383. Cleo de 5 a 7/Cleo from 5 to 7 (1962)

Running Time: 90 minutes
Directed By: Agnes Varda
Written By: Agnes Varda
Main Cast: Corinne Marchand, Antoine Bourseiller, Dominique Davray, Dorothee Blanc, Michel Legrand

DOWN ON THE STREETS OF PARIS

Moving right along and drawing one step closer to my short-term goal of 401 movies watched, I come to "Cleo from 5 to 7", another Agnes Varda film and one that I've been eyeballing for quite sometime. I say that a lot, don't I?

The film revolves around it's title character, Florence a.k.a Cleopatra a.k.a. Cleo (Marchand), a pop singer who, when the film starts, is having her fortune read in an attempt to try and get some good news about some medical tests that she recently had done. Unfortunately for Cleo, the fortune teller doesn't see a bright future, scaring Cleo to death and leading her to believe that she is in for certain doom. In reality, the tests won't be back until around 7pm and when our story begins, it's 5pm (hence the title). The film is told nearly in real time (from 5 to 7 doesn't equal 90 minutes, no matter what country you're in) and takes the viewer alongside Cleo as she awaits the results of her tests, trying her best to cope with the hours ahead of her. She goes around the city, from her home to the backseats of taxis to visit friends and ultimately to a nearby park, where she meets Antoine. Antonie is a soldier in the Algerian War and later in the day, he'll be taken back to the battlefields. He decides to spend the last moments of his three week leave with Cleo, as he accompanies her to the hospital to find out the results of her tests.

You know, this film just didn't do a whole lot for me, to be blunt about it. I'd never seen it before and during the months that I've spent eyeballing this one and knowing the synopsis, I have to admit I was really excited to finally check it out. The premise of a woman walking the streets of Paris as she anxiously awaits the results of her medical tests, just sounded like something I'd be down for. Especially when you add in the fact that the film was a part of the French New Wave and not a Hollywood, sympathy-getter. I knew the story, coming out of France, wouldn't intentionally tug on our heart strings and I expected a filmmaker like Varda to present the film rather bluntly, whereas an American filmmaker (lets say Ron Howard, for arguments sake) would try and draw as many tears out of the faces of the weak minded moviegoers as he could, using every cliche in the process. What I got was about half of what I expected, however, in my opinion, the story was just a little too emotionless. There was never a point in this film (except for maybe the end) when I felt compassion for Cleo. Whether or not I was supposed to feel compassion for her, I don't know, but I'd assume that when you give your main character cancer, you intend to evoke at least a little sympathy for her. I had none for this character.

SPOILER ALERT!

I normally like films where the time frame is kept short and the premise is kept simple and that's what you have here, except there's something missing. For one thing, the dialogue, as far as I'm concerned, is drivel. It just isn't very well written and I often times found myself drowning out the dialogue and found my mind wandering. It just didn't flow as well as it should have. I did, however, enjoy this film for the same reasons that a Parisian might enjoy watching Woody Allen's "Manhattan" and that's for the visual feast of a foreign city that I'll probably never experience in person. Varda takes us right down to the heart of Paris and sticks us in the middle of the city and lets us roam with her main character. The final chapter (Cleo & Antoine) is also a very fantastic piece of this film and it really picks up the entire movie and ends with a bang. The dialogue seems to flow better in this portion and I actually start to somewhat feel for the characters a little bit. The idea of a complete stranger being able to ease Cleo's mind is really heartwarming to me. It shows that sometimes we have to rely on unexpected things to help us through difficult times and that things are always a little easier if you have a companion.

RATING: 6.5/10 Quick review tonight, but I think I hit all the bullet points. It's something that I can't see making the TOP 20, but also something that I could see warming up to with another view.

MOVIES WATCHED: 374
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 627

December 21, 2011 12:22am

553. Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie/The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972)

Running Time: 105 minutes
Directed By: Luis Bunuel
Written By: Luis Bunuel, Jean-Claude Carriere
Main Cast: Fernando Rey, Jean-Pierre Cassel, Delphine Seyrig, Paul Frankeur, Stephane Audran
Click here to view the trailer

AN UNPLANNED DOUBLE SHOT OF BUNUEL

Well, I sincerely didn't intend on watching another Luis Bunuel film, making it two, back-to-back for the director. However, I was so intrigued by "Belle de Jour", that I just couldn't help but to check out "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie", as I knew it was streaming on Netflix.

The plot of the film isn't your run of the mill storyline, so bear with me as I try to put it all down in a paragraph long synopsis. The film opens with a P.O.V. shot, through the windshield of a car and looking out upon a dark road, illuminated by headlights. When the car arrives at it's destination, we find that it carries Raphael Acosta (Rey), Simone Thevenot (Seyrig), her husband (Frankeur) and her sister (Bulle Ogier). The quartet are about to meet their friends, Henri (Cassel) and Alice Senechal (Audran) for a dinner party. When the door is opened, Alice is quite surprised by their appearance, as she expected them the following night and informs them that Henri isn't even present. The couples, instead, decide to go to a restaurant and when they arrive they notice that the place is empty. They are told that the restaurant is, despite this fact, open and they they can be served. Once inside, the couples hear crying coming from another room and draw back a curtain to reveal a corpse. They're told that they corpse is that of the restaurant manager, who suddenly died earlier that day. This motif continues throughout the film, as the couples try, over and over again to have a meal with each other, but each and every time something happens that prevents this from occurring. It's more like an episodic movie, rather than a linear plot. The same characters continue to show up, but the events that occur are entirely different and loosely connected.

It's funny because I actually had to stop the film at one point and look up Delphine Seyrig to see if she was the same actress from "Jeanne Dielman...". It's kind of a testament to THAT film, because when I think of "Jeanne Dielman...", I think of it as a more voyeuristic, reality based affair and words like "actress" don't enter into my head. Oh well, on to the movie at hand...

I actually had a hard time grasping this one, much like I did with "Belle de Jour", but this one was even harder to get a handle on. I actually don't think I'll have a whole lot to say, but I'll say what's on my mind and we'll leave it at that. I can say, definitively, that the film IS NOT boring, in the least. At no time during the picture was I watching the clock or did I want the film to just end. It does have a drawing power that kind of sucks you into this very foreign ("foreign" in terms of different and not in terms of country) environment. Despite all the nonsense that continues to unfold throughout the picture, I kept with it and it's a really easy film to follow, if you pay attention. In the two films of his I've watched in the past two days, I've learned that Bunuel does have the ability to intrigue his viewers, a sometimes rare quality in a director. However, when it comes to the intrigue that Bunuel evokes in me, it's the kind of intrigue that makes me not know whether I like the picture or not. He simply gets my wheels to turning, but when it comes to forming an opinion, I find it sort of difficult.

As to what Bunuel was exactly trying to say with "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie", I really don't know. Maybe it reverberates back to what I was saying last night, where he really wasn't trying to SAY anything, but simply making a different brand of picture and giving the viewer the opportunity to dissect it how he or she sees fit. I do know that he's definitely making fun of the bourgeoisie lifestyle. These characters are made absolute fools of and can't even seem to accomplish the simple task of dining together. Maybe, he's saying that often times the charm of the bourgeoisie gets in the way of otherwise menial tasks. When characters say, "Oh we simply can't dine now, I'm not dressed for the occasion" or "I have an important function to get to, we'll have to postpone our luncheon", that theory kind of holds water. Whereas "everyday Joe's" will simply eat when they're hungry, whether all of the members of their party are present or not. I don't know, maybe I'm just grasping at straws and maybe there's no need to do that. Like I said, the film is intriguing and interesting enough now, when I have no clue what exactly was trying to be said or even what was going on and maybe I should just leave it at that. Ultimately, this is going to be one that I'll more than likely feel the need to revisit sometime in the future, but for now, we'll call that a review.

RATING: 7/10 Not sure why it's a '7', but it was certainly better than a '6.5' and a '7.5' seemed too high, so there's your reasoning. Whether or not this film will make the TOP 20 is beyond me at this point. We'll see how time treats it.

MOVIES WATCHED: 373
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 628

December 20, 2011 6:14pm

463. Belle de Jour (1967)

Running Time: 101 minutes
Directed By: Luis Bunuel
Written By: Luis Bunuel, Jean-Claude Carriere, from novel by Joseph Kessel
Main Cast: Catherine Deneuve, Jean Sorel, Michel Piccoli, Genevieve Page, Pierre Clementi
Click here to view the trailer

FANTASY OR REALITY?

Despite the fact that "Belle de Jour" wasn't scheduled to be one of the film's that I watched during this sixties filled 100, something about it caught my eye recently and I decided to slip it in. For the curious, the original plan was for me to do a week dedicated to Luis Bunuel, but because I can't find all of his films, I've decided to bust them up and watch them whenever.

In "Belle de Jour" Catherine Deneuve is Severine, a married, bourgeois housewife whom is quite frigid when it comes to her husband Pierre (Sorel) and their sex life (or lack thereof). However, even though Severine doesn't show any interest in building a sex life with her husband, she often fantasizes about different sexual exploits and fetishes. From the beginning, we get the sense that Severine seems to be very conflicted inside - on one hand she DOES love her husband, but doesn't wish to be sexually active with him and on the other hand she does have a very healthy sexual appetite, one that she is only feeding with fantasies. When Severine finds out that an old friend of hers has become a prostitute at a whorehouse, Severine seems intrigued. After talking with a friend of her husband's, Husson (Piccoli) and inadvertently getting the address of a local brothel, Severine goes for a visit and ends up with a day job. Severine agrees to work at the brothel weekdays, from 2pm until 5pm, when her husband (the doctor) is at work, in an effort to feed her sexual desires. She'll go by the name Belle de Jour when she's at the brothel, in an effort to conceal her private life and cleverly play off the time of day she's available. At first she's hesitant, but she soon slips into the job and becomes comfortable there. However, things become really complicated when her husband starts getting suspicious and one of her "johns" falls in love with her.

Let's start at the very beginning, a very good place to start. I'll go on record in saying that "Belle de Jour" probably has one of the best opening scenes that I've ever witnessed. A horse drawn carriage rides closer to the screen and eventually reveals our main couple, Severine and Pierre. I won't spoil the rest here, but trust me it's probably the best hook you'll ever find in a movie and it's something that, once I saw it, I knew I was going to be in for a real treat with this movie. Let me put it another way: If the opening scene of this movie had played out and then all of a sudden the DVD copy of this movie had crapped out on me and stopped working, I would have been a very pissed off individual! Enough about the beginning, let's get into the meat & potatoes of the picture, shall we. To be honest, the film was a little hard for me to grasp onto. I had a hard time settling in and from start to finish, there seemed to be a real feeling of unease going on within me as I watched the afternoon exploits of Belle de Jour unfold. The whole world that these characters existed in, really reeked of something impure & unsettling. Perhaps it was the severe degree of sexual perversions that are examined throughout the film. At different times in the film, things like bondage, necrophilia, pedophilia, domination and humiliation fetishes are hinted at, and those are just some of the ones I picked up on.

SPOILER ALERT!

However, Bunuel isn't blatant when it comes to the sexual part of the movie. There is no nudity, sex is never shown and even the perversions that I mention above are never said outright, but only hinted at (sometimes more heavily hinted that others, but still). And, hey, don't get me wrong, this film isn't a piece of pornography (although in the 60s, I'm sure it was considered as such) and deals with much more than just sexual desires and urges. Bunuel also provides us with characters, most notably Severine, a woman who is conflicted inside because she has urges that she can't succumb to. Perhaps Severine's desires are so extreme that she knows that Pierre will never be able to satisfy her and so that she won't shame him, she just decides to tell him that she's not ready. Perhaps in her mind, the idea of a conventional sex life between a man and wife just isn't taboo enough, but to fit in with society she decided to marry a doctor and live a good life, in a nice home, where she'll shop and welcome guests. Perhaps all the shopping, welcoming guests and day to day life of a doctor's wife has made her feel like she's living a watered down lifestyle and perhaps Severine needs to have a secret, hole in the wall place where she goes to do unspeakable deeds.

There's one thing to say for this film and that's that it makes you think. It also made me realize the obsession that people have with unlocking certain movies, trying their best to get the answers and be told how they were supposed to interpret art. Whatever happened to just sitting back and watching? Just letting things BE and letting movies unfold before your eyes. If you get ideas or interpretations, fine, explore them. If you don't form any ideas, but still find yourself drawn to the movie and intrigued by it, then just let it BE. I wanted answers when this film ended, but I felt more content to just mull it over on my own and let it seep in. Sure, the liens between fantasy and reality are a bit blurred in "Belle de Jour", but I think if you pay attention, it's not a hard movie to unlock. When there is fantasy we hear the jingle bells of a horse drawn carriage (how fitting so close to Christmas). The ending is ambiguous, but there is one idea that I thought was really clever...

The character of Husson is portrayed throughout the film as kind of a sleazy guy, or at least that's how I saw him. In the end, he arrives at the home of Severine and Pierre and tells Severine that he's prepared to tell Pierre everything about her "day job". He rationalizes his idea by telling Severine that if Pierre knows everything then he won't feel guilty about being a paralyzed man, condemning his "pure" wife to a lifetime of taking care of him. He'll know the truth and then his guilt will be eased. Husson enters the room where Pierre sits, but we never find out if he actually tells or not. I think he definitely tells Pierre, no question about it. By telling Pierre, he not only fulfills his own idea, but he also guarantees that Severine will never leave Pierre and that he WILL always have a caretaker. Think about it, we're dealing with a woman who had overwhelming sexual desires, so overwhelming that she took a day job at a whorehouse and hid the truth from her husband. She didn't leave her husband, nor did she ever even tinker with the idea of leaving him and simply becoming a full-time whore. She, in my mind, DOES, sincerely love Pierre. The guilt that she'll feel if she leaves a man, who knows she was unfaithful to him, would be unbearable to her. So, in the end, Husson actually does them both a favor: He ensures that Pierre will always have Severine to take care of him and feel guiltless about it and he makes it impossible for Severine to finally, fully succumb to her sexual temptation and leave the man she loves. That's my interpretation anyway. It's not right or wrong, it's simply how the story goes in my head. Oh yeah and the end is a fantasy and also a bit of a sign that Severine will, from there on, be forced to live in a fantasy world when it comes to personal excitement.

RATING: 8/10 I didn't really grasp it enough to go all the way, but it intrigued me enough to get, at least, an '8'. I actually did a lot of my grasping on this one as I was writing, so what you read above is a man trying to understand a movie.

MOVIES WATCHED: 372
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 629

December 20, 2011 2:06am

Bergman Week - COMING SOON

459. The Graduate (1967)

Running Time: 106 minutes
Directed By: Mike Nichols
Written By: Buck Henry, Calder Willingham, from novel by Charles Webb
Main Cast: Anne Bancroft, Dustin Hoffman, Katharine Ross, William Daniels, Murray Hamilton
Click here to view the trailer

A DOUBLE SHOT OF NICHOLS: 2 of 2

Our short, but respectable two-film salute to Mike Nichols comes to a close with, probably, his most popular feature ever, "The Graduate". I had seen "The Graduate" several times prior to this particular viewing and it just goes to show you that every time you watch a film, you have the opportunity to see it completely different.

Dustin Hoffman is Benjamin Braddock, and as the film opens he's on a plane, returning home from college, from where he recently graduated. When he arrives at home, he lacks the demeanor of someone who has just triumphantly graduate from school and when he's questioned by his father as to why he seems troubled, he responds by saying that he's unsure about his future. Ben does what is socially expected from him at his graduation party, mingling with guests and allowing his cheeks to be squeezed by old ladies and hands to be shook by elder gentlemen, all of which have known him since he was a child. Later in the evening, Ben is approached by Mrs. Robinson (Bancroft), who requests a ride home, stating that her husband had to leave unexpectedly. Ben drives her home, though he doesn't want to and Mrs. Robinson continues to push the button further, forcing him to come inside, saying that she doesn't feel safe at home, alone. Eventually it becomes clear that Mrs. Robinson IS trying to seduce the young, inexperienced Benjamin, but he resists. However, shortly after his twenty-first birthday and sometime after the graduation party, Ben remembers the seductive qualities of Mrs. Robinson and gives her a call, ready to welcome her advances. They begin an affair with one another, meeting at the Taft Hotel and doing literally nothing but having sex. But things change when Ben is forced onto a date with Mrs. Robinson's daughter, Elaine (Ross) and ends up falling for her.

SPOILER ALERT!

Let me elaborate on my above statement of seeing a picture differently every time you watch it. I meant that in a negative way, first of all. I've always loved "The Graduate" and when I'd watch it in the past, I'd leave it with nothing but positive things to say about it. However, after last night, I realized a gaping criticism. I watched the film last night and when it ended (and even before it ended), I noticed that it was a lot more comedic than I remembered it. Now, when I say "comedic", I don't necessarily mean in a good way, although there are some good bits of comedy in the picture. When I say "comedic", what I really mean is unconventional. In the film, Ben meets Mrs. Robinson and after some consideration begins an affair with her. Ben spends his summer days lounging in the pool and meeting Mrs. Robinson at the hotel. He later admits that she is really the only thing that he has to look forward to and enjoys her company. Then, despite Mrs. Robinson's objections, Ben meets and goes on a date with Elaine Robinson. He tries to put her off, but when he realizes he's really hurting her feelings, he stops being a jerk and starts being a gentlemen and the two end up having a good time. Then, moments before their second date is to begin, Mrs. Robinson warns Ben that if he continues to see Elaine, the she'll tell her about their affair. Ben, wanting to tell Elaine before Mrs. Robinson does, runs to her room and before he can actually say what's going on, Elaine figures it out for herself and date #2 is null and void.

Now then, my gripe kicks in right about here, as Ben then proceeds to basically stalk Elaine, moving to Berkley (where Elaine attends school) and planning to propose to her. We find out later that Mrs. Robinson ended up telling Elaine that Ben raped her, but Ben tries his best to set her straight. When the ending comes, Elaine has decided to marry another man, but Ben interrupts the wedding, taking Elaine with him. The two hop a bus and ride off into the sunset together. Now...that sounds absolutely ridiculous! Where was this "love" that Ben eventually establishes with Elaine come from. The two have one date, share a bag of french fries and all of a sudden he's in stalker mode, ready to marry her. The first half of the film is top notch, as twenty-one year old Ben and forty-something Mrs. Robinson engage in sneaky behavior, to hide their affair. But then Elaine is added into the mix and all of a sudden everything gets a little too goofy for my tastes. Mrs. Robinson forbids Ben to see Elaine, at first, but we never get a real explanation as to why. She mentions something about Ben not being good enough for Elaine, but then she takes it back and apologizes for it and we never know if she means it or not. And if she doesn't think he's good enough for her, why exactly does she think that. Does she think what they're doing is scummy behavior and doesn't want her daughter dealing with men who would do such things? We never really find out.

Then, Elaine enters and like I said, Ben falls head over heels for her within hours. It would seem to me that realistically, Ben would have more of a connection to Mrs. Robinson, the woman that he just spent the summer having sex with, the woman who brought companionship to his lonely nights, the woman that took his virginity. It just doesn't seem right that he'd give up his time with Mrs. Robinson after one night with Elaine. Also, why would Elaine want anything to do with Ben after her mother told her that he raped her? I don't know, but this whole "romance" between Elaine and Ben just didn't feel genuine at all and when the entire climax builds to their running away together, it's not much of a climax. I realize that this isn't reality, it's fiction and it isn't a drama, it's more of a comedy, but the music and the mood don't feel like a comedy, for the most part. In fact, "The Graduate" doesn't really feel like a comedy, until all of the lunacy in the second half.

Now, I'm not saying I hate "The Graduate" or anything. I still think it's a really good picture and it's probably even a "must see". I'm just saying that it was a big disappointment to finally come to some of these realizations. The acting is great, for the most part. Hoffman carves himself a career in the span of one movie and the woman of few words, Anne Bancroft plays a great cougar, before "cougars" even really existed. However, Katharine Ross was dreadful. The music was a big part of the film too, as Simon & Garfunkel belt out tunes from "The Sound of Silence" to "Mrs. Robinson" and a few others in between and their music really gels with the tone of the film. Some of the editing techniques that were used, were really brilliant and I think this is one of the best and most well put together montages I've EVER seen. I'll quit while I'm ahead. It's a great picture and please don't let my gripes prevent you from at least giving this one a shot. I think, for the most part, that it's well worth your time.

RATING: 7.5/10 I like the movie and I know we're dealing with an adaptation here, but I just wish everything would have worked out differently for these characters, because they were great characters.

MOVIES WATCHED: 371
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 630

December 18, 2011 6:31pm

454. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)

Running Time: 134 minutes
Directed By: Mike Nichols
Written By: Ernest Lehman, from play by Edward Albee
Main Cast: Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, George Segal, Sandy Dennis
Click here to view the trailer

A DOUBLE SHOT OF NICHOLS: 1 of 2

If you've been keeping up with the blog, then you know I've been in a bit of a slump, as of late. Last night when I popped in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?", I was hoping for something that would break me out of my slump and "WOW" me. That's what I got!

The film is based on a stage play and actually only has a cast of four (unless you count the bartender, when the couple go dancing). The primary characters are George (Burton) and Martha (Taylor), a couple in their forties, who rely on games and bickering to keep their marriage fresh. When the film opens, we see the couple arriving home from a party, at around 2:00am Sunday morning. They're both a little drunk (Martha more than George) and they begin cursing at one another almost immediately. You get the feeling that this is normal around their house, as George swallows insults from Martha, as if he gets them on a daily basis. After a few minutes pass, Martha informs George that they'll be receiving guests and that they should be arriving any minute. Not really in any condition to receive, but not wanting to fight with Martha, George puts his game face on. The guests are Nick (Segal) and Honey (Dennis), a twenty-something couple, Nick being a member of the biology department, at a university, where George is also a professor. What follows over the course of the next two hours is a lot of awkward moments, fighting and the bringing to life of a fantastic script by Ernest Lehman, as the film is very dialogue driven, as it follows the two couple until the break of dawn.

I had seen "Virginia Woolf" once before, but I may have been just a hair to young to really grasp how good it was. Either that, or I just have a really bad memory, because I didn't remember this picture being this good. This film incorporates a lot of what I look for in a movie, personally. It has a very small cast, which provided me with a certain intimacy among the four characters and myself. The script is almost nothing but dialogue, which is another factor that highly plays to my personal tastes. The setting moves a few times, but for the most part we're in George and Martha's living room and I love films where we stay put. In fact, if I had to pick one thing to gripe about, in regards to this movie, it would be that I wish we had never left the living room, or if nothing else, at least the premises of George and Martha's home. When the film forces us into the car and into a crummy, little roadhouse, I kept wishing we had just stayed put. But that's nitpicking at it's maximum and really, it's no big deal.

Also, if you want to talk about top notch acting, look no further than Burton and Taylor and their performances in this movie. Taylor certainly deserved her Oscar and as far as I'm concerned Richard Burton was even better than Paul Scofield (who won the Oscar for Best Leading Actor that year, for "A Man for All Seasons"). It's not the best acting I've ever seen, but if I were forced to make a list of, say the Top 50 performances I've witnessed, I wouldn't be surprised to see Burton AND Taylor take two spots. They really laid it all out there and by the time the film came to a conclusion and the characters were finally able to slump their shoulders, it was a bit of a relaxing moment for me as well. The film is REALLY exhausting, in that it provides the viewer with a roller coaster of emotions and rarely turns down the intensity.

This movie really forced me to think, but not about anything but this movie. It made me wonder about the characters, as they took on a real life for the duration of the film and I felt like a third guest at the party. I felt awkward, right along with Nick and Honey, as George and Martha fought, letting obscenities fly and not being shy in front of their guests. For a while, I was able to really connect with Nick, in that I seemed to feel everything that his character was probably feeling. The film made me wonder about George and Martha, much like Nick probably wondered. Was this couple EVER happy? Was there ever a time when they weren't at each others throats? It's funny how this film really takes you around the to each character and for me, there were certain points where I identified and sympathized with each of them. I felt sorry for George when the film first started, seeing Martha as a nag who never gave him a moment's peace. Then Nick enters and I can totally identify with him, as he bears witness to this very strange couple. Then, later, George gets a little more vicious and I started to sympathize with Martha a little more. It makes you wonder why they didn't flesh of the character of Honey a little more, instead of making her a "mousey" wife, who couldn't hold her liquor and spends 90% of the film in a drunken stupor.

This film is very close to being perfect. From the dialogue, to the characters, to the setting, to the ways it makes you feel, it doesn't let up. I loved the little piece of music too, that started and ended the film and how when it played at the end, it kind of warmed me and wound me down a bit. I'm becoming more and more of a fan of films that are based on stage plays, because they almost always seem to appeal to me. Maybe I should actually start going to see plays.

RATING: 10/10 Screw it, I'm going all in! It's hard to give this movie any less than a full course rating, because it's just so good. Consider this one a "slump buster". Next up: "The Graduate".

MOVIES WATCHED: 370
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 631

December 17, 2011 10:12pm

425. The Masque of the Red Death (1964)

Running Time: 88 minutes
Directed By: Roger Corman
Written By: Charles Beaumont, R. Wright Campbell, from stories The Masque of the Red Death and Hop-Frog by Edgar Allan Poe
Main Cast: Vincent Price, Hazel Court, Jane Asher, David Weston, Nigel Green
Click here to view the trailer

ON MY JOURNEY I MET A MAN NAMED PRICE

Well I was hoping that the old expression, "third time's the charm" would work for me today, as I set out to tackle my third movie of the day and hopefully dig my way out of the slump that I've been in. Unfortunately, "The Masque of the Red Death" wasn't quite what the doctor ordered.

Our man of the hour (or 88 minutes) this time around is Vincent Price, as he's cast as Prince Prospero, a devil worshiping, evil dictator who rules with an iron fist over the people of his village. Prospero lives in a glorious castle and comes out to mock and torture the villagers from time to time. One evening, a man dressed in all red tells one of the villagers that their day of deliverance is at hand. When Prospero is told this, he scoffs at the thought - that is, until he discovers evidence that a plague called the Red Death may be spreading throughout his land. Taking three hostages with him, Francesca (Asher), her father and her lover, Prospero returns to his kingdom and locks the Red Death outside the castle doors, promising his followers inside refuge from the vicious plague. While locked inside, Prospero orders that a masquerade to be held, with the only rule being that no one wear red. The film forges on, as the climax builds toward the masquerade and the impending doom of the Red Death lurking outside the castle doors. There are also several subplots, including Prospero's mistress Juliana and her satanic marriage to the Devil himself.

There's actually kind of a good news/bad news situation here. The bad news is that, ultimately I didn't much care for "The Masque of the Red Death". The good news, however, is that I did enjoy everything that the book cites as reason for this film's inclusion. The book doesn't cite the plot (which is horrible) as reason for inclusion, but rather uses Price himself, Hazel Court and the cinematography (by Nicolas Roeg) as reasons for the picture being included in the text. I had, believe it or not, never seen a Vincent Price film, prior to this one and I was quite excited to finally, actually watch Price act in a film. I think the closest I'd ever gotten to a Vincent Price movie was Michael Jackson's "Thriller" video, in which Price does a voice over. It was finally time for me to see the man behind that maniacal laugh and I have to admit, he was a true heel. As far as the rest of the cast goes, the beautiful Hazel Court flashes plenty of cleavage to keep the viewer occupied and plays a very wicked female character, who can't help but to succumb to the prowess of "The Fallen Angel".

SPOILER ALERT!

The visual imagery is quite stellar, as the film uses nearly every color of the rainbow to pop the viewer's eyes, nearly out of their sockets. The rooms that Prospero has in his castle, consisting of a yellow, purple, white and black room are beautiful set pieces and the grand ballroom, where the masquerade is held, is yet another gorgeous piece of imagery. During the grand ball, all the colors of the rainbow mingle, as the Red Death (decked out in red from head to toe) prances through the middle, sticking out like a sore thumb. There's also a little subplot involving the dwarf Hop-Frog and the drastic measures that he takes to get revenge on Alfredo, one of Prospero's lackeys - convincing him to dress up in an ape suit for the masquerade and then tying him to a chandelier, dousing him with brandy and setting him up in flames.

With all of that praise being showered upon this film, I really can't, in good conscience, give this film a nod of approval. I realize that this is pretty much a B-horror movie and isn't really meant to be taken too seriously. But as far as I'm concerned, both A and B movies get treated the same on this blog and "The Masque of the Red Death" was really a drag. Nothing really happens and the whole film is obviously a vehicle to adapt a Poe story and showcase Price at his devilish best. Once inside the castle, there's a ridiculous little subplot involving Francesca and her being held captive, at times forced to choose whether her father or lover will be the one "sacrificed". Usually though, she walks with Prospero and they quarrel over the existence of God and the power of the dark side. Had they put a little more effort into the plot and fleshed out CERTAIN characters a bit more, this could've been a piece of horror gold. I'll leave it at that...

RATING: 4.5/10 I know that seems low for all of the good that I said was within this film, but trust me, this film isn't even average. Man, talk about a slump!

MOVIES WATCHED: 369
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 632

December 15, 2011 1:06am