California Split (1974)

“If it takes a watermelon five minutes to water, how long does it take a sweetpea to pee? As long as it takes a pair of dice to crap.”

California Split Poster

Synopsis:
Two small-time gamblers (Elliott Gould and George Segal) meet at a poker game and continue to try their luck together.

Genres:

Review:
California Split remains an impressive, little known entry in Robert Altman’s career. While certain scenes towards the beginning tend to drag a bit — leading one to wonder where the episodic film is headed — eventually Joseph Walsh’s deceptively clever screenplay sneaks up on you, and by the end it packs an unexpected wallop. A large part of the film’s success is due to its lead performers, who are both perfectly cast in their respective roles: we fully believe that Gould (irreverent as ever) is someone who might wile away his days chasing gambling leads, while Segal (a magazine editor by day) is an essentially strait-laced individual who finds himself caught up in something much bigger and more addictive than he could ever have imagined.

As always in Altman’s films, the roster of supporting performances add indelibly to the movie’s richness and charm. In this case, Ann Prentiss (Paula Prentiss’s sister — their resemblance is uncanny) and Gwen Welles shine as a pair of “happy hookers” who take on decidedly unusual jobs — including, in one of the film’s funniest sequences, spending “quality time” with an “elegant” transvestite (Bert Remsen). Welles’ romantic interest in Segal — and the ultimate outcome of their potential tryst — is handled especially well. Equally impressive is Altman’s ability to evoke the various milieus of the gambling world — poker halls, race tracks, boxing rings, casinos — with characteristic attention to detail; throughout the film, we genuinely believe we’re “there”, wherever we are.

Towards the end, California Split becomes somewhat challenging to sit through, simply because we feel such anxiety about Segal’s situation (he owes a loan shark, played by screenwriter Walsh, $2200 — but instead of paying him off once he secures the funds by selling his car, he goes to Reno to gamble instead). Ultimately, however, this simply demonstrates how well Altman has done his job: we really get it that gambling is an addiction like any other, one that has the potential to ruin lives within just a few short hours. It’s a good thing Altman made this one a comedy rather than a tragedy, or we’d really be clenching our teeth.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A fascinating portrayal of the world of compulsive gambling
    California Split Gambling
  • George Segal and Elliott Gould as Bill and Charlie
    California Split Gould Segal
  • Ann Prentiss and Gwen Welles as Barbara and Susan
    California Split Prentiss Welles
  • Many fine smaller supporting performances

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

Categories

Links:

Going Places (1974)

“If we don’t know where to go, why not stop awhile?”

Going Places Poster

Synopsis:
A pair of petty criminals (Gerard Depardieu and Patrick Dewaere) travel aimlessly across France, stealing cars and pursuing women.

Genres:

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary correctly notes that “for about the first half-hour” of this “offbeat” black comedy by Bertrand Blier (based on his own novel), the lead characters’ “amoral behavior, their vulgarity, and their obnoxious treatment of women will wear on your patience”, and “you’ll find it hard not to hate a film that would have them as its heroes”. However, I disagree with his assertion that “once you realize that neither of the characters is vicious and that both are vulnerable, the film becomes more tolerable.” While I’m a fan of Blier’s later anarchic comedies (such as Femmes Fatales and Menage) — in which the male leads expose their vulnerabilities and neuroses to humorous effect — the blatant misogyny of Depardieu’s Jean-Claude and Dewaere’s Pierrot in this film is simply too much to stomach.

Peary defends their actions by noting that “in the long run the two men don’t do any harm to the women they half-seduce, half force sex upon”, and that “the women end up more satisfied than they are” — but this doesn’t make it any easier to watch our whiny, manipulative protagonists accosting a distressed woman (Dominique Davray) while snatching her purse, terrorizing a breast-feeding woman (Brigitte Fossey) on an otherwise empty train, or verbally and physically abusing a naive young beauty shop employee (Miou-Miou) — not to mention their continuous tendency to steal cars out from under the noses of their owners (a “running joke” which really isn’t funny at all). One vignette near the middle of the film — in which our “heroes” decide to seduce a middle-aged ex-convict (Jeanne Moreau) as she leaves prison — remains intriguing enough to recommend, given that Jean-Claude and Pierrot finally tap into their gentler natures; but this isn’t enough to redeem the film as a whole. Young Blier would clearly need to get a more mature grip on his thematic concerns before his cinematic brilliance could emerge.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Miou Miou as Marie-Ange (she makes the best of a pitiable role)
    Going Places Miou Miou
  • Jeanne Moreau as Jeanne
    Going Places Moreau

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look for its historical importance as Blier’s breakthrough film.

Links:

Shadow of a Doubt (1943)

“What do you know, really? You’re just an ordinary little girl, living in an ordinary little town.”

Shadow Doubt Poster

Synopsis:
A teenager (Teresa Wright) in a small town hopes that the arrival of her beloved Uncle Charlie (Joseph Cotten) will bring some excitement into her family’s lives; soon, however, she learns the devastating truth that Uncle Charlie is the “Merry Widow Murderer”, wanted for killing widows on the East Coast.

Genres:

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this “top-grade Alfred Hitchcock thriller” — which he nominates as one of the Best Films of the Year in his Alternate Oscars book — examines the “thin line between the normal and abnormal,” as exemplified by contrasts between the film’s two central characters: “a smart, spirited, typical young woman named Charlie (Teresa Wright) who lives with her average family in an average American town, and her insane itinerant bachelor Uncle Charlie (Joseph Cotten).” It’s immediately clear, as Peary points out, that “the two Charlies are two sides of the same person”, and that “young Charlie” will have to experience a rude awakening once she recognizes the truth about her beloved namesake. Indeed, the entire film is structured as an elaborate “coming of age” for adolescent Charlie, who must not only give up her childish fantasies about her uncle, but must protect her mother (Patricia Collinge) from learning the truth about her cherished younger brother, and, in one of the film’s weaker subplots, falls in love for the first time (with MacDonald Carey, a detective on the case).

As in his discussion of “Bruno Anthony” (Robert Walker) in Strangers on a Train (1951), Peary once again argues that the villain in this Hitchcock film is worthy of our sympathy. He notes that Uncle Charlie evokes “strange pity” once we realize he “has many of Wright’s finer qualities, and that he might have been as virtuous and happy as she if he hadn’t had a concussion-causing accident as a child that suddenly made him wild”. But I disagree with Peary that we “sometimes wish Wright would stop her sleuthing” — Cotten is clearly deranged (in his “twisted mind”, he “thinks up ways to kill his niece”), and needs to be caught before he murders again. See TCM’s article for a fascinating discussion of how the script — which was co-written by Thorton Wilder, and explores the darker side of “small town America” — gradually emerged through collaborative effort.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Teresa Wright as “young” Charlie (nominated by Peary as Best Actress of the year)
    Shadow Wright
  • Joseph Cotten as Uncle Charlie (nominated by Peary as Best Actor of the year)
    Shadow Cotten
  • Patricia Collinge as Uncle Charlie’s doting sister
    Shadow Collinge
  • Effective use of Santa Rosa locales
    Shadow Santa Rosa
  • Joseph Valentine’s cinematography
    Shadow Cinematography
  • An enjoyably creepy story of evil in a small town
    Shadow Tension

Must See?
Absolutely. This classic is one of Hitchcock’s best, and merits multiple viewings.

Categories

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

Links:

Superman III (1983)

“Superman, you’re just in a slump — you’ll be great again!”

Superman III Poster

Synopsis:
A computer geek (Richard Pryor) working for a nefarious businessman (Robert Vaughn) gives Superman (Christopher Reeve) tar-laced-kryptonite, which turns him from a crime-fighting superhero into an evil prankster.

Genres:

Review:
Richard Lester returned to helm this third installment in the Superman series, widely acknowledged to be the weakest of the three. The first two films were thematically connected in many ways, but much has changed this time around. Lex Luthor was replaced by evil industrialist “Ross Webster” (Robert Vaughn), who’s appropriately menacing but not nearly as charismatic as Gene Hackman; meanwhile, as a result of open disagreements with the film’s producers, Margot Kidder (as Lois Lane) only appears in a few minutes of the film, so Superman falls for another “LL” woman — his old high school crush, Lana Lang (Annette O’Toole) — instead. O’Toole does a fine job portraying a small town single mother with a big time crush on Superman, but their burgeoning romance lacks the edgy dynamic that existed between Lane and Superman — and we never really believe Superman could give up Lane for good, anyway.

The central casting of Richard Pryor as a computer geek working in cahoots with Vaughn is often cited as one of the film’s main flaws; indeed, near the end of his review of Superman II, Peary himself argues that Superman III “was doomed the minute Richard Pryor was cast (or miscast) in a pivotal role”. But Pryor isn’t actually all that bad; the main problem is with the script itself. While it’s fun to see Superman grappling against his “evil nature” (the scene in which he malevolently rights the Leaning Tower of Pisa is particularly chuckle-worthy, and his climactic junkyard battle against himself is exciting), we never really feel any sense of urgency about the state of the world. In Superman, we worried plenty about California falling off the face of the continent, and in Superman II, the three evil villains from Krypton posed a very real threat to the state of humanity. Here, Vaughn’s plans to monopolize the world’s oil supplies simply don’t evoke the same sense of panic. While Superman III isn’t quite as bad as its reputation, it’s not must-see viewing.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Christopher Reeve as Superman/Clark Kent
    Superman III Christopher Reeve
  • Superman’s junkyard battle against himself
    Superman III Junkyard Battle
  • Annette O’Toole as Lana Lang
    Superman III O'Toole

Must See?
No, though most film fanatics will likely be curious to check it out.

Links:

Superman II (1980)

“Think of it: three — count them — three supervillains, each one with the same powers he has, each one totally dedicated to corruption, violence, and evil.”

Superman II Poster

Synopsis:
Superman (Christopher Reeve) gives up his special powers to be in a relationship with Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) — but when three super-criminals from Krypton (Terence Stamp, Sarah Douglas, and Jack O’Halloran) descend onto Earth and terrorize its citizens, the world desperately needs Superman’s help.

Genres:

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, despite the fact that this sequel to Superman “got better reviews than the original”, it never quite “reaches that [film’s] high level” — however, it remains a fun, must-see flick in its own right. Directed by Richard Lester, it’s more humorous and less of an outright epic than the first Superman, instead exploring the ramifications of Superman’s decision to give up his superpowers to be with Lois Lane (though why one must be predicated upon the other is just one of several plot devices best left unquestioned…). Naturally, just at that moment, the world turns out to need Superman more than ever, given that three malevolent villains — “evil Terence Stamp, striking-looking Sarah Douglas, and brute Jack O’Halloran” — have, in a stunning special effects sequence, been accidentally released from their time warp prison “cell” and descended onto Earth.

The “battles of muscles and wits between Superman and the three villains” — both in Metropolis and back at Superman’s fortress — are indeed “spectacular”, and constitute the highlights of the film. Stamp and Douglas in particular, with ice water running through their veins, are delightfully malicious; in their shiny black skintight outfits, they stand out as two of cinema’s most memorable baddies. Meanwhile, Gene Hackman has fun reprising his role as Lex Luthor, who — after escaping from prison near the beginning of the film (fortunately, Otis gets left behind) — shows off his skills as an intergalactic negotiator extraordinaire; amazingly enough, he never seems even slightly intimidated by the villains’ ability to decimate him at will (now THAT’s an impressive ego!). Note that one of the film’s most satisfying moments comes near the end, when, having “regained his strength”, Superman “exacts satisfying revenge” at a “snowbound bar” — you’ll be rooting for him like you never did before!

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Christopher Reeve as Superman/Clark Kent
    Superman II Reeves
  • Terence Stamp as General Zod
    Superman II Stamp
  • Sarah Douglas as Ursa
    Superman II Douglas
  • Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor
    Superman II Hackman
  • Impressive special effects
    Superman II Effects
  • The exciting Metropolis battle
    Superman II Metropolis

Must See?
Yes, as a successful and most enjoyable sequel.

Categories

Links:

Superman (1978)

“I’m here to fight for truth, and justice, and the American way.”

Superman Poster

Synopsis:
The infant son of a scientist (Marlon Brandon) from the dying planet of Krypton is sent to Earth, where he is adopted by the childless Kents (Glenn Ford and Phyllis Thaxter) and grows into a misunderstood teen (Jeff East). When young Clark grows up (played by Christopher Reeve), he moves to the bustling city of Metropolis, where he becomes a reporter at the Daily Planet and falls for a co-worker named Lois Lane (Margot Kidder); meanwhile, his alter-ego Superman fights to protect the world against scheming criminal Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman), who is plotting to destroy California’s coastline.

Genres:

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this “wonderful surprise… blockbuster” likely “wouldn’t have worked at all if unknown Christopher Reeve” — possessing “the handsome, square-jawed face of a classic movie hero” — hadn’t been “the ideal choice to play the most famous comic-book hero” in American history, a man “as honest, kind, loyal, dependable, and moral as he looks”. Superman is indeed an “epic film”, one which takes its time relating the story of Superman’s background. First we see his origins on the planet Krypton, where his father Jor-El (infamously played by a wildly overpaid Marlon Brando) and mother Lara (Susannah York) reluctantly prepare to send baby Kal-El to Earth in an attempt to save his life. Next we see vignettes from his childhood and adolescence with the kindly Kents (Glenn Ford and Phyllis Thaxter — both perfectly cast), and we watch his “coming-of-age” as he heads north to learn about his destiny as a superhero on Earth.

Once Superman (now played by Reeve) arrives in Metropolis, the meat of the story begins, as we’re introduced to both the film’s villain (Gene Hackman) and Reeve’s love interest, Lois Lane (Margot Kidder, who Peary argues is “also perfectly cast” — though many fans seem to disagree). Like Peary, I’m not fond of the “broad comedy involving Luthor and his cohorts” (Ned Beatty as Luthor’s right-hand man Otis is particularly annoying), but agree that the rest of the film “smoothly mixes myth, lyricism…, comedy (mostly deadpan), science fiction, romance, suspense, and tragedy.” Reeve was (sadly) never better than here in his first, most iconic role; he has great fun embodying both sides of Superman’s personality, and makes for a genuinely empathetic superhero. His scenes with Lane are surprisingly romantic, with their nighttime flight over New York City a particular highlight of the film (indeed, the special effects — while a tad “old fashioned” — are just as fun now as they once were). Film fanatics will likely be pleasantly surprised when they revisit this must-see blockbuster, which set the standard for future superhero flicks.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Christopher Reeve as Superman
    Superman Christopher Reeve
  • Margot Kidder as Lois Lane
    Superman Margot Kidder
  • Superman’s nighttime flight with Lois
    Superman Flight
  • Striking set designs
    Superman Set Designs
  • Glenn Ford and Phyllis Thaxter as Clark’s Earthly parents
    Superman Thaxter Ford
  • Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor
    Superman Hackman
  • Superman’s many heroic feats throughout the film
    Superman Heroic
  • Oscar-winning special effects
    Superman Special Effects
  • Geoffrey Unsworth’s cinematography
  • Humorous dialogue: [Lex Luthor] “We all have our little faults; mine’s in California.”
  • John Williams’ memorable score

Must See?
Yes, as a genuine blockbuster classic.

Categories

Links:

Cooley High (1975)

“As soon as I get out, I’m off like a big black bird — to Hollywood!”

Cooley High Poster

Synopsis:
An aspiring teenage writer (Glyn Turman) in 1960s Chicago spends his time hanging out with friends (including Lawrence Hilton-Jacobs), ditching school, and hitting on a pretty new girl (Cynthia Davis).

Genres:

Review:
Based on an autobiographical screenplay by Eric Monte (co-creator of the television series “Good Times”), Cooley High is often referred to as “the black American Graffiti,” given its similarly episodic treatment of life and love among high school seniors. The primary difference, of course, is that the central characters in Cooley High live in the projects of Chicago — a vastly different world than that of the privileged white teens in Graffiti. Monte’s ear for authentic dialogue brings this world richly alive, and the boys’ banter is one of its strengths, as is much of the rich location footage around the city. Unfortunately, however, the screenplay itself is too fragmented to hold much interest; strangely enough, we never feel much investment in the characters themselves. Cooley High should be seen once by all film fanatics for its historical relevance, but likely won’t be repeat viewing for most.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • An authentic look at African-American teenagehood in 1960s Chicago
    Cooley High Teens

Must See?
Yes, simply for its historical popularity.

Categories

Links:

Get Out Your Handkerchiefs (1978)

“Why don’t you just give up on me? I’ve jinxed every guy I’ve known.”

Get Out Poster

Synopsis:
The husband (Gerard Depardieu) of a depressed woman (Carole Laure) finds her another lover (Patrick Dewaere) in an attempt to make her happy, but it’s not until 13-year-old Christian (Riton Liebman) arrives in their lives that Laure finds her emotions stirred for the first time in years.

Genres:

Review:
One expects nothing less than sheer romantic anarchy when watching a Bertrand Blier film, and Get Out Your Handkerchiefs — a dark satire which won an Oscar as Best Foreign Film of the year — is no exception. Blier fearlessly posits that the attainment of true love and happiness is seldom (if ever) possible through “traditional” arrangements, then explores what the ramifications of following one’s heart rather than social conventions might look like. His characters rarely act the way we expect them to — as demonstrated here by Depardieu’s Raoul, who genuinely loves his melancholic wife so much that he will gladly give up sole “ownership” of her if bringing a new lover into the mix will make her happy. As it turns out, however, rather than sparking any kind of renewed emotions in Solange (Laure), Stephane (Dewaere) ultimately brings more joy as a companion to Raoul (indeed, the potency and fulfillment of male friendship is another theme Blier seems intent on exploring in his films — though he wouldn’t take this to its logical homoerotic conclusion until later on, in films like 1986’s Menage).

More so than any other director, Blier seems utterly unafraid to demonstrate his incomprehensibility of women. Here, Solange is a literal archetype of feminine mystique — a beautiful woman so low in affect, and so single-mindedly focused on getting pregnant and knitting, that Dewaere openly questions at one point whether she might actually just be dumb. As noted above, she ultimately becomes merely a passive foil for Raoul and Stephane’s friendship — she’s a project they work on together feverishly, collaborating like giddy schoolboys. Once Liebman’s 13-year-old Christian enters the story, however, things take on a decidedly discomfiting tinge, and viewers applauding themselves for accepting the unconventional love triangle established thus far may find their sense of propriety tweaked, as it eventually becomes apparent that Liebman will function as a weirdly Freudian child-love interest for Solange. Liebman is fabulous in an undeniably tricky role: he projects otherworldly maturity in spades, and is clearly meant to come across as the “oldest” (emotionally-speaking) of the three central males in the film. The story’s denouement, naturally, takes on all sorts of wild and unexpected turns, and may or may not feel satisfying — but at the very least, Blier lives up to his reputation as an auteur who’s unafraid to go where few others will dare.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Depardieu and Dewaere as Raoul and Stephane
    Get Out Depardieu Dewaere
  • Carole Laure as Solange
    Get Out Laure
  • Riton Liebman as Christian
    Get Out Liebman
  • Blier’s utterly unique (naturally!) screenplay
    Get Out Screenplay

Must See?
Yes, as an Oscar-winning film by a maverick filmmaker. Listed as a film with historical importance and a cult movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

Links:

Little Fugitive (1953)

[Note: The following review is of a non-Peary title; click here to read more.]

“Ya shot him, Joey! Ya shot your brother!”

Little Fugitive Poster

Synopsis:
A little boy (Richie Andrusco) who mistakenly believes he’s murdered his older brother (Ricky Brewster) flees to Coney Island, where he survives on his own until his brother finds him.

Genres:

  • Carnivals and Circuses
  • Childhood
  • New York City
  • Runaways
  • Siblings
  • Survival

Review:
It’s difficult to understand how Peary missed listing this unique little film in his book as must-see, given its significance on several levels — its cinematic influence on the French New Wave, its status as a “cultural window” into New York’s Coney Island in the 1950s, and its Oscar-nominated screenplay. The story of how husband-and-wife team Morris Engel and Ruth Orkin — with the assistance of a few friends and colleagues — made this cinema verite film on location in New York with a shoestring budget and amateur actors has gone down in cinematic history, as has Francois Truffaut’s quote that “our New Wave would never have come into being if it hadn’t been for the young American Morris Engel, who showed us the way to independent production with his fine movie, Little Fugitive“. Most importantly, however, it is an enjoyable, finely crafted story, told simply but well.

It’s remarkably easy to forget that Little Fugitive (an exemplar of American neo-realism) is a fiction film, given how fully “invested” unknown Richie Andrusco is in the central role of Joey; it’s his ease in front of the camera that propels the story through its mostly wordless screenplay. Richard Brewster as Joey’s brother Lennie does a fine, natural job as well, as does Jay Williams (playing himself?) as Jay the Pony Man at Coney Island, who becomes Joey’s closest pal. At times the film’s ultra-low budget is glaringly apparent, especially when it comes to sound; indeed, the entire film was shot without sound, to save money, with dialogue dubbed in later, and Foley artists providing ambient sound. However, once you accept this limitation, it simply adds to the film’s overall charm. Another low-budget concession — Lester Troob’s harmonica-rich score in place of a “traditional” orchestral score — is a winning element as well, and quickly becomes a defining aspect of the film (I love how Joey later finds an abandoned harmonica on the beach, thus creating an additional meta-narrative tie to the score).

There are many memorable moments sprinkled throughout the movie: my favorites include Joey fooling around with an old-fashioned view camera while its operator is away processing a still (I love the cameraman’s reaction when he comes back to find Joey under the camera’s hood — he’s bemused rather than annoyed), and Joey carefully convincing an Asian baby on the beach to give up the glass bottle he’s been using as a sand toy. (Given that Engel and Orkin used “real” extras, the cultural mix of visitors is refreshingly authentic.) Equally fascinating, however, are the many “time capsule” shots — functioning as ambience rather than to propel the narrative — which simply show Coney Island as it once was, with lovers and families of all kinds out for a good time.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments: (check out the Morris Engel photo archive for some lovely stills from the film)

  • Richie Andrusco as Joey
  • Richard Brewster’s as Joey’s brother Lennie
  • Jay Williams as Jay the Pony Man
  • Fine on-location, hand-held cinematography
  • Many memorable, amusing sequences
  • An invaluable time-capsule view of Coney Island in the 1950s
  • Lester Troob’s harmonica-driven score

Must See?
Yes, for its historical significance as an Oscar-nominated, groundbreaking, influential independent film — and as an all-around good show! It was inducted into the National Film Registry in 1997.

Categories

Links:

M*A*S*H (1970)

“Follow the zany antics of our combat surgeons as they cut and stitch their way along the front lines…”

MASH Poster

Synopsis:
During the Korean War, two irreverent surgeons (Donald Sutherland and Elliott Gould) and their colleagues in a Mobile Army Surgical Hospital try to distract themselves from the horrors of the battlefield.

Genres:

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this “rare anti-war film to make money during a time the U.S. was at war” is “best known for radically diverging from conventional narrative techniques” by doing away with a linear storyline and focusing instead on “establishing [a] uniquely absurd ambience”. Most Americans will simply know it as the precursor to the wildly popular television series (which ran for 11 seasons), but it holds special interest for film fanatics as the movie that first established Robert Altman as an auteur with a unique vision for feature-length filmmaking. As a comedy, it’s held up remarkably well over the years, with most vignettes remaining bitingly funny (though I’ll admit I’m not a fan of the final, hectic football game). The ensemble cast members — particularly Sutherland, Gould, and Sally Kellerman (as “Hot Lips” Houlihan) — are all “first-rate”, and “deservedly became stars as a result of their performances”. As Peary notes, Altman’s greatest challenge in M*A*S*H was “to get us to believe that such irreverent characters… really are sensitive about the men being killed in the war”, but he achieves this by showing us that “their zany, childish antics are just an emotional release — while performing surgery, they come through.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Elliott Gould and Donald Sutherland as Captains Hawkeye and Trapper John
    MASH Gould Sutherland
  • Sally Kellerman as “Hot Lips” Houlihan
    MASH Kellerman
  • A fine ensemble cast
    MASH Ensemble Cast
  • Many darkly humorous sequences
  • Johnny Mandel’s instantly hummable theme song (which carried over to the T.V. series, but without 14-year-old Mike Altman’s dark lyrics)

Must See?
Yes, as a groundbreaking Altman film, and as a cult classic.

Categories

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

Links: