FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
When a black construction worker (Domingos Oliviera) in 1961 Angola is suddenly arrested as a political prisoner, his wife (Elisa Andrade) sets out with their baby to find him in the capital city of Luanda.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• African Films
• Class Relations
• Labor Movements
• Prisoners
• Race Relations and Racism
• Revolutionaries
• Strong Females

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary informs us that this “radical film” — “directed by Sarah Maldoror, French-born black feminist, and co-written by her husband, a leader in the Angolan resistance” — was, according to Maldoror, “made ‘to make Europeans, who hardly know anything about Africa, conscious of the forgotten war in Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau‘.” (I, for one, will admit that I knew nothing about the Angolan War of Independence before watching this film.) Peary writes that as the “politically naive” wife of a secret activist “goes from prison to prison in search of her husband,” she “discovers that what is happening to prisoners (including her husband) is horrific,” and “she develops a political consciousness.” He argues it’s a “terrific, unforgettable picture,” one that “reveals the horrid nature of political oppression in colonial countries where there are liberation movements” — and I would definitely agree. It’s not at all an easy film to watch, especially given that Maldoror highlights not only the toxic effects of colonialism but the stark reality of racism and gender inequality. However, it also portrays the resilience of people who band together for mutual support (one woman even breast-feeds Andrade’s baby for her during a rest stop), and demonstrates that Oliviera’s torture is not suffered in vain.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• A powerful neo-realist tale of political resistance
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a unique window into a specific cultural time and movement, and for its historical significance as what was likely the first feature film directed by a woman in Sub-Sarahan Africa.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Village Voice Review

Synopsis:
An aspiring starlet (Candice Rialson) hoping to make it big in Hollywood signs on with a hard-working agent (Dick Miller) and is soon working for a pretentious director (Paul Bartel) whose leading lady (Mary Woronov) detests her competition, and whose other actresses are mysteriously being killed off, one by one.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Aspiring Stars
• Dick Miller Films
• Hollywood
• Joe Dante Films
• Movie Directors
• Satires and Spoofs
• Serial Killers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that the “main claim to fame” of this “self-parody” is “that it was made in record-breaking time on a pocket-change budget” by “Joe Dante and Alan Arkush, New World editors” who “wanted to prove to studio head Roger Corman that they could effectively direct quickie sexploitation films in the Corman mold”. He notes that “Patrick Hobby’s script is inventive and funny”, with “a barrage of surprisingly clever sight gags and references to Corman’s style of filmmaking; and the entire cast hams it up to perfection.” He points out that “Paul Bartel is hilarious as a director who tries to inject ‘art’, ‘meaning’, and character motivation into his trashy films — while maintaining a large quantity of T&A, car crashes, and massacre scenes” — but I’m more fond of Woronov, who has delicious fun skewering her own image as a “big-name” cult star. Peary argues that the “film falters toward [the] end, when it gets a bit too serious and includes a needlessly vicious knife murder”, but writes that “surprisingly, the film” — which incorporates “inserted footage from previous Corman productions” — “looks polished.” I’m essentially in agreement with Peary’s assessment, though I don’t think modern film fanatics need to see this one unless it piques their interest.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Mary Woronov as Mary McQueen
  
• A shameless skewering of “quickie” exploitation movies
  
• Good use of L.A. locales
  

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• Onion A.V. Club Review
• TV Guide Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
After killing a playwright named Clare Quilty (Peter Sellers), a professor (James Mason) recounts in flashback his saga of marrying a lonely widow (Shelley Winters) in order to gain access to her young daughter, Lolita (Sue Lyon).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Black Comedy
• Flashback Films
• James Mason Films
• Obsessive Love
• Pedophiles
• Peter Sellers Films
• Shelley Winters Films
• Stanley Kubrick Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that while “Stanley Kubrick’s ambitious black comedy about a high class of degenerates was initially blasted for being inferior to and taking liberties with Vladimir Nabakov’s much loved novel,” it “looks better with every passing year.” He argues that “perhaps we’ve begun to accept Kubrick’s sophisticated cinematic techniques (use of visuals, music) as a storytelling alternative to Nabakov’s celebrated prose (i.e., use of language); we better appreciate the mannered comedy of Peter Sellers (this was before Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove, What’s New, Pussycat? and The Pink Panther); and we have now seen enough Eric Rohmer films — in which sophisticated ‘gentlemen’ can fall madly in love with bland, beautiful teenagers simply because they have tantalizing, dimpled knees — to understand that [14]-year-old Lolita (Sue Lyon) need do absolutely nothing sexually provocative (other than sit around in a skimpy bikini and heart-shaped glasses) for nymphette-lover Humbert Humbert (James Mason) to be in uncontrolled heat.”

In his description of the film’s narrative, Peary notes that after Winters (giving “a hilarious performance”) is “run over (conveniently), Humbert whisk[s] Lolita out of camp” (Camp Climax!) “and [takes] her on a lengthy trip, from one motel to the next”, becoming increasingly “possessive of Lolita and [forbidding] his young lover to date once they settle down and she [goes] to school.” However, Lolita has been “going out on the sly with the openly perverse Quilty [Sellers], the director of the school play in which she had the lead”, and eventually she runs “off with Quilty, whom she considered a genius.” Peary notes that “to this naive girl Humbert [is] normal” — though “of course, Humbert isn’t normal at all — and much humor comes from his difficult attempts to appear normal/moral to the people he comes across (so they won’t suspect him of improprieties with Lolita) only to discover that those who judge him are as wacko as he is.”

Peary writes that the “picture is at times screamingly funny,” that “the performances by Sellers… and Mason — talking smart yet acting like a five-year-old, displaying a sickly smile — are marvelous,” and that “pretty Sue Lyon, only [14]… but looking sexy and 17, gives a very self-assured, naughty (notice that smile, indicating she knows what Humbert’s up to) Carroll Baker-like portrayal.” Indeed, Lyon’s performance is at the heart of this film’s success — she’s preternaturally able to embody this challenging role and convince us that events are playing out exactly as seen on screen. (It’s too bad Lyon had such a tough time with Hollywood, since her performance here indicates she was a natural.) Mason, of course, is stellar as always, and Sellers shows the genius for characterization he would demonstrate to greatest effect in Dr. Strangelove just two years later. While not for all tastes, Kubrick’s adaptation of Nabakov’s novel remains a provocative, well-made classic, worthy of at least one-time viewing.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Sue Lyon as Lolita
  
• James Mason as Humbert Humbert (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• Peter Sellers as Quiltey
  
• Shelley Winters as Charlotte
  
• Oswald Morris’s cinematography
  
  

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

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Articles
• FilmSite Review

Synopsis:
A man (Peter O’Toole) found irresistibly attractive by nearly every woman he meets seeks help from a psychiatrist (Peter Sellers) in order to settle down and marry his girlfriend (Romy Schneider) — but O’Toole quickly finds himself sexually involved with another of Sellers’ patients (Capucine), as well as a suicidal stripper (Paula Prentiss) and eventually a bikini-clad skydiver (Ursula Andress). Meanwhile, O’Toole’s nebbishy friend (Woody Allen) falls for Schneider but is unable to seduce her, and Sellers continues his fractious relationship with his portly wife (Eddra Gale).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Capucine Films
• Comedy
• Infidelity
• Paula Prentiss Films
• Peter O’Toole Films
• Peter Sellers Films
• Psychotherapy
• Sexuality
• Ursula Andress Films
• Womanizers
• Woody Allen Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “we can be thankful” screenwriter Woody Allen “changed directions” after writing this “outrageous sex farce”, which remains simply “tiresome, sexist, grating fluff”. He argues that Peter O’Toole “had no comic timing back then”:

and that “no one is funny except Prentiss”.

I’m in agreement with Peary that this is a wearisome and dated film, with few authentic chuckles. Because clueless Schneider should stop hoping for O’Toole to change (he won’t/can’t):

… and simply get far, far away from him, it’s difficult to know who to root for here. Meanwhile, Sellers’ “long-haired and horny Viennese psychiatrist” is truly insufferable:

… and Allen merely enacts the first of many similar roles as an insecure short man hoping to score with beautiful chicks.

You can skip this one.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Colorful sets and cinematography
  

Must See?
Nope; you can skip this one.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• DVD Savant Review
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
After being lured out of retirement by his boss “M” (John Huston) — accompanied by a CIA representative (William Holden), a French intelligence agent (Charles Boyer) and a KGB agent (Kurt Kasznar) — James Bond (David Niven) escapes seduction by M’s Scottish widow (Deborah Kerr), then receives assistance from a beautiful agent (Ursula Andress) in hatching a plan to send a renowned baccarat expert (Peter Sellers) undercover as “James Bond” to win a high-stakes game against SMERSH agent Le Chiffre (Orson Welles).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Charles Boyer Films
• David Niven Films
• Deborah Kerr Films
• George Raft Films
• Jacqueline Bisset Films
• James Bond Films
• Jean-Paul Belmondo Films
• John Huston Films
• Orson Welles Films
• Peter Sellers Films
• Satires and Spoofs
• Spies
• Ursula Andress Films
• William Holden Films
• Woody Allen Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “it’s hard to believe that in 1967 we actually waited in anticipation for this so-called James Bond spoof” — helmed by no less than six directors — which was a “disappointment then” and remains “a curio today,” though “just as hard to sit through”. He argues that it’s “disjointed and stylistically erratic”, and that despite “featuring an all-star cast… , enormous sets, and some state-of-the-art special effects, it is a testament to wastefulness in the commercial bigger-is-better cinema.” DVD Savant refers to this as “perhaps the most out-of-control production of the Mod Sixties”, costing $11 million despite having no script to start with, and signing “enough big stars to float eight or nine pictures” — none of whom “knew exactly what they were getting into.”

Peary recommends watching perhaps simply those “scenes featuring Peter Sellers and Woody Allen”, but I’ll admit to enjoying Kerr’s hilarious performance in the otherwise completely unrelated first half-hour:

and Joanna Pettet (as Bond’s long-lost daughter, “Mata Bond”) visiting a wildly expressionist spy school:

— both of which would be eliminated if you focused just on Sellers and Allen. Watching for seemingly endless cameos by big-name stars (including “George Raft as Himself”) provides some passing amusement as well. Meanwhile, Burt Bacharach’s score is an instantly hummable ear-bug — be forewarned.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Creative cinematography
  
  
  
• Far-out sets
  
  
  
• Burt Bacharach’s score

Must See?
No, though it’s certainly worth a one-time look for its historical curiosity value.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Moria Review
• DVD Savant Review