Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Rob’s Car Movie Review: Duel (1971) – Street Muscle

Published

on

Rob’s Car Movie Review: Duel (1971) – Street Muscle

Duel began life as a short story written by Richard Matheson, one of Hollywood’s most seasoned writers. Previous work of Matheson’s included episodic writing for such TV series as Have Gun – Will Travel, Combat!, The Alfred Hitchcock Hour, and Star Trek, and movies like The Omega Man, The Pit and the Pendulum, and The Raven. He was perhaps best known though for having written 16 episodes of Rod Serling’s classic show, The Twilight Zone.

Matheson penned the story of Duel after being dangerously tailgated by a trucker while driving on a California highway on November 22, 1963, the same day that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Duel was ultimately published in the March, 1971 issue of Playboy magazine.

Duel author and teleplay writer, Richard Matheson. (Photo courtesy of Manor Vellum.)

The story was brought to the attention of fledgling director Spielberg by his secretary, who told him that she was aware Universal and ABC had optioned the property for a Movie of the Week and were looking for a director.

Spielberg read the short and was compelled enough by the strength of it to apply for the job. He met with producer George Ekstein and beat out a host of other directors based on an episode of Colombo Spielberg had directed and showed the producer. Matheson was meanwhile hired to adapt his story into a teleplay.

Advertisement

Director Steven Spielberg on the set of Duel. (Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures.)

During the casting process, Spielberg fought hard to have Dennis Weaver star in the project based on the director’s admiration for the actor’s performance as the hotel manager in Orson Welles’ Touch of Evil, opposite Charlton Heston, Janet Leigh, and Welles himself.

Spielberg, and Weaver, eventually won out. Additional cast members included Jacqueline Scott, Eddie Firestone, Lou Frizzell, and Lucille Benson, all in minor roles.

Dennis Weaver as the main protagonist, motorist David Mann. (Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures.)

Principal photography was completed in just 13 days, mostly on rural California stretches such as the Agua Dulce Canyon Road, Soledad Canyon Road, Angeles Forest Road, and the Sierra Highway. Equally astonishing is the fact that the film was edited in a mere 10 days by Frank Morriss.

Advertisement

Duel originally aired as the ABC Movie of the Week on November 13, 1971, and received rave reviews by critics and viewers alike. Spielberg, in particular, was lauded by film critics from Variety and The Hollywood Reporter for his directorial flourishes on the movie.

The movie opens with a montage of shots taken from the bumper of Mann’s car as it travels from Los Angeles to the high desert. (Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures.)

So universally positive were the reactions to Duel that it was theatrically released in 1972-’73 in an extended 90 minute version (14 minutes longer than the television cut) with additional scenes shot by Spielberg.

Duel’s plot is simple. David Mann (Weaver) is a Los Angeles salesman who has an appointment with a client upstate. During the course of his drive he encounters a worse-for-wear big rig truck emblazoned with “Flammable” warnings all over its exterior.

Mann’s original sin: passing the big rig. (Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures.)

Advertisement

The truck is going slowly up a grade, so Mann passes it in a responsible fashion using his turn signals, and is soon underway at a speed he figures will get him to his appointment on time.

Just a few moments later, the truck abruptly roars past him, cuts him off, and then slows down to its original speed in front of Mann. Perturbed, and now breathing the truck’s diesel exhaust, Mann passes the tanker again and is treated to a blast from its air horns.

Mann and his tormentor at the gas station. (Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures.)

Later in the day, Mann pulls into a gas station, and a few minutes later the tanker parks next to him at an adjacent pump. The truck’s driver gets out of the beast on the side opposite Mann’s field of view, but the salesman is able to see the man’s cowboy boots.

After a phone call to his quarrelsome wife in which she quips about his lack of manhood the night before when his co-worker was making advances towards her, Mann is told by the gas station attendant that he needs a new radiator hose. He declines the repair and is on his way.

Advertisement

Back on the road, Mann is once again menaced by the tanker truck, which rudely passes him and then swerves all over the road to prevent Mann from repassing. Mann finally gets past the truck, whereupon the big rig tailgates him, forcing Mann to go faster and faster. Doing in excess of 100 mph, Mann loses control of his vehicle and spins out across from a diner.

Mann spies his adversary outside the diner. (Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures.)

Shaken, he goes into the diner’s lavatory. When he comes out, he sees the offending truck parked outside, and assumes the driver is in the diner with him. He studies the diner’s patrons, and confronts one wearing similar cowboy boots to the truck’s driver.

The patron does not take well to Mann’s accusations and punches him several times. The man then leaves, gets into a pickup truck, and drives away, indicating to Mann that he had picked out the wrong man.

Out on the highway, the dangerous game of cat and mouse continues, with the tanker truck’s attacks becoming more potentially lethal.

Advertisement

The big rig tries to kill Mann by pushing his car into a freight train. (Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures.)

As the two vehicles begin to ascend a mountain road, Mann is able to put space between himself and the much slower truck. Mann starts to relax, but just as he does, his radiator hose bursts, causing his car to overheat thus making the ascent to the top of the mountain unlikely.

With the big rig now hot on his tail, Mann must take matters into his own hands to ensure his very survival.

A blown radiator hose derails Mann’s getaway. (Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures.)

In spite of Duel’s unsophisticated plot, the movie actually makes quite a few thematic comments on life-and-death, contemporary society, and masculinity. The fact that we never see the driver of the big-rig also imparts a supernatural feel to the proceedings, as if this is perhaps a fever dream in Mann’s head, or, if real, that the driver of the truck is in fact a demon or the devil himself.

Advertisement

This quasi-satanic angle is so well conceived in the movie that it was directly lifted for the less well-crafted but nonetheless entertaining 1977 film, The Car, starring James Brolin.

Glimpses of Spielberg’s future cinematic aesthetic are visible throughout the film. (Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures.)

Quick glimpses of Spielberg filmmaking hallmarks are littered throughout Duel. His use of wide angle lenses on close-up subjects to infuse a sense of shock or panic are present, as is his exceptional framing and use of the camera to convey information.

For a 25 year-old, Spielberg’s mastery of the mise-en-scene is absolutely extraordinary here, and it makes for an exciting romp despite the straightforward plot. It stands to reason that in the hands of a lesser director, Duel could have easily been a bore and a misfire.

Spielberg’s use of framing, lens choice, and depth make even mundane sequences feel artistic. Examples include this shot of Mann’s car driving through the desert, and Mann’s phone call to his wife, framed inside the door of a washing machine. (Photos courtesy of Universal Pictures.)

The use of sound and the lack thereof at times is also beautifully handled in the film, often injecting a menacing tone of impending doom. Relatively little dialogue is spoken in the movie, as per Spielberg’s desire to let the terror of the situation and the vehicles do the talking. The majority of dialogue in the film is heard as a narration of Mann’s inner thoughts.

Advertisement

The cinematography by Jack A. Marta, the aforementioned editing by Frank Morriss, and Billy Goldenberg’s exciting score should also be given a nod for their peerless efficacy.

Mann’s ride: a 1970 Plymouth Valiant. (Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures.)

Even Spielberg’s selection of vehicles is well thought through. Mann’s car, a 1970 Plymouth Valiant, is a compact with a limited powertrain. It was chosen to echo Mann’s meek personality and his wife’s suggestion to the effect that he was no Prince Valliant the night before. The car’s blinding Tor-Red exterior paint, on the other hand, was chosen by the director solely because it would stand out against the desert locales that they filmed in.

As an aside for those concerned with production minutiae, four Valiants were used during production. A 1970 and ’71 model equipped with Chrysler’s 225 cubic-inch slant six were used for beauty shots, while an older 1969 model with the manufacturer’s 318 cubic-inch V8, was dressed up to look like the 1970 model and used primarily as the stunt car.

For the extra scenes shot for the theatrical release of the movie, a 1972 Valiant with the 225 cubic-inch six was used. To Spielberg’s dismay, this car would later be used in an episode of the Universal television series, The Incredible Hulk.

Advertisement

Spielberg settled on a 1957 Peterbuilt 281 for the truck as he felt it had a menacing “face.” (Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures.)

Spielberg looked at a number of big rigs before deciding on the 1957 Peterbuilt 281 used in the film. Its older cab styling, consisting of a long hood, round headlights, and split windshield, looked like a menacing face to the director, and its decrepit condition helped to convey the dark specter motif that he was after. The addition of multiple license plates on the truck’s bumper was Spielberg’s idea, to suggest that the driver is a serial killer who has done this before to other drivers across the southwest.

The truck was powered by a 280 horsepower CAT 1673 turbocharged diesel engine with a 13-speed transmission and had a Rockwell TK-570 axle behind it. The top speed of such a setup was roughly 65 mph, so the impression of greater speed was accomplished by wise selections of camera lenses and low angles.

Spielberg’s chose of lenses and angles were able to make the tanker look like it was going faster than it was. (Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures.)

For the additional scenes filmed for the 1972-’73 theatrical release, a 1962 Peterbuilt 351 with a CAT 1673B engine was used.

Advertisement

The vehicular action in Duel is truly top-notch, as one would expect since legendary Hollywood stuntman Carey Loftin was the stunt coordinator and driver of the big rig. Loftin’s previous credits included standouts like Viva Las Vegas, Bullitt (he was the on-screen driver of the bad guys’ Dodge Charger in that film), Grand Prix, Bonnie and Clyde, Vanishing Point, and The French Connection, amongst countless others.

His vehicle control behind the wheel of that big, ungainly Peterbuilt is remarkable and must be seen to be appreciated.

Maybe Mr. Mann should have walked instead of driven. (Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures.)

In all, Duel is a very finely crafted, and thoroughly enjoyable movie. Had I been a film critic at the time of the movie’s release, I would have had no trouble singling out Steven Spielberg as a future grand auteur of the medium. His directorial stamp can be felt over every frame of the film, and his choices here are always dead on.

Spielberg turned a potentially run-of-the-mill Movie of the Week into a project worthy of theatrical distribution at a time when I believe only a handful of other directors could have done so. I highly recommend that you see Duel if you never have, and I give it 8 out of 10 pistons.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: ‘Supergirl’ – Catholic Review

Published

on

Movie Review: ‘Supergirl’ – Catholic Review

NEW YORK (OSV News) – At what is meant to be a poignant moment in the DC Comics adaptation “Supergirl” (Warner Bros.), the title character, played by Milly Alcock, is told by her mother (Emily Beecham) that she doesn’t have to be nice but she must be good. The recipient of this advice takes it to heart in a way that lends the whole film an unpleasant tone.

We’re not talking Deadpool depths of obscene snark here. Yet scrappy Supergirl, aka Kara Zor-El, in contrast to her affable cousin — and fellow Kryptonian — Superman (David Corenswet), does not come across as especially likeable.

Nor is she a figure to be imitated since, before she embarks on the quest to which most of the running time is devoted, early scenes show her waking up with a succession of staggering hangovers. She gets blotto, we later learn, in an effort to blot out her troubled past. The only positive ingredient in her current life is the bond she shares with her beloved dog, Krypto.

So when evil alien Krem of the Yellow Hills (Matthias Schoenaerts) wounds Krypto with a poisoned dart, leaving him with only hours to live, Supergirl is desperate to help the pup survive. Learning that Krem carries the antidote with him wherever he goes, she sets off on an interplanetary hunt for the villain, racing against time.

Supergirl has already crossed paths with another of Krem’s victims, Ruthye (Eve Ridley). Having watched as Krem slaughtered her entire family, Ruthye is out for revenge and wants to join forces with Supergirl.

Advertisement

Since Ruthye, though courageous, is undersized and completely untrained for combat, Supergirl initially tries to ditch her. But Ruthye is not to be so easily rebuffed.

The unlikely duo eventually acquire an informal ally in the person of cigar-chomping, motorcycle-riding freelance warrior Lobo (Jason Momoa). Lobo has reasons of his own for hating the band of brigands Krem leads.

As scripted by Ana Nogueira, director Craig Gillespie’s scifi adventure includes more than one exchange in which Supergirl warns Ruthye about the morally corrupting effects of exacting vengeance. Yet this thoroughly respectable ethical message is completely undermined as the action reaches its climax.

“Supergirl” may not be a dose of Kryptonite. But it’s no energy-infusing sunbath either.

The film contains much harsh but bloodless violence, a scene of urination, a passing reference to nonscriptural religious ideas, a couple of mild oaths, several uses each of crude and crass language and an obscene gesture. The OSV News classification is A-III – adults. The Motion Picture Association rating is PG-13 — parents strongly cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.

Advertisement

Read More Movie & Television Reviews

Copyright © 2026 OSV News

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘Balaramana Dinagalu’ review: A restrained look at the gangster mind

Published

on

‘Balaramana Dinagalu’ review: A restrained look at the gangster mind

In K M Chaitanya’s Aa Dinagalu (2007), actor Atul Kulkarni, playing gangster Agni Sreedhar, says man is the biggest weapon in the underworld. “The rest are just properties,” he adds. The yesteryear Kannada crime drama, based on the real incidents from a big chapter of the Bengaluru underworld, stood out for its understated storytelling.

In Balaramana Dinagalu, which has the skeleton of a sequel to Aa Dinagalu, weapons are seen in the first scene. As the film progresses, we encounter an arsenal of knives, razors, machetes, and guns — each an extension of the gangsters’ identities and an indispensable tool in their quest to remain feared and lethal. Chaitanya attempts to make the movie a mix of reality and entertaining tropes.

Balaramana Dinagalu (Kannada)

Director: K M Chaitanya

Cast: Vinod Prabhakar, Priya Anand, Atul Kulkarni, Ashish Vidyarthi, Ramesh Indira

Runtime: 151 minutes

Advertisement

Storyline: Balarama, an ordinary young man from a remote village in Karnataka, becomes a dreaded gangster who rules Bengaluru

The director has roped in the same cast, who played the dreaded gangster trio of Kotwal Ramachandra (essayed by Sharath Lohitashwa), Jayaraj (Ashish Vidyarthi), and Agni Sreedhar (Atul) in Aa Dinagalu. That’s what makes one instantly curious about Balaramana Dinagalu. The only difference in the latest movie from the previous one is the fictionalised names of the real dons. Jayaraj becomes Jayaram, Sreedhar is Shashidhar, and Muthappa Rai is called Monnappa Rai (played by Ramesh Indira).

Even if these characters are the big draw in the movie, the plot revolves around the journey of Balarama, a character with a small yet significant presence in Aa Dinagalu. Vinod Prabhakar’s portrayal of the titular role is the film’s biggest takeaway. He makes us feel for the character, and is quite impressive in the final portions of the movie, where Balarama struggles to break free from the underworld’s trap.

Balaramana Dinagalu is impressive when it reflects the psychology of a gangster. Jayaram is shown helping the needy while Balarama urges young boys to focus on education. It’s as if these men who commit heinous acts, have a heart as well. Shashidhar is often called “intellectual gangster”, as the film reflects how the underworld fears well-read men in the field. Politicians and policemen, the supposedly the protectors of people being part of the crime nexus, strengthen the movie’s world-building.

The film falters in its inability to rise above the plot’s predictability. Balarama’s journey is no different from the often-seen life of an innocent man from a small town who becomes a gangster owing to uncontrollable circumstances. I wish the film had delved a bit more into Balaram’s personality. Why does he not resist becoming a gangster? What dreams did he have when he moved to Bengaluru from a small town?

Advertisement

“My hands speak louder than my words,” says Balarama. This signals that he is someone who settles conflicts with fists rather than conversations. Despite this detail, Balaram’s entry into the underworld feels too sudden. The predictability strips the sheen away from the well-shot action sequences, as the result of every fight is known beforehand.

Chaitanya is careful not to glorify the act of violence. He wants to portray the negative effects of violence on the children in a family, as the movie ends with a hard-hitting frame. It’s impressive that the actor-director duo has delivered a non-hero-worshipping gangster saga.

That said, the movie could have benefited from a couple of gripping episodes. While it’s important not to romanticise the life of a gangster, there is no harm in delivering moments of peak tension, the biggest plus of the genre. 

The assassination of Jayaram, the impact of Kotwal’s elimination on the underworld, or the Sakleshpura incident involving Monnappa Rai, had the potential to offer edge-of-the-seat, high-stakes portions, but they are rushed. The love story is simple, but it lacks emotional intensity between the lead couple. Santhosh Narayanan’s dance numbers are forgettable (despite it being his forte) while his montage melodies are beautiful.

Balaramana Dinagalu adopts a restrained, almost clinical approach to the gangster genre. While that keeps it from glorifying violence, it also leaves the narrative feeling a touch too neat and emotionally muted.

Advertisement

Balaramana Dinagalu is currently running in theatres

Published – June 28, 2026 07:58 pm IST

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

A New Dawn Anime Film Review

Published

on

A New Dawn Anime Film Review

Perhaps there’s a certain irony in a story about a fireworks factory mostly keeping away from explosive drama. Yoshitoshi Shinomiya‘s lowkey feature directorial debut A New Dawn is at the very least visually captivating, comprised of lush and rather hypnotic production design. The story is small scale focusing on a trio of friends who try to save a fireworks factory in their hometown, but the imagery feels expansive and lush. A New Dawn begins with a beautiful and vaguely familiar display of this beauty: the flowing, painterly imagery of its opening sequence recalls Shinomiya’s work on the flashback sequence in Makoto Shinkai‘s your name., immediately showing that the film’s visuals might transcend its small town drama.

A background artist himself on films by Makoto Shinkai as well as the similarly resplendent Pompo: The Cinéphile, it makes sense that this history would be felt in the background works of A New Dawn. They’re dense with detail, rich with almost luminous color and illustrative texture. Shinomiya, who also wrote and storyboarded the film, veers away from the photorealism associated with someone like Shinkai through some impressionist touches – like the splotches of green paint which represent treelines – which sometimes turns into outright abstraction like when a character begins to run through the space. Sometimes there are swaying, morphing textures in the background as splotches of paint subtly shift around. On a more intimate level, the cluttered and characterful interior spaces tell a story too. This is a long-winded way of saying A New Dawn looks really, really good.

It’s not just in the tableaux of its countryside habitats and ramshackle living spaces carved out of abandoned warehouses, but there’s a sense of invention permeating through A New Dawn‘s various experiments with visual languages of animation. The most prominent is an incredibly charming stop motion animated sequence using a cardboard diorama and real human hands invading the shot in a creative reflection of a drunken character’s perspective. Even though it broadly still looks “anime” through its character design, there are also smaller details which work to set A New Dawn apart from its contemporaries, touches like its occasional lineless artwork or the way rain is defined through smudged black brushstrokes.

It’s in the screenwriting where A New Dawn begins to feel more run of the mill. Its story about the constant chasing of the majesty of a fabled firework “Shuhari” feels both familiar in its premise but also a little bit alienating in its structure. The importance of the firework itself never feels clear – the moment its mystery is unravelled hardly feels like a revelation as a result, something amplified by how the writing often obfuscates what anyone is talking about. The whole story feels a little distancing, and despite the allure of the background art and design of the spaces the characters inhabit, the people themselves feel constantly at arms length.

It almost pulls things back with its climax – the detonation of the “Shuhari” goes a long way in justifying the circular conversations about its nature and origins – a painted streak of light launches into the sky before turning into something otherworldly, suddenly tripling down on the film’s captivating exaggerations.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending