FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A free-spirited young woman (Barbara Hershey) offers to serve as a surrogate for an infertile woman (Collin Wilcox Paxton) and her husband (Sam Groom), but soon finds that her boyfriend (Scott Glenn) isn’t happy with all the changes this brings to their lives.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Barbara Hershey Films
• Counterculture
• James Bridges Films
• Pregnancy
• Scott Glenn Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “James Bridges’s directorial debut features a fine, heartfelt performance by Barbara Hershey as a hippie who is hired by a straight-laced, well-to-do couple… to be a surrogate mother.” He notes that the “story emphasizes the awkward relationship between the three characters, beginning with the day Groom first has sex with Hershey, through her pregnancy, to after the birth of the child.”

He argues that while the “dialogue, as well as the look of the film, is dated,” the “premise is still timely,” and points out that Hershey “gives a believable, sensitive characterization playing a young woman who very much fit her own early free-spirit image.”

What Peary doesn’t mention is the equally important emphasis on how Hershey’s decision impacts her relationship with Glenn. At first he’s fine with the idea of his girlfriend making money in this way (and it’s her choice, anyway) — but he soon realizes what a (legitimate) imposition it is on their lives, and thankfully, he isn’t villainized for making a tough call at a certain point.

Indeed, to the film’s credit, it doesn’t shy away from any of the many challenging dilemmas this type of arrangement evokes — starting with the negotiated logistics, handled under-the-radar by a mysterious woman (Lili Valenty) whose house in the hills of Malibu is only accessible through a funicular.

A contract is drawn up and signed, but that doesn’t prevent emotions from running high all around — as they would. While it’s far from perfect, I’m recommending this film as must-see viewing simply for its bold willingness to handle such a sticky topic.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Barbara Hershey as Tish
  
• Fine supporting performances
  
• A bold exploration of a challenging social dilemma
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance as the first (American) film to deal with this topic — and for Hershey’s performance.

Categories

• Historically Relevant
• Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review

Synopsis:
An aspiring rock musician (David Essex) and his band receive support from their manager (Adam Faith) and a wealthy funder (Larry Hagman) in rocketing to fame — but will success lead to happiness or isolation for Essex?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Michael Apted Films
• Musicians
• Rise and Fall
• Rock ‘n Roll

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “cult film is an ambitious sequel to That’ll Be the Day, with Michael Apted replacing Claude Watham as director” and Adam Faith playing the role of carnie “Mike” (previously inhabited by Ringo Starr).

The film is primarily concerned with showing what happens when an obsessive following develops around a single star; in this case, “as his fame increases, Essex begins to feel increasingly that he’s a product” and “he learns not to trust anyone but the band members,” who in turn become increasingly resentful of their more peripheral roles. Meanwhile, as “Essex goes on to superstardom,” “he is alone, confused, [and] corrupted,” and “there is isolation, drugs, [and] tragedy.”

Peary points out that this film offers “a vivid, cynical look at the rock business and a Beatles-like group” — and while “there are few surprises in the film,” “it is extremely well done, compelling, and has credibility because real rock stars Essex (who does a solid job), Faith, Dave Edmunds, and Keith Moon play major roles.”

Peary adds that “everything has a nostalgic ring,” and he “particularly likes the early scenes when the group is playing other people’s music and is zipping around, feeling excited about having waxed its first record;” however, the “innocence of the era” is “shattered in America.”

I’m in agreement with Peary’s review. This movie is depressing but well-filmed, and features “a good score.” Watching Essex’s tragic trajectory here makes one grateful for all the talented superstars who have managed to find a way out of the trap of fame, and to craft a reasonable existence for themselves outside of the industry.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• David Essex as Jim MacLaine
  
• Fine production design
  
  

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a look.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• NY Times Original Review
• TV Guide Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A young man (David Essex) whose single mother (Rosemary Leach) runs a small grocery store runs away to work at a carnival, where he meets an orphan (Ringo Starr) who introduces him to a world of petty crime and sex — but when Essex eventually reconnects with his old schoolmate (Robert Lindsay) and starts dating Lindsay’s sister (Rosalind Ayres), he seems to be heading towards a more stable lifestyle.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Carnivals and Circuses
• Coming of Age
• Ringo Starr Films
• Womanizers

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “somber drama” about a “working class youth in 1959-60” who “feels little attachment to anyone… and avoids commitment” is “the type of kitchen-sink drama Alan Sillitoe or John Osborne might have come up with if they’d been writing for the younger 1974 British audience.”

Peary points out that real-life rock star David “Essex doesn’t sing, as he [would] in the better, more flamboyant sequel, Stardust,” but “there’s a great rock sound track” and he personally relates to a scene in which Essex “has a friend bringing over a Ritchie Valens album that Essex has been dying to hear.”

He notes that Starr (in one of his best film roles) “does a good job as Essex’s pal” (not to mention having “an interesting haircut”):

… and adds that “Essex turns in a strong performance, playing someone audiences will feel ambivalent about” given that “he looks for one-night stands” and “he won’t put himself on the line for a friend [Starr] who’s getting beaten up.”

Indeed, Essex’s character — someone who “girls flock around” given “he’s cute and shy” — is surprisingly complex: the opening scenes show him as a young child running to meet his long-gone dad (James Booth), and spending only a short time with him before he disappears once again (for good).

This abandonment inevitably influences Essex himself once he comes of age — and while we sympathize with his beleaguered mother, who assumes her bright son will go to college and find security:

… it’s also entirely believable that he would rebel and seek out new adventures (including losing his virginity).

The problem is how badly Essex acts during key decision-making moments of his life, such as whether to force himself on a teenage girl at the carnival; whether to help Starr during a potentially fatal fight; whether to pursue a “final fling” before his marriage night; etc. His worst decision comes near the very end — and given that this film ends on a freeze-frame, it inevitably leaves one feeling like the story is unfinished (which it is); I’ll return with my assessment of Stardust shortly.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• David Essex as Jim
  
• Ringo Starr as Mike
  
• Rosemary Leach as Mrs. MacLaine
  
• Fine use of location shooting
  
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one time look.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
Richard Pryor performs in front of a live audience in Hollywood, sharing how he nearly burned to death in 1980.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Richard Pryor Films
• Stand-Up Comedy

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that while Richard “Pryor’s return to the concert scene after nearly being burned to death while freebasing cocaine” includes much “sidesplitting” humor, it is “overall… not as sharp-edged, wild, ’embarrassing,’ or sustained as in 1979’s Richard Pryor Live in Concert.” He adds that Pryor “doesn’t rely on mobility or his mime talents as much,” and “most irritating is that director Joe Layton keeps cutting to audience members cracking up.” (This didn’t bother me at all.)

Peary writes that “a highlight has Pryor showing his painful reaction to being bathed for the first time following his accident,” and that other stand-out moments include Pryor’s “recollections of a night with a Playboy bunny who gets turned on when he uses a little-boy voice, and his meetings with black murderers at an Arizona penitentiary.”

It’s been enough years since I watched any of Pryor’s routines that I found it enjoyable to spend time with him again — and it was especially poignant hearing him address his near-fatal addiction with humor and humility. However, if film fanatics choose just one filmed Pryor show to watch, it should probably be his earlier “Live in Concert”, thus making this recommended rather than must-see.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Haskell Wexler’s cinematography
  

Must See?
No, though it’s must-see for Pryor fans, and well worth a look.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
Shortly after finding a mysterious gold amulet, Sinbad (John Phillip Law) encounters an evil magician (Tom Baker) desperate for the amulet, and is launched on an adventure involving a beautiful slave girl (Caroline Munro), a disfigured Vizier (Douglas Wilmer), and several magical creatures.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Fantasy
• Ray Harryhausen Films
• Search
• Witches and Wizards

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “tenth collaboration of Charles H. Schneer and model-animation genius Ray Harryhausen” — “the second of three Sinbad movies” — was made “17 years after The 7th Voyage of Sinbad” and while it’s “not as enjoyable as that classic, it still is quite entertaining.” He points out that although the “picture is a bit slow,” “it contains five excellent Harryhausen creations: a six-armed, dancing, sword-wielding statue”:

… “the Siren figurehead on Sinbad’s ship that Koura [the magician] brings to life”:

… “a tiny, ugly, winged Homunculus that serves as Koura’s spy”:

… “and a centaur and griffin, whose battle is a highlight.”

The final sword battle between Sinbad and his nemesis Koura — involving a “shield of darkness” — is also nicely handled.

I’m essentially in agreement with Peary’s assessment. This escapist fantasy is a little slow at times, but it’s creatively filmed, and Harryhausen’s unique creations are always worth watching. Meanwhile, Munro is gorgeous eye candy:

… and Baker is effectively evil as a magician whose very life is predicated upon locating the mythical fountain of youth.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Fine performances by the cast
  
• Ray Harryhausen’s creature effects
  
• Magical sets
  
• Ted Moore’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, for Harryhausen’s effects, and as an overall good show.

Categories

• Good Show

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Spinning Image Review
• TCM Articles
• Cinemologists Video Review

Synopsis:
After hitching a ride with a teenage runaway (Jane Fonda), a Texas farmer (Laurence Harvey) lands in New Orleans and receives support from a widowed cafe owner (Anne Baxter) before searching for his former lover (Capucine), who is now a prostitute working for a lesbian madam (Barbara Stanwyck).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Anne Baxter Films
• Barbara Stanwyck Films
• Capucine Films
• Edward Dmytryk Films
• Jane Fonda Films
• Laurence Harvey Films
• Prostitutes and Gigolos

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “brooding, once shocking adaptation of Nelson Algren’s novel” is “very watchable” but he argues that “the actors, though good, are extremely stiff, as if they feared moving about and not being able to find the floor markers on the dark sets.” (Peary exaggerates; not that many scenes are darkly lit.) He notes that “only hip-swinging Jane Fonda, as a wildcat tamed by Stanwyck’s threats, projects any energy,” but “it’s difficult to tell if her performance is correct or completely wrong since her style is so much more expressive than that of the other stars.” (Is “correct” really the right term to use for a performance?)

Peary adds that while “it’s unusual to see a film with four solid female parts,” “so many of their feelings — those that explain who they are — are kept bottled inside, as if the many scriptwriters (including Clifford Odets and Ben Hecht) were either afraid or incapable of expressing them or unable to because of censorship problems.” Indeed, this movie is often cited as a classic example of everything wrong with studio filmmaking before the Production Code was finally loosened; it was lambasted thusly by Bosley Crowther in The New York Times:

Everything in this sluggish picture… smacks of sentimentality and social naïveté. It is incredible that anything as foolish would be made in this day and age.

Meanwhile, the film’s production was infamously challenging and heated as well; as described in TCM’s article:

Needless to say, the shoot was something of a pitched battle. Feldman had promised Dmytryk that he would leave the country during filming so that he wouldn’t interfere. Then he hung around anyway, sending in his unwanted script revisions and insisting that Capucine be dressed in the latest Pierre Cardin designs, even though the film was set and costumed in the ’30s. Harvey quarreled with Dmytryk incessantly. When the actor stalked off the set and held up production for over an hour, Stanwyck tore into him so vehemently, he was never late again. At least they both could agree on their dislike of Capucine. When the former model complained that Harvey’s kisses weren’t manly enough for her, he countered, “Perhaps if you were more of a woman, I would be more of a man. Honey, kissing you is like kissing the side of a beer bottle.”

Ouch! Speaking of Stanwyck, her character’s thinly veiled “interest” in Capucine at least keeps things a little intriguing, even if her role is underdeveloped.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Jane Fonda’s enthusiastic performance as Kitty Twist
  
• Barbara Stanwyck as Jo
  
• Anne Baxter as Teresina
  
• Joseph MacDonald’s cinematography
  

Must See?
No, though fans of the stars will likely be curious to check it out.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Article
• DVD Savant

Synopsis:
After watching a fellow gladiator (Woody Strode) being killed by an arrogant Roman senator (Laurence Olivier), a slave named Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) helps spark a rebellion and is soon leader of a growing army of former slaves fighting back against their Roman captors.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Ancient Greece and Rome
• Charles Laughton Films
• Folk Heroes
• Historical Drama
• Jean Simmons Films
• John Dall Films
• John Ireland Films
• Kirk Douglas Films
• Laurence Olivier Films
• Peter Ustinov Films
• Rebellion
• Slavery
• Stanley Kubrick Films
• Tony Curtis Films
• Woody Strode Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “director Stanley Kubrick was disappointed in this epic about the legendary hero… who led a slave revolt against Rome in 71 B.C.,” feeling like “he didn’t have the freedom to develop the story as he wanted.” However, as Peary points out, “it has come to be regarded as [among the] best of the historical epics,” given that “it contains a spirited, emotionally charged performance by Douglas (who also produced)”:

… “a superlative supporting cast headed by Jean Simmons as the slave girl Varinia (Spartacus’s lover)”:

… “andLaurence Olivier as the Roman Crassus (Spartacus’s mortal enemy), [and] an outstanding battle sequence.” He notes that “this is one of the few epics in which we’re not bored when characters are talking,” adding that “the palace-bath chats between Olivier, John Gavin (as Julius Caesar), Charles Laughton, and the other shrewd Romans are amusing not only because they reveal political motives for wanting Spartacus and his memory destroyed but also because there are strong intimations of homosexuality.”

However, “the film’s major distinction is that its script, adapted from Howard Fast’s novel by Dalton Trumbo” (in his first credited post-blacklist film) “has a genuine revolutionary spirit, reflected in Douglas’s speeches to his followers” — and “Trumbo also establishes, through Crassus, the nature of a fascist.”

Peary notes numerous highlights from the film, including “Douglas being forced by his Roman captors to fight to the death with fellow slave Woody Strode”:

… “Laughton and slave dealer Peter Ustinov having a gluttonous meal together”:

… “Simmons’s nude swim”:

… “the fireballs being shot at the beginning of the great battle”:

… “and the fictional final scene in which the Romans try to determine which of the captured revels is Spartacus (they all claim to be).”

I’m essentially in agreement with Peary’s review, though the film feels a bit long at 3+ hours, and one definitely misses (or at least wonders about) the lack of Kubrick’s distinctive touch. However, the battle sequences are truly impressive, and the storyline effectively portrays Ancient Rome from multiple perspectives — not just those in power.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Laurence Olivier as Crassus
  
• Peter Ustinov as Batiatus
  
• Charles Laughton as Gracchus
  
• Russell Metty’s cinematography (aided significantly by Kubrick)
  
• The impressively crafted battle sequences
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical significance. Nominated as one of the Best Pictures of the Year in Alternate Oscars.

Categories

• Historically Relevant
• Important Director
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• TV Guide Review
• Q Network Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
After her best friend Anna (Lea Massari) mysteriously disappears during a boating trip in the Mediterranean, a young woman named Claudia (Monica Vitti) unexpectedly falls in love with her friend’s fiance, Sandro (Gabriele Ferzetti).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Italian Films
• Michelangelo Antonioni Films
• Monica Vitti Films
• Mysterious Disappearance

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “slow, enigmatic work by Michelangelo Antonio” — which “many critics consider infuriatingly shallow and others think is fraught with insight into the psyche of the rich” — is a “pessimistic film… about the tenuous nature of modern relationships, the inability of people to communicate verbally, the lack of joy in lovemaking, the meaningless and alienated lives of the rich, the realization that we’ll all disappear from the face of the earth and that life, such as it is, will continue (and we will fade from memory).”

He points out that the “film is very slow-paced, has no real storyline, [and] uses dull dialogue to express the dullness of the uncommunicative characters.” He notes that while he personally finds “the film fascinating,” he now knows “better than to recommend it to the casual moviegoer.” Finally, Peary highlights the “mesmerizing photography by Aldo Scavarda.”

I agree that it’s easy to see how this “challenging” film would divide audiences. It’s gorgeous and provocative, but requires patience and some intentional analysis to appreciate the points its director seems to be making. According to Geoffrey Nowell-Smith’s essay for Criterion:

From the moment that Sandro’s pursuit of Claudia is suddenly converted into mutual passion, the film’s momentum changes. Anna recedes into the background, but her absence continues to haunt the narrative, right until the very end. This absence — which is also a presence — is a key to the film. It inevitably brings to mind Hitchcock, who plays with a similar motif in Rebecca (1940) and Vertigo (1958), and also dispatches his heroine early in a film exactly contemporary with L’Avventura — Psycho.

However, Nowell-Smith points out a crucial difference between Antonioni and Hitchcock’s approach: Antonioni did not provide easily discernible reasons or motivations for anything that happens (or doesn’t happen) to his characters; they simply exist and (inter)act. Antonioni followed up this film with three others also starring Vitti: La Notte (1961), L’Eclisse (1962), and Red Desert (1964); I’ll be reviewing and comparing those soon.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Monica Vitti as Claudia
  
• Aldos Scavarda’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance as “Antonioni’s breakthrough film.”

Categories

• Foreign Gem
• Historically Relevant
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Q Network Review
• DVD Savant Review
• NY Times Original Review
• Criterion Essay
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
When an aspiring croupier (Susan Sarandon) in Atlantic City is visited by her estranged husband (Robert Joy) and pregnant sister (Hollis McLaren), she unexpectedly finds herself caught up in an adventure involving her elderly neighbor (Burt Lancaster), a former low-level gangster caring for an aging moll (Kate Reid).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Burt Lancaster Films
• Casinos
• Drug Dealers
• Gangsters
• Has-Beens
• Louis Malle Films
• May-December Romance
• Susan Sarandon Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “there is much in this film” — which he considers to be director “Louis Malle’s best English-language film” — “to appreciate,” including “the seedy [title] city itself.” He argues that “even if you’ve never been there, you’ll feel nostalgia for the pre-casino days.”

Peary writes that playwright “John Guare’s exceptional, witty script is full of believable, interesting types — all hoping for that one shot at happiness.” He notes that Guare and Malle’s “major theme is reflected in the coupling of Lancaster and Sarandon,” whose “union serves as a metaphor for the present-day mixing of the old and new in Atlantic City”; he points out they “make a dynamic screen couple.” Finally, Peary notes that the film features “a nice choice of locations,” with “Malle’s eye for detail… as usual, impeccable.”

Peary doesn’t specifically call out performances in his GFTFF review, but he does nominate both Lancaster and Sarandon as Best Actor and Actress in his Alternate Oscars book. They’re perfectly cast, nicely complementing one another in terms of personality, grit, and desire for the finer things in life.

Speaking of this, when we first see Sarandon re-encountering her low-life husband — who not only cheated on her, but impregnated her impressionable sister! — we wonder what it says about Sarandon that she’s come to this sorry place in her personal life.

However, we soon learn that she made bad choices given few choices in her small Canadian town, and is now on a self-determined path to correct that. Meanwhile, seeing shabby but elegant Lancaster ordered around by a shrewish old woman:

… makes his accidental turn towards increased cash flow seem hopeful, despite our knowing it can’t end well given the involvement of brutal drug dealers.

The supporting cast nicely rounds out the story, with Joy and McLaren — once again playing a pregnant young woman, as she did in Outrageous! (1977) — believable as the clueless and hopelessly naive young couple who set the plot in motion; Reid — perhaps best known for her role as Dr. Ruth Leavitt in The Andromeda Strain (1977) — rather hilarious in a role that allows her to morph from nag to caretaker:

… and Michel Piccoli in a small role as Sarandon’s worldly instructor.

Malle’s action-packed yet character-driven drama has held up well, and remains well worth a look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Burt Lancaster as Lou
  
• Susan Sarandon as Sally
  
• Fine supporting performances
  
• Richard Ciupka’s cinematography
  
• Excellent use of location shooting
  

Must See?
Yes, as a fine drama by a master director. Nominated as one of the Best Movies of the Year in Alternate Oscars.

Categories

• Good Show
• Important Director
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Q Network Review
• NY Times Original Review
• TV Guide Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
During the Vietnam War, a captain (Martin Sheen) is assigned the task of finding and assassinating a mad lieutenant colonel (Marlon Brando) who has become a god-like figure for natives living deep in the jungle.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Assassination
• Dennis Hopper Films
• Francis Ford Coppola Films
• Frederic Forrest Films
• Harrison Ford Films
• Jungles
• Marlon Brando Films
• Martin Sheen Films
• Robert Duvall Films
• Scott Glenn Films
• Vietnam War

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that while “Francis Coppola’s epic about the madness – ‘the horror!’ – of the Vietnam War is considered controversial,” “there is really no volatile material,” and he adds that “the only cause for debate among people interested in the war itself is Coppola’s best, most authentic sequence: stoned, leaderless soldiers fight continuously behind enemy lines while headquarters has forgotten about them.” He writes that “many visuals are exciting, but the picture is annoyingly self-conscious,” and “too often Coppola seems to be calling attention to his artistry and imagination.” He asserts that “the boat trip comes across like a ride at Disneyland, where the special-effects men have prepared tableaux on the banks at every turn of the river”:

… and he concludes his review by noting that “the scene in which Sheen and Brando lie around philosophizing while Coppola gets super-pretentious with his camera and character placement recalls the similarly shot, ultra-boring scene of Liv Ullmann and Ingrid Bergman in Ingmar Bergman’s Autumn Sonata.”

While it’s not a personal favorite, I’m a bigger fan of this wartime flick than Peary. Coppola was nothing if not forthright about his own concerns with the film not making sense (see the must-see documentary Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse [1991] for more on this), which makes it doubly impressive that the film actually does cohere. Sure, it’s more of a mood piece than a “rational” or straightforward adaptation of Joseph Conrad’s 1899 novella Heart of Darkness — but it works on its own terms as a surreal immersion piece. Coppola and his team set out to tell a tale of the Vietnam War that would highlight its deep absurdity and lasting impact on everyone involved, and in this, he succeeds.

We see characters ranging from an already-damaged captain (Sheen) who is shaken from an alcohol-fueled fugue to head out on a new mission:

… to the team of bureaucrats (including Harrison Ford) who cooly task Sheen with assassinating a member of his own military:

… to megalomaniac, helicopter-riding Lt. Colonel (Robert Duvall) who “loves the smell of napalm in the morning” and repeatedly insists to a California surfer named Lance (Sam Bottoms) that the war-ridden waters surrounding them are just fine to head out onto.

We also meet the other members of Sheen’s river patrol boat crew, including CPO Phillips (Albert Hall), “Clean” (14-year-old Laurence Fishburne), and “Chef” (Frederic Forrest):

… and eventually encounter a hopped up photojournalist (Dennis Hopper) who takes Sheen to see the mysterious Captain Kurtz (Brando).

The final half-hour — taking place deep in the “heart of darkness” in the jungle — evokes all sorts of problematic issues related to colonialism and exoticism of native peoples, but it’s palatable given that this is precisely the film’s point: we went in to “help” a country we knew little to nothing about, and emerged more confused and damaged than ever.

Note: Watch for a brief “cameo” by Scott Glenn as a member of Brando’s cult.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Fine performances by the entire cast
  
  
• Vittorio Storaro’s cinematography
  
• Good use of an eclectic score

Must See?
Yes, as a powerful classic.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• Spinning Image Review
• TCM Article