Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975)

In our modern world today, people, especially children, will sometimes disappear into thin air. We all assume the worst when this happens, and in a vast majority of the incidents, the answer as to what has happened to the missing is never found. Cinema, when dealing with this phenomenon, will mostly attempt to visualize what has happened to the missing. That is not always the case, and Peter Weir’s mythicized and eerie movie, “Picnic at Hanging Rock,” is an example of one such film that does the exact opposite.

The movie is set in the year 1900, in the outback region of Australia. Based on a popular 1967 novel of the same name, the plot is a fictionalized account of the strange disappearance of three schoolgirls and one of their teachers. On Valentine’s Day in 1900, a group of teenage girls from a strict boarding school situated in the middle of the Australian wilderness go out on a much-anticipated outing to a picturesque location called Hanging Rock. Three of them and one teacher climb above the picnic site and do not return, while one will be found a few days later unconscious and, upon waking up, without any memory as to what has happened to her. The rest of the movie revolves around how this terrible incident affects the rest of the school as well as two local boys who were at the site of the disappearance when it happened. 

The New Australian Cinema that began at the start of the 1970s would very often deal with the cultural clash between the civilized western or European world and the wild, ingenious world of the local Aboriginals. “Picnic at Hanging Rock” is no different but chooses to place its emphasis on the mystic aspect of the people from the land of which they have inherited. In the film, the school is this great Victorian structure surrounded by controlled gardens and oozing with structure and order. Its appearance in the middle of the outback seemed obscene to me. The school is contrasted greatly with the rising geological structure, which is “Hanging Rock.” Rising above the land, this geological outcropping becomes ominous, and Weir films it in such a way that it looks alive with eyes staring out at those who would defile it. 

In addition, the teenage girls at the picnic wear matching virginal white corsets and dresses along with elegant shoes that are so unsuitable for the landscape that they become symbolic in this clash of cultures. The girls will write fantasy love letters before the trip, and when the three girls decide to explore, they need to remove parts of their cumbersome clothing, including their shoes. There is a clear sexual suppression that I felt within their forced social behavior and their need to let loose. While climbing up the rock, there are two local boys who lustily watch them. Are those boys part of the mystery? I initially thought so, until later, when I found out that one of the boys went out desperately searching for the lost girls. The movie is full of hints as to what happened that will then be debunked later. It is an ultimate mystery, except that it isn’t, because if it were, it would be a failure.

What Weir does succeed with in his beautifully shot film is leaving me with a feeling of spiritual mysticism within the ancient land that these controlled girls have invaded. The eyes I saw in the rock and the fear inherent in the teacher who went missing were ingrained in the misty cinematography. For me, it became clear that something unearthly occurred at the picnic, but like everyone else, I did not know what it was. 

Weir’s decision to not concentrate on the mystery but rather on how the mystery effects its surroundings make this a very different and special film. Helping him out in creating his slow-burning, almost chilling atmosphere is the panpipe-driven folk music that drives the soundtrack. The music reminded me of the original “Wicker Man,” with its sinister-sounding feel. Especially during the scenes on the rock itself. In developing this style, the movie further emphasizes how some of the scariest threats are those enveloped in civility. Not only on the Rock, but even in the school, a girl who is a bit of a rebel and was banned from going on the trip is abused by the cold, hard headmistress. In fact, the spelled-out tragedy that does occur in the movie becomes something separate from the event of the missing girls, although Weir makes it clear that the tragic events are a direct result of the class of cultures. A class that is more spiritual, even sensual, than physical or sexual. 

Full of a mystic feel and sprinkled with suppressed tension throughout, “Picnic and Hanging Rock” fails as a crime mystery but succeeds gloriously as an unsolved tale that could or could not be a ghost story. It is a movie that lingers long after the closing credits and is a treasure from the rich new Australian cinema. 

Salo, or the 120 days of Sodom (Salo o le 120 giornate di Sodoma) (1975)

Pier Paolo Pasolini was one of the new Italian cinema’s more intellectual directors. He was a director who saw poetry in almost everything he did, and his acclaimed cinematic version of the New Testament (The Gospel according to St. Matthew) is probably the Catholic Church’s best-loved version of the good book. Just before his violent death, Pasolini completed his personal indictment against fascism and the dangers of the human condition. The completed film, Salo, has been described as the most obscene movie ever made and as unwatchable. While I do not agree with it being the most obscene film, I did find the movie barely watchable and was forced to turn my gaze from the screen on numerous occasions while watching it. 

The movie is set during the waning days of World War II in the town of Salo, which was the headquarters at the time for Mussolini’s puppet Italian Social Republic. Four powerful men, the Duke (Paulo Bonacelli), who represents royalty; the Bishop (Giorgio Cataldi), who represents the church; the magistrate (Umberto P. Quinatvalle), who represents law; and the President (Aldo Valletti), who represents the political leadership, hold hostage a group of young men and women for the express purpose of having complete and unhindered power over them. Throughout 120 days, these four men, along with four teenage boy guards called the collaborators, four young soldiers chosen for their enlarged penis size called blackshirts, and four middle-aged prostitutes who recall daily stories concerning the worst things that happened to them in their profession, will torture and assault the 18 victims up until a horrific ending that is too terrible to describe here. 

The number four plays an important part in the plot, as in addition to its separation of the different protagonists into groups of four, Pasolini also divides the movie into four segments that are apparently inspired by Dante’s “Devine Comedy.”  The first segment, called Anteinferno, has the 18 victims being gathered and taken into custody. The second segment, called “The Circle of Manias,”  concerns the sexual tortures inflicted on the victims, which are devised daily based on the stories told by the prostitutes. The third segment, “Circle of Shit,”  while continuing with the sexual torture, has added to the obscenities forced consumption of human feces.  The final segment, called the Circle of Blood, shows in horrific detail the final fate of all the surviving hostages. 

This is a movie that shows what human beings are capable of if given all-consuming power over another human being. Its horrendous and depressing message is, sadly, not far from the truth. Even today, there are over 100 hostages who are under the same terrifying control as their captors, similar to the hostages shown in this movie. The obscenities shown in the film include both heterosexual and homosexual rape, crucifixion, hanging, tearing of tongues, the forced consumption of glass and shit, as well as much more. 

Pasolini uses mostly non-actors to portray his victims, and their campy performances allowed me to keep a safe distance from the torture instilled in them. Otherwise, the movie would be even more unwatchable than it is. In addition, the actors playing the four main torturers bring a certain glee to their roles. Some scenes are so outlandish that they actually reminded me of a bad Monty Python sketch.  For example, there is a discussion between the four men when looking at the hostage boys lying naked, regarding which of them has the most perfect ass. If the previous scenes were not so vile, I may have found this an attempt at humor. It is not, however, as it is just another attempt by Pasolini to show the levels of human depravity and insensitivity given to those who have ultimate power over others. 

Pasolini was a very talented director, and his filming of the decorative villa where these obscenities take place has a classic painting feel to it.  This makes sense since many classic paintings from the Italian Renaissance were violent and depicted torture. He also depicts the final and most horrific of scenes through the perspective of binoculars from above, through the eyes of the four tyrants, which reminded me a little bit of Hitchcock’s “Rear Window. Only in style, and unfortunately, not in content. 

Personally, I do not understand the people who find this movie somehow enlightening or important. I do not need Pasolini to tell me that people, uninhibited by any moral code, can be monstrous to each other. Watching this movie, I believe, is akin to watching a snuff film or a geek show at a carnival. Those who search it out are not looking for a message they can identify with. For this reason, I believe that Pasolini failed in his attempt to say something about the human condition. I chose to believe that human beings can also be good, and this movie ignores that truism completely. “Salo” is not a movie that I would recommend anyone watch. 

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)

In 1980, as a first-year college student in Toronto, I attended my first screening of the mother of all cult films, “The Rocky Horror Picture Show”.   It was, as is the case with all the screenings of this movie in the early 80s, a midnight showing.    Caught a bit unaware, I was not able to hear any of the dialogue throughout the movie as water, rice and toilet paper were being thrown at me.    Almost the entire audience danced to the terrific “Time Warp”, and people were shouting what appeared to be smart funny comments at the screen.  In addition, about half the audience (the movie theater was packed) were dressed up as characters in the movie.   Adding to my pleasure was the fact that I was quite high at the time.  It was not until I watched the movie on DVD a couple of years later that I understood the plot of the movie.  I much prefer my movie theater experience to the home video one as it is the interactive experience inherent in all viewings of this film that makes the movie special.  

“The Rocky Horror Picture show”, is the baby of Richard O’Brien, who wrote it as a stage play while being bored as an unemployed actor in London.   The play was a huge, surprising hit on both sides of the Atlantic, which gave him the green light in converting it to a movie.    O’Brien decided to use not only the same original stage director (Jim Sharman) to direct the movie version, but also most of the original theater cast were retained for the film.    He wrote the movie as a campy musical homage to those old B grade sci-fi and horror films he loved as a kid.  Since this was in the peak period of the great glitter period of the British music scene, his play was full of the sexual ambiguity that marked the period.

 On its initial release, the movie bombed badly, while having had the good fortune of existing during the period of the midnight movie boom, which was widely popular with the young counterculture generation at the time.    In addition, the sexual freedom theme of the movie attracted the LGBT crowd who were big fans of the midnight movie scene.    O’Brien not only wrote the screenplay, but he also wrote all the musical pieces and had a major role in the film.    It was at one of those midnight screenings that had large amounts of people return for repeated viewings.  During these viewings, people started to react verbally to the movie’s characters, eventually developing an interactive script that was more or less used throughout North American screenings and even some European ones.   Shadow casts were developed, resulting in actual performances occurring alongside the screening.    Watching “The Rocky Horror Picture Show”, was an event and party where like-minded people came to celebrate.   

As far as the plot goes, the story follows how the young conservative engaged couple Brad (Barry Bostwick) and Janet (the always delightful Susan Sarandon) have their car breakdown next to a castle, that they enter in search of a telephone.  In the castle there are strange-looking people dancing and celebrating.   The hunchback, Igor-like Rif Raf (O’Brien himself), lets them inside.  Once in the celebration starts with the terrific song, “The Time Warp”, which was a major hit at the time due to the film’s revival.  The master of the castle is Frank-N-Furter (A terrifically campy Tim Curry), and his introduction with a black leather S & M outfit and net stockings is one of Hollywood’s great intros.   He is a transvestite and his intro song and dance, “Sweet Transvestite”, is the best part of the movie.  Also, based on his name, one can assume that he is also interested in creating life from the dead, except this time his creation is a hunky blond male, who also catches the interest of Janet.     During the overnight stay at the castle, Frank-N-Furter opens the sexual awareness of the young couple.    There is a very good reason as to why this movie was celebrated by the LGBT community.     

The direction and choreography of the movie are not very special, and most of the acting is purposefully campy and exaggerated.  As is the dialogue.   The only two actors who really pull it off are Curry, who is fantastic, and Sarandon, who did not know how to give a bad performance throughout her long career (of which this film was the beginning).    

 What is truly special about the movie, however, other than some of the music, is the art direction, costumes, and makeup.    Sharman and O’Brien filmed the movie in London, using old Hammer horror castle props for their location shoot, and the campiness of those semi-serious films comes out in this movie.  In addition, the costumes, hairstyles and makeup, which were a combination of Glitter rock fashion, classic horror and 50s sci-fi, were so extreme and watchable that, in addition to being used by the shadow cast at the viewings, were a major influence on the punk rock scene and look that would explode in England a year after this movie came out.     If we believe that a great movie can influence modern style, then credit needs to be given to Rocky Horror, for its great influence on the lives of those who grew up in the late 70s and early 80s.     Colored hair and zany hairdos would never have happened if not for this movie. I am certain that Johnny Lyndon and Sid Vicious were fans of this movie.

Musically, “The Rocky Horror Picture Show”, starts off with a bang as its best songs happen at the start and end after the introduction of Frank-N-Furter.     When just watching this film as a movie, I truly enjoyed the campy humor alongside great songs.    In the second half, however, the songs start to fizzle, seem repetitive and similar to a Broadway musical.  Still, “Science Fiction Movie”, “Time Warp”, and “Sweet Transvestite” are not only great songs but sung to some nice set pieces that are a lot of fun.   

While “The Rock Horror Picture Show” is not really that great of a cinematic experience on its own, as it is filmed pretty much as a stage play, it is meant to be appreciated in a theater at midnight as part of an interactive experience and watching it that way is great fun akin to going to an amazing party.    

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)

Recently, our world has been filled with real-life horror stories, which, for me, makes watching horror movies for entertainment extremely unappealing. Still, I recently sat down to re-watch Tobe Hooper’s low-budget iconic horror film, “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”. It is a testament to the power of this movie that it retains its power to scare and instill constant tension and is one of those rare films that does not age with time, retaining its ability to scare even today.

The movie initially tried to trick its audience with a narrated introductory statement that falsely claims that the story is based on real events.    It is not.    Sure, there was a monster named Ed Gein in the 1950s who ate his victims, but this movie, like Hitchcock’s, “Psycho”, has no real relevance to the story of Gein.  The movie is based on pure fiction.  The plot here revolves around a psychotic cannibalistic family who used to run one of those sadistic old-fashioned slaughterhouses.   Since the closure of their animal killing business, they run a desolate gas station used to lure innocent people to their death, before barbecuing them for dinner.    A group of young hippie-like beatniks arrive at a deserted house not far from the cannibals’ home and in one night their fate is determined.    That is about it as far as the plot goes, as the movie follows these young people to their deaths (most of them anyway).   

This is a movie that becomes one non-stop exercise in tension and suspense. The film follows the victims in a designed way that makes the camera feel like an accessory to the crimes. The camera is not simply a tool of photography, rather an almost living part of the story that follows the poor victims from behind and hidden in the distance. This style gives the film the look and feel of a documentary which adds to its chilling effect. In fact, when one of the victims gets taken to a gruesome end, usually the camera does not follow them to the final act. Even when the camera does enter the scene of the crime, it prefers to concentrate its view on the reaction of a living spectator rather than show us the horror that is occurring. In this way, my imagination of what was occurring and how it was occurring was more horrifying than anything a fictional movie could show. The use of 16mm cameras to film the movie served to add to its authentic look, as the grainy appearance of the movie adds even more dread to the proceedings.

I don’t believe that Tobe Hooper was a special innovator or had any real special talent, as many of the trend-setting effects he uses in this movie were done either by accident or by necessity.  For example, his decision to show most of the killings off-screen was done only because he wanted to get a PG rating for his movie.   The effect this had on increasing the horror was purely by accident.   Also, his use of a 16mm camera was due to the small budget he had available.   The cinematography and set designs, however, are superb, with their dark visualizations of a dark, evil place.   The cannibal’s house is decorated with animal and human bones, depicting the slow evolution of these crazies from animal killers to cannibals.   The appearance of their house plays a large part in the dread-filled atmosphere.     

Surprisingly, the performances within a very basic horror movie script are all believable.   Low-budget horror movies that do not have money for re-takes are usually filled with embarrassing acting.  Not in this movie, however, as each actor holds their own within the script’s limitation.    The group consists of two couples and one of the girls’ handicapped brothers, whose purpose is to be so irritating that we want him to be a victim, even though he does not deserve the horror inflicted on him by the cannibal family.   The low budget caused the film crew to work 7 days a week and 16 hours a day for over two weeks, with the actors wearing the same dirty clothes unwashed throughout that time and during a hot summer Texas heat wave.   Their uncomfortable tiring demure comes out in the film, adding even more realism to the story of the horror being shown.  

The performances of the Cannibals are also pretty much to the point, while over the top, also restrained enough as to not appear unintentionally humorous. Something that was not successful in all the subsequent sequels. Of course, of these characters it is the murderous, mentally deformed, human-skinned masked Leatherface who steals the show. This is the hulking hillbilly gimp who uses a chainsaw as his weapon of choice. Gunnar Hansen, who plays Leatherface, studied the physical language of people with serious mental handicaps and emulated them in his depiction. The result, along with his large size and monstrous mask, is the creation of one of cinema’s iconic and more frightening monsters.

This is a movie with a short, tight running time that builds right at the start with unease and tension that just grows and grows until an explosive end of sheer terror through the perspective of the last victim.  In one scene, Hooper makes an unusual and effective decision to show us a close up of this victim’s eyes as she screams in unholy terror.   

One interesting aspect of this movie is that it serves as a very effective vehicle for the vegan lifestyle.   Throughout the movie there are visual comparisons of how we kill livestock for food to the cannibalistic horror portrayed.    The handicapped character even gives a vivid explanation of how steers are killed in slaughterhouses.    I am sure that this movie is a favorite with the vegan crowd.     

Boasting a simplistic plot that never tries to explain anything with any depth, “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” is still a non-stop exercise in nail-biting tension and terror. If that is your cup of tea, then this is a movie for you.

Young Frankenstein (1974)

Mel Brooks has never tried to claim to be anything other than a writer, performer, and director of outrageous comedies.   All his films are silly, and some too infantile for my taste. However, he has a few movies that contain so much wit, charm and, above all, timing that they can be considered brilliant.   For my money, his best movie is his satire on the old classic James Whale Frankenstein films from the 1930s.    His “Young Frankenstein” pays homage, makes fun of, and sometimes reinvents these classics.    It is also one of the funniest movies ever made.

Fredrick Frankenstein is the grandson of Victor (the Frankenstein from Mary Shelly’s original novel, as well as named Henry in the first two classic films), and at the start of the movie he rejects the ideas and experiments of his grandfather.    It is only after he finds out that he inherited his grandfather’s estate, that he travels to Transylvania for a visit.  It is there that he encounters sinister house manager Frau Blucher (Cloris Leachman), hunched back house boy Igor (Marty Feldman) and sexy assistant Inga (Teri Garr).     He then discovers his grandfather’s old laboratory and a book titled, “How I did it by Victor Frankenstein”.   The movie which this film pays great homage to, renamed him Henry, but Brooks decided to also give respect to the book and retain the name Victor.     In reading the book, Frederick realizes that reanimating life from the dead is possible and goes about repeating his grandfather’s work.   The resultant monster (a brilliant portrayal by Peter Boyl) is captured and escapes again before the extremely hilarious conclusion.

The casting in the movie is first-rate.   Included here are many Brooks regulars.  There is Gene Wilder as Frederick Frankenstein (who he makes a point of pronouncing Frankensteen, as to both reject his heritage and emphasize a possible Jewishness in a prideful way).   Wilder has never been better than as the edgy, bewildered Grandson of the man who created the Karloff monster.   He succeeds in successfully conveying intelligence and silliness at the same time.   His comedic timing with all the other characters is pitch perfect.     

One of those characters is the hunchback Igor, played by Marty Feldman, who has never had a role more suited to his strange buggy-eyed persona than that of the deformed hunchback sidekick Igor (Pronounced Eyegor).    With a movable hunch on his back and a tendency to repeat himself, Igor is a hilarious parody of the original Igor from 1939’s “The Son of Frankenstein”, and exaggerates the stereotype that deformed people are also simple-minded.  For example, the brain that Igor steals for the created monster is labeled Abnormal, which he deciphers as being the brain of someone named Abby Normal.   Of course, for those of us who loved the original films, we always wondered about the level of intellect of the brain used in those stories.     Here it is straight out stated and adds to the laughs.   

Leachman as Fau Blucher, Garr as Inga and another Brooks regular Madeline Kahn as Elizabeth (Frankenstein’s fiancée) are all superb, but special mention needs to be made to the performance of Peter Boyle as the monster.  Boyle was not a comedic actor per se and had some terrific dramatic supporting roles in the 70s, but here instills the pathos from Karloff’s original monster with an endless stupidity and the appearance of bewilderment that results in some of the funniest scenes of the movie.   Especially the scene that lampoons the blind hermit in the hut scene from “Bride of Frankenstein”.  Here the hermit is portrayed in a cameo by none other than Gene Hackman, which shows off Hackman’s ability to embrace comedy.    Boyle and Hackman are so funny in their lampooning of one of the classic films’ signature scenes, that it was hard for me to recover from bouts of extreme laughter while watching it.   The original scene showed how a lonely hermit embraced the monster as a friend and human companion, and Brooks retains that theme while emphasizing his blindness, which includes some shocking funny results of not being able to see.     The scene is priceless, and I could tell that both of these fine actors were having a lot of fun making it.

As in all of Brook’s movies, “Young Frankenstein” is a satire that lampoons other iconic films.   He took elements from the first three original films from the 30s for his story.    In my opinion, this is Brooks’ funniest and best movie.    His decision to film it with the same tone and feel as the original movies, was a superb choice that helped enhance the satire.   Filmed in Black and White, while making use of old studio sets and the original laboratory props from the original movies helped it to keep the movie centered on that which it was making fun of.   While anyone could enjoy the movie for its story as is, it is only those of us who know and loved the original 1930s films who can truly appreciate the brilliant satire for what it is.   Madelin Kahn’s hairdo would just seem like a strange mistake unless you were aware of the female monster’s hairdo from “The Bride of Frankenstein”.   The belly aching laughter induced by the monster, little girl, playground scene would not be as funny if you were not familiar with a similar serious scene from the original “Frankenstein” film.       

“Young Frankenstein” is a homage to a classic influential series of films while seemingly creating its own unique identity of superb atmospheric comedy.     In fact, after watching “Young Frankenstein”, it is not really possible to watch the original films without thinking of this movie and smiling.   Not only does this movie allow us to remember the old classics, but watching the old classics will now allow me to remember this movie.    That is a great testament to the power of Brooks’ masterpiece in comedy.   This is his best movie and one of the greatest comedies ever made.  

The Towering Inferno (1974)

The only thing good about 1970’s tepid, boring disaster film, “Airport”, was that it was chock-full of great satirical material that eventually created one of the great movie comedies.     It also has the infamy of having started the disaster film genre that was so popular in the 70s. 1973’s, “The Towering Inferno”, was that genre’s “pièce de résistance”, with its gargantuan budget and all-star cast.   That does not make it a good movie.  In fact, it is not even my favorite disaster movie from this period (that dubious honor goes to “The Poseidon Adventure”).

The movie has a very simple premise to its plot.   Architect Doug Roberts (Paul Newman) and building developer James Duncan (William Holden), are preparing for the dedication of their newly built “Glass Tower”.   A 515-meter tall, 138 story skyscraper.   The villain in the movie is Duncan’s electrical engineer son-in-law Roger Simmons (Richard Chamberlain), who cut corners on electrical safety specifications required by Doug’s plans, to save money and receive kickbacks.   This resulted in a fire igniting on the 81st floor while a large celebratory dedication party is in full swing on the 135th floor.    The fire department arrives in the seemingly heroic and capable hands of Chief Michael O’Halloran (Steve McQueen).    The fire went out of control, trapping everyone above the 81st floor.     Many sub-characters played by other recognizable actors, burn or fall to their death, or, as in most cases, both.     Doug rescues a couple of cute kids who can’t act, and Chief O’Halloran risks his life a couple of times to save a few lives.   Am I the only one who thinks that the heroic Chief failed miserably in controlling the fire once he arrived?  I will not go into any more details of the plot, because they are not that important.   Of course, we have a villain in Simmons, whose fate is as clear as water from the beginning.   

The “Towering Inferno” boasts an A-list Hollywood cast, and the best special effects money could buy at the time.   In addition to Newman, McQueen, Holden, and Chamberlain, we are given Fay Dunaway as Duncan’s daughter, as well as Doug’s girlfriend, Fred Astaire as a conman trying to con a rich old lady, Robert Wagner as a public relations officer, whose only purpose in the movie is to be burned alive, OJ Simpson as the token black guy, playing a security officer and many more recognizable Hollywood faces.   It is completely impossible for any movie with that large of a cast to include any inkling of depth in its characters.   Even a movie that is 3 hours long.    So, all we get are basic introductions that allow us to witness said characters’ death or heroism.   

The movie was produced by the disaster film Tzar Irwin Allen and directed by the untalented John Guillermin. The result is an expensive looking TV movie that takes most of its premise from the plot of the 1932 classic, “Grand Hotel”. I guess they could have called the movie, “Grand Hotel on Fire”. At least in the 1932 film, the characters were allowed to expand into something that we could identify with. Here, their determination to either die or survive does not give them that opportunity. A great example of this is the character played by Wagner, who, because he is having an affair with his secretary, gets trapped with her in the inferno. There is absolutely no purpose for him or her except to maybe be a cautionary warning against sexual misconduct in the workplace. I wish that was what was on the producer’s minds. Instead, I just think they wanted to kill two attractive people in a horrible and what they felt was a cool way.

While watching the “Towering Inferno”, I could not help but gasp at the many scenes of people falling to their deaths, as these scenes are eerily like the real-life pictures displayed all over the world on 9/11.    If anything positive can be said about the movie, it is this prophetic warning about how dangerous it is to be living on the highest levels of giant skyscrapers.

  A perfect disaster movie needs to suck its viewer into a nightmarish situation, while caring about the people going through the horror, and include great tension and suspense before giving a satisfactory conclusion.  “The Towering Inferno” fails miserably in all those elements.