FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
Herring fishermen in a North Sea coastal village head out to sea and bring their haul back to land for selling.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Documentary
• Fishermen
• Silent Films

Review:
John Grierson’s Drifters is the type of movie that requires a bit of contextualization in order to appreciate its historical relevance (and hence its inclusion in Peary’s GFTFF). Taken at face value, it’s simply a reasonably engaging b&w silent documentary about the lives of herring fishermen in England, one which amply demonstrates that fishing is HARD, highly collaborative work — but it won’t strike one as particularly revelatory from a cinematic standpoint. However, knowing that Grierson would go on to spearhead the British Documentary Film Movement — which was established to “educate citizens in an understanding of democratic society” — one gains a better appreciation of what, specifically, he was aiming for with Drifters (which remains the only feature film he actually directed himself). It’s interesting to note that he was apparently heavily influenced by Eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkin (1925); ffs will surely notice parallels in style.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• A powerfully shot and edited early documentary
  
  

Must See?
No, though it’s certainly worth a look for its historical importance.

Links:

• IMDb entry

Synopsis:
An aspiring private detective (Robert Sacchi) has surgery to look just like Humphrey Bogart, and quickly acquires a host of clients — including a young woman (Olivia Hussey) who fears for her father’s life; Sacchi’s larger-than-life landlady (A’leisha Brevard), whose boyfriend (Buck Kartalian) has gone missing; and a beautiful heiress (Michelle Phillips) being blackmailed.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Detectives and Private Eyes
• Yvonne De Carlo Films

Review:
Film fanatics are sure to get a kick out of this affectionate homage to Humphrey Bogart and the Golden Age of Hollywood, based on a novel by Andrew J. Fenady (who also produced the film). Sacchi (playing “Sam Marlow”) is not only a spot-on Bogart-impersonator, but a decent actor to boot, making one feel eerily at times as though Bogart himself has been resurrected to make one final film. (Such a vision rings especially possible in light of Tupac Shakur’s recent “appearance” via hologram at the Coachella Music Festival.) The storyline is, perhaps predictably, overly complex at times (just like Bogart’s own private eye flicks often were), with seemingly countless clients entering Marlow’s office asking for assistance — though eventually their requests all coalesce into one interwoven tale, a la The Maltese Falcon (1941), of a search for valuable jewels known as the Eyes of Alexander. (An exception is a hilarious subplot involving Marlow’s aggressive landlady, played by female impersonator A’leisha Brevard).

Excellent use is made of iconic L.A. locales, with Marlow frequenting the Hollywood Bowl, the Ambassador Hotel, and the Hollywood Wax Museum, among other choice locations. Meanwhile, the screenplay is simply littered with fun references to a variety of Hollywood films and actors — most notably in the character played by Phillips, who’s made up to look remarkably like Gene Tierney. (And who won’t get a kick out of Marlow’s enormous crush on Tierney-in-Laura, with a replica of Laura’s famous portrait hanging in his office, and the film’s memorable theme music emerging at key moments?) Other real-life Golden-Era Hollywood actors (including Victor Buono, Herbert Lom, and Richard Bakalyan) are smartly given a host of supporting roles — and any film fanatic will be tickled to notice TCM host Robert Osborne (!) showing up early on as a reporter; he gets just one line, but you’ll instantly recognize his distinctive voice. (See still below for evidence.)

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Robert Sacchi as Sam Marlow
  
• Michelle Phillips as Gena
  
• A host of fondly familiar supporting faces
  
• Robert Osborne in a one-line role (watch and listen closely!)
  
• Nice use of diverse L.A. locales
  

Must See?
Yes; film fanatics will surely have fun with this one. Listed as a Sleeper, a Cult Movie, and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book — all of which makes sense to me.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
Upon learning that two planets will soon crash into the Earth, a scientist (Larry Keaton) — with funding from a self-serving millionaire (John Hoyt) — works to create a spaceship that will allow a team of select individuals and animals to escape and start a new life. Meanwhile, Keaton’s scientist-daughter (Barbara Rush) falls in love with the pilot (Richard Derr) who delivered the bad news to her father, much to the consternation of her current beau (Peter Hansen).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Barbara Rush Films
• Disaster Flicks
• George Pal Films
• Love Triangle
• Science Fiction
• Survival

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that “George Pal’s follow-up to Destination Moon” is “a much better film than [its] predecessor because its premise is much more exciting, encompassing no less than the destruction of earth”. He argues that the “Oscar-winning special effects are particularly impressive during the catastrophe-riddled climax, which, of course, includes New York being struck by a tidal wave”.

Yet while I agree with Peary that this second film is more intrinsically engaging than Destination Moon, the latter is must-see for historical purposes (as the film which first made space exploration seem like a realistic possibility), while WWC will primarily be of interest to sci-fi fans interested in what is probably the first cinematic depiction of the destruction of the Earth.

In his more detailed analysis of When Worlds Collide, DVD Savant refers to it as “a charming hoot, but still a far better movie than the idiotic Armageddon.” He concedes, however, that “the scientific details are sketchy, especially from the maker of the fastidiously accurate Destination Moon.” For instance, he bluntly notes:

Nowadays, it would seem obvious that if you could only take forty people, the best hope for mankind would be to make most of the human passengers female scientists, doctors and engineers – all extremely young and all fit to bear children. The male component of the passenger list might only be test tubes of sperm for later artificial insemination. Why waste cargo weight on a bunch of redundant drones, when you need all the breeder females you can get?

But what fun would that be to envision — right? Even more disturbing to my mind is the utter homogeneity of the core group of potential travellers, who are all (all) white.

You’d think that some kind of perspective on future diversity would be taken into consideration even back in 1951 — but so it goes. Regardless, those who enjoy ’50s sci-fi flicks will be able to take the film’s more dated elements in stride, and simply enjoy its “impressive special effects”, which “wowed ’em in 1951 and can still spark imagination and wonder” (though I’ll admit to finding some of them — i.e., the final matte paintings representing the planet Zyra — to come across as hopelessly artificial).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• George Pal’s Oscar-winning special effects
  

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• SciFilm Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Q Network Review
• Moria Review
• Time Out Capsule Review