Thu 11 Dec 2014
Movie Review: THE SATAN BUG (1965).
Posted by Steve under Reviews , Suspense & espionage films[15] Comments
THE SATAN BUG. Mirisch Corporation/United Artists, 1965. George Maharis, Richard Basehart, Anne Francis, Dana Andrews, Edward Asner. Based on the novel by Ian Stuart [Alistair MacLean]. Screenplay: James Clavell & Edward Anhalt. Music: Jerry Goldsmith. Director: John Sturges.
With all the manpower both in front and behind the cameras, and one woman, I was expecting a lot better film than the on I saw. This is one of the most boring major studio thriller movies I have ever seen. It is dull from the beginning to the end, in spite of the view of Los Angeles from the air in the finale as three men in a helicopter slug it out while a glass flask of deadly toxin rolls around loose in the back seat.
How could such a scene be dull? It beats me, but it is. Maybe if the first 15 minutes were more interesting — watching a car driving endlessly along a road in the desert to pull into a guarded but totally non-secure government facility, where small handfuls of guards and men in hats and coats and ties walk around talking to each other about things important to them but not to us — not my idea of a way to catch anyone’s interest, not if I were given a chance to make a movie with at least some money to invest into it.
Maybe if the next half hour or so were not filled with more men in hats and coats and ties talking to each other about a deadly toxin that could kill off the world, but since the scientific facility is guarded by as many as maybe five men, one dog and a couple of wire fences, how serious could they be about it?
Maybe if the star of the movie, George Maharis, fresh from his success on the TV series Route 66, weren’t as bland as scrambled egg whites. He’s as good-looking as they come, but I can’t overemphasize how clearly his lack of range as an actor shows up on the big screen.
Maybe if the rest of the cast weren’t so dour and expressionless. Maybe if all of them were all but interchangeable, what with their identical suits and ties and hats. I have never seen so many suits and ties and hats.
Maybe if they’d actually given Anne Francis something to do. As the only female in the movie to appear for more than a blink of an eye, you’d think they’d come up with a reason why she’s actually in the picture.
Maybe if the plot weren’t muddled. The basic idea is clear: a madman has gotten his hands on a deadly poison of some kind and we gotta get it back. But the details of who, when and where were more than I could figure out. I suppose I could watch it again, but I was so unimpressed that there is no chance in the world I could sit as long as I just have without experiencing a moment of tension, a modicum even of suspense, or a hint of that maybe, just maybe, a deadly disaster was about to occur.
December 11th, 2014 at 10:06 pm
I had read the book when I saw this, and I think I transferred much of the tension of the book to the screen subconsciously. It is interesting as a early run on Robert Wise’s THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN which it resembles more than a little.
I like this much better than you, and actually felt the low key approach worked for it because it could easily have been far too melodramatic.
Maharis is okay, but okay isn’t quite enough. On the other hand he is very good as a private eye in another film of the era based on one of Howard Fast’s Cunnigham titles, STELLA. There isn’t a lot to work with character wise in this one.
I don’t argue with how you feel about it, but the low key acting, the look, all the things you complain about, are deliberate in an attempt to overcome the science fictional aspect of the film. Whether one feels it is a success or failure what they put on the screen is what the director intended, because there pretty much was no such thing as big budget science fiction and underplaying likely seemed the best way to avoid that Particular ghetto.
And anytime Richard Basehart gets to play a tad crazy is a bonus for me. Even his Admiral Nelson on VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA was a bit of a megalomaniac, at least in the first season.
As I said, you can debate the results, but this is the film they intended to make, a misjudgment perhaps, but a deliberate one.
December 11th, 2014 at 10:52 pm
Your last line is perfectly stated, David. This is the film that they intended to make.
It’s also a film that didn’t particularly excite me, and I did my best in my comments to try to describe why.
Obviously it could be me, viewing it now instead of when the film was made. Given the way thriller movie-making has evolved, a film like this made in 1965 might have to be dull and uninteresting to someone seeing it for the first time almost 50 years later.
But after writing up my review, I was curious and went looking on the web to see what film critics at the time had to say. I seldom agree very much with Bosley Crowther, so I was surprised to discover that he and I see almost eye to eye on this one.
http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9A02E2D7153CE733A25756C1A9629C946491D6CF
But what he thought at the time doesn’t really matter, either. What I think is that there was a good movie within this film aching to be made, and in spite of the effort that was obviously put into it, nothing very special came out.
December 11th, 2014 at 11:24 pm
I remember seeing this one in the theater. I’d read the book and really liked it — I was a huge fan of Alistair MacLean — so naturally I went to the movie. The only thing I remember now is Richard Basehart. I don’t think I’ll watch it again.
December 11th, 2014 at 11:25 pm
I took a look at the Crowther review, and I see that James Clavell did the screenplay. Hmmmmm.
December 11th, 2014 at 11:54 pm
As I pointed out in the first part of my review, there was a lot of talent involved in making this film, but for me, it didn’t show itself on the screen. I wish it had. The low key approach that worked for David simply didn’t for me. Sometimes it does, but in this case I’d have to admit that I was expecting more.
December 12th, 2014 at 12:29 am
As long as I’ve passed along the link to Bosley Crowther’s review, it seems only fair to point out that of the 39 people who have left comments on IMDb, nine found the movie as ineffective as I did, two were more or less neutral, and the rest really enjoyed the film.
December 12th, 2014 at 6:02 am
I’m with David on this one. It worked quite well for me.
December 12th, 2014 at 1:48 pm
As a matter of interest, how close is the movie version to the book? I’m becoming a fan of MacLean, but I haven’t got round to reading this one yet. Hollywood’s approach to adapting him seemed to involve dumping just about everything from the originals and making up their own stories. ICE STATION ZEBRA is a superb thriller novel, but the movie is a terrible mess.
December 12th, 2014 at 2:50 pm
The movie has one thing the book doesn’t, remains unmentioned in this otherwise accurate review: Jerry Goldsmith’s knock-out score
December 12th, 2014 at 3:19 pm
Someone on IMDb says the book and the movie are close, but I wouldn’t a lot of credence in that myself. I think David may be the best one to answer the question, when he sees this.
December 12th, 2014 at 3:28 pm
Dhar
I thought Goldsmith’s score was great also. I didn’t mention it, though, because to me it often didn’t seem to match what was happening on the screen — as if the music was trying to build up some suspense that just wasn’t there. It would have been perfect, for some other movie.
December 12th, 2014 at 4:01 pm
I’m a huge Alistair MacLean fan, and like Bill Crider, I really enjoyed the novel. I’ve often wondered about the film and more than once I nearly purchased the DVD, but I always pull back before I do. And I’m still on the fence.
Ben
December 12th, 2014 at 4:12 pm
Ben
For what it’s worth, people leaving comments on Amazon are quite unhappy with the bad picture and audio quality on the MGM press-on-demand DVD-R release. For example:
“For such a good film, it’s a shame they didn’t invest anything into the transfer to DVD-R. It’s pretty awful. This has an extremely low-res appearance with jaggies all over the place, jerky motion artifacts and tons of other video noise. They need to go back to the film elements and do a new transfer. Avoid this one.”
I taped the copy I watched from TCM, I think, and the picture quality was about the same as this fellow says.
December 12th, 2014 at 4:17 pm
Bradstreet.
Obviously the hero and setting of the book are British. Other than that the differences are pretty small really. The twist is obvious in the film because of the casting, but over all its very close to the book.
MacLean was cinematic and generally the screen version is close to the book with the only major difference in THE GUNS OF NAVARONE making the two Resistance fighters women and the conflict between the Peck and Quinn and Peck and Niven characters.
It’s much closer to the book than ICE STATION ZEBRA.
Steve,
I grew up on this low key almost documentary style thriller like THE HOUSE ON 92nd STREET or WALK EAST ON BEACON STREET and WALK A CROOKED MILE, only this does it without the narrator and the noir touches.
I do think the style here was because of the science fiction angle and that this must have been seen by Michael Crichton before he wrote ANDROMEDA STRAIN.
This style was still fairly common in 1965 though.
I can see where based on todays thrillers this might seem dull, but it was fairly intense then.
I was about 50/50 with Bosley Crowther, but who could complain about a critic who summed up FRIENDLY PERSUASION as Thou Swell?
December 19th, 2014 at 1:42 pm
I can’t help but agree that it is a very phlegmatic, lethargic flick. No argument. This is what makes it sorta ‘fail’ for me as well. But what makes it ‘work’ is the quality of surrealism. Its got such a detached, remote look’n’feel. Strange-looking movie. So I’d watch it for that alone. Then too, the bland acting goes hand-in-hand with this. Maharis–yes he was great in ‘Stella’ –but here, it doesn’t matter how lukewarm he is. He just ‘looks right’ for the part; broad-shoulders etc. And in fact his lack-of-expression is sorta well-suited for an Alistair MaClean hero. But the bottom line is that this is a John Sturges film–I’d watch anything by Sturges. He’s earned that credit with me.