Review: The Assassination Bureau

Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films, 2023
Images from the Internet

The Assassination Bureau
Directed by Basil Dearden
Heathfield; Paramount Pictures; Arrow Video; MVD Visual
110 minutes, 1969 / 2023
www.ArrowVideo.com
www.MVDVisual.com

Initiated by the James Bond (Sean Connery era) series of spy films, this lead to a number of knockoffs, such as the Matt Helm (Dean Martin), Derek Flint (James Colburn) and Maxwell Smart (Don Adams) releases, which could loosely include the 1967 version of Casino Royale (which had almost nothing to do with the original Ian Fleming novel). In most cases, the secondary ones were comedies, be it dark or broad (I would like to add that I really enjoyed the Helm, Flint, and Royale films, as well as “Get Smart”).

Added to this list is The Assassination Bureau, which is a throwback to the pre-World War I period, and is, naturally, a comedy. It has a foot in the action genre, and another in the British retro-history subgenre (such as Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines, 1965). For Bureau, as the press release states, on the writing side, this film is “(b)ased on a novel by Jack London (The Call of the Wild, 1903) from a story by Nobel Prize-winner Sinclair Lewis (Babbit, 1922) completed in 1963 by Robert L. Fish (Bullitt, 1968) and adapted into the screenplay by Wolf Mankowitz (Casino Royale, 1967).”

Diana Rigg, Oliver Reed

The film focuses on a group (of men) whose purpose is to assassinate powerful people who “deserve it.” They are well paid for their services. This Bureau, headquartered in London, is run by Ivan Dragomiloff (Oliver Reed; d. 1999). He is both a cold-hearted killer for hire, and the love interest. Yep, you read that right. Remember, it is a comedy. The Bureau’s board is filled with British actors of renown at the time, such as Beryl Reid, (The Killing of Sister George, 1968; d. 1996), Clive Revill (who I always think of being the lead investigator in The Legend of Hell House, 1973, though he did appear in a couple of later Mel Brooks releases), and Kurt Jürgens (the lead villain in The Spy Who Loved Me, 1977; d. 1982).

Hot on the trail of the Bureau is strong-willed First Wave feminist who is seeking to be a journalist, Sonya Winter (The Diana Rigg, hot off her role of Emma Peel in “The Avengers”; d. 2021). She wants to investigate them with the help of a newspaper run by Lord Bostwick (Telly Savalas, d. 1994). She connects to the clandestine Bureau that she wants someone assassinated and is willing to hire them. Her choice target is Dragomiloff (perfect set-up for romantic encounters, as they avoid being killed in various ways). This gives Draggy and Winter the chance to circle the globe in cities such as Paris and Zurich, among many others.

Telly Savalas, Kurt Jürgens

The deal is, if Dragomiloff is not assassinated, he will kill the international ultra rich and power-/money-hungry board members first. It is obvious (purposefully) and disclosed early who is the key lead villain, and why, who is assisted by the humorously dour Yugoslavian Fagin-equse-looking lacky Baron Muntzof (Vernon Dobtcheff). Trump would be too dumb to be on this board, by the way, though he fits the greed criteria.

Winter, through the early stages of the film, looks remarkably like Julie Andrews in Mary Poppins (1964), in both manner (strict and to the point, yet kind) and dress. She even has the cloth bag. Of course, she also gets to dress up and dress down, in gowns, corsets and bath towels. While looking back this can be seen as a bit misogynistic, as I found the ending, it is important to note that Winter is a main character (though often seen as confused and duped by Dragomiloff), and there is also a major female villain in Eleanora Spado (Annabella Incontrera, who was in a few gialllo films, often directed by Paolo Cavara; d. 2004)

It is notable that for its time and in a mainstream release, there is a high level of sexual proclivity (e.g., a brothel) where there are near-naked women, and at least a few tips of nips. Wild for those days, but relatively tame for modern cinema viewers. However, I was more disturbed by the subtle antisemitism of the character of Weiss (Warren Mitchell, who was in The Crawling Eye, 1958, and Jabberwocky, 1977), a banker from Switzerland, who is exceedingly focused on money. As Baron Muntzof states, “Weiss understands the value of money.”

As a mild digression, I was amused that the President of France is played by an actor named John Adams.

For the basics of the extras, this High Definition (1080p) Blu-ray uses the original lossless English mono audio, with optional English subtitles for the deaf and hard-of-hearing. There is a brand new audio commentary with thick British-accented authors Sean Hogan and Kim Newman. They are not the most exciting speakers, but their topics are wide ranging, from discussing the rise of Victorian period pieces at the time (e.g., Mary Poppins, 1968’s Chitty Chitty Bang Bang) to how the film was formulated and its place in both the story’s history and in the time of its release. Of course, there are also some nice anecdotes.

Rigg, Vernon Dobtcheff

“Right Film, Wrong Time,” (27-min) is an also new featurette by British cultural historian and critic Matthew Sweet. He discusses the socio-political world London and Lewis were living in when they came up with the story idea for the book that became this film. He also talks about how London’s unfinished book morphed into the completed story. He keeps it pretty interesting mixing talking head commentary and clips from the film, though I started to get distracted about two-thirds through it. Along with the original trailer, and an Image gallery, you get a reversible sleeve featuring two original artwork choices.

This is a high-budget, big cast of British stars, that is fun. One could say that it was a subgenre initiated by the likes of It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1965) or The Russians are Coming, The Russians Are Coming! (1966).

Filmed during the uptick in the Vietnam War era/error and the year after the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, the film is a commentary on political violence and the desire for power by the rich and corrupt (aka Marg T. Greene heaven). Part of the way they show this is through parody, the absurdity of it all, and the enormous amount of collateral damage or, as Mel Brooks’ Governor Lepetomane put it, “Innocent people blown to bits!”

Considering all these murderous explosions that occur, in the words of Big Jim McBob and Billy Sol Hurok, “May the good lord take a likin’ to ya, and blow you up real soon!”

IMDB listing HERE

Review: The Leech

Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films, 2022
Images from the Internet

The Leech
Directed by Eric Pennycoff
Doomcroak Pictures; Arrow Video
82 minutes, 2022
www.arrow-player.com.

This is a Holiday film (in this case Christmas) that will not make it to the Hallmark Channel. Supposedly, the holiday represents love and profits, but the New Testament is built on the Old Testament, which is filled with fire, brimstone, and a whole lot of violence. This release dips into the themes of both books.

The film also delves into other motifs, such as the power of charity for both good and evil, and (in my opinion), the absence of reality in faith-belief. If you are still reading, let us start this rolling.

Graham Skipper

The church run by Father David (Graham Skipper, who was also in 2019’s Aliens, Clowns and Geeks), is struggling to find parishioners, which in the real world is actually becoming a problem for local houses of worship outside of the mega churches and their fear mongering diatribes (yes, and profits). The “lack” is shown brilliantly in the opening shot of the church steps, with its snow unbroken by feet entering the building, while the good father is sermonizing.

This sermon actually is important because it sets up the whole concept of charity, and what it means to the priest. I will also note that it is interesting that the few parishioners are faceless in the dim light, and we see only their backs as they silently glide, ghost-like, out of the church without even acknowledging David. Holiday cheer is certainly not present. Less than four minutes in, and I am already impressed.

Jeremy Gardner

When he meets ramshackle Terry (Jeremy Gardner), David is put into a situation where he needs to live up to what he literally preaches, and tries to help Terry out, but they find out that Terry’s girlfriend, Lexi (dimpley Taylor Zaudtke) has thrown him out, leaving his clothes out on the lawn. David offers him to stay the night with him at his deceased mom’s home. Terry, with a bit of a Southern drawl, has absolutely no filters on what he says, and starts to take advantage of David right from the start (“Mind if I smoke?” Terry states as he lights up in the car, not waiting for a response, as an example). The visit is intended for one night, for him to reconnect with Lexi the next day. But the film’s title says otherwise.

Ironically, Terry’s long hair and beard are reminiscent of the classic Jesus image, but he is more inclined to cause some ruckus overturning tables in the temple than healing the sick. He is definitely a house pest more than a house guest, chain smoking (after being asked not to do so) and blasting his boom box in the middle of the night. You know the type. And when his equally repulsive ex-, Lexi, who has been evicted (surprise surprise) shows up, David is in quite the quandary, allowing these two losers and abusers to stay with him for the Holidays, out of charity. In this case, he probably should have called for back-up (Bishop? social services? police?) in some form.

Watching this unfolding is the church pianist, Rigo (Rigo Garay), who seems a bit overwhelmed by the two, which is understandable, especially after some racist comments by our good ole boy. If this couple even thought about voting, you know which side of the aisle they would choose.

Taylor Zaudtke

At some point, I was a bit pissed at David. He concedes too often and too easily. For example, he lets himself get involved in a drinking game, when he is not interested. Screw that. I have been to plenty of parties where they wanted me to drink (academics and wine are nearly synonymous), and as I do not drink (uninterested), I did not. David should have had that will of character.

There are so many (purposefully, I am assuming) cringy moments throughout the whole film, but especially by the things done and said by the couple from hell (pun intended). And yet, I have definitely met people who were like this, I just did not invite them into my life, or on the rare occasion, had to get them out of my spectrum.

There is a lot of sermonizing at the beginning as David struggles with the lack of funds due to lack of attendance at the church (the Catholic church is the richest religious organization in the world, but treats its poorer churches as dead weight and closes them; this is not a screed against the Catholic church, just a statement of fact; I am opposed to all religious financial organizations), and a good-hearted leaning toward helping his fellow humans especially during Yuletide, but that just makes what happens all the more intense. The sermonizing is less a proselytizing point, but a device to show David’s state of mind, and how far he will travel in his own path.

Of course, there comes a tipping point (after all, it is the third act of a psychological horror film), and David has been wrestling with the Angel (Jesus and Rigo) on one shoulder, and the Devil (Terry and Lexi) on the other. The escalation is obvious, and wonderous, making this a magical time of year, especially during a psychotic break from reality

My one complaint is that – and it is not very often – the image is really dark and hard to make out, such as after the “Never Have I Ever” game. I realize it symbolizes the darkness and toxicity that is brought on by Terry and Lexi on David’s spirit and belief system, but it nulls out because it is visually unclear.

The cast is small at four speaking parts, which is not surprising considering it was shot during the height of the Covid pandemic (you heard me), in Fort Wayne, Indiana. We do not get to see much of the town, as nearly everything takes place either in the church or David’s home, but the film is a spirited experience of psychological Holiday horror and breakdowns.

IMDB listing HERE

Review: Dead or Alive Trilogy (Takashi Miike)

Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films, 2017

Images from the Internet

Dead or Alive Trilogy

Directed by Takashi Miike

Daiei Corporation / Toei Video / Arrow Video / MVD Visual

290 total minutes (not counting extras), 2017

www.arrowvideo.com

www.mvdvisual.com

The basic premise of these three films reviewed below in this collection is certainly not new. Duos, trios or even more playing similar character with different names and backstories has been done by the likes of the Marx Bros, Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello, the Three Stooges, and even the like of Tracy and Hepburn. Here, we have scowly Riki Takeuchi and sunny Show Aikawa (well, the second two, anyway) as the team, but they play off each other well. Then add in director of the bizarre, Takashi Miike, and this can only lead to violence and a wicked-cool sense of WTF. There are two films on the first disc, and one on the second, along with the extras spread across both, described at the end of this review after the review of the third film, but before the trailers.

Dead or Alive [aka Deddo oa araibu: Hanzaisha]

105 minutes, 1999

I think it would be safe to say, in a grand scheme, Japan is known for its period Samurai and gangster / Yakuza films (“Hanzaisha” translates as “criminal”), though often, if you look at them, they follow similar themes (such as Star Wars and Westerns in the – err – West). Leave it to Director Miike to take the common and bring a whole new dimension to it.

From the infamous opening 6-minute montage of sex, drug, and bullets, you know that you are dealing with something you may not be expecting. Keep that in mind, because more than once you are going to be in that state of being. Definitely buckle yourself in.

Detective Jojima (Aikawa) is honest up until now, but he’s placed in a desperate situation. His on-the-take partner and friend, is another story. Meanwhile, a small-time ethnic Chinese gangster with his own small crew, Ryuichi (Takeuchi, seemingly channeling a future Little Steven in The Sopranos, including the squint and hair nearly a decade earlier than the paisan), is trying to take down the local Yakuza for his own profit.

But there are a lot of subplots about family members (on all sides), sexual politics, and especially about Chinese/Taiwanese-Japanese cultural views, which has been a sore spot on both sides of equation since Japan invaded China in the 1930s in an overall barbaric way.

Again, being a Miike film, there is a lot of be unexpected, but one can count on moments of nearly beautiful sequences of complete chaos, violence and brutality, and also some moments of extreme ickiness (as opposed to Ichi-ness… sorry, but that joke’s a – err – killer).

Sometimes the story gets a bit convoluted here and there, but I’m not sure if that’s Miike being Miike, or if this particular Western viewer isn’t syncing into the Eastern way of being. Whatever, Miike does not shy away from people being blown to bits, or even a self-arm detachment.

What is good about the WTF factor of this director’s is that it is not always easy to guess where things are going. There’s some that felt obvious – won’t give it away, but one instance I knew what was going to happen in a key event a few minutes before it occurred – much more of it is out of the blue. I dare you to predict the “wait…what?!” ending, for example.

Through the film there are more than one gangland style slaying that makes the montage in The Godfather where the Corleone family takes out the competition look like a Canadian backing into someone and saying, “Oops, sorry!”

From what I understand, Miike’s films only get more bloody and violent, and off the rails. Even his musical comedies, such as The Happiness of the Katakuris (2001; reviewed by me HERE),  are rife with death, destruction and some humor. I’ll give this for Miike, he’s consistently inconsistent for what direction it’s going to come from, or where it’s going to go.

With all of that, Miike films look spectacular, with sharp lighting and editing, and characters that will remain with you after the film is over. He can make the most brutal criminal sometimes seem pitiable, and the most honest man despicable, and then reverse that again.

There is a reason why Miike is revered among the film crowds, especially those who love the Asian gangster genre.

Dead or Alive 2: Birds [aka Deddo oa araibu: Tȏbȏsha]:

97 minutes, 2000

The second of this… well, they call it a trilogy but I don’t agree. As I stated in the prologue above, this film is not a sequel or prequel, but another go around with the same two lead actors, and no other connection but its director, Miike. So rather than a trilogy, let me phrase it this way: the second film of this collection is a bit more esoteric than the first, but I actually found it more enjoyable.

Perhaps this was edited for the Western market when it was released, because more than one review said that this is generally looked at as one of the lesser films because of its lack of violence. Wait, what? Nuh-uh. There is richness in this one of that flavor. This is, in my opinion, a more enjoyable film than the first.

Despite its WTF-ity, the first one is quite a bit less straightforward story-wise, and at times is hard to follow. This one is a bit different, though present are overlapping themes. What’s weird to me is that even though I had less trouble following the story, it actually has even more WTF moments than the first, and more often.

Again dealing with Yakuza (Japanese) mobsters vs. Triad (ethnic Chinese) criminal syndicates, we are introduced two hit men who were given the same assignment by different gangs. Both end up in hot water, but it seems that they are both childhood buddies from an orphanage on a relatively remote Island off the Japanese coast. They meet again on the boat back to the hilly isle, where they wait for things to cool off a bit.

The sunnier of the two is Mizuki Okamoto (Show Aikawa), playing a much different role than the previous release. Rather than being a glum copper, here he is hopeful, with blond hair and bright yellow Hawaiian shirts. His purpose for being a hitman may surprise you. On the other hand, Shuichi Sawada (Riki Takeuchi), similarly to the previous, is mostly glum and snarly. He too holds a secret.

As they hole up on their home turf and have fun by lending a hand with the orphanage, the previous bungle is the catalyst for all out gang warfare, for which we see in an interesting counterpoint with the two hiders and their childhood crew.

Perhaps it’s something I’m (again) missing in the translation of Japanese culture, but our two anti-heroes are represented by dark and light birds, with the two leads (and occasionally others) often sprouting wings, or we see them in the modern world represented by the children they were back in the orphanage. This is a moving touch, even if I’m not sure if it is specific symbolism (such as Al Pacino playing the Louis Cyphre in 1987’s Angel Heart).

Even with the birds and children, the metaphors and WTF-icity, this is definitely an enjoyable story, and with no shortage of both blood or heart. Yeah, the ending is a head scratcher once again, though not as brash as the first one, and yet still will leave you wondering. It felt like a good time was spent.

Dead or Alive: Final [aka Dead or Alive 3]

89 minutes, 2002

Well, even 10 minutes in, this is by far the most “out there” of the trilogy, for shizzle. It takes place in the year 2346 (as opposed to 2525), and Yokohama is a wreck (though tinted camera lens, giving it a sickly view. Another way you can tell something is off is in an early scene when someone is making eggs, and the yolks are bright red.

This time, a still snarling and pompadoured Takeuchi plays Police Officer Takeshi Honda, who is Miike’s version of Harrison Ford, hunting down Rutger Hauer-lite war-time replicant” (aka robot) Ryō, a still-blond and in sunny yellow clothes Aikawa. The latter is shown as catching bullets in his hands and running in fast motion, in almost Keystone Kops mode. While this release is part comedy, y’know at some point they’re going to team up together to fight… Well, it’s still early.

Despite the humorous touches, there is still the strong Eastern/Western politics being played, as characters randomly speak English, Japanese and Cantonese (the language of Taiwan), responding to each other as if they were all speaking the same language. That’s a cool idea. Note that all but English is captioned.

There are other kinds of other politics as well, including a totalitarian government, and those gender-related as well, as we are introduced to the philosophical (albeit creepy) gay, dictatorial mayor Woo (Richard Chen), who spouts how gay love lasts longer than straight affection. Back in 2002, that was quite a step forward in Asian cinema, as far as I can tell, even if it’s a villainous character spouting such comments (baby steps, I guess).

Although this takes place in the future, it’s fun to see the relative anachronisms, such as news cameras being, well, camcorders, and microphones still having that fuzzy stuff at the end. And as much as it’s about technology and politics, it also abounds the body politic as we find out people aren’t who we (or they) think they are, and painful revelations and double-crosses abound in sometimes violent ways when you’re not expecting them.

Speaking of red yolk’d eggs, like all of the three releases, this one relies heavily on food, be it philosophical (how to eat it), abusing it (over-eating), or just the social aspect (eating together as a communal act). Also consistent is an ending where Miike pulls a WTF out of his – err – pants and takes us where we were not expecting to go. At all.

Of the three films, even with the garish lighting (which is used on occasion in all the films), this is possibly my fave one, just for the sheer audacity of it. There is a bit of trying to tie all the films together at some point, though I’m not quite sure what that is, but that’s fine.

Extras – Disc 1:

Being an Arrow Films release, you know there are going to be a mountain of extras. On the first disc, which holds the first two films, there is a 10-minute archive making-of featurette for DOA2: Birds, though the first is also represented as it consists of behind the scene shots and the occasional blooper. Next up is both the US and Japanese trailers for the first film, followed by the Japanese trailer for the second. Last is a full commentary for the first DOA by Miike biographer Tom Mes. He approaches the film from not just a bio way, but he also shows keen insights to the philosophy behind it and a strong sense of film theory criticism. The only negative is that his voice is really low and monotone, so I had to turn the volume way up to make out what he was saying. It was worth it, though.

Extras – Disc 2:

The first extra is a 43 minute 2016 featurette/interview called “Toshiki Kimura: Drifting with Miike”; Kimura is a producer and screenwriter of the films. It’s in Japanese, with English subtitles, as are all of the interviews on the disc. Here, Kimura discusses how he got into the film industry, his introduction into the “hard boiled” style, and how he started collaborating with Miike; some – but not many – clips are included. He talks about the philosophy of the films, and filmmaking in general; it’s a bit talky, but pretty interesting. Following is another 30-minute interview featurette from 2016 called “Riki Takeuchi: Deadly Outlaw Riki.” He explains he’s had lead roles in over 200 features, of his nearly 500 appearances, and he further talks about his career in general and on the films specifically, and also post-DOA, such as becoming a producer. He’s a personable speaker so the attention is there.

Of course, the 55 year-old Aikawa is represented – with red hair (or wig) – in the 23-minute “Show Aikawa: Cop, Killer, Replicant.” While a Miike interview makes a brief appearance, this is solidly Aikawa’s time, and he does shine. He also talks about his career, his roles in the DOA films and beyond, and his views on the Japanese gangster genre. One thing I would have liked to see more of is the discussion of Japan’s role in worldwide cinematic art writ large. Not a complaint, just a query. Then there is an 11-minute featurette “Making Of” for the final film; it’s a mostly humorous look at some of the action scenes, bloopers, and snarky title cards. It’s well worth the watch.

But it ain’t over yet: There’s the 11-minute group post-Final press conference interviews from 2002 with the two leads and director Miike, and then a weird animated trailer for Final that almost seems fan filmed, and then finally the official trailer

The last up is a really nice multi-page booklet included in the package with technical notes and a lengthy article about the trilogy. So, in all, there’s 290 minutes of film and 247 minutes of extras for a grand total of 522 minutes, or almost 9 hours in total. Wow.

Trilogy trailer:

Original trailers:

Review: Jack Hill's Pit Stop

Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films, 2015
Images from the Internet

Pit Stop

Directed by Jack Hill
Arrow Video
MVD Visual
92 minutes, filmed in 1967, released in 1969 / this release is 2015
www.mvdvisual.com

I know I saw this film in the theater when I was a kid but all I remember is the race car driving. While I was never into car culture, such as NASCAR or whatever it was called back then, seeing all the crashes was fun. I don’t recall any part of the actual story, so here was my opportunity to revisit this classic B-film.

Car racing has been both a mainstream and indie genre for quite a while, sometimes goofy like The Great Race (1965) or Viva Las Vegas (1964), to the more gritty and serious films such as Gran Prix (1966), Winning (1969; the reason why the name of this film was changed from The Winner), Le Mans (1971) or Little Fauss and Big Halsey (1970). Of course, this would lead to the likes of off road chases like one of Ron Howard’s early directorial efforts, Grand Theft Auto (1977), or even Smoky and the Bandit (1977). And don’t get me started on The Blues Brothers (1980). The latest interpretations could be seen as The Fast and the Furious and Transporter franchises, which are essentially races to the death.

 



Brian Dunlevy, Beverly Washburn,
 Sid Haig, Dick Davalos

With this early indie low-budget classic, we are introduced to Rick Bowman (Dick Davalos, whose Bronx accent occasionally comes through), a tough-as-nails street racer in California who is taken under wing by eye-on-the-buck industrialist and different kind of rat, Grant Willard (the last film of character actor Brian Dunlevy, d. 1972). Willard owns racing cars and a majority share of the local track where stock car drivers race the “Figure 8,” a stupid and dangerous trial by smash-up, and he brings Rick into the fold by psychologically squaring him off against the ridiculously named Hawk Sidney (Jack Hill regular, Sid Haig), who is the one to beat.

 

Two of the main characters are wholly driven by ego, in two different ways: Rick is a sullen, burning fire of anger, and Hawk is an extroverted loudmouth with a streak towards violence and revenge. Both of them dream of the big time, in the pro races (not a sport I follow, so please excuse the ignorance; for me, while I occasionally drive too fast – or too slow – cars are something for someone I pay to fix). Representing that level is professional race driver and ally Ed McLeod (George Washburn) and the “other side” is Sonny Simpson (Ted Duncan). Stragedy (as Bugs Bunny would say) plays a key part in the roles each character takes in the rise to the top or vice versa in this story of multiple double-crosses, the result of them, and what it takes to go all the way.



Ellen McRae (Burstyn) and George Washburn

With his sullen good looks and bad-boy demeanor (not to mention hair that is so greased it literally reflects light), Rick is a heartthrob to the ladies. There are two here (and the only two significant female roles in the entire film, as race car is a man’s sport; where’s Danica Patrick when ya need her?). The first love interest is Jolene (Beverly Washburn, sister of co-star George; she was also powerful in Hill’s 1967 Spider Baby). She sports short hair, drinks and chews a lot of gum, and while gruff is extremely sympathetic. The other is Ed’s wife and car expert, Ellen McCloud (Ellen McRae, who would soon change her last name to Burstyn and win an Academy Award in in 1974 as the title character in Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore; though my favorite film of hers is 1980’s Resurrection). When we meet Ellen, she is wearing a similar hair style and one-piece jumpsuit as Raquel Welsh in Fantastic Voyage (1966). There is an immediate attraction between the two, which is obvious.

 

This black and white release is a pretty dark story (some use the word “gritty”), with the Rick character sort of being the race car version Stephen Boyd’s Frank Fane in The Oscar (1966). Davalos does a good job as the sullen and hungry Rick, in an overaged JD sort of way. He doesn’t talk often, but when he does, his words boomerang rather than hang. If you can picture a yin and yang symbol with both sides being the same color, that would be Hawk. One is a quiet, smoldering time bomb at 11:58 o’clock; the other is a bombastic ass who thrives on attention. As usual, Haig does an excellent job at both manic and depressive, and as always, his eyes tell you he’s in the moment; a great and underrated actor who famously uses the method acting style.

Among the cast are quite a few contemporary racing stars from the circuit playing themselves, which certainly must have helped the box office the Deep South, where race cars are king. There are quite a few then-new technologies shown as the torques is checked, wheels are reinforced, and engines are often revving. Oh, and lots and lots of cars in motion, filmed during six live races. Of course, what we see is mostly the crashes more than the actual events.

The look of the film is dark and, yes, gritty, but thanks to restoration from one of the original prints (aka minus-1 generation from the negative), the contrasts are pretty sharp, which is explained in one of the many extras (such as the original trailer) included on this new edition, the 4-minute “Restoring Pit Stop.” They show before and after images, and well as side-by-side, and it’s quite the difference for the better. It’s still a bit muddy here and there, but much cleaner than it was.

In an 11-1/2 minute featurette, “Roger Corman and the Genesis of Pit Stop,” Corman explains how he was involved with the production, but of course, it’s more about Corman than Pit Stop, but I really don’t have a problem with that. The man is just interesting, and he knows how to tell a story.

“Drive Hard: Sid Haig Remembers Pit Stop” is a 17-minute short interspersed with clips of the film. Haig is a well-spoken man who plays dangerous characters. He talks about motivation, the crew, and a bit about Tarantino. It went by quick and remained entertaining. He’s also a good storyteller. Director Jack Hill gets his own shot with the 15-1/2 minute “Crash and Burn: Jack Hill on the Making of Pit Stop,” with some tales of Pit Stop, though lots of his memories are also in the commentary.

For the full-length commentary, Hill discusses the picture and his entire career in the ‘60s and ‘70s with British film historian Calum Waddell, who literally wrote the book about him, Jack Hill: The Exploitation and Blaxploitation Master, Film by Film (2008); Calum also directed much of the extras here, which explains the British uses of spelling in the captions (such as replacing the “z” with “s”). While some of the same material is re-discussed as in the Jack Hill interview short, as I said above, there is so much more here that gets covered, and Hill comes across as a very honest and affable guy, who is willing to talk about anything about his filmmaking, from successes to failures; an example he gives of the latter is his Me, a Groupie, from 1970.

Now, here is a weird point: oddly enough we do not see a single pit stop in the film. But of course, taking in a writ large way, Figure 8 racing could be seen as a pit stop in Rick’s career. Or am I over-analyzing? Either way, this was an enjoyable ride, but you may want to wear a helmet when viewing.