hammer4 Reviews

Baby Face (1933)

A genuine "pre-code" curiosity

[5/10 · 27 September 2021]

In my opinion this film contains a fundamental flaw that skews its basic premise. The Stanwyck character instantly enraptures men to the point that they want to have sex with her immediately-and frequently in semi public places:a railroad car, a business office and a restroom. In the first place, Stanwyck is certainly no raving voluptuous beauty, and even if she were it's still rather preposterous to presume that men could become so addled in her presence. It's almost as if some magic aphrodisiac dust gets sprinkled on men when she smiles at them.

Just so there's no confusion, if this film were released today it would probably be rated PG. The sex isn't depicted, but strongly implied so essentially it all takes place off camera. Perhaps the most daring segment (for the times) is a brief moment where a speakeasy patron hugs Ms Stanwyck's fully clothed torso and appears to brush up against the bottom of her breasts. The only skin on display is when she wears a gown that bares part of her back.

The fundamental premise is tawdry and perhaps was singled out as a prima facie example of what Hollywood was trying to eliminate by enforcement of the Hays/Breen Code. However, the central character is actually presented somewhat sympathetically. The film strongly implies that she was forced into prostitution at age 14, and by her FATHER!! One could say that sex and men are the only things she knows. Why not try to obtain substantial monetary rewards in the process? As the Nietzschean philosopher cobbler character advises her:instead of being exploited, become the exploiter.

While not a good film it's worth seeing once as a genuine curio.

Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970)

As close to grotesque as a film can get.

[3/10 · 1 September 2017]

My review is based on the Criterion Collection DVD released in 2016. The two DVD set includes commentary by Roger Ebert, who wrote the screenplay and co-wrote the story with director Russ Meyer. He contends that the filmmakers' intentions, mainly consisting of Meyer and himself, were to create nothing less than an exploitation, satire, horror, rock musical. This may or may not have been the actual original intentions. Mr. Ebert's comments were recorded some 34 – 37 years after this film was produced. Therefore due to the passage of time alone I feel one must take his comments with the proverbial grain of salt. Attempting to make a successful picture combining all of these elements would be a daunting task indeed, for anyone. At any rate, regardless of what the intentions may have been one can only assess the final result; that is, what actually appears on the screen. I do not find a genuine or effective satire, horror picture or musical. I feel the exploitation elements, which were probably the easiest to bring to the fore especially in view of Meyer's film experiences, were moderately successful during relatively small portions of the film's 109 minute length.

As at least one other reviewer has pointed out, merely presenting clichéd, hackneyed or ludicrously exaggerated and over-the-top situations does not constitute legitimate satire. The latter requires wit, intelligence, intuitiveness, as well as a certain degree of restraint and subtlety. Meyer's general approach is ham-fisted; the equivalent of hitting the viewer's head several times with a sledgehammer

The basic plot element was of course a well-worn cliché even when this movie was filmed back in 1969-1970. Three young and very attractive women leave their small town existence to seek fame and fortune as aspiring rock musicians in Los Angeles, accompanied by their male manager who is also the boyfriend of the lead singer. The central characters are depicted as relative innocents at the beginning but in no time they succumb to or are overwhelmed by the moral turpitude which is L. A. Their encounters or relationships with numerous morally corrupt, depraved and or insane characters provides the essence of the film. Naturally a fair amount of casual sex with attendant nudity and liberal drug use is depicted. In retrospect one can see this film as very much of its time: when Hollywood was trying to "get with it" so to speak. There really were no limits as far as what could be depicted on screen once the rating system was implemented in 1968, provided the studio was willing to acquiesce to an X rating, as 20th Century Fox did in this instance. On the other hand, those that are expecting a very raunchy skin fest will probably be greatly disappointed. By present standards the nudity is fairly limited. For the most part it consists of a number of very brief glimpses of female breasts. A lot of this has to do with Meyer's frequent quick cutting editing style. There is nothing that could truly be considered sexually explicit or graphic, however there are several doses of very graphic, gratuitous and repugnant violence towards the end. The latter sequence almost seems to be tacked on from another film and is presumably yet another attempt to "shock" the typical viewer of 1970.

Had the filmmakers chosen to let the relatively light and comedic sexual exploitation elements of the film to predominate, I feel they would have been much more successful insofar as producing an enjoyable film. Instead they felt the need to clumsily tack on some sort of half baked moral message at the very end ludicrously intoned by a voice-over narrator. My initial impression was that this was intended as satire but Ebert's comments indicate that it actually represented Russ Meyer's sincere sentiments.

I will say that this film, while a big failure, would be worth seeing at least once as a curio. It does look good; it's generally well photographed with fine color. I don't know if the film was restored for DVD release but the quality is quite good especially for a film this old. There's no question that Meyer has a strong and unique visual style that is well represented here. The amount of female pulchritude on display is considerable. The lead performers don't display much in the way of acting ability and none of them went on to have successful careers. In fairness to the performers the characters they portray are not exactly well developed.

Love with the Proper Stranger (1963)

Worth a look...but.

[5/10 · 20 November 2016]

Some films are very much a product of their time and simply do not age or wear well. In my opinion "Love With The Proper Stranger" is such a film. What may have been considered fairly creative, original, daring and provocative in 1963 now comes across as generally uninspired and uninvolving. I say generally as there are some positive aspects to this film and it does feature two major performers of the era (Natalie Wood and Steve McQueen ).

The subject matter is rather daring for its time-dealing as it does with premarital sexual relations, unwed motherhood and abortion. The latter was of course not a legal option at the time for terminating a (seemingly) unwanted pregnancy. This is the situation in which the film's protagonist (the lovely Ms Wood) finds herself. Added to the mix is her stereotypical Italian-American family headed by her domineering older brother (Herschel Bernardi).

The Wood character is not your "typical good girl", from the era. Not only does she engage in casual sex with a virtual stranger (the McQueen character), but, on discovering that she's pregnant, plans to have an illegal abortion. As noted, her character is presumably a Roman Catholic of Italian ancestry. On the other hand there is something of a nascent feminist angle here. The Wood character yearns to be independent-living by herself, making her own decisions and not being subjected to her brothers' attempts to control her.

This film makes a stab at being a slice of life comedy-drama. It is seriously undermined by the characterizations of the ethnic family members who are depicted as broad caricatures. There is a lot of yelling with wild hand gestures. Angie Rossini's Italian mama is especially ludicrous in a sequence where she takes to her bed, wringing her hands and wailing that her daughter (Wood) is killing her by getting her own apartment. On the positive side the film effectively and grimly depicts the "back alley" abortion milieu and the sequence in the abandoned apartment (the illegal abortionist's "office") is harrowing.

In my opinion, Natalie Wood has the pivotal role here and she consistently exudes a very pleasing physicality. A good example is during the dinner date scene with McQueen where she is concerned about looking too buxom in a rather tight fitting dress. While she exudes a certain amount of spunky cuteness, I feel the role required more depth, seriousness and pathos than she was capable of providing. Fans of her will probably disagree. McQueen does what he can with a role that isn't particularly well defined. In fact, my ending impression was that neither character as written and presented was all that interesting.

To summarize, something of a curio but worth seeing once, especially if you find the cast appealing.

Flareup (1969)

Too bad there wasn't more go-go dancing.

[3/10 · 22 July 2016]

This is a tedious and decidedly low voltage attempt at an action thriller and vehicle for the then quite popular Raquel Welch.

The main drawbacks are the script which features cardboard characters and implausible situations, along with the leaden direction. The undistinguished cast has little to work with, but Ms Welch must be called to account for one of the worst performances of her career. This is saying a lot considering her body (no pun intended) of work. She is alternately vapid and wooden or hysterically shrill.

Ms Welch "portrays" a Las Vegas exotic dancer on the run from the deranged ex-husband (Luke Askew) of her friend and fellow dancer. It seems the Askew character blames Welch for the dissolution of his marriage, so after he blows away his former wife at an outdoor cafe in broad daylight he seeks to do likewise to poor Raquel.

Welch flees to Los Angeles pursued by the killer and immediately takes up with James Stacy. In watching their scenes together one has the impression that the filmmakers were simply going through the motions of providing the obligatory male love interest for Ms Welch. There is zero chemistry between them and the whole Stacy character seems virtually superfluous.

I found the pace of this film quite slow with little tension or suspense. One never really empathizes with or cares much for the central character. The psycho murderer, instead of being menacing and scary, is merely boring and dull.

Ironically, though she plays a go-go dancer, Ms Welch's considerable physical attributes are not put to good use here. She has one dance number (wearing only a moderately revealing outfit) that is tepid at best. The other dance routines by others (some of which are performed topless) come off much better. In fact these rather brief sequences and some fairly colorful and interesting Las Vegas and L.A. locations are all this misfire has going for it.

The St. Valentine's Day Massacre (1967)

Not up to snuff

[4/10 · 16 May 2015]

If you're looking for a serious depiction of the infamous massacre and 1920s organized crime this isn't it (despite its semi- documentary style).

Giving director Roger Corman his due, his forte was exploitation pictures. That's what this film is despite its higher budget and major studio status. One could say he was pushing the envelope by 1967 standards with its level of violence and depictions of prostitution.The slapstick comedic scene with George Segal and a scantily clad Jean Hale (her only scene) comes out of nowhere and has nothing to do with the unfolding narrative.

There is a large ensemble of very capable performers including the smaller roles. This doesn't mean that all the actors are well cast or give good performances. Jason Robards, an otherwise fine actor, is totally out of his element as Capone. I think this partly explains his completely over the top performance that at times is unintentionally funny.

The film is studio bound and has an artificial look and feel. There is little real character development and the frequent use of voice over narration is not cinematic. Some of the individual scenes and performances are worth viewing albeit sometimes for the wrong reasons.The film, when taken as a whole doesn't make the grade.