Meet John Doe (1941)

Meet John Doe (1941)

Comments 1 comment

“If you ask this column, the wrong people are jumping off the roofs.”

Synopsis:
When a “John Doe” letter concocted by a reporter (Barbara Stanwyck) hits a nerve with the public, her oily newspaper editor (Edward Arnold) decides to hire an out-of-work baseball player (Gary Cooper) to impersonate Doe, with the intention of building a mass political movement.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Barbara Stanwyck Films
  • Edward Arnold Films
  • Folk Heroes
  • Frank Capra Films
  • Gary Cooper Films
  • Journalists
  • Media Spectacle
  • Naive Public
  • Political Corruption
  • Walter Brennan Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is pretty much accurate in his scathing review of this “self-congratulatory, pretentious, gloomy, [and] heartless” film, which remains one of Capra’s most iconic movies (and was “shamelessly calculated to become a commercial success”) but simply hasn’t held up well at all. Peary argues that it feels like it was “made by someone who always climbs out of the wrong side of the bed”, given that it “shows an America perpetuated solely by corrupt individuals and simpletons who’ll believe anything told to them and accept anything done to them”. He says he “can’t stand how Capra lines up his common folk, has them talk in humble, hushed tones, and shines a light on their well-scrubbed faces so that we may think they have angels sitting on their shoulders”.

He specifically calls out the seemingly endless “discourse” narrated by a soda jerk (Regis Toomey) about “his town’s people coming together after being inspired by John Doe’s help-your-neighbor speech” (which never rings true, not for a minute):

… and notes that Cooper’s speeches “could have been delivered to a junior-high civics class” (I’ll admit to nearly falling asleep in the middle of the first interminable one).

Indeed, it’s actually difficult to argue that this film IS must-see, and I went back and forth in my vote — ultimately deciding that film fanatics will probably be too curious not to check it out at least once for themselves (I’ve now seen it twice, and that’s enough for me). With that said, I do find Barbara Stanwyck’s performance to be worth a watch — though her character, as written, is somewhat inconsistently motivated (it’s difficult to believe that the daughter of two such noble parents would be willing to perpetuate such an elaborate hoax on the public), this is no fault of Stanwyck’s, and she does the best she can with her role.

Meanwhile, Edward Arnold is quietly menacing as the film’s Big Baddie (he’s eerily effective, especially in earlier scenes):

… and Walter Brennan, while typecast in a tiny supporting role, adds some much needed cynicism to the proceedings.

Unfortunately, Cooper himself merely comes across as an uninteresting “bore”, someone without much charisma at all; I guess that’s part of the point (he’s supposed to be the ultimate “every man”, after all), but he makes for an awfully dull protagonist.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Barbara Stanwyck as Ann Mitchell
  • Edward Arnold as D.B. Norton

Must See?
Yes — but only as a one-time must-see, for its historical notoriety as prime “Capra-Corn”.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

Links:

Cuban Rebel Girls (1959)

Cuban Rebel Girls (1959)

Comments 1 comment

“When you become a rebel, you give up a lot of things that make a feminine life easier.”

Synopsis:
A journalist (Errol Flynn) in Cuba during Castro’s revolution narrates the story of two “rebel girls” — including a naive American (Beverly Aadland) searching for her boyfriend (John McKay).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cuba
  • Errol Flynn Films
  • Revolutionaries

Review:
Errol Flynn’s final film before his premature death from alcoholism at the age of 50 was this true historical oddity: a pseudo-documentary about Castro’s revolution in Cuba, centering its “narrative” (I use that word loosely) on the travails of a naïve American beautician (Flynn’s own under-aged paramour at the time, Beverly Aadland) who heads to Cuba to locate her rebel boyfriend and quickly finds herself a sympathizer in the cause.

“I guess there’s more to this war stuff than I thought”, she notes — with typically brilliant insight — at one point. Unfortunately, Cuban Rebel Girls is really, really bad — but never in an amusing way. At just an hour’s length, it feels far too long, and viewers will be hard pressed to pay attention past the first 15 minutes or so. Poor Aadland can’t act to save her life, and Flynn (playing a variation on his later self — apparently he owned property in Cuba and was a genuine supporter of the revolution) only appears on-screen during the film’s bookends, looking and sounding somewhat disoriented.

A bit of trivia: While making Cuban Rebel Girls, Flynn simultaneously cobbled together a shoddy documentary called Cuban Story, which I have no intention of checking out, though it was apparently released on DVD recently, for those with insatiable curiosity.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • An all-too-brief brief snippet of a most interesting folk tune, played about 35 minutes into the film for just a few seconds (I’m really stretching here)

Must See?
No, though I suppose it’s worth a cursory glance (two minutes or so will do) simply for its status as an historical oddity. Listed as a Cult Classic in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Why Worry? (1923)

Why Worry? (1923)

Comments 1 comment

“You boys will have to stop this fighting — it’s bad for my heart.”

Synopsis:
A wealthy hypochondriac (Harold Lloyd) and his nurse (Jobyna Ralston) arrive on a supposedly peaceful South American island which has just been taken over by revolutionaries. When Lloyd befriends an imprisoned giant (John Aasen) by helping him get rid of an aching tooth, he acquires an instant bodyguard and loyal servant.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Harold Lloyd Films
  • Revolutionaries
  • Silent Films
  • South and Central America

Review:
Peary lists no less then nine films by bespectacled comedian Harold Lloyd in his GFTFF, including the two generally acknowledged as his best: Safety Last! (1923) and The Freshman (1925). Unfortunately, while Why Worry? is technically solid (Lloyd, as always, did his own stuntwork here), the silly storyline is repetitive and ultimately one-note in its lack of character arc or narrative complexity — indeed, the scenario seems much better suited for a comedic short than a full-length film. Not must-see unless you’re a diehard fan of Lloyd or of slapstick comedy in general.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A few clever situational moments

Must See?
No. Listed as a film with Historical Relevance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Who’ll Stop the Rain? (1978)

Who’ll Stop the Rain? (1978)

Comments 1 comment

“I’ve been waiting all my life to fuck up like this.”

Synopsis:
A cynical Vietnam vet (Michael Moriarty) convinces his buddy (Nick Nolte) to smuggle heroin back to his wife (Tuesday Weld) in the United States — but two hitmen (Ray Sharkey and Richard Masur) working for a crooked cop (Anthony Zerbe) are soon on their tail, forcing Nolte and Weld to flee.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Drug Dealers
  • Fugitives
  • Karel Reisz Films
  • Michael Moriarty Films
  • Nick Nolte Films
  • Tuesday Weld Films
  • Veterans
  • Vietnam War

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that while Karel Reisz’s adaptation of Robert Stone’s 1974 novel Dog Soldiers may “not [be] as sordid in its depiction of Vietnam-U.S. drug trafficking”, it “still packs a wallop” in its portrayal of a “fascinating true-to-life storyline that other directors wouldn’t touch because there is no ‘hero’ fighting for what we’d think is a worthy cause.” He notes that while it’s “not for the squeamish”, given that the “characters are extremely brutal” and the “action scenes are frightening”, it nonetheless possesses many strengths, given that the “characters are memorable, casting is perfect, dialogue is sharp, and direction of actors strong”. The final shoot-out in the hills of New Mexico (reminiscent of a western) is particularly exciting, and makes creative use of sound and music. (As Peary notes, the “picture has an excellent, eclectic score”.)

While it’s essentially a crime thriller, Who’ll Stop the Rain? is heavily driven by a core set of noteworthy performances. Nolte, “looking fit, is an action hero to rival Rambo”, and is eminently believable in his role — though one can’t help wishing a bit more of his personality was revealed or explained; at one point he’s referred to as a psychopath, but, despite his propensity towards violence, this clearly isn’t an accurate assessment. Meanwhile, Moriarty (who Peary notes it’s nice to see “in a non-neurotic role”) perfectly captures the quiet, jaded cynicism of a man who has seen far too much violence and “lunacy” during the war to remain idealistic; and Weld’s portrayal as his wife — a seemingly milquetoast bookstore employee and mother who becomes addicted to heroin during her nightmarish ordeal — is both brave and memorable (though again, one wishes the screenplay provided a bit more insight into who she is and what makes her tick). Another minor quibble: while Masur and Sharkey are appropriately menacing as the two thugs chasing after Nolte and Weld, they somehow come across a bit cartoonish at times; however, this is easy enough to overlook, as the story continues to propel us towards its bleak, violence-ridden finale.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Nick Nolte as Ray
  • Tuesday Weld as Marge
  • Michael Moriarty as John
  • The exciting final shoot-out

Must See?
Yes, for the fine performances throughout.

Categories

  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

Cafe Express (1980)

Cafe Express (1980)

Comments 3 comments

“Coffee is the best friend a man ever had.”

Synopsis:
A one-armed coffee vendor (Nino Manfredi) with a sick teenage son (Giovanni Piscopo) attempts to elude a trio of policemen while illicitly selling coffee on a train.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cat-and-Mouse
  • Comedy
  • Italian Films
  • Trains and Subways

Review:
Essentially an extended cat-and-mouse tale, Nanni Loy’s surprisingly touching and entertaining comedy takes place primarily within the confines of a moving train. The storyline is simple — and pretty much covered in the brief synopsis provided above — but remains compelling viewing throughout given our growing investment in the lead protagonist’s fate. Indeed, Nino Manfredi anchors the film, and provides it with its essential heart: he’s wily yet sympathetic, never afraid to call things as they are, and ultimately emerges as an unexpected folk hero of sorts. A minor quibble: one can’t help wondering why the railroad company isn’t allowing Manfredi to sell his coffee legitimately, given that it’s clearly desired by the passengers — but one must simply chalk this up to cultural idiosyncrasies. Not required viewing, but definitely worth seeking out.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Nino Manfredi as Michele Abbagnano
  • A clever, surprisingly hard-hitting comedic screenplay

Must See?
No, but it’s certainly recommended.

Links:

Popeye (1980)

Popeye (1980)

Comments 1 comment

“I yam what I yam and I yam what I yam that I yam.”

Synopsis:
A squinty sailor (Robin Williams) searching for his long-lost father (Ray Walston) arrives in a seaside town called Sweet Haven, where he falls in love with quirky Olive Oyl (Shelly Duvall) and, with Olive, becomes the father of a foundling named Swee’ Pea (Wesley Ivan Hurt).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Comics and Comic Strips
  • Kidnapping
  • Love Triangle
  • Musicals
  • Robert Altman Films
  • Robin Williams Films
  • Sailors
  • Shelley Duvall Films
  • Small Town America

Review:
Robert Altman’s Popeye continues to be viewed by many as merely another ill-conceived failure in the infamously checkered yet estimable career of this iconoclastic director. Altman’s attempt to bring E.C. Segar’s beloved comic strip (or, more accurately, Fleischer Studios’ animated shorts from the 1930s-50s) to the big screen as a musical-comedy — complete with his characteristic ensemble cast and overlapping dialogue — seems like an odd venture to be sure, and isn’t entirely successful. But it’s redeemed at least in part by a casting choice made in heaven: Shelley Duvall as spindly-legged Olive Oyl. Duvall brings Olive’s comic presence to full-blooded life, craning her neck and stumbling across the sets with a physical dexterity and verisimilitude one can only marvel at; she emerges as the most fully realized character in the film.

Meanwhile, Williams himself is fine and believable (if oddly restrained) in the title role:

and other supporting actors — including Altman’s own grandson as Swee’ Pea, and Paul Dooley as Wimpy — are nicely cast as well.

Wolf Krueger’s production design is the second primary reason to check this film out. Built on the island of Malta (and apparently still in existence as a significant tourist attraction), the set is a sight to behold, effectively portraying Sweet Haven as a quirky, ramshackle alter-universe.

Where the film stumbles, ironically, is in its faithfulness to its comic origins. While there’s something undeniably tickling about seeing these 2-D characters made manifest (at least for fans of the original Fleischer shorts, like myself), the storyline — including a kidnapping of Swee’ Pea by Bluto (Paul L. Smith), and Popeye’s weird reconciliation with his absentee father:

— eventually devolves into too much slapstick for its own good. Meanwhile, the songs (all written by Harry Nilsson) are decidedly hit-or-miss, with a number of them instantly forgettable. However, when Olive sings one of the more memorable tunes — “He’s Large” — in defense of her choice in beaus, and repeatedly states, “He may not be the best/But he’s large/And he’s mine”, one simply can’t help giggling.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Shelley Duvall as Olive Oyl
  • Wolf Kroeger’s production design

Must See?
No, but I think most Altman fans will be curious to check it out. Listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Incredible Shrinking Man, The (1957)

Incredible Shrinking Man, The (1957)

Comments 1 comment

“I felt puny and absurd, a ludicrous midget.”

Synopsis:
While on a boating excursion with his wife (Randy Stuart), a man (Grant Williams) exposed to atomic radiation soon finds himself shrinking to a smaller and smaller size.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Atomic Energy
  • Jack Arnold Films
  • Living Nightmare
  • Science Fiction
  • Survival

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately notes that while this “excellent science-fiction film” may, “like most fifties SF films, [be] scientifically preposterous”, it is still “somehow believable,” and will “strike a responsive chord” in viewers given “its human concerns”. He points out that Richard Matheson’s script (based on his novel The Shrinking Man) deals with “two themes… central to the other SF films of director Jack Arnold: scientific advances in dangerous areas eventually will be destructive to the individual; [and] there is nothing more horrifying than losing one’s identity.” Given its rather simplistic narrative trajectory — Williams shrinks smaller and smaller, with no permanent cure in sight — the film maintains a remarkable amount of tension, thanks to both the savvy, literate script (which possesses plenty of thought-provoking dialogue) and truly outstanding special effects (see stills below for a representative sampling).

As we watch Williams — a “sympathetic hero” — spiraling closer and closer to death, with “his home no longer a sanctuary but a booby-trapped battlefield where every household item is potentially a weapon that could destroy him”, we hold our breath in both anticipation and terror. Williams’ valiant struggle to avoid drowning in droplets of water, getting sucked into the vortex of a floor drain, being stepped on by his own brother’s shoe, or being eaten by a spider, are all terrifying in the distorted universe they present: Williams is truly caught in a living nightmare, with no way out. Meanwhile, we can’t help feeling enormous empathy for his growing “sense of inferiority” in the face of his loyal but “normal size” wife (Stuart), who eventually must simply assume that her pin-sized husband has died — though in reality, he’s escaped down into the basement, where the final third of the film takes place, nearly dialogue free yet relentlessly exciting.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Clifford Stone’s remarkable special effects




  • A strong, provocative script:

    “The cellar stretched before me like some vast primeval plain, empty of life, littered with the relics of a vanished race. No desert island castaway ever faced so bleak a prospect.”

Must See?
Yes, as a definitive 1950s sci-fi classic.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

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

Links:

Them! (1954)

Them! (1954)

Comments 1 comment

“Here’s one for Sherlock Holmes: there was enough formic acid in him to kill twenty men.”

Synopsis:
A policeman (James Whitmore), an FBI agent (James Arness), and a father-daughter scientist team (Edmund Gwenn and Joan Weldon) investigate the sudden appearance of atomically super-sized ants in the New Mexico desert.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Atomic Energy
  • Deserts
  • Edmund Gwenn Films
  • Fess Parker Films
  • Insects
  • James Whitmore Films
  • Mutant Monsters
  • Science Fiction

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this classic mutant monster B-flick “ranks with The Thing and Invasion of the Body Snatchers as the best of the countless fifties science fiction films”. Tautly directed by Gordon Douglas (Peary calls it the “best” of his “many films”), the “intelligent, entertaining script” by Ted Sherdeman never drags. The narrative neatly shifts from mystery mode in its truly eerie opening sequence (of “a little girl in shock, wandering through the New Mexico desert”), to tense police procedural a la “the classic fifties TV” show “Dragnet” (as a series of “oddball witnesses” are questioned), to full-on war against the ants and then a “thrilling finale” in which “Whitmore and Arness search the sewer system for the ants and attempt to rescue two boys who are trapped inside”.

While fans of ’50s “creature feature” films are a ready-made audience for movies like this, all-purpose film fanatics will likely find much here to enjoy as well. As Peary notes, Them! (great title) possesses “believable characters and a particularly fine performance by Whitmore”:

… who struggles throughout the film with guilt from “allowing” his partner to be killed in one of the opening sequences. The special effects are noticeably impressive, with the mutant ants — “products of nuclear bomb-testing” who “are ravaging the area” and may bring about the end of mankind on Earth if they’re not stopped in time — coming across as menacing rather than corny.

However, if you’re in the mood for laughs, there’s plenty of campy and/or corny dialogue to enjoy — though it’s just as easy to watch and listen with a straight face.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • The incredibly disturbing opening sequence
  • Creepy special effects
  • Fine performances throughout

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

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

Links:

Road to Hong Kong (1962)

Road to Hong Kong (1962)

Comments 3 comments

“I bet you never thought you’d have a fortune riding in the old melon.”

Synopsis:
When a con-man (Bob Hope) accidentally memorizes a secret formula coveted by an underground terrorist organization (led by Robert Morley), one of its members (Joan Collins) does everything she can to wrest it from him; meanwhile, she finds herself falling in love with his partner (Bing Crosby).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bing Crosby Films
  • Bob Hope Films
  • Comedy
  • Joan Collins Films
  • Mistaken Identities
  • Musicals
  • Peter Sellers Films
  • Robert Morley Films
  • Science Fiction
  • Space Exploration
  • Spies

Review:
This final entry in the long-running, enormously popular Road to… franchise is often dismissed as its worst, and cited as evidence that the series had finally run its course; therefore, I was surprised to find myself enjoying its silly sci-fi premise (a spoof of Dr. No, released the same year) as much as I did. Hope and Crosby, despite their advancing ages, still manage to generate plenty of amusing comedic synergy:

… and gamely allow themselves to get into all sorts of foolish situations; meanwhile, the space travel plot is so ridiculous — in true Road to… fashion — that you can’t help watching in anticipation of what bizarre twist will come next (just wait for the banana-feeding machine).

Meanwhile, Collins is actually a fine replacement for Lamour, exhibiting natural chemistry with both aging leads, and taking the silly plot just seriously enough.

Speaking of Lamour, however, her brief cameo appearance late in the film is unfortunately a bit pathetic. While she had every right — as an essential member of the earlier Road to… trio — to insist on appearing in this film, her over-the-top nightclub performance here (playing herself) simply doesn’t provide her with a dignified exit from the series.

Note: Watch for Peter Sellers in an early, uncredited scene as an Indian neurologist attempting to diagnose Hope’s memory loss — he (temporarily) steals the film.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Peter Sellers’ brief but indelible early scene as an Indian neurologist
  • A number of incredibly silly jokes, sequences, and gags

Must See?
No, but it’s actually recommended for good, clean Hope & Crosby fun.

Links:

Road to Rio (1947)

Road to Rio (1947)

Comments 1 comment

“I can’t figure that Lucy out: one minute she’s sweet as pie, and the next, a heel!”

Synopsis:
A pair of out-of-work musicians (Bob Hope and Bing Crosby) stow away on a cruise ship to Rio, where they meet a wealthy young woman (Dorothy Lamour) who’s being hypnotized by her evil caretaker (Gale Sondergard).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bing Crosby Films
  • Bob Hope Films
  • Comedy
  • Dorothy Lamour Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Mind Control and Hypnosis
  • Musicians
  • Musicals
  • Rivalry
  • South America

Review:
This fifth entry in the enduringly popular Road to… film series is also its longest, and shows signs of the comedic formula beginning to wear thin. While Hope and Crosby are still in fine form together, and Lamour is as lovely as ever, a number of the running gags — including an extended sequence involving Hope, Crosby, and Lamour teaming up with a trio of non-English-speaking singers, played by the Wiere brothers — fall somewhat flat. Despite its status as one of the “least” of the series, however, there’s still plenty of enjoyable shtick here for fans to appreciate. Followed in 1952 by Road to Bali — the only “Road” film (inexplicably) not listed in Peary’s book — and then in 1962 by the series’ humorously off-beat final entry, The Road to Hong Kong.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Hope and Crosby, still going strong in their humorous rivalry
  • Creative opening credits
  • Memorable one-liners: Hope [greeting Sondergard under his breath]:

    “It’s tall, dark and cyanide!”

Must See?
No, though it’s an enjoyable enough entry in the series, and certainly must-see for diehard Road to… fans. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Links: