Q: EXTREMITIES

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Mono

A woman turns the tables on a would-be rapist when he mounts an assault in her home, and is forced to decide whether to kill him or inform the police, in which case he could be released and attack her again.

Exploitation fans who might be expecting another rough 'n' ready rape fantasy in the style of DAY OF THE WOMAN (1978) will almost certainly be disappointed by EXTREMITIES. True, Farrah Fawcett's character is subjected to two uncomfortably prolonged assaults before gaining the upper hand on her attacker (a suitably slimy James Russo), but scriptwriter William Mastrosimone and director Robert M. Young take these unpleasant scenes only so far before unveiling the dilemma which informs the moral core of this production. Would their final solution hold up in a court of law? Maybe...

Based on a stage play which reportedly left its actors battered and bruised after every performance, the film makes no attempt to open up the narrative and relies instead on a confined setting for the main action. Acing and technical credits are fine, though Fawcett's overly subdued performance won't play effectively to viewers who might be relying on her to provide an outlet for their outraged indignation.
A: negative
Q: Gorgeous Techicolor production telling the unusual tale of the romance between a woman of strong religious faith and a Trappist monk who has left his monastery, breaking his vows. The film opens at a convent in Europe, where a former student prays - a lonely beauty in black named Domini (Marlene Dietrich). She is advised by the Mother Superior to go to the desert and "find herself", and lose her grief over her father who has recently died. In the train car on the way into the Sahara she sits opposite a very, very troubled man (Charles Boyer) - our former monk. She's soon at a hotel near a palm-treed oasis where she again sees our mysterious troubled man as he is stumped over what to do when confronted by a very seductive dancing girl. Domini becomes friends with him, though knows nothing of his past - romance soon to follow.

This film is sentimental, melodramatic, and different (in a way, almost surreal and even a bit campy) - I found it to be quite fun and entertaining. The photography in this is really interesting - it is full of extreme facial close-ups and beautiful color shots of caravans of horses crossing the desert, silhouetted figures against a sunset sky. Marlene Dietrich gives a nicely done, though restrained, performance here and looks gorgeous. Charles Boyer - not usually one of my favorites - is actually pretty good in this, I think the part sort of suits him and he looks quite young and handsome too. Basil Rathbone is fine here, except given very little to do. Another great orchestral score by Max Steiner helps keep the drama rolling - all in all, a very enjoyable film.
A: positive
Q: Thelma Ritter did steal the picture. I just finished watching it again. I couldn't help becoming emotional in her final scene. She didn't get the Oscar. That's why you shouldn't put too much faith in Oscars. Richard Widmark never had a better part and was perfect casting as a 3-D, flawed human being. Jean Peters was great as the streetwise, tough girl in her best role ever. And Richard Kiley must have been very good; why else would I have hated him so. Yes, it was heavy handed on the patriotism; but, without it, you don't have much of a film. Watch their faces! The top three stars didn't really need much script. I would like to have seen them do this film without dialogue. If you've ever seen Ray Milland and Rita Gam in "The Thief", maybe you know what I mean. When I was a kid in 1956 on my first trip to NYC, I made my Bronx uncle drive us to the foot of South Street looking for No. 66. That's when I knew that Hollywood couldn't be trusted. But I did find the river.

I'm not giving away much of the story because I hate it when I know what happens before I see it for myself. If you have seen it, no elucidation is necessary. Just maybe, someone who is reading these comments hasn't seen "Pickup On South Street". You will like it; just don't go looking for 66 South Street in New York City.
A: positive
Q: For those of you who have read Rohinton Mistry's highly respected novel, this film will definitely impress you, because of how honorable an adaptation it is . With the exception of one minor subplot, Sturla Gunnarson's feature film debut is an almost dead-on recreation of the book (down to the last line).

For those of you who have not read the novel, this movie might be a little tricky. It is certainly not a large cinematic drama story. Instead it has a strong element of realism to it, but I would not have it any other way. The best way to describe Such a Long Journey to movie fans would be to say that it is a small scale, Hindu version of 'Fiddler On The Roof'. Instead of a Jewish/Russian milkman, the protagonist Gustad Noble is a banker in 1970's Bombay during the time of the Muslim/Hindi war with Pakistan. He is forced to deal with a number of unexpected problems in his life, including his sick daughter, his individualist eldest son, a distant friend who gets him involved with some dirty money, and an unhealthy neighborhood. The Ending is not a happy one, nor is it a sad one, but that is essentially what realism involves.

Such a Long Journey is a fine little movie, but if you want to see it, then good luck finding it. Unlike the novel, it has received very little release.
A: positive