TheWelshRagingBull
Lifetime Total
1+
IMDb Member
14 years
Reviews
Scream of the Wolf (1974)
A low budget and thin script yields decidedly modest results
This 1974 mystery thriller sets it's stall out very early on with a reasonably nerve-jangling beginning as a stranded motorist is murdered in a grisly manner on a mist-shrouded,isolated road by someone or something lurking in woods of rural Los Angeles.
The plot quickly develops as the baffled police turn to an ex-game hunter (Peter Graves) to assist them with the search of an "animal", who leaves both four-legged and two-legged tracks (never seen by the viewer, by the way, and indicative of the budget restrictions that prevail in this film). One ex-game-hunter goes to an old friend who is still plying his trade as a hunter (Clint Walker) but he oddly backs off and refuses to help anybody track down the killer.
At just over 75 minutes running time, the whole thing virtuously floes at a brisk pace, but saying that the early part of the film is rather repetitious in portraying the murders. Furthermore, some sequences are too short and/or choppily edited so the overall smoothness of what is being viewed is compromised.
Budget restrictions place a heavy emphasis on mystery and suspense, rather than horror and gore, and with Dan Curtis (of Night Stalker fame) at the production/directorial helm, the whole thing was potentially in safe hands. Nevertheless, there is only decent nail-biting scene in the rest of the film: at the home of the leading character's girlfriend's house where the murderer tries to strike.
The script also spends an inordinate amount of time building and playing on the cold-hearted, egocentric and humourless characterisation of Clint Walker's role: whilst Walker carries this off very effectively it becomes rather mind-numbing and tiresome as the film shifts towards its conclusion, even within the confines of the aforementioned running time. What this does is imply considerable guilt on the part of this character and puts all the film's "eggs in one basket." When the conclusion comes it comes with twists that are perfectly explicable in terms of what the viewer has seem beforehand, if not entirely satisfactory.
Overall the performances of Peter Graves and Jo-Ann Pflug are merely adequate, but Walker merits more praise for his consistently poker-face portrayal of his character. The film itself carries an element of intrigue that makes it worth watching but many aspects of the script don't translate particularly well to the screen, so it's lasting impact is unfortunately rather Luke-warm.
The plot quickly develops as the baffled police turn to an ex-game hunter (Peter Graves) to assist them with the search of an "animal", who leaves both four-legged and two-legged tracks (never seen by the viewer, by the way, and indicative of the budget restrictions that prevail in this film). One ex-game-hunter goes to an old friend who is still plying his trade as a hunter (Clint Walker) but he oddly backs off and refuses to help anybody track down the killer.
At just over 75 minutes running time, the whole thing virtuously floes at a brisk pace, but saying that the early part of the film is rather repetitious in portraying the murders. Furthermore, some sequences are too short and/or choppily edited so the overall smoothness of what is being viewed is compromised.
Budget restrictions place a heavy emphasis on mystery and suspense, rather than horror and gore, and with Dan Curtis (of Night Stalker fame) at the production/directorial helm, the whole thing was potentially in safe hands. Nevertheless, there is only decent nail-biting scene in the rest of the film: at the home of the leading character's girlfriend's house where the murderer tries to strike.
The script also spends an inordinate amount of time building and playing on the cold-hearted, egocentric and humourless characterisation of Clint Walker's role: whilst Walker carries this off very effectively it becomes rather mind-numbing and tiresome as the film shifts towards its conclusion, even within the confines of the aforementioned running time. What this does is imply considerable guilt on the part of this character and puts all the film's "eggs in one basket." When the conclusion comes it comes with twists that are perfectly explicable in terms of what the viewer has seem beforehand, if not entirely satisfactory.
Overall the performances of Peter Graves and Jo-Ann Pflug are merely adequate, but Walker merits more praise for his consistently poker-face portrayal of his character. The film itself carries an element of intrigue that makes it worth watching but many aspects of the script don't translate particularly well to the screen, so it's lasting impact is unfortunately rather Luke-warm.
Columbo: Dead Weight (1971)
Episode 3, Season 1
Good interaction between Columbo & murderer, but the plot development can be shot at.
Eddie Albert is the guest murderer in this early Season 1 episode in the long-running series. He plays a renowned (retired) General who receives a visit from a Colonel Dutton, informing him that a mass arms contract investigation is imminent and this will uncover their dodgy dealings with the General's construction company. With the General fearing exposure and Dutton confirming that he is fleeing to Geneva, he decides to "bump off" his business associate. Unfortunately for him, the murder is witnessed by a woman out on her sailing boat with her mother....
John T. Dugan penned the script for this episode (he also undertook the same responsibility for the Season 2 instalment 'The Most Crucial Game'), but the overall impact is a disappointingly modest one.
The platform for the whole story has great potential because Columbo never has an eye witness to any crime, but the development of the story has distinct frailties which are compounded further along the line; this is a shame because Eddie Albert conveys the esteemed military aura and unruffled nature of his character particularly well. Furthermore, his scenes with Columbo have a quietly antagonistic feel to them.
The negative issues really lie in areas such as Columbo's uncharacteristic seeming scepticism at the eye witness's account, when in other episodes he galvanises a murder investigation with very little to go on. Then there is the murder set-up which takes place in front of a window - Albert's character is portrayed as battle-hardened and decisive, yet he is slipshod in the execution of his crime.
However, the love-interest which develops between Albert's character and the 'eye witness' played by Suzanne Pleshette - which the murderer carves in order to slowly undermine her account of the 'murder' - is a gross miscalculation by the script-writer in trying to inject the cleverness which normally saturates the concepts and associated writing in the series. Surely, an esteemed war hero, full of pride, would stand his ground against a shaky eye-witness account, but instead he seems to imply his own guilt by trying to 'win over' her affections and erode her dubious self-confidence about she saw.
Overall, the premise has big question marks hanging over it and the story's development seems to labour as a result. The performances are one of the major positives on show here - Albert and Falk excel in their scenes together but ultimately, too many holes in this episode very nearly sink it without a trace.
John T. Dugan penned the script for this episode (he also undertook the same responsibility for the Season 2 instalment 'The Most Crucial Game'), but the overall impact is a disappointingly modest one.
The platform for the whole story has great potential because Columbo never has an eye witness to any crime, but the development of the story has distinct frailties which are compounded further along the line; this is a shame because Eddie Albert conveys the esteemed military aura and unruffled nature of his character particularly well. Furthermore, his scenes with Columbo have a quietly antagonistic feel to them.
The negative issues really lie in areas such as Columbo's uncharacteristic seeming scepticism at the eye witness's account, when in other episodes he galvanises a murder investigation with very little to go on. Then there is the murder set-up which takes place in front of a window - Albert's character is portrayed as battle-hardened and decisive, yet he is slipshod in the execution of his crime.
However, the love-interest which develops between Albert's character and the 'eye witness' played by Suzanne Pleshette - which the murderer carves in order to slowly undermine her account of the 'murder' - is a gross miscalculation by the script-writer in trying to inject the cleverness which normally saturates the concepts and associated writing in the series. Surely, an esteemed war hero, full of pride, would stand his ground against a shaky eye-witness account, but instead he seems to imply his own guilt by trying to 'win over' her affections and erode her dubious self-confidence about she saw.
Overall, the premise has big question marks hanging over it and the story's development seems to labour as a result. The performances are one of the major positives on show here - Albert and Falk excel in their scenes together but ultimately, too many holes in this episode very nearly sink it without a trace.
Madhouse (1974)
Patchily entertaining horror yarn
About a year after coming to the UK to film "Theatre of Blood", Vincent Price was tempted to return in this lesser horror flick which saw a collaboration between American International Pictures and Amicus Productions and teamed him up with two other horror genre big guns - Peter Cushing and Robert Quarry.
Thinly based on Angus Hall's novel "DevilDay" Price plays Paul Toombes, a horror film actor who is cajoled back from reclusion to resume his portrayal of the Doctor Death character he had done so successfully years before until he suffered a mental breakdown following the grisly murder of his fiancée. Unfortunately, Toombes' grip on reality starts to wane and his sanity is questioned when some murders start taking place in and around the film set.
Clearly the film was partially made to pay homage to Price's horror film career as we see excerpts from some of Price's old AIP films which are intertwined in the plot and for the purposes of the story they are explained as clips from Toombes's Dr. Death films. This is probably the biggest gripe of the film because any Price fan will not be able to disassociate the clips from Price's career and "pretend" they are clips from the Dr. Death movies (in fact it is not impossible to name each movie). Furthermore, none of the characters shown in the excerpts even resemble the Dr. Death character so the link is bizarre and tenuous in the extreme.
The film is also guilty of being caught between two stools: seriousness and parody; and despite Price's trusted hamminess the film uncomfortably wavers between the two rather than pitches itself in one camp or the other.
The screen time of both Cushing and Quarry and their general interaction with Price is disappointingly minimal, but this is somewhat redeemed at the end of the film, when a largely suppressed Cushing "comes out of his shell" and expresses the most vigorous dialogue of the whole film, which forms some sort of an entertaining twist. In fact, the last ten minutes of the film would appear to be the most appealing and worthwhile.
Saddled with characters who you don't really care for, the film is not a total washout but it is well short of the intrinsic entertainment value that was derived from both of the Phibes films and "Theatre of Blood". Price himself was apparently dissatisfied by the end product and with the decline in the horror market in the mid 70s (Amicus made one more film whist Hammer integrated a bit of Kung Fu unsuccessfully and carried on until 1975), Price didn't make another horror film for nearly 7 years.
All in all I would go as far to say that it would be more beneficial for non-Price fanatics to watch it, but whatever the inclination of the viewer the disjointed and patchy proceedings that are served up are not likely to be digested too easily.
Thinly based on Angus Hall's novel "DevilDay" Price plays Paul Toombes, a horror film actor who is cajoled back from reclusion to resume his portrayal of the Doctor Death character he had done so successfully years before until he suffered a mental breakdown following the grisly murder of his fiancée. Unfortunately, Toombes' grip on reality starts to wane and his sanity is questioned when some murders start taking place in and around the film set.
Clearly the film was partially made to pay homage to Price's horror film career as we see excerpts from some of Price's old AIP films which are intertwined in the plot and for the purposes of the story they are explained as clips from Toombes's Dr. Death films. This is probably the biggest gripe of the film because any Price fan will not be able to disassociate the clips from Price's career and "pretend" they are clips from the Dr. Death movies (in fact it is not impossible to name each movie). Furthermore, none of the characters shown in the excerpts even resemble the Dr. Death character so the link is bizarre and tenuous in the extreme.
The film is also guilty of being caught between two stools: seriousness and parody; and despite Price's trusted hamminess the film uncomfortably wavers between the two rather than pitches itself in one camp or the other.
The screen time of both Cushing and Quarry and their general interaction with Price is disappointingly minimal, but this is somewhat redeemed at the end of the film, when a largely suppressed Cushing "comes out of his shell" and expresses the most vigorous dialogue of the whole film, which forms some sort of an entertaining twist. In fact, the last ten minutes of the film would appear to be the most appealing and worthwhile.
Saddled with characters who you don't really care for, the film is not a total washout but it is well short of the intrinsic entertainment value that was derived from both of the Phibes films and "Theatre of Blood". Price himself was apparently dissatisfied by the end product and with the decline in the horror market in the mid 70s (Amicus made one more film whist Hammer integrated a bit of Kung Fu unsuccessfully and carried on until 1975), Price didn't make another horror film for nearly 7 years.
All in all I would go as far to say that it would be more beneficial for non-Price fanatics to watch it, but whatever the inclination of the viewer the disjointed and patchy proceedings that are served up are not likely to be digested too easily.
Dark Places (1974)
Watchable but rather uninspired psychological thriller
This 1973 UK thriller sees Robert Hardy (who had previously starred in Hammer's "Demons of the Mind") play Edward Foster, the former Head of an Asylum who gets called to a patient's - Andrew Marr's - death bed, and ends up inheriting his house where a significant amount of money is hidden. This prompts certain interested parties to become part of Foster's life, namely a scheming brother and sister and the estate's solicitor; however, the house's murderous past comes back to haunt them all....
Despite some clichéd elements to the script (cynical townsfolk; noises reverberating around the house etc.) this is a film which clearly had a lot of potential on paper but it really doesn't get out of first gear until the last half hour when the central themes of the plot become clearer. The interweaving of past and present with Hardy interchanging between both Foster (present) and Marr (from the past) in certain sequences is hardly seamless and is patchily handled.
On reflection, the supporting cast don't really get that much to do considering that the 3 of them (played by Christopher Lee, Joan Collins and Herbert Lom) are all hell-bent on finding the money. Lee in particular seems to be more of peripheral figure than you would have expected.
Perhaps another thing to undermine it's psychologically thrilling aspirations is the script-writers' under-appreciation and under-usage of the story's more substantial "horror" or "thriller" elements occurring at night. It clearly dilutes the central thrills of the film.
Hardy does a decent job of portraying the gradual decline in sanity of his characterisation; and due to its little-known status this film might well be worth a look at, but to my mind, it could have been handled and executed a lot better.
Despite some clichéd elements to the script (cynical townsfolk; noises reverberating around the house etc.) this is a film which clearly had a lot of potential on paper but it really doesn't get out of first gear until the last half hour when the central themes of the plot become clearer. The interweaving of past and present with Hardy interchanging between both Foster (present) and Marr (from the past) in certain sequences is hardly seamless and is patchily handled.
On reflection, the supporting cast don't really get that much to do considering that the 3 of them (played by Christopher Lee, Joan Collins and Herbert Lom) are all hell-bent on finding the money. Lee in particular seems to be more of peripheral figure than you would have expected.
Perhaps another thing to undermine it's psychologically thrilling aspirations is the script-writers' under-appreciation and under-usage of the story's more substantial "horror" or "thriller" elements occurring at night. It clearly dilutes the central thrills of the film.
Hardy does a decent job of portraying the gradual decline in sanity of his characterisation; and due to its little-known status this film might well be worth a look at, but to my mind, it could have been handled and executed a lot better.