FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
At the height of the Cold War, Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone) avenges his friend Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers) by returning to the ring to fight against a formidable Soviet adversary (Dolph Lundgren).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Boxing
• Cold War
• Sylvester Stallone Films
• Talia Shire Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately refers to this “phony baloney from Sylvester Stallone” as “the worst, most embarrassing film of the series.” Keeping in mind that Peary’s GFTFF was published in 1986, he writes that it “is the kind of manipulative film that they’ll show in Russia to illustrate the American cinema’s absurd portrayal of both American heroes and the Russian people,” and expresses his frustration that Stallone doesn’t seem to “understand that his character need not appeal to everyone.”

He further points out the “lazy” dialogue, noting that “conversations between Rocky and wife Adrian (Talia Shire) have reached the point where long sentences last five simple words” (he’s overexaggerating to make his point), and that since “she has nothing to say,” she simply “smiles, looks worried, [and] looks pained.”

Most egregiously, Peary writes, “Stallone’s direction has also become lax, so that his film is comprised of many montages with blaring music in the background” with each “equivalent to a rock video” which “could be shown intact as just that.” (According to IMDb, one calculation found that 31.9% of the movie consists of montages!) These are either flashbacks to the earlier films in the series, or laughably simplistic comparisons between Rocky’s training style (in the harsh environs of the Russian landscape — actually filmed in Wyoming) and Drago’s “high tech” indoors training, surrounded by his support team.

Peary points out that “at least Drago — a sort of handsome, icier version of Richard Kiel’s ‘Jaws’ – is a more than satisfyingi villain” who “it’s a pleasure” to see Rocky ripping into.

There’s not much more to say about this one except that it did really well at the box office; won 5 Razzies (and was nominated for 4 more); and was re-released as a director’s cut (entitled Rocky IV: Rocky vs. Drago) in 2021.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Skilled (if highly over-used) editing and montage
  
  

Must See?
No; skip this one.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Article (spoiler alert)
• FilmSite Overview

Synopsis:
When Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone) — riding high on the hog from his previous successes — loses his heavyweight title to menacing Clubber Lang (Mr. T.), he receives help from his former nemesis (Carl Weathers) in training for the ultimate showdown.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Boxing
• Burgess Meredith Films
• Sylvester Stallone Films
• Talia Shire Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
In his review of Rocky III, Peary notes that this third film in the franchise — in which Stallone “loses his title to vicious killing machine Clubber Lang (imposing Mr. T) and, for some reason, his self-respect in the process” — is “fairly predictable” and “lacks the cohesion of [Stallone’s] earlier efforts”; but what “distinguishes it somewhat is that Rocky must cope with fear, a theme that, oddly enough, had not really been explored in boxing films.

Peary’s right that there’s not much else to say about this innocuous third installment, other than that it’s good to see Weathers and Stallone teaming up:

… it’s easy to see why Mr. T. got a TV deal:

… and there’s a silly early sequence in which Hulk Hogan appears to thoroughly thrash Stallone, only for Stallone to suddenly turn things around.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Bill Butler’s cinematography
  
• Effective use of “Eye of the Tiger” by Survivor as a theme song

Must See?
No; skip this one unless you’re a Rocky fan.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
When Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone) struggles to provide for his new wife (Talia Shire) and son, he reconsiders engaging in a lucrative follow-up fight against heavyweight champion Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Boxing
• Burgess Meredith Films
• Sylvester Stallone Films
• Talia Shire Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this sequel to Sylvester Stallone’s Oscar-winning 1976 blockbuster is “as shamelessly sentimental as both versions of The Champ.” He points out that the “exciting final bout is, of course, the film’s highlight” (it purportedly took over eight months to edit to Stallone’s satisfaction):

… but “what’s most interesting is the relationship between Rocky and Adrian… Although she still can’t bear to watch him fight, she becomes his partner (rare for a woman in a boxing film) and the person who gives him the necessary motivation to… make the most of his life.”

With that said, you’ll most definitely “have a hard time putting up with director-writer Stallone pulling your emotional strings by subjecting Adrian to a hemorrhage and lengthy deathbed stay, from which”

SPOILER

“she recovers because of Rocky’s prayers.”

Indeed, the flaws and limitations of Stallone’s writing style — not to mention his strong Christo-patriarchal leanings — are much more evident this time around, as he attempts to provide a framework for essentially re-offering the same movie with just a few twists; everything viewers loved about the first movie is brought back for a second run, including starting with its final fight scene. With that said, lovers of Rocky and his entourage will likely enjoy a chance to spend more time with them (and to experience his inevitable success after adversity) — but this film hasn’t held up well as an essential sequel on its own.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Bill Butler’s cinematography
  
• Good use, once again, of Philadelphia locales
  
• Bill Conti’s score

Must See?
No, but of course Rocky fans will want to check it out.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• NY Times Original Review
• FilmSite Overview

Synopsis:
When an underdog boxer (Sylvester Stallone) in Philadelphia is given an opportunity to fight against a champion (Carl Weathers), he receives support from his new girlfriend (Talia Shire), Shire’s surly brother (Burt Young), and an aging local trainer (Burgess Meredith).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Boxing
• Burgess Meredith Films
• Sylvester Stallone Films
• Talia Shire Films
• Underdog

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “This disarming little sleeper” — “written by its unknown star Sylvester Stallone” — “smashed box-office records, won Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director (John G. Avildsen), made Stallone into an instant superstar, and gave the disenfranchised of America a new folk hero.”

He notes that while “we’ve overdosed on sequels” — Rocky II (1979), Rocky III (1982), and Rocky IV (1985) are all discussed in GFTFF — this original film “still holds up well and is guaranteed to produce cheers and tears” given that it shows an America in which “miracles do happen.” In describing the film’s first “Miracle,” Peary writes that Rocky’s courtship with “pretty but supershy Adrian (Talia Shire)” is “as touching as Paul Newman and Pier Angeli’s in Somebody Up There Likes Me” given that “they manage to build up each other’s self-respect, and soon they both realize that they aren’t losers.”

The second “Miracle” occurs when Rocky is “offered a shot at the heavyweight title” by an “overconfident champ” and “decides to go for it.” Although nobody up until then has given him a chance, he demonstrates that by training and simply showing up, he can “become a hero to everyone who wants to rise above loser status.”

I’m about to critically revisit all the Rocky sequels (and will hold nothing back in my thoughts on them), but will concede for now that this original entry remains authentically heartwarming and contains many special, memorable moments — including Rocky chatting awkwardly with Adrian at the local pet store:

… Rocky and Adrian ice-skating in an empty rink on Thanksgiving while their high-cost ten minutes are counting down:

… Rocky wandering with Young through the aisles of a meat processing plant which will soon turn into a ready-made gym:

… and Rocky beginning his running regime along the streets of Philadelphia.

It’s well worth a revisit, and deserves its status as an underdog breakthrough film for Stallone.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Sylvester Stallone as Rocky Balboa
  
• Fine supporting performances
  
• James Crabe’s cinematography
  
  
• Excellent use of authentic Philadelphia locales
  
• Bill Conti’s score

Must See?
Yes, as an Oscar-winning classic.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Q Network Review
• TCM Articles

Synopsis:
When the youngest son (Al Pacino) of an Italian-American mafia boss (Marlon Brando) returns home from serving in World War II, his hopes for a ‘square’ life with his WASP-y girlfriend (Diane Keaton) are quickly squashed as he finds himself embroiled in violent altercations involving crime-family rivals and his siblings: Sonny (James Caan), Fredo (John Cazale), and Connie (Talia Shire).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Al Pacino Films
• Assassination
• Betrayal
• Character Arc
• Corruption
• Diane Keaton Films
• Family Problems
• Father and Child
• Francis Ford Coppola Films
• Grown Children
• James Caan Films
• Mafia
• Marlon Brando Films
• Richard Conte Films
• Robert Duvall Films
• Siblings
• Sterling Hayden Films
• Talia Shire Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately notes that “Francis Ford Coppola’s epic adaptation of Mario Puzo’s best-selling novel about a powerful Mafia crime family, the Corleones, is a stunning piece of filmmaking.” He points out that “this Best Picture winner takes place over 10 years, has scenes set in New York, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Italy”:

… “employs different styles of cinematography and music according to time and setting, and introduces numerous characters in and out of the family,” all while keeping this nearly-three-hour-long film “coherent and consistently exciting.”

He points out that the extended opening sequence — “when godfather Vito Corleone… hosts the lavish wedding of his only daughter” and we “meet the many people in Corleone’s immediately and extended family,” including “family lawyer Tom (Robert Duvall), who is like Corleone’s fourth son”:

— “reveals the secret of the film’s success: Coppola doesn’t rush through his scenes so that he can squeeze every event from the book into his film,” instead having “fewer scenes but mak[ing] them count by making it clear who his characters are, how they act with each other, and what their allegiances are, providing time for even his less important characters to make strong audience impressions.”

Peary notes that the film shows the Corleones succeeding “because they are as shrewd and monstrous as their opposition,” with the most notable character arc occurring to “newcomer Pacino” as Michael Corleone rather than Best-Actor-Winning Brando, whose “character dominates the proceedings even when he isn’t on the screen.”

Among the “numerous classic sequences” in this film are “the opening in which Corleone first utters his famous ‘We’ll make him an offer he can’t refuse’ and agrees to help a friend of the family do away with the punk who harmed his daughter”:

… “the wedding”:

… “Michael rescuing his father from an assassination attempt in a deserted hospital”:

… “Sonny brutally beating his sister’s abusive husband”:

SPOILERS AHEAD

… “Michael assassinating a policeman (Sterling Hayden) and a top man with a rival family in a restaurant”:

… “a Hollywood director (John Marley) finding the head of his $500,000 horse in his bed”:

… and “Corleone’s death scene.”

Most impressive of all, however, “is the brilliantly edited Corleone massacre sequences (one of several scenes with savage violence), in which the victims are killed at several different locations at the same time.”

Peary expands upon his review in his Alternate Oscars book, where he agrees with the Academy in naming this the Best Picture of the Year (though he nominates Pacino rather than Brando for Best Actor), and points out that the Corleones “are among the most peculiar of movie ‘heroes'” — “monsters” within “their sinister section of the world” who are nonetheless “the nicest guys around.”

Peary’s insights — along with all the many others available online and through DVD extras — are voluminous enough to prevent me from spending more time here on my own review; feel free simply to (re)watch this genuine classic knowing it deserves its fame (and stay tuned for my take on its equally lauded sequel).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Al Pacino as Michael Corleone
  
• Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone
  
• Fine supporting performances across the entire cast
  
  
  
  
• Gordon Willis’s cinematography
  
• Excellent attention paid to period detail
  
• Numerous memorable lines: “Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.”
• Nino Rota’s score

Must See?
Yes, of course.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article
• FilmSite Review
• Q Network Review

Synopsis:
On the Portuguese colony of Queimada, a British agent (Marlon Brando) is sent to teach a native-born slave named José Dolores (Evaristo Marquez) to rise up in rebellion, so that the British can come in and establish a sugar trade there and help elect their own president (Renato Salvatori). Ten years later, Brando returns to once again quell rebellion by Dolores and his men — but he finds that Dolores is no longer tolerant of his “support”.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cat and Mouse
• Historical Drama
• Marlon Brando Films
• Race Relations and Racism
• Revolutionaries
• Slavery

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “exceptional political narrative by radical Italian filmmaker Gillo Pontecorvo” is “a painful yet fascinating look at colonialism and revolution in both theory and practice.” He asserts it’s “the equal of Pontecorvo’s The Battle of Algiers,” though he points out that “poor distribution by United Artists decreased its chance of duplicating that film’s commercial success or notoriety.” I’ll cite directly from Peary’s initial description of the film, since it provides valuable contextual detail: he notes it’s “based on historical events,” “set in 1845 on a Caribbean island where in 1500s imperialistic Portuguese (in truth it was Spanish) burned the entire landscape and exterminated the entire native population to quell an uprising” (hence the island name of Queimado, or “burnt”) — and “for the next three centuries black slaves who were imported from Africa to replace the Indians worked on the sugar plantations of the colonialists.”

Enter into this scenario Brando “in perhaps his most interesting role” as “the intellectual, mannerly British agent Joseph Walker, who teaches the blacks the art of revolution and finds the charismatic man (Dolores)… who can lead them” — then “sees to it that Dolores hands his leadership over” to a mulatto “who will allow the British to control the island as the Portuguese had.” As Peary puts it, “Walker turns out to be not a hero but a bastard, and his friend Dolores is at once disillusioned and politically enlightened” — thus leading to the film’s powerful final section.

Peary points out that “with a great rousing score by Ennio Morricone, this is an extremely colorful combination of an old Errol Flynn swashbuckler that had revolutionary spirit and a ‘film of ideas'” with “many historical applications throughout the world.” To that end, “it is, most significantly, the story of revolt against colonialism in Third World [sic] countries,” a “major point of the film” being “that white men cannot comprehend the singular nature of the black [man] and his willingness to fight endlessly for freedom.” Dolores — who “comes across with great dignity” — is “a symbol of the continuing revolution.”

Peary goes into further detail about this film in his Cult Movies book, where he posits this film in contrast with “so-called political [American] films which criticize once-sacred cows — the President, people in government, the FBI, the CIA, the police, the military, the courts” — but “typically wait until such criticism becomes fashionable,” thus making such films not “really controversial” but rather “reflect[ing] the popular sentiments of the time” — and, crucially, emphasizing “that their villains are individuals whose actions in the name of America go against everything the American system stands for: they are rotten apples in an otherwise perfect barrel.”

Ultimately, “though antiestablishment on the surface, these pictures reinforce our faith in the American way of life, in the American political process,” suggesting “that it is not a sociopolitical system rooted in corrupt, anti-humanistic activities that is the real villain, but the opportunistic, fascistic men who take advantage of such a system.” It is therefore:

“… instructive for American moviegoers to see alternative pictures [like this one] which attempt to give us a better understanding of history (which does indeed repeat itself and which has indeed shaped the present), where the stories told reveal important political truths about countless occurrences in the past all over the globe, and where such terms as imperialism, colonialism, racist policies, counterrevolution, systematic oppression, systematic torture, nationalism, liberation movements, political consciousness-raising, popular uprisings, terrorism, guerrilla warfare, and revolution are defined and placed in historical context.”

In his Cult Movies essay, Peary also describes Brando’s character in a bit more detail, writing:

“History is full of brilliant political men, military strategists, and philosophers like Walker who, for reasons of their own, fought on the wrong side. We see that Walker really does like Jose and wants him to live… to exonerate himself from the guilt he feels and to prove to Jose and to himself that his theories on these black slaves are correct.”

He “cannot accept that in this godforsaken world people with virtues (people like Jose) exist — if he had known, he might have remained virtuous, too.” That’s debatable — but Brando imbues this complex character with enough subtlety and humanity that we can’t help staying invested in his plight even when he’s at his most vindictive.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Marlon Brando as Sir William Walker
  
• Evaristo Marquez as José Dolores
  
• Beautiful cinematography and production design
  
  
• Creative opening credits
  
• Ennio Morricone’s score (According to TCM: “Burn! was only one of 29 scores the now venerable Italian composer and conductor – with something like 500 to his credit – wrote in 1969 alone.” Ummm… Can you say brilliant and prolific?!)

Must See?
Yes, as a powerful and unique cult classic.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Foreign Gem

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• NY Times Original Review
• Trailers From Hell Review (CineSavant)

Synopsis:
An aging outlaw (William Holden) on the border of Mexico and the United States in 1913 leads his motley crew of men — including loyal Dutch (Ernest Borgnine), brothers Lyle (Warren Oates) and Tector (Ben Johnson), and young Angel (Jaime Sanchez) — in a bank robbery attempt foiled by a group of bounty hunters headed by a former colleague (Robert Ryan) who has been hired by a corrupt railroad baron (Albert Dekker). After collaborating with vicious General Mapache (Emilio Fernandez), Holden’s “wild bunch” of outlaws decide to engage in a final railroad heist before retiring — but will Angel’s loyalty to his people get in their way?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Ben Johnson Films
• Bounty Hunters
• Edmond O’Brien Films
• Ernest Borgnine Films
• Heists
• Mexico
• Outlaws
• Robert Ryan Films
• Sam Peckinpah Films
• Warren Oates Films
• Westerns
• William Holden Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Sam Peckinpah’s violent, controversial western” borrows from the “caper” genre in its tale of a group of men “needing to pull off one more job before they can retire,” and is typical of “Peckinpah westerns” in that “over-the-hill losers, whom time and glory have passed by, are given a chance for redemption.” He points out that “visually, the picture contains much that is stunning, even mesmerizing; however, the battle scenes, containing great slaughter, are what gives the film its rhythm, power, spectacle, and excitement.”

Indeed, “It is known for its bloody, slow-motion death scenes” — though Peary writes that he finds “them self-consciously presented” rather than “realistic, as Peckinpah intended.” He argues that “much more impressive are the quieter scenes: when the Wild Bunch rides majestically through Sanchez’s village, proud that the people look on with respect:”

… “and that wonderful moment before the [final] battle with Fernandez when Holden looks back and forth between his last bottle of whiskey and his last woman.” Peary notes that while “Peckinpah was a tough guy,” his “best screen moments were those when he allowed his romantic tendencies to slip through, when he gave his characters the dignity that means so much to them.”

On the flip side, he argues that “the worst aspect of the film is that Peckinpah never establishes any camaraderie among members of the gang” (I wasn’t bothered by this, given that there truly is no honor among thieves), and complains that Peckinpah “went through so much trouble creating an authentic western milieu, only to fill it with stereotypes speaking in cliches.”

Peary points out that this film is “a semi-remake of Peckinpah’s Major Dundee,” and “he also borrows freely from John Huston’s The Treasure of the Sierra Madre,” Bunuel, Kurosawa, and Aldrich’s The Dirty Dozen.”

In terms of the film’s controversial release, Peary notes that Peckinpah “managed to sneak [it] by anti-war protesters under the guise of being a western” — but “actually, it’s a war film (check out the weapons used).” The “controversy surrounding the film was centered on its violence,” with “few at the time notic[ing] the strong parallels between Peckinpah’s Mexico and North Vietnam.”

In Cult Movies, Peary goes into more detail with his review, pointing out some of the particularly spectacular scenes and sequences — including “the dusty, yellowish Mexican landscape; the numerous parades that pass through Peckinpah’s frame”:

… “the train robbery sequence”:

… and “the bridge that collapses with horses and Thornton’s posse on top of it.”

Overall, Peary doesn’t seem to be a big fan of this film, which is my personal stance as well; while I sincerely admire Peckinpah’s talent, watching violence cinematically glorified — despite Peckinpah’s insistence he was NOT doing this — isn’t my preference. However, this movie is far too iconic to miss, and should definitely be viewed at least once by film fanatics. To that end, a few bits of trivia are worth sharing; as noted on IMDb:

– There are about 2,721 editorial cuts throughout the 138-minute film (with an average shot length of 3 seconds).
– Peckinpah purportedly wanted to deglamorize violence in the west and show a more realistic, brutal, and crude view of how outlaws operated. (John Wayne was vocal in his disapproval of this approach.)
– Due to excessive violence, the film was threatened with an X rating (though it ended up with an R).
– To its credit, “Of the 40 performers credited at the end of the film, 24 are Latinos. Except for Puerto Rico-born Jaime Sánchez, all were actual Mexicans or of Mexican ancestry.”

Note: The film’s most unrecognizable actor is O’Brien (wearing a TON of make-up) as grizzled Sykes, a side-kick member of the Bunch.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Fine performances by the ensemble cast
  
  
  
  
• Numerous memorable (if often disturbing) sequences
  
  
  
• Lucien Ballard’s cinematography
  
• Excellent use of location shooting in Mexico
  
• Clever opening credits
  
• Groundbreaking editing by Peckinpah and Louis Lombardo
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite and for its historical status.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Controversial Film
• Historically Relevant
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Articles
• DVD Savant Review (scroll down)
• Village Voice Review

Synopsis:
After being fired by his station, a television news cameraman (Robert Forster) works freelance for the Democratic National Convention and falls for an Appalachian widow (Verna Bloom) with a young son (Harold Blankenship).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Journalists
• Television
• Verna Bloom Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this “Godard-influenced political film” — “directed, produced, written, and photographed by noted leftist cinematographer Haskell Wexler” — is today “a curio, a time piece, but when it came out it caused tremendous excitement among young viewers involved in anti-establishment causes and interested in political films, as well as those who may simply have appreciated unique ways to tell stories on film.”

In describing the movie, Peary writes that Forster’s “cocky Chicago television reporter… tries to remain detached from his stories despite their increasing political and social significance,” but “we see his social consciousness rise after he is told off by some ghetto blacks [sic] for being part of establishment media that distorts news”:

… and “after covering the Democratic Convention and the ensuing riots during which Mayor Daley’s gestapo police beat up countless protestors.”

Then, “when he learns that his network has been handing over his tapes to the FBI, he finally understands the function of the media/press and how uninvolved newsmen” — like himself — “are doing a disservice to the people.” Forster’s process of humanization is made especially apparent as he moves away from dating “a sexy bubblehead” (Marianna Hill) and falls for a “poor, kindly widow” from West Virginia,” and “befriends her son.”

As described by Peary — and documented at length in Look Out, Haskell, It’s Real: The Making of Medium Cool (2001) — “Wexler interweaves professional actors with amateurs, his fictional story with real footage of the Chicago convention”:

… “and violent police-protestor confrontations” to the extent that “at times the actors are on the scene during the rioting and Wexler takes his camera right into the fray,” to “remarkable” impact.

At the time of this writing, the film is now 55 years old and even more relevant than ever, as protests and violent clashes with police continue, and the role of the media in covering such events remains hotly debated. To that end, the historical footage Wexler managed to capture and weave together from this specific point in time is truly impressive. Unfortunately, the impressionistic storyline meanders to the point of not quite cohering, and the abrupt ending — including a fun self-referential turn — is jarring.

However, this film is far too creative, eclectic, and historically relevant for film fanatics not to check out at least once.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Robert Forster as John Cassellis
  
• Verna Bloom as Eileen
  
• Harold Blankenship as Harold
  
• Wexler’s cinematography
  
  
• Remarkable cinema verite footage throughout
  
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance. Selected in 2003 for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant”.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TV Guide Review
• Q Network Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
After the death of the chairman (David Kirk) of an advertising board, the sole Black member, Putney Swope (Arnold Johnson), is accidentally put in charge and renames the organization Truth and Soul, Inc., populating it with primarily Black employees and making increasingly erratic creative decisions.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Advertising
• Race Relations and Racism
• Satires and Spoofs

Response to Peary’s Review:
In his description of this “infamous, irreverent cult comedy from writer-director Robert Downey” — yes, the “Sr.” father to Robert Downey, Jr. — Peary notes it’s “about a ruthless, opportunistic, gravel-voiced black man” (Downey subbed Johnson’s voice) “who is accidentally elected head of a Madison Avenue ad agency” and “fires or demotes all the whites on the board of directors, hires a staff of black militants, and renames the agency Truth and Soul, Inc.”:

… getting “scores of rich white clients because his obscene commercials prove extremely effective” — “no matter that he steals the ideas for the ads.”

Peary points out that Swope “is as money-hungry and unscrupulous as his white predecessors (although he refuses to run ads that promote war toys, alcohol or cigarettes)” — and, in a telling early scene, he “rips down a poster of Sidney Poitier,” revealing that “Downey has no intention of populating his picture with blacks whom the white male audience will feel comfortable watching.”

“Indeed,” Peary says, “Downey’s film was designed both to satirize those black militant prototypes he regarded as politically insincere and to present the bigoted white viewer’s nightmare vision of what would happen if black militants came into power.”

Peary asserts that the picture is “dated (the once hilarious color commercials now seem trite)”:

… it “hasn’t two funny lines in a row,” and it “has an end that foolishly undermines Swope’s character.” However, he notes that “while it’s overrated, it’s certainly unique, if only because it attacks most everyone, even midgets.”

I agree the film isn’t funny, and that it’s quite “dated” — but in precisely the way it should be, given it was intended as a disruptive cinematic experiment which Downey himself noted he didn’t necessarily think people should try to make sense of. It’s primarily of interest these days for its historical relevance within late-1960s underground cinema. Check out the DVD extras, and/or Criterion’s essay, for more on the experimental work that preceded this most enduring facet of Downey’s output.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Some creative cinematography
  
  
• Several amusing advertising sequences
  

Must See?
Yes, once, but simply for its cult status; I can’t guarantee you’ll get much out of it.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Trailers From Hell Review
• Village Voice Review
• TV Guide Review (spoiler alert)
• Criterion Essay

Synopsis:
Three generations of women named Lucia reflect Cuba’s history: in 1895, during the Cuban War of Independence from Spain, upper-class Lucia (Raquel Revuelta) falls in love with a deceptive soldier (Eduardo Moure) who puts her guerrilla-fighting brother in harm’s way; in 1932, middle-class Lucia (Eslinda Núñez) falls in love with a Machado dissident (Ramón Brito) and becomes politically active herself; and in the 1960s, working-class Lucia (Adela Legrá) meets her husband-to-be (Adolfo Llauradó) at a farming compound, but is distressed to learn that he is heavily patriarchal, abusive, and jealous.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cuban Films
• Feminism and Women’s Issues
• Historical Drama
• Revolutionaries
• Strong Females

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “Humberto Solás directed this monumental three-part epic about three women, each named Lucia, who lived during three pivotal times of modern Cuban history,” featuring episodes “filmed in wildly divergent styles” which “show how the political consciousness of these politically naive women is raised as the result of jolting personal experiences.” Each Lucia in the film comes “to realize that the same betrayers, opportunists, and oppressors (ranging from friends, lovers, and husbands to imperialists and uncommitted revolutionaries) who damage them as individuals are also undermining the progressive political movement in Cuba.”

Indeed, this is far from light fare: feminist themes and concerns are front and center, and none of these women has an easy time of it.

SPOILERS AHEAD

In the first episode, “Lucia is an aristocratic Cuban spinster (Raquel Revuelta) who becomes the lover of a married Spanish stranger (Eduardo Moore)” only to find out he is “using her to find the whereabouts of a mountain plantation where her brother and other revolutionaries are hiding.” He notes that this episode — which is “almost operatic in style”:

… is “the most visually impressive of the three episodes,” and “contains two astonishing sequences: several nuns being raped on a battlefield; [and] naked Mambi soldiers on horseback chasing and killing terrified Spanish soldiers.”

The second episode shows what happens when a “new regime turns out to be equally corrupt and oppressive” as the one taken down. Peary notes that “of the three episodes, this is the most politically provocative” — and “this Lucia is by far the most appealing” (meaning, traditionally beautiful).

The third episode brings us to (then) current times, “when Castro’s regime [was] attempting to set up a revolutionary society where men and women work and everyone is literate.” Ultimately, Peary argues that this “silly, comedic episode is like a sex battle in a Lina Wertmuller film,” with the “issues brought up… by today’s standards very simplistic” — but I don’t agree. There’s a huge discrepancy between the jaunty score running through this episode and the blatant violence we see happening on screen.

There is really nothing “silly” or “comedic” about it except perhaps what Solás felt obliged to include as a way to make it past censors. To that end, it’s astonishing to know that Solás (who was closeted gay) was only 26 years old when he made this impressively scoped film, which remains well worth a look by film fanatics interested in the evolution of international cinema.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Jorge Herrera’s cinematography
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance in Cuban cinema.

Categories

• Foreign Gem
• Historically Relevant

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Trailers From Hell Review
• NY Times Original Review
• Village Voice Review