FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A songwriter (Charlie King) helps his girlfriend (Bessie Love) and her sister (Anita Page) break into show business on Broadway; but King’s sudden recognition of his love for Page, prompting Page’s dalliance with a sleazy socialite (Kenneth Thomson), complicate the situation.

Genres:

• Aspiring Stars
• Love Triangle
• Musicals

Review:
This creaky backstage melodrama will forever hold a special place in cinematic history given its status as the first all-talking musical, the first sound film to win a Best Picture Oscar, the first film featuring a sequence (“Wedding of the Painted Doll”) shot to pre-recorded music, and the source of several familiar musical numbers — including “You Were Meant for Me” and “You Are My Lucky Star” — given new life in Singin’ in the Rain (1952). Unfortunately, however, the storyline itself — telling a tired tale of Broadway hopefuls (who, quite frankly, don’t possess much talent) navigating the lecherous waters of show business — leaves much to be desired; we’ve seen this basic narrative play out far too many times since then. At least the central romantic conflict (Page and King suddenly, mutually, and for no apparent reason realize they’re in love/lust with one another, but fear hurting the person they both care deeply about) is provided with some added emotional weight given Love’s spunky performance — and the “big reveal” scene, in which Love learns the truth about her sister and fiance, is appropriately lauded. But the rest of the film shows clear evidence of its age, with relatively static camera work (though to be fair, it’s better than many other “filmed plays” of the era) and several awkwardly handled dramatic moments.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Bessie Love as Hank (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  

Must See?
Yes, once, but simply for historical reasons. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

• Historically Relevant
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article
• All Movie Guide Review
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
Two rivalrous Marines — Sgt. Quirt (Edmund Lowe) and Captain Flagg (Victor McLaglen) — compete for the affections of a beautiful French girl (Dolores del Rio) on the eve of World War I.

Genres:

• Love Triangle
• Play Adaptation
• Raoul Walsh Films
• Rivalry
• Silent Films
• Soldiers
• Victor McLaglen Films
• World War I Films

Review:
Raoul Walsh directed this first cinematic adaptation of Maxwell Anderson and Laurence Stallings’ play, which was filmed again in 1952 by John Ford with James Cagney in the lead. Perhaps best known as the silent film which rewards careful lip-readers with evidence of spoken profanity not indicated on the title cards themselves (!), it tells an overly simplistic tale of macho rivalry (Lowe and McLaglen’s tussle over del Rio is preceded by similar conflicts with other women) set against the backdrop of World War I. Unfortunately, there’s not really enough to the story or the characters to sustain modern viewers’ interest, and the humor comes across as overly broad. While the battle scenes are impressively shot, film fanatics hoping to see a more complex treatment of World War I in a silent film would be better off watching King Vidor’s The Big Parade (1925).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• The powerfully filmed wartime sequences
  

Must See?
No, though it will likely be of interest to fans of Walsh’s work.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• MRQE (Movie Review Query Engine)
• NY Times Original Review
• Silent Volume Review
• All Movie Guide Review
• Chicago Reader Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A French prostitute (Janet Gaynor) browbeaten by her abusive sister (Gladys Brockwell) finds comfort and transformation in the arms of a streetcleaner (Charles Farrell) — but when World War I descends, Farrell enlists and the newly married couple must sustain their love from afar.

Genres:

• Frank Borzage Films
• Janet Gaynor Films
• Play Adaptations
• Prostitutes and Gigolos
• Romance
• Silent Films
• World War I

Review:
In Alternate Oscars, Peary argues that Janet Gaynor’s popularity both “with the public and within the industry” helped land her the first ever Best Actress Academy Award, for “three good [but not great] performances” in 1927-28 — including her role here as a downtrodden young waif whose life is redeemed by a charitable former “sewer rat”. Despite solid direction by Frank Borzage, nice use of Expressionistic sets, and Gaynor’s sympathetic lead performance, the film unfortunately hasn’t aged all that well — primarily due to its overly simplistic storyline (based on a popular Broadway play), which doesn’t really have anywhere interesting to go once Gaynor is rescued from her sorry plight — speaking of which, Brockwell is a caricature of Evil rather than a three-dimensional character — and the young couple realize they’re in love. The imminence of World War I makes for a convenient narrative hitch — but Gaynor and Farrell’s promise to “come to each other” at 11:00 each day is simply sappy, and the utterly unrealistic ending will have your eyes rolling. Ultimately, this one is only must-see for diehard enthusiasts of silent films, and/or Oscar completists.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Janet Gaynor as Diane
  
• Lovely Expressionist sets
  

Must See?
No, though it will be of interest to fans of Borzage, silent films, and/or Oscar winners. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• MRQE (Movie Review Query Engine)
• CineScene Review
• Silent Volume Review
• All Movie Guide Review
• Cinematic Threads Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
An aspiring musketeer (Gene Kelly) in 17th century France joins veteran musketeers Athos (Van Heflin), Porthos (Gig Young), and Aramis (Robert Coote) in their efforts to protect Queen Anne (Angela Lansbury) against the evil intentions of Richelieu (Vincent Price) and his henchwoman, Lady de Winter (Lana Turner).

Genres:

• Angela Lansbury Films
• Gene Kelly Films
• Gig Young Films
• Historical Drama
• June Allyson Films
• Lana Turner Films
• Literature Adaptation
• Mistaken Identities
• Royalty and Nobility
• Vincent Price Films

Review:
Fans of Alexandre Dumas’ swashbuckling classic will likely be the primary audience for this colorful literary adaptation, produced by MGM Studios and starring a host of big names in key roles — most notably Gene Kelly, who was excited about the opportunity to recreate the role (D’Artagnan) originally inhabited by his idol, Douglas Fairbanks, Sr. There’s plenty of intrigue in the plotting-rich narrative, and those already familiar with the basic storyline and characters in Dumas’ serialized novel will fare best at puzzling out exactly what’s going on, and who’s attempting to do what to whom (and why); if you’re at all distracted while watching, however, you may find yourself a bit lost at times — though it’s never anything but clear who are the good guys/ladies (this group includes June Allyson as D’Artagnan’s instant beloved, Constance) versus the bad guys (guess which side Vincent Price falls on?). Personally, I find the production both overly comedic (Kelly’s performance in particular borders on clownish-ness) and far too melodramatic (Kelly and Allyson’s romance is never anything less than full-throttle — complete with overly strategic use of the infamous melody “Hearts and Flowers” whenever they’re together).

Note: Van Heflin gives the most impassioned and nuanced performance in the film, playing Athos with an appropriate level of brooding; whenever he’s on screen, one can’t help becoming absorbed in the story.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Van Heflin as Athos
  
• Lovely Technicolor cinematography
  
  

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for fans of the book or the genre.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• MRQE (Movie Review Query Engine)
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article
• All Movie Review

Synopsis:
A rancher (William S. Hart) hoping to stake a claim in a land run and then marry his sweetheart (Barbara Bedford) is falsely accused by Bedford’s nefarious brother (Richard R. Neill) of being a ‘sooner’, and imprisoned just as the run is about to start; will he get out in time to claim his new property?

Genres:

• Cowboys
• Falsely Accused
• Settlers
• Silent Films
• Westerns

Review:
Stoic performer William S. Hart was among the most popular and beloved stars of the silent western era (he acted in no less than 75 films, and directed 53) — though most modern film fanatics are likely unfamiliar with his work or his presence. This title was the last film Hart made before retiring, and is generally considered one of the best in its genre; it’s based upon the classic western trope of ranchers versus settlers, but given added gravitas due to being situated within a specific historical time and place, the 1893 Cherokee Strip Land Run in Oklahoma (also immortalized on screen in both the 1931 and the 1960 versions of Edna Ferber’s Cimarron). The film itself doesn’t offer many surprises — other than the fact that Hart’s character isn’t entirely pure and good (he’s not above breaking the law when necessary) — but it’s finely paced and directed, and short enough (at just 78 minutes) to hold one’s attention throughout.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine cinematography
  
• The impressive land run sequence
  

Must See?
Yes, simply to see iconic western star William S. Hart in one of his better films.

Categories

• Historically Relevant
• Representative Film

Links:

• IMDb entry
• MRQE (Movie Review Query Engine)
• All Movie Guide Review
• CineScene Review
• Digitally Obsessed Review

Synopsis:
An itinerant blonde (Sarah Kennedy) arrives in Los Angeles and is given a place to stay by a sign painter (Laurie Rose) whose roommate (Lynne Guthrie) works as a waitress in a strip club. After turning the tables on a woman (Mary Beth Hughes) who’s hired her to knock off her husband, Kennedy accepts an offer by an eccentric businessman (Solomon Sturges) to be his conversation-partner; meanwhile, Guthrie dates a mobster (Mark Thomas) while moving up the career ladder at her job by both stripping and looking after the club when its manager (Gene Elman) is on vacation; and Rose falls for an itinerant singer (Ken Del Conte) who’s secretly a jewel fence.

Genres:

• Feminism and Women’s Issues
• Stephanie Rothman Films

Review:
Stephanie Rothman’s final film as a director was this lighthearted exploitation flick about a trio of sexy young women seeking love, jobs, friendship, and independence in Los Angeles. As in Rothman’s previous female-centric films (The Student Nurses and Group Marriage), the protagonists here possess a strong feminist sensibility, demonstrating their ability to survive and thrive in a male-dominated universe by sticking together and supporting one another unconditionally — i.e., Rose immediately offers Kennedy a free place to stay; Kennedy willingly allows Rose to “steal” her one-night-stand (Ken Del Conte) as her lover; a colleague (Cassandra Peterson) teaches Guthrie the tricks of the stripping trade; etc. Meanwhile, Kennedy — who initially strikes one as merely a “dumb blonde” — quickly flouts our expectations by demonstrating a strong sense of logic and head for business. While its weak ensemble storyline ultimately makes this one of Rothman’s lesser efforts, it’s certainly worth a look by followers of slyly subversive feminist cinema.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Good use of authentic L.A.-area locales
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• MRQE (Movie Review Query Engine)
• Jigsaw Lounge Review (scroll down)
• Chicago Reader Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A car-savvy young woman (Aimee Eccles) in a contentious but committed relationship with her bumper sticker-producing boyfriend (Solomon Sturges) has an affair with a parole officer (Jeff Pomerantz), who brings his girlfriend (Victoria Vetri) into their growing sexual household. Soon Vetri meets a hunky lifeguard (Zack Taylor) who rounds out their “group marriage” by convincing a lawyer (Claudia Jennings) to join their unusual living arrangement.

Genres:

• Comedy
• Counterculture
• Sexuality
• Stephanie Rothman Films

Review:
Four years after the release of Paul Mazursky’s Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (1969), maverick feminist director Stephanie Rothman made this much bolder exploitation comedy about the same topic: poly-amorous relationships. While Mazursky’s film was notable for introducing this timely concern to mainstream audiences in a crowd-pleasing fashion, Rothman’s variation dares to take B&C&T&A‘s concerns to the next logical step, as the group of adults in question actually carry out their desire to experiment with shifting sexual partnerships and a communal living arrangement. The script is often clunky (a pair of onlooking gay male neighbors are especially poorly handled), and the performances less-than-fine-tuned — but one nonetheless gets the sense that Rothman is genuinely concerned with exploring what a “group marriage” might look like, and what some of the obstacles might be, including (surprisingly) one member’s ultimate desire for more freedom than even such a radically-conceived “marriage” allows for. Meanwhile, it’s refreshing as always to see Rothman’s attempts to infuse her female characters with unexpected strengths and skills — gorgeous Eccles, for instance, is a whiz at fixing cars, while Jennings is a no-nonsense lawyer.

Note: Watch for the film’s most unintentionally giggle-worthy moment, as Vetri encounters Taylor on the beach for the first time.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• A clever spoof of shifting sexual mores
  

Must See?
Yes, simply to see one of Rothman’s iconic exploitation films — and as an interesting counterpoint to Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (they would make a provocative double-bill).

Categories

• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• MRQE (Movie Review Query Engine)
• Spinning Image Review
• DVD Verdict Review
• Chicago Reader Capsule Review

Synopsis:
Four sexy young women deal with various dramas while studying to be nurses: Sharon (Elaine Giftos) attempts to befriend an embittered, terminally ill patient (Darrell Larson); Phred (Karen Carlson) falls for an OB-GYN student (Lawrence P. Casey); Lynn (Brioni Farrell) accidentally becomes involved with a group of Chicano activists (led by Reni Santoni); and Priscilla (Barbara Leigh) gets together with a drug-dealing motorcyclist (Richard Rust) who impregnates her.

Genres:

• Counterculture
• Doctors and Nurses
• Stephanie Rothman Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “first of New World’s R-rated ‘nursing cycle’” — which earned Roger Corman a bundle of money — “is perhaps director Stephanie Rothman’s most solid work, effectively blending sex, comedy, action, and drama, and advancing a strong feminist viewpoint.” He notes that the four female leads “are all convincing”, and “set the pattern for future Rothman females”; and he points out that they “help and root for each other, without petty rivalries over men or careers”, while “mak[ing] all their own decisions, right and wrong”. He notes that “Rothman sets up personal and professional roadblocks for each, and makes it clear that for the women to triumph, they must earn their nursing diplomas”. Though it’s undeniably an exploitation film — primary emphasis is placed on the sex appeal of the four young nurses, and much of the silly narrative is soap opera-worthy — it nonetheless respectfully tackles a surprising number of socially relevant topics, including political activism, drugs, and a woman’s right to have an abortion. It’s interesting to note that Rothman wrote a rejected script for New World’s later release, The Student Teachers (1973), given what an abject mess this later flick turned out to be; indeed, watching the two films side by side clearly reveals what a difference an invested sensibility behind the scenes can make. The Student Nurses was followed up by four additional (non-Rothman-directed) entries in the “series”; check out DVD Talk’s review for a chuckle-worthy overview of how all five of the films are “thematically linked”.

Note: Click here to read a fascinating interview with Rothman.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• An interesting cinema verite depiction of various counterculture social milieus
  
• A refreshing infusion of a social, political, and feminist sensibility into an exploitation flick
  

Must See?
No; I’m recommending Rothman’s Group Marriage as must-see, and all-purpose film fanatics need only check out one of her films. But of course this one will be of interest to fans of Rothman’s work and/or exploitation flicks.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• MRQE (Movie Review Query Engine)
• Spinning Image Review
• DVD Talk Review
• Chicago Reader Capsule Review

Synopsis:
The producer (James Cagney) of live musical prologues for movies struggles to come up with new concepts while dealing with his mercenary ex-wife (Renee Whitney), an in-house spy who is leaking his ideas to a rival company, and shady colleagues (Guy Kibbee and Hugh Herbert) swindling him out of his profits; meanwhile, his loyal secretary (Joan Blondell) — who harbors a secret crush on him — is distressed to see him falling for a two-faced gold-digger (Claire Dodd).

Genres:

• Depression Era
• Jimmy Cagney Films
• Joan Blondell Films
• Let’s Put On a Show
• Musicals
• Rivalry
• Spies

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Cagney and Blondell make a good match” in this “Depression Era musical” — as do “Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler”, playing secondary romantic roles as (respectively) the protegee of a wealthy patron (Ruth Donnelly) and a mousy secretary who takes off her glasses and instantly becomes a performer. Peary argues that while the movie is “great fun”, it “would be [a] touch better if [the] screenwriters had simply put in a few lines about how the success of the… numbers is as important to the welfare of the dancers and singers (who need jobs!) as it is to Cagney’s peace of mind” — a point which doesn’t bother me personally, given that Warner Brothers’ other two musicals released the same year (42nd Street and Gold Diggers of 1933) both did an admirable job covering that sociological base. Peary goes on to write that “with the plot out of the way, Busby Berkeley stages three of his greatest, most innovative, and sexiest musical numbers, back to back: ‘Honeymoon Hotel’, ‘By a Waterfall’ (with the chorines, shot from above, creating amazing patterns in the water), and ‘Shanghai Lil”.” Indeed, it’s Berkeley’s concluding masterpieces that remain the film’s primary calling card — but the storyline itself remains a fun (if occasionally convoluted) backstage drama about an interesting historical topic (trailers have long since replaced live prologues), and it features fine performances by all involved.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• James Cagney as Chester Kent
  
• Joan Blondell as Nan Prescott
  
• Several exceptional Busby Berkeley-directed musical numbers
  
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a classic Depression Era musical.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• MRQE (Movie Review Query Engine)
• TCM Article
• CineScene Review
• NY Times Original Review
• TV Guide Review
• DVD Savant Review (scroll down)
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
An aspiring chorine (Ruby Keeler) in Depression-era New York accidentally meets a performer (Dick Powell) who helps her break into a new show being staged by a stressed-out director (Warner Baxter) hoping to retire after one last hit; meanwhile, the show’s star (Bebe Daniels) tries to hide her long-time lover (George Brent) from her sugar-daddy (Guy Kibbee), who’s bankrolling the production.

Genres:

• Aspiring Stars
• Depression Era
• Dick Powell Films
• Ginger Rogers Films
• Let’s Put On a Show
• Musicals
• Ruby Keeler Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately refers to this cult favorite as “the best of Warner Bros. thirties musicals, with wonderfully wild and innovative choreography by Busby Berkeley; strong, snappy direction by Lloyd Bacon; an enjoyable, well-written putting-on-a-show plot in the Broadway Melody tradition; a realistic glimpse of life in the musical theater; some social consciousness that other studios’ musicals lacked during the Depression; and a particularly fine cast”. He compares 42nd Street to Warner Brothers’ other two major musicals from the same year — Gold Diggers of 1933 and Footlight Parade — and argues that “this film is strongest because we root for the lead singers and dancers, the crew, and particularly the chorines (who have to put up with selfish slavedriver Marsh), whom we see in numerous montages working endlessly, desperately driving themselves past tears and exhaustion, their faces revealing that the show’s success means their survival”. He notes that while the “film has elements of camp”, it also “has unmatched vitality, a strong sense of unity among its characters, and a great deal of honesty”.

Peary notes that the “picture ends with a bang”, with a production number (“42nd Street”) that — in typical Berkeley fashion — is clearly “too elaborate ever to be performed on a real stage, with sections filmed from above, women used as props to form geometric patterns, closeups, dollies, pans, and an ending in which Berkeley thrusts his camera forward between the spread legs of numerous chorines who stand on a revolving stage”. Before this extravaganza, however, we’re treated to several other enjoyable numbers (check out the surreal final moment of “You’re Getting to Be a Habit With Me”, performed by Bebe Daniels), as well as an enjoyably sassy Pre-Code script. (My favorite throwaway one-liner is Ginger Rogers’ snappy retort to a snarky competitor in line at a casting call: “It must have been tough on your mother, not having any children.”)

Regarding the film’s reputation as campy, the primary element that causes one to guffaw these days is the notion that Keeler has any kind of viable or visible leading-lady potential; when Rogers gives away her own chance at fame, humbly allowing Keeler to take her place while citing Keeler’s superior dancing capacity, one literally gasps at the ludicrousness of her statement. Speaking of Keeler’s overall talents, this topic has been debated for years (a debate which continues on IMDb’s message boards). Peary — who writes bluntly in his Cult Movies essay that Keeler “taps like an elephant” — is not alone in his derision, but others come to her defense by noting that her unique tap style (known as “buck dancing”) was intentional, and deserving of the praise it received by critics at the time. My own two cents is that Keeler (or at least her character here) possesses nothing close to the requisite star-power needed to replace Daniels and wow the film’s fictional audiences — but she does adequately represent the fantastical notion that “any woman” might have a chance at fame, if only the stars align in just the right way; such was the power of escapist Depression-era cinema, of which this is likely the epitome.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• James Seymour and Rian James’ sassy Pre-Code script, full of unexpected zingers and scenarios:
  
  

  Male Dancer (to Una Merkal, sitting on his lap): Where ya sittin’ — where ya sittin’?!
  Merkel: On a flagpole, dearie — on a flagpole.

  Guy Kibbee (to Bebe Daniels): I’d like to do something for you — if you’d do something for me.

  George E. Stone (having just run into Ginger Rogers): Not ‘Anytime Annie’? Say, who could forget her? She only said ‘no’ once, and then she didn’t hear the question!

• Many fun musical numbers — i.e., “You’re Getting to Be a Habit With Me”, “Shuffle Off to Buffalo”, and “Young and Healthy”
  
• The especially impressive title finale number (“42nd Street”)
  
• Busby Berkeley’s inimitable choreographic style
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a genuine cult classic. Selected by Peary as one of the Best Films of the Year in his Alternate Oscars.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Genuine Classic
• Historically Relevant

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• MRQE (Movie Review Query Engine)
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Article
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article
• TV Guide Review
• FilmSite Review
• Time Out Capsule Review