Browsed by
Category: Response Reviews

My comments on Peary’s reviews in Guide for the Film Fanatic (Simon & Schuster, 1986).

Burn! / Queimada! (1969)

Burn! / Queimada! (1969)

“There are no miracles in history — only precise timing and cadence.”

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:

Wild Bunch, The (1969)

Wild Bunch, The (1969)

“I’d like to make one good score and back off.”

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:

Medium Cool (1969)

Medium Cool (1969)

“The whole world is watching! The whole world is watching!”

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:

Putney Swope (1969)

Putney Swope (1969)

“There are no losers — every product has potential!”

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:

Lucia (1968)

Lucia (1968)

“Wake up, Cubans!”

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:

Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)

Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)

“People scare better when they’re dyin’.”

Synopsis:
Shortly after a harmonica-playing stranger (Charles Bronson) rides into in a western town seeking a man in black (Henry Fonda) who has just slaughtered a farming patriarch (Frank Wolff) and his children, Wolff’s newly widowed wife (Claudia Cardinale) arrives and is told that a man named Cheyenne (Jason Robards) was responsible for her husband’s death; however, she soon learns that Fonda has been ordered by his boss — a disabled railroad baron (Gabriele Ferzetti) — to do what it takes to earn control over her newly acquired land, and she becomes caught up in a deadly web of greed, lust, and revenge.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Charles Bronson Films
  • Claudia Cardinale Films
  • Corruption
  • Henry Fonda Films
  • Jason Robards Films
  • Keenan Wynn Films
  • Revenge
  • Sergio Leone Films
  • Westerns
  • Woody Strode Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is an enormous fan of this “baroque epic western,” which he refers to as “Sergio Leone’s masterpiece” — indeed, he names it Best Picture of the Year in his Alternate Oscars and discusses it at length in his first Cult Movies book. He argues that this movie — co-scripted by Leone, Dario Argento, and Bernardo Bertolucci — is Leone’s “most pessimistic film,” given that “its end signals the death of his ‘ancient race’ of superwarriors (first seen in his Clint Eastwood ‘Dollars’ films) and the moment when there is no more resistance to advancing civilization.” This is “represented by laying down of railroad tracks, the building of a town, and a whore (Claudia Cardinale) becoming a lady, a businesswoman, a maker of coffee, [and] a bearer of water”:

… all of which means that “in the new matriarchal West, money will be more important than the gun and super-gunfighters will be passe, part of the Western folklore.”

In Cult Movies, Peary elaborates his thoughts on how this “mythological progression” came to be across Leone’s westerns, writing:

“In A Fistful of Dollars, civilization doesn’t exist; in For a Few Dollars More, it serves as a background. In The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, the mythological and historical worlds overlap, but ‘The Man With No Name’ is still able to literally send history/the Civil War elsewhere by blowing up a strategic bridge so he can carry on his own greedy activities. But Bronson’s ‘The Man’ is forced to move elsewhere when he realizes that post-Civil War civilization… cannot be denied. He won’t even try to fit into the civilized West as Frank [Fonda] did before realizing the futility of it.”

Back to GFTFF, Peary notes that “in an incredible scene that recalls the family massacre in John Ford’s The Searchers” Fonda’s Frank (he “finally got to play a villain!”) “wipes out Brett McBain (Frank Wolff) and his children”:



… simply so that his boss “can use McBain’s land for a railroad station” — a crucial driver of the narrative, with ongoing impacts for everyone involved. Meanwhile, Frank’s sadistic past comes back to haunt him, as we gradually learn why Bronson is so insistent on capturing and killing him.

Peary posits (and I agree) that the “film is incredibly ambitious, splendidly cast, beautifully shot (no one uses a wide screen better than Leone)”:

… “hilarious, erotic, psychologically compelling, and wonderfully scored by Ennio Morricone;” as Peary notes, Morricone’s score “shifts easily from dramatic to ethereal to ironic to comical,” offering “haunting melodies, musical motifs, theme songs, and choral numbers that comment on the action, add humor, and help move the story forward.” He points out that “among the many highlights are the lengthy, humorous title sequence in which three villains” (Jack Elam, Woody Strode, and Al Mulock*) “await The Man’s arrival by train (only to be killed by him)”:

… “Frank’s seduction of Jill” (I’m not a fan of this sequence; she’s clearly terrified and simply doing what she needs to do, as she always has, to survive — though it is creatively filmed):

… “the elaborately staged gunfight between Frank and The Man (how splendidly Leone uses space and close-ups)”:


… “the final scene between Cheyenne and The Man”:

… “and seeing The Man ride off into mythology at the end of the picture.”

In bit parts, watch for Keenan Wynn as the Sheriff of Flagstone:

… and Lionel Stander as a barman.

* Note: Mulock — a Canadian character actor who trained with Lee Strasberg — committed suicide by jumping out of his hotel window right after filming his scene for this movie; according to one source, he was purportedly depressed and drug-addicted and couldn’t find a fix.

Wolff also committed suicide the following year.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Henry Fonda as Frank
  • Claudia Cardinale as Jill
  • Jason Robards as Cheyenne
  • Charles Bronson as ‘Harmonica’
  • Gabriele Ferzetti as Morton
  • Tonino Delli Colli’s cinematography

  • Excellent use of location shooting

  • Many memorable faces, shots, and moments



  • Excellent management of scores of extras
  • Ennio Morricone’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a deserved classic of the genre.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Important Director

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

Links:

Madigan (1968)

Madigan (1968)

“Damn that Madigan; he was bound to get caught in a wringer sooner or later.”

Synopsis:
In New York City, two police detectives (Richard Widmark and Harry Guardino) lose their gun while attempting to bring in a suspect (Steve Ihnat) who got away, and are given 72 hours by their police commissioner (Henry Fonda) to find him. Meanwhile, Fonda is distracted both by his affair with a married woman (Susan Clark), and by news that his long-time colleague (James Whitmore) has been caught taking a bribe; and Widmark must try to placate his lonely wife (Ingrid Stevens).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • Don Siegel Films
  • Henry Fonda Films
  • James Whitmore Films
  • New York City
  • Richard Widmark Films
  • Susan Clark Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Don Siegel directed this police drama that, regrettably, has been overshadowed by his later Dirty Harry” — indeed, he argues “it’s a brilliantly crafted film that all directors should study to see how action scenes should be staged, photographed, and edited.” He points out that the film structure “is split in two,” with one storyline telling the “efforts of tough street detectives” (Widmark and Guardino) “trying to nail a psycho killer who got away from them”:

… and the other focusing on “the efforts of police commissioner Henry Fonda to deal with some minor police corruption involving his life-long friend James Whitmore.”

The juxtaposition of these two narrative threads offers an opportunity for effectively contrasting “Widmark’s frantic world of killers, pimps, addicts, hookers, drunks, stoolies, midgets, and assorted lowlifes and outcasts”:

… with “Fonda’s serene and secure world.” Peary notes that “Widmark gives a standout performance as a very believable cop, one of Siegel’s renegade heroes: he has no idea how to comfort his wife (Inger Stevens), who expects him to lead a normal home life”:

… “and he acts like a nervous kid with his hand in the cookie jar in the presence of the commissioner”:

… “but on the streets he is king, the number-one man at getting the job done” — he is “the man crooks fear and despise and outcasts trust.” Peary further adds that this “exciting, atmospheric film takes time to explore the characters so that by the end we know exactly what makes each tick and what they find most essential in their lives.”

While I’m not quite as much a fan of this film as Peary is, I agree that it’s expertly crafted and offers up enjoyable entertainment. The action sequences alone merit close review given how skillfully they portray rapid-fire movements made on the spot, with potentially life-and-death consequences — from the opening scene in Ihnat’s apartment (which very quickly goes in an unexpected direction), to the tragic closing sequence. This one remains worth a look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Richard Widmark as Daniel Madigan
  • Steve Ihnat as Barney Benesch
  • Russell Metty’s cinematography
  • Excellent use of location shooting throughout New York (as much as possible)

Must See?
Yes, as a fine police thriller.

Categories

  • Good Show
  • Important Director

Links:

I Am Curious (Yellow) (1967)

I Am Curious (Yellow) (1967)

“You destroy everything with chatter and questions!”

Synopsis:
A politically curious drama student (Lena Nyman) making a film for a director (Vilgot Sjöman) gets romantically involved with a salesman (Börje Ahlstedt) who has a partner and child on the side.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Movie Directors
  • Scandinavian Films
  • Sexuality
  • Strong Females

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary points out that this “important film breaking down U.S. censorship rulings between 1969 and 1972” contains a “lengthy scene containing full frontal nudity of both the” female and male leads, in addition to other seemingly-natural simulated sexual interactions — all of which are “incorporated into a political comedy,” thus making it “a rare legitimate film that contains explicit sex as just an element of the story.” As Peary writes, “Nyman plays herself, the actress who’d starred in Sjöman’s 491 (1964). She and director-writer Sjöman have become lovers”:

… and “now she is starring in his new film as the daughter of a political sellout (he’d fought with the Republicans in Spain for a couple of weeks before returning home).”

Peary notes that Nyman “considers herself a nonviolent radical and, in a very funny [extended] scene, asks people on the street about class structure and sexual equality in Sweden,” in addition to spending “time protesting U.S. involvement in Vietnam.”

Soon “she has an intense affair with car salesman Ahlstedt,” not realizing “he lives with another woman and their child.”

Another notable sequence — very much of its time — involves Nyman heading off to a spiritual retreat, which is interrupted when Ahlstedt shows up.

Peary argues that while this film is “overlong,” it’s “worthwhile” and “has substance.” However, though the film is certainly startling for what Sjöman was willing to put forth at the time, the experimental storyline itself hasn’t aged particularly well; these days, viewers will likely simply be “curious” to check it out once given its historical notoriety.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Lena Nyman as Lena

Must See?
Yes, once, but simply for its historical relevance.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Stranger, The (1967)

Stranger, The (1967)

“I’m not quite sure what to say; it doesn’t seem to matter very much to me.”

Synopsis:
Shortly after attending the funeral of his mother, a French clerk (Marcello Mastroianni) in 1930s Algeria befriends a shady neighbor (Georges Géret) and becomes inextricably involved in a life-altering crime.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Courtroom Drama
  • Italian Films
  • Luchino Visconti Films
  • Marcello Mastroianni Films
  • Morality Police

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary asserts that Luchino Visconti’s “adaptation of Albert Camus’s existential novel” is “reasonably well made but philosophically shallow.” He argues (and I agree, though not all do) that “Mastroianni is well cast as an alienated man whose great guilt — over his indifference as well as the murder he committed — cannot be decreased because to him God doesn’t exist and the hypocritical men who judge him cannot forgive an atheist anything.”

Peary writes that while Meursault (Mastroianni) “does have feelings and kindness,” “his contempt for the world and his meaningless existence serves to anesthetize his emotions almost entirely” — to the point where taking lethal action on the beach could be seen as “almost a positive act!” given that “he has finally moved out of passivity” (no, but I understand Peary’s point).

Peary adds (somewhat randomly) that “scenes with [a] scabrous old man and his scabrous dog are memorable.”

I don’t necessarily agree with Peary that this adaptation is “philosophically shallow.” While the film can’t — and doesn’t really — get into the novel’s meaty themes of the irrationality of the universe, the meaningless of human life, and the importance of the physical world, we are nonetheless presented with a sufficiently complicated and complex scenario: should a man be judged based on some of his perceived character flaws, such as not showing overt emotions at his mother’s funeral (how dare he smoke a cigarette!):

… going out with his girlfriend (Anna Karina) — who he admits he doesn’t love — the next day:

… befriending and staying loyal to a pimp:

… and not believing in God; and/or could (should) these very actions and attitudes easily be interpreted differently? And even more importantly, should they even matter? For what it’s worth, as pointed out by Meursault’s defense lawyer (Bernard Blier, who co-starred with Mastroianni in 1963’s The Organizer):

… Meursault was actually showing responsibility for his mother by sending her to a facility where she could socialize and receive sufficient care. Regarding his affect and actions at the funeral, people react very differently to grief; it’s incredibly dangerous to judge people based on how they look during a time of stress. Meanwhile, we see Meursault being friendly with the (socially unacceptable) “scabrous man” — and his friendship with the criminal could be seen as simply refusing to judge others for their lifestyle (by which I do NOT mean to condone or justify this man’s hideous treatment of a woman). While we do feel sad for Karina that Meursault won’t tell her he loves her, he is at least relentlessly honest with her — as he is about his lack of faith. This film remains worthy one-time viewing as an interesting adaptation of a morally challenging novel — though I would be curious to see an updated version in which colonial/racial tensions and injustices are given fair due.

Note: The Stranger has an unusual release history which bears noting. According to J. Hoberman’s 2017 review in The New York Times: “It has long been without an American distributor and, owing to complicated rights issues, was never released here on DVD… The movie was eagerly anticipated but suspiciously received when it opened in New York in December 1967.”

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Marcello Mastroianni as Meursault
  • Anna Karina as Marie
  • Giuseppe Rotunno’s cinematography
  • Excellent use of naturalistic outdoor settings

  • Mario Garbuglia’s production design

Must See?
Yes, once, as an effective adaptation.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, The (1966)

Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, The (1966)

“I know the name of the cemetery now — and you know the name of the grave.”

Synopsis:
During the Civil War, a drifter (Clint Eastwood) collaborates with a wanted felon (Eli Wallach) and a sociopath named Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef) to find hidden gold.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Civil War
  • Clint Eastwood Films
  • Eli Wallach Films
  • Gold Seekers
  • Lee Van Cleef Films
  • Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, Sergio Leone’s “exceptional, extremely exciting, extravagant, and funny epic western” — “released in the U.S. in 1968, a year after A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More” — is another “episode in the life of Clint Eastwood’s deadly, nameless superwarrior (a myth figure riding through America’s West)” who “is, ironically, ‘the good’ — so designated because he kills only bad guys.”

Eastwood’s ‘Blondie’ “forms an unholy alliance with Eli Wallach’s Tuco, a ruthless (although humorous) murderer who, besides killing people, has ‘robbed countless post offices’ and taken almost everybody over the border for immoral purposes” — and is thus “the ‘ugly’ — a flawed superwarrior” (I wouldn’t use this term for him) “who has emotions, talks a lot, is religious and feels guilt”:

… “and is more human than either Eastwood or Lee Van Cleef’s ‘Angel Eyes,’ Leone’s ‘bad’ — a fallen angel/superwarrior who kills anyone who gets in his way.”

As Peary synopsizes the storyline: “All three men are after a cache of gold and they won’t let even the Civil War get in their way.” (!!! True.)

Peary points out that the film features “an imaginative storyline, elaborate set pieces (some employing hundreds of extras)”:

… “several terrific shootouts” — including “the film’s sensational climax” in which “the three invincible characters face each other in a graveyard, with the gold going to the victor”:

… “much humor (built around the Eastwood-Wallach relationship)”:

… “striking cinematography by Tonino Delli Colli, and Ennio Morricone’s best score.” He notes that the “film has [a] vague anti-war theme and, like all Leone’s works, points out that America was civilized by men who killed for profit.”

He asserts that “the three leads make lasting impressions,” and notes that “even the ugly bit actors Leone puts in close-up have remarkable screen presence.”


Peary’s review nicely sums up the strengths of this iconic western, which isn’t a personal favorite but has clearly been hugely influential, with Quentin Tarantino naming it the best directed film of all time. It should be seen at least once by all film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Eli Wallach as Tuco
  • Lee Van Cleef as Angel Eyes
  • Tonino Delli Colli’s cinematography
  • Fine use of location shooting across Spain
  • The creative opening sequence
  • Ennio Morricone’s truly iconic score

Must See?
Yes, as the third in a classic western trilogy.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

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

Links: