Browsed by
Category: Response Reviews

My comments on Peary’s reviews in Guide for the Film Fanatic (Simon & Schuster, 1986).

Stalag 17 (1953)

Stalag 17 (1953)

“There are two people in this barracks who know I didn’t do it: me and the guy that did do it.”

Synopsis:
After two men attempting escape die in a German prisoner-of-war camp, a cynical wheeler-dealer (William Holden) is falsely accused of being an informant to the barrack’s Kommandant (Otto Preminger). Someone is sending secret messages to their presiding guard (Sig Rumann) — but who could it be?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Billy Wilder Films
  • Falsely Accused
  • Neville Brand Films
  • Otto Preminger Films
  • Mistaken or Hidden Identities
  • Play Adaptation
  • Prisoners of War
  • Spies
  • William Holden Films
  • World War Two

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this wartime spy flick — directed by Billy Wilder, and based on a Broadway play by Donald Bevan and Edmund Trzcinski — “stumbles along at the beginning, as we try to adjust to the rowdy comedy that plays a major part in the film” (he asserts that “these men need laughter in their lives”), but argues that “it really gets exciting once we viewers are let in on the spy’s identity”, at which point we “can’t wait till Holden traps the culprit”. I essentially agree with Peary’s assessment, though I feel more strongly that the “rowdy comedy” detracts from an otherwise powerful drama — I’ve learned that the presence of character actor Harvey Lembeck automatically makes me think of awful Beach Party flicks and brings to mind terms like “annoying” and “obnoxious”. Regardless, Holden’s performance is excellent, and the spy storyline is quite compelling: despite guessing the spy’s identity fairly early on, this didn’t detract from my enjoyment, instead allowing for a creepy “close-read” of a man so easily able to fool so many people under such high stakes. The moral of the story is: beware of false accusations and crowd mentality.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • William Holden as Sefton
  • Creative direction

Must See?
Yes, once, for Holden’s Oscar-winning performance.

Categories

  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

Fly, The (1958)

Fly, The (1958)

“Although I killed my husband, I am not a murderess — I simply carried out his last wish.”

Synopsis:
After confessing to crushing her husband in a mechanical press, a distraught woman (Patricia Owens) tells her sympathetic brother-in-law (Vincent Price) and an inquiring detective (Herbert Marshall) the bizarre story of how her scientist-husband (David Hedison) ended up as part-human, part-fly.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Flashback Films
  • Herbert Marshall Films
  • Horror
  • Insects
  • Mad Doctors and Scientists
  • Mutant Monsters
  • Science Fiction
  • Strong Females
  • Vincent Price Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this “most enjoyable science fiction film” — based on a “tongue firmly in cheek” script by James Clavell — is “mostly amusing” despite also possessing “one of the greatest moments in horror movies” as “Owens pulls off her husband’s hood and sees his fly head”. He points out that this “scientist-treading-where-man-shouldn’t tread movie” is uniquely “feminist” in that “the emphasis is placed on the wife as she endures tragedy and tries everything in her power to save her [foolhardy] husband”, and in the process “becomes extremely capable”. Price’s role is sympathetic but rather small; this is Owens’ show all the way, and she more than carries it. The movie gets off to a somewhat slow start, with a flashback to the main events of the storyline not occurring for about half-an-hour — but once we’re in, we’re in, both for laughs and shocks; the final few moments are especially intense. The costumes and special effects are quite effective, and the cinematography is nicely done. After viewing this film, you will likely never look at a common housefly (or a spider web) in the same way again.

Note: David Cronenberg remade this film in 1986 with Geena Davis and Jeff Goldblum; it’s listed as an additional “must-see” title in the back of Peary’s book.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Patricia Owens as Helene
  • Fine Cinemascope cinematography
  • Creepy costumes and special effects

Must See?
Yes, as an enjoyable classic of the genre.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Murder, My Sweet / Farewell, My Lovely (1944)

Murder, My Sweet / Farewell, My Lovely (1944)

“A black pool opened up at my feet again, and I dived in.”

Synopsis:
Private eye Philip Marlowe (Dick Powell) is commissioned by a hulking ex-con named Moose (Mike Mazurki) to find his long-lost girlfriend, Velma. Meanwhile, Marlowe is hired to accompany a man (Douglas Walton) as he retrieves a jade necklace stolen from the beautiful wife (Claire Trevor) of an older millionaire (Miles Mander), whose daughter (Anne Shirley) worries her father is being cuckolded.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Anne Shirley Films
  • Claire Trevor Films
  • Detectives and Private Investigators
  • Dick Powell Films
  • Edward Dmytryk Films
  • Femmes Fatales
  • Flashback Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “film noir classic” — “reputedly [Raymond] Chandler’s favorite adaptation of his novels” — is “director Edward Dmytryk’s best film”. He writes that while the “picture is known for its seedy characters; hard-edged, hyperbolic dialogue and narration; [and] dark, atmospheric photography”, he believes “it’s most significant because it is the one picture to fully exploit the nightmarish elements that are present in good film noir.” To that end, he notes that “because our narrator, Marlowe, spends time recovering from being knocked out and, later, from drugs in his bloodstream, he never has a clear head”, and thus “the dark, smoky world he walks through becomes increasingly surreal, indicating he is in a dream state”. He further notes that “part of the reason we feel nervous for this Marlowe is that we sense he has no more control over his situation than we do when we’re having a nightmare”. Finally, Peary comments on how effectively Powell “projects Marlowe’s vulnerability”, convincingly “making the transition from cheery crooner to hard-boiled detective”; indeed, it’s truly astonishing that this is the same actor who came to fame starring in light-hearted musicals such as 42nd Street (1933), Gold Diggers of 1933 (1933) (and 1935 and 1937), Dames (1934), and Flirtation Walk (1934).

While the storyline is dense (typical for Chandler) and requires concentration (or perhaps multiple viewings) to fully absorb, I agree with Peary that Murder, My Sweet remains a highly effective, well-acted, atmospheric noir. Powell is a stand-out:

… but the rest of the supporting cast is excellent as well, most notably the ever-reliable Claire Trevor, “coming across as sexy as Lana Turner”:

… and Mike Mazurki as “huge ex-con Moose Malloy”.

Meanwhile, Esther Howard gives a fine “cameo” performance as a boozy informant, remarkably similar to her turn several years later in Born to Kill (1947).

Perhaps the true co-star of the show, however, is Harry J. Wild’s cinematography (see stills below), augmented by Vernon L. Walker’s “special effects for the memorable scene in which the drugged Marlowe has hallucinations”. Remade in 1975 as Farewell, My Lovely with Robert Mitchum, but this earlier version is much better.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Fine performances


  • Harry Wild’s cinematography



  • The creatively filmed nightmare-drug sequence

Must See?
Yes, as a noir classic. Nominated as one of the Best Pictures of the Year by Peary in his Alternate Oscars.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

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

Links:

Criminal Code, The (1931)

Criminal Code, The (1931)

“An eye for an eye: that’s the basis and foundation of the criminal code. Somebody’s got to pay!”

Synopsis:
A young man (Phillip Holmes) sent to prison for accidental manslaughter by a sympathetic but by-the-books D.A. (Walter Huston) becomes a shell of his former self, yet finds renewed reason for living when he falls in love with Huston’s daughter (Constance Cummings) after Huston becomes warden of the prison. However, Holmes’ loyalty is put to the test when his cellmate (Boris Kalloway) murders the prisoner (Clark Marshall) who squealed on his getaway attempt, and Huston attempts to bully Holmes into confessing what he knows.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Character Arc
  • Howard Hawks Films
  • Play Adaptations
  • Prisoners
  • Walter Huston Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is a big fan of this early Howard Hawks flick (based on “a Broadway play by Martin Falvin”), referring to it as a “powerful prison drama” that “expresses one of [Hawks’] frequent themes: both lawmen and criminals must adhere to their own distinct codes”. He writes that it “shows [the] misery of prisoners (guards are brutal, food is awful, cells are tiny and claustrophobic, grounds are overcrowded) and makes clear their desires” — but numerous other films since then have shown the same conditions to equally numbing effects, and with more realistic representation of prisoners from diverse racial backgrounds. The movie also suffers from overly slow pacing at times (perhaps a function of its status as an early “talkie”). With that said, Peary’s assertion that the “picture is full of fine scenes and striking characters” is most certainly true: James Wong Howe’s cinematography and Hawks’ direction make this a consistently visually atmospheric outing. Huston gives a strong central performance in a psychologically complex role, and Boris Karloff “steals the film as Holmes’ slightly wacko cellmate who has ‘an appointment’ with a squealer”. Overall, however, this one is recommended rather than required viewing for film fanatics.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Walter Huston as Mark Brady
  • Boris Karloff (in his first major picture) as Galloway
  • James Wong Howe’s cinematography
  • Many striking scenes


Must See?
No, though it’s certainly recommended for one-time viewing. Named one of the Best Pictures of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars.

Links:

High Sierra (1941)

High Sierra (1941)

“Of all the 14-karat saps! Starting out on a caper with a woman and a dog.”

Synopsis:
Ex-con “Mad Dog” Roy Earle (Humphrey Bogart) — sprung from prison by an ailing friend (Donald MacBride) — connects with a pair of hoodlums (Arthur Kennedy and Alan Curtis) and their luckless moll (Ida Lupino), who are collaborating with a hotel clerk (Cornel Wilde) to stage a heist. Along the way, he meets and befriends an impoverished man (Henry Travers) who is traveling to California with his wife (Elisabeth Risdon) and beautiful granddaughter (Joan Leslie). Lupino falls for Bogart while Bogart falls for Leslie, hoping to woo her through paying for an operation to fix her club-foot. Meanwhile, the heist goes awry and “Mad Dog” is on the lam once again with Lupino and a bad-luck mutt known as “Pard”.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Arthur Kennedy Films
  • Ex-Cons
  • Gangsters
  • Heists
  • Humphrey Bogart Films
  • Ida Lupino Films
  • Joan Leslie
  • Love Triangle
  • Raoul Walsh Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Raoul Walsh directed and John Huston co-scripted this “gangster classic” — based on a novel by co-screenwriter W.R. Burnett — which allowed Humphrey Bogart to become “a full-fledged leading man”. Peary writes that “Walsh really takes a classic western story and transposes it to the gangster genre”, noting that Walsh later refined the story in his gangster flick White Heat (1949) and remade it as an actual western, Colorado Territory, in 1949. Peary argues (and I agree) that the subplot about Bogart’s friendship with Travers, Risdon, and Leslie — despite allowing “Earle to display his good heart and Bogart to reveal a side of himself that hadn’t been seen yet on film” — “weakens the otherwise tough drama”. Though Bogart’s desire to turn over a new leaf and marry a fresh and “innocent” new girl makes sense on some level, it’s incomprehensible that he believes he can hide, sugarcoat, or excuse his past — especially given how notorious he is across the nation. Meanwhile, why would Leslie happily allow Bogart to take her hand romantically (during a key scene) if she has no interest at all in him “that way”?

Other concerning elements of the film include William Best’s caricatured role as a rolling-eyed African-American “assistant” and Henry Hull’s cartoonish “Doc” Banton, whose wig and make-up are distractingly inauthentic.

With that said, there is still much to recommend in this film, which is generally acknowledged as an early example of “gangster noir” (the cinematography by Tony Gaudio is wonderfully atmospheric). According to DVD Savant, it’s notable as the film that “officially marked an end to the five-year ban on sympathetic gangster characters”. Walsh makes excellent use of on-location shooting in Lone Pines, California, and Lupino gives a nuanced and highly empathetic performance as a down-on-her-luck gal desperately in love with clueless Bogart. It’s certainly worth viewing by all film fanatics — and more engaging than its decent but unexceptional western remake.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Ida Lupino as Marie
  • Humphrey Bogart as “Mad Dog” Earle
  • Tony Gaudio’s cinematography


  • Effective live-locale filming in the San Bernadino mountains

Must See?
Yes, as a dated but historically impactful gangster flick.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

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

Links:

Star is Born, A (1937)

Star is Born, A (1937)

“The tense is wrong. You’re not slipping: you’ve slipped.”

Synopsis:
An aspiring actress (Janet Gaynor) falls in love with a famous but alcoholic actor (Fredric March), and soon their fates begin to shift.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Adolph Menjou Films
  • Alcoholism and Drug Addiction
  • Aspiring Stars
  • Fredric March Films
  • Hollywood
  • Janet Gaynor Films
  • Rise-and-Fall
  • Romance
  • Star-Crossed Lovers
  • William Wellman Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “William Wellman classic” — an earlier version of George Cukor’s celebrated 1954 musical starring James Mason and Judy Garland — is a “rare case” when the original “stands up to the remake”. It’s been well-noted that both versions ironically feature a reversal of stances, with Gaynor and Garland actually near the end of their real-life careers, and March and Mason near the peak of theirs. To that end, Peary writes that this film “appropriately capped Gaynor’s brief but impressive career”, and that “because Gaynor’s playing her, we can believe the sweetness, selflessness, and inner strength that characterize Esther/Vicki”. He adds that “March is surprisingly and effectively subdued in a role in which other actors (i.e., John Barrymore) might have chewed up the scenery”.

I’m in agreement with Peary’s review. While the remake is undeniably more masterful on every level — with Mason and Garland giving Oscar-worthy, gut-wrenching performances — this earlier version is enjoyable, well-acted, and affecting. In his Alternate Oscars, Peary writes that while “we are told Janet Gaynor’s Esther-Vicki has talent in the 1937 film, Garland proves her star talent” — and yes, it’s less obvious that Gaynor’s Esther/Vicki “deserves” the fame she wins through her lucky break. But this is essentially a melodramatic fable, so the reversal of fortunes experienced by March and Gaynor comes across as almost archetypal in its swiftness and simplicity. The star-crossed lovers’ romance feels both genuine and doomed.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Fredric March as Norman Maine
  • Janet Gaynor as Esther Blodgett/Vicki Lester (nominated as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  • Fine Technicolor cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a classic melodrama, and for its status as an Oscar winner (for original story, with script written in part by Dorothy Parker). Nominated as one of the Best Pictures of the Year by Peary in his Alternate Oscars.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

Dead End (1937)

Dead End (1937)

“Never go back; always go forward!”

Synopsis:
In the New York tenements, a woman (Sylvia Sidney) secretly in love with her childhood friend (Joel McCrea) — who in turn pines for the beautiful mistress (Wendy Barrie) of a rich man — tries to protect her brother Tommy (Billy Halop) from being arrested after he injures the father (Minor Watson) of a snobby rich kid (Charles Peck). But the arrival of on-the-lam gangster Baby Face Martin (Humphrey Bogart) — in town to visit his mother (Marjorie Main) and former-girlfriend-turned-prostitute (Claire Trevor) — causes Halop and his friends Dippy (Huntz Hall), Angel (Bobby Jordan), Spit (Leo Gorcey), T.B. (Gabriel Dell), and Milty (Bernard Punsly) to view a life of crime as a lucrative ticket out of poverty.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Claire Trevor
  • Class Relations
  • Fugitives
  • Humphrey Bogart Films
  • Joel McCrea Films
  • Juvenile Delinquents
  • Play Adaptations
  • Sylvia Sidney Films
  • William Wyler Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary points out that this “successful adaptation of Sidney Kingsley’s play” — featuring a “tough script by Lillian Hellman and strong yet sympathetic direction by William Wyler” — led “to a wave of juvenile-delinquent dramas”; indeed, it’s perhaps best known for kicking off a series of films featuring “The Dead End Kids”.

Because producer “Sam Goldwyn wouldn’t let Wyler film on location”, we “don’t get a sense of the grit, grime, claustrophobia, and heat of the slums” — but Peary argues that “the clean studio sets with their painted backdrops act much like a Brechtian alienation device that forces us to realize that this story isn’t self-contained but rather is representative of many tragic real-life stories of the urban poor”.

These days, Dead End comes across as an undeniably stage-bound but still compelling drama featuring fine cinematography and potent direction: each scene is expertly crafted, with dramatic black-and-white shadows metaphorically highlighting the abject distance between the river-bound slum and the wealthy tenants who literally look down on its residents. Bogart is well-cast in a role he first inhabited on Broadway:

and Sidney is appropriately doe-eyed yet stoic:

But the best performance is by Oscar-nominated Claire Trevor, who only appears onscreen for about five minutes yet packs a quietly devastating wallop.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • William Wyler’s direction

  • Gregg Toland’s cinematography


  • Claire Trevor as Francie

Must See?
Yes, as a strong outing by a master filmmaker and for its historical relevance in introducing the “Dead End Kids” to the silver screen.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

Links:

Five Million Years to Earth / Quatermass and the Pit (1967)

Five Million Years to Earth / Quatermass and the Pit (1967)

“You realize what you’re implying? That we owe our human condition here to the intervention of insects?”

Synopsis:
When a team of anthropologists led by Dr. Mathew Roney (James Donald) and his assistant (Barbara Shelley) discover a cylindrical object and primate bones in an underground construction site, rocket scientist Dr. Quatermass (Andrew Keir) is brought to the scene. He eventually determines the object is a spaceship rather than a bomb, and that the bones are evidence of an ancient Martian race that landed on Earth five million years ago.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Aliens
  • Horror
  • Roy Ward Baker Films
  • Science Fiction
  • Scientists

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “exceptional, extremely intelligent, thematically controversial science-fiction film” — the third of screenwriter Nigel Kneale’s “BBC-TV serials to be filmed” — “still hasn’t received due recognition in America”. He notes that while the “film is complicated”, it’s “always fascinating and exciting”, and is “skillfully directed by Roy Ward Baker”. While I agree with Peary that Five Million Years… is provocative and well-made, I disagree with his assertion that it’s “Hammer Studios’ best film”, and will actually admit to preferring its less colorful and less flashy predecessor, The Quatermass Experiment (1956). Five Million Years… is often compared to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001 (1968), given that both explore “the intriguing theme of ‘race memory'”, with the distinction that “whereas Kubrick’s humans retain memories of ‘God’ from their ape ancestors who had contact with extra-terrestrials”, the “Martian insect-creatures” in this film apparently had contact “with the devil” — thus lending it a different type of horror vibe than Dave’s interactions with H.A.L. This finely produced cult flick is certainly worth a look by all film fanatics, but I’m going to go against the grain in not considering it must-see.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Fine cinematography


Must See?
No, though it’s certainly worth a look as a cult favorite. Discussed at length in Peary’s Cult Movies 3 book.

Links:

Blonde Venus (1932)

Blonde Venus (1932)

“I’m no good, you understand? No good at all.”

Synopsis:
A German-born nightclub singer (Marlene Dietrich) takes money from a wealthy admirer (Cary Grant) so her husband (Herbert Marshall) can receive a life-saving cure from radiation poisoning — but when Marshall finds out that she had an affair with Grant, she goes on the run with her son (Dickie Moore), trying to eke out a shadowy existence while eluding capture.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cary Grant Films
  • Herbert Marshall Films
  • Infidelity
  • Josef von Sternberg Films
  • Marlene Dietrich Films
  • Single Mothers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to this pre-Code melodrama as “the most underrated of the seven Josef von Sternberg-Marlene Dietrich collaborations” (all of which are included in his GFTFF). He focuses his review on Dietrich’s performance, noting that she’s “one of the sexiest mothers in the history of the cinema” and “gives one of her finest stiff-upper-lip performances” (he nominates her as one of the best actresses of the year in his Alternate Oscars).

Dietrich’s unusual character — a “strong, selfless woman who is willing to sacrifice herself for others’ happiness (even if it means giving her body) and to face the consequences for her sins” — “sees no need to apologize or defend herself to Marshall for what she did on his behalf,” yet also doesn’t “expect him to understand or forgive her”.

She’s a highly complex woman, and yet a bit of a feminist cipher: we’re not sure why she falls in love with Marshall and comes with him to America, nor why she so easily commits infidelity while her husband may be on his deathbed. Ultimately, the storyline itself — including a “descent into hell” as Dietrich “winds up sleeping in some bizarre dives, including one place in which hens and chickens run free”:

— simply emerges as pure melodrama peppered by two highly memorable nightclub performances, one in which Dietrich dons a blonde frizzy wig as “Blonde Venus” while emerging out of a gorilla suit:

and a later scene in which she famously wears a white top hat and tails while ogling chorus girls.

It’s no wonder this film is a favorite with gay and camp-loving audiences!

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Memorable direction and imagery


  • Bert Glennon’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes, simply for its cult status.

Categories

  • Cult Movie

Links:

Bluebeard (1944)

Bluebeard (1944)

“She defiled the image I had created of her — and so, I killed her.”

Synopsis:
As a rash of murders occurs across Paris, an investigator (Nils Asther) interrogates an art dealer (Ludwig Stossel) who seems to have some connection to the case, and a puppeteer (John Carradine) becomes enamored with a costume designer (Jean Parker) who eventually realizes he is the murderer known as “Bluebeard”.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Artists
  • Edgar G. Ulmer Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Jean Parker Films
  • John Carradine Films
  • Mistaken or Hidden Identities
  • Serial Killers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is clearly a big fan of Edgar G. Ulmer’s low-budget PRC production (based on the enduring French folktale of Bluebeard), given that he refers to it as “a real sleeper”. He writes that the “Expressionistic” film — which has a “European look to it” — is “strikingly directed” and features a “great use of close-ups, shadows, and bizarre camera angles”.

He notes that it provides John Carradine “his best lead performance and one of the few in which he doesn’t succumb to hamminess”; indeed, in his Alternate Oscars book Peary nominates Carradine as one of the Best Actors of the Year for this role.

While I find the film visually impressive, I’m much less taken with its rather insipid storyline, which doesn’t reveal Bluebeard’s motivations until close to the end, and thus leaves us puzzled about why a seemingly likable puppeteer turns randomly into a murderer whenever he paints a beautiful woman.

It’s nice to see Carradine given a leading role, and he’s suitably nuanced, but I much prefer him in his more memorable supporting roles — like Preacher Casy in The Grapes of Wrath (1940).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Atmospheric cinematography

  • John Carradine as “Bluebeard”

Must See?
No, though it’s recommended for one-time viewing.

Links: