FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
The wife (Jane Fonda) of a marine heading overseas to fight in the Vietnam War volunteers with her new friend (Penelope Milford) at a local vet hospital, where she meets and falls in love with a paraplegic (Jon Voight) — but what will happen to their romance once Dern returns home?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Bruce Dern Films
• Character Arc
• Disabilities
• Hal Ashby Films
• Homecoming
• Infidelity
• Jane Fonda Films
• Jon Voight Films
• Love Triangle
• Sexuality
• Veterans
• Vietnam War

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this Hal Ashby-directed “breakthrough anti-Vietnam War film” also “makes a persuasive plea for more sensitive treatment of returning vets… whether they are physically injured, thoroughly disillusioned by their experiences, or having difficulty with readjustment to wives, the rhythm of civilian life, and a country filled with war protestors”. In his Alternate Oscars, Peary names this film Best Picture in place of The Deer Hunter, writing that Coming Home “deals with issues that are still timely, such as our government and military’s insensitivity and indifference toward… vets with physical and/or psychological problems”. In GFTFF, he notes that the “Oscar-winning script” is “powerful, yet sensitive to all the major characters, including Dern” — indeed, the complexity of their relationship (he’s far from a one-dimensional “hawkish career marine”) is key to our engagement with the story: while it’s impossible not to root for Fonda and Voight’s romance, we also feel genuinely terrible for Dern when “he learns about Fonda’s infidelity”. Indeed, in Alternate Oscars, Peary adds that “startingly, we end up with more sympathy for Dern — his pain breaks your heart — than for anyone else. Unlike Voight, whose anger was tempered by Fonda’s understanding, Dern hurts too much to wait patiently for Fonda to heal him”.

In GFTFF, Peary writes that “Fonda won an Oscar with her appealing performance, playing one of her naive women who bravely step into unknown territory and become politicized” — but he adds that “Voight is even better in his Oscar-winning performance”, playing “his character with amazing intelligence, sensitivity, restraint, and lack of pretension”. In Alternate Oscars, he writes that Voight’s “role was hard to play for several reasons. Luke [Voight] is in a wheelchair yet must come across as physically fit and sexually desirable. He must display hostility and rage, yet still seem reasonable and not scare viewers into thinking he shouldn’t be welcomed back into society. He must elicit audience sympathy for all disabled vets by complaining about his own treatment, yet not display self-pity” (the latter takes time, but we can see his transformation through the arc of the storyline). Peary adds that he “turns out to be one of the nicest, most admirable, most desirable of movie heroes”.

There are many memorable scenes in Coming Home, including “one of the cinema’s most famous erotic scenes”, in which Voight “and Fonda make love in bed”, and “Voight speaking to a high school about the amoral war” — but other moments stand out as well. Near the beginning of her volunteer work, for instance, Fonda attempts to communicate with a black veteran without realizing he needs his voice box plugged in; when she begins to feed him, she drops his first mouthful of food, and then they engage in an awkward back-and-forth over whether she’ll give this piece to him or not — it’s a version of two people attempting to walk by each other and getting the direction wrong each time. Robert Carradine as Milford’s emotionally damaged brother is also memorable, showing how trauma manifests in mysterious ways; his suicide scene is deeply disturbing. Coming Home isn’t a film one can watch easily, but it’s well-worth viewing.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Jane Fonda as Sally (nominated by Peary as one oof the Best Actresses of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  
• Jon Voight as Luke (selected by Peary as Best Actor of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  
• Haskell Wexler’s fine cinematography and good use of natural locales
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as an enduring post-war classic.

Categories

• Noteworthy Performance(s)
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

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

Synopsis:
After years of colonial governance by the French, North Vietnamese soldiers fight back against an American military presence that supports the corrupt South Vietnamese government.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Corruption
• Documentary
• Emile de Antonio Films
• Revolutionaries
• Vietnam War

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Emile de Antonio’s sober documentary account of what was happening in Vietnam, and how the war had escalated to such a point, was required viewing among war protestors in 1969 and the early seventies”. He makes note of the lack of narration as well as the highly deliberate editing “showing us our higher-ups in government… making speeches about our policy in Vietnam and then showing footage that contradicts what they said”. Much of what’s here may feel or look familiar to modern viewers who’ve seen other documentaries about the war, such as Hearts and Minds (1974) or the recent docu-series by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick (2017); unique to this film are “interviews with Wayne Morse and Ernest B. Gruening, the only senators who voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that really escalated the war”, as well as other individuals (primarily white males) solicited to share their talking-head thoughts.

To a certain extent, In the Year of the Pig is a documentary very much of-its-time: it had a certain power in 1969 when we were still deeply embroiled in the Vietnam War, and decisions discussed on-screen related to current life-or-death outcomes. However, Peary argues that while the “film has an undeniable fascination… too much serendipity is evident in the choice of footage and interview subjects”. He notes his frustration that “we never feel we’re getting a full story about any aspect of the war”, and shares that “even in 1969 [he] thought the film was weak”, given de Antonio’s clear bias in favor of the North Vietnamese. I disagree: it was de Antonio’s prerogative as a creative montagist to pull together clips that supported his argument, and his documentary — while certainly not comprehensive — prompts us to interpret the conflict in a unique and provocative way.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Many powerful, heartbreaking images and scenes
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance as a seminal anti-war film.

Categories

• Historically Relevant
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• NY Times Review

Synopsis:
Veterans and others involved in the Vietnam War share their memories and thoughts on this devastating era of recent history.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Documentary
• Veterans
• Vietnam War

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “Oscar-winning documentary” by Peter Davis “builds a strong case that the U.S. presence in Vietnam was based on false assumptions (that the domino theory made sense, that the North Vietnamese could be vanquished by American might, that the South Vietnamese supported their government and desired American assistance) and that American soldiers in Vietnam were conducting an amoral war”. He notes that we “see interviews with pilots who dropped napalm and defoliants on the North Vietnamese; terrified napalmed children running down a road, their bodies burned and skin hanging off their limbs; soldiers burning villages; [and] soldiers rifle-butting prisoners”. He argues that “Davis’s contention is that America’s leaders have been responsible for both our misguided presence in the Vietnam War and the type of war being conducted; but the major theme is that they are the type of leaders Middle Americans want and deserve.”

Having just finished watching Ken Burns and Lynn Novick’s powerful 18-hour docu-series entitled The Vietnam War (2017), I recognized many of the themes presented in Hearts and Minds — though I appreciated seeing them from a much fresher and rawer perspective, before the war itself had come to an end. Indeed, this film was considered “too hot to handle” by financing Columbia Studios, and had to be bought back by producer Bert Schneider in order to be screened. As Peary points out, it’s filled with “much unforgettable footage, properly manipulative editing (such as Vietnamese grieving over their dead, followed by a scene in which [General] Westmoreland says how the Vietnamese don’t care about death the way we do”). Westmoreland’s quote is the most memorably egregious, but others include:

Col. George S. Patton III (reflecting on the American military): “They’re a bloody good bunch of killers!”

Lt. George Coker, returning POW (to a group of Catholic school kids): “What did Vietnam look like? Well, if it wasn’t for the people, it was very pretty. The people over there are very backward and very primitive and they just make a mess out of everything.”

Peary argues that the film makes a strong case for “how deeply rooted are our racism, anti-communism, [and] need to battle an enemy”, and that it’s “not surprising that our solders acted as they did when sent to Vietnam.” Burns and Novick’s mini-series — which all film fanatics (and Americans) should be sure to check out — adds invaluable insight into the soldiers’ perspectives many years later, as they reflect even more deeply on how and why they were able to commit the atrocities they did. Given that Hearts and Minds was made the year before the war finally ended, there were many more years of healing and understanding to come — but as Peary writes, while “today the picture may seem tame… it was as powerful an anti-Vietnam film as had been made until then”, and is certainly must-see viewing.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Many impactful moments
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as an Oscar-winning historical classic.

Categories

• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• Washington Post Review
• Q Network Review
• TCM Article
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
The punk-loving daughter (Linda Manz) of a convicted trucker (Dennis Hopper) tries to survive life with her drug-addicted mother (Sharon Farrell), and lives in anticipation of the day her dad is released.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Alcoholism and Drug Addiction
• Coming of Age
• Dennis Hopper Films
• Ex-Cons
• Father and Child
• Juvenile Delinquents
• Raymond Burr Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this “low-budget film” about the “lonely, miserable life” of a scrappy teen whose alcoholic dad is in jail after he “rams his truck into a schoolbus, killing all the children” got made only because “Hopper assumed directorial chores in mid-film”. However, the “acting is good; [and] the terrible family life is authentic, as is the brutal world outside the home”. He adds it’s “too bad the film’s as messy as Manz’s life because it delivers a strong, important message about how adults can destroy the lives of their children.” I’m in agreement with Peary’s assessment. While the film doesn’t quite cohere as a compelling narrative, there are numerous well-shot scenes which convincingly convey how lost and angry Manz is, and what a truly hopeless situation she’s in.

The “final scene between Manz and Hopper”, which “will make your skin crawl” — and which is followed immediately by another unexpected doozy — seem like an appropriate denouement to this relentlessly tragic tale.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Linda Manz as Cebe
  
• Sharon Farrell as Kathy
  
• Many powerful and/or disturbing scenes
  
  

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• Blastitude Review
• Cinematic Threads Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A gutsy prostitute (Season Hubley) assists a detective (Gary Swanson) in cornering a psychopathic pimp (Wings Hauser) — but when Hauser breaks loose from his captors, Hubley’s life is on the line.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Prostitutes and Gigolos
• Revenge
• Undercover Cops and Agents

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “sleazy sexploitation film” is “another film which gives the wrong impression that all street hookers are model types” — but this doesn’t quite ring true; yes, Hubley and her close friends are beautiful:

… but director Gary Sherman includes plenty of panning shots depicting the array of deglamorized activity going down at night on the streets of Hollywood, and Hubley’s murdered friend (Nina Blackwood) is shown in quite a sorry state.

Hubley herself is actually a refreshingly (if foolheartedly) bold female protagonist who more than holds her own with “Hauser’s scary villain” — “someone you’ll love to hate” (indeed, he seems to have a minor cult following based on this flick alone).

Peary accurately notes that the film is “extremely brutal and unpleasant, particularly the finale” — though I believe modern film fanatics won’t find it particularly over-the-top. Favorite odd scene: the toe-sucking request.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Season Hubley as Princess
  
• John Alcott’s cinematography of sleazy Hollywood
  

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• Video Graveyard Review

Synopsis:
A group of leather-clad friends (Sylvester Stallone, Perry King, Henry Winkler, and Paul Mace) hang out and wreak mild havoc while King ditches his girlfriend (Renee Paris) for a new blonde (Susan Blakely) in school, and Stallone learns his pregnant girlfriend (Maria Smith) is desperate to put a ring on it.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Friendship
• Juvenile Delinquents
• Sylvester Stallone Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary only seems to include this “unexceptional, uninvolving film about four leather-jacketed high-school buddies in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn in the mid-fifties” because it “became a surprise commercial hit”. As he points out, its success was certainly not due to the “skimpy and trite” storyline or the “bad” sound quality, but rather because “its youth audience recognized the star quality of the unknown leads… who were… destined for stardom”. I agree with Peary that “Stallone is particularly good, playing a tough talker who’s pushed into marriage by his pregnant girlfriend” — but the problem is, not a single one of these characters is likable, and their actions are uniformly ill-advised. Blakeley’s (underdeveloped) “Jane” is right to be ambivalent about “Chico” (King), and Smith seems destined for a lifetime of dominance by chauvanist Stallone. A scene of Stallone in a rooftop pigeon coop seems to want to remind audiences of Terry Malloy in On the Waterfront — but it simply made me want to rewatch that classic instead.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Evidence of early star power
  

Must See?
Nope; definitely feel free to skip this clunker.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review

Synopsis:
An accomplice (John Ireland) of Jesse James (Reed Hadley) decides to shoot James in exchange for amnesty and $10,000 so he can marry his beloved singer-girlfriend (Barbara Britton). However, Ireland quickly becomes known as a notorious traitor, and ends up competing with another man (Preston Foster) for Britton’s affections.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Historical Drama
• John Ireland Films
• Preston Foster Films
• Sam Fuller Films
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Samuel Fuller’s directorial debut is this interesting low-budget film about ‘that dirty little coward’ Robert Ford”, who “Fuller keeps… in close-up much of the time to hint at his psychological confusion, first about deciding to kill his best friend… and then about being regarded as a traitor by his fellow townspeople.”

Peary argues it “makes sense” that “Ford becomes increasingly sympathetic” given that “Fuller despised Jesse James and thought his murder was a public service”. As a low-budget psychological western, Fuller’s flick works quite well, and it hardly matters that “there isn’t enough action to satisfy most western fans.” Ireland gives an appropriately haunted performance in the title role: it’s easy to see how extreme cognitive dissonance fuels his inability to understand his girlfriend’s (Britton) waning love for him, as well as Britton’s fear for her life if she risks leaving Ireland.

There’s plenty of genuine tension here.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• John Ireland as Bob Ford
  
• Ernest Miller’s cinematography
  
  

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended, and certainly a must for Fuller fans.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Article
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
When a group of hippie satanists led by an Indian (Bhaskar Roy Chowdhury) enter into a small town and assault a young woman (Iris Brooks), her grandfather (Richard Bowler) goes to check on the visitors and is drugged with LSD. Seeking revenge, Bowler’s grandson (Riley Bills) injects them with rabies and they all go murderously insane.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Horror Films
• Revenge
• Satanists

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “wild film was one of the first to cash in on hip young horror fans’ appetite for blood and gore, first whetted by Night of the Living Dead,” but adds that “this picture didn’t have the subtlety and sophistication of Romero’s breakthrough film” (no kidding!). While “there are some scares… neither the acting nor the direction by David Durston is impressive and the film itself is pretty offensive”. He concedes that the film “does have color, energy, and a preposterous plot” — but this is far from enough to redeem a tale this unpleasant from start to finish. From the opening scene of a brutal satanic ritual in the woods (culminating in a local girl being assaulted), to the rabid hippie-sadists’ goring of one another while foaming at the mouth, this movie simply makes one lament for the state of humanity. Thank goodness for the wherewithal of the plucky young male protagonist (Bills) — though his trick of preparing “a pie he’s shot up with rabies” is pure fiction and doesn’t correlate with actal transmission of the disease.

Note: Check out Brandon’s Cult Movie Review for a fun 20 minute condensation of this flick.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• A plucky young protagonist in the midst of chaos (yay for kids!)
  

Must See?
Nope — unless, of course, this is your cup of… tea.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• SciFilm Review

Synopsis:
With the help of a journalist (Sharon Taylor), a spy (Gary Smith), and a parachuting lieutenant (Rock Peace), a special operations agent (David Miller) attempts to learn why tomatoes are suddenly wreaking havoc on humanity.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Killer Plants
• Satires and Spoofs

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that the “title sufficiently tells [the] plot of this sci-fi spoof that, regrettably, is not nearly as bad as its distributors would like us to believe”. He argues that “unfortunately, the filmmakers had enough skill to make it clever but dull rather than inept but campy, like other ‘Worst Film’ contenders”:

… and points out that “at least it has an even more ludicrous title tune than The Blob‘s” (indeed, the song will stick in your memory for days thereafter; be forewarned). While Peary asserts that the “funniest gag has an actor dubbed (loud and out-of-synch, appropriately) simply because this is a sci-fi film and he is Japanese”, I believe the best scenes (relatively speaking) are those which openly parody well-known horror films (i.e, tomatoes bobbing menacingly in the ocean a la Jaws). While I’m not a personal fan of this ridiculously silly film, it’s harmless and worth a look if you enjoy this kind of entertainment.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fun parody sequences from famous flicks
  
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look if you’re curious.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Bad Movies Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Moria Review

Synopsis:
An intergalactic policeman (Steven Macht) on board a spaceship with an inept boss named Captain Butt (Avery Schreiber) falls in love with a beautiful android-servant (Dorothy Stratten) who reprograms herself to become more human-like for Macht — but will the crew survive a battle with aliens for the desirable “Blue Star” crystal?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Androids and Clones
• Satires and Spoofs
• Science Fiction
• Space Opera

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “the ill-fated Dorothy Stratten moved from Playboy ‘Playmate of the Year’ into the title role of this insipid, low-budget sci-fi film”:

… a “truly boring sci-fi parody (it is also a parody of westerns) with limp humor and uninteresting direction by William Sachs (who also wrote the script).” Peary notes that “the most offensive scene is set in an outer-space [‘human’] café that has women’s heads mounted on walls:

… and such dishes as poached legs on toast and fruit of the womb”.

He adds that the “picture has a cult because of Stratten’s appearance” but it’s doubtful most modern film fanatics will even have heard of Stratten, let alone be curious to see her in this tediously awful film. Definitely feel free to skip it.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Some interesting cinematography
  

Must See?
Uh… No. Despite its cult status, you can definitely skip this one.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• Moria Review
• Stomp Tokyo Review