Sky Above, the Mud Below, The (1961)

Sky Above, the Mud Below, The (1961)

“We are here just as observers — and, if they will let us be, as friends.”

Synopsis:
A team of European explorers are assisted by New Guinean natives as they travel through uncharted jungle territory.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Documentary
  • Explorers
  • Jungles
  • Native Peoples

Review:
This Oscar-winning documentary remains a fascinating (if perhaps inevitably patronizing) artifact of an historic expedition through the mountains, jungles, and rivers of “Dutch New Guinea” (now Papua New Guinea). As with earlier documentaries like Nanook of the North (1922) (or Werner Herzog’s fictional Fitzcarraldo — discussed in Les Blank’s documentary Burden of Dreams), one is consistently aware of how challenging it must have been simply to gather the footage on display: while watching the arduous, months-long trek through seemingly impenetrable landscape, we’re aware that the film crew itself was traversing the same terrain (not to mention carrying bulky, sensitive equipment). We see individuals becoming too sick to continue the journey; daring maneuvers made by pilots willing to drop much-needed supplies near the expedition (at one point the travelers go for three days without food); and cringe-inducing scenes of leeches being burned off legs. While we’re aware that the majority of the troupe eventually made it to their destination — and that radio communication was maintained throughout — the adventure feels genuinely tenuous at times, especially knowing that some of the tribes they encountered actively engaged in head-hunting and cannibalism.

At the same time, it’s hard not to feel at least mildly distressed by the exoticizing tone of both the solemn voiceover (“They say in the jungle, only fools and children ask questions.”) and many of the scenes — beginning with a staged introduction as the adventurers and a pretty stewardess smile while pointing to various locations on a globe (good thing they had that with them on the plane). As nudity, dramatic body piercings, and unsettling tribal customs (i.e., bare-breasted women suckle not just human babies but animals and adult guests) are put on display, we wish it were less obvious how superior the explorers feel to their “stone age” counterparts. Yet the filmmakers are nothing if not direct in their explanation of how and why the journey (funded by Dutch royalty) took place, making it easier for modern audiences to place the film within historical context and forgive some patronizing elements. Audiences at the time were surely enthralled by the opportunity to glimpse the lives of fellow humans so completely untouched by global influence — and modern film fanatics will likely be, too.

Note: Viewers interested in this subject matter and area of the world might want to check out the more recent documentary The Search for Michael Rockefeller (2011), which weaves similar footage from the same era into an investigation of the famous heir’s mysterious disappearance. Also recommended is the National Geographic documentary series based on Gerald Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel (2005).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Fascinating footage of a harrowing expedition


Must See?
Yes, as an engaging historical document. Listed as a film with Historical Importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Historical Relevance
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

Romancing the Stone (1984)

Romancing the Stone (1984)

“You’re the best time I’ve ever had.”

Synopsis:
A romance novelist (Kathleen Turner) hoping to rescue her kidnapped sister (Mary Ellen Trainor) from jewel thieves falls in love with a rugged adventurer (Michael Douglas) she meets in the Amazonian jungle.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Hidden Treasure
  • Jungles
  • Kathleen Turner Films
  • Michael Douglas Films
  • Romance

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “very entertaining, very funny roller-coaster ride of a movie” — shot on location in Colombia — possesses “many clever touches”. He notes that the “film’s surprise treasure is Turner’s thoroughly dazzling and likable characterization” as Joan Wilder, a woman who switches “from being everybody’s easy touch in New York to a tough-as-nails (but still sweet and sentimental) heroine in the real jungle”; indeed, in his Alternate Oscars book, he names Turner Best Actress of the Year for her performance. In this book, he writes that “we root for Joan as we do for few heroines in adventure films”, in part because Turner “and screenwriter Diane Thomas created a woman” who is not only “alluring to men” but appealing to women. Turner’s character is “funny, smart, and pretty” — an “inspiration for every woman viewer who needs a nudge to pursue her exciting dreams”.

Interestingly, Peary’s review(s) focus almost exclusively on Turner rather than going into detail about the storyline itself. He does note that one of the film’s highlights involves “a horde of mean peasant-highwaymen [who] turn out to be… fanatics” of Wilder’s romance novels (this scene is gut-tickling), but the entire screenplay is surprisingly engaging, full of nicely played comedic touches and heart-racing plot twists. The on-location shooting — helmed by director Robert Zemeckis and DP Dean Cundey — effectively transports us to a world of exotic danger and excitement, and Douglas is well-cast as Turner’s reluctant (at first) compatriot and lover. It’s too bad that the film’s sequel — The Jewel of the Nile (1985), not scripted by Thomas or directed by Zemeckis — is purportedly a disappointment; it’s not listed in GFTFF.

Note: Thomas’s untimely death just before the release of The Jewel of the Nile was quite tragic; click here for more details.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Kathleen Turner as Joan Wilder (named Best Actress of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars)
  • Michael Douglas as Jack Colton
  • Many rousing adventure scenes
  • Fine cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a fun romantic comedy-adventure with a likeable female lead.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Star, The (1952)

Star, The (1952)

“If you’re a star, you don’t stop being a star.”

Synopsis:
When former box-office queen Margaret Elliott (Bette Davis) goes on a drunken spree, she’s bailed out of jail by a boat mechanic (Sterling Hayden) secretly in love with her — but can she make the starring come-back she so desperately desires?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Actors and Actresses
  • Bette Davis Films
  • Has-Beens
  • Natalie Wood Films
  • Sterling Hayden Films

Review:
Two years after her Oscar-nominated role as theatrical powerhouse Margo Channing in All About Eve (1950) — and Gloria Swanson’s similarly nominated role in Sunset Boulevard (1950) — Bette Davis starred in this lower-budget variation (directed by Stuart Heisler) on the theme of middle-aged divas struggling to maintain their pride and identity in the face of an expired (or threatened) career. In this case, Davis’s Margaret Elliott is more akin to Swanson’s “Norma Desmond” than Margo, in that they are both tragically deluded about the endurance of their appeal; indeed, given that Elliott is similarly “rescued” by a hunky young sun-kissed man, overt parallels between The Star and Sunset Boulevard are unmistakable.

Davis — who purportedly had Joan Crawford in mind when playing Elliott — gives a nuanced, sympathetic performance as a woman unable to face the reality of her circumstances. The scene in which she watches herself in a screen-test, cringing in horror at the results of her vain refusal to accept her director’s guidelines, is masterful:

… and her interactions with her ungrateful sister (Fay Baker) and brother-in-law (Herb Vigran) are nicely handled.

However, the screenplay is ultimately a disappointment in comparison with the two classic titles referenced above, and it’s hard not to feel frustrated by what could have been done with this juicy set-up. The trajectory of the storyline — particularly Elliott’s romance with Hayden:

… is too predictable, and some patently overwrought dialogue (“I once thought you were a woman. I was wrong; you’re nothing but a career.”) — place the film squarely in the realm of “women’s dramas”. However, Davis’s performance is strong enough to recommend The Star for at least one-time viewing.

Trivia Note: Fourteen-year-old Natalie Wood plays a small role as Davis’s daughter, with one scene — taking place on Hayden’s boat — eerily foreshadowing the circumstances of her untimely death-by-drowning at the age of 43.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Bette Davis as Margaret Elliott

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

Links:

Stand By Me (1986)

Stand By Me (1986)

“I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve.”

Synopsis:
A writer (Richard Dreyfuss) reflects on his adventures as a 12-year-old (Wil Wheaton) setting out with his buddies (River Phoenix, Corey Feldman, and Jerry O’Connell) to locate the body of a missing neighborhood boy.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Coming of Age
  • Flashback Film
  • Friendship
  • Richard Dreyfuss Films
  • Road Trip
  • Stephen King Adaptations

Review:
Before hitting blockbuster gold with The Princess Bride (1987), When Harry Met Sally (1989), and A Few Good Men (1992), Rob Reiner helmed this adaptation of Stephen King’s novella “The Body”. Framed as a bittersweet flashback film, the storyline centers on a sensitive young male who — like Timothy Hutton’s Conrad in Ordinary People (1980) — is reeling from the sudden death of his beloved older brother (John Cusack). A road trip is conveniently kicked into gear when Gordie (Wheaton) and his friends are presented with a coming-of-age quest they can’t resist: the rumored discovery of a classmate’s dead body, also sought after by a local bully (Kiefer Sutherland) and his gang. Reiner effectively evokes 1950s nostalgia through both period visuals and a finger-snapping soundtrack (including the popular Ben E. King title song); meanwhile, he balances the film’s darker themes and dicey situations (two of the boys are nearly killed by a train) with doses of levity — most famously in a gross-out storytelling sequence involving pie eating and copious vomit. However, unlike in Reiner’s later King-adaptation Misery (1990), the narrative here lacks a sense of either urgency or menace, making Stand By Me more of a sentimental reflection on boyhood bonds than a tale of adventure or deep personal growth.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • The exciting railroad bridge sequence

Must See?
No, though most film fanatics will likely be curious to check it out once, given its status as a cult favorite. Listed as a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

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

Links:

Witness (1985)

Witness (1985)

“It’s not our way.”

Synopsis:
When an Amish boy (Lukas Haas) travelling with his mother (Kelly McGillis) witnesses a brutal murder in a train station bathroom, the policeman (Harrison Ford) assigned to the case does whatever he can to protect the pair from harm.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Christianity
  • Corruption
  • Cross-Cultural Romance
  • Harrison Ford Films
  • Peter Weir Films
  • Police

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Australian director Peter Weir’s… fascinating meditation on violence/peace is extremely well made”: it’s “gorgeous to look at” (John Seale’s cinematography is “excellent”), “very suspenseful”, and features “truly memorable performances by the two leads” (though I’m equally impressed by Haas’s child performance as the wide-eyed “witness”). He points out the “delicately sensual sexual content”, including “beautiful, radiant McGillis standing bare-breasted and unembarrassed as she exchanges stares with [Ford] in the next room” and “the two danc[ing] in the barn” together. However, Peary concedes that “the Amish people’s protest that this film didn’t represent them properly seems to have foundation”, given that “we learn little about them except for their abhorrence of violence (which at times seems like a convenient plot device) and their sense of community” (he accurately notes that “the film has the best communal building scene since the one in Seven Brides for Seven Brothers“).

Peary further notes that “the major problem with the film is that it has trouble mixing commercial Hollywood elements with the mysterious elements that usually dominate Weir’s films”, specifically in its glorified emphasis on “violent action sequences” — though I believe this is intentional; indeed, Weir and “screenwriters Earl W. Wallace and Bill Kelley” seem to bank on audiences’ shock at the collision of these two radically different cultures (Amish country life and an urban homicide squad). Witness is ultimately a romantic thriller at heart — and my primary complaint is that its stock villains (sociopathically corrupt cops) are too predictably one-dimensional. However, what’s primarily at stake here are the lives of Haas and McGillis — and to that end, the film cleverly keeps us in suspense, all while bathing our senses in a uniquely pastoral late-20th-century setting.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Lukas Haas as Samuel
  • Kelly McGillis as Rachel
  • An authentic sense of culture and place
  • Joan Seale’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a taut, well-crafted thriller.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Kentucky Fried Movie, The (1977)

Kentucky Fried Movie, The (1977)

“The popcorn you are eating has been pissed in. Film at eleven.”

Synopsis:
A compendium of irreverently satirical commercials and T.V. snippets bookend a spoof of Bruce Lee movies.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Donald Sutherland Films
  • Episodic Films
  • John Landis Films
  • Satires and Spoofs

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “very funny, off-the-wall sketch comedy spoofing movies, commercials, old TV scenes and newscasts” is “still the best of the comedy revues”, and features “imaginative direction by John Landis and writing by Kentucky Fried Theater members”. He asserts that “the best routine is [the] lengthy takeoff of Enter the Dragon called ‘A Fistful of Yen’, with Evan Kim doing a remarkable impersonation of Bruce Lee (as well as Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz)” — indeed, this section does contain some of the most hilarious moments in the film.

Peary names some of his other favorite bits in the revue — including one scene showing “a young black couple following the bizarre instructions on a how-to sex record” — and notes that there are “many hilarious sight gags”.

However, he concedes that the movie “gets laughs by having characters surprise us with vulgar language”, and notes that “some of the humor is too juvenile or tasteless”. The quote selected for this review gives an indication of how “vulgar language” is used for supposed-humor, but instead simply falls flat. As with all episodic films, the quality of each segment is variable — in this case, highly variable. Indeed, while I chuckled at a few select scenes, I’m ultimately not enamored with this early outing by producers Zucker, Abrahams, and Zucker, who hit true comedy gold with Airplane! (1980) a few years later. Still, fans of Zucker et al. will likely be curious to check this one out, simply to see what portions might appeal.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Intermittently amusing segments and gags


Must See?
No; feel free to skip this one unless it’s your cup of tea.

Links:

Caveman (1981)

Caveman (1981)

“Atouk alounda Lana.”

Synopsis:
During prehistoric times, a caveman (Ringo Starr) lusts after the bodacious girlfriend (Barbara Bach) of the bullying tribe leader (John Matuszak) while ignoring the romantic interests of a sweet new acquaintance (Shelley Long).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Dennis Quaid Films
  • Prehistoric Times
  • Ringo Starr Films
  • Rivalry
  • Satires and Spoofs

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that while “most critics mocked” this “funny prehistoric spoof done on the cheap”, “fans of the genre will get a kick out of the humorous dinosaurs created by David Allen”, as well as the “silly 15-word caveman vocabulary… created by director Carl Gottlieb and his co-writer, Rudy DeLuca”. Indeed, I was surprised to find myself genuinely amused when revisiting this cult favorite, which is filled with “hilarious sight gags” — including Peary’s favorite, in which “a giant insect land[s] on sleeping Dennis Quaid’s face, whereupon the concerned Starr squashes it, causing this gooey mess to pour over Quaid”. It’s all unbelievably silly stuff, but it’s impossible not to giggle (for instance) when watching the group’s attempts to fry an enormous egg (the “special effects” in this scene are impressive), or listening to the gaggle of misfits making nifty improv music together around a campfire. My main complaint is with how badly Starr treats poor Long, who sticks by his side no matter how many times he boots her in favor of obnoxious Bach; Starr’s character wins a prize as one of the most bone-headed, least appealing cinematic protagonists ever.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Several amusing and/or clever sequences



  • Lalo Schifrin’s score

Must See?
No, though it’s recommended for one time viewing, given that it may be to your liking.

Links:

Boudu Saved From Drowning (1932)

Boudu Saved From Drowning (1932)

“Even though he disgusts me, I did save his life.”

Synopsis:
A well-meaning bookseller (Charles Granval) rescues an indigent man named Boudu (Michel Simon) from drowning and brings him to his house, where his wife (Marcelle Hainia) and mistress-housekeeper (Severine Lerczinska) are both initially perturbed by Boudu’s uncouth presence, but slowly seduced by his animal-like “charms”.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bourgeois Society
  • Class Relations
  • Do-Gooders
  • French Films
  • Homeless
  • Jean Renoir Films
  • Play Adaptations

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “comic tribute to Paris’s bums” — directed by Jean Renoir, and based on a play by Rene Fauchois — is “not great Renoir” but remains a “perceptive social comedy” which isn’t “nearly as bad as critics contended in 1967 when it received its first American release”. He points out that “Simon’s movements remind some of Charles Laughton”, and notes how interesting it is that Boudu “is such an unsentimentalized slob — rather than the lovable tramp of the Chaplin tradition”.

However, while modern critics delight in the way Boudu subverts expectations by anarchically refusing to express appreciation for what he’s given, he ultimately comes across as simply an annoying cipher. We learn nothing about his background, and — because he’s such a lout — we care little about him or his future. In fact, this is a rare instance where I prefer the remake — Paul Mazurky’s Down and Out in Beverly Hills (1986), starring Nick Nolte — to the original, given that both Nolte’s character (as scripted) and performance are more nuanced. While the cinematography in Boudu… is beautiful (see stills below), this one is only must-see viewing for Renoir fans.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Lovely cinematography and framing


Must See?
No, though film fanatics interested in Renoir’s work will likely be curious to check it out.

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

Links:

Ordinary People (1980)

Ordinary People (1980)

“When I let myself feel, all I feel is lousy.”

Synopsis:
In the aftermath of his brother’s accidental death, a teenager (Timothy Hutton) with a repressed mother (Mary Tyler Moore) and a loving father (Donald Sutherland) seeks help from a therapist (Judd Hirsch) as well as solace from his sweet new girlfriend (Elizabeth McGovern).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Death and Dying
  • Donald Sutherland Films
  • Family Problems
  • Guilt
  • Psychotherapy
  • Robert Redford Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “Best Picture Winner” — Robert Redford’s debut as a director — is “an extremely successful adaptation of Judith Guest’s prizewinning first novel about the deterioration of an [upper] middle-class family due to the death of the firstborn teenage son and the inability of the mother — the symbol of the family — to love anyone else”. He argues that at times, Redford’s direction “is so precise and cold that the mother… might have directed it”, yet notes that “he’s sensitive toward his actors, and gets several outstanding performances” — particularly from Hutton, “who got a Best Supporting Actor Oscar although he is the film’s star”.

He writes that the “Oscar-winning script by Alvin Sargent is perceptive, powerful, emotionally resonant” and “also tender”, with “the scenes between McGovern and Hutton… particularly sweet”.

However, he asserts that while “Moore received much praise for her cinema debut as a woman who has repressed her emotions for so long that they no longer exist”, “it has turned out that she plays most of her movie characters with extreme restraint” — indicating that he’s not terribly impressed with her work here.

Interestingly, in his Alternate Oscars, Peary writes that he’s a bigger fan of “the now underrated Ordinary People” — which “received much praise from critics and moviegoers when it was released” — than the critical darling Raging Bull (which he nonetheless gives the Best Picture award to in his book). He notes that while Ordinary People‘s “reputation has… diminished, so that it’s now thought of as a mainstream family drama”, it actually deals “with difficult ‘mother-love’ themes not handled in other films”. I’m in full agreement with this latter assessment. Redford’s direction — despite Peary’s (incorrect) assertion that at times it’s too “precise and cold” — is simply masterful: he captures the dynamics of this deeply troubled family in such a way that we immediately sense the depth of their hurtful dysfunctions. Regardless of Moore’s future roles, her work here as a cold, narcissistic mother is spot-on; scene after scene between Moore and Hutton is heartbreaking in its bitter authenticity.

We’re left with no doubt that she openly preferred her older (deceased) son, that she resents her younger son for being the survivor, and that she is solely interested in maintaining a life of appearances and surface pleasures (with her husband, not her child) while repressing any trace of genuine emotion.

As Peary writes, Hutton does indeed offer a powerful, Oscar-worthy lead performance. He portrays a young man not only dealing with immense survivor guilt, but a lifelong legacy of being “second-best” in his mother’s eyes. Redford’s judicious use of brief flashback scenes — showing Hutton’s smiling, blonde, god-like brother (Scott Doebler) interacting with his adoring mother:

… as well as the tragic boating accident — help us to understand exactly why Hutton was damaged enough to attempt suicide (only to learn that his mother was primarily distressed about her bathroom rug being destroyed by his blood). This type of intense subject matter shouldn’t be easy to watch, yet Sargent’s masterful screenplay carefully balances heavier scenes with uplifting ones — such as Hutton beginning to date McGovern (wonderfully natural in her debut):

… and Hutton receiving loving, realistic support from his new therapist (convincingly played by Hirsch).

Sutherland also does impressive (if less front-and-center) work; as DVD Savant points out in his review, he makes “you forget all of his previous performances” in his portrayal as “a caring and sensitive father whose tolerant nature may not have been the best thing for his relationship with his wife”.

Savant’s review nicely summarizes many of the film’s overall strengths, so I’ll cite him some more. He notes that the film “has some good lessons to teach about divorces and messed-up families, which in real life come less from cruel betrayals or sinful transgressions, but simply grow from our basic natures.” He further writes that “psychological movies have tried to show the miracle of the psych cure, usually with dismal or laughable results” (see my recent review of The Three Faces of Eve for a case study of this cinematic tendency), “but through a lot of give and take, we do see something of a credible turning point occur for Timothy Hutton’s character”, who “recognizes truths he hadn’t before, and sees that though he’s not cured, things are not hopeless.” While the film ends on a somewhat downbeat note, the final scene serves as a valuable reminder that challenging family dynamics are not “a rationalization for chucking all relationships as worthlessly fragile”.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Timothy Hutton as Conrad
  • Donald Sutherland as Calvin
  • Mary Tyler Moore as Beth
  • Judd Hirsch as Berger
  • Elizabeth McGovern as Jeannine
  • John Bailey’s cinematography
  • Alvin Sargent’s screenplay

Must See?
Yes, as a powerful, finely directed family drama.

Categories

  • Good Show
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

Color Me Blood Red (1965)

Color Me Blood Red (1965)

“What kind of a vampire are you, painting with blood? Are you a painter or a butcher?”

Synopsis:
A mediocre but well-known painter (Don Joseph) finds himself gorily inspired by the use of human blood in his works.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Artists
  • Herschell Gordon Lewis Films
  • Horror Films
  • Serial Killers

Review:
This third entry in Herschell Gordon Lewis’s “blood trilogy” — preceded by Blood Feast (1963) and 2000 Maniacs (1964) — is a vastly inferior homage to Roger Corman’s B-grade classic A Bucket of Blood (1959), and offers nothing of interest to those not smitten with the uniquely tasteless genre of “splatter films”. Given that the directorial and acting skills here are superior (it’s all relative) to those shown in Blood Feast, its camp potential is much lower — though you may chuckle a bit at how truly terrible Joseph’s paintings are:

(For a humorous blow-by-blow analysis by a critic who refers to this as Lewis’s “worst film”, click here.) Be forewarned that whenever a tedious Beatnik duo (Patricia Lee and Jim Jaekel) show up on screen, presumably for comic relief, you’ll need to have your fast-forward button easily on hand.

Note: Of mild interest is the incorporation of Aqua Cycles into several sequences; this sporting activity is something you just don’t see anymore, in real life or the movies, probably for good reason.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A glimpse at (now antique) Aqua Cycles

Must See?
No; definitely feel free to skip this one unless you’re a fan of Lewis’s work. Listed as a Cult Movie and Trash (a.k.a. non-essential viewing) in the back of Peary’s book.

Links: