FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
Veterans and others involved in the Vietnam War share their memories and thoughts on this devastating era of recent history.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Documentary
• Veterans
• Vietnam War

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “Oscar-winning documentary” by Peter Davis “builds a strong case that the U.S. presence in Vietnam was based on false assumptions (that the domino theory made sense, that the North Vietnamese could be vanquished by American might, that the South Vietnamese supported their government and desired American assistance) and that American soldiers in Vietnam were conducting an amoral war”. He notes that we “see interviews with pilots who dropped napalm and defoliants on the North Vietnamese; terrified napalmed children running down a road, their bodies burned and skin hanging off their limbs; soldiers burning villages; [and] soldiers rifle-butting prisoners”. He argues that “Davis’s contention is that America’s leaders have been responsible for both our misguided presence in the Vietnam War and the type of war being conducted; but the major theme is that they are the type of leaders Middle Americans want and deserve.”

Having just finished watching Ken Burns and Lynn Novick’s powerful 18-hour docu-series entitled The Vietnam War (2017), I recognized many of the themes presented in Hearts and Minds — though I appreciated seeing them from a much fresher and rawer perspective, before the war itself had come to an end. Indeed, this film was considered “too hot to handle” by financing Columbia Studios, and had to be bought back by producer Bert Schneider in order to be screened. As Peary points out, it’s filled with “much unforgettable footage, properly manipulative editing (such as Vietnamese grieving over their dead, followed by a scene in which [General] Westmoreland says how the Vietnamese don’t care about death the way we do”). Westmoreland’s quote is the most memorably egregious, but others include:

Col. George S. Patton III (reflecting on the American military): “They’re a bloody good bunch of killers!”

Lt. George Coker, returning POW (to a group of Catholic school kids): “What did Vietnam look like? Well, if it wasn’t for the people, it was very pretty. The people over there are very backward and very primitive and they just make a mess out of everything.”

Peary argues that the film makes a strong case for “how deeply rooted are our racism, anti-communism, [and] need to battle an enemy”, and that it’s “not surprising that our solders acted as they did when sent to Vietnam.” Burns and Novick’s mini-series — which all film fanatics (and Americans) should be sure to check out — adds invaluable insight into the soldiers’ perspectives many years later, as they reflect even more deeply on how and why they were able to commit the atrocities they did. Given that Hearts and Minds was made the year before the war finally ended, there were many more years of healing and understanding to come — but as Peary writes, while “today the picture may seem tame… it was as powerful an anti-Vietnam film as had been made until then”, and is certainly must-see viewing.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Many impactful moments
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as an Oscar-winning historical classic.

Categories

• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• Washington Post Review
• Q Network Review
• TCM Article
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
The punk-loving daughter (Linda Manz) of a convicted trucker (Dennis Hopper) tries to survive life with her drug-addicted mother (Sharon Farrell), and lives in anticipation of the day her dad is released.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Alcoholism and Drug Addiction
• Coming of Age
• Dennis Hopper Films
• Ex-Cons
• Father and Child
• Juvenile Delinquents
• Raymond Burr Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this “low-budget film” about the “lonely, miserable life” of a scrappy teen whose alcoholic dad is in jail after he “rams his truck into a schoolbus, killing all the children” got made only because “Hopper assumed directorial chores in mid-film”. However, the “acting is good; [and] the terrible family life is authentic, as is the brutal world outside the home”. He adds it’s “too bad the film’s as messy as Manz’s life because it delivers a strong, important message about how adults can destroy the lives of their children.” I’m in agreement with Peary’s assessment. While the film doesn’t quite cohere as a compelling narrative, there are numerous well-shot scenes which convincingly convey how lost and angry Manz is, and what a truly hopeless situation she’s in.

The “final scene between Manz and Hopper”, which “will make your skin crawl” — and which is followed immediately by another unexpected doozy — seem like an appropriate denouement to this relentlessly tragic tale.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Linda Manz as Cebe
  
• Sharon Farrell as Kathy
  
• Many powerful and/or disturbing scenes
  
  

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• Blastitude Review
• Cinematic Threads Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A gutsy prostitute (Season Hubley) assists a detective (Gary Swanson) in cornering a psychopathic pimp (Wings Hauser) — but when Hauser breaks loose from his captors, Hubley’s life is on the line.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Prostitutes and Gigolos
• Revenge
• Undercover Cops and Agents

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “sleazy sexploitation film” is “another film which gives the wrong impression that all street hookers are model types” — but this doesn’t quite ring true; yes, Hubley and her close friends are beautiful:

… but director Gary Sherman includes plenty of panning shots depicting the array of deglamorized activity going down at night on the streets of Hollywood, and Hubley’s murdered friend (Nina Blackwood) is shown in quite a sorry state.

Hubley herself is actually a refreshingly (if foolheartedly) bold female protagonist who more than holds her own with “Hauser’s scary villain” — “someone you’ll love to hate” (indeed, he seems to have a minor cult following based on this flick alone).

Peary accurately notes that the film is “extremely brutal and unpleasant, particularly the finale” — though I believe modern film fanatics won’t find it particularly over-the-top. Favorite odd scene: the toe-sucking request.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Season Hubley as Princess
  
• John Alcott’s cinematography of sleazy Hollywood
  

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a look for its cult status.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• Video Graveyard Review

Synopsis:
A group of leather-clad friends (Sylvester Stallone, Perry King, Henry Winkler, and Paul Mace) hang out and wreak mild havoc while King ditches his girlfriend (Renee Paris) for a new blonde (Susan Blakely) in school, and Stallone learns his pregnant girlfriend (Maria Smith) is desperate to put a ring on it.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Friendship
• Juvenile Delinquents
• Sylvester Stallone Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary only seems to include this “unexceptional, uninvolving film about four leather-jacketed high-school buddies in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn in the mid-fifties” because it “became a surprise commercial hit”. As he points out, its success was certainly not due to the “skimpy and trite” storyline or the “bad” sound quality, but rather because “its youth audience recognized the star quality of the unknown leads… who were… destined for stardom”. I agree with Peary that “Stallone is particularly good, playing a tough talker who’s pushed into marriage by his pregnant girlfriend” — but the problem is, not a single one of these characters is likable, and their actions are uniformly ill-advised. Blakeley’s (underdeveloped) “Jane” is right to be ambivalent about “Chico” (King), and Smith seems destined for a lifetime of dominance by chauvanist Stallone. A scene of Stallone in a rooftop pigeon coop seems to want to remind audiences of Terry Malloy in On the Waterfront — but it simply made me want to rewatch that classic instead.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Evidence of early star power
  

Must See?
Nope; definitely feel free to skip this clunker.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review

Synopsis:
An accomplice (John Ireland) of Jesse James (Reed Hadley) decides to shoot James in exchange for amnesty and $10,000 so he can marry his beloved singer-girlfriend (Barbara Britton). However, Ireland quickly becomes known as a notorious traitor, and ends up competing with another man (Preston Foster) for Britton’s affections.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Historical Drama
• John Ireland Films
• Preston Foster Films
• Sam Fuller Films
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Samuel Fuller’s directorial debut is this interesting low-budget film about ‘that dirty little coward’ Robert Ford”, who “Fuller keeps… in close-up much of the time to hint at his psychological confusion, first about deciding to kill his best friend… and then about being regarded as a traitor by his fellow townspeople.”

Peary argues it “makes sense” that “Ford becomes increasingly sympathetic” given that “Fuller despised Jesse James and thought his murder was a public service”. As a low-budget psychological western, Fuller’s flick works quite well, and it hardly matters that “there isn’t enough action to satisfy most western fans.” Ireland gives an appropriately haunted performance in the title role: it’s easy to see how extreme cognitive dissonance fuels his inability to understand his girlfriend’s (Britton) waning love for him, as well as Britton’s fear for her life if she risks leaving Ireland.

There’s plenty of genuine tension here.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• John Ireland as Bob Ford
  
• Ernest Miller’s cinematography
  
  

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended, and certainly a must for Fuller fans.

Links:

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

Synopsis:
When a group of hippie satanists led by an Indian (Bhaskar Roy Chowdhury) enter into a small town and assault a young woman (Iris Brooks), her grandfather (Richard Bowler) goes to check on the visitors and is drugged with LSD. Seeking revenge, Bowler’s grandson (Riley Bills) injects them with rabies and they all go murderously insane.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Horror Films
• Revenge
• Satanists

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “wild film was one of the first to cash in on hip young horror fans’ appetite for blood and gore, first whetted by Night of the Living Dead,” but adds that “this picture didn’t have the subtlety and sophistication of Romero’s breakthrough film” (no kidding!). While “there are some scares… neither the acting nor the direction by David Durston is impressive and the film itself is pretty offensive”. He concedes that the film “does have color, energy, and a preposterous plot” — but this is far from enough to redeem a tale this unpleasant from start to finish. From the opening scene of a brutal satanic ritual in the woods (culminating in a local girl being assaulted), to the rabid hippie-sadists’ goring of one another while foaming at the mouth, this movie simply makes one lament for the state of humanity. Thank goodness for the wherewithal of the plucky young male protagonist (Bills) — though his trick of preparing “a pie he’s shot up with rabies” is pure fiction and doesn’t correlate with actal transmission of the disease.

Note: Check out Brandon’s Cult Movie Review for a fun 20 minute condensation of this flick.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• A plucky young protagonist in the midst of chaos (yay for kids!)
  

Must See?
Nope — unless, of course, this is your cup of… tea.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• SciFilm Review