For It Is Man's Number: robert blees

Showing posts with label robert blees. Show all posts

Wednesday, 25 October 2023

Prime Time: Frogs (1972)

Some days you want to head to your local cinema to see the latest horror genre releases, some days you are browsing titles available online and see a thumbnail image for Frogs. I am not saying the latter is a good turn of events, but it’s how I ended up deciding to watch this movie. I knew nothing about it, aside from the title, but I was ready to be bemused and delighted. Well . . . I was certainly bemused.

I don’t even know where to begin with the plot summary for this. You may think you know the central plot idea, frogs gone wild, and it’s certainly part of the experience, but there are actually various creatures turning deadly here (including snakes and spiders). The main characters are a wildlife photographer, played by a discomfortingly bare-faced Sam Elliott, and a large family, headed up by patriarch Ray Milland, who live in the middle of a swamp area that is about to become much more dangerous to humans.

Directed by George McCowan, calling this balderdash is actually overselling it. McCowan doesn’t do much to help the material, the visuals are ugly and there’s not one bit of energy in any of the moments you might call set-pieces, and the script, written by Robert Hutchison and Robert Blees, isn’t even awful enough to laugh at. It’s just dull, with no characters to feel invested in and no real feeling of proper threat.

Elliott tries hard to be a solid central figure, even without the power of his moustache to help boost his screen presence, but he cannot overcome the weak material he has to work with. Milland is equally powerless, although he has one or two fun moments that allow him to grandstand in front of people who are forced to stay in his company. The rest of the cast includes Joan Van Ark, Judy Pace, Mae Mercer, Lynn Borden, Adam Roarke, and David Gilliam, none of whom really stand out. And numerous unidentified frogs, of course.

If you want a silly animal attack movie that is actually fun, but still quite awful, then I recommend Night Of The Lepus (the infamous “giant rabbit” movie). In fact, I recommend almost anything over this one, which is poorly-made and, worst of all, consistently dull. This would have been a very different film if directed by William Grefé, I know that much, and I think I will wash this one out of my brain by revisiting my Grefé boxset.

Awful stuff, and not just because they missed the opportunity to use the tagline “Frogs . . . everybody croaks.”

2/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Wednesday, 1 March 2023

Prime Time: Whoever Slew Auntie Roo? (1972)

There are some titles that just grab you. Whoever Slew Auntie Roo? is one of them. When I saw this during some time spent once again browsing the internet for my next viewing choice, I knew I had to check it out. Seeing the cast also helped, with roles here for Shelley Winters, Ralph Richardson, and Lionel Jeffries, as well as quite a few other familiar faces.

Winters plays the titular character, although her name is actually Mrs. Forrest. Having survived both her husband and her young daughter, Mrs. Forrest isn’t in possession of every single one of her marbles, but that doesn’t stop her from doing some good deeds, with an annual tradition being her meal and party for a group of randomly-selected orphans from a nearby home. But the latest visitors feature a young girl (Katy, played by Chloe Franks) who seems to resemble Mrs. Forrest’s daughter, which ensures that Mrs. Forrest keeps trying to give her extra attention. Something doesn’t seem right, and Katy’s bother, Christopher (Mark Lester), suspects that Mrs. Forrest is a witch who means to harm the children.

Directed by Curtis Harrington, who seemed to spend the ‘60s and ‘70s helming many films in this vein (his previous feature is titled What’s The Matter With Helen?), and written by David Osborn, Robert Blees, and Jimmy Sangster, this is a mix of character study, melodrama, and psychological thriller that manages to do a good job with every individual aspect being blended into the narrative. It’s also quite different from what you might expect, with viewers being wrong-footed by the first half of the movie before realising exactly who might end up being painted as heroes and villains.

Winters is very good in her role, playing a typically warm-hearted and loving matriarchal figure. She gets to overact occasionally, but that really helps with what is sometimes a twisted panto atmosphere. Lester and Franks are both very good, making great use of their angelic little faces as they scheme to escape someone they view as a major threat, and both Richardson and Jeffries excel in small roles that still give them enough time to make their usual strong impressions. The other person to mention is Michael Gothard, a member of the household staff who plans to get himself a much bigger payday than usual from his vulnerable employer.

There are many other ways this could have gone. The whole thing could have been much darker, it could have been played comedically, it could have been a more straightforward game of cat and mouse (and it’s worth noting the extra satisfaction of seeing Winters cast in a central role in something that seems to subvert The Night Of The Hunter), but I am pleased with the strange delight that we got. I may not recommend it to many people, but I hope others give it a try, and some may enjoy it as much as I did.

7/10

Tuesday, 8 May 2018

Magnificent Obsession (1954)

To my knowledge, this is only the second Douglas Sirk film that I have seen, and my first was just last week (All I Desire - wonderful stuff). But it's possibly the film that he is best known for, even if it's only being described by people who keep forgetting what the actual title is.

And here's the description for you. Rock Hudson plays Bob Merrick, a selfish, rich playboy who has his life saved by an unselfish doctor. The doctor dies, which leads to Bob trying to assuage his guilty conscience by offering to pay a large amount to his widow, Helen (Jane Wyman). That's not the way to make amends, of course, and things only go from bad to worse. Bob cannot figure out just how he is supposed to lead a better life, Helen is blinded in an accident, and . . . . well, I won't detail the rest of the plot, despite it being so well known to so many people. Suffice to say, it's absolutely preposterous stuff from start to finish.

It's also quite wonderful. I don't know why this worked for me as well as it did, but it REALLY did. All I can suggest is that perhaps the earnest nature of the performers in every scene made it all so much easier to swallow, coupled with the fact that I wanted to go along on this journey of romance and melodrama.

Based on a novel by Lloyd C. Douglas, the script is mainly credited to Robert Blees and Wells Root, and both of them move the narrative forward with great gusto, helped immensely by the obvious charms of Hudson and Wyman, both irresistible screen presences (yes, even when the former is being a selfish asshat during the earlier scenes). And Hudson and Wyman are in turn helped by a supporting cast that includes Barbara Rush, Agnes Moorehead, Otto Kruger, and more.

Sirk looks after everything with a steady hand, often livening up some of the quieter scenes with his usual eye for beautiful, vibrant colours and working well with the script to carry viewers more gently from one step to the next as the more ridiculous plot elements start to fall into place.

It will be all too easy for viewers to go into this and just hate-watch the whole thing from start to finish. If the content puts you off, you probably won't even appreciate the lovely imagery that crops up, the music, the performances, and all of the other technical expertise on display. I implore you to just give in to the magic of it all. You could end up loving it as much as me.

9/10