FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
During World War II, an American pilot (Lee Marvin) and a Japanese captain (Toshiro Mifune) are marooned together on a deserted island and must learn how to get along with one another to survive.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Deserted Island
• John Boorman Films
• Lee Marvin Films
• Survival
• Toshiro Mifune Films
• World War II

Review:
Shot entirely on location in the Rock Islands of Palau, this unusual World War II-era film has just two actors — neither of whom speak each other’s language — and is primarily focused on how the men negotiate existence with one another. Will they continue to fight and possibly kill each other, as they have been trained to do?

At first, this is absolutely on their minds; but gradually they come to realize that collaboration for survival makes so much more sense. With Marvin and Mifune in the lead roles, we are always intrigued to see what will happen next — and Conrad Hall’s cinematography brings everything to vivid life. While it’s not must-see viewing, it’s well worth a look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune as the stranded men
  
• Conrad Hall’s cinematography
  

Must See?
No, but it’s definitely recommended for one-time viewing.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Village Voice Review
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
In 1860s Macao, an aging merchant (Orson Welles) tasks his assistant (Roger Coggio) with finding a sailor (Norman Eshley) and a woman (Jeanne Moreau) who can act out an oft-told story of a one-night encounter.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Historical Drama
• Jeanne Moreau Films
• Orson Welles Films

Review:
Orson Welles’s feature-length — well, hour-long TV-length — follow-up to Chimes at Midnight was this adaptation of a short story by Isak Dinesen (one of Welles’s favorite authors), whose oeuvre Welles had hoped to tap into even more. It tells a simple yet very odd tale of a wealthy man:

… determined to make a sexual fantasy story come true (There really isn’t much more to it than this.) Welles’s assistant (Coggio) finds Moreau — who has a grievance against Welles given he is living in the house previously owned by her father, who committed suicide — and then Eshley to play the central roles in the apocryphal legend of a couple who experience an “earthquake” during their lovemaking.

To say more would spoil this almost-barely-there story — but suffice it to say, not too much else happens.

Note: This film was released in the United States on a double-bill with Luis Buñuel’s Simon of the Desert (1965).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Willy Kurant’s cinematography
  

Must See?
No; this one is only must see for Welles completists.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• NY Times Original Review (scroll down to second review)
• Village Voice Review
• Criterion Essay

Synopsis:
An Irish-American lieutenant (Norman Mailer) presides over a fictional Manhattan precinct while two of his detectives — Rocco (Buzz Farber) and Mickey (Mickey Knox) — mercilessly grill various suspects.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Marsha Mason Films
• Police
• Rip Torn Films

Review:
Norman Mailer’s second of four directorial outings (his third, Maidstone [1970], is also listed in GFTFF) was this documentary-esque independent film, inspired by Andy Warhol, which according to Wikipedia “was shot over four nights with three film crews and sound professionals” and made with “next-to-no script;” instead, the actors were told to “wing it” and “explore some ideas that echo [Mailer’s] literary concerns, like the psychopathic hipster, the home-grown totalitarian, complex give-and-take of lovers, and the existential relationship between the cop and the criminal.”

Is it successful, or at least interesting? Marginally so — but this one will really only appeal either to fans of ’60s independent films and/or Mailer. Watch for Rip Torn as “Popcorn”:

… Marsha Mason as a young woman out to dinner with the detectives:

… George Plimpton as the town’s visiting mayor:

… and, of course, Mailer himself.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• D.A. Pennebaker, Nicholas Proferes’ and Jan Welt’s cinematography
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look if you’re curious.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Criterion Essay (on this and two other Mailer films)
• Slant Magazine Review (on this and two other Mailer films)

Synopsis:
A hugely successful writer (Albert Finney) living and working in London travels with his secretary (Liza Minnelli) to his hometown of Manchester, where he visits his ex-wife (Billie Whitelaw) and child (Timothy Garland).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Albert Finney Films
• Liza Minnelli Films
• Writers

Review:
Albert Finney’s sole directorial outing was this highly personal film — scripted by Shelagh Delaney — about the downsides of fame. As the movie opens, we see Charlie (Finney) talking about taxes and money in a high-brow restaurant, where he encounters an old friend (Colin Blakely) who brings out the child in him.

Unfortunately, this is the most carefree we see Charlie throughout the entire film; after getting drunk with Blakely at a working men’s pub, he returns home to his glacially austere residence, with surveillance cameras set up in every room:

… and a young secretary (Minnelli) eager to do anything and everything for and with him.

However, Charlie is clearly both exhausted and unhappy, to the point where even a beautiful young assistant can’t meet his needs. A road trip to visit with his son results in an awkward outing to a soccer game:

… and his ex-wife seems equally miserable, raising chickens and making awful organic food from scratch while smoking non-stop.

The paparazzi won’t leave Charlie alone, either. What’s a poor rich man to do? Well, the film’s final scene provides one convenient option, though it can’t last for long.

It’s easy to see why Finney gravitated towards this material — surely it mirrored many of his own sentiments and experiences — though it doesn’t leave the viewer with a particularly satisfying feeling, other than to be grateful for a lack of fame and fortune in our own lives.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Peter Suschitzky’s cinematography
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A war correspondent (Tom Drake) sent to investigate a renowned guerrilla colonel (George Montgomery) in the Philippines is dismayed to learn that Montgomery is brutally no-holds-barred in his approach to finding and killing Japanese soldiers.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Journalists
• Jungles
• Soldiers
• World War II

Review:
Ferde Grofé Jr. (son of composer Ferde Grofé) wrote and helmed this low-budget action flick filmed in the jungles of the Philippines, set during World War II but released during the height of the Vietnam War. I wasn’t able to learn too much more about the film — it has only four User Reviews on IMDb, and no External Reviews — but it effectively tells the tale of a writer whose rosy image of the “war hero” he’s written about in books for children:

… becomes instantly deflated upon meeting and spending time with him. Drake is disgusted to learn that Montgomery has no mercy at all for the enemy, resorting to whatever means necessary to find and kill them, and never taking prisoners of war — except in one particularly brutal sequence when he uses a wounded soldier as bait to lure more men out. When Montgomery and his crew (nicely populated by a mix of races):

… arrive at a hospital housing wounded Japanese POWs, he has no intention of doing anything to protect them, even upon learning that they will be mercilessly slaughtered by their own commanders if found. The main arc of the storyline shows Drake and Montgomery in a sort of cat-and-mouse tension with one another, as Drake becomes increasingly disillusioned while we (and he) simultaneously learn more about why Montgomery makes the choices he does. This isn’t easy viewing, but it nicely challenges our expectations about war heroes — which I believe was precisely Grofé Jr.’s point.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Many tension-filled moments
  

Must See?
No, but it’s strongly recommended for one-time viewing if you can find it. Listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book, which makes sense.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review (spoiler alert)

Synopsis:
During Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, wealthy Pierre Bezukhov (Sergei Bondarchuk) marries a beautiful woman (Irina Skobtseva), but pines after young Natasha (Lyudmila Saveleva), who is pursued by both widowed Prince Andrei (Vyacheslav Tikhonov) and handsome Anatole (Vasiliy Lanovoy).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Historical Drama
• Love Triangle
• Royalty and Nobility
• Russian Films

Review:
Relatively unknown writer/actor/director Sergey Bondarchuk was selected by the Soviet government to helm this massive, Best Foreign Oscar-winning adaptation of the nation’s most beloved novel, by Leo Tolstoy. Almost no expense or detail was spared in bringing the Napoleonic era — specifically the years from 1805-1812 — to life: 103 different shooting locations were used; over 100 studio sets were built (including a replica of Moscow simply to burn down); “original art, jewelry, swords, guns, and period furniture from several museums, as well as replicas of period military uniforms, decorations, ball gowns and costume jewelry pieces” were used:

… and there were no less than 1,500 horses and 12,000 extras (including many from the military, working at no additional expense) utilized in the four battle sequences: the Battle of Schöngrabern, the Battle of Austerlitz, the Battle of Borodino, and the Battle of Krasnoi.

Split into four separate films, the adaptation faithfully tells the epic tale of Pierre Bezukhov, Natasha Rostova, and Prince Andrei Bolkonsky — as well as various other supporting characters — through the following segments (totaling 6 hours and 33 minutes).

In “Part I: Andrei Bolkonsky,” we’re introduced to primary characters, with highlights including a wild night of debauchery:

… the death of Pierre’s father:

… and a snowy duel.

In “Part II: Natasha Rostova,” we see 16-year-old Natasha attending her first ball:

… falling in love with Andrei:

… going on a wolf hunt:

… dancing in a rural cottage:

… and being seduced by wily (married) Anatole (Vasiliy Lanovoy).

“Part III: The Year 1812” consists of nearly non-stop battle sequences (and their aftermath), taking place as Napoleon’s army invades Russia.

“Part IV: Pierre Bezukhov” wraps things up with plenty more violence and destruction, including the burning of Moscow:

… Pierre’s attempt to go undercover and assassinate Napoleon:

… and a deathbed reconciliation for Natasha and Andrei.

Little of this is told or filmed in a conventional manner; as noted in Keith Watson’s review for Slant:

“In contrast to Hollywood epics of the era like Joseph L. Mankiewicz’s Cleopatra and William Wyler’s Ben-Hur, which are marked by long, static processions of extras marching around expensive sets, Bondarchuk never simply shoots for coverage. His camera instead darts and dashes through grandiloquent interiors and hellish battlefields, roving through burning buildings and flying through the air like a cannonball. Where another director might have resorted to a simple wide shot or close-up, Bondarchuk gives us a sweeping helicopter aerial, a complicated superimposition, an expressive split screen, or a camera that seems to float above a ballroom…”

Vyacheslav Ovchinnikov’s unusual score adds to the at-times surreal nature of what’s taking place, which feels appropriate given the grand scope of what Tolstoy and Bondarchuk are aiming for. While it’s obviously a huge investment of time, this historical drama represents the best of mid-century Soviet cinema, and should be seen once by all film fanatics.

Note: This film (really a mini-series) has been the most challenging to pin a date on out of all titles in Peary’s book. The first two films “had their world premiere on 19 July 1965, in the Kremlin Palace of Congresses,” and were screened more broadly across the USSR in 1966, with the next two episodes following in 1967 (though with distribution across 117 countries, screening dates and total lengths varied). It won an Oscar as Best Foreign Film in 1969 (meaning it was entered in 1968), and it was screened on ABC television in 1972. Suffice it to say that people across the globe saw this film in a variety of formats, lengths, and languages, all simply adding to its truly epic scope.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Truly incredible sets, costumes, and overall production design
  
• Fine cinematography
  
• Vyacheslav Ovchinnikov’s very unique score

Must See?
Yes, as a Soviet-era masterpiece.

Categories

• Foreign Gem

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Criterion Essay
• Trailers From Hell Review
• Slant Review

Synopsis:
A nihiliastic young man (Michael Gothard) pushes his way past the secretary (Gabriella Licudi) of a big-wig advertiser (Peter Stephens) to convince Farson (Stephens) that he wants to commit suicide amidst media fanfare — but will he change his mind before the pivotal moment arrives?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Experimental Films
• Media Spectacle
• Suicide

Review:
Australian-born writer-director Don Levy was inspired by the legend of Herostratus when making this experimental art film early in his career. According to Wikipedia:

Herostratus (Ancient Greek: Ἡρόστρατος) was a 4th-century BC Greek, accused of seeking notoriety as an arsonist by destroying the second Temple of Artemis in Ephesus (on the outskirts of present-day Selçuk), one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. The act prompted his execution and the creation of a damnatio memoriae law forbidding anyone to mention his name, orally or in writing. The law was ultimately ineffective, as evidenced by surviving accounts of his crime. Thus, Herostratus has become an eponym for someone who commits a criminal act in order to become famous.

Why this was intriguing to him is unclear. The film itself is widely viewed as a critique of manipulative advertising, though that’s not quite accurate — rather, we see a tale of a thoroughly unlikable, self-obsessed protagonist we can barely stand to be around during the first hour of the film:

… who gradually becomes tolerably sympathetic as he makes romantic connections with a beautiful secretary (Licudi):

… and comes to realize that Farson is an even greater cynic and coercive asshole than he is.

If none of this sounds particularly appealing, that’s because — it’s not. Making things even more challenging is Levy’s relentless use of artsy experimental techniques, including intercutting fairly obvious symbology (i.e., meat being cut), utilizing occasional rapid-fire (subliminal) editing, and incorporating freeze-frames.

Sadly, both Levy and star Gothard (who is well cast) committed suicide themselves at the ages of 54 and 52 respectively, showing that the film’s topic wasn’t too far off the mark in relevance for those involved.

Note: Watch for Helen Mirren in her screen debut as a sexy commercial actress modeling orange rubber gloves.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Keith Allans’ cinematography
  

Must See?
No, unless you’re curious. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book, which it may at one point have been.

Links:

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

Synopsis:
After a businessman is murdered in the Deep South, a visiting black homicide detective (Sidney Poitier) is recruited by the town’s bigoted white police chief (Rod Steiger) to help solve the case.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Deep South
• Detectives and Private Eyes
• Lee Grant Films
• Murder Mystery
• Norman Jewison Films
• Police
• Race Relations and Racism
• Rod Steiger Films
• Sidney Poitier Films
• Warren Oates Films

Review:
Norman Jewison’s Oscar-winning race-relations drama — based on John Ball’s 1965 novel of the same name — isn’t reviewed in Peary’s GFTFF, but he discusses it briefly in Alternate Oscars, where he notes that “the Academy felt proud and in tune with changing America when it gave its Best Picture award to” this film, a movie “in which Sidney Poitier’s character works with a white man instead of one in which his character marries a white woman” (as was the case in the same year’s Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner).

He refers to In the Heat of the Night as a “muddled” mystery (I disagree), noting that while both Poitier films “were noncontroversial ‘controversial’ films,” “at least Jewison’s film had some bite to it, provided by Poitier as a surly cop from Philadelphia and Rod Steiger as the redneck sheriff with whom he forms an uneasy alliance” — though he ultimately doesn’t think it stands up against other formidable films released that year, such as Bonnie and Clyde, which he names Best Picture of the Year instead.

Regarding Steiger’s Oscar-winning performance, Peary writes: “It’s hard to fathom today, but for a brief time in the mid-sixties, beginning with an uncharacteristically restrained performance in The Pawnbroker, Rod Steiger was considered by many to be America’s foremost movie actor.” He adds, “The egotistical actor himself believed this, and, taking charge of his career, promptly drove it into the ground, giving himself a heart attack in the process.”

Touché, Peary! In trying to research this claim, the only “evidence” I could find was this quote by Steiger on IMDb.

“It sounds pompous but it’s the nearest thing I can do to being God. I’m trying to create human beings and so does He.”

At any rate, Peary argues that while “Steiger was well cast and forceful as usual,” many “at the time failed to notice” that “he used a combination of (undeniable) talent and bluster to cover up a lazy, shallow portrayal of a potentially fascinating character,” and laments what could have been “if he’d only stopped shouting and calmed down for a moment.” I respectfully disagree with Peary’s take on Steiger’s performance, which to me seems spot-on — after all, his character IS lazy and shallow, and probably not all that fascinating. Chief Gillespie is part and parcel of a small, deeply racist town where within ten minutes of the film, Poitier’s character is arrested for being black:

… and drawn against his will into a murder mystery being handled with spectacular incompetence by Steiger and his accomplice, Warren Oates’ Officer Sam Wood.

Their incompetence doesn’t abate, and it’s crystal clear that they need Poitier in order to do their job.

In the Heat of the Night remains a challenging film to watch precisely because of how many truths it lays out for us to witness: there is simply no denying the role played by race and racism in every move made throughout the screenplay. In the film’s most satisfying sequence — indeed, it ranks among the top moments in cinematic history — Poitier delivers an unhesitant slap to a white cotton plantation owner (Larry Gates) who he believes to be a prime suspect.

This sustains us for a while, though we worry even more for Poitier as he instantly becomes the target of lethal mobs:

… and sticks around simply to see justice of one kind or another playing out. Film fanatics will definitely want to check this one out — though whether you can stomach watching it more than once will be up to you. (I saved re-watching it until near the end of this film review project, precisely because I accurately remembered how rough it was.)

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Sidney Poitier as Virgil Tibbs
  
• Rod Steiger as Chief Bill Gillespie
  
• Fine supporting performances
  
• Haskell Wexler’s cinematography
  
• Good use of location shooting
  
  
• Quincy Jones’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a still-powerful race-related drama. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Articles
• Trailers From Hell Review

Synopsis:
An aging cowhand (Charlton Heston) shot by a vengeful, deranged preacher (Donald Pleasence) becomes romantically involved with a woman (Joan Hackett) who is living illegally with her son (Jon Francis) in a lineman’s shack.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Ben Johnson Films
• Bruce Dern Films
• Charlton Heston Films
• Donald Pleasence Films
• Joan Hackett Films
• Westerns

Review:
Writer/director Tom Gries’ “one hit wonder” was this fine western which Heston referred to as his personal favorite among his own roles — and his performance is indeed among his best. Gries nicely establishes a gritty western milieu where work must be found and negotiated on a day to day basis:

… and tussling over the body of an elk could very well turn into a life-or-death situation, especially when dealing with unhinged individuals on the range, such as Pleasence and his daughter and three sons (Bruce Dern, Gene Rutherford, and Matt Clark).

Heston’s illiterate, hardworking Will Penny is a pragmatic and overall decent guy, as evidenced by his fair and humane treatment of Hackett and her son when he finds them camping out unlawfully on property he’s supposed to be safeguarding. The relationship he develops with them — and how this changes him (or not) — serves as the heart of the film:

… with plenty of tension and drama interspersed along the way. This film remains worthy one-time viewing.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Charlton Heston as Will Penny
  
• Joan Hackett as Catherine Allen
  
• Donald Pleasence as Preacher Quint
  
• Lucien Ballard’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as a fine western, and for Heston’s performance.

Categories

• Good Show
• Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

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