Change Your Image
PoliticallyIncorrectone
Reviews
Gunsmoke: Tag, You're It (1959)
No Name On The Bullet
The plot is similar to the 1959 Audie Murphy movie "No Name On The Bullet". A notorious gunman (Paul Langton) rides into town, making everyone nervous, since they believe he's been hired to kill one of them. I think Murphy was better cast in the original movie, given his innocent, all American, bland handsomeness. Langton does well, not radiating any menace. The gunman in both the movie and this episode are congenial enough that each could've given up his career and settled down in town. Both actually make friends in the town. Both have a romantic involvement with a woman in the town. Given that the episode was only 1/2 hour, not much emphasis is given to the subplot of the original movie where many of the leading citizens have a guilty secret in which they something which would motivate someone to hire a gunman to kill them. This episode should have been a full hour long, to give some of the townspeople a backstory where they'd done dirt to someone. Imagine if Miss Kitty or the Doc had an ugly episode in their past! As is, the only interesting plot point is finding out who the gunman's target is.
Soy Cuba (1964)
Imaginatively Photgraphed Cinematic Lie
The real story of Pre Castro Cuba is not presented here. Of course, since the movie was made with the blessings of the Soviet Union how could it be? Pre Castro Cuba was far more complex than the Cuba seen here. The PBS series "The American Experience describes Pre Castro Cuba: "Cuba ranked fifth in the hemisphere in per capita income, third in life expectancy, second in per capita ownership of automobiles and telephones, first in the number of television sets per inhabitant. The literacy rate, 76%, was the fourth highest in Latin America. Cuba ranked 11th in the world in the number of doctors per capita. Many private clinics and hospitals provided services for the poor. Cuba's income distribution compared favorably with that of other Latin American societies. A thriving middle class held the promise of prosperity and social mobility."
Was there inequality and corruption in Cuba? Yes. As there is in every major city in the world. Were there American businessmen who sought the services of prostitutes in Havana? Yes. Just as there are businessmen from all countries doing the same in every major city in the world. Was President Fulgencio Batista a bloody dictator? Probably. On the other hand, Batista had been freely elected in 1940 with the help (ironically) of the Cuban Communist Party. He served until 1944 and then moved to the US for a while. He returned to Cuba in 1952 to run for President again, saw he had no chance of being elected, then decided to take control of Cuba in a coup. A young lawyer by the name of Fidel Castro organized a rebellion against Batista which was crushed and Castro was arrested. Batista then let Castro go free two years later. Batista was corrupt, stole millions from Cuba with which he bought homes in the USA. Batista was also getting money from organized crime in exchange for freedom to build an run casinos in Havana. If Batista was a horrible as his regime was portrayed in this movie, why didn't he execute Castro, as Castro himself executed those (including American citizens) accused of plotting against him? If the Castro regime was so wonderful, why haven't there been free elections and freedom of the media since he took power? With all it's problems, Pre Castro Cuba was probably one of the top countries in this hemisphere after the USA, Canada and maybe Argentina. In fact, if you were black, you'd have been far better off in 1958 Cuba than in most states of 1958 USA!
I was born in Cuba. My father was American, my mother Cuban. We knew other Americans who married Cuban women and would probably have lived the rest of their lives in Cuba (as we would have) had Castro not taken over. The Americans we knew were very different from the American scum portrayed in this movie. My family was part of the Cuban middle class, renting the first floor of a two family home with the Cuban landlord living upstairs, in a neighborhood of similar two family homes in Marianao, a suburb of Havana.
This movie is beautifully photographed, directed and well acted and should be seen for this reason. Don't take the movie as the true story of Pre Castro Cuba, because it's not only one sided, it doesn't even present the entire truth of that one side. It's as if a documentary of 1958 USA was filmed with 1958 Alabama or Louisiana representing the entire USA.
Shane (1953)
Movie Surpasses The Novel
Many spoilers here so stop reading right now if you've never seen the movie or read the novel!
Most movies aren't better than the novels they are based on because in a movie, some things must be left out or condensed in order to fit the usual 1.5 to 2 hour running time. "Shane" was actually a very short novel, so nothing of importance was left out. Indeed, most of the changes improve the narrative. In the book, there are no scenes of Shane being startled by sudden sounds. That must've been added into the movie script by someone familiar with PTSD. In the novel, there's no scene where Starrett mistakes Shane for a Riker man and asks him to leave only to have Shane quietly reappear and show that he's got Starretts back. In the novel, Shane is dressed elegantly in black, very much like Wilson. In the movie, Shane is dressed completely differently in buckskin, perhaps to point out the difference between the good gunfighter and the bad gunfighter. There's no anti-gun message spoken by Marian and repeated by Shane at the end of the story. In fact, the narrator of the story (the little boy as a grown man) marvels how Shane is the only one who doesn't carry a gun even though he has a beautiful one hidden among his blankets. In the novel, Shane doesn't demonstrate to Joey his prowess with a gun before the final gunfight, nor does Joey comment on the loud gunblasts in the final gunfight. The fight between Chris and Shane is much shorter and more brutal in the novel (Shane breaks Chris's arm) and is told in retrospect and not seen by Joey. In the novel, Shane does a lot more talking and even has a couple of conversations with Marian about their mutual regard for each other. In the movie, this is reduced to glances and body language which I think is a great improvement. Another huge improvement in the movie is the soliloquy by Riker explaining his own side. In the novel he's called Fletcher and he never explains himself. There's a lot more wry humor in the movie and none in the novel: When Joey asks his dad why Shane isn't taking his gun to town, his Dad replies, "Shane's trading at the store, not holding it up." When Joey asks Shane, "What would you do if you caught Riker's men cutting across the garden?" Shane replies to Joey's disappointment, "I'd ask them to please come around by the gate." When Riker says "I like Starrett, but I'll kill him if I have to." Wilson says, "You mean I'll kill him if you have to." None of this is in the novel. The movie also has the beautiful, elegiac theme by Victor Young and evocative photography by Loyal Griggs which of course the novel couldn't have. The novel does not have the boy calling out "Shane, come back!". The movie is a classic for all times. It's been copied several times, first in 1956 "Tension At Table Rock" and more famously by Clint Eastwood in 1985 "Pale Rider". Neither movie is nearly as good as "Shane". I also believe that the theme of a mysterious hero who's past and future are unknowable coming to the aid of farmers has it's roots in Arthurian and Samurai legends. There is something about the character of Shane that is like a knight or Samurai. The most important part that is common to both the novel and the movie is the relationship between the characters. Shane loves Joe Starrett as the best friend, possibly the only friend he'll ever have and little Joe represents the child he never had a chance to be and the son he'll never have. He must go away, not because "there's no living with a killing" but because to stay would mean eventually acting on the mutual attraction between Shane and Marion and that would destroy what he loves.
Wake of the Red Witch (1948)
Wayne Goes To His Dark Side Once More
John Wayne only went to his dark side three times in his long career; Red River, The Searchers and this movie. Too bad, because he made a great semi-heavy. Based on his performance here, he'd have made a good Wolf Larsen had they remade "The Sea Wolf" with Wayne in the lead. He's a revenge filled liar who doesn't shrink from bullying and beating to a pulp someone who's not his size. I've read the novel this movie was based on and it seems like a seagoing take on "Wuthering Heights", with Wayne playing a version of Heathcliff, and Gail Russell playing a version of Cathy. They love each other, but Russell's character winds up marrying someone who hates and is hated by Wayne. His character is only redeemed slightly by his love for Gail Russell's character. He and Luther Adler have some sort of mutual hatred so intense that it borders on love. Throughout the movie, they could have killed each other but they didn't. preferring to indulge in mental torture. It's a tribute to Luther Adler's acting that despite being smaller than Wayne and confined to a wheelchair through most of the movie, he's enough of a villain that you'd still like to see Wayne twist his head off his shoulders.
Souvenirs of Death (1948)
Early Gun Control Propaganda
This short film shows a bunch of boys playing with a real, loaded pistol when playing war. One of the boys even deliberately inserts a full magazine into the pistol before playing with it. I was a kid in the 1960s. One of my favorite shows was "Combat". I and everyone I played with knew the difference between a real gun and a toy. Some of us had real guns in our homes. Most of us had bb and or pellet guns. We also had real hunting and bowie knives. When we played "Combat" we didn't use real guns or real knives, even though the TV show "Combat" had lots of scenes where knives and daggers were used to kill. A toddler might not know what a gun can do, but it's far fetched to show boys who are about 10 or 11 loading a full magazine into a pistol and running around playing war with it. On a technical level, I noticed that though the magazine was inserted by one of the boys, he didn't rack the slide to chamber a round. Therefore, the gun wouldn't have gone off when the trigger was pulled. If you want to use a pistol for self defense, you should carry it with a round chambered and if it has a safety, train yourself to thumb the safety off before shooting. Your other hand may not be available to rack the slide if you haven't already chambered a round.
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (1999)
Real Law Enforcement Isn't Like This
In real life, everyone in law enforcement is deeply flawed. DAs sometimes prosecute in order to make a name for themselves with higher office in mind. Police arrest on flimsy evidence, they shoot innocent people, they take bribes, railroad a suspect and stop following up leads or exculpatory evidence because they don't want to start from scratch. Sometimes, the guilty party is never found. I wish once in a while Olivia Benson and others would screw up a case in the last minute due to one of these personal flaws, because in real life this sort of thing happens. In 1996, Richard Jewell became a suspect in the bombing of the Olympics in Atlanta. The FBI even tried to pressure Jewell into giving up his Constitutional rights. He was later found to be innocent, but not after being tried in the media. In 2006, the Duke Lacrosse team was charged with rape by the DA Nifong and later found not guilty.
The Time Machine (1960)
Fine Adaptation of H. G. Wells Novel
It's not often that a movie improves on it's literary source. This one does due to the fine direction and the intelligent performances. The sudden entrance of George is startling and dramatic, and our first view of the full scale time machine gives it an aura of excitement. The time lapse special effects do a great job of showing the passage of time, but my favorite special effect is the poignant, decayed, crumbling books in the library of the future. Unused and unappreciated, they were the most valuable tools of the future society, yet totally forgotten. Rod Taylor is rugged, intelligent and curious as the time traveler H George Wells. Yvette Mimeux is very appealing as Weena in her first film appearance and has great chemistry with Taylor.
Alan Young does an excellent job as George's perceptive and caring best friend.
I was lucky enough to see the movie when it first appeared in 1960. I was a child and was scared out of my wits of the Morlocks. Fax machines, cassette tape recorders and super 8 movies hadn't been invented and are now obsolete technologies! Jeff Bezos hadn't been born! My grandmother was born before HG Wells wrote "The Time Machine" and she lived long enough to see the end of the manned lunar expeditions! We are all traveling through the fourth dimension!
Gunsmoke: How to Kill a Woman (1957)
It's Not The First Shot, It's First Accurate Shot That Counts!
Spoiler! Spoiler! Read no further if you haven't seen this episode!
*****************************************************************************
Much has been said about the gunfight where Marshal Dillon is beaten to the draw, yet manages to kill the bad guy. That's because the bad guy fanned about three shots, missing every time, before Dillon hit him with a carefully aimed shot. The wounded bad guy continues to try fanning but fails to hit Dillon while Dillon carefully pumps two more shots into the bad guy. Dillon himself says to Chester after the gunfight that fanning doesn't work. Earlier in the episode, Dillon had been giving Chester a shooting lesson and Chester excitedly says he wants to try fanning the gun, and winds up cutting his hand on the hammer. This sort of gunfight actually happened in real life where someone nervously emptied his gun by fanning against Bill Hickock, whereupon Hickock killed him with one shot. Wyatt Earp said that fanning was just showbiz trick shooting, and though Hickock was a great trick shot, he never used those techniques when real killing had to be done. A 45 revolver already kicks after it's fired, and fanning merely adds needless motion before the gun is fired. The rest of the episode really doesn't make sense; a gunfighter bent on revenge against a stagecoach stationmaster murders two strangers on two successive stages merely to make the stationmaster feel bad or feel frightened? And then decides to hang around because he wants to shoot it out with Dillon?
Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942)
More Of A Biopic Than a Musical
Calling this a musical is like calling a biopic of Richard Rogers or Irving Berlin a musical. Strictly speaking, it's not a musical. Cagney not only captures the dancing style of Cohan, he also captures the human dynamo the real Cohan must have been; a guy who wrote his own plays and musicals, composed songs for them, acted in them and owned some of the theaters in which they played! Cohan also mentored several young actors, most notably Spencer Tracy. Furthermore, Cohan also streamlined plays written by others to make them more current and marketable, a process he called 'Cohanize'.
There are several questionable 'facts' in the trivia section and outright untruths. "James Cagney had previously only shown off his song-and-dance abilities once before in Footlight Parade (1933). He was better known for playing gangsters." Not true. Cagney had also danced in "Taxi!" 1932 where he lost a ballroom competition to George Raft! He also did a lot of dancing in "Something To Sing About" 1937. Having read a bio of Cohan, it states that Cohan himself suggested Cagney to play him, not Fred Astaire. Cohan did not consider himself a great dancer, and having Astaire play him would be like taking a Stradivarius violin and plucking it like a banjo in "Deliverance". I seriously doubt that Cagney's patriotism was questioned and that was a driving reason for his taking this role. Being left of center was not a bad thing in the early 1940s when we were allied with the Russians; that came later in the early 1950s. Cagney took the role because it was a great part, maybe the greatest part he'd get that played to his talents; Cagney was a song and dance man on vaudeville before he went to Hollywood and did gangster movies; he and his wife even opened a dance studio briefly to make ends meet and took every opportunity to break free of his gangster typecasting to do musicals. I doubt that Cagney's tap dance down the White House stairs was completely ad libbed. Notice that the background music which begins at the top of the stairs, is in complete synch with his dancing. According to Cagney's biography, he didn't hate SZ Sakall; he did complain about Sakall's scene stealing, but it seemed to me that Cagney stole the scene right back from him.
The movie is a delight not only for Cagney's performance, but for all the character actors who shined in their individual roles; George Barbier, who played the guy representing Fay Templeton, was also featured in "The Phantom President" 1932 which starred the real Cohan! I liked the scene in the barroom where Cohan meets Sam Harris; that's quite a free lunch spread! I liked how Eddie Foy mentions Moxie as his favorite drink; Moxie is a forgotten drink now, only available in New England, but at that time, it was bigger than Coca Cola. Reviewers also mention that the movie fictionalizes Cohan's life, but that was the wish of Cohan himself, who didn't want any mention of the unpleasant parts of his life.
The Twilight Zone: Eye of the Beholder (1960)
Reminds Me Of Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron"
This story takes place in a dystopia: In Serling's own words, "What kind of world where ugliness is the norm and beauty the deviation from that norm?"
In Kurt Vonnegut's short story "Harrison Bergeron", he creates a dystopia where everyone is fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else. People are forced to wear masks for those who are too beautiful, loud radios that disrupt thoughts inside the ears of intelligent people, and heavy weights for the strong or athletic.
In this TZ episode, beauty must be surgically transformed to a norm which is ugly. Notice that at the end of the episode, the leader on the television screen is ugly in the same way as the doctor and nurses. In a world where there is no beauty, there is no ugliness. Differences in appearance leads to envy and inequality. Eliminate the differences and you eliminate envy and inequality. Perhaps in this TZ dystopia conformity in appearance is not the only way conformity is enforced. Why this dystpoia has chosen to make ugliness instead of beauty the norm is puzzling.
Is this TZ episode about racism or is it about an equality that cannot exist in real life?
Wanted: Dead or Alive: The Pariah (1960)
Doesn't Make Sense
The town hates a worthless man so much (justifiably so) that they've pooled their money to hire 3 gunmen to kill him. The worthless man has no redeeming values, yet he has a drop dead gorgeous woman who loves him enough to be willing to kill and maybe die to protect him.
Josh Randall knows all this and is willing to put his life at risk for this guy, who arguably deserves to die.
Does any of this make any sense? I suppose the point is that the rule of law extends even to someone who caused 3 deaths out of his own selfishness and won't even try to defend himself but is willing to stand by and allow others to defend him.
The Naked Prey (1965)
One Of The Best Chase/Survival Movies Of All Times
Truly a movie that could not easily be made today. The plot is simple; the man financing an African ivory safari (Gert Van den Bergh) offends a tribe by not paying them a tribute gift against the advice of his own guide (Cornell Wilde). The tribe takes them prisoner back to their village and kills all except Wilde in various imaginative and gruesome ways for the amusement of the tribe. Presumably because he wanted to pay the tribute, Wilde is given a sporting chance; he's stripped naked, and given a head start before several of the men begin to hunt him down and kill him like an animal. The first pursuer misses Wilde with a spear, which Wilde uses to kill that pursuer and take his footwear and some of his equipment. Wilde not only has to elude his pursuers, he has to cope with his own thirst and hunger at the same time. When he kills a deer, a lion steals it from him. Throughout the movie there are scenes of animals pursuing and killing each other. One animal scene even mirrors the plot when a baboon being stalked by a cheetah survives by being willing to fight back. Even the plant life is shown as being inhospitable to being eaten. There are a few plot holes; early in the movie the financier of the safari mentions to Wilde that next time he'd like to combine hunting for ivory with the slave trade. This is inconsistent with the times (around 1850) since by then, the slave trade but not slavery itself had come to an end. The village where the safari party is taken to is filled with thin people except for the village chief, who is enormously fat, like Jabba the Hut. How'd a guy like that get to be chief? It probably takes half the village resources to maintain his fatness. The head pursuer (Ken Campu) was a tall, fit looking guy who looked like he could have easily killed the chief and taken over the village. The other plot hole occurs when Wilde starts a fire in order to drive his pursuers away when they were at most a minute behind him. Where did he get the materials to start a fire so quickly? Did one of the pursuers he killed have firestarting materials? Those plot holes aside, the movie was beautifully photographed and well acted by all. The Africans were not stereotypical villains; they showed true sorrow and caring when one of them was killed or injured. They were not superhuman; they also need to catch their breath, eat and drink. Spoiler alert! Don't read any further if you haven't seen the movie!
At the end, when Wilde's character is about to be rescued, he turns and salutes the head pursuer, who returns the salute. There is a similar scene in "Jeremiah Johnson" when an indian who's tribe has been relentlessly pursuing Johnson gives him a similar salute as if to say "I'm calling an end to the pursuit".
Unlike many movies today, you cannot add a disclaimer saying that "no animals were harmed in the making of this movie". Many animals were indeed harmed, from a small toad or frog being eaten by a larger one to several elephants being shot and disemboweled.
My criticisms? I'd have liked some subtitles so I could've have known what the pursuers were saying. For example, early in the chase, it appears like the head pursuer was ordering some of his men to go this way and others to go that way. Was he unsure which way Wilde had gone, or was he trying to trap Wilde between two groups of pursuers? Toward the end of the movie, Wilde befriends a young girl who's village was destroyed by slave traders. After walking with Wilde for a while and sharing songs, she decides she wants to go back. Go back to what? Her village was burned and most everyone was taken as slaves or killed outright! Even Wilde shakes his head and murmurs "I hope you'll be all right," but he doesn't try and stop her.
Previous reviewers have found racism in this movie because some of the Africans are portrayed as vicious savages taking pleasure in gruesome killing. Why should Africans be portrayed any different from Europeans? The history of all humans is filled with examples of cruelty as entertainment, regardless of race. Besides, tribal and religious warfare with appalling cruelty still goes on in Africa. Reviewers have also found it strange that a white man out of his element is able to survive and in some cases turn the tables on some of his African pursuers. In this movie, the white man is not out of his element. He's a professional safari guide. Any north woods hunting guide is probably fitter and more skilled at survival than local hunters. Speaking of fitness, Cornell Wilde looks in great shape for a man of 53. I can only think of a few Hollywood actors who could have met the physical qualifications of this role in their 50s.
The Fastest Gun Alive (1956)
Fine Movie Perpetuates & Expands On Western Myths
First, lets get criticism of reality out of the way. Not only does this movie perpetuate the myth of the fast gun, it expands on it, making gun duels into some sort of sporting event! The idea of a fast draw was a dime novelist invention of the 19th century. So was the notion that gunfighters were proud of how many men they'd killed that they'd cut notches into their sixguns. The idea that they'd travel miles out of their way to seek out another reputed fast gun, fight a duel for no gain except to be known as the fastest gun is laughable. Yet this was the main theme of other movies like "The Gunfighter" starring Gregory Peck and the plot of many TV westerns in the 1950s and 1960s. Gunfighters might have competed for speed and accuracy if offered monetary prizes and if they were shooting at targets rather each other. They certainly wouldn't have competed for free knowing that one or both gunfighters would end up dead.
No one's mentioned another deviation from western reality in this movie; the large number of overweight people! I'm not troubled by a fat, middle aged man like Broderick Crawford playing a skilled gunslinger. Fat men, even old men can be skilled with a sixgun. I found it amusing that no only Crawford, but many of the men in town were fat! if you've looked at old photos of the time, you see very few fat people.
All that said, I loved the movie. Sure, it perpetuates western myths; so what? Most movies do that. How about movies with happy endings? As a cynic once said, a movie with a happy ending just means the movie ended too soon! This movie is well acted by all concerned. Even the three bank robbers are very different from one another. Crawford is the most dangerous of the three; a real nutjob. When he discovers there's a fast gun in town, he decides having a duel to prove who's the fastest is more important than escaping from a posse! Dehner is the most realistic; completely untrustworthy. Notice how he pockets some of the loot at the bank holdup. If you turn your back on him long enough for him to put a hole in it, there'll be a hole in it! Noah Beery seems like a friendly, happy go lucky cowpoke who just fell in with bad companions. The early scene in the general store was funny and rang true to anyone who's ever worked in retailing. Jeanne Crain is fine as a wife married to a deeply flawed man. We've seen this sort of wife before, married to a drug addict or a compulsive gambler or a man who pretends to be more than he is. In this movie, the long suffering wife is married to a closeted coward who has a drinking problem, has lied to her, and longs to be seen as more than an insignificant storekeeper. I must be the only one who enjoyed Russ Tamblyn's athletic barn dance. Sure, it's a tad unrealistic; where did his character learn to dance like that in that little town? With that talent, his character should've been touring the country on vaudeville! Still it was a good scene. I'm sure that people in the old west set aside time to have fun. I've always enjoyed any movie where Russ Tamblyn shows up. I liked that the townspeople were shown as being annoying but funny and nice at the same time. Unlike "High Noon" where the marshal is left to face the bad guys alone, in this movie the entire town supports Glenn Ford. Speaking of Glenn Ford; what a fine performance he delivers here. In real life, Ford served as a Marine in WW II as well as Vietnam. I'm sure he knew fear first hand, yet not allow the fear to paralyze you. Like an onion, he slowly peels back the different layers of his character; living a life of quiet desperation, skilled with a gun, living with the fact that he's a coward. Worst of all, he's married to a woman who loves him despite knowing all his flaws and whom he loves, yet doubting if he deserves her love. The ability to convey several emotions at the same time is the mark of a good actor, and Ford delivers all that here. It's this performance that elevates the movie.
Átame! (1989)
Offensive Subject Matter Made OK By A Sensitive Filmmaker
A film where a mentally disturbed man kidnaps and imprisons a woman, threatens her life, in the hope that she will eventually fall in love with him would be morally offensive had it been made by an American of the Republican Party or a member of the NRA. However, this was made by one of the hippest, happening filmmakers in the world, Pedro Almodovar. It's my understanding that Donald Trump flirted with the idea of becoming a filmmaker. Just imagine if Donald Trump had produced or directed this film before going into politics! Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren would have bled from the eyes! Call me crazy, but I think this movie would be viewed far more negatively today.
Because of this, we have a film that can be openly enjoyed not only by lovers of edgy cinema, but also by people who dig it because it excuses the treatment of a woman as the rightful property of whatever man acts on his obsession over her. Even a man who has a questionable reputation regarding women, (i.e. Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Islamic true believers} could publicly declare this to be one of their favorite films without fear that women will get angry and judgmental. Well, maybe not Trump. Still, it's a film that can reasonably appeal to the entire political spectrum.
This sort of movie may give hope to any man or culture believing that courtship involving kidnapping, tying up and gagging someone is not a disgusting, offensive crime. If you're a woman, try imagining being kidnapped and held prisoner not by the young & handsome Banderas, but by the smelliest, creepiest guy imaginable. A guy who probably lives in a rusty, leaky trailer on a dirt road surrounded by weeds, used tires, junk cars and broken furniture. If you're a man, imagine that woman is your daughter or your wife.
SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! DON'T READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE AND DON'T WISH TO KNOW THE INCREDIBLE PLOT TWIST!
Not only does the mentally disturbed kidnapper eventually have sex with the object of his obsession, it is she who initiates it! If you don't mind the context within the story of the film, it's a beautifully erotic scene. I like the look of pleased surprise that came over Banderas face when she started kissing him. Despite his wishful thinking when he kidnapped and bound the woman, even threatened her with bodily harm and death, he clearly did not expect her to become so sexually aggressive! But the happy ending doesn't stop there! She not only accepts him as her mate, her sister happily accepts him as a new member of the family! Maybe she wants sex with him too!
Ghost Story: Death's Head (1973)
Could Have Been Great By Adding A Lesbian Subtext
I remember seeing this back when it first aired. There's a scene where Janet Leigh runs around the house in her nightgown screaming and waving her arms. It reminded me of a similar scene in the French movie "Diabolique". I'd have given Ayn Ruymen, who plays the creepy but pretty, young gypsy a bigger part.
Slip in a lesbian subtext and create a relationship between her character and that of Janet Leigh. Nothing overt, because after all, it's a TV episode. A subtle gay or lesbian subtext is always guaranteed to turn a pedestrian movie into a cult classic. You'd have had posters argue about it for years on this board. Ayn Ruymen would have had a bigger career.
Like "Diabolique", the two women should have conspired to knock off the annoying husband. If you've seen this episode and "Diabolique", one of several twist endings will occur to you. __________________________________________________
Possible Spoilers; don't read any further if you haven't seen "Diabolique!:
Instead of the actual ending, make it so the husband isn't really dead, and wind up with the gypsy woman, like in "Diabolique"! Or have the Gypsy woman wind up with Rory Calhoun's character!