FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
When a lawyer (George Segal) living with his senile mother (Ruth Gordon) falls in love with a beautiful young nurse (Trish Van Devere), he tells his married brother (Ron Leibman) he’s determined not to let anything get in the way of his new romance — including their troublesome mother.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Black Comedy
• Carl Reiner Films
• Elderly People
• George Segal Films
• Grown Children
• Living Nightmare
• Ruth Gordon Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this black comedy by “director Carl Reiner and screenwriter Robert Klane (working from his own novel)” is “a litmus test for viewers that will expose one’s taste for comedy and tolerance for tastelessness.” He suggests you see this film “with an audience rather than alone at home on a cassette” (ah, the ’80s!) given that “one’s laughter is enhanced by the realization that all those around you… are being subjected to the same embarrassing material” (“collective embarrassment can be fun”). He notes that this “haywire world we are presented is unforgettable: Cabbies pick up men in gorilla suits rather than perfectly dressed black ladies. Coaches snatch 10-year-old kids without their parents’ permission… Female prostitutes turn out to be male cops in drag — [and] the one on whom Leibman is forced by a gang to perform a deviant act gets a crush on him (which is reason enough for viewers to have a negative response).” Indeed, “the craziness in the apartment Segal and Gordon share is merely a reflection on the surrounding world.”

Peary points out that “even those turned off by the humor will enjoy the standout performances” by Gordon — who plays Mrs. Hocheiser as someone with “no redeeming qualities” — and Segal, who “gives a remarkable impression of a man who is on his last legs.” He notes that because “both Gordon and Segal were given much freedom”, they “gave performances that are comedic gems”, and he argues that “for them alone, this film is worth seeing.” Equally memorable, however, are Leibman as Segal’s impossibly put-upon brother, and Van Devere (in her film debut) as a traumatized young divorcee clearly willing to wear her heart on her sleeve. I was both deeply discomfited and pleasantly surprised by how boldly this (highly politically incorrect) film stays its course as a movie determined to offend in as many ways as possible — while also providing plenty of uncomfortable laughter. The most distressing sequences involve the depiction of Central Park as “a veritable jungle… ruled by uncivilized ‘tribes’ (black gangs)”; while meant to simply be part of the collective satire, these hit especially hard and may stretch your tolerance.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• George Segal as Gordon
  
• Ruth Gordon as Mrs. Hocheiser
  
• Ron Leibman as Sidney
  
• Trish Van Devere as Louise
  
• Many darkly amusing sequences
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Spinning Image Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
With help from his eccentric scientist-friend (Christopher Lloyd), a teenager (Michael J. Fox) accidentally travels back to the 1950s, where he meets his mom (Lea Thompson) and dad (Crispin Glover) before they’ve become a couple. Complications ensue when Thompson develops a crush on her own son, and Fox wonders how he will ever get his parents to fall in love — and thus save his own future existence.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Inventors
• Mad Doctors and Scientists
• Science Fiction
• Time Travel

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “oedipal comedy” (!) — “directed by Robert Zemeckis, written by Zemeckis and Bob Gale, and produced by Steven Spielberg” — is a “sweet and highly imaginative” “crowd pleaser”. He notes that it “manages to avoid vulgarity”, instead providing “much healthy humor that would have been appreciated back in the innocent fifties” — primarily having to do with “the cultural gap between the fifties and the eighties”. Peary highlights the “excellent” acting, but complains that “only Fox and Thompson play real people”, arguing that “the rest are caricatures, mere pawns for the filmmaker’ gags.” He also shares his unease about the ending, noting that “instead of returning to the future, I’d prefer sticking around in the much more lively, inviting past to watch the revolution in television, rock ‘n’ roll, etc., and see how Thompson and Glover progress.” Further, he’s “a little uneasy seeing the present so altered by Marty’s trip to the past”.

Peary’s review is an interesting one to read so many years later, after two sequels have been released (the trilogy is now firmly entrenched as a cult favorite) and we’re living in yet another era that would feel somewhat foreign to inhabitants of just a few decades ago. As a time travel flick, Back to the Future holds up really well, despite Peary’s concerns: as many questions as we may have about the ethics and viability of changing our current reality by retroactively impacting the past, it’s easy enough to accept the film on its own narrative terms and simply enjoy the ride. I don’t quite agree with Peary that Glover is merely “the definitive nerd”; in fact, he’s quite convincing and sympathetic as a smart, talented, geeky young sci-fi fan who simply wants to be left alone. And while Lloyd does make “all previous wild-eyed, wild-haired wacko scientists look second-rate”, his over-the-top enthusiasm actually serves as a critical reminder that he’s co-existing in multiple time-spaces and has a different take on the entire situation.

Note: I was pleasantly surprised to find and enjoy About Time (2013), a more recent time travel flick that handles its logistics and narrative threads with equal aplomb. It’s well worth a look as well.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly
  
• Crispin Glover as George McFly
  
• Christopher Lloyd as Doc Brown
  
• Authentic, colorful sets
  
• Many memorable scenes
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite and modern classic.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Q Network Review
• FilmSite Review
• Moria Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
A mentally unstable Marxist named Morgan (David Warner) tries to woo his ex-wife Leonie (Lynn Redgrave) away from her stuffy new fiance Charles (Robert Stephens) by using increasingly extreme and outlandish tactics.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• David Warner Films
• Karel Reisz Films
• Kidnapping
• Mental Illness
• Nonconformists
• Vanessa Redgrave Films
• Winning Him/Her Back

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “seriocomedy” about a “nonconformist lead character” was “one of the major pre-Midnight Movie cult films” and discusses it at greater length in his Cult Movies 2 book. He’s not a big fan of the movie, and neither am I: as he writes, it “fits into the irritating it’s-okay-to-be-crazy-in-our-insane-world subgroup” — like King of Hearts from the same year — “which perpetuates the notion that a character’s irresponsible actions can be condoned if he’s certifiably nuts.”

It’s not very hard to look “past director Karel Reisz’s deceptively charming veneer” and “see that Morgan’s fantasies and wild antics are symptomatic of impending personal disaster” — and I’m not someone who will simply “cheer Morgan’s devil-may-care behavior”, or “laugh when Morgan threatens Charles”, or “ignore Leonie’s protests”. As Peary writes, “the most important aspect of this film is not how Morgan tries to win back the woman he loved and lost, but how Leonie deals with the often pathetic advances of a man she loves but can’t be with without destroying herself.”

Peary goes on to state that the “picture has lost much of its following because stylistically it is extremely dated”; he argues we’ve “long overdosed on freeze frames, fast-speed photography, insertions of old movies, and juxtaposition of images signifying ‘illusion’ and ‘reality’.” I’m not sure that still holds true; but the repeated insertion of clips from Tarzan Triumphs (1943) and King Kong (1933) — as well as Morgan’s imagining the world around him as a jungle — feel forced. By the time things get fully (and tragically) ridiculous near the end of the movie, and Morgan puts on his full-body gorilla suit, it’s clear the film has gone in directions that will either resonate with viewers or not.

It’s possible that this all played much fresher in the 1960s; but nowadays, one simply feels sad about Morgan’s untreated illness and frustrated at Redgrave for giving him such a long leash.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine b&w cinematography
  
  

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• BFI Review

Synopsis:
In a parody of Disney’s Fantasia (1940), an Italian producer (Maurizio Micheli) announces a completely novel type of movie: classical music with animated accompaniment. Meanwhile, a pompous conductor (Néstor Garay) corrals a group of old female orchestra members and bullies a harried artist (Maurizio Nichetti) who has eyes for a pretty young cleaner (Marialuisa Giovannini).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Animated Features
• Comedy
• Episodic Films
• Satires and Spoofs

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “ambitious, moderately successful film… both pays homage to Fantasia and mocks its Disney innocence.” In showing yet again “how classical music and animation can enhance one another, the picture consists of vignettes set to the music of Debussey, Dvorak, Ravel, Sibelius, Vivaldi, and Stravisnky” — but since “this is for adults, [the] sequences have to do with sin, sex, loneliness, [and] death.” Indeed, “most of the pieces are hard-edged and sad” – but “since the animation is colorful, the animal and human characters are quirky and likable, and there is enough humor”, we “never get depressed.” The “black-and-white live-action sequences” — which are “full of slapstick humor and dealing with a Felliniesque orchestra”:

— are a mixed bag, but ultimately an indelible part of the film’s unique style; it’s easy to see how this film has been “a nice change of pace from typical repertory-theater fare” (though as Peary notes, “you have to be in the right mood to enjoy it”).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Many enjoyably eccentric, well-animated sequences
  
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

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

Synopsis:
When his cattle are stolen and his youngest brother (Don Garner) is murdered by a clan of local outlaws led by Old Man Clanton (Walter Brennan), Wyatt Earp (Henry Fonda) and his two other brothers — Morgan (Ward Bond) and Virgil (Tim Holt) — decide to settle in the nearby town of Tombstone, where Fonda is quickly made marshal and Morgan and Virgil are deputized. Fonda befriends an alcoholic former dentist named “Doc” Holliday (Victor Mature) whose girlfriend (Linda Darnell) is jealous when a woman (Cathy Downs) from Mature’s past, named Clementine, comes to town; meanwhile, tensions continue to brew between the Earps and the Clantons.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Henry Fonda Films
• Historical Drama
• John Ford Films
• John Ireland Films
• Linda Darnell Films
• Revenge
• Sheriffs and Marshals
• Victor Mature Films
• Walter Brennan Films
• Ward Bond Films
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “John Ford’s stirring, beautifully photographed
(by Joe MacDonald) but flagrantly fictional account” of how the Earp brothers “cleaned up Tombstone in the 1880s” is a “different kind of western”, noting that despite the many killings and “major theme” of “violent retribution”, “it has been described as ‘lovely’, ‘poignant’, ‘nostalgic’, ‘sentimental’, ‘tender’, ‘sweet’, and ‘poetic’.” He points out that what we remember most are “Wyatt playfully leaning back on his chair and balancing himself on the street post in front of him, with one foot and then the other; Wyatt proudly escorting pretty Clementine… to the town gathering; Wyatt and Clementine dancing; and… Wyatt walking alone down the middle of the road leading to the O.K. Corral with the enormous rocks of Monument Valley in the distance.” We also “remember Cyril Mockridge’s lyrical score, using harmonicas, fiddles, guitars, and a cowboy chorus.”

Naturally, this retelling of the infamous “gunfight at the O.K. Corral” — as with nearly every other adaptation — falls far short of the truth of the story; those interested in learning more can read any of TCM’s articles about the film, Wikipedia, or Peary’s lengthy article in his Cult Movies 2 book. As Peary writes in GFTFF, “The real Wyatt Earp was a cad (also he was no marshal), but Fonda plays him as a brave, virtuous, dignified man” who is “so steadfast in his moral beliefs that he’s too predictable”, thus leading to “the morally ambiguous Holliday” being “brought into play”. Peary describes Holliday as a “tragic figure who, unlike Wyatt, cannot accept the advent of civilization because he will be rejected by society when, by all rights, he should fit in — he’s more intellectual, educated, cultured, better dressed than Wyatt”, and “also blessed with the power to cure the sick — but makes no [apparent] attempt to rid himself of consumption”.

In Cult Movies 2, Peary elaborates on “the way people relate to each other in Ford’s west” — that is, “the director’s own version of ‘realism’.” As Peary writes:

“Foes speak to one another hesitantly, with clipped dialogue so they won’t betray themselves. They’re polite but we sense hostility. Pronouns are dropped… Characters rarely change their expressions or the levels of their voices, lest they reveal their innermost thoughts… Old Man Clanton (played by the incomparable Walter Brennan) refuses to show emotion, and even at his most demonstrative, barely curls his lips into a snarl or semi-smile, or moves his big eyes… Wyatt seemingly remains calm in the face of disaster; we never know if he’s scared… To change expressions is to show vulnerability, not the wise thing to do in this west, where bluffing is as important as a quick draw.”

Indeed, as fictionalized as all the proceedings are (and boy, they certainly are), My Darling Clementine nonetheless represents an iconic vision of the West — complete with racism (Mexicans and Indians are lower-class citizens) and rampant corruption (a massive set of crimes are committed by the Clantons within the first five minutes). Visually the film is stunning, and the performances are noteworthy as well — but the story-line itself also offers plenty to chew and reflect on as we consider how we have constructed our problematic, deeply complex history of the West.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Henry Fonda as Wyatt Earp (nominated as one of the Best Actors of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars)
  
• Victor Mature as Doc Holliday
  
• Walter Brennan as Old Man Clanton
  
• Joseph MacDonald’s cinematography
  
  
• Fine location shooting
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as an enduring classic.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• FilmSite Review
• TV Guide Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Q Network Review
• TCM Articles

Synopsis:
A poet (Enrico Rivero) experiences increasingly surreal events in his studio and after travelling through a mirror into a hotel.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Experimental Films
• French Films
• Jean Cocteau Films
• Silent Films
• Surrealism

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary describes Jean Cocteau’s “first film” as “four segments, each expressing through a series of puzzling visuals (making use of various camera tricks) the difficulty a poet has in artistically confronting ‘reality’.” He notes that the “journey of [the] poet is [a] weird trip where visual metaphors and symbols are used to emphasize the artist’s break with traditional forms”, given that “statues come to life, people turn into statues, people pass through mirrors, a [girl] flies, [and] abstract images move about the frame”. He adds that while this “classic work has long been admired by Surrealists” and avant-garde filmmakers consider it “required viewing”, “others may have to fight boredom and confusion”. While I’m suitably impressed by some of the uniquely memorable imagery, I’ll admit I fall primarily into the latter category — though it’s short enough at just 50 minutes to not be a chore to get through. I ultimately agree with Peary that while it’s “not for all tastes” it’s “interesting considering who made it and how long ago it was made.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Many memorably surreal images
  
  
  
  
  

Must See?
No, but it’s certainly worth a one-time look for its historical significance.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Bright Lights Film Journal
• Spinning Image Review
• Moria Review

Synopsis:
An aspiring farmer (Zachary Scott) and his wife (Betty Field) and two kids attempt to turn a ramshackle property into a viable homestead, despite the protests of their irascible “Granny” (Beulah Bondi), the lure of a friend (Charles Kemper) promising steady money in a factory job, and a bitterly stingy neighbor (J. Carrol Naish) who is reluctant to see the family thrive.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Betty Field Films
• Beulah Bondi Films
• Farming
• Jean Renoir Films
• Survival
• Zachary Scott Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “simple, poetic film by Jean Renoir” is a “well-intentioned, tender picture in which Renoir once again expresses the need for family and neighbors to stick together through crisis”. He highlights the “lovely visuals”, but points out a few flaws as well — including the fact that “Renoir’s treatment of his characters is a bit too precious at times” and Bondi “overdoes it” as “cantankerous Grandma”.

While Peary states that “the hardships are predictable”, I disagree; the challenges facing any family attempting to make a living off the land are substantive enough to highlight — especially in an era when most of us remain so oblivious to the tremendous work and luck involved in farming. Peary also argues that Renoir “doesn’t include enough shots of work being done” (I disagree):

… and that “Betty Field was probably miscast” (I disagree yet again) — though he does concede “her sparkling eyes alone give the picture a needed dose of kindness.”

While this isn’t must-see viewing for all film fanatics, they will likely be curious to give it a look — and of course fans of Renoir’s oeuvre will want to seek it out.

Note: TCM’s article cites an extensive quote from Renoir’s memoirs, in which he describes his fondness for this film (and also, perhaps, his overly “precious” approach):

“What attracted me to the story was precisely the fact that there was no story, nothing but a series of strong impressions — the vast landscape, the simple aspiration of the hero, the heat and the hunger. Being forced to live a life restricted to their daily material needs, the characters attain a level of spirituality of which they themselves are unaware… What I saw was a story in which all the characters were heroic, in which every element would brilliantly play its part, in which things and men, animals and Nature, all would come together in an immense act of homage to the divinity.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• A poignant portrait of survival and grit
  

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended.

Links:

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

Synopsis:
During an Allied invasion of Italy during World War II, a sergeant (Dana Andrews) takes charge of his platoon when his original commander is severely wounded, and the next sergeant in command (Herbert Rudley) cracks up from the pressure. Will Andrews and his crew — including an outspoken New Yorker (Richard Conte), a bold sergeant (Lloyd Bridges), and an introspective private (John Ireland) — be able to limit their own fatalities while storming a German-occupied farmhouse and blowing up a nearby bridge?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Dana Andrews Films
• John Ireland Films
• Lewis Milestone Films
• Lloyd Bridges Films
• Richard Conte Films
• Soldiers
• World War II

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “solid war film” — “directed by Lewis Milestone, 15 years after his anti-war classic All Quiet on the Western Front” — is “a rare WWII film in which our men have second thoughts about being soldiers”; he points out that “the terrifying finale” (we really don’t know what will happen) “confirms that fighting isn’t fun for Americans in WWII, just necessary.” Indeed, the thematic connections between this and All Quiet… are relatively strong, given that we’re once again relentlessly shown the horrors of war, albeit interwoven with entertaining dialogue between the men (much was taken from the source novel by Harry Brown). It’s refreshing to see how the soldiers may give each other plenty of grief, but are there for one another in the most important ways: volunteering for dangerous tasks; accepting the mental breakdown of their leader without judgment; and sticking with their platoon throughout the horrors they endure. Peary notes that the film — featuring fine cinematography by Russell Harlan — is “visually interesting because the men” (there are no women in the cast) “are shown in relationship to the flat landscape and wide sky, which at times is blocked out by smoke from exploded bombs and gunfire”, and “Milestone often pans effectively over the hostile terrain” (enemies’ faces are never shown). The performances across the board are solid, with Andrews and Conte stand-out leads, Ireland memorable in his debut role, and Bridges instantly earning our respect during a critical scene. This one remains must-see viewing.

Note: Andrews and Conte co-starred in Milestone’s controversial WWII film from the previous year, The Purple Heart (1944), which is worth a look but with caution (as outlined in my review).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine performances by the all-male cast
  
  
  
• Russell Harlan’s cinematography
  
  
• Robert Rossen’s script (based on Harry Brown’s novel)

Must See?
Yes, as a still-powerful film about WWII. Selected for preservation in the National Film Registry in 2016.

Categories

• Good Show

Links:

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

Synopsis:
An Englishman (Ronald Colman) vacationing in Ruritania is instantly spotted as a doppelganger for Rudolf V (Ronald Colman), who is due to become king the next day. When Rudolf V is drugged and kidnapped by his power-hungry brother (Raymond Massey) at a drinking party, Rudolf’s loyal assistants (C. Aubrey Smith and David Niven) enlist the help of British Colman to pose as the king and engage in a marriage ceremony with Princess Flavia (Madeleine Carroll). Complications ensue when British Colman and Carroll fall genuinely in love with one another; meanwhile, Massey’s long-time love (Mary Astor) will do whatever it takes to prevent Massey from achieving his ambitions, and Massey’s villainous side-kick (Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.) is ready for lethal action.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• David Niven Films
• Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. Films
• John Cromwell Films
• Madeleine Carroll Films
• Mary Astor Films
• Mistaken or Hidden Identities
• Raymond Massey Films
• Ronald Colman Films
• Royalty and Nobility

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that while “it’s a bit dated”, this remains “the best of the five film versions of Anthony Hope’s novel,” representing “the type of story that Hollywood was meant to tell.” He points out that it “has fine acting, exciting action sequences (including a swordfight between Colman and Fairbanks), romance between the appealing Carroll and Colman, lavish sets, striking sepia-toned cinematography, stylish direction by John Cromwell”, and a “top-rate cast”, specifically calling out Ronald Colman for his “dashing yet elegant performance as an Englishman who impersonates his kidnapped Cousin, the King of Ruritania.” I agree with Peary that this adventure tale is well mounted and contains all the ingredients necessary for a rousing thriller — including mistaken identities, complicated love affairs, loyal assistants (of both good and evil), and much excitement. I’m especially fond of Astor as a woman inexplicably devoted to Massey’s turgid would-be monarch; she’s proof that love really knows no reason.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine performances by the entire cast

  
  
  
  

• James Wong Howe’s cinematography
  
• Fittingly regal sets
  
• The exciting sword duel
  

Must See?
Yes, as a “good show”.

Categories

• Good Show

Links:

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

Synopsis:
An inmate (Anthony Perkins) released from an insane asylum receives help from his parole officer (John Randolph) in finding a job in a lumber company, and woos a beautiful teen (Tuesday Weld) he meets at a hot dog stand by telling her he is a CIA agent. Soon the young couple are committing crimes, and after Weld kills a guard, Perkins realizes he’s in over his head — especially when Weld reveals the depth of her frustration with her controlling mother (Beverly Garland).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Anthony Perkins Films
• Black Comedy
• Ex-Cons
• Femmes Fatales
• Mental Illness
• Romance
• Tuesday Weld Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “sometimes violent black comedy” — “written by Lorenzo Semple (from Stephen Geller’s novel), and directed by Noel Black” — is “one of the few still-sparkling gems of the late sixties”, and notes it’s a “terrific film” with a “cult following” (he writes about it at length in his first Cult Movies book). He points out the “sharp humor scattered throughout its serious framework”, writing that “its style reminds [him] of William March’s The Bad Seed” — indeed, “17-year-old Sue Ann [Weld] might well be the diabolical eight-year-old Rhoda Penmark grown up.” Peary asserts that that “picture’s theme, as reflected in the paradoxical title and as embodied by Sue Ann, is that paranoid America is not so much in danger from foreigners as it is from evil, epidemic-like forces that are spreading in America’s heartland”, with the “small, peaceful Massachusetts town” where the film takes place “a microcosm of a sick, self-destructive America.” He adds that “Weld is great and Perkins matches her, properly playing Dennis as a man who is very much a boy.”

In his Alternate Oscars, Peary names Weld Best Actress of the Year for her portrayal as “a typical American teenage innocent, a pretty, high-spirited blonde, who is on the honor roll, takes hygiene classes, and carries the American flag while marching with her school band”, but who actually represents psychopathy hiding in plain sight. He posits that “as Sue Ann grew up she refined, even perfected, her evil, keeping it veiled under a cheery veneer” — and now it “corresponds with her sexual amorality”. Weld “gives Sue Ann the comic edge to match Perkins’ oddball Dennis”: “no matter what ludicrous idea Dennis cooks up, Sue Ann is willing; in fact, she’s one scheme ahead of him”, and “no one is better than Weld at showing excitement at acquiring things”. Peary reminds us that after her debut role in Rock! Rock! Rock! (1956), Weld was best known for her “memorable, money-hungry” character “Thalia Menninger on television’s The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis — her prototypical role — and her manipulative teenager in Lord Love a Duck.”

In Cult Movies, Peary elaborates upon Perkins’ character Dennis, noting he “reminds [him] of the scene in Psycho (1960) in which Perkins, as Norman Bates, loses his cockiness when the car containing Janet Leigh’s body momentarily fails to sink in the lake. At this moment, Norman realizes that he can be caught”, just as he is time and again in Pretty Poison. Speaking of Psycho, Stuart Galbraith IV points out in his review for DVD Talk that, “For 1968 audiences, part of the film’s surprise is that it completely flip-flops audience expectations. They were still avoiding those late-night, home alone showers in the wake of Psycho, so Anthony Perkins in another fresh-out-of-the-nuthouse role strongly suggested another Norman Bates-like character” — whereas his character here actually elicits “relative sympathy” compared to Sue Ann, thus throwing “audiences off-balance”. Also of note is the small but crucial supporting role played by Beverly Garland, giving a “deliciously cold performance” as Weld’s shrewish mother; we understand Weld’s animosity towards her, but also feel sympathy about her untimely demise given that she’s “being nice to Sue Ann for the only time in the picture”.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Tuesday Weld as Sue Ann
  
• Anthony Perkins as Dennis
  
• Beverly Garland as Mrs. Stepanek
  
• Fine cinematography
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a still-enjoyable cult favorite.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

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