Shogun’s Joy of Torture (1968)

I’ve never been a shogun and, sadly, probably never will. Mostly because while I may enjoy tacos and dogs and movies, if this flick truly leads me to believe one thing, it’s that shoguns only really enjoy the cruelest of tortures, primarily through inflicting it on other people’s bare bodies. There goes another dream!

One of director Teruo Ishii’s infamous flicks of sex, violence and torture, often at the same time, this Toei production is a supposed anthology of the heinous practices documented on scrolls during the height of Tokugawa shogun. It features a catalog of barbarism that deftly mixes penile titillation with painful humiliation, seemingly a specialty of Ishii.

Focusing on three stories, Shogun’s Joy of Torture begins with a young woman and an illicit romance with her recently hurt brother and the scummy lawmen who jealously take their sexual issues out on her, with, of course, violent retribution.

The same goes for the second story, featuring the unbridled passions and unheralded smacks at a Buddhist nunnery. And the final story, which honestly wouldn’t seem out of place in an otherworldly Amicus production, depicts a tattoo artist who wants to get as close to death as utterly possible and achieves it with the help of a sadistic shogun.

Each tale is, as you’d probably imagine, beautifully — but brutally! — told, with excesses of ropes, whips, chains and other instruments of haughty pain throughout, used primarily on women hanging from the ceiling. While I’m sure a trigger warning is necessary for most viewers — I know I could’ve used two or three — this depiction of sex and sadism is a well-made movie that, I’m sure, will make someone’s penis suitably hard. —Louis Fowler

Get it at Amazon.

One Way Passage (1932)

One Way Passage’s Dan Hardesty and Joan Ames take the concept of star-crossed lovers up a few notches. These moribund lovebirds could have met on a dating site run by the Grim Reaper. But being that this gem is from Warner Bros. in 1932, there is no dating site, but rather a Singapore bar for the couple’s meet-cute.

Played by William Powell and Kay Francis (their fifth on-screen pairing), Dan and Joan fall for one another almost instantly. As fate would have it, they soon find themselves aboard the same ocean liner steaming from Hong Kong to San Francisco. The operative word here is “fate.” Dan is in the custody of a tenacious but dimwitted cop (Warren Hymer) and on his way to the San Quentin penitentiary to be hanged for murder – a perfectly justifiable homicide, mind you, but the law is the law, even in pre-Code Hollywood.

Joan is facing her own mortality issues. She suffers from one of those nebulous movie maladies where, as her doctor helpfully explains, just a shock to the system could kill the poor girl. On the high seas, however, Dan and Joan are determined to hide the tragic truth from one another, choosing instead to dance, drink cocktails and pitch woo.

Can love forestall fate? The inordinately dapper prisoner-to-be (it’s William Powell, after all) manages to elude his escort with the help of two longtime pals who are also making the trans-Pacific trip. That pair prove to be the comic ace up the movie’s proverbial sleeve. Alice MacMahan shines as a streetwise con woman masquerading as a countess, while Frank McHugh crushes his every scene as a drunken pickpocket.

To borrow a colloquialism from its era, One Way Passage is a honey of a picture. Director Tay Garnett would go on to have a more auspicious career shooting for TV in the 1950s, but his work here is altogether respectable. The camerawork is surprisingly fluid for its time, with nifty tracking and dolly shots. The pace is brisk, the laughs are genuine, and the script, by Wilson Mizner and Joseph Jackson, even serves up an emotionally resonant ending, all within a 67-minute running time. That’s always a trip worth taking. —Phil Bacharach

Get it at Amazon.

Running Time (1997)

I remember reading a story about Running Time in the pages of Film Threat sometime in the late 1990s and was pretty pumped to see it, especially with Bruce Campbell in the lead role. But, like many things written about in the long-gone and lamented magazine, it never came out. Sadly, I then completely forgot about it, as one is wont to do.

I was surprised to recently receive it and even more floored to finally watch the one-shot heist film. While it understandably never received a wide theatrical release, it does kind of irk me I never saw it at least once on video back then, considering all the video stores where I worked.

Campbell is Carl, a smart aleck fresh out of prison and ready to rob its scheming laundry take. Teaming up with a trio of typical cinematic losers, everything goes wrong as you might expect, from the smack-addicted getaway driver not showing up to the scummy partner’s quick-trigger finger blowing away a security guard. But it’s the shock ending after the heist from hell that truly surprised me.

At the time it was (barely) released, I admit, I was caught up in the wave of Pulp Fiction and its assorted criminal rip-offs, so I probably wouldn’t have liked Running Time all that much, save for Campbell, of course. But looking at the film now some 20-plus years later, I feel genuine appreciation for what director Josh Becker set out to accomplish, at times even being a bit amazed by it.

Inspired by Alfred Hitchcock’s Rope, Becker creates a flowing single-take film that manages to subvert just about every heist stockpile out there. I’m surprised this structure has barely been attempted since. Of course, I say that and think about another Becker flick, Thou Shalt Not Kill … Except, and realized that’s been largely forgotten about as well.

They never steal from the good ones, do they? —Louis Fowler

Get it at Amazon.

Inherent Vice (2014)

Inherent Vice has all the trappings of film noir. There’s a rumpled gumshoe who lives by a seemingly quaint moral code, a mysterious femme fatale and a hard-boiled cop with whom our protagonist has an ambivalent relationship. Los Angeles sizzles with corruption and sleaze, with the threat of violence simmering just below the sun-bleached surface. But the familiarity of these tropes allows masterful writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson, adapting Thomas Pynchon’s 2009 novel — cinema’s first adaptation of the presumably unfilmable Pynchon, by the way — to explore more trippy, atmospheric stuff.

Set in 1970 L.A., Inherent Vice inhabits a dreamy space between the horror of the Manson Family murders and the imminently pervasive crookedness of Watergate. Joaquin Phoenix is Larry “Doc” Sportello, a hippie P.I. tipped off by his ex-old lady, Shasta Fay Hepworth (Katherine Waterston, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald), that her current boyfriend, real estate mogul Mickey Wolfmann (Eric Roberts), is in danger of being cheated out of his fortune by his wife and her lover. Faster than you can say “Zig-Zag papers,” however, the case digresses into a labyrinthine plot that makes Chinatown look like a game of Chutes and Ladders. A Black militant (Michael K. Williams, Lovecraft Country) asks Doc to track down a thug who works for Wolfmann, while a recovered heroin addict (The Hunger Games: Catching Fire’s Jena Malone) enlists our intrepid private eye to find her missing husband, a sax player named Coy Harlingen (Owen Wilson).

That these supposedly distinct cases wind up entwined is predictable, but less so is the shambling scope of it all. Hewing close to Pynchon’s text, Anderson packs in suspicious real estate deals, a heroin-smuggling cartel, the Aryan Brotherhood, dentists, a Ouija board, Richard Nixon, a mental asylum run by cultists, a running joke about cunnilingus and an acid-fueled house party in Topanga Canyon. The results are less madcap than fuzzily hallucinogenic, although the movie’s psychedelic vibe certainly has its funny moments. Doc is so consistently stoned, he can barely jot down detective notes to himself that convey anything more detailed than “something Spanish.”

Phoenix makes a terrific foil for the surrounding weirdness, but he receives able assistance from a cast that includes Reese Witherspoon, Martin Short, Benicio del Toro, Maya Rudolph and musician Joanna Newsom. Best of all is Josh Brolin (of the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s Thanos fame) as Doc’s LAPD nemesis, Lt. Det. Christian “Bigfoot” Bjornsen. Sporting a crewcut and exhibiting a Freudian penchant for chocolate-covered bananas, Brolin’s perpetual rage prove a nice complement to Phoenix’s pot-addled befuddlement.

But the real standout is Los Angeles itself, or at least the one imagined by Anderson and his frequent cinematographer, Robert Elswit. Boasting saturated colors and drenched in nostalgia, Inherent Vice is sly about its visual magnificence, as typified by a brief flashback in which Doc and Shasta comb beachfront streets searching for dope as Neil Young’s “Journey Through the Past” plays over the soundtrack. The scene is gorgeous, sexy and just a bit sad. Few filmmakers can capture mood better than Paul Thomas Anderson. —Phil Bacharach

Get it at Amazon.

Crazy Samurai: 400 vs. 1 (2020)

With a single-take fight sequence running 77 minutes, what are the odds Crazy Samurai: 400 vs. 1 isn’t largely a gimmick? The answer aligns with the second half of the title.

Given that those 77 minutes constitute 84.6% of the Japanese film, the setup is as thin as the blades the samurai wield: In a prearranged duel, swordsman Musashi Miyamoto (Versus’ Tak Sakaguchi) faces hundreds and hundreds of students and mercenaries of the Yoshioka clan. Once the swords start slinging, the camera keeps going as Musashi keeps fighting, pausing only for gulps of water. He wipes his nose. It rains. And that’s all, folks!

It’s only natural your question to be, “Can they really sustain that for more than an hour?” The answer is yes and no, in that yes, they do, but no, it doesn’t hold your attention. In fact, the flick grows extremely trying within its first few minutes of battle. Things might be different if Death Trance director Yûji Shimomura had swayed to an extreme, whether to go for complete realism or leap over the top, Shogun Assassin-style.

Instead, he stays on neutral ground, where every spray of digital blood looks pixelated and the men surrounding Musashi do that thing heavies in kung-fu movies tend to do, which is exhibit wait-your-turn hesitancy as they rock back and forth, hoping to trick your peripheral vision into telling your brain more action is happening than actually is. Watching is like attending a Civil War re-enactment: Maybe it’s fun to participate?

It’s not clear whether we’re supposed to root for or against Musashi, given that he kills a child — a fraction of a second after cleanly bisecting a butterfly — in the prologue. The epilogue is the only section of Crazy Samurai: 400 vs. 1 that lives up to the hype; those balls-out final five minutes crackle with more motion, energy and engagement than everything before it. Then again, I might not be so spry after sitting on the shelf for nearly a decade, either. —Rod Lott

Get it at Amazon.

Random Genre & Cult Movie Reviews