FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A dance company rehearses Federico Garcia Lorca’s tragic play “Blood Wedding”, in which a bride (Cristina Yoyos) runs away with her married lover (Antonio Gades), who soon faces her angry new husband (Juan Antonio Jimenez).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Dancers
• Love Triangle
• Spanish Films
• Weddings

Response to Peary’s Review:
In describing this unusual movie of “what is supposed to be a dress rehearsal of [Antonio] Gades’s flamenco version of Garcia Lorca’s passionate tragedy Bodas de Sangre,” Peary writes that “Spain’s celebrated director Carlos Saura joined forces with Antonio Gades, famed classical dancer, to show how film could bring intimacy to and enhance the excitement of dance.”

He notes that because “Saura wants us to feel the importance of what we’re about to see — and have us feel it’s more than a rehearsal — he pulls a couple of tricks,” including taking “us into the dancers’ dressing rooms so we can get to know them personally” (though this is limited to light banter, guitar warm-up, and dancers putting photos up on their mirrors).

Peary writes that given that “the rehearsal takes place in a large, bare rehearsal hall,” “Saura and Gaudes attempt… to make us become so involved with the dancing and the characters that we forget about he minimal set and perhaps imagine that the light filtering through the background windows is Lorca’s moon.”

He adds that “the dancers perform with passion… and Saura moves his camera among them, floating into a close-up or waiting for a dancer to spin toward him and stop dramatically right before the lens.”

He notes that he finds “the setting distracting” (I don’t, given the context) but concedes that the “film isn’t boring, even for those who don’t like dance.” Indeed, at just 72 minutes, this first of four flamenco-themed movies Saura would make — including the GFTFF-listed Carmen (1983) — is short enough to hold interest throughout. I always appreciate behind-the-scenes looks at art being crafted, and consider this to be a worthy entry in that sub-genre; however, it’s not must-see viewing for all film fanatics.

Update on 2/15/23: RIP, Carlos Saura.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• A creative cinematic rendering of dance
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Dance-Centric Review

Synopsis:
After being pushed around once too often by their controlling manager (Ted Ross), baseball player Bingo Long (Billy Dee Williams) and his teammate Leon (James Earl Jones) convince a number of other colleagues to join a traveling team of their own making — but can they survive when Ross is determined to sabotage their efforts?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• African Americans
• Baseball
• Historical Drama
• Race Relations and Racism
• Richard Pryor Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “flavorful, spirited period piece” about a group of “malcontents” who “barnstorm around the country, playing local teams and really putting on a show” is “full of nice moments, including the final scene between Bingo and Leon, which leaves viewers feeling good.”

He argues that while “it starts out as an interesting look at exploitation of blacks by blacks and a sharp leftist political satire (‘Seize the means of production’ is Bingo’s motto),” it “unfortunately dissolves into a familiar farce” — though I don’t quite agree with this assessment. Rather, director John Badham — working from a script by Hal Barwood and Matthew Robbins from a novel by William Brashler — affectionately but incisively shows the resilience and creativity of those forced to play for the Negro Leagues (which finally folded in 1948, more or less, due to integration).

According to one historian in a fascinating short documentary on the topic:

“In a period when cinema was still in its infancy, and there really wasn’t radio — and there certainly wasn’t television — it was things like the circus and the carnival and these road shows coming to town that was everybody’s entertainment. So it wasn’t just a baseball game: the players also played musical instruments, or wrestled, or put on comedy routines… This was a three act show, that the baseball game was just part of.”

This film most certainly gets that playful and creative energy across. Williams and Jones are both excellent in leading roles, and Richard Pryor has fun in what is essentially an extended cameo role as a player determined to convince the White leagues that he is Cuban so he can play with them.

Note: Be sure to watch director John Badham describing the film in his appearance on Trailers from Hell.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Billy Dee Williams as Bingo Long (loosely based on “Satchel” Paige)
  
• James Earl Jones as Leon Carter (loosely based on Josh Gibson)
  
• Fine cinematography and production design
  

Must See?
Yes, as an enjoyable historical flick.

Categories

• Good Show

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
An aspiring restauranteur (Harvey Keitel) in New York’s Little Italy works overtime to keep his buddy (Robert De Niro) out of trouble and to hide his relationship with De Niro’s cousin (Amy Robinson).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Friendship
• Harvey Keitel Films
• Mafia
• Martin Scorsese Films
• New York City
• Robert De Niro Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Martin Scorsese emerged from obscurity with this violent, visually dazzling love-hate remembrance of life in New York’s Little Italy,” an “independent film deal[ing] with young low-level criminals — second-rank loan sharks, numbers men, street hustlers, collectors — whose goal is to move up in the Mafia hierarchy.”

Specifically, the storyline centers on Harvey Keitel’s Charlie, who “wants his Mafia uncle [Cesare Danova] to give him a restaurant that was taken from its rightful owner” — but in order to achieve this goal “must keep secret his friendship with stupid, irresponsible, reckless Robert De Niro (who became a star as Johnny Boy)”:

… and his “love for De Niro’s epileptic cousin, Amy Robinson.”

The bulk of Charlie’s time is spent “getting De Niro out of trouble… and eventually tr[ying] to get him out of town to avoid a loan shark (Richard Romanus) … to whom he’s deeply in debt.”

Peary describes this film as “an alternative to Diner,” showing “young Italian buddies hanging out” in a bar, “carrying on conversations (heavily improvised) that have more slaps and shoves than words, holding two-minute grudges against each other, losing their tempers”:

… “discussing what’s happening on the streets, making a play for women, scheming to get cash to see a movie up on 42nd Street, figuring out how to smooth things over between De Niro and Romanus, [and] watching strangers engage in violence.”

Peary notes that while “Scorsese calls attention to his characters’ foul racism and [their] foolish male posturing” he “sees these young men sympathetically, as victims of their crowded, brutal, corrupt hell-town.” He points out that the “film has [a] distinct rhythm created by [a] rock-band score, camera movement, [and a] special brand of patter between characters”; meanwhile, “the strong use of city locales indicates Scorsese was an expert on post-WWII Italian neo-realist films.”

Ultimately, he argues that “this remains one of Scorsese’s most exciting efforts.”

While I appreciate all of Peary’s points — and can see how Scorsese fans would view this film as a powerful harbinger of what was to come — I differ from most critics in that I don’t see it as necessary viewing in its own right. There is little satisfaction in watching these young men hanging out and wreaking havoc; while Scorsese’s camerawork is consistently creative and Kent Wakeford’s cinematography is highly atmospheric, the storyline they’re working in service of doesn’t quite pay off.

Watch for David Carradine as a drunk in the bar who meets a violent (what else?) end:

… and Scorsese himself in a small but crucial (and violent; what else?) cameo near the end.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Harvey Keitel as Charlie
  
• Robert De Niro as Johnny Boy
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  

Must See?
No, but it’s certainly worth a look for its historical relevance.

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• FilmSite Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
A mercenary swordsman (Tomisaburô Wakayama) travelling across the countryside with his young son (Masahiro Tomikana) in medieval Japan helps a poor young woman (Yuko Hama) escape from being sold into prostitution, but must deal with the wrath of the madam (Yuko Hamada) who expects payment in exchange.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Father and Child
• Japanese Films
• Samurai

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary’s review of this third entry in the “Lone Wolf and Cub” cinematic franchise — based on the popular manga series of the same name — refers to it as “an edited entry” that “arrived in the U.S. with the first of the Kung Fu imports,” and notes that the “worst thing about the film is the dubbing”; however, the version I watched for this review is in the original language, and is a discrete film in its own right (albeit part of a longer multi-episode narrative).

With that caveat out of the way, I’ll note that Peary refers to Wakayama as “the most honorable of men” (yet someone who is “willing to use his boy as a decoy”) — a man who “comes to the rescue of a woman sold into prostitution”:

… and then “finds himself in the middle” of this woman and “the cruel female who heads a powerful family”:

… ultimately agreeing “to kill an evil governor” and “fighting a one-man war against both sides.” Through all this, “the boy watches the bloodshed without changing expressions.”

Peary argues that while the “film moves along like a turtle with a broken leg,” there “are many interruptions for violent swordplay,” and “the action scenes are extremely imaginative, well filmed and choreographed.” A notable “highlight has him single-handedly shooting, blowing up, and slicing-and-dicing an entire army” — but “more violent [still] are his one-on-one confrontations,” such as when “he kills one skilled swordsman by flying over him and pushing his sword directly down through the top of his skull.”

Peary concludes by noting that the film “could do without a rape sequence that has nothing to do with the plot” (I completely agree) and “a tasteless bit in which the would-be prostitute bites the tongue from the guy trying to force himself on her” (I’m okay with this scene!). While this flick clearly isn’t for all tastes, it’s easy to see how and why it would appeal to its cult followers, so I recommend it for one-time viewing just to check it out.

Note: I had never heard of ohaguro before this film (a married woman painting her teeth black).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Exciting action sequences
  
• Fine cinematography
  
  

Must See?
Yes, for its cult value.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
A stoic getaway driver (Ryan O’Neal) receives help from a beautiful casino worker (Isabelle Adjani) in eluding a detective (Bruce Dern) determined to capture him.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Bruce Dern Films
• Car Chase
• Cat-and-Mouse
• Ryan O’Neal Films
• Walter Hill Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “cult film was directed by Walter Hill, who mixed film noir with existential European gangster pictures.” He notes that while “it has an interesting style,” “the actors (but for Dern, of course):

… seem to be on their own and lost.” He adds that “it’s okay that Hill had O’Neal drive at high speeds as if he has ice water in his veins, but since he’s just as expressionless outside his car, there are no sparks when he interacts with other characters.” Indeed, O’Neal has exactly one slightly modulated expression throughout this film.

DVD Savant as amusingly forthright in his take on O’Neal’s performance, noting that:

[Unlike Steve McQueen], Ryan O’Neal [is] a featherweight whose presence doesn’t dominate scenes. There’s no particular reason for tough gangsters to be intimidated by The Driver, for the cops to respect him, or the girl to be moved by just standing near him. For this gambit to work, the soul-sick look on the actor’s face must be fulfilling in itself, as it is in the case of Jean Gabin, Robert Ryan or even Charles Bronson.

Peary adds that “the most disappointing scenes are those in which [O’Neal] gets together with the equally reserved Isabelle Adjani and both are as cool and exciting as cucumbers.”

Peary points out that “Hill’s at his best directing action scenes”; however, while the film’s car chases are “excitingly filmed”, they’re also “too long and repetitive.”

I’m in agreement with Peary’s review: there’s plenty of action here, but O’Neal’s dull protagonist gives us nothing to hold onto. While we’d love to root for “brutal, slightly unhinged Las Vegas cop Bruce Dern,” he’s a bit of a d**k so that doesn’t feel quite right, either. I’m a much bigger fan of Hill’s follow-up cult film, The Warriors (1979).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Philip Lathrop’s cinematography
  
• Impressively filmed and edited car chase sequences
  
• Excellent use of location shooting in downtown Los Angeles
  

Must See?
No, though it’s certainly worth a one-time look for its cult status.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Capsule Review
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
A college basketball player (William Tepper) in love with the wife (Karen Black) of a professor (Robert Towne) navigates pressure from his demanding coach (Bruce Dern) and an increasing level of paranoia from his draft-avoiding roommate (Michael Margotta).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Basketball
• Bruce Dern Films
• Counterculture
• Jack Nicholson Films
• Karen Black Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that while “Jack Nicholson’s directorial debut” — “adapted by Nicholson and Jeremy Larner (Eugene McCarthy’s chief speechwriter in ’68) from Larner’s novel” — “was booed at Cannes and received mostly negative reviews in the U.S.,” he believes “it’s an impressive, highly original work, probably the best at expressing the alienation and confusion of college kids of the era.” He notes that the “film deals with rebellion on three fronts: Margotta from society/authority/sanity:

… Tepper from his baskeball-is-everything coach (Bruce Dern is fabulous):

… and Black from all the men who keep her from breathing.”

Indeed, while Tepper’s performance is merely serviceable (he didn’t go on to much of an acting career after this), he’s surrounded by a powerhouse group of supporting actors who bring the story and the era to life. Despite being “flawed and defeatist,” Nicholson’s debut film is consistently unique and intriguing, and remains worth a look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Michael Margotta as Gabriel
  
• Bruce Dern as Coach Bullion
  
• Karen Black as Olive
  
• Confident direction and editing
  

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a look.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
While a young man (Steve Guttenberg) in Baltimore prepares to marry his wife if she passes a football trivia quiz, his friend Shrevie (Daniel Stern) muses over newly married life with his wife (Ellen Barkin), and they hang out with their other friends — Boogie (Mickey Rourke), Fenwick (Kevin Bacon), Billy (Tim Daly), and Modell (Paul Reiser) — in a local diner.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Coming of Age
• Ensemble Cast
• Friendship
• Marital Problems
• Mickey Rourke Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “low-budget nostalgia comedy by writer-director Barry Levinson” — about “a group of young male buddies who hang out at a diner in Baltimore in 1959 at a time they have to make decisions about work, women, [and] their futures” — is responded to more by “female viewers” who perhaps “dated similar flawed, funny characters,” while men may wisely not “wish to identify with guys who have jerk streaks a mile long.” I’m not sure how many women did or still do enjoy this film, but I’m not among them — for exactly the reason Peary provides. While “the diner dialogue has rhythm and is well delivered by the talented cast”:

… it’s not interesting; meanwhile, “the characters [are] dull and unsympathetic until they start tripping over words around females” (at which point I still… find them dull and unsympathetic). Peary notes that “the most original scenes have Daniel Stern hysterically telling off Ellen Barkin for mixing up his precious rock-‘n’-roll collection”:

and “Steve Guttenberg giving his fiancee” (whose face we never see) “a football trivia test to determine if the wedding is still on” — but all these scenes do is reinforce what immature jerks these guys are. Why do we want to spend time around them, again?

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Good use of authentic Baltimore locales
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one time look for its historical relevance as a breakthrough film for many of these young actors (and Levinson as a director).

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
Rock ‘n roll musician Buddy Holly (Gary Busey) gains fame with his fellow bandmates (Charles Martin Smith and Don Stroud) and marries his sweetheart (Maria Richwine), but has a tragically short time to make his mark on the world.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Biopics
• Gary Busey Films
• Musicians
• Rock ‘n Roll
• Untimely Death

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Gary Busey gives an exciting, natural performance as the legendary and influential country-tinged rock singer from Lubbock, Texas, who had scores of hits by the time he died in a plane crash (with Ritchie Valens and the Big Bopper) in 1959 (he was 21).” He describes Busey’s Holly as “basically a polite, nice guy” who “won’t be pushed around, has a mordant wit, stubbornness about his music, and unbridled drive.”

Indeed, the film nicely highlights Holly’s musical talents above all else; we understand why and how he managed to be such an influence on so many big-name stars despite his tragically early death. Peary points out that “Busey’s portrayal has an added dimension in that he actually sings Holly’s famous songs, rather than lip-synching Holly recordings.”

With that said, the story infamously “plays so much with facts that former Cricket Sonny Curtis felt inclined to write the song ‘The Real Buddy Holly Story’“, and should be closely fact-checked for those interested in the specific details of Holly’s career. Peary further argues that the “script’s conflicts are too minor: Buddy and [the] Crickets… mildly arguing about touring”:

… “the group having to prove themselves to an all-black audience at the Apollo (thought to be black, they were the first white singers to perform there)”:

… “Holly courting a young Puerto Rican woman (Maria Richwine)”:

… and “Holly trying to persuade the studio boss (Conrad Janis) to let him produce the group’s songs.”

However, he notes that the “film keeps interest, thanks to Busey” and is “consistently entertaining.” I would agree. While I immediately watched a documentary and read more about Holly’s life to correct my understanding, this is a nice introduction to his persona and music, and Busey’s engaged performance remains noteworthy.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Gary Busey as Buddy Holly
  

Must See?
Yes, for Busey’s performance.

Categories

• Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

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