Some actors who really ought to have known better make ILLUSIONS appear to be way better than it really is.
The plot- which borrows heavily from GASLIGHT and DIABOLIQUE and several far better films and even drags in a bell tower from VERTIGO- is a nasty brew of murder, greed, and incest. For whatever reason, some excellent actors throw themselves away on this movie, which looks so cheaply made you can't even say they did it for the money.
Heatler Locklear plays a young woman fresh from a mental institution who is married to Robert Carradine. She's the daughter of a wealthy family and he's an aspiring archaeologist. She gets out of the hospital and accompanies him on a dig, living in a huge rented house where Something Awful is supposed to have happened a couple of decades ago. Miss Locklear is an excellent actress when she has the right material and a strong director- here, she has neither.
Ned Beatty plays George, the hired hand. He's an alcoholic whose wife and son have deserted him. Beatty has worked with some of the finest directors in the business, most notably Lumet and Boorman. Ned, say it ain't so.
Susannah York has a tiny part as a doctor. Given nothing to do, she does it well.
There are many things unexplained in the movie, most notably:
-- Ms. Locklear's character provides voiceover narration in an attempt to bring some coherence to the story. But it's clearly not Ms. Locklear's voice.
-- In the house where most of the action takes place, there's a horseshoe over a door which is pointing down. I've always seen horseshoes pointed up, so as to hold in the luck. Is this a point plot that got lost, or was this just how it was nailed up?
-- Ms. Locklear does not provide the narration. Neither does she participate in the nude scenes. Good thinking.
-- In literally the last ten minutes a major character begins to curse like a sailor. Why? Was the movie so boring that people forgot the nudity that had gone onscreen an hour ago? Relax, boys, you got the R rating.
-- Did the actors have the least idea that this was going to turn out this way?
-- It's based on a stage play. The act structure is clearly intact, and you can almost see curtains open and close. Did the author ever think there was a reason this play was never the Toast of Broadway and maybe he should go in another direction?
-- The director, apparently working in English for the first time, has not worked again. What was his reaction when he saw this mess with his name plastered to it?
The plot- which borrows heavily from GASLIGHT and DIABOLIQUE and several far better films and even drags in a bell tower from VERTIGO- is a nasty brew of murder, greed, and incest. For whatever reason, some excellent actors throw themselves away on this movie, which looks so cheaply made you can't even say they did it for the money.
Heatler Locklear plays a young woman fresh from a mental institution who is married to Robert Carradine. She's the daughter of a wealthy family and he's an aspiring archaeologist. She gets out of the hospital and accompanies him on a dig, living in a huge rented house where Something Awful is supposed to have happened a couple of decades ago. Miss Locklear is an excellent actress when she has the right material and a strong director- here, she has neither.
Ned Beatty plays George, the hired hand. He's an alcoholic whose wife and son have deserted him. Beatty has worked with some of the finest directors in the business, most notably Lumet and Boorman. Ned, say it ain't so.
Susannah York has a tiny part as a doctor. Given nothing to do, she does it well.
There are many things unexplained in the movie, most notably:
-- Ms. Locklear's character provides voiceover narration in an attempt to bring some coherence to the story. But it's clearly not Ms. Locklear's voice.
-- In the house where most of the action takes place, there's a horseshoe over a door which is pointing down. I've always seen horseshoes pointed up, so as to hold in the luck. Is this a point plot that got lost, or was this just how it was nailed up?
-- Ms. Locklear does not provide the narration. Neither does she participate in the nude scenes. Good thinking.
-- In literally the last ten minutes a major character begins to curse like a sailor. Why? Was the movie so boring that people forgot the nudity that had gone onscreen an hour ago? Relax, boys, you got the R rating.
-- Did the actors have the least idea that this was going to turn out this way?
-- It's based on a stage play. The act structure is clearly intact, and you can almost see curtains open and close. Did the author ever think there was a reason this play was never the Toast of Broadway and maybe he should go in another direction?
-- The director, apparently working in English for the first time, has not worked again. What was his reaction when he saw this mess with his name plastered to it?