My Top Five DVD/Blu-rays of 2014

Once again it is time for me to list my top five personal DVD/Blu-rays of 2014. My choices are limited to those titles that I actually own, and as I've said several times before, I can't buy everything. I also don't have a region-free player, so all these entries are Region A.


1. THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI (Blu-ray) from Kino Lorber
This has to be number one simply because of how amazing the movie looks on this Blu-ray. CALIGARI is one of the most famous and important films ever made, and it finally has a home video release worthy of its reputation. I wrote a full blog post on this in November.

2. PLANET OF THE VAMPIRES (Blu-ray) from Kino Lorber
2014 marked the 100th anniversary of the birth of the legendary director Mario Bava, and this release was a fine tribute to him. Chock full of extras, including a magnificent audio commentary by Video Watchdog editor Tim Lucas. I wrote a blog post on this in November.

3. IT'S A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD (DVD/Blu-ray) from Criterion
Stanley Kramer's slapstick epic gets the full Criterion treatment, with two Blu-ray discs, three DVD discs, two different versions of the movie, and extras galore. I wrote about this one in February.

4. RED RIVER (DVD/Blu-ray) from Criterion
This one has two versions of Howard Hawks' Western classic, along with a paperback copy of the novel the movie was based on. My post on this was written in June.

5. BLACK SUNDAY/BLACK SABBATH (Blu-ray) from Kino Lorber
This is a double feature of the American versions of Mario Bava's horror classics. This disc was actually canceled....but when I was at the October Monster Bash, they had a couple copies of it for sale--so needless to say I snatched one up. If Kino Lorber finds out I have one of these, will I get in trouble?

THE LONG HAIR OF DEATH On Blu-ray

A company called Raro Video has recently released the 1964 Italian Gothic thriller THE LONG HAIR OF DEATH on Blu-ray. What makes this film noteworthy is the fact that it stars Barbara Steele and it was directed by Antonio Margheriti.

Antonio Margheriti is not as well known as fellow Italian filmmakers Mario Bava and Sergio Leone, but maybe he should be. Margheriti (who used the alias "Anthony Dawson" or "Anthony M. Dawson" on most of his works) made all sorts of movies familiar to those folks who like to stay up late. Some of his titles that might ring a bell include HORROR CASTLE (with Christopher Lee), CASTLE OF BLOOD (which also starred Barbara Steele), the bizarre science-fiction entries WAR OF THE PLANETS and WILD, WILD PLANET, and TAKE A HARD RIDE, a late European Western that featured Lee Van Cleef and Jim Brown.

Margheriti was far more prolific than his contemporaries Bava and Leone, and he worked in just about every genre of film imaginable. He may not have been a superb artist but he was an efficient director who turned out entertaining & interesting movies. He developed enough of a reputation to get his named used as an in-joke in Tarantino's INGLORIOUS BASTERDS.

As for Barbara Steele she needs no introduction. By 1964, the year THE LONG HAIR OF DEATH was made, Steele had already cemented her title as the Queen of Spaghetti Horror. Barbara Steele had something no other actress had--a face that could look alluring and creepy at the same time. THE LONG HAIR OF DEATH takes full advantage of Steele's iconic persona.

The movie's story is set in Europe during the late 15th Century. A woman is accused of murdering the head of the powerful Humboldt family, and is sentenced to be burned as a witch. The woman's oldest daughter Helen (Barbara Steele) begs the new Count Humboldt to save her mother. Helen gives herself to the Count, but her mother is burned to death regardless. Before her death the woman curses the entire village and the Humboldts. Helen is later killed by the Count, and years later Helen's younger sister Elisabeth (Halina Zalewska) is forced into marriage with the Count's dissolute son Kurt (George Ardisson).

Soon after the wedding the village is struck with plague. During a service in the Humboldt castle's chapel, a young woman who looks exactly like Helen wanders in. The woman, who calls herself Mary, is allowed to stay in the castle and Kurt becomes infatuated with her. Mary has her own special plans, however, and soon Kurt has to pay for his sins.

THE LONG HAIR OF DEATH has almost all of the ingredients of a black & white Gothic tale. There's a curse, a noble family who ruins the lives of those around them, a large and imposing castle with an underground crypt, and a secret passageway behind a fireplace (shades of Mario Bava himself). The movie has several scenes of characters wandering around the castle in the middle of the night while holding candles (and of course the females are always wearing nightgowns while doing this). THE LONG HAIR OF DEATH has more atmosphere than pure horror--this movie could play on prime time TV with no problem. The plot is pretty thin for a 94-minute tale....if you've seen enough of these types of stories you can easily guess what is going to happen. Having said that, Margheriti's stylish direction draws the viewer into the film, and there's nothing wrong with spending a lot of time looking at the leading ladies. The bombastic music score was written by Carlo Rustichelli (who also worked with Mario Bava), and the composer lays it on rather thick.

While watching THE LONG HAIR OF DEATH, I was reminded of Roger Corman's THE MASQUE OF THE RED DEATH and THE TOMB OF LIGEIA, and the climax reminded me of THE WICKER MAN. THE LONG HAIR OF DEATH is not on the same level as Bava's BLACK SUNDAY, or maybe even Margheriti's own CASTLE OF BLOOD, but it is a fine representation of Italian Gothic cinema, and a prime showcase for Barbara Steele. Once again Steele plays a dual role (or at least a role where she is pretending to be something she's not), and once again her incredible presence says more than a hundred lines of dialogue could.

THE LONG HAIR OF DEATH has been available for years as a public domain title. This Blu-ray is way beyond any other versions. The picture quality is so sharp a viewer can make out what looks like a fine mist falling during a scene where Barbara Steele swears revenge next to her mother's ashes. The sound is full and clear. The movie is presented on this Blu-ray in anamorphic 1.85:1 widescreen. There are two audio options--Italian and an English dub (the English dialogue matches almost exactly with the English subtitles).

The Blu-ray comes with an 8-page booklet featuring stills and a essay on the film by Fangoria editor Chris Alexander. Alexander is apparently the greatest THE LONG HAIR OF DEATH fan of all time--he simply rhapsodizes over the production, and Barbara Steele in particular. Alexander also is included on a short video featurette, where he basically repeats what he wrote in the booklet. He does get in a good phrase when he mentions Barbara Steele's "cruel beauty" (if anyone ever writes a biography of Steele, that's the title they should use for it). There's also a 10 minute interview with Antonio Margheriti's son Edoardo, in which he gives a brief overview of his father's career. Screen writer Antonio Tentori gives a short video essay where he also gushes about the film. A Italian trailer and a English trailer round out the extras.

I've never bought a disc from Raro Video before--I have to admit I had never even heard of the company before. But after this impressive Blu-ray, I'm certainly going to keep track of what they have in store for the future. For a rare, low-budget 1960s Italian horror film, THE LONG HAIR OF DEATH looks terrific on this Blu-ray. Barbara Steele looks terrific here as well--she's pure Gothic eye candy. This Blu-ray is well worth seeking out, if you enjoy this type of film.

THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE

One of the great things about attending the 2014 October Monster Bash with Josh Kennedy was being able to discuss movies with him. I can talk about movies all day long with plenty of people on the internet, but it's much more enjoyable to have a real dialogue with a person face-to-face. Josh and I talked about all sorts of films, not just horror and science-fiction entries. During one of our conversations the title THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE came up. This movie has a particular resonance for Josh, because he goes to school at New York's Pace University and he rides the New York City subway system often. I told him I had never seen that film (which he found hard to believe). He then decided right then and there that he was going to get me a copy of it for Christmas. So this week I got a DVD of it in the mail, and I now have finally seen it.

THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE was made in 1974, and it was directed by Joseph Sargent from a screenplay by Peter Stone, based on John Godey's novel. The story is about four mysterious men (Robert Shaw, Martin Balsam, Hector Elizondo, and Earl Hindman) who take over a New York subway commuter train. The men hold the passengers inside hostage, and demand that the city pay them a $1 million dollar ransom in an hour, or they will start killing off their captives one by one.

THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE is about as representative a film of the 1970s as you can get. There's a almost documentary-like aspect to the production, no doubt due to the extensive New York City location shooting. The New York portrayed in this film is not a 21st Century tourist trap New York--it is a real, working class New York, filled with ordinary men and women who do ordinary jobs. All the supporting & background characters look and sound like real people instead of Hollywood extras.

The New York Transit Authority Police Officer who winds up dealing with the criminals is one Lt. Garber, played by the inimitable Walter Matthau. Matthau became a big star in the 1970s, but he was always a character actor at heart. He had the rare ability to believably play men who were working-class without seeming contrived. As Lt. Garber, Matthau is really playing another typical "Walter Matthau" role, but you would still swear he had been working for the Transit Authority almost all his life. Matthau's humanity makes Lt. Garber more than just the regular movie cop.

The head of the criminal gang is played by Robert Shaw. Like Matthau, Shaw was another character actor who reached mainstream stardom in the 1970s due to his roles in films like THE STING and especially JAWS. As an actor Shaw always had a quality of danger and menace about him (apparently he wasn't all that easy to get along with in real life, either). Shaw is perfect for the taciturn gang leader (the gang refers to each other by aliases based on colors--"Mr. Green", "Mr. Gray", etc.) because the actor could be intimidating without even saying a word (just watch his performance in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE). Shaw is a man who means business, and the audience knows that he will do whatever is necessary to achieve his goal of getting the ransom money.

We learn nothing about the gang until almost the end of the film, and even then it is just the most basic information. We don't find out what makes them tick, we don't get any flashback scenes, or scenes that "explain" each of the criminals. Because we know basically nothing about any of these men, they wind up appearing more dangerous, since a viewer can never assume what any of these men will do in any particular situation. The mistake of most 21st Century films is that they give out too much information, telling so much about the characters that they wind up being lifeless and predictable.

The lack of information about the hostage takers also holds for the main story. Information about the situation is revealed to the audience the same time it is revealed to the characters on the screen, making viewers feel as if they are experiencing events on a real-time basis. THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE has no "fluff" scenes or padding; everything revolves around the hostage standoff.

The reaction of various characters to the train hijacking is rather different than most movies of this type. The first reaction to those attached to the N.Y. subway system is anger (not over the hijacking, but over the fact that dozens of trains are being backed up), then disbelief, then chaos and confusion. 1970s New York City is shown to be one huge bureaucracy, in which it seems amazing that anything gets done at all. It is this bureaucracy that the hijackers are really up against--a viewer worries that the hijackers will start killing people not because they won't get the money, but because the workings of the city will screw the whole thing up.

As for the hostages, we don't get any "special" scenes with them....we don't even learn any of their names. They look and act like a cross-section of people from a mid-1970s urban setting. The script does not let them distract from the main story (which does not mean they are expendable--we certainly do not want to see any of them killed).

One major highlight of THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE is the music score by David Shire. The score's tough, gritty, driving rhythm matches the film perfectly.

THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE is a well-made exciting thriller, and a movie I enjoyed very much. Movies like this just aren't made anymore. (Yes, I know that this one was remade, and no, I haven't seen the remake and I don't intend to.) If you haven't seen it, please do. I'm not going to give away the ending....but it is one of the best ways to end a movie that I've ever seen. And remember....don't step on the third rail.

THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES

Peter Jackson's Middle-Earth saga finally lumbers to a halt in THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES.

More 21st Century generic film making than J.R.R. Tolkien, this movie isn't any worse--or better--than the first two HOBBIT entries. If you loved the other HOBBIT films, you'll love this one; if you were annoyed by certain things in the other HOBBIT films, you'll be annoyed by plenty here.

Peter Jackson's propensity to drag things out gets, if anything, even worse. A prime example is the fight between head dwarf Thorin and the main bad guy Orc. The fight goes on...and on...and on...and it looks like the Orc is killed....but no, it goes on even more.....It got to the point that I was saying to myself, "Can one of these guys just kill the other one and get it over with??"

The "love triangle" involving Legolas, a hot female elf, and one of the dwarves continues here, and it's just as unnecessary. Sir Christopher Lee does get a cameo (and so does his stunt double). Just like the other films in this series, there's so much extra stuffing and video game-like action that any emotional moments with the main characters just fall flat.

And that's the real difference between THE LORD OF THE RINGS series and THE HOBBIT series, at least for me. I felt no real connection with the characters in THE HOBBIT, and I wasn't all too concerned about what happened to them. During the entire HOBBIT series I kept being reminded of things that happened in THE LORD OF THE RINGS series--and THE HOBBIT films fell short in comparison.

The final battle in THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES bares a huge resemblance to the final battle in THE RETURN OF THE KING. THE RETURN OF THE KING is notorious for having a "never ending" ending. In THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES, the ending is rather abrupt--the whole subplot of Bilbo's contract with the dwarves and his share of the treasure (a very important part of the book) gets forgotten. It's as if Peter Jackson spent so much time expanding on everything else he didn't have anything left for the ending.

I know I've spent a lot of time whining about THE HOBBIT films in my blog. These are not bad films--if I had seen them when I was ten years old, I'd think they were the greatest movies ever--it's just that I feel that Tolkien's book could have been adapted better. I remember when it was announced that Peter Jackson was going to be able to make THE HOBBIT. Geeks around the world rejoiced--including me. Now I believe that it would have been better if other writers & directors had been involved. THE HOBBIT should be separate from THE LORD OF THE RINGS. They share the same world and some of the same characters, but they shouldn't be treated if they are one big giant story.

IN NAME ONLY

Last New Year's Eve I wrote a blog post about a movie which has a climax set during that holiday, MADE FOR EACH OTHER. That film starred Carole Lombard and James Stewart, and it was directed by John Cromwell. With Christmas coming up, this blog post is about a movie set during that holiday--and it also stars Carole Lombard and a major male star, and it was also directed by John Cromwell. The movie is IN NAME ONLY.

IN NAME ONLY was in fact Carole Lombard's next film after MADE FOR EACH OTHER. Produced by RKO and released in 1939, the movie teams up Carole with none other than Cary Grant. Lombard and Grant both appeared in two earlier films, SINNERS IN THE SUN and THE EAGLE AND THE HAWK, but IN NAME ONLY is the only real time they were an on-screen couple. If any two performers were made to be in a romantic comedy together, it was Lombard & Grant. Unfortunately IN NAME ONLY is a sluggish melodrama about marital problems.

Alec Walker (Cary Grant), a man stuck in an unloving marriage, happens to meet widow Julie Eden (Carole Lombard). (Alec just happens to be riding a horse and sees Julie fishing....typical, huh?) Alec and Julie are attracted to each other right away, but Alec's wife Maida (Kay Francis) married Alec because of his rich family, and she's not about to let her comfy lifestyle and social position go away easily.

One complication follows another, but eventually Alec convinces Maida to grant him a divorce....or so he thinks. Maida tells Alec that she will give him one after she goes on a trip to Europe with Alec's snooty parents. Alec and Julie make plans, but as the weeks go by Alec continues to be put off by Maida who is still abroad. On Christmas Eve Alec and Julie get set to celebrate with Julie's young daughter, but Maida and Mr. and Mrs. Walker arrive without warning. What follows is a confrontation between Alec, Julie, and Maida, in which Maida announces she will never go for a divorce. Maida also threatens to sue Julie for alienation of affection, and she says she will even force Julie's daughter to testify during any trial.

After this Alec and Julie are devastated. Alec gets drunk, and winds up spending the night at a cheap hotel where he (gasp!) leaves the window open. In one of those old movie complications that people who don't like old movies like to make fun of, Alec winds up getting deathly sick. Now in the hospital on Christmas Day, Alec seems to have lost the will to live, and Julie is brought in to see him. In another of those old movie complications, everything gets wrapped up in literally the last two minutes, due to Alec's parents overhearing Maida telling Julie how much she wants the Walker family money.

IN NAME ONLY does not hold up very well today due to 21st Century attitudes toward relationships. Today Alec and Julie would just do whatever the heck they wanted....but they certainly couldn't do that in a movie made in 1939. The script bends over backward to make the audience like Alec and Julie and despise Maida...so much so that all three characters wind up somewhat one-dimensional. Alec and Julie are too straight-arrow--Alec is a rich guy who works in his family's New York office (even though we are never told, and we never see, what he exactly does), and Julie is a successful fashion designer who appears not to be affected one bit by being widowed with a young child. (As a matter of fact, Julie only mentions her late husband once, when she first meets Alec. She never refers to the poor guy again for the rest of the film--if I ever get married and kick the bucket, I hope my widow will have stronger memories of me.) It would be more interesting if Alec and Julie had some complexity to them, such as maybe not being so well-off financially. But one has to remember that in 1939 divorce was still considered a bad thing, and if Alec or Julie had been more working class audiences of the time might not have been too sympathetic to them.

Kay Francis is very believable as the venal Maida--maybe the reason she's so mean is because Francis used to be a bigger star than Carole Lombard (if the movie had been made in 1933, Francis would have played Carole's role). Charles Coburn plays Alec's disapproving father, and the role is almost the same as the one Coburn played in MADE FOR EACH OTHER--James Stewart's disapproving boss.

Carole Lombard and Cary Grant work very well together, but this is the wrong type of film for them to be co-stars. Lombard spends a lot of time crying here, and Grant spends most of his time looking pensive--and that's before he's stuck sick in bed for the last twenty minutes of the story. If Lombard and Grant had not been in this picture, it would be very difficult to watch--even at only 94 minutes, the movie has a tendency to drag.

IN NAME ONLY has a lot in common with MADE FOR EACH OTHER--female lead, director, a holiday setting, and a miraculous (and far-fetched) ending. Carole Lombard and Cary Grant were two of the most appealing personalities to ever grace the silver screen--but IN NAME ONLY does not take advantage of those personalities. That's definitely not in the holiday spirit.

Still Even More Of My Favorite Movie Quotes

"I fancy that he's nobody's son or heir now!!"
Spoken by Michael Caine as Lt. Bromhead
From ZULU

"Well, hooray for the Bulldog!"
Spoken by Dorothy Comingore as Susan Alexander Kane
From CITIZEN KANE

"Who do you think this man is--God??"
"No..God would have mercy."
Spoken by Marc de Jonge as Col. Zaysen and Richard Crenna as Col. Trautman
From RAMBO III

"I ain't got time to bleed."
Spoken by Jesse Ventura as Blain
From PREDATOR

"Hold on to your butts..."
Spoken by Samuel L. Jackson as Ray Arnold
From JURASSIC PARK

"Nothing wrong with shooting as long as the right people get shot."
Spoken by Clint Eastwood as Harry Callahan
From MAGNUM FORCE

"For you, my friend, they are the angels of death."
Spoken by Bela Lugosi as Murder Legendre
From WHITE ZOMBIE

"Keep the change, Bob."
Spoken by Kris Kristofferson as Billy the Kid
From PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID

"Dyin' ain't much of a livin', boy."
Spoken by Clint Eastwood as Josey Wales
From THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES

"My master died without issue, sir....in the accepted sense of the term."
Spoken by Phillip Latham as Klove
From DRACULA PRINCE OF DARKNESS

The 75th Anniversary Of GONE WITH THE WIND

On this day exactly 75 years ago, the movie GONE WITH THE WIND had its gala premiere in the city of Atlanta, Georgia. GONE WITH THE WIND is probably the most famous American movie ever made. Even folks who don't like "old movies" have seen it, or are at least well aware of it. The movie's reputation has continued to grow over the years. Right now you can go out and get a brand new Blu-ray GONE WITH THE WIND box set, or go down to your local supermarket and buy a special Time-Life magazine concerning the film.

If you ask someone who is not a major movie buff what is the greatest movie ever made, chances are that person will say GONE WITH THE WIND. I think the reason for that has to do with how Ted Turner and his minions promoted the film in the 1980s and 90s. Whenever GWTW was shown on either TBS, TNT, or TCM back then, it was always hyped up as a major event, and it was always referred to as the greatest film ever--so much so that most of the general public starting assuming it was the greatest film ever made.

GWTW is a great film....but I believe it is more of a great film achievement. David O. Selznick pulled out all the stops to produce an adaptation of Margaret Mitchell's Civil War-era novel. (I have not read Mitchell's book, by the way.) You can't helped but be impressed when watching GWTW...it is a story told on a massive scale, clocking in at nearly four hours long. Multiple directors and screenwriters were used, and what saves the final product from being a convoluted mess is the production design of William Cameron Menzies, a man who does not get enough credit for the overall success of GWTW.

Having said all that, I'm kind of amazed that GWTW still has such a major following. The story is about as politically incorrect as you can get. We live in an age where every five minutes someone is going all over social media complaining about something that offends them--and GWTW features a group of characters from the mid-19th Century slave-holding American South. The movie's supposed status as the presumed "greatest movie ever made" has seemed to deflect any major cultural backlash. I'm not offended by the movie personally....but every time I watch it I'm thankful that my ancestors fought for the Union.

The other major reason I'm surprised that GWTW endures is that it's what used to be called a "woman's picture". (How that's for political incorrectness?) GWTW is a soap opera, plain and simple--especially in the film's second half. Most big-time money making epic films appeal to 10 to 60 year old males. GWTW is the most majestic chick flick ever made. Yes, it is set during the Civil War, but there are no battle scenes--we see the effect and the aftermath of war. The most violent thing we see is Scarlett O'Hara shooting a Union straggler in the face.

And here's something else about GONE WITH THE WIND: the lead character is a spoiled narcissist. Scarlett O'Hara is the type of woman that I would have no interest in whatsoever in real life. I find Olivia de Havilland as Melanie to be far more appealing...when Rhett Butler tells Melanie that she's one of the bravest women he's ever known, he's absolutely right. (One of my pet theories about GWTW is that Rhett has a secret crush on Melanie.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Vivien Leigh's performance as Scarlett. She's magnificent in the role, and it is to her credit that she can take someone as unlikable as Scarlett and make the audience interested in her for nearly four hours. One of the many legends of GWTW is David O. Selznick's search for the right actress to play Scarlett. Looking back from today, it seems unthinkable that any other woman could play Scarlett O'Hara other than Vivien Leigh.

I've actually seen GONE WITH THE WIND in a real theater. The showing was in the late 1980s at the Morris Civic Auditorium in downtown South Bend, Indiana. The biggest memory I have of that is the crowd's reaction of Leslie Howard as Ashley Wilkes. As soon as Howard came onscreen for the first time, there was a low grumble among the audience....a grumble that got worse and worse for the rest of the film whenever Ashley appeared. Ashley Wilkes has to be the most disliked character in American movie history. That's not the fault of Leslie Howard....no actor could make the insipid Ashley look good--heck, Clark Gable couldn't have made Ashley look good. Poor Leslie Howard was a fine actor in his own right, and he died as a result of the plane he was in being shot down by the Luftwaffe--but he will forever be remembered as the "honorable" Ashley Wilkes. Howard deserves better than that.

Most people have the general impression that Clark Gable won the Best Actor Oscar for GWTW (he didn't...Robert Donat won it for GOODBYE, MR. CHIPS). Clark Gable and Rhett Butler are about as perfect a match as you can get between actor and role. Gable and Leigh are one of the all-time movie romantic couples, but let's not forget the supporting cast. The fact that GWTW is almost four hours long allows many of the minor players a chance to shine. One of classic Hollywood's major assets is the wealth of talented character actors that worked in the industry. GWTW is filled with them--Thomas Mitchell, Barbara O'Neil, Harry Davenport, and of course Hattie McDaniel and Butterfly McQueen. For my money it is Ona Munson as Belle Watling that steals the show--her closeup as Rhett tells her about his problems with Scarlett is one of the movie's best moments.

While I don't think GONE WITH THE WIND is the greatest movie ever made, I have to say it is a stupendous achievement on the part of David O. Selznick. I watched the movie again over the weekend in preparation for this blog, and the thing about GWTW is that once you start watching it, you have to watch it the whole way through....even if you've seen it dozens of times. GONE WITH THE WIND, the film, is an American treasure.