FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
An architect (Charles Bronson) whose wife (Hope Lange) is murdered and daughter (Kathleen Tolan) traumatized by a trio of sociopathic thugs (including Jeff Goldblum) becomes a vigilante in New York City, murdering criminals after dark on the streets.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Charles Bronson Films
• Hope Lange Films
• Jeff Goldblum Films
• New York City
• Vigilantes
• Widows and Widowers

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “blockbuster film that exploited public paranoia over urban crime” “fed on the reactionary’s fantasy of wiping out young thugs who are after their money and women”; “visualized the white, middle-class pacificist-liberal’s fantasy of being a gun-toting hero; and pandered to the movie audience’s desire for strong violence.”

Peary adds that it’s “no wonder” Bronson’s “liberal New York architect Paul Kersey” became “a hero to millions of moviegoers,” given “how director Michael Winner stacks the deck to make vigilante justice the only recourse against widespread crime.” He further notes that the film “makes the absurd assumption that every person who demands money from Kersey is planning on killing him and, therefore, must be killed instead of just being scared away.” (I actually don’t think this assumption is being made — rather, Bronson is sick and tired of criminals getting their way, and doesn’t really care what their motive is.) Peary adds that the “film’s most interesting aspect is that Kersey gets physically ill from his initial killings”:

He notes, “I wish this had been emphasized a bit more and that someone other than Winner had directed (Robert Bresson would be the dream choice).” While Peary asserts that Bronson “was the right person to play Kersey, who would reprise his character in Winner’s two atrocious sequels,” I find his one-note performance distinctly lacking:

Why doesn’t this guy react with even a little bit more emotion after the death of his beloved wife? (Poor Hope Lange’s role is throwaway at best.)

We’re led to believe that he’s simply channeling his grief into vengeance, but where’s the grief itself? See the “Every Wrong with Death Wish in 13 Minutes” video clip for affirmation about all the other inconsistencies and inanities littering this film. There are a couple of “notable” cameos to be on the lookout for: Jeff Goldblum has an embarrassingly awful role as one of the three thugs asssaulting Bronson’s family:

… and Ghristopher Guest shows up as the policeman who finds Bronson’s gun:

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Fine cinematography and location shooting in New York
  
• Herbie Hancock’s unique score

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• Moria Review
• “Everything Wrong With Death Wish in 13 Minutes” video review

Synopsis:
When a successful London barrister (Dirk Bogarde) married to a beautiful and understanding wife (Sylvia Syms) receives a call from a young acquaintance (Peter McEnery), he soon becomes caught up in attempting to identify the blackmailers who are wreaking havoc in the underground gay community.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Amateur Sleuths
• Blackmail
• Dirk Bogarde Films
• Homosexuality
• Morality Police

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “well-made drama” about a “distinguished, married English barrister with a homosexual past” was “the first film to be about homosexuality, and, fortunately, it’s strongly directed by Basil Dearden and maturely and sympathetically written by [married screenwriters] Janet Green and John McCormick.” He points out that a “key scene” in which “Bogarde and other middle-aged homosexuals talk about the antiquated laws dealing with homosexuality” is a “discussion that no other picture would be brave enough to include for many years to come.”

He spends much of the rest of his review citing a critic from Films in Review when the film was released, who complained that “the biological, social and psychological evils resulting from homosexuality are never mentioned” and “the false contention that homosexuality is congenital is stressed throughout” (!!); Peary notes that this “gives us some idea how far ahead of its time this picture was,” and tells about watching the cut version for years on TV, “in which, remarkably, homosexual references are excised” — meaning that “for years [he] had no idea what this picture was about.”

Peary doesn’t specifically highlight Bogarde’s performance in his review, but he should; Bogarde (semi-closeted in real life) is note perfect in a role that he was apparently eager to play. What’s most refreshing about the storyline is that Bogarde’s character doesn’t shy away from facing the truth of his sexuality: we learn that he was upfront with his wife before they got married, and after he finds out about McEnery’s tragic end, he vows to investigate and seek justice, despite the risk this poses to both his career and his marriage. Knowing that homosexuality was illegal in Britain until 1967 under the Sexual Offenses Act, one is grateful to this film for showing just a glimpse of what life was like for many during that time.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Dirk Bogarde as Melville Farr
  
• Sylvia Syms as Laura Farr
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  
  
• Fine use of location shooting
  
• A powerful, no-holds-barred depiction of legalized homophobia
  

Must See?
Yes, for Bogarde’s performance and as an overall “good show” with historical importance.

Categories

• Good Show
• Historically Relevant
• Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Tired Old Queen at the Movies Video Review
• Criterion Collection (scroll down to third review)
• TCM Article
• The Guardian Review

Synopsis:
When three astronauts (Charlton Heston, Robert Gunner, and Jeff Burton) crash-land on an alien planet, Captain Taylor (Heston) is imprisoned and studied by two ape-scientists (Kim Hunter and Roddy McDowell) whose work on the origins of humans is deeply threatening to the Minister of Science (Maurice Evans).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Astronauts
• Charlton Heston Films
• James Whitmore Films
• Kim Hunter Films
• Post-Apocalypse
• Primates
• Roddy McDowell Films
• Science Fiction
• Scientists

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that while “Pierre Boulle’s novel Monkey Planet is given a big-budget, wide-screen Hollywood treatment,” “its sole virtues are the result of money spent.” He argues that the “script by Rod Serling and Michael Wilson” is “surprisingly juvenile,” and that “the writers thought they could get away with the cliches by the dozens and the most simplistic moralistic statements just because these would seem different coming from people in monkey costumes.”

With that said, he concedes that director Franklin J. Schaffner “does exhibit visual flare when filming action scenes and landscape shots”:

… and that “bare-chested Heston’s a solid, muscular hero” — a “good choice to play a symbol of human superiority who is humbled when he is to be experimented on by the apes, just as humans experiment on apes back home.”

I’m largely in agreement with Peary’s assessment, finding this film, frankly, overrated. While I disagree that the film’s ending — “like something stolen from Serling’s The Twilight Zone” — is “predictable” (it’s not), I have a hard time wrapping my head around the inanity of the ape costumes, the wooden acting, and the improbable script (see the humorous video “Everything Wrong With Planet of the Apes” for an overview of its many “sins”). This was clearly meant to be a satire on numerous levels, and at the time of its release I’m sure it was considered audacious and groundbreaking — but it simply hasn’t aged well.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Groundbreaking make-up design
  
• Several powerful images
  
• Fine widescreen cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, once, simply for its historical relevance.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• FilmSite Review
• TCM Article
• Spinning Image Review
• Bad Movies Review
• Cinemassacre Video Review

Synopsis:
When a miner-turned-dentist (Gibson Gowland) is introduced to the cousin and girlfriend (ZaSu Pitts) of his friend Marcus (Jean Hersholt), he falls instantly in love and is granted permission by Marcus to woo her. Shortly before their marriage, Trina (Pitts) wins $5,000 in a lottery ticket purchased from a neighbor (Dale Fuller), and becomes increasingly unhinged about spending money; meanwhile, Marcus regrets his decision to “give away” Trina and harbors deep resentment towards McTeague.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Dentists
• Erich von Stroheim Films
• Gold Seekers
• Greed
• Marital Problems
• Mental Breakdown
• Rivalry
• Silent Films
• Zasu Pitts Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of “Erich von Stroheim’s original, extremely faithful version of McTeague, Frank Norris’s well-known naturalist novel” by noting that it “was nearly 10 hours long” and then “drastically cut,” with “all excised footage… destroyed.” (Since Peary’s GFTFF was published, a fascinating four-hour restoration was completed by Turner Entertainment, which is the version I watched; you can read a lot more about it here.) Peary writes that in the butchered version, the “three most prominent characters” remain, and “despite being trimmed to about a fourth of it original length” it “is still a masterpiece, one of the greatest of silent films and a picture that still has impact today.” He notes that “surely no character has better displayed avarice than Pitts, whose brow rises automatically and eyes look cunning any time she can even smell money”:

(I’m actually not sure “avarice” is the best word to describe her pitiful character, who seems to suffer from an extreme form of OCD.) Peary adds that “the film also benefits from Von Stroheim’s typical array of unusual supporting characters”:

… “the intensity of his directing and the acting”:

… “his attention to set design”:

… “and his decision to film on location in San Francisco and even Death Valley for the classic finale.”

Peary writes that “the worst result of the extreme studio-imposed editing is that the changes in the characters’ personalities once money enters their lives are too rushed… For the naturalism of Norris to be conveyed propertly, the deterioration of their marriage and their descent from nice people to ‘animals’ must have a more natural progression.” Thankfully, this concern is addressed and fixed in the restored version, which is recommended. Indeed, the entire storyline remains remarkably compelling and relevant; I’m hard-pressed to think of a better film about the consequences of money-driven psychosis, greed, and envy.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• William Daniels’ cinematography
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a classic of the silent era.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Historically Relevant
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article (spoilers alert)

Synopsis:
After the February Revolution and the establishment of a Provisional Government helmed by Alexander Kerensky (Nikolay Popov), Lenin (Vasili Nikandrov) leads a group of Bolshevik revolutionaries in storming the Winter Palace during October of 1917.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Revolutionaries
• Russian Films
• Sergei Eisenstein Films
• Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
In his review of Sergei Eisenstein’s “visually dynamic version of Russia’s October Revolution of 1917” — the 67 minute cut, about half-an-hour shorter than the restored version now in circulation — Peary refers to the film as “a great propaganda piece,” with interim ruler “Kerensky portrayed as a power-hungry neurotic who is no different from Napoleon or Czar Nicholas”:

… and “the bourgeoisie who thrive under Kerensky [shown as] decadent types… who treat the Bolsheviks contemptuously and… brutally”:

Peary points out that the “film has several amazing sequences,” including “a dead horse (symbol of the Russian laborer)… lifted high into the air by the rising drawbridge it’s roped to”:

… and “the lengthy, exciting storming of the Winter Palace by the Bolsheviks”:

However, he notes that the film is “most known for Eisenstein’s startling use of montage to create rhythm, build tension, and express ideas.”

Indeed, those interested in Soviet-era cinematic montage won’t want to miss this classic outing by a master of the craft — though it’s not must-see viewing for all film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Powerful imagery, cinematography, and montage
  
  

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

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Senses of Cinema Review