Browsed by
Category: Response Reviews

My comments on Peary’s reviews in Guide for the Film Fanatic (Simon & Schuster, 1986).

For a Few Dollars More (1965)

For a Few Dollars More (1965)

“When two hunters go after the same prey, they usually end up shooting each other in the back.”

Synopsis:
When a nameless bounty hunter (Clint Eastwood) meets vengeful Colonel Mortimer (Lee Van Cleef), the pair unexpectedly team up to hunt down the leader (Gian Maria Volontè) of a vicious outlaw gang.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bounty Hunters
  • Clint Eastwood Films
  • Lee Van Cleef Films
  • Revenge
  • Sergio Leone Films
  • Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
In his review of “Sergio Leone’s follow-up to A Fistful of Dollars,” Peary notes that this film “moves from a mythical age to a time when civilization (symbolized by the coming of the railroad to the West) and recorded history emerge.” He argues that the sequel is “more elaborate, more imaginatively plotted, better photographed, funnier, more brutal (the violence becomes more realistic), and more overtly adult and political than the original,” and points out that “Eastwood and Van Cleef form the first of Leone’s unholy alliances”: “whereas Eastwood’s mysterious gunfighters kill to make money rather than to achieve revenge (he has no past)”:

… Van Cleef has a very specific reason for hunting down Volontè, which we don’t learn about until the tension-filled final shoot-out.

Eastwood’s once-again-nameless, cheroot-chewing gunslinger doesn’t have much to do throughout this film other than squint and participate in cleverly choreographed gun fights:




… but of course he’s an essential component of the film’s iconography. Van Cleef (in a role which revived his later-life career) also acquits himself well — though it’s Italian actor Volontè who pulls out the most dramatic acting chops:

… and it’s Ennio Morricone’s incomparable score — filled with “twangy jew’s-harps, insanely catchy guitar riffs, iconic whistling, bell tolls, church organs” and a musical pocket watch — which ultimately steals the show.

Note: Watch for Klaus Kinski in a memorable supporting role as an outlaw enraged by being used as a human match-striking surface.

His interactions with Van Cleef lead to my favorite random exchange of the film.

Van Cleef: It’s a small world.
Kinski: Yes — and very, very bad.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Lee Van Cleef as Colonel Mortimer
  • Gian Maria Volontè as El Indio
  • Massimo Dallamano’s cinematography

  • Notable editing
  • Ennio Morricone’s score

Must See?
Yes, as part of an essential western trilogy.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

Links:

Leopard, The (1963)

Leopard, The (1963)

“Ours is a country of compromises.”

Synopsis:
In 1860 Sicily, as Italian states are unifying into one nation, the Prince of Salina (Burt Lancaster) watches over his large family, giving permission for his nephew (Alain Delon) to marry the daughter (Claudia Cardinale) of “new money” (Paolo Stoppa).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Alain Delon Films
  • Burt Lancaster Films
  • Class Relations
  • Claudia Cardinale Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Italian Films
  • Luchino Visconti Films
  • Royalty and Nobility

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “opulent historical epic” — based on a 1958 novel of the same name by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, and set during a specific time in Italy’s history known as the Risorgimento — shows us “the old, loyal, refined royalty [as] represented by the picture’s central character, Don Fabrizio,” who is “majestically played by Burt Lancaster.”

While Lancaster “at first… refuses to acknowledge that civil war is taking place around him” — even “continuing his plans for a vacation with his wife (Rina Morelli), his dashing nephew (Alain Delon), and his seven children”:

— very quickly “the face of Italy changes too drastically for him to ignore,” given that “the noble aristocracy of the past is being phased out” and “replaced by” not only “greedy military and political opportunists who switch loyalties at the drop of a hat” but by “shrewd and vulgar young people who will not carry on the dignified tradition.”

Peary points out that “it’s unclear what Lancaster’s attitude toward” the “breathtaking” “Cardinale is — although he appears to approve of her and Delon because they at least have style.”

He adds that the “picture has excellent acting, surprising wit, and glorious sets, costumes, and scenery,” as well as a “lush score” by Nino Rota.

Peary’s assessment is fair, yet I struggled to find much connection with the storyline, which seems conflicted in its views on revolution. While it’s clear that social change is needed, we’re meant to (and do) relate to Lancaster’s central character (the “leopard”) — a man who represents everything noble and patient about a landed gentry which will nonetheless soon be overrun by a much more complicated national reality.

I haven’t much more to say about this film, other than that it’s widely lauded and considered must-see for its visuals alone, which are indeed impressive — but I’m not really sure why American audiences in particular would feel drawn to this tale.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Burt Lancaster as the Prince
  • Sumptuous sets and costumes
  • Giuseppe Rotunno’s cinematography

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

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

Links:

Paris, Texas (1984)

Paris, Texas (1984)

“I never felt like you were dead.”

Synopsis:
When a disheveled man (Harry Dean Stanton) is found wandering the desert after four years away, his brother (Dean Stockwell) takes him back to his home, where he and his wife (Aurore Clément) have been raising Stanton’s son (Hunter Carson) ever since Stanton and Carson’s mother (Nastassja Kinski) separately disappeared four years earlier. Will Stanton be able to reunite with his son and with Kinski?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Dean Stockwell Films
  • Father and Child
  • Harry Dean Stanton Films
  • Marital Problems
  • Nastassja Kinski Films
  • Road Trip
  • Search
  • Wim Wenders Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of this modern road-trip classic by reminding us that “Wim Wenders’s German films” — i.e., Alice in the Cities (1974) and Kings of the Road (1976) — “typically dealt with men who spent their lives on the open road, escaping from marriages they couldn’t cope with, and leaving behind wives and children they longed for, creating not only a destroyed marriage but a destroyed family.” He adds that “in his second American film, which was adapted from [a] Sam Shepard story by L.M. ‘Kit’ Carson, Wenders at last gives his hero the opportunity to put his family back together, to make up for all his mistakes as [a] husband and father” — and “this time Wenders really brings home the meaning of the child to his hero.”

He notes that after the first third of the movie, when Stanton is picked up and taken home by Stockwell, “the major part of the picture deals with how the father and son become acquainted and fall in love,” then “hit the road in search of Stanton’s ex-wife” — leading to “the final third, written after the rest of the movie was filmed,” in which “Stanton, who keeps his identity a secret,” is “talking to Kinski, who works in a sex-fantasy booth.”

He writes that “this is the kind of arty picture that some people applaud for its revelations about familial relationships while others accuse it of being shamefully pretentious.” For his own part, Peary argues that the “story has the potential to be a real charmer, but Wenders, Carson, and cinematographer Robby Müller approach [the] material [too] dispassionately.” While “there are tears, [and] there is humor,” “Wenders’s unbearably slow pacing and the bleakness of [the] Texas landscape and cityscape overwhelm [the] characters, minimizing their touching moments and almost depriving the picture of warmth.”

I was unhappily surprised to find, upon revisiting this film, that I’m somewhat in agreement with Peary’s assessment. While the film is gorgeous and provocative, there were too many details and questions that left me unsatisfied this time around. First, what led to Stanton’s extreme catatonia?

Much later in the film, Stanton tells (reminds?) Kinski in the booth about the trauma that happened earlier in their marriage — but having this all delivered in a monologue isn’t sufficient, and comes far too late. Second, why don’t Clément and Stockwell have their own kids? Obviously, not all couples have kids, but we’re left wondering if they perhaps postponed their own goals out of sacrificing to care for Carson. (Not everyone will mind about this detail, but it stood out to me, especially given how uber-maternal Clément is.)

Third, how could Kinski not recognize her husband’s voice much earlier on in their interactions? While their sequences together in the booth ‘work’ on an artistic level (they’re beautifully filmed and metaphorically rich), they don’t pass logic.

Meanwhile, as Peary himself notes, “Even if you’re not a romantic, the resolution is unsatisfying” (I agree). Not mentioned in Peary’s review — but most definitely of note — is Ry Cooder’s distinctive slide-guitar score, which almost functions as a character of its own throughout the film.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Robby Müller’s cinematography

  • Fine use of location shooting across diverse landscapes

  • Ry Cooder’s score

Must See?
Yes. Despite my own reservations, this is a modern existential classic that should be seen at least once by all film fanatics.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

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

Links:

Chimes at Midnight / Falstaff (1965)

Chimes at Midnight / Falstaff (1965)

“I know thee not, old man.”

Synopsis:
As King Henry V (John Gielgud) approaches death, his son Hal (Keith Baxter) is called back home and must negotiate a new relationship with his long-time carousing companion, Sir John Falstaff (Orson Welles).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Father and Child
  • Friendship
  • Jeanne Moreau Films
  • John Gielgud Films
  • Margaret Rutherford Films
  • Orson Welles Films
  • Royalty and Nobility
  • Shakespeare

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “Orson Welles’s final masterpiece” — which “received almost no U.S. distribution after it got a devastating review in the New York Times by Bosley Crowther” — is based on a story by Welles “which he mounted as a play in Belfast in 1960,” “taken from Shakespeare’s Henry IV Parts I & II, with bits from Henry V, The Merry Wives of Windsor, and Richard II” alongside “narration… taken from Raphael Holinshed‘s Chronicles.” He notes it is “told with warmth, wit, and surprising poignancy,” portraying a story that “is simple and on a human level, since Welles makes Falstaff… the hero.” With that said, he’s a most unusual hero, given that he’s “a fat, cowardly, bawdy, lying figure” — however, “he gives Hal genuine love while the rigid, humorless Henry pays little attention to him.”

Peary points out that “Welles often played characters whose ascent to power was characterized, like Hal’s, by their quick exchange of idealism for ruthlessness” — but “while characters like Kane or Harry Lime did their friends wrong, few ever actually betrayed friendships.” To that end, he notes that “Falstaff is surely the character who, with warts, weight, and all, was closest to the real Welles.” While Falstaff “isn’t the type of guy you’d bring to a society function,” he’d “make a great Santa Claus.”

Most importantly, he may fib “constantly, but is honest; he fits in with the town dunce and senile old men, yet he has a unique knowledge of what’s important in life (love, loyalty, friendship, a good chat, a good roll in bed with a wench, a good bowel movement)” — ultimately representing “goodness in a cruel world.”

Peary points out that while the “film’s low budget caused Welles problems,” he encourages viewers to “wait out the early scenes in which the dialogue is often out of synch” and enjoy the “superb” acting (“Welles was never better”) and “often stunning” visuals.

He adds that “Welles’s choreography of the battle sequence is spectacular — only in Eisenstein’s Alexander Nevsky does a battle have such impact.” (Indeed, the scene is so kinetically filmed and edited that it’s hard to do it justice with a still.)

The production history of this movie is, naturally, a thing unto itself (what else would you expect with Welles?); you can read more at Wikipedia or watch some of the DVD extras (Criterion has put out a newly remastered version).

Watch for Jeanne Moreau as the prostitute Doll Tearsheet (you can see Moreau’s real-life friendship with/affection for Welles shining through her characterization):

… and Margaret Rutherford as Mistress Quickly.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Orson Welles as Jack Falstaff
  • Keith Baxter as Hal
  • John Gielgud as Henry IV
  • Margaret Rutherford as Mistress Quickly
  • Highly atmospheric cinematography and sets

Must See?
Yes, as a powerful Shakespearian adaptation and for Welles’s performance.

Categories

  • Important Director
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

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

Links:

Ulysses (1967)

Ulysses (1967)

“History is a nightmare from which I’m trying to awake.”

Synopsis:
A Jewish adman named Leopold Bloom (Milo O’Shea) wanders the streets of Dublin with young poet Stephen Dedalus (Maurice Roëves), reflecting on his adulterous wife (Barbara Jefford) back at home while engaging in his own adventures, both real and imagined.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Ireland
  • Marital Problems

Review:
Peary isn’t a big fan of “Joseph Strick’s adaptation of James Joyce’s epic novel.” He argues that the character of Stephen Dedalus (a stand-in for Joyce) is “on screen too briefly and makes insignificant impact,” and notes that while “college lit majors and Joyce scholars will be thankful that this film was made by a devotee of Joyce,” “Strick proves — as he did with Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer [not listed in GFTFF] — that the source is unfilmable, as anyone who has read it (or carried the heavy thing in a bookbag) could have told him.” He argues that this “sleep-inducing, confusing film never sustains [the] flavor or power of [the] novel,” and that “it’s also hard to recognize Joyce’s Dublin or his colorful characters.”


He further asserts that while the “narration is from Joyce,” “Strick’s slapdash choice of images to accompany it is disconcerting.”

He concludes by noting that the “most interesting narration is by Molly as she lies in bed with the sleeping Leopold, whose feet are by her head”:

… and points out that “because the film was made back in 1967 when there were censorship problems, it’s jarring to hear her strong language,” yet “even today it’s still interesting listening to her lengthy discourse on the men in her life” (I agree).

However, I don’t quite agree with the rest of Peary’s take on this film — which is indeed super-challenging to follow, but that’s the nature of the book itself (which I’ll confess to not having read). As I’ve done more research into the storyline and structure of the novel, it seems to me that Strick admirably captures much of the flavor of the story and its characters (though maybe I would feel differently if I’d read and absorbed it first).

While I don’t fully “get” all of Joyce’s allusions, one isn’t supposed to; this is a novel meant to be explored and enjoyed over time, in conversation with others — and I can see how this film might be an interesting accompaniment to that process.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Milo O’Shea as Leopold Bloom
  • Barbara Jefford as Molly Bloom
  • Wolfgang Suschitzky’s cinematography

Must See?
No, though of course anyone interested in this novel or James Joyce more broadly will certainly want to give it a look.

Links:

Firemen’s Ball, The (1967)

Firemen’s Ball, The (1967)

“We want the beauty queen! We want the beauty queen!”

Synopsis:
At a small town Czechoslovakian celebration meant to honor a retiring fireman with cancer, absolutely nothing goes as expected.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Beauty Contests
  • Black Comedy
  • Eastern European Films
  • Living Nightmare
  • Milos Forman Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this film — “the last movie [Milos Forman] made in his native Czechoslovakia” — is “somewhat reminiscent of Bunuel’s The Exterminating Angel, in which bourgeois party guests can’t get home — [only] here the party guests stick around to commit mean acts or have them perpetrated on them.” When “firemen decide to throw a ball to honor their retired chief” because “it will be good for their own image”:

… “everything goes wrong: the leering, dirty old firemen decide to hold a beauty contest, but only ugly girls enter”:

… “the firemen are late to a fire that burns down an old man’s house”:

… “people steal the raffle prizes meant to benefit the old man”:

… “a respected fireman is caught red-handed with stolen meat;” and “the ex-chief’s gift disappears.” Peary argues that the “laughter comes from watching self-serving people try to show off their ‘generosity, benevolence, [and] solidarity’,” but he argues that “cruelty often overwhelms the humor.”

To be honest, Peary’s review weirdly misses the point of this 72-minute satire, which is clearly a direct allegory for the corruption of the Czech government, pre-Prague Spring. Nothing taking place here is kind, respectful, or even logical — presumably because nothing about how the government was being run at the time felt humanistic or made sense. The country was metaphorically burning down, and even its designated “firemen” weren’t able to save it. Thankfully, Forman got out, came to America, and started his own career anew; this remains a potent cinematic artifact of why that was necessary (at the time).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Numerous surreally outlandish moments

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance as Forman’s final film before leaving Czechoslovakia, and for its Oscar nomination.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

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

Links:

Fistful of Dollars, A (1964)

Fistful of Dollars, A (1964)

“I never saw a town as dead as this one.”

Synopsis:
A gunslinger (Clint Eastwood) wandering into a desolate town on the border between Mexico and the United States hires himself out as a hitman for rival feuding families.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Clint Eastwood Films
  • Feuds
  • Sergio Leone Films
  • Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “this seminal spaghetti western” — “released in the U.S. in 1967” — was “the breakthrough film for both director Sergio Leone and star Clint Eastwood, whose portrayal of the Man With No Name” — the “most ruthless hero in western-movie history” — “quicky established him as the screen’s most charismatic action hero,” all while having “ripped off” the story “from Kurosawa’s samurai tale Yojimbo.”

He notes that while it’s “not on the level of For a Few Dollars More and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” it “did anticipate those films in several ways: the ritualistic, oddly humorous shootouts; the brutal violence; the use of music (by Ennio Morricone) to comment on the action; the near-death and Christlike resurrection of the hero (a theme Eastwood would use in his own films); a West that is populated mostly by ugly, unwashed, Fellini types”:

… and “an America where every person’s death means someone else makes a financial profit.” He adds that “most interesting is the Eastwood character,” who is “distinctively dressed in a tattered poncho over a sheepskin vest, a black cheroot… wedged in his mouth”:

… “and, with an air of casual sadism,” one “of the few survivors of a dying race of mythological super-warriors whose divine powers enable them to outdraw and outshoot anyone, to withstand terrible punishment, to have no fear of death, and to sense impending danger and have the cunning to get out of it.”

I happened to revisit this film before rewatching Akira Kurosawa’s Yojimbo (1961), which I quickly realized I needed to do before I could post a review — and to be honest, it’s now hard for me to get past the fact that this movie is literally (without permission) a near-remake of Kurosawa’s earlier work. I keep hearing Kurosawa’s letter of protest to Leone in my head: “I like your film very much. It’s a very interesting film. Unfortunately, it’s my film not your film.” Thankfully, Kurosawa earned the right to 15% of all revenue from the movie, which helped fund his own future projects — so I suppose it worked out in the end.

Regardless, this film now has a mythos all its own, with plenty written about how Eastwood (then star of the T.V. show “Rawhide”) stumbled into his first cinematic leading role after numerous others turned it down — and was mostly eager for a trip to Europe; how the film was made without dialogue and completely dubbed later; how Eastwood took his costume home every night to keep it safe for filming the next day (and still owns the original poncho); how Eastwood’s iconic squint and scowl were partly a result of his genuine dislike for smoking; how Morricone wrote most of the highly distinctive score ahead of time; and how critics mostly panned the movie at the time of its release, but eventually revised their assessment. It remains worth a look as an effective low-budget film which wasn’t precisely the first of its genre, but helped to spark the craze.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Distinctive direction by Leone
  • Ennio Morricone’s score

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance as the first major title in the Spaghetti Western sub-genre.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Yojimbo / Bodyguard, The (1961)

Yojimbo / Bodyguard, The (1961)

“A truce is merely the seed for an even bloodier battle.”

Synopsis:
When an itinerant samurai (Toshiro Mifune) stops by a town fueled by rivalry between a corrupt silk merchant (Kamatari Fujiwara) and a corrupt sake seller (Takashi Shimura), he decides to make money off of both sides while standing up to a cocky henchman (Tatsuya Nakadai) with a pistol.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Akira Kurosawa Films
  • Feuds
  • Japanese Films
  • Samurai

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “Akira Kurosawa’s classic,” “most financially successful film” was “influenced by westerns such as Shane and in turn influenced a whole slew of westerns itself, most notably Sergio Leone’s A Fistful of Dollars, which completely lifts the plot.” He describes the town that Mifune’s “masterless samurai” wanders through as representing “the decay of a moral, chivalrous Japanese society” given that both rival leaders are waging “a war for control of the town’s gambling,” and “both are cowards who have hired scores of evil henchmen.”

He notes that Mifune’s “Sanjuro Kuwabatake” — a name he makes up for himself by looking off into the distance at a mulberry field and adding an age — is one of the few “fast-action movie heroes who think before they act,” and thus he “devises a clever plan by which he can exploit the situation to his financial gain.”

Peary adds that “like Leone’s films, this is a bloodbath (the violence is ferocious) that we react to with laughter — it is a comedy whereby the bad guys have the misfortune to be happened upon by a hero who can challenge and defeat them on their own amoral terms.”

In addition, “as in Leone, when the hero acts with emotion — acts human for the only time — he ends up paying the price, by suffering physical punishment.”

Peary asserts that this “classic” — an example of “great movie-making” — “is beautifully photographed by Kazuo Miyagawa… who does a remarkable job with composition and deep focus;” one particularly “striking shot” involves “the coffin maker hanging in the foreground, facing us; some bad guys in the middle plane, facing away from us toward the far end of town; and the ‘resurrected’ Mifune in the distance, facing us, with myth-making dust blowing past him from our right to left.”

As pointed out by Alexander Sesonske in his essay for Criterion, this film emerged nine titles after Kurosawa’s Rashomon “shocked both East and West by its triumph at the 1950 Venice Film Festival,” with numerous others in between — including Ikiru (1952), The Seven Samurai (1954), and Throne of Blood (1957) — considered “exotic for the Westerners, but alive with characters who continually impress us with their humanity.” Yojimbo is generally seen as Kurosawa’s explicit nod to America, given its potent mix of westerns and gangster flicks, with the village gangs here “so grotesquely wicked, they become ludicrous and enlist neither our sympathy nor our belief.”

What’s most enjoyable is watching Mifune managing everything that comes his way with aplomb, humor, and mastery. Also noteworthy is Masaru Satô’s score, written in just one week. This film was followed by Sanjuro (1962), which apparently was revised to accommodate the success of the title character here.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Toshiro Mifune as Sanjuro
  • Tatsuya Nakadai as Unosuke
  • Kazuo Miyagawa’s cinematography

  • Masaru Satô’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a classic by a master director.

Categories

  • Foreign Gem
  • Genuine Classic
  • Important Director

Links:

Coogan’s Bluff (1968)

Coogan’s Bluff (1968)

“Nobody calls me mister with my boots off.”

Synopsis:
When an Arizona sheriff (Clint Eastwood) arrives in New York City to chase down a fugitive (Don Stroud), he encounters surprising resistance from a police detective (Lee J. Cobb), and woos a social worker (Susan Clark) to help track Stroud through one of his followers (Tisha Sterling).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Betty Field Films
  • Clint Eastwood Films
  • Don Siegel Films
  • Fugitives
  • Lee J. Cobb Films
  • Sheriffs and Marshals

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary points out that while “Clint Eastwood still wore a cowboy hat in Don Siegel’s taut, violent film” (their first of five movies together), “it was his first attempt to move into contemporary times.” He adds, as “a predecessor to Dirty Harry Callahan, Coogan was Eastwood’s first character to be upset by the hedonistic decadence and crime of the cities, and frustrated by the ineffectiveness of urban police departments, where everything must go through proper channels.”

Because he gets “no help from the NYPD, he employs roughshod tactics used by lawmen in the west since the 19th century and, though he ruffles a few feathers, is able to carry out his mission.” Naturally, “along the way he is charmed by” and/or beds various women, including a social worker (Susan Clark) and “the bad guy’s girlfriend (Tisha Sterling).”

Peary doesn’t provide much more critique of this film in his GFTFF — but DVD Savant bluntly refers to it as “a wince-inducing fossil that nevertheless struck a solid chord with 1968’s ‘silent majority’,” noting that it “was beautifully engineered to cut through the socio-political confusion of 1968, when conservatives feared that riots, assassinations, protests and a wild new youth drug culture were spelling an end to Western civilization.”

Meanwhile, poor Susan Clark’s Julie is “a sad character indeed;” she’s terribly used here (both by Eastwood and by the script). Faring somewhat better is Sterling’s pixie hippie, and Betty Field in a bit role (her last) as Stroud’s sassy mother.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Good use of location shooting across New York
  • Luminous Tisha Sterling as Linny Raven
  • Betty Field in a tiny role as Ellen Ringerman
  • The exciting motorcycle chase sequence
  • Lalo Schifrin’s score

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for Eastwood fans.

Links:

  • IMDb entry
  • NY Times Original Review
  • DVD Savant Review
  • Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977/1980)

    Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977/1980)

    “All I want to know is what’s going on!”

    Synopsis:
    An electric lineman (Richard Dreyfuss) finds his life and marriage turned upside down when he sees a UFO and becomes literally obsessed with learning more.

    Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

    • Aliens
    • Family Problems
    • Francois Truffault Films [actor]
    • “No One Believes Me!”
    • Richard Dreyfuss Films
    • Science Fiction
    • Steven Spielberg Films
    • Teri Garr Films

    Response to Peary’s Review:
    As Peary writes, “While George Lucas was off making a film about intergalactic warfare, Steven Spielberg was making this film about peace and friendship (through the communication of words, music, and feelings) between alien races.” He notes it’s “a film by a dreamer for dreamers (the true SF fan),” about a man “who spots a UFO during a blackout” and “soon afterward… finds that there have been other UFO sightings and activity” — and “naturally, the government is covering it all up.” When he “starts having sensations that he’s being drawn to a huge rock formation (Devil’s Tower) in Wyoming:”

    … he leaves behind his wife and kids and goes there with “a single mother (Melinda Dillon), whose little boy was abducted by a UFO (in a classic sequence).”

    Once there, he finds that “amid great secrecy, French scientist Claude Lacombe (Francois Truffaut) and many U.S. government officials and astronauts have gathered for the first meeting with the alien visitors.”

    Peary — who nominates this as one of the Best Pictures of the Year in his Alternate Oscars — argues that “Spielberg has made a marvelous picture, an enthralling, myth-making work full of suspense, mystery, and a sense of awe and wonder about space travel and alien life.” He points out that “the special effects by Douglas Trumbull are breathtaking — when the mother ship makes its first appearance, your jaw may drop open.”

    He concedes that “the story has gaps in it and some of the bits with Roy [Dreyfuss] and his family are awkward:”

    However, he asserts that “the film is so ambitious, imaginative, and visually impressive that one can overlook its few flaws.”

    I think I’m mostly in agreement. While the screenplay is littered with issues — see CinemaSins’ “Everything Wrong with ‘Close Encounters'” video for no less than 127 “sins”, including how terribly Dreyfuss’s character acts (especially towards his family) for most of the film — it’s too visually impressive not to take notice of (and must have been triply so back in the late 1970s, before CGI).

    So much has been said and written about this Oscar-nominated blockbuster — made just after Spielberg finished up work on Jaws (1975) — that I humbly implore readers to search all that out if they’d like to learn more; meanwhile, it should definitely (as Peary says) “be seen on a large screen” if possible. Of special note are all scenes between Oscar-nominated Melinda Dillon and Cary Guffey as her enchanted young son (the abduction sequence is filmed like a horror flick scene):

    … and everything related to the spectacularly filmed spaceship landing.

    Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

    • Douglas Trumbull’s special effects

    • Vilmos Zsigmond’s award-winning cinematography

    Must See?
    Yes, for its cultural significance in cinematic history, and impressive special effects.

    Categories

    • Historically Relevant

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

    Links: