THE PROJECTED MAN

UK, 1967, 87 minutes, Colour.
Mary Peach, Bryant Haliday, Norman Wooland, Ronald Allen, Derek Farr, Tracey Crisp, Derrick de Marney.
Directed by Ian Curteis.

The Projected Man was one of a number of science fiction films made by small British studios during the 1960s. The star, Bryant Haliday, American-born, appeared in several of them including Devil Doll, Curse of the Voodoo and Tower of Evil. He is joined by Mary Peach who had a career as a starlet in British films in the 1950s and 60s. Character actor Norman Wooland (Quo Vadis, Barabbas), who had a fine voice, is the villain.

The film was directed by writer Ian Curteis who directed only three films.

The material is familiar, though it is put in a modern London setting. A scientist has a grant to experiment with transforming matter and moving it from place to place by means of laser beams and projection. When the experiments almost succeed, he calls in an assistant, played by Mary Peach, to help him. However, in the background, the authorities are wanting to terminate the experiments and the funding. Norman Wooland is the villain, Doctor Blanchard who acts as the heavy.

In the meantime, the scientist decides to project himself with the assistance of the secretary of the foundation. However, something goes wrong and he is transformed but disfigured, electrocuting people as he touches them. He then wreaks vengeance on those who thwarted him before he turns the machine on himself.

1.Interesting science fiction? From the 1960s? The sophistication of the film for the 60s – but in comparison with later technology and sophistication?

2.The widescreen process, the laboratories, the homes, the streets of London? The authentic atmosphere? The musical score?

3.The plausibility of the technology, the explanation of laser beans, the parallel with television for two-dimensional projection, the possibility of three-dimensional projection (the “beam me up” process)? The experiments, the guinea pig? The watch? The indication of time alteration? Fixing the machinery, the successful process? But the interference in the process and the disfigurement of the professor?

4.The visual technology, the machines, the laboratory – authentic-looking?

5.The background of government, official secrets, commissions and foundations, experiments, reports, supervision? Blanchard and Latham, and the sinister control with the money? Blanchard being blackmailed about his private life? His coming on heavy to Steiner and his two assistants?

6.The time frame, the detail of the experiment with the guinea pig and its failure, its death? The electrocution touch? The pleading for an extra demonstration? Doctor Hill, the watch? Rectifying the situation? The sabotage with the machine, the failed experiment with Doctor Lembach watching? The rectifying of the machine? The attempt to have a successful transferring of a human?

7.Paul Steiner, integrity, the dedicated scientist, his working with Chris? Calling in Patricia? Their past? The touches of jealousy of Chris? The antagonism with Blanchard? Doctor Lembach and the demonstration? Latham and his influence? His frustrations, the success, the sabotage, his experimenting with himself, the mistake, his being transferred to the wrong place, the criminals and his killing them? His vengeance, Latham, the burning of the tapes, Blanchard and his packing? The threats to Chris and Patricia? His getting information from Sheila? His going to the laboratory, the policeman watching, his turning the machine on himself?

8.Patricia, attractive scientist, intelligent, helping? The attraction towards Chris? Chris and his loyalty to Steiner? The impositions of Blanchard? The relationship with Patricia, their going to Steiner’s help, failing? Patricia going into the abandoned building, pleading with him?

9.The police, Inspector Davis, following up the leads, trying to find Steiner, his presence at the end?

10.A variation on the Frankenstein scientists and their creating monsters – even if it is themselves?

THE LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS

US, 1960, 71 minutes, Black and white.
Jonathan Haze, Jackie Joseph, Mel Welles, Dick Miller, Jack Nicholson.
Directed by Roger Corman.

The Little Shop of Horrors is considered a classic. Made on a shoestring by Roger Corman, it is tongue-in-cheek funny and satiric. The screenplay was written by Charles B. Griffith, author of many B-budget films during the 1950s and 60s. He draws on some of these conventions – but creates something entirely new.

The film is mainly set in the shop itself, a flower shop, run by Gravis Mushnik (Mel Welles) who is full of Jewish says of the “Oy vay” kind. He does it very well and persuasively in the comic style. Jackie Joseph is a nicely ingenuous Audrey who works in the shop. The focus is on Jonathan Haze as Seymour, an awkward young man with continued pratfalls who is cultivating a variation on a Venus flytrap. However, it feeds on blood, makes more and more demands because it is hungry and various bodies are disposed of in Audrey Junior. At some moments, with the jaunty musical score, one expectst characters to burst into song.

A musical was made of Little Shop of Horrors in the 1980s, a film starring Rick Moranis as Seymour, Vincent Gardenia as Gravis and Ellen Greene as Audrey. The film also had a guest role for Steve Martin as a sadistic dentist. The dentist doesn’t appear very much in the first film – although a very young Jack Nicholson is one of his patients.

Roger Corman had directed a number of B-films at this time, genre pictures, especially science fiction. With The Little Shop of Horrors, he attained some reputation – and began films which were somewhat more upmarket, especially a series of adaptations of Edgar Allen Poe stories with Vincent Price.

1.The cult status of The Little Shop of Horrors? Deserved status? The remake? The musical? The stage presentation?

2.Black and white photography, most of the action happening in the shop, in Seymour’s home, in the street? The final chase – and the tyres, the toilets … a surreal atmosphere? The jaunty score?

3.The title, an appropriate description?

4.Gravis Mushnik, the Jewish style, his continued complaints, the flowers, trying to make sales, Seymour tripping over everything, Audrey and her niceness? The visit from Burson Fouch and his ordering carnations and eating them? Winifred Krelboin and her attitude towards Seymour? The Jewish woman forever visiting the shop because all her relatives were dying and she needed flowers? Life in the shop? The plant, Gravis wanting to fire Seymour, letting him stay, the plant growing, an attraction, people coming into the shop? The teenage girls and their admiration, ordering flowers for their pageant? The robber coming in because of the crowd, Gravis finally feeding him to Audrey Junior? The police and their investigations? The discovery of the dead people when Audrey opened and blossomed for the award? Seymour and his finishing up in Audrey Junior – and his face appearing there? Gravis as a satiric and comic Jewish character?

5.Seymour, falling over things, his living with his mother and looking after her, her hypochondria? Her demands on him? At the shop, awkward, cutting the gladioli for the dentist, about to be fired, cultivating the Venus flytrap? Being pricked and the blood going into Audrey Junior? The plant saying it was hungry, asking, “Feed me”? The irony of the dead body at the railway yard and Seymour bringing it back? Feeding Audrey Junior? The girl in the streets, her being provocative, tossing the rock, her death, going into Audrey? Seymour and his love for the real Audrey, their talking together, her meal at his place, his mother’s attitude? Her being upset in thinking that he was speaking when it was the plant? Her finding Seymour’s face in Audrey Junior?

6.Audrey, nice, kindly, serving in the shop, in love with Seymour, going to his house, upset with him?

7.Seymour’s mother, her complaints, the exaggerated dialogue and hypochondria? Her dismay at the end at seeing her son?

8.The Jewish customer, her always being in the shop, complaining? Buying flowers?

9.The minor characters, the man eating the carnations – and going home to dinner because his wife was preparing gardenias? The enthusiastic schoolgirls? The police and their search with Gravis? The robber and his finishing up in Audrey Junior?

10.The tongue-in-cheek approach – and it working and all the elements clicking well?

OHMS

UK, 1937, 87 minutes, Black and white.
Wallace Ford, John Mills, Anna Lee.
Directed by Raoul Walsh.

OHMS is an unusual choice for action director, American Raoul Walsh. He had just made Klondike Annie with Mae West. However, this is a pleasant English comedy – very much the military style with a lot of pomp and circumstance in parades, especially before the king. (The film was released at the time of the abdication of Edward VIII.)

The film opens in New York with Wallace Ford as a small-time racketeer and Grace Bradley as his girlfriend. To escape what could have been a murder charge, he takes a passport and finds himself stowing away to England – being welcomed there and expected to join the army. John Mills portrays his buddy, Anna Lee is his girlfriend. However, Wallace Ford was a character actor rather than a leading man (though he has the opportunity to sing and tapdance here) and finally gives his life for the others so that John Mills and Anna Lee can be happy ever after.

This was popular film-making of the 1930s. Walsh was to make The Roaring Twenties and Dark Command in 1939 and 1940 and become a much more high profile director in the following decades.

1.An entertaining British comedy? American director? Serious overtones?

2.The title, the emphasis on British style, His Majesty? The American title: You’re In The Army Now?

3.Black and white photography, New York, the bright lights, the clubs, stage and performance? The contrast with Britain, London, military style, camps, the theatre? The transition to China – and the big action sequence in the last part of the film? Musical score?

4.The story of Jimmy Tracy: small-time racketeer, conman, his relationship with Jean, in the club, his gambling, coming across Jimmy Dean, his death, the police after him, taking the passport? Jean helping to disguise him against the police? His running out on her, going to London? Sally meeting him, Bert and his friendship, expected to join the army? His training, success, the year passing? The visitor from Winnipeg too drunk to recognise him? The story about his way with the girls and Sally’s jealousy? Going to China, the performance in London, his song and dance, the irony of Bert getting Jean to help out? Sally seeing them together? Jimmy and his wanting to escape, stow away, on the wrong boat? Discovered by Bert? Court martial, in the brig? In China, his going upriver to save Sally? His heroism – almost being shot? The attack on the building, his final standing in front of Sally and Bert and saving them? His final words about the meaning of his life?

5.Sally, wealthy, her father being the regimental sergeant major? Childhood friends with Jimmy? Not recognising Tracy as being not the true Jimmy Dean? Her infatuation with him? Yet her friendship with Bert? The year passing, the socials? The visitor from Winnipeg and her jealousy? Bert and his almost proposal? Their going to China, her going upcountry, caught in the siege? The choice between Jimmy and Bert? Jimmy giving his life? Happy ending?

6.John Mills as Bert, bright young Englishman, military, the training, friendship with Jimmy, helping him? Attraction to Sally? The various escapades, the boxing, Jimmy and his standing in and winning the bout? Disguising his face so that the visitor from Winnipeg wouldn’t recognise him? Bert and his continued attentions, having to report Jimmy when he stowed away? In China, the final attack?

7.Jean, singing and dancing in New York, Jimmy running out on her? In London, on stage, dancing with him? Her marrying the sugar daddy?

8.The background of the British, the sergeant major, the officials? The military parades, the pomp and circumstance? On His Majesty’s Service?

MESSAGES

UK, 2007, 90 minutes, Colour.
Jeff Fahey, Kim Thomson, Jon- Paul Gates, Martin Kove, Bruce Payne.
Directed by David Fairman.

This is the kind of paperback murder mystery that is either an easy night out or an easy night home watching it on TV or DVD. It is something of a routine murder mystery with a serial killer plus some strange messages from the beyond and some ghosts who appear in nightmares and finally appear to wreak vengeance on their killer.

There are not too many candidates for the killer. The screenplay successfully steered me away from identifying the guilty party.

Jeff Fahey has appeared in numerous B-budget thrillers and action shows. A bit older now, he is an American living in England and working in the hospital mortuary as the local pathologist. His wife is killed in a car crash and he goes to pieces. Months later – and he little better – a serial killer is on the loose.

A hot shot author detective is sent to England (Martin Kove) on an exchange in charge of the investigation. He is enough to put anyone off the swaggering cowboy type. The British are represented by the psychologist profiling the killer (Kim Thomson) and the local medical officer (Bruce Payne).

More than a touch melodramatic, this is glossily made standard fare.

1.A popular thriller? Murder mystery? Ordinary ingredients? The touch of the supernatural? Ghosts?

2.The English setting, the countryside, homes, police precincts, hospitals? The highways? The country roads? The musical score?

3.The opening credits, the dolls? The messages – on Richard’s computer, the steam on the mirror? The ghosts, the communications? His dreams? The irony of the message in Father Randall’s mind?

4.The background of the murders, the serial killer, the mutilations, the eyes? The police examinations? The autopsies? The forensic science? The psychological profile of the killer? Audience interest in serial killer stories?

5.The opening, Carol and her anxiety, being pursued in the car, the crash, her death? The effect on Richard? The passing of the eight months? His grief, dysfunctional? His drinking? Not efficient at his work? The support and sympathy of Father Randall? The people in the office? Doctor Golding and his more cynical approach? The background of Richard’s relationships, infidelities? The flashbacks to scenes with Carol, the necklace, her being upset, her anger?

6.Doctor Golding, suspect? His work, cynicism? The interactions with DCI Collins? The British versus the American?

7.DCI Collins, the Los Angeles cowboy, his tone, his attitude towards the British? His books, his vanity? His conferences, like a schoolmaster? The interaction with Frances? His spurning of her? His attitude towards Richard, wanting to pin him down, the interrogation, wanting to arrest him?

8.Frances, her coming to the station, the psychological profile of the killer? Meeting Richard? Their past? Meetings, drinks together, discussions? Her concern about him?

9.Richard and his friends, the party, meeting Denise, her taking him home, his flashbacks, blacking out? Her later trying to check his aura? Massage?

10.The victims, Mary, her house, Richard going to the house, having to escape? Julie at the supermarket? Rachel working at the hospital?

11.Richard, his assistant, young and callous?

12.Richard and his blackouts, the messages? His dreams, re-enacting the murders, Carol’s coming to him, the blood? All the women coming to him?

13.Father Randall, looking after his mother? Richard seeing the necklace? The confrontation with Father Randall, his madness, explanation of what he did, God speaking to him, the messages? His violence towards Richard? Abducting Frances, tying her up? Richard and his using his ingenuity to get Frances free? The fight with Randall? In the car, driving, the sudden braking and Randall going through the windscreen? On the road, the glass in his eye, his threatening Richard? The ghosts all appearing? Wreaking their vengeance on him?

14.Carol, her appearance to Richard, smiling? Richard and his going on holiday with Frances? A future?

15.The popular ingredients of this kind of paperback murder mystery?

THE BRAIN

UK, 1962, 84 minutes, Black and white.
Anne Heywood, Peter van Eyck, Cecil Parker, Bernard Lee, Maxine Audley, Jeremy Spenser, Jack Mc Gowran, Miles Malleson.
Directed by Freddie Francis.

The Brain is a British adaptation to the 1960s of the novel by Curt Siodmak, Donovan’s Brain, filmed a number of times and in the 1940s with Brian Donlevy. The director was cinematographer Freddie Francis who had won an Oscar for his work on Sons and Lovers. Francis directed a number of horror films but is best known for his work as a cinematographer.

This film had a strong cast with Anne Heywood in an early role. German actor Peter van Eyck is the central scientist. Cecil Parker is the lawyer. There is a rare appearance from Jeremy Spenser, a boy actor from the 1940s. It was an early film of comic actor Jack Mc Gowran.

The film has the Frankenstein story touch – a scientist, ambitious, is able to preserve the brain of a man killed in an accident. However, he is a rich industrialist and was murdered. The brain is able to communicate with the scientist who pursues the investigation, unearths a conspiracy, pursues the suspects. The film is small-budget – but not bad of its kind.

1.The popularity of this kind of science fiction? Donovan’s Brain and the various versions of it? The link with the Frankenstein story?

2.British production, the 1960s, black and white, the strong cast? Musical score?

3.Dr Corrie, Dr Shears, Ella and their working as a team? Their experiments? The chance encounter with the death of Martin Holt? Getting his brain? The decision to keep it alive? The ethical issues? Shears and his difficulties? Corrie and his obsession? The mechanisms to keep the brain alive? The brainwaves, the contact with Corrie? The brain communicating with him? A credible premise for this kind of thriller?

4.Corrie, his personality, domination? The investigation? Holt and his wanting to move Corrie to detect who killed him? Corrie and the interviews with the various people, with Stevenson, with Marion Fane, with Anna Holt, with Martin Holt? The blackmail by Furber? His death? Dr Miller and the autopsy and the reports – and the glasses of sherry? The various contacts of Holt and their wanting to find out what Corrie knew? Immerman and his thugs? Mr Walters? Corrie and the dangers, the deaths? Especially of the chauffeur? The police and their suspicions?

5.Ella, her collaboration? Her questions? Dr Shears and his queries?

6.Stevenson, his work with Anna Holt, under suspicion? The business deals? The revelation of the truth?

7.Anna Holt, glamorous, her relationship with her father, with her brother? The interactions with Corrie? Under suspicion? The revelation of the truth, her work with Stevenson? The bomb on the plane? Her killing her father? Her antagonism towards his principles? Her final board meeting?

8.The contrast with Martin, the artist, the portraits of his father? His offhand manner? The interviews with Corrie? His knowing the truth?

9.Marion Fane, her relationship with Holt, her plans, her antagonism? Her death?

10.Immerman and the businessmen? Their thugs? The pursuit? Wanting the deals?

11.The build-up to the finale – and the role of the brain, of Holt? His possession of Corrie?

DEVIL DOLL

UK, 1964, 81 minutes, Black and white.
Bryant Haliday, William Sylvester, Yvonne Romain, Sandra Dorne, Karel Stepanek, Francis de Wolff.
Directed by Lindsay Shonteff.

Devil Doll comes from a period in British film-making when small-budget horror films were becoming popular. Already, Hammer Studios had revived horror films in the late 1950s. Many more films like Devil Doll were produced in the 60s and 70s.

The film owes a great deal to Dead of Night with a hypnotist and his puppet (called Hugo as was the puppet in Dead of Night). Anthony Hopkins was to do a similar role in the 1970s in Richard Attenborough’s Magic.

Bryant Haliday is The Great Vorelli, a sinister character, who it emerges has killed one of his associates and the spirit of the dead man has gone into the doll. There is a rivalry between hypnotist and puppet as the two go on tour. The hypnotist becomes greedy, wanting to control an heiress in order to kill her and gain all her fortune. Her boyfriend, a journalist, is suspicious of the hypnotist and investigates him.

The film was directed by Lindsay Shonteff who made a number of exploitation films.

1.The impact of this British horror film? Of the 60s? Audience interest in hypnotism? Puppets – with lives of their own? Sinister uses of hypnotism?

2.The British settings, London, the countryside? The black and white photography? Musical score?

3.The portrait of The Great Vorelli? Gaunt figure, bearded? On stage, his manner, his interactions with Hugo the puppet? Sinister? Rivalry? The hypnotist putting down the puppet? The audience, Marianne and her becoming a subject for hypnosis – and her being persuaded to dance the twist on stage but not knowing? Mark and his being in the audience, his puzzle? The Great Vorelli and his relationship with Magda, as an associate on stage, the personal relationship? The jealousies? His pursuing of Marianne, going to the charity ball, the performance, Aunt Eva and the others admiring him? His decision to pursue Marianne? Confiding in Hugo? His voice in Marianne’s mind? Calling to her? The investigations and discovery of his life in Berlin, after the war, the woman and her brother associates, the death on stage of her brother, his spirit going into the puppet? The build-up to the confrontation between The Great Vorelli and his puppet? His trying to get Marianne as another puppet? Hugo, his walking, his fight with Vorelli, Vorelli going into the puppet – and Hugo released into Vorelli’s body?

4.Marianne, wealthy, her relationship with Mark, falling in love with Vorelli, the performance on stage, at her aunt’s party? The effect of Vorelli on her, her illness, hearing him in her mind, her wanting him out of her mind? The consultations with the doctors? Mark and his support? The final threats from Vorelli?

5.Mark, the decent Englishman, journalist, love for Marianne, concerned, pursuing the truth? Finding the woman from Berlin and investigating? The final confrontation with Vorelli?

6.Magda, her being the assistant, on stage, the personal relationship? Her being killed? Her successor?

7.The doctors, their expertise, their interest in hypnotism? Their concern about Marianne?

8.The supporting cast, British society of 1964? Audiences? Socialites at parties? A realistic and authentic world for this kind of horror story?

FOXY BROWN

US, 1974, 87 minutes, Colour.
Pam Grier, Antonio Fargas, Peter Brown, Terry Carter, Kathryn Loder, Sid Haig.
Directed by Jack Hill.

Foxy Brown is one of a number of blacksploitation films of the 1970s. Pam Grier had emerged at this period as a leading black figure on screen as well as a singer. She had appeared, for Jack Hill, in some of his women’s prisons films as well as Coffy.

This film is interesting as an example of the exploitation film of the 1970s, with sex and violence and language, with vigilante action – and a comment from the screenplay that vigilante action is as American as apple pie.

The film seems somewhat stilted these days, although some of the violent scenes are graphic. Pam Grier went on to a film career which was revived in 1997 by Quentin Tarantino when he made her the leading star of his Elmore Leonard adaption, Jackie Brown.

1.The popularity of this kind of film in the 1970s? With American black audiences? Becoming something of a cult film? In retrospect?

2.The American city settings, the streets, the violence, the drug dealers? In comparison with the squalor and sleaziness of later decades? The locations: offices, homes, garages? The musical score and songs?

3.The title, Pam Grier and the credits, the dancing, the clothes? Her affluence, her wardrobe? Going into action, especially as the callgirl? Pam Grier as a black icon? Antonio Fargas, his films, on television? Also a black screen icon?

4.The basic plot, the street-unwise Link, his dependence on Foxy, getting money from her, meeting her boyfriend, betraying him to the drug dealers? His failed drug deals? Foxy and her life, relationship to Michael, his being injured, his being betrayed, his death? Her attack on Link, vengeance on the drug dealers? Her going undercover, thwarting their work? Her being captured and tortured? Getting free, setting up the revenge?

5.Pam Grier as Foxy, as a character, glamour, her relationship with her brother, righteous, the law, drugs? Her posing as the callgirl? With the other girls? Her interest in bringing Steve Elias and Katherine down? The humiliation of the judge? The friendship with the other callgirl and setting her free? The fight in the lesbian bar? Her being captured, tortured, raped, her getting revenge, slashing, the gasoline and the fire, the explosion? The pilot, cosying up to him, the flight? The plane, the crash into the drug dealers, into the hut and destroying things? The castration of Steve Elias? Bringing the bottle to Katherine, not killing her? Making her suffer?

6.The nature of vengeance, revenge, the vigilante touch? The cruelty of the crimes, the brutality?

7.The criminals, Steve Elias as the white businessman, shrewd, the relationship with Katherine? Her domination? Her string of callgirls? The drug deals? The comeuppance with Foxy’s attack on them?

8.The henchmen, their brutality, violence, killing? The attack on Link, Steve Elias shooting him? Killing his girlfriend?

9.The pilot, the flight with the drugs, the landing, Foxy taking the plane, the destruction?

10.The style of black exploitation films of the 70s, in your face? Setting up a tradition? The later examples, their greater frankness in language, explicit sexuality, more brutal violence?

THE AMOROUS PRAWN

UK, 1962, 89 minutes, Black and white.
Ian Carmichael, Joan Greenwood, Cecil Parker, Dennis Price, Robert Beatty, Liz Fraser, Finlay Currie, Derek Nimmo, Michael Ripper.
Directed by Anthony Kimmins.

The Amorous Prawn is a cross between the old Ealing Studios comedies and the Carry On series. On the serious Ealing side the film is set in a Scottish castle, the headquarters of British North- West Military. The retiring general, played by Cecil Parker in his usual style, with his wife Joan Greenwood, with her usual gravely voice, want to transfer to a house in Dorset but the Ministry of Defence will not grant them the truck to take their furniture. The decision is made while the general is away to use the castle as a holiday resort for American fishermen. Needless to say, the general arrives back before all is sorted out, complies with the plan – with the connivance of Ian Carmichael as the corporal and the staff which include Liz Fraser and Derek Nimmo as the chef. In the meantime, the laird is worried about poachers (Finlay Currie). At the end, the Minister for Overseas Services turns up, wanting a holiday away anonymously with his girlfriend. He is played by Dennis Price. When he threatens to expose the scam, the staff at the castle have evidence of his girlfriend and so then can blackmail him to get the truck for the move.

Typically British humour, some of it farcical, some of it a touch witty – but much of it farcical, people changing into uniforms and out of uniforms a great deal, mistaken identities and some Carry On humour.

The film was directed by actor comedian Nicholas Phipps in collaboration with the director, Anthony Kimmins, best known for some films of the 1940s including Mine Own Executioner and Bonnie Prince Charlie. Some of his fifty films include The Captain’s Paradise, Aunt Clara and the two Australian films featuring Smiley.

1.The popular image of British comedy? The Ealing Studios tradition of wit and eccentric characters? The Carry On series and farce? A combination of both?

2.The Scottish settings, the black and white photography, the castle? The musical score and its jaunty tone?

3.The opening credits, the literal cartoons? Prawn and his identity, his concealing his identity?

4.The military situation, the introduction to the general, the farewell, his going home, his relationship with Lady Dodo? His going to the Pacific? The plan for his retirement, getting the money for the house, transferring the furniture? His going on his mission? His sudden return? The lateness of the cable? His participating in the plot? The typical Cecil Parker character? The exposure at the end? Lady Dodo, Joan Greenwood, her style, her voice? Her cajoling her husband? Her decision about renting the house? The collaboration of the military staff? As hostess, Larry Hoffman and his being attracted to her, chasing to her, proposing? Her dealing with the ministry, with the local military? Her adapting to the situation, with her husband?

5.Prawn, the Whitehall official, his double dealings, friends with the Americans, the girlfriend coming in? His getting the information by phone, the letter of the law? His being blackmailed? (And the film being released a year before the Profumo scandal?)

6.Sidney Green, the corporal, in charge of the staff, the various members of the staff, Huggin and his drinking, Suzie and her flirtatious attitudes, Biddy and the attraction towards Maltravers, Maltravers as the temperamental chef? Comic characters?

7.Finlay Currie as the laird, his assistant? Worrying about poachers? The traps, the explosions, the final attack?

8.The Americans, Goulansky and his continued flirtation? Larry, ringing his mother in San Francisco, attracted to Dodo, the proposal, the chase?

9.The comings and goings, changing costume, mistaken identities? Farcical aspects? The military listening in to the phone calls, their speculations and conspiracy theories, coming to the rescue?

10.The popularity of this kind of stiff-upper-lip British farce?

THE HITCHER

US, 2007, 84 minutes, Colour.
Sean Bean, Sophia Bush, Zachary Knighton, Neal Mc Donough.
Directed by Dave Meyers.

Once again, the question arises, why a remake, especially of a film that is only twenty years old and still readily available still? The Hitcher was something of a cult movie in the 1980s with a terrifying performance by Rutger Hauer as a murder-minded hitchhiker, C. Thomas Howell as his tormented victim and Jennifer Jason Leigh as someone who tried to help, fatally. If a remake, can it also achieve some classic status?

With this one, not. Not that Sean Bean is not frightening as the malevolent hitchhiker whose life and motives are never explained – except that he enjoys what it feels like to kill. The central couple (Zachary Knighton and Sophia Bush) seem at first just too regular as the students going on a trip for spring break. As they are pursued, fearful, making bad judgments, trying to flee, arrested, framed and, generally desperate, they make something more of their roles and of the terror.

That is what this is, a terror trip with some frights, some ghastly experiences and a gruesome body count. This version reverses the roles of the man and the woman, taking account of the prevalence of the warrior woman in today’s films. It is the man who dies and the woman who finally avenges the deaths. When the hitcher asks her how she feels as she shoots him, ‘What does it feel like?’, he is expecting her to say it is exhilarating. She simply says that she feels nothing. It is the sad combination of satisfaction and emptiness that is achieved by vengeance.

1.The impact of the film? As a terror film? In comparison with the original? The different between the twenty years from one film to the other? Style, treatment?

2.The New Mexico landscapes, the roads, the desert, the rocks and the mountains? The small towns? An authentic feel? Atmospheric score?

3.The title, the focus on John Ryder? The ominous hitcher? The themes of hitchhiking, the dangers?

4.The hitcher himself, Sean Bean’s interpretation? His lack of motivation, no explanation? His sinister attitudes, standing on the road, the two young people escaping from him, his pursuit of them? In the car with the family and his killing them? The pursuit of the two, the devices that he used, his driving, bashing the car? Their being in prison – and his killing the police? At the store and his sinister attitude, especially with the petrol? The final confrontations, with Lieutenant Esteridge in the car? The chases, the pile-ups? His being arrested? His escape with his wrists, the bleeding? His finally being caught? In the truck, the torture of Jim? His further escape – and Grace confronting him, saying she felt nothing, shooting him?

5.Jim, ordinary young man, spring break, going to college to meet Grace, their travelling together? The interactions, the holiday? Easy with each other? The driving, almost hitting John Ryder? Driving away? Grace and her pressuring Jim? At the service station, the assistant giving the information away? The pursuit by Ryder? The catching up, the confrontation, getting the lift? His terrorising them? Pushing him out of the car? His pursuing them with the family – and his killing of the family? Their reaction, trying to warn the family? Discovering the bodies? Their hiding in the mountains? The pursuit in the car? The arrest, their being put in the prison, the interrogations, John Ryder and his blood on the window of the interrogation room? Giving the key to Esteridge that the two young people were innocent? The murders of the police, Jim and Grace escaping? The further pursuits? In the motel, his finding them? His taking Jim, tying him to the truck, driving off? The confrontation with the police, Grace and her final confrontation, shooting him?

6.Esteridge, his investigation, seeing the young people as innocent, the pursuit, the final meeting with Ryder, his being shot? The picture of the other police?

7.The high body count, the mad killer, the hitcher?

8.The plausibility of the plot? A warning for young people? The dangers of hitchhiking? The film’s effect as a terror movie?

TURISTAS (PARADISE LOST)

US, 2006, 96 minutes, Colour.
Josh Duhamel, Melissa George, Olivia Wilde, Desmond Askew, Beau Garrett, Max Brown, Agles Steib, Miguel Lunardi.
Directed by John Stockwell.

It’s an uncharitable distraction during the first part of Turistas but, if there were to be victims of predatory Brazilians in the jungle who were to abduct a group of twenty somethings who were preoccupied with having a good time (drink and sex being the main ingredients with some surf added), who were completely culturally insensitive to the people whose country they were visiting, who had the personalities of self-absorbed teenagers, and the Brazilians were to take their organs for profit, then the cast of this film really fits the bill.

So that is who these turistas are. For the main part, this is what they do – apart from complaining when things go wrong. And then things really go wrong as they are stranded, robbed, befriended by a guide who is actually leading them to the hideout surgery of a local who resents first world attitudes towards Brazil and where they will be dismembered.

While the subject is gruesome and there are some grizzly scenes, Turistas is not particularly gory. Will this tale of a contemporary problem in terms of organ sales put off the tourists (who in this film come from the US, Sweden, the UK – one of these is the most obnoxious – and Australia (and she is the best and most common-sensed of them)? If it does, then the Brazilian tourist bureau will have less to complain about!

1.The popularity of this kind of horror film? Terror or horror?

2.The Brazilian settings, the natural beauty, the isolation, the mountains, the beach, the roads? The mansion? The surgery? Authentic? The musical score?

3.The title, the focus on tourists and their attitudes? The alternate title of Paradise Lost?

4.The introduction to the young people, the typical twentysomethings, spoilt, international, expectations, complaints? Holidays, sex preoccupation? Drinking? On the bus, the speeding driver? Alex and his anxiety, the girls being calm? The gathering speed, the crash, the bus tipping over, everybody getting out, the bus rolling down the hill, getting the luggage, stranded? No bus for a long time?

5.The girls with the drinks, the group banding together, the incident of taking the photograph of the child and the parents’ reaction? Finding the beach, the kiosk? Swimming, enjoying themselves, drinking? The night on the beach? Their being robbed?

6.The people on the beach, the Swedish tourists? Their being abducted, their being killed? Kiko and his friendliness, advice? Leading them through the jungle? The ten-hour trek? The difficulties? The complaints? Taking them to the pool, swimming underwater, the caves? His change of heart? Trying to warn them?

7.How well defined were the characters? Alex, uptight, protecting his sister, Bea? Bea and her friend Amy? Their wanting a holiday? Prue and her being from Australia, level-headed? Finn and Liam from England, their attitudes, holiday, sex and drink? The effect of the walk on them?

8.The options? The house, their deciding to go, moving in, Kiko’s uncle? The food, the mysteries of the house? The uncle arriving, his henchmen, the shooting? The taking of Amy?

9.The preparation for the theme: the organ-taking, transplants? Doctor Zamora, seeing him at the opening before the credits, in the city, with his henchmen? Their attacking the tourists? Their brutality?

10.Doctor Zamora, his motivation, Brazilian, anti-first world, getting revenge, the organs, the money? His brutality and killing his henchmen? Verbally abusing them? His confrontation with the group, his being shot?

11.The henchmen, the Indians, being humiliated by Doctor Zamora? Kiki and his change of heart, his being wounded, stapling his wound together? His helping with the escape?

12.Alex and his having to be a leader, Pru and her commonsense, Bea and the fright? The Englishman being killed? The escape, underwater, hiding in the caves? The final confrontation?

13.The film less gory than expected? The focus on self-centred twentysomethings? Their ordeal? The issue of illegal organ-taking? Money? The trade?