FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A neglected teen (Natja Brunckhorst) in 1970s Berlin is drawn by her new boyfriend (Thomas Haustein) into a subculture of heroin use and prostitution.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Alcoholism and Drug Addiction
• David Bowie Films
• Downward Spiral
• German Films
• Teenagers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “controversial, grueling film” — “based on actual transcripts” — is “not as exploitative as you might have heard, but just as depressing”. He notes that it is “extremely graphic, unrelenting in its grimness, [and] believable” — and while it’s “obviously not for all tastes”, it “stays in memory”. Despite presenting drug culture as a no-man’s-land of desperation and debasement, the film became (and remains) a cult hit — due in part to an extended cameo concert appearance by David Bowie. What’s most impressive about the film (which is indeed a grueling, over-long viewing experience) is how authentically it portrays the gradual, almost inevitable allure of drugs to young teens seeking social approval and a sense of community. Christiane is a spunky girl, and resists heroin numerous times until she finally decides to “just try it” — first snorting, then injecting, always insisting she won’t let herself lose control, even as she gradually compromises her morals to earn money for drugs. She and her boyfriend — in perhaps the film’s most infamous scene — go through a harrowing withdrawal (rivaling that in Trainspotting), but they immediately relapse, and witness several of their street friends dying. Sadly, the real “Christiane F.” — who outed herself at an early age to help promote the film — remained an addict her entire life, and noted in a 2013 interview that while she was near death due to poor health, she had no plans to change her lifestyle.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Natja Brunckhorst as Christiane
  
• An appropriately seedy view of drug addiction
  
• Jurgen Knieper’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• NY Times Review
• Cinematic Threads Capsule Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
Young Sigmund Freud (Montgomery Clift) — mentored by father-figure Dr. Joseph Breuer (Larry Parks) — develops his controversial psychoanalytical theory while caring for a variety of mentally ill patients, including a hysterical woman unable to walk or drink water (Susannah York).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Biopics
• Flashback Films
• John Huston Films
• Montgomery Clift Films
• Psychotherapy
• Susannah York Films

Review:
Considered by many to be a flawed if interesting failure, John Huston’s condensed tale of Freud’s evolution as a theorist and practitioner in the nascent field of psychoanalysis tells a surprisingly taut mystery story, one grounded in the ever-elusive search for traumatic origins. Through an exploration of Freud’s interactions with several strategically constructed hysterical patients — interwoven with potent flashbacks from Freud’s own dreams and past — we understand how he came to develop, one insight at a time, his highly controversial theories of repression and neurosis. Because so much has been (and continues to be) learned about psychology and the unconscious, it’s easy to dismiss Freud’s valuable contributions to the early field of psychotherapy; yet Huston’s biopic is less an adulation of Freud (who comes across as appropriately neurotic) than an exploration of how wide-reaching theories evolve and face criticism within a certain era and social milieu.

Grounding the film are strong central performances by Clift and Susannah York, as well as wonderfully atmospheric cinematography (by Douglas Slocombe) and creative direction. The flashback scenes, while occasionally contrived, appropriately convey the panic and confusion often felt in one’s dreams and in the slippery memories of childhood. The literate script, though talky, is surprisingly absorbing; according to Jonathan Rosenbaum’s review in The Chicago Reader, the film was actually “scripted mainly by Jean-Paul Sartre”, who “withdrew his name from the project after his second draft — which would have made a much longer film — was radically condensed”. Keeping in mind that biopics can never fully or adequately cover the scope of a famous individual’s life, Freud nonetheless remains a worthy entry in our understanding of this controversial figure.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Montgomery Clift as Freud
  
• Susannah York as Cecily
  
• Highly effective b&w cinematography by Douglas Slocombe
  
  
• Masterful direction
  
  
• A smart script:
  

  “Hysteria is another name for lying; pity there’s no therapy for that.”
  “Hail Sigmund Freud — the conquering hero of neurosis!”
  “I know why you’re attracted to other people’s madness: because it makes you forget your own!”
  “Angels and saints slay dragons; I’m neither.”

Must See?
Yes, as an unusual and compelling psychological thriller by a master filmmaker.

Categories

• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• Time Out Capsule Review
• Chicago Reader Review

Synopsis:
A doctor (Tom Conway) and a hot-headed overseer (Raymond Burr) lust after the beautiful wife (Barbara Payton) of a plantation owner (Paul Cavanaugh), while a native servant (Carol Varga) pines for Burr. When Burr arranges to have Cavanaugh killed by a poisonous snake, a local witch (Gisela Werisbek) places a curse on him, complicating his goal of running away with Payton.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Jungles
• Lon Chaney, Jr. Films
• Love Triangle
• Plantations
• Raymond Burr Films
• Witches and Wizards
• Woody Strode Films

Review:
The primary reason to check out this Z-grade jungle plantation love quadrangle is Raymond Burr — who, it turns out, had quite a lengthy career before landing his iconic role as TV’s Perry Mason in 1957. Burr is appropriately virile, menacing, and tortured as the beefy hunk Payton longs to run away with. (The poor thing really had no choice in the matter: “A woman buried in a place like this?! You must understand if she gets a bit mixed up.”) The cinematography is effective, and there is some camp value to be found in the pedantically solemn dialogue:

“White people shouldn’t live too long in the jungle. It brings out their bad side — their jealousies, impatience.”
“Every couple isn’t a pair.”
“I, too, am not clever… But I know where to find wisdom.”

But as DVD Savant notes in his review, “anyone who read the script and signed on had to be in denial, or totally unaware that writer-director Curt Siodmak’s bizarre jungle story was a Career Choice of No Return”. Watch White Cargo (1942) instead if you’re in the mood for this kind of steamy exploitation flick.

Note: Lon Chaney Jr. and Woody Strode hover around the periphery of this film as a police commissioner and his deputy.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Raymond Burr as Barney Chavez
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  

Must See?
No; feel free to skip this one unless you’re a diehard Burr fan. Listed as a Camp Classic in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
Distraught that her boyfriend (Sergio Fantoni) is leaving her because she won’t give up her job as a nightclub dancer, a woman (Susanne Loret) crashes her car and is facially disfigured. She is discovered by a scientist (Albert Lupo) and his loyal assistant (Franca Parisi), who are determined to utilize an experimental new skin cure on her; but when the treatment proves to be temporary, Lupo — who has fallen hopelessly in love with Loret — resorts to monstrous means to keep her looking beautiful.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Disfigured Faces
• Horror Films
• Mad Doctors and Scientists
• Obsessive Love

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “sleazy, dubbed horror film” is an “awful picture” but “fun to watch”, and points out how “perversely exciting” it was for him as a young boy to see “scarred Loret displaying her stacked body in skimpy underwear”. Naturally, my own take on this mash-up of Eyes Without a Face (1960) and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde lacks Peary’s fond memories of it as “one of the first horror films to really exploit sex”. While it is indeed sleazy, terribly dubbed, poorly acted, and somewhat schizophrenic in its many (cliched) narrative strands, I don’t agree with Peary that it’s AWFUL; it’s often creatively shot (see stills below) and reasonably suspenseful for a low-budget thriller, with plenty of campy dialogue. Most humorous of all is how gorgeous Loret — evoking Veronica Lake with her peekaboo blonde wave of hair — survives a near-fatal car crash with facial scarring conveniently on just one side of her face, and no other obvious impairments; her suicidal distress feels somewhat out of proportion.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Some creative direction
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look simply for its cult/camp appeal. Available as a public domain video here.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review

Synopsis:
A rubber plantation overseer (Walter Pidgeon) in a humid African village — just one among a handful of white men, including an alcoholic doctor (Frank Morgan) and a kind missionary (Henry O’Neill) — laments the arrival of an idealistic new co-worker (Richard Carlson) who quickly falls in love with a local “half-breed” seductress named Tondelayo (Hedy Lamarr).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Africa
• Femmes Fatales
• Flashback Films
• Frank Morgan Films
• Hedy Lamarr Films
• Plantations
• Play Adaptation
• Walter Pidgeon Films

Review:
There is so much to be offended by in this openly misogynist, racist, colonialist jungle flick — based on a hit 1923 play, which was in turn based on a novel entitled Hell’s Playground (!) — that, as many viewers have pointed out, its true value lies in its perceived camp appeal. Indeed, TCM refers to it as a “popular mixture of exotica, pulp thrills and over-the-top misogyny”, as well as “a deliciously ripe relic”. With black-faced, shiny-skinned Hedy Lamarr:

… slinking around spouting dialogue like the following to her “prey” (Carlson):

“I’m married to you for five months — and you not beat me once! Awila, please beat me… Then maybe you feel much better. Soon we make up — much love, many bangles.”

… you will simply be slack-jawed throughout. Her pidgin-like speech is peppered with the words “much” and “many” (“Him much nice man.”; “Awila give me much silk and many bangles.”), with the particularly favored phrase “much love, many bangles” repeated at least once. While Tondelayo is referred to at one point as possessing an “innate morality”, there’s really none of that on display here, as she simply evinces a “childlike” simplicity combined with seductive, sociopathic maneuvering. At least Harry Stradling’s cinematography is gorgeous, so that’s a bonus.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Harry Stradling’s dramatic cinematography
  
• Some clever dialogue:
  

  “The natives have been looking at me in a queer sort of way.”
  “Maybe they’re wondering how you can walk without a spine.”

Must See?
No — though of course, if this seems like your cup of tea, you should give it a try!

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
An aging burlesque star (Helen Morgan) with a manipulative boyfriend (Fuller Mellish, Jr.) tries to prevent her daughter (Joan Peers) — who has fallen in love with a kind sailor (Henry Wadsworth) — from following in her footsteps.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Has-Beens
• Rouben Mamoulian Films
• Showgirls
• Single Mothers

Review:
Rouben Mamoulian’s directorial debut remains one of the most creatively conceived early talkies; as noted in Stuart Galbraith IV’s review for DVD Talk, “Compared with the stage-bound, bolt-the-camera-to-the-floor look of nearly all the earliest sound films, Applause is downright astounding.” A glimpse at the stills below provides evidence of Mamoulian’s (and cinematographer George J. Folsey’s) visual brilliance and effective use of on-location shooting. The film is also notable for providing torch singer Helen Morgan with one of a handful of leading cinematic roles as a Stella Dallas-like mother sacrificing all for her daughter. Unfortunately, the storyline itself is pure melodrama through-and-through, with few surprises and many cliches, making this one merely recommended rather than must-see.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Creative direction and cinematography
  
  
  
  
• Fine on-location shooting
  

Must See?
No, though it’s certainly worth a look. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Talk Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A well-intentioned doctor (Cary Grant) accompanied by a stoic yet loyal assistant (Finlay Currie) marries a suicidal pregnant woman (Jeanne Crain) out of both concern and love, while being pestered by a jealous colleague (Hume Cronyn) desperate to reveal questionable elements of Grant and Currie’s mysterious pasts.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cary Grant Films
• Do-Gooders
• Doctors and Nurses
• Hume Cronyn Films
• Jeanne Crain Films
• Joseph L. Mankiewicz Films
• Pregnancy
• Romantic Comedy

Review:
This most unusual “romantic comedy” — written and directed by Joseph Mankiewicz, and based on a play by German playwright Curt Goetz — is usually referred to as a thinly veiled commentary on anti-Communist hysteria and witch hunts in 1950s America. While it doesn’t really succeed as such, it does remain a bold, often cleverly scripted antidote to most of the overly sanitized films being produced in Hollywood at the time. Cary Grant’s Dr. Praetorius represents an idealistic vision of what humanity could be like if only our actions were led by compassion and logic rather than suspicion and priggish morality.

His “rescue” of an unwed, pregnant, suicidal woman is initially posited as a deceptive maneuver to save her life, but we soon realize he’s simply allowing powerful emotions to drive his sense of justice and righteous living (perhaps much like Jesus?). Dr. Praetorius is so superior to slimy leches like jealous Professor Elwell (Cronyn) that it’s clear he’ll win the day; the entire film basically plays out how this triumph occurs.

Unfortunately, Grant wasn’t the best choice for this most unusual of romantic male leads; it’s much easier to imagine a more nuanced actor — like Spencer Tracy — investing the character with inspired depth. Crain is fine as Grant’s loyal wife, but never really transcends what’s required of her in the role. The supporting roles are more successful: Cronyn is spot-on as weaselly Elwell:

… Currie gives a memorable performance as the mysterious lumbering “Shunderson”:

… and Margaret Hamilton is nicely typecast as a suspicious shrew brought in during the first scene to bolster Cronyn’s growing case against Grant and Currie.

Ultimately, this odd title remains a mixed bag: intriguing and different enough to be worth checking out, but not entirely successful.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• An often wittily acerbic script
  
• Milton Krasner’s cinematography
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look if you’re curious.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• Cinematic Threads Capsule Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A Swiss family — father (John Mills), mother (Dorothy McGuire), and three sons (Tommy Kirk, James MacArthur, and Kevin Corcoran) — emigrating to New Guinea in the early 19th century is shipwrecked on a remote island, and must fight against marauding pirates while rebuilding their lives and rescuing a captured teenage girl (Janet Munro).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Dorothy McGuire Films
• John Mills Films
• Pirates
• Survival

Review:
This enormously popular adaptation of Johann David Wyss’s 1812 novel is notable as the first widescreen Disney movie filmed with Panavision lenses, and for its fabled location shooting on the island of Tobago. According to TCM’s article, filming conditions were often treacherous, with star John Mills stating in an interview:

“If a scorpion doesn’t bite me during the night I get into the car, and if it doesn’t skid off the edge of a cliff, I reach the mangrove swamp. I walk through; and if I’m not sucked in by a quick-sand, eaten alive by land crabs, or bitten by a snake, I reach the beach. I change on the beach, trying to avoid being devoured by insects, and walk into the sea. If there are no sharks or barracudas about, we get the shot — and then do the whole thing in reverse, providing, of course, we haven’t died of sunstroke in the meantime.”

Dozens of animals from around the world were shipped to the island, under the care of no less than 14 trainers. The movie cost 4.5 million dollars to make, but was (and remained) so popular it is considered one of the most profitable films of all time — and its fame lives on through reconstructions of the family’s elaborate treehouse at theme parks around the world.

Unfortunately, despite its beloved status, the film is far from a true classic. There’s plenty of adventure to be had, but it’s all so patently unbelievable — a chase between people riding zebras and ostriches?? — that only the youngest or most naive of viewers will be taken in. The two primary plot elements driving the narrative are the family’s attempts to stave off a persistent band of pirates (led by Sessue Hayakawa), and the love triangle that instantly emerges when the two older Robinson brothers conveniently stumble upon (and easily rescue) a teenage girl. Who will win her heart? How will the other boy handle his defeat? Munro is a sweet and lovely actress, but her characterization here does no favors to her gender, and is especially disappointing after her sparkling turn in Disney’s Darby O’Gill and the Little People (1959) the year before. [Thankfully, she got back on track with her notable performance as a deep-throated romantic interest the following year in The Day the Earth Caught Fire (1961).]

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Beautiful cinematography on the island of Tobago
  

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for fans who remember it fondly from their childhood.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
A former prom queen (Kathleen Turner) married to a philandering car salesman (Nicolas Cage) collapses at her high school reunion and wakes up to find herself a teenager again, living with her parents (Don Murray and Barbara Harris) and viewing her existence from a new perspective.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Barbara Harris Films
• Coming of Age
• Don Murray Films
• Francis Ford Coppola Films
• John Carradine Films
• Kathleen Turner Films
• Marital Problems
• Nicolas Cage Films
• Time Travel

Review:
Francis Ford Coppola has had a noticeably varied career, directing such indisputable classics as The Godfather (1970), The Godfather II (1974), The Conversation (1974), and Apocalypse Now (1979) in addition to much more experimental and/or independent fare — i.e., Dementia 13 (1963), Finian’s Rainbow (1969), The Rain People (1969), One From the Heart (1982), and The Outsiders (1983). It’s difficult to say which category Peggy Sue Got Married was meant to fit into, but it’s an unfortunate disappointment regardless. Compared (as it inevitably is) with Back to the Future (1985) — the immensely popular sci-fi time-travel tale released the year before — Peggy Sue… comes across as overly nostalgic, lacking in any real narrative tension, and bogged down by the terrible miscasting of Nicolas Cage as Peggy Sue’s insufferable beau and husband:

It’s possible this story could have been salvaged if we cared even a bit more for the flawed man she’s saddled with both as a teen and an adult. Watch either Back to the Future or Romy and Michelle’s High School Reunion (1997) for a much more engaging take on the topics covered here.

Note: Knowing that Penny Marshall was originally set to direct this title (with Debra Winger in the lead) also puts the entire project in a different, slightly more sensical light.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Kathleen Turner as Peggy Sue
  
• Fine period detail
  
  
• Lovely cinematography
  

Must See?
No; only check this one out if you’re curious.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Talk Review
• Moria Review
• Washington Post Review (Paul Attanasio)
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A talented pianist (Ingrid Bergman) giving lessons to a young girl (Ann E. Todd) falls in love with Todd’s father (Leslie Howard), a famous violinist whose long-suffering wife (Edna Best) realizes their marriage is at risk.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cecil Kellaway Films
• Ingrid Bergman Films
• Leslie Howard Films
• Musicians
• Romance
• Star-Crossed Lovers

Review:
Ingrid Bergman was wooed to Hollywood by David Selznick after he witnessed her stunning presence in the 1936 Swedish romance Intermezzo (1936), which was remade in English nearly scene-for-scene several years later. In both films, Bergman’s star-struck young beauty harbors an enormous crush on the famous father (Howard) of her pupil, and ultimately can’t resist her romantic longings. Will things end well for the sinning couple — especially given how sympathetic Howard’s wife (Best) remains? Not likely. The entire affair is presented in an overly tasteful fashion, with characters solemnly making comments such as “Love isn’t sensible” while gazing into each other’s eyes and spending time in beautiful locales. A zither appears at one point, adding a bit of musical distinction and presenting a young girl (Marie Flynn) meant to evoke Howard’s sense of paternal obligation and love. There is ultimately little here to hold onto in terms of narrative; Intermezzo only remains distinctive at this point for its visual classiness (Gregg Toland’s cinematography is impeccable) and for Bergman’s luminous beauty. She’s a delight to watch no matter what material she’s given.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Ingrid Bergman as Anita
  
• Gregg Toland’s cinematography
  
  

Must See?
No; like its predecessor, this one is only must-see for Bergman fans.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article
• Chicago Reader Capsule Review
• Time Out Capsule Review