The cinema business
has been going strong for almost a 150 years now. Yet, ask any regular person
(so not a movie buff) and they can
usually only remember a few movies. The cream of the crop as it were. They’ll
be able to speak to you about The Shawshank redemption or Titanic and maybe
(if you are lucky) Gaslight but that’s about it. Forget about the repertoire
of Eric Roberts.
I don’t want to change
that. Some movies are better left forgotten. Yet, sometimes a forgotten movie
has a charm or two that entitles it to be brought back into the spotlight.
I’m not going to delve
too deep into the mistakes of the directors or whatnot. These aren’t classics
after all. Instead I’m going to focus, in these short reviews, on what I liked.
And why I recommend these movies to anyone willing to see them.
Flinch (1994)
Flinch has a wonderful
concept at its base. There was a time when real life people were hired to pose
as mannequins in a store window.
I remember one time
a famous comedian in my country ‘stood in’ for his doppelganger in Madame
Tussaud. Hilarity ensued.
Throw in a murder and
you’ve got yourself quite the fun ride of a movie. A man and woman are
bickering at each other while doing their day job as real life mannequins.
Then, one night, they witness a murder across the street and they go to
investigate. During their investigation they grow closer together and fall in
love. Ahhh.
This movie has all the
90s tropes down to a key. A bickering will-they-won’t-they couple as the
mannequins, a psychopath villain, apartment buildings and, at the end of it
all, no loose strands. Every plot-point is crossed off in a way only the early
nineties could.
Oh and a terrible
credits song. Not as terrible as the one used in The last flight of Noah’s ark (which is amazingly terrible – I
proclaim it the worst song ever) but close.
I like this movie because of the premise: people who are pretending NOT to be people see a crime. What to do?
But this movie has
more. It has witty dialogue. Real charm between the actors. And some nicely
tense scenes.
True there are some
faults. Of course there are. You’ll have to accept that. And yes the
villain-actor gives us a master class of scene-chewing overacting in the end
–which is fascination to watch.
But still this is a
movie that has a good hearth. A strong basic premise (silly as it may sound).
And it follows it down the rabbit hole in a satisfying manner.
A young man has the
nagging feeling that there is something terribly wrong with his new neighbor
and he just can’t stop spying on him.
Ah Jeff Farhley –Mr.
Lawnmower man- where have you been? He was rather productive during the late
eighties early nineties and then he vanished.
The same goes for the
other male lead Thomas C. Howell. Or the female lead Rea Dawn Chong.
Actresses’
disappearance are usually easier to understand. In Hollywood, if you are an
actress, and you turn 36 you can only get grandma parts. It’s harsh, sexist,
but, unfortunately, reality.
Curiosity kills is a delicious ‘what’s the name of that actor again’-movie. Even Courtney Cox is in it (still going strong!).
But there’s more.
Basically Curiosity kills is an adaptation of Rear window. Rear window-light if you will.
The main character
isn’t disabled but he does feel there’s something off with his neighbor.
That’s the reason I
like this movie. If you compare it to Hitchcock’s masterpiece you can basically
see what Rear window did right and Curiosity kills did wrong.
Does this make it a
terrible movie? Of course not. It’s a thrilling tale of our hero ‘going with
his gut’ and trying to find out what’s wrong with his neighbor.
C. Thomas is great
at this kind of character. Watch Dark
reflection for another example.
There’s a love story. Some thrills and chills to make it interesting. And in the end everybody is happy and safe. Just enjoy it.
Hot millions (1968)
Peter Ustinov playing
a fraud who wants to take revenge on the computer that busted him.
The lovely bit about
this movie is how outdated it is. Yet, it isn’t.
The computer in this
movie fills the room. But that was what computers were like in those days. The
fun trick this movie pulls is that there isn’t any programming shown (at least
not a lot). Instead this movie manages to put hacking on the same level as
bouncing a bucket.
But there’s more. Dame
Maggie Smith is in this movie as well.
I believe she did
this movie right after or just before her terrifying turn in The prime of miss Jean Brody.
She’s lovely in this movie as a blundering girl too caring to give somebody a ticket as a bus conductor. But in the end, she is the one who owns this picture.
With all the men
tumbling over each other (‘the nose’: Karl Malden) – in the end she is the one
who creates the happy ending.
Which is actually
rather fun since this movie is filled to the brim with 60s sexism.
I wrote about this
movie before in one of my Mixed tapes.
But it’s a great movie to watch. The sole reason: our hero is fallible. In the
end it turns out that our hero made mistake after mistake. Which is something
–I can assure you- is rarely done in movies. And it is something that should be
done more often.
True, the whole
‘imitating voices’-subplot is rather unbelievable. But still from A to Z this
movie gives an interesting mystery for the audience to solve.
I especially loved the
down to earth honesty this movie proclaims: ‘Nobody knows what autism is,
nobody…’ ‘Now let me show you what autism can do’.
It’s honest, down to
earth and free of any Rainman-superpowers
mumbo-jumbo (except for the voices).
Silent fall gives you a clear
mystery to solve whereby the answer is equally clear lest you get distracted.
