FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
When three astronauts (Charlton Heston, Robert Gunner, and Jeff Burton) crash-land on an alien planet, Captain Taylor (Heston) is imprisoned and studied by two ape-scientists (Kim Hunter and Roddy McDowell) whose work on the origins of humans is deeply threatening to the Minister of Science (Maurice Evans).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Astronauts
• Charlton Heston Films
• James Whitmore Films
• Kim Hunter Films
• Post-Apocalypse
• Primates
• Roddy McDowell Films
• Science Fiction
• Scientists

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that while “Pierre Boulle’s novel Monkey Planet is given a big-budget, wide-screen Hollywood treatment,” “its sole virtues are the result of money spent.” He argues that the “script by Rod Serling and Michael Wilson” is “surprisingly juvenile,” and that “the writers thought they could get away with the cliches by the dozens and the most simplistic moralistic statements just because these would seem different coming from people in monkey costumes.”

With that said, he concedes that director Franklin J. Schaffner “does exhibit visual flare when filming action scenes and landscape shots”:

… and that “bare-chested Heston’s a solid, muscular hero” — a “good choice to play a symbol of human superiority who is humbled when he is to be experimented on by the apes, just as humans experiment on apes back home.”

I’m largely in agreement with Peary’s assessment, finding this film, frankly, overrated. While I disagree that the film’s ending — “like something stolen from Serling’s The Twilight Zone” — is “predictable” (it’s not), I have a hard time wrapping my head around the inanity of the ape costumes, the wooden acting, and the improbable script (see the humorous video “Everything Wrong With Planet of the Apes” for an overview of its many “sins”). This was clearly meant to be a satire on numerous levels, and at the time of its release I’m sure it was considered audacious and groundbreaking — but it simply hasn’t aged well.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Groundbreaking make-up design
  
• Several powerful images
  
• Fine widescreen cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, once, simply for its historical relevance.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• FilmSite Review
• TCM Article
• Spinning Image Review
• Bad Movies Review
• Cinemassacre Video Review

Synopsis:
When a miner-turned-dentist (Gibson Gowland) is introduced to the cousin and girlfriend (ZaSu Pitts) of his friend Marcus (Jean Hersholt), he falls instantly in love and is granted permission by Marcus to woo her. Shortly before their marriage, Trina (Pitts) wins $5,000 in a lottery ticket purchased from a neighbor (Dale Fuller), and becomes increasingly unhinged about spending money; meanwhile, Marcus regrets his decision to “give away” Trina and harbors deep resentment towards McTeague.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Dentists
• Erich von Stroheim Films
• Gold Seekers
• Greed
• Marital Problems
• Mental Breakdown
• Rivalry
• Silent Films
• Zasu Pitts Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of “Erich von Stroheim’s original, extremely faithful version of McTeague, Frank Norris’s well-known naturalist novel” by noting that it “was nearly 10 hours long” and then “drastically cut,” with “all excised footage… destroyed.” (Since Peary’s GFTFF was published, a fascinating four-hour restoration was completed by Turner Entertainment, which is the version I watched; you can read a lot more about it here.) Peary writes that in the butchered version, the “three most prominent characters” remain, and “despite being trimmed to about a fourth of it original length” it “is still a masterpiece, one of the greatest of silent films and a picture that still has impact today.” He notes that “surely no character has better displayed avarice than Pitts, whose brow rises automatically and eyes look cunning any time she can even smell money”:

(I’m actually not sure “avarice” is the best word to describe her pitiful character, who seems to suffer from an extreme form of OCD.) Peary adds that “the film also benefits from Von Stroheim’s typical array of unusual supporting characters”:

… “the intensity of his directing and the acting”:

… “his attention to set design”:

… “and his decision to film on location in San Francisco and even Death Valley for the classic finale.”

Peary writes that “the worst result of the extreme studio-imposed editing is that the changes in the characters’ personalities once money enters their lives are too rushed… For the naturalism of Norris to be conveyed propertly, the deterioration of their marriage and their descent from nice people to ‘animals’ must have a more natural progression.” Thankfully, this concern is addressed and fixed in the restored version, which is recommended. Indeed, the entire storyline remains remarkably compelling and relevant; I’m hard-pressed to think of a better film about the consequences of money-driven psychosis, greed, and envy.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• William Daniels’ cinematography
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a classic of the silent era.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Historically Relevant
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article (spoilers alert)

Synopsis:
After the February Revolution and the establishment of a Provisional Government helmed by Alexander Kerensky (Nikolay Popov), Lenin (Vasili Nikandrov) leads a group of Bolshevik revolutionaries in storming the Winter Palace during October of 1917.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Revolutionaries
• Russian Films
• Sergei Eisenstein Films
• Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
In his review of Sergei Eisenstein’s “visually dynamic version of Russia’s October Revolution of 1917” — the 67 minute cut, about half-an-hour shorter than the restored version now in circulation — Peary refers to the film as “a great propaganda piece,” with interim ruler “Kerensky portrayed as a power-hungry neurotic who is no different from Napoleon or Czar Nicholas”:

… and “the bourgeoisie who thrive under Kerensky [shown as] decadent types… who treat the Bolsheviks contemptuously and… brutally”:

Peary points out that the “film has several amazing sequences,” including “a dead horse (symbol of the Russian laborer)… lifted high into the air by the rising drawbridge it’s roped to”:

… and “the lengthy, exciting storming of the Winter Palace by the Bolsheviks”:

However, he notes that the film is “most known for Eisenstein’s startling use of montage to create rhythm, build tension, and express ideas.”

Indeed, those interested in Soviet-era cinematic montage won’t want to miss this classic outing by a master of the craft — though it’s not must-see viewing for all film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Powerful imagery, cinematography, and montage
  
  

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

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Senses of Cinema Review

Synopsis:
When his adoptive father (Fernand Charpin) dies, grown Cesar (Andre Fouche) learns from his mother (Orane Demazis) that his biological father (Pierre Fresnay) — son of his godfather (Raimu) — was a sailor who may still be alive, and sets out to meet him.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Death and Dying
• Father and Child
• French Films
• Grown Children
• Waterfront

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Marcel Pagnol directed as well as wrote the final chapter of his Marseilles Trilogy,” which takes “place about 17 years after Fanny (1932)” and presents “a lovely, deeply moving film with the usual rich characterizations and passionate performances.”

He notes that “highlights include Cesar’s discourse on Death and God, all scenes in which one character reveals love for another (which happens throughout the trilogy), and when Panisse’s friends gather around his deathbed.”

He concludes his review by writing that this “fine example of Pagnol’s ‘human’ cinema” can “be enjoyed without having seen Marius or Fanny” — though I actually find it to be the least satisfying of the three, primarily given the dull character played by Fouche:

… and the silly miscommunication that ensues when he sets off to find Fresnay. Even the humor among the elderly townsfolk feels less fresh this time around, especially with Charpin gone:

However, fans of the series will of course find this film indispensable, simply in order to learn what happens to the characters.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Atmospheric sets and cinematography
  
  

Must See?
No, though fans of the trilogy will naturally be eager to check it out.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Combustible Celluloid Review (of trilogy)
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
After her boyfriend Marius (Pierre Fresnay) goes away to sea, Fanny (Orane Demazis) discovers she’s pregnant. With support from her mother (Alida Rouffe) and Marius’s father, Cesar (Raimu), Fanny agrees to marry her older suitor, Honore (Fernand Charpin), and allow him to be the father of her child — but what will happen when Marius learns about the baby?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Father and Child
• French Films
• Play Adaptations
• Pregnancy
• Waterfront
• Widows and Widowers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “second part of Marcel Pagnol’s Marseilles Trilogy” — “falling between Marius (1931) and Cesar (1936)” — “picks up exactly where Marius left off”; indeed, it’s a true sequel without any gap. He notes that once “again the film succeeds because of the believable, lovable characters rather than the direction [by Marc Allegret], which is theatrical,” and points out that “Raimu is splendid, and Charpin, Demazis, and Fresnay make strong impessions.”

Peary also reminds us that “Jacques Demy borrowed the basic plot (eliminating the Cesar character and making the boy a wartime soldier rather than a sailor) for his 1964 musical The Umbrellas of Cherbourg” and that “the 1961 film Fanny” — starring Leslie Caron and Maurice Chevalier — “was derived from the entire trilogy.”

I’m a fan of these gently humorous stories (though I’ll admit to watching them at a slightly sped up pace). This second entry is particularly poignant, given the candid discussions taking place between all parties, and how excited Charpin is to finally be a father after so many years. I appreciate that seafaring Fresnay is gone for most of the movie, allowing this portion of the narrative to focus on Demazis’s decisions on behalf of her child. While there is — of course — heartbreak and compromise to be had, we also see plenty of collaboration and joy, making this film more uplifting than one would expect.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Fernand Charpin as Honore Panisse
  
• Raimu as Cesar Olivier
  
• Orane Demazis as Fanny
  
• Atmospheric sets and cinematography
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a compelling second entry in Pagnol’s trilogy.

Categories

• Foreign Gem

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Time Out Capsule Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review (spoiler alert)
• TCM Article (spoiler alert – the next film in the trilogy is discussed here, too)

Synopsis:
The son (Pierre Fresnay) of a cafe owner (Raimu) in Marseilles loves a young woman named Fanny (Orane Demazis) whose mother (Alida Rouffe) runs a seafood stall, and who is being pursued by an older widow (Fernand Charpin) — but Marius (Fresnay) can’t stop dreaming about running away to sea…

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• French Films
• Love Triangle
• Play Adaptations
• Romance
• Waterfront

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “first of Marcel Pagnol’s Marseilles Trilogy, to be followed by Fanny (1932) and Cesar (1936),” has “slow pacing due to [the] static, unimaginative direction of Alexander Korda, but Pagnol’s characters are a wonderful lots, particularly bar owner Cesar (Raimu, one of the greatest French actors)”:

… “and his middle-aged friends, with their hats, pot bellies, and funny philosophizing and quibbling.”

In his review, Peary shares more about the plot, which inevitably leads to spoilers — but he also simply notes that the “picture has warmth, humor, [and] marvelous acting by Raimu” in addition to being “one of the first films not only to deal with premarital sex but to make it seem natural.” He points out that “highlights include an affectionate scene between Cesar and his son (parental love is vital to the trilogy)”:

… “and a card game between Cesar and his pals.”

While it is slowly paced (and arguably needs to be seen with its trilogy counterparts for full appreciation), Marius remains a cornerstone of early French cinema, and should be seen once by all film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Fine performances
  
  
• Atmospheric sets and cinematography
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a classic of early French cinema.

Categories

• Foreign Gem

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review (spoiler alert)
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review