Randwulf
Joined Oct 2011
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews4
Randwulf's rating
I had a Friday afternoon off, so to relax I turned on the Turner Classic Movies channel and saw that a film called "13 Frightened Girls!" was about to come on. I had never heard of it, and from the title it sounded like it might be a cult-favorite B movie directed by somebody like Roger Corman. I was pleasantly surprised to find out it was a Cold War era spy flick with lots of hot girls from 1963. Innocent though, mind you; the film has a strong feel of the way live-action Disney movies like the original "That Darn Cat!" used to be, except this is a Disney-like movie where people actually get killed!
Our sixteen-year-old heroine, Candace "Candy" Hull, reminded me of what Nancy Drew would be like if she opted to be an amateur international spy instead of an amateur detective. The film seems aimed at the age group that would enjoy reading Nancy Drew books, but it has material that adults can enjoy too. As for the reference to thirteen girls and why they are frightened, the beginning of the movie takes them on a very dangerous bus ride, but an even greater reason for their fear is not revealed until near the end. Most of the plot deals with the exploits of Candy and her Chinese friend Mai-Ling as they probe the liquidation of a foreign agent, then attempt to prevent a revolution, and that's just for starters. Interestingly, the part of Mai-Ling's mysterious uncle is played by Khigh Dhiegh, later known for his recurring role as the archvillain Wo Fat in the original version of the television series "Hawaii 5-O".
The film seemed uneven in a few places, but not enough to interrupt my involvement in the story. I was just relaxing, wasn't trying to pick it apart and suspended disbelief, so I had lots of fun with this movie and I'm very glad I was given the opportunity to see it. It's from a different era and doesn't fit with today's jaded mind-set, but for those who appreciate values beyond those of our present culture, watching this film just might be eighty-nine minutes well spent.
Our sixteen-year-old heroine, Candace "Candy" Hull, reminded me of what Nancy Drew would be like if she opted to be an amateur international spy instead of an amateur detective. The film seems aimed at the age group that would enjoy reading Nancy Drew books, but it has material that adults can enjoy too. As for the reference to thirteen girls and why they are frightened, the beginning of the movie takes them on a very dangerous bus ride, but an even greater reason for their fear is not revealed until near the end. Most of the plot deals with the exploits of Candy and her Chinese friend Mai-Ling as they probe the liquidation of a foreign agent, then attempt to prevent a revolution, and that's just for starters. Interestingly, the part of Mai-Ling's mysterious uncle is played by Khigh Dhiegh, later known for his recurring role as the archvillain Wo Fat in the original version of the television series "Hawaii 5-O".
The film seemed uneven in a few places, but not enough to interrupt my involvement in the story. I was just relaxing, wasn't trying to pick it apart and suspended disbelief, so I had lots of fun with this movie and I'm very glad I was given the opportunity to see it. It's from a different era and doesn't fit with today's jaded mind-set, but for those who appreciate values beyond those of our present culture, watching this film just might be eighty-nine minutes well spent.
When I was in high school I played in our school orchestra, and one of the pieces we regularly performed was the popular song made famous by Frank Sinatra, "Strangers in the Night". On the sheet music written in fine print under the title were the words, "From the 1966 Universal motion picture 'A Man Could Get Killed'". It sounded like it might be a spy movie because of the year it was released, and being a fan of spy movies I eventually did some research on what the film is about - a fortune in smuggled diamonds sought by spy versus spy versus average guy mistaken for a spy (kind of like Alfred Hitchcock's "North by Northwest"). I hate what they call "spy spoofs" which are disrespectful to the genre and don't take romantic heroism seriously (and which lack the admiring parody found in the television series "Get Smart"), but this is not that tongue-in-cheek "camp" stuff. It's a movie with a serious plot yet with loads of humor, and that's a totally different animal.
The cast and the Portuguese locations sounded great, so I started looking for a DVD of this gem I had missed. I couldn't find one anywhere, and I looked and looked in every place I could think of! Why this wonderful movie has been neglected is beyond me, but at last I did find a DVD on an obscure online auction site and the seller shipped it to my USA home from Europe. I am thankful, because I absolutely loved this movie when I finally got a chance to see it.
James Garner and Melina Mercouri are the "strangers in the night". Sandra Dee, Tony Franciosa, Robert Coote and all the cast are very enjoyable to watch, and the plot is fun! I hadn't seen Melina Mercouri in her famous role in "Never On Sunday" (1960), but I had seen her in "Topkapi" (1964). It was long ago and I didn't remember much about her except that she seemed intense. When she appeared on the screen in "A Man Could Get Killed" she struck me as the kind of husky-voiced foreign woman who is both laid-back and excitable at the same time. To date her would be like having a date with a Soviet commissar or something. Yet as the movie progressed she really began to allure me, and she became just wonderful! I fell in love with her, as James Garner's character secretly does too. This leads up to the final scene of the movie, which is simply unforgettable.
I realize that everybody has their tastes and maybe for you this caper movie wouldn't be anything special, but my wish is for those of you who would be inclined to like it the same pleasure I had viewing it! I also want it to be made more widely available so it will finally get the recognition it deserves.
The cast and the Portuguese locations sounded great, so I started looking for a DVD of this gem I had missed. I couldn't find one anywhere, and I looked and looked in every place I could think of! Why this wonderful movie has been neglected is beyond me, but at last I did find a DVD on an obscure online auction site and the seller shipped it to my USA home from Europe. I am thankful, because I absolutely loved this movie when I finally got a chance to see it.
James Garner and Melina Mercouri are the "strangers in the night". Sandra Dee, Tony Franciosa, Robert Coote and all the cast are very enjoyable to watch, and the plot is fun! I hadn't seen Melina Mercouri in her famous role in "Never On Sunday" (1960), but I had seen her in "Topkapi" (1964). It was long ago and I didn't remember much about her except that she seemed intense. When she appeared on the screen in "A Man Could Get Killed" she struck me as the kind of husky-voiced foreign woman who is both laid-back and excitable at the same time. To date her would be like having a date with a Soviet commissar or something. Yet as the movie progressed she really began to allure me, and she became just wonderful! I fell in love with her, as James Garner's character secretly does too. This leads up to the final scene of the movie, which is simply unforgettable.
I realize that everybody has their tastes and maybe for you this caper movie wouldn't be anything special, but my wish is for those of you who would be inclined to like it the same pleasure I had viewing it! I also want it to be made more widely available so it will finally get the recognition it deserves.
This film was released in September of 1966, which placed it at the close of a long tradition of Hollywood Biblical epics. I was around ten years old and had a vinyl LP of its great musical score which I played over and over before I finally saw the movie on the big screen of a theater. Our family was not particularly religious, but this film was one of those that had a profound influence on me and made me interested in knowing more about the Bible.
Looking at it today, I see more depth. The opening footage from all over the world of the days of the Creation is still breathtaking. As a child I felt uncomfortable with the partially nude scenes of Adam and Eve, and even now I believe nudity needs to be implied. Otherwise my mind stops focusing on the story and thinks "I just saw a naked actor!". Also, a theory of some Bible commentators is that animals are clothed with feathers or fur, and Adam and Eve were clothed with a glow of light emanating from within them. When they sinned that glow disappeared and they were then totally naked before they hit on the idea of fig leaves. (This interpretation would not likely have been known to John Huston). Beyond that, the film rolls on quite nicely through the first twenty-two chapters of Genesis. The cinematography is rich and beautiful. I do think a few too many scenes were interpreted as desert settings, since many of the Bible lands were lush and only outskirted by desert as a result of the climatology of the region being somewhat different more than 4,000 years ago (though of course that's controversial). Either way the storyline still follows the episodes of salvation history. One reviewer said it looks like they just kept shooting until they ran out of film and decided to call it quits. To me it was essential they kept going until they climaxed the film with the sacrifice of Isaac, which pointed forward to the day when God would inaugurate a new creation. Thus there is a great arc of theme in the epic from "In the Beginning" to "The New Beginning".
Overall the movie looks like a live-action version of Sunday School art. By that I mean most of the scenes are like pictures I've seen in religious artworks. For example, Adam and Eve are portrayed by clean-shaven white people. Cain bashes Abel over the head instead of slitting his throat (like the sacrifices he'd watched - see I John 3:12 in the original Jerusalem Bible [1966], not the New Jerusalem Bible [1985]). This Tower of Babel somewhat rightly resembles a Sumerian ziggurat, yet more resembles Renaissance paintings of it. Modern researchers have discovered that Noah could have been a king, and the ark was actually a huge flat barge shaped like a giant shoebox to ride the tidal waves of the Flood. The movie pictures things like I've seen them all my life: a peasant Noah, and a rounded boat with a house on top (and that shape would capsize in no time). The only thing they didn't have was a giraffe sticking out of the window.
Nevertheless, you may enjoy these traditional depictions. I'm just preferring literal Biblical research combined with the look of what has been discovered in archaeology. Yet, for me the overall effect of this film is still profound and quite moving. It's been said that George C. Scott's portrayal of Abraham was the low point of the movie, but I thought his crusty performance was inspiring! (I was also thankful they didn't picture Abraham like Santa Claus). For the most part, watching this film was an enjoyable and uplifting experience. Any Biblical movie should give us a taste of what things were like, and then we should always go back and read the Book. There we will find the authentic atmosphere of the actual words. Still, one line the scriptwriters put in the mouth of Abraham is not found in the Bible, yet it does reflect what the Bible says of him. It has helped me with my faith. It is the line where Abraham asks, "Shall the Lord speak, and Abraham not believe?"
Looking at it today, I see more depth. The opening footage from all over the world of the days of the Creation is still breathtaking. As a child I felt uncomfortable with the partially nude scenes of Adam and Eve, and even now I believe nudity needs to be implied. Otherwise my mind stops focusing on the story and thinks "I just saw a naked actor!". Also, a theory of some Bible commentators is that animals are clothed with feathers or fur, and Adam and Eve were clothed with a glow of light emanating from within them. When they sinned that glow disappeared and they were then totally naked before they hit on the idea of fig leaves. (This interpretation would not likely have been known to John Huston). Beyond that, the film rolls on quite nicely through the first twenty-two chapters of Genesis. The cinematography is rich and beautiful. I do think a few too many scenes were interpreted as desert settings, since many of the Bible lands were lush and only outskirted by desert as a result of the climatology of the region being somewhat different more than 4,000 years ago (though of course that's controversial). Either way the storyline still follows the episodes of salvation history. One reviewer said it looks like they just kept shooting until they ran out of film and decided to call it quits. To me it was essential they kept going until they climaxed the film with the sacrifice of Isaac, which pointed forward to the day when God would inaugurate a new creation. Thus there is a great arc of theme in the epic from "In the Beginning" to "The New Beginning".
Overall the movie looks like a live-action version of Sunday School art. By that I mean most of the scenes are like pictures I've seen in religious artworks. For example, Adam and Eve are portrayed by clean-shaven white people. Cain bashes Abel over the head instead of slitting his throat (like the sacrifices he'd watched - see I John 3:12 in the original Jerusalem Bible [1966], not the New Jerusalem Bible [1985]). This Tower of Babel somewhat rightly resembles a Sumerian ziggurat, yet more resembles Renaissance paintings of it. Modern researchers have discovered that Noah could have been a king, and the ark was actually a huge flat barge shaped like a giant shoebox to ride the tidal waves of the Flood. The movie pictures things like I've seen them all my life: a peasant Noah, and a rounded boat with a house on top (and that shape would capsize in no time). The only thing they didn't have was a giraffe sticking out of the window.
Nevertheless, you may enjoy these traditional depictions. I'm just preferring literal Biblical research combined with the look of what has been discovered in archaeology. Yet, for me the overall effect of this film is still profound and quite moving. It's been said that George C. Scott's portrayal of Abraham was the low point of the movie, but I thought his crusty performance was inspiring! (I was also thankful they didn't picture Abraham like Santa Claus). For the most part, watching this film was an enjoyable and uplifting experience. Any Biblical movie should give us a taste of what things were like, and then we should always go back and read the Book. There we will find the authentic atmosphere of the actual words. Still, one line the scriptwriters put in the mouth of Abraham is not found in the Bible, yet it does reflect what the Bible says of him. It has helped me with my faith. It is the line where Abraham asks, "Shall the Lord speak, and Abraham not believe?"