FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
When a dating couple (Steve McQueen and Aneta Corsaut) encounter an elderly man (Olin Howland) whose arm is covered with a gooey substance, they seek assistance from a local doctor (Steven Chase) and his nurse (Lee Payton), who are soon trapped by the all-encompassing blob, too. The town’s police — including Lt. Dave (Earl Rowe) and Office Jim Bert (John Benson) — are unsure whether the blob is real or simply a scheme by local teens to fool the cops; can McQueen convince authorities to take this issue seriously, before the entire town is engulfed in viscous red gunk?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Mutant Monsters
• “No One Believes Me!”
• Science Fiction
• Small Town America
• Steve McQueen Films
• Teenagers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary’s incredibly short review of this “low-budget sci-fi film” by Irvin S. Yeaworth, Jr. — “once a drive-in favorite” — gives no indication that it would one day merit the full “Criterion treatment”, with restoration and commentaries provided. He does write that it’s “still fun” and “one of the few films of the fifties that was totally on the side of the teenagers”, though he adds the “creepy first half… loses momentum and becomes stilted until the rousing conclusion.” I’m not a huge fan of this slowly paced (perhaps deliberately so?) thriller, which seems to be trying to address too many audiences and themes at once in its mash-up of juvenile delinquent films with young romance and a mysterious alien presence. DVD Savant has a slightly different take, noting that “the story captures the slow pace of rural life, interrupted by something extraordinary.” Regardless of whether the blob represents something profoundly catastrophic or simply a laughable nuisance, this flick is worth a one-time look for its notoriety.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Colorful and atmospheric cinematography
  
  
  

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

Categories

• Historically Relevant

Links:

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

Synopsis:
A naive German princess (Marlene Dietrich) is sent to marry the “cruel, cowardly half-wit” nephew (Sam Jaffe) of the Russian empress (Louise Dressler), and charged with producing a male heir — which she does, though not by Jaffe, who she can’t stand. When Dressler’s health begins to fail, Jaffe dreams of being with his lover (Ruthelma Stevens) and having absolute power over the nation and his wife — but Catherine, now much more self-confident, has other plans.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Character Arc
• Historical Drama
• Josef von Sternberg Films
• Marlene Dietrich Films
• Royalty and Nobility
• Russia
• Sam Jaffe Films
• Strong Females

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Josef von Sternberg’s astonishing, self-described ‘relentless excursion into style’ is the most idiosyncratic of his seven Marlene Dietrich films, and one of the most bizarre films ever to emerge from a Hollywood studio.” He notes that “Sternberg was one of the few directors to recognize and explore the link between sexual politics and political power”: “the film is about a woman who rejects her fate and through self-determination achieves self-preservation”. He adds that while Dietrich’s “whole life has been spent following the life’s course others set out for her”, “once she dutifully gives birth to a male heir… she is through being pushed around and goes on the offensive to realize her personal ambitions, using what she acknowledges to be her own ‘special’ weapons”. The first half of the film shows “Dietrich as she has never been in a Sternberg film, without her absolute control, sense of irony, air of superiority, mystery, or indifference” — but by the second half, “suddenly, thank goodness, Dietrich is back, living by her wits, her own code and logic, manipulating men who once thought they were controlling her.”

Peary goes on to write that “visually, the film is dazzling, the most imaginative American film of the sound era prior to Citizen Kane” — and while Sternberg apparently liked to claim full auteurship over his films and not give appropriate credit, he did work “closely with Paramount’s costume designer, Travis Banton; with imported Swiss artist Peter Balbusch, Hans Dreier, and Richard Kollorsz on the incredle Byzantine sets (which were meant to be ‘recreations’ of the Russian court); and with cinematographer Bert Glennon on his masterly composed images”. As DVD Savant writes in his review, “There is hardly a close-up of a character that doesn’t share the frame with a giant gnarled hand or twisted wooden face. It’s as if the drama were being played out amid a castle crowded with petrified ancestors.” Peary adds that most of “the film’s most memorable scenes have no dialogue, just music and sounds effects to heighten the impact of the extraordinary images: the wedding ceremony; the wedding banquet; and the sweeping finale”. He ends his GFTFF review by asserting that “Sternberg’s greatest, most perverse film has still not received its due”.

To that end, in Alternate Oscars, Peary names this “bizarre film — some would say berserk” — Best Movie of the Year. In this review, he highlights Dietrich’s performance, noting she’s “perfect as Catherine; she is fearless, sardonic, indifferent, playful, ambitious, and as naughtily flirtatious as Mae West”, turning from a “naughty innocent — ripe for seduction” into a “shrewd libertine, and then in her triumph, a monster who relishes both her power and the means by which she obtained it”.

He adds that while she “may be crazed”, we “forgive her, if only because she’s still preferable to Peter” (played by Jaffe, who is “ideal as the demented ruler”).

Peary writes even more about the film in his first Cult Movies book, where he notes that it “stimulates the senses with provocative sexual imagery, often of a perverse nature; breathtaking montages of barbaric torture, some nightmarish, some realistic; mammoth palace chambers, heatless and sparsely furnished, with heavy, fifteen-foot-high doors that groups of nameless scurrying ladies of the court struggle to open, and large, weirdly sculpted gargoyles, saints, faces, and bodies twisted into attitudes of great suffering; [and] an eighteenth-century Russian court full of oddball characters one would more expect to find in Alice’s Wonderland.” It’s all truly unlike anything you’ve ever seen, and well worth at least a one-time visit.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Marlene Dietrich as the Empress Catherine
  
• Bert Glennon’s cinematography
  
• Consistently mesmerizing sets and costumes
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as an entirely unique cult classic.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Roger Ebert’s Greatest Films Review
• TCM Article
• Q Network Review
• Criterion Review (Robin Wood)

Synopsis:
A seductive cigarette factory worker (Marlene Dietrich) captures the heart of a captain (Lionel Atwill), who tries to warn his young friend (Cesar Romero) that Concha (Dietrich) will break his heart as well — but neither man can resist her lure.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cesar Romero Films
• Femmes Fatales
• Flashback Films
• Josef von Sternberg Films
• Lionel Atwill Films
• Love Triangle
• Marlene Dietrich Films
• Obsessive Love

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “last and least of Marlene Dietrich’s films with Josef von Sternberg” — after The Blue Angel (1930) Morocco (1930), Dishonored (1931), Shanghai Express (1932), Blonde Venus (1932), and The Scarlet Empress (1934) — “is set at the turn of the century in a small Spanish town at carnival time (which allows von Sternberg to have fun with costumes and art direction).” He asserts that the “picture suffers from looking too studio-bound and from Sternberg’s decision to let Dietrich play her role with tongue firmly in cheek… giving the impression that all those on both sides of the camera (except the ultra-serious Atwill) were too casual about the film they were making.” I’m equally tepid about this film, which is gorgeous but lacking a plot substantial enough to care about; there isn’t much fun to be had in watching gold-digging Dietrich callously seduce the men around her, or the men themselves being destroyed.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Ornate sets and costumes
  
  
• Effectively stark cinematography (by von Sternberg and uncredited Lucien Ballard)
  
  

Must See?
No; you can skip this one.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• DVD Savant Review
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
With help from his beautiful assistant (Eleanor Bron), an eastern cult leader (Leo McKern) attempts to capture a musician (Ringo Starr) wearing a special ring needed to complete a human sacrifice — but the stubbornly magical ring refuses to come off Ringo’s finger. Soon Ringo and his bandmates are also pursued by a pair of fanatical scientists (Victor Spinetti) and Roy Kinnear) hoping to obtain the ring, and the other Beatles begin to question whether Ringo’s finger is worth the hassle.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Beatles Films
• Comedy
• Cults
• Musicals
• Richard Lester Films
• Ringo Starr Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that the Beatles’ second film is “full of funny sight gags… and one-liners (‘He’s out to rule the world… if he can get a government grant’)”, noting that the “film mixes James Bond adventure, surrealism (a Beatle even becomes miniaturized at one point), and loopy comedy (much of the slapstick variety).” He asserts that “Richard Lester’s direction is even more outrageous than it was for A Hard Day’s Night,” and writes that the “picture is a lot of fun” but he wishes “it provided more insight into the individual Beatles — in fact, it’s just as impersonal as Yellow Submarine. Unfortunately, the world we see has nothing to do with the Beatles’ real world.” He accurately notes that the “best moments are when they sing: ‘Help!’, ‘You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away’, ‘I Need You’, and ‘You’re Gonna Lose That Girl'”; and he points out that “the staging of numbers, particularly those set outside, is effective” — with “the ‘Ticket to Ride’ sequence”, showing “the boys frolicking in the snow”, particularly suited to making “a great video”.

I’m not nearly as taken with this follow-up film as Peary is; it’s clearly meant to build on the enormous cult success of A Hard Day’s Night but most of the magic is gone (despite — or perhaps because of — attempts to insert literal magic into the proceedings). The plot seems silly simply for the sake of silliness, and the boys’ later admission to being stoned through most of the filming shows: they look loopy and slightly dazed rather than jubilant. The exception, as noted above, are their musical performances — I do love all the creativity put into filming “Ticket to Ride” in the snow, including the presence of musical notes on the screen at one point (apparently added to cover up power lines in the footage). Paul’s brief miniaturization — reminiscent, of course, of The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957) — is nicely handled as well, though one wishes he did more than just flail around in an ashtray with orange soda.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• David Watkins’ creative cinematography
  
  
• Several fun outdoor-musical sequences (particularly “Ticket To Ride” in the snowy Alps)
  
  

Must See?
No; only Beatles fans need see this one.

Links:

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