki, Harvey, Nan and Skip are invited to the island home of rich fellow student Muffy St. John. On the way over to her home by ferry, a joke between them unintentionally causes physical harm to the deckhand Buck, who is subsequently hospitalized. Though the group are more than a little shaken by the injury of Buck, they plod in hopes of having a good time on the island. Hostess Muffy immediately sets the playful tone of the weekend with practical jokes for everyone. The party is soon in full swing as everyone gets a little tipsy and some get frisky. As the jokes mount however, hidden secrets from the past are referenced for a few characters which can only spell something bad. Yet while the feeling of the house started as a laugh for everyone in the beginning, darkness takes hold as members of the group go missing and later turn up dead. Just who is the person behind these killings? Does the privileged Muffy have anything to do with the scary turn of events. The terrified teens want to know, if they can live that long that is as the next ferry comes on Monday. Could this be a prank gone way too far or something a lot more sinister? It becomes apparent that not all of them are going to make it until the ferry for the mainland arrives and it’s up to the remaining youths to survive what remains of their time in the house.

Fred Walton brings a workmanlike sense of direction and considerable flair to the material, allowing humour, mystery and horror to converge simultaneously. He establishes the links between the humour of the piece and the creeping horror that will befall all almost from the beginning, when the joking of the kids accidentally causes harm to The trick to getting humour right in horror is knowing when to stop and not overpower the film, which April Fool’s Day does efficiently as it still provides jolts and shocks. While it is a horror/ slasher in many regards, the film masquerades as a whodunnit, with countless references to Agatha Christie. This approach definitely surprised me as I was expecting a full on horror, but the mystery of it all is actually what makes April Fool’s Day a cut above the rest as it takes an atypical route. The biggest asset in April Fool’s Day’s artillery is the well woven and banter filled script that it has. Written by Danilo Bach, it sets up the jokey and playful atmosphere of the title, while cutting in some crafty suspense. The script makes the characters a likable and funny group who you would like to spend time with, if they were real of course. And it says a lot about the film that when certain characters meet death, you are a bit sad to see them depart. With a title like the one the film has, you definitely expected the unexpected. April Fool’s Day delivers heavily in that area, especially the ending which I did not see coming at all. The only thing I will say is that it is a sly conclusion to a well mounted film. For a horror, the film is largely sparing on gore, only showing us the aftermath. Some of the make up effects are more than a little dated, but this flaw can be overlooked as the film is more concerned with the mind games than anything else. A wonderfully composed score hits the right balance between tricky humour and creepy terror, with an eerie whistling sound pervading the music with an enigmatic unease. All of these elements distinguish the film as something different in the genre and make April Fool’s Day a film that should be better known, as I feel it is highly underrated when people discuss films in the genre.

A fresh and competent cast perform very well, supplying April Fool’s Day with good performances that are better than some that you glimpse in horror films. A delightfully off-kilter vibe radiates from Deborah Foreman as the pampered hostess of the weekend. By turns, there is a playfulness and then a kookiness that appears that is pretty mysterious and strange. You get the feeling that there is something not right about Muffy, but thanks to the enigmas created by Deborah Foreman, we are unsure if she is really capable of anything this twisted. Amy Steel stands out as the most resourceful of the teens and the most down to earth one when things get creepy. Rob Olandt is on hand to be the heroic guy of the group and compliments Steel pretty effectively. A lot of the humour comes courtesy of Thomas F. Wilson, who has an infectious laugh and whose antics are comically endearing. The rest of the selected cast are suitably goofy and fun to be around in their own respective ways. And as I said, because they are amiable as characters, you do feel a bit low when they are killed off by the unseen murderer.

A tricky little film with a twist or two here and there, especially in the last half, April Fool’s Day really succeeds on the strength of its cast, direction and above all the excellence of the script. I can give this film a lot of respect for taking a different approach from most and having a lark with it.

The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane

Tags

1970's, Alexis Smith, Jodie Foster, Martin Sheen, Mort Shuman, Mystery, Nicolas Gessner, Scott Jacoby, The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane, Thriller

Film Title

The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane

Director

Nicolas Gessner

Starring

• Jodie Foster as Rynn Jacobs
• Martin Sheen as Frank Hallet
• Scott Jacoby as Mario
• Alexis Smith as Mrs. Hallet
• Mort Shuman as Officer Miglioriti

An unusual thriller/mystery, The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane benefits from building direction that slowly reveals darkness and a mature performance from a young Jodie Foster.

In the seaside town of Wells Harbor, Maine, a young girl named Rynn Jacobs celebrates her thirteenth birthday alone in her father’s large house. Rynn is an independent and extremely mature girl who is self-reliant( she regularly collects money from a safe deposit box and learns from home) and is regularly seen without any parental figure. No one knows where her father is and Rynn when asked tells them that he is either away or busy with his poetry writing. These suspicious action surrounding Rynn, who appears to enjoy being by herself and providing for herself, arouse the interest of many people. Chief among these is Frank Hallet, the adult son of the landlady, who is a predatory man with a sick fascination for young girls. He pesters young Rynn who drives him away with her excuses. Soon enough the bossy and snotty Mrs. Hallet comes knocking and is desperate to know where the girl’s father is. Wanting to be alone and angry at those who intrude, Rynn tries to get rid of the woman who won’t leave. Mrs. Hallet wants to collect something she left in the cellar and despite the warnings of Rynn enters it, only to find something shocking and accidentally knocks the wedge that keeps the door open and fatally injures herself. Rynn just goes about her business, but soon realises that she must get rid of evidence that could put her in trouble with the authorities. Luckily, she encounters teenager Mario, an amateur magician who takes a liking to the mysterious girl. Helping her dispose of evidence and the body, Mario is puzzled but entranced by Rynn, and she despite always being alone, likes his company. Yet Rynn is guarding a much bigger secret than anyone imagined and as the neighbours become more curious about her( in particular the creepy Frank and inquisitive officer Miglioriti), we see just what she is willing to do to retain her solidarity and the depths of her capabilities.

On the directing front, Nicolas Gessner balances both intrigue and mystery in an unfussy yet beneficial way that draws you into the strange little story at play. He adeptly and astutely doesn’t play to mystery clichés too much and successfully throws in moments of unexpectedness that you don’t see coming. Gessner knows when to reveal just enough to keep us dangling, before keeping us at a distance to further the enigma surrounding Rynn and her secret. As much as The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane is a mystery, it’s also something of an unusual coming of age. Rynn is a girl who thinks and acts like she’s a lot older, yet is not there yet and still doesn’t understand certain things that a grown up would. This in turn adds to the dichotomy of the character as she is oddly innocent during various parts, and then complicated and perhaps not there emotionally in others. There are a few stretches that may have benefited from a bit of trimming, but all in all, The Little Girl Who Live Down the Lane has good pacing that keeps us invested and startled by what we discover. The often bouncy score purposely acts in opposition to the creepy nature of the film to marvellous effect. And when the sparse score isn’t present(which is for quite a few important parts) the film gains an upper hand on the viewer as without the music, we are made to be more curious about what unravels and in particular what Rynn is really up to.

Making a huge impression and one of the film’s best assets is a young Jodie Foster as the self-reliant Rynn, who is much more than what she seems. With her angelic face and mature demeanor, Foster strikes the perfect balance in the role: Rynn appears so innocent yet mysterious and we never quite know what to make of her as she continues to assert that her father is away in order to keep her independent living. Foster never lets us forget that the character is still a child, despite her grown up actions and that somewhere in her mind she isn’t emotionally mature for adulthood. The sense of ambiguity in her work lends itself well to the performance and Jodie Foster even at a young age, shows the depths of her talents with a complex, strangely sympathetic and strikingly mature portrayal of a girl who isn’t as wholesome as her looks would have you believe. In the part of the sexual predator who takes an interest in Rynn, Martin Sheen makes your skin crawl with his performance that really knows how to unnerve you with a twisted grin here or a sleazy glance there. It shows off his talent as an actor and how damn effective he can be. Scott Jacoby makes for an amiable companion for Rynn who she starts to trust, even though he doesn’t quite know what to make of the girl and her actions. In the small but memorable part of the ill-fated Mrs. Hallet, Alexis Smith is cutting and opinionated before her eventual demise due to her nosiness. Mort Shuman is probably the only other person in the film that really has a caring side as he watches out for Rynn yet can’t shake the feeling that something is very wrong.

A mystery that takes quite a few different paths and knows when to wrong foot the audience, The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane is strange yet intriguing film making that fills the screen with tension and confined space, while showcasing the exceptional talent of Jodie Foster.

 

The Illusionist

Tags

2000's, Edward Norton, Fantasy, Jessica Biel, Mystery, Neil Burger, Paul Giamatti, Romance, Rufus Sewell, The Illusionist

Film Title

The Illusionist

Director

Neil Burger

Starring

• Edward Norton as Eisenheim
• Paul Giamatti as Chief Inspector Uhl
• Jessica Biel as Duchess Sophie Von Teschen
• Rufus Sewell as Crown Prince Leopold

An intriguing blend of mystery, romance and hints of fantasy, The Illusionist like its protagonist casts a spell on you from beginning to end. Handsomely directed and visually arresting, it burns itself into the memory with its sleight of hand events and effective performances.

In turn of the century Vienna, the magician Eisenheim thrills audiences with his performances that seem to defy the odds and point at possible supernatural talents. As a child, Eisenheim came from a poor family and he became interested in magic tricks and similar things. He also fell in love with Sophie, a young duchess from a prominent family. Their relationship was forbidden when discovered because of the difference in social standing. As a result, a teenage Eisenheim traveled the world, honing his craft with the art of magic. Now back in Vienna, he is the centre of attention for his audience. During one specific performance, the Crown Prince Leopold attends with a now grown up Sophie, who he is engaged to. During the performance, Eisenheim requires a volunteer and finds one in Sophie. Both recognize each other immediately and remember how their love was thwarted. An obvious candle still burns between them after meeting again. But the Crown Prince is not one to be competed with, as he exercises strict and sadistic control over the people around him, mainly Sophie who sees more as a possession than as a lover. Eisenheim also gives a private performance for the Crown Prince in which he humiliates him. Angered by what he sees as an attack on his authority, the Prince tasks his Chief Inspector Uhl to investigate Eisenheim and prove he is nothing but a money-making fraud. But Uhl, while loyal to the Prince and his job, begins to respect Eisenheim and his act, becoming very curious about how he does it. As Eisenheim and independently minded Sophie secretly start their relationship again due to the thwarted passion that separated them, a battle of wills ensues between the magician and the prince, leading to shocking consequences. But in this game of trickery and love, all is not as it seems.

From the opening frames of mist and golden curtains, you just know that The Illusionist is going to draw you in. And so it does with its plot and execution. Writer and director Neil Burger conjures up a mysterious atmosphere of stifled emotions and repressed romance eventually breaking through with aplomb. Burger successfully keeps the audience on their toes regarding the mystery over Eisenheim and his talents. Is he really channeling something not of this world or not? That is where the effectiveness of this movie lies, in the intriguing mystery surrounding the eponymous magician. A huge highlight of The Illusionist has to be the sumptuous cinematography. It cloaks the movie in hues of burnt gold and shadows, enhancing the magical aura that Eisenheim brings and also the lavish but restricted lives of those in power. You couldn’t have asked for better cinematography for a film like this, it is that awe-inspiring to view as you feel like you’ve stepped back in time to turn of the century Vienna. A swirling score from Philip Glass gives romance to The Illusionist, while effectively giving us many pieces that enhance the overall mystery that hangs over Eisenheim.

In terms of acting, The Illusionist succeeds thanks to a talented cast giving their all to their roles. Heading the proceedings is the ever intense Edward Norton portraying the elusive Eisenheim. Filled with intelligence, passion and glints of mystery, Edward Norton has fun with the part that doesn’t reveal too much but just enough to keep us curious over whether Eisenheim is supernaturally talented or merely just a clever conjurer fooling his audience. The always reliable Paul Giamatti contributes nervous energy and a sense of conflicted loyalty as his character feels obliged to do the Prince’s bidding but is very curious about Eisenheim as well. Giamatti successfully blends those two components to make a great performance. I’ve spoken in the past about how Jessica Biel for a while didn’t do much for me as an actress. I always found she was in loads of action movies and not given enough to do. It’s then I realized that it wasn’t Biel I had the problem with, it was the films she was lumbered with. When given the right material she really flourishes and that’s exactly what she does in this movie. Luscious, composed and filled with an  imprisoned desire, Biel makes quite an impression as Sophie; the object of affection who still carries a deep love for her childhood friend. Rounding out the impressive quartet of performers is Rufus Sewell as the sadistic and cruel Prince. Sewell emits this immediately slimy quality that makes the audience feel revulsion towards and he does it well.

Passionate and laced with enigmas, The Illusionist is well-crafted film making that gains power from striking visuals and stellar work from the cast.