FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
After accidentally killing his brother-in-law, a farm boy (Gary Busey) partners with an outlaw named Barbarosa (Willie Nelson) who is living life on the lam from a patriarch (Gilbert Roland) who repeatedly sends out family members to attempt to kill the legendary bandit.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Feuds
• Fred Schepisi Films
• Friendship
• Gary Busey Films
• Outlaws
• Revenge
• Westerns
• Willie Nelson Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “fine western has the appropriate feel of a story passed down through many generations so that it has become impossible to distinguish between fact and legend.” He notes that “Australian director Fred Schepisi filmed Texan William D. Witliff’s flavorful script in dusty, rugged land along the Rio Grande”:

… and “it’s in this unfriendly setting that mythical middle-aged outlaw Barbarosa (Willie Nelson) and a common-folk farm boy, Carl (Gary Busey) become dear friends.” It turns out that “Barbarosa has come to be regarded by the Mexican community as a legend, a man who can’t be killed” — and when he’s joined by Busey (who is similarly the target of a family vendetta), these “alienated men become like brothers — or like a wise, teaching father and a learning, respectful son.”

Peary writes that while “the story itself is familiar,” Schepisi manages to make every scene seem offbeat but authentic”:

… and though “the ending is predictable,” it “is still exciting.” He points out that Nelson and Busey are a terrific team: each is funny, full of warmth and honesty, and has a strong screen presence.” I’m essentially in agreement with Peary’s positive review: while this quirky western was a disappointment box office-wise (how could the estimated budget have been $11 million?) it remains worth a look for those interested in the genre.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Gary Busey and Willie Nelson as Carl and Barbarosa
  
• Fine location shooting (with cinematography by Ian Baker)
  

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

Links:

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

Synopsis:
A Yugoslavian-American immigrant (Craig Wasson) berated by his strict father (Miklos Simon) finds solace in lifelong friendship with his high school buddies David (Michael Huddleston), Tom (Jim Metzler), and Georgia (Jodi Thelan).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Arthur Penn Films
• Counterculture
• Friendship
• Immigrants and Immigration
• Lois Smith Films
• Love Triangle

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary describes this Arthur Penn-directed flick as a tale of a “young Yugoslavian immigrant” whose “only constants through” the “tumultuous sixties” are “his need for fatherly approval and the mutual love between him and his two high school chums… and the girl all three love.” He notes that “the relationship between the passive guys and the unpredictable girl whom they treat like a queen recalls Jules and Jim:”

… and adds, “In the America we see [here], everyone’s life has epic proportions: hopes and dreams result in bitter disappointment, but sadness and pain are tempered by rewarding friendships; throughout, one’s love for America never dissipates.” (Wasson’s character is obsessed with the national anthem.)

Peary argues that although “Arthur Penn’s film has the makings of a masterpiece” (I disagree), it isn’t: “while it contains many lovely moments and devastating scenes, a few important sequences fail” and “although they are talented, you don’t really care if Wasson and Thelen get together”; he rightfully points out that “Thelen’s characterization is more annoying than captivating.”

Peary ends his review by noting the “excellent” (I disagree) “autobiographical script by Steve Tesich, who won an Oscar for Breaking Away (1979).” He asserts that this flick is “better the second time around” — but I won’t be giving it another whirl.

Unfortunately, this movie is a frustrating disappointment: not only do we not care about the protagonists, but the script is poorly written, inserting new characters and scenarios at random with an assumption we’ll simply understand who they are and how they fit into the arc. We get it that pretty Georgia (whose name we will never, ever forget given that “Georgia On My Mind” is played repeatedly) is bewitching to these three men, who all want a chance to be with her in one way or another — that’s boring, but makes sense as a theme. However, things take a seriously off-kilter turn when Danilo (Wasson) falls in love with the sister (Julia Murray) of his disabled friend Louie (Reed Birney) and visits her palatial home, only to quickly learn that DEEP dysfunction lurks therein.

An ensuing scene of “epic proportions”, featuring Murray and Birney’s father (James Leo Herlihy), seems to belong in another Arthur Penn movie altogether. Poor Lois Smith — in a tiny role as Wasson’s new mother-in-law — has an awkward monologue shortly thereafter:

… at which point we shift to seeing how Wasson, Thelan, Huddleston, and Metzler make their way through the remaining years of counter-cultural unrest (Metzler goes to Vietnam) and experimentation (Thelan becomes a hippie-ish single mom, marrying Huddleston while pregnant with Metzler’s baby, and roaming on her own through some kind of punk concert at one point). Meanwhile, the ongoing topic of Danilo seeking approval from his abusive immigrant father:

… instantly hearkens back to the similar narrative thread in Tesich’s much better Breaking Away, which it seems was his one-hit wonder. While boasting impressive directorial credentials, this one isn’t must-see except for diehard Penn fans.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Ghislain Cloquet’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Nope; you can safely skip this one.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
In 1908 Shanghai, a Chinese martial artist (Bruce Lee) takes swift revenge against Japanese imperialists who have killed his instructor.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Bruce Lee Films
• Chinese, Hong Kong, and Taiwanese Films
• Martial Arts
• Race Relations and Racism
• Revenge

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “if the Bruce Lee from this film had investigated Lee’s own mysterious death, then we might know how he really died.” (Update: A recent article shares a new hypothesis that Lee died from hyponatraemia through ingesting too much water.) In his brief review, Peary outlines the simple plot of this film — including the fact that in part by “employing a series of disguises, [Lee] is a one-man annihilation squad.”

Peary adds that while the “film has awful dubbing”, “who cares?” given that “there is non-stop action, and watching the remarkable Lee in beautifully choreographed fight sequences (that make intelligent use of close-ups and slow motion) is a unique, exhilarating experience. As always, he is graceful, athletic, charismatic, and in control” while also displaying true “ferocity and anger during his fights” against the “bigoted Japanese.”

In terms of this film’s title, according to Wikipedia:

Fist of Fury was accidentally released in the U.S. under the title The Chinese Connection. That title was a means of tapping the popularity of another film, The French Connection (starring Gene Hackman), released in the U.S. in 1971. That title was intended to be used for the U.S. release of another Bruce Lee film, The Big Boss, which also involved drug smuggling. However, the U.S. titles for Fist of Fury and The Big Boss were accidentally switched, resulting in Fist of Fury being released in the U.S. under the title The Chinese Connection until 2005, while The Big Boss was released as Fists of Fury.

(Whew!)

Thank you, Wikipedia! The titles of these ’70s kung fu flicks is undeniably confusing, but fans always rally to the cause.

Note: The film’s final shot seems unambiguously inspired by the last shot in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969) (though who knows).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Excellent fight choreography
  
• Awesome use of nunchucks (Lee’s first on film)
  
• Lee smashing a racist sign saying “No Dogs No Chinese”
  

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended if you’re at all interested in Bruce Lee.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Asian Film Fanatic video review (a fellow FF reviewer!)

Synopsis:
A fugitive (Robert Redford) wrongly accused of murder tries to make his way back home to either his parents (Miriam Hopkins and Malcolm Atterbury) or his wife (Jane Fonda), who still loves him but has continued her affair with the married son (James Fox) of the town’s bigwig businessman (E.G. Marshall). The local sheriff (Marlon Brando) — with support from his wife (Angie Dickinson) — tries to find Redford in a lawful manner; but when other townspeople learn about his supposedly murderous act, chaos quickly ensues.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Angie Dickinson Films
• Arthur Penn Films
• E.G. Marshall Films
• Ensemble Cast
• Fugitives
• James Fox Films
• Jane Fonda Films
• Janice Rule Films
• Marlon Brando Films
• Miriam Hopkins Films
• Race Relations and Racism
• Robert Duvall Films
• Robert Redford Films
• Sheriffs and Marshals
• Small Town America
• Vigilantes

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “the decline and fall of American society is the theme of Arthur Penn’s cynical cult film, which is probably why it’s more popular in Europe than in America” (I’m curious if this remains true). Peary points out that this film was “unevenly adapted by Lillian Hellman from Horton Foote’s novel and play,” telling an overly ambitious story “set in a small Texan town” where “characters… are meant to represent every segment of a sick society” — and while “many are believable,” there are also “many caricatures spouting cliches.”

Among the motley cast we see “lawmen, lawbreakers, escaped prisoners; whites and blacks; rich, middle-class, and poor; faithful and unfaithful women; old people and youths (who have learned decadence and violence from the adults in town); [and] the decent and the corrupted.”

Peary points out that the “picture starts out… slowly,” with “three dull parties going on simultaneously, meant to show how the town is divided according to wealth and age.”

(Actually, the first party doesn’t begin until 36 minutes in, and the next two at around 50 minutes.) However, he asserts that the picture “becomes extremely exciting as the violence escalates scene by scene.” He points out as “truly powerful” (not to mention notoriously violent) the “scene in which Brando is beaten up by three ‘citizens’;” his bloodied face reminds one instantly of Terry Malloy in On the Waterfront (1954).

Peary notes that the “picture has strong characters and many interesting relationships, including that between Redford, Fonda, and… Fox”:

… and he points out that among the vast cast are “Angie Dickinson (who’s at her best as Brando’s wife)”:

… “E.G. Marshall (as Fox’s father, the rich man who runs the town)”:

… and “Miriam Hopkins (as Redford’s batty, stingy mother.”

Unfortunately, there is simply too much going on in this overcooked film, which was handled by too many screenwriters (neither Hellman nor Foote were happy), and purportedly didn’t reflect Penn’s vision, either (he wasn’t involved in editing at all, given producer Sal Spiegel’s heavy-handed approach). A subplot about a Black man (Joel Fluellen) being threatened and then imprisoned for his own safety is barely given any attention:

… instead simply adding to the overall tapestry of the town. By the end, when literal flames have erupted (thanks to reckless townsfolk), we appropriately despair for the state of humanity as reflected here.

Note: Interested viewers can read more about this movie in chapter 2 of Fiasco: A History of Hollywood’s Iconic Flops (2006) by James R. Parish, available through the Internet Archive. Yay for open access! For the record, other GFTFF-listed titles discussed in this book (which I have yet to read in full) include Cleopatra (1963), Popeye (1980), and The Cotton Club (1984).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Marlon Brando as Sheriff Calder
  
• Angie Dickinson as Ruby Calder
  
• Robert Duvall as Edwin Stewart
  
• Joseph LaShelle’s Panavision cinematography
  

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
When bank robbers Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) and the Sundance Kid (Robert Redford) realize they’re being followed by a posse that will stop at nothing to kill them, they convince Redford’s girlfriend Etta (Katharine Ross) to flee with them to Bolivia.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cat and Mouse
• Cloris Leachman Films
• Friendship
• George Roy Hill Films
• Katharine Ross Films
• Outlaws
• Paul Newman Films
• Robert Redford Films
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary opens his review of this box office hit by noting that “it’s hard not to immediately like these two legendary outlaws of the 1890s — sly, emotional, funny Butch Cassidy and the fast-drawing, deadpanned, funny Sundance Kid — especially when Paul Newman and Robert Redford are imbuing them with their own ingratiating qualities.” He writes that “their comic bantering even in the face of danger is enjoyable, delivered with the ease of a veteran comedy team”:

… and “we think this will be a delightful pair to watch as they undertake several adventures.” However, he argues that “what happens is simply that writer William Goldman and director George Roy Hill repeatedly place the duo in danger and have them react in the same exact manner.”

He asserts “there is no real story… just constant references… to a posse on their trail” — and while “we had figured that their glib humor was just a part of their personalities and we [simply needed to] wait for the characters to reveal depth,” this never happens; instead, “it turns out to be the trait that dominates all others.”

I’m in agreement with Peary’s assessment. Less than halfway through this film, I realized that the remainder of the storyline would simply consist of watching our protagonists attempting to escape their fate, which we know in advance (this film has one of the single most famous closing shots in cinematic history, so I’m not spoiling anything here).

Sure, Butch and Sundance made their bed (having plenty of fun doing so), and then had to lie on it — but why should viewers be asked to watch so much of their downfall? I suppose the primary point of this ultimate buddy adventure flick is to see how closely they stuck together through it all — but I found it depressing. With that said, it was nonetheless interesting and informative to listen to a featurette about the making of the film, in which George Roy Hill talks us through his experiences and decisions scene by scene; it’s highly recommended for anyone wanting an insider’s look into this movie, which was expertly crafted on every front.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Paul Newman as Butch Cassidy
  
• Robert Redford as the Sundance Kid
  
• Numerous exciting sequences
  
• Conrad Hall’s cinematography
  
  
• Fine location shooting in Durango and Silverton, Colorado; St. George and Grafton, Utah; and Cuernavaca and Taxco, Mexico (in place of Bolivia)
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance and the enjoyable chemistry between Newman and Redford.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Articles
• Movie Diva Review
• FilmSite Review

Synopsis:
121-year-old Jack Crabbe (Dustin Hoffman) tells a young historian (William Hickey) tales from his storied life, including being adopted as an orphan by a Cheyenne chief (Chief Dan George), then being “rescued” by a preacher’s wife (Faye Dunaway) before working for a snake oil salesman (Martin Balsam); sharpshooting with his long lost sister (Carole Androsky); meeting Wild Bill Hickok (Jeff Corey); becoming a married storeowner; working as an Indian scout for mad General Custer (Richard Mulligan); and returning repeatedly to his adopted tribe of Cheyenne “human beings” before ending up the sole remaining White survivor at Little Big Horn.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Arthur Penn Films
• Cavalry
• Dustin Hoffman Films
• Faye Dunaway Films
• Flashback Films
• Historical Drama
• Martin Balsam Films
• Native Americans
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Arthur Penn’s Brechtian western, with a script by Calder Willingham, does justice to Thomas Berger’s marvelous epic tale” (a 1964 novel) of a man “who tells a skeptical interviewer his recollections of his early life.” While much has been said about the “tall tale” nature of Crabbe’s storytelling, it’s actually not hard to imagine he may have lived out the stories he tells here — especially given that he’s not self-aggrandizing by any stretch; rather, like Forrest Gump, he simply finds himself bouncing across the landscape of history and landing in different pockets time and again.

Peary argues that “While not everything Crabbe tells us is [necessarily] true, the gist of the story, about Custer and the Indians, is true. Through the horrifying scenes of the cavalry massacring Indians, Penn and Willingham obviously were trying to draw parallels to the systematic genocide being carried out by equally arrogant American soldiers on yellow-skinned villagers in Vietnam” — thus making this “a political film about the chauvanism and brutality of white American imperialists.”

Peary points out that the “portrayal of Indians” in this film “should be commended — it’s so sympathetic and insightful that it allows for some humor about Indians (i.e., Chief Running Nose; the Indian who walks backward).”

To that end, I was pleased to see Chris Eyre — director of Smoke Signals (1998), and of Cheyenne and Arapaho descent — introducing this film for the AFI Movie Club as “one of his favorites,” and to know that Chief Dan George was rightfully nominated as Best Supporting Actor (the first Native American to garner this designation).

Hoffman’s performance, meanwhile — Peary nominates him as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars — is truly impressive; this role exhausted him to the point that he took up cigarettes again after an 8-month hiatus.

Also noteworthy is Mulligan’s “bravura” portrayal as “monstrous, conceited, insane General Custer”.

While I’m not a fan of all the film’s humor:

… I can understand its inclusion, and it all comes across as part of the wacky panorama of Penn’s attempt to subvert the genre. This unsung western remains well worth a look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Dustin Hoffman as Jack Crabbe and Little Big Man
  
  
• Chief Dan George as Old Lodge Skins
  
• Richard Mulligan as General Custer
  
• Refreshing inclusion of a “two spirits” character (Robert Little Star)
  
• Fine production design (by Dean Tavoularis), art direction (by Angelo P. Graham), set decoration (by George R. Nelson), and costumes (by Dorothy Jeakins)
  
• Impressive aging make-up (by Dick Smith)
  
• Harry Stradling, Jr.’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as an unusual modern classic. Nominated as one of the Best Movies of the Year in Alternate Oscars, and selected for preservation in the National Film Registry in 2014.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Q Network Review
• DVD Savant Review
• DVD Talk Review

Synopsis:
Two college students — Jonathan (Jack Nicholson) and Sandy (Art Garfunkel) — lose their virginity to the same woman (Candice Bergen), then go on to have divergent experiences with other women, including Jonathan shacking up with a buxom model (Ann-Margret) and Sandy dating a young hippie (Carol Kane).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Ann-Margret Films
• Art Garfunkel Films
• Candice Bergen Films
• Carol Kane Films
• Jack Nicholson Films
• Mike Nichols Films
• Rita Moreno Films
• Sexuality
• Womanizers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this fourth feature film by director Mike Nichols — after Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966), The Graduate (1967), and Catch-22 (1970) — was “an ‘in’ film of the early seventies, when college-age viewers defended its sexual frankness — indeed, this was a rare film about sex — and argued about its themes.” He writes that this movie (scripted by Jules Feiffer) “about two friends… and how their attitudes toward sex and women evolve from the late forties to 1971” is “the story of men who think of women as the enemy, who [thus] can’t be treated with sincerity because they’re putting on an act themselves in order to trap a man.”

However, “it’s not women who dehumanize and emasculate these men, but their own fear of women (‘ballbreakers’ as Nicholson calls them).”

Peary asserts that “Nichols’s direction is innovative but very cold,” while “the acting is exceptional” (he nominates Nicholson as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars). I agree with Peary that the “best scene” (albeit the hardest to watch) “is the volatile argument between Nicholson and the depressed Ann-Margret, who reveals her desire for marriage.”

This film is one I resisted rewatching for as long as possible, knowing it’s a rough if distressingly honest ride — however, it remains worth a one-time look for the performances and its historical significance. Watch for Rita Moreno in a small but crucial closing scene with Nicholson.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Ann-Margret as Bobbie
  
• Giuseppe Rotunno’s cinematography
  
  

Must See?
Yes, once, for its historical relevance.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Village Voice

Synopsis:
When an aspiring Olympian athlete (Mariel Hemingway) falls for her female trackmate (Patrice Donnelly), her coach (Scott Glenn) worries that their romance will get in the way of their competitive spirit.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Lesbianism
• Love Triangle
• Olympics
• Scott Glenn Films
• Sports
• Strong Females

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “controversial, underappreciated film” — “written and directed by Robert Towne (who won the Oscar for his Chinatown script)” — is “an undisguised celebration of the bodies of female athletes.” He describes in detail how often Towne takes advantage of locker rooms, steam baths, bedroom scenes, and “raunchy female dialogue” to “serve [his] purpose,” “taking what we consider tasteless and deviant acts and making them seem perfectly natural and unembarrassing.” As Peary writes, it’s “evident that Towne likes his women” (a little too much) — they “are funny, sensitive, dedicated, self-confident, competitive yet supportive, strong, and, because they’re athletes, beautiful.”

This film was heralded upon its release for its casual treatment of Hemingway and Donnelly’s same-sex romance long before this was de rigeur in cinema. As Peary writes, “We accept Donnelly’s homosexuality and don’t begrudge her initiating the naive Hemingway into a lesbian affair,” even though “it might be true that once Hemingway figures out her self-identity she’ll discover herself to be heterosexual” (what about the possibility of bisexuality?!). He adds: “It’s also interesting that we feel happy that… Hemingway got to experience one” (?) “beneficial and exciting homosexual experience,” since “Hemingway feels no guilt about the affair and no anger towards Donnelly for possibly taking advantage of her.”

Unfortunately, while Towne should (perhaps) be applauded for attempting to normalize bodily interactions across all spheres of life, it’s also impossible not to imagine how much he personally enjoyed filming every… single… close-up… [often slo-mo]… of toned female flesh — and there are oh-so-many during this movie’s two-plus-hour running time; one can’t help thinking somewhat uncomfortably about Leni Riefenstahl’s glorification of athletic prowess in The Olympiad (1936).

Note: In addition to Donnelly, this film is noteworthy for featuring another real-life athlete among its cast: Olympian Kenny Moore as Hemingway’s boyfriend-after-Donnelly.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Mariel Hemingway as Chris Cahill
  
• Patrice Donnelly as Tory Skinner
  
• Michael Chapman’s cinematography
  

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
When martial arts expert Tang Lung (Bruce Lee) travels to Rome to help his uncle (Chung-Hsin Huang) and cousin (Nora Miao) fight against gangsters hoping to take over their restaurant, he eventually finds himself in mortal combat with a hired fighter named Colt (Chuck Norris).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Bruce Lee Films
• Chinese, Hong Kong, and Taiwanese Films
• Chuck Norris Films
• Martial Arts Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this third film by Bruce Lee (his “only attempt at directing”) features “several kung fu battles, which are fun to watch but repetitive,” and then a “much more exciting” set of fights featuring “martial-arts experts Bob Wall, Wang Ing Sik, and in his film debut, Chuck Norris” — all playing “the villains who take on our hero.”

There’s not much more to say about this film other than that it represents Lee playing “a fists-for-free-hire character whom he would have played in several other films if it hadn’t been for his sudden death” (which is sad to contemplate), and to point out that the “Lee-Norris confrontation, set in the Colosseum, is one of the highlights of Lee’s movie career.”

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Numerous fabulous fighting sequences
  
• Good use of location shooting in Rome
  

Must See?
No, but the fight scenes are well worth a look.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
When a Chinese man (Bruce Lee) working in Thailand learns that his new boss (Ying-Chieh Han) is smuggling heroin through ice blocks and killing off anyone who questions his grift, he begins to question his vow of non-violence.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Bruce Lee Films
• Chinese, Hong Kong, and Taiwanese Films
• Drug Dealers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Bruce Lee’s first martial arts film” is “generally considered [his] best, least pretentious film,” but he notes that he finds “it somewhat disappointing.” He argues that “the film suffers because Lee spends too much of it being reluctant to fight and not joining in several melees” (indeed, the entire first half of the film is “free” from Lee fighting):

… and “when he does fight, it’s too apparent that none of the villains is a match for him.” (This didn’t bother me; Lee’s fighting is amazing no matter what.) Peary concedes that “Lee does have one spectacular fight sequence in which he singlehandedly kills about 15 men”:

… and also points out that Lee “has his only scene with a nude women,” but forewarns fans that “he’s in a drunken sleep at the time.”

While this isn’t must-see viewing for all film fanatics, it’s undeniably enjoyable seeing handsome Lee on screen in one of his too-few feature-length starring roles before his untimely death.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Lee’s extraordinary fighting skills
  

Must See?
No, but of course Bruce Lee fans will consider it must-see – and they don’t need this review to give them permission!

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Talk Review
• Spinning Image Review