Monday, September 19, 2022
NATIONAL SECURITY (2003) **
BULLET TRAIN (2022) ***
SWEDEN: HEAVEN AND HELL (1969) **
Thursday, September 15, 2022
DC LEAGUE OF SUPER-PETS (2022) ***
Monday, September 12, 2022
SO SWEET… SO PERVERSE (1969) ***
Carroll Baker reteamed with her Orgasmo director Umberto Lenzi for this psychosexual thriller. Jean-Louis Trintignant stars as a philandering husband who becomes obsessed with a battered woman (Baker) who just moved into his apartment building. After some well-intentioned stalking, they soon become lovers, much to the chagrin of his bitter, jealous wife (Erika Blanc). The couple’s future happiness is quickly put in jeopardy when Baker’s loose cannon ex (Horst Frank) begins lurking about.
I’ve read several reviews that describe So Sweet… So Perverse as a loose remake of Diabolique, but it’s very much its own thing for a good chunk of the running time. In fact, it doesn’t reveal any Diabolique touches until about the third act. Curiously enough, it’s this stretch of the movie that’s the weakest, mostly because the big twist is kind of clunky.
Fortunately, there’s plenty of good stuff in the first hour or so of the flick to make So Sweet… So Perverse a treat for fans of Italian sleaze. Lenzi does an especially good job on the unsettling flashbacks of Baker’s sordid past. The rape scene on the beach is particularly memorable as the rushing tide symbolically colliding with a large conch shell on the shore is a rather fantastic (if a bit twisted) image. Heck, Lenzi even gives the romantic scenes are a hint of danger and makes to make them kind of suspenseful. (I’m thinking particularly of the swinging dinner party where Baker and Trintignant play a variation on “Seven Minutes in Heaven” in front of Blanc.)
Baker and Blanc’s performances further help keep the viewer involved in the twisty plot, even when it begins spinning its wheels in the late going. They have a lot of chemistry together and participate in a handful of tastefully done nude scenes too. The film also has the benefit of a great theme song, “Why” by Riz Ortolani, which is reminiscent in some ways of his classic, “More” from Mondo Cane.
ORGASMO (1969) ** ½
Carroll Baker stars as a recently widowed socialite who moves into her dead husband’s Italian villa and starts boozing it up. Before long, she’s banging the local stud (Lou Castel) who helps make her feel young again. Trouble brews when he brings along his “sister” (Colette Descombes), who supplies Baker with a lot of pills, which don’t mix too well with all the alcohol. Eventually, Baker catches onto their depraved blackmail scheme, but soon finds herself trapped in her own home with the two horny psychosexual maniacs.
Orgasmo (which shouldn’t be confused with the similarly titled Trey Parker porn comedy, Orgazmo) is a decent little thriller that, while predictable, moves along at a steady clip. Only near the end does the film begin to lose its way. Although the twist ending is kind of neat, the final scenes are way too pat. It almost feels like a throwback to the old Production Code movies in which the villains MUST get their comeuppance, no matter how lame. (I guess that makes sense as the plot is another one of those “Let’s Drive the Rich Lady Crazy to Get Her Inheritance” deals.)
Directed by Umberto Lenzi, the film probably suggests a bit more than it delivers, but it remains thoroughly watchable throughout. The reason for that has a lot to do with Baker’s hysterics. She sometimes resembles Ann-Margret in Tommy, and some of her freak-outs and meltdowns are rather amusing. Too bad Castel and Descombes, who play the brother and sister pair of tormentors are kind of forgettable. They don’t really feel all that menacing, and the fact that Baker’s character is such a pushover doesn’t help matters either.
Luckily, the sex scenes, although relatively tame, offer some sizzle. The sequence where Baker gets it on in the shower is particularly steamy in both senses of the word. If there were a couple more scenes of this caliber, Orgasmo might’ve been a top-notch thriller. As it is, it’s a solid, if unspectacular effort.
AKA: Paranoia.
Wednesday, September 7, 2022
ELVIS (2022) ****
If you go into Elvis expecting a by-the-numbers biopic of America’s greatest entertainer, you will no doubt be disappointed. It’s less a conventional biopic and more a dark, melancholic examination of mental and psychological abuse. It's about how the abuser will use any tool at their disposal to control the narrative and insert themselves into it. How the cycle of abuse begins, is perpetrated, threatens to curtail, and then starts back up again. It is the story of Col. Tom Parker (Tom Hanks) and Elvis Presley (Austin Butler).
Parker is a carnival huckster who knows how to sell a show. When he witnesses firsthand the reaction to Elvis’ performance at a county fair, he sees dollar signs. Parker is able to move Elvis out of the county fair circuit and soon makes him the biggest pop culture artist of all time. It doesn’t take long before the Parker’s control pushes Elvis to rebel, but somehow, he always winds up crawling back into the Colonel’s clutches.
Elvis is a tragedy. It is about how a good-natured mama’s boy with unfathomable talent is commoditized, monetized, and controlled by a shrewd businessman. It is the story of American business, and the way businessmen exploit their workers past the point of exhaustion. It is about the American Dream and how the dreamers often become distracted, manipulated, and just plain taken advantage of along the way.
Many will want a straightforward Elvis movie. I get that. This is not it. What is amazing about the film is how firm of a grasp the Colonel has on the story. He is in control of the narrative from the very first frame, manipulating the audience, just as he manipulated The King. Elvis goes along with the Colonel’s shady business practices, mostly to provide for his family, but even then, he eventually tires of the Colonel and tries to wriggle out of his iron grip.
What is fascinating about the film, is that when Elvis temporarily defies the Colonel, the movie soars and becomes an intoxicatingly dizzying spectacle like only Baz Luhrmann could make. Like when Elvis goes behind the Colonel’s back to make his comeback television special. We see Elvis totally in his element without the Colonel’s meddling, and he is firing on all creative cylinders. The moment when he ignores Parker’s mandate for an old-timey Christmas number to deliver the passionate “If I Can Dream” is especially triumphant. In these moments, Elvis (both the movie and the man) literally and figuratively finds his voice, and we can see what he could’ve accomplished if he wasn’t shackled to the sleazy Colonel.
The Colonel’s manipulations don’t stop with Elvis. In the end, when he laments The King’s death, he says it wasn’t the heart attack or the pills that killed him, but “His love for YOU!” He’s projecting the blame of Elvis’ descent into drugs not on himself, but the audience… US. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie that blamed the death of its title character on the viewer like that before. It just shows the lengths Parker will go to in order to make himself out the be the hero. He has his claws in the audience just as much as he does Elvis.
This is a special movie. One of the best of the year. It has all the bombast and fun an Elvis film directed by Luhrmann could have. However, it’s the dark dynamic between the Colonel and Elvis that gives it so much power. I can understand why people won’t like it. If you want a safe Elvis bio, there are plenty of them out there. (The John Carpenter one is probably the best.) If you want something braver, riskier, and darker, this will be the way to go. It is bound to leave the viewer all shook up.