I recently stumbled on this one late night on cable. I honestly had never heard of it, and was stunned to see some familiar names in the cast, so I gave it a go. It becomes apparent why I never heard of it.
In a nutshell, faded Hollywood has-been Miriam Hopkins spends her twilight years planning a comeback and prancing around her mansion in a drunken stupor imagining parties in her foyer. Meanwhile, the dismembered bodies of women of a certain age have been turning up in the Hollywood hills. When Hopkins takes a drunken tumble and breaks her leg, John David Garfield shows up ostensibly for the nurse position and ingratiates himself with her (if not other members of the house). Naturally, he is the wacko and we wait to see what is going to set him off.
The film opens with footage of tinseltown of yore cannibalized from classics like Singin' in the Rain (wonder how they pulled that off!) and alternating with glamour shots of youthful Hopkins. Then we cut to the rusted old Hollywood sign - a moody moment that actually works. The camera pulls back to reveal mannequin parts (excuse me, female body parts) left in the dirt.
Segue to a stiff announcer on a bar TV warning of a psycho dismembering woman of a certain age. An older female bar patron leaves and is tailed by someone who resembles a pilgrim. She becomes another victim.
The ostensible perpetrator disembarks a Hollywood star home tour outside the gates of faded legend Hopkins and somehow gets the position of nurse despite looking unkempt, unprofessional and sassy with the seasoned staff.
First, the film often looks like it was shot as a home movie, so it is depressing to see screen legends like Hopkins and Gale Sondergaard (as her trusted assistant) stuck in this mess. The photography is sketchy, so I was uncertain at first whether Garfield was actually the same pilgrim we saw earlier.
Then there is the depressing 1970s trash vibe that permeates the whole film. The film falls into that tired trope of anyone under the age of 30 is a drug addled callow psycho hippie of no social worth, while everyone over the age of 50 is sacrosanct - even when they are delusional drunks fawning around their mansions.
We get numerous groan-worthy scenes of Garfield having psychedelic visions complete with "groovy" music and kaleidoscopic colors alternating with amateurish flashbacks to his child self killing his mother. The film loves scenes where fakey dismembered hands in red paint twitch around forever. Perhaps shocking in the day - but looking laughable now.
Naturally there need to be groovy party scenes where "young" people gyrate around to loud music in skimpy attire while drunk and on drugs bordering on orgiastic splendor, filmed as though the cameraman had partaken of too much. But I digress!
Back at the mansion (a lovely set which was the real life home of silence screen star Norman Talmadge), Garfield has snagged the nursing position. The script never explains how since we are told a request has been sent to the nursing registry and they were waiting on the candidate to arrive - what happened to said candidate which would have caused Garfield's ploy to fail?
Garfield carries and pushes Hopkins around listening to her incessant braying and non-stop chatter. He flirts with the Asian servant, sasses the elderly maid, and basically drives Sondergaard up the wall. He also does extra work as well, fixing the broken elevator, revitalizing the garden, and cleaning the pool. His youthful sass and antics grow on Hopkins, and the fact that he is easy on the eyes is no detraction, so this starts to become a bargain basement Sunset Boulevard. Of course, this idyll is not likely to last because something is bound to tick him off and watch out.
I will give the film a few nods. It does function as a time capsule of the kind of low rent crap that could be churned out in the 1970s, despite film historians trying to act like all was golden. It also has a few moments of suspense, but after a while the characters begin to act so stupid in order to extend the run time that one loses patience.
Hopkins missed out on the golden age of hagsploitation epics, so she is bringing up the caboose here. She is pretty awful. Braying and overacting in the worst way, and not enlisting much concern or sympathy. In fact, it is difficult to fathom why she isn't done in by Garfield for shattering his nerves 15 minutes into the film. Terrifyingly, she has one scene with Garfield giving her a massage where she shows far more than anticipated!
Conversely, Garfield is not bad. He seemed familiar in both appearance and delivery, then I realized he had to be the son of underrated screen actor John Garfield. Here he is able to seem likable, funny, exasperating and menacing, so that the reactions to him are half credible. Despite the scruffy appearance, he is attractive, but the film oddly fails to exploit it given that there will be a sexual relationship (albeit mainly offscreen) with Hopkins. In fact, Hopkins initiates it by demanding he sit on her bed, forces him to put his arm around her, and then basically tackles him when he seems confused by the advances. Given that he becomes her gigolo, his character's sexuality is downplayed to a brief shirtless glimpse exiting a pool in tasteful trunks. No nudity from him, but we get that unexpected skin shot of Hopkins!
If Garfield is good and Hopkins is dreadful, then the film's star player is Sondergaard. She takes on her role like a trooper actually trying to do something with it. She is believable as both a dedicated assistant and Hopkins' friend, and her interactions and suspicions are believable. Also, she is in the film far longer than I expected, which is good since she provides a classy presence missing from Hopkins' lead performance.
After a bit, even the minor good points and curio interest wear thin, as it becomes apparent that no one has sense enough to call the police on Garfield when he becomes wacko. Then it just degenerates into which member of the house will be hacked up next. Obviously most uncomfortable is that all of the victims are defenseless women, so this is a good example of the popular "women must die" genre from the time and it gets old quick. The ending will especially not resonate with anyone and seems weak - like the film stopped abruptly rather than concluded.
Watch if you must, but there are much better options, even within this genre.
In a nutshell, faded Hollywood has-been Miriam Hopkins spends her twilight years planning a comeback and prancing around her mansion in a drunken stupor imagining parties in her foyer. Meanwhile, the dismembered bodies of women of a certain age have been turning up in the Hollywood hills. When Hopkins takes a drunken tumble and breaks her leg, John David Garfield shows up ostensibly for the nurse position and ingratiates himself with her (if not other members of the house). Naturally, he is the wacko and we wait to see what is going to set him off.
The film opens with footage of tinseltown of yore cannibalized from classics like Singin' in the Rain (wonder how they pulled that off!) and alternating with glamour shots of youthful Hopkins. Then we cut to the rusted old Hollywood sign - a moody moment that actually works. The camera pulls back to reveal mannequin parts (excuse me, female body parts) left in the dirt.
Segue to a stiff announcer on a bar TV warning of a psycho dismembering woman of a certain age. An older female bar patron leaves and is tailed by someone who resembles a pilgrim. She becomes another victim.
The ostensible perpetrator disembarks a Hollywood star home tour outside the gates of faded legend Hopkins and somehow gets the position of nurse despite looking unkempt, unprofessional and sassy with the seasoned staff.
First, the film often looks like it was shot as a home movie, so it is depressing to see screen legends like Hopkins and Gale Sondergaard (as her trusted assistant) stuck in this mess. The photography is sketchy, so I was uncertain at first whether Garfield was actually the same pilgrim we saw earlier.
Then there is the depressing 1970s trash vibe that permeates the whole film. The film falls into that tired trope of anyone under the age of 30 is a drug addled callow psycho hippie of no social worth, while everyone over the age of 50 is sacrosanct - even when they are delusional drunks fawning around their mansions.
We get numerous groan-worthy scenes of Garfield having psychedelic visions complete with "groovy" music and kaleidoscopic colors alternating with amateurish flashbacks to his child self killing his mother. The film loves scenes where fakey dismembered hands in red paint twitch around forever. Perhaps shocking in the day - but looking laughable now.
Naturally there need to be groovy party scenes where "young" people gyrate around to loud music in skimpy attire while drunk and on drugs bordering on orgiastic splendor, filmed as though the cameraman had partaken of too much. But I digress!
Back at the mansion (a lovely set which was the real life home of silence screen star Norman Talmadge), Garfield has snagged the nursing position. The script never explains how since we are told a request has been sent to the nursing registry and they were waiting on the candidate to arrive - what happened to said candidate which would have caused Garfield's ploy to fail?
Garfield carries and pushes Hopkins around listening to her incessant braying and non-stop chatter. He flirts with the Asian servant, sasses the elderly maid, and basically drives Sondergaard up the wall. He also does extra work as well, fixing the broken elevator, revitalizing the garden, and cleaning the pool. His youthful sass and antics grow on Hopkins, and the fact that he is easy on the eyes is no detraction, so this starts to become a bargain basement Sunset Boulevard. Of course, this idyll is not likely to last because something is bound to tick him off and watch out.
I will give the film a few nods. It does function as a time capsule of the kind of low rent crap that could be churned out in the 1970s, despite film historians trying to act like all was golden. It also has a few moments of suspense, but after a while the characters begin to act so stupid in order to extend the run time that one loses patience.
Hopkins missed out on the golden age of hagsploitation epics, so she is bringing up the caboose here. She is pretty awful. Braying and overacting in the worst way, and not enlisting much concern or sympathy. In fact, it is difficult to fathom why she isn't done in by Garfield for shattering his nerves 15 minutes into the film. Terrifyingly, she has one scene with Garfield giving her a massage where she shows far more than anticipated!
Conversely, Garfield is not bad. He seemed familiar in both appearance and delivery, then I realized he had to be the son of underrated screen actor John Garfield. Here he is able to seem likable, funny, exasperating and menacing, so that the reactions to him are half credible. Despite the scruffy appearance, he is attractive, but the film oddly fails to exploit it given that there will be a sexual relationship (albeit mainly offscreen) with Hopkins. In fact, Hopkins initiates it by demanding he sit on her bed, forces him to put his arm around her, and then basically tackles him when he seems confused by the advances. Given that he becomes her gigolo, his character's sexuality is downplayed to a brief shirtless glimpse exiting a pool in tasteful trunks. No nudity from him, but we get that unexpected skin shot of Hopkins!
If Garfield is good and Hopkins is dreadful, then the film's star player is Sondergaard. She takes on her role like a trooper actually trying to do something with it. She is believable as both a dedicated assistant and Hopkins' friend, and her interactions and suspicions are believable. Also, she is in the film far longer than I expected, which is good since she provides a classy presence missing from Hopkins' lead performance.
After a bit, even the minor good points and curio interest wear thin, as it becomes apparent that no one has sense enough to call the police on Garfield when he becomes wacko. Then it just degenerates into which member of the house will be hacked up next. Obviously most uncomfortable is that all of the victims are defenseless women, so this is a good example of the popular "women must die" genre from the time and it gets old quick. The ending will especially not resonate with anyone and seems weak - like the film stopped abruptly rather than concluded.
Watch if you must, but there are much better options, even within this genre.