JayDee's Movie Musings

→ in
Tools    





Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
mirror
mirror



Year of release
1936

Directed by
Frank Capra

Written by
Robert Ruskin (script)
Clarence Budington Kelland (story)

Starring
Gary Cooper
Jean Arthur
George Bancroft
Douglass Dumbrille


Mr Deeds Goes to Town



Oscar Wins: Best Director – Frank Capra (The 1937 Academy Awards)
Oscar Nominations: Best Picture / Best Actor (Gary Cooper) / Best Sound / Best Screenplay

Plot - Longfellow Deeds (Cooper), a simple-hearted fellow from a small town who writes greeting card poems and plays the tuba, inherits a $20 million fortune from his late uncle and moves to New York. While there he has to contend with numerous people trying to take advantage of him and his windfall, including newsreporter Louis 'Babe' Bennett (Arthur) who he begins to fall in love with. When he decides to give all of his money away he is accused of being insane and must fight it in court.

Another Frank Capra flick, another sweet delight. Like many of his films it pits small town charm and sensibilities against the big city and it's greedy, cynical nature. With its release date of 1936 it would have fallen smack dab in the middle of the Great Depression and certainly feels very influenced by that. The moment were Longfellow Deeds decides to give all his money away to farmers who are struggling (to put it mildly) comes across as a statement of sorts that Capra is behind those men, and perhaps also acts as a call to those who are financially secure to spread the wealth and help out those who need it.

I've seen it said that Capra only made the same film over and over again. While I wouldn't 100% agree with this, and certainly wouldn't criticise him for it, I can understand why others might. For me this was very reminiscent of Capra's Mr Smith Goes to Washington. Both feature a smart guy from a small town coming to the big city (Washington and New York respectively) were the locals think they're a bit of a fool and a country bumpkin, when really they are just a bit eccentric and naïve. A cynical Jean Arthur plays along with a charade before actually falling for their small town charms and contagious optimism, and in the end our hero delivers a rousing speech and is triumphant in a grand, official setting (Senate and court).

Film Trivia - Capra and Columbia had plans for a sequel titled “Mr Deeds Goes to Washington” based on the story “The Gentleman from Wyoming” by Lewis Foster. That didn't materialise but instead became 1939's Mr Smith Goes to Washington starring Jean Arthur and James Stewart.
I think this is perhaps the first film of Gary Cooper's I've seen and he is pretty damn good, a fine embodiment of the 'average man' that was such a staple of Capra's output. And who wasn't cheering him on when he punches the smug, rich individuals who mock him? I think we all feel like doing that but very few of us do, so the chance to live vicariously through Cooper will do nicely. However for me again the star is Jean Arthur. I'm finding myself just falling madly in love with her. I just love her sassy attitude and terrific line delivery. As good as those two are however they are arguably outshone by Margaret McWade and Margaret Seddon. They play the infuriating Faulkner sisters whose whispering between themselves in the witness box, and their declaration that everyone else other than them is 'pixilated' is an absolute treat. Indeed the whole trial scene with it's doodlers and o-fillers is terrific.


Oh and a favourite little element of this film for me (and indeed Sullivan's Travels as well) is the use of spinning newspaper headlines for exposition. It's such a classic trait of older films and I just love it, finding it so quaint and charming. A lot better than constant close-ups of text messages at least. I have to say however I think I would rate this film slightly behind a few of the other Capra films I've seen so far – Mr Smith Goes to Washington probably no.1, with It Happened One Night and then It's a Wonderful Life. This would be tight with You Can't Take it With You for 4th. It's tough for me to say though why I rate it slightly lower, maybe because it doesn't have quite as much charm or warmth (which feels daft too say) or maybe it's because it just doesn't have James Stewart.

Film trivia - Jean Arthur was so nervous performing in her first 'big' picture that she would be sick before takes, and run off set crying afterwards. She was so unsure of herself that she was unable to watch the completed film until 1972 at the USA Film Festival in Dallas alongside Capra.
Conclusion - Another wonderfully feel-good effort from Capra full of laughs and sweetness. Capra's flicks (at least those I've seen) are light, frothy stuff. They may not change the world, but they make it a little bit better a place to live in.



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
mirror
mirror

Year of release
1967

Directed by
John Boorman

Written by
Rafe Newhouse (script)
David Newhouse (script)
Alexander Jacobs (script)
Donald E. Westlake (story)

Starring
Lee Marvin
Angie Dickinson
John Vernon
Keenan Wynn

Point Blank

-

Plot – While taking part in the theft of cash that is used as part of a gambling operation Walker (Marvin) is double crossed and left for dead by his friend Reese (Vernon) on Alcatraz island who also makes off with Walker's wife. After recovering, Walker becomes like a machine fuelled by revenge, single-minded in his aims to recover the $93,000 he is owed. His former friend Reese used that money to buy his way into The Organisation so Walker has more to contend with than he perhaps anticipated. However as he begins leaving a trail of bodies on his way to the top of the organisation they too realise they're dealing with something more than they bargained for.

Huh. Turns out that Dirty Harry wasn't the first appearance of Harry Callahan, it was in Point Blank 4 years previous. Ok so it's not actually Harry Callahan here but it sure feels a lot like it, right down to the character's San Francisco setting. Lee Marvin imbues Walker with the kind of stony faced look and dead eye glare that would become an Eastwood hallmark, creating a classic amoral anti-hero. And it's not just the performance of the actors that feel familiar but the manner of the character. Marvin's Walker is an imposing angel of death (though he personally never kills anyone, they just have a habit of dying when he's around) who is ready to take on an entire crime organisation to get back the money that he is owed. He is a relentless, monosyllabic presence with just one thing on his mind and no-one will be able to stop him. He seeks retribution seemingly according to a code of conduct he follows, feeling very much like a man out for justice in the Old West. A real tragic hero. About the only difference is that Harry Callahan had a badge.

I just absolutely loved the editing of this film, constant quick cuts which throw us forward and back in time and echoing dialogue which bleeds over into other scenes. It left me feeling a touch disorientated at times but it was quite thrilling. Of particular note is the movie's opening stretch at Alcatraz prison which features flashbacks within flashbacks and acted as a quite baffling introduction which throws us right into the deep end of how this film aims to continue. It's often bewildering, but undeniably stylish.

Film trivia - It wasn't just on screen that Marvin was an imposing badass. While rehearsing scenes at his home Marvin once hit John Vernon so hard that Vernon actually cried.
Now I might be looking too deep into things but I actually wonder if Walker is supposed to be dead at the film's opening at Alcatraz, or at the very least dying, and the film is all just in his imagination. Much of that is down to the film's disjointed, dreamlike quality. And the way it is filmed just creates a contrasting feeling of both real and unreal. And there is the way that Walker attains a somewhat mythic standing as if it is all part of his wish fufillment. Very early on there is a moment where Boorman cuts from a shot of Walker swimming from Alcatraz to a shot of him on a tour ferry overlooking that same island, all the while with a woman narrating in the background about how it was impossible to escape across the wild currents. And yet here Walker stands.

I just love the style of the film. From its fashion to the interior décor of its settings it could not be more 60s if it tried. With it's bold colours it's hard to believe this film was released in the same year as In The Heat of the Night. They look like they exist in completely different worlds and eras. And the way Boorman shots it creates such an atmosphere of seediness and desperation, striking cinematography transforming LA into a depraved and hellish land were Marvin's Walker fits perfectly.

Despite it's incredibly 60s vibe the film also feels quite fresh in some ways. In a number of ways it feels like a forebearer to the kind of films that started emerging in the 90s from the likes of Quentin Tarantino. It's a visceral, hard nosed and often brutal revenge flick which mixes blacker than black comedy and explosive action and emerges as something approaching mythical. Director John Boorman seems to have made an exercise is showing off, a neo-noir that swaggers with style and violence.

Film trivia - The film was remade as 1999's Payback, with Mel Gibson taking over the Lee Marvin role.
All of the style aside it's actually an extremely straightforward tale of revenge; a standard thriller which is just told in a terrifically artistic kind of way. Indeed with its fractured structure, flashbacks and time lapses I believe the film quite often mirrors the style of the French New Wave, though I haven't really seen any of the films to be definite on that point. The premise is straightforward as is the film's structure. If anything it resembles the kind of 'plot' you may find in a computer game were you are given an objective to complete and then you battle a 'big boss' at the end of the level. Walker goes from one person to the next, leaving them trailing in his wake after gathering information from them that sets him on his way to the next person. All of them just acting as rungs on a ladder for Walker until he gets what he wants. This produces some great scenes, in particular Walker's fight with two goons backstage in a nightclub and the moment where Walker deliberately crashes a car over and over again just to try and intimidate his passenger.

Conclusion – A slick, suspenseful film that is lit up by Boorman's visual artistry and moments of terrifically stylized violence. Like a standard American thriller told with a European sensibility. And Marvin delivers a truly intimidating badass



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
Like the little bits of trivia
Thanks nebbit. Just continuing to experiment with the format.

Just out of interest, going by those reviews of Mr Deeds and Point Blank, what do other people think about the addition of trivia and highlighting Oscar wins and noms where available?



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
I like the Trivia as well, it gives your reviews a nice little touch that stands out.
Thanks Rodent I mean it's nothing amazing, mostly just trivia from imdb, but think it's just a nice little addition.



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
mirror
mirror

Year of release
1984

Directed by
Joseph Ruben

Written by
Chuck Russell
Joseph Ruben
David Loughery

Starring
Dennis Quaid
Max von Sydow
Christopher Plummer
Kate Capshaw
David Patrick Kelly

Dreamscape


Plot – Alex Gardner (Quaid) is a young psychic who is wasting his talents betting on horse racing. At least until he is recruited by his former mentor, Dr Novotny (von Sydow) to take part in a new dream research project. The project involves 'dreamlinking', where talented psychics are projected into the minds of volunteers to observe and participate in their dreams, or more accurately nightmares. While Alex takes to the job with gusto not all is as it seems, in particular his fellow psychic/foe Tommy Ray Glatman (Kelly) and his intentions for the President of the United States!

Back in 2010 when Inception arrived in cinemas, for all the many people who thought it was a ground breaking and stunningly original film, their were also those who claimed Nolan had ripped off something for its ideas. Everything from a 60s French film (Last Year at Marienbad) to a Scrooge McDuck comic book cited as the inspiration. One film that was mentioned that caught my eye was Dreamscape, though it has taken me a while to finally get round to it.

I got the feeling throughout this film that the writers didn't feel they had enough story for a whole film and had to flesh it out a bit with numerous little story threads. So along with the main entering dreams angle we get a romantic subplot between Quaid and Kate Capshaw, a Cold War political intrigue storyline and a thread featuring a horror fiction writer who somehow learns about the operation and tries to warn Quaid. That final storyline is without a doubt the weakest, saved by only one thing. Norm!!! Yes that's right George Wendt (aka Norm Peterson from Cheers) plays the author. While it's a fairly thankless role with little to offer Wendt at least brings a bit of charm and interest to it.

Film trivia - The role of Tommy Ray Gatman was originally offered to Kevin Costner. He turned it down however as he did not want to play a supporting role.
The film benefits greatly from a very solid cast who usually deliver the goods. Quaid always makes for a likeable and charming lead, even when his character is a little bit of a cocky douche for a large portion of this film. And then you have Christopher Plummer and Max von Sydow who add a touch of gravitas and respectability to proceedings, both arguably above such schlocky fare. Plummer in particular excels as the slimy, manipulative bad guy. Kate Capshaw makes for quite an alluring romantic interest for Quaid's Alex as the sexy and intelligent Jane DeVries. And last but most certainly not least is David Patrick Kelly as Tommy Ray Glatman (what a name!), the villain of the piece. I was so excited to see him after recently loving his manic showing in The Warriors (“Warriors, come out to plaaa-aay!”) and he didn't disappoint. He may be a bit more of a controlled psychopath than the raving loon from The Warriors but he is still a treat to watch. He seems to be having a great time as the villain, being wonderfully devious and chewing up the scenery for all he is worth.

Without a doubt the film's most entertaining, and I'd say best, moments are the vivid dreams themselves. While there is one dream that provides humour (a great dreams where a man discovers his wife having sex with numerous partners while their children sit watching) the rest tend towards the more surreal and nightmarish in tone. Indeed at times they are actually surprisingly dark and scary. There is the nightmare of a young child which takes place in a freakish world with crooked corridors and crazy angled doors, and features an uncaring father and a snake-headed monster. And then there is the President's nightmare of an apocalyptic wasteland brought around by a nuclear war that he is responsible for. The moment were mutated victims begin clawing at the President and Quaid is really effective and horrifying.

The snake-headed monsters that I mentioned in the kid's nightmare (which later reappears in the President's sequence) is a classic claymation creation. While it may not be up to Ray Harryhausen standards it is still a very pleasing effect. It may look spectacularly dated in these days of CGI but it has a lot more charm than most monsters you would find in our modern era. Perhaps it's just a sweet, nostalgic kick for me but I always enjoy watching some moulded concoction lurching and lumbering after our heroes. CGI creations have to go a long way to have as much character.

Film trivia - This was just the second film ever to receive a PG-13 rating. The first was Red Dawn, released a few weeks earlier.
While many people saw the 80s as the downfall of cinema as a result of the rise of high concept, for me the 80s is perhaps my favourite decade for films. A large reason for that is that group of fantasy/sci-fi films that mixed humour, character, adventure and occasionally a touch of light horror. Films like Back to the Future, Gremlins, Ghostbusters, Goonies, Flight of the Navigator, Beetlejuice, WarGames, Princess Bride, They Live, Lost Boys etc. While this may not be in the same league as most of the above it is an honourable addition to the list.

Conclusion – There is no doubt whatsoever that this is some cheesy and hokey stuff. However it has absolutely no pretensions about what it is. And what it is, is a great amount of fun. I can certainly understand how it could be a cult favourite for some people.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Yep, I'm pretty sure this was the sexiest that Kate Capshaw ever seemed on the screen in that scene on the train, and it's PG-13. I give it
. I don't think it's a coincidence that the posters look similar to someting for Indiana Jones.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
I don't think it's a coincidence that the posters look similar to someting for Indiana Jones.
Thought the exact same thing. And they are all like that. I usually like to have two very different covers for variety but they were pretty much all the same.



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
mirror
mirror




Year of release
1972

Directed by
Michael Ritchie

Written by
Jeremy Larner

Starring
Robert Redford
Peter Boyle
Melvyn Douglas
Don Porter


The Candidate

+


Oscar wins: Best Adapted Screenplay (1973 Academy Awards)

Plot - Bill McKay (Redford) is a young, idealistic lawyer who fights for the little man, and is involved with civil rights, legal aid and ecology. His charisma gets him noticed by the Democratic party who desperately need a Senatorial candidate. He agrees to run when he is told by campaign manager Marvin Lucas (Boyle) that he has no chance of winning, and that it will just be a chance to get his views across. He is promised he can run things how he sees fit. However as the campaign goes along and his odds begin to shortern the deal starts to change and he is slowly talked into changing who he is.

Back when the Ides of March was released I remember a number of reviews mentioning this film as a kindred spirit of sorts, and I'm sure I even remember Clooney confirming it as one of the inspirations for Ides. And it's very clear to see the similarities and parallels between the two. The major difference I suppose being the reversal of roles. In Ides it was Ryan Gosling's Stephen Meyers; working on the campaign, who was the individual who has his eyes opened to the truth of politics while Clooney's potential President knows exactly how the game is played. Here it is Peter Boyle's campaign manager who knows every in and out of this world with Redford's Senatorial candidate who is the clueless idealist who beings to see the truth. Though here it is a much more subtle, long term realisation. In Ides it occurs as the result of a sensationalist incident, here it happens much more slowly and innocently, so much so that McKay barely even notices. He is turned from this man who entered with all those ideals and views he wanted to get out into the world, into a man of soundbites and carefully constructed answers. A man who is so slyly manipulated by Lucas that he reaches the point at the conclusion of the election and the film were he is left so bewildered he can only ask the question “What do we do now?”

Just as with George Clooney in Ides of March Robert Redford is just absolutely perfect casting, convincing fully as someone who would be a big hit in politics. With his all-American good looks, charm and charisma he, like Clooney, would be a campaign manager's wet dream of a candidate. Indeed when he is standing up there at the podium he just looks like a natural fit. And by the end of the film I felt myself going, “yeah, I would probably vote for that guy.” And turns out I wasn't the only one, take a look at this little bit of trivia...

Film trivia - The film was released just a month prior to the 1972 California Presidential primary. To promote the film posters in the style of political flyers were placed around southern California. They were simple in design, featuring only a photo of Robert Redford and the slogan, “McKay: The Better Way!” As a result 'McKay' received a number of write-in votes come voting day.
Going in to this I had no idea that Peter Boyle was part of the cast so that was a great treat to find. Though I didn't initially recognise him under a thick, bushy beard. It was only when his name came up in the opening credits that it dawned on me. And as usual he delivers a great performance as the cunning and crafty Marvin Lucas. I really need to track down more of his work. Again just as with Ides of March, The Candidate is blessed with a strong ensemble effort, with particular stand-outs being Melvyn Douglas's spirited showing as McKay's father and Don Porter as Crocker Jarmon. Jarmon is McKay's opponent and the incumbent senator. He fully convinces as a veteran politician who has been a part of this landscape for decades, a man who understands how this whole system works. He just seems so much like a senator.

Jeremy Larner's script is a very sharp and incisive effort. His own experiences as a speech writer for 1968 Presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy, become quite evident when it comes to constructing Redford's speeches and the insights he has into the background goings on; the gamesmanship of politics. As a result it all feels like a very realistic, warts and all snapshot behind the scenes of a political campaign. It's admirable the way it values realism over delving into melodramatic territory. And that is heightened by the way that the film is shot, frequently coming across either like a fly on the wall documentary or newsreel footage. This is particularly true when we find Redford out amongst the public, the camera becoming alive and frantic as it darts about him in a cinema verite kind of style. So when he's out shaking hands and kissing babies, or taking part in his own parade we feel like what we are watching is completely real.

The film certainly isn't looking to paint a particularly rosy picture of politics or elections. It appears to suggest that the quest for power, no matter how noble it may have started out, sets you on a dark road of no return. It's the cost of winning and the 'birth' of a politician. McKay has his good intentions but to try and reach a position of power where he can achieve them from, he has to make sacrifices, so much so that he ends up a million miles away from who he was to begin with. Trying to create the image that his campaign team and advertising execs are advising, means that he ends up losing his true identity. This honest man with the best of intentions has been turned into just another politician, with all of the hand-shaking, baby-kissing and slogan-delivering that entails. It's often said that 'power corrupts'. Well even the prospect of power is apparently enough to corrupt. It seems unavoidable for a politician. You're not going to get in without playing the game, but once you've done that what makes you any better than all those who have gone before?

Film trivia – To help capture the realistic tone he wanted, director Michael Ritchie organised a real campaign parade for 'candidate' Robert Redford. It drew such a considerable unstaged audience that local politicians actually wanted to draft Redford for a real election.
And it shows elections and campaigns to be extremely shallow and pathetic affairs. It shows them not to be about real issues or substance, but to be about the ability to sell a face and to drum as many slogans into the minds of voters as possible. Campaigns have become nothing more than glamorised pageants, ruled by soundbites. People are apparently not interested in being given a responsible, intelligent thinker; they just want an attractive package and the media seem more than happy to provide that. And this is highlighted by the response of McKay's father when he is asked whether his son will be crushed in the election or not, “No...because he's cute!” There is a great scene towards the end were McKay seemingly begins to snap under the nonsense of it all. While sitting in the back of his car, going over the catchprashes, slogans and buzzwords that he has now used countless times, he begins to mock both himself and the absurdity of it all; mixing up his phrases in his tired mind to come up with “can't any longer play off black against old; young against poor. This country cannot house its houseless; feed its foodless. They're demanding a government of the people. Peopled by people. So vote once, vote tuh-wice, for Billy McKay...you middle-class honkies!” eventually reaching the conclusion that "It's the basic indifference that made this country great."

And sadly this film is far from dated. It's satire of American politics (and politics in general) grows in relevance rather than loses it. It shines a light on the increasing influence that the media has on the political process.

Conclusion - An intelligent, compelling and dryly funny satire. It left me wishing there was a sequel to see just what happens to this character going forward. For anyone who enjoyed The Ides of March I would certainly recommend this. They cover very similar ground but I would put this on a higher level.



We've gone on holiday by mistake
^^^^^

Sounds interesting!

I will look out for it Jaydee.



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
Good work on the reviews, by the way. Always enjoyable to read.
Thank you very much Justin. While I've not read many of your reviews so far (I know, I'm so sorry. Will try to amend that shortly) what I have read has been impressive and I know other people think highly of your stuff, so coming from you that's a greatly appreciated comment.

I wholeheartedly recommend watching this, gandalf. Wonderful film.
Given my review and score I obviously concur with this gandalf. I actually felt I could/should have given it a higher rating but will stick with a very solid 4 for now.



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
mirror
mirror



Year of release
1971

Directed by
Clint Eastwood

Written by
Jo Heims
Dean Riesner

Starring
Clint Eastwood
Jessica Walter
Donna Mills
John Larch


Play Misty for Me

++

Plot – Dave Garver (Eastwood) is a popular radio DJ in the city of Carmel. A man fond of the ladies, he has a one night stand with Evelyn Draper (Walter); a stranger he meets in a bar. Except she's no stranger. It turns out she's a massive fan of his show; the fan who phones up every night asking for the song 'Misty' with the sultry request “Play Misty for me.” And just calling her a fan is a bit of an understatement; she is obsessed with Garver and soon begins to stalk him and threaten the lives of both Garver himself and those he associates with, including his old girlfriend that he has reunited with.

The element that really stands out in this film, and what I will vividly remember, is the performance of Jessica Walter. As Clint's conquest who turns into a stalker she is incredibly creepy. Actually scratch that, she's downright terrifying! I wouldn't be at all surprised to find her invading my dreams for the next few nights! And it's not just when she's wildly waving a knife that she brings the fear; it's the way she can switch in the blink of an eye from being charming and sensual, to just exploding into a foul mouthed tirade. She reminded me of a boa constrictor in a way; the more Clint struggles and tries to get free the more vice like her grip on him seems to get.

As for Clint, I couldn't help feeling that given the profession of his character he was a little miscast. With his gruff and monosyllabic nature he doesn't seem like the obvious choice for a supposedly sensitive, poetry reading DJ. Outside of the booth however he gives a solid showing, even if he seems to be on autopilot for the majority of the time. It's only towards the end as his character realises just how much danger he and those closest to him are in that he really has to start 'acting' I would say.

Film trivia - At the suggestion of Eastwood the film was moved from Los Angeles to the city of Carmel in California. Eastwood would later become mayor of the city in 1986
It may seem strange but I actually found myself having more sympathy for Evelyn than for Garland. Garland is such an unlikeable character; such a selfish womaniser, that I didn't greatly sympathise. I might not go as far to say he brought it upon himself, but he certainly shares a large degree of the culpability.

These days I can't help but compare a thriller to the work of Hitchcock; whether it be his general output or a specific film. Now while I certainly wouldn't place it in the same league, there was something about this that brought Hitchcock's Vertigo to mind. With their shared look at obsession, an eerie tone and mood, even a similar aesthetic at points and the fact that both films take time out at intervals to be quite ponderous and languid it brought Hitch's masterpiece to mind more than once.

What I enjoyed about the film is that it doesn't rely overly on cheap scares. There aren't many surprise, jump out of the dark moments. The terror comes more just from the mounting threat of Evelyn, as we realise just how deranged she is and how far she is prepared to go. And for me personally just the notion of stalking is a frightening prospect. Any time I watch films or TV shows that feature stalkers I always think how awful it would be, especially considering how little can apparently be done by the authorities; at least until they've done something violent.

Film trivia - The film features a cameo from Don Siegel as a bartender. Siegel was a close friend of Eastwood and a regular collaborator; directing him in a total of five films. As a joke Eastwood had Siegel film his take 11 times. And then told the cameraman to put film in the camera!
This was Clint Eastwood's first directorial effort and while there are some flaws, it's an impressive debut. The pacing is a little slow and plodding in spells; a couple of montage sequences being the biggest culprits. And why exactly does this thriller film get interrupted about three quarters of the way through for a concert movie of the Monterrey jazz festival? And you could also accuse it of being a touch camp and trashy here and there. Those complaints aside it is a very entertaining and absorbing thriller from Clint, given considerable help by Bruce Surtees' beautiful cinematography of Carmel and the moody jazz score provided by Dee Barton.

Conclusion – An immensely impressive directorial debut from Eastwood; a tense, taut thriller enriched by a stunning showing from Jessica Walter which will stick in my mind for a long while to come.



I've never seen Misty. Will put it next to my 'must-watch' list. Cheers.