War Hunt (1962)
“Better get some rest; this war is going on for awhile.”
“Better get some rest; this war is going on for awhile.”
“When things are going along too smoothly, you can’t help but be a bit suspicious.”
Synopsis: |
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review: And the ruse works — at first: … until suddenly Garner suspects something’s up, and the house of cards comes tumbling down. The tension from there lies in how Garner will handle this news, how his capturers will receive what he’s forced to tell him (is he lying?), and whether the other sympathetic players in the narrative (Taylor and Saint) will turn out to be allies or enemies. The final half-hour turns into an escape plot that drags the storyline out unnecessarily, but this flick remains worth a look simply for its thought-provoking premise. Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments: Must See? Links: |
“Senator, we’re talking about the survival of the United States.”
Synopsis: |
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: Freakiest of all is Burt Lancaster’s “sinister portrayal as a rightwing extremist, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who plans a military coup.” The relevance to current politics, albeit through a different lens of concern, couldn’t be starker: when a group of individuals is convinced they’re right and the well-being of their nation is at risk, we know they will stop at nothing. As Peary writes, this is a “smart, well-acted, suspenseful film”, bolstered by Frankenheimer’s innovative use of camera angles: … Ellsworth Fredericks’ stark cinematography, and strong performances by the leads and many of the supporting players — including Martin Balsam as a loyal advisor: … and Edmond O’Brien’s Oscar-nominated role as an alcoholic Southern senator (and one of March’s oldest friends). Unfortunately, Ava Gardner’s role as a boozy mistress to Lancaster feels gratuitous, though she’s essential to the plot. This political thriller would make an excellent double-bill with Fail Safe (1964) if viewers can handle the pressure (though perhaps Dr. Strangelove would be needed as a darkly comedic chaser). Note: Watch for John Houseman in his uncredited screen debut as a key player in O’Brien’s hunt for evidence. Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:
Must See? Categories
Links: |
“In a nuclear war, everyone loses.”
Synopsis: |
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: I was very pleasantly surprised to see how well this “serious counterpart” to Dr. Strangelove (both produced by Columbia Pictures) has stood up. Fonda effectively embodies the measured president we all wish we had; and Hagman is quietly nuanced in one of his earliest film roles. Meanwhile, Lumet’s direction (with support from George Hirschfeld as DP, Walter Bernstein’s script, and Ralph Rosenblum’s editing) is spot-on in terms of creating and maintaining tension across the various inter-connected spheres of the storyline (primarily the president’s office, the War Room, and the pilots’ cockpit). This film is a literal nailbiter in terms of what will come next, with nothing less than the fate of our planet in the balance. You have every right to go into a viewing of it with trepidation — and come out feeling even more. Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:
Must See? Categories
Links: |
“This guy’s looking for his break; that’s all he’s looking for.”
Synopsis: |
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review: While Vallone himself is unaware of it, he harbors semi-incestuous feelings for Lawrence — and handsome Sorel bears the brunt of his anger. (In a “daring” scene for the time, he accuses Sorel of being homosexual by kissing him on the lips.) However, arguably the most impacted by Vallone’s irrational hatred is Pellegrin, who is keeping his kids back at home alive by sending money he’s earned in America, and whose immigration status may be jeopardized by Vallone. Meanwhile, Vallone’s wife (Stapleton) tries to intervene, but mostly simply watches events unfolding with horror. This tragedy of obsession, loyalty, responsibility, and revenge plays out in a way that hints at heartbreak from the get-go — which turns out to be accurate. Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments: Must See? Links: |
“Only love gives me strength.”
Synopsis: |
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: Peary describes “Fellini’s depiction of the sweet life [la dolce vita]” as one in which “nights are given over to decadence, dawn is a quiet time for reflection and, this being Italy, guilt — but not enough guilt to abandon the ugly yet intoxicating life-style.” He points out that the “film is filled with memorable characters (who move in and out of the story) and classic scenes: a statue of Christ hanging from a helicopter”: … “Anita Ekberg’s walk through a fountain”: … “Mastroianni’s argument with Furneaux in their car”: … “the night at the palace”: … “the striptease”: … “Mastroianni slapping and putting feathers on a dazed female partygoer during an orgy”: … “etc.” As the film which sparked the phrase “Papparazzi” — after the name of Marcello’s photographer-friend “Papparazzo” (Walter Santesso), who is hovering around the periphery at all times — this film is appropriately filled with frenzy, movement, and multiple jam-packed frames. Indeed, it’s so easy to get caught up in the relentless energy of the narrative that the film’s more sobering moments — especially those near the end — come as a quietly disturbing shock. Despite its technical brilliance and historical relevance as a turning point in Fellini’s career, this is not a film I can imagine watching very often; it’s far too heartbreaking for that. However, it remains must-see viewing at least once for all film fanatics. Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:
Must See? Categories
(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die) Links: |
“You’re not too smart, are you? I like that in a man.”
Synopsis: |
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: He adds that the “picture has a sharply written, almost campily humorous script; exciting, sexually explicit scenes; [and] strong performances by Hurt, Turner…, Crenna, Ted Danson (as Hurt’s DA friend), and Mickey Rourke (who teaches Hurt how to use explosives).” In Cult Movies 3, Peary expands upon his analysis, noting that the film developed an obsessive fan club, and sharing his thoughts on why the film does more than simply slavishly imitate older noir. He points out that while “Kasdan incorporates a fatalism that is prevalent in noir classics,” he “gives it a twist” since “both adulterers are not doomed the moment they seal their conspiracy with a kiss”; instead, Turner’s Matty “determines her own destiny.” On the other hand, Hurt’s Ned “pretty much fits the profile for noir ‘heroes'” given “he drinks and smokes constantly, is cynical and bored, thinks any woman would fall for him and that he is better than the man she is with now, tries to impress the femme fatale by devising and carrying out an intricate crime… and assumes Fate is too strong for him” — however, he “differs from most in that he’s not particularly sympathetic” and “doesn’t have any good qualities.” Meanwhile, “Kasdan also breaks convention with the third major character, Edmund Walker [Cranna]… In film noir, the husband whom the lovers try to kill typically is an absolute victim, unaware that there is a plot against him and too weak to put up a defense if he did know” — but “not so with Richard Crenna’s creepily played Walker,” who is “anything but an unaggressive patsy” and “has reached his position of wealth and power by stepping on weaklings and exhibiting a callous disrespect for the law.” However, “the biggest difference between Body Heat and the forties’ classics is in the presentation of sex.” Peary writes that “like Bob Rafelson’s Jack Nicholson-Jessica Lange remake of The Postman Always Rings Twice (1981), it brings the forefront the sex in James M. Cain’s novels that was only hinted at in the forties’ film adaptations.” He adds that “whereas forties’ femmes fatales used their sex appeal to lure unsuspecting men into their webs and to keep them willing prisoners, Matty uses the sex act to keep Ned in line.” Peary writes that while he doesn’t think Body Heat is “on the same level as the classics of the genre,” he finds it “a worthy, legitimate, most enjoyable entry to the genre,” and adds that he especially likes “the cinematography — the prowling camera, the interesting light patterns — of [DP] Richard Kline”: … “and how adeptly John Barry’s bluesy score complements the visuals and helps establish the proper sense of nightmare.” He notes that “best of all is Kathleen Turner,” who “proudly displays her long legs and daringly does nudity”; she “is extremely sexy, not just because of the way she looks… and her uninhibited nature in bed, but equally because of her energy and eagerness…, her confidence, her strength, her ambition, her perseverance, and her intelligence” — to the point that “Ned comes to realize, it was kind of an honor to be duped by such a woman.” Note: The use of wind chimes in this film is particularly effective. Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:
Must See? Categories
(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die) Links: |
“Let’s do it my way; we’ll do it your way some other time.”
Synopsis: |
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review: However, everything else about this turkey — including the script (Chastity talks to herself, a lot) and the acting — simply stinks; the final scene is especially cringe-worthy. Be forewarned. Note: As DVD Savant posits, the director “Alessio de Paola” was likely Bono himself. Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments: Must See? Links: |
“I’m suffering from addiction to drugs!”
Synopsis: |
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review: … William S. Burroughs: … HervĂ© Villechaize: … and Shankar himself. The “narrative” (such as it is) is decidedly non-linear — more lyrical than logical, designed to directly put us into the mind of someone lost in a series of visions and hallucinations that are both pleasant: … and more menacing (as in a metaphorical sequence showing the literal gamble one takes when doing drugs). Rooks’ love of cinema is evident throughout, as in expressionist scenes evoking The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920): … as well as the strategic casting of Barrault as a doctor overseeing a patient (Rooks) who occasionally imagines himself in clown make-up much like Barrault’s character in Children of Paradise (1945). Meanwhile, the frequent footage taking place in Asian countries brings to mind the ubiquity of white youth searching for enlightenment in the East during this era. While this is all terribly self-indulgent, it’s unique enough to merit a one-time look by those curious to see what it’s all about. Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments: Must See? Links: |
“Men – I hate men! You – I hate you!”
Synopsis: |
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review: … while Woodlawn mostly writhes around uncontrollably like an animal in heat, lashing out in lust at just about everyone around her. Candy Darling is the most relatively appealing and intriguing — though she’s ultimately not interested in much more than breaking through as an actor and impersonating Kim Novak (which she’s reasonably good at). While I’ll admit to getting weirdly caught up in the shenanigans of the protagonists in Morrissey’s earlier Flesh (1968) and Trash (1970), the appeal of this one eludes me completely. Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments: Must See? Links: |