The Cheap Detective

From a career that spanned six decades, Peter Falk accomplished it all, but he will always be remembered for one specific role, that of rumpled, seemingly frazzled detective Colombo. Lost amidst the great scripts and guest stars is Falk's impeccable comedic timing, usually lost because he played it so freaking straight. The man was an actor but he could have been a comedian. Colombo fans, Falk fans, I highly recommend 1978's The Cheap Detective.

It's 1939 and the world is about to tear itself apart, but working as a longtime private detective in San Francisco, Lou Peckinpaugh (Falk) is just looking to get out alive. He receives a phone call late one night informing him that his partner at the P.I. firm has been murdered and several other people were killed around him. Making it worse? Lou has been having an affair with his partner's wife, Georgia (Marsha Mason), and the cops think Lou might be the killer! They don't have the evidence though to convict him -- yet -- so Lou must figure out who the actual killer is. Later that night he meets a mysterious woman (Madeline Kahn) in his office who needs help finding her missing sister. This woman isn't telling Lou everything he needs to know though, plunging Lou deeper into a world of backstabbing and betrayals, Nazis and smugglers, and everything in between. Hopefully and maybe (just maybe), Lou can make it out innocent and alive.

As I've beaten to death in countless reviews as I continue to serve as a broken record, I like spoofs...when they're handled the right way. Basically in not too heavy-handed, obvious fashion. Mel Brooks was a master of such smart-minded yet incredibly stupid spoofs while others like the seemingly never-ending Scary Movie series just...keep...going. From director Robert Moore and a script from Neil Simon, 'Cheap' is more in the Brooks vein. It is equal parts smart, wicked humor mixed in with stupid, dumb laughs with everything from a subtle line delivery to a perfect site gag. At just 92 minutes, it crackles along at a ridiculously quick pace, scenes coming across as episodic more than joined in any sort of linear fashion. It's one bit and onto the next. No time to sit and catch a breath here!

To spoof, you need something to spoof and 'Cheap' jumps headfirst into film noir mysteries with private detectives, using that as a jumping off point with The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca as story points. So yes, we get entire scenes -- classic, iconic scenes -- absolutely torn to pieces, most of them working in almost effortless fashion. We've got a cheating private detective, a small harem of women who want nothing more than to jump into bed with him, international intrigue, murdering Nazis, shady underworld types, lost love, new love and confusion around every corner. To say there's a story is inaccurate. It instead is those episodic set pieces, deliver the joke and move on, and more less, it's all somewhat kinda sorta related. You don't notice though. There's too much going on -- most of it pretty funny -- to complain.

Peter Falk is the man. I love the guy. He's one of my favorite actors ever, a character actor who never disappointed when given a chance at the spotlight. Here as private detective Lou Peckinpaugh, Falk is clearly having a ball. The entire performance is based off being Humphrey Bogart. Not acting like him, Being him, and Falk hits it out of the home run. The best kind of spoof is a loving one, and Falk loves his source material, nailing his spot-on impression of one of the all-time Hollywood greats. The dialogue, the physical look, the mannerisms, he never hams it up or tries for the laughs. He just gets them with ease. His Lou has ready-made drinks in desk drawers everywhere. When he answers the phone, not sure who's on the other end, he pulls a gun on the phone (Ya know...just in case) and holds it there. Through all the craziness that develops, Falk's steady hand keeps things going.

That's not to say this is a one-man show. Falk often plays straight man to the avalanche of laughs around him, but there's so much talent on display it's ridiculous. Kahn is hysterical (similarly deadpanning all her lines), but she's just the first of the love interests. There's crazy with love Mason, sexed-up Ann-Margret, lounge singer Eileen Brennan (doing a great Lauren Bacall), lost love Louise Fletcher (Ingrid Bergman of Casablanca) and Stockard Chaning as Lou's secretary who just wants to be "thanked" properly. I loved Dom DeLuise as a smelly smuggler (doing Peter Lorre), a perfect John Houseman doing his best Sidney Greenstreet impression, wearing an enormous oversized suit to sell it, So many names here, including Sid Caesar, James Coco, Nicol Williamson, Fernando Lamas, Phil Silvers, Abe Vigoda, Paul Williams, Vic Tayback, David Ogen Steirs, and Scatman Crothers, all getting their chances at their fair share of laughs.

If there's anything flawed here, it was the commitment to the spoof. If that makes any sense I guess. There are a ton of laughs (genuine, out-loud laughs), but the story gets so goofy, feels so disjointed at times, that it loses some of its edge. By the time the end does come along, it comes with one twist after another, bing bang boom in rapid fire. It's still an excellent comedy, but not a true classic. Still recommending it though, especially as a companion piece of sorts with the same director and much of the cast working together in Murder By Death. Not quite on par with that one but still damn funny.

The Cheap Detective (1978): ***/****

Grumpy Old Men

So by all accounts getting old sucks, right?  As I write this I'm 26 and can say honestly that growing up, having more responsibility and in general, being an adult sucks at times.  Wow, that's an uplifting lead to a review if there ever was one, huh?  I've got to write about something though, and that's as good as anything. Growing up -- at whatever age; kids, teenagers, adults, senior citizens -- is an easy start-off point for a comedy because life sure is funny at times, like 1993's Grumpy Old Men.

Maybe more than any other genre, comedies are usually niche-driven movies meaning they're intended for a very specific audience. Your typical R-rated movie? Not intended for the majority of the senior citizen crowd. Your average shoot 'em up action flick? Not meant for the faint of heart.  That was my thought with this 90s comedy that has developed into a fan favorite over the last 18 years, even producing a sequel a few years later. This is clearly a comedy intended for a different audience than most movies I watch. It is called Grumpy Old Men after all, right?  I was only slightly worried I wouldn't get some of the humor, but no worries here. Good comedy is good comedy regardless of how old you are.

In the tiny Minnesota town of Wabasha, next door neighbors Max Goldman (Walter Matthau) and John Gustafson (Jack Lemmon) have been lifelong rivals.  Their fighting goes back to the 1930s when they were little kids growing up, and the rivalry has continued all these years since.  Now in their late 60s and early 70s, both Max and John have lost their wives, living in their big houses with nothing to do other than bitch and moan at each other, spending their days drinking beer and ice fishing.  The childish back and forth is nothing though for these two old professionals. A new neighbor is moving in across the street, Ariel Truax (Ann-Margret), a widower and college professor new to the area. If the back and forth rivalry was heated before, it just got taken up a notch. Who can win the babely Ariel first?

I like smart comedies and stupid ones. I like comedies aimed at kids and those aimed at the more adult audience. Smart, silly, stupid, intellectual, slapstick, I'll watch anything.  Then there's this movie which is funny just because it is funny.  It never tries too hard, letting this decades old rivalry produce the humor naturally.  There is a sweetness to this rivalry though that makes it believable and even endearing to these two crotchety old guys. They fight, they bitch, they rip each other constantly, but somewhere in all that arguing is a friendship.  Both Max and John know each others' family and get along with them. They just happen to go back and forth with pranks and jokes that show no sign of stopping anytime soon.

Starring together in 1968's The Odd Couple, Lemmon and Matthau showed what great comedic chemistry they had together as warring roommates Felix and Oscar.  Well, apparently chemistry doesn't go away over 20-plus years because the biggest selling point by far from this comedy is the chemistry between these two comedic legends.  They play off each other like an old married couple, Max calling John a 'putz' (among other things, his first line is 'Hi, dickhead') with John responding with 'moron.' Throw a beautiful woman into the mix, and all bets are off.  It is an easy-going charm between Matthau and Lemmon that carries this movie, making it better than a typical growing old comedy. Definitely stick around for the end credits with a hilarious gag reel showing off all their missteps. If you can't wait, check it out HERE.

Some 15 years younger than Lemmon and almost 20 years younger than Matthau, Margret -- at just 52 years old but seemingly playing an older woman -- is still Ann-Margret.  Her character, Ariel, is still trying to move on after losing her husband some five years earlier, finding friendship and maybe more with Max and John. At the young age of 86, Hollywood legend Burgess Meredith plays Pop, John's father and all-around horndog, always trying to convince his son to keep his love life going. The character is hysterical, but his best part comes in the already mentioned gag reel, just great stuff.  Also starring are Kevin Pollak and Daryl Hannah as Jake, Max's son running for town mayor, and Melanie, John's daughter who is getting a divorce from her husband (Christopher McDonald). As if Matthau, Lemmon and Meredith weren't enough, there are also small parts for Ossie Davis as Chuck, Max and John's friend who always listens to them complain, and Buck Henry as an inquisitive IRS agent.

This is just one of those movies where you're going to like the humor or you're not. It can be dark at times -- Max and John pining about how sweet it would be to die in your sleep -- but most of the time it's just a good, old-fashioned movie. It is in no rush to get anywhere or deliver a message, instead being quite content to tell the story of two neighbors who like nothing more than making the other one's life miserable.  It's a funny, sweet comedy with a great cast and lots of laughs.

Grumpy Old Men <---trailer (1993): ***/****

The Train Robbers

There is nothing particularly remarkable about 1973's The Train Robbers in any way.  As a western, it is nothing new to the genre, borrowing from other, better stories.  As an adventure, it's as straightforward as they come.  In terms of casting, it's fun to see some recognizable faces working together, their chemistry overshadowing the general average feeling of the movie. Like so many movies star John Wayne made later in his career though, it stands the test of time as the movie equivalent of comfort food.  Shut your brain off and sit back, enjoy the Duke being the Duke.

For lack of a better reason, I like this movie because of my childhood memories of The Train Robbers.  Watching it now, I still get the same enjoyment I did that I watched it when I was 10 or 11.  This was one of my Grandma's favorite westerns, one that she'd taped off of WGN at some point.  So every couple months when my sister and I would have a sleepover at her house, this was one of those movies I'd stay up until the wee hours watching.  So maybe that's why I like it so much in spite of its many flaws.  Not one of the Duke's best, but still an interesting, entertaining western.

In the isolated border town of Liberty, Texas, five gunmen, including grizzled cowboys, Grady (Rod Taylor) and Jesse (Ben Johnson), and young hotshots, Calhoun (Christopher George), Ben (Bobby Vinton) and Turner (Jerry Gatlin) wait for the inbound train. On board is an old friend, Lane (Wayne), who offers a dicey if promising deal.  With him is a widow, Mrs. Lowe (Ann-Margret), who wants to get the reward for the gold/money her since dead husband stole from a train. The gold has been stashed away in the desert some three or four days south somewhere in Mexico, but only Mrs. Lowe knows the exact spot.  With the chance to split the reward, they all join Lane and start out on the trail south, but they're not alone.  The other surviving members of the gang from the robbery years before are gunning for the gold. It's a race into the desert to see who can find it first.

Doing his typical solid if unspectacular, workmanlike job directing, Burt Kennedy has a problem with this movie which he also wrote. The movie is just 93 minutes long and at times feels like it was severely cut.  I've read nothing that confirms a longer version of The Train Robbers, but it is a surprisingly short movie.  Call it a gut reaction, but something was missing and maybe it was lost in the editing room.  What's left still manages to be full of holes.  Of the 91 minutes, I'd wager half is long/medium shots of riders on the horizon, Wayne and Co. riding south.  While tedious, it's not all bad.  Composer Dominic Frontiere's score is memorable, especially the main theme that you'll be humming for days. Two, the locations are gorgeous (Durango, Mexico for those curious) and familiar to fans of westerns.  Still, this movie feels more like a travel guide than a feature length film at times.

Somewhat predictable storyline aside (more on that later), the strength of the movie is in the casting, especially Wayne, Taylor and Johnson.  The Duke is as comfortable as ever as the western hero, and he plays well off of consummate vets like Taylor and Johnson.  As Grady, Taylor is that obnoxious friend who never shuts up, but you like him anyways.  As Jesse, Johnson plays a variation on every character he ever played, the grizzled but wise cowboy.  Their history is probably worthy of its own movie, but the trio has an ease on-screen that carries the movie through its slower portions.  George is the only one of the other three to distinguish himself as Calhoun, the fiery gunfighter along for the cash also trying to prove himself.  This is the 3rd review in a row I'll say it, but Ann-Margret God bless her is there for eye candy.  She succeeds magnificently by the way.

Writing this script, it seems pretty clear to me that Kennedy had an idea for the opening, the shootout over the gold in the middle of the desert, and then the final showdown back at the sleepy train station and town.  Anything else in between those three things? Eh, we'll figure it out.  That's where the long, uninterrupted shots of riders on the horizon come in, the repetitious campfire scenes.  Thankfully those three set pieces are worthwhile.  The dusty opening as the crew waits for the train is reminiscent of a similar opening in Once Upon a Time in the West.  The shootout in the desert around an over-turned train has an apocalyptic, other-worldly feel to it, and the finale has plenty of shooting and explosions to appease the action fan in all of us.  I just wished there was something else, something more.

Worth pointing out is a really solid surprise ending courtesy of Ricardo Montalban's mysterious hombre.  Up until this point, he's just been hovering around the story without a word said.  His twist he delivers is a classic, prompting a great exchange between Taylor and Johnson. It's a good movie overall, but I've always felt it could have been much, much better.  It's missing something that's hard to explain.  If curious, check it out at Youtube, watch the whole thing HERE.     

The Train Robbers (1973): ***/****

R.P.M.

Before I start ripping this movie, I'll say this.  I like director Stanley Kramer and most of his films. Mad, Mad World is one of my favorite comedies, Judgment at Nuremberg is a classic, On the Beach an underrated gem, and many, many others are worth watching for one reason or another.  As a director though, Kramer was sometimes guilty of trying to hard to teach, to deliver a message, to show what was wrong with the world.  Usually those issues came in the context of a well-made movie so it didn't bother me.  If anything, it aided the movie's cause.  That wasn't the case with 1970's R.P.M..

The late 1960s and early 1970s, a time of political and cultural upheaval as Americans grew more intensely frustrated with the direction our country was taking.  A sub-culture of people grew that was frustrated with the ways of the world, and maybe nowhere was that more evident than any college campuses, grounds for free thinking and free thought. Students were taught to think for themselves, not blindly go along with what older, powerful authority figures told them.  That didn't always end well with public protests ending violently, and even shootings in some cases.  A ripe picking ground for a movie if handled correctly.  If. 

At Hudson University, a large group of students led by two grad students, Rossiter (Gary Lockwood) and Steve (Paul Winfield) has peacefully taken over an administration building that holds key information necessary to the university. The only way they'll leave the building is if a list of their 12 demands are met, each and every one of them.  For starters, the students want popular sociology professor, Franklin 'Paco' Perez (Anthony Quinn), to take over as university president. Curious to see if all the things he's learned and taught over his years as a professor are in fact true, he takes the job.  Meeting and negotiating with the students, Perez is able to comply with nine of their 12 demands.  But the students won't budge on the three, and no matter what the acting president thinks or wants, it doesn't seem like there is a way to compromise.

One of the biggest struggles this movie goes through is finding an appropriate, consistent tone throughout.  Is it a folksy, out of the norm look at noble students trying to impact their world?  Maybe.  Singer-songwriter Melanie has a couple songs used in the soundtrack used over some montages of Perez walking around campus, painting a picture of an idyllic college with no problems. Or on the other hand, is it an indictment of the system, condemning both the students leading the charge and the board of directors trying to limit the damages done?  Yes and no, because both sides are criticized if in a somewhat unbalanced way.  For this story to work better, a stronger stance needed to be taken and not that gray area in the middle.

Instead of choosing, the tone and indictment leads more to painting the rebelling students as the heroic saviors of society.  The board of directors are portrayed as old fogies who have no knowledge of what bothers their student body.  A painfully obvious dig has Perez listening to the board, imagining them as clowns and jokers blathering on and on about the money, the stigma, the dilemma being caused.  We get it. They're old and don't understand the younger generation.  You don't need to hit us over the head with a mallet to get the idea across.  Conversely, the students are presented as somewhat heroic, but in the end they just come off as pretentious know-it-alls, not noble idealists.  They spout off all sorts of nonsense about their ideals and principles, ripping to pieces the one guy -- acting President Perez -- who's genuinely trying to help them because he sees their struggle.  Good choice, make both sides look like idiots.

So in a pretentious, very talky movie, something good has to be going on at some point, doesn't it?  Yes, and his name is Anthony Quinn.  Even in some of the lower quality movies he starred in over the years, Quinn always seemed to rise above the dreck.  The popular professor who makes his students think and question what they know is a somewhat cliched character, but it's based in the truth. I'd wager every college and maybe every department has a professor like that, one students seek out as opposed to avoiding them like the plague. Quinn's Perez comes from a modest background having had to work his way up through the ranks.  He legitimately wants to help the students but knows almost from the start he's fighting a losing battle. The character does border on being too perfect, too likable, but amongst all the annoying, downright obnoxious characters, I didn't mind.

Also worth mentioning in supporting roles are Ann-Margret as Perez's grad student girlfriend, Rhoda, and Lockwood as Rossiter, the leader of the student revolution. At the height of her sex kitten days, Margret is wasted. She has to look sexy, strip down a couple times, and wear slinky outfits, at times serving as Perez's conscience and sounding board.   A legitimately talented actress, she's just not given enough to do.  Lockwood as Lossiter is the bright spot among the students, a thinker and an idealist who genuinely wants to accomplish something.  A late scene between him and Quinn is a high point as they discuss the detours and turns the route has taken to get where they are.

The ending is what bothered me most though, one more not so subtle attempt to deliver a message.  Pushed to the breaking point, the university has the police evacuate the building with tear gas and cops armed with billy clubs.  The police chief (Graham Jarvis) expresses his concern that the plan won't go off as planned. Well, it goes off as well as expected. The takeover is riddled with slow-motion and extreme close-ups of pained students being tackled or hit by police.  Oh, great, one more attempt to dig the system.  A wasted effort from a typically very solid director.

R.P.M. <---one of many talky scenes (1970): * 1/2 /****

Carnal Knowledge

As America went through countless changes in the late 1960s, most parts of sub-culture went and changed right along with it.  Movies are at the top of that list, and the first thing that comes to my mind was the complete 180 scripts and studios did in handling on-screen violence.  Think of Bonnie and Clyde or The Wild Bunch, and you've got violence unlike anything seen before in mainstream movies.  Right there with the portrayal of violence was an honesty about sex and adult relationships, especially in 1971's Carnal Knowledge.

One of the funniest, more bizarre things that makes me chuckle every time I read an opinion like this is how Americans portray and react to sex and violence in movies, TV, and pop culture.  Movies like the Saw series where people's bodies are hacked up into countless pieces? Sure, kid, go ahead and see it.  The slightest peek at a woman's breast? Run for the hills! Scandal! R-rating!  Call it a double standard, a backwards way of looking at things, but it's how things go.  Shown on TCM a few weeks back in the dead of the night (probably the safest time it could be shown), this movie tackles the sexual revolution head on with a brutal, forthright honesty that is missing from most similar movies.

As students at college in the 1950s, friends and roommates Jonathan (Jack Nicholson) and Sandy (Art Garfunkel) have one thing and one thing only on their minds; sex. It's what they talk about, what they think about, and generally it drives their lives.  Sandy meets a co-ed from a nearby girls school, Susan (Candice Bergen), and starts dating her, hopefully getting to the point where their relationship takes the next step. Jonathan gets involved in a way a close friend shouldn't, ending up messing up his head and putting him down a bad path.  He eventually ends up a New York model, Bobbie (Ann-Margret), who he hits it off with immediately, but after their relationship develops, he doesn't know where to go or what to do because he doesn't want to get married.

That is a bare-bones description of director Mike Nichols' story that is told in episodic fashion, almost three 30-minute TV shows edited into one. I don't want to say much more without giving away major plot points that would ruin the movie for someone going in with a fresh slate. The first episode is Jonathan and Sandy at college in the 1950s, the second focusing on Jonathan and Bobbie living in NYC in the 1960s, and then the third is a quick wrap-up, the two friends fully grown now and warped by where their lives have taken them.

With a talented writer/director as Nichols, it would hard for this movie not to be well done.  It is brutally honest in its portrayal of relationships between men and women and how ideas and perceptions about sex changed over a 20-year plus span.  The TCM intro said 'MA for Mature Audience and L for language' but I really had no idea what I was getting into.  If this movie was released today in 2011, you can just hear mothers' groups complaining about it, trying to get it banned from theaters.  It is refreshing in its honesty, but there's a problem I had.  I didn't like either of the main characters, and only one of the supporting players.  I'm not sure 'didn't like' is a strong enough description.  I hated them.

Now that said, Nicholson and Bergen are some of the best actors/actresses around, and they deliver great performances, but as the people they are portraying, I hated them.  SPOILERS STOP READING SPOILERS After hearing Sandy's feelings about Susan, Jonathan goes out on a dates with, eventually has sex with her, develops feelings, finally realizes he's taken it too far, and they mutually decide to end it.  Are we supposed to congratulate you for making a tough decision? You went behind your best friend's back and slept with his girlfriend. That doesn't give a pass to Bergen's Susan by any means, but Nicholson's actions bothered me more.  END OF SPOILERS  The real world ain't always that pleasant, I get it, and relationships are tough, and as shown here, relationships bring out the worst in everyone.  But man alive, something redeeming would have been nice.

So while their performances are all really well handled, I couldn't stand most of the characters.  Garfunkel just isn't a strong enough actor to share as much time as he did with Nicholson who overshadows him.  Also seeing Garfunkel with his white guy afro completely neutralizes him as any sort of love interest.  He just looks too ridiculous.  The one character I liked (and not just because she's naked or half-naked most of her time on-screen) was Margret's Bobbie.  She is a woman in her late 20s just looking for some sort of happiness, thinking she's found it in Nicholson's Jonathan.  Their confrontation is a frightful one, a screaming match that must have been a doozy to film.  I genuinely felt for her character while slamming home the final nail in Jonathan's coffin.  He pushed her to this place where she's struggling so badly, but he hates what she's become.  Pick one or the other, amigo. You can't have both ways.

Judging this solely on the movie aspects is a lot easier.  Nichols uses several techniques which were also signs of the times, directors trying to expand the movie-going experience.  He uses long, unedited takes of characters just discussing, just talking, going back and forth.  It had to put more pressure on the actors to get it right, but they rise to the occasion.  Also, he has Nicholson and Garfunkel talk directly into the camera, having the viewer step in as the other friend.  It's a simple device, but it was cool in the way it put us right into the story.  For supporting performances, look for Rita Moreno, Carol Kane, and Cynthia O'Neal as other love interests that drift in and out of the story as needed. Disregard the tone of the trailer below. This is not a comedy regardless of the big band music used.

Carnal Knowledge <---trailer (1971): **/****   

52 Pick-Up

If movies have taught men anything, it's not to cheat on your spouse.  Movies have shown us you could be killed, double-crossed, blackmailed, and forced to do all sorts of ungodly things to keep your secret safe.  Then there's always the mistress and/or spouse finding out and turning on you.  Big picture?  Don't mess around, and you've got a good shot at avoiding all this stuff.  Too bad no one takes advice these days, like in 1986's 52 Pick-Up.

Working off an Elmore Leonard novel, director John Frankenheimer puts together a movie that you basically feel dirty for having watched it.  It's that perfectly wrong blend of sleaze and scum with the 1980s porno scene serving as a backdrop for some extramarital shenanigans. 'Pick-Up' has that feel of a low-budget B-movie, but not necessarily in a good way. The premise is interesting enough, but there's a handful of plotholes that make you groan, and worse than that, characters making decisions that no one in their right mind would do.  If you read no further, here's a good summation of the movie.  Death Wish for Cheaters.  That's the best I can do.

Going to see his nude model/topless dancer mistress, Cini (Kelly Preston) at her apartment, rich and married businessman Harry Mitchell (Roy Scheider) is caught off guard by three men waiting for him.  They have video footage of Harry on vacation with Cini in some comprising positions and now want him to pay up if he doesn't want the footage shown to his wife, Barbara (Ann-Margret). Making his decision worse, Barbara is running for local office with the district attorney and any news like Harry's cheating would completely derail her campaign.  But even as he's about ready to pay the money, Harry realizes they won't just let him get away so he decides to go on the offensive, taking it to the three mystery men blackmailing him for piles of cash.

Watching a movie based on an Elmore Leonard novel, you head in with a certain amount of higher expectations.  Not having read the book, I can't just how well the transfer was made and what was left out, but this movie has some of the dumbest villains I've ever seen.  Raimy (John Glover) is an owner of a porno theater and the mastermind of the plan.  Leo (Robert Trebor) runs the club where Cini works and seems genuinely surprised when everything hits the fan.  Last, there's Bobby (Clarence Williams III), a pimp who is just too trusting of his partners in crime.  They have to be the unlikeliest of villainous trios, but man, they sure are dumb.

The dynamic is funny among the three, Raimy being the insanely calm leader, Leo the freakishly nervous dupe, and Bobby the muscle who never seems to realize something bad could happen in this plan.  Glover stands out for his part as Alan Raimy, a truly over the top villain you just love to hate.  He's the only one of the three that really registers in any sort of intimidation with the other two more funny than scary -- unintentionally so.  The decisions these three make drove me nuts because they hope to blackmail Scheider's Harry for years and years to come, but then decide to get rid of all the evidence that would pin a murder on Harry.  There's stupid and there is criminally stupid.

As an actor, I really like Roy Scheider in the five or six movies I've seen him in.  This is a difficult character to get behind because of the actions he's taken against his wife (who would really cheat on Ann-Margret?) so he's in a hole right from the start.  The character as a whole is hard to put your finger on because he is so far over the place.  He's angry, worried, a vigilante, a detective, a rich businessman, and with an intelligence that has helped him amass a huge business.  Scheider's always very watchable, but this isn't my favorite character of his.  Ann-Margret is very good in a better part as Harry's wife Barbara, a woman struggling to deal with this bombshell that's been dropped on her while also trying to be elected to office.  Former model Vanity has a small part as one of Cini's fellow strippers while Preston needs to look scared and be naked for her part. Doug McClure has a small part as Arveson, the D.A. that Barbara is working for.

In most of his movies I've seen, Frankenheimer is a very visual director, and 'Pick-Up' does have it's moments as Harry tries to right his wrong. The movie was shot in some of Los Angeles' seedier areas on top of some locales that include a strip club, an orgy/party, and Raimy's porno theaters.  Needless to say, Frankenheimer isn't shy about nudity and violence in this flick.  It's almost too seedy though right from the start in a story that never quite figures out what it is.  Also, watch out for the obvious reference to The Mechanic near the end.  A laughably bad ending.

52 Pick-Up <----trailer (1986): **/****

Murderers' Row

The huge success of the James Bond series in the 1960s opened doors for all sorts of other spy movies to take over the market, both good and bad.  And after all those serious takes on the spy movie came the spoofs like James Coburn in the Flint series and Dean Martin in the Matt Helm movies.  These aren't spoofs like Scary Movie or anything of the like, but spoofs that were for one, good, and two, they were more tongue in cheek than stupid humor.

Martin made four Matt Helm movies over a three-year span, all of them fairly successful with audiences to the point a fifth was even brought up.  They're basically all James Bond movies except the name has been changed, and the humor has been ratcheted up a few hundred notches.  Now I say this having seen exactly one of the four, 1966's Murderers' Row, but it's not hard to judge a spy series with Dean Martin as the star.  Here's the formula, Martin drinking, smoking and throwing one-liners, ridiculous bad guys, beautiful women, and exotic locales.  It's all incredibly ridiculous, and still pretty entertaining almost in spite of themselves.

After faking his own death, ICE (Intelligence and CounterEspionage) agent Matt Helm (Martin) is given a mission.  A brilliant scientist has been kidnapped by a madman, Julian Wall (Karl Malden) who wants to use the scientist's abilities to hold the world ransom. The scientist, Dr. Solaris (Richard Eastham), has figured a way to control the power of the sun's rays into a beam of light able to destroy cities in seconds.  Posing as a mob enforcer, Helm heads off to Monte Carlo to look for Solaris and instead meets up with his daughter, Suzie (Ann-Margret), who's also looking for him.  Time seems to be running out though as Wall gets closer to utilizing Solaris' death ray on Washington D.C.

This has all the workings of a Bond story from a crazy plot to take over the world to complicated gadgets that would never actually work.  Then's there Ann-Margret and Swedish babe Camilla Sparv frolicking around in next to nothing for most of the movie in bathing suits, mini-skirts, and lingerie as Helm Girls instead of Bond Girls.  Instead of M, there's McDonald (James Gregory) issuing orders to an agent who does things his own way instead of by the book.  And my personal favorite, a gun that fires on a 10-second delay which does provide some rather humorous -- God, that sounds wrong -- killings.  We even get to meet some of the nameless thugs who usually ran around in the background, except here they get their one or two lines and then they're killed.

Playing super secret agent Matt Helm, Dean Martin seems to be having a ball because let's face it, he's playing himself.  It's almost alarming how much he drinks and smokes on-screen.  He's the American James Bond who's got a reputation for his way with the ladies as well as his unorthodox ways of getting the job done.  An IMDB reviewer points out Martin didn't care much for rehearsing or even reading the scripts, and it doesn't matter in the least.  He doesn't so much have lines to memorize as a series of one-liners meant for laughs throughout the movie.  This may all sound rather negative, but it's anything but.  Martin is one of my all-time favorite entertainers, and he was perfectly cut out to play a roguish, boozing, brawling secret agent.

While it's a lot of fun to watch Martin do his thing, the movie has its fair share of flaws.  One of the strengths of the Bond movies is that the villains and their plans are absolutely nuts, but they're developed at least a little.  Karl Malden is an all-time great actor who is completely wasted here as Julian Wall.  He's not intimidating in the least, his plan is dull, and he never seems to be much of a threat to Helm.  The more interesting villain is Tom Reese as Ironhead, a killer with a iron plate for a skull.  He at least poses a challenge to Helm, especially the way his demise is handled.  You can see it coming miles away, but it's still funny.

There are other flaws here with a story -- or lack of -- that drags in the middle sections.  One very long scene has Margret dancing like crazy in a club while Martin races to rescue her from a broach bomb (that's right, a broach bomb) on her dress.  Check it out HERE.  Some jokes are overplayed and instead of using them once they're reused several times.  These are all minor things, but when added up they get tiresome and kinda annoying.  Still, it's an entertaining enough, mindless movie, and I'll probably check out the other ones too.  You can watch Murderers' Row at Youtube, starting HERE.  A stupid movie but worth seeing for Dean Martin, Ann-Margret, and in general, one of the better spoofs to come out of the Bond series.

Murderers' Row <----trailer (1966): ** 1/2 /****

Kitten with a Whip

Each Friday night, TCM Underground continues to impress me with its off the wall, cult favorites and guilty pleasures that the time slot airs.  These are movies that are typically pretty bad, but in the way that bad movies are entertaining because they embrace their badness.  The latest example, 1964's Kitten With a Whip, a doozy of a movie that is a nice window into how much society and teenagers were changing, even early in the decade.

By the time 'Kitten' was released in 1964, star Ann-Margret had already been in four legitimate movies, including most recently teaming up with Elvis in Viva Las Vegas.  I bring this up only because Margret was an up and coming star, and this is anything but a safe bet.  An impressive performance for sure, but not exactly one the average American household would probably embrace.  It's a role that plays on her sex kitten reputation and then throws in some crazy teenage characteristics with a naive and scared young woman.  Quite a mess for one personality, but it all clicks.


With his wife and daughter on vacation, David Stratton (John Forsythe) returns home one night to find a young woman sleeping in his daughter's room.  The girl's name is Jody (Margret), and she says she was running from an abusive boyfriend and sought shelter in the first place she could find.  David is somewhat wary of her explanation, but offers to help her on her way, buying her some new clothes and providing some bus fare.  David thinks nothing of it, only to find out that Jody escaped from a juvenile detention center, stabbing a matron in the process.  He returns home and finds that Jody has come back too, but this time she's got friends along, peace-loving but intimidating Ron (Peter Brown), thuggish Buck (Skip Ward), and ditzy blonde Midge (Diane Sayer).  With Jody threatening to blackmail if he tries anything funny, David is left to sit back and wait until an opportunity presents itself.

This is one of those stories where things go from bad to worse in the blink of an eye.  At first, Forsythe's David is just helping an innocent-looking teenage girl in her nightgown out of a jam.  It escalates quickly and before David can figure out what to do, he finds himself kidnapped and driving this crazy group of teenagers across the border to Tijuana.  I'll add the link later, but doesn't it make sense that Mystery Science Theater 3000 would choose this movie for their show?  Making it all that much more perfect, Stratton is about to run for the state senate and doesn't need any sort of bad publicity so he basically has to go along with whatever he's told to do.  Too perfect if you ask me.

The movie rises and falls with Ann-Margret and Forsythe's performances, although the supporting players are pretty good too.  The 23-year old Margret oozes sex appeal with her part as Jody, an innocent teen with a history of being abused one minute and a manipulative, highly intelligent young woman the next.  She always was and is a beautiful woman -- and the movie does try to work the censors some with Margret in nightgowns, lingerie, low-cut dresses -- but she shows what a good actress she can be as Jody too.  If ever there was a poster child for being a little schizo, Margret pulls it off here.  Forsythe is the straight man here, an unwilling accomplice to all sort of teen hijinks who still finds it within himself to want to help this young girl.  She may be nuts, but dammit, he's going to help her!

Peter Brown and Skip Ward ham it up as Ron and Buck, two of Jody's friends who see a chance for some craziness.  Ron is college-educated and is always spouting off philosophy and peace in the most condescending way possible.  Buck is more the muscle of the duo, not the brightest guy around, and one who would rather resort to violence and intimidation to get things done.  The movie also stars Richard Anderson and Patricia Barry as a married couple and close friends of the Strattons who always seem to pop up at the worst possible time, usually when Jody is all over David.

This was certainly a weird one from beginning to end.  As the blackmail turns into kidnapping and then a road trip across the border to Tijuana, the story just got more and more surreal in a way that only a B-movie could pull off.  It's bizarre, way out there, and never dull.  For that reason, I'll say it's worth a watch along with memorable performances from stars Ann-Margret and John Forsythe.  The MST3000 show is viewable at Youtube, starting HERE with the movie starting late in the first clip.

Kitten With a Whip (1964): ** 1/2 /****