FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A demented medical student (Jeffrey Combs) rents a room from a fellow student (Bruce Abbott) whose girlfriend (Barbara Crampton) is the daughter of their school’s strait-laced dean (Robert Sampson). Soon Combs’ passion to utilize a reviving agent comes to a head when evil Dr. Hill (David Gale) finds out about it, and gory rivalry ensues in the morgue.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Horror Films
• Mad Doctors and Scientists
• Zombies

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that he’s astonished this “ludicrous horror movie, directed by innovative stage director Stuart Gordon of Chicago’s Organic Theater” somehow “got some good reviews”, noting that he hates “to see new filmmakers parody horror films when it’s obvious that if they had to make a serious one themselves they’d be lost.” He argues that the “endless gore becomes self-satisfying, as in The Evil Dead; rather than being a means to shock viewers out of complacency, it is there to impress everyone who gets a kick out of new splatter effects.” He further asserts that “there are no scary scenes, just a lot of streaming blood, crushed heads, decomposed bodies, [and] ugliness.” He ends his review by referring to Re-Animator as “amateurish and surprisingly unoriginal.” Interestingly, Peary’s views on gore-filled horror flicks of the 1980s and late 1970s — i.e., Dawn of the Dead (1978) — seem to be at direct odds with cult horror fans, many of whom embraced this new direction and adore exactly the elements of such films that bother Peary. While I’m no lover of the genre myself, I can appreciate the dark humor that went into taking the mad doctor/scientist flick to its most extreme “logical” conclusion — the storyline coheres, and thus it “works” on the level it’s aiming for. Meanwhile, it’s amusing seeing a mad doctor (Combs, very effective in the lead role) bested by someone even madder (and far more evil) than he.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Jeffrey Combs as Herbert West
  
• Effectively over-the-top gore and special effects
  

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• Q Network Review
• TV Guide Review

Synopsis:
When his brother (Rick Scully) is killed in a freak car accident in Paris, Australia, a meek man (Terry Camilleri) ends up living with the town’s paternalistic mayor (John Meillon) and his wife (Melissa Jaffer), gradually learning more about how Parisian citizens survive on scavenged items from intentional accidents, the local doctor (Kevin Miles) performs lobotomizing operations on the survivors, and rebellious youths race their “odd-looking automobiles”.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Australian Films
• Horror Films
• Mad Doctors and Scientists
• Peter Weir Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Peter Weir’s debut was this creepy, comical, unsettling, one-of-a-kind ‘horror’ film” about a “shantytown off the beaten track” filled with “weirdos”. He notes that “Weir completely keeps viewers off guard” so that while “we laugh”, the “sinister environment makes us feel uneasy.”

He describes this most unusual flick as a “send-up of youth/drive-in films, westerns (a stand-off is filmed like a Sergio Leone shootout):

… and horror films” — but “it can also be seen as an attack on Australia’s car culture, the acquisitive materialism of the bourgeoisie, and the oppressive autocracies present in small towns.”

It’s hard to know what else to say about this movie except… it’s weird. Really weird. Be forewarned.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Memorable imagery
  
  
  
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look for its cult status and historical importance in Australian cinema.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
A deeply disturbed and traumatized man (Joe Spinell) goes on a psychotic killing and scalping spree across New York City, eventually dating a photographer (Caroline Munro) who may (or may not) be able to break through to him.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Horror Films
• Psychopaths
• Serial Killers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that that this “indefensible slice-and-dice film” — which “has found a cult among fans of the master of gore special effects, Tom Savini” — features Spinell (“a supporting player in many more respectable urban dramas”) playing a “sicko” who “kills a prostitute, a nurse who he chases through a deserted subway station, a young woman and her boyfriend (Savini)…, and a model.” Meanwhile, “in a weird sequence in which Spinell seems to impersonate Robert De Niro, he courts [a] beautiful photographer (Caroline Munro), who for some reason responds to this fat, ugly man.” Peary points out that “the acting is bad, the script hasn’t one clever moment, and the murders are repulsive — but what is most objectionable is how director William Lustig prolongs the death scenes of the nurse and the model so that they are killed long after Spinell could have done away with them.” Peary presumably included this title in GFTFF given its cult following (ew!), as well as the controversy surrounding its release, but there’s no need at all to check this one out.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Effectively creepy sets
  

Must See?
No; skip this one.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Q Network Review
• Moria Review
• DVD Talk Review

Synopsis:
When a group of five college students — Ash (Bruce Campbell), his sister Cheryl (Ellen Sandweiss), his girlfriend Linda (Betsy Baker), his friend Scott (Hal Delrich), and Scott’s girlfriend Shelly (Sarah York) — go out to stay in a ramshackle rural cabin, they make the mistake of opening a book that conjures up evil spirits which soon possess most of the gang.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Horror Films
• Possession
• Zombies

Response to Peary’s Review:
It’s always a bit quaint to read Peary’s take on 1980s titles that went on to develop a cult following, given that he wouldn’t necessarily have known or guessed this back when publishing GFTFF. A case in point is his review of The Evil Dead, which has since been named one of the “1,001 movies you must see before you die” and spawned a fairly massive franchise. Peary writes that “it’s obvious that the people from Detroit who made this independently produced horror film are not without talent, particularly first-time director Sam Raimi, but it’s a shame that they wasted it in such a manner” — but then he goes on to immediately add in parentheses, “Of course, it’s hard lecturing filmmakers about using their film stock wisely and tastefully when their movies earn several million dollars profit.” He notes that The Evil Dead “starts out creepily, if conventionally” but quickly “becomes infuriatingly stupid”, given that “everyone’s getting murdered, yet people are left alone to rest, and women take solo nocturnal walks in the woods.” He writes that at this point, the “story goes out the window and [the] onetime movie [!!] turns into [a] gore fest, in which ‘possessed’ characters take turns hacking off each other’s limbs and coming back from the dead.”

I’ll admit to not really understanding the next line in Peary’s review, in which he writes: “Anyone would love to have the blood-and-spare-parts concession” (?). And I disagree with Peary that “It would be fun to trip over the overly mobile cameraman during one of his too frequent tracking shots” (meaning, I don’t think this technique is overused for the genre). Peary concludes his review by conceding that this is a “cult film for the gore generation — but only the most bloodthirsty wouldn’t trade in a few splatter effects for some substance.” While I’m no fan at all of gore-fests — and most definitely not an Evil Dead devotee — I think Peary’s missing the “bad movie” element of this film. The dialogue is at times humorously lame (“You bastards! Why are you torturing me like this? Why?!”), and I can easily imagine sitting around with a group of friends having fun at this film’s expense (“Those creepy white eyes! Those dang possessed bodies that just won’t stop reviving no matter how much they’re hacked up! No, don’t — don’t trust the temporarily-human-zombie!!!”) while simultaneously admiring 22-year-old Raimi’s clear moviemaking genius.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Consistently creative camera angles
  
  
  
• Creepy special effects and make-up
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, simply for its historical status as a cult favorite that started Sam Raimi’s career and an enormous franchise.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Historically Relevant
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• Moria Review
• Bad Movies Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Chris Stuckmann’s Video Review

Synopsis:
While investigating a rash of murders in New York City committed by people who insist “God told them to do it”, a deeply Catholic police detective (Tony Lo Bianco) who is estranged from his wife (Sandy Dennis) and living with his girlfriend (Deborah Raffin) meets an ethereal hippie (Richard Lynch) and an older woman (Sylvia Sidney) still traumatized by a mysterious pregnancy that occurred years ago.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Aliens
• Detectives and Private Eyes
• Larry Cohen Films
• Mind Control and Hypnosis
• New York City
• Police
• Sandy Dennis Films
• Sylvia Sidney Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that “no one has ever questioned Jewish [writer-director-producer] Larry Cohen” about “making a film which is essentially about Christian faith and morality” — most likely because “no one can figure out what ideas he’s trying to get across.” He notes that while this “low-budget horror film does have an interesting premise”, it’s essentially “a mess”; and while Peary thinks the “interesting premise” centers on “the theory that our gods were ancient astronauts”, I’m much more intrigued by the idea of scads of devoted, mind-controlled cult members calmly committing murder in the name of their God. Regardless, “whole scenes seem to be missing… , the editing that connects the scenes is sloppy, subplots (like the hysteria in New York over the religious murders) go nowhere or are irrelevant, and co-stars [Raffin and Dennis] seem to have been hired for a morning’s work, so minor are their parts.” (Sydney is also wasted in her role, though it’s nice to see her.)

Peary notes that while the “picture has a strong underground reputation”, he “can’t figure out why” — and I must say I agree. I wanted this mish-mosh of a film to be much more (and much less) than it is.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Tony Lo Bianco as Peter
  
• Good use of NYC locales
  

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Q Network Review
• Moria Review

Synopsis:
During a long road trip, a driver (Albert Brooks) and his passenger (Dan Aykroyd) play “guess that T.V. show theme song” to pass the time, and soon are catapulted into the Twilight Zone, where four differently spooky stories are introduced by a narrator (Burgess Meredith): in John Landis’s “Time Out”, a deeply racist bigot (Vic Morrow) is sent back in time to experience the horrors of Nazi-occupied France, lynchings by the Ku Klux Klan, and being under fire in the jungles of Vietnam; in Steven Spielberg’s “Kick the Can”, a cheerful resident (Scatman Crothers) of a home for the elderly convinces some of his fellow inhabitants to play childhood games in an attempt to regain their youthful vitality; in Joe Dante’s “It’s a Good Life”, a teacher (Kathleen Quinlan) on a road trip is invited into the home of a young boy (Jeremy Licht) who has the power to completely control his environment; and in George Miller’s “Nightmare at 20,000 Feet”, a terrified passenger (John Lithgow) can’t get anyone to believe him when he sees a monstrous creature on the wing of their plane.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Albert Brooks Films
• Burgess Meredith Films
• Dan Aykroyd Films
• Dick Miller Films
• Episodic Films
• Elderly People
• Evil Kids
• Fantasy
• Horror Films
• Joe Dante Films
• John Landis Films
• John Lithgow Films
• Kathleen Quinlan Films
• Kevin McCarthy Films
• “No One Believes Me!”
• Science Fiction
• Steven Spielberg Films
• Supernatural Powers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary opens his review of this episodic sci-fi horror flick by noting that “since Rod Serling’s classic anthology series is still seen in syndication throughout America, there was no need to make this film, particularly since three of the four episodes are remakes of old shows that hold up quite well.” However, he concedes that “one can’t feel harshly toward the directors because John Landis, Steven Spielberg, Joe Dante, and Australian George Miller loved the show when they were kids and wanted to pay homage to it and its creator.” With that said, “as anyone could have predicted”, while these new episodes “are better made than the originals, they aren’t better” — and the “‘feel’ of the original series is missing, as is the late Serling as host and narrator.” Meanwhile, the “young filmmakers have slightly altered the stories, changing the themes to better fit modern times”.

Peary accurately notes how disappointing Spielberg’s “Kick the Can” is on every level, and laments that the ending of “It’s a Good Life” has turned moralistic, with “even a boy… capable of terrible deeds want[ing] help, need[ing] sincere friendship, and prefer[ing] guidance… to being a spoiled brat.” He argues that the final episode — in which “John Lithgow takes over William Shatner’s role” — is the best, and that it works well to have Lithgow playing a “sane man” who “no one will believe” rather than a “former mental patient.”

Finally, Peary discusses the tragedy of “Time Out”, which infamously resulted in the death-by-helicopter of Vic Morrow and two illegally hired children he was acting with, thus making “it difficult to appreciate the episode on any level.”

He notes that “special-effects experts Rob Botton and Craig Reardon should be singled out for creating some truly spectacular creatures”:

— and that “best of all is Landis’s truly wacky and terrifying prelude with Dan Aykroyd and Albert Brooks.”

Note: Watch for Dick Miller (naturally!) in a cameo role during the beginning of “It’s a Good Life”:

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• John Lithgow as John Valentine
  
• Impressive special effects
  
  
  
• Creative sets
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look for its better elements.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• Moria Review
• Roger Ebert Review

Synopsis:
Soon after the producer (James Woods) of a small cable TV station learns from his assistant (Peter Dvorsky) about a pirated snuff station known as Videodrome, he meets a seductive woman (Deborah Harry) who convinces him to give in to his sado-masochistic impulses, eventually leading him down an unexpectedly gory and body-altering path.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• David Cronenberg Films
• Dystopia
• Horror Films
• James Woods Films
• Mind Control and Hypnosis
• S&M
• Science Fiction
• Television

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this body-horror sci-fi film by David Cronenberg is about the “seedy, profit-motivated owner of a cable channel” (Woods) who “pretends interest in [Videodrome] because he might be able to buy the low-cost programming for his own station” but becomes increasingly “obsessed… with the S&M content”, causing “his baser feelings [to] emerge.” As Woods’ Max Renn “slips into possible madness, his concepts of reality and illusion become blurred” — but “it’s not really his fault” given that he’s “fallen into a trap and is under someone else’s control”. Peary asserts that the film is “ambitious and makes strong points about the hypnotic power of television and its ability to turn a mind to mush”, but “it becomes so cerebral that its fascinating premise is lost in a mass of confusion in the last third of the film.” While “the special effects by Rick Baker are well done,” Peary posits (and I think I agree) that “many of the images are both stupid and repulsive” (though perhaps that’s the point?). Finally, he notes that “Woods gives a fine performance and singer Deborah Harry is truly seductive… as Woods’s masochistic lover.” I’m in alignment with Peary’s thoughts about this mind-tripping film, which is weird, disturbing, often illogical, and entirely unique (as Cronenberg’s movies tend to be). It should probably be seen once by all film fanatics given its cult following, but it’s most certainly not for all tastes.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• James Woods as Max Renn
  
• Deborah Harry as Nicki Brand
  
• Impressive special effects
  
  
  

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

Categories

• Historically Relevant
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• Q Network Review

Synopsis:
A homeless man (Stephen Lack) with special powers is kidnapped and brought to a corporation that has been breeding “scanners” for years. A doctor (Patrick McGoohan) trains Lack to search for a renegade scanner (Michael Ironside) who has been assassinating other scanners — but it’s soon unclear who exactly is fighting against who.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• David Cronenberg Films
• Horror Films
• Science Fiction
• Supernatural Powers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this sci-fi horror flick by writer-director David Cronenberg is “flawed, confusing, yet lively”. He notes that despite impressive special effects by Dick Smith, he finds “the film’s urban guerrilla warfare scenes [between scanners] much more enjoyable than watching eyes bulging out of sockets, blood pouring out of noses, and heads exploding.”

He adds that “McGoohan and Ironside give solid performances”:

… but “Lack isn’t an appealing lead.”

Meanwhile, “Jennifer O’Neill (who’s part of the guerrilla band Lack helps” is impressive during one key scene in a doctor’s office, but her role isn’t substantial enough.

Though it’s hailed by some as a classic and considered Cronenberg’s breakthrough film, I was unimpressed by the inane dialogue (along the lines of, “Do it now or I’ll kill you.”) and incessant gun brandishing. This film is really all about its special effects — and if you enjoy that kind of thing, you will certainly want to give it a look (and be sure to check out a short documentary entitled “The Scanners Way” for plenty of fascinating background information on how the effects here were creatively produced by masters of the trade).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Some creative sets
  
• Impressive special effects
  

Must See?
No, though of course it’s must-see for Cronenberg fans.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• Moria Review
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
A sexually frustrated housewife (Angie Dickinson) who has just met with her psychiatrist (Michael Caine) is seduced by a man (Ken Baker) she meets at a museum, then brutally murdered in the elevator as she’s leaving his apartment. A call girl (Nancy Allen) who briefly witnessed Dickinson’s bloodied body is harassed by a detective (Dennis Franz) who considers her a prime suspect, so Allen — who is now herself being pursued by the mysterious killer — enlists the help of Dickinson’s grieving son (Keith Gordon) in determining which of Caine’s clients may have been responsible for the murder.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Amateur Sleuths
• Angie Dickinson Films
• Brian De Palma Films
• Gender Bending
• Horror Films
• Michael Caine Films
• Murder Mystery
• Nancy Allen Films
• Prostitutes and Gigolos

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “almost every character in Brian De Palma’s erotic thriller has a split personality”, with “the person on the outside… not like the person on the inside.” He notes that he thinks “this is De Palma’s best film, one in which [he doesn’t] mind being manipulated” given that “watching De Palma at work turns out to be a lot of fun.” Peary points out that “De Palma does everything with an audience in mind; there’s a great deal of titillation, subtlety, and shocks;” in addition, the “characters are all offbeat and have senses of humor, and all have energy”. He writes that the “dialogue is sharp, but [the] film’s best scenes are visual, relying on editing or a mobile camera, as is the long Hitchcock-like sequence in the museum.”

He concedes that “De Palma does, as usual, borrow from Hitchcock, stylistically and thematically” and “even has two scenes with women in the shower”. [As Richard Scheib of Moria puts it so bluntly in his review, “Dressed to Kill is Brian De Palma’s homage to Psycho. It is clear and obvious and there is no doubt about it.”] Peary adds that “typical of De Palma, the violence is strong, and there’s a dirty-trick ending,” and he points out that De Palma makes “good use of New York locales”. What Peary fails to mention is the highly questionable use of a “troubled transvestite” as the killer; click here to read a recent analysis of the film from that standpoint (but be forewarned that spoilers abound). And click here to read an even more forthright denouncement of the film, written to the movie itself rather than to De Palma.

Most memorable-while-darkly-amusing scene: Dickinson casually riffling through her new lover’s drawers and finding documentation of something truly horrific.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Nancy Allen as Liz
  
• Angie Dickinson as Kate
  
• Michael Caine as Dr. Elliott
  
• Keith Gordon as Peter
  
• The spectacularly filmed “museum sequence”
  
• Clever, atmospheric cinematography
  
  
• Many freaky moments
  
  
• Pino Donaggio’s score

Must See?
Yes, once, for the masterful direction.

Categories

• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• TV Guide Review
• Moria Review

Synopsis:
A sound recordist (John Travolta) who accidentally records a car crashing into a river rescues a young woman (Nancy Allen) from drowning, but is asked to cover up his heroics when it turns out the car’s driver was a presidential hopeful (and Allen a prostitute). Soon Travolta becomes obsessed with sharing his audio evidence that the car tire’s blow-out was from a bullet shot, and that the politician’s death was anything but an accident — but the killer (John Lithgow) behind the plot wants to get rid of all witnesses.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Amateur Sleuths
• Brian De Palma Films
• John Travolta Films
• Nancy Allen Films
• Political Conspiracy

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this film “allowed Brian De Palma to combine his obsessions with the Kennedy assassination-conspiracy, the themes of Antonioni’s Blow-Up, and the visual style of Hitchcock.” He notes that the “first half of the picture is prime De Palma, but then the picture becomes bogged down with self-conscious camera work”, and he adds that at least “if you don’t care about the characters, you’ll be intrigued by the editing in the final sequence.” I’m in agreement with Peary’s tepid assessment of this atmospherically shot (by DP Vilmos Zsigmond) but disappointing thriller in which De Palma “refuses to develop Allen’s character” — or more accurately, fails to provide her with much of a meaningful presence other than as a bubble-headed foil. Travolta’s character comes across much better, and his lengthy audio-investigation sequence is impressively shot:

… but it’s not enough to redeem this film over-all as must-see.

Note: It was interesting watching this hour-long discussion between De Palma and Noah Baumbauch about the making of Blow Out, and hearing De Palma describe movies in this way:

“We create illusions for you to fall in love with. That’s something totally unique to cinema: beautiful women doing unusual, interesting, exciting things. We follow them, we look at them, and we get involved with them. It’s one of the basic tools of movies… It’s a gun and a girl. With a gun, when’s somebody going to fire it? With a girl, when’s somebody going to undress it?” (bold mine)

If “girls” (not women) are viewed simply as beautiful objects for audience members to watch and enjoy, it’s no wonder that Allen (De Palma’s wife at the time) — as well as the other females in this film — come across literally as pretty pawns in the bloody proceedings. Thank goodness Travolta is such a sympathetic male character.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

John Travolta as Jack

Atmospheric cinematography

Fine location shooting in Philadelphia

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• Spinning Image Review