LewisJForce
A rejoint le nov. 2000
Bienvenue sur nouveau profil
Nos mises à jour sont toujours en cours de développement. Bien que la version précédente de le profil ne soit plus accessible, nous travaillons activement à des améliorations, et certaines fonctionnalités manquantes seront bientôt de retour ! Restez à l'écoute de leur retour. En attendant, l’analyse des évaluations est toujours disponible sur nos applications iOS et Android, qui se trouvent sur la page de profil. Pour consulter la répartition de vos évaluations par année et par genre, veuillez consulter notre nouveau Guide d'aide.
Badges2
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Avis40
Note de LewisJForce
'Summerfield' is 3/4 a great little movie... well, 5/8. But all the good work is somewhat negated by the payoff.
As my fellow reviewers have noted, the technical qualities are excellent: evocative cinematography, haunting score and sound design, sensitive direction. All of the performances are good but I particularly liked John Waters as the brooding brother and Geraldine Turner as the rubenesquely sexy landlady. The townsfolk have those wonderfully earthy, naturally idiosyncratic faces that seventies Australian cinema is full of.
The problem lies with the script. After a great build-up where clues are laid with nuance and subtlety, the revelation about the Abbott's relationship is lacking in the necessary emotional force. And the final scene just doesn't work for me. I was left puzzled and irritated.
On second thought, maybe its partly the script and partly the execution of the final moments. Maybe it worked better on paper than director Ken Hannam captued it on screen. I dunno. At any rate I was disappointed.
See the film if you can. There's an awful lot of good stuff happening before the climax. In fact, it's because the build-up is so good that the finale comes off as such a let-down.
As my fellow reviewers have noted, the technical qualities are excellent: evocative cinematography, haunting score and sound design, sensitive direction. All of the performances are good but I particularly liked John Waters as the brooding brother and Geraldine Turner as the rubenesquely sexy landlady. The townsfolk have those wonderfully earthy, naturally idiosyncratic faces that seventies Australian cinema is full of.
The problem lies with the script. After a great build-up where clues are laid with nuance and subtlety, the revelation about the Abbott's relationship is lacking in the necessary emotional force. And the final scene just doesn't work for me. I was left puzzled and irritated.
On second thought, maybe its partly the script and partly the execution of the final moments. Maybe it worked better on paper than director Ken Hannam captued it on screen. I dunno. At any rate I was disappointed.
See the film if you can. There's an awful lot of good stuff happening before the climax. In fact, it's because the build-up is so good that the finale comes off as such a let-down.
A simple yokel discovers a strange, demonic 'face' whilst ploughing his field; Then comes a wonderfully unnerving credit sequence with a raven seated in a silhouetted tree. The viewer sits up straight. "Ah", he thinks, rubbing his hands, "a scary-yet-poetic meditation on the fears and superstitions of simple dark ages country folk a la 'Witchfinder General'". Well, no. 'Blood on Satan's claw' never achieves the cohesion and narrative drive of that (also slightly overrated) film. What it does have is a handful of eye-catching sequences and ideas executed in surprisingly lurid detail. Nice photography and an effective if slightly run-of-the-mill score help cover the cracks.
The film was originally conceived as a portmanteau piece, with three separate stories. The makers then decided to link the tales with a common location: a 16th century rural community. They didn't quite figure out how to do it properly, though. 'Blood...' moves in fits and starts but without unity and resolve. The viewer is kept relatively engaged, at least up until two thirds of the way in, but too many potentially fascinating threads evaporate into thin air. The climax doesn't work, with the final freeze frame a staple cop-out of the time.
There's always been lots of praise for the performances in the piece. I'm not convinced. Much standard theatrical emoting is in evidence. Patrick Wymark has a great voice and odd manner, but feels like he's on auto pilot. Linda Hayden widens her eyes and licks her lips lasciviously the best way she can. Sundry villagers fret and gurn.
There are some chilling moments: a couple of oldies excitedly look on at an adolescent rape/murder (still v. unpleasant), and something nasty comes up through the floorboards of Simon Williams' room.
Overall it deserves its "oh yeah, I remember that bit - what was the title again?" status.
The film was originally conceived as a portmanteau piece, with three separate stories. The makers then decided to link the tales with a common location: a 16th century rural community. They didn't quite figure out how to do it properly, though. 'Blood...' moves in fits and starts but without unity and resolve. The viewer is kept relatively engaged, at least up until two thirds of the way in, but too many potentially fascinating threads evaporate into thin air. The climax doesn't work, with the final freeze frame a staple cop-out of the time.
There's always been lots of praise for the performances in the piece. I'm not convinced. Much standard theatrical emoting is in evidence. Patrick Wymark has a great voice and odd manner, but feels like he's on auto pilot. Linda Hayden widens her eyes and licks her lips lasciviously the best way she can. Sundry villagers fret and gurn.
There are some chilling moments: a couple of oldies excitedly look on at an adolescent rape/murder (still v. unpleasant), and something nasty comes up through the floorboards of Simon Williams' room.
Overall it deserves its "oh yeah, I remember that bit - what was the title again?" status.
This film is available on disc in the UK from Anchor Bay as part of their Tigon box-set, along with 'The Beast in the cellar', 'Witchfinder General', 'Virgin Witch', and 'The Body Stealers'.
'Haunted House' was available on the late lamented Vampix video label in the early 1980's in the UK. That release was notable mostly for the dark, drabness of the print. It looks considerably improved here, with lustrous, bright colors and correct aspect ratio. The film itself is not up to much, but remains watchable for its late 60's period frills and a couple of effectively nasty murders.
What makes this incarnation of the film interesting is the director's commentary supplied as an audio extra. Michael Armstrong's career had unfortunate beginnings: He shot this flick, his first, when he was 24 and the experience was painful, with the film taken away from him and his original cut undone by studio re-writes and re-shoots. The following year he went to Germany to make 'Mark of the Devil' and suffered exactly the same fate. The financial success of both titles (especially 'Mark', which was a huge exploitation hit) was little consolation to the tyro film-maker and he vowed to stay away from movies until he was guaranteed complete creative control.
Armstrong here explains the changes made to his original concept in great detail, pointing out exactly which scenes he shot and how they would/should have fitted into his scheme of things. The film he wanted to make - 'The Dark' - certainly sounds pretty interesting the way he tells it, and the most frustrating thing about the whole episode is that it seemed to boil down to a personality clash between him and Louis 'Deke' Hayward, AIP'S man-in-London at the time.
Hayward tried to shoehorn Boris Karloff (who owed AIP one film as part of a contract) into the plot at various junctures, a ploy which Armstrong vigorously resisted, resulting in a war of wills that Hayward was destined to win. Hayward went on to extensively re-write the script, inserting Dennis Price as a policeman and George Sewell as a lurking spurned suitor, and employed a technician called Gerry Levy to shoot the necessary patch-up sequences. It's fascinating to watch the film whilst Armstrong indicates continuity errors in the insert sequences and identifies the various loose ends that commemorate the residue of his original script.
Its no surprise, then, that 'The Haunted House of Horror' is a bit of a mess. Its perhaps remarkable that it plays as well as it does. But I recommend this release for the commentary, yet another that uncovers machinations and interference undreamed of by the casual viewer. As an education in the unseen political wranglings of film-making it is most enlightening.
'Haunted House' was available on the late lamented Vampix video label in the early 1980's in the UK. That release was notable mostly for the dark, drabness of the print. It looks considerably improved here, with lustrous, bright colors and correct aspect ratio. The film itself is not up to much, but remains watchable for its late 60's period frills and a couple of effectively nasty murders.
What makes this incarnation of the film interesting is the director's commentary supplied as an audio extra. Michael Armstrong's career had unfortunate beginnings: He shot this flick, his first, when he was 24 and the experience was painful, with the film taken away from him and his original cut undone by studio re-writes and re-shoots. The following year he went to Germany to make 'Mark of the Devil' and suffered exactly the same fate. The financial success of both titles (especially 'Mark', which was a huge exploitation hit) was little consolation to the tyro film-maker and he vowed to stay away from movies until he was guaranteed complete creative control.
Armstrong here explains the changes made to his original concept in great detail, pointing out exactly which scenes he shot and how they would/should have fitted into his scheme of things. The film he wanted to make - 'The Dark' - certainly sounds pretty interesting the way he tells it, and the most frustrating thing about the whole episode is that it seemed to boil down to a personality clash between him and Louis 'Deke' Hayward, AIP'S man-in-London at the time.
Hayward tried to shoehorn Boris Karloff (who owed AIP one film as part of a contract) into the plot at various junctures, a ploy which Armstrong vigorously resisted, resulting in a war of wills that Hayward was destined to win. Hayward went on to extensively re-write the script, inserting Dennis Price as a policeman and George Sewell as a lurking spurned suitor, and employed a technician called Gerry Levy to shoot the necessary patch-up sequences. It's fascinating to watch the film whilst Armstrong indicates continuity errors in the insert sequences and identifies the various loose ends that commemorate the residue of his original script.
Its no surprise, then, that 'The Haunted House of Horror' is a bit of a mess. Its perhaps remarkable that it plays as well as it does. But I recommend this release for the commentary, yet another that uncovers machinations and interference undreamed of by the casual viewer. As an education in the unseen political wranglings of film-making it is most enlightening.