FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
When his mother (Dorothy Stickney) passes away, a widowed professor (Gene Hackman) must decide whether to stay in New York and care for his elderly father (Melvyn Douglas) or move to California and marry his girlfriend (Elizabeth Hubbard).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Father and Child
• Gene Hackman Films
• Grown Children
• Melvyn Douglas Films
• Play Adaptation

Review:
This Oscar-nominated drama — based on Robert Anderson’s autobiographical play — received radically diverse reviews upon its release, with Vincent Canby of The New York Times lambasting it as “a wretched motion picture”, and Roger Ebert praising it as “one of the most unforgettably human films I can remember.” The truth lies somewhere in between: I Never Sang for My Father is a frustrating blend of positive elements (fine performances and authentically drawn characters) with an overly theatrical script, stagy direction, and an obtrusively melodramatic score. Each time an emotionally powerful scene emerges, director Gilbert Cates tacks on swelling background music and/or unnecessary flashback sequences to emphasize the point; meanwhile, it’s impossible to forget that I Never Sang… was originally a stage play, given several obvious “end of act” speeches, and only a limited attempt to open up the story to outside locales. With that said, certain small exchanges — such as Douglas commenting on his lack of chest hair in comparison with his son — ring so true that it’s obvious screenwriter Anderson was drawing from intensely personal experiences; and the actors — particularly Douglas and Hackman — give such fine, credible performances that one can’t help retaining an interest in the characters despite the film’s deeper flaws.

Ultimately, however, it’s not “must see” viewing.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Melvyn Douglas as Tom Garrison
  
• Gene Hackman as Gene Garrison
  

Must See?
No, but it’s worth viewing once.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
The teenage son (Tommy Kirk) of a dog-hating postman (Fred MacMurray) accidentally recites an ancient charm which turns him intermittently into a shaggy dog; while in dog form, he learns about the presence of spies across the street, and enlists the help of his younger brother (Kevin Corcoran) to foil their plans.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cecil Kellaway Films
• Fantasy
• Jean Hagen Films
• Small Town America
• Spies
• Talking Animals

Review:
Recently remade with Tim Allen, this immensely popular Disney live-action film broke box office records the year it was released (beating even Ben-Hur), and generated a sequel twenty years later (1979’s The Shaggy D.A.). While Fred MacMurray is surprisingly annoying in the central adult role (his performance is both one-note and overly broad):

both Kirk and Corcoran are decent as his two sons, with Corcoran in particular showing evidence of kid star talent. The film’s two central subplots — Kirk’s rivalry with his best friend (Tim Considine) for the affections of two neighborhood girls (Annette Funicello and Roberta Shore), and the discovery of a neighborhood Cold War spy ring — are silly but ultimately innocuous; with that said, the movie as a whole is far from must-see viewing for all film fanatics, and will be a tedious bore for many.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Kevin Corcoran as Wilby’s dog-loving younger brother, Moochie
  
• Several amusing Wilby-as-Dog sequences
  

Must See?
No, but film fanatics may be curious to check it out simply for its historical popularity.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Moria Review
• TCM Article
• Ultimate Disney Review

Synopsis:
While searching for the missing brother (Roger Newman) of a young woman (Sharon Farrell), private detective Philip Marlowe (James Garner) stumbles onto a blackmailing plot involving compromising photos of a television star (Gayle Hunnicutt).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Blackmail
• Bruce Lee Films
Detectives and Private Eyes
• James Garner Films
• Search

Review:
This updated version of Raymond Chandler’s 1949 novel The Little Sister is polished but not all that memorable. While James Garner (always a pleasure to watch) is appropriately gritty and handsome as famed detective Philip Marlowe, ultimately his performance (unlike that of, say, Humphrey Bogart as Marlowe in 1946’s The Big Sleep) fails to leave much of a lasting impression.

Meanwhile, the dense storyline — despite featuring a couple of clever plot twists at the end — is needlessly confusing, and introduces far too many supporting characters whose importance is either lost (after two viewings, I still don’t have a clue what Paul Stevens’ enigmatic Dr. Lagardie has to do with anything) or given short shrift (Carroll O’Connor as an embittered police lieutenant, Bruce Lee as a martial arts-wielding henchman, and Rita Moreno as Hunnicutt’s “old friend” all deserve better development). Ultimately, this one’s only must-see viewing for Chandler aficionados.

Note: This was Lee’s first appearance in a Hollywood movie, and his presence is noteworthy — but his second (final) scene in the film is inexplicably insulting to his talents.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Rita Moreno as Dolores
  

Must See?
No, though Chandler fans will likely be curious to check it out.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
When three women — a potter (Cher), a journalist (Michelle Pfeiffer) and a cellist (Susan Sarandon) — wish for the man of their dreams to appear, a hedonistic stranger (Jack Nicholson) suddenly arrives in town and changes their lives forever.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Black Comedy
• Catalysts
• Character Arc
• Cher Films
• Fantasy
• Feminism and Women’s Issues
• Jack Nicholson Films
• Susan Sarandon Films
• Witches, Wizards and Magicians

Review:
George Miller’s adaptation of John Updike’s bestselling 1984 novel is ultimately a disappointment. While the three female leads are clearly witches of one kind or another (as indicated by the film’s very title), the script never offers any explanation of how or why they came to possess their supernatural powers (can they only achieve magic when “working” together?), or what — if any — deeper relevance this holds for them as repressed women in a small American town. Though it’s clear that they are responsible for unintentionally invoking Nicholson’s character, his identity as (presumably) the devil incarnate makes one question the dynamics of power that emerge: who’s in control of who here? And why are these particular women granted such specific powers? Hints of feminist themes emerge every now and then — particularly during Nicholson’s seductive diatribes (“Men are such cocksuckers, aren’t they?”) — but are never sufficiently explored.

Meanwhile, the witches’ thematic counterpart — the prim wife (Veronica Cartwright) of the town’s editor (Richard Jenkins) — is provided with just as little explanatory grist. She’s a symbol rather than a three-dimensional character — and when her situation becomes gruesomely dire by the final third of the film, audiences will be utterly confused about how or why she’s forced to suffer such an unhappy fate. While the film’s pre-CGI special effects are memorable, and the actors — particularly Nicholson, Sarandon, and Cartwright — have great fun with their parts, The Witches of Eastwick ultimately hasn’t held up well enough to recommend as must-see viewing.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Jack Nicholson as Daryl Van Horne
  
• Susan Sarandon as Jane
  
• Veronica Cartwright as Felicia Alden
  

Must See?
No; while it holds some historical interest (particularly since it’s been remade as a comedic musical), it’s no longer must-see viewing.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• Washington Post Review (Desson Howe)
• Washington Post Review (Rita Kempley)
• Moria Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
Two clueless mousetrap salesmen (Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy) travel to Switzerland, where they are promptly relegated to working as dishwashers in a restaurant; meanwhile, Ollie (Hardy) falls for an opera diva (Della Lind) whose husband (Walter Woolf King) wants to be left alone in peace to compose.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Comedy
• Laurel and Hardy Films

Review:
This inane Laurel and Hardy flick is one of their worst outings. The paper-thin subplot (involving Lind and King) makes little sense, and while Lind (nee Grete Natzler) is mildly charismatic (she hoped to make it big in Hollywood as the next Jeanette McDonald, but this was ultimately her last film), the songs she performs are insipid at best. Laurel and Hardy themselves aren’t given much of interest to do, either: the best known sight gag in the film — Stan and Ollie are forced to move a piano across a rickety bridge spanning the Alps — is simply a retread of their classic short “The Music Box” (1932); and when a man in a gorilla suit shows up as part of the “joke”, all hope for genuine chuckles is lost. The one mildly amusing sequence — involving Stan valiantly tricking a stoic St. Bernard into giving him his keg of brandy — is hardly funny enough to recommend sitting through the rest of this tedious film.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Stan’s attempt to convince a St. Bernard to give him his flask of brandy
  

Must See?
No; there’s no reason for this clunker to be listed in Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry

Synopsis:
When a condemned convict (William Powell) falls in love with a dying woman (Kay Francis) on board a cruise ship, his desire to escape from the clutches of his captor (Warren Hymer) suddenly becomes more complicated.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• At Sea
• Con-Artists<
• Kay Francis Films
• Romance
• Star-Crossed Lovers
• William Powell Films

Review:
Glamorous Kay Francis was one of the most popular and highly paid stars in early Hollywood, but because she made so few memorable films, she’s largely forgotten by movie buffs today.

Along with her supporting role in Ernst Lubitsch’s Trouble in Paradise (1932), she’s probably best known for this three-hankie shipboard romance, which succeeds in large part due to the genuine chemistry between the two leads. Equally enjoyable is Aline McMahon as a kind-hearted con woman posing as a countess:

Unfortunately, her sidekick “Skippy” (Frank McHugh) — with perhaps one of the most annoyingly affected laughs ever heard on-screen — is nothing short of irritating.

Indeed, whenever the film slides into overt comedy, the story falls flat — yet while One Way Passage can’t rightfully be called a classic, it remains worth a look simply to see Francis in her prime.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• William Powell and Kay Francis as the star-crossed lovers (Peary nominates them both for Alternate Oscars)
  
• Aline McMahon as “Countess Barilhaus”
  

Must See?
Yes, simply to see Francis in one of her most memorable films. Listed as a film with historical importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

• Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review (spoilers alert)
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
A socially ambitious youth (Phillips Holmes) seduces and impregnates a factory worker (Sylvia Sidney), then plots to kill her when he falls in love with a debutante (Frances Dee).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Courtroom Drama
• Frances Dee Films
• Josef von Sternberg Films
• Love Triangle
• Plot to Murder
• Social Climbers
• Sylvia Sidney Films

Review:
Josef von Sternberg’s adaptation of Theodore Dreiser’s monumental 1925 novel was in some ways destined to disappoint, given the need to condense two volumes (over 800 pages) into a manageable running time — and, sure enough, Dreiser himself disapproved of the film. These days, viewers are likely most familiar with George Stevens’ 1951 adaptation of the book — A Place in the Sun (starring Elizabeth Taylor, Montgomery Clift, and Shelley Winters) — primarily because von Sternberg’s earlier version is so hard to locate. Of the two versions, von Sternberg’s is ultimately more faithful to the original text — and less sympathetic to the central protagonist (Holmes), whose cowardly, selfish actions remain truly difficult to watch.

While Holmes’ performance is less than impressive (he tends to read his lines rather than embody them), he does manage to convey the sniveling callowness of a self-absorbed pretty boy.

Of the lead performers, however, Sylvia Sidney ultimately comes across the best:

Unlike her counterpart in A Place in the Sun (Winters), Sidney’s “Bert” is truly a sympathetic innocent: a hardworking girl who wants nothing more than a chance at romance with her handsome boss. She resists sex at first, but gives in once she realizes that their tenuous relationship won’t continue without it; later, she’s willing to give Holmes up as long as he’ll marry her and give her baby a good name. While she’s naively desperate, she’s far from shrewish, and it’s genuinely painful to know she’s destined for a watery grave.

Speaking of such spoilers, the fact that audience members (then and now) already know the outcome of this most famous of American stories (based on the real-life story of Chester Gillette) contributes to the film’s ultimate failure to impress. By the final third of the movie — an extended courtroom sequence — we’re anxious to see Holmes get his due, but are forced to sit through a series of painful lies and distortions before things finally wrap up.

The presence of Holmes’ mother (Claire McDowell) in the final scenes:

… hints at the larger theme of Dreiser’s novel — that Clyde’s poverty-stricken upbringing contributed towards his desperate need to climb socially — which unfortunately is barely touched upon. While competent, this early von Sternberg film doesn’t provide enough evidence of his burgeoning style to make it a must-see entry in his canon — though it’s certainly worth a look.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Sylvia Sidney as “Bert” (Peary nominates her as Best Actress of the Year in his Alternate Oscars book.)
  

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a look if you can locate a copy.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review (spoilers alert)
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
When her husband (Paul Jenkins) suddenly decides to divorce her, a woman (Trish Van Devere) struggles to create a new life for herself.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Divorce
• Feminism and Women’s Issues
• Melvyn Douglas Films

Review:
This hard-to-find melodrama — made shortly before Martin Scorsese’s Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore broke ground in American feminist cinema — is earnest and well-meaning but ultimately a disappointment. While Van Devere (George C. Scott’s wife) is an appealing heroine, and tries her best with the material she’s been given, she can’t quite overcome either the pedantic script or the amateurish performances of most of her co-stars. The best, most natural scenes involve Melvyn Douglas as a widowed grocer who helps Van Devere to break down her shell of defensiveness and accept her loss (what a breath of fresh air his presence is!). While the script finally begins to build some steam towards the end — when Van Devere takes a chance on love with a mysterious stranger (Monte Markham) — it can’t quite make up for the pedestrian narrative that’s come before.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Trish Van Devere as Aimee
  
• Melvyn Douglas as Aimee’s widowed grocer friend
  

Must See?
No, but Van Devere and Douglas make it worth a cursory look if you stumble upon it on television. Listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
When a fun-loving socialite couple (Cary Grant and Constance Bennett) is killed in an automobile accident, their ghosts attempt to do a “good deed” by helping a repressed banker (Roland Young) with an uptight wife (Billie Burke) live life more fully.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cary Grant Films
• Catalysts
• Character Arc
• Comedy
• Constance Bennett Films
• Fantasy
• Ghosts
• Roland Young Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this supernatural box office hit — which sparked two sequels and a television series — is “not nearly as good as its reputation”. If one can forgive its countless logistical loopholes (why don’t any representatives from the “Other Side” ever show up to validate the proceedings?), the fact remains that “most of the humor is silly; the special effects aren’t that imaginative… and the storyline doesn’t have enough surprises”. In addition, despite the fact that this was a major breakthrough role for him, Cary Grant “isn’t in the picture enough”; and while Bennett is a sparkling actress who “turns in a comedic performance worthy of [Carole] Lombard”, her desire to pursue “Topper” (Young) so aggressively — while Grant waits petulantly in the wings — simply doesn’t ring true. Young is perfectly cast in the lead role, and admirably engages in several sequences of amusing slapstick; however, Billie Burke (typecast as his socially conscious wife) is simply annoying (that voice!). Topper is worth a look by all film fanatics for its historical relevance, but is ultimately a disappointment.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Constance Bennett as Marion Kerby
  
• Cary Grant’s droll delivery as George Kerby:
  

  “All right, I’ll change the tire… But I’ll be darned if I’ll waste any ectoplasm doing it!”

  

• Roland Young as Cosmo Topper
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look simply for its historical popularity. But don’t expect to be as amused as contemporary audience members once were.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• TCM Articles

Synopsis:
A spunky reporter (Luana Walters) investigates a rash of kidnappings involving brides who faint and die at the alter after receiving orchid corsages. When she learns about a mysterious madman (Bela Lugosi) who creates a serum from the brides’ corpses to keep his aging wife (Elizabeth Russell) looking youthful, Walters — with the help of a concerned doctor (Tristram Coffin) — concocts a plan to trap him.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Amateur Sleuths
• Bela Lugosi Films
• Horror
• Journalists
• Kidnapping
• Mad Doctors and Scientists

Review:
This run-of-the-mill horror flick by Monogram Pictures is, as noted by Richard Schreib at his Moria Reviews site, “marginally better” than most of the Poverty Row studios pictures produced at the time — but ultimately not good enough to merit inclusion in Peary’s book. Bela Lugosi’s performance is as limited as ever:

… and the plot — while mildly titillating — is full of holes (are the kidnapped brides really dead? why does Lugosi need so many? how long does his special serum last? is he looking for virgin blood?).

While no great actress, Luana Walters — as the film’s feisty, no-nonsense protagonist — ultimately emerges as the most enjoyable aspect of the film; too bad she’s given such a dated and cliched final scene.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• A refreshingly spunky female lead (Luana Walters)
  

Must See?
No, unless you’re a diehard Bela Lugosi fan.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• Spinning Image Review