Quo Vadis? (1912)
“Quo vadis, Domine? Where goest thou, Lord?”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review: Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
Links: |
Go, Man, Go! (1954)
“We’re a team that’s going places — and in no time, we’ll be the greatest in the world!”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review: It’s great fun to see the Trotters performing some of their classic routines — and even for non-sports fans, the final climactic game (against the Chicago Majors) is genuinely thrilling! Sidney Poitier (just 27 years old) is fine if a tad underused in one of his earliest roles, while “everyman” actor Dane Clark projects just the right level of enthusiasm and energy required of iconoclast Saperstein. It’s interesting to note that, with the exception of a few unusual camera angles, there isn’t really much evidence here of Howe’s masterful camerawork (though to be fair, it’s hard to accurately assess this, given the damaged quality of the bootleg I secured). Film fanatics will be curious to learn that the movie’s producer and screenwriter, Alfred Palca, was blacklisted and had his name taken off the film (the pseudonym Arnold Becker was used instead); click here to read more. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
Links: |
Puzzle of a Downfall Child (1970)
“I’m not adding up to anything, am I, Aaron? I’m not making any sense.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review: Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
Gentleman Jim (1942)
“The Corbetts are at it again!”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
Double Indemnity (1944)
“How could I have known that murder could sometimes smell like honeysuckle?”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres:
Response to Peary’s Review: Typical of most noir, Double Indemnity is, Peary writes, “characterized by the interacting traits of greed, lust, murder, betrayal, and a pervading, oppressive darkness”. We’re not meant to relate to the central characters (who lack any heart or soul), but rather to watch in fascination as their foolhardy, arrogant actions doom them; inevitably, “the hero realizes that he deserves his sorry fate [and] the woman acknowledges she’s no good.” As Peary notes, the “film has no [intentional] humor, but it’s tremendous fun to watch a man so secure in himself… fall into a spider woman’s web”; indeed, part of the genius of the script is watching Stanwyck “subtly stroking [Neff’s] masculine ego” as she “sits back and lets [him] take over and devise the murder plot” himself — he truly digs his own grave. So much has already been written on this “bona-fide cinema masterpiece” — which Peary votes as the Best Picture of the year in his Alternate Oscars book — that I’ll keep my own contribution here to a minimum; instead, I refer interested readers to any of the many fine review links below (as well as Peary’s books, naturally). See Tim Dirks’ Greatest Films website for a blow-by-blow run-through of the film, complete with transcripts of much of its famed dialogue. P.S. It’s impossible to ignore Stanwyck’s undeniably “laughable blond hairstyle” (those bangs!), which immediately evoke images of Carol Burnett’s classic spoof. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die) Links: |
Red Sky at Morning (1971)
“Red sky at morning, sailors take warning.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review: Thomas — who went on to much greater fame the following year as John-Boy in “The Waltons” — tries hard to create a sympathetic protagonist, but his mannerisms (particularly his tendency to break into nervous laughter while talking) soon become irritating.
Claire Bloom as Joshua’s mentally unstable mother evinces a fine southern accent, but her character — all pampered melancholy and low affect — never comes to life.
Even more enigmatic is John Colicos as Bloom’s dilettante cousin Jim-Bob, a “professional house guest” who is clearly an irritant to everyone except Bloom, but whose background within the family is never explained; when Joshua finally tells him off during a pivotal scene, it’s an empty victory. The best performances in the film are given by Joshua’s two closest friends, Steenie (Arnaz Jr.) and Marcia (Catherine Burns). Arnaz Jr. is wonderfully vibrant and amusing here; both his famed parents’ influences are clearly felt. Meanwhile, Burns (who co-starred with Thomas in 1969’s Last Summer) shows an impressive range — as in Last Summer, she’s precocious beyond her years, but here she’s refreshingly self-confident, a fine match for any self-possessed young man. Unfortunately, however, neither of these performances are enough to recommend the film as a whole. Note: Note that nearly any review you stumble upon of this film (or the novel it’s based upon) will give away a major plot development which doesn’t occur until the final fourth of the film; be forewarned. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
Somewhere in Time (1980)
“Come back to me.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review:
… but the filmmakers should have scuttled the dreary plot…, sent all the other actors home, and just had the two stars make love in every room of the glorious hotel.” (!!!). The film is problematic on numerous levels. Every scene is calculated to yank shamelessly at our heartstrings; as Roger Ebert points out, it fairly “drips with solemnity”. Although it may be a reasonably common occurrence to find oneself falling desperately in love with a portrait from the past:
— viz. Preminger’s Laura (1944), for example: — the problem here is that we’re essentially asked to believe in and care about a romance based purely on “instinct”. Even once Reeve and Seymour meet in person as young lovers, we’re not given any earthly reason to understand why they’ve fallen for one another (though many, I suppose, would argue that this is exactly the point). Meanwhile, Reeve — in a role he handpicked after his extraordinary success in Superman (1978) — simply doesn’t have the chops necessary to make us believe in his character; it’s painful to watch him so clearly acting at every moment.
Seymour is luminous and lovely to look at, but can’t really do much to resurrect her underdeveloped role.
Christopher Plummer (as Seymour’s controlling manager) is reduced to a few scenes of red-faced rage:
… while Teresa Wright (in a tiny role as the elderly Elise’s caretaker) is essentially wasted. Amazingly enough, however, the film has an enormous — or at least a powerful, visible, and long-lasting — following. It became a cult classic after airing on cable television in the 1980s, and in 1990 a fan club called the International Network of Somewhere in Time Enthusiasts, or INSITE, was founded; members meet every year on Mackinac Island in Michigan (where the movie was filmed) to screen it. On the fan club’s impressively obsessive website, one can purchase any number of “SIT” memorabilia items, take a quiz, sign up to receive a quarterly newsletter, and learn more than you ever thought you wanted to know about Seymour and Reeve. INSITE was apparently responsible for ensuring that these two actors both received stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and lobbied for a special edition 20th anniversary DVD release of the film. This movie clearly means something more to a bunch of folks than I can even begin to imagine… Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
Links: |
Raggedy Ann and Andy: A Musical Adventure (1977)
“I’m just a little rag doll with a candy heart.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review:
— is mostly uneven, and often reminiscent of the quality of weekend television shows. Neither the cloyingly sweet Ann nor her brother Andy ever emerges as a fully developed character:
… and it’s hard to feel much motivation for Babette’s rescue, given that she’s clearly a spoiled diva and not really worthy of our sympathies.
With that said, adult viewers may be amused by the rather substantial undercurrent of “mature” themes hidden in the story and its characters — including the Pirate’s face-reddening and mustache erection whenever he thinks about Babette:
Ann and Andy’s overly “friendly” sister-brother relationship (“Candy hearts and paper flowers/Will always keep me close to you”):
Andy’s insistence that he’s “no girl’s toy”; and the Camel’s hilariously drug-like hallucinations.
Indeed, many on IMDb’s (now-defunct) message board for the movie have commented that it gave them nightmares as kids. Note that you’re likely to either be completely annoyed or morbidly fascinated by the obnoxious “Penny” twins (Margery Gray and Lynne Stuart), who pop up as a freaky Greek Chorus every five minutes or so during the first portion of the film:
… but mercifully disappear once Ann and Andy are off on their adventure. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
Brainstorm (1983)
“Don’t take my project. This is MY project!”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Response to Peary’s Review: Peary claims that the film “has enormous gaps” but, for the most part, I disagree. I’m impressed by how screenwriters Bruce Joel Rubin and Robert Stitzel smartly explore the various ethical ramifications of a virtual reality device which we have yet to experience, but whose arrival surely can’t be that far away. The device’s potential for “good” is made abundantly clear throughout the first half hour of the film: in addition to the obvious money-making application of allowing people to experience a world of visceral thrills (roller coaster rides, sweeping views of majestic mountains) without ever leaving their chairs, it miraculously helps bring Walken and his estranged wife (Wood) back together by allowing them to relive the glory days of their early romance. The U.S. military, of course, has much more nefarious plans for the headset (torture, anyone?), but the screenwriters draw an appropriately sticky line between these two extremes, as demonstrated in the scene in which a naive employee (Joe Dorsey) decides to splice a strategic section of a sex tape and run it continuously, only to become mildly brain damaged as a result. The most exciting sequence in the movie is undoubtedly Fletcher’s dramatic heart attack, which — scientist that she is until the very end — she struggles to record so that others can study the experience of dying. It’s the natural extension of this crucial plot element (in which Walken “plays” the tape and sees visions of heaven and hell) which most reviewers take issue with — and it’s certainly easy to agree that the cheesy special effects don’t “do justice” to the experience. Yet I would counter, what could? How can any of us “know” what this ultimate experience might look and feel like — and then transfer this effectively to a two-dimensional screen? Where the film does begin to lose steam for me, ironically, is during its final climactic half-hour, as Walken and Wood valiantly fight against the Powers That Be to rescue the tape and destroy the military’s mass-operations facility. While it’s somewhat amusing to hear the couple voicing banalities to each other over the phone as a cover-up (it works — nobody pays them any attention), the action sequences — including machines going haywire and suds spilling out across the floor — come across as both juvenile and out-of-place. Despite this flaw, however, Brainstorm remains undeniably provocative sci-fi viewing, and should be seen once by all film fanatics. Note: Trumbull only helmed one other film — 1972’s equally flawed but engaging Silent Running. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
Links: |
Two of Us, The (1967)
“Who could I talk to without you? Who could I confide in?”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review: Simon, with his craggy, life-worn face, is surprisingly appealing as the bigoted “Grampa”, whose ill-founded preconceptions about “others” (Jews, Blacks, gypsies) belies his soft-hearted nature; much is made, for instance, of the fact that he’s a vegetarian who strongly opposes his wife killing rabbits for dinner, and tries to convince Claude from abstaining as well. Most of the film’s rather unexpected humor comes as we listen to Simon explaining how Jews can be spotted (or smelled!), and why they’re so “undesirable” — and then hear Claude innocently questioning his inane assertions, pointing out, for instance, the enormity of Simon’s own nose. Meanwhile, Claude — once so coddled that his mother literally spoon-fed him his dinner — gradually becomes more independent, literally blossoming in the fresh country air. If only all young European Jews during the war were as lucky as Berri… Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
Links: |
