FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
After hitching a ride with a teenage runaway (Jane Fonda), a Texas farmer (Laurence Harvey) lands in New Orleans and receives support from a widowed cafe owner (Anne Baxter) before searching for his former lover (Capucine), who is now a prostitute working for a lesbian madam (Barbara Stanwyck).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Anne Baxter Films
• Barbara Stanwyck Films
• Capucine Films
• Edward Dmytryk Films
• Jane Fonda Films
• Laurence Harvey Films
• Prostitutes and Gigolos

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “brooding, once shocking adaptation of Nelson Algren’s novel” is “very watchable” but he argues that “the actors, though good, are extremely stiff, as if they feared moving about and not being able to find the floor markers on the dark sets.” (Peary exaggerates; not that many scenes are darkly lit.) He notes that “only hip-swinging Jane Fonda, as a wildcat tamed by Stanwyck’s threats, projects any energy,” but “it’s difficult to tell if her performance is correct or completely wrong since her style is so much more expressive than that of the other stars.” (Is “correct” really the right term to use for a performance?)

Peary adds that while “it’s unusual to see a film with four solid female parts,” “so many of their feelings — those that explain who they are — are kept bottled inside, as if the many scriptwriters (including Clifford Odets and Ben Hecht) were either afraid or incapable of expressing them or unable to because of censorship problems.” Indeed, this movie is often cited as a classic example of everything wrong with studio filmmaking before the Production Code was finally loosened; it was lambasted thusly by Bosley Crowther in The New York Times:

Everything in this sluggish picture… smacks of sentimentality and social naïveté. It is incredible that anything as foolish would be made in this day and age.

Meanwhile, the film’s production was infamously challenging and heated as well; as described in TCM’s article:

Needless to say, the shoot was something of a pitched battle. Feldman had promised Dmytryk that he would leave the country during filming so that he wouldn’t interfere. Then he hung around anyway, sending in his unwanted script revisions and insisting that Capucine be dressed in the latest Pierre Cardin designs, even though the film was set and costumed in the ’30s. Harvey quarreled with Dmytryk incessantly. When the actor stalked off the set and held up production for over an hour, Stanwyck tore into him so vehemently, he was never late again. At least they both could agree on their dislike of Capucine. When the former model complained that Harvey’s kisses weren’t manly enough for her, he countered, “Perhaps if you were more of a woman, I would be more of a man. Honey, kissing you is like kissing the side of a beer bottle.”

Ouch! Speaking of Stanwyck, her character’s thinly veiled “interest” in Capucine at least keeps things a little intriguing, even if her role is underdeveloped.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Jane Fonda’s enthusiastic performance as Kitty Twist
  
• Barbara Stanwyck as Jo
  
• Anne Baxter as Teresina
  
• Joseph MacDonald’s cinematography
  

Must See?
No, though fans of the stars will likely be curious to check it out.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Article
• DVD Savant

Synopsis:
After watching a fellow gladiator (Woody Strode) being killed by an arrogant Roman senator (Laurence Olivier), a slave named Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) helps spark a rebellion and is soon leader of a growing army of former slaves fighting back against their Roman captors.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Ancient Greece and Rome
• Charles Laughton Films
• Folk Heroes
• Historical Drama
• Jean Simmons Films
• John Dall Films
• John Ireland Films
• Kirk Douglas Films
• Laurence Olivier Films
• Peter Ustinov Films
• Rebellion
• Slavery
• Stanley Kubrick Films
• Tony Curtis Films
• Woody Strode Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “director Stanley Kubrick was disappointed in this epic about the legendary hero… who led a slave revolt against Rome in 71 B.C.,” feeling like “he didn’t have the freedom to develop the story as he wanted.” However, as Peary points out, “it has come to be regarded as [among the] best of the historical epics,” given that “it contains a spirited, emotionally charged performance by Douglas (who also produced)”:

… “a superlative supporting cast headed by Jean Simmons as the slave girl Varinia (Spartacus’s lover)”:

… “andLaurence Olivier as the Roman Crassus (Spartacus’s mortal enemy), [and] an outstanding battle sequence.” He notes that “this is one of the few epics in which we’re not bored when characters are talking,” adding that “the palace-bath chats between Olivier, John Gavin (as Julius Caesar), Charles Laughton, and the other shrewd Romans are amusing not only because they reveal political motives for wanting Spartacus and his memory destroyed but also because there are strong intimations of homosexuality.”

However, “the film’s major distinction is that its script, adapted from Howard Fast’s novel by Dalton Trumbo” (in his first credited post-blacklist film) “has a genuine revolutionary spirit, reflected in Douglas’s speeches to his followers” — and “Trumbo also establishes, through Crassus, the nature of a fascist.”

Peary notes numerous highlights from the film, including “Douglas being forced by his Roman captors to fight to the death with fellow slave Woody Strode”:

… “Laughton and slave dealer Peter Ustinov having a gluttonous meal together”:

… “Simmons’s nude swim”:

… “the fireballs being shot at the beginning of the great battle”:

… “and the fictional final scene in which the Romans try to determine which of the captured revels is Spartacus (they all claim to be).”

I’m essentially in agreement with Peary’s review, though the film feels a bit long at 3+ hours, and one definitely misses (or at least wonders about) the lack of Kubrick’s distinctive touch. However, the battle sequences are truly impressive, and the storyline effectively portrays Ancient Rome from multiple perspectives — not just those in power.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Laurence Olivier as Crassus
  
• Peter Ustinov as Batiatus
  
• Charles Laughton as Gracchus
  
• Russell Metty’s cinematography (aided significantly by Kubrick)
  
• The impressively crafted battle sequences
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical significance. Nominated as one of the Best Pictures of the Year in Alternate Oscars.

Categories

• Historically Relevant
• Important Director
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• TV Guide Review
• Q Network Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
After her best friend Anna (Lea Massari) mysteriously disappears during a boating trip in the Mediterranean, a young woman named Claudia (Monica Vitti) unexpectedly falls in love with her friend’s fiance, Sandro (Gabriele Ferzetti).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Italian Films
• Michelangelo Antonioni Films
• Monica Vitti Films
• Mysterious Disappearance

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “slow, enigmatic work by Michelangelo Antonio” — which “many critics consider infuriatingly shallow and others think is fraught with insight into the psyche of the rich” — is a “pessimistic film… about the tenuous nature of modern relationships, the inability of people to communicate verbally, the lack of joy in lovemaking, the meaningless and alienated lives of the rich, the realization that we’ll all disappear from the face of the earth and that life, such as it is, will continue (and we will fade from memory).”

He points out that the “film is very slow-paced, has no real storyline, [and] uses dull dialogue to express the dullness of the uncommunicative characters.” He notes that while he personally finds “the film fascinating,” he now knows “better than to recommend it to the casual moviegoer.” Finally, Peary highlights the “mesmerizing photography by Aldo Scavarda.”

I agree that it’s easy to see how this “challenging” film would divide audiences. It’s gorgeous and provocative, but requires patience and some intentional analysis to appreciate the points its director seems to be making. According to Geoffrey Nowell-Smith’s essay for Criterion:

From the moment that Sandro’s pursuit of Claudia is suddenly converted into mutual passion, the film’s momentum changes. Anna recedes into the background, but her absence continues to haunt the narrative, right until the very end. This absence — which is also a presence — is a key to the film. It inevitably brings to mind Hitchcock, who plays with a similar motif in Rebecca (1940) and Vertigo (1958), and also dispatches his heroine early in a film exactly contemporary with L’Avventura — Psycho.

However, Nowell-Smith points out a crucial difference between Antonioni and Hitchcock’s approach: Antonioni did not provide easily discernible reasons or motivations for anything that happens (or doesn’t happen) to his characters; they simply exist and (inter)act. Antonioni followed up this film with three others also starring Vitti: La Notte (1961), L’Eclisse (1962), and Red Desert (1964); I’ll be reviewing and comparing those soon.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Monica Vitti as Claudia
  
• Aldos Scavarda’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance as “Antonioni’s breakthrough film.”

Categories

• Foreign Gem
• Historically Relevant
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Q Network Review
• DVD Savant Review
• NY Times Original Review
• Criterion Essay
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
When an aspiring croupier (Susan Sarandon) in Atlantic City is visited by her estranged husband (Robert Joy) and pregnant sister (Hollis McLaren), she unexpectedly finds herself caught up in an adventure involving her elderly neighbor (Burt Lancaster), a former low-level gangster caring for an aging moll (Kate Reid).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Burt Lancaster Films
• Casinos
• Drug Dealers
• Gangsters
• Has-Beens
• Louis Malle Films
• May-December Romance
• Susan Sarandon Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “there is much in this film” — which he considers to be director “Louis Malle’s best English-language film” — “to appreciate,” including “the seedy [title] city itself.” He argues that “even if you’ve never been there, you’ll feel nostalgia for the pre-casino days.”

Peary writes that playwright “John Guare’s exceptional, witty script is full of believable, interesting types — all hoping for that one shot at happiness.” He notes that Guare and Malle’s “major theme is reflected in the coupling of Lancaster and Sarandon,” whose “union serves as a metaphor for the present-day mixing of the old and new in Atlantic City”; he points out they “make a dynamic screen couple.” Finally, Peary notes that the film features “a nice choice of locations,” with “Malle’s eye for detail… as usual, impeccable.”

Peary doesn’t specifically call out performances in his GFTFF review, but he does nominate both Lancaster and Sarandon as Best Actor and Actress in his Alternate Oscars book. They’re perfectly cast, nicely complementing one another in terms of personality, grit, and desire for the finer things in life.

Speaking of this, when we first see Sarandon re-encountering her low-life husband — who not only cheated on her, but impregnated her impressionable sister! — we wonder what it says about Sarandon that she’s come to this sorry place in her personal life.

However, we soon learn that she made bad choices given few choices in her small Canadian town, and is now on a self-determined path to correct that. Meanwhile, seeing shabby but elegant Lancaster ordered around by a shrewish old woman:

… makes his accidental turn towards increased cash flow seem hopeful, despite our knowing it can’t end well given the involvement of brutal drug dealers.

The supporting cast nicely rounds out the story, with Joy and McLaren — once again playing a pregnant young woman, as she did in Outrageous! (1977) — believable as the clueless and hopelessly naive young couple who set the plot in motion; Reid — perhaps best known for her role as Dr. Ruth Leavitt in The Andromeda Strain (1977) — rather hilarious in a role that allows her to morph from nag to caretaker:

… and Michel Piccoli in a small role as Sarandon’s worldly instructor.

Malle’s action-packed yet character-driven drama has held up well, and remains well worth a look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Burt Lancaster as Lou
  
• Susan Sarandon as Sally
  
• Fine supporting performances
  
• Richard Ciupka’s cinematography
  
• Excellent use of location shooting
  

Must See?
Yes, as a fine drama by a master director. Nominated as one of the Best Movies of the Year in Alternate Oscars.

Categories

• Good Show
• Important Director
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Q Network Review
• NY Times Original Review
• TV Guide Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
During the Vietnam War, a captain (Martin Sheen) is assigned the task of finding and assassinating a mad lieutenant colonel (Marlon Brando) who has become a god-like figure for natives living deep in the jungle.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Assassination
• Dennis Hopper Films
• Francis Ford Coppola Films
• Frederic Forrest Films
• Harrison Ford Films
• Jungles
• Marlon Brando Films
• Martin Sheen Films
• Robert Duvall Films
• Scott Glenn Films
• Vietnam War

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that while “Francis Coppola’s epic about the madness – ‘the horror!’ – of the Vietnam War is considered controversial,” “there is really no volatile material,” and he adds that “the only cause for debate among people interested in the war itself is Coppola’s best, most authentic sequence: stoned, leaderless soldiers fight continuously behind enemy lines while headquarters has forgotten about them.” He writes that “many visuals are exciting, but the picture is annoyingly self-conscious,” and “too often Coppola seems to be calling attention to his artistry and imagination.” He asserts that “the boat trip comes across like a ride at Disneyland, where the special-effects men have prepared tableaux on the banks at every turn of the river”:

… and he concludes his review by noting that “the scene in which Sheen and Brando lie around philosophizing while Coppola gets super-pretentious with his camera and character placement recalls the similarly shot, ultra-boring scene of Liv Ullmann and Ingrid Bergman in Ingmar Bergman’s Autumn Sonata.”

While it’s not a personal favorite, I’m a bigger fan of this wartime flick than Peary. Coppola was nothing if not forthright about his own concerns with the film not making sense (see the must-see documentary Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse [1991] for more on this), which makes it doubly impressive that the film actually does cohere. Sure, it’s more of a mood piece than a “rational” or straightforward adaptation of Joseph Conrad’s 1899 novella Heart of Darkness — but it works on its own terms as a surreal immersion piece. Coppola and his team set out to tell a tale of the Vietnam War that would highlight its deep absurdity and lasting impact on everyone involved, and in this, he succeeds.

We see characters ranging from an already-damaged captain (Sheen) who is shaken from an alcohol-fueled fugue to head out on a new mission:

… to the team of bureaucrats (including Harrison Ford) who cooly task Sheen with assassinating a member of his own military:

… to megalomaniac, helicopter-riding Lt. Colonel (Robert Duvall) who “loves the smell of napalm in the morning” and repeatedly insists to a California surfer named Lance (Sam Bottoms) that the war-ridden waters surrounding them are just fine to head out onto.

We also meet the other members of Sheen’s river patrol boat crew, including CPO Phillips (Albert Hall), “Clean” (14-year-old Laurence Fishburne), and “Chef” (Frederic Forrest):

… and eventually encounter a hopped up photojournalist (Dennis Hopper) who takes Sheen to see the mysterious Captain Kurtz (Brando).

The final half-hour — taking place deep in the “heart of darkness” in the jungle — evokes all sorts of problematic issues related to colonialism and exoticism of native peoples, but it’s palatable given that this is precisely the film’s point: we went in to “help” a country we knew little to nothing about, and emerged more confused and damaged than ever.

Note: Watch for a brief “cameo” by Scott Glenn as a member of Brando’s cult.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Fine performances by the entire cast
  
  
• Vittorio Storaro’s cinematography
  
• Good use of an eclectic score

Must See?
Yes, as a powerful classic.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• Spinning Image Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
A survivor (Don Johnson) of a nuclear holocaust roams the wastelands of Arizona with his telepathically communicating dog Blood (Tiger), in search of females and food. Soon Vic (Johnson) is seduced by a beautiful young woman (Susanne Benton) who encourages him to come “downunder” to the Utopian town of Topeka — but will he follow her, given that he must leave his beloved canine companion behind?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Black Comedy
• Dystopia
• Jason Robards Films
• Pets
• Post-Apocalypse
• Science Fiction
• Survival
• Talking Animals

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “cult science-fiction fantasy was capably adapted from Harlan Ellison’s Nebula Award-winning novella by L.Q. Jones,” who is “best known [as a supporting actor] for his appearances in Sam Peckinpah westerns.” He notes that good use was made of the “low budget, with extremely interesting visualizations of violent wasteland (anticipating Mad Max and The Road Warrior) and Topeka.”

Peary points out that while the picture “received much criticism for [its] depiction of women as sex objects,” “that is exactly the nightmarish vision Ellison and Jones see for this apocalyptic age” — not exactly “one they find appealing.” He adds that the “best part of [the] film is [the] wicked rat-a-tat dialogue between Vic and Blood, taken almost word for word from Ellison,” and describes Vic and Blood “like a comedy team cast in an absurd play.”

Peary elaborates on his review in his Cult Movies 2 book, where he points out how “violent, sexy, [and] sometimes vulgar” this black comedy is despite its seemingly “kiddie fare” title, and he discusses some key changes made between the novella and this adaptation — primarily around the role of Quilla June (Benton), who was virginal in the book but here is a power-hungry seductress.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about this movie — and even Peary concedes that it’s “not for everyone.” While I can see its dark appeal as a film with “bizarre humor,” it’s too harsh for my tastes, especially given that there really isn’t a sympathetic character in sight (other than perhaps Blood, played in a “terrific performance” by Tiger of “The Brady Bunch” fame). Sure, this may be highly realistic for a movie portraying the darkest of End Times, but it’s hard to watch — especially without a woman to root for. While I’m glad I finally revisited this cult classic, it’s not a personal favorite.

Note: Watch for Jason Robards, Jr. in a key role as a member of the triumvirate committee “downunder”.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Appropriately bleak sets and atmospheric cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite — though it may or may not be to your liking.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• TV Guide Review (spoiler alert)
• Moria Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A male android (Don Opper) onboard a spaceship with a mad doctor (Klaus Kinski) and a newly formed female android (Kendra Kirchner) falls for a beautiful human fugitive (Brie Howard) who — along with two criminal compatriots (Norbert Weisser and Crofton Hardester) — is on the run from the law .

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Androids and Clones
• Fugitives
• Mad Doctors and Scientists
• Science Fiction

Response to Peary’s Review:
In his brief review of this “low-budget debut film” by writer-actor Dan Opper — which “became a quick cult favorite in England,” but “never really caught on” in America — Peary simply notes that putting “all these weird characters together” means “there’s bound to be mayhem.” He asserts that while “it has charm, a Chaplinesque lead character, and behind-the-camera intelligence going for it,” it “is one film that really should have been zanier.”

I agree. There is very little going on here other than Opper (who is appropriately child-like and charming) wanting to experience love and sex for the first time (with Howard), and being disillusioned by his maker (Kinski).

None of the characters or plot details are sufficiently fleshed out. We simply know that Opper is in the midst of a bunch of questionable characters:

… and that he will at some point be joined (or replaced) by his new female companion.

To its credit, the film ends on an empowering note, but it’s not really worth the ride until then.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Don Opper as Max 404
  

Must See?
No, though sci-fi fans might be curious to check it out given its cult status.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• NY Times Original Review
• TV Guide Review
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
On prom night in 1962, a teenager (Ron Howard) about to head off to college tells his long-time girlfriend (Cindy Williams) that he wants them to see other people while they’re apart; meanwhile, his college-going buddy (Richard Dreyfuss) becomes obsessed with a beautiful blonde (Suzanne Somers) in a white convertible who flirts with him, then gets caught up with a group of local gangsters causing havoc; a nerd (Charles Martin Smith) takes temporary possession of Howard’s car and quickly scores a beautiful date (Candy Clark); and a slightly older local (Paul Le Mat) ends up driving around town with a precocious twelve-year-old (Mackenzie Phillips).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Candy Clark Films
• Comedy
• Coming of Age
• Ensemble Cast
• Harrison Ford Films
• Kathleen Quinlan Films
• Paul Le Mat Films
• Teenagers

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “George Lucas directed this wonderfully exuberant youth comedy which is set one eventful night in Modesto, California, in 1962” — an “idealized remembrance of things past, of innocent youth spent eating fries and malts at the drive-in hangout, cruising the main strip, drag-racing, bragging about your one ‘cool’ friend, making out, hanging out, dancing real close, listening to rock music on the car radio, playing pranks on [the] police, telling off an obnoxious teacher.”

He points out that “fittingly, we don’t see our young heroes and heroines having dinner at home with their parents, doing their homework, or attending classes.” Instead, the film is structured around one strategically compressed night in which “at the beginning and conclusion, we see our four male heroes together”:

… and “in between, they go their separate ways.” Peary notes how “smoothly” Lucas moves “between the four storylines, which at times intermingle”: Howard and Williams’ romantic challenges; Dreyfuss’s adventures with “three toughs” (led by Bo Hopkins):

… “Smith having “the wildest night imaginable” with “batty blonde Candy Clark”:

… “and Le Mat unexpectedly finding a “great companion” in Phillips.

He writes that “the pace is swift, the dialogue is consistently witty and clever, and the characters are terrific,” and he adds that the “film features the first great golden-oldies soundtrack” (costing only $80,000!).

In Alternate Oscars, Peary names this the Best Film of the Year, and points out that “because of this seminal youth film the next two decades would be overrun with pictures about overly worried or overly excited teenagers… but none would be such labors of love.” As he writes, “None would have the sense of fun, humor, warmth toward characters, or genuine nostalgia that is evident in Lucas’s every shot and line of dialogue,” and he points out that this film “was an instant classic” (though not beloved by all critics), “a smash hit, [and] a vehicle that helped launch numerous careers (even Harrison Ford has a small part).”

I’m in agreement with Peary’s laudatory review, and was very pleasantly surprised to find this nostalgia-laced classic so authentically engaging. There doesn’t seem to be a wrong step taken here, from careful selection of each supporting character in the large ensemble cast to Lucas’s penchant for cultivating improvised “mistakes”. Watching Laurent Bouzereau’s must-see documentary (1998) about the film’s 28-day rapid-fire production shows that input from producer Francis Ford Coppola and cinematographer Haskell Wexler also seemed to play a crucial role in the film’s creative success. This film remains well worth a revisit.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Fine performances by the entire cast
  
  
  
  
  
• Excellent cinematography
  
• Effective production design
  
• George Lucas, Gloria Katz, and Willard Huyck’s script
• Impressive sound mixing
• The rocking soundtrack

Must See?
Yes, as an American classic.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review
• Spinning Image Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
A Brazilian outlaw known as Antonio das Mortes (Mauricio do Valle) is hired by a corrupt police chief (Hugo Carvana) to kill a revolutionary known as Coirana (Lorival Pariz), but eventually has a change of heart and tries to convince a blind, wealthy landowner (Joffre Soares) with an unfaithful wife (Odete Lara) to distribute his food to the masses.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Hit Men
• Revolutionaries
• South and Central American Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “major work of Brazil’s Cinema Novo” — a “myth-epic” — was “a very popular film among U.S. and European leftists at the time of [its] release.” He describes it as a “political allegory” that “is both extremely theatrical and, at times ritualistic”:

… and points out that viewers will “be reminded of Sergio Leone’s Clint Eastwood bounty-hunter films, Eastwood’s [non-GFTFF-listed] Joe Kidd (in which he turns against the men who hired him), El Topo (the bearded Do Valle looks like a fat Alexandro Jodorowsky), Godard (if he ever made a period piece, it would be similar), and South American dance, folkloric, and religious pageants.”

Peary argues that while the “picture is ambiguous at times and downright weird at others,” it’s “endlessly fascinating and colorful” and features “fine photography.” Martin Scorsese is also a diehard fan; on YouTube you can find a 25 minute interview of him discussing this movie and the impact it’s had on him as a filmmaker.

I’m less impressed. While it’s easy to see how movie lovers in the late 1960s would hail director Glauber Rocha’s flick — a sequel to his earlier Black God, White Devil (1964) — for its bold break from stylistic and narrative conventions, it’s more of a political and cinematic curiosity today. With that said, film fanatics will still likely be curious to check out either this film, Black God, White Devil, or the middle film in Rocha’s “trilogy”, Entranced Earth (1967) (the latter two titles are listed in 1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Affonso Beato’s cinematography
  

Must See?
No, though it’s recommended for its historical relevance.

Links:

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