FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A survivor (Don Johnson) of a nuclear holocaust roams the wastelands of Arizona with his telepathically communicating dog Blood (Tiger), in search of females and food. Soon Vic (Johnson) is seduced by a beautiful young woman (Susanne Benton) who encourages him to come “downunder” to the Utopian town of Topeka — but will he follow her, given that he must leave his beloved canine companion behind?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Black Comedy
• Dystopia
• Jason Robards Films
• Pets
• Post-Apocalypse
• Science Fiction
• Survival
• Talking Animals

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “cult science-fiction fantasy was capably adapted from Harlan Ellison’s Nebula Award-winning novella by L.Q. Jones,” who is “best known [as a supporting actor] for his appearances in Sam Peckinpah westerns.” He notes that good use was made of the “low budget, with extremely interesting visualizations of violent wasteland (anticipating Mad Max and The Road Warrior) and Topeka.”

Peary points out that while the picture “received much criticism for [its] depiction of women as sex objects,” “that is exactly the nightmarish vision Ellison and Jones see for this apocalyptic age” — not exactly “one they find appealing.” He adds that the “best part of [the] film is [the] wicked rat-a-tat dialogue between Vic and Blood, taken almost word for word from Ellison,” and describes Vic and Blood “like a comedy team cast in an absurd play.”

Peary elaborates on his review in his Cult Movies 2 book, where he points out how “violent, sexy, [and] sometimes vulgar” this black comedy is despite its seemingly “kiddie fare” title, and he discusses some key changes made between the novella and this adaptation — primarily around the role of Quilla June (Benton), who was virginal in the book but here is a power-hungry seductress.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about this movie — and even Peary concedes that it’s “not for everyone.” While I can see its dark appeal as a film with “bizarre humor,” it’s too harsh for my tastes, especially given that there really isn’t a sympathetic character in sight (other than perhaps Blood, played in a “terrific performance” by Tiger of “The Brady Bunch” fame). Sure, this may be highly realistic for a movie portraying the darkest of End Times, but it’s hard to watch — especially without a woman to root for. While I’m glad I finally revisited this cult classic, it’s not a personal favorite.

Note: Watch for Jason Robards, Jr. in a key role as a member of the triumvirate committee “downunder”.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Appropriately bleak sets and atmospheric cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite — though it may or may not be to your liking.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• TV Guide Review (spoiler alert)
• Moria Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A male android (Don Opper) onboard a spaceship with a mad doctor (Klaus Kinski) and a newly formed female android (Kendra Kirchner) falls for a beautiful human fugitive (Brie Howard) who — along with two criminal compatriots (Norbert Weisser and Crofton Hardester) — is on the run from the law .

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Androids and Clones
• Fugitives
• Mad Doctors and Scientists
• Science Fiction

Response to Peary’s Review:
In his brief review of this “low-budget debut film” by writer-actor Dan Opper — which “became a quick cult favorite in England,” but “never really caught on” in America — Peary simply notes that putting “all these weird characters together” means “there’s bound to be mayhem.” He asserts that while “it has charm, a Chaplinesque lead character, and behind-the-camera intelligence going for it,” it “is one film that really should have been zanier.”

I agree. There is very little going on here other than Opper (who is appropriately child-like and charming) wanting to experience love and sex for the first time (with Howard), and being disillusioned by his maker (Kinski).

None of the characters or plot details are sufficiently fleshed out. We simply know that Opper is in the midst of a bunch of questionable characters:

… and that he will at some point be joined (or replaced) by his new female companion.

To its credit, the film ends on an empowering note, but it’s not really worth the ride until then.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Don Opper as Max 404
  

Must See?
No, though sci-fi fans might be curious to check it out given its cult status.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• NY Times Original Review
• TV Guide Review
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
On prom night in 1962, a teenager (Ron Howard) about to head off to college tells his long-time girlfriend (Cindy Williams) that he wants them to see other people while they’re apart; meanwhile, his college-going buddy (Richard Dreyfuss) becomes obsessed with a beautiful blonde (Suzanne Somers) in a white convertible who flirts with him, then gets caught up with a group of local gangsters causing havoc; a nerd (Charles Martin Smith) takes temporary possession of Howard’s car and quickly scores a beautiful date (Candy Clark); and a slightly older local (Paul Le Mat) ends up driving around town with a precocious twelve-year-old (Mackenzie Phillips).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Candy Clark Films
• Comedy
• Coming of Age
• Ensemble Cast
• Harrison Ford Films
• Kathleen Quinlan Films
• Paul Le Mat Films
• Teenagers

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “George Lucas directed this wonderfully exuberant youth comedy which is set one eventful night in Modesto, California, in 1962” — an “idealized remembrance of things past, of innocent youth spent eating fries and malts at the drive-in hangout, cruising the main strip, drag-racing, bragging about your one ‘cool’ friend, making out, hanging out, dancing real close, listening to rock music on the car radio, playing pranks on [the] police, telling off an obnoxious teacher.”

He points out that “fittingly, we don’t see our young heroes and heroines having dinner at home with their parents, doing their homework, or attending classes.” Instead, the film is structured around one strategically compressed night in which “at the beginning and conclusion, we see our four male heroes together”:

… and “in between, they go their separate ways.” Peary notes how “smoothly” Lucas moves “between the four storylines, which at times intermingle”: Howard and Williams’ romantic challenges; Dreyfuss’s adventures with “three toughs” (led by Bo Hopkins):

… “Smith having “the wildest night imaginable” with “batty blonde Candy Clark”:

… “and Le Mat unexpectedly finding a “great companion” in Phillips.

He writes that “the pace is swift, the dialogue is consistently witty and clever, and the characters are terrific,” and he adds that the “film features the first great golden-oldies soundtrack” (costing only $80,000!).

In Alternate Oscars, Peary names this the Best Film of the Year, and points out that “because of this seminal youth film the next two decades would be overrun with pictures about overly worried or overly excited teenagers… but none would be such labors of love.” As he writes, “None would have the sense of fun, humor, warmth toward characters, or genuine nostalgia that is evident in Lucas’s every shot and line of dialogue,” and he points out that this film “was an instant classic” (though not beloved by all critics), “a smash hit, [and] a vehicle that helped launch numerous careers (even Harrison Ford has a small part).”

I’m in agreement with Peary’s laudatory review, and was very pleasantly surprised to find this nostalgia-laced classic so authentically engaging. There doesn’t seem to be a wrong step taken here, from careful selection of each supporting character in the large ensemble cast to Lucas’s penchant for cultivating improvised “mistakes”. Watching Laurent Bouzereau’s must-see documentary (1998) about the film’s 28-day rapid-fire production shows that input from producer Francis Ford Coppola and cinematographer Haskell Wexler also seemed to play a crucial role in the film’s creative success. This film remains well worth a revisit.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Fine performances by the entire cast
  
  
  
  
  
• Excellent cinematography
  
• Effective production design
  
• George Lucas, Gloria Katz, and Willard Huyck’s script
• Impressive sound mixing
• The rocking soundtrack

Must See?
Yes, as an American classic.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

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

Synopsis:
A Brazilian outlaw known as Antonio das Mortes (Mauricio do Valle) is hired by a corrupt police chief (Hugo Carvana) to kill a revolutionary known as Coirana (Lorival Pariz), but eventually has a change of heart and tries to convince a blind, wealthy landowner (Joffre Soares) with an unfaithful wife (Odete Lara) to distribute his food to the masses.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Hit Men
• Revolutionaries
• South and Central American Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “major work of Brazil’s Cinema Novo” — a “myth-epic” — was “a very popular film among U.S. and European leftists at the time of [its] release.” He describes it as a “political allegory” that “is both extremely theatrical and, at times ritualistic”:

… and points out that viewers will “be reminded of Sergio Leone’s Clint Eastwood bounty-hunter films, Eastwood’s [non-GFTFF-listed] Joe Kidd (in which he turns against the men who hired him), El Topo (the bearded Do Valle looks like a fat Alexandro Jodorowsky), Godard (if he ever made a period piece, it would be similar), and South American dance, folkloric, and religious pageants.”

Peary argues that while the “picture is ambiguous at times and downright weird at others,” it’s “endlessly fascinating and colorful” and features “fine photography.” Martin Scorsese is also a diehard fan; on YouTube you can find a 25 minute interview of him discussing this movie and the impact it’s had on him as a filmmaker.

I’m less impressed. While it’s easy to see how movie lovers in the late 1960s would hail director Glauber Rocha’s flick — a sequel to his earlier Black God, White Devil (1964) — for its bold break from stylistic and narrative conventions, it’s more of a political and cinematic curiosity today. With that said, film fanatics will still likely be curious to check out either this film, Black God, White Devil, or the middle film in Rocha’s “trilogy”, Entranced Earth (1967) (the latter two titles are listed in 1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Affonso Beato’s cinematography
  

Must See?
No, though it’s recommended for its historical relevance.

Links:

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

Synopsis:
When Swiss frame-maker Jonathan Zimmerman (Bruno Ganz) meets art broker Tom Ripley (Dennis Hopper) at an auction sale of a painting made by a presumably-dead American artist (Nicholas Ray), he finds himself unexpectedly caught up in a dangerous plan to assassinate a couple of Mafia-wanted men.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Bruno Ganz Films
• Dennis Hopper Films
• Friendship
• Hit Men
• German Films
• Mafia
• Wim Wenders Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “Wim Wenders’s dazzling psychological thriller, adapted from Ripley’s Game by Patricia Highsmith, was the first film of [the] West German film renaissance to be truly accessible to American audiences,” given that “the colors are splashy rather than subdued”:

… “there are references to familiar English-language rock songs; the picture is set partly in America, and English is the dominant language; Dennis Hopper (as Tom Ripley) co-stars”:

… “and supporting parts are played by well-known American director Sam Fuller (as a Mafia man)”:

… “and Nicholas Ray (as the supposedly dead artist whose paintings Ripley sells).”

Peary points out that “Wenders’s sharply edited action sequences are influenced by Fuller,” while “his use of the frame as an arena for tension and to expose character isolation was influenced by Ray.”

However, he adds that “the storyline and characters… are most reminiscent of Hitchcock, specifically Strangers on a Train — which was also based on a Highsmith novel.”

Peary describes the film’s complex plot as follows in GFTFF: “In Germany to sell a painting, Ripley is slighted by Jonathan (Bruno Ganz), a simple Swiss frame-maker, who won’t shake his hand because of his shady reputation.”

“Insulted, Ripley secretly recommends Jonathan to a rich criminal friend (Gérard Blain) who is looking for a non-criminal to assassinate Mafia men.”

“Knowing Jonathan has leukemia, Tom starts a rumor that he is no longer in remission. Soon Jonathan believes he is about to die” and, “wanting to leave money to [his] wife and child after his death, he is talked into committing the crimes — although he has never done an incorrect act in his life. Meanwhile he and Tom become friends, while his marriage to Marianne (a fine performance by Lisa Kreuzer, Wenders’s wife) deteriorates because of his lies about his activities.”

Peary points out that while “conscience, guilt, and morality based on a religious code were important to Highsmith,” “Wenders doesn’t deal with these themes” — instead, “as his world has no God, he is concerned with existential themes (depressed Ripley worries that his meaningless life is endless; depressed Jonathan fears his life will soon be over) and male bonding and friendship between opposites.”

Indeed, both men could be viewed as “aliens in their respective environments”, given that “Tom admires Jonathan’s stable family life, while Jonathan admires Tom’s freedom from family responsibilities and his criminal activities” and is “appreciative that Tom helps him engage in excitement.”

Peary’s assessment — including his additional musings in Cult Movies 2, where he discusses the film in further detail — accurately sums up this often enigmatic thriller, which gets dark quickly but remains highly engaging throughout. We can’t stop watching Ganz as he spirals into increasingly violent situations, knowing that one way or another, he’s doomed.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Bruno Ganz as Jonathan Zimmermann
  
• Dennis Hopper as Tom Ripley
  
• Lisa Kreuzer as Marianne Zimmermann
  
• Robby Müller’s cinematography
  
• Good use of location shooting
  
• Jürgen Knieper’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a foreign classic.

Categories

• Foreign Gem

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Pauline Kael’s Review (New Yorker)
• NY Times DVD Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
A teenager (Bruno Zanin) in 1930s fascist Italy experiences adolescence amidst a kooky array of family members, neighbors, and friends.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Coming of Age
• Federico Fellini Films
• Italian Films
• Village Life

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary asserts that this “Oscar-winning nostalgia piece” by Federico Fellini — which “takes place in the early thirties in a small Adriatic town that is much like Rimini, where the director grew up” — is a mixed bag of amusing and “extremely erratic” sequences. He notes that the “best parts of the film deal with Zanin and his horny pals”, who “think constantly of women with big breasts and big rears.” He notes that a classic highlight includes a “sequence showing how the kids react (usually by pulling pranks) to their weird teachers”:

… and another particularly funny bit shows Zanin exciting “a 300-pound woman [Maria Antonietta Beluzzi] by lifting her off the ground repeatedly” and being “rewarded with a chance to smother himself in her enormous breasts.”

An even more amusing sequence involves “a family dinner during which Mama [Pupella Maggio] refuses to eat, Mama and Papa (Armando Brancia) argue (as they must do every night), Zanin eats like a pig, the emotionless uncle [Nando Orfei] juggles and eats from a plate he holds in his hand”:

… “Papa chases Zanin from the house for having urinated on a man’s hat at the movie theater, and Grandpa [Giuseppe Ianigro] slips into the next room to break wind.”

Peary writes that while “the picture isn’t all comedic,” “those are the best moments — [and] unfortunately, they come mostly at the beginning.” He argues that “a couple of anecdotes, presented stylistically, about peripheral adult characters in the town really slow down the picture”:

… and that “the scene in which the father is punished by the fascists for some indiscreet remarks is well done, but seems out of place in this otherwise apolitical film.” (I disagree that the film is apolitical.)

While some scenes definitely “work” better than others, Fellini’s overall aim with this film seems more impressionistic, showing us glimpses of memories and senses (necessarily not always coherent) that infuse one’s recollections of growing up. To that end, he succeeds entirely, making this film worth at least a one-time look, especially for his fans.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Fine cinematography and sets
  
  
• Nino Rota’s score

Must See?
Yes, for its status as an Academy Award winning film by a master director.

Categories

• Important Director
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

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

Synopsis:
Shortly after Dr. Frankenstein (Sting) brings his new female experiment (Jennifer Beals) to life, his monster (Clancy Brown) escapes and meets a dwarf (David Rappaport) who names him “Viktor” and convinces him to join the circus. Meanwhile, Dr. Frankenstein falls possessively in love with “Eva” (Beals), but she is interested in another man (Cary Elwes) and wants to live her own life.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Carnivals and Circuses
• Frankenstein
• Horror Films
• Mad Doctors and Scientists

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “boring, poorly acted, poorly conceived revision of James Whale’s Bride of Frankenstein [1935], directed by Franc Roddam,” has “nothing to do with Mary Shelley,” instead pandering “to the modern audience with phony feminism.” He points out that Rappaport gives “the one acceptable performance in the film”:

… and argues that “there is no horror, except the acting of Sting and Beals in their final scene together.”

Peary’s right: this film really is a mess. While it’s beautifully staged and photographed, the storyline and characterizations leave a lot to be desired, and it’s a slog to get through. Of note is the interesting (albeit underutilized) cast of supporting actors, including Quentin Crisp and Timothy Spall as lab assistants:

… and Geraldine Page as a housekeeper.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Atmospheric sets and cinematography
  
  

Must See?
Nope; you can skip this one unless you’re curious.

Links:

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

Synopsis:
At an isolated research center in Antarctica, a helicopter pilot (Kurt Russell) and his colleagues become alarmed when they realize a husky dog is actually a shape-shifting alien ready to take over their bodies at any time.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Aliens
• Horror Films
• John Carpenter Films
• Mistaken and Hidden Identities
• Possession
• Science Fiction

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is among a host of critics who are/were unhappy with “John Carpenter’s remake of Howard Hawks’s classic” sci-fi horror flick, based on “John W. Campbell, Jr.’s source story, ‘Who Goes There?’.” He refers to it as “a tremendous disappointment,” arguing that it traded “in the good taste that made Hawks’s film so special for some of the most repellent imagery in horror-movie history.”

Meanwhile, he posits that the film’s “terrifying premise” — the men on the base “lose trust in one another, fearing that the monster lurks beneath the familiar human facade of one of their co-workers” — is “exploited by Carpenter and special-effects genius Rob Bottin, who really comes up with some amazing concoctions.” He asserts that Carpenter’s “major mistake” is “when he has the film’s suspense and horror focus on the visuals, particularly the extremely gory, often repulsive ways in which the men are killed off.”

Peary argues that “the real horror should be that these men are losing their identities when they are inhabited by the creature” — but “unfortunately, Carpenter neglected to give his characters distinct or engaging personalities to begin with,” and “since they are already dehumanized from their long stay in the wilderness, we can’t be too upset seeing nonentities being taken over.”

I disagree with Peary’s take on this film. While Hawks’s unique flick is a must-see classic of the 1950s, Carpenter’s film succeeds on its own terms, presenting a wintery hellscape of justifiable paranoia in which these men (I disagree they’re dehumanized) can no longer rely on one another for support and survival. Carpenter’s direction is spot-on, and the special effects really are a wonder to behold. While this isn’t a personal favorite, it’s a well-crafted thriller, and has enough of a dedicated following that all film fanatics should watch it at least once.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Kurt Russell as MacReady
  
• Dean Cundey’s cinematography
  
• Impressive make-up and special effects
  
• Ennio Morricone’s score

Must See?
Yes, for its cult status and as an appropriately horrifying thriller.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• Moria Review
• NY Times Original Review
• re:View Video Discussion
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
Shortly after meeting the identical twin sister (Ellen Barkin) of his former wife, a polymath superhero named Buckaroo Banzai (Peter Weller) joins forces with his bandmates Perfect Tommy (Lewis Smith), Reno Nevada (Pepe Serna), and Rawhide (Clancy Brown) — as well as his scientific mentor (Robert Ito) and a doctor-colleague (Jeff Goldblum) — in fighting back against the criminally insane Lord John Whorfin (Jon Lithgow), who is working alongside a pair of alien scientists (Christopher Lloyd and Vincent Schiavelli) to steal an “oscillation overthruster”.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Aliens
• Jeff Goldblum Films
• Mad Doctors and Scientists
• Science Fiction
• Superheroes
• World Domination

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to this midnight-movie cult favorite as a “scatterbrained, sloppily made science-fiction comedy for the stoned out generation.” He asserts that the story — about Buckaroo Banzai doing “battle with a lot of weirdly dressed aliens and a mad Italian scientist” — “gets lost because of the chaotic pacing and lack of continuity, the overabundance of characters who run around in fancy outfits with no place to go, and the fact that first-time director W.D. Richter (who wrote the script for 1978’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers) never bothers to establish where anyone is in relation to anyone else.”

Peary adds that “as played by Peter Weller, Banzai unfortunately turns out to be a pretty conventional hero” whose “special skills are never really put to work — it’s as if he has them only so the film’s publicity releases will sound interesting.” He argues that while “Weller is handsome,” he “hasn’t the necessary charisma to play a superhero,” and “his cockiness reflects the attitude of the whole production.”

I’m essentially in agreement with Peary’s review, though I think the failings he points out here — i.e., the “chaotic pacing,” “lack of continuity,” and “overabundance of characters who run around in fancy outfits” — are actually what endear the kooky film to its fans. Also of note is Lithgow going beyond over-the-top in an unhinged performance as a Mussolini-like scientist-dictator who’s actually an alien:

… and chill Goldblum getting to wear western duds after casually performing life-changing neurosurgery.

Meanwhile, Barkin has an entirely thankless role as the female love interest; she spends most of the film either crying and trying to kill herself or being tortured.

While I’m not personally a fan of this weird flick, enough are to make it worth a one-time viewing simply for its cult status.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• J. Michael Riva’s production design
  

Must See?
Yes, once, simply for its cult value.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Spinning Image Review (Graeme Clark)
• Moria Review

Synopsis:
When a recently divorced man (Richard Benjamin) and his friend (James Brolin) arrive in a futuristic theme park for adults, they enjoy experiencing the Wild West and “killing” an android gunslinger (Yul Brynner); but soon the lives of all guests at the park are at stake when dozens of androids begin to malfunction.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Androids and Clones
• Richard Benjamin Films
• Science Fiction
• Survival
• Westerns
• Yul Brynner Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “surprise hit” about a theme park with robots who are “programmed to satisfy every whim of the park’s guests” — including “computer-controlled saloon girls to provide sex and dressed-in-black villains to provide excitement” — was “written and directed ([in] his debut) by Michael Crichton,” and thus we fully “expect this ‘foolproof’ system to go haywire” (which, indeed, it does).

Peary likens the eventual situation of “timid Richard Benjamin” to that of “the scared Jon Voight character in Deliverance [1972] once his tough friend Burt Reynolds is incapacitated.”

He adds that in the world of “Crichton, man starts out working with machines, is careless, and invariably ends up pitted against them” — and to that end, the “final battle between Benjamin and Brynner is a lot of fun, a fitting climax to [a] witty, provocative thriller for the popcorn crowd.”

I agree. This smart, low-budget flick mostly delivers on its promise — though as Richard Scheib points out in his review for Moria: “The one big hole in the script is that Michael Crichton fails to explain the nature of the malfunction – what causes the androids to go amok, exactly why the androids dislike humans and how the androids override the safety feature on their guns that prevent them from hurting humans.” Regardless, this film most definitely makes one question the wisdom of creating such a park to begin with, and is an appropriately scary cinematic journey to take.

Note: The recent remake mini-series (2016-present) has gotten strong reviews, but I haven’t seen it yet, so can’t compare.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Richard Benjamin as Peter Martin
  
• Yul Brynner as the Gunslinger
  
• Fine low-budget sets and effects
  
• Fred Karlin’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a still enjoyable sci-fi classic.

Categories

• Good Show

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review