Mbakkel2

"Change Partners" (1965, United Kingdom). Directed by Robert Lynn. Starring: Zena Walker, Kenneth Cope and Basil Henson.

I've seen several films in the 1960's series "The Edgar Wallace Mystery Theater" recently. It's a mixed bag, but I really liked "Change Partners". Although the story mostly takes place in daylight, far from the hustle and bustle of the big city, it's still a close relative of film noir classics such as "Double Indemnity" and "The Postman Always Rings Twice". For fans of noirs, "Change Partners" is recommendable!

It features two strong women (one of whom is a femme fatale) and a weak male protagonist. Lust, infidelity, money and murders. This is what I associate with a good crime film. Note that I have not written violence, shootings, car chases or life-weary policemen with the same facial expression throughout the film.

If "Change Partners" had been made in the United States during the classic noir era of the 1940s, I could have imagined Bruce Bennett and Gene Tierney as the unfaithful couple and Dan Duryea and Audrey Totter as the blackmailer couple.

SPOILER ALERT: Anna Arkwright and Cedric Gallen meet at the same place every Tuesday and Friday. They are noticed by Joe Trent, who lives with his girlfriend Jean in a caravan nearby. Joe writes down the registration numbers of the cars and finds out that they are registered to Ben Arkwright (Anna's husband) and Cedric Gallen respectively. They are partners in a large company. That means money!

Cedric tells Anna that his wife Betty will never agree to divorce and that Ben Arkwright has the financial control of the company and will use it, if Cedric takes his wife away from him.

One day, Joe Trent discovers that Cedric Gallen is fixing the ignition on Ben Arkwright's car. Ben is drunk, and Cedric asks Betty to drive him to their villa. When the car has driven into the garage, the door closes behind them. It's impossible to get it up. It is also impossible to switch off the car engine. They die of carbon monoxide poisoning. Cedric has put an undated and unaddressed love letter, which Ben had written to Anna, in Betty's drawer. He wants to make it look like Betty and Ben had an extramarital affair, and that they died in a suicide pact.

"Drugoe litso" (in English "Another face") is a Russian TV film from 2008. It owes a lot to a 1940s American melodrama.The premise that a man can mould a woman into his ideal of a dream woman has been told numerous times in films, including "Pygmalion" (1938) and "Stolen Face" (1952), starring Paul Henreid and Lizabeth Scott.

"Drugoe litso" is more akin to "Stolen Face", because in both films a surgeon changes the female's looks. The latter intends to prove that another face doesn't create another personality. "Drugoe litso" focuses, among other things, on a man's subjugation of his female partner, a problem prevalent in today's Russia.

Vera's face is heavily disfigured during an explosion in the lab where she works. A handsome young surgeon undertakes to operate her free of charge using a new method he has devised. Vera gets an entire new face. She becomes a beauty. Her husband doesn't get accustomed to his wife's new face, and she moves away from him. The surgeon has fallen in love with Vera and they become a couple. He persuades her to dye her hair black and apply a bob hairstyle. She is several times mistaken for a woman named Dasha. Who was Dasha? Is she dead? How did she die?

This is a good old-fashioned melodrama - with a surprise ending. I imagined the three main actors of "Gaslight" in a black and white 1940's version of this film: Charles Boyer (the surgeon), Ingrid Bergman (Vera) and Joseph Cotten (the husband).

The film was directed by Igor Shternbeg. Starring: Aleksandra Afanasyeva-Shevchuk, Ilya Liubimov, Dmitri Volkov,

"Carry on, Sergeant!" (1928, Canada). Director: Bruce Bairnsfather.

Starring: Hugh Buckler, Jimmy Savo, Niles Welch and Lewis Dayton.

This film must not be confused with the British comedy with the same name.

If you devote 117 minutes of your life to "Carry on, Sergeant!", you'll probably watch two "firsts": Your first Canadian silent film and your first Canadian war film. It is considered one of the most important films in Canadian film history.

"Carry on Sergeant!" may neither be a classic like "The Big Parade" nor a masterpiece like "All Quiet on the Western Front", but is nonetheless very exciting.

At a cost of $500,000, "Carry on, Sergeant!" was once the biggest-budget film produced in Canada. Much of it was used in the recreation of WWI-era France, with sprawling sets and battlefield scenes (which included hundreds of extras) and the usage of real explosives.

The cinematography is great. The extensive use of chiascuoro lightning adds a touch of poetry to the life in the trenches.

Produced as a silent film when cinemas were transitioning to sound, "Carry on Sergeant!" had only a brief two-month run at the box office before it was removed from circulation in January 1929. The film fell into obscurity for several years before Gordon Sparling donated a print to Library and Archives Canada, which resulted in a complete restoration of the film in 1990.

Talented Canadian actors and directors - like Mack Sennett, Walter Pidgeon and Mary Pickford - went to USA and pursued successful careers in Hollywood.

The director of this film, Bruce Bairnsfather, and one of the lead actors, Hugh Buckler, were British, while the other lead actor, Jimmy Savo, was an American comedian.

Bairnsfather's insistence on portraying the soldiers as flawed human beings lead to some criticism from those who expected a straightforward glorification of Canada's war effort.

"Carry on, Sergeant!" briefly also deals with the war effort of soldiers from the French colonies in Africa. I was sad when I watched them being poisoned to death in the trenches. I thought: So far away from their homes, fighting for the cause of a people who oppresses them.

Jimmy Savo (who looks like a cross between Åke Söderblom and Eddie Cantor) seems to have been thrown in from a military farce. Some viewers may therefore find his appearance inappropriate. His gags never interfere with the progression of the story and they don't downplay the brutality and grimness of the war. In fact, I think that Savo's funny character serves as a counterbalace to the dark realities.

STORY: "Carry on, Sergeant" is about the WWI experiences of three men, all of which are connected with the Atlas Locomotive Works. Fireman Bob MacKay is adept both as a worker, soldier and officer. His fellow fireman, Syd Small, is inept both as a worker and soldier. Donald Cameron is the son of the company's president.

MacKay hears of the urgent need for information and abducts a German soldier, who carries important papers in his pocket. For this brave effort Private MacKay is promoted to the rank of Sergeant.

A minor subplot features a German spy, using the fake name of Mr. Moran.

"Hobson's Choice" (1920, Great Britain). Director: Percy Nash.

Starring: Joe Nightingale, Joan Ritz and Arthur Pitt.

Nothing is more painful to watch than an outdated comedy. Do you think that a 1920 film still can be funny? Yes, because the female protagonist, Maggie Hobson, is very new-fashioned. She has plenty of backbone. Maggie is more related to the women of the 21th century than to the subservient women of the 20th century. The moral of this story is: A strong woman makes a strong man!

Speaking about choices. The choice of Joan Ritz as Maggie Hobson was a wise one. She has a "modern" face and not the doll-like look so typical of silent film actresses. The choice of Joe Nightingale as Will Mossup was also perfect. He has the word "timid" written all over him. Yes, he is even too afraid to sleep with his wife on their wedding night. Now and then I think he slightly resembles Stan Laurel.

Ritz' and Nightingale's way of acting is deeply rooted in solid British comedy tradition. "Hobson's Choice" is a good proof that the Brits also were able to make good comedies long before the Ealing Studios went into business. This film also features lots of close ups of the actors' faces.

STORY: Old Hobson, who owns a shoe shop, spends his time drinking with the fellow members of the masons at the 'Moonrakers' pub. His three daughters: Maggie, Alice and Vickey, work in the shop unpaid.

Hobson says he'll choose a pair of husbands for his youngest daughters. He adds that his oldest daughter is beyond marrying age and has to realize that she must lead the rest of her life as a proper old maid (Well, she is only 30). When Jim at the 'Moonrakers' Pub tells Hobson that it'll cost him settlements, he prefers that they stay unmarried.

Maggie decides to put the matters in her own hand. She is going to marry her father's ace clogmaker, Will Mossup, although he already has a girlfriend. Maggie breaks off their relationship. Will and Maggie sets up their own prosperous business. Maggie also comes up with a brilliant idea about how her father will pay the settlements.

"I Spy" (1934, USA). Director: Allan Dwan.

Starring: Ben Lyon, Sally Eilers, H.F. Maltby and Andrews Englemann.

A British film with two Americans in the leads and an American director.

Ben Lyon was often cast as a romantic lead, but in this film he proved that he was a talented comedian too.

I like comedies, in which ordinary persons are recruited as spies. Notable examples are "Hot Enough for June" (1964) and "Spy" (2015).

"I Spy" is fast-paced with lots of funny lines. There is a good chemistry between Lyon and Eilers. Lyon's character, Wally Sawyer, is not clumsy, but rather inventive, using clever tricks to neutralize his enemies and his charm to be acquainted with the Countess.

"Dr Jekyll & Sister Hyde" (1972, Great Britain). Director: Roy Ward Baker.

Starring: Ralph Bates, Martine Beswick, Gerald Sim, Louise Brodrick and Lewis Fiander.

In this film Dr Jekyll doesn't transform into being Mr Hyde, but a woman, Mrs. Hyde.

There are both positive and negative things to write about this film. The film manages to re-create the foggy back alleys of London, complete with bobbies and colourful hookers. It features nudity as well as several fairly graphic knife slashings and impalements. There are even hints at necrophilia when the man at the morgue says: "I've grown very fond of that one".

According to the script Dr Jekyll was Jack the Ripper. The infamous graverobbers Burke and Hare have also been miraculously transfered from 1820's Edinburgh to 1880's London. They may have been included because they served as an inspiration to another of Stevenson's stories: "The Body Snatcher".

After Burke and Hare leave the proceedings, screenwriter Brian Clemens seems to have lost much of his inspiration. The story repeats himself: Dr Jekyll kills prostitues, Mrs Hyde kills prostitutes. Nothing else happens.

I found Ralph Bates rather uncharismatic as Dr Jekyll. Martine Beswick is, on the other hand, perfecty cast as Sister Hyde. It is very easy for the viewers to envision her as a female version of Bates. She also has a dark voice and an androgynous look. Gerald Sim is wonderful as Dr Jekyll's best friend and his exact opposite, the woman-chasing and ultra hetero professor Robinson. I'll always relate Gerald Sim to the role of a clergyman that he played in a British TV series.

Sister Hyde about her alter ego Dr Jeckyll: "He hasn't been himself of late". I found this line similar to Norman Bates' statement regarding his "mother": "She isn't quite herself today".

STORY: The young Dr Jeckyll wants to invent an anti-virus that protects people from various diseases. His good friend, Dr Robinson, says it will take at least 40 or 50 years and that he'd be dead and buried long time before his experiments are finished. This comment causes Dr Jekyll to search for an elixir of life, using female hormones taken from fresh cadavers at the morgue. When the morgue runs out of bodies, Dr Jeckyll engages Burke and Hare. Then he (and later Mrs Hyde) kill prostitutes.

INTERPRETATION: Stevenson's novella has by some scholars been interpreted as a critisism of the Victorian era moral and hypocrisy: "Outward respectability and inward lust". As Dr Jekyll it was impossible for him to sleep with women from the lower classes, even if he desired it. As Mr Hyde he felt no moral obligations and lived out his supressed sexuality.

The "Dr Jekyll and Sister Hyde"-take on the old Stevenson story is bolder and moves one step further. Since Dr Jekyll transforms himself into a woman, this can be interpreted that he is a closeted gay man, a trans person or a candidate to undergo a sex change - all of which were considered taboo in the Victorian era. His neighbor, Howard Spencer, hints that Dr Jekyll is "impervious to women". Jekyll also makes a pass at Spencer, while he is in male mode. Spencer falls in love with Jekyll's female alter ego, Mrs Hyde.

"Frontier Circus: Coals of Fire" (1962, USA). Director: William Witney.

Starring: Richard Jaeckel, Sammie Davis, Jr. and John Derek.

My search for the appearances of the Bates House on the small screen has led me to watch episodes of old American TV series, like "Wagon Trail" and "Frontier Circus", which were never shown on Norwegian TV.

This is the first time I have seen Sammie Davis, Jr. as a dramatic actor. He gives a touching portrayal of Cato Richards, a former slave. The interplay between Davis and Jaeckell is magnificent.

The film was directed by Ray Dennis Steckler, who also plays Jerry in this film. Ray must have been the 1960's answer to Nicholas Cage.

A fortune teller at a fairground hypnotizes a young man to commit murders. Wait a minute, doesn't that sound a little bit like the plot of "The Cabinet of Dr Caligari"? The Caligari character in this film is a female and the Cesare character is a visitor at the fairground. This film is what Dr Caligari would have looked like if a sound version was made by an amateur. Compared to Ray Dennis Steckler, Ed Wood was William Wyler.

I guess that most of the money was spent on the color film stock, which at that time was more expensive than the black and white stock. The story, the acting, the dance numbers are inferior, but the cinematography and the songs are enjoyable.

"Violated" is a film about a homicidal photographer. Wait a minute, this description also fits to "Peeping Tom". Yes, there are many similarities - but also many dissimilarities - between those films.

The similarities: Both perpetrators have a strenuous relationship with women. The crimes in both cases are caused by unpleasant childhood memories.

Mark in "Peeping Tom" was used as a guinea pig for his father's psychological experiments on fear and the nervous system. Jan in "Violated" discovered that his mother's lover stroke her long hair, which triggered both his hatred of women and hair fetishism. He cuts off the hair of his victims after he killed them.

The dissimilarities: "Peeping Tom" had the advantage of being made on a large budget with high-classed actors by one of Great Britain's most reputable directors, Michael Powell. The film was shot in Eastmancolor.

"Violated" was made on a shoestring budget by Walter Strate, his only feature film. Some of the actors were amateurs and they only appeared in this film. To be honest, most of the acting (also by the few professional actors) is quite unskillful. A reviewer on IMDb.com has, however, claimed that this adds more realism to the film. It was shot in gritty black and white on location in New York City.

Mark in "Peeping Tom" incorporated his work as a photographer in the murders. Jan in "Violated" doesn't do that, although he kills a couple of his models.

Mark is a handsome guy in his twenties, while Jan is an unattractive man in his forties.

It is a matter of personal taste if you label this film as a noir or not. I think that Tony Mottolas moody guitar-playing expresses the loneliness and hardships of New York City's unfortunate residents, giving the film a touch of noir at least in the soundtrack.

80 employees are locked inside a large building. A voice orders them over the intercom to kill two of their workmates within an hour. They are later ordered to kill 30 more within two hours, or else 60 will be killed. Small tracking devices have been implanted in their occiputs. The tracking devices are made to explode.

The Belko Experiment is not unlike disaster films, in which a certain number of people are locked inside a building or a ship. The viewers become familiar with the characters. We get attached to some of them and hope they will survive. The questions are: Who will survive and who will not survive? Who keep a cool head and who become desperate? These questions also apply to this movie.

Moreover, in such crisis situations, self-appointed and wise leaders, who are good at improvising, emerge. The less wise lose their lives because of heedlessness.

You may very well look upon "The Belko Experiment" as an adult version of "Lord of the Flies", William Golding's novel about school boys marooned on a remote island. They are eventually divided into two groups. The members of one group , led by Ralph, want to remain civilized. The members of the other group, led by Jack, degenerate into savagery.

The employees of "The Belko Experiment" are also divided into such groups. The Ralph character in this film is Mike Milch, while the Jack character is Belco's chief operating officer Barry Norris. Eventually the differences between the two groups are wiped out. The "civilized" also kill, but in self-defense.

Such an experiment has never taken place in reality, and it is impossible to know if the film is credible or not. I longed for a psychological explanation of why the different employees chose the way they did. The screen writer has probably no talent for psychology.

It was expected that the impudent Wendell Dukes, who didn't take a no for an answer from a female workmate, should end up in the "wrong" group. However, it would have been more effective if he to everyone's surprise had landed on the "right" side, to prove that there could be something good in such men as well.

Screen writer James Gunn, with two films about "Scoobi Doo" on his list, is no William Golding. Gunn will never be awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, as was the case with Golding.

The boys in "Lord of the Flies" drop into savagery after staying on the island for several weeks or months. In "The Belko Experiment" it happens after a very short time. Yes, I really wonder how likely it is.

Eventually, the film turns out to be a big murder spree. Clenched skulls and blood drooling from mouths eventually become common. Barry and his group don't just shoot people, they chop them with axes too. In fact, I feel that the idea of an experiment really was used as a pretext to give the viewers one and a half hour of killing.

Who did I like best? Yes, most charming was the Laurel and Hardy-like couple Marty Espenscheid and Chet Valincou.

Today I have watched Paul Verhoeven's critically acclaimed 2016 film "Elle". It's hard to believe that I have watched the same film as the reviewers, because I look upon it as a speculative rubbish. If an American B-film director had made it with unknown actors, it would probably have been panned. It helps to be a reputable director and have the famous actress Isabelle Huppert playing the lead role.

It's labeled as a"psychological thriller". "Elle" is flooded with many distractions. Distractions are necessary to increase the suspense, but what about a film that totally lacks suspense? The word "suspense" is embedded in the term "thriller". It's no thriller, but maybe it's more a drama about a rape victim? The viewers expect that a drama film about a rape victim is truthful and realistic. There is little about the film's main character, Michèle, which indicate that she has been raped. She has admittedly purchased pepper spray and a small ax, but uses them against ex-husband Richard by mistake. The rape doesn't affect her sex life either. Michèle continues to be a sexual predator, sleeping with her best friend's husband and leg flirting with her married neighbor. Elle neither shows shame, guilt, fear of men nor anxiety. When she gets injured in a car crash, who does she call? "Ghostbusters"? No, the rapist.

I hope I'm excused, but I think this film is a mockery of all rape victims. It supports the male chauvinistic falsity that women really like to be raped. Elle continues to interact with him, even after he has raped her three times. Michèle is not, therefore, a revengeful rape victim, as the female lead character in Abel Ferrera's "Ms. 45".

Some reviewers have made a point of Michèle "turning tables". She makes it difficult for him to enjoy raping her, because she pretends to be consenting, which rapists are known to dislike. Yes, but it this not strongly focused on. It is incorrect to claim that Michèle is a strong female character. She is the weak part and the rapist is the strong part - following the traditional gender role patterns. When the rapist's wife thanks Elle for being temporarily able to satisfy her husband's needs (!!!!!!!!!), you may really wonder in what period this film was made. I wondered when they were going to play "Stand by Your Man". Now I understand why French women got suffrage as late as in 1944.

Rather early I suspected who the rapist was, and will not reveal that. Why didn't Michèle call the police? You see, her father was a famous serial killer and she wanted to have nothing more to do with the police. Michèle's eccentric mom in her seventies looks like a blueprint of Endora in the TV series "Bewitched" and she has a young lover.

If you would like to watch a good film about rape victims, I recommend Ida Lupino's "Outrage" (1950) or Jonathan Kaplans "The Accused" (1988). I liked Verhoeven's "Zwartboek", but this film was both speculative and mysogynic.

TRAILER.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM96ne-XiH0

I must admit that I rarely watch LGBT-related films. This silent film deals with the relationship between the famed painter Claude Zoret, his model Michael and how this is altered by the arrival of a woman, Countess Zamikow.

Officially Zoret adopted Michael, because he didn't want to die childless. Remember that the film was made in 1924. At that time it was almost impossible to overtly depict a gay love story. There are no kisses, tender embraces or hand-holding.

Dreyer has invented a clever plot device to make us learn about the true nature of the two men's relationship. He has added a subplot involving a heterosexual love triangle. The viewers compare the two triangles and recognize the similarities. They are both of the same kind, with the exception that in the heterosexual triangle the scorned Count Adelsskjold challenges his rival to a duel - in which the latter is killed. Zoret's love for Michael is unselfish and unconditional. The film can be seen as a support for sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld's statement that "homosexuality was part of the plan of nature and creation just like normal love".

Benjamin Christensen, who directed "Witchcraft through the Ages" (1922), is excellent as the unfortunate Zoret. The difference between Chistensen and Slezak can be summarized as follows: Chistensen is acting, Slezak is posing.

Although Countess Zamikow is bankrupt, she still hires Zoret to paint a picture of her. Zoret has difficulties with painting her eyes satisfactorily. Michael manages it. This can be interpreted that only a man who fancies women can capture the beauty of a woman's eyes. Zoret is gay and has only painted male models, while Michael is bisexual (or heterosexual). The viewers really don't get to know if Michael really loved Zoret or if he only regarded him as a "sugar daddy" ("gay for pay").

Michael falls in love with Countess Zamikow. She is constant penniless, so Michael sells his Master's sketches to pay her debts. He goes so far that he sells Zoret's greatest painting of him, "The Victor". Zoret is aware of it, buys it back and returns it to Michael.

The Dutch writer Herman Koch's novel has been previously filmed twice - in his homeland and in Italy respectively.

The film has on some websites been labeled as a thriller, but I would prefer to label it as genre-bending. I think that Moverman had high ambitions with his film, but he has only partly succeeded. It tries to embrace too much. The film is also very dialogue-based, which I think would have made it better suited for the more intimate small-screen format.

English actor Steve Coogan plays the misanthropic, cynical and racist history teacher Paul Lohman. He thinks that the world went downhill after the end of Antiquity and is obsessed with the Battle of Gettysburg. Paul also stresses that not all of those included on lists of war victims were good people, several were - in fact - assholes.

With such weird views, Lohman can be regarded as an involuntary comical character. In fact, I'd like to see Coogan in a comic role, and then it turns out that he's a comedian.

Richard Gere plays his brother, Stan, a busy and conscientious senator.

The main theme of the film is a dinner, at which Paul, Stan and their wives will discuss how to deal with a case where their two sons set a defenseless homeless woman on fire. The crime was filmed by a cell phone camera. The film was later posted online. The police doesn't know about the boys' identity.

Stan wants to hold a press conference, in which he is going to announce that he withdraws from the gubernatorial race. He further says that his son must admit his crime to the police. Paul's wife, Claire, turns out to have an equally twisted view of humanity as her husband. She says that the homeless woman herself was to be blamed for her death. Stan's wife, Katelyn, threatens to leave him if he holds the press conference.

The problem is that only the last 30 minutes of the film is devoted to this main theme. As I wrote, it tries to embrace too much, something is handled in detail, other things are more superficially handled. The film contains a wide range of flashbacks.

Although the film's main theme is how to handle the case with the two boys, it deals equally as much about the strained relationship between two brothers. Paul felt that their mother loved Stan more than him. Stan adds that when she became insane, he, as the eldest brother, had to take over the parental responsibility. That Stan invited Paul and his wife to an exclusive restaurant also proves how far the two brothers have distanced themselves in social status. Paul doesn't really want to accept the invitation.

The film also briefly deals with how Paul tackled his wife's cancer and how he tackles his own mental illness.

This is an actors' film and all actors do a very good job (In fact, I really liked Michael Chernus as the headwaiter. He played very naturally and was like someone I really could have met). Still, this has become Coogan's film and Gere is relegated to the shadows.

The re-enactment of the Battle of Gettysburg through huge close ups of statues and images of color-manipulated landscapes was very cleverly constructed.

If the film's main characters had been a bit more normal, I might have indulged myself more in the plot. Neither do I believe that any of my closest acquaintances had chosen to treat such a serious matter during a dinner conversation.

This spy film has all the ingredients that I require: A likable male lead (Joel McCrea), a gorgeous female lead (Diana Decker) and a great supporting cast, including Marius Goring, Herbert Lom and Roland Culver. It has suspense, humour and a good script.

The end of the film takes place at Madame Tussaud's wax cabinet. Hitchcock used several famous landmarks in his thrillers, but I am uncertain if he could turn the script into a so entertaining film like director Robert Parrish did.

Although this film is shot in black and white and contains neither bikini-clad women nor funny gadgets, I think this film is better than most James Bond films.

According to most scholars Hitchcock's follow-up to "Psycho" (1960) was "The Birds" (1963). I fact, he directed this episode of the TV series "Startime" only a weeks after he had finished "Psycho", retaining Vera Miles, the director of cinematography John L. Russell and some other crew members.

Both the story and setting are vastly different from "Psycho". This film has been shot in colour. "Incident at a Corner" is one of few of Hitchcock's later films that didn't include a murder.

The crime in "Incident at a Corner" is a devious rumour. In this film Alfred Hitchockc clearly proves that he also was an actor's director, despite he once claimed that actors should be treated like sheep. He manages to get top-notch performances from all concerned, especially George Peppard - as a crusader for the truth. Look at his eyes!!!!! A school crossing guard, James Medwick, reprimands Mrs. Tawley, the mother of one of the pupils, for careless driving. She gets furious and calls him "an officious old man". A teacher overhearing the quarrel believes that she uttered "a vicious old man". The same does also a couple who has recently moved in to a house near the crossing. The wife recognizes the guard from her past and is afraid that he might reveal something she did as a 16 year old girl, which she wants to remain hidden. She wants to move, but her husband suggests that they can get rid of the old man instead. Why not write an incriminating letter?

An anonymous letter to the PTA is placed in Mrs. Tawley's car. The author presumed that she was the president of the PTA. Eventually the letter gets to the right destination. The term "a vicious old man" is used in it. The local sheriff visits Medwick and says he has been fired, because of complaints that he has been too friendly towards the children, especially the little girls.

Coincidentially, it is his birthday. He has invited his son, daughter-in-law, his granddaughter and her fiancé to the party. His son is initially permissive, but his granddaughter's fiancé wants to seek the truth. Since Mrs. Tawley's words "a vicious old man" were used in the letter, she becomes the main suspect. She, however, used the word "offacious" instead.

In this film Hitchcock shows us how dangerous defamation can be, risking to destroy several lives. And furthermore: You mustn't believe all you hear. Your eyes may deceive you.

To me Sid James was the embodiment of the "Carry on" series. Sid was a very beloved comical actor. "Escape by Night" gives us the opportunity to watch him in a serious role. Sid is convincing as the Italian gangster, Gino Rossi. Perhaps he is too convincing. As with Stellan Skarsgård's portrayal of the Russian citizen Dima, Sid doesn't play a character, but rather a stereotype or a cliché. Rossi is highly suspicious, violent and trigger-happy. Just, what you would expect from an Italian gangster. Sadly his character becomes too one-dimensional.

I must openly admit that this film didn't engage me. I am no fan of gangster films. I more like "whodunits" and psychological thrillers. The plot is very protracted. What enlivens the film is the presence of Andrew Ray as the working class boy, but today I think it would be difficult to convince a boy of his age that you are a secret agent.

The film is about a female Polish gynecologist / sexologist who was fighting in the 1970's for an approval to get her sex guide published. Michalina Wislocka was a very colorful woman. Until now, I have thought that the only notable Polish woman was Marie Curie. Considering that both the Catholic church and the Communist Party shared the same puritan view of sexuality, it is easy to understand that this was not an easy struggle. She teaches Polish women how to improve their sex life, how they can satisfy themselves to obtain orgasm and how a wife can cope with her sadistic husband sexually. Michalina is a vocal supporter of contraception.

The film jumps back and forth in time - without being confusing. We follow her from 1939 - when she and her friend Wanda - look at a young blond man bathing in a lake. Michalina falls immediately in love with Stach, who is a German citizen, but friendly towards the Poles. They marry each other.

In 1941 they were mistakenly arrested by the Germans and destined to be sent to prison camps. Wanda, now a hooker, tells about the mistake to the German officer-in-charge. She offers her body to him, but he is gay and uninterested. He orders her to simulate orgasm loudly to convince his soldiers that he is straight. Wanda and Stach are then released. After the war, they live in a triangular relationship. The agreement is that Stach can have sex with Wanda, but retain his love for Michalina. When Michalina and Wanda both give birth to one children each at the same time (fertilized by Stach), Michalina makes people believe that she is the mother of both. She says that they are twins. It wouldn't look good with Wanda as an unmarried mother and with her best friend's husband as the father of her son. She becomes "Aunt Wanda" instead.

In the 1950's, Stach breaks up the agreement and proposes to Wanda. Michalina discovers innumerable photographs of Stach's mistresses, the wives of colleagues of him at the university. She asks him to leave and files for divorce.

Michalina is employed by an institution in the countryside and falls in love with one of its employees, the former sailor Jurek. He is married and it turns out that he does not want to leave his child.

Michalina is fighting in the 1970's for her book to be published. The communists refuse because they don't want to offend the Catholic church. The Catholic church refuses because it doesn't want to offend the communists. However, a cardinal suggests that she contacts the press. A women's magazine publishes her book in the form of articles.

Michalina convinces the communist head of a publishing house to release her book. A censor allows the book to be published - under the condition that the chapter about female orgasm and the suitable illustrations are omitted - but Michalina rejects it.

My only objection is that the film does not tell anything about how a woman who grew up in the very Catholic Poland became so liberal sexually.

The film is a vivacious biopic. We see nothing about the communists' abuse. They are more or less depicted as narrow-minded clowns. As a comedy, this film is a bit "British" in the form. It may be compared with "Made in Dagenham", which also treated the battle of sexes with a glimpse in the eye. When the spouses of the high-ranking communists used their femininity to persuade their husbands to support the release of the book, I immediately thought of the British film.

There are many steamy sex scenes in this film. I liked the scene, in which Michalina and Jurak made love with each other by the lake one evening. It was wonderfully shot.

This is a modern take on the old "Cinderella" fairy tale, with a wicked stepmother, but the stepsisters have been replaced by a subservient and gossip-mongering maid.

This is a well-made psychological thriller with many Hitchcockian touches. A recurrent topic in many thrillers is that you tell people that somebody is going to kill you, but no one believes you.

The only disappointment is the ending. I had wished that the stepmother was innocent and that Mr. and Mrs. Haddon had died of natural causes. If this solution had been chosen, the film would have been excellent. It would have made it far more superior than other films, in which the most probable suspect indeed is the culprit. What a twist it would have been. If so, April's allegations towards her stepmother would have been attributed to a young woman's neurosis. Perhaps such an idea was too radical in the 1950's.

Jean Kent is great as the stepmother. She somewhat made me think of Agnes Moorehead.

April Haddon (Mona Freeman) is called home from her studies at the University of California to attend her father's funeral. One year earlier her beloved mother had died. Her father remarried Florence (Jean Kent). The villagers love and believe her. She is looked upon as a benign woman. Florence winds both the local police officer and the old doctor around her little finger.

April feels that she has become a stranger in her own home. The furniture is gone. "Dust collectors", Florence Hatton unfeelingly utters. The former servants have been fired. Florence doesn't allow her stepdaughter to smoke or drink alcohol.

Florence tells her that Mr. Haddon was run over by a boat when he was fishing. April is convinced that it wasn't an accident and that he was murdered. The police hasn't managed to find a boat with marks on the bow.

April gets more chocked when Florence tells her that her mother was an alcoholic, and that she was her nurse during the last part of her life. This was not the mother that Florence used to know, and she doesn't believe it. Instead she believes that Florence killed both her mother and her father. April locates a boat with marks on the bow, and that was her family's boat.

According to Mr. Haddon's will April is going to inherit the bulk of the estate when she turns 21 years old. She fears that her stepmother is trying to get rid of her before that.

The relationship between the two women becomes more and more tense, and Florence eventually becomes like a clone of Mrs. Danvers in Alfred Hitchcock's "Rebecca".

The problem with this film is that you feel like you've seen everything before and you probably have. A young woman is held captive by a man. It is essentially the same plot as William Wyler's brilliant British 1966 thriller "The Collector", and that film was much better.

The young Australian photographer Tessa Palmer is in Berlin to take pictures of the GDR architecture. She meets English teacher Andi, who takes her to one of Berlin's allotment gardens. Andi then brings Tessa home to his apartment and they sleep together. When Andi is teaching at school the following day, Tessa discovers that the door is locked. When he returns home, she tells him about it and he gives her the keys. The problem is that they don't fit. He has also removed the SIM card from her cell phone.

Andi tells his father, a professor, that he has got a girlfriend named Tessa. The father asks what happened to his former girlfriend, Natalie, whereupon the son replies that she has moved to Canada. This is the film's unanswered question. Did he kill her? And what happened to the dog Lotte, whom he claimed had run away?

A potential helper is brutally beaten to death by Andi. A similar plot device is used in "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?", in which the maid is beaten to death by the title character - and in lots of horror films and thrillers.

I think Max Riemelt is somewhat uncharismatic as the mentally ill teacher Andi. I liked Terence Stamp better.

So to me this film was a re-cycling of old stuff. It did not present an improvement to the previous films with similar plots.

Joe Newman (formerly Joachim Deutsch) is the son of a German father and British mother. One day he receives a phone call from a man who says he is father, Kurt Deutsch. The man asks him to visit him in his home town in Bavaria. Joe is surprised, because he has long believed that his father was killed during the Second World War. It turns out that Kurt had survived the war. He had been imprisoned in a Soviet concentration camp, but escaped with his friend, a scientist. The latter was, however, shot to death. Back in Germany he moved into the large mansion of Dr. van Brecht and married a younger woman. Joe is told that his father had passed away recently.

When it is revealed that Kurt was buried as a catholic, although he was a protestant, Joe begins to question the circumstances regarding his father's death. When it is revealed that a young Eastern European refugee woman was the only attendee at his funeral, Joe believes that it was her father who was buried in Kurt's grave instead.

Brenner, an investigator for an insurance company, tells Joe that Kurt indeed is alive. His wife and Dr. van Brecht has staged Kurt's death because of insurance fraud.

The local police also seems to work against him. Well, everything is not what it seems. It is towards the end we get to know the truth.

A well-made thriller and a very good cast, although Mai Zetterling has almost nothing to do. Peter Cushing is playing a doctor, although not one of his regular "mad scientists". Nial MacGinnis is excellent as the ambiguous investigator for an insurance company. Eric Portman is good as the police officer, likewise Nigel Green as his assistant.

This film is a rare opportunity to watch Ray Milland in a British film after he became a Hollywood star, although his character is American.

Clay Douglas wants to seek the truth about the death of his brother. He served in the British army and was shot to death during a raid into French territory during World War II. Douglas was not shot by the German enemy, but by a British soldier. Clay's inquiries bring him to Wales, Scotland and London.

A film directed by RKO horror director Jacques Tourneur and co-produced by Hitchcock associate Joan Harrison gave me lots of expectations. Unfortunately, the film is a prime example of how a good premise can be wasted. There are certain B films I wished were made as A films and vice versa. This A film would have been better if it has been made on a tighter budget. Recently I have watched several British B-crime films. They have never disappointed me. Their length (approx. 60 minutes) does not allow the inclusion of boring romantic subplots.

I am not really a fan of romantic films. The romantic subplot of this film seems tacked and slows down the progression of the story. Douglas' love interest is easily offended and shows a complete disinterest in his search for the truth about the death of his brother.

The final scene (involving Douglas and two of his brother's fellow soldiers in the Scottish highlands) is suspenseful. Great cinematography,

I feel that this film is more "Ivanhoe" than a biblical epic. The Romans are mostly depicted as arrogant and selfish. As a film for a mature audience I think this film leaves much to be desired. It is more like an adventure film. Children, however, may therefore find it both exciting and thrilling. The characters are either good or bad, only a few shades of gray, which is important for a kiddie audience.

The film was reminiscent of a low-budget TV film.

The plot of a young warrior learning the trade from an older warrior has been borrowed from lots of earlier films. The premise that a warrior assembles an uneven bunch of amateur fighters to defeat a superior enemy has also been shown in films many times in the past.

82 year old Ellen Burstyn plays the daughter of 28 year old Blake Lively, and then you realize for sure that this is a strange film. It deals with a woman who is hit by lightning after she loses his life in a traffic accident. Not only is she revived. She does not age. This is an imaginative idea, which is not used in this film. The film has a resemblance to Bradbury's story "Hail and Farewell" about a 12 year old boy who did not age in fifty years. Having lived with "parents" some years he has to travel again and befriend new "parents". Adeline must also ceaselessly move.

Think of a woman who has experienced the 1910s (World War I and suffragettes), 1920 (charleston and jazz), 1930 (swing), 1940 (World War II), the 1950s (rock and roll ), 1960s (Beatles, Stones and hippies), 1970s (disco wave). Does all this show in this film? No, for although this woman looks youthful, she has experienced all these decades. You would expect that such a woman would be "campy", for people are mostly influenced in their first years of life and never manages entirely to adapt to something new. She never speaks the words "swell", "groovy" or "dame".

Blake Lively looks like, behaves and speaks as if she was born in 1987, as she is. A hint of a young Bing Crosby is more or less the only thing that ties her to an eventful past and that she answered correctly on many questions in a quiz, a thing one does not to be 100 years old to achieve. In fact, she makes me grumpy.

This is a syrupy love film, and I miss a chemistry between Blake and Huisman.

This film combines the story of "The Lodger" with the "locked-room mystery".

1904: A young newspaper journalist interviews a dying employee of an insane asylum after a fire has demanded the lives of interns. He says that one of the patients was responsible for the fire, but the head of the asylum dismisses it.

At the same time a strange doctor visits an elderly woman to become her lodger. He acts strange and threatens the woman and her daughter. He dislikes their visitors and put and end to it. He is soon suspected to be Jack the Ripper, back after several year's absence I have watched both "The Lodger" (1944) and "The Man in the Attic" (1952). Laird Cregar and Jack Palance were far better than Valentine Dyall as the lodger. Cregar and Palance managed to display a mixture of insanity and vulnerableness, Dyall is ONLY darkish-clothed and threatening.

A man is found inside a locked-room. I will not tell you who he was. The identity of the killer may come as a surprise to you, but I can reveal that I toyed with the idea myself.

A large portion of the film is told in flashback by an old man, who was the newspaper reporter.

"A Kiss to Die for" is a mixture of "Three Faces of Eve", "Marnie" and "Basic Instinct".

A psychology professor (Tim Matheson) is saved from jumping off the Train by a sexy woman (Mimi Rogers). He tried to commit suicide. Afterwards they make love on board the train.

A classy prostitute, calling herself "Bedroom Eyes", shoots her customers to death. Her face is not seen, so the question is whether the woman on the Train and "Bedroom Eyes" are the same person.

"A Kiss to Die for" is categorized as a "romantic thriller", with the emphasis on the former. I am not really a fan of romantic films.

I can reveal so much that Rogers' character suffers from multiple personality disorder. She has been abused by her father as a little girl.

The film had been better if her two personalities had been the opposites of each other. Her "normal" personality is also unchaste (She makes love on a train with a stranger she just met). This weakens the story. Tippi Hedren's character in "Marnie" was frigid. Joanne Woodward's characters in "The Three Faces of Eve" were different, only one of them was flirtatious.

I don't know why the script writer decided to make her two personalities so similar.

Mimi Rogers is a very good choice as the female character. She has a crazy look in her eyes. Mimi is sexy, inviting and sensitive. It is easy to see why Matheson's character is tempted by her.