FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A college basketball player (William Tepper) in love with the wife (Karen Black) of a professor (Robert Towne) navigates pressure from his demanding coach (Bruce Dern) and an increasing level of paranoia from his draft-avoiding roommate (Michael Margotta).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Basketball
• Bruce Dern Films
• Counterculture
• Jack Nicholson Films
• Karen Black Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that while “Jack Nicholson’s directorial debut” — “adapted by Nicholson and Jeremy Larner (Eugene McCarthy’s chief speechwriter in ’68) from Larner’s novel” — “was booed at Cannes and received mostly negative reviews in the U.S.,” he believes “it’s an impressive, highly original work, probably the best at expressing the alienation and confusion of college kids of the era.” He notes that the “film deals with rebellion on three fronts: Margotta from society/authority/sanity:

… Tepper from his baskeball-is-everything coach (Bruce Dern is fabulous):

… and Black from all the men who keep her from breathing.”

Indeed, while Tepper’s performance is merely serviceable (he didn’t go on to much of an acting career after this), he’s surrounded by a powerhouse group of supporting actors who bring the story and the era to life. Despite being “flawed and defeatist,” Nicholson’s debut film is consistently unique and intriguing, and remains worth a look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Michael Margotta as Gabriel
  
• Bruce Dern as Coach Bullion
  
• Karen Black as Olive
  
• Confident direction and editing
  

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a look.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
While a young man (Steve Guttenberg) in Baltimore prepares to marry his wife if she passes a football trivia quiz, his friend Shrevie (Daniel Stern) muses over newly married life with his wife (Ellen Barkin), and they hang out with their other friends — Boogie (Mickey Rourke), Fenwick (Kevin Bacon), Billy (Tim Daly), and Modell (Paul Reiser) — in a local diner.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Barry Levinson Films
• Coming of Age
• Ensemble Cast
• Friendship
• Marital Problems
• Mickey Rourke Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “low-budget nostalgia comedy by writer-director Barry Levinson” — about “a group of young male buddies who hang out at a diner in Baltimore in 1959 at a time they have to make decisions about work, women, [and] their futures” — is responded to more by “female viewers” who perhaps “dated similar flawed, funny characters,” while men may wisely not “wish to identify with guys who have jerk streaks a mile long.” I’m not sure how many women did or still do enjoy this film, but I’m not among them — for exactly the reason Peary provides. While “the diner dialogue has rhythm and is well delivered by the talented cast”:

… it’s not interesting; meanwhile, “the characters [are] dull and unsympathetic until they start tripping over words around females” (at which point I still… find them dull and unsympathetic). Peary notes that “the most original scenes have Daniel Stern hysterically telling off Ellen Barkin for mixing up his precious rock-‘n’-roll collection”:

and “Steve Guttenberg giving his fiancee” (whose face we never see) “a football trivia test to determine if the wedding is still on” — but all these scenes do is reinforce what immature jerks these guys are. Why do we want to spend time around them, again?

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Good use of authentic Baltimore locales
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one time look for its historical relevance as a breakthrough film for many of these young actors (and Levinson as a director).

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
Rock ‘n roll musician Buddy Holly (Gary Busey) gains fame with his fellow bandmates (Charles Martin Smith and Don Stroud) and marries his sweetheart (Maria Richwine), but has a tragically short time to make his mark on the world.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Biopics
• Gary Busey Films
• Musicians
• Rock ‘n Roll
• Untimely Death

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Gary Busey gives an exciting, natural performance as the legendary and influential country-tinged rock singer from Lubbock, Texas, who had scores of hits by the time he died in a plane crash (with Ritchie Valens and the Big Bopper) in 1959 (he was 21).” He describes Busey’s Holly as “basically a polite, nice guy” who “won’t be pushed around, has a mordant wit, stubbornness about his music, and unbridled drive.”

Indeed, the film nicely highlights Holly’s musical talents above all else; we understand why and how he managed to be such an influence on so many big-name stars despite his tragically early death. Peary points out that “Busey’s portrayal has an added dimension in that he actually sings Holly’s famous songs, rather than lip-synching Holly recordings.”

With that said, the story infamously “plays so much with facts that former Cricket Sonny Curtis felt inclined to write the song ‘The Real Buddy Holly Story’“, and should be closely fact-checked for those interested in the specific details of Holly’s career. Peary further argues that the “script’s conflicts are too minor: Buddy and [the] Crickets… mildly arguing about touring”:

… “the group having to prove themselves to an all-black audience at the Apollo (thought to be black, they were the first white singers to perform there)”:

… “Holly courting a young Puerto Rican woman (Maria Richwine)”:

… and “Holly trying to persuade the studio boss (Conrad Janis) to let him produce the group’s songs.”

However, he notes that the “film keeps interest, thanks to Busey” and is “consistently entertaining.” I would agree. While I immediately watched a documentary and read more about Holly’s life to correct my understanding, this is a nice introduction to his persona and music, and Busey’s engaged performance remains noteworthy.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Gary Busey as Buddy Holly
  

Must See?
Yes, for Busey’s performance.

Categories

• Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

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

Synopsis:
When a woman (Cloris Leachman) and her widowed mother (Ann Sothern) lose their beauty parlor due to lack of payments, they take Leachman’s pregnant daughter (Linda Purl) and her boyfriend (Donnie Most) on the run with them to begin a life of petty crime in hopes of earning enough money to buy back their family farm in Arkansas. Along the way, they pick up another suitor (Bryan Englund) for Purl, an elderly woman (Merie Earle) eager for action, and a lover (Stuart Whitman) for Leachman, who tries to convince his wealthy wife (Sally Kirkland) that he’s been kidnapped.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Ann Sothern Films
• Cloris Leachman Films
• Dick Miller Films
• Jonathan Demme Films
• Strong Females
• Thieves and Criminals

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “Jonathan Demme directed this engaging offbeat comedy made under the guise of being a typical New World crime-spree exploitation film (i.e., Bloody Mama, The Great Texas Dynamite Chase)” but that’s actually a “spirited, unpredictable film” that’s “a lot of fun” and filled with “unusual characters played with unusual freedom by a fine ensemble of actors to whom mainstream directors weren’t offering parts” (i.e., classic film star Ann Sothern).

He notes that he “particularly like[s] the odd relationships between the characters and the loyalty and affection they have for each other”:

… and (of course) he makes special note of “the kittenish Purl” who he considers “a particularly exciting find.”

Peary notes that “Demme’s direction is extremely mature” — he “obviously feels warmth for the female characters and admires their guts, intelligence, [and] resourcefulness” — and asserts that “his diners, road signs, clothes, hairdos, [and] cars perfectly capture 1958 — as does the standout rock score from that year.”

I agree with Peary that this remains a “spirited, unpredictable film” filled with plenty of jam-packed action — including a sequence in a Vegas casino (and then a chapel):

… a motorcycle race:

… a bank robbery:

… a stay at a Teepee Village:

… and much more. Watch for Jim Backus as the bank representative who kicks Leachman and Sothern out of their initial business:

… Will Sampson (Chief Bromden in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest) in a silent cameo as an Indian at a trading post:

… and, of course, Dick Miller (here playing a cop having an affair with Whitman’s wealthy wife).

Note: “Happy Days” fans will surely make note of the strategic casting of Donnie Most as a character from the 1950s.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Fine performances by the ensemble cast
  
• Creative direction by Demme
  
• The rocking ’50s soundtrack

Must See?
No, but I can see its value as a cult favorite, and it’s a must for Leachman fans.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• DVD Talk Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
In 1789 France, two pairs of identical twins mixed and switched at birth grow up to become apolitical peasant brothers Claude (Gene Wilder) and Charles (Donald Sutherland), and power-hungry Corsican brothers Philippe (Wilder) and Pierre (Sutherland) — and the four accidentally meet up with one another at Versailles during an attempted revolt against King Louis XVI (Hugh Griffith), his nymphomaniac wife Marie Antoinette (Billie Whitelaw), and the devious aristocrat d’Escargot (Victor Spinetti).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Class Relations
• Comedy
• Donald Sutherland Films
• French Revolution
• Gene Wilder Films
• Historical Drama
• Hugh Griffith Films
• Mistaken or Hidden Identities
• Orson Welles Films
• Plot to Murder
• Revolutionaries
• Royalty and Nobility
• Twins

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that while this “absurdist cult comedy” about an “identity mix-up” “has many funny gags and [a] bizarre performance by Wilder as the crazed, sadistic Corsican”:

…it “no longer seems original” and “halfway through… begins to drag, [deteriorating] into a silly bedroom farce in which characters keep zipping into different chambers through doors and passageways and being confused over who is who.” Adding insult to injury, this film makes “the French Revolution [come] across as the work of dumb clucks,” and the “ending is a terrible cop-out.”

I’m in agreement with Peary’s assessment of this earnest film, which tries too hard and far too often belabors each joke until it’s stale — as when King Louis sheepishly professes he thought a masked ball was a costume ball, again and again and again.

Watch for a very random appearance by Orson Welles at the beginning and the end of the film (making note of the fact that he doesn’t appear in it):

… and Ewa Aulin — star of Candy (1968) — as a busty Belgian princess.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• A few amusing sequences
  

Must See?
No; you can skip this one.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Village Voice Review
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
After being kicked out by the director (Harry Secombe) of his orphanage and the owner (Leonard Rossiter) of a funeral home, a self-reliant young boy named Oliver Twist (Mark Lester) is invited by a pickpocket nicknamed The Artful Dodger (Jack Wild) to join a gang led by greedy Fagin (Ron Moody) and evil Bill Sykes (Oliver Reed), whose loyal girlfriend Nancy (Shani Wallis) works at a local pub.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Carol Reed Films
• Charles Dickens Adaptations
• Gangs
• Historical Drama
• Hugh Griffith Films
• Musicals
• Oliver Reed Films
• Orphans
• Thieves and Criminals

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that while “it’s hard not to resent any film to which Hollywood establishment voted the Best Picture Oscar in the year 2001 was released,” he nonetheless believes “it’s time that the ‘hip’ 2001 fans caught up with the mass audience” given that “this is a marvelous film, and an outstanding addition to the fading musical genre.” He points out that this “freely adapted” flick “from Dickens’s Oliver Twist… overcomes a major obstacle”: even though “the original story is one of constant grief and hardship — certainly not material readily adaptable to a musical,” the “happy score” by Lionel Bart, “sung and danced amidst the menacing atmosphere, creates both a ‘feel-good’ sensation and the dreary feeling of the novel.” He notes that while “the novel’s scoundrels are present,” aside “from the incredibly evil Bill Sikes” (it’s geekily intriguing to me that he’s played by Oliver — as in the title character — Reed — as in the director’s last name):

… “they have been somewhat cleansed.” To that end, as DVD Savant writes, “That a man who criminally exploits children for profit should be sympathetic is a credit to Moody’s appeal.”

Peary argues that “much credit for the film’s success can be attributed to Carol Reed,” given that so much of the second half of the movie “depends a great deal on atmosphere and suspense, which Reed pulls off brilliantly.” Meanwhile, Reed also made “sure that the spectacular production numbers were cinematic rather than stagy” and he “allowed his actors free rein to develop interesting, multidimensional personages.” While Peary asserts that “Mark Lester is a bit wimpy in the title role” (I’m not sure I agree — he stands up for himself, time and again!):

… actors Moody, Wild, and Wallis “are absolutely wonderful” (yes).

I also agree with Peary and others that Oliver! remains a crackerjack overall musical, for numerous reasons, but primarily given how many of the songs knock it out of the park. For the record, they include (but are not limited to) “Food, Glorious Food”:

… “Where is Love?”

… “Pick a Pocket or Two”:

… “Consider Yourself”:

… “I’d Do Anything”:

… and “As Long As He Needs Me”:

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Ron Moody as Fagin
  
• Jack Wild as the Artful Dodger
  
• Shani Wallis as Nancy
  
• Oliver Reed as Bill Sikes
  
• Many toe-tapping musical numbers (choreographed by Onna White)
  
• Atmospheric cinematography and sets
  

Must See?
Yes, as an enjoyable musical, and for its Oscar winning status.

Categories

• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
Years after a Marxist anti-war agitator (Barbra Streisand) falls for a WASP-ish, politically neutral aspiring writer (Robert Redford) in college, the two meet up and begin a challenging love affair and marriage.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Barbra Streisand Films
• Flashback Films
• Historical Drama
• James Woods Films
• Marital Problems
• Patrick O’Neal Films
• Robert Redford Films
• Romance
• Star-Crossed Lovers
• Sydney Pollack Films
• Writers

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “Robert Redford and Barbra Streisand have truly amazing chemistry in this irresistible… deeply moving movie romance” in which “we come to really sympathize with their characters, to understand their need for each other, to realize that the reasons they aren’t totally compatible… can never be resolved.”

He points out that “the characters are believable and their problems are compelling;” indeed, “the two stars have never been better.” He notes that “as in the best romances, there are laughter and tears by the bucketful” — including “when the crying Katie (Streisand at her most lovable and vulnerable) calls Hubbell [Redford] to ask him to take her back”:

… “when they break up in the hospital”:

… and “when they meet years later in New York.”

In Alternate Oscars, Peary nominates this as one of the Best Pictures of the Year, nominates Redford as one of the Best Actors of the Year, and names Streisand Best Actress of the Year. He points out that she plays a woman “who has such heart, such sensitivity, such dedication to unpopular causes” and “never lets up for a minute, never relaxes just to enjoy life, never stops trying to better the world and their relationship, never stops prodding Hubbell to fulfill his early ambitions to be a novelist.” The result is that we “feel emotionally drawn to her every moment she’s is on the screen — after all, she’s always walking a high wire and Hubbell has taken away the net.”

He notes a few more of Streisand’s “wonderful, truly memorable moments” in the film — including “a scene in college writing class” as Katie “is ripped apart when the professor doesn’t choose to praise or read aloud her much-suffered over essay, yet despite her own disappointment she still listens to the professor praise and read Hubbell’s introspective story and looks at Hubbell with new appreciation and understanding.”

Later on, Peary writes he loves “Streisand’s expression when she realizes that the drunken Hubbell, whom she has not seen in seven years, has crashed in her bed” and “she daringly strips and climbs in next to him.”

He also calls out the emotional “screening-room scene, when Katie confronts Hubbell about his affair and his trashy movie” and finally says, “Oh, I want… I want… I want us to love each other.”

Indeed, The Way We Were may be the ultimate film about a couple who love each other, but mutually recognize they simply can’t stay together as romantic partners; anyone who’s been through this will surely resonate with the storyline here, and feel gratitude that neither individual is ever demonized for their stance. These are simply radically different people with divergent goals, who also happen to be attracted to and care for one another. Theirs is a sweet, heartbreaking story that hasn’t aged, and remains compelling.

Note: Watch for James Woods in an early supporting role as Streisand’s college prom date.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Barbra Streisand as Katie Morosky
  
• Robert Redford as Hubbell Gardiner
  
• Harry Stradling, Jr.’s cinematography
  
• The haunting title song

Must See?
Yes, as a still-powerful romantic drama.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Articles

Synopsis:
When a French man (Jean Paul Belmondo) married to a demanding Italian wife (Graziella Galvani) runs away with his kids’ babysitter (Anna Karina), the couple take a sporadically violent road trip to find Karina’s brother Frank.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Criminal Couple on the Run
• French Films
• Fugitives
• Jean-Luc Godard Films
• Jean-Paul Belmondo Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of what he refers to as “one of Jean-Luc Godard’s most fascinating films” by providing a succinct synopsis of the storyline, which “takes twists at every turn as if the script were being revised each morning before filming.” Peary’s overview gives away numerous plot points but isn’t really a spoiler, so I’ll cite it in full here: “Ferdinand (Jean-Paul Belmondo) is bored with his bourgeois lifestyle. He walks out on a stuffy party and runs away with his daughter’s babysitter, Marianna (Anna Karina), his former lover.”

“The next morning, he finds a dead man in Marianne’s apartment, with scissors stuck in his back.”

“The couple flees Paris. Gangsters, led by a midget (Jimmy Karoubi), are after some money Marianne has. She accidentally destroys the money when she sets fire to the car.”

“Ferdinand and Marianne spend time in a remote cottage — but there is little romance. She gets bored and insists they go to the Riviera to see her ‘brother.’ She isn’t being honest with him.”

Peary adds that the film is “filled with allusions to artists and films, political ideas, and jabs at commercialism and contemporary mores”:

… and he asserts that “it’s good to see Belmondo back in a Godard film,” noting that “maybe this film shows, in a limited sense, what would have happened if Belmondo and Jean Seberg had stayed together longer in Breathless” (a clip from that film is even shown here).

Finally, Peary notes the “explosive ending”, argues that “technically, [the] film is excitingly audacious”, and points out a cameo by “Samuel Fuller (as himself, describing film as ‘an emotional battleground’.)”

I don’t share Peary’s enthusiasm for this movie, which I find annoying and pointless rather than fascinating; as Godard himself stated, Pierrot le Fou “is not really a film, it’s an attempt at cinema.” Sure, it’s filled with plenty of the director’s clever cinematic trickery, and the cinematography (by Raoul Coutard) is gorgeous — but we don’t care a single whit about these vapid characters or their outcomes. While it’s widely acclaimed, I consider this one must-see only for Godard completists.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Raoul Coutard’s cinematography
  
  

Must See?
No, though of course Godard fans will want to check it out.

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review
• Criterion Collection Essay
• Movie Diva Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
A Catholic (Jean-Louis Trintignant) secretly infatuated with a blonde (Marie-Christine Barrault) he sees at church bumps into an old schoolmate (Antoine Vitez) and ends up spending the evening with him and a divorced doctor named Maud (Françoise Fabian).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Bourgeois Society
• Eric Rohmer Films
• French Films
• Religious Faith

Response to Peary’s Review:
In his review of this “third of Eric Rohmer’s six ‘Moral Tales'” — though “the first to get wide-spread circulation in America” — Peary points out the theme of “chance and probability” that runs through the entire screenplay, beginning with Trintignant running “into a Marxist friend… whom he hasn’t seen in 14 years… at a restaurant neither has been to before”:

… and eventually turning to “Trintignant, who is the type of guy who is always punctual, keeps appointments, and doesn’t sway from an ordered life, impulsively approach[ing] (on the street) a beautiful blonde… he’d seen at mass,” with further character-driven coincidences ensuing.

As Peary notes, “the humor is more subtle than in other Rohmer films — in fact, one could sit through the whole film without realizing he’s been funny on occasion” given that “the characters are always so serious” (though the humor “comes from seeing such loquacious intellectuals turning out to be as silly and awkward as everyone else when it comes to sex”).

I have a different take: while re-watching this film, I never thought I was viewing a romantic (or even an intellectual) comedy, and didn’t find the characters’ sexual choices to be “silly”. Peary further asserts that the moment when “Fabian’s daughter (Marie Becker) climbs out of bed just to see the lights on the Christmas tree” is “a simple, sweet, and honest gesture that makes us see how trivial the adult discourse is”:

… but I also disagree with this latter point; the “adult discourse” (involving “ultra-sophisticated… conversations about Pascal, probability and religion”) may be occasionally abstruse, but is far from trivial (or irrelevant). While this film is most certainly not for all tastes, I think it’s one-time must-see viewing for all film fanatics, especially those interested in French cinema.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Nestor Almendros’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as an exemplar of Rohmer’s unique style.

Categories

• Foreign Gem

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Time Out Capsule Review
• NY Times Original Review
• Q Network Review
• DVD Savant Review (scroll down to third review)
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
In 1950s France, a teenager (Benoît Ferreux) with rowdy older brothers (Fabien Ferreux and Marc Winocourt) experiences a heart murmur while struggling to relate to his gynecologist father (Daniel Gélin) and developing a growing crush on his sexually promiscuous mother (Léa Massari).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Coming-of-Age
• French Films
• Incest and Incestuous Undertones
• Louis Malle Films
• Virginity

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “rude comedy” (I’m not so sure it’s a comedy) by Louis Malle about “incestuous feelings between [a] sexually curious 14-year-old… and his beautiful, sensuous Italian mother” is primarily concerned with “drawing a scathing portrait of the French bourgeoisie.” He argues that “in Malle’s customary uncontroversial way,” the “comedy [sic] advances [the] novel idea that the best way to show rejection of [the] bourgeoisie’s shackles is to break its sexual rules.” Maybe so — but there isn’t anything inherently amusing about this tale of sexual exploration and complicated mother-child dynamics.

While this film has quite a few fans who appreciate the “natural,” non-sensationalized way in which Ferreux and Massari grow increasingly affectionate with one another, I’ll admit I’m not among its admirers. Its best moments show the authenticity (based in large part on Malle’s own childhood) of Ferreux attempting to learn from a kind-hearted prostitute (Gila von Weitershausen) his brothers have taken him to:

… and navigating adolescent passes at girls once he’s at a sanitorium for his heart condition. Otherwise, frankly, the film feels manipulative; knowing the film’s taboo topic makes one simply wait with unease to see how it plays out.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Benoît Ferreux as Laurent
  

Must See?
No, though of course Malle fans will want to check it out.

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• Q Network Review
• Washington Post Review (Desson Howe, 1989)
• TCM Article