On the Nickel (1980)

On the Nickel (1980)

Comments 1 comment

“Goddamnit, I don’t want this world no more!”

Synopsis:
A former alcoholic (Donald Moffat) goes searching for his friend (Ralph Waite) in L.A.’s skid row.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Alcoholism and Drug Addiction

Review:
Movies about homeless, alcoholic, and/or mentally ill individuals are finicky beasts to get right — and this low-budget indie film (written and directed by Ralph Waite of “The Waltons” fame) is no exception to this tendency. Well-meaning and sincere, but ultimately pedantic and overly sentimentalized, it follows the rather aimless story of a recovering alcoholic (Donald Moffat, giving a fine central performance) who suddenly decides to see what happened to his former drinking buddy (Waite himself), and thus re-encounters the world he left behind. Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be much urgency behind Moffat’s quest, which comes across as merely an excuse for a would-be cinema verite look at the lives of “winos” in L.A.’s infamous Skid Row. We’re briefly shown a romantic encounter between Waite and his long-time girlfriend, played by Penelope Allen (who knew that down-and-out alcoholics could maintain loving partnerships!?), but we never get to know anything at all about these two as individuals; same goes for Moffat and the friend (Hal Williams) who accompanies him on his Orpheus-like quest.

Meanwhile, the universe inhabited by the film’s characters is a tad too black-and-white to ring true: the policemen who chase them off their downtown camping ground are presented as merely unfeeling brutes, and the doctor who examines Waites in the hospital treats him literally like a clinical specimen (indeed, his lecture to the medical students standing around him is almost laughable). Finally, whatever emergent compassion we’ve grown to feel for the characters disappears by the film’s final incongruous half hour, when events inexplicably turn comedic, with Moffat and his friends ransacking a crematory for the ashes of a friend who has just died; it’s actually quite tasteless. Watch Leaving Las Vegas (1995) instead if you’re in the mood for witnessing the devastation and downward spiral of chronic alcoholism.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Donald Moffat as Sam
  • Good use of downtown L.A. locales
  • Tom Waits’ haunting theme song

Must See?
No, though Moffat’s performance makes it worth a look if you stumble upon it. Listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Oliver Twist (1948)

Oliver Twist (1948)

Comments 1 comment

“Please sir — I want some more.”

Synopsis:
Orphaned Oliver Twist (John Howard Davies) joins a gang of pickpockets led by miserly Fagin (Alec Guinness) and evil Bill Sykes (Robert Newton).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Alec Guinness Films
  • David Lean Films
  • Literature Adaptation
  • Orphans
  • Robert Newton Films
  • Thieves and Criminals

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, David Lean’s adaptation of this classic serialized Dickens novel is “a dark, highly atmospheric, punishing film”, one which will doubtless make you “really get upset [by] watching likable eight-year-old Oliver… be pushed around the cruel world”. Indeed, as much as I genuinely admire this brilliantly crafted film, I find it challenging to sit through, especially during the traumatic second half, when Oliver is torn away from his would-be kindly benefactor (Henry Stephenson), and Bill Sykes (a “terrifying” Robert Newton) shows his true colors by beating “to death his sympathetic companion, Nancy”. Indeed, this is a no-holds-barred Dickensian universe — starting from the astonishingly dramatic opening sequence, in which Oliver’s soon-to-die mother (Josephine Stuart) staggers across the moors in labor, hoping to make it to the Parrish Workhouse in time to give birth to her son. Meanwhile, DP Guy Green’s high-contrast b&w cinematography is never anything short of stunning, and the supporting cast (including Francis L. Sullivan as Mr. Bumble) is consistently strong.

The film is perhaps “best remembered”, however, for its infamous portrayal of “the Jew”, Fagin, by a youthful Alec Guinness in heavy prosthetics. Jewish groups at the time objected strongly enough that its U.S. release was delayed for several years, and “bits with the character were deleted” (they’ve since been restored); meanwhile, modern viewers continue to be dismayed by the overt anti-Semitism evident in Guinness’s characterization. While I certainly can’t argue with these sentiments, I find myself in agreement with Peary’s concise, somewhat neutral assessment of Guinness’s performance as “mannered, effeminate, [and] creepily effective”. Ultimately, for better or for worse, Lean and Guinness remain faithful to Dickens’ original conception of Fagin — and to Cruikshank’s illustrations in the original serialised novel. Indeed, it’s this close attention to detail that marks both Oliver Twist and Great Expectations (the latter generally considered to be the superior of the two films) as enduring cinematic adaptations.

P.S. Watch for teenage Anthony Newley in his first significant role as the Artful Dodger.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • John Howard Davies as Oliver
  • Alec Guinness as Fagin
  • Robert Newton as Bill Sykes
  • A fine ensemble cast of supporting players
  • John Bryan’s set designs
  • The powerful opening sequence
  • Guy Green’s dramatic cinematography
  • David Lean’s masterful direction
  • Jack Harris’s smart editing

Must See?
Yes, as another literary masterpiece by David Lean.

Categories

Links:

She (1965)

She (1965)

Comments 2 comments

“I am Ayesha, who some call She — who waits.”

Synopsis:
An archaeologist (Peter Cushing), his valet (Bernard Cribbins), and his handsome young friend (John Richardson) stumble upon the ancient city of Kuma, where Richardson is recognized by an ancient ruler named Ayesha (Ursula Andress) as her long-lost love from a previous lifetime.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Christopher Lee Films
  • Deserts
  • Fantasy
  • Love Triangle
  • Past Lives
  • Peter Cushing Films
  • Search
  • Ursula Andress Films

Review:
Hammer Studios’ remake of the oft-filmed adventure novel by H. Rider Haggard appeared 30 years after the last cinematic version, produced in 1935 by Merian C. Cooper. The novel’s original setting in the deserts of Africa was restored, and the location shooting is impressive — though it unfortunately never strikes one as particularly other-worldly. Even less effective is the laughably static painting used to represent the lost city itself:

The real box-office draw here is, naturally, Ursula Andress in the title role, bedecked in either a slinky white sheath or an elaborate gold feather headdress, repeatedly intoning the line quoted above. While she’s no great actress, she’s weirdly believable as an uber-goddess determined to secure Richardson for herself after literally eons of waiting around and ruling her mini-universe.

But the whole affair is ultimately just typically low-budget Hammer fare, only must-see for true fans of this particular sub-genre.

Note: My favorite moment in the film:

Cushing looks at a series of mummified skeletons lining the walls of a cave, and asks Christopher Lee (Ayesha’s right-hand man, Billali), “Who are they?”

Lee’s deadpan response: “High priests like myself, to Ayesha – but with one difference: they are dead.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Some effective location shooting

Must See?
No; definitely feel free to skip this one.

Links:

She (1935)

She (1935)

Comments 3 comments

“Dreams are only memories in the endless flow of time.”

Synopsis:
A young man (Randolph Scott) and a family friend (Nigel Bruce) travel to the Arctic to search for a hidden city said to possess the fire of immortality. Once they arrive, the city’s ruler, “She” (Helen Gahagan), recognizes Scott as her long-lost lover come to life, and is determined to steal him away from his new romantic interest (Helen Mack).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Antarctica and the Arctic
  • Fantasy
  • Past Lives
  • Randolph Scott Films
  • Search
  • Strong Females

Review:
Based on an oft-filmed novel by H. Rider Haggard (with most adaptions made during the silent film era, and most also called simply She), this “lost world” adventure flick was producer Merian C. Cooper’s follow-up to King Kong (1933). The transposition of Haggard’s original South African setting to the Arctic north allowed for the creation of some impressively baroque Art Deco sets (and ultimately isn’t too egregious of a shift, given that this was an equally “remote” and mysterious location for audiences at the time). Yet the film as a whole suffers from a serious lack of chemistry between its nominal “romantic leads”. Unlike in the 1965 Hammer Studios remake (starring Ursula Andress and John Richardson), we never once believe in the viability of Scott and Gahagan’s presumed centuries-old romantic connection. In the Andress/Richardson remake, Richardson “meets” Andress before setting out on his voyage of discovery, and feels a strong sensual attraction to her from the get-go; here, Scott merely seems befuddled and irritated in Gahagan’s presence, and anxious to get back to his “real world” love interest, Helen Mack. Not helping matters is Scott’s wooden acting, especially noticeable in contrast with Gahagan’s more theatrical approach to her role. While the visuals are worth a look (the cinematography and sets are quite stunning at times), this one is ultimately skippable.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • J. Roy Hunt’s cinematography
  • Enjoyably baroque sets

  • Outrageous costumes (note the strong parallel here between Gahagan’s outfit and that of the queen in Disney’s animated Snow White, released just two years later)

Must See?
No; this one isn’t must-see unless you’re curious.

Links:

Holiday Inn (1942)

Holiday Inn (1942)

Comments 1 comment

“You could melt her heart right down to butter, if you’d only turn on the heat!”

Synopsis:
A song-and-dance team (Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire) in love with the same woman (Virginia Dale) part ways when Crosby decides he wants to open a rural inn featuring performances only on holidays. Tensions arise when his new dancing protegee and love interest (Marjorie Reynolds) strikes the fancy of Astaire, who tries to steal her for his own performing — and romantic — purposes.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bing Crosby Films
  • Dancers
  • Fred Astaire Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Musicals
  • Winning Him/Her Back

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this holiday TV favorite, while “not a great musical”, is nonetheless “enjoyable and extremely popular”, and argues that while the “plot’s a bit foolish… Berlin’s score is lively and patriotic and Crosby’s crooning and Astaire’s dancing are super”. This just about wraps the film up in a nutshell: it’s worthy viewing for Astaire’s knock-out dance routines (his infamous shuffle with firecrackers is particularly stunning, as is his equally infamous “drunk dance”), and most film fanatics will probably be curious to see a movie with such enduring popularity. Yet it’s actually somewhat disturbing to watch Astaire being such a heel; while the entire plot hinges on this inevitability — and we highly suspect the “right man” will win the girl in the end — the ride until then is mildly discomfiting. Equally cringe-worthy is a minstrel number performed on — of all days — Abraham Lincoln’s birthday, in praise of good ol’ Abe, savior of the slaves; and the stereotypical mammy role played by Louise Beavers simply heightens how dated the film really is in some ways. But that Astaire sure can dance (Reynolds is quite good, too), and that Crosby sure can croon, and Berlin wrote a passel of fun tunes to celebrate the major American holidays — so enjoy these elements, and feel free to tune out the rest.

Note: The hotel chain Holiday Inn was indeed named after this movie; see TCM’s article for more trivia.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Many enjoyable dance sequences with Astaire

  • A fine Irving Berlin score (including, naturally, the Oscar-winning “White Christmas”)

Must See?
Yes, simply for its historical popularity — and to see the incomparable Fred Astaire at work.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Experience Preferred … But Not Essential (1982)

Experience Preferred … But Not Essential (1982)

Comments 1 comment

“I’m the only one I know here who doesn’t have a past.”

Synopsis:
A shy college student (Elizabeth Edmonds) goes to work as a waitress at a seaside resort for the summer, and meets an eclectic group of colleagues — including a cook (Ron Bain) who falls for her immediately.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Coming of Age
  • Romantic Comedy

Review:
A minor cult favorite after airing on American television, this low key coming-of-age tale — set in 1962 — features an appealing lead (why didn’t Edmonds’ career go farther?), fine use of Welsh seaside locales, and a refreshingly lackadaisical tempo. There’s not much new here under the sun, and not a whole lot ever really happens — but the protagonist and her “older” beau are characters we can’t help rooting for, and director Peter Duffell gets the overall ambience just right. This is exactly how one might remember one’s first summer away from home at a new job, complete with a roster of charmingly eccentric and troubled co-workers (though one character’s obsessive love for her abusive boyfriend is treated a tad too lightly for comfort). The closing scene is a sweetly satisfying resolution to the nicely handled opening sequence. A gentle treat if you’re in the right mood, but not must-see viewing for everyone.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Elizabeth Edmonds as Annie
  • Ron Bain as Mike
  • A gently comedic screenplay
  • Nice use of authentic Welsh locations
  • A sweet score by Rachel Portman

Must See?
No, but it’s certainly worth a look.

Links:

Mask of Fu Manchu, The (1932)

Mask of Fu Manchu, The (1932)

Comments 1 comment

“We’re fighting a thing we can’t understand, with everything against us.”

Synopsis:
An archaeologist (Lewis Stone) travels to Mongolia with the daughter (Karen Morley) of a kidnapped colleague (Lawrence Grant), hoping to rescue the contents of Genghis Khan’s tomb from the clutches of evil Fu Manchu (Boris Karloff) and his grown daughter (Myrna Loy).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Boris Karloff Films
  • China
  • Karen Morley Films
  • Kidnapping
  • Lewis Stone Films
  • Myrna Loy Films
  • Scientists
  • World Domination

Review:
British author Sax Rohmer introduced the fictional master-criminal Dr. Fu Manchu in a series of novels published near the beginning of the 20th century, and he quickly became the embodiment of “Yellow Peril”, tapping into Westerners’ fears about Asian “Others”. This early cinematic adaptation, while not the first, remains perhaps the best known, given that cult horror star Boris Karloff was cast in the title role (affording him one of his first starring roles). While there’s much to enjoy and admire about the film — including creative direction, eye-popping set designs, glittering costumes, and Karloff’s bizarre but compelling performance — it’s unfortunately, as DVD Savant labels it, “almost pornographically racist”.

A 1992 video release removed some of the most offensive dialogue (“Would you all have maidens like this for your wives? Then conquer and breed! Kill the white man and take his women!”), but these scenes have all been restored in the recent DVD release, so modern viewers can see for themselves how riddled with vitriol it truly is: “Men of Asia! The skies are red with the thunderbolts of Genghis Khan! They rain down on the white race… and burn them!” Just as disturbing as these racist rants are the seemingly endless scenes of torture inflicted by Manchu on his various victims, which literally dominate the final 20 minutes or so of the film; while his devices are indeed ingenious, they’re fetishized to the point that your tolerance will likely be sorely tested (mine was).

Watch for Myrna Loy in her last performance as an “exotic temptress”, playing Manchu’s sadistically predatory daughter (she herself is reported to have said, “Say, this is obscene!” when reading the script).

Note: Fu Manchu wouldn’t appear again on-screen until over 30 years later, in the Hammer Studios production The Face of Fu Manchu (starring Christopher Lee in the title role). Read Wikipedia’s article on this infamous character if you’re curious to read about other cinematic adaptations.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Boris Karloff as Fu Manchu
  • Tony Gaudio’s cinematography

  • Creative direction
  • Cedric Gibbons’ baroque sets
  • Adrian’s “exotic” costume designs

Must See?
No, though I do believe it’s worth a look simply for Karloff’s performance, and the impressive visuals. And, as DVD Savant notes, it’s recommended “to anyone living in denial about the reality of racism” in the early 20th century. Listed as a film with Historical Importance (which I won’t deny) and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Me and the Colonel (1958)

Me and the Colonel (1958)

Comments 1 comment

“Strangely enough, we’re in the same business — the business of escaping.”

Synopsis:
During WWII, a resourceful Jewish refugee (Danny Kaye) travels with an anti-semitic Polish officer (Curt Jurgens), the officer’s right-hand man (Akim Tamiroff), and the officer’s girlfriend (Nicole Maurey), who begins to fall in love with Kaye.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Akim Tamiroff Films
  • Comedy
  • Curt Jurgens Films
  • Danny Kaye Films
  • Escape
  • Jews
  • Love Triangle
  • Play Adaptation
  • Road Trip
  • World War II

Review:
Based on a play by Franz Werfel, Me and the Colonel allowed Danny Kaye an opportunity to break (almost) completely from his characteristic cinematic persona as a hapless nebbish, and show off his dramatic chops. The story — much like Roberto Benigni’s award-winning Life is Beautiful (1997) — is meant to provide a gently comical slant on a devastating period in world history, tackling the sensitive topic of anti-semitism through humor and feel-good humanism. In this case, Kaye’s Jacobowsky (whose very name is repeated a bit too forcefully throughout the film, as though it offers inherent giggle-value) attempts to befriend (or at least not antagonize) the bigoted, bombastic Colonel Prokoszny (Curd Jurgens); the crux of the screenplay shows Jacobowsky repeatedly swallowing his pride in the name of pragmatism, as he utilizes his estimable survival skills to move his ad hoc group closer towards the border. It’s all a bit insufferably twee, and Jurgens’ performance is irritatingly abrasive, offering little to no nuance in this critically important role.

However, Kaye — who won a Golden Globe award as best actor — does a fine job, and surely must have been thrilled at this chance to tackle such an important cinematic topic. And Nicole Maurey is charming and believable in a challenging role as Jurgens’ fiancee, who finds herself drawn towards Kaye — but the central love triangle conflict that plays itself out during the middle of the film (culminating in a comedic duel) fails to leave any impact. While it’s difficult to understand why Maurey fell for the two-timing Jurgens in the first place, it’s eminently clear that her “attraction” to Kaye is simply admiration for his resourcefulness and gentle charm, and never poses a real threat to Jurgens. By the film’s inevitable climactic denouement at the border, we’re marginally invested in these characters’ survival, but can’t help wishing that the titular relationship offered more heft and realism.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Danny Kaye as Jacobowsky
  • Nicole Maurey as Suzanne

Must See?
No; this one isn’t must-see.

Links:

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

Comments 1 comment

“Yeah, they’re dead. They’re all messed up.”

Synopsis:
A woman (Judith O’Dea) whose brother (Russell Streiner) has just been killed by zombies seeks refuge in an abandoned house with other refugees — including a determined young man (Duane Jones), a young couple (Keith Wayne and Judith Ridley), and a middle-aged man (Karl Hardman) with a wife (Marilyn Eastman) and an infected daughter (Kyra Schon).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • George Romero Films
  • Horror
  • Survival
  • Trapped
  • Zombies

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of George Romero’s cult horror classic by asserting that it “no longer scares the daylight out of viewers because the films it spawned have been much more graphic”, but he notes that “you’ll still be impressed by Romero’s style, wit, and themes”. However, fledgling film fanatics (and those like myself, who don’t tend to seek out horror flicks on a regular basis) will surely find themselves genuinely frightened, at least during the third section of the film, when the situation builds to a feverish pitch, and it becomes increasingly clear that most members of our ensemble cast are not long for this (living) world. Peary calls out “a couple of jump-out-of-your-seat moments featuring ghouls unexpectedly shooting their hands through windows and trying to grab someone”, and these are indeed twitch-inducing — but I find myself even more deeply disturbed by the scenes taking place down in the basement (an inherently scary location).

Peary notes that this “pessimistic and unsentimental” film taps into our most “basic fears: monsters that won’t go away, darkness, claustrophobia”, with “even blood relations [turning] on their loved ones when infected by a ghoul’s bite”. He offers numerous other titles for comparison, noting that NOTLD has “much in common with Invisible Invaders, Carnival of Souls, and, the most obvious influences, Psycho and The Birds;” he points out that in both NOTLD and The Birds, for instance, “people congregate in [a] house for one reason only: fear”. He notes parallels between the literal attacks perpetrated from the outside of the house by the “ghouls”, and the internal verbal sparring between Jones (interestingly, the “script never mentions that [he] is black”) and boorish Hardman — and points out the ironic fact that “Hardman’s plan for survival… turns out to be superior to the implemented plan of Jones”, something apparently not noted by any other critics at the time.

Be forewarned: for first-time viewers, the powerful surprise ending is sure to make you go, “Now wait a minute!!!” It comes as a visceral shock, and was a bold move by screenwriter John A. Russo.

Note:Why does Peary call the zombies “ghouls” throughout his review? I’m really not sure.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Effective high-contrast cinematography
  • Dramatic editing and camera angles
  • Some truly frightening images
  • A brutally startling ending, with creative closing credits

Must See?
Yes, as an undisputed horror classic. Discussed at length in Peary’s Cult Movies.

Categories

  • Cult Movie
  • Genuine Classic

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

Links:

Au Hasard, Balthazar (1966)

Au Hasard, Balthazar (1966)

Comments 1 comment

“Ridicule is the one thing we must avoid at all costs.”

Synopsis:
A donkey named Balthazar is mistreated at the hands of multiple owners; meanwhile, a meek village girl (Anne Wiazemsky) suffers in her dysfunctional relationship with a local thug (Francois Lafarge).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Downward Spiral
  • French Films
  • Robert Bresson Films
  • Village Life

Review:
Robert Bresson’s tragic tale of a donkey abused by his many masters — and the young woman (Marie) who loves him for a time, only to devolve into her own miserable existence as a low-level moll — has been labeled his “greatest achievement… a deeply felt fable about the pitfalls of human cruelty”, and “the supreme masterpiece by one of the greatest of 20th-century filmmakers” (Village Voice). It’s viewed by some as a Christian allegory, with Balthazar a sort of humble Christ symbol, and Marie (“Mary”) his “mother”; others prefer to read it on a more literal level, as a tale simply about “the dignity of being itself”.

While I certainly can’t refute the deeply reverent relationship many viewers have with this film, I must admit that I found myself surprisingly unmoved by it. Bresson’s distinctive cinematic style — strategically designed to emulate a marriage of music and painting, with emotionless, non-acting “models” rather than actors inhabiting roles — is ultimately not for all tastes. While I admire his intentions, his approach doesn’t work for me on a basic empathetic level. I’m so distracted watching his “models” move self-consciously across the screen that I’m overly aware of their role as dramatic placeholders, to the detriment of my ability to relate to the film on any personal level. This is all the more of a shame given that Bresson’s visuals are consistently stunning; frame after frame is lovingly composed, and gorgeously shot by his D.P. (Ghislain Cloquet).

Call me a Bressonian grinch, but I’m only recommending this one as must-see for its undeniable cinematic stamp of approval by most critics. You’ll have to judge its ultimate merit for yourself. Instead, I’ll continue to rally for Diary of a Country Priest (1951) as the film for which Bresson’s unique approach is best suited.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Powerful imagery and cinematography


Must See?
Yes. While it’s not a personal favorite, this film is too historically important and critically lauded to miss. Listed as a film with Historical Importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

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

Links: