Posted on by 1000filmsblog

#375 Wild in the Streets

Watched: January 24 2026

Director: Barry Shear

Starring: Christopher Jones, Shelley Winters, Diane Varsi, Hal Holbrook, Richard Pryor, Millie Perkins, Ed Begley

Year: 1968

Runtime: 1h 37min

Happy New Year, everyone! Sorry for the lack of activity, but we’ve been very busy and important people, travelling the world everywhere from Cambodia to Kirkenes on the Norwegian/Russian border (alright – only those two places, but still. Very important!) with little time to watch movies or write about them. Now we’re back and we bring you 2026’s first review, Wild in the Streets (1968).

Like our protagonist Max, we walked away from a past on fire (in our case, 2025) with high hopes for the future. Unlike Max, our future (2026) immediately became a much larger dumpster fire than the past had ever even aspired to be.

Remember Privilege? Well, Wild in the Streets is its slightly sillier American cousin. Max Flatow (Jones) grows up with an overbearing mother, a volatile family life, and some psychopathic tendencies. He runs away and reinvents himself as Max Frost – an incredibly accomplished pop star surrounded by other precocious young people ranging in age from 14 to 25.

He also amasses a huge amount of crazed fans

Max is approached by Congressman Johnny Fergus (Halbrook) who is running for Senate and who wants to lower the voting age to 18. His sons are huge fans of Max, and Fergus sees him as a way of getting support from the younger generation. However, the politician gets more than he bargained for when Max and his vast following become more and more involved in the politics of it all. First, they insist on further lowering the voting age – not to 18 but 15. They then manage to get Max’s girlfriend Sally LeRoy (Varsi), a former child star with a strong penchant for acid and an equally strong aversion to clothes, voted into the Senate to really change things up. And change things they do…

She is mostly naked, but whenever Sally does deign to put on clothes, her fashion sense is impeccable!

Parallel to all this, Max’s estranged mother Daphne (Winters) does her best to capitalize on her son’s success while desperately clinging to her own fading youth. She also completely steals the show! And possibly commits vehicular manslaughter (which somehow never comes back to bite anyone in the ass. We were expecting Chekhov’s Dead Child™, but we never hear of the incident again).

Her journey of reinvention to fit whatever narrative she perceives at any given time is a joy to behold

We quite enjoyed this, although when it comes to the idea of abusing pop cultural icons for political power, we personally think Privilege was a better executed version. However, we loved the swinging ’60s vibe, Max’s truly horrible hairstyle (you need to see it from the back!), Sally LeRoy’s fashion sense (less is truly more), the crazy mama Daphne, and the fact that no one really came off well in this. It was a wild ride indeed! Still, as over the top as the story arch and the portrayal of the political process were, the plot was still not as silly as electing a failed business man and reality TV star as president. But somehow less dangerous.

Sure, perhaps ageism can be a bad as racism and fascism, but this fictional USA is definitely not as sinister as its real, current counterpart.

Now, as ancient over-forties (Sister the Youngest had her 40th birthday in December! Happy birthday!), we were naturally sceptical to the idea of anyone over 35 being considered obsolete and put out to pasture. On the other hand, if someone allowed us to retire at 30 and then put us in a commune with free drugs from the age of 35, we might not be entirely opposed to the idea… Although we suspect we’d be over it pretty quickly. Expecially as the compound was full of other people. Which Hell truly is made up of.

What we learned: The power of rock compels you. Dealing in absolutes is rarely productive. And again – stop blindly worshipping people!

MVP: Max’s mom! Shelley Winters, you absolute legend.

Next time: Yellow Submarine (1968)

Posted on by 1000filmsblog

#374 Where Eagles Dare

Watched: November 15 2025

Director: Brian G. Hutton

Starring: Richard Burton, Clint Eastwood, Mary Ure, Patrick Wymark, Michael Hordern, Donald Houston, Peter Barkworth, William Squire, Robert Beatty, Brook Williams, Derren Nesbitt, Ingrid Pitt

Year: 1968

Runtime: 2h 38min

High in the Bavarian mountains, an American Brigadier General is being held by the Nazis as a POW. A team of British MI6 agents is formed and tasked with rescuing him before he spills important secrets. Led by Major Smith (Burton), they are joined by (smoldering) American Army Ranger Schaffer (Eastwood) and dropped off in the mountains from midair disguised as German soldiers.

“Ok, boys! Let’s practice. Repeat after me: ‘Hallo. Guten morgen. Bitte. Danke. Ich heiße. Auf wiedersehen. Ich möchte ein Bier. Tschüss.’ You got that? Great! Then I think we’re all ready. This should go smoothly.”

Now, you may think that this will be a straight forward let’s-break-into-the-castle-and-get-our-guy-and-go-home-again-lads kind of a story. But you would be mistaken. There are traitors and secrets and twists and turns galore! Double and triple crossings. Spies and lovers and friendships. And explosions. So. Many. Explosions.

Impressively, they managed to throw in a couple of competent and bad ass female characters as well. We approve.

Because of the many twists and turns, we don’t want to spoil anything by giving away too much of the plot. We’ll just urge you to watch this, because it is amazing. We have mentioned that we have been very pleasantly surprised by the westerns we’ve watched for the list, and the same goes for a lot of the war movies (those are six different links, btw. Don’t say we never do anything for you). This is not the first genre we’re instinctly drawn to (even though we grew up with a father who watched a lot of war movies and who also read the books they were based on), but we find ourselves enjoying them immensely.

Then again, any movie with an action sequence set on a cable car is bound to be a winner.

Where Eagles Dare is fun, exciting, entertaining and intricate, and also extremely stressful. It also features the most Gestapo guy that ever Gestapoed (Gestapod? Gestaped..?).

He’s giving 98% Gestapo with just a touch of Nigel from Top Secret (1984)

Both Burton and Eastwood are fantastic, as are the rest of the cast, but one could argue that the real star of the movie is Explosions™. Everything explodes. Did you know that German cars in the 1940s had built in explosives that went off randomly if they bumped into something? Or if they went down a steep hill? Or if the tyres stopped touching the ground for two seconds? Or if someone looked at it funny? We didn’t either until we watched Where Eagles Dare. Why they made them like that, we don’t know. Then again, we question a lot of choices made in Germany around that time, so this might have followed some inexplicable logic understood only by fascists.

Believe it or not, this is just a normal German car that was caught in a mild gust of wind. Our leading theory is that the cars were actually built by political prisoners who did what they could to defeat the third reich. Well done!

In addition to the frequently exploding cars, our heroes have brought enough dynamite to take down all of Bavaria, and they are not afraid to use it. There’s not a situation they face that can’t be improved with an explosion or two.

Although sometimes they use guns, just to mix it up a bit. It’s important not to become complacent.

We loved the actors, the characters, the many twists and turns, the balls-to-the-walls action, the gorgeous matte paintings, the sets, the stunts, the clearly ’60s hair and make-up, the cable car and all the burning cars. Not to mention the fact that Clint Eastwood, who looks about as American as it is possible to look, tries to pass for a German soldier. Now, it’s hard to pinpoint exactly what an “American” is supposed to look like, but he is it. You could look at that man completely out of any context, and 99% of people would go “Hey, look at that American guy!” (Then, most of them would add “He’s ridiculously handsome!” Especially if he smoldered at them.)

Pictured: obviously NOT a German

What we learned: Old timey movie kisses look incredibly uncomfortable. Also, Clint Eastwood is smolder incarnate.

MVP: Dynamite. And Clint Eastwood’s smolder.

Next time: Wild in the Streets (1968)

Posted on by 1000filmsblog

#373 The Thomas Crown Affair

Watched: November 7 2025

Director: Norman Jewison

Starring: Steve McQueen, Faye Dunaway, Paul Burke, Jack Weston, Nora Marlowe

Year: 1968

Runtime: 1h 42min

A heist is going down. And what a heist! There are several people in play, lots of phone booth coordination, heaps of money at stake, and a criminal mastermind at the reins. This mastermind is Thomas Crown (McQueen) – a rich business man stealing money basically for the hell of it, or out of boredom. Or to prove to himself that he is as smart as he thinks he is. But is he..?

Steve McQueen? More like Smuggy McSmugface, amirite? HAH!
We’ll see ourselves out…

The heist goes off fairly smoothly, with only one shot fired and no casualties. It leaves behind many frustrated men in suits, but sadly very few leads. Then, someone makes the excellent decision of bringing in insurance detective/glamourous super sleuth Vicki Anderson (Dunaway) to assist in the investigation. She gets to work and quickly narrows their suspects down to a certain Thomas Crown based on… well, we’re not quite sure. A hunch? A vibe? Wanting to bone him? The logic is not entirely sound, but at least it turns out to be 100% correct.

She then goes to work to catch her man. Her surveillance method of “bring a beast of a camera and then make eye contact with the target the entire time” is about as subtle as a freight train to the face

The only problem now is that they do not have any evidence to tie him to the crime. Luckily Vicki, passionately dedicated to her job, is willing to start a whole relationship with this man to prove her suspicion true. So their cat and mouse-/spy vs. spy-game begins.

They literally play chess about things

This was a bit uneven for us – there were things we absolutely loved about The Thomas Crown Affair, and things we’re more unsure of. We loved Faye Dunaway, and Steve McQueen is always charismatic af. However, once their relationship began, the film sort of lost some of its nerve and tension. Don’t get us wrong – there were some great scenes between them, and we loved Vicki throughout the entire film. Especially her sense of self: “I know who I am. Don’t put your labels on me.”

And what she is is an icon. An icon with an impressive and extensive hat collection.

I suppose we just didn’t quite buy into her falling for a bored little rich man who robbed a bank just for the hell of it. Now, if he was a suave art thief or something, we’d be all for it! Stealing art or artefacts in the style of Pierre Despereaux is cool (in fiction we mean, nice police people. We would never promote criminal activity in real life). Stealing money when you’re already rich is just… tacky. The film also felt as though they skipped some very important steps in the narrative, particularly how the investigators figured out how the heist was orchestrated and how they ended up with Thomas Crown as a suspect.

Was it the short shorts? It was probably the short shorts. We suspect everything could be traced back to the short shorts…

Still, we loved the stylish and cool heist in the beginning, the split screen which we also saw in The Boston Strangler (so hot in the ’60s), the built in wall bar with the fridge (we want one! Each!), Vicki Anderson – insurance sleuth extraordinaire, and the ending. There was something very satisfying about how they both stayed true to who they were in the end. Overall, we thought the first half was better than the last, but we had a very good time with this.

This! This is what we want in life! It even has a built in fridge!
Swanky man optional.

What we learned: It must be so hard to be rich and bored…

MVP: Marcie! For the vibes. And also the aran sweaters.

Next time: Where Eagles Dare (1968)

Posted on by 1000filmsblog

#372 The Swimmer

Watched: November 4 2025

Director: Frank Perry, Sydney Pollack

Starring: Burt Lancaster, Janet Landgard, Janice Rule, Marge Champion, Joan Rivers, Nancy Cushman, House Jameson, Tony Bickley

Year: 1968

Runtime: 1h 35min

Welcome to the surreal world of The Swimmer. You’re in for quite a ride… Ned Merrill (Lancaster) is running around in his bathing suit in a gorgeous woodland, as people do. He drops by some old friends’ backyard and goes for a swim in their pool. The friends are hungover from the night before, and have not seen Ned for aaaaages. But they love him, and he’s such a great guy. While reminiscing with them, Ned has the brilliant idea to swim all the way home, by way of his neighbours’ pools which form a “river” the entire way. Off he goes!

But not without a drink in his hand. He’s not an animal.

As he makes his wet way towards his house he meets several old friends and acquaintances, but the vibe changes discernibly as he gets closer and closer to home. In the beginning, all the people he meets are old friends who clearly see him as a good guy, although they all get a bit weird whenever his wife or daughters are brought up. But as he gets closer to home, the people he encounters are increasingly hostile and keep hinting more and more to something that clearly has gone wrong in Ned’s life. Our “hero” also goes super sleazy with Julie (Landgard), a young girl who used to babysit for his kids. Things get gradually darker and weirder until he finally reaches “home.”

It starts off so innocently. Even bringing along his very young former babysitter seems wholesome at first. Until it’s not…

We had no idea what we were getting ourselves into, but we were hooked from the start. We loved how our view of Ned changed throughout the movie – from seeming to be a nice enough man (and just a little bit inappropriate with all the women he knew) in the beginning, to a creepy, cheating, horrible narcissist at the end.

This scene with his former mistress is the best depiction we’ve seen of a man completely unravelling when he finds out a woman has faked her orgasms. Actual quote: “You loved it. You loved it. We both loved it. YOU LOVED IT!” And she’s just there like “Sure, Jan.”

The Swimmer kept us questioning throughout, and we came up with about 271 theories on what was actually going on. What happened to his daughters? His wife? Is this a sort of “life flashing before his eyes” scenario? Are we in purgatory? Is he senile? Is this a portrayal of his gradual corruption and entitlement throughout his life told through a swimming pool voyage? ‘Twas a mystery wrapped in an enigma. In the end, things start coming together and some questions are answered, but we’re still not 100% sure what exactly we just watched. That being said, we loved it (actually loved it. It wasn’t just a man telling us we did).

Another bit of unravelling: at the first pools people find him quirky and charming for going around in his swim trunks at a clothed event. As he progresses, not so much…

Among our favourite things were the ’60s parties he kept crashing (such a vibe!), the Hallorans, the way we liked Ned less and less as we went along, his increasingly fragile ego and psyche, and the many mysteries hidden in the plot. Also, the beautiful scenery added to the film’s dreamlike quality which, granted, gradually descended into a nightmare. Watch it!

Preferably through a closed, rusted fence with an anguished look on your face as you gradually realise the reality of your existence and slowly descend into madness and despair. It’s what we did.

What we learned: Dude! No means NO!!!

MVP: The pools. Or, possibly, the narrative technique. Or Ned’s fragile male ego.

Next time: The Thomas Crown Affair (1968)

Posted on by 1000filmsblog · 1 Comment

#371 The Great Silence/Il grande silenzio

Watched: October 26 2025

Director: Sergio Corbucci

Starring: Jean-Louis Trintignant, Klaus Kinski, Vonetta McGee, Frank Wolff, Luigi Pistilli, Mario Brega, Marisa Merlini, Carlo D’Angelo

Year: 1968

Runtime: 1h 45min

Snow. Horse, Rider. Norway? (Probably not, but looks like our landscape.) Crows. Shootout. Blood. Death. So starts The Great Silence. The eponymous Silence (Trintignant) is a mute gunman who makes bounty hunters tremble with fear. This (un)lucky Luke draws faster than his own shadow (well, at least faster than anyone else’s shadow), and his method is simple: be an annoying bitch until the other person gets fed up and draws their gun, and then kill them before they can pull the trigger. Thus, he only acts in self-defense and is completely within his rights to kill.

Way to hack the system, Silenzio!

The society in which Silence/Silenzio (we’ve heard it both ways) operates is run by corrupt politicians, greedy business owners and ruthless bounty hunters who prey on the little people. The worst one is Pollicut (Pistilli) – a banker and Justice of the Peace who uses his seemingly infinite (but very local) power to be a cunt to everyone and kill the guys who own things he covets, or who he simply doesn’t like. Of which there are many.

He wants their land, their houses and often their wives. And he will literally cut children’s throats in order to get what he wants. Among his many sins, that sorry excuse for a “beard” also ranks in the top three…

As a result of Pollicut’s greed and corruption, as well as problems caused by a severe blizzard, the people of Snow Hill are having a really bad time of it, and many are forced to turn to crime in order to feed their families. Pollicut uses these circumstances to make them outlaws and to place prices on their heads in order to take over their property. This attracts bounty hunters, chief among them being “Loco” (Kinski). He is, as the name suggests, utterly Loco. And racist. And a psychopath. And just an all ’round bad guy.

But his headgear game is on point

The women of this ravaged community, mainly newly widowed Pauline (McGee), hire Silence to defend them and help/avenge their sons/fathers/husbands, most of whom are either already dead or LARPing Robin Hood and his Merry Men in the woods surrounding Snow Hill.

In fact, let us talk about the name “Snow Hill.” Who came up with that name? Is it also called that in summer? Is this place perpetually snowy? In which case, why would anyone settle there? (OK, we realise that this is probably a bit rich coming from a couple of Norwegians. Nevertheless, we feel these questions are justified. The public needs to know!)

Enter player five, newly appointed sheriff Gideon Burnett (Wolff). From the start, he seems a decent enough guy, which is a rarity in this town. His mission is to restore order in Snow Hill before the governor declares amnesty on the merry men of the forest (and by “merry,” we mean “miserable” and “starving”). He is basically the only character in this entire movie who both operates within the law and does the right thing. Will his and Silenzio’s efforts be enough to save the town?

Look at this jovial face and icy ‘stache! Clearly one of the good guys.

We are enjoying the westerns a lot more than we thought we would when we started this project. We grew up watching some of them as our dad was a western fan, but it was never really “our” genre. However, each one we’ve watched so far has been incredibly engaging, and there’s so much interesting social commentary within them. For us, The Great Silence ranks as one of the best ones so far.

🎵 The hills are aliiiiive… With the sound of outlaaaaws 🎶

First off, we loved the women in this. From the bereaved mother who first asks for Silenzio’s help, via Pauline, to Regina (Merlini), they are bad ass, capable and vengeful – exactly how we like our female characters. We also loved sheriff Burnett, Silence’s method of being a little bitch until people try to kill you, the costumes, the snow, and the portrayal of people dealing with corruption and greed. As in a lot of westerns, on the surface it’s very easy to tell the bad guys from the good guys – there are no doubts about who we’re supposed to root for. But at the same time, the bad guys’ actions are “all according to the law,” which poses some interesting philosophical quandaries about laws and morality, and makes this a movie which is frighteningly topical and current…

They also managed to throw in a bit of (interracial) romance, so we’re pretty sure everyone can find something they enjoy in this film. Well, good people can, at least.

By the way, without spoiling the ending too much (we hope… You can wait to read the rest of this until you’ve seen the film if you want absolutely no hint of a spoiler), if you have the DVD/Blu-Ray version of this movie, we recommend you also watch the alternate ending which you can find as a bonus. It is the most ridiculously over-the-top happy denoument we’ve ever seen, and we got the strong feeling that this was filmed as a sort of mutinous “fuck you” to people who thought the original finale was too bleak…

Side note: we felt really bad for all the horses forced to struggle through the snow throughout. That looked like really hard work.

What we learned: The law is not always right. There is no such thing as an ethical billionaire. And sometimes the bad guys win…

MVP: Whoever made all those shawls. Or Klaus Kinski. Also, shoutout to our boy Ennio Morricone!

Next time: The Swimmer (1968)

Posted on by 1000filmsblog

#370 The Devil Rides Out

Watched: October 22 2025

Director: Terence Fisher

Starring: Christopher Lee, Charles Gray, Nike Arrighi, Leon Greene, Patrick Mower, Sarah Lawson, Paul Eddington, Rosalyn Landor, Gwen Ffrangcon Davies

Year: 1968

Runtime: 1h 36min

We’ll just come right out and say it: The Devil Rides Out is the perfect double feature companion piece with Rosemary’s Baby. While wildly different in execution, they are two sides of the same coin thematically, with ethnically diverse devil worshippers happily sacrificing others for their own benefit.

Sure, still predominately white, but still more diverse than your average high society gathering in 1968. We swear some of these people wore clothing from other countries in a previous scene!

Nicholas, Duc de Richleau (Lee) and his old friend Rex van Ryn (Greene) are worried about their departed friend’s son Simon (Mower), who they have promised to look after. They take a ride (in a very cool car) to Simon’s place, only to find him in the company of twelve strange guest. De Richleau immediately recognizes them as devil worshippers (after using British politeness to finangle his way to the observatory), and the two friends embark on a mission to save Simon’s soul. And also the soul of Tanith (Arrighi), because Rex thinks she’s hot.

There’s a bit of a consensus on that. She has that certain je ne sais quoi that appeals to both satanists and useless sidekicks.

Satanic cults were apparently all the rage in 1968, but while Rosemary’s Baby is subtle in its execution, leaving most of the devil-related stuff to the imagination, The Devil Rides Out goes completely in the opposite direction. There are actual goat-faced devils, huge ass spiders, orgies, and at one point the Angel of Death himself (herself..? We’re not sure if it’s Death or Susan) rides into the living (ironically) room. We loved that Fisher went very visual and literal about it – both approaches work really well for their respective films.

He looked at subtlety and laughed right in its face

Christopher Lee is simultaneously giving Vincent Price and Rupert Giles as the no-nonsense expert on the occult, and he is such a magnetic presence on screen that it’s hard to focus on anyone else whenever he is on. Rex is however fucking useless… They both make some questionable choices though – who thought it was a good idea to bring your Satanic “date” to a house with a young child? And then perform a ritual in the same house, with all the adults safe and sound in the protective circle, but just leave said child asleep in her room? With no protection save the butler??? It’s almost as though they wanted to get rid of Peggy (Landor). Even after she saved them all by breaking the spell/hypnosis placed on her mother by the big bad himself, Mocata (Gray). Still, the two men are extremely good and loyal friends to go through all of this to save the son of their departed homie.

“What was that? You think we should put Peggy in the protective circle with us? Oh, I’m sure she’ll be perfectly fine in her bedroom. Whoever heard of devils and fiends going up the stairs?”

This movie is a tense, fun and scary ride. We loved the sets and the vibe, the performances and the special effects – sometimes it’s nice to see such a classic depiction of the devil himself. We’re also intrigued by the upper classes’ obsession with the occult in the ’60s, particularly the destructive occult, that both this and its sister movie (RB) portray. Are these people rich because they worship? Or do they worship because they are rich..? Perhaps you can only be in a Satanic cult if you have the budget to get a custom made mosaic seal built into your floor? These are the questions that beg answering.

Can we DIY it? How accurate must it be? If we end up summoning a heckhound from one of the minor circles, we honestly wouldn’t mind to be completely honest with you…

We love the British politeness in this as well – the whole “she woke up and tried to strangle me” reminded us a bit of In the Earth (2021), when the main character is trying to persuade the maniac in the woods not to cut off his foot. IYKYK. And we always, always love a good ritual. Love, love, love this!

We’d pay good money to attend this slumberparty

Quote of the day: “I think we’re behaving like a pack of idiots!”

What we learned: Every friend group needs the Nurturer, the Entertainer, the Advocate and the One Who Knows About Devil Worship and Rituals For When a Satanic Cult Inevitably Comes After Someone You Love (the OWKADWRFWSCICASYL).

MVP: Nicholas, Duc de Richleau. And Peggy.

Next time: The Great Silence (1968)

Posted on by 1000filmsblog · 1 Comment

#369 The Boston Strangler

Watched: October 11 2025

Director: Richard Fleischer

Starring: Tony Curtis, Henry Fonda, George Kennedy, Mike Kellin, Hurd Hatfield, Carolyn Conwell, William Marshall

Year: 1968

Runtime: 1h 56min

From 1962 to 1964, Boston was terrorized by a serial killer who raped and murdered women, dubbed “the Boston Strangler”. Albert DeSalvo confessed to the crimes in 1965 and only three years later The Boston Strangler was released, detailing the crimes and the investigation. While this could have been a sensationalized and exploitative movie trying ot cash in on horrific events, it luckily comes across as a respectful and very accurate portrayal of a horrible case of serial murder.

It’s still gruesome – don’t get us wrong. Just not overly salacious.

Right from the start, this drew us in. We loved the different angles/framing/multiple images (whatever we should call it – if you’ve seen the film you understand what we mean) used throughout the film. The first part of the movie depicts the investigation, and we really enjoyed having the focus on the investigators rather than the culprit – let’s highlight the heroes, not the monsters! We appreciated that the sexual violence suffered by the victims was only implied rather than explicitly shown. Fleischer manages to convey the horrific nature of the crimes without sexualizing the scenes, which is something more filmmakers should attempt at times…

This is what we mean by the whole different angles/framing/multiple image-thingy we mentioned. No idea what it’s called, but we loved it!

The main investigator, Phil DiNatale, is played by George Kennedy, which we have to admit took some getting used to. We found ourselves waiting for lieutenant Frank Drebin to come along and (hilariously) solve the crime… Instead, he is joined by John Bottomly (Fonda), the newly appointed head of the Strangler task force. It’s always beautiful to see when different branches of law inforcement manage to coordinate their efforts and come together to solve a case.

One might even say they formed some sort of… Police Squad!
…we’ll see ourselves out.

And effort was definitely made! We loved seeing a bunch of creeps being arrested and/or interrogated for doing creepy stuff. Now, we don’t mean to kink shame – you do you, boo – but once you make your kinks someone else’s problem without their consent, you deserve to be made (at least) as uncomfortable as the ones you drag into your sexual fantasies.

Although questioning a man for murder simply for owning the collected works of the Marquis de Sade might be overstepping a bit… Who doesn’t have that on their bookshelf?

Eventually, the POV switches from the investigation to the killer himself. We are brought along as DeSalvo (Curtis) tricks his way into women’s apartments where he sexually assaults and strangles them. But we also get to see his family life, as he was married and had young children at home. Finally, the last part of the movie is focused on his confession and his mental state.

His seemingly normal and happy family life somehow makes the crimes even more unsettling… (Also, side note, his wife looks like Liv Ullmann… Well, Carolyn Conwell, the actress, did at least.)

There’s so much here we loved. Visually, it’s very stylish and cool, and we feel it tells the story without exploiting the victims too much. The Boston Strangler has no score and the silence works really well. It’s also extremely quotable, and we enjoyed the critique of the inherent violence in U.S. society. The pacing is a bit uneven, and the last act felt a bit long and is less engaging than the first part. Still, the final reenactment by DeSalvo/Curtis is very chilling and an unnerving end to an excellent movie.

Turns out making him take a long hard look in the mirror actually had the desired effect. Have we tried this in other interrogations..? Like, really tried it? Has this solution been staring us in the (mirror image of our) face all this time?

Ok, we know this is dodgy, but we love serial killer stories… What can we say – we’re white women, it’s our culture. So we know quite a lot about this case, and as far as we can remember The Boston Strangler is a very accurate depiction of events. There has been a lot of speculation about DeSalvo’s guilt though. Part of his confession contains details that he would be unlikely to know unless he was there, but other in other parts he gets very basic things wrong. However, a few years ago DNA evidence proved his involvement in at least one of the rapes and murders, so he was certainly not entirely innocent. The question remains though – was he the only strangler? Or were there several killers stalking the women of Boston? We may never know for certain.

We only know that thirteen women between the ages of 19 and 85 were sexually assaulted and brutally murdered, possibly by the same perpetrator…

What we learned: As fascinating as we admittedly find them, serial killers are pretty much pathetic in real life…

MVP: Probably Edward W. Brooke (Marshall). Assembling a task force is never wrong. Shoutout to DiNatale and Bottomly as well though!

Next time: The Devil Rides Out (1968)

Posted on by 1000filmsblog

#368 Spirits of the Dead/Histoires extraordinaires

Watched: October 7 2025

Director: Federico Fellini, Louis Malle, Roger Vadim

Starring: Jane Fonda, Brigitte Bardot, Alain Delon, Terence Stamp, Peter Fonda

Year: 1968

Runtime: 2h 1min

Spooctober continues (we expand it into November as well. And occasionally December. Not to mention January! There’s nothing scarier than a blank slate and new opportunities, after all…), and coincidentally there are quite a few fitting films coming up on the list. Such timing! In Spirits of the Dead, three directors have each made a short film based on the works of our child- and adulthood hero Edgar Allan Poe. Artistic liberties have been taken, but in each entry Poe’s spirit is present. And he is in fact dead. So the (English) title checks.

We like to think his spirit still roams wild on Hampstead Heath. Close to the meat.

Director Roger Vadim is behind the first segment, “Metzengerstein.” Here, cruel, oversexed countess Frédérique de Metzengerstein (Fonda) falls for her cousin/enemy/rival/neighbour Wilhelm Berlifitzing (also Fonda, but this time Peter), burns down his stables when he rejects her, then grows obsessed with a horse that appears out of nowhere just as Wilhelm accidentally dies in the fire. Well, technically the horse seems to appear out of a tapestry. Either way, clearly a supernatural horse. It does not end well for her.

There’s a joke in here somewhere about stallions and getting wet, but we’re better than that.

The second adaptation, Louis Malle’s “William Wilson,” follows the titular character (Delon) as he is confronted by kindness and positive qualities, things he himself does not possess in the slightest. As he goes around bullying and torturing school mates, trying to start a serial killer career by dissecting a random (and still alive) woman he picked up from the street (with a willing audience of equally psychotic medical students, it seems? WTF, guys???), and cheating at cards (ok, this one sounds relatively mild compared to the others, but he does it in order to strip and whip a woman (Bardot) in front of yet ANOTHER audience of men before offering her up for them to rape. So the cheating really was just a means to an end), he is repeatedly thwarted by a doppelganger (or the Jekyll to his Hyde, if you will). And Wilson is pretty darned indignant about it! It does not end well for him.

We see you, guys in the background who just stand by. You’re all equally culpable.

The final, and in our opinion best, entry is Fellini’s “Toby Dammit,” based on the story “Never Bet the Devil Your Head.” Now, while it might be the segment that diverges the most from the story on which it is based (it is also the only one where they did not keep the title or the historical setting), it is also the most successful (in our opinion). Toby (Stamp) is a messed up, alcoholic actor visiting Italy to star in a Catholic western and drive a Ferrari, who keeps seeing the devil everywhere. This devil is in the form of a little girl with a ball as opposed to Poe’s old man with just a girly hairstyle (actual quote: “his hair was parted in front like a girl’s”). Toby’s behaviour becomes increasingly unhinged as he falls deeper into the bottle as well as his own visions, climaxing in a wild Ferrari ride. It does not end well for him.

“Dress for the job you want, not the one you have,” they say. “Dress like a sickly Byronic vampire and reap the consequences,” we say.

Poe’s original story “Never Bet the Devil Your Head” is a hilariously passive aggressive response to his critics who accused him (and/or his tales) of lacking morals. So he wrote the most blatantly moral tale he could come up with. It is definitely worth reading if you have not – the tone is hilarious. However, it may not be the easiest story to make into an interesting film, so Fellini’s decision to basically keep only the ending and a slightly morally dubious protagonist is an understandable one. And as stated, this entry was our favourite, despite us being Poe-purists at heart.

“Those who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only by night” What a legend!

While the three shorts have varying degrees of connection with the source material, they have all definitely tried to sex it up quite a bit. Poe wasn’t really known for his spicy content – he was more about the implied incest and necrophelia than explicit sexual stuff. So, much more pure. In Vadim’s “Metzengerstein,” the young count Frederic has become sexy Frédérique, and the old neighbour Berlifitzing has become young, alluring, and a cousin to boot. So at least Poe’s incest motif has been honoured, we guess. William Wilson, while always an unlikable character has, in Malle’s version, become a sexual sadist in addition to your ordinary, run-of-the-mill everyday sadist from the short story.

Admittedly, it’s been a while since we read “Metzengerstein.” It is entirely possible that Frederic wore this exact outfit in the story and the adaptation is true to its source material.

We loved the costumes, Terence Stamp, Jane Fonda, the Devil, the stressful Ferrari ride, the Catholic Western that Toby’s set to star in (complete with cowboy Jesus and all), the award ceremony and basically everything about Fellini’s entry. We also enjoyed the fact that these filmmakers have chosen relatively unknown Poe tales to adapt (at least, lesser known compared to “the big ones”). This may of course be related to the fact that there were supposed to be more directors and stories filmed for the series, but one by one they all dropped out, leaving the three we have today. While the project may not have reached the heights originally envisioned, the ones that were completed are definitely worth a watch, and the film is a perfect choice for Halloween (which, as you all know, is celebrated from October 1st through (at least) November 30th).

I believe we just found this year’s costume

What we learned: Dammit, Toby! Also, if you stand by and do nothing, or participate in the slightest, when people are trying to rape or kill, you’re as culpable as the perp. Do better!

MVP: Terence Stamp. And Edgar himself, obvi.

Next time: The Boston Strangler (1968)

Posted on by 1000filmsblog

Bonus: Ramaskrik 2025

October is spooky month, and those who have followed us for a while are probably familiar with Norway’s scariest film festival – Ramaskrik in Oppdal. It’s been a tradition for us to attend this annual event in Spooctober for a while now, and the festival has been going strong for 15 years. Relatively small, it is an amazing horror movie bonanza filled with scares and laughs. As per (sort of) usual, here’s our recap and personal highlights from this year’s festival. Plus a bonus rant for those who enjoy these sort of things…

Overall, we managed to fit in 15 feature films as well as a couple of shorts between Wednesday and Sunday. The highlights for us were definitely Good Boy (2025), No dejes a los niños solos (Don’t Leave the Kids Alone – also 2025), Bernadette Wants to Kill (2024), Hallow Road (2025) and Onsen shâku (Hotspring Sharkattack – 2024).

Honorable mentions go to The Toxic Avenger (2023), Primate (2025, aka. Julius the horror version if you’re Norwegian), Trizombie (2024) and Exit 8 (2025), all of which we also thoroughly enjoyed.

There were others which we liked, but did not quite live up to their potential or just paled a bit in comparison with the others. However, the biggest (and frankly only) disappointment turned out to be this year’s biggest movie, The Black Phone 2 (2025). Now, we usually prefer not to talk too much about the movies we don’t like – we understand the concept of personal taste, and we don’t want to discredit the hard work put in by a lot of people to make any movie happen, and all of that. But we both (individually, without communicating) found ourselves getting increasingly angry while watching this. So allow us a moment to rant (and just skip reading it if this is not your thing – we won’t blame you).

It is important to note that we both loved The Black Phone (2021), and our MVP in that was definitely Madeleine McGraw’s Gwen. So a sequel focused on her should be a win, right? (Spoiler alert: it was not.) (Actual spoiler alert: if you haven’t seen it, we strongly advise you to do that before reading any more, as we will be discussing some important plot points.) Ok, so first off, the originality of the first movie is completely lost in this. Instead of a new and exciting story, we get a mash-up of A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) (or, probably more accurately, Nightmare on Elm Street part 3: Dream Warriors – 1987) and Stranger Things (2016). The (now dead) Grabber has become a masked Freddy Krueger, capable of invading people’s dreams and kill them inside them. (Except he doesn’t really do that much – he just shows up, scares them, stumbles around, makes threats, and then just disappears again or is easily thwarted by the kids. He is made less scary every time he makes an appearance, completely defeating the purpose.) The only one who can fight him (eventually), is the formerly headstrong and resourceful Gwen, now reduced to a scared and insecure teenager who worries about going mad and needs boys/men to protect her and tell her what to do and how to do it. A complete character assassination in other words. Even her “sassy” retorts, insults and swears seemed forced in this iteration, and not in keeping with the rest of her character as it appeared in this film. And let’s not even get into the stupid retconning of the circumstances of their mother’s death. Who thought that was a good idea?!?

You can see the difference in the posters as well: the attempt to make the mask look scarier in the sequel has only succeeded in turning it into a generic evil devil mask. The very human eyes and glasses featured in the original make it so much more unsettling.

Our other grievances include the dialogue – it felt like it was written by someone who had never had a human conversation in their lives; how easy it was to find the bodies of the missing boys who disappeared once someone ACTUALLY LOOKED FOR THEM! IN THE AREA THEY DISAPPEARED!!! (It took them two nights… After 30ish years… Sheesh. Clearly, nobody cared about finding them before); the stupid and unnecessary backstory of the Grabber, demystifying him and again making him more generic; and just the general soullessness of the entire thing. Is it all bad? Well, no. The production value is there, and the grainy dream sequences look good (despite their contents being utterly stupid for the most part). It starts off ok, and the acting is decent enough. But we’re left with the feeling that this was an entirely unnecessary movie which to some extent ruined the original which we really, really enjoyed. There, rant over.

Anyway, come to Ramaskrik next October! It’s great fun! In addition to showing new (and old) horror and horror-adjacent movies from all over the world, there are always special events and guests. For instance, this year there was a screening of Jaws (1975) in the pool, Troll Hunter (2010) in the woods, and The Descent (2005) with a visit from Neil Marshall, among other great happenings. It’s also cosy as fuck.

Tell us this doesn’t look like the perfect place to watch horror movies for a few days. And yes, it looks like this all the time, all over Oppdal. True story.

Posted on by 1000filmsblog · 3 Comments

#367 Rosemary’s Baby

Watched: October 6 2025

Director: Roman Polanski

Starring: Mia Farrow, John Cassavetes, Ruth Gordon, Sidney Blackmer, Maurice Evans, Ralph Bellamy, Patsy Kelly, Emmaline Henry

Year: 1968

Runtime: 2h 17min

Rosemary Woodhouse (Farrow) and Guy (Cassavetes), her aspiring actor-husband, move into a beautiful apartment in an old, infamous apartment building, “The Bramford.” They then proceed to completely ruin the vibe by painting everything white.

Crime in progress. Viewer discretion is advised.

From the start, the omens are ominous. There are cryptic writings left by the previous tenant (an old lady who died, though not on the premises), closets blocked by furniture, the brutal death (suicide..?) of another tenant, and chanting coming through from the neighbours’ place. Add to that the Bramford’s reputation for witchcraft, baby-eating, creepy sisters and scary men, and we can sort of understand why Rosemary decided to brighten the place up. But we can never forgive.

“I’m not saying all I’m about to subject you to is punishment for destroying this amazing place (albeit with my apparent blessing), but I’m also not saying it isn’t…”

Not long after moving in, Rosemary is invaded by dreams or visions of nuns in her sleep, and by nosy neighbour Minnie Castevet (Gordon) in her waking hours, both equally distressing. Being a polite young woman, she accepts Minnie’s first invitation to dinner, and to all of their surprise, Guy takes a fancy to Roman Castevet (Blackmer). Soon, the neighbours are entangled in their lives, and Rosemary has lost any sense of peace, quiet and privacy she may have otherwise enjoyed in her huge apartment.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that nosy neighbours must be in league with the devil

On paper, the Woodhouses are on an upward spiral – Guy’s luck as an actor takes an unexpected turn as a rival suddenly goes blind which gives him a leading role in a play, and Rosemary becomes pregnant after a creepy night of coersion, marital rape and even more disturbing visions than the other disturbing visions she’s been having since moving in. What’s the problem? They wanted a child, right?

“I didn’t want to miss baby night. A couple of nails were ragged.” “You? While I was out?” “And it was kinda fun – in a necrophile sort of way.” – Actual quote from the movie… Guy has bigger problems than his deal with the devil.

The claustrophobic atmosphere keeps building throughout the pregnancy. Guy and his new besties, the Castevets and their weird friends, control what she eats, which doctor she sees, where she goes and pretty much everything in Rosemary’s life. In addition, Guy gaslights, guilts and manipulates his wife to comply with pretty much everything they put her through. She does push back though, and occasionally succeeds. A vindicating scene is her party for her old friends, including her supportive girl squad who puts Guy in his place for an evening, but her victories are small and short-lived. She is also way too trusting of her husband and shares all her fears and suspicions about the neighbours with him. As if it isn’t perfectly clear that he is in league with them!

You should have pulled that knife out the second he insulted your haircut

Rosemary’s Baby is one of those movies that we have seen several times, and it just gets more sinister and frustrating every time. Rosemary is a precariously balanced character who is potentially hard to like, but Farrow makes her very charming and likable, and manage to balance her out: had she been more assertive, she might have gotten away from the situation. However, had she been less assertive, we would have lost some sympathy for her. She has some defiance in her – she tries several times to rescue herself, she just never takes it far enough. In her defence, we guess it takes a while to get used to the idea that your husband is in league with evil baby-killing witches and that everyone around you is part of a conspiracy to steal your child.

It’s never a good idea to befriend your neighbours. We avoid ours like the plague, and have yet to be impregnanted by a single demon!

It’s a great movie with so many amazing details that we can’t possibly list them all. The fashion, the slow escalation, Mrs Castevet’s table manners, the use of scrabble pieces, and Rosemary’s gradual evolution from child to adult woman are all great. Turns out the men in this (with the notable exception of our man Hutch) are even worse than we remembered from previous viewings – especially Guy and the two doctors. Take out the entire antichrist subplot, and we’d still have an infuriating movie about the lack of female autonomy, as well as domestic abuse being perpetuated by male professionals who refuse to take women seriously. The literal devil is more of an afterthought to this very real threat. (Not that the devil isn’t a real threat… Please don’t come for us, Satan! We assure you we have a healthy fear and respect for you and your minions.)

Sidenote: do we think Aunt Glady in Weapons (2025) was inspired by this gal..?

What we learned: Never be a Catholic, no matter how lapsed. It’s always the Catholics who are possessed or tricked into giving birth to devils. Also, when in trouble, call the girl squad! And don’t trust your ambitious husband who thought it was perfectly acceptable to rape you (or, as it turns out, have you raped) in order to further his career. And who also thinks going through a hard pregnancy and then giving birth at home only to be told the baby died is the same as “no one gets hurt.” Damn, there are a lot of lessons to be learned from this movie.

MVP: Girl Squad! Or, they could have been, had she contacted them earlier… Hutch, then. RIP.

Next time: Spirits of the Dead (1968)