Browsed by
Category: Response Reviews

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

Dementia 13 / Haunted and the Hunted, The (1963)

Dementia 13 / Haunted and the Hunted, The (1963)

“Castle Haloran is a bit perplexing — a very strange place, really, old and musty; the kind of place you’d expect a ghost to like to wander around in.”

Synopsis:
A woman (Luana Anders) whose husband (Peter Read) dies from a sudden heart attack dumps his body in a lake and attends a gathering at the castle-home of his mother (Ethne Dunn), who has been in continuous mourning since the drowning death of her young daughter Kathleen (Barbara Dowling) years earlier. Anders soon learns that Read’s brother Billy (Bart Patton) is equally haunted by Kathleen’s death but his brother Richard (William Campbell) — a temperamental artist — would prefer to bury the incident and simply marry his lovely American fiancee (Mary Mitchel). Meanwhile, the family’s longtime doctor (Patrick Magee) hopes to resolve Dunn’s perpetual angst by getting to the bottom of Kathleen’s tragic death.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Francis Ford Coppola Films
  • Horror Films
  • Inheritance
  • Murder Mystery
  • Old Dark House
  • Roger Corman Films
  • Serial Killer

Response to Peary’s Review:
This reasonably effective low-budget serial killer flick is primarily notable as the first “mainstream picture” directed by Francis Ford Coppola, who “was working as Roger Corman’s soundman in Ireland during filming of The Young Racers when he wrote this horror script in three nights”, “got Corman to match his $20,000 investment, borrowed the stars from Corman’s film”, and used “a Dublin castle and estate as his main setting”. Peary writes that he finds “the story hopelessly confusing”, but I must say I disagree: in typical whodunit fashion, there are plenty of red herrings and mysterious passages throughout the film, but they all clearly build towards a “big reveal” of how and why Dowling died, and which of the many suspicious characters has turned into a vicious axe murderer in an attempt to hide the truth. Peary does acknowledge that “the horror sequences are very exciting”, and that the initial death of a main character “is [an] extremely well done”, “gory, creepy sequence” that is also “erotic and poetically filmed.” He further notes that “the composition on night shots is extremely impressive”. It’s fun to see Coppola’s explicit narrative nod to Psycho (1960) as well as other “Old Dark House” films.

Note: Peary puzzles over the film’s odd title, which has since been clarified: an earlier cult film was already named Dementia (1955), so 13 was added “to get the film played on the 13th of each month” (according to an interview by Coppola with James Lipton).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Fine direction by Coppola
  • Atmospheric cinematography
  • Excellent use of authentic locales
  • Ronald Stein’s score

Must See?
Yes, as Coppola’s impressive debut film.

Categories

  • Important Director

Links:

Inheritors, The (1983)

Inheritors, The (1983)

“Let us build a new fatherland. It is time we awoke from this vile coma!”

Synopsis:
A teenager (Nikolas Vogel) with emotionally abusive parents befriends a rebellious motorcyclist (Roger Schauer) and finds himself increasingly drawn into Schauer’s subculture of fascism and neo-Nazi ideology.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Coming of Age
  • German Films
  • Nazis

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “terrifying, important” film — about “how in present-day Germany and Austria bored, alienated, out-of-work youths are joining neo-Nazi organizations to find excitement, a sense of power and importance, sexual fulfillment (with Nazi groupies), and camaraderie” — “caused riots when first shown in Germany”: a reminder that the type of backlash uncovered in the 2006 documentary The Unknown Soldier (about a controversial museum exhibit showcasing war crimes by “ordinary” German soldiers) was already alive and well in the early 1980s. Given that right-wing ideologies continue to flourish in Europe, America, and elsewhere, The Inheritors — conceived after producer-director-screenwriter William Bannert “and some friends were attacked in a pub by a Nazi youth gang” — feels, sadly, more relevant than ever. Unfortunately, it’s a flawed film, with overly simplistic home lives presented for its two main characters, and weirdly “exploitive” [sic] sex scenes that make it inappropriate to show to younger viewers. But it’s worth a one-time look if you stumble upon a copy.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A frightening look at neo-Nazi ideology continuing to flourish

Must See?
No, though it’s worth checking out for one-time viewing if the topic is of interest.

Links:

Robot Monster / Monsters From the Moon (1953)

Robot Monster / Monsters From the Moon (1953)

“I cannot — yet I must. How do you calculate that?”

Synopsis:
An alien named Ro-Man plots to kill the remaining six Hu-Mans on earth — a mother (Selena Royle), her professor-husband (John Mylong), their two young children (Gregory Moffett and Pamela Paulson), their grown daughter (Claudia Barrett), and Barrett’s boyfriend-scientist (George Nader) — who are protected from his death ray by a neutralizing serum. But when Ro-Man falls for Barrett, he finds his annihilation impulses in conflict.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Aliens
  • Science Fiction
  • World Domination

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this “laughably lousy sci-fi film, made for $20,000 in LA’s Bronson Canyon” “gets more ludicrous as it goes along” — then he spends the rest of his review detailing exactly how inept it is, and essentially dismissing it as outright dreck. Other online reviews (see links below) provide a more detailed skewering, combined with admiration for all the many ways in which the film presumably deserves its bad-movie cult status: Richard Scheib notes that “the cheesiness of its ineptitude provides… an enormous degree of sheer entertainment value”, while DVD Savant argues that it is actually “very entertaining” and will “bring a smile to anyone’s face”. A redeeming perspective of sorts does emerge near the end, when we learn exactly what the entire adventure has been based on, and many aspects — including the jarring incorporation of “stock footage” such as “a lengthy sequence of prehistoric monsters fighting taken from One Million B.C.” — come into somewhat clearer focus. Watch for the infamous “ending in which Ro-Man emerges from a cave three times in succession (the shot is repeated)”, which “may have inspired Edward D. Wood” when making Plan 9 from Outer Space.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Countless ludicrously bad elements


Must See?
Yes, once, simply for its cult infamy. Maybe it’s the type of film that grows on you (and most definitely requires a bad-movie-appreciating crowd to enjoy).

Categories

Links:

Creeping Terror, The / Crawling Monster, The (1964)

Creeping Terror, The / Crawling Monster, The (1964)

“Within 48 hours, Dr. Bradford had closely examined the creature and the spaceship and reached a number of conclusions. He was sure the creature had come from beyond our solar system.”

Synopsis:
A sheriff (Vic Savage) returns from a honeymoon with his new wife (Shannon O’Neil) to find a spaceship has landed, and an enormous shaggy monster is devouring everyone it sees.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Mutant Monsters
  • Science Fiction

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “stunningly bad low-budget sci fi film… features the worst excuse for a monster in history” — a creature that “looks like an old deformed carpet with several white misshapen beards and a large mouth”. He points out that the “actors playing the [creature’s] victims actually have to force themselves into the mouth of the barely mobile creature”, and notes that “adding to the absurdity” is the fact that “director Art. J. Nelson” (who also starred as the sheriff under the stage name Vic Savage) “lost his soundtrack, but, rather than tossing out footage of a lot of people having conversations, he simply added a narrator so we wouldn’t be curious about what everyone is saying”. He concludes his review by noting that the “film is for bad-movie lovers only — but even they may find [it] pretty tiresome.”

Indeed, I can’t really imagine watching this sub-Z-grade movie without the “assistance” of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 crew, who add appropriately derogatory commentary and/or supplemental dialogue to every scene in the film — humorously highlighting all of Peary’s complaints above blow-by-blow. Viewed simply as a TRULY TERRIBLE movie, however — how much worse could it be? — this flick holds a certain surreal allure: as Richard Scheib writes, it “exerts a terribleness that is fascinating to see. The gap between what it sets out to achieve and what it actually does achieve is a gaping chasm.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Stunningly bad — everything



Must See?
Yes — simply for its cult infamy as such a truly terrible movie.

Categories

  • Cult Movie

Links:

Tunnelvision (1976)

Tunnelvision (1976)

“Tunnelvision is popular because freedom is popular.”

Synopsis:
In a dystopian vision of 1985, a congressional committee holds a hearing to discuss an uncensored television station which Americans are staying at home all day to watch.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Courtroom Drama
  • Satires and Spoofs
  • Television

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is generally dismissive of this darkly satirical spoof of public viewing tastes, featuring snippets from shows, previews, and advertisements that futuristic Americans can’t stop watching. He argues that “you’ll never be able to figure out why anyone would stay home to watch this stuff”, given that “it’s hard enough to sit through 67 minutes of it” — but I think his quibble misses the point. Thanks to the film’s strategic framing structure — attendees at the congressional hearing are shown a “representative sample” of clips — we’re privy to mercifully truncated snippets of the channel’s hit-and-miss offerings, just enough to either unhinge or bore us before quickly moving on. Notable highlights include James Bacon in a “funny bit as a movie reviewer”, clearly meant to gently spoof Rogert Ebert (RIP); and an eerily prescient public service announcement in which a cheery woman demonstrates how to utilize a “pollution control box, located at every street corner” while men collapse in real-time on the sidewalk nearby: “This may slow down your trip a little”, she chirps, “but at least you get to your destination alive. Remember, use your pollution control box: it’s a matter of life and breath.” Sadly, this message couldn’t be more salient today.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Some spot-on satirical spoofs of the cultural zeitgeist



  • James Bacon’s “impersonation” of Roger Ebert

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended if you enjoy this kind of fare.

Links:

Shock Waves / Death Corps (1977)

Shock Waves / Death Corps (1977)

“There is danger here — danger in the waters.”

Synopsis:
A touring boat helmed by a testy captain (John Carradine) becomes stranded on an island inhabited by an aging SS officer (Peter Cushing), who tries to warn the passengers (Brooke Adams, Jack Davidson, and D.J. Sidney) and crew (Luke Halpin and Don Stout) to leave before they’re harmed by Nazi zombies lurking in the water.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • At Sea
  • Brooke Adams Films
  • Flashback Films
  • Horror
  • John Carradine Films
  • Nazis
  • Peter Cushing Films
  • Zombies

Response to Peary’s Review:
In what is likely one of his shortest reviews for GFTFF (just six sentences long), Peary writes that while the premise of this “exciting, unexpected treat for horror fans” “isn’t promising”, it’s nonetheless a “well made” “low-budget chiller”. Peary’s sentiment echoes that of many fans, who seem to concur that this film holds a unique grip and possesses a “weird atmosphere that will haunt you for entire days”. Unfortunately, the movie is heavy on atmosphere but short on plot; given that it’s structured as a flashback flick with the sole survivor identified, there’s little actual suspense — and yet, those bespectacled Nazi zombies sure are disturbing nonetheless… The idea of Nazis enduring in superhuman fashion and continuing to wreak random havoc on humanity is an undeniably powerful one. As the Q Network’s James Kendrick writes in his generally positive review, the film “is decidedly creepy and quite clever in masking its limitations and highlighting its strengths.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Haunting imagery of water-logged Nazi zombies


  • Richard Einhorn’s score

Must See?
No, though it’s certainly worth a look if this genre is your cup of tea — and it’s of general interest given its cult status.

Links:

Jungle Book (1942)

Jungle Book (1942)

“What is the book of life itself but man’s law with nature?”

Synopsis:
A boy (Sabu) raised by wolves in the Indian jungle returns to live with his birth-mother (Rosemary DeCamp) while nurturing an obsession to kill his mortal enemy, a tiger named Shere Khan. Meanwhile, the greedy father (Joseph Calleia) of his sweet girlfriend (Patricia O’Rourke) bullies Mowgli (Sabu) into revealing the location of a lost city of hidden treasure, and joins two partners (John Qualen and Frank Puglia) in seeking it out.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Hidden Treasure
  • John Qualen Films
  • Jungles
  • Sabu Films
  • Zoltan Korda Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
In his review of this “popular fantasy-adventure”, directed by Zoltan Korda and based on stories by Rudyard Kipling, Peary writes that he wishes “a little more emphasis were placed on the boy’s trying to reconcile his wild nature with his desire for human companionship, but not even the early Tarzan movies dealt with such themes”. He points out the “excellent use of [live] animals”, and notes that the movie is “excellent family fare, but there are death scenes that may be too strong for some youngsters”. Unfortunately, the storyline itself isn’t particularly compelling; the film’s primary selling point is its visual appeal. Peary points out that it “has some of the finest color you’ll ever see”, and Stuart Galbraith, Jr. notes in his review for DVD Talk that the effect of using “every filmmaking tool available then” — including “glass shots and optical matte paintings, large-scale miniatures, [and] full-size jungle sets” — is “splendid and unique”. (The entire film was shot in Hollywood.) Fans of the 1967 Disney cartoon will likely be curious to check this one out, but otherwise it’s only must-see viewing for fans of the iconic Indian actor Sabu.

Note: This movie is available for free viewing as a public domain title here.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Stunning Technicolor cinematography and sets



Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for Sabu fans.

Links:

Free Woman, A / Summer Lightning (1972)

Free Woman, A / Summer Lightning (1972)

“I’ve been married and now want to begin something new.”

Synopsis:
A woman (Margarethe von Trotta) eager to divorce her husband (Friedhelm Ptok) and find personal fulfillment discovers that life as a single woman is incredibly challenging — from securing a sustainable job to regaining custody of her son to fending off advances from both well-meaning and womanizing men.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Divorce
  • Feminism and Women’s Issues
  • German Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary posits that this early major film “to come out of the women’s liberation movement” — about a woman “who divorces her husband but discovers that being unmarried in a male-dominated world does not mean she is ‘free'” — “never really breaks loose”. He argues that because writer-director Volker Schlondorff and von Trotta (his wife and co-screenwriter) have given von Trotta’s character Elisabeth “modest goals”, “her failures don’t seem consequential enough”. I disagree. In “a world where sexist men not only define women, but pass judgment on them”, Elisabeth’s situation as she tries to regain custody rights to her son (who she initially left behind to avoid sending her husband over the edge) is clearly an impossible one: to imply anything other than “that single mothers needn’t all be so defeatist”, as Peary argues, would belie the film’s point, which I believe is to highlight the irony of the film’s (Americanized) title.

Like faulting former slaves for not immediately turning their lives around and becoming successful and happy after years of disenfranchisement, blaming Elisabeth for the challenges she faces as she tries to carve a new life for herself is both insulting and patronizing. Having married early and given up her job to be a housewife and mother, she never had an opportunity to explore her interests, let alone pursue a meaningful career. She certainly has potential and talent (some of the most touching and authentic scenes take place as she ventures forth into singing and dancing lessons), but her downfall lies both in the inherently womanizing society she lives in (her smug, obese, married boss comes on to her matter-of-factly while on a business trip, nearly raping her before he passes out) and in the wrath she invokes by divorcing her husband for no apparent reason: he is vengefully determined to prevent her from gaining custody of their son, and blames her for giving up his dreams of novel-writing to become an editor. Perhaps the famously empowered ending to Paul Mazursky’s An Unmarried Woman (1978) was a deliberate “response” to this earlier, more cynically realistic film.

Note: I looked up the meaning of the film’s original German title, and learned that summer lightning refers to “distant sheet lightning without audible thunder, typically occurring on a summer night”. I’m still puzzling through what this implies about the movie’s premise…

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Margarethe von Trotta as Elisabeth
  • Sven Nykvist’s cinematography

Must See?
No, though it’s recommended if you can find a copy.

Links:

Seconds (1966)

Seconds (1966)

“Don’t think, Tony — I came here to feel, to be!”

Synopsis:
A middle-aged banker (John Randolph) emotionally estranged from his devoted wife (Frances Reid) undergoes extreme plastic surgery and emerges with a new identity as a bohemian painter (Rock Hudson) and a new love interest (Salome Jens) — but will his second chance at life be any more fulfilling than the first?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • John Frankenheimer Films
  • Living Nightmare
  • Midlife Crisis
  • Plastic Surgery
  • Psychological Horror
  • Rock Hudson Films
  • Science Fiction

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that John Frankenheimer’s Kafka-esque psychological horror film (based on a 1963 novel by David Ely) is “one of the most depressing science fiction films ever made — perhaps because its premise seems credible — and one of the most provocative”; he notes that “if you don’t detest this film, then chances are you’ll greatly admire it”. While it was once challenging to see (it received poor reviews and limited screenings until 1988), it’s long held “an enormous cult following” and remains a fascinating — if undeniably emotionally challenging — viewing experience. As Peary writes, “the acting in the film is first-rate” (Hudson gives his best-ever lead performance) and “John Frankenheimer’s direction seems appropriately audacious, if overly self-indulgent”. However, Peary rightly notes that “the ‘star’ of the film is cameraman James Wong Howe, who used black-and-white photography and assorted lenses to create the most sinister-surreal-paranoid atmosphere the genre had ever known”. Howe’s “striking contributions” included “putting a camera with a wide-angle lens on a wheeled suitcase-carrier for bizarre shots of Randolph walking through Grand Central Station” and “using a fish-eye lens for the horrifying final shot of Hudson’s last seconds”, in addition to incorporating a “segment of a real nose operation” for the opening title sequence (designed by Saul Bass).

In Peary’s Cult Movies 3, he includes an extended essay on Seconds written by Henry Blinder, who interviewed Randolph, screenwriter John Carlino, composer Jerry Goldsmith, and producer Edward Lewis. Blinder writes unequivocally that “Seconds is quite possibly the most depressing film ever made — it is a film of unrelieved despair”, and (citing Carlino) “almost too painful to watch”. Blinder refers to Seconds as “the living nightmare of a man who acts to fill his emptiness without having an idea of what to fill it with”, culminating in “one of the most harrowing murders ever filmed”. In his analysis, Blinder references other key cinematic works — noting, for instance, that the final shot in Seconds is akin to “Rosebud” in Citizen Kane (1941), and that Ely’s original novel was a precursor of sorts to Ira Levin’s novel-turned-movie The Stepford Wives (1975): “In Ely’s work, the men pay a great deal of money to alter/replace themselves; in Levin’s the men pay a great deal of money to alter/replace their wives”.

Indeed, Seconds is very clearly about males in crisis, given that the two key females — Reid as Randolph’s wife, and Jens as Hudson’s free-spirited new lover — are ultimately supporting players in his story, and the nefarious “company” is run by (white, middle-aged) men. Blinder writes that Ely’s novel “was inspired by a startling statistic: At the time, 80,000 middle-aged American men left their wives and children each year, never to return”, causing Ely to hypothesize “that big business might want to capitalize on the legion of wealthy men”. The somewhat opaque workings of “The Company” provide a chilling example of fatal coercion in marketing, given that new members are not-so-subtly “encouraged” to name another potential client for the expensive underground procedure before they’re allowed to move on to another “level”. Hudson’s ultimate refusal to “name names” is a poignant tribute to the blacklisted actors brought out of obscurity to play either supporting (Jeff Corey, Will Geer) or central (John Randolph) roles. There is much more to say and discuss about Seconds, but simply put, it remains must-see viewing: steel yourself.

Note: Seconds is often referred to as the third of Frankenheimer’s “paranoia trilogy”, following The Manchurian Candidate (1964) and Seven Days in May (1964).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Saul Bass’s opening title sequence
  • Rock Hudson as reborn Arthur
  • John Randolph as older Arthur
  • Fine supporting performances by Will Geer and others


  • James Wong Howe’s superb cinematography



  • Jerry Goldsmith’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a cult classic.

Categories

  • Cult Movie
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

Letter to Three Wives, A (1949)

Letter to Three Wives, A (1949)

“I’m fed up with Addie Ross!”

Synopsis:
Three small-town wives (Jeanne Crain, Ann Sothern, and Linda Darnell) in post-WWII America each worry that their husband (Jeffrey Lynn, Kirk Douglas, and Paul Douglas) may have run off with one of their “friends” (Celeste Holm).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Ann Sothern Films
  • Celeste Holm Films
  • Feminism and Women’s Issues
  • Flashback Films
  • Infidelity
  • Jeanne Crain Films
  • Joseph L. Mankiewicz Films
  • Kirk Douglas Films
  • Linda Darnell Films
  • Marital Problems
  • Paul Douglas Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “sharp-edged yet ultimately sentimental look at three marriages in a small American town” — co-written and directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz — is “stagy, almost like three one-act plays put together” but “perceptive” and possesses a “literate, Oscar-winning script” which makes us “care about the characters” (who, he argues, “would be ideal as the initial characters in a TV soap”). We’re kept in suspense from beginning to end as we wonder which of their three husbands will turn out to be the adulterer who has run away with the unseen yet seductively voiced “Addie Ross”. The film’s three flashback vignettes each provide a glimpse into unique marital challenges of the era: former-WAVE Crain is insecure about transitioning from her pre-war life on a farm to her new role as a socialite wife; Sothern worries that her work as a successful radio writer may be threatening her cultured husband’s sense of masculinity; and Darnell reflects on the seductive wiles she used to climb the social ladder and snare her boss as her husband.

As in Mankiewicz’s next two movies — All About Eve (1950) and People Will Talk (1951)A Letter to Three Wives not only features strong female protagonists but directly addresses feminist issues (work, identity, marital insecurity) not commonly on display in other films of the era. It’s notable that while Sothern is the overworked mother of twins, we never see them; the focus is entirely on her role as a writer painfully aware of how her success is impacting her marriage. The most intriguing storyline, however, is that between Darnell and Douglas: co-screenwriters Mankiewicz and Vera Caspary pull no punches in their depiction of a beautiful woman all-too-aware of the games played between men-of-means and working-class women, and how carefully Darnell must lure Douglas into marrying her in order to bed her. Collectively the three wives’ stories tell a fascinating tale of post-war lives for (white) American women.

Note: This film is also noteworthy for providing uncredited Thelma Ritter with one of her first post-Miracle on 34th Street (1947) wisecracking sidekick roles.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Linda Darnell and Paul Douglas as Lora Mae and Porter Hollingsway
  • A witty, suspenseful script
  • Creative use of sound

Must See?
Yes, as an enjoyable mid-century classic.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

Links: