FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A die-hard Beatles fan (Wendie Jo Sperber) hoping to see the band drives to New York City with a boy (Mark McClure) who has access to his father’s hearse, an aspiring-photographer friend (Theresa Saldana), a young woman (Nancy Allen) about to be married, a folk music snob (Susan Kendall Newman), and an obnoxious Beatles-hater (Bobby Di Cicco).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Historical Drama
• Media Spectacle
• Nancy Allen Films
• New York City
• Obsessive Fans
• Rock ‘n Roll
• Teenagers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “if you were in the New York area back in 1964, you know that this sadly neglected film perfectly captures the lovely hysteria surrounding the Beatles’ arrival in town, their stay at the Plaza Hotel, which was besieged by fans, and their historic appearance on the The Ed Sullivan Show.”

He notes that this comedy “about a funny group of kids, mostly out-of-towners, who try to break into the Beatles’ hotel suite and to rustle up tickets to the Sullivan show” is “like something out of a time capsule”:

… with “the characters, clothes, dialogue, [and] New York environment/atmosphere… exactly as [he] remembers.” He argues that “there was something wonderful in the air back then that’s impossible to describe,” yet “somehow this film re-creates that feeling.”

He further notes the “splendid comic performances by the young cast — particularly Nancy Allen as a girl who suddenly becomes an obsessed Beatles convert”:

… and “Eddie Deezen as a nerdy chatterbox who is a Beatles trivia nut… and hawks memorabilia.”

Peary points out that this film was “a difficult, unusual project, particularly when you consider that the real Beatles and Ed Sullivan weren’t available for the finale, which was nevertheless cleverly handled by director Robert Zemeckis (then Executive Producer Steven Spielberg’s protégé.)

He concludes his review by noting that “this sleeper’s a lot of fun; and smart, too.” I agree completely. I was pleasantly surprised to revisit this smartly scripted, well-acted comedy which manages to cover a brief but potent moment in history from numerous angles. Sperber is hilariously invested as a young woman in love with Paul (but willing to call Deezen her boyfriend given how much they obsessively have in common); and the subplot about a young fan whose father refuses to give him his tickets to the show until he cuts his hair is nicely handled.

This one remains well worth a look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Wendie Jo Sperber as Rosie Petrofsky
  
• An impressive recreation of a specific moment in pop culture history
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as an all-around good show.

Categories

• Good Show

Links:

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

Synopsis:
A martial arts expert (Bruce Lee) and his two American partners (John Saxon and Jim Kelly) are sent to infiltrate the lair of an evil drug-pin (Shih Kien) whose henchman (Robert Wall) killed Lee’s sister.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Bruce Lee Films
• John Saxon Films
• Martial Arts
• Revenge
• Spies

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this final completed film with Bruce Lee (who died unexpectedly a few weeks before its release) is “arguably the most entertaining, colorful, and spectacular kung fu film ever made” and was “an enormous money-maker worldwide.” He notes that while the story — about a “kung fu master [who] arrives on the island owned by… an evil Dr. No-like figure with an attachable iron hand” — is “on a comic-book level,” the “production values are high, the action is nonstop and consistently exciting, and the atmosphere is rich,” and an “all-star cast of sorts” join “the incomparable Lee, whose feats seem impossible.”

Peary’s review of this flick in GFTFF is directly excerpted from his lengthier Cult Movies essay, which I’ll quote from here. He contextualizes the film by noting that “between 1972 and 1975, the talk of the film industry (in addition to [adult] films) was the martial arts movies — ‘chop sockies,’ as the genre was dubbed — that were being churned out in Hong Kong… and were inundating international markets.” He describes them as “influenced by ritualistic life-and-death combat found in such diverse forms as ancient Chinese drama, opera, folklore and fairy tales, Jacobean revenge plays, American pulp fiction and superhero comics, Japanese samurai pictures, Italian muscleman epics, European-made westerns, and Hollywood fantasy films.” (That’s quite a list of influences!!!)

Given that most of these imported flicks were “assembly line jobs,” he points out that Lee’s films “gave the genre a touch of respectability.” He adds that “while other heroes won their fights with the help of special-effects men, Lee refused to use gadgetry such as pulleys, trampolines, and fake props, bragging that he was the only fight choreographer who showed only what was real or at least possible.” (Indeed, the black flip occurring just 2.5 minutes into the film is impressive enough to sell you immediately on Lee’s skills.)

In describing more of Lee’s work, Peary notes that “his fight with Oharra [Wall] is particularly stunning,” given that he “does flip kicks and several of his infamous lightning one-inch paralyzing punches while his opponent looks nailed to the ground.”

He adds that “an incredible close-up in slow motion of Lee’s face allows us to see his face muscles quivering like waves in the ocean: he is killing the man who caused his sister’s suicide, and rarely has such pure emotion — ’emotion, not anger,’ Lee tells his pupil — been captured on a screen character’s face.

Peary also makes note of challenges with the film, including the fact that Williams — “a black who fights racist cops in a flashback set in America” — is “never really seen together [with Lee]” and the two don’t “talk to each other.”

This stresses that Lee is more of “a James Bond figure, just as the iron-handed Han is a Doctor No rip-off:”

… and Lee “has come to Han’s island primarily to do secret-agent work” — “not, as is always part of the kung fu film formula, to avenge his sister and temple.”

Meanwhile, the film’s “worst mistake is that there is an absence of a time element in the script” — meaning, “there is no bomb about to explore and no intended victim… about to be tortured — [and] consequently, there is little of the suspense or sense of urgency so necessary to adventure films.” However, Peary ultimately points out that “while the flaws are abundant, they are trivialized by the spectacular kung fu sequences that take place every few minutes,” making this “great entertainment” that remains noteworthy for starring “the finest action hero in cinema history in one of his few roles: the one and only Bruce Lee, at his remarkable best.”

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Bruce Lee’s stunning martial arts moves
  
• The remarkably filmed “room of mirrors” fight sequence
  
• Fine sets and production design
  

Must See?
Yes, for its cult status.

Categories

• Cult Movie

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
When a high school teacher (Tom Berenger) is asked by a journalist (Ellen Barkin) to share what he knows about the mysterious disappearance of his former band leader (Michael Paré), Berenger goes on a trip down memory lane, reflecting back on the sexy singer (Helen Schneider) he had a crush on and the missing tapes Eddie (Paré) may have hidden.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Amateur Sleuths
• Flashback Films
• Journalists
• Rock ‘n Roll

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that although it was a “flop when released, this weird little film has become a cult favorite due to cable television” (and maintains that status today after an ill-fated sequel in 1989). He writes that this “combination of sixties nostalgia, music extravaganza, and creepy mystery is not altogether successful, but, thanks to [the] music (provided by John Cafferty and the Beaver Brown Band), a solid cast, and an interesting premise (inspired by rumors that the Doors’ lead singer, Jim Morrison, still lives), it is far better than most unimaginative pictures thrust at youth audiences.”

That’s faint praise, but is fairly accurate. The mystery of whether Eddie is actually still alive — and, even more importantly, whether fans will be able to hear his final “concept album”, which never saw the light of day — propels the narrative and keeps us in suspense, tapping into the appealing notions that: 1) our favorite musicians never really died (Elvis anyone?), and 2) more of their amazing music is squirrelled away somewhere, simply awaiting discovery. It’s pure fantasy, and will likely appeal to those nostalgic for this era — but it’s not must-see viewing.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Tom Berenger as Frank Ridgeway
  
• Some fine musical performances
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look for its cult status.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
A dance company rehearses Federico Garcia Lorca’s tragic play “Blood Wedding”, in which a bride (Cristina Yoyos) runs away with her married lover (Antonio Gades), who soon faces her angry new husband (Juan Antonio Jimenez).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Dancers
• Love Triangle
• Spanish Films
• Weddings

Response to Peary’s Review:
In describing this unusual movie of “what is supposed to be a dress rehearsal of [Antonio] Gades’s flamenco version of Garcia Lorca’s passionate tragedy Bodas de Sangre,” Peary writes that “Spain’s celebrated director Carlos Saura joined forces with Antonio Gades, famed classical dancer, to show how film could bring intimacy to and enhance the excitement of dance.”

He notes that because “Saura wants us to feel the importance of what we’re about to see — and have us feel it’s more than a rehearsal — he pulls a couple of tricks,” including taking “us into the dancers’ dressing rooms so we can get to know them personally” (though this is limited to light banter, guitar warm-up, and dancers putting photos up on their mirrors).

Peary writes that given that “the rehearsal takes place in a large, bare rehearsal hall,” “Saura and Gaudes attempt… to make us become so involved with the dancing and the characters that we forget about he minimal set and perhaps imagine that the light filtering through the background windows is Lorca’s moon.”

He adds that “the dancers perform with passion… and Saura moves his camera among them, floating into a close-up or waiting for a dancer to spin toward him and stop dramatically right before the lens.”

He notes that he finds “the setting distracting” (I don’t, given the context) but concedes that the “film isn’t boring, even for those who don’t like dance.” Indeed, at just 72 minutes, this first of four flamenco-themed movies Saura would make — including the GFTFF-listed Carmen (1983) — is short enough to hold interest throughout. I always appreciate behind-the-scenes looks at art being crafted, and consider this to be a worthy entry in that sub-genre; however, it’s not must-see viewing for all film fanatics.

Update on 2/15/23: RIP, Carlos Saura.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• A creative cinematic rendering of dance
  

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Dance-Centric Review

Synopsis:
After being pushed around once too often by their controlling manager (Ted Ross), baseball player Bingo Long (Billy Dee Williams) and his teammate Leon (James Earl Jones) convince a number of other colleagues to join a traveling team of their own making — but can they survive when Ross is determined to sabotage their efforts?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• African Americans
• Baseball
• Historical Drama
• Race Relations and Racism
• Richard Pryor Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “flavorful, spirited period piece” about a group of “malcontents” who “barnstorm around the country, playing local teams and really putting on a show” is “full of nice moments, including the final scene between Bingo and Leon, which leaves viewers feeling good.”

He argues that while “it starts out as an interesting look at exploitation of blacks by blacks and a sharp leftist political satire (‘Seize the means of production’ is Bingo’s motto),” it “unfortunately dissolves into a familiar farce” — though I don’t quite agree with this assessment. Rather, director John Badham — working from a script by Hal Barwood and Matthew Robbins from a novel by William Brashler — affectionately but incisively shows the resilience and creativity of those forced to play for the Negro Leagues (which finally folded in 1948, more or less, due to integration).

According to one historian in a fascinating short documentary on the topic:

“In a period when cinema was still in its infancy, and there really wasn’t radio — and there certainly wasn’t television — it was things like the circus and the carnival and these road shows coming to town that was everybody’s entertainment. So it wasn’t just a baseball game: the players also played musical instruments, or wrestled, or put on comedy routines… This was a three act show, that the baseball game was just part of.”

This film most certainly gets that playful and creative energy across. Williams and Jones are both excellent in leading roles, and Richard Pryor has fun in what is essentially an extended cameo role as a player determined to convince the White leagues that he is Cuban so he can play with them.

Note: Be sure to watch director John Badham describing the film in his appearance on Trailers from Hell.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Billy Dee Williams as Bingo Long (loosely based on “Satchel” Paige)
  
• James Earl Jones as Leon Carter (loosely based on Josh Gibson)
  
• Fine cinematography and production design
  

Must See?
Yes, as an enjoyable historical flick.

Categories

• Good Show

Links:

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

Synopsis:
An aspiring restauranteur (Harvey Keitel) in New York’s Little Italy works overtime to keep his buddy (Robert De Niro) out of trouble and to hide his relationship with De Niro’s cousin (Amy Robinson).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Friendship
• Harvey Keitel Films
• Mafia
• Martin Scorsese Films
• New York City
• Robert De Niro Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Martin Scorsese emerged from obscurity with this violent, visually dazzling love-hate remembrance of life in New York’s Little Italy,” an “independent film deal[ing] with young low-level criminals — second-rank loan sharks, numbers men, street hustlers, collectors — whose goal is to move up in the Mafia hierarchy.”

Specifically, the storyline centers on Harvey Keitel’s Charlie, who “wants his Mafia uncle [Cesare Danova] to give him a restaurant that was taken from its rightful owner” — but in order to achieve this goal “must keep secret his friendship with stupid, irresponsible, reckless Robert De Niro (who became a star as Johnny Boy)”:

… and his “love for De Niro’s epileptic cousin, Amy Robinson.”

The bulk of Charlie’s time is spent “getting De Niro out of trouble… and eventually tr[ying] to get him out of town to avoid a loan shark (Richard Romanus) … to whom he’s deeply in debt.”

Peary describes this film as “an alternative to Diner,” showing “young Italian buddies hanging out” in a bar, “carrying on conversations (heavily improvised) that have more slaps and shoves than words, holding two-minute grudges against each other, losing their tempers”:

… “discussing what’s happening on the streets, making a play for women, scheming to get cash to see a movie up on 42nd Street, figuring out how to smooth things over between De Niro and Romanus, [and] watching strangers engage in violence.”

Peary notes that while “Scorsese calls attention to his characters’ foul racism and [their] foolish male posturing” he “sees these young men sympathetically, as victims of their crowded, brutal, corrupt hell-town.” He points out that the “film has [a] distinct rhythm created by [a] rock-band score, camera movement, [and a] special brand of patter between characters”; meanwhile, “the strong use of city locales indicates Scorsese was an expert on post-WWII Italian neo-realist films.”

Ultimately, he argues that “this remains one of Scorsese’s most exciting efforts.”

While I appreciate all of Peary’s points — and can see how Scorsese fans would view this film as a powerful harbinger of what was to come — I differ from most critics in that I don’t see it as necessary viewing in its own right. There is little satisfaction in watching these young men hanging out and wreaking havoc; while Scorsese’s camerawork is consistently creative and Kent Wakeford’s cinematography is highly atmospheric, the storyline they’re working in service of doesn’t quite pay off.

Watch for David Carradine as a drunk in the bar who meets a violent (what else?) end:

… and Scorsese himself in a small but crucial (and violent; what else?) cameo near the end.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Harvey Keitel as Charlie
  
• Robert De Niro as Johnny Boy
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  

Must See?
No, but it’s certainly worth a look for its historical relevance.

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• FilmSite Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
A mercenary swordsman (Tomisaburô Wakayama) travelling across the countryside with his young son (Masahiro Tomikana) in medieval Japan helps a poor young woman (Yuko Hama) escape from being sold into prostitution, but must deal with the wrath of the madam (Yuko Hamada) who expects payment in exchange.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Father and Child
• Japanese Films
• Samurai

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary’s review of this third entry in the “Lone Wolf and Cub” cinematic franchise — based on the popular manga series of the same name — refers to it as “an edited entry” that “arrived in the U.S. with the first of the Kung Fu imports,” and notes that the “worst thing about the film is the dubbing”; however, the version I watched for this review is in the original language, and is a discrete film in its own right (albeit part of a longer multi-episode narrative).

With that caveat out of the way, I’ll note that Peary refers to Wakayama as “the most honorable of men” (yet someone who is “willing to use his boy as a decoy”) — a man who “comes to the rescue of a woman sold into prostitution”:

… and then “finds himself in the middle” of this woman and “the cruel female who heads a powerful family”:

… ultimately agreeing “to kill an evil governor” and “fighting a one-man war against both sides.” Through all this, “the boy watches the bloodshed without changing expressions.”

Peary argues that while the “film moves along like a turtle with a broken leg,” there “are many interruptions for violent swordplay,” and “the action scenes are extremely imaginative, well filmed and choreographed.” A notable “highlight has him single-handedly shooting, blowing up, and slicing-and-dicing an entire army” — but “more violent [still] are his one-on-one confrontations,” such as when “he kills one skilled swordsman by flying over him and pushing his sword directly down through the top of his skull.”

Peary concludes by noting that the film “could do without a rape sequence that has nothing to do with the plot” (I completely agree) and “a tasteless bit in which the would-be prostitute bites the tongue from the guy trying to force himself on her” (I’m okay with this scene!). While this flick clearly isn’t for all tastes, it’s easy to see how and why it would appeal to its cult followers, so I recommend it for one-time viewing just to check it out.

Note: I had never heard of ohaguro before this film (a married woman painting her teeth black).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Exciting action sequences
  
• Fine cinematography
  
  

Must See?
Yes, for its cult value.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
A stoic getaway driver (Ryan O’Neal) receives help from a beautiful casino worker (Isabelle Adjani) in eluding a detective (Bruce Dern) determined to capture him.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Bruce Dern Films
• Car Chase
• Cat-and-Mouse
• Ryan O’Neal Films
• Walter Hill Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “cult film was directed by Walter Hill, who mixed film noir with existential European gangster pictures.” He notes that while “it has an interesting style,” “the actors (but for Dern, of course):

… seem to be on their own and lost.” He adds that “it’s okay that Hill had O’Neal drive at high speeds as if he has ice water in his veins, but since he’s just as expressionless outside his car, there are no sparks when he interacts with other characters.” Indeed, O’Neal has exactly one slightly modulated expression throughout this film.

DVD Savant as amusingly forthright in his take on O’Neal’s performance, noting that:

[Unlike Steve McQueen], Ryan O’Neal [is] a featherweight whose presence doesn’t dominate scenes. There’s no particular reason for tough gangsters to be intimidated by The Driver, for the cops to respect him, or the girl to be moved by just standing near him. For this gambit to work, the soul-sick look on the actor’s face must be fulfilling in itself, as it is in the case of Jean Gabin, Robert Ryan or even Charles Bronson.

Peary adds that “the most disappointing scenes are those in which [O’Neal] gets together with the equally reserved Isabelle Adjani and both are as cool and exciting as cucumbers.”

Peary points out that “Hill’s at his best directing action scenes”; however, while the film’s car chases are “excitingly filmed”, they’re also “too long and repetitive.”

I’m in agreement with Peary’s review: there’s plenty of action here, but O’Neal’s dull protagonist gives us nothing to hold onto. While we’d love to root for “brutal, slightly unhinged Las Vegas cop Bruce Dern,” he’s a bit of a d**k so that doesn’t feel quite right, either. I’m a much bigger fan of Hill’s follow-up cult film, The Warriors (1979).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Philip Lathrop’s cinematography
  
• Impressively filmed and edited car chase sequences
  
• Excellent use of location shooting in downtown Los Angeles
  

Must See?
No, though it’s certainly worth a one-time look for its cult status.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Capsule Review
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
A college basketball player (William Tepper) in love with the wife (Karen Black) of a professor (Robert Towne) navigates pressure from his demanding coach (Bruce Dern) and an increasing level of paranoia from his draft-avoiding roommate (Michael Margotta).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Basketball
• Bruce Dern Films
• Counterculture
• Jack Nicholson Films
• Karen Black Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that while “Jack Nicholson’s directorial debut” — “adapted by Nicholson and Jeremy Larner (Eugene McCarthy’s chief speechwriter in ’68) from Larner’s novel” — “was booed at Cannes and received mostly negative reviews in the U.S.,” he believes “it’s an impressive, highly original work, probably the best at expressing the alienation and confusion of college kids of the era.” He notes that the “film deals with rebellion on three fronts: Margotta from society/authority/sanity:

… Tepper from his baskeball-is-everything coach (Bruce Dern is fabulous):

… and Black from all the men who keep her from breathing.”

Indeed, while Tepper’s performance is merely serviceable (he didn’t go on to much of an acting career after this), he’s surrounded by a powerhouse group of supporting actors who bring the story and the era to life. Despite being “flawed and defeatist,” Nicholson’s debut film is consistently unique and intriguing, and remains worth a look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Michael Margotta as Gabriel
  
• Bruce Dern as Coach Bullion
  
• Karen Black as Olive
  
• Confident direction and editing
  

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a look.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
While a young man (Steve Guttenberg) in Baltimore prepares to marry his wife if she passes a football trivia quiz, his friend Shrevie (Daniel Stern) muses over newly married life with his wife (Ellen Barkin), and they hang out with their other friends — Boogie (Mickey Rourke), Fenwick (Kevin Bacon), Billy (Tim Daly), and Modell (Paul Reiser) — in a local diner.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Coming of Age
• Ensemble Cast
• Friendship
• Marital Problems
• Mickey Rourke Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “low-budget nostalgia comedy by writer-director Barry Levinson” — about “a group of young male buddies who hang out at a diner in Baltimore in 1959 at a time they have to make decisions about work, women, [and] their futures” — is responded to more by “female viewers” who perhaps “dated similar flawed, funny characters,” while men may wisely not “wish to identify with guys who have jerk streaks a mile long.” I’m not sure how many women did or still do enjoy this film, but I’m not among them — for exactly the reason Peary provides. While “the diner dialogue has rhythm and is well delivered by the talented cast”:

… it’s not interesting; meanwhile, “the characters [are] dull and unsympathetic until they start tripping over words around females” (at which point I still… find them dull and unsympathetic). Peary notes that “the most original scenes have Daniel Stern hysterically telling off Ellen Barkin for mixing up his precious rock-‘n’-roll collection”:

and “Steve Guttenberg giving his fiancee” (whose face we never see) “a football trivia test to determine if the wedding is still on” — but all these scenes do is reinforce what immature jerks these guys are. Why do we want to spend time around them, again?

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Good use of authentic Baltimore locales
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one time look for its historical relevance as a breakthrough film for many of these young actors (and Levinson as a director).

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article