FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A beloved politician (Jimmy Stewart) returns with his wife (Vera Miles) to the small Western town where he’s famous for having killed a bullying gunslinger named Liberty Valance (Lee Marvin); but as he begins to relate the story of his relationship with the recently deceased town drunk, Tom Doniphon (John Wayne), new details about the killing emerge.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• John Carradine Films
• John Ford Films
• John Qualen Films
• John Wayne Films
• Lee Marvin Films
• Lee Van Cleef Films
• Revenge
• Westerns
• Woody Strode Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “marvelous John Ford western” — about the transition from an untamed western frontier to an era of “law and order”, as well as our tendency to valorize legends at the expense of the grittier truth — “looks better with every viewing”, and “certainly… summarized themes that were vital to earlier Ford westerns”. He notes that “for Ford, the real heroes were men like Tom who tamed the wilderness and made it possible for civilization to take root”, and he points out that “it is a shame that such pioneers have no place in civilization”, given that “in a law-and-order world of lawyers and politicians, Tom is just as anachronistic as gunslingers like Liberty”. He writes that the “picture has interesting characters and their relationships with each other are complex”, and he argues that the “picture has strong emotional resonance”. As noted in TCM’s article, upon its release …Valance was apparently dismissed as a lesser entry in Ford’s lengthy oeuvre, with specific criticisms leveled at Ford’s choice to make the film in black-and-white and primarily on a sound-stage; but in later years, critics (like Peary and many others) began to recognize its thematic and aesthetic values.

While I appreciate much about how …Valance is constructed, I’ll admit it’s not a personal favorite. Ford’s characteristic inclusion of comedic supporting characters — most specifically Andy Devine’s cowardly sheriff, presumably meant to provide some levity to the proceedings — simply feels forced and out of place here; and Stewart’s idealistic, stubborn “young” lawyer comes across as merely another iteration of his earlier starring roles for Frank Capra. With that said, I admire the craftsmanship of the script (based on a story by Dorothy M. Johnson), which manages to evoke a surprising amount of tension despite the fact that we can guess the truth behind the title from the beginning; however, it starts to bog down a bit towards the end, when Stewart goes head-to-head with Marvin in a contrived, Capra-esque town hall scene, and Wayne (“Think back, pilgrim.”) conveniently saves the day. Speaking of Marvin, he deserved the notoriety he gained for his key role here as Liberty Valance; he represents everything corrupt and vile about a lawless west in which might overtakes right every time.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Lee Marvin as Liberty Valance
  
• William Clothier’s cinematography
  
  
• The impressive final shoot-out
  

Must See?
Yes, as one of Ford’s acknowledged classics. Listed as one of the Best Films of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• ReelViews Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• TCM Articles
• Q Network Review

Synopsis:
A group of diverse British children are interviewed at the ages of 7, 14, 21, and 28.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Documentary
• Michael Apted Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
I’ll be cheating a bit in my review of this “unique, fascinating documentary” by Michael Apted, which “began as a television short called 7 Up,” in which a “crew interviewed 14 seven-year-old school-children about what they wanted in their futures in regard to education, occupation, money, and marriage”, and then interviewed them again every seven years, with snippets from each set of interviews strategically interwoven. Peary’s review in GFTFF is of 28 Up (1984), but most film fanatics today will likely also have seen the follow-up entries — 35 Up (1991), 42 Up (1998), 49 Up (2005), and 56 Up (2012) — and I find it impossible not to reference the entire series in my own response. With that said, Peary makes a few key points in his review that remain relevant for all of the films in the series: he writes, for instance, that “the viewer is placed in an awkward position in that s/he becomes a judge as to whether these 28-year-olds [or 35, 42, 49, 56-year-olds] have succeeded, as most contend they have, in reaching their potential happiness; and the unfortunate tendency… is to feel superior to most of these people who have lives we don’t envy”.

Peary further asserts that in 28 Up, “the ‘successes’ we see are those subjects who have somehow achieved some freedom” — such as Nick, “the science researcher who… fled with his wife to Wisconsin” and Paul, “the bricklayer who is raising a family in Australia”; but he pities both Neil, the “near-genius who has dropped out altogether and lives on welfare” and “a cabbie [Tony] who is satisfied with [the] ‘freedom’ he gets from his job and his close family life, but whose poor education deprived him of what a person of his natural intelligence and warmth deserves”. He argues that the “picture leaves you sad”, but notes that “surely a documentary on any seven [sic] subjects taken over 20 [sic] years would have the same result because, let’s face it, kids look happier, cuter, and more enthusiastic than adults”. Interestingly, seeing the participants at later ages (specifically 56, as in the most recent entry) allows one to feel a little less melancholy about the inevitability of both heredity and class, as nearly every participant seems to have achieved some measure of happiness and contentment — whether through (re)marriage, grandchildren, and/or career. Few, for instance, would feel sorry at this point for Tony, who has actually achieved an enviable measure of financial success (he owns a second home in Spain); and while Neil has continued to struggle with his mental challenges, he’s been able to pursue his dream of a career in politics.

Apted’s series has been rightfully praised over the years as an invaluable longitudinal document of humanity itself — regardless of its specificity in following Britons from a certain generation (and mostly white males, an initial “casting” choice Apted apparently regrets). While there’s nothing particularly innovative about the way in which Apted films his subjects, or the questions he asks them, his devotion in tracking down the participants like clockwork every seven years (or occasionally in between, as when he filmed a participant’s wedding) is an impressive feat in itself. (Apted is reportedly so devoted to this project that he’s said he hopes someone else will take up the mantle in the event of his own death; he’d like to follow the participants to the ends of their lives.) One also feels appreciation for the dedication of the participants, all but one of whom have chosen to reappear in most (or all) of the episodes; long before the advent of “reality T.V.”, they have graciously allowed at least portions of their lives to be on public display. Most film fanatics will eagerly await the next installment, and hope that all the “children” — Andrew, Bruce, Jackie, John, Lynn, Neil, Nick, Paul, Peter, Sue, Suzy, Symon, and Tony — will still be alive and well at the age of 63 and beyond.

Note: Devoted followers will enjoy watching the entire “Up Series” (as the DVD set is referred to); others may simply want to watch 56 Up and work backwards as desired.

Update (1/9/21): Rest in Peace, Michael Apted. Thank you for your contributions to cinema and our understanding of humanity.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• An enduringly fascinating long-term social document
  

Must See?
Yes, as part of a deservedly classic documentary series.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

Links:

• IMDb entry
• ReelViews Review
• NY Times Original Review
• TV Guide Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review

Synopsis:
A diverse group of passengers — including a prostitute (Claire Trevor), an alcoholic doctor (Thomas Mitchell), a gambler (John Carradine), a whiskey seller (Donald Meek), a shady banker (Berton Churchill), a sheriff (George Bancroft), and the pregnant wife (Louise Platt) of a cavalry officer — embark on a stagecoach trip led by a nervous driver (Andy Devine), despite warning of warring Apaches up ahead. Along the way, Bancroft picks up an escaped prisoner (John Wayne) who falls for Trevor — but will they survive both the rigors of their journey, and the outlaws waiting for Wayne at their final destination?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Claire Trevor Films
• George Bancroft Films
• John Carradine Films
• John Ford Films
• John Wayne Films
• Morality Police
• Prostitutes and Gigolos
• Road Trip
• Thomas Mitchell Films
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary opens his review of this “seminal” John Ford western — written by Dudley Nichols, whose “script was adapted from Ernest Haycox‘s story ‘Stage to Lordsburg'” — by accurately referring to it as “the type of film you’ll take for granted”, and noting that “between viewings, one forgets what a magnificent film [it] is”. He adds that “Ford kept it simple — it is a simple morality play — but directed with great feeling for the West, the time, and for his characters”, and notes that “it’s obvious that the actors really cared about the people they played”. He points out that while “we may [primarily] recall the action scenes — a lengthy Indian attack on the stage, John Wayne as the Ringo Kid shooting it out with three bad guys” — one “sees that Ford is more interested in how characters respond to danger — for instance, are they worrying about themselves or others when lives are at stake?” Indeed, Stagecoach is essentially a compelling, character-driven drama couched within a consistently suspenseful western-adventure, and bolstered by a sweet romance — the perfect recipe for a genuine American classic!

I believe this was the film that sparked my admiration for character-actress Claire Trevor as a teenage film fanatic; I recall learning that she considered herself merely a “working stiff” in Hollywood, trying to survive as a single mother, and that I felt intense admiration for her no-nonsense approach to a notoriously ego-filled field. She’s top-billed among the ensemble cast here, and deserves this status, given that she’s the emotional glue holding the stagecoach passengers together. When Platt suddenly gives birth along the journey (during the film’s most heartfelt extended sequence), Trevor selflessly cares for the newborn while Platt recovers; and when she’s given the unprecedented opportunity (by Wayne) to turn her life around, she cares more about his safety than her own future. Speaking of Wayne, he’s never been more charismatic or appealing than he is here (as Peary points out, “What an entrance Ford gave him!”); and the rest of the “marvelously cast” supporting players — Mitchell, Meek, Carradine, unknown Platt, and others — are excellent as well. I especially like how nearly every character in the story is given an arc of some kind, and allowed to emerge by the film’s end as someone much more nuanced than we could ever have expected.

All this in a “mere” western! — one which, on the surface, seems like simply a conglomeration of conventional characters and situations, yet comes together so seamlessly it’s been studied as a masterwork by countless famed directors (most notably Orson Welles). Indeed, Stagecoach is an excellent example of a solid genre flick which simultaneously functions as a vehicle for deeper musings on human nature. To that end, Peary notes that “the coach serves as an arena for a clash between those who represent society” (the banker, the doctor, the married woman, and the salesman) and “those whom society considers outsiders” (the escaped prisoner, the prostitute, the gambler) — with nearly all the former passengers (the corrupt banker being a key exception) “won over” by the latter, and the driver and sheriff remaining “outside on the ride through the wilderness” (they represent “neutral figures who are part of civilization but have open minds towards those who don’t fit in”).

While I’m not generally a fan of Ford’s characteristic incorporation of humor throughout his films (usually in the form of buffoonish characters), in this case he uses humor as a starting point for some surprisingly heartwarming revelations: Mitchell’s tippling doctor, for instance, eventually sobers up enough to deliver Platt’s baby (and to be of genuine help during the pivotal, excitingly directed Indian attack); Meek may initially stand “meekly” by while Mitchell downs his supply, but he ultimately proves he’s more than merely a spineless sap; Devine’s whimpering ninny of a stagecoach driver keeps going despite his own worst fears (which come true); etc.

Regardless of whether one chooses to view this film as part of Ford’s broader oeuvre — or merely as an engaging flick in its own right — it remains a must-see classic, one worthy of multiple enjoyable visits.

Note: Interestingly, at the time he directed Stagecoach, Ford — who’s largely remembered these days for helming countless classic westerns — hadn’t made one in 13 years, since the silent western Three Bad Men (1926).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Claire Trevor as Dallas
  
• John Wayne as the Ringo Kid
  
• Donald Meek as Mr. Peacock
  
• Thomas Mitchell as Doc Boone
  
• Bert Glennon’s “magnificent” cinematography
  
• Iconic use of Monument Valley as a backdrop
  
• Expert direction by Ford
  
• The genuinely exciting Apache attack sequence
  
• An Oscar-winning score “adapted from American folk songs”

Must See?
Yes, of course — this one is a genuine classic, and ranks among my
personal favorite westerns. Nominated one of the Best Films of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars.

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

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• FilmSite Review
• Q Network Review
• TV Guide Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• TCM Article
• Tired Old Queen at the Movies Video Review

Synopsis:
The youngest son (Cay Kristiansen) of a cynical Danish farmer (Henrik Malberg) wishes to marry the daughter (Sylvia Eckhausen) of a religiously fundamentalist tailor (Ejner Federspiel), though both fathers disapprove; meanwhile, Malberg’s son Johannes (Preben Lerdorf Rye) believes he’s Jesus Christ, while the gentle wife (Birgite Federspiel) of his son Mikkel prepares to give birth to her third child.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Carl Theodor Dreyer Films
• Death and Dying
• Mental Illness
• Play Adaptations
• Religious Faith
• Scandinavian Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary posits that the theme of Carl Theodore Dreyer’s adaptation of a “play by [Danish hero] Kaj Munk” — about “a proud, elderly Christian farmer whose faith has all but disappeared because of the lack of miracles in modern times” — “is that people, even priests, shouldn’t let faith in God diminish”, and that “those who are regarded as insane are actually closest to God”. To that end, one’s appreciation for this critically lauded parable will depend upon one’s willingness to accept it as something other than a traditional cinematic tale; Dreyer’s intention is not to entertain, but to provoke. However, as Peary notes, while the “beginning of the film is charming due to the simplicity of the sets and the characters” (he jokingly writes that “it wouldn’t be jarring if June Lockhart, Tommy Rettig, and Lassie dropped in for a visit”), it “becomes drawn out and silly”; he argues that while “it might work as a story told in church”, “as a film it is far-fetched”.

I’ll admit I’m essentially in agreement with Peary’s take on this one. Unlike most other reviewers (whose praise is unreserved), I find it overly slow and a tad pretentious, not to mention terribly depressing — in sum, everything Scandinavian films from this era are stereotyped as being (but see Bergman’s Smiles of a Summer Night [1955] for a refreshing counter-example). With that said, there’s no denying either the power of Dreyer’s imagery, or the integrity of his intentions; film fanatics will want to check this one out at least once, and make up their own minds about its ultimate place in the world’s cinematic canon.

Note: I was fascinated to learn (from a citation on Wikipedia) that this film was not only a critical success but a financial success as well; my, how audience tastes have changed…

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Committed performances by the entire cast
  
  
• Dreyer’s typically stunning visual sensibility
  
  

Must See?
Yes, simply as one of Ordet’s most celebrated works — though your enjoyment will be highly variable.

Categories

• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Q Network Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
When a middle-aged lawyer (Gunnar Bjornstrand) married to a virginal teen (Ulla Jacobssen) pays a visit to his long-time mistress (Eva Dahlbeck), he encounters her most recent lover (Jarl Kulle), who jealously proposes a duel; meanwhile, Bjornstrand’s grown son (Bjorn Bjelvenstam) harbors a secret crush on Jacobssen, while Kulle’s neglected wife (Margit Carlquist) is determined to win her husband back.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Historical Drama
• Ingmar Bergman Films
• Love Triangle
• Romantic Comedy
• Scandinavian Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that he views this “sophisticated bedroom farce” — “one of Ingmar Bergman’s most popular films” — “as a tribute… to those women who are clever and brave enough to shape their own worlds despite husbands and lovers who make up the rules.” He notes that while the “film has been compared to Lubitsch’s comedies of manners and Renoir’s Rules of the Game,” he is “more reminded of the works of Max Ophuls, whose men are ruled by pride and whose women are so guided by their hearts that they become obsessed with winning men who they realize aren’t worthy of them”. Indeed, the male characters in SOASN are so clearly “no prizes” that one can easily see why Scandinavian countries eventually became world leaders in feminist equality (!); the women here are, without exception, the ones with firm heads on their shoulders. Peary points out that while the “film is wise and cynical”, you’ll “also think it hilarious if you… pay attention to the indignities Bjornstrand suffers”, such as “fall[ing] headlong into a puddle”; being forced (by Dahlbeck) to “wear a ridiculous nightshirt, cap, and gown”; being unable to “get Dahlbeck to admit that her son, who has his first name, is his child”; etc. The film’s “excellent acting, [fine] photography (by Gunnar Fischer), [and] set design (by P.A. Lundgren)” all contribute towards the enjoyment of this early Bergman masterpiece.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine performances by the entire cast
  
• Gunnar Fischer’s cinematography
  
• Bergman’s clever, deceptively lighthearted screenplay
  

Must See?
Yes, as a classic of Scandinavian cinema.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Article
• Q Network Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
Joan of Arc (Maria Falconetti) faces intense interrogation before being sentenced to burn at the stake.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Carl Theodore Dreyer Films
• Christianity
• Courtroom Drama
• Falsely Accused
• Religious Faith
• Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to this iconic silent classic — written and directed by Carl Theodore Dreyer, who based his story “on Pierre Champion’s transcript of the actual trial of Jeanne d’Arc” — as “one of the greatest, most intense films ever made”. He writes that Dreyer “creates a sense of feverishness and horror at the trial through repeated camera pans across the line of intimidating inquisitors, eerie zooms into their ugly faces as they menacingly move forward toward Jeanne, and sharp camera angles which make the inquisitors especially domineering”. But he notes that “we are constantly surprised to feel waves of tranquility come over us each time Jeanne looks to the heavens and, judging from her smile and the calm look in her eyes, is obviously in a state of grace”, with “only the tears on her cheeks remind[ing] us of the terrible things that have happened and will continue to happen to her during the course of this farcical trial”. He points out that “the actors got so much into their roles that bystanders heard them condemning Jeanne d’Arc off screen as well as on”, and that “it’s probable Falconetti” (who was discovered “doing boulevard comedy”) “really got to feel she was Jeanne, so strongly and believably does she convey the young martyr’s feelings”.

I agree with the essence of Peary’s review: there’s no denying the audacious visual power of Dreyer’s work, which stands apart from its same-era peers as a daringly minimalist cinematic presentation of this much-studied historical event. And Falconetti’s performance — shown almost entirely in extreme close-ups — is indeed marvelous; the fact that she was an unknown actress merely adds to the veracity of the tale. Yet I disagree with Peary’s claim that this is “one of the greatest, most intense films ever made”, simply given its narrative limitations. As a silent film, it remains a masterful tone poem — a gorgeously evoked elegy to a tragic young martyr, allowing one to palpably feel the “feverishness and horror” of this infamous trial and its gruesome outcome. But given that it covers such a limited portion of Jeanne D’Arc’s storied existence, it ultimately lacks narrative depth, and begins to feel repetitive. The first few times Dreyer’s camera masterfully pans across the leering faces of Jeanne’s inquisitors, one shivers at how perfectly Dreyer has captured the essence of their menace; the fourth time, one begins to question exactly where else the material can go.

With that caveat stated, I’ll reiterate that Le Passion de Jeanne D’Arc nonetheless remain essential viewing for all film fanatics, at least once — and it’s thankfully now available in a gorgeously restored version, with a lovely soundtrack by composer Richard Einhorn (sung by the Anonymous Four).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Maria Falconetti as Joan
  
• Stunning direction and cinematography
  
  
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, of course, as a genuine silent classic.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• ReelViews Review
• Silent Volume Review
• TV Guide Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A private detective (Steve Martin) interacts with a host of iconic Hollywood characters while helping a sexy female client (Rachel Ward) investigate the mysterious disappearance of her father.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Carl Reiner Films
• Detectives and Private Eyes
• Satires and Spoofs
• Steve Martin Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “ridiculous noir parody” — about a “forties detective” who “says a lot of… stupid things, shaves his tongue, strangles anybody who says ‘cleaning lady’, makes java with about 1000 beans per cup, and dresses like a lot of women” — is, when “taken a scene at a time”, “quite amusing (and often hilarious) and genuinely clever”; but he posits that “without breaks… the novel concept becomes tiresome.” Time Out’s reviewer similarly argues that while “some amusement is derived from watching a film that so obviously had to be worked out backwards”, it occasionally feels like merely a “fairly amusing, clever exercise in editing”. However, I believe the film deserves a bit more credit than this. Given that it was made at a time when splicing “vintage footage from forties melodramas” with “newly shot black-and-white footage” was a purely mechanical (rather than digital) feat, one can’t help marveling at how masterfully this is done, with nearly every scene carefully plotted and blocked; film fanatics will be in trivia heaven as they attempt to determine which classic movie each clip is taken from, and how director Carl Reiner will manage to integrate pre-existing dialogue into the new (connective) storyline.

Meanwhile, Edith Head (in her final cinematic credit) does marvelous work crafting and matching outfits across films, and Miklos Rozsa was an inspired choice to write the appropriately atmospheric score. My main complaint is that the humor occasionally feels a bit forced and/or juvenile. For instance, the cited scene involving Martin’s inept attempt to make coffee goes on for about three times too long, and Martin’s obsession with “readjusting” Ward’s breasts simply makes one sigh. But for every groaner, there’s a clever line or interaction up ahead — and both Martin and Ward (“surprisingly funny and a good sport as Martin’s comic foil”) remain appropriately invested in their roles, never letting on that they’re actually in a parody. This one is definitely worth a look by all film fanatics.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Remarkably seamless screenwriting and editing
  
  
• Michael Chapman’s b&w cinematography
  
• Edith Head’s impressive “costume-matching” work
  
• Miklos Rozsa’s classically “generic” score

Must See?
Yes, for its obvious film fanatic appeal.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

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

Synopsis:
Two aspiring aviators (Charles “Buddy” Rogers and Richard Arlen) in love with the same girl (Jobyna Ralston) become buddies when they join the American Expeditionary Forces during World War I; meanwhile, Rogers’ neighbor (Clara Bow) — who harbors an unrequited crush on him — travels to France and attempts to keep an eye on him.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Airplanes and Pilots
• Clara Bow Films
• Gary Cooper Films
• Love Triangle
• Silent Films
• William Wellman Films
• World War I

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this “grand-scale silent classic” — directed by “former pilot William A. Wellman”, and winner of the first “Best Production” Academy Award — is “known for some truly spectacular dogfight sequences”, as well as “some amazing stunt work and aerial photography”. He points out that the “picture is beautifully filmed throughout” — particularly “Wellman’s revolutionary boom shot at the Paris cafe in which his camera zooms over several tables into a close shot of the drunk Rogers and Arlen with some French trollops” — and notes that “the sweeping final battle — on land and in air — is remarkable!” He argues that the “film’s major problem is that… the leads have little screen presence”, and that “today the film seems a little slow — but the brutality seen in the impressive war sequences keeps it timely”. In his Alternate Oscars book, Peary reigns back his enthusiasm a bit further, asserting that Wings “pales in comparison with [F.W. Murnau’s] Sunrise” (which won an Academy Award for best “Artistic Quality”), as well as King Vidor’s “The Crowd and Charles Chaplin’s unnominated The Circus;” he argues that the film has “dated badly” given its “weak [lead] performances, an overly peppy Clara Bow, and long flight sequences in which you can’t tell friend from foe”.

Actually, the points made in both of Peary’s assessments ring true. While the storyline itself remains as simplistic and cliched as that found in (far too) many silent films, Wellman’s overall craftmanship can’t be denied — and the aerial sequences are undeniably stunning. Knowing that all the stunts and effects were achieved in real life (no CGI to fall back on!), one simply marvels at the audacity of both Wellman’s vision and his intrepid crew (Rogers and Arlen actually learned to fly); viewing the 35-minute “making of” documentary on the recently restored DVD version of the film gives added insights into exactly how risky (and innovative) much of the filming was. Meanwhile, the non-aerial battle scenes are just as impressive, and rival those found in King Vidor’s The Big Parade (1925). Regarding the lead actors, I actually find Rogers’ performance adequately charismatic, and handsome Arlen’s appropriately subdued (especially given that he’s holding onto a powerful secret the entire time); poor Bow’s character is simply put through the ringer — but so it goes, I suppose, when you’ll do anything for your man.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Truly amazing aerial camerawork
  
• The impressively shot battle sequences
  
• Fine overall direction by Wellman
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance and for its still-stunning aerial sequences.

Categories

• Historically Relevant
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Reelviews Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Q Network Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
On an island where convicted murderers are sent to live and die, a new female arrival (Ena Hartman) quickly learns that its inhabitants are divided between those who support a ruthless psychopath (Sean Kenney), and those attempting to live a more democratic existence.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Prisoners
• Stephanie Rothman Films
• Survival

Response to Peary’s Review:
I had reasonably high hopes for this “futuristic low-budget action adventure” flick, given both the slyly subversive nature of director Stephanie Rothman’s other female-centric exploitation films (i.e., Group Marriage) and the cleverness of the film’s opening “man on the street” news sequence (which neatly synopsizes its futuristic premise). Unfortunately, the story quickly devolves into a tedious survival flick in which impossibly beautiful female prisoners (all clad in skin-tight jeans, and sporting impeccably managed hair) either bed or battle a host of diversely macho men.

The one exception to this latter category is Tom Selleck’s gentle “Dr. Milford”, notoriously sent to the island for conducting a mercy killing; it’s too bad his semi-interesting character is quickly forgotten in favor of endless scenes of bloody violence.

Analogies to Lord of the Flies are inevitable, but despite Peary’s claim that it remains “interesting… because of [its] feminist-humanist themes” (and the fact that “the women and men renegades… shar[e] in the action, the danger, the plotting of war strategy”), its disappointing screenplay — which “deals with a civil war for supremacy of the island” — comes nowhere close to effectively exploring this inherently provocative premise. Peary’s a big fan of this one, but I’m not.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• The clever, scene-setting opening sequence
  

Must See?
No; only fans of Rothman’s work — or WIP (women-in-prison) flicks — need bother seeking this one out.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• SciFilm Review
• Chicago Reader Capsule Review

Synopsis:
Four sexy young women deal with various dramas while studying to be nurses: Sharon (Elaine Giftos) attempts to befriend an embittered, terminally ill patient (Darrell Larson); Phred (Karen Carlson) falls for an OB-GYN student (Lawrence P. Casey); Lynn (Brioni Farrell) accidentally becomes involved with a group of Chicano activists (led by Reni Santoni); and Priscilla (Barbara Leigh) gets together with a drug-dealing motorcyclist (Richard Rust) who impregnates her.

Genres:

• Counterculture
• Doctors and Nurses
• Stephanie Rothman Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “first of New World’s R-rated ‘nursing cycle'” — which earned Roger Corman a bundle of money — “is perhaps director Stephanie Rothman’s most solid work, effectively blending sex, comedy, action, and drama, and advancing a strong feminist viewpoint.” He notes that the four female leads “are all convincing”, and “set the pattern for future Rothman females”; and he points out that they “help and root for each other, without petty rivalries over men or careers”, while “mak[ing] all their own decisions, right and wrong”. He notes that “Rothman sets up personal and professional roadblocks for each, and makes it clear that for the women to triumph, they must earn their nursing diplomas”. Though it’s undeniably an exploitation film — primary emphasis is placed on the sex appeal of the four young nurses, and much of the silly narrative is soap opera-worthy — it nonetheless respectfully tackles a surprising number of socially relevant topics, including political activism, drugs, and a woman’s right to have an abortion. It’s interesting to note that Rothman wrote a rejected script for New World’s later release, The Student Teachers (1973), given what an abject mess this later flick turned out to be; indeed, watching the two films side by side clearly reveals what a difference an invested sensibility behind the scenes can make. The Student Nurses was followed up by four additional (non-Rothman-directed) entries in the “series”; check out DVD Talk’s review for a chuckle-worthy overview of how all five of the films are “thematically linked”.

Note: Click here to read a fascinating interview with Rothman.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• An interesting cinema verite depiction of various counterculture social milieus
  
• A refreshing infusion of a social, political, and feminist sensibility into an exploitation flick
  

Must See?
No; I’m recommending Rothman’s Group Marriage as must-see, and all-purpose film fanatics need only check out one of her films. But of course this one will be of interest to fans of Rothman’s work and/or exploitation flicks.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• DVD Talk Review
• Chicago Reader Capsule Review