FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
Middleweight boxer Jake La Motta (Robert De Niro) puts his career as well as his relationships with his wife (Cathy Moriarty) and manager-brother (Joe Pesci) at risk by his incessant rage and paranoia.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Boxing
• Domestic Abuse
• Jealousy
• Marital Problems
• Martin Scorsese Films
• Rise-and-Fall
• Robert De Niro Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
In Guide for the Film Fanatic, Peary writes that “the major reason to see this film is Robert De Niro’s shattering Oscar-winning portrayal of forties middleweight boxing champ Jake La Motta; he even ate himself into blimpic proportions for the later scenes in his subject’s life.” Peary adds that “reason number two is Michael Chapman’s stunning black-and-white photography; his fine shots of old New York and Miami hauntingly capture the feel of the past:

… [and] his boxing sequences are surreal.”

Peary notes that “as always, Martin Scorsese’s direction is powerful and his characters are natural and real, but, as is too often the case, he has chosen to film a script whose lead character is a thoroughly unlikable figure.” He argues that “eventually you may give up trying to figure out what makes La Motta tick and just get fed up with his antics.” However, he concedes that “scene by scene, the film has impact; particularly strong are those scenes with De Niro and Pesci… and the scene in which La Motta reacts to having thrown a fight for the only time in his career.”

However, Peary asserts that “when the film ends, you realize it has no core, no real theme. It’s just about a louse.” (I disagree, as I’ll explain in a bit.)

In Alternate Oscars, Peary insists he’s still not a fan of the film but, given its positive critical reception and beloved status by “the most astute film cultists,” he concedes it deserves to win Best Picture of the Year. He also agrees with Robert De Niro’s win as Best Actor of the Year, noting that “De Niro was great playing a character who, despite having stone hands and jaw, has no personality.” He writes that “La Motta comes across as just another of Scorsese’s inarticulate, incorrigible, misogynistic, violent, self-destructive Italian punks” who “seems to have no pride, except that he cries after throwing a fight and after winning the title.” He adds that “what La Motta likes to do — and he does it sometimes instead of sex — is beat up people, in the ring and at home. He expresses himself with his fists… All he does is eat, argue with Joey and Vickie, and fight.” However, despite detecting “no motivation for his jealous tantrums and abusiveness” we “keep watching… because De Niro is so powerful that we are paralyzed in our seats.” He notes that “what’s amazing is that while De Niro is trapped in a character who barely changes over the years, he still gives a performance that is excitingly unpredictable.”

I’m much less concerned than Peary about the apparent “lack of motivation” for La Motta’s abusive, self-loathing personality. This film is not about why La Motta became so paranoid and vicious, but rather about the impact that his inability to control his mental demons had on himself and those around him. Because the people he lashes out at are either in the ring or (eventually) have the sense to walk away from him (and he doesn’t stalk them), we know that his actions and volatile personality — which become tamer as he ages and gains more weight — have tragically cost him a lifetime of happiness. It’s brutal to watch, but this one rings really true, and does indeed remain powerful viewing.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Robert De Niro as Jake La Motta
  
  
• Joe Pesci as Joey
  
• Catherine Moriarty as Vickie
  
• The stunningly filmed fight sequences
  
• Michael Chapman’s cinematography
  
  
• Thelma Schoonmaker’s masterful editing

Must See?
Yes, as an enduring classic.

Categories

• Important Director
• Noteworthy Performance(s)
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• NY Times Original Review
• What’s So Great About Raging Bull? Video Review

Synopsis:
An aging gun-for-hire (John Wayne) returns to the town of El Dorado with a young knife-throwing sidekick named Mississippi (James Caan), ready to help the town’s alcoholic sheriff (Robert Mitchum) fight against the henchmen supporting a land-grabbing tycoon (Ed Asner).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Howard Hawks Films
• James Caan Films
• John Wayne Films
• Ranchers
• Robert Mitchum Films
• Sheriffs and Marshalls
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “director Howard Hawks and writer Leigh Brackett reworked their 1959 western Rio Bravo, coming up with a film that just misses equaling that masterpiece.” He notes that “like in other Hawks films, this one deals with professionalism, friendship, [and] grace under pressure; like Rio Bravo and Rio Lobo (1970), it ends with all the good guys still alive.” He adds that “Christopher George, who plays a gunfighter working for bad-guy rancher Ed Asner, is Hawks’s most sympathetic villain”:

… given that “he and Wayne respect each other, since both are professionals with a code of honor.” Finally, Peary points out that the “picture has exciting action sequences and a great deal of humor,” with “Caan… particularly funny.”

There’s not much more to say about this remake of Rio Bravo (yes, that’s essentially what it is) except that it’s competently filmed and handles aging and infirmity with aplomb, not shying away from showing how much harder life is in the rugged west when your body starts failing you. Mitchum’s character is played for laughs rather than pathos, but undergoes a refreshing transformation; and it’s interesting seeing Caan in one of his earliest films, bridging the era of classical filmmaking with a burgeoning new sensibility in cinema. However, this one isn’t must-see other than for Hawks fans.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Harold Rosson’s cinematography
  
• Fine performances by the ensemble cast
  

Must See?
No, though of course fans of John Wayne or Howard Hawks will want to check it out.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• Cleveland Press Review

Synopsis:
After arresting the murderous brother (Claude Akins) of a local rancher (John Russell) and throwing him in jail, sheriff John T. Chance (John Wayne) enlists help from his limping deputy Stumpy (Walter Brennan), an alcoholic former-deputy named Dude (Dean Martin), and a young sharpshooter named Colorado (Ricky Nelson) in guarding Akins until help arrives; meanwhile, he falls for a beautiful young dance hall girl (Angie Dickinson) named Feathers.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Angie Dickinson Films
• Dean Martin Films
• Howard Hawks Films
• John Wayne Films
• Masculinity
• Romance
• Sheriffs and Marshals
• Walter Brennan Films
• Ward Bond Films
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary opens his review of this classic western by writing that “Howard Hawks made this film in reaction to High Noon because he was so upset that it had a lawman who begs civilians to help in a crisis.” He notes that this “slam-bang, exciting, funny western is quintessential Hawks: it is unabashedly commercial yet personal; is about a group of heroic men of action who work together for a common moral purpose; expresses a masculine code of conduct based on courage, loyalty, perseverance, and expertise; has a female lead who impresses the male lead by having what he believes are (positive) masculine traits (i.e., independence, loyalty, inner fortitude, guts) and at the same time excites him with her femininity; contains action, humor, and [a] large dose of dialogue; is filmed with a functional, unobtrusive camera; and has a happy ending.”

He adds that “Hawks’s men are allowed to be scared, but, like Dude, they must put themselves on the line when scared to prove they are worthy men to themselves and their male friends.” For Hawks, “a man is defined not by how well he relates to women — he is mystified by them — but by how well he handles pressure and reacts to danger. It’s okay that Dude (the film’s pivotal character) wants help from his friends, but when the chips are down and they need his assistance, Dude must be dependable. Along with the word ‘proficient,’ ‘dependable’ is how Hawks defines ‘good,’ the highest rating a person can have in a Hawks film.” Peary points out that Rio Bravo “has many terrific scenes,” and asserts it remains “one of the all-time great westerns.”

I’m essentially in agreement with Peary’s review (excerpted from his longer analysis in his first Cult Movies book), and I consider this a must-see film on numerous levels. However, it’s a film I admire more than enjoy — perhaps because I tend to prefer more economical westerns that pack a punch in ~1.5 hours (Rio Bravo is a leisurely 141 minutes). I’m most impressed by Martin’s performance: he shows true depth of character as an alcoholic wracked by hand-shaking nerves and tremens, who knows his reputation has gone down the drain and is willing to push past his own failings to step up to the work that needs doing.

It’s also enormously refreshing to know a happy ending awaits our motley crew; this makes watching the suspenseful, well-filmed final shoot-out just that much more exciting.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine performances by the ensemble cast
  
  
  
• Russell Harlan’s cinematography
  
  
• Numerous memorable moments
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a classic western by a master director.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Combustible Celluloid Review

Synopsis:
When his brother Aaron (Walter Coy), sister-in-law Martha (Dorothy Jordan), and nephew Ben (Robert Lyden) are massacred by Comanche Indians and his nieces Lucy (Pippa Scott) and Debbie (Lana Wood) are abducted by Chief Scar (Henry Brandon), a racist Confederate veteran (John Wayne) begins a years-long search for now-grown Debbie (Natalie Wood), accompanied by his adopted nephew Marty (Jeffrey Hunter) who worries Wayne will harm Debbie given her association with Indians. Meanwhile, Marty’s girlfriend Laurie (Vera Miles) waits for him back on the home front with her parents (John Qualen and Olive Carey), but eventually allows another suitor (Ken Curtis) to woo her.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Jeffrey Hunter Films
• John Ford Films
• John Qualen Films
• John Wayne Films
• Kidnapping
• Natalie Wood Films
• Native Americans
• Racism and Race Relations
• Revenge
• Search
• Ward Bond Films
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “John Ford’s epic western is a great film, one that has enormous scope, breathtaking physical beauty, and a fascinating, complex lead character, John Wayne’s Ethan Edwards.” He explains that Chief Scar is racist Ethan’s “alter ego,” with his name signifying he has put “a blemish (a ‘scar’) on the name of the pure-blooded Edwards family,” and thus, “by killing Debbie, Ethan feels he can end his family’s, and particularly Martha’s, disgrace.” Ethan’s “knightly quest for revenge is marred by impure motives,” with “his fears about the mixing of the bloods symbolically conveyed when he almost dies from a poison arrow.” Ultimately, Peary argues, “the cleansing of Ethan’s soul is central to this picture,” and “Ethan’s search is not for Debbie…: it is for himself, his attempt to find internal tranquility and purge himself of racism and of the savagery that is embodied by Scar.”

In Alternate Oscars, where he names The Searchers Best Movie of the Year, Peary adds that this is a “splendidly directed film full of action, humor, intriguing relationships, and, to build tension, interrupted rituals (funerals, weddings, dinners, and so on).”

He notes that “images of settlers, Indians, and the landscape evoke emotional responses,” thanks in large part to beautiful cinematography by Winston C. Hoch.

Although The Searchers isn’t a personal see-again classic for me as it is for Peary (who shares it was his favorite movie as a kid), I agree it’s a masterfully filmed saga which boldly addresses challenging topics, never shying away from presenting Wayne’s character as a monstrously bigoted anti-hero who can’t be trusted. Hunter quickly becomes endearing as the 1/8th-Cherokee adoptee who accepts that Wayne refuses to fully acknowledge his humanity, yet is willing to spend years — and risk his life — rescuing his kidnapped sister. While I’m not a fan of Ford’s characteristic humor — here primarily embodied by Miles’ oafish suitor (Ken Curtis) but also somewhat in the addle-brained character “Mose” (Hank Worden), who helps bring The Search to a close:

… I can understand the desire for a bit of levity in the midst of such darkness. Thank goodness Ford — via Frank Nugent’s adaptation of Alan Le May’s novel — allows us a relatively happy (if inevitably bittersweet) ending.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• John Wayne as Ethan Edwards
  
• Jeffrey Hunter as Marty
  
• Incredible location footage in Monument Valley
  
• Fine VistaVision cinematography
  
  
• Numerous memorable moments
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a classic western.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review
• TCM Article
• Western Classic Movies Review

Synopsis:
Martin Scorsese films the final concert given by The Band (Robbie Robertson, Richard Manuel, Rick Danko, Levon Helm, and Garth Hudson), which includes guest appearances by numerous big-name musicians.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Concert Films
• Martin Scorsese Films
• Musicians
• Rock ‘n Roll

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “marvelous, intimate, emotional documentary by Martin Scorsese made to commemorate the historic farewell performance-celebration by The Band, in San Francisco on Thanksgiving 1976” features a “great concert, with seminal stars like Bob Dylan…, Neil Young, Muddy Waters, Van Morrison, Joni Mitchell, Neil Diamond…, Paul Butterfield, Eric Clapton, Dr. John, and Ronnie Hawkins all in fine form,” and “Ringo Starr and Ron Wood mak[ing] token appearances.” He writes that “the excitement on the stage is apparent as The Band… perform their array of songs for the last time together (including ‘The Weight,’ ‘The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down,’ and ‘Stage Fright’) and as they’re joined on stage by their friends, all musical superstars.”

Peary notes that “Scorsese also added some stylized footage of The Band singing and playing with the Staple Singers:

… and then Emmylou Harris (her “Evangeline” is a highlight) on a bare stage in an empty hall.”

Peary writes that “Scorsese begins the film with the final song of the concert and throughout the concert inserts some interesting post-concert interview clips he conducted with Robertson and, to a lesser degree, the other band members about their years on the road when they were an anonymous band rather than The Band.”

These interview clips were apparently an inspiration for This is Spinal Tap (1982), and it’s easy to see how Guest et al. had fun with them.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine cinematography by Michael Chapman and others
  
  
• Many memorable and enjoyable musical performance
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a classic concert film by a master director.

Categories

• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review

Synopsis:
A hustler named Willie (John Lurie) and his friend Eddie (Richard Edson) entertain Willie’s 16-year-old cousin Eva (Eszter Balint), who has recently arrived from Hungary.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Misfits
• Road Trip

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “very funny, original, independent film by writer-director Jim Jarmusch” consists of a “formal style” — “influenced by innovative European and Japanese filmmakers” — in which “Jarmusch has the actors perform in front of a strategically placed static camera” and “the picture fades to black at the end of each scene.” He notes that “its intention is to allow viewers to watch whatever they want within the frame, instead of having cuts to close-ups that force viewers to accept what the filmmaker thinks is the most important thing happening at a particular time.” Moreover, he asserts that “the static camera perfectly reflects the static lifestyles of the characters we watch,” who are “equally dull.”

Peary acknowledges that “at first the picture is jarring because nothing happens,” and “you won’t understand why it has received such critical praise.” But he notes that “soon you realize the humor comes from the fact that these people are incapable of breaking free from their boredom.” He posits that “the dialogue manages to be funny, although the characters are completely deadpan in their delivery and say very little that is perceptive,” and he asserts that “the characters are hilarious — and real! — and the actors are terrific.”

Sadly, I disagree with Peary’s review — as well as those of numerous other prominent critics, who seem to be uniform in their praise of this “groundbreaking” indie flick. J. Hoberman, for instance, writes:

Stranger Than Paradise is far more than the sum of its influences. The film is too strongly imagined and assembled to ever seem derivative. It’s never less than wholly and confidently itself. [It] has the timeless quality of a long-running comic strip: it’s as instantly familiar and ineffably weird as Gasoline Alley or Moon Mullins. Eva, Willie, and Eddie may be cartoon characters with unintelligible inner lives, but it’s just that enigmatic two-dimensionality that makes Stranger Than Paradise so funny and gives the film, at once ethereal and hard-boiled, the look and feel of a classic.

I believe Stranger Than Paradise is a case of a movie being very much of-its-time. When I first watched it as a teenage film fanatic, I vaguely remember being blown away by its daring and innovative deadpan style. Now, to be honest, I have no tolerance for it on any level (other than still appreciating Tom DiCillo’s cinematography). Why in the world would we want to spend time with any of these characters? Clearly I’m in polar opposition to Hoberman’s assertion that “Half the fun in Jarmusch’s leisurely paced film is just watching those palookas breathe”; nope. And why do we need a film to relentlessly show us how alienated Americans are from themselves, their environment, and any sense of greater purpose? The last thing I personally want to do is watch people drift from one meaningless “activity” to another, discovering that wherever you go in the interchangeable landscape of industrialized America — there you are. A few of the entries from the Four Word Film Review site seem most apt to me:

Chumps visit Cleveland, Florida.
Bored hipster hosts cousin.
Jarmusch leaves celluloid blank.

I’m not a Jarmusch fan, so clearly I’m biased — but I wouldn’t consider this must-see except for its historical role in indie American filmmaking.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Stark b&w cinematography
  
  
  

Must See?
No; you can skip this one unless you’re curious or a Jarmusch fan.

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Q Network Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• NY Times Original Review
• Four Word Film Reviews
• J. Hoberman Review

Synopsis:
While investigating the Watergate scandal for The Washington Post, rookie reporters Bob Woodward (Robert Redford) and Carl Bernstein (Dustin Hoffmann) quickly find that their story goes far deeper — and higher — than they anticipated.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Alan J. Pakula Films
• Dustin Hoffmann Films
• Jason Robards Films
• Journalists
• Martin Balsam Films
• Ned Beatty Films
• Political Corruption
• Robert Redford Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary asserts that this “award-winning adaptation of the best-seller” that led “to President Nixon’s resignation” is “one of the cagiest films ever made.” He notes that “we are enthralled” even though “not much happens,” given that “major discoveries by the two investigative reporters are few and far between” — and, “as he had done with The Parallax View, [director Alan] Pakula steeps his film in paranoia.” Peary describes Pakula’s directorial style thus:

“Woodward and Bernstein are shown in close-up as they talk to strangers on the phone, trying to wangle information out of them. They sweat slightly as they bluff prior knowledge about what the people are divulging or insinuating — they worry that the people will stop in mid-sentence and question their right to ask such things. Because we don’t see the people the reporters speak to, they naturally become mystery figures — Pakula gives them nervous, reticent, suspicious deliveries so we feel they all have something to hide” [they do!] “or that they’re the types who might arrange for something nasty to happen to the hard-pushing reporters.”

Peary argues that “if Pakula had moved the camera back from the reporters and directed the actors on the phone to speak in friendly, cooperative tones (using the same dialogue), we would feel no suspense.” Meanwhile, he notes that if Pakula “didn’t repeatedly show our reporters going alone, mostly at night” (meaning, after working hours, when people are likely to be home?) “to the doors of people who don’t want to speak to them or who are reluctant to reveal all they know” (hmmmm, I wonder why?) “or, as in Woodward’s case, meeting his contact ‘Deep Throat’ in an underground garage so dark we can’t see faces, we wouldn’t think that our two heroes are so vulnerable (or brave).”

I’m not quite sure what Peary is getting at with these criticisms, nor what he means when he says, “Near the end we are told that they are in danger — we felt it all along — but nothing comes of this. Indeed, none of the paranoia we feel throughout the film is justified.” I disagree. Bernstein and Woodward are authentically concerned — as they should be — about their jobs (not to mention the reputation of their esteemed newspaper) being on the line; and when dealing with high-level politicians and their lackeys, I don’t think there’s such a thing as being too cautious (or, frankly, too paranoid). All the President’s Men is inherently dramatic given what the reporters end up uncovering, which impacted nothing less than the course of American history. Peary does concede that the “acting is excellent, particularly by Jason Robards, Jr., who won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar as the Post‘s managing editor, Ben Bradlee”

… and that “another plus is that we get a sense of the inner workings of a newspaper and how individual reporters pursue a story (i.e., phone calls, legwork, paperwork).”

Peary’s strongest complaint seems to emerge near the end of his review, when he notes that “Woodward and Bernstein are shown to be manipulative, driven, willing-to-fib reporters — likable but not all that sympathetic. They seem to favor getting their Pulitzer-caliber story, without concern for what that story will mean to the country.” (This echoes Peary’s similar criticism about Claude Lanzmann’s relentless investigative work for Shoah.) Peary argues that the “end of [the] film comes too early in the Watergate story and leaves us hanging — which is also the major problem with the book,” but once again, I disagree; the final typewritten sequence in the movie perfectly bookends the way it opened (on a plain piece of paper), adding a sucker-punch conclusion to the men’s work:

Meanwhile, I’m a fan of both Hoffman and Redford’s performances (not highlighted in Peary’s review), and am impressed that we stay so engaged in their travails despite knowing how things turn out. This one remains worth a look.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine performances by the cast
  
• Gordon Willis’s cinematography
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a still-engaging classic.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• NY Times Original Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• Immersion Through Realism Video Review
• “All the President’s Men” in under three minutes