Night of the Lepus (1972)

An Arizona ranch is being overrun by Lepus. Wanting to avoid the indiscriminate spraying of poison, they turn to a well-meaning scientist who injects … something … into one of the Lepus. It escapes and later that day, giant Lepus are attacking the town and killing people. What’s a Lepus? Oh, they are bunny rabbits.

That’s right, this is the famous giant rabbit horror movie, three years before The Holy Grail. How do you make bunnies terrifying? Simple. Take close up shots of real bunnies on miniature sets, slowed down and shot at a low angle. Adding fake blood and a menacing growl made them genuinely terrifying fuzzy widdle baby-boos! Who’s a fuzzy boy! You are! Yes, you are!

Yea, this didn’t work. But the low rent special effects are not the worst part. Not even close. The pacing is slow and plotting, the story underdeveloped, and the acting … oh, the acting. I would periodically check to see if this was made for TV.

Films like this follow a certain format. The monster is introduced, there are initial incidents, the people try to figure out what is going on, things escalate, a plan is formulated, and conclusion. Them!, The Blob, The Birds, Jaws, they all progress the threat while exploring the people’s reaction to it. It should come as no surprise that the movie featuring giant, murderous bunnies does this very poorly. Things just happen and people just do things. There is very little logic. I mean, considering.

So, with this low budget, poorly conceived film, how did they manage to get former A-Lister Janet Leigh? Well, it was ten years since her last big film. And it was filmed near her house. Also here is Rory Calhoun. Perhaps you remember him from such films as Rogue River, Massacre River, and River of No Return. Oh, and How to Marry a Millionaire. And hey! Look, it's Doctor McCoy! Nice to see him get work.

The studio knew this wouldn't work, keeping the bunny angle a secret. Clunky, drab, and poorly acted, the effects just may be the best part of the film. There is an environmental Silent Spring message that may have won points with some viewers, but felt out of place. And the conclusion would take those points right back. AMRU 2.

The Odd Couple (1968)

When the wife of neat freak Felix (Jack Lemmon) leaves him, he becomes suicidal, causing his poker buddies to worry. He stays with slob Oscar (Walter Matthew) while he gets over the shock. They do not get along.

It is impossible for me to separate the movie from the 1970’s TV show I watched as a kid. I will refrain from contrasting the two works except to say that it is impressive how Tony Randall and Jack Klugman successfully created a personalized but very recognizable version of the same characters.

Ostensibly, The Odd Couple is a film about men’s relationship with women. Oscar and Felix’s ex-wives, who are never seen, and the Pigeon sisters, whom they attempt to engage. Women, or the desire of them, drive much of the action. But in reality, this is a story about men’s relationship with each other. They bicker, but are genuinely concerned when one is in jeopardy. Felix and Oscar cannot stand living together, but grow close through the experience. Closer than what they can comfortably communicate.

Not laugh out loud funny, at least for me, but funny and engaging. Particularly the coo-coo Pigeon sisters, Monica Evans and Carole Shelley, who reprised their roles from the stage play and would again for the TV series. They would also play Maid Marion and Lady Kluck in the Disney version of Robin Hood, a childhood favorite of mine.

The Odd Couple depicts adult male life in a very different and in many ways more realistic way than films to that point. That’s the hallmark of stage to film adaptations. They are not the idealized manly men of some films, but men in a very recognizable and sometimes unflattering way. The crisis forces them to confront a situation they are not capable of handling very well. In the end they learn and grow, play poker, and bicker with each other. AMRU 4.

The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog (1927)

A man calling himself The Avenger is murdering “fair haired” girls, causing panic in London. When a strange man matching his description rents a room, they begin to suspect him.

Set in current day (well, 1920’s) London, The Lodger is based on a book about Jack the Ripper. The book and the movie differ particularly in the ending in ways and for reasons that spoil. This is Hitchcock’s third film and first thriller. Having done his first two in Germany, he experimented with expressionist style to good effect.

The story centers around the husband and wife running the house, their fair haired daughter, her detective boyfriend, and of course, the lodger. Detective Joe is obsessed with catching The Avenger and doesn’t care much for this odd stranger, but pretty Daisy likes him just fine. Daisy is billed as being a “mannequin”, meaning she modeled clothes in a department store for rich people.

Hitch did his first ever cameo, and it came by accident. He didn’t hire enough extras for an early newsroom montage, so he sat in, back to the camera. A tradition is born. Assistant director and script supervisor Alma Reville had a quick cameo as well.

The expressive style and tense storytelling make The Lodger a compelling watch. The animated title cards were imaginative. One declaring Murder “Wet from the press”, which I presume to be the 1920’s London version of “Hot from the press”. But this film showed what Hitchcock could, and would eventually do. In fact, it would be years before he produced it’s equal. AMRU 4.