The Plague of the Zombies (1966)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Plague of the Zombies (1966) – J. Gilling

By 1966, England’s Hammer Film Productions was already churning out Dracula, Frankenstein, and Mummy sequels but also producing other strange tales that echoed Universal’s glory days of the 1930s and ‘40s. The Plague of the Zombies shares a family resemblance to Bela Lugosi's White Zombie (1932) in that these zombies are virtual slaves working in a mine for the Squire/Master. And like that film, this feels much more like a voodoo movie (though not as pure as the Lewton-Tourneur I Walked with a Zombie, 1943) than what we have come to know as the zombie film. What differs here is that the zombies are reanimated corpses, reanimated by voodoo, rather than humans who have been zombified by magic but who might later return to human. As such, the film looks forward to George Romero’s classic series (beginning with Night of the Living Dead, 1968) where the dead rise and shuffle about, much as they do in this film (but with less explicit mayhem here). Andre Morrell stars as Sir James Forbes, a professor of medicine, called to Cornwall to assist his former star pupil who is now struggling in the remote town plagued with mysterious deaths. As always, Hammer’s film sports production values par excellence, with a perfectly realised Cornish village decked out in 1860s period fashion.  Beyond Morrell perhaps there is no actor as charismatic as a Lee or Cushing here (the Squire calls for one of them) to elevate the proceedings yet further but this is still a solid outing for the fabled studio.

 

Eye of the Devil (1966)

 ☆ ☆ ☆

Eye of the Devil (1966) – J. Lee Thompson

I thought I had possibly stumbled upon an unheralded horror film from the mid-60s, starring David Niven and Deborah Kerr (with Sharon Tate and David Hemmings in minor roles) – and I had but despite its promise, the film suffers from poorly managed pacing that somehow undercuts any shocks or horror.  There is still some ominous and spooky ambience here and some echoes and previews of other better known horror films.  For one, having Deborah Kerr in the lead and sometimes in peril but always very anxious really does evoke the classic (and better) film The Innocents (1961) based on Henry James’ Turn of the Screw. For another, the plot that finds David Niven returning to his ancestral castle because the grapes have died on the vine for a third year in a row and he must perform a certain pagan rite to salvage things really does foreshadow The Wicker Man (1973 version please), also a much better film.  Although Hemmings also seems to have a role in the rite in question (along with a bunch of eerie hooded men and Donald Pleasance as the head priest), it isn’t quite so clear how Tate is involved (although she may be a witch). The black and white cinematography on location at Chateau de Hautefort in Dordogne, France is pretty fab and the proceedings are thereby provided with a suitably gothic flair. But all in all, this is a missed opportunity because somehow the suspense and forboding that should have been there in spades have somehow dissipated with the loose plotting and somnambulant pacing.

 

The Wrong Box (1966)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Wrong Box (1966) – B. Forbes

British black comedy that finds John Mills and Ralph Richardson as brothers who are the last surviving members of a “tontine” in the 1880s that will award a generous pay-out to the sole survivor. Richardson is an insufferable bore while Mills is a crazy old coot; they haven’t spoken in 40 years. Naturally, their respective (adopted) children are keen to get their hands on the boodle. Richardson’s kids include Peter Cook and Dudley Moore as well as Nanette Newman. Mills is supported by Michael Caine (and “king of the dramatic pause” butler Wilfrid Lawson). The plot is convoluted as both Richardson and Mills are suspected dead from time to time and their offspring hope to conceal this secret (if true) from the other family. Cook goes so far as to secure a blank death certificate (from dissolute doctor Peter Sellers) for use if Richardson goes first (and the date can therefore be amended). It gets pretty wacky and, of course, might be taken the wrong way by those who see funerals as a sacred rite. Not always laugh out-loud funny but it has its charms in that sly and droll British way.   

Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966)

 

☆ ☆ ☆

Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966) – T. Fisher

A direct sequel to Hammer’s first Dracula film (1958’s Horror of Dracula) that begins with actual footage from the earlier film (as seen in the mind’s eye) to bring viewers back up to speed.  Although we see Christopher Lee (the inimitable Hammer vampire) in this flashback, it is quite some time before he appears in the actual film and then he never utters a word but only glares and hisses.  This time, I watched the film with the audio commentary and so I got plenty of chatty (and clearly unscripted) commentary from Lee and his co-actors – so I was a bit distracted from the plot.  Suffice it to say that two couples are travelling (near Carlsbad) when their coachman refuses to go any further, even though a local monk has earlier said that Dracula’s castle is empty as the dark lord has been destroyed.  Nevertheless, after they are dumped from the coach, another empty coach turns up and the horses bring them straight to the castle where a butler awaits them.  They eventually decide to stay the night – and of course one of them (Australian Charles “Bud” Tingwell) becomes a blood sacrifice to bring Dracula back to life (or back to un-life, I guess).  And then things proceed as expected, particularly with regard to Dracula’s approach to the ladies.  The unique thing about this outing is how Dracula is eventually vanquished – it isn’t by sunlight or stake (but I won’t spoil it).  Solid Hammer fare – and you already know if you like it.

  

The Shooting (1966)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Shooting (1966) – M. Hellman

Monte Hellman’s tectonic Western moves inexorably to its final shot – and what a shot that is!  It blows the whole plot wide open, allowing multiple layers of (psychedelic) interpretation, if you are so inclined.  Or maybe that’s just me.  But let’s just say that it is all about Warren Oates’s Willett Gashade, the cowboy who accepts some money to help a rather ruthless young woman (Millie Perkins) track down a man on the road up ahead.  Forget the fact that this film is mostly known for an early appearance by Jack Nicholson (as a dandy hired gun) – he’s fine but doesn’t own centre stage.  Oates, however, does become our point of identification, as the (failed) protector for innocent and none-too-bright Coley (Will Hutchins) and the one character whose motivation for action isn’t clear – until the end.  (Which leaves me puzzling about, um, twins or not twins?).  Hellman (under the supervision of low budget producer Roger Corman) keeps things minimalist out there in the Utah desert but the result is mesmerising all the same.  Of course, your mileage may vary.    

Fantastic Voyage (1966)

☆ ☆ ☆

Fantastic Voyage (1966) – R. Fleischer

High concept science fiction that sees intrepid travellers suit up and head not for outer space but instead for “inner space”: after a scientist is nearly assassinated, a team is miniaturised (yes!) and sent into his bloodstream in a special submarine to destroy a blood clot in his brain.   Donald Pleasance is the doctor on board in charge of the mission (run by military command personnel, Edmond O’Brien and Arthur O’Connell back in the lab) which also includes neurosurgeon Arthur Kennedy and assistant Raquel Welch, submarine captain William Redfield, and the hero, communications officer Stephen Boyd (who is also charged with determining whether there is an enemy agent hidden on the team).  Of course, the main attractions here are the special effects – can it really be true that this film was shown to medical students because of its accurate depiction of the body (specifically the circulatory system)?  It seems a rather quaint set of analogue camera tricks and set design now (in line with the “futuristic” computers and technology).  It probably comes as no surprise that all of the various dangers in the body due make an appearance:  a trip through the pulsing heart and the windy lungs, attack by antibodies and later the dreaded white corpuscles, the booming inner ear.  I found the film a bit slow (it is in real time – the team will only remain miniaturised for 60 minutes and the clock is ticking) but Amon (aged 7) had a lot of questions and seemed absorbed by the onscreen action.     

The Fortune Cookie (1966)

☆ ☆ ☆

The Fortune Cookie (1966) – B. Wilder

This first pairing of Lemmon and Matthau for writer-director Billy Wilder is as cynical as you would expect – but I didn’t find it particularly funny.  Matthau is “Whiplash Willie” Gingrich, a personal injury lawyer who sees profit in his brother-in-law’s freak accident on the sidelines of an NFL game in Cleveland.  Lemmon is the cameraman (named Harry Hinkle) who gets knocked down by wide receiver “Boom Boom” Jackson (Ron Rich) and is persuaded somewhat begrudgingly to pretend to be seriously hurt in order to facilitate a suit against the Cleveland Browns etc.  Of course, the insurance company investigates and of course Matthau has some tricks up his sleeve to deceive them.  Hinkle’s ex-wife (Judi West) returns (for the money obviously) to sweet-talk him further into playing along – but Jackson, a really nice guy, takes it hard, making Hinkle feel guilty.  That’s the basic set-up.  I suppose the comedy here isn’t as shocking as it was in 1966 because we now live in a world where we take it for granted that people cheat and look after their self-interest only, that insurance companies and others spy on us constantly, and that those who don’t have these motives might turn to drink to escape this sad reality.  Surprisingly, Wilder gives us a happy ending that we probably don’t deserve – or maybe there’s still hope?  Lemmon and Matthau are solid as usual but better elsewhere.   

  

Alfie (1966)

☆ ☆ ☆

Alfie (1966) – L. Gilbert

I’m working my way through a list of the best 100 British films of the 20^th century and this was next in line.  Featuring one of Sir Michael Caine’s early star turns in full on Cockney mode, the film is horribly dated. iMDB describes the plot pithily as follows: “An unrepentant ladies' man gradually begins to understand the consequences of his lifestyle.” Throughout the film, Caine breaks the fourth wall to speak directly to the camera about his exploits, which involve affairs with married women behind their husbands’ backs, getting girls pregnant and leaving them, and generally behaving like a misogynist cad.  He isn’t a sympathetic character although some of his adventures (and spiels) must have been designed for comedy (perhaps his over-reaction to finding spots on his lungs at the doctor’s office). Fifty years later, it is hard to tell whether anyone in the audience was expected to identify with Alfie’s behaviour – teen boys wanting to imagine a love ‘em and leave ‘em lifestyle, perhaps – but more mature audience members would certainly see the shine come off as Alfie is psychologically affected by both the loss of his toddler son (when the young mum he impregnated eventually marries someone more responsible) and a depressing abortion (that he encouraged in a married woman he seduced). We leave him being rejected by Shelley Winters in favour of a younger stud.  In the end, the film lands halfway between kitchen-sink realism and farce, tantalising the audience with laddish exploits while still moralising heavily about their consequences.  Cher sings the title song over the closing credits.

Torn Curtain (1966)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Torn Curtain (1966) – A. Hitchcock

Better than Topaz!  Actually, the negative reputation for Torn Curtain seems pretty unwarranted to me.  Here we have a textbook Hitchcock film wherein the Master uses all of his favourite techniques to build suspense and generally succeeds.  Paul Newman is an American nuclear scientist who defects to East Germany. The first third of the film explores his relationship with his fiancée/assistant Julie Andrews, who he has neglected to tell his intentions.  Newman does act suspiciously but since he is the hero we soon find out that he is really a double agent, seeking to secure a formula (the MacGuffin) from an East German scientist.  The rest of the film takes place behind the Iron Curtain where Newman (acting very sullenly) and Andrews (basically given nothing to do) must “woo” the scientist, get the formula, and escape back to the West.  Of course, there are many roadblocks along the way (literal and metaphorical).  This is the film where Hitchcock famously wanted to show that (unlike in the James Bond films) it is actually hard to kill a man – resulting in a very protracted fight/death scene which is an incredible setpiece.  Hitch’s dry sense of humour may be subdued but it isn’t absent.  Pictorially, the film often looks great with a sly mix of studio sets, painted backdrops, and location shooting; for example, the museum scenes show the director toying with the audience’s perspective as Newman crosses from room to room.  All told, this isn’t one of Hitch’s best but it has strong family relations to a number of his earlier films (the setpiece scene in the theatre evokes both The 39 Steps and The Man Who Knew Too Much).  Worth a look if you are a fan.

The Professionals (1966)

☆ ☆ ☆

The Professionals (1966) – R. Brooks

Lee Marvin leads a small group of adventurers into Mexico to rescue Texas railroad man Ralph Bellamy’s wife who has been kidnapped by Mexican rebels (formerly fighting for Pancho Villa).  The wife is Claudia Cardinale and the chief rebel is Jack Palance (both playing Mexicans).  The “good guys” are Marvin, Burt Lancaster, Woody Strode, and Robert Ryan.  I felt as though I had seen this before (but I don’t think I had).  Perhaps Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch (1969), another all-star affair with Robert Ryan, was coming to mind.  Lee Marvin’s other epic action films mostly take place in WWII (not in Mexico); he’s as stony as ever here though.  Burt Lancaster seems to be rollicking through the film, as though he was still in a 1950s costume drama, half grinning at the predicaments they find themselves in.  Strode and Ryan have less to do and their characters are less developed (if any of these characters are actually developed). At any rate, I pondered whether there was still an audience for this sort of tough guy adventure film (the kind that has a fair amount of sexism thrown in, just because), the sort of uncritical Dad film of the days gone by, resting easily on shorthand and schematics in order to stitch the action sequences to the plot.  The action sequences aren’t too bad, some suspense is built, and things blow up.  Naturally, there is also a twist: the band doesn’t quite honour their contract with Bellamy – but they do stand for honour as a principle. 

  

Kill, Baby…Kill! (1966)

☆ ☆ ☆

Kill, Baby…Kill! (1966) – M. Bava

The title makes this film by Mario Bava sound more gruesome and violent than it really is (although Bava was capable of plenty of gore later on).  Instead, this is a creepy ghost story set at the turn of the 20^th century in a secluded European village.  We follow a doctor who arrives at the request of the local police commissioner (also a newcomer to the village) as he discovers body after body, presumably murders but looking a lot like suicide.  Bava uses his roving, tracking, camera to take us through the village and its locales, the old inn, the cemetery, the villa Graps – all are strangely lighted (especially in green) and filled with horror movie paraphernalia (local witches, evil-looking dolls, grisly sharp objects).  The doctor tries to intervene to stop the villagers from giving into superstition and fear but even he eventually sees the source of the evil – the ghost of a young girl who died at age 7 and who is now wreaking her revenge.  Very spooky (and the actual plot is even more complicated than you need to know – a clear influence on Argento).  The Japanese view horror movies in the summer because the chills are supposed to cool you down – it didn’t work for me, but this movie had the right feel (if not an enormous number of “shocks”).

  

Woman of the Lake (1966)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Woman of the Lake (1966) – Y. Yoshida

Along with Oshima, Yoshihige (Kiju) Yoshida was a prominent figure of the Japanese New Wave, often making films starring his wife, Mariko Okada.  Similarly to the films of the French New Wave, Woman of the Lake is refreshing in its style, chockfull of arresting photographic images and experiments.  In fact, the image may be everything here, as the plot seems to drift away toward the end (or maybe that was just me).  Okada plays a married woman having an affair who allows her partner to take nude photos of her, which subsequently fall into the wrong hands – they are stolen by a stalker who invites her to a rendezvous at a spa town.  She is followed by her lover (and his nonplussed fiancée) who confronts the stalker but she seems inexorably drawn to the latter, eventually heading off with him.  We don’t know what she is seeking, whether she is perpetually unfulfilled, lonely, needing to be sexually desired by others outside of her (staid) relationship with a businessman. In the end, she retrieves the negatives but her transgression is still revealed to her husband (who seems nonplussed).  Moreover, the stalker seems to have found her photographic image more desirable than he finds Okada herself.  Director Yoshida may have something to say about voyeurism, the male gaze, the differences between image and reality, and the growing omni-presence of cameras to document and mediate, but the measured pace of the film, the psychodramatic flute score, and the intense acting styles (particularly by Okada), tend to absorb the viewer’s attention.  In other words, images may start to dominate everything so much so that meaning and purpose begin to get lost. Is there a warning here for the viewer and the viewed?

They’re a Weird Mob (1966)

☆ ☆ ☆

They’re a Weird Mob (1966) – M. Powell

Good-natured comedy about an Italian immigrant to Australia and the wacky culture into which he is adopted.  Michael Powell (of Powell & Pressburger fame) directed this extremely broad but affectionate tale that shares little in common with his previous outings except for an interest in “place”, the location (in this case, Sydney), and “people” or culture (in this case, a very blokey set of Aussies).  Powell doesn’t poke fun at Italians at all, although he doesn’t shy away at depicting the prejudice that some Australians showed (and still show?) to the “New Australians” who migrated here in the 1950s and ‘60s (from Italy and Greece).  Nino is meant to work for an Italian newspaper but it no longer exists and instead he finds work as a tradie, putting in foundations for houses.  It’s back-breaking work but he bonds with the other guys and eventually finds love as well, not with the Italian girl that he initially pursues but with the Anglo-Aussie sheila that owns the building from which his cousin’s newspaper company was evicted.  But all this plot is simply an opportunity to expose the world to some proper Aussie slang, their fondness for drinking beer, the beautiful vistas of Sydney (harbor, Bondi Beach), and most of all about mateship.  Yet, there is not an Aboriginal fella in sight and this is an Australia that is long gone in favour of a much more multicultural land where, in principle, everyone deserves a fair go, regardless of where they were born.

   

Funeral in Berlin (1966)

☆ ☆ ☆

Funeral in Berlin (1966) – G. Hamilton

In his second outing as spy Harry Palmer, Michael Caine isn’t quite as cocky or fun.  Instead, the intelligence business seems to have ground him down a bit.  To help a Russian Colonel who wishes to defect from the East, Palmer is sent to Berlin and famous Checkpoint Charlie. Of course, things are not exactly what they seem and Palmer is not quite sure who is working for whom or even who is who.  Things do get a bit confusing and if you attempt to figure out the why’s and wherefore’s after all is said and done, you might have trouble connecting the dots (maybe Len Deighton’s novel is clearer). Nevertheless, it feels plausible while it’s happening and serves as a passable time-waster.  Goldfinger’s Guy Hamilton directed.

Dead Heat on a Merry-Go-Round (1966)

☆ ☆ ½

Dead Heat on a Merry-Go-Round (1966) – B. Girard

James Coburn is suave, yes, but can his personality carry an entire movie when the plot takes a leisurely meandering course to get to where it’s going?  Methinks not.  If this were a character study rather than a heist film, then we should learn a bit more about Coburn’s raisons d’etre.  Instead, this is all just a slow build to the ironic but otherwise underwhelming conclusion.  Coburn is a master manipulator who gets himself paroled from prison and then embarks on a mission to secure enough cash to buy the blueprints for a bank that he plans to hold up.  The timing will be just right, as the Soviet premier is landing in Los Angeles and causing a big commotion.  Watch as the plot slowly slowly slowly unspools. Not bad, not good.

Trans-Europ Express (1966)

☆ ☆ ½

Trans-Europ Express (1966) – A. Robbe-Grillet

Perverse, playful, and ultimately rather boring, Alain Robbe-Grillet’s second film is less interesting than his first (L’Immortelle) or his script for Resnais’s Last Year at Marienbad.  Possibly this is because, its conceit – a writer, director, and script girl brainstorm a film while riding on the train, a film that we actually see – feels rather half-assed.  Jean-Louis Trintignant gives a winking performance but Robbe-Grillet’s efforts to confuse the audience seem to have confused him too.  He is a drug courier between Paris and Antwerp – but who is he working for? More worrisome is the introduction of S&M content that, although seeming consensual, also feels misogynistic and accepting of violence toward women.  I can’t get down with that and it feels rather jarring when the rest of the film wants to be light-hearted.  The end stare at a naked girl in chains on stage at a club is symptomatic of this problem – the film stops dead in its tracks and fortunately ends.