Christina Delassalle (Véra Clouzot) is in a tough situation. She runs a young boy’s boarding school with her husband Michel (Paul Meurisse) whose stern and controlling demeanor makes him hated by all including his wife. Michel harbors much resentment for Christina and she for him with his abusive and cheating mannerisms. After eight years together, Christina reaches the point where she wants Michel gone one way or another. She schemes with her closest companion Nicole (Simone Signoret), also Michel’s former mistress, and develop a fool-proof plan to dispatch of the man.

The two women lure Michel to Nicole’s house where he is sedated with a tainted bottle of wine and then submerged in a filled bathtub as Nicole keeps him under until his struggling stops. They load the body into a giant wicker trunk and cart it back to the boarding school where they dump it in the filthy swimming pool, thinking he will surface in a few days as an apparent accident or suicide. The body then disappears but other things appear in its place like his dry-cleaned suit or his lighter.

It is only within the past few years that I’ve come to appreciate foreign as well as black-and-white films. As such Henri-Georges Clouzot‘s thriller never really stuck out as a horror staple, probably due to the fact that it is made more than fifty years ago as well as subtitled. That is a shame though since Diabolique is a treat to watch for a prime example of how a tense film is put together. When the body goes missing and other haunting reminders of the missing man surface instead, you can feel the subdued panic between both women as they worry about the likelihood of going to jail, being blackmailed, or worse being hunted down by the man they were sure was dead. While the “horror” elements are rather tame, the tension between the two female leads and even the haunting “presence” by Michel is more than enough to create a great noir film with its suspenseful elements of paranoia and effective camerawork.

Doctor Bennell (Kevin McCarthy) returns home to Santa Mira, California with reports that most of the town wanted to see him for undisclosed reasons. Now though, everyone seems to be healthy and normal aside from the little boy who is almost mincemeat after running into the street trying to escape his mother or the woman who declares that her uncle is not really her uncle but an imposter with the same appearance and memories. Bennell quickly dismisses the claims and refers the woman to the town psychiatrist. Later while dining with love interest Becky Driscoll (Dana Wynter), Bennell receives an urgent call and goes to the home of Jack and Teddy who have found a body in their house without any defining features or even fingerprints. Soon Bennell, Becky, and company discover the town is no longer occupied by humans, just empty shells of their former friends and colleagues.

Even though it seems overdone (since it kind of is), the story behind Invasion is still quite effective, enhanced here by great performances and the beauty of black-and-white cinematography. This is, in a way, a more frightening tale than a typical zombie or slasher film primarily because the protagonists are mostly in the dark about what is happening and even once they do figure things out, there is no way of telling who is human and who is not. This uncertainty has strong roots in the ongoing Cold War when the film was made and the fear and paranoia can be easily supplanted with enemies of the state or something else more common in the natural world.

Thanks to the great performances and the direction by Don Siegel, most everything in the film is suspenseful and even a bit off-kilter before we learn of what is really going on. The one problem with the film that is apparently widely hated is the opening scene showing that Bennell has escaped Santa Mira and is telling the story to a doctor elsewhere. This, and his accompanying spotty narration, almost remove any real tension since we know that he will survive. Yet, as the film wound down, I was still waiting for the “downer” ending that the rest of the movie commanded but due to alleged studio tinkering, we receive a happy-ish ending instead. Again, I haven’t seen any of the other films based off of the same story so I don’t know if that’s a common theme but I hope not.

As I remarked when I reviewed this film’s sequel, Exorcist II: The Heretic some time ago, I haven’t watched the original in some time. Of course the basic summary of the movie still stuck out as well as the priest who defenestrates himself but Exorcist excels just like the other classics I’ve covered like Halloween because we are not immediately thrust into the conflict. Friedkin (and writer William Peter Blatty) take a remarkably restrained pace where the odd happenings do not begin until over a third into the film and the exorcism is withheld until the very last minute.

Instead of drawing out the young girl’s potential possession or the exorcism itself, the movie spends a seemingly inordinate amount of time on Regan (Linda Blair) and her mother Chris’ (Ellen Burstyn) relationship and how the effect that the occurrences have on Chris as she searches for an answer about what is going on. Father Merrin (Max von Sydow) and Father Karras (Jason Miller) are also given a hefty amount of backstory and characterization before even meeting the MacNeil family which leads to some rather disturbing exchanges between the priests and the demon inhabiting Regan.

Throughout its entire two-hour runtime, Friedkin successfully sucks you into the story with little time to ponder or debate what you are seeing on screen. Regan’s affliction could very well be physical, emotional, or religious in nature but the way the story unfolds as Chris is told her daughter’s actions are caused by neurological issues or psychological issues keeps us on an even keel with the characters with the small exception that we know we’re watching a movie called The Exorcist.

There are many deeper issues here, especially pertaining to faith as told through Karras’ character. Or maybe Friedkin and Blatty were denouncing the miracle of modern medicine which failed time and time again here to explain something so easily dismissed. Whatever your take on God, the Devil, and religion as a whole, The Exorcist isn’t a movie that has any answers (or really asks any big questions) about belief but watching it will get the gears in your head turning regardless.

Beginning as I figure most early movies are (kind of stilted and stodgy), cryptic movie director Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) is about to set sail to an unknown island to film a “picture!” When his crew fails to turn up a young, attractive woman to star in the production, Denham goes out and recruits the shoplifter Ann Darrow (Fay Wray) to play the love interest with no questions asked. After they’ve embarked, Denham tells the captain and his right-hand man Jack Driscoll (Bruce Cabot) of their destination: an island told of by a dying man that has “interesting” wildlife.

After a shaky encounter with the natives, Denham and crew return to their ship until a band of the island-folk abduct Ann for an offering to Kong. The rest is pretty straight forward. Kong takes Ann. Men go after Kong. Kong has fight after fight with wacky prehistoric creatures while brutally killing people. Kong is captured, taken to New York, escapes his chains, and climbs up the Empire State Building with Ann in tow. Man, was this a fun movie to watch.

I am quite shocked at how well this holds up compared to all the junk action films I’ve consumed in my lifetime. It starts somewhat slow and Kong doesn’t appear until a good ways into the movie but after he does, it is wall-to-wall action from all sides. In fact, I am surprised that this was made and commercially successful in the 1930s because it is pretty damn violent too. While there is nothing really grisly, it is impressive that an old-school, highly regarded movie like this can rack up a body count far exceeding most horror franchises.

The uncredited Cooper and Schoedsack as story-writers and directors do a great job in making almost every minute in this 80-year-old film remarkable. Sure, it is easy to pick on the awkward stop motion during much of Kong’s screen time but the era it was made notwithstanding, the impressive action sequences make it simple enough to overlook. While I’m sure there is some subtext about the dangers of keeping wild animals captive or how the white man will always destroy other tribes and cultures, I was far too busy gawking over all of the chomping and stomping and crushing to really notice.

If you haven’t already seen this classic, do yourself a favor and see it now. It is great in a completely unironic way.

Poor Hans (Harry Earles) just can’t seem to catch a break. He is smitten with the beautiful Cleopatra (Olga Baclanova), even though she stands about three feet taller than his dwarfish frame. After being given extravagant gifts by the foolhardy Hans, Cleopatra and her beau Hercules learn that Hans has received a large inheritance and Cleopatra strings him along until the two get hitched at one of the more eventful weddings ever. Also in attendance at the feast are the other members of the touring group including Siamese conjoined twins, a he/she, a bearded lady, and more. “One of us, one of us” is the chant they use to welcome the decidedly normal Cleopatra into their group. Not surprisingly, the drunken wife is not happy with this and calls them “slimy freaks” just after throwing wine on them. The gang does not think that to be very polite and start piecing together her motives.

Eighty years removed, Freaks is just not a horror film any longer. It is mostly good even though the just over one hour runtime leaves much to be desired (due to the stupidity of 1930s folk allegedly). The film works well, even today, at exposing these “freaks” and sympathizing them as they play, fight, love, and gang up to give an old-school beat-down to a couple of traitors. An opening scroll that accompanied the DVD I watched filled in a lot of the group’s dynamics as to why they were all mostly accepting of Hans and Cleopatra as a way of showing solidarity toward one another. That also further explains the lengths that they go to exact revenge on her when she betrays their code.

At the end, there are a few unsettling images (I’m thinking the little people crawling through the mud with knives will give me nightmares) and the film itself is pretty sound given its age. It is a shame though that the heaps of footage reportedly excised are lost for good just as it is sad that Tod Browning never really recovered professionally after this film. Fortunately though, while the reaction was less than positive many decades ago, Freaks is now pretty highly regarded and likely did much to foster understanding for the subject matter.

Repulsion is Roman Polanski’s first English language film. It is quite well done. Also, I am in love with Catherine Deneuve. Well, 1965 Catherine Deneuve.

Carole (played by Deneuve) lives with her sister Helen. Helen, has a boyfriend, Micheal, who is married, yet spends a lot of time at Carole and Helen’s apartment, much to Carole’s dismay. It is clear almost immediately, Carole doesn’t like Michael and possibly men in general. Later we find out that this is an understatement. Carole has a boyfriend, or is dating a man named Colin, but tends to shy away from him and sometimes doesn’t even show up for dates.  Carole goes so far as to throw away Michael’s razor and toothbrush because he puts them in her bathroom water glass. She doesn’t seem to have a hatred towards men so much as a dislike and even fear of them. This is indicated by actions such as vigorously wiping her mouth off as if it were dirty after being kissed and not letting Colin hold her arm. Helen and Michael go on vacation to Italy leaving Carole alone, and to unravel. Her phobia quickly becomes an extremely disturbing psychotic couple of weeks, and quite a satisfying movie.

This picture is a fine example of how suspense and even silence, can be just as effectively uncomfortable, if not more so, than violence and blood. The telephone and doorbell that constantly ring, the bells outside, the barking dog and the constantly cracking walls (that perhaps symbolize Carole’s ever deteriorating sanity) are all supremely employed to make the viewer quite agitated and feel somewhat overwhelmed. Contrary to that, there are long periods of silence that are also quite unnerving, especially when used during 3 hallucinatory rape scenes. I found the use of silence in these scenes particularly,  to be a brilliant choice. Yes, this is without a doubt one of the best directed films I have ever seen. Also, Deneuve, is simply superb playing Carole.  As Carole spends time alone in her apartment, she sits in the dark, lets food rot and just generally deconstructs. We can speculate that the reason for her madness is molestation; she constantly is wiping herself off suggesting that she feels unclean. She hallucinates that arms are coming out of the walls and grabbing her, once specifically on her breast. She also appears to have at least a slight desire to be with a man sexually, but at the same time is (cleverly) repulsed by it. Molestation is not directly addressed in the film, however. It is suggested, by a photograph of a clearly unhappy Carole as a child staring at a man (Father?), but nothing further to confirm this or any other reason.  It really is not relevant in my opinion and not knowing for sure just makes the film more eerie (as it may suggest the possibility that the fear is just plain irrational and has no basis in reality). At the very least, not confirming one way or the other is just a brilliant director’s choice to leave something open to interpretation. There is also a bit of violence as well, which I think was well placed to release the tension that was built up prior to those scenes. You would be hard pressed to find things not to like about this film.

I feel like a lot of people hear the name Polanski, and cannot remember a movie that he directed, with the exception of Rosemary’s Baby (or perhaps The Ninth Gate, unfortunately). I suggest starting with this film, and moving up his resume to get to know this filmmaker.

I found this treasure of a DVD for $4.99 a while back at a sale that Circuit City was having right before it went out of business. I had seen the movie in my dad’s collection a long time ago but only had a few memories of watching it; mainly that it was black and white and had a big vegetable man stomping around in the snow. Upon a more recent viewing, I was able to appreciate the character archetypes and subtle nuances of the film. All of the classic sci-fi tropes are present and accounted for here. Kenneth Tobey plays the charismatic Captain Hendry who leads our military men, and an investigative journalist played by Douglas Spencer, to a research station at the north pole to investigate a downed aircraft reported by a group of scientists. Even though they loose the mysterious aircraft, the group does manage to recover its pilot, a huge alien played by James Arness, frozen in a block of ice. The plant based creature manages to escape from its frigid prison, however, and all hell breaks loose on the research station.

Most of the science fiction films to come out of this decade are mediocre at the best of times, but this film is an exception. The quick dialogue, characterizations, and subtle sense of humor running throughout the script keep it moving and entertaining, and the second half is filled with some truly tense moments. This film belongs in the same category as classic horror fare like Universal’s Dracula and Frankenstein. It’s just that good.

In an effort to show that we at Movie Scum do not hate movies older than 30-ish, I sat down and watched Mr. Smith Goes to Washington for the very first time. In my life, I have heard random mentions of the film and even seen it reside within the top 250 of the IMDb, but never really given much thought into watching it. Knowing very little about it other than what the title gives away, I sat down in front of my computer to watch this little ditty.

Watching this movie reminded me of my senior year government class. After taking this class and listening to lectures of the innerworkings of our government taught by a state delegate, I was politically invigorated. At the time, politics held such promise as a panacea for all that was wrong in the world. The year was 2000 and I voted in that year’s Presidential election and every other lesser election since then. It was only recently, a scant nine years after, that I became bitter about the American political system and all the shenanigans and tomfoolery that went on. Even though being made a good 43 years before I was even born, Mr. Smith’s journey through the political system embodies my feelings toward the institution as a whole. But then again, this blog is not about politics.

For those who haven’t had the pleasure to enjoy the film, the titular character is enlisted to take the place of a departed United States senator. While he arrives bright-eyed and bushy-tailed (where does that saying even come from?), Mr. Smith (played wonderfully by James Stewart) soon discovers that Washington is more about caressing the press and mincing words than standing up for freedom and values. After almost being discharged from his position due to uncovering a potential scandal, Mr. Smith takes up and performs a spectacle on the floor of the Senate until the film concludes with the right person admitting guilt and the hero redeemed.

The first thing that jumped out with this movie is how applicable it is today. An inexperienced man is thrust into a position of high power who stumbles without the help of more senior colleagues and aids and candidly states that he will not “disgrace the office.” Instead, from the onset, he seems to do just that with doctored articles from the corrupt press corp to blatantly false allegations from a fellow senator. In many ways, we can all relate to Smith as he begins a new position not knowing what to do, where to go, or whom to ask either of the previous questions. The awkwardness of his new job wears off however as he uncovers the real reason he was appointed to the position and his idealistic dream of helping his neighbors, his state, and his country are crushed at the will of 99 other men.

Mr. Smith is a great movie for many reasons, most of which involve the cast. Stewart is top-notch especially at his last ditch filibuster moment toward the close of the film. When the bundles of telegraphs are brought in to quiet the loquacious Senator, you feel desperation for the character although it never shows through Stewart’s performance. Also, frequent mention on MST3k Claude Rains excels at his portrayal of Paine, sort of a dark Jedi master whose powers could easily swap from good to evil.

Not being as well versed in black-and-white films, I was struck by how often shadows were used in the film, not only for shot design but also to highlight important pieces of information like newspaper headlines or relevant statements from the Gettysburg Address. While it was effective as a story-telling technique, it was rather jarring to see a glowing piece of text standing out at you in an otherwise tense dramatic scene. Also jarring were some of the filmmaking techniques like the “Vasoline on the lens” look when Saunders starts falling in love with Smith, the jarring cuts to the same shot in the same scene (as it were a really badly produced student film), and the wipes for transitions between scenes. Again, these may have been mainstay at the time, but over 60 years removed they are rather bothersome.

All in all though, the performances and the story of this movie are in excellent form. At the time it seemed to ruffle a lot of feathers with its portrayal of Washington politics so I am surprised that it hasn’t reached a new success with all of the jilted political goers such as myself. Even if that doesn’t happen, it is good to know that this is a film truly worthy of all the acclaim.