FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
Three rock performers — Kelly (Dolly Read), Casey (Cynthia Myers), and Pet (Marcia McBroom) — travel with their manager Harris (David Gurian) to Hollywood, where Kelly’s Aunt Susan (Phyllis Davis) introduces her to wild parties led by Z-Man (John Lazar). Soon Z-Man helps the three musicians form a new band called The Carrie Nations, and tensions arise between Z-Man and Harris. Meanwhile, romantic entanglements quickly ensue: Kelly starts an affair with a hunky player named Lance Rocke (Michael Blodgett) while also seducing her aunt’s financial caretaker (Duncan McLeod) into giving her a larger portion of their inheritance; Harris is relentlessly pursued by a bosomy porn star (Edy Williams); Pet falls in love with an aspiring lawyer (Harrison Page) but strays with a prizefighter (James Iglehart); and Casey falls for a lesbian (Erica Gavin).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Hollywood
• Musicians
• Rock ‘n Roll
• Russ Meyer Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “cult favorite” by Russ Meyer — “about a small-town three-woman rock band… who make it big in Hollywood, the land of sex, drugs, moral corruption, and deviance” — was originally “slated to be a sequel to Valley of the Dolls, but instead of expanding on Jacqueline Susann’s trashy best-seller it turned around and parodied the first film and other overblown, cliche-filled Hollywood soap operas.” However, as Peary complains, “there is nothing worse than a multi-million-dollar spoof of movies that are already self-parodies.” He expresses frustration that “when Meyer finally got his chance to make a studio picture (with 20th Century Fox)… he proved to be lazy and conservative” instead of “really inventive”, “opting to make an outrageously campy caricature-populated film rather than attempting to make a serious, solid melodrama”. Peary adds that “critic Roger Ebert’s script is smug and vulgar, and full of violence-against-female scenes (which Meyer films seriously) of the type he has crusaded against as a critic.”

Peary expands upon his frustrations and disappointment with this film in his first Cult Movies book, where he starts by discussing Meyer’s two cinematic “phases” before BTVOTD: Meyer began as “King of the Nudies”, making a “fortune as the independent producer-director-cameraman-editor-writer-distributor of such cheapie harbingers of the Naked Cinema as the ground-breaking The Immoral Mr. Teas (1959)…” Next he made “infinitely more ambitious” “tongue-in-cheek potboilers” that “served as the basis for the pre-Beyond the Valley of the Dolls cult: Lorna (1964), Mud Honey (1965), … Faster Pussycat, Kill, Kill (1966) … and [Peary’s] favorite, Cherry, Harry, and Raquel (1969).” Peary describes this second string of films — “set in rugged terrains… [and] inhabited by sexually driven buxom beauties…, strong-jawed, no-nonsense heroes, and an assortment of religious zealots, rapists, and sweaty lowlifes” — as “essentially fake morality plays, in which the numerous sinners either repent or are punished severely.” He argues that “as skin flicks, Meyer’s 1964-1969 films were far superior to those of his competitors”, given they are “extremely well-photographed” and feature “wild, absurd visual humor, dialogue that makes no sense…, and ridiculous plot situations — while his actors play their roles straight.”

Peary goes on to say that while “to many moviegoers who hadn’t seen a Russ Meyer film, BTVOTD was a revelation — a film that they (mostly college students) considered to be their own ‘far-out’ wave length” — Peary and others realized they’d “overestimated [Meyer’s] talents”. Peary refers to BTVOTD as “really a terrible film, energetically but poorly acted by ex-Playboy bunnies Dolly Reed and Cynthia Meyers, model Marcia McBroom, and under-emoting or overemoting stars.” He points out that “cryptic jargon and Meyer’s rapid-fire editing techniques” (your head will seriously spin!) “are meant to camouflage the picture’s emptiness” — but “the holes in the script come through”. He ends his scathing review (which I essentially agree with) by noting “there is little in [it] to recommend”, and that it simply “proved that what [fans] had seen in his early films were everything Meyer had to offer”; “by choice (!), Meyer returned to making independent sex films — in the Vixen mold but not as good”, which “unfortunately [was] the milieu to which he [was] best suited.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Colorful sets
  
• Far-out cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, once — but simply for its cult status and notoriety.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Q Network Review
• Spinning Image Review
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
When a lawyer (George Segal) living with his senile mother (Ruth Gordon) falls in love with a beautiful young nurse (Trish Van Devere), he tells his married brother (Ron Leibman) he’s determined not to let anything get in the way of his new romance — including their troublesome mother.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Black Comedy
• Carl Reiner Films
• Elderly People
• George Segal Films
• Grown Children
• Living Nightmare
• Ruth Gordon Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this black comedy by “director Carl Reiner and screenwriter Robert Klane (working from his own novel)” is “a litmus test for viewers that will expose one’s taste for comedy and tolerance for tastelessness.” He suggests you see this film “with an audience rather than alone at home on a cassette” (ah, the ’80s!) given that “one’s laughter is enhanced by the realization that all those around you… are being subjected to the same embarrassing material” (“collective embarrassment can be fun”). He notes that this “haywire world we are presented is unforgettable: Cabbies pick up men in gorilla suits rather than perfectly dressed black ladies. Coaches snatch 10-year-old kids without their parents’ permission… Female prostitutes turn out to be male cops in drag — [and] the one on whom Leibman is forced by a gang to perform a deviant act gets a crush on him (which is reason enough for viewers to have a negative response).” Indeed, “the craziness in the apartment Segal and Gordon share is merely a reflection on the surrounding world.”

Peary points out that “even those turned off by the humor will enjoy the standout performances” by Gordon — who plays Mrs. Hocheiser as someone with “no redeeming qualities” — and Segal, who “gives a remarkable impression of a man who is on his last legs.” He notes that because “both Gordon and Segal were given much freedom”, they “gave performances that are comedic gems”, and he argues that “for them alone, this film is worth seeing.” Equally memorable, however, are Leibman as Segal’s impossibly put-upon brother, and Van Devere (in her film debut) as a traumatized young divorcee clearly willing to wear her heart on her sleeve. I was both deeply discomfited and pleasantly surprised by how boldly this (highly politically incorrect) film stays its course as a movie determined to offend in as many ways as possible — while also providing plenty of uncomfortable laughter. The most distressing sequences involve the depiction of Central Park as “a veritable jungle… ruled by uncivilized ‘tribes’ (black gangs)”; while meant to simply be part of the collective satire, these hit especially hard and may stretch your tolerance.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• George Segal as Gordon
  
• Ruth Gordon as Mrs. Hocheiser
  
• Ron Leibman as Sidney
  
• Trish Van Devere as Louise
  
• Many darkly amusing sequences
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

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

Synopsis:
With help from his eccentric scientist-friend (Christopher Lloyd), a teenager (Michael J. Fox) accidentally travels back to the 1950s, where he meets his mom (Lea Thompson) and dad (Crispin Glover) before they’ve become a couple. Complications ensue when Thompson develops a crush on her own son, and Fox wonders how he will ever get his parents to fall in love — and thus save his own future existence.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Inventors
• Mad Doctors and Scientists
• Science Fiction
• Time Travel

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “oedipal comedy” (!) — “directed by Robert Zemeckis, written by Zemeckis and Bob Gale, and produced by Steven Spielberg” — is a “sweet and highly imaginative” “crowd pleaser”. He notes that it “manages to avoid vulgarity”, instead providing “much healthy humor that would have been appreciated back in the innocent fifties” — primarily having to do with “the cultural gap between the fifties and the eighties”. Peary highlights the “excellent” acting, but complains that “only Fox and Thompson play real people”, arguing that “the rest are caricatures, mere pawns for the filmmaker’ gags.” He also shares his unease about the ending, noting that “instead of returning to the future, I’d prefer sticking around in the much more lively, inviting past to watch the revolution in television, rock ‘n’ roll, etc., and see how Thompson and Glover progress.” Further, he’s “a little uneasy seeing the present so altered by Marty’s trip to the past”.

Peary’s review is an interesting one to read so many years later, after two sequels have been released (the trilogy is now firmly entrenched as a cult favorite) and we’re living in yet another era that would feel somewhat foreign to inhabitants of just a few decades ago. As a time travel flick, Back to the Future holds up really well, despite Peary’s concerns: as many questions as we may have about the ethics and viability of changing our current reality by retroactively impacting the past, it’s easy enough to accept the film on its own narrative terms and simply enjoy the ride. I don’t quite agree with Peary that Glover is merely “the definitive nerd”; in fact, he’s quite convincing and sympathetic as a smart, talented, geeky young sci-fi fan who simply wants to be left alone. And while Lloyd does make “all previous wild-eyed, wild-haired wacko scientists look second-rate”, his over-the-top enthusiasm actually serves as a critical reminder that he’s co-existing in multiple time-spaces and has a different take on the entire situation.

Note: I was pleasantly surprised to find and enjoy About Time (2013), a more recent time travel flick that handles its logistics and narrative threads with equal aplomb. It’s well worth a look as well.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly
  
• Crispin Glover as George McFly
  
• Christopher Lloyd as Doc Brown
  
• Authentic, colorful sets
  
• Many memorable scenes
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite and modern classic.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Q Network Review
• FilmSite Review
• Moria Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
A mentally unstable Marxist named Morgan (David Warner) tries to woo his ex-wife Leonie (Lynn Redgrave) away from her stuffy new fiance Charles (Robert Stephens) by using increasingly extreme and outlandish tactics.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• David Warner Films
• Karel Reisz Films
• Kidnapping
• Mental Illness
• Nonconformists
• Vanessa Redgrave Films
• Winning Him/Her Back

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “seriocomedy” about a “nonconformist lead character” was “one of the major pre-Midnight Movie cult films” and discusses it at greater length in his Cult Movies 2 book. He’s not a big fan of the movie, and neither am I: as he writes, it “fits into the irritating it’s-okay-to-be-crazy-in-our-insane-world subgroup” — like King of Hearts from the same year — “which perpetuates the notion that a character’s irresponsible actions can be condoned if he’s certifiably nuts.”

It’s not very hard to look “past director Karel Reisz’s deceptively charming veneer” and “see that Morgan’s fantasies and wild antics are symptomatic of impending personal disaster” — and I’m not someone who will simply “cheer Morgan’s devil-may-care behavior”, or “laugh when Morgan threatens Charles”, or “ignore Leonie’s protests”. As Peary writes, “the most important aspect of this film is not how Morgan tries to win back the woman he loved and lost, but how Leonie deals with the often pathetic advances of a man she loves but can’t be with without destroying herself.”

Peary goes on to state that the “picture has lost much of its following because stylistically it is extremely dated”; he argues we’ve “long overdosed on freeze frames, fast-speed photography, insertions of old movies, and juxtaposition of images signifying ‘illusion’ and ‘reality’.” I’m not sure that still holds true; but the repeated insertion of clips from Tarzan Triumphs (1943) and King Kong (1933) — as well as Morgan’s imagining the world around him as a jungle — feel forced. By the time things get fully (and tragically) ridiculous near the end of the movie, and Morgan puts on his full-body gorilla suit, it’s clear the film has gone in directions that will either resonate with viewers or not.

It’s possible that this all played much fresher in the 1960s; but nowadays, one simply feels sad about Morgan’s untreated illness and frustrated at Redgrave for giving him such a long leash.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine b&w cinematography
  
  

Must See?
No; you can skip this one unless you’re curious.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• BFI Review