FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
During the French and Indian War, a frontiersman (Randolph Scott) and a Mohican Indian (Phillip Reed) help rescue the kidnapped daughters (Binnie Barnes and Heather Angel) of a British major (Hugh Buckler) from a tribe of Hurons led by the evil Magua (Bruce Cabot).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Historical Drama
• Kidnapping
• Love Triangle
• Native Americans
• Randolph Scott Films

Review:
James Fenimore Cooper’s classic “Leatherstocking” adventure tale — originally published in 1826 — has been adapted for the big screen five times, most recently (in 1992) starring Daniel Day Lewis in the lead role as Natty Bumppo, or “Hawkeye”. This early version (the third, after previous versions in 1911 and 1920) is widely considered to be the best of the bunch, but it hasn’t really aged all that well. While Randolph Scott is as virile and handsome as ever, and it’s refreshing to see Indians treated as individuals rather than a homogenous menace, the story as a whole doesn’t feel authentic: we never believe we’re back in 1800s American wilderness, and the love triangle between Hawkeye, Barnes, and Barnes’ rebuffed suitor (Henry Wilcoxen) is strained at best. As noted in The New York Times’ review, “the mere suggestion that the noted scout of the Leather-stocking Tales might soften even for a moment under the blandishments of a woman is clear heresy” — and suggests more than a little manipulation of Cooper’s vision to fit the desires of (female) audiences.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Randolph Scott as Hawkeye
  
• A refreshing differentiation between tribes of Indians
  

Must See?
No. While it holds some historical significance and is beloved by many, this one isn’t must-see viewing.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
During the Franco-Prussian War, a patriotic laundress (Simone Simon) refuses to dine with a German soldier (Kurt Kreuger), thus jeopardizing the plans of her fellow travelers.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Class Relations
• Historical Dramas
• Resistance Fighters
• Robert Wise Films
• Simone Simon Films
• Val Lewton Films

Review:
Val Lewton produced and Robert Wise directed this competent yet decidedly uninspired war-time allegory, based on two short stories by Guy de Maupassant. At only 69 minutes long, it’s short yet dull, and comes across as little more than a vehicle for stirring patriotic fervor in WWII audiences. Simon’s character (NOT the “Fifi” of the title — that moniker is inexplicably assigned to the Evil Kraut she refuses to dine with) is held up in stark, idealized contrast to the stereotypically smug bourgeois folks she’s traveling with, most of whom fail to undergo any meaningful change over the course of the film. Simon is really the only reason to watch this movie — while no great actress, she at least exudes some much-needed character and personality.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Simone Simon as “the laundress”
  

Must See?
No. It’s listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book, but I’m not sure why.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review
• Combustible Celluloid Capsule Review

Synopsis:
An angry young veteran (Brad Dourif) returns to his small Southern town determined to decry the hypocrisy of its citizens. After witnessing a supposedly self-blinded preacher (Harry Dean Stanton) and his grown daughter (Amy Wright) passing out religious tracts, Hazel (Dourif) is inspired to start his own church — the Church of Christ Without Christ, “where the blind don’t see and the lame don’t walk and what’s dead stays that way.”

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Black Comedy
• Deep South
• Harry Dean Stanton Films
• John Huston Films
• Ned Beatty Films
• Religious Faith

Review:
John Huston’s darkly comedic adaptation of Flannery O’Connor’s 1952 novel is a wild ride through a Southern Gothic universe in which quirkiness, corruption, and hypocrisy are the norm. Brad Dourif — with his intense, beady gaze — ably carries the film, keeping us interested in Hazel’s fate even when events take a decidedly downbeat turn; other performances are equally memorable — particularly Amy Wright as a young woman who takes an immediate (sexual) interest in Hazel; Harry Dean Stanton as a “blind” preacher who represents everything Dourif could eventually become; and Dan Shor as a clingy stranger who is inexplicably desperate for Hazel’s approval. Unfortunately, the characters in Wise Blood are ultimately more interesting than the narrative itself, which fails to capitalize on its heady potential: key figures (such as Ned Beatty’s shyster) are barely given enough screen time to register, and Hazel’s Church Without Christ never develops much of a following. Nonetheless, this is enough of an unusual cult favorite to recommend as must-see viewing for all film fanatics.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Brad Dourif as Hazel
  
• Dan Shor as Hazel’s loyal “disciple”, Enoch
  
• Amy Wright as Sabbath
  
• Harry Dean Stanton as Asa Hawks
  
• Fine cinematography and period detail
  
• Many clever, colorful lines of dialogue:
  

  “She sho’ was ugly. She had these here brown glasses, and her hair was so thin it looked like ham gravy trickling over her skull.”

Must See?
Yes, for its status as a cult favorite. Listed in the back of Peary’s book as a Cult Movie and a Personal Recommendation.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Raging Bull Review
• Talking Pictures Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
Twenty years after his death, the relatives of eccentric millionaire Cyrus West gather in his house to hear the reading of his will. They soon learn that young Annabelle West (Laura LaPlante) will inherit the entire fortune — as long as she can prove herself sane in front of an appointed doctor; if not, the inheritance will go to a different heir, whose name is written on a second, secret will. Meanwhile, a lunatic from a local asylum is on the loose, and a mysterious figure with clawed hands creeps throughout West’s ominous castle, trying his or her best to make Annabelle appear insane.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Black Comedy
• Gaslighting
• Horror Films
• Inheritance
• Old Dark House
• Play Adaptations
• Silent Films

Review:
Immediately after being recruited from Germany to work in Hollywood, Paul Leni directed this popular adaptation of John Willard’s 1922 stage play, and received high praise for his work (Mourdant Haunt of The New York Times proclaimed, “This is the first time that a mystery melodrama has been lifted into the realms of art”). Fortunately, The Cat and the Canary — which has been remade several times, most notably in 1939 with Bob Hope and Paulette Goddard — remains an enjoyable treat, with Leni’s Expressionistic touch adding a sense of visual artistry to the proceedings. Although the familiar set-up has become somewhat of a cliche over the years, Leni keeps us in suspense about the identity of the “cat”, and there’s a nice balance of both humor and chills along the way.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Laura LaPlante as the vulnerable heir to West’s fortune
  
• Flora Finch as “Aunt Susan”
  
• Martha Mattox as “Mammy Pleasant”, the castle’s dour caretaker
  
• Expressionistic cinematography
  
• Effective use of double exposure shots — particularly in the opening scenes
  

Must See?
Yes. Listed as a film with Historical Importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Article
• Moria Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
In the 1930s, a representative of the Tennessee Valley Authority (Montgomery Clift) arrives at a small island with the task of convincing its owner (Jo Van Fleet) to sell her property. He immediately encounters resistance, yet finds himself falling in love with Van Fleet’s widowed granddaughter (Lee Remick).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cross-Class Relationship
• Deep South
• Depression Era
• Elia Kazan Films
• Historical Drama
• Lee Remick Films
• Montgomery Clift Films
• Strong Females

Review:
This powerful historical drama about the clash between public necessity and private autonomy remains one of Elia Kazan’s finest films. The story opens with a real-life newscast depicting the devastation wrought on poor Tennessee farmers after the Mississippi River has once again flooded the area, thus establishing Clift’s TVA-sponsored presence as a necessary evil — yet it’s impossible not to side at least partially with crotchety Ella Garth (Van Fleet), whose entire identity is wrapped up in the island her family has owned for years. While it’s clear that Garth will somehow — eventually — be “convinced” to move, the story of how this happens remains compelling until the end.

Wild River is most memorable, however, for its remarkable performances — primarily by 46-year-old Van Fleet (her make-up artist deserves ample praise as well) and 25-year-old Lee Remick, who has never looked more stunning or been more affecting. This was purportedly Remick’s personal favorite of all the films she made, and it’s easy to see why: she invests her character with a lifetime of loss and hope, turning what is clearly a convenient “plot device” romance into a believable dimension of the story. Other supporting actors — and Clift himself — are fine as well, but it’s Van Fleet and Remick who really make this powerful film must-see viewing.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Jo Van Fleet as Ella Garth
  
• Lee Remick as Carol
  
• Montgomery Clift as Chuck Glover
  
• Barbara Loden (Kazan’s wife) in a tiny but effective supporting role as Clift’s secretary
  
• An honest, sensitive depiction of race relations in a bigoted southern town
  
• A heartfelt story of greater good versus individual choice
  
• Van Fleet’s provocative explanation of why it’s impossible to force someone to sell something they love
  
• Fine location cinematography by Ellsworth Fredericks
  

Must See?
Yes, as one of Kazan’s finest films, and for Fleet and Remick’s performances.

Categories

• Important Director
• Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
In turn-of-the-century Florida, an idealistic new Audubon warden (Christopher Plummer) tries to arrest a legendary bird poacher known as “Cottonmouth” (Burl Ives), who lives deep in the Everglades with his band of unruly henchmen.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Burl Ives Films
• Cat-and-Mouse
• Christopher Plummer Films
• Deep South
• Hunting
• Nicholas Ray Films
• Peter Falk Films

Review:
This unusual adventure tale deals with an ethical dilemma not often discussed in Hollywood films: turn-of-the-century feather poaching in Florida (!). Despite its ecological underpinnings, however, Everglades is essentially a tale of archetypal opposites, with Plummer’s young (urban) protagonist bumping up against Burl Ives’ indomitable force of nature, and both men grudgingly earning each other’s respect. Ultimately, there’s not quite enough going on here to bolster a full-fledged narrative (countless subplots — including a love affair between Plummer and Chana Eden, and some hillbilly antics by Ives’ crew — seem haphazardly thrown in), but Ives and Plummer make for compelling enough enemies to hold our attention throughout. Watch for Peter Falk in his screen debut.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Burl Ives as “Cottonmouth”
  
• Christopher Plummer as Murdock
  
• The unusual Floridian setting
  

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
An aviatrix (Katharine Hepburn) falls in love with a happily married man (Colin Clive), who hesitates to hurt his loving wife (Billie Burke) and adoring daughter (Helen Chandler).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Airplanes and Pilots
• Colin Clive Films
• Dorothy Arzner Films
• Infidelity
• Katharine Hepburn Films
• Strong Females

Review:
Despite its oddly masculine title, this early melodrama (based on a novel by Gilbert Frankau and directed by Dorothy Arzner) very much belongs to Lady Cynthia Darrington, the female protagonist played by Katharine Hepburn — who, in her second screen role, easily carries the film, exuding all the intelligence and strength required of her nonconformist character. It’s been noted by many that Owen (not the most charismatic or handsome of actors) seems like an unlikely romantic match for Hepburn, but I found it easy to believe that the sexually inexperienced Lady Cynthia might make such an unconventional choice:

Less convincing is Clive’s sudden shift in allegiance from wholehearted devotion to his wife (a typically fluttery Billie Burke) to adulterous impulses. Of special note is the way in which Arzner manages to infuse Christopher Strong with quietly subversive material, ranging from Lady Cynthia’s mannish outfits and independent lifestyle to the fey demeanor of Ralph Forbes (who plays Clive’s daughter’s married love interest).

Unfortunately, moral strictures of the time mandated that Lady Cynthia “pay” for her crime of loving a married man (while Strong — naturally — gets off scot-free), thus leading to the film’s infamous tragic ending. As a narrative, Christopher Strong leaves much to be desired — but as a vehicle for both Hepburn and Arzner, it’s worth a one-time look.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Katharine Hepburn as Lady Cynthia
  
• Hepburn emerging in her infamous “moth” outfit
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look for its historical significance as Hepburn’s second major role, and one of Arzner’s best-known films.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review (spoilers alert)
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review (spoilers alert)

Synopsis:
A naive chicken farmer (Tom Aldredge) moves to New York City in hopes of opening a coffee shop. Against the advice of his lawyer-friend (Buck Henry), he signs a lease on property owned by a corrupt businessman (James Frawley), and immediately finds himself embroiled in a web of systemic corruption.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Character Arc
• Comedy
• Corruption
• New York City

Review:
This largely improvisational comedy (starring members of a Greenwich Village comedy troupe known as “The Premise”) plays like a patchy sit-com, with occasional flickers of humor thoroughly overshadowed by a sloppy script and stereotypical characters. Aldredge’s character is so dumb (at first) that he’s literally hard to watch (he deserves what happens to him), while Henry (better known as screenwriter for The Graduate) comes across as little more than a Jack Lemmon-wannabe, and director Theodore Flicker is simply atrocious in a cameo as Mr. Big, the city crime commissioner. Frawley and Joan Darling (as Henry’s artsy friend) emerge as the most amusing of the bunch, but they’re unable to sustain this tiresome flick.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• James Frawley in triple roles as a corrupt gangster, cop, and judge
  
  
• Joan Darling as Denver James
  

Must See?
No; it’s not clear why this dated comedy is listed in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TV Guide Review

Synopsis:
A young, electively homeless woman (Sandrine Bonnaire) drifts across the French countryside, trying to survive the harsh winter.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Character Studies
• Flashback Films
• French Films
• Homeless
• Road Trip
• Survival

Review:
Belgian director Agnes Varda has long been interested in using cinema as a means of delving deeply into women’s psyches and personal choices. In her experimental New Wave debut — Cleo From 5 to 7 (1961) — she shadowed a young singer anxiously awaiting the results of a medical test; sixteen years later, she made One Sings, the Other Doesn’t, a sincere yet didactic homage to feminist solidarity. In Vagabond, she utilizes a more strategically neo-realist approach to storytelling, while maintaining critical elements of both these earlier films: like Cleo, Vagabond‘s Mona is a self-absorbed, not-entirely-likable “drifter” who wanders from place to place; and, like lifelong friends Pomme and Suzanne in One Sings, the Other Doesn’t, Mona must struggle to survive in a male-dominated world.

Of these three films, Vagabond is ultimately the most successful and satisfying, thanks primarily to Sandrine Bonnaire’s compelling, brave performance. As in her screen debut (playing teenage Suzanne in 1983’s A Nos Amours), Bonnaire invests her character here with an air of studied yet vulnerable insouciance; in some ways, Mona is simply a radical, tragic extension of Suzanne. To her credit, however, Varda doesn’t try to frame Mona as overly sympathetic — she’s bitchy and conniving when she needs to be, doing whatever it takes to make it from day to day with a minimum of effort; she lacks overt initiative, and often fails to take advantage of the kindnesses offered to her.

Although we never learn exactly why Mona is rebelling against even the most minimal strictures of society, it’s clear from the opening shot of her corpse that such an approach is doomed. Throughout the film, she’s bedraggled, smelly, and occasionally feral — yet always fascinating and/or frustrating to those around her: just as Varda herself somewhat romantically posits Mona as “emerging from the ocean”, each character in the film is given a chance to comment on how they view Mona’s situation, thus making this more of a multi-faceted “reaction” story than simply a study in character. Vagabond is an undeniably harsh experience to sit through, but remains memorable long after the camera has circled back once again onto Mona’s frozen, lifeless body in a ditch.

P.S. Vagabond also provides hints of Varda’s future interest in society’s “gleaners” — outsiders who scavenge off the leavings of others; perhaps more so than any other filmmaker, Varda’s sporadic corpus of work truly reflects her evolving viewpoints over the decades.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Sandrine Bonnaire as Mona
  
• Mona — in one of the movie’s rare concessions to levity — sharing a “nip of brandy” with an elderly woman (Marthe Jarnais)
  
• A bleak portrait of selective solitude
  

Must See?
Yes, for Bonnaire’s uncompromising performance. Listed as a film with Historical Importance, a Cult Movie, and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

• Noteworthy Performance(s)

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review