FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
An electric lineman (Richard Dreyfuss) finds his life and marriage turned upside down when he sees a UFO and becomes literally obsessed with learning more.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Aliens
• Family Problems
• Francois Truffault Films [actor]
• “No One Believes Me!”
• Richard Dreyfuss Films
• Science Fiction
• Steven Spielberg Films
• Teri Garr Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “While George Lucas was off making a film about intergalactic warfare, Steven Spielberg was making this film about peace and friendship (through the communication of words, music, and feelings) between alien races.” He notes it’s “a film by a dreamer for dreamers (the true SF fan),” about a man “who spots a UFO during a blackout” and “soon afterward… finds that there have been other UFO sightings and activity” — and “naturally, the government is covering it all up.” When he “starts having sensations that he’s being drawn to a huge rock formation (Devil’s Tower) in Wyoming:”

… he leaves behind his wife and kids and goes there with “a single mother (Melinda Dillon), whose little boy was abducted by a UFO (in a classic sequence).”

Once there, he finds that “amid great secrecy, French scientist Claude Lacombe (Francois Truffaut) and many U.S. government officials and astronauts have gathered for the first meeting with the alien visitors.”

Peary — who nominates this as one of the Best Pictures of the Year in his Alternate Oscars — argues that “Spielberg has made a marvelous picture, an enthralling, myth-making work full of suspense, mystery, and a sense of awe and wonder about space travel and alien life.” He points out that “the special effects by Douglas Trumbull are breathtaking — when the mother ship makes its first appearance, your jaw may drop open.”

He concedes that “the story has gaps in it and some of the bits with Roy [Dreyfuss] and his family are awkward:”

However, he asserts that “the film is so ambitious, imaginative, and visually impressive that one can overlook its few flaws.”

I think I’m mostly in agreement. While the screenplay is littered with issues — see CinemaSins’ “Everything Wrong with ‘Close Encounters'” video for no less than 127 “sins”, including how terribly Dreyfuss’s character acts (especially towards his family) for most of the film — it’s too visually impressive not to take notice of (and must have been triply so back in the late 1970s, before CGI).

So much has been said and written about this Oscar-nominated blockbuster — made just after Spielberg finished up work on Jaws (1975) — that I humbly implore readers to search all that out if they’d like to learn more; meanwhile, it should definitely (as Peary says) “be seen on a large screen” if possible. Of special note are all scenes between Oscar-nominated Melinda Dillon and Cary Guffey as her enchanted young son (the abduction sequence is filmed like a horror flick scene):

… and everything related to the spectacularly filmed spaceship landing.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Douglas Trumbull’s special effects
  
  
• Vilmos Zsigmond’s award-winning cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, for its cultural significance in cinematic history, and impressive special effects.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review (original)
• DVD Savant Review (updated)
• FilmSite Review
• TCM Articles
• Everything Wrong with “Close Encounters” Video
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
Two Nova Scotians (Doug McGrath and Paul Bradley) head to Toronto for work, only to find that their prospects in the big city aren’t much easier.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Canadian Films
• Survival
• Unemployment

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “excellent $82,000 film (originally shot in 16 mm.)” offers “the other side of Easy Rider, where we watch workers instead of products of the hippie subculture, and people seeking a place (they get work in a bottling plant) instead of an escape.” He notes that “at first you’ll have trouble identifying with these men, who are crude, shamelessly male-chauvinistic”:

… “and totally ignorant of the fact that their jobs exploit them” (actually, only Bradley is ignorant of this). This quickly changes, however, given that “the city is no paradise, [and] they begin to struggle for work, food, and recognition… As alienated labor, they too begin to realize that there is something inherently wrong with the system.” (Again, I would argue that McGrath sees this loud and clear, while for Bradley, it’s an elusive truth.)

Peary points out that the “film contains many exceptional sequences,” including Bradley telling “everyone at his wedding reception that he has married for love and not because his wife is pregnant”:

… and “a group of unemployed hangers-on gathered around a Conway Twitty look-alike in a park, while he sings Merle Haggard’s classic ‘Sing Me Back Home.'”

Peary notes that McGrath and Bradley — who were “cast because of their ability to improvise” — “create a very convincing camaraderie in roles that seem influenced by English working-class films,” with “the scene in which they drive around on a double date (each closer to the other than to the woman) remind[ing] one of similar scenes in The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner.”

He ends his review by referring to this as a “human, sincere, powerful, and political film” which “has much to say,” and noting that “director Donald Shebib (who was literally starving during production) and writer William Fruet offer us unique insight into the everyday struggle for survival.”

While I’m not as much of a fan of this film as Peary is, it’s a well-made low-budget tale which packs a punch in its message that survival is tough — even cruel — if you’re not already up on top.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Doug McGrath as Peter
  
• Paul Bradley as Joey
  
• Jayne Eastwood as Betty
  
• Fine cinema verite direction
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look for its beloved historical value in Canadian cinema.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review
• Time Out Capsule Review (spoiler alert)
• Village Voice Review (spoiler alert)

Synopsis:
A photo-journalist (Herbert Gronemeyer) chronicles the harrowing existence of a captain (Jürgen Prochnow) and his crew on board a German U-boat patrolling the North Atlantic in 1941.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• At Sea
• German Films
• Submarines
• Survival
• World War Two

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “award-winning, epic WWII film by director Wolfgang Petersen, whose script was adapted from a popular autobiographical novel by former war correspondent Lothar-Günther Buchheim,” is a “well-made picture show[ing] a different, harrowing side of war: that experienced by Germany’s 40,000 U-boat men, of whom more than half were killed.”

He points out that “we are made to feel their discomfort and claustrophobia while inside their cramped, muggy, smelly, underwater vessel [and] their monotony, constant fear, and panic when enemy ships hover above.” He argues that “the picture is frightening because Petersen uses horror-movie techniques: the giant enemy ships emerging from the mist and lurching through the water are like great sea serpents”:

… [and] “the sweating, shouting, terrified men rushing about the ship in search of danger points (where water leaks in) could very well be characters in Alien.” Meanwhile, “the U-96 itself is like a room in a haunted house, where trapped men nervously listen to the spooky noises (i.e., death knells) on the outside. These men are in hell.”

Indeed, they are — a version of it, anyway. Peary points out that “Peterson’s goal was to show that all men in war are victims, certainly not a controversial theme” — though the picture was “criticized by those who thought Peterson — who chose not to deal with the soldiers’ politics — was apologizing for the Nazi soldiers.” Peary adds that “the film should be praised for debunking a myth that was held forth in Germany for 40 years — that German submarine warfare was a heroic, glorious adventure.”

In his review, Peary touches briefly on the fact that this “story became a five-hour German TV movie;” indeed, in the time since Peary’s GFTFF was published, several different home video versions have been released, including a 209-minute 1997 director’s cut version (which is what I watched for this review).

Peary also highlights the performance by Prochnow, who “makes a strong impression as the U-boat’s commander, who hates his superiors and war.”

Indeed, Prochnow is riveting (and perfectly cast, despite being older than the original commander) — and he’s surrounded by a cast of excellent performers, many of them inexperienced actors; the casting directors travelled around Germany to find men to represent various geographical areas.

Just a few more interesting facts about this film, which has become a solid modern classic and a bit of a cult favorite:

• This was the most expensive German movie ever made at the time.
• This is a rare foreign film to be regularly referred to by its native title rather than a translation (which would be “The Boat”).
• American directors John Sturges and Don Siegel were originally considered to helm this film.
• This was the most successful foreign film to date at the time of its release in the U.S.
• Das Boot received six Oscar nominations (but not one for Best Picture).
• Cinematographer Jost Vacano used mostly a hand-held camera for interior shots, and limited himself to shooting within the real confined space limits of a submarine.
• All actors were bilingual in German and English, and did their own voiceovers for the dubbed English version.

Note: Film fanatics will likely notice Günter Lamprecht — star of Berlin Alexanderplatz (1980) — in a small role as Captain of the Weser.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Jürgen Prochnow as Capt. Lehmann-Willenbrock
  
• Fine supporting performances by the (largely unknown) cast
  
• Jost Vacano’s cinematography
  
• Highly effective sets, special effects, sound production, and editing
  

Must See?
Yes, as a powerful foreign classic.

Categories

• Foreign Gem
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

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

Synopsis:
When a Polish construction manager (Jeremy Irons) arrives in London with three non-English-speaking co-workers (Eugene Lipinski, Jirí Stanislav, and Eugeniusz Haczkiewicz) to illegally reconstruct a condo for his boss, he becomes increasingly stressed and paranoid about ensuring the work gets done, even amidst strife in their home country.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Corruption
• Immigrants and Immigration
• Jerzy Skolimowski Films
• Living Nightmare
• Ruthless Leaders

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “beguiling film (shot and edited in one month’s time) from Polish director Jerzy Skolimowski” is at first “comedic in tone but later it’s an increasingly bleak and desperate political allegory.” In describing the spare but powerful story, Peary writes that Irons “is a married, educated Polish construction worker living in Warsaw” who, “because he knows how to speak English,” is sent by his “wealthy boss (looking for cheap labor)” to “London to turn a dull flat into a snazzy retreat to which the boss can take his mistress.”

He “takes three workers with him” who he selects “because they don’t know English and are stupid [sic], so he figures they’ll be easy to supervise” — and, “indeed, they do everything he says, including staying inside so no one will know they are working illegally.”

However, “as their stay goes on, Irons becomes more and more isolated from his men — becoming their slavedriver and watchdog and the person who rations food and clothing allotments,” “keeps all the money the boss has sent them, takes away their source of entertainment and news…, [and] manipulates them into working more hours by altering his watch.” Perhaps worst of all, “he doesn’t tell them… when he learns that there has been a military crackdown in Poland and Solidarity has been outlawed,” given “he fears they will stop work at the depressing news.”

Ironically, “in effect, [Irons] has deprived them of all their freedoms”: their “lives are so oppressive under Irons that they are enduring (on a much less frightening level, of course) what their fellow workers are going through back in Warsaw.”

Indeed, this film represents a living nightmare on numerous levels: not only are Irons and his men perceived either as non-entities or nuisances (much like thousands of immigrant workers continue to be all over the world), but there is nobody to keep an eye on (or temper) Irons’ increasing totalitarianism and paranoia. He is so fixated on working for a short-term monetary goal that any ends seem to justify the means — including repeated bouts of risky shoplifting. Meanwhile, he’s miserable; this is not a man getting high on his own power so much as someone blindly carrying out orders — and involving others — “as a puppet of the Polish elite.” By the film’s appropriately bleak ending, you will truly feel the hopeless injustice of their situation — which is, precisely, the point.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Jeremy Irons as Nowak
  
• Tony Pierce Roberts’ cinematography
  
  
• Stanley Myers’ score

Must See?
Yes, as a uniquely effective film.

Categories

• Good Show

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
When a wounded Yankee colonel (Clint Eastwood) seeks refuge in a southern girls’ school run by middle-aged Miss Martha (Geraldine Page), he quickly finds himself presented with multiple opportunities for flirtations — including with sexually forward Carol (Jo Ann Harris) and demure Edwina (Elizabeth Hartman).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Civil War
• Clint Eastwood Films
• Don Siegel Films
• Elizabeth Hartman Films
• Geraldine Page Films
• Historical Drama
• Love Triangle
• Strong Females
• Womanizers

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “Don Siegel directed this gothic horror tale (in which females are the ‘monsters’) that surely is one of Clint Eastwood’s oddest films (and one of his rare money-losers).” When Eastwood’s “injured Yankee soldier” is suddenly “surrounded by females of all ages,” he “can’t understand them and underestimates them.”

Because he’s “afraid of being turned over to the rebel army,” this “least moral of Eastwood’s characters lies his way into the passionate hearts” of numerous women — but quickly “learns about the wrath of woman scorned.”

I was very pleasantly surprised to discover that this “Southern Gothic” cult classic more than delivers on its potential. The cast — from Eastwood and Page to all supporting players — is top-notch; Bruce Surtees’ cinematography is luminous; Lalo Schifrin’s score is appropriately haunting; and we’re kept on our toes from the first moments of Albert Maltz’s screenplay (based on a novel by Thomas P. Cullinan) until the very end. There are numerous twists and turns, unpredictable character arcs, and sequences of genuine horror which nonetheless play out as entirely realistic within this particular bounded universe (I won’t share any of them here because the fun is in the watching). Be forewarned that nobody here is really who they seem — and yet they are each, very much, exactly who they are.

Note: Apparently this was Don Siegel’s favorite of all his movies, which makes sense — though I suppose it also makes sense that viewers at the time expecting more of Eastwood’s typical action fare would be disappointed (it was a failure at the box office).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Clint Eastwood as Corporal John McBurney
  
• Geraldine Page as Miss Martha Farnsworth
  
• Elizabeth Hartman as Edwina Dabney
  
• Jo Ann Harris as Carol
  
• Pamelyn Ferdin as Amy
  
• Mae Mercer as Hallie
  
• Fine location shooting
  
• Bruce Surtees’ cinematography
  
• Lalo Schifrin’s score

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

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• Moria Review

Synopsis:
When ambitious Cuban immigrant Tony Montana (Al Pacino) arrives in Florida with his friend Manny (Steven Bauer), he immediately begins plans to enter into the drug trade — starting with local kingpin Frank Lopez (Robert Loggia).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Al Pacino Films
• Brian De Palma Films
• Cuba
• Drug Dealers
• Gangsters
• Immigrants and Immigration
• Oliver Stone Films [screenwriter]
• Ruthless Leaders

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is clearly not a fan of “Brian De Palma’s… remake of Howard Hawks’s 1932 classic,” referring to it right away as “ugly” and “disappointing.” He argues that Pacino “gives one of the most pungent (as in stinky), self-impressed performances in memory — snarling, swaggering, shouting, sneering, and sniffing coke up his snout ad nauseum.”

Peary complains about nearly every aspect of the film — but before going further in citing his review, I should note that he was not at all alone in his disdain for this movie at the time of its release; De Palma received a Razzie Nomination as worst director of the year, and according to TCM’s article:

Andrew Sarris branded Scarface “… so much more a disaster than an outrage” while David Denby sloughed it off as “a sadly overblown B-movie.” Brickbats also came from John Simon, Pauline Kael and Rex Reed” — [however] “there were dissenting opinions. In The Chicago Sun Times, Roger Ebert awarded Scarface four out of four stars. In the New York Times, Vincent Canby found the film “a revelation…” and in Time Richard Corliss claimed “Pacino creates his freshest character in years.”

Peary writes that “the story details Pacino’s rise from petty drug runner to righthand man of Miami’s drug emperor to emperor himself,” noting it’s a path “marked by bloody rub-outs, great amounts of money floating about, connections with corrupt policemen and drug suppliers in South America”:

… “and fallings out with his pretty wife (Michelle Pfeiffer), faithful friend (Steven Bauer)… and decent but naive sister (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio).”

He complains that “De Palma doesn’t show the development of the incestuous, overly protective feelings Pacino has for his sister after they are reunited in Miami (and she has matured from kid to sexy woman),” noting that “it happens too quickly and comes across as just a writer’s convenience that will cause Pacino to break with Bauer (who loves Pacino’s sister.” (I disagree; inappropriate attractions can start early, and Pacino’s character is most certainly a disturbed dude.)

Peary also argues that De Palma “neglects showing [the] inner workings of Pacino’s mob,” and questions, “Where are all his men and what do they do all day? We just see a few guys repeatedly making large bank deposits.”

He adds: “They deal drugs, but, considering this is a gangster film, rules of the genre dictate we be able to envision Pacino’s territory.” (I wasn’t personally bothered by this; we get enough of a sense of Pacino’s hold on his men through the violent actions we do see.)

He goes on to complain that the “editing is terrible,” there “are many flubs,” and the “female costuming is a joke” (I didn’t notice any of these factors). He does note that the “look of the film — the sun-drenched streets, orange sunsets, Art Deco architecture (it was mostly shot in L.A.) — is good:”

… “but not so impressive now that we’ve seen television’s Miami Vice.” He points out that the film’s “heralded violence has shock value at [the] beginning — particularly in the famous scene in which Pacino’s crime mate is dismembered with an electric buzz saw:”

… but he asserts “it later becomes as calculated for audience response as are the film’s quieter, character-development scenes.”

I’m not nearly as much of a hater of this film as Peary is; my main take-away (appropriately so) is that being a drug kingpin is lonely, dangerous, shallow, violent, pathetic, and paranoia-inducing.

Pacino doesn’t experience love or even lust with his trophy wife (they never kiss, let alone show any other affection). To that end, I think De Palma, screenwriter Oliver Stone, and Pacino do a good job portraying what a miserable dead end (literally) his character’s aspirations are — which makes it all the more interesting how much of a cult favorite this film quickly became.

I’ll close by saying how appropriate it is that this film ended up as my selection for “Blogathon and the Beast.” Even Peary agrees that Pacino’s performance is animalistic; he’s a “truly despicable character” whose dramatic finale (a slaughter) is well “earned”.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Al Pacino as Tony Montana
  
• Fine supporting performances across the cast
  
  
  
• John Alonzo’s cinematography
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite.

Categories

• Cult Movie

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Trailers From Hell Review
• Q Network Review

Synopsis:
A self-serving, would-be singer (Susan Berman) in New York City pursues a punk musician (Richard Hell) while managing and manipulating interest from a van-owning artist (Brad Rinn).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Aspiring Stars
• Homeless
• New York City
• Punk Rock

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that in this “impressive low-budget independent film directed by Susan Seidelman” — who leapt to fame a couple of years later with Desperately Seeking Susan (1985) — the director more accurately portrays Greenwich Village as “realistically, an ugly, hellish, unfriendly place where offbeat characters are too stoned, crazy, and selfish to help out their kind.” He describes Susan Berman’s “young refugee from New Jersey” as a drifter/grifter with “no money, no apartment, and no friends who will help her out” given that “most everyone has had enough of her grating personality, her lies (usually about needing no one), and her shameless taking advantage of anyone she thinks may help her.”

She’s “forced to live in a van with a nice guy (Brad Rinn) from Montana but she keeps disappointing him with her disloyalty”:

— and while “he wants her to go away with him… she’s planning on going to LA with a young singer (Richard Hell of the punk band, the Voidoids) — not seeing the signs that Hell (who is broke) is using her as she uses everyone else.” Touché.

Peary writes that while “we keep expecting Berman to wise up so she can enjoy a little happiness — we could use a little relief as well” — “Seidelman won’t let her” since “she wants to draw an accurate portrait of the typical Village loser.”

Peary points out “technically, the film is fairly polished — Seidelman composes her shots well, creating striking tableaux by situating her strangely dressed and coiffured characters in the frame with colorful props (Rinn’s van, for instance) and bizarrely designed or graffiti-colored walls.”

However, while I appreciate the effort Seidelman put into her debut indie film — made on a shoestring, with plenty of support from local artists and ample shooting delays and challenges — I’m hard-pressed to see it as anything but an unbearable downer featuring an utterly unlikable protagonist. It may be realistic (it sure reads that way), but I struggled to make it through to the end.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Good use of location shooting
  

Must See?
No, unless you’re curious to see Seidelman’s debut.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Time Out Capsule Review
• TCM Article
• DVD Savant Review