The Secret of the Loch (1934)

Director:  Milton Rosmer

Writers: Charles Bennett, Billie Bristow

Composer:  Peter Mendoza

Starring:  Seymour Hicks, Nancy O'Neil, Gibson Gowland, Frederick Peisley, Eric Hales, Ben Field, Hubert Harben, Rosamund John, Robb Wilton, Fewlass Llewellyn

More info:  IMDb

Plot:  A batty Scottish professor attempts to prove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, but everyone thinks he's crazy. Meanwhile, a foolish young reporter attempts to get a scoop on the story.

My rating:   5.5/10

Will I watch it again?   No.

At 71 minutes long, this flick moves fast and that's evident in the first few minutes when there's a meeting of science-types poo-pooing Professor Heggie's (Hicks) claims that the Loch Ness Monster is real.  It quickly establishes that everyone thinks he's batshit crazy and it throws in some silly humor to let you know what kind of picture this is.  They don't tamp the brakes just yet because an unnaturally energetic young London reporter, Jimmy (Peisley), is freaking the fuck out because he's going to Scotland for the big scoop.  When he arrives he meets Professor Heggie's granddaughter, Angela (Gowland) by climbing into her bedroom window (instead of granddad) by mistake, whereupon he falls in love with her.  Hours later he's ready to marry her.  Ah, love...

Gimme some sugar, Baby!

He soon loses his job for no reason at all except to move the plot along faster.  Now the only way he can keep his job is to prove the professor is right.  If he can find the monster, he'll get to keep his job AND Angela agreed to marry him on that one condition.  Jesus, folks, this is right out of real life, huh?!  Of course it ends happily and the monster is a gila monster in slow motion made to look like it's underwater.   Did you expect more?  They had a budget to consider.  This silly little comedy has a few mild laughs but the pacing makes it go by painlessly enough.  There's not much of value here so it's OK to skip it.  I'm sure you can find this on YouTube or elsewhere free to watch.  There is one thing to note and that's that David "Mutha Fuckin' Lawrence of Arabia" Lean edited this picture!!!  Put that in your haggis pipe and smoke it!  Can you tell it's him?  Nope.  But it's an interesting piece of trivia nonetheless.

 

Shoot the Sun Down (1978)

Director:  David Leeds

Writers:  David Leeds, Richard Rothstein

Composer:  Ed Bogas

Starring:  Margot Kidder, Geoffrey Lewis, Christopher Walken, Bo Brundin, A Martinez, Ivan Naranjo, Bert Santos, Sacheen Littlefeather, Jorge Cervera Jr., Michael Eiland, Ben Zeller

More info:  IMDb

Tagline:  The American West...a burning desert awash with bushwackers, scalphunters and adventurers in search of forgotten gold...

Plot:  In this adventurous western set in 1836, four misanthropic people band together to find a golden treasure. But as they go out, they begin double and triple-crossing each other in hopes of getting the gold for themselves.

My rating:   6.5/10

Will I watch it again?   No.

I'm gonna want more cow.

After watching the movie I read a few reviews and nearly all of them shit all over it.  It's not THAT bad.  Geez!  The picture looks fantastic!  And with cinematographer Michael Chapman behind the camera, it's no doubt.  A couple of years earlier he shot TAXI DRIVER (1976) and a couple of years later he shot RAGING BULL (1980).  The guy's no slouch.  There are some truly beautiful shots in this picture.  It looks so good at times that you get the idea this film is somewhere in between an arthouse and a Spaghetti Western.  I don't know what you'd call that but I kind of dug it.  

I like the cast with the exception of Walken.  I'm a fan of his but he's just miscast.  I see that he's in the movie but I don't feel it.  He's really out of place in a gritty western  where the great Geoffrey Lewis shares the screen.  Now Lewis knows what movie he's in and he's one of the best things about it.  Kidder did a fine job.  One odd thing about this movie is that it's halfway in that you start to get an idea of what the Captain is up to which ends up being the main thrust of the story. How did he know where to look for the treasure, having traveled from England?  Beats me.  The large gold nugget he has seems to have something to do with it.  Why is it he as a nugget with the same composition as the one Scalphunter (Lewis) has?  No idea.  Maybe I missed something but there are a few little things that would make more sense, on a grander scale, if we could connect the dots more easily.  By leaving big pieces of the puzzle out, I reckon it makes it more 'artsy'.  I'm not looking for deep thought in this one.  With one foot in the arthouse and one in the Spaghetti Western where they'll stab you in the back just for snorin', I'll take the latter.  

When it's all said and done, though, The 100 pretty to look at minutes moved pretty quickly.  It's a shame this was Leeds' sole venture into film making.  I would love to see what else he was capable of.  This is one hell of a start, albeit an uneven one.  Side note:  even with no money left over for the poster budget, surely someone could've done better than what they went with.  Just terrible.

The Sandpiper (1965)

Director:  Vincente Minnelli

Writers: Martin Ransohoff, Irene Kamp, Louis Kamp, Dalton Trumbo, Michael Wilson

Composer:  Johnny Mandel

Starring:  Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, Eva Marie Saint, Charles Bronson, Robert Webber, James Edwards, Torin Thatcher, Tom Drake, Douglas Henderson, Morgan Mason

More info:  IMDb

Tagline:  It was the right thing. It was the wrong thing. It was the only thing their hearts would allow.

Plot:  A free-spirited single mother forms a connection with the wedded headmaster of an Episcopalian boarding school in Monterey, California.

My rating:   6/10

Will I watch it again?   No.

#39 on Project: Badass Charles Bronson

BRONSON'S AGE: 44
LEVEL OF BADASSICITY (10 being the highest): 9.  He.Creates.Women!

Watch the trailer.  It's dreadfully dull and screams, "DON'T WATCH THIS!".  Now, the movie isn't nearly as bad as the trailer makes out.  It's no all that good but it is watchable and there are some things worth watching for.  Taylor is great.  She pulls some much needed life out out of that script.  The cast does a fine job.  Burton...well, he's Richard Burton which means he's brooding, dramatic and a party pooper that doesn't smile (at least I don't recall him once smiling).  You don't watch movies like this to be surprised.  You know Edward (Burton) is going to fall for Laura (Taylor) against his better judgement and you know where that's going to lead and it 'tisn't going to end well.  Despite Burton playing the character as he does, he is commanding.  That man can recite shit dialogue better than most and I'll always buy a ticket, front row seat watching him do it. 

Then there's the rest of the cast.  Eva Marie Saint's role as Claire, Edward's wife, is about what you'd expect from a character that's just there for the eventual conflict when it blows up on the screen.  Robert Webber, as Edward's friend and donation machine to the church school, Ward, is great.  I've always dug this guy's work and he goes from charming to rapist asshole at the drop of a hat.  I really dug his character's role in the big scheme of things.  His was one of the more interesting roles.  And then there's Charles Bronson!

When we first meet him, he's working on a nude wooden sculpture of Elizabeth Taylor.  Why?  Because of course he is, that's why.  He's got the maker's touch.  He can literally make women out of shit you can find lying around the beach.  Hell, he could probably do it anywhere with any material.  He's just that good!  If that's not enough, he goes toe to toe with Edward, a mouthpiece for God, and stands his own!  Take that Jesus, you glorified birthday party magician!

Here he is with more of his creations.

I know what you're saying, "Hey, why does Charles Bronson need to make women when there are billions of them on this planet alone?"  Yeah, I thought you'd say something like that.  Well, you see, it's because THAT'S NOT ENOUGH WOMEN; he needs to make more to satisfy his gargantuan lust!  And what's wrong with having them look like Liz Fucking Taylor?  Fuck me sideways, that woman was a piece of work.  What a talent!

I mentioned that the movie is predictable.  On an early meeting between Edward and Laura, she gets him to help her mend a broken wing on a young sandpiper (bird).  Right then and there you know exactly where this is going and it goes exactly there.  You see, the wounded bird represents her son which she is having to let slowly leave the comfortable nest she's made for them, and by the end of the movie she'll have to accept that he's movie on, just as the bird is ready to move on and be with other birds.  They come back to the bird a few times before the end and each time it's like getting hit on the head with the foreshadowing hammer.  It gets even worse and more ham-fisted when Edward even spells it out in dialogue near the end.  Now, I have no doubt that this included in the novel the film is based on and I get that this was now 56 years ago but for the love of Pete, this surely had to be just as obvious to audiences then almost as it is now.  OMFG it was so painful to go through.  For the most part, this was a good movie, but shit like that really takes it down a peg or two.  This is a soft recommend as there's just enough in it to be entertained but there are speed bumps along the way that will slow you down, and running over that sandpiper isn't one of them.

Beyond Atlantis (1973)

Director:  Eddie Romero

Writers:  Charles Eric Johnson, Stephanie Rothman

Composer:  Ed. Norton

Starring:  Patrick Wayne, John Ashley, Leigh Christian, Sid Haig, Lenore Stevens, George Nader, Vic Diaz, Andres Centenera, Eddie Garcia, Kenneth J. Warren, Gil Arceo, Kim Ramos, Angelo Ventura

More info:  IMDb

Tagline:  Forgotten by nature... invaded by modern man... half human... half fish!

Plot:  A band of adventurers invade a native island determined to grab a reported fortune in buried treasure. The islanders are just as determined to keep their sacred treasure. Complications ensue.

My rating:   5.5/10

Will I watch it again?   No.

It didn't take too long into this to realize I'd seen this before but it seemed to have promise plus, with Sid Haig and Vic Diaz, I couldn't say no.  As the picture wore on I started to remember more and more until it was too late; the movie was over.  This wouldn't have been that bad of a movie to see in the drive-in back in the day but it would've been better if there had been a little nudity and some bloody action.  The IMDb trivia says that star Patrick Wayne (son of The Duke) said the only way he'd sign on is if it were PG and without nudity, something the family could enjoy.  I think we'd have been better off with someone else in the lead if that's the sacrifice.  There were dozens of actors who could've easily filled that role.  Sid Haig plays a scoundrel pimp, East Eddie.  He's an asshole to just about everyone that is until he's assembled his team.  Once they're all on the island looking for the valuable pearls, he's a straight up nice guy.  His complete tonal shift can be justified by a man who's operating a business deal and does what's needed to get the job done but it is a striking, quick change in character.  I really dug the score but it's wildly different enough in places that I wonder if all of it was written specifically for this picture.  It does have some nice moments.  The story is easy to get through with few, if any, surprises.  I must say the ending was dumb and a cheap way of getting out of one last action sequence.  With a few exploitation touches, this could've been a fun night at the movies but with it being as tame as it is, it's a mild time-waster on a lazy afternoon.

Hell's Angels '69 (1969)

 

Director:  Lee Madden

Writers:  Don Tait, Tom Stern, Jeremy Slate

Composer:  Tony Bruno

Starring:  Tom Stern, Jeremy Slate, Conny Van Dyke, G.D. Spradlin, Bobby Hall, Steve Sandor, Sonny Barger, Terry the Tramp, Clifford Workman, Tiny Walters, Charles Tinsley, and the Oakland Hell's Angels

More info:  IMDb

Tagline:  This was the RUMBLE that ROCKED Las Vegas!

Plot:  Chuck and his brother Wes are wealthy siblings who plan to rob Caesar's Palace more for fun than profit.  Oh, yeah, they're going to use the unsuspecting Hell's Angels to pull it off!

My rating:   7.5/10

Will I watch it again?   Yes.

 

Well goddamn this was different!  Biker flicks are nearly always predictable and they follow a similar pattern.  This one's very different.  The fact that a couple of wealthy brothers use the Hell's Angels (without the knowledge of the gang) to help them knock off Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas is a very unusual idea.  It's not hard to see how this got made by any studio.  Sure, it's AIP, a studio known for it's low budget drive-in movie fare, but it's still a studio with budget and a crew and not some max out your credit cards to get it made kind of a deal.  Hell, they even got a soundtrack album released on Capitol Records!  Nice going, fellas!!!

The premise is great although I knew nothing of the plot going in so the heist caught my completely by surprise.  The acting serves the film well enough and the lead actors (the brothers) do a very nice job.  Take a look at their credits, they are impressive.  Usually in a biker flick there'd be a ton of padding with the gang riding around everywhere and while that's here, it's just enough and it doesn't feel like it's there to eat up some time.  There's a variety of camera angles and other things you just don't expect to find with this genre.  And this is from a first-time director!!!  I'm going to have to see what else Lee Madden has done.  This picture is 96 minutes and I was left wanting more.   And HOLY FUCKING SHIT!  That ending!!! 

 

 

The Revolt of the Pretorians (1964)

Original title:  La Rivolta dei Pretoriani

Director:  Alfonso Brescia

Writer:  Gian Paolo Callegari

Composer:  Carlo Franci

Starring:  Richard Harrison, Moira Orfei, Piero Lulli, Giuliano Gemma, Paola Pitti, Ivy Holzer, Fedele Gentile, Amedeo Trilli, Mirko Ellis, Renato Montalbano, Salvatore Furnari, Massimo Carocci, Aldo Cecconi

More info:  IMDb

Plot:  Rome chafes under the rule of the Emperor Domitian and his Egyptian mistress, Artamne. A mysterious champion arises to fight against the Emperor -- a masked man known as the Red Wolf. In fact, the Red Wolf is Valerius Rufus, one of the Emperor's trusted centurions who's aided by none other than the Emperor's court jester, the diminutive Elpidion. Rebels in league with Valerius kidnap Artamne, planning to exchange her for two of their imprisoned colleagues, but Artamne escapes and soon both Valerius, (now exposed as the Red Wolf), and his fiancee, Lucilla, are sentenced to be immersed in a cauldron of molten lead. Valerius's friends, however, rise up to rescue him and to liberate Rome.

My rating:   6/10

Will I watch it again?  Nah.

 

This is one of better lower-tiere Sword & Sandal pictures the Italians churned out in the 1960s so I'd say that's not a bad recommendation.  It's not bad and it's not great but it has a comfortable seat at the S&S table.  They were able to take the simple story and not pad it with a bunch of boring nonsense.  There's a good deal of action and it's pretty liberally sprinkled throughout.  The group fighting suffers from the typical lazy choreography of the time, but you see that in even the biggest of budgeted pictures.  If you change your focus off the main fighting and look at the background fighters, you'll see what I mean.  But then when you get to where it's just Richard Harrison fighting, that's almost an entirely different sport.  This guy is very physical and he the the actor/stuntman against him really put on a show.  It also helps that the camera gets a lot of shots of the entire mano-a-mano fight in the frame.  It's not without quick closeup cutaways that look fake as hell but it's a treat just to see chunks of a fight in glorious widescreen and mostly without one note of music (nice!).  

 

 

 

This picture must've had a better budget than most because the sets look better and more lavish.  The acting is better, too, although it's hard to tell sometimes when it's dubbed in English and most of the cast are Italian.  If you're into this genre then it's worth a look.  If not, then go for the big budget Hollywood S&S flicks like SPARTACUS (1960) and BEN-HUR (1959). 

The Rules of Film Noir (2009)

 

Director:  Elaine Donnelly Pieper

Writer:  Matthew Sweet

Starring:  Matthew Sweet (host), Sheri Chinen Biesen, Neil Brand, Sarah Churchwell, Roger Deakins, John Mathieson, George Pelecanos, Paul Schrader, Adrian Wootton

More info:  IMDb

Plot:  Documentary that shows the characteristic traits of film noir and their historical context.

My rating:   7.5/10

Will I watch it again?   Nah.

This near one-hour BBC documentary does a great job at condensing the style and what makes a film noir movie a good primer for someone who has little to no knowledge of the genre.  The language used (from writer/host Matthew Sweet) is often in the style of the films their discussing which adds to the fun.  There are the usual clips from the greatest hits of the genre and the standard bases covered from the dialogue, to lighting/shadows, music, bad news broads, doomed heroes and so on.  For longtime fans of the genre, you've probably seen everything discussed but if not, it's definitely worth checking out.