Dealing: or The Berkeley-to-Boston Forty-Brick Lost-Bag Blues (1972)

Dealing: or The Berkeley-to-Boston Forty-Brick Lost-Bag Blues (1972)

“I’m not so sure of anything.”

Synopsis:
An apathetic Harvard law student (Robert F. Lyons) working for his drug-dealing classmate (John Lithgow) smuggles marijuana across the country to Berkeley, where he meets and falls in love with a free-living hippie (Barbara Hershey). When trying to connect back in Boston, Hershey gets caught smuggling and loses a bag of drugs, leading to Lyons eventually pursuing the corrupt cop (Charles Durning) who’s made off with the loot.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Barbara Hershey Films
  • Blackmail
  • Corruption
  • Drug Dealers
  • John Lithgow Films
  • Police

Review:
This intriguingly titled movie is based on a pseudonymous early novel by Michael Crichton and his brother Douglas (collectively using the pen name “Michael Douglas”). It seems to reflect some of Crichton’s own experiences giving up a prestigious future-career (he earned an M.D., but never practiced medicine) for something much riskier — in this case, stupidly risky drug transportation which clearly taps into Lyons’ desire for novelty and excitement. It’s a challenging plot to become invested in, given how little we care for or about Lyons, who’s actually a bit of a cad in the way he mistreats, neglects, and cheats on his straight-laced girlfriend (Ellen Barber).

Once the storyline turns to Lithgow and Lyons’ desire to retrieve their “missing” loot, we really know we’re dealing with losers who should leave well enough alone.

Meanwhile, Michael Small’s soundtrack comes across as oddly inappropriate at times, unlike his highly memorable work for The Parallax View just a couple of years later.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Good use of authentic shooting locales

Must See?
No, unless you’re curious. Listed as a Cult Movie and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Harper (1966)

Harper (1966)

“What kind of a weirdo is Sampson?”

Synopsis:
Private detective Lew Harper (Paul Newman) is hired by the wife (Lauren Bacall) of an oil tycoon to locate her missing husband “Sampson”, with help from Sampson’s grown daughter (Pamela Tiffin) and Tiffin’s hunky boyfriend (Robert Wagner). During his search across Los Angeles, Harper meets up with Bacall’s lawyer (Arthur Hill), a boozy ex-starlet (Shelley Winters) and her protective husband (Robert Webber), a drug-addicted jazz pianist (Julie Harris), a kooky cult leader (Strother Martin), and even his own estranged wife (Janet Leigh).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • Janet Leigh Films
  • Julie Harris Films
  • Lauren Bacall Films
  • Los Angeles
  • Paul Newman Films
  • Robert Wagner Films
  • Search
  • Shelley Winters Films

Review:
This adaptation of Ross MacDonald’s detective novel The Moving Target (1949) featured Paul Newman starring in his third of four single-word-titled films starting with the letter H — after [The] Hustler (1961) and Hud (1964) and before Hombre (1967). (This is notable only because Newman requested that his character be renamed from Lew Archer to Lew Harper to continue the trend.)

It’s solidly directed by Jack Smight, with fine Technicolor cinematography by Conrad Hall, good use of diverse locales across Los Angeles, and an ensemble array of big-name actors making an impression in relatively small parts (especially Winters and Harris). There are plenty of twists and turns — as well as unexpected character revelations — and Newman gets into just about as much trouble as you might imagine given the amount of money at stake.

I haven’t read any of the Lew Archer novels, but according to Wikipedia’s article, Archer “is largely a cipher, rarely described”, thus leaving him open to interpretation by Newman, who portrays him as a smooth operator — he swiftly turns himself into whoever people assume he is — but also a foolish husband who’s unable to keep things straight with his own (dissatisfied and fed up) wife.

In his review of the film for The New York Times — comparing it to hard-boiled private eye flicks of the 1940s — Bosley Crowther wrote:

“… something intangible is missing, and that something is the curious kind of ‘cool’ that Mr. Bogart used to establish in these tersely detached detective roles. Mr. Newman is an interesting actor. He can be cynical, casual, cruel and can convey an air of personal anguish that is appropriate to his non-committed role. But he is too fresh, too ruggedly good looking to be consistent as the sort of beat-up slob that his shady detective is intended to be and as Mr. Bogart used to be.”

Regardless of whether one agrees with Crowther’s specific complaint (does Archer need to be a “beat-up slob”?), I’ll admit to not quite finding Newman appropriate in the role — primarily because he’s too easily amused and a bit childish; it’s by sheer luck (and perhaps even some James Bond-ian movie-land luck) that he manages to slip away with his life time and again.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Conrad Hall’s cinematography
  • Fine supporting performances



  • Good use of authentic locales around Southern California
  • Impressive sets
  • William Goldman’s script:

    Harper says to a cop: “I used to be a sheriff — until I passed my literacy test.”

Must See?
No, but it’s definitely recommended for one-time viewing.

Links:

Silencers, The (1966)

Silencers, The (1966)

“I’ve been as honest with you as you have been with me.”

Synopsis:
Retired super-spy Matt Helm (Dean Martin) is lured by his former ICE (Intelligence Counter Espionage) boss (James Gregory) away from his comfortable life as a Slaymate photographer to help stop the head (Victor Buono) of a terrorist organization from enacting a nuclear explosion across the United States. Along the way, he’s helped by a beautiful femme fatale (Dahlia Lavi) and hindered by a bumbling potential counter-agent (Stella Stevens).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cyd Charisse Films
  • Dean Martin Films
  • Nuclear Threat
  • Phil Karlson Films
  • Satires and Spoofs
  • Spies
  • Stella Stevens Films

Review:
Directed by Phil Karlson, this first of four spy spoofs based on the “Matt Helm” books by Donald Hamilton remains a lame American attempt to cash in on the Bond franchise. Martin isn’t believable in the slightest as a “super spy”, and his treatment of women as readily available sex objects goes beyond even that of Bond (not an easy feat). Poor Stella Stevens bumbles around from her first uncomfortable scene on screen — waggling her bathing-suit-clad bum in front of Martin, then proceeding to crash into everyone else lounging by the pool — and she’s never given a chance to shine or succeed, other than accidentally (viz. the “reverse-shooting” gun in later scenes).

As noted by Richard Scheib in his Moria review, “To say that The Silencers was the best of the Matt Helm may be to give a misleading impression that one is praising it. One isn’t – the Matt Helm series is infuriating in its obnoxiousness.”

Note: Cyd Charisse shows up in a couple of enjoyable dance numbers, but is far too quickly removed from the story — and her dress in the second is mind-numbingly ugly. What were they thinking?!?!

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Beautiful Cyd Charisse dancing in the opening credits
  • Creative sets

Must See?
No; you can most definitely skip this one.

Links:

Power, The (1968)

Power, The (1968)

“I know what a man’s power can do. The raw power of one man alone, to kill millions of innocent people.”

Synopsis:
Shortly after an anthropologist (Arthur O’Connell) at a human endurance research lab discovers that one of his teammates has telekinetic powers, he is killed, and his colleague Jim Tanner (George Hamilton) is fired due to supposedly falsifying his credentials. Hamilton and his colleague/lover (Suzanne Pleshette) go on a road trip to learn more about a mysterious man named “Adam Hart”, but they quickly find their own lives — as well as those of their other teammates — in constant jeopardy.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Aldo Ray Films
  • Amateur Sleuths
  • Gary Merrill Films
  • George Hamilton Films
  • George Pal Films
  • Living Nightmare
  • Michael Rennie Films
  • Mind Control and Hypnosis
  • Murder Mystery
  • Science Fiction
  • Scientists
  • Serial Killers
  • Yvonne De Carlo Films

Review:
Byron Haskin directed and George Pal produced this sci-fi murder-mystery thriller — based on a novel by Frank M. Robinson — which includes plenty of action and mystery but is ultimately a disappointment. Various memorable players show up in supporting roles across diverse landscapes — Yvonne De Carlo as O’Connell’s drunk widow living in a mobile home:

… Barbara Nichols and Aldo Ray as a busty, dissatisfied gas station clerk and her suspicious husband:


… and Michael Rennie as a stoic visitor at the lab:

— but none of them are given sufficient screen time. Worst of all is that the film fails in its quest to deliver a satisfying conclusion or backstory; we feel like we’ve invested in quite a complex story without much pay-off by the end.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • George Hamilton as Professor Jim Tanner
  • Miklos Rozsa’s score

Must See?
No; you can skip this one.

Links:

Wild Wild World of Jayne Mansfield, The (1968)

Wild Wild World of Jayne Mansfield, The (1968)

“I hope nobody’s watching me; I’m basically very shy.”

Synopsis:
Jayne Mansfield narrates her travels through Rome, Paris, New York, and Hollywood, coyly marveling at the spectacles she sees.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Documentary
  • Jayne Mansfield Films

Review:
The intended audience for this mondo documentary — featuring Jayne Mansfield gawking at and within all sorts of “naughty” spaces — is clearly either adult-film aficionados, and/or Mansfield fans; but all-purpose film fanatics may get a kick out of “Mansfield” (her voice-over was likely done by someone else) making hilariously self-aggrandizing comments such as the following: “I was in love with Rome, and Rome was in love with me… Once again, I was in my own brand of heaven. Admirers flocked around me.” I’m tempted to make the bulk of this review an overview of the humorous narration, which tickled me time and again (at least during the first half):

While strolling through the streets of Rome: “I didn’t mean to break up their game, but suddenly I was surrounded by 50,000 adoring, wonderful, handsome Italians. If I could have kissed each one, I would have — but I didn’t have time that day.”

While looking at nude statues of gladiators in Rome: “My statue became blood and flesh and muscle in my silly, wicked little daydream… Any one of them would be able to overpower me. I wondered if I would ever meet anybody who could be a tenth of a man those Roman gladiators were: they lived hard, died hard, and — from what I’ve heard — they loved hard.”

At a nudist colony: “I walked over to a lonely pile of rocks. ‘Jaynie,’ I said to myself, ‘It’s your turn!'”

The most uncomfortable moments are when Mansfield visits transvestite clubs and is so clearly unnerved by the “boy-girls” she sees; young film fanatics raised in a more pro-trans social environment may be shocked by the candid expressions used here. Also terribly upsetting, of course, are the abrupt final scenes showing photos of Mansfield’s death by car accident, and a tour of her house with her widowed husband and two young sons — talk about exploitative! However, Mansfield was nothing if not eager to show herself off to the world, so perhaps this was the most fitting exit for a 33-year-old buxomy “dumb” blonde (who received a college degree and had a high IQ).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • An unexpectedly humorous travelogue through “Jayne Mansfield’s” mind


Must See?
Yes, simply for its camp value, and as a historical document of Mansfield’s travails before her untimely death. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Kiss Me, Stupid (1964)

Kiss Me, Stupid (1964)

“This guy is only interested in action!”

Synopsis:
A small-town piano teacher (Ray Walston) with enormous jealousy issues around his beautiful wife (Felicia Farr) is convinced by his song-writing buddy (Cliff Osmond) to let lecherous Vegas singer “Dino” (Dean Martin) spend the night in Walston’s house so the duo can try to sell him some of their songs. However, when Walston realizes Martin will inevitably be attracted to Farr, he fakes an argument with his wife and sends her away, while bringing over a local prostitute (Kim Novak) to impersonate his “wife” and be seduced.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Billy Wilder Films
  • Dean Martin Films
  • Jealousy
  • Kim Novak Films
  • Mistaken or Hidden Identities
  • Romantic Comedy

Review:
Billy Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond collaborated on the screenplay for this notoriously “risque” sex comedy which opens with Dean Martin making a decidedly dated and inappropriate joke on stage (Pointing to a show girl behind him: “Is this a bit of terrific, eh? Last night she was banging on my door for 45 minutes! pauses But I wouldn’t let her out.”)

From there, we’re made to know under no uncertain terms that Dino “needs” his nightly sex fix or he gets a “headache” — which sets up the entire premise of the situation, in which songwriters Walston and Osmond (but mostly Osmond) are so desperate to make it big (and what could be “bigger” than Dean Martin crooning one of your ditties?) that they’ll willingly sacrifice the women around them to make this happen. Unfortunately, we don’t like any of these men to begin with: Martin is meant to be a complete sleaze, but it’s harder to watch Walston steaming at the ears with envy about every single man his beautiful wife interacts with (he’s a dangerously unhinged, possessive, and paranoid husband, to be sure):


… and Osmond — giving a memorable performance:

— is no catch, either: without compunction, he severs the fuel line in Martin’s car to ensure he’ll come back to the tiny town of Climax, Nevada and be forced to spend the night.

So, how do the women do in this film? Poor Farr wants nothing more than to help her (ungrateful) husband celebrate their five-year anniversary (she seems like a peach), but has to battle relentlessly against his unreasonable jealousy — and then she’s lied to and belittled for the “greater cause” of Walston and Osmond selling songs.

Meanwhile, Novak — given a “bad cold” to try to help her character seem more… sympathetic? — is hyper-sexualized, and seems to accept that she’s sold off to any reasonable bidder wanting her “services” for the evening, simply so she can save up money to buy a car and get out of town.

Her genuine crush on Walston complicates things even more: we don’t blame her, but — what about poor Farr, who’s done nothing wrong at all? Ay, what a dilemma. While many fans appreciate this film’s ahead-of-its-time candor with all things sex-related (especially in the restored-ending version now available on DVD, which empowers Farr even further), I found it challenging to sit through.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Cliff Osmond as Barney
  • Joseph LaShelle’s cinematography
  • Andre Previn’s score

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look if you’re curious, given its notoriety. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book, which makes sense.

Links:

Zambizanga / Sambizanga (1973)

Zambizanga / Sambizanga (1973)

“The Rich are the Poor’s enemies. They see to it that the Poor stay poor. “

Synopsis:
When a black construction worker (Domingos Oliviera) in 1961 Angola is suddenly arrested as a political prisoner, his wife (Elisa Andrade) sets out with their baby to find him in the capital city of Luanda.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • African Films
  • Class Relations
  • Labor Movements
  • Prisoners
  • Race Relations and Racism
  • Revolutionaries
  • Strong Females

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary informs us that this “radical film” — “directed by Sarah Maldoror, French-born black feminist, and co-written by her husband, a leader in the Angolan resistance” — was, according to Maldoror, “made ‘to make Europeans, who hardly know anything about Africa, conscious of the forgotten war in Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau‘.” (I, for one, will admit that I knew nothing about the Angolan War of Independence before watching this film.) Peary writes that as the “politically naive” wife of a secret activist “goes from prison to prison in search of her husband,” she “discovers that what is happening to prisoners (including her husband) is horrific,” and “she develops a political consciousness.” He argues it’s a “terrific, unforgettable picture,” one that “reveals the horrid nature of political oppression in colonial countries where there are liberation movements” — and I would definitely agree. It’s not at all an easy film to watch, especially given that Maldoror highlights not only the toxic effects of colonialism but the stark reality of racism and gender inequality. However, it also portrays the resilience of people who band together for mutual support (one woman even breast-feeds Andrade’s baby for her during a rest stop), and demonstrates that Oliviera’s torture is not suffered in vain.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A powerful neo-realist tale of political resistance

Must See?
Yes, as a unique window into a specific cultural time and movement, and for its historical significance as what was likely the first feature film directed by a woman in Sub-Sarahan Africa.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Blood and Sand (1941)

Blood and Sand (1941)

“The cow hasn’t been born yet that can give birth to the bull that can hurt me!”

Synopsis:
A Spanish toreador (Tyrone Power) weds his childhood sweetheart (Linda Darnell) and achieves tremendous fame in the bullfighting world, but risks losing it all when he falls for a sultry socialite (Rita Hayworth).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Anthony Quinn Films
  • Bullfighting
  • Femmes Fatales
  • Infidelity
  • John Carradine Films
  • Laird Cregar Films
  • Linda Darnell Films
  • Rise and Fall
  • Rita Hayworth Films
  • Rouben Mamoulian Films
  • Tyrone Power Films

Review:
Rouben Mamoulian’s Technicolor remake of Rudolf Valentino’s 1922 blockbuster is a visual gem, with nearly every scene looking like a gorgeous painting. Unfortunately, the storyline (as in the original version) leaves much to be desired: an illiterate, bullfighting-obsessed upstart is lucky enough to win the love and loyalty of a beautiful girl, but throws his marriage away when a soulless femme fatale comes lurking. (Could it be that fame… corrupts?)

Meanwhile, Power’s tiffs with a portly journalist (Laird Cregar):

and rivalry with his friend (Anthony Quinn):

play out entirely predictably, and the film’s Christian symbolism runs far too deep. (I wouldn’t exactly refer to bullfighters as martyrs dying on the cross of their inevitably short-lived careers — but that’s what the story seems to posit.)

A brief moment of aural beauty comes when the film’s soundtrack composer, Vincente Gomez, performs a guitar solo; this was my favorite scene in the film.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Ernest Palmer and Ray Rennahan’s Oscar-winning Technicolor cinematography

Must See?
No; you can skip this one unless you’re a fan of the stars.

Links:

Hollywood Boulevard (1976)

Hollywood Boulevard (1976)

“This is Hollywood — we change everything; we have to.”

Synopsis:
An aspiring starlet (Candice Rialson) hoping to make it big in Hollywood signs on with a hard-working agent (Dick Miller) and is soon working for a pretentious director (Paul Bartel) whose leading lady (Mary Woronov) detests her competition, and whose other actresses are mysteriously being killed off, one by one.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Aspiring Stars
  • Dick Miller Films
  • Hollywood
  • Joe Dante Films
  • Movie Directors
  • Satires and Spoofs
  • Serial Killers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that the “main claim to fame” of this “self-parody” is “that it was made in record-breaking time on a pocket-change budget” by “Joe Dante and Alan Arkush, New World editors” who “wanted to prove to studio head Roger Corman that they could effectively direct quickie sexploitation films in the Corman mold”. He notes that “Patrick Hobby’s script is inventive and funny”, with “a barrage of surprisingly clever sight gags and references to Corman’s style of filmmaking; and the entire cast hams it up to perfection.” He points out that “Paul Bartel is hilarious as a director who tries to inject ‘art’, ‘meaning’, and character motivation into his trashy films — while maintaining a large quantity of T&A, car crashes, and massacre scenes” — but I’m more fond of Woronov, who has delicious fun skewering her own image as a “big-name” cult star. Peary argues that the “film falters toward [the] end, when it gets a bit too serious and includes a needlessly vicious knife murder”, but writes that “surprisingly, the film” — which incorporates “inserted footage from previous Corman productions” — “looks polished.” I’m essentially in agreement with Peary’s assessment, though I don’t think modern film fanatics need to see this one unless it piques their interest.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Mary Woronov as Mary McQueen
  • A shameless skewering of “quickie” exploitation movies
  • Good use of L.A. locales

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

Links:

Time Machine, The (1960)

Time Machine, The (1960)

“At last, I found a paradise — but it would be no paradise if it belonged to me alone.”

Synopsis:
A Victorian-era scientist (Rod Taylor) builds a time travel machine that allows him to travel to the very-distant future, where he meets a beautiful young woman (Yvette Mimieux) whose colony, the Elois, are ruled over by underground monsters known as Morlocks.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Dystopia
  • George Pal Films
  • H.G. Wells Films
  • Rod Taylor Films
  • Science Fiction
  • Time Travel
  • Yvette Mimieux Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “enjoyable, colorful George Pal production of H.G. Wells’s novel” has “excitement and imagination, an excellent beginning, special effects, [and] scary-looking monster men,” and notes that the “time-travel sequences are especially well done.” Peary points out that “Pal, who also directed, ignores Wells’s intention to set up two distinct classes, the workers (the Morlocks) and the decadent leisure/capitalist class (the Eloi), as well as Wells’s application of Social Darwinism to the survivors of the nuclear war,” instead focusing on “how the Eloi make the choice not to be ‘cattle’ raised for slaughter but to regain human traits (to care for one another, to love, to fight for survival, to gather their own food, to work) — which are distinct from the beastly traits of the Morlocks.”

Although it’s been quite a while since I read the original novel, I would say that Pal’s narrative choice (working with a script by David Duncan) is a smart one: seeing the opening sequence with the Eloi — in which “young, blond, ignorant, pathetic, and carefree people living in an Edenic garden” pay no attention “when a young woman… almost drowns” — reminds us that “paradise” is relative, and that beauty and comfort don’t correlate with authenticity, satisfaction, or integrity. Mimieux is appropriately beautiful and guileless as “Weena” (how does she speak English so well??), while Taylor makes a ruggedly sympathetic protagonist, someone we can easily root for along his travails — especially as it’s clear he wants nothing but the best for humanity.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Rod Taylor as George
  • Vibrant cinematography and production design

  • Fine special effects

Must See?
Yes, for the Oscar-winning special effects and as an effective sci-fi adventure.

Categories

  • Good Show
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links: