Browsed by
Month: July 2022

Amarcord (1973)

Amarcord (1973)

Comments 1 comment

“The origins of this town are lost in the mists of time.”

Synopsis:
A teenager (Bruno Zanin) in 1930s fascist Italy experiences adolescence amidst a kooky array of family members, neighbors, and friends.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Coming of Age
  • Federico Fellini Films
  • Italian Films
  • Village Life

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary asserts that this “Oscar-winning nostalgia piece” by Federico Fellini — which “takes place in the early thirties in a small Adriatic town that is much like Rimini, where the director grew up” — is a mixed bag of amusing and “extremely erratic” sequences. He notes that the “best parts of the film deal with Zanin and his horny pals”, who “think constantly of women with big breasts and big rears.” He notes that a classic highlight includes a “sequence showing how the kids react (usually by pulling pranks) to their weird teachers”:

… and another particularly funny bit shows Zanin exciting “a 300-pound woman [Maria Antonietta Beluzzi] by lifting her off the ground repeatedly” and being “rewarded with a chance to smother himself in her enormous breasts.”

An even more amusing sequence involves “a family dinner during which Mama [Pupella Maggio] refuses to eat, Mama and Papa (Armando Brancia) argue (as they must do every night), Zanin eats like a pig, the emotionless uncle [Nando Orfei] juggles and eats from a plate he holds in his hand”:

… “Papa chases Zanin from the house for having urinated on a man’s hat at the movie theater, and Grandpa [Giuseppe Ianigro] slips into the next room to break wind.”

Peary writes that while “the picture isn’t all comedic,” “those are the best moments — [and] unfortunately, they come mostly at the beginning.” He argues that “a couple of anecdotes, presented stylistically, about peripheral adult characters in the town really slow down the picture”:

… and that “the scene in which the father is punished by the fascists for some indiscreet remarks is well done, but seems out of place in this otherwise apolitical film.” (I disagree that the film is apolitical.)

While some scenes definitely “work” better than others, Fellini’s overall aim with this film seems more impressionistic, showing us glimpses of memories and senses (necessarily not always coherent) that infuse one’s recollections of growing up. To that end, he succeeds entirely, making this film worth at least a one-time look, especially for his fans.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Fine cinematography and sets

  • Nino Rota’s score

Must See?
Yes, for its status as an Academy Award winning film by a master director.

Categories

  • Important Director
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

In Harm’s Way (1965)

In Harm’s Way (1965)

Comments 1 comment

“All battles are fought by scared men who’d rather be someplace else.”

Synopsis:
At the start of World War II, an American Navy captain (John Wayne) begins a romance with a divorced nurse (Patricia Neal) and meets his estranged son (Brandon De Wilde), who is serving as an ensign in the Naval Reserve and engaged to a young nurse (Jill Haworth); meanwhile, “Rock” (Wayne) gives a troubled naval aviator (Kirk Douglas) a second chance by asking him to serve on a crucial mission, but Douglas’s presence causes unexpected challenges.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Burgess Meredith Films
  • Dana Andrews Films
  • Franchot Tone Films
  • George Kennedy Films
  • Henry Fonda Films
  • John Wayne Films
  • Kirk Douglas Films
  • Military
  • Otto Preminger Films
  • Patricia Neal Films
  • Paula Prentiss Films
  • World War II

Review:
Otto Preminger directed this big-budget adaptation of a novel by James Bassett, focusing on the efforts of the U.S. Navy in the Pacific Theater during World War II. For a lengthy war film, there are surprisingly few fighting sequences; instead, the sprawling narrative covers numerous character-driven subplots, some better limned than others. The primary protagonists are Wayne’s “Rock” and Neal’s Maggie, representing a refreshingly mature new couple who are comfortable with what they want from one another.

Much less likable is Douglas’s Commander Eddington, who we feel sorry for early in the film given his wife’s outrageous behavior, but who eventually shows his own dark side.

We also see brief snippets of a loving couple (Tom Tryon and Paula Prentiss) who’ve been kept apart while Tryon is MIA, and are reunited for an uncertain amount of time.

Meanwhile, we observe De Wilde and Wayne making uneasy peace with one another:

… as De Wilde begins working for a public relations commander (Patrick O’Neal) who in turn reports to an incompetent admiral (Dana Andrews).

Looking much more mature than she did in her breakthrough role in Preminger’s Exodus (1960) is Jill Haworth as De Wilde’s fiancee.


The vast supporting cast also includes many other minor characters, including Burgess Meredith as Wayne’s loyal assistant:

… Henry Fonda in an extended cameo as a stoic admiral:

… and Franchot Tone in a short sequence as a commander, among others.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Fine cinematography and location shooting

Must See?
No, though of course Preminger fans will be curious to check it out.

Links:

Bride, The (1985)

Bride, The (1985)

Comments 1 comment

“You’re a complete mystery, my dear; a genuine enigma.”

Synopsis:
Shortly after Dr. Frankenstein (Sting) brings his new female experiment (Jennifer Beals) to life, his monster (Clancy Brown) escapes and meets a dwarf (David Rappaport) who names him “Viktor” and convinces him to join the circus. Meanwhile, Dr. Frankenstein falls possessively in love with “Eva” (Beals), but she is interested in another man (Cary Elwes) and wants to live her own life.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Carnivals and Circuses
  • Frankenstein
  • Horror Films
  • Mad Doctors and Scientists

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “boring, poorly acted, poorly conceived revision of James Whale’s Bride of Frankenstein [1935], directed by Franc Roddam,” has “nothing to do with Mary Shelley,” instead pandering “to the modern audience with phony feminism.” He points out that Rappaport gives “the one acceptable performance in the film”:

… and argues that “there is no horror, except the acting of Sting and Beals in their final scene together.”

Peary’s right: this film really is a mess. While it’s beautifully staged and photographed, the storyline and characterizations leave a lot to be desired, and it’s a slog to get through. Of note is the interesting (albeit underutilized) cast of supporting actors, including Quentin Crisp and Timothy Spall as lab assistants:


… and Geraldine Page as a housekeeper.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Atmospheric sets and cinematography

Must See?
Nope; you can skip this one unless you’re curious.

Links:

Thing, The (1982)

Thing, The (1982)

Comments 1 comment

“So how do we know who’s human?”

Synopsis:
At an isolated research center in Antarctica, a helicopter pilot (Kurt Russell) and his colleagues become alarmed when they realize a husky dog is actually a shape-shifting alien ready to take over their bodies at any time.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Aliens
  • Horror Films
  • John Carpenter Films
  • Mistaken and Hidden Identities
  • Possession
  • Science Fiction

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is among a host of critics who are/were unhappy with “John Carpenter’s remake of Howard Hawks’s classic” sci-fi horror flick, based on “John W. Campbell, Jr.’s source story, ‘Who Goes There?’.” He refers to it as “a tremendous disappointment,” arguing that it traded “in the good taste that made Hawks’s film so special for some of the most repellent imagery in horror-movie history.”

Meanwhile, he posits that the film’s “terrifying premise” — the men on the base “lose trust in one another, fearing that the monster lurks beneath the familiar human facade of one of their co-workers” — is “exploited by Carpenter and special-effects genius Rob Bottin, who really comes up with some amazing concoctions.” He asserts that Carpenter’s “major mistake” is “when he has the film’s suspense and horror focus on the visuals, particularly the extremely gory, often repulsive ways in which the men are killed off.”

Peary argues that “the real horror should be that these men are losing their identities when they are inhabited by the creature” — but “unfortunately, Carpenter neglected to give his characters distinct or engaging personalities to begin with,” and “since they are already dehumanized from their long stay in the wilderness, we can’t be too upset seeing nonentities being taken over.”

I disagree with Peary’s take on this film. While Hawks’s unique flick is a must-see classic of the 1950s, Carpenter’s film succeeds on its own terms, presenting a wintery hellscape of justifiable paranoia in which these men (I disagree they’re dehumanized) can no longer rely on one another for support and survival. Carpenter’s direction is spot-on, and the special effects really are a wonder to behold. While this isn’t a personal favorite, it’s a well-crafted thriller, and has enough of a dedicated following that all film fanatics should watch it at least once.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Kurt Russell as MacReady
  • Dean Cundey’s cinematography
  • Impressive make-up and special effects
  • Ennio Morricone’s score

Must See?
Yes, for its cult status and as an appropriately horrifying thriller.

Categories

  • Cult Movie
  • Important Director

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

Links:

Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the Eighth Dimension, The (1984)

Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the Eighth Dimension, The (1984)

Comments 1 comment

“Anything’s possible.”

Synopsis:
Shortly after meeting the identical twin sister (Ellen Barkin) of his former wife, a polymath superhero named Buckaroo Banzai (Peter Weller) joins forces with his bandmates Perfect Tommy (Lewis Smith), Reno Nevada (Pepe Serna), and Rawhide (Clancy Brown) — as well as his scientific mentor (Robert Ito) and a doctor-colleague (Jeff Goldblum) — in fighting back against the criminally insane Lord John Whorfin (Jon Lithgow), who is working alongside a pair of alien scientists (Christopher Lloyd and Vincent Schiavelli) to steal an “oscillation overthruster”.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Aliens
  • Jeff Goldblum Films
  • Mad Doctors and Scientists
  • Science Fiction
  • Superheroes
  • World Domination

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to this midnight-movie cult favorite as a “scatterbrained, sloppily made science-fiction comedy for the stoned out generation.” He asserts that the story — about Buckaroo Banzai doing “battle with a lot of weirdly dressed aliens and a mad Italian scientist” — “gets lost because of the chaotic pacing and lack of continuity, the overabundance of characters who run around in fancy outfits with no place to go, and the fact that first-time director W.D. Richter (who wrote the script for 1978’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers) never bothers to establish where anyone is in relation to anyone else.”

Peary adds that “as played by Peter Weller, Banzai unfortunately turns out to be a pretty conventional hero” whose “special skills are never really put to work — it’s as if he has them only so the film’s publicity releases will sound interesting.” He argues that while “Weller is handsome,” he “hasn’t the necessary charisma to play a superhero,” and “his cockiness reflects the attitude of the whole production.”

I’m essentially in agreement with Peary’s review, though I think the failings he points out here — i.e., the “chaotic pacing,” “lack of continuity,” and “overabundance of characters who run around in fancy outfits” — are actually what endear the kooky film to its fans. Also of note is Lithgow going beyond over-the-top in an unhinged performance as a Mussolini-like scientist-dictator who’s actually an alien:

… and chill Goldblum getting to wear western duds after casually performing life-changing neurosurgery.

Meanwhile, Barkin has an entirely thankless role as the female love interest; she spends most of the film either crying and trying to kill herself or being tortured.

While I’m not personally a fan of this weird flick, enough are to make it worth a one-time viewing simply for its cult status.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • J. Michael Riva’s production design

Must See?
Yes, once, simply for its cult value.

Categories

  • Cult Movie

Links:

Westworld (1973)

Westworld (1973)

Comments 1 comment

“It’s not a joke; it’s an amusement park — the best amusement park in the world.”

Synopsis:
When a recently divorced man (Richard Benjamin) and his friend (James Brolin) arrive in a futuristic theme park for adults, they enjoy experiencing the Wild West and “killing” an android gunslinger (Yul Brynner); but soon the lives of all guests at the park are at stake when dozens of androids begin to malfunction.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Androids and Clones
  • Richard Benjamin Films
  • Science Fiction
  • Survival
  • Westerns
  • Yul Brynner Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “surprise hit” about a theme park with robots who are “programmed to satisfy every whim of the park’s guests” — including “computer-controlled saloon girls to provide sex and dressed-in-black villains to provide excitement” — was “written and directed ([in] his debut) by Michael Crichton,” and thus we fully “expect this ‘foolproof’ system to go haywire” (which, indeed, it does).

Peary likens the eventual situation of “timid Richard Benjamin” to that of “the scared Jon Voight character in Deliverance [1972] once his tough friend Burt Reynolds is incapacitated.”

He adds that in the world of “Crichton, man starts out working with machines, is careless, and invariably ends up pitted against them” — and to that end, the “final battle between Benjamin and Brynner is a lot of fun, a fitting climax to [a] witty, provocative thriller for the popcorn crowd.”

I agree. This smart, low-budget flick mostly delivers on its promise — though as Richard Scheib points out in his review for Moria: “The one big hole in the script is that Michael Crichton fails to explain the nature of the malfunction – what causes the androids to go amok, exactly why the androids dislike humans and how the androids override the safety feature on their guns that prevent them from hurting humans.” Regardless, this film most definitely makes one question the wisdom of creating such a park to begin with, and is an appropriately scary cinematic journey to take.

Note: The recent remake mini-series (2016-present) has gotten strong reviews, but I haven’t seen it yet, so can’t compare.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Richard Benjamin as Peter Martin
  • Yul Brynner as the Gunslinger
  • Fine low-budget sets and effects
  • Fred Karlin’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a still enjoyable sci-fi classic.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Sunshine Boys, The (1975)

Sunshine Boys, The (1975)

Comments 1 comment

“He forgot already; he’s got arthritis of the head.”

Synopsis:
An agent (Richard Benjamin) in New York tries to convince his uncle — aging vaudeville star Willy Clark (Walter Matthau) — to do one final show with his former partner, Al Lewis (George Burns); but given that Willy and Al despise each other, this is much more challenging than expected.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Elderly People
  • Feuds
  • George Burns Films
  • Has-Beens
  • Herbert Ross Films
  • Neil Simon Films
  • Play Adaptations
  • Richard Benjamin Films
  • Vaudeville and Burlesque
  • Walter Matthau Films

Review:
Herbert Ross directed this adaptation by Neil Simon of his own 1972 stage play, about quibbling vaudeville performers whose resentment of one another makes it just about impossible for them to co-exist in the same room for more than a few minutes, let alone perform on stage in a revue. However, a reunion performance is exactly the goal of Benjamin’s determined agent and loving nephew, who puts up with outrageous levels of abuse and frustration from his uncle in order to get the performing couple back together — and unfortunately, we see this playing out on screen for far too long.

With that said, Matthau is remarkably effective at playing a cantankerous elder (despite only being 55 in real life), and Burns makes an impactful screen comeback after 36 years away (he won an Oscar for his efforts). Seeing the fictional duo finally performing their “doctor’s office” act on stage during a rehearsal is a welcome throwback to the simplicity of the joy they once enacted for audiences as vaudevillians:

… though of course we watch them with trepidation, knowing things will inevitably go sour at some point. This comedy is likely one of those films that will either tickle your funny bone or not: if it’s your cup of tea, you’ll be delighted; personally, I was simply eager to not have to watch this duo making each others’ lives miserable for any longer than necessary.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Walter Matthau as Willy Clark
  • George Burns as Al Lewis
  • Good use of location shooting in New York
  • The amusingly vulgar vaudeville sketch

Must See?
No, unless you’re a fan of Simon, Matthau, or Burns.

Links:

Hester Street (1975)

Hester Street (1975)

Comments 1 comment

“Some country, America, huh? The peddler becomes the boss, and the yeshiva bocher sits by the sewing machine.”

Synopsis:
In late 19th century New York, a Russian-Jewish immigrant (Steven Keats) whose girlfriend (Dorrie Kavanaugh) is unaware he’s married struggles to adjust to life with his newly-arrived wife (Carol Kane) and son (Paul Freedman). Meanwhile, Kane receives support from both her caring landlady (Doris Roberts) and the studious boarder (Mel Howard) living in their house.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Carol Kane Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Immigrants and Immigration
  • Jews
  • Marital Problems
  • New York City

Review:
Writer-director Joan Micklin Silver found breakthrough success with this poignant look at life for Jewish immigrants at the turn of the century, as they navigated shifts between their old existence back in Europe and the hustle and bustle of New York City. Based on the 1896 novella Yekl: A Tale of the New York Ghetto by Abraham Cahan, the movie tells a simple yet powerful tale of marital challenges when cultural norms and expectations collide.

Despite her very low budget, Silver convincingly recreates a specific era and location in American history:

… and elicits a heartbreaking performance from Kane, who is perfectly convincing as a shell-shocked young woman unprepared for what she finds in America, yet who eventually adapts and finds her own voice.

To that end, sharing more about the directions the storyline goes in would give away spoilers; suffice it to say we remain invested and curious about how things will resolve, and the final outcome isn’t as gloomy as one might expect.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Carol Kane as Gitl
  • Strong supporting performances across the cast

  • Fine historical detail

Must See?
Yes, as a unique independent film. Listed as a Sleeper, a Cult Movie, and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Good Show
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

Chariots of Fire (1981)

Chariots of Fire (1981)

Comments 1 comment

“I’m forever in pursuit, and I don’t even know what it is I’m chasing.”

Synopsis:
A devout Scottish missionary (Ian Charleson) and a determined Jewish Cambridge student (Ben Cross) face diverse challenges as they compete to earn spots in the 1924 Paris Olympics.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Dennis Christopher Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Ian Holm Films
  • John Gielgud Films
  • Olympics
  • Rivalry
  • Sports

Review:
Peary doesn’t review this Oscar-winning British historical drama in his GFTFF, but he does reference it in his Alternate Oscars, where he describes it as a “slow-moving film about running” that “received mostly excellent reviews and had numerous admirers” but was “detested by… many.” He shares his own frustration at the time that “this ‘true story’ about two British runners… at the 1924 Paris Olympics — Jewish Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross) and Scottish missionary Eric Liddell (Ian Charleson) — distorted the facts,” but adds that he was “impressed by the leads (and supporting actors Ian Holm and John Gielgud), admired its noble themes (having to do with courage and integrity in the face of bigotry), and… felt a surge of emotion as a parade of proud athletes glided across the screen to Vangelis’s myth-making, Oscar-winning score.”

Reviewers since then seem divided between resentment that such a “minor” film won the Oscar, and appreciation for it as a well-crafted period piece. I’m in the latter camp. While it took me a while to understand the film’s purpose and get into the rhythm of its pacing, I eventually became invested in its protagonists and their outcomes — primarily because both men are likable, immensely talented underdogs who deserve a chance at success. The supporting stories about the pressure Charleson feels from his disapproving sister (Cheryl Campbell):

… and the burgeoning romance between Cross and a beautiful actress (Alice Krige):

… help to more fully humanize them, as does the mentorship Cross receives from his coach, Sam Mussabini (Ian Holm):

… and the disapproval of said support expressed by two stuffy college masters (John Gielgud and Lindsay Anderson).

Meanwhile, the cinematography is beautiful; the running scenes are compellingly shot; Vangelis’s score is appropriately haunting (and not over-used); and special note should be made about Terry Rawlings’ expert editing, which cleverly uses cross-cutting to build tension and connection between the various stories. This one remains worth a one-time look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Ben Cross as Harold Abrahams
  • Ian Charleson as Eric Liddell
  • Fine historical detail
  • David Watkin’s cinematography
  • Terry Rawlings’ editing
  • Vangelis’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a good show, and for its historical significance as an Oscar winner. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links: