Mummy, The (1932)
“No man has ever suffered as I did for you.”
Synopsis: |
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
Links: |
“No man has ever suffered as I did for you.”
Synopsis: |
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
Links: |
“Sympathetic treatment will release the mind from any obsession.”
Synopsis: |
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
Links: |
“Each time I close my eyes, it seems I’m going to see him.”
Synopsis: |
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: In the rest of his review, Peary discusses the film’s “sinister vision”, arguing that it “conveys a nastiness of character and environment that is both oppressive and unsettling”, given that “the heroine, the nicest person in the story, plans cold-blooded murder” — yet this isn’t quite accurate. As in Hitchcock’s Rope (1948), one weaker (same-sex) character is convinced by another that murder is an appropriate course of action in a particular situation — therefore, it’s not really Clouzot’s character who plans the murder, per se. Plus, Clouzot is so clearly guilt-ridden and panic-stricken about what she’s doing that she remains a sympathetic protagonist throughout. Regardless, this is most definitely a bleak and “unsettling” film, one which works almost (though not quite) as well even if you already know (or can predict) the infamous plot twist. (And here’s where I’ll admit that years ago, as a first-time viewer, I was both terrified and shocked by the twist — thus disproving Peary’s assertion above). Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? (Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die) Links: |
“There’s more to war than fighting — what it does to kids, that’s just as much our job.”
Synopsis: |
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review: Note: One can’t really blame Lewton for wanting to disown this title, given that it likely reflects little of his original vision; one wonders what it was like before a negative audience screening caused the studio to make drastic cuts. (See IMDb’s trivia for an extensive list of actors whose bit parts were reduced or eliminated entirely — including Dorothy Malone). Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
“Listen to them: children of the night. What music they make!”
Synopsis: |
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die) Links: |
“If you don’t tell anybody I’m not a gypsy, I won’t tell anybody you’re not an idiot.”
Synopsis: |
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review: Hope (as usual) essentially plays a variation on his standard cinematic presence, flinging droll one-liners at a fast and furious pace, and overcoming his cowardly nature just in time to help save a damsel in distress (who may or may not really be interested in him). Hope is almost immediately upstaged, however, by Walter Brennan, giving a truly demented performance as a tattoo artist determined to embroil Hope in treasure-map shenanigans: He’s missed when he’s not on-screen. Indeed, other than Brennan (and a nicely villainous turn by typecast Slezak): … there’s not much here that’s particularly memorable — but it’s a finely mounted production if you’re in the mood for just this kind of fare. Redeeming Qualities and Moments: Must See? Links: |
Greetings to my fellow Film Fanatics,
I’ve never used FilmFanatic.org to blog about my ongoing progress with the site, or to share my thoughts in general on watching and writing about the unique niche of “pre-1986 must-see films”, but I’ve thought about doing so for quite a while — so, here I finally am.
Since posting my first brief review on March 4, 2006 (of Jean-Jacques Beineix’s Moon in the Gutter), I’ve added 1,405 reviews to the site — which is roughly one-third of the 4300 titles included in GFTFF (for those who care to keep track). At this rate, it should only take me another 10 years or so to complete this project! Not that completion is the goal per se… By the time I finish (re)watching and writing about all the titles in Peary’s book, I’ll probably be ready to visit and/or comment on many of them again. Or I may finally get serious about diving into my ModernFilmFanatic.org site, which I’ve had to put on hold for now… In addition to maintaining this site, I’m married with two little kids and a full-time job, so time and energy are severely limited!
(I’ll post more on this topic another time, but I actually find that having a really busy life with limited time for movies helps me appreciate them all the more. I may complain quietly to myself on a daily basis that I wish I had more time to devote to the site, but ultimately, a diet of pure cinema has never been a healthy choice for me; hence, my decision to enter into a non-film-related career. Peary himself admits to burning out after writing GFTFF, which should be taken as a cautionary warning of some kind.)
At any rate, recently I’ve found myself watching and posting on movies in thematic “clusters” — I’ll suddenly notice I’ve been watching a bunch of a particular actor or director or producer’s films, for instance, and decide I might as well finish watching all of them to really get a sense of the gestalt of that particular person’s work (as selected by Peary, and only up until his 1986 publishing deadline, of course). My most recent attempt has been to finally finish up rewatching and posting on all of the 41 Hitchcock films included in GFTFF (I only have 7 left at this point). He’s probably my favorite director (if I had to choose), and it’s been a true pleasure to revisit the majority of them. 1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die (a well-meaning but horribly pretentious and flawed book, btw, yet nonetheless the one used by most modern film fanatics as their go-to checklist, so I continue to reference it) lists no less than 18 of his titles, which is impressive, and speaks (I believe) to their enduring power.
In contrast, I also recently watched nearly the entire Universal Studios Frankenstein series — a project it made sense to attempt in one go, given that serialized films like this really are best reviewed in comparison with one another, and at least relatively in order (to get a sense of their chronological progression). However, while there are very few GFTFF-Hitchcock titles I’ve voted “no” on (and even those “no” votes are, I believe, worth a one-time look by serious film fanatics), Peary’s inclusion of ALL the Universal Frankenstein titles in his book is an example of what I refer to repeatedly as his sense of “completism” — a symptom either of his inability to decide which of the many titles are must see (so why not include them all??), or his genuine belief that any true film fanatic will WANT to have seen all the titles in a particular “series” or franchise (no longer really a sustainable choice, given the wealth of new titles produced all the time — a film fanatic only has so much viewing time to spread around!). Since beginning the site, I’ve been working hard to sift through all such titles and make critical decisions on behalf of my fellow film fanatics — which, of course, you can and should feel free to disagree on.
Just as mysterious to me is Peary’s random inclusion of certain titles by a particular performer and/or director — say, Danny Kaye or Jerry Lewis — to the exclusion of others. While he nearly always includes all the “big name” titles of a star (for obvious reasons), I’m puzzled why, for instance, Peary includes Lewis’s lame The Sad Sack in his book when there are other “bigger name” titles he could have chosen to include instead, if he really wanted to beef up the number of Lewis offerings (which he DIDN’T need to do!). At any rate, ultimately this kind of thing comes down to personal taste — and I’ll admit that a tiny part of me is secretly tickled by Peary’s blatant favoritism. He’s not afraid to call a personal favorite a Must See title — and while I may fervently disagree with his choices, he’s at least (covertly) admitting that subjectivity is an inherent element in any such daunting undertaking.
I’ll continue to post occasional “check-in” blog entries in future weeks and months, on various topics that have occurred to me — including:
* how I decide which film to watch and review next (partially touched upon here)
* how my thinking about which films are must see or not has evolved over the years (and continues to evolve)
* my summative thinking on the oeuvres of various actors or directors whose Peary-listed work I’ve finished reviewing (including Jerry Lewis, Danny Kaye, Abbott and Costello, and others)
Back to viewing and reviewing! Thanks for reading.
–Film Fanatic
“I never thought of the priesthood as offering a hiding place.”
Synopsis: |
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review: Baxter (whose story one can’t say too much about, at risk of giving away spoilers) ends up as the most “human” of the protagonists in the movie — the one we’re most meant to relate to — but she’s unfortunately not all that sympathetic. Even more viewers have complained about the central conceit around which the storyline pivots: Clift’s refusal to give away even the slightest hint of what he’s heard in confession. Non-Catholics may have a hard time understanding this, and I’ll admit to feeling frustrated by it myself — but ultimately, Clift’s utter devotion to his character’s ethos pays off, such that the final shot truly gave me chills, and suddenly placed the entire film in a different light. Redeeming Qualities and Moments: Must See? Links: |
“Don’t ask for your rights; demand them!”
Synopsis: |
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: It could be argued — as DVD Savant does in his review — that the Masons’ entire situation is overplayed as much more dire than it really is. After all, the couple’s worst troubles consist of a dinner party gone awry (no more wine left!), Stewart unable to get a raise and promotion (though he DOES have a stable job during harsh economic times), having to house their newborn baby’s crib in the dining room (horrors! I’m guilty of that one as charged), and — the worst case scenario — actually being unable to afford their housemaid anymore (!). With that said, it’s still easy enough to sympathize with a couple who (in Savant’s words) “are about as endearing as a movie pairing can get”, and are ultimately “trying to cope with familiar financial problems” — and Lombard’s interactions with her meddlesome mother-in-law (nicely played by Watson) ring true. It’s just too bad the script fails the characters completely by the end — though I’ll guiltily admit that my heart was in my mouth throughout. Watch for unexpectedly Expressionistic sets by William Cameron Menzies, lit atmospherically by D.P. Leon Shamroy. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
“If you had it all to do over again, would you still have married me?”
Synopsis: |
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review: Unfortunately, bland Gene Raymond is badly miscast as the pivotal third lead: While he’s supposed to be somewhat of a milquetoast (which, by the way, doesn’t jive with his aggressively sneaky initial play for Lombard), one can’t help wishing that Jack Carson — truly hilarious in a bit role as Montgomery’s well-meaning friend, who sets him up with a floozy — were playing this meatier role instead. Meanwhile, Hitchcock’s direction — in spite of his claim that he couldn’t relate to the characters in any way — is seamless if undistinguished; clearly, he was a man capable of carrying out any directorial duty placed before him. Redeeming Qualities and Moments: Must See? Links: |