Posted on by 1000filmsblog

#381 Kes

Watched: August 6 2026

Director: Ken Loach

Starring: David Bradley, Brian Glover, Freddie Fletcher, Lynne Perrie, Colin Welland, Bob Bowes

Year: 1969

Runtime: 1h 51min

Billy Casper (Bradley) is a working class boy who lives with his mum (Perrie) and his asshole big brother Jud (Fletcher) in Yorkshire. When he’s not in school, he helps support the household through his paper route and petty crime. He’s a cheeky little bastard, but overall very charming and likeable. He is also the poster boy for ADHD.

Literally the poster for ADHD*
*citation needed

Billy decides he’s in his kestrel era when he comes across a nest of the birds. After an unsuccessful attempt at conning a librarian into giving him a library card, he ends up (quite elegantly) stealing a book on falconry from a book shop instead. And then he starts studying.

The librarian clearly did not know about the code of librarians everywhere – if a child wants to learn, you let them fool you into giving them a library card. (There is of course the possibility that she is a Night Vale Librarian… In which case Billy’s lucky to escape with his life.)

Now, Billy may not be the brightest or most attentive student in school, and several people tease him for not being able to read, but when that hyperfocus kicks in it really kicks in. He reads diligently, kidnaps (chicknaps..?) one of the young kestrels and, with the book to guide him, starts training her.

Ah – the time before YouTube tutorials! Just a boy and his stolen book.

One of his teachers, Mr Farthing (Welland), picks up on his student’s new obsession and gets him to explain and teach his process to the other kids in his class. This in particular is a lovely scene which seems to be the only time Billy has ever been given any sort of praise and positive attention in school.

Thank the gods for Mr Farthing. Every other faculty member in the film is perpetuating the harmful stereotype that all teachers are failures, sadists, making up for being losers in school themselves, or just there to relive their glory days as they never amounted to anything. In reality, that is only true of some of us…

OK, Edgar, we know we haven’t exactly been vigorous in our blogging and we may have been letting you down a bit, but why are you determined to break our hearts like this??? We swear we’re good people deep down. Just easily distracted and somewhat lacking in the follow-through department. But we don’t deserve to be hurt this way…

Low key the best football scene in movie history though. We were more engaged than during the World Cup!

That being said, we loved a lot of things about this movie. Billy was awesome, Mr Sugden (Glover) was hilarious in the absolute worst way possible, the aforementioned scene where Billy is given the stage in class was beautiful, and there was a lot of good people and things sprinkled in amid all the horrible and depressing stuff. The overall feeling after watching it isn’t entirely bleak either – there is a lot of hope here. Still, the second half of the movie had us increasingly stressed as we suspected a happy ending was not forthcoming… Is it worth the watch? Yes, definitely. However, be prepared to feel many things.

Don’t worry – Billy and Kes became a rich and famous falconry act and lived happily ever after. Cheeky bastards.

What we learned: We stand by our decision that this movie should be titled Exploring ADHD With Kestrels.

MVP: Hyperfocus.

Next time: Last Summer (1969)

Posted on by 1000filmsblog

#380 I Start Counting

Watched: May 27 2026

Director: David Greene

Starring: Jenny Agutter, Bryan Marshall, Clare Sutcliffe, Simon Ward, Gregory Phillips, Lana Morris, Billy Russell, Madge Ryan, Michael Feast

Year: 1969

Runtime: 1h 45min

The List has once more been updated, and thus our numbering has changed. For details on how we deal with this, look here. While we skip back a couple of numbers, we’re still in 1969, and today we’re serving up a movie we had never heard of (which honestly says more about us than the film) but that we ended up enjoying very much indeed: I Start Counting. (Also, as an added note, we’re having more and more trouble finding movie posters in landscape format, which works a lot better in a blog context than the more classic format above. We rue the day lobby cards went out of fashion…)

Word of warning – the creep factor in this is fairly high at times…

15 (or 14..? De lærde strides [Norwegian expression meaning something along the lines of “the scholars (in this case, the internet) are not in agreement.” Did this minor detail deserve such a long digression? Probably not. But you’re welcome for the language lesson. Now back to our regularly scheduled broadcast]) year old Wynne (Agutter) lives with her adopted family and haunted stuffed rabbit. Her hobbies include Catholicism, brushing her hair, and having secret and inappropriate sexual thoughts about her 32 year old “brother” George (Marshall). We did mention that she’s adopted, right..? Somehow, that fact only makes it slightly less disturbing…

The teenager might be the one with the crush, but honestly the 32-year-old doesn’t do much to make their relationship more appropriate…

As if the fact that the object of her sexual awakening is part of her immediate family (and over twice her age) didn’t complicate things enough, Wynne begins to suspect that George is also the local serial killer, responsible for the deaths of several young women in the area. Particularly the area surrounding their former residence, where a lot of the action takes place. She starts investigating, occasionally aided by her best friend Corinne (Sutcliffe). Can this messy situation ever be happily resolved?

“I take it this suspicion immediately quelled any romantic feelings you’ve been nursing for him, right?”
“Weeeeeeell…….”

I Start Counting was a great watch! Jenny Agutter is amazing as Wynne, and we also thoroughly enjoyed Clare Sutcliffe as her bff. We loved the portrayal of teenage girls impatient to grow up, although their focus on older men was creepy af. Then again, the boys their age weren’t exactly positively portrayed in the movie either, so we can sort of see where they were coming from. Additionally, we loved Wynne’s other brother Len the Stoner (Phillips) (and his friend Jim [Feast]), the school girls during the priest’s visit (“What does the pope have against the pill?”), the soundtrack, drunk Wynne, and most of all the teenage dynamic between the two best friends.

No, but what DOES the pope have against the pill though???

We always enjoy a good murder mystery. However, in this case, the murder part was definitely the least interesting thing about the film, which says a lot about the rest of it. This movie is intriguing, occasionally tense, often hilarious, and overall a good time, with some great performances. Whether you’re here for crime or the coming-of-age story of a young girl (both of which could easily be classified under “horror”), I Start Counting is definitely worth the watch.

We mentioned the haunted (or possible possessed, cursed, bedevilled, damned or similar) stuffed rabbit, right? We spent half the movie scared that Wynne might accidentally spill blood on it and bring it to life in a sort of Dusk Till Dawn/Parasite-esque genre shifting twist. We will not spoil anything by revealing more…

What we learned: Incels are nothing new…

MVP: The Friendships of Teenage Girls

Next time: Kes (1969)

Posted on by 1000filmsblog

#382 Funeral Parade of Roses/Bara no sôretsu

Watched: March 27 2026

Director: Toshio Matsumoto

Starring: Pîtâ, Osamu Ogasawara, Yoshio Tsuchiya, Yoshimi Jô, Emiko Azuma, Koichi Nakamura, Flamenco Umeji, Saako Oota, Toyosaburo Uchiyama

Year: 1969

Runtime: 1h 45min

Have you ever wanted to watch a reinterpretation of Oedipus Rex, but with drag, drugs and documentary-style digressions? Well, you won’t believe what we have for you today! (Also, if you know a word on “d” which means nonlinear, let us know at 1000filmsblog@gmail.com. We had to make a terrible choice between alliteration and accuracy in our opening line.)

Don’t worry. We’ll take a long, hard look at ourselves in the mirror.

Funeral Parade of Roses is a movie that should be experienced, so we’ll keep our summary brief. In short, we’re in Japan in the swinging sixties, moving through the gay-, trans- and drag-scene(s) via nonlinear storytelling, interviews and intertitles. The main narrative follows Eddie, a gei boi who works at a bar in Tokyo and is sexually involved with its manager, Gonda. Gonda is also in a relationship with the madam of the club, Leda, who is basically Eddie’s boss/superior. We’re introduced to several side characters from Tokyo’s underground culture – young people from all walks of life who take drugs and make art while enjoying the sexual liberation of the 1960s.

Pictured: an awkward glimpse behind the scenes of a sex scene. We particularly enjoy the jealous partner of one of the participants lurking in the corner and judging everyone’s performance.

This movie is very experimental, very ’60s and very stylish. It’s a fascinating look into queer culture in ’60s Japan, and we loved the way it blurred the line between reality and fiction. It’s beautifully shot, and Pîtâ’s Eddie in particular is compelling to watch. We also loved Guevara with his feux beard, the soundtrack, the editing and the general vibe. Not to mention the twist!

“Are you serious??? You’re going to mention the twist? Motherfu…”

Funeral Parade of Roses is cool, subversive, bold and brave for its time. Though, to be completely honest, if we met the group of artists depicted in this movie today, we’d be terribly bored by their drug enduced self indulgence. Times have changed a bit in that regard… We still found the film both moving and engaging. And experiencing new sides of drag and queer culture from a non-western point of view is always refreshing and interesting.

The decapitations were unexpected though. Did not see that coming at all.

What we learned: Something about absent fathers, maybe? And that drag and gender expressions come in many forms.

MVP: Eddie. And her wig game. Or possibly Sofokles.

Next time: I Start Counting (1969)

Posted on by 1000filmsblog

#380 Easy Rider

Watched: February 21 2026

Director: Dennis Hopper

Starring: Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, Jack Nicholson, Toni Basil, Karen Black

Year: 1969

Runtime: 1h 35min

So, our plan was to post this very quickly after Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, as the two are a natural double feature. Then suddenly Easter was upon us, and if you know anything about Norwegian Easter you know that we were bound by centuries old oaths to leave civilization, huddle up in a cabin somewhere with no electricity or wifi, and eat our weight in pølse and kvikk lunsj while reading crime novels. In other words, writing a post was out of the questions unless we wanted to carve it into a tree or rock in rune format. Which we did. But have no proof of since we had no electricity and thus our phones died before our masterpiece was done. Alas! Still, we shall attempt to reproduce our musings in digital form here.

Let’s ride!

Billy (Hopper) and Wyatt (Fonda) are born to be wild. And free. They are fond of drugs and less so of helmets. After a successful drug deal they take their now large amount of cash and ride their motorcycles towards New Orleans, destined for Mardi Gras. Along the way, they encounter characters and adventures aplenty!

It’s not that they don’t own helmets. Protective accessories just kind of mess up their vibe, you know.

Among their adventures are a mysterious hitchhiker who brings them to a hippie commune. After that, they are arrested for parading without a permit, which seems like a rule made up solely to suck all the fun out of the world. Still, their stint in the local jail is not for naught – they hit it off with fellow inmate George Hanson (Nicholson), an alcoholic lawyer well known to local law inforcement. After they are all released, Hanson tags along towards Mardi Gras.

He’s just happy to be included, bless him!

While the travellers encounter helpful and kind people, such as the hippies and the cowboys that lend them tools and a place to fix their choppers, not everyone takes kindly to hairy, freewheeling strangers passing through their towns. Because this America is not the land of the free so much as the land of the easily threatened and viciously cruel…

Is this rude? Sure. Was it justified? Absolutely. Was the retaliation in proportion to the offense? Not even adjacent to the same realm.

The similarities between Easy Rider and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid are many, though their stories are set a century apart. We have our two bffs, rootless outlaws with free spirits and even freer idea of laws, rules and boundries. They also very much enjoy doing acrobatics on bikes, which is a bit more niche than the other similarities. Motorcycles are the new horses and their riders are the new Western heroes – even their names connote their Western roots. Easy Rider is the darker one of the two movies though, both in its general tone and because it is portraying its contemporary America with all the violence and prejudice that is rampant. And yes, we say “is” even though this is set in 1969…

We’re not mad at it, we’re just surprised it happened twice in the same year…

We loved the soundtrack, the people helping people, the night out in New Orleans and the general tension we felt throughout. While parts of the movie felt slightly dated, it is a classic for a reason and definitely one to watch. If nothing else, the soundtrack alone makes it a must-see.

Now, you may think that we should have varied the imagery a bit more in this post, but to that we say: you try searching for pictures from this movie and see how much variation you can find! We’re happy to have found pics both with and without helmets. That’s about as much variety as we could hope for.

Yeah, we think this is more or less what we carved into that massive rock outside out cabin, give or take a word or two.

What we learned: It’s real hard to be free when you’re bought and sold in the marketplace.

MVP: The vibes, man!

Next time: Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed (1969)

Posted on by 1000filmsblog

#378 Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice

Watched: February 9 2026

Director: Paul Mazursky

Starring: Natalie Wood, Robert Culp, Dyan Cannon, Elliot Gould, Diane Berghoff

Year: 1969

Runtime: 1h 45min

Bob and Carol, a cool, trendy couple, visit “The Institute” – part couple’s retreat, part wellness camp, part New Age cult and part nudist camp. In short, everything you could nightmare of and more. They’re there in order for Bob to do research for a documentary he is planning, but they are caught up in the teachings of the place and are converted into the cult of full emotional honesty and openness. Hijinks ensue.

Hijinks include, but are not limited to, one of the most awkward attempts at an orgy ever captured on film. And quite possibly the most accurate one.

After their weekend of group hugs, feelings, close-ups and a desperate search for better orgasms (shout out to our girl Myrna!), they return to their lives with a new outlook on relationships and life in general. Which, in the tradition of newly converted cult members everywhere, they waste no time trying to impart on their (more cynical) friends Ted and Alice.

In this scene, we are Ted. Ted is us.

Then, Bob has an affair. In the spirit of their new openness he tells his wife, but her reaction is not what he expected. Carol is thrilled! She wants to know details, she commends him for being open and sharing, and she thinks it’s just the best thing ever! Which upsets Bob who then turns things around trying to make himself the victim here…

We’re right there with you, Carol…

When they share the news with Ted and Alice, the latter has trouble reconciling her idea of Bob and her friends’ marriage with this information. She becomes very upset – but don’t worry. Ted is there to console her! By trying to coerce her into sex even after she’s said no about 17 times… What a gem…

We are no longer Ted. Ted is no longer us.

We continue to follow the two couples as they explore adultery, boundries, constructed moralities, orgies and friendships, and it’s an entertaining and fun watch. Silly, a little bit sexy, frustrating at times, but overall quite enjoyable. The female characters save the movie – Carol and Alice are interesting, compelling and quite sympathetic. Bob and Ted are… a bit dull. Ted is mostly just an ass, frankly. At least Bob actually evolves and becomes a better person as the story progresses, which is nice to see.

Another highlight: the fashion! Fifty shades of Earth.

We loved Myrna at the retreat (the whole retreat, really), the awkward orgy attempt, and the creepy shrink (well, hated really, not loved. But at least he sparked a feeling which is all one can ask for in this world). Overall we had a great time with this. It is interesting to see marital rape, gender inequality, societal mores and double standards all dealt with in what is basically a sex comedy. A rather sophisticated, clever and enjoyable one at that.

Our only objection is that we wanted MORE MYRNA!

What we learned: The gazpacho was astonishing!

MVP: Myrna. We love you and your lack of orgasms.

Next time: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)

Posted on by 1000filmsblog

#377 Army of Shadows/L’armée des ombres

Watched: January 15 2026

Director: Jean-Pierre Melville

Starring: Lino Ventura, Paul Meurisse, Jean-Pierre Cassel, Simone Signoret, Claude Mann, Paul Crauchet, Christian Barbier, Serge Reggiani

Year: 1969

Runtime: 2h 25min

Hey! Do you want to watch a World War II movie but you’re kind of over the big action features where good always triumphs over evil and the heroes invariably make it out of the most intricate scrapes and gruelling situations practically unscathed? Well, look no further than Army of Shadows/L’armée des ombres.

Being tied to a chair while watching is optional. The creepy stenographer in the corner is, unfortunately, not. He’ll simply appear in the room as the opening credits roll. It was quite unsettling.

In this movie, we follow various members of the French Resistance during the German occupation. Philippe Gerbier (Ventura) is arrested by the Gestapo after a betrayal. He manages to flee, and enacts his (quite practical and dispassionate) vengeance on the person who gave him up. Among his fellow Resistance buddies we find “Le Bison” (Barbier), “Le Masque” (Mann), “Ze Big Boss” (Meurisse), and… Mathilde (Signoret).

She might be Mathilde to you, but to us she will always be The Mistress of Disguise.

Other members lacking exciting code names include Jean François (Cassel) and the unfortunate Félix (Crauchet). Their missions are unglamorous and unromantic, and their actions seem motivated by a sense of what needs to be done rather than any ambition of glory or acclaim. And indeed, without giving too many spoilers, many of them will die in obscurity under false names with few or no one knowing what they did or what they sacrificed for the greater good (The Greater Gooood..).

We’re just kidding. They all lived long, happy lives, and after the war frequently met for picnics. And to stare into the nothingness while trapped in the echo of the horrors that they lived through years ago and still relive in the dark of night… But mostly picnics.

Like we said, if you’re looking for a Nazi-ass-kicking action film à la Where Eagles Dare, The Dirty Dozen, or The Great Escape, this is not it. Army of Shadows has more in common with a spy drama than any of those, but not in any James Bondesque way. Despite its occasional action scene, it’s rather quiet and slow, but it packs an emotional punch.

The chilling opening scene reminded us of Pretty Poison, where instead of a high school drill team marching during the opening credits (quite sinister in itself), there are Germans troops marching through the Arc de Triomphe (arguably a bit more sinister). The early execution scene sets the tone for the film – there’s no joy, nor any strong feelings of hatred or lust for vengeance here, just regret and somber, unavoidable reasoning.

Honestly, we’d never before encountered the problem of what do you do when your safe house/execution place gets new neighbours and you can no longer shoot your victim due to the noise. It poses quite the conundrum. We’re glad to now have a frame of reference for when we’ll inevitably find ourselves in a similar situation.

The pace is slow, and there’s very little music/score, which adds to the sense of realism in contrast to the focus on action and heroism we’re used to seeing in movies set during World War II. Even Gerbier’s escape from the clutches of the Gestapo in the beginning is rather mundane – and probably a lot more realistic than more elaborate depictions of similar events in other movies. Not that this movie is devoid of action or heroism – there’s quite a lot, but it is often less flashy. The acts of heroism are even occasionally close to pointless (we’re looking at you, Jean François. Heroic though your actions were, one could argue that they were ultimately unproductive).

That being said, any mode of resistance is important, and empathy is never wrong. Let’s all agree that we don’t want a repeat of this scenario.

We loved Mathilde, the Brits in the loft, and the dispatcher on Gerbier’s flight back from London. Not to mention the oh so subtle ways we were told the characters had arrived in the UK – the Big Ben, red telephone boxes, and the British flag over the Houses of Parliament were all very vague hints that only the most discerning viewer would be able to pick up on. We also loved the clearly ’60s hair and make-up sported by several of the ladies (clear influences by the style of the time of production in historical films and shows are always fascinating to see). Overall, Army of Shadows was another movie we probably wouldn’t have picked up if it hadn’t been on the list, but one we very much enjoyed and that we’ve thought about frequently since we watched it.

It’s not all bleak. For instance, the flight scene was hilarious!

What we learned: Resist! But also, sacrifices must be made when opposing a fascist regime…

MVP: Mathilde! We will hear no arguments! (And, sure, Gerbier as well, of course. Not to mention La Résistance. Everyone who fights back against oppression, really.)

Next time: Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (1969)

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 · 1 Comment

#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

#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

#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)