FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A sailor on leave (Dennis Hopper) falls in love with a beautiful woman named Mora (Linda Lawson) who works for a carnival barker (Gavin Muir) as a sideshow mermaid attraction. When Johnny (Hopper) learns from a merry-go-round operator (Tom Dillon) and his granddaughter (Luana Anders) that Mora’s last two lovers have mysteriously died, he wonders if his own life may be in danger, and seeks input from a tarot card reader (Marjorie Eaton).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Dennis Hopper Films
• Mermaids
• Obsessive Love
• Sailors
• Star-Crossed Lovers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “peculiar low-budget, low-key horror-fantasy was the first commercial feature of former experimental filmmaker Curtis Harrington,” who later directed the GFTFF-listed titles Planet of Blood / Queen of Blood (1966), What’s the Matter With Helen? (1971), and Who Slew Auntie Roo? (1972). He points out that “the plot owes much inspiration to Val Lewton’s Cat People,” while “stylistically, it is obviously influenced by Cocteau” given that “in approach, the mood piece is a mix of the surreal (perhaps this is Hopper’s dream) and avant-garde.”

He concludes that while the film is “always interesting and the ending is satisfying,” it “could use a few jolts that would at least temporarily turn Hopper’s dream into a nightmare.”

Unfortunately, I disagree with Peary that this film is “always interesting.” While it’s atmospheric and strives hard to be intriguing, the dialogue is dull and it simply plods along. Hopper is presented as a man obsessively (perhaps stupidly) in love with a beautiful cipher:

… while Anders pines away too-obviously for Hopper (back up love interest, anybody?):

… and “Captain Murdock” (Muir) is simply creepy (wait until you hear the bizarre exchange he has with a cigar-chomping, bare-chested masseuse).

Writer/director Harrington had amazing access to prime location shooting spots (I felt a ton of nostalgia for my home town of Santa Monica), but the storyline doesn’t do them justice.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine location shooting in Santa Monica and Venice
  
  
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  
  

Must See?
No; you can skip this one.

Links:

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

Synopsis:
A peasant (Semyon Svashenko) whose father (Stepan Shkurat) prefers old-fashioned means of farming arrives in his Ukrainian town with a tractor purchased to help them collectivize — but a land-owning “kulak” (Ivan Franko) and his son (Pyotr Masokha) resist the transition, with lethal results.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Farmers
• Russian Films
• Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “simply filmed, lyrical” film by Alexander Dovzhenko, “about the formation of a collective in a Ukrainian village” whose celebration of a tractor purchase is cut tragically short when a murder takes place, is a movie which “celebrates life”: while it “expresses grief for the recent dead, it is more concerned with rebirth than with the inevitable death.” Peary points out that Dovzhenko links “people to the soil…, the crops (there is dignity in work), [and] the farm animals.”

While “several scenes were [originally] deleted for foreign distribution” — including “the peasants cooling down the tractor with their urine (we see connection between man and machine)”:

… “Semyon’s grieving fiancee (Yelina Maximova) tearing off her clothes”:

… and “a woman giving birth at Semyon’s funeral”:

… these have now all been restored to the modern-day version one can easily find online. Peary concludes his review by noting this is “an optimistic film about people who refuse to be defeated by what might appear to be major setbacks.”

Peary’s review is all accurate, but viewers should be forewarned that this “landmark” film — like Dovzhenko’s Arsenal (1928) — is heavy on symbolic imagery, and short on narrative depth. We are vaguely introduced to characters who — appropriate for a collectivist society — represent an entire class of people rather than nuanced protagonists; what’s important here is the class struggle, not these individuals. With that caveat in mind, film fanatics will likely appreciate seeing the visual creativity on display, including ample use of montage and “painterly” close-ups.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Memorable imagery
  
  
  
• Daniil Demutsky’s cinematography
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, simply for its historical significance in world cinema.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Senses of Cinema Review

Synopsis:
A Ukranian soldier (Semyon Svashenko) returns home from World War I to participate in the Kiev Arsenal January Uprising.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Revolutionaries
• Russian Films
• Silent Films
• World War I

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary asserts that this “beautifully photographed, poetic silent film by Alexander Dovzhenko” exalts “the revolutionary spirit of Russia’s farmers, workers, and soldiers.” He notes that it takes place near the end of World War I, which “is causing misery throughout Russia,” with “poverty and hunger… widespread and women mourn[ing] the fathers and sons being killed in combat” — a time when “the seeds for armed insurrection against the Czar have been planted, but for now the bourgeois Social Democrats, the White Russians who would eventually support Kerensky’s provisional government, try to crush the Bolsheviks.” Meanwhile, “we stand firmly behind the arsenal workers in Kiev who go on strike and the common men of Ukrainia who bravely stand up to the guns of the counterrevolutionaries.”

One should be forgiven for not immediately understanding the nuances of this very-specific slice of time, which is likely not well known to anyone other than Russian history buffs — but suffice it to say that this second of three films in Dovzhenko’s “Ukraine Trilogy” does indeed have a “story [that] is hard to follow at times” (most of the time!) while also containing “a succession of images (many used symbolically) [which] have amazing force.” Peary calls out a number of especially memorable scenes, including “a one-armed farmer standing in the field with his skinny horse”:

… “a funeral procession in the snow”:

… “the bourgeois reacting with fear when the motors of the arsenal come to a halt”:

… “the portrait of a revolutionary leader, Shevtshenko, coming to life”:

… “and, in an uplifting final shot, our own hero… standing firm”:

… though Peary surprisingly leaves out an impactful early sequence in which a bald, bespectacled German soldier becomes insane from laughing gas:

Unfortunately, the film’s lack of narrative clarity — coupled with our overall ignorance of the specifics of what’s going on — make for a frustrating viewing experience; this one isn’t must-see other than for fans of early Soviet cinema.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Many powerful, disturbing images
  
  
  
• Danyl Demutskyi’s cinematography
  
  

Must See?
No, unless you’re particularly interested in early Soviet cinema.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Cinematic Threads Review
• NY Times Original Review (scroll down)

Synopsis:
When three cowboys (Jack Nicholson, Cameron Mitchell, and Tom Filer) accidentally spend the night with a group of outlaws headed by one-eyed Blind Dick (Harry Dean Stanton), they become wanted by vigilantes, and after Otis (Filer) is killed, Vern (Michell) and Wes (Nicholson) set out as fugitives across the harsh landscape. Eventually they come upon a homestead run by a patriarch (George Mitchell) whose wife (Katherine Squire) and daughter (Millie Perkins) live a hard-scrabble existence; will Vern and Wes be able to stay safe in their home until the vigilantes have passed?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cameron Mitchell Films
• Falsely Accused
• Fugitives
• Harry Dean Stanton Films
• Jack Nicholson Films
• Millie Perkins Films
• Monte Hellman Films
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of this “existential western” by noting it was “written by its co-star, Jack Nicholson, and directed in Utah in 1965 by Monte Hellman, back to back with The Shooting.” He points out that “just as in other Hellman films, our heroes make a long journey that seems to go nowhere,” and he describes the movie as a “gritty, fascinating western with solid acting, offbeat characters, [an] intriguing setting, and odd bits of dialogue” (as during Nicholson and Mitchell’s checkers game):

He further notes that at the time of GFTFF’s publication in 1986, it remained an “unpredictable cult movie” with a “strong reputation in Europe.” Peary analyzes the film in greater detail in his first Cult Movies book, where he formally lists The Shooting but discusses it hand-in-hand with this (slightly) earlier film. Indeed, many reviews seem to take the two movies as an automatic double-billing, given their coupled production history and many similarities, with Peary even asserting that “they seem to have been written by the same person.”

In his (dual) review, DVD Savant further describes what makes Ride in the Whirlwind so unique, noting that its “finer qualities begin with Monte Hellman’s refusal to go for big dramatic effects and climaxes. We’re given no standard cues for ‘genre outcomes’ — nobody is an obvious hero, characters don’t live and die based on their billing in the credits… The crooks aren’t particularly vicious:

… the posse is honest in their duty:

… and everybody knows the score.”

Indeed, while Hellman’s two westerns have been described as the first “acid westerns” — a term coined by Pauline Kael to denote westerns that subvert earlier conventions of the genre in favor of more openly acknowledging that some western journeys are towards death rather than liberation — it’s also easy to see them as simply a more depressingly realistic look at the harshness of survival in Western times. While we watch in fascination to see how the unusual storyline will unfold, we hold out no hope that anything resembling a happy ending is in sight — and as Peary writes, the “life endured by Perkins and her mother sticks [particularly] in the mind.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Jack Nicholson and Cameron Mitchell as the lead protagonists
  
• Natural and convincing supporting performances
  
• A powerful depiction of vigilante justice and harsh survival in the West
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a unique western with a cult following.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Good Show

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• Q Network Review

Synopsis:
When a British couple (Edward Underdown and Jennifer Jones) in an Italian port town meet up with a group of men (Humphrey Bogart, Robert Morley, Peter Lorre, Ivor Barbard, and Marco Tulli) hoping to claim uranium-rich land in Kenya, various adventures quickly ensue — including Gwendolyn (Jones) falling for Billy (Bogart), and Billy’s wife Maria (Gina Lollobrigida) falling for Harry (Underdown).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• At Sea
• Black Comedy
• Con-Artists
• Get Rich Quick
• Humphrey Bogart Films
• Infidelity
• Jennifer Jones Films
• John Huston Films
• Peter Lorre Films
• Robert Morley Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary describes this “legendary lark” — “directed by John Huston, scripted by Huston and young writer Truman Capote, and starring Humphrey Bogart, Jennifer Jones, Gina Lollobrigida, Robert Morley, and Peter Lorre” — as “the fifties’ most peculiar A-budget film.” While it was “a flop at the box office, it immediately became known as a ‘cult film’ and has remained a favorite of movie connoisseurs ever since.” Peary points out parallels between this and “the Huston-directed The Maltese Falcon,” in which Bogart plays “a tough, morally ambiguous hero who sidesteps his way through a corrupt world of greedy, double-dealing savages, outrageous flirts, and pathological liars” — however, in the case of Beat the Devil, Capote ultimately devised “a sly, one-of-a-kind spoof of all international-intrigue pictures and populate[d] it with a cockeyed, disparate group of people,” some of whom play “the film for comedy” while others continue to play it straight.

Peary writes that in this film about a “boat trip from Italy to Africa,” “no one is happy with their station in life. Each wants what the other has” — and while “all hope the journey will result in personal happiness,” “as in most Huston films, characters fail at [their] missions” (though a few “reach some sort of fulfillment”).

Peary goes on to write that this “film has [a] unique Continental flavor (it was filmed in Ravello, a small coast town in Italy), hilarious, delectable moments, and wonderfully attitudinizing characters.” While he wishes “it had more coherence… and a couple of more serious, creepy scenes like the bit with the player piano”:

… he concedes that the film is “so disarming and so lionized by intelligent film fans that [he worries] it may be better than [he thinks].”

In his Cult Movies 2 book, Peary analyzes the film in greater depth, pointing out that the film’s “remarkable fascination” has “as much to do with its background” (including, crucially, hiring Capote to work on the script) “as with its zany characters, performances, and tone.” While it wasn’t well-received upon release, Peary argues that it has a sort of timeless, international quality, given that “the emotional, involved, chatty people in this film could mingle easily with those in a Jean Renoir film, particularly Rules of the Game (1939).”

He adds that “whatever their failings and degrees of pomposity, they believe in living life to its fullest” — yet they “have conflicting personalities” that make them a decidedly “disparate group,” with “even the married couples [not seeming] to belong together.”

The best performance of all is given by “Jones, once the sainted Bernadette but now a compulsive liar… Wearing a blond wig (!), gabbing nonstop, flirting with Billy, knitting, exercising (while Maria paints), Jones turns in a bravura performance that equals her only other comic role of note in Ernst Lubitsch’s Cluny Brown (1946).”

All the supporting players are game as well, making this a unique trip worth taking at least once.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Jennifer Jones as Gwendolyn Chelm
  
• Truman Capote’s wildly unique screenplay:
  

  “Time. Time. What is time? Swiss manufacture it. French hoard it. Italians squander it. Americans say it is money. Hindus say it does not exist. Do you know what I say? I say time is a crook.”

Must See?
Yes, as a quirky cult favorite by a master director.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
When a man (Howard Keel) recovering from eye surgery learns he is one of the few survivors of a meteorite shower that has blinded most of the world, he teams up with a young stowaway (Janina Faye) and a woman (Nicole Maurey) who can also see as they attempt to protect themselves from marauding killer plants known as triffids. Meanwhile, a married pair of marine biologists (Kieron Moore and Janette Scott) living in an isolated lighthouse soon find themselves surrounded by triffids, and must find a way to survive.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Blindness
• Horror Films
• Howard Keel Films
• Killer Plants
• Post-Apocalypse
• Science Fiction
• Survival

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “enjoyable sci-fi” flick — based on an “exciting, thoughtful novel” by John Wyndham — is “kept from being a classic… because the triffids are foolish-looking and actually get in the way of what would have been a far more interesting storyline: how the world’s survivors cope with the end of civilization” (which is “the part of the story that was emphasized in the 1981 British TV movie”). I agree with Peary’s short review, which doesn’t provide much more than basics of the plot, and also mentions that “Freddie Francis directed the Moore-Scott scenes a year after [listed director Steve] Sekeley completed his work.” The idea of the entire world (minus a few survivors) being blinded is creepy enough that we certainly don’t need the primary plot of killer plants — which are laughably non-menacing.

The best scenes show the fallout of the meteorite-induced blindness — such as the after-effects of Keel chatting with his eye surgeon:

… the chaos of blind passengers emerging from a crashed train:

… and a plane crew’s attempt to keep passengers calm while they request help to land their doomed aircraft:

Unfortunately, nearly everything else about the film is poorly written, with the subplot about quibbling Scott and Moore (a mean alcoholic) especially jarring — though Scott does provide the film’s best scream-shots:

There’s also something inherently compelling about watching motley survivors banding together to figure out their next steps:

However, this film isn’t must-see except for those curious about its cult status.

Note: Click here to watch Janette Scott reminiscing about her experience making the portion of the film she appeared in — which includes a surprising anecdote about Oliver Reed!

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Some creepy post-apocalyptic imagery
  

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Time Out Capsule Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Cinephile 101 Review

Synopsis:
The head (Rudolf Klein-Rogge) of an underground espionage network hires his best agent (Gerda Maurus) to get secrets from an agent known as 326 (Willy Fritsch), and the pair quickly fall in love. Meanwhile, Haghi (Klein-Rogge) asks a beautiful blonde (Lien Deyers) to set a trap for a Japanese head of security (Lupu Pick) in order to obtain a crucial treaty, and the head of the German Secret Service (Craighall Sherry) attempts to determine Haghi’s secret whereabouts.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Fritz Lang Films
• German Films
• Silent Films
• Spies

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “less heralded” German silent film by Fritz Lang — taking place in a “postwar world where everyone seems to be either a criminal or a spy” — is “nevertheless great fun,” and was likely an influence on Hitchcock in terms of “the film’s exciting train sequence and the finale in which [a villain] (who is dressed as a clown) is trapped on a stage.”

Peary notes that while the “film is a mite confusing and overplotted” (I agree), it “would have made the perfect serial” given “its diabolical supervillain, his assorted crimes, the pulp-fiction plotline (with sex and action), and the numerous episodes that end with cliffhangers.”

Peary lists this movie at 98 minutes in his GFTFF, but we’re now able to see a much lengthier version. According to TCM’s article, “Like Metropolis, surviving prints of Spies were severely edited and the original cut was unavailable for decades until, in 2004, the Murnau Institute restored the film with over 50 minutes of missing footage,” and “Lang’s cinematic spy fantasy is [now] available in its full glory once again.” While it’s not quite must-see silent viewing like Lang’s Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler (1922), Siegfried’s Tod (1924), Kriemhild’s Revenge (1924), or Metropolis, film fanatics will likely be curious to check this one out once.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Gerda Maurus as Agent Sonya
  
• Fine production design
  
  
• Powerful imagery
  
  
  

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended for one-time viewing, and of course a must for Lang enthusiasts.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
After her husband (Aleksandr Chistyakov) is killed in a brawl, a mother (Vera Baranovskaya) in 1905 Russia accidentally condemns her activist son (Nikolay Batalov) to prison, and has a change of heart about the need for a labor strike.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Labor Movement
• Revolutionaries
• Russian Films
• Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “classic film of the Russian cinema, directed by V.I. Pudovkin from Maxim Gorky’s novel,” is “rare among the Russian silent films in that it stresses character as much as technique” and “it uses montage and character placement for the purpose of expressing individual characters’ emotions.” He adds that the “picture has extraordinary visuals, all used for thematic purposes,” and “while the acting is good, it is Pudovkin’s montages that let us know what these characters are thinking.” In his review, Peary gives away all elements of the plot from beginning to end, so I won’t say more other than to add that this was the first of Pudovkin’s three “revolutionary films,” with the other two — The End of St. Petersburg (1927) and Storm Over Asia (1928) — listed in the back of his book; I’ll be reviewing those shortly.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Highly expressive cinematography and montage
  
  

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a look and of course will be of interest to fans of early Soviet cinema.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Russian Film Hub Review
• CineSavant Review
• A Cinema History Review

Synopsis:
When young British officer Harry Faversham (John Clements) resigns his post shortly before his regiment is due to deploy to Sudan, he alienates his three close officer-friends (Ralph Richardson, Jack Allen, and Donald Gray) and his fiancee (June Duprez), whose blustery veteran-father (C. Aubrey Smith) is especially disappointed — but when Faversham receives four white feathers in the mail signaling his cowardice, he quickly decides to go undercover as a mute Arab in the Middle East to save his friends from harm and regain his honor.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Africa
• Deserts
• June Duprez Films
• Mistaken or Hidden Identities
• Ralph Richardson Films
• Soldiers
• Zoltan Korda Films

Review:
The Hungarian-born Korda brothers — including director Zoltan, producer Alexander, and art director Vincent — were the creative force behind this fourth cinematic adaptation of A.E.W. Mason’s 1902 novel about courage, cowardice, redemption, and British colonial might in Africa. It’s notable as one of the biggest budget Technicolor films made in cinema’s glory year of 1939, and remains an impressive adventure flick in terms of on-location shooting in Sudan, plenty of locals as extras, and fidelity to historical detail. Unfortunately, the storyline itself leaves much to be desired. We’re shown young Faversham (Clive Baxter) being shamed for preferring poetry to war:

… and then soundly rejected by all those closest to him when he makes the brave choice to break with tradition — as he explains here to Duprez:

We’ve discussed it so often — the futility of this idiotic Egyptian adventure; the madness of it all; the ghastly waste of time that we can never have again… I believe in our happiness. I believe in the work to be done here to save an estate that’s near to ruin. To save all those people who’ve been neglected by my family because they preferred glory in India, glory in China, glory in Africa.

Unfortunately, this perspective is glossed over completely once he receives three white feathers of shame and Duprez rejects his logic as well (he eventually adds another feather for her):

So much for wanting to stay local and non-interventionist. I know it’s petty to view a movie like this from strictly a 21st century anti-colonialist perspective, but this lost (potential) narrative thread is frustrating. At any rate, audiences at the time must have been simply thrilled to see so much action taking place in “exotic” places, with plenty of action and fighting — and Faversham’s dedication to saving his three friends is truly impressive.

Meanwhile, Richardson turns in a fine performance as a rival for Duprez’s affections who becomes blinded due to heat stroke.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine location shooting and period detail
  
• Beautiful Technicolor cinematography
  
  
  

Must See?
No; you can skip this one unless you’re curious.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Q Network Review
• TCM Articles
• DVD Savant Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A former-sheriff-turned-bounty-hunter (Henry Fonda) rides into a town where the current sheriff (Anthony Perkins) is afraid to face the local bully (Neville Brand). Fonda soon falls for a widow (Betsy Palmer) with a young half-Native son (Michel Ray), and Perkins gradually learns the tricks of his trade — perhaps enough to convince his girlfriend (Mary Webster) to marry him.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Anthony Mann Films
• Anthony Perkins Films
• Betsy Palmer Films
• Henry Fonda Films
• John McIntire Films
• Lee Van Cleef Films
• Mentors
• Neville Brand Films
• Sheriffs and Marshals
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary opens his review of this Anthony Mann-directed western by noting that “the typical leads” in such films “are men who were once solid citizens in the increasingly tame West, but had something terrible happen to wreck their settled lives — usually the deaths of everyone they loved, caused by people they had trusted — that sent them on crazed, savage paths of revenge throughout the West,” thus leading Mann to show “how these men finally rid themselves of their inner demons, allowing the prodigal sons to be welcomed back into civilization.” Such is the case here, with Fonda playing a ‘hero’ who “became a ruthless bounty hunter after his wife and child died,” who “rides into a struggling town where a young deputy (Anthony Perkins) is in over his head trying to bring about law and order.” Peary notes that perhaps Fonda sees “himself in Perkins, who had been a youth with hopes, dreams, and ideals,” and thus he “teaches him the ropes so that he can handle any situation.”

Meanwhile, he “becomes attached to” a widow and her son — a “ready-made new family” — and once “again has something to live for.”

Interestingly, The Tin Star has a “pacifist theme, unusual for a western,” and “Mann succeeds in getting us to want a peaceful resolution, without hero-vs.-bad-guy confrontation scenes.” Meanwhile, “Fonda gives a very controlled, sensible performance” — not “nearly as neurotic as Jimmy Stewart in his Mann films.”

I’m in overall agreement with Peary’s review of this well-made western, nicely filmed by cinematographer Loyal Griggs and featuring a relatively uncomplicated tale of mentoring and redemption in the Old West. Film fanatics will surely enjoy seeing Betsy Palmer (of Friday the 13th notoriety) as a sympathetic young single mother:

… Neville brand as (naturally) a baddie:

… and John McIntire giving a quiet but powerful performance as the beloved town doctor.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Loyal Griggs’ cinematography
  
  
  
• Elmer Bernstein’s score

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look if you like westerns.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Time Out Capsule Review
• DVD Savant Review