Most everyone tout’s Samuel Fuller’s The Naked Kiss (1964) as a classic. I, naturally, have to be a contrarian. Not that I have any major complaints; I just think the movie is missing something, or I am.
Most everyone tout’s Samuel Fuller’s The Naked Kiss (1964) as a classic. I, naturally, have to be a contrarian. Not that I have any major complaints; I just think the movie is missing something, or I am.
#1 by Thomas on September 25th, 2009
I’m not sure why, but Sam Fuller has been inescapable for me these past few days. On Wednesday, I went to the Melbourne Cinematheque and discovered that they were showing a retrospective of his films; then you posted this; and just today I received Pickup On South Street from Quickflix only to discover that Samuel Fuller directed that one, too.
Still, he seems fairly competent, so it’s a pity that this one falls short. They showed White Dog on Wednesday, and that film was marvellous.
#2 by El Santo on September 26th, 2009
“It’s also a very flawed movie, possibly because of the studio making cuts that infuriated Fuller, but probably also because of what you’re going to get when you make a movie full of exploitative elements for a mainstream early-’60s audience, i.e., so much pussyfooting that the impact is blunted.”
I had exactly the same reaction to Fuller’s Shock Corridor.
#3 by Nathan Shumate on September 26th, 2009
So maybe it’s a Fuller thing. This deserves further study.
#4 by Joshua on September 26th, 2009
So the child-molester-scion of Grantville is named Grant? Does that make him Grant Grant? Or was the town named after him?
#5 by Nathan Shumate on September 26th, 2009
He goes by his last name. The credits list him as “J.L. Grant”; it’s probably something embarrassing like “Jerubabel Lamont.”
#6 by Read MacGuirtose on September 27th, 2009
I was actually wondering the same thing… the possibility that he just went by his last name should have occurred to me, but didn’t…