Continuing our TV Movie kick, last night we found another one from the ol' memory bank: "Hitchhike!" (1974, exclamation point included in the title), starring Cloris Leachman as a woman on her way to San Francisco who picks up a hitchhiker en route. Never a good idea. The opening scene shows a breakup call to her boyfriend, so we know she's now single and lonely (Leachman is 46 here but looks 10 years younger). The hitcher is handsome, and holding a sign that says "Need Ride to San Francisco", so she doubles back to the freeway ramp to pick him up. The only trouble is that he's just killed his stepmother, with whom he was having an affair. Shades of "A Howling in the Woods".
It wasn't a consenting relationship; in fact, the stepmom was a sexual predator. "Keith" (Michael Brandon), who is 25, is only three years younger than she was. His stepmom married his Dad for his money, and Keith is a troubled young man to begin with. His real Mom left when he was a kid. Dad is always gone on business. It was the era of the Latchkey Kid. Keith spent his teens in a mental institution, and now, as an adult still living at home, he's had his horny, 28 year-old stepmom harassing him, so he associates human touch only with sex, and because she's his Dad's trophy wife, he hates her for it and kills her. Then he sticks out his thumb and Cloris Leachman picks him up. She doesn't know he's disturbed, and because he's a functioning psycho, he can jump back and forth between seeming normal. He does have a hair trigger temper, however. He disables Leachman's car radio because he doesn't like classical music (which should get him kicked out right there).
They stop at Ports O' Call in Long Beach, which is really cool cause it's not there anymore (remember Ports O' Call?). Because she doesn't know his past, but can tell that he's troubled, she starts coming on to him to put him at ease, in a friendly, but cougar-ish way. And because her affection is genuine, he responds positively, and the next thing you know, they're on the beach, in a cove, for some extracurricular activity. Still, he's got severe emotional problems. When she tries calling her sister, he hangs up the phone. When she offers to stop at a motel, for more hubba-hubba, he says, "No! I wanna go to San Francisco now!" and he trashes the motel office. It's a little unbelievable that she would stick with him after this sequence, especially after he almost chokes her while she's sleeping. She must be pretty hard up, and he is a handsome guy.
But by now, her sister wonders what's taking her so long to arrive, and the body of his stepmom has been discovered. Two alerts go out; a missing persons report on Cloris (filed by her sister), and an APB on Keith. The APB is issued from Los Angeles. The detective in charge is Henry Darrow. The missing persons report is handled by SFPD's Cameron Mitchell, and they meet up on the coast, when the motel owner calls to report the office fight. Darrow and Mitchell are two TV greats, and their pairing is another reunion, this time from "High Chaparral". Once Keith knows the cops are onto him, he forces Cloris out of the driver's seat and takes the wheel. There are some great chase scenes - it must be in San Francisco's contract that, if you film there, you've gotta have an awesome car chase.
The verdict: it's really good (though again, mote thriller than horror) but there's way too much focus on the "Breezy" aspect, the mismatched romance, which was very big in the early '70s. Remember "Breezy"? It was Clint Eastwood's first directorial effort, where his character had a fling with a free-spirited hippy girl. You have a similar, but reversed deal here: a middle-aged-but-young-looking, free spirited woman hooks up with what she assumes is a young stud but who happens to be a killer. It's the '70s psychology trip of Repairing The Broken One, which is fine, because you could explore that theme in any era, but when they did it in the 1970s, there was too much "breezy-ing" around; i.e. dancing on the beach with the Lalo Schifrin music playing. Good thing the coppers are realistic and hard-nosed. The actor Robert Bradford is really good as Keith, but it would be nice to know more about the character's background. Why was he in a mental institution? It can't be because of his stepmom. She wasn't around back then. Too much time is spent with flirting, like when Cloris buys Keith a floppy hat and insists he wear it, forcing him to stay in "little boy" mode. "Oh aren't you cute." We get it already.
Still, though it could've been a little better written, it's a good psycho thriller. Two Bigs, and now we really will get down to horror, with no more monkeying around, but we might have a lot of reruns because they didn't make a ton of horror films, not nearly as many as they made Westerns and crime flicks. The picture is soft but watchable. ////
The previous night, we watched "The Death Kiss"(1932), which was billed by the uploader as "starring Bela Lugosi". I couldn't recall if we'd seen it before, so I rolled the dice and it turned out we had. Another thing was that the person listed it under "horror", which, once again, it wasn't. It's a straightforward murder mystery. Though we've seen it (likely at the beginning of Covid), it's fun because the murder takes place on a movie set. Which is not fun if you're Alec Baldwin, Jon-Erik Hexum or Brandon Lee.
Lugosi plays the general manager of the movie studio in question. His director on "The Death Kiss" (the name of the movie-within-the-movie) wants another take of a crucial scene, an identifying "kiss of death" by a beautiful woman, that will point out a target to a hitman. "No spinning around like a top this time, Mr. Grant", says the director. His star is a bit of a ham. "Lights, please. And....action!" The camera rolls, the death kiss takes place, the shot is fired...
And it's real! I have to cut in to say that I'm nominally on Alec Baldwin's side, but what a clusterf**k that situation is, and it's beyond poor taste on Baldwin's part to go ahead and complete that movie. My opinion of him is much lower than when he was Mr. Cherrywood, if that indeed was his real name. And it must be asked yet again: why would there EVER be a need for live ammunition on a movie set?
I mean, listen: when I was a kid, my Dad wanted to tell me all about The War. He even built model Messerschmitts and Stukas and hung them above my bed. And when I was old enough to understand, maybe about 6, he told me that, in basic training, they actually shoot live ammo above your head as you're crawling in a trench below barbed wire. I believed him (and it's true), but I always wondered, though I never asked him: "Why do they need to use real bullets in basic training? Couldn't they just use blanks? Why risk shooting a young soldier?" I am guessing it's so the recruits will feel the terror of war, so that when they actually are in combat, they'll be trained to be very careful. By using real bullets, they're teaching them to keep their heads down.
But what excuse could they possibly have in the movies? I know that movie directors see themselves as macho MFs, and we all know about Screamer A-holes like John Landis, until they kill somebody (and get away with it), but again, why real ammo? I don't think much of Alec Baldwin anymore, even though I always loved him before this, because he's made it all about him, not about the lady he shot. And now, he's finishing the movie (cause that's what's important, right?), just like Landis (and Spielberg) did after cutting Vic Morrow and two little kids in half. But they still haven't explained why real bullets are needed on a movie set.
And that's what the detective is trying to find out in "The Death Kiss", and why, at the last minute, a .45 was substituted for a .38. He's got a comical guy in a dictator's uniform helping him solve the case (a future Mel Brooks motif). And of course there's a million suspects, especially the leading lady. There's a creative chain-of-evidence that even includes the developing of the camera negative (hooray for the lab!), but there's very little Bela Lugosi, so little that you're figuring he's gotta be the murderer.....and I won't tell you if he is or not. It's fun, fast paced, and inventive, and it foreshadows future gun deaths on movie sets. Here's a question, just because it bugs me: is there any chance the Rust shooting was a murder? Didn't the Arizona DA originally charge one, or maybe manslaughter? 2nd degree murder? I dunno, it's just fishy, the way Baldwin has acted, and the excuses and finger-pointing everyone made, it seemed like maybe there was a secret. And the issue is not just "if it's murder" because it probably isn't (but it could be), the issue is that If It Was A Murder, Hollywood would have No Problem Covering It Up. Just like Frank Marshall tried to cover up The Twilight Zone deaths, and he's still making movies today! The moral of the story is that if you make big money for the entertainment industry, they'll cover your ass, because you are an asset, no matter what you do. Two Big Thumbs Up for "The Death Kiss", even though it isn't horror. The picture is very good. It's weird that, in the old days, they didn't make anywhere near as many horror movies as they did Westerns and crime flicks. You can go through hundreds and thousands of the latter two, but watch about 150 horror movies from the Golden Era and you're done. That's why it's been so hard for us to find new ones, and why we've been binging on TV movies. It must be noted, however, that the IMDB fans love this movie, which has merited a Kino Lorber restoration. It does reunite three of the Dracula stars, though "reunite" may be overstating it, as both films were made in 1932. Maybe they made em back-to-back, like the Clint Walker flicks. Lugosi is all charm and dignity in this role. He was said to be a fine stage actor in Hungary. Well, anyhow. It's very inventive stuff overall, and apparently well regarded. ////
As a bonus movie, I have "A Haunting in Venice", which I saw today in Porter Ranch. I'm not gonna tell you anything about it, cause it's new, but you really must see it. It's the perfect Halloween movie. It takes place on Halloween night, in 1947 Venice, Italy. Director Kenneth Branagh stars as Detective Hercule Poirot. It's based on an Agatha Christie book, and man, did they ever get the atmosphere just right. Like all the Christies, it's a murdalization mystery, but full of supernatural overtones because it takes place in a supposedly haunted house. It has a fantastic cast. I don't like too many modern movies, but this one gets an A+. Featuring great photography, snappy direction, and plot, plot, plot. Go see it, they knocked it out of the park. ////
And that's all for a hot Saturday night. I just went for my walk, and you'd think it was July out there. I love it. Horns up for the Rams at home tomorrow. Can they take Philly? I think they can. Had Coach McVay (who we love), not Coach McVay-ed the team out of a win against the Bengals, the Rams would be 3-1. They should've won that game, and they've been competitive in all four. They've been playing against every pre-season prediction made by the pundits, who said they'd finish among the last in the league. I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict an upset against the Eagles. Go Rams! My blogging music is Klaus Schulze "La Vie Electronique #4", my late night is Wagner Lohengrin. I wish you an awesome Sunday tomorrow and I send you Tons of Love as always. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
No comments:
Post a Comment