FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A group of bugs and insects — including a grasshopper named Hoppity, a bee named Mr. Bumble, and Mr. Bumble’s daughter Honey — find their homes threatened when humans start littering and walking through their grassy neighborhood. Meanwhile, duplicitous C. Bagley Beetle enlists the help of his two henchmen — Smack the Mosquito and Swat the Fly — in convincing Honey to be his wife.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Animated Features
• Musicals
• Talking Animals

Review:
Mr. Hoppity Goes to Town — the second and last feature animated film made by Fleischer Studios — is primarily known today as the first animated feature based on an original story. Made 60 or so years before A Bug’s Life and Antz, Hoppity is an early attempt to show life from a bug’s perspective; my favorite scene has Hoppity taking Honey out for a night on the town, down through a pothole to a bugs’ nightclub. Unfortunately, however, while Hoppity remains an enjoyable tale for kids (the morals are clear and straightforward), it’s ultimately not a classic: Hoppity is an insipid hero, and the songs are instantly forgettable. Nonetheless, this is a film which should be seen once by all film fanatics, simply for its place in animation history.

Note: Mr. Hoppity‘s animators were the victims of incredibly unlucky timing: just three days after the film was released, Pearl Harbor was invaded and Hoppity became a box office failure.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• One of the few early animated features to compete with Disney
  
• Some nifty “neon” animation when Hoppity is accidentally electrified and starts dancing

Must See?
Yes, simply for its historical importance; but it will ultimately be of most interest to kids.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry

Synopsis:
When his wealthy cousin Ambrose (John Sutton) dies while abroad, Philip Ashley (Richard Burton) suspects Ambrose’s new wife, Rachel (Olivia de Havilland), of murder. When Rachel comes to visit, however, Philip finds himself swayed by her charms, and is no longer sure what to think.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Historical Drama
• Inheritance
• Mistaken or Hidden Identities
• Olivia de Havilland Films
• Revenge
• Richard Burton Films
• Romance
• Widows

Review:
Richard Burton made his screen debut in this excellent adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier’s gothic romance. Burton is appropriately moody as the young protagonist who experiences both love and hatred for his beautiful cousin, while De Haviland once again shows her talent for playing a sweet yet potentially duplicitous woman (see also The Dark Mirror). In addition to fine performances and atmospheric sets, the screenplay is nicely paced, keeping us constantly guessing about Rachel’s motivations until the final climactic moments.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Richard Burton as the brooding, love-struck Philip
  
• Olivia de Havilland as Rachel
  
• Atmospheric sets and cinematography
  
• Nunnally Johnson’s script — full of many intriguing mysteries and plot twists

Must See?
No, but it’s highly recommended for fans of gothic romances.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
When the Germans invade France in 1940, a vacationing elderly Englishman (Monty Woolley) is asked to bring two children (Roddy McDowall and Peggy Ann Garner) with him back to London. Along the way, however, Woolley finds himself escorting more and more needy kids.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Anne Baxter Films
• Character Arc
• Escape
• Monty Woolley Films
• Nazis
• Orphans
• Roddy McDowall Films
• World War II

Review:
This warm-hearted adaptation of Nevil Shute’s novel — about an unlikely hero (Woolley) who finds himself shepherding a passel of kids through war-torn Europe — is more a fable than a realistic story; indeed, because it was clearly shot on Hollywood sound stages, one never feels as though the characters are in any true danger. Woolley’s performance is the undisputed highlight of the film: he keeps things at a consistently humorous level. No matter how dire the circumstances he and his kids face (including death by Nazis), we know he will always stand up for his rights. I especially like his interactions with McDowell and Garner, both of whom show ample evidence of their natural ability as child actors.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Monty Woolley as the elderly curmudgeon who experiences a change of heart; Peary nominates him for an Alternate Oscar as best actor of the year
  
• Good, natural performances by child actors McDowall and Garner
  

Must See?
Yes, to see Woolley in his Oscar-nominated role.

Categories

• Noteworthy Performance(s)
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
An astronomer (Lee Grant) cares for her disturbed younger sister (Carole Kane), who is obsessed with drawing and killing primates she keeps in a cage at home.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Carol Kane Films
• Horror
• Incest and Incestuous Undertones
• Lee Grant Films
• Mental Illness
• Obsessive Love
• Play Adaptations
• Primates
• Siblings

Review:
Chances are you’ve never seen anything quite like The Mafu Cage, a bizarrely memorable horror flick based on themes of mental instability, sororal devotion, incestuous behavior, and obsessive love. Director Karen Arthur never opts for cheap thrills, instead choosing to imbue her film with heavy doses of atmosphere — in the sets (including Cissy’s jungle-like living space and the almost minimalist white Mafu cage), the soundtrack (full of pulsating African tribal rhythms), and Cissy’s increasingly far-out costumes and makeup. Carol Kane is nothing less than brilliant in the lead role as Cissy: she shifts at a moment’s notice from seductive to contrite to leering, yet we never doubt the veracity of her impulses. Equally impressive are Lee Grant and James Olson as the primary targets of Cissy’s unpredictable behavior. Although we want to shake Grant for not placing her sister in a mental asylum years earlier, we can’t help admiring her loyalty and love for her disturbed sister; and Olson does a fine job as the innocent visitor who unknowingly walks into a web of insanity, only to pay dearly for it. My one complaint about the film is that we never learn what or who a “mafu” is; this minor quibble aside, however, I’ll admit I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this strange little Sleeper, which is nonetheless not for all tastes.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Carole Kane’s brilliantly deranged performance as Cissy
  
• Lee Grant as Cissy’s loyal older sister
  
• James Olson as Grant’s colleague and would-be love interest
  
• Countless eerily memorable moments
  
• The pulsating tribal soundtrack

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended. I can easily see this film becoming a cult flick once it’s rediscovered.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• The Spinning Image Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A former chorus girl (Nancy Carroll) married to a boring millionaire (Frank Morgan) is wooed by her hedonistic ex-lover (Fredric March).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Fredric March Films
• Golddiggers
• Infidelity
• Romantic Comedy

Review:
This rarely seen film is widely regarded as a formative precursor to 1930s screwball comedies, and remains a humorous look at the pull between love and wealth: if given the choice between living a boring life in the lap of luxury, or laughing your days away in poverty, which would you choose? Carroll is fine as the female lead, but it’s Fredric March who really shines here — from the moment he enters Carroll’s house and attempts to woo her back, we can’t help smiling at his antics. Though it’s hard to feel much sympathy for Carroll (she wants to have her cake and eat it, too), she and March have such genuine chemistry together that it’s easy to see why she’s tempted by his charms.

Note: Director Harry d’Abbadie d’Arrast — who also wrote the Oscar-nominated script — helmed just seven films between 1927-1933, then was blackballed from Hollywood.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fredric March as Carroll’s former lover
  
• A clever, Oscar-nominated script

Must See?
Yes, simply for its historical importance as a precursor to 1930s screwball comedies.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
Heroin addicts in Los Angeles shoot up and struggle to survive.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Alcoholism and Drug Addiction
• Counterculture
• Los Angeles

Review:
Director Floyd Mutrux’s pseudo-documentary about heroin addicts in Los Angeles (starring real-life users) is an episodic ensemble flick which emphasizes atmosphere rather than plot. Indeed — appropriately enough — not much happens in the lives of these motley addicts: they shoot up, stare glassy-eyed at each other, talk about time spent in jail, attempt to secure more dope, and, occasionally, manage a semblance of romance.

Most devastating is watching a teenage couple (listed simply as “Larry” and “Pam” in the credits) wasting their lives for the allure of smack; despite knowing that a doctor-supervised vitamin B-12 solution was used in the needles, the scene in which Larry shoots up Pam in the face remains particularly gruesome.

Dusty and Sweets (named after the street monikers of two of the film’s characters) was pulled from screens just one week after its release in 1971, and became somewhat of a cult hit after this. It’s hard to get ahold of these days — presumably because of copyright issues, considering the enormous number of popular songs used on the soundtrack. Ironically, it’s the uplifting soundtrack which saves this film from devolving into pure voyeuristic misery. I’d love to see a follow-up documentary about these folks, but my guess is that they weren’t long for this world.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• William Fraker’s cinematography
  
• Some truly haunting imagery of young addicts shooting up
  
• The eclectic soundtrack — especially Jake Holmes’ “So Close” during the final stills

Must See?
No, but it’s certainly worth a look if you can find a copy. While Peary lists this as a Cult Movie in the back of his book, I think it’s more relevant as a time-capsule glimpse into a specific subculture of the early 1970s.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• San Francisco Chronicle Review
• San Francisco Examiner Review
• All Movie Guide Review
• TV Guide Review

Synopsis:
A deputy sheriff (Cornel Wilde) in a Grand Canyon ghost town investigates a mysterious rash of murders.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cornel Wilde Films
• Don Siegel Films
• Gold Seekers
• Mining Towns
• Murder Mystery
• Sheriffs

Review:
Don Siegel’s first widescreen picture was this decent yet uninspired mystery thriller, based on the premise that hidden deposits of gold in the Grand Canyon might lead to increasingly shady behavior by those who know of its location. As Siegel himself noted, the film’s primary selling points are its gorgeous VistaVision cinematography, and the “palm drenching” final sequences. Victoria Shaw is appealing as Wilde’s red-headed love interest, though she doesn’t have nearly enough screen time or interesting dialogue; Wilde himself is as stoic as ever, and merely serviceable in the lead role.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Gorgeous cinematography of the Grand Canyon
  
• The final climactic scenes over the Canyon
  
• Victoria Shaw as Wilde’s beautiful love interest
  

Must See?
No. It’s not clear why Peary lists this title in the back of his book, other than the fact that it was directed by Don Siegel.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
When her fiance Gerald (Richard Carlson) inherits a Scottish castle and suddenly breaks off their engagement, plucky Kitty (Veronica Hurst) and her aunt Edith (Katherine Emery) investigate Gerald’s mysterious behavior.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Amateur Sleuths
• Inheritance
• Scotland

Review:
This 3-D mystery thriller by director William Cameron Menzies — who helmed Invaders from Mars (1953) the same year — possesses a ridiculous plot, amateur acting, and awful dialogue: “He was too proud, too weak — so were we all.” The first hour or so tells a fairly atmospheric tale of a woman determined to solve the mystery of her fiance’s bizarre behavior (though the unappealing Gerald acts so boorishly towards Kitty, we wonder why she even bothers).

The absurd denouement, however, brings us squarely into the realm of sci-fi camp: if you’re not too busy laughing, you’ll wonder how in the world the actors kept straight faces through it all.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Atmospheric set designs and lighting
  

Must See?
No. Peary lists this title in the back of his book as a Sleeper, but I think it’s much better suited for MST3K satire.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• SciFilm Review
• At-a-Glance Film Review

Synopsis:
An outlaw (Joel McCrea) hoping to go straight is busted out of prison in order to help with one final job. Meanwhile, a half-breed dancer named Colorado (Virginia Mayo) falls in love with McQueen (McCrea), who is interested in the duplicitous daughter (Dorothy Malone) of a kind settler (Henry Hull) instead.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Dorothy Malone Films
• Fugitives
• Heists
• Joel McCrea Films
• Love Triangle
• Raoul Walsh Films
• Thieves and Criminals
• Virginia Mayo Films
• Westerns

Review:
Raoul Walsh’s remake of his gangster flick High Sierra (1941) is cited by many critics and fans as the better of the two, but I can’t say I agree. While Colorado Territory is a fine western in many ways, it ultimately doesn’t offer much that’s new or exciting. The love triangle is especially weak, with Malone’s character too underdeveloped:

and Colorado coming across as a cliche of every “bad girl trying to make good” we’ve ever seen.

The best aspect of the film by far is the beautiful cinematography of New Mexico locales, especially during the final climactic scenes.

Note: TNT produced an insipid colorized version, which you should try to avoid at all costs; instead, watch the film in its original b&w glory.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Joel McCrea as Wes McQueen
  
• Beautiful cinematography of southwestern landscapes
  

Must See?
No. Although this film apparently has a cult following (and Peary lists it in the back of his book as a Personal Recommendation), I don’t think it’s must-see viewing.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Turner Classic Movies Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A gang of terrorists (Rod Steiger, Jack Klugman, Angie Dickinson, and Neville Brand) hold a man (James Mason), his wife (Inger Stevens), and their young daughter (Terry Ann Ross) hostage in exchange for $500,000.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Angie Dickinson Films
• Hostages
• James Mason Films
• Race Against Time
• Rod Steiger Films
• Terrorists

Review:
Cry Terror! remains a reasonably entertaining thriller with an unnecessarily sloppy screenplay. Writer/director Andrew Stone can’t seem to make up his mind who’s telling the story here: about a third of the way into the movie, we suddenly hear a voiceover by Stevens, although she was never posited as the first-person protagonist; later, this is dropped in favor of a sudden voiceover by Mason. Ironically, neither of these is necessary in order to make the story clear, and the entire dramatic arc would ultimately have been more powerful without attempting to get inside the minds of the harried hostages. Beautiful Inger Stevens is appropriately on edge — though ultimately annoying — as the hysterical mother racing against time to save her family:

while Mason is pretty much wasted as the brave father who does what he can to help notify the police.

The most impressive performances are given by the gang of terrorists, especially Steiger and Dickinson; we can’t help wishing they had more screen time.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Rod Steiger as the psychopathic leader of the terrorists
  
• Angie Dickinson as Steiger’s female accomplice
  
• Some genuinely tense moments, as when Stevens tries to race home in time to save her husband and daughter
  

Must See?
No. I’m not sure why Peary includes this melodramatic title in the back of his book — it’s not awful, but it’s not must-see viewing, either.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review