French Connection, The (1971)

French Connection, The (1971)

Comments 2 comments

“Your hunches have backfired before, Doyle — or have you forgotten about that already?”

Synopsis:
In New York City, a pair of undercover narcs — Popeye Doyle (Gene Hackman) and Buddy Russo (Roy Scheider) — begin tracking a local shop owner (Tony Lo Bianco) who is planning a major heroin trade with a French millionaire (Fernando Rey).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cat-and-Mouse
  • Drug Dealers
  • Gene Hackman Films
  • New York City
  • Police
  • Rod Steiger Films
  • William Friedkin Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “William Friedkin directed this Best Picture winner, a police thriller showing how a [pair] of brutal, vulgar, nattily dressed New York street cops outfox the civil, rich, well-educated international criminals who are trying to smuggle in an enormous shipment of heroin.”

He notes that “Friedkin makes great use of sight and sounds of New York, wisely chosen locations, hand-held cameras, and natural light to give authenticity to this true story” — and that the “scenes shot in France, using French subtitles, give the film class, rather than coming across as pretentious.”

He points out while the “cops are brave,” “those like Jimmy ‘Popeye’ Doyle… are too obsessive and sadistic to be considered heroes:”

… “and thus “make unique protagonists in the American cinema. We’re glad they’re tough enough for the dangerous job of narcotics investigators, but we wouldn’t want to cross the paths of these thugs.”

Peary adds that the “film has ironic humor, strong violence, [and] many exciting sequences,” with the most famous showing “Popeye racing his car after a bad guy on a subway” — which plays “like a terrific short film.”

So much has been written and produced about this award-winning picture — followed by John Frankenheimer’s non-GFTFF listed French Connection II (1975) (which I haven’t seen) — that I’ll just highlight a few more of my thoughts. While the film is a bit challenging to follow at first, this makes perfect sense given the context of undercover cops attempting to sniff out a lead without being seen; we get a strong sense of how many tedious hours they must wait while observing their suspects, without any guarantee of success.


The cat-and-mouse tensions between Hackman and Rey are especially enjoyable; their interactions on a subway car are classic.

… and the scene in which the cops look for a very-well-hidden stash of drugs is genuinely suspenseful. This one remains well worth a look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Gene Hackman as Popeye Doyle
  • Roy Scheider as Buddy Russo
  • Excellent use of location shooting throughout the film
  • Owen Roizman’s cinematography
  • Jerry Greenberg’s editing
  • Don Ellis’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a classic thriller.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

Edvard Munch (1974)

Edvard Munch (1974)

Comments 1 comment

“How can a young man who looks so nice create things like this?”

Synopsis:
Norwegian Expressionist artist Edvard Munch (Geir Westby) creates paintings and other works of art inspired by his traumatic childhood and various romances, including a formative one with married Fru Heiberg (Gro Fraas).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Artists
  • Biopics
  • Peter Watkins Films
  • Scandinavian Films

Review:
Peary only lists three of iconoclastic writer-director Peter Watkins’ films in GFTFF — The War Game (1965), Privilege (1967), and this — but they’re each must-see in their own way. This unusual biopic was made in collaboration with the Norwegian (NRK) and Swedish (SVT) state television networks, and was originally aired on TV in addition to being screened at Cannes — though for unknown reasons, it remained challenging to see for many years, and Watkins was unable to pursue similar projects on other artists.

Utilizing a unique docudrama approach (including Watkins himself in voiceover), the film features primarily non-professional Norwegians in its cast — including Westby (who looks eerily like him; this is his only credit) as grown Munch.

I’ll cite next from DVD Savant’s review, which emphasizes the ingenuity of the film’s style:

“This biography of the great painter is assembled in a consistently brilliant free-association style that resembles a cinematic version of what the late 19th century painters were doing — tearing down conventions and exploring new ways of looking at the world. Edvard Munch is a long film but a fascinating one, an honest work of conceptual art that follows no rules but its own. There was nothing like it in 1974.”

Savant, an editor himself, adds that “Edvard Munch cuts all over the temporal map and communicates its intentions with pinpoint accuracy. A dozen formative memories and traumatic incidents are ever present in Munch’s work, and they recur time and again.” Indeed, it’s easy to see how (understandably) influential it was to Munch to live a childhood of illness and death (his mother and favorite sister both died):


… and to wonder if or when heritable mental illness would land upon him. (It did, eventually, though we don’t really see that depicted here.) We do see the strong influence of living amongst free-loving, philosophizing bohemians:

… in particular nihilist Hans Jæger, who apparently enjoined him to “paint what he felt” — eventually leading to his unique style of “soul painting,” which we learn was rejected by many if not most critics around him.

I was intrigued to learn a little more about one of his most famous paintings, “Madonna,” which more likely was meant to depict a partner’s view of a woman during love-making.

His model and lover, Dagny Juel (Iselin von Hanno Bast), is shown in the film (she had a horrific ending in her real life).

Munch’s existence was an undeniably challenging one — though it’s fortunate he managed to live his later years in relative peace (other than Nazis occupying Norway and calling his work degenerate; oh well). Neither Munch nor any of his siblings ever had kids — which I mention because I happen to be related to him (though obviously not directly). My maternal grandmother, Nanna née Munch, was his second-cousin once removed: she was the child of two Munchs (Jens Lauritz Munch and Nanna Munch), both of whom were children of Munchs as well (Jonah Storm Munch and Peter Christian Munch, respectively). (A little inbreeding, anybody?) Jonah and Peter’s grandfather, Peder Munch, was father to an older Edvard Munch, who gave birth to Kristian Munch, father of “the Edvard” of painterly fame.

All to say, I grew up knowing about my Munch heritage, seeing copies or cheap prints of his paintings all over the house, and visiting the same Edvard Munch Museum in Oslo that inspired Watkins to make this film. I can attest to their vibrancy, and also the strong theme of expressionist angst that literally pervades his work; it’s fortunate that he left all his estate to the city of Oslo, so viewers can continue to appreciate and learn from them.

Note: Munch was featured on a 1,000 kroner banknote (removed from circulation in 2019), which leads me to share one more personal tidbit: from my father’s side of the family, Norwegian scientist Kristian Birkeland was on the 200 Kroner note until 2017, when he was replaced by an image of cod. Birkeland, like Munch, was consumed by his work (he was nominated for a Nobel Prize 7 times), never had kids, and died a very mysterious death in a hotel in Tokyo; he’s related to my paternal great-grandmother Birkeland. Norway is a small country. And no, I don’t think I’m related to either Edvard Grieg or Henrik Ibsen, darn it.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Odd Geir Saether’s cinematography
  • Fine period sets
  • A fascinating glimpse into the artistic process (both creation and recreation)

  • Truly impressive editing

Must See?
Yes, as a powerful and unusual biopic. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Natural, The (1984)

Natural, The (1984)

Comments 1 comment

“You’ve got a gift, Roy — but it’s not enough; you’ve got to develop yourself.”

Synopsis:
After being shot as a young man by a mysterious woman (Barbara Hershey) in a hotel, baseball rookie Roy Hobbs (Robert Redford) — now in his 30s — joins a minor league team run by cantankerous Pop Fisher (Wilford Brimley) and the more even-tempered Red Blow (Richard Farnsworth), both of whom are concerned about ongoing corruption by the team’s majority owner (Robert Prosky). Meanwhile, Hobbs is seduced by Brimley’s sexy niece (Kim Basinger) and visited by his small-town sweetheart (Glenn Close).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Barbara Hershey Films
  • Barry Levinson Films
  • Baseball Films
  • Corruption
  • Femmes Fatales
  • Glenn Close Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Robert Duvall Films
  • Robert Redford Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Robert Redford returned to screen acting after a four-year vacation for this pet project, an adaptation of Bernard Malamud’s superb baseball novel” (which I haven’t read). He implies that “looking fit as an athlete, displaying a convincing left-handed swing, and sporting boyish good looks:”

… Redford is well-suited to play “Roy Hobbs, an innocent country boy who has… pitching talent” but is seduced “into taking the wayward path” by a “mysterious woman in black (Barbara Hershey)” (based on the bizarre real-life star-stalking of Eddie Waitkus by Ruth Ann Steinhagen).

[POTENTIAL SPOILER ALERT]

Peary argues that “in the early scenes this Barry Levinson-directed film brilliantly captures myth aspects of baseball prior to WWII, but then Levinson and Redford turn [the] picture into a schmaltzy fairytale.” He adds, “If you would have been happy if David O. Selznick decided to forget Margaret Mitchell and have Rhett stick it out with Scarlett, then you’ll accept these guys’ changing Malamud’s pessimistic ending” into a cheer-worthy one.

He points out that “Redford had early screen success playing men who sold out their convictions (i.e., The Candidate, The Way We Were) and it seemed Hobbs’ character as Malamud wrote it was ready-made for him” — but apparently “everyone wants to be a hero, especially one who seems to be more than human.”

Peary calls out the impressive atmosphere and “camera work by Caleb Deschanel” — and also notes the random distinction that Close’s character is viewed “as a symbol of purity even though she is an unwed mother.”

While I’m not a diehard baseball fan like Peary — and also not invested in how closely this film hews to its source material — I can see how viewers at the time may have been disappointed by the significant shift in the ending. Personally, I was more puzzled by the ultimate intent of the storyline, which mixes random elements of mysticism and nostalgia like nobody’s business. The shooting early on is indeed confusing (it’s apparently not explained in the book, either); what’s most clear is that we’re meant to see what happens when an older-than-typical athlete with star potential decides to finally pursue some version of his original dream. Other than that, corruption is a massive theme throughout (villainous Prosky is literally filmed in the dark):

… and the women in Hobbs’s life are either femme fatales (Hershey, Basinger) or earthly saints (Close). The biggest star of all, however, is Caleb Deschanel’s cinematography, which illuminates the period sets and actors with a gorgeous glow at all times.

Note: Robert Duvall is essentially wasted in a bit role as a sports journalist who first watches Hobbs strike out “The Whammer” (Joe Don Baker, playing a Babe Ruth-like star), then pursues him for his story throughout the rest of the film.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Joe Don Baker as “The Whammer”
  • Fine period sets
  • Caleb Deschanel’s cinematography

Must See?
No, but it’s certainly worth a one-time look as a well-crafted piece of nostalgia.

Links:

Lost in America (1985)

Lost in America (1985)

Comments 0 Comment

“It’s a very sacred thing, the nest egg.”

Synopsis:
When an overly confident ad man (Albert Brooks) is denied a promotion he believes he deserves, he convinces his wife (Julie Hagerty) to quit her job and join him on a life-altering RV road trip akin to Easy Rider — but will life on the road be as liberating as they believe, especially given Haggerty’s unknown gambling issues?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Albert Brooks Films
  • Comedy
  • Gambling
  • Living Nightmare
  • Marital Problems
  • Midlife Crisis
  • Road Trip
  • Unemployment

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “In his third comedy as director-star” — after Real Life (1979) and Modern Romance (1981) — “Albert Brooks again plays his familiar semi-obnoxious, semi-forgivable, self-absorbed young American” (a character-type I’ll fully admit to disliking). He adds that while Brooks’s David Howard is “not abrasive as we’ve seen him” in previous iterations, “he becomes just as aggravated when his schemes for the easy life go awry and his world crumbles around him.”

Meanwhile, “he still thinks himself clever enough to talk himself out of every difficulty — only to find out that no one goes along with what he says so convincingly.” (To that end, Garry Marshall is perfectly cast “as the humorless Vegas casino operator whom Brooks tries to convince to return Haggerty’s [gambling] losses in order to get good publicity for the hotel.”)

Peary argues that while “this is not the masterpiece that Brooks is capable of,” “it has several extremely funny scenes (particularly Brooks’s one-on-one dialogues with people in authority positions) and again Brooks reveals his unique perception of American characters.” However, he takes issue with the fact that “Brooks eventually forgives Haggerty for her gambling stupidity” given that “our opinion of her never becomes high again”:

… though I would point out that Brooks is far from admirable, and my opinion of him was never high. These boomers may be realistic in their self-absorbed foibles, but are not necessarily individuals we want to watch for an hour-and-a-half. You can skip this one.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • A few drolly amusing sequences

Must See?
No, though Brooks fans will of course want to see it — and I’m fully aware I’m in the minority on how I feel about his movies.

Links:

Mad Dog Morgan (1976)

Mad Dog Morgan (1976)

Comments 0 Comment

“I want his spleen on my desk by sundown.”

Synopsis:
In mid-19th-century Australia, bushranger Daniel Morgan (Dennis Hopper) partners with an Aboriginal man (David Gulpilil) while attempting to evade capture by Superintendent Cobham (Frank Thring), Detective Manwaring (Jack Thompson), and Sgt. Smith (Bill Hunter).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Australian Films
  • Biopics
  • Dennis Hopper Films
  • Folk Heroes
  • Historical Drama
  • Outlaws

Review:
Dennis Hopper played one of Australia’s best-known “bushrangers” (i.e., outlaws) in this semi-fictionalized biopic of Irish-Australian Daniel Morgan, referred to here as “Mad Dog”. Writer-director Philippe Mora — working from a book by Margaret Carnegie — effectively tells the arc of Morgan’s life, from an opium-loving gold-seeker hanging out with Chinese workers:

… to a prisoner enduring inhumane treatment:

… to life on the run from various lawmen who are determined to capture him at any cost. Along the way, his life is saved by Aboriginal Billy (Gulpilil), who teaches him how to make roasted snake:

… and he decides to “go Lincoln” in his appearance after seeing a picture of the American president.

Hopper’s performance is appropriately unhinged, showing precisely how a man like this — originally peaceful, pushed into crime by trauma — could survive for as long as he did while developing somewhat of a folk-hero following. Working with production designer/art director Bob Hilditch, Mora presents a credible view of mid-1800s Australia, in which survival is harsh and class/racial differences are stark. This so-called “Ozploitation” film remains worth a look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Dennis Hopper as “Mad Dog” Morgan
  • Strong supporting performances across the cast

  • Fine cinematography

Must See?
Yes, for Hopper’s performance and as a powerful early Australian flick.

Categories

  • Good Show
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

Mad Bomber, The (1973)

Mad Bomber, The (1973)

Comments 1 comment

“I want to catch this son-of-a-bitch before he blows up Los Angeles!”

Synopsis:
A police detective (Vince Edwards) in Los Angeles attempts to find a serial rapist (Neville Brand) who may know the identity of an insane bomber (Chuck Connors).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • Los Angeles
  • Neville Brand Films
  • Terrorists

Review:
Writer-director Bert I. Gordon (working from a story by Marc Behm) helmed this low-budget vigilante-psycho thriller set across the diverse streets of Los Angeles, featuring the potential of harm at literally every corner.

Bespectacled Connors is about as unhinged as you can imagine — but he’s in good company with sicko Brand, whose wife (Ilona Wilson) is at least somewhat in league with his perversions.

Given that obsessed Lieutenant Geronimo Minneli (Edwards) is on their tails:

… we’re guaranteed an action-packed and violence-filled adventure (which we get). Numerous sequences fall squarely within exploitation realm — be forewarned about several highly disturbing scenes — but to Gordon’s credit, one stays curious throughout about how things will eventually resolve.

Of special note: Edwards uses fancy facial “recognition” technology to craft an impressively effective visage of his suspect.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Good use of location shooting throughout Los Angeles

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

Links:

My Favorite Year (1982)

My Favorite Year (1982)

Comments 1 comment

“Stone, you can either watch me or join me: one of them is more fun.”

Synopsis:
In 1954, a comedy sketch writer (Mark Linn-Baker) is charged with watching over an alcoholic former matinee star (Peter O’Toole) who is due to make a special appearance on a variety show alongside “King Kaiser” (Joseph Bologna).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Actors and Actresses
  • Alcoholism and Drug Addiction
  • Cameron Mitchell Films
  • Comedy
  • Has-Beens
  • Jessica Harper Films
  • Peter O’Toole Films
  • Television

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “original, pleasing, spiritedly written (by Norman Steinberg and Dennis Palumbo) and acted comedy set in 1954” features “uneven” direction by Richard Benjamin (who “has a particularly tough time with tone changes”), and wastes Jessica Harper playing “a perky, dull girl… instead of one of her kooky characters.”

However, he argues (and I agree) that “both O’Toole and Joseph Bologna (as the [Sid] Caesar-like Kaiser) are terrific.”

He points out that the “film shows how the brilliant, artistic, graceful O’Toole and the stupid, strong, instinctively hilarious Bologna — top stars from different eras — share the limelight and become unbeatable partners on live television,” thus proving “there is room in show business for great talents of all types.” He adds that “the dialogues between the show’s writers”:

… “and the scene in which O’Toole meets Linn-Baker’s unusual mother (Lainie Kazan) and uncle (Lou Jacobi) are highlights.”

I was overall disappointed with this film, which does indeed run inconsistently and seems to be missing a key opportunity. However, there are enough positive elements — including O’Toole’s no-holds-barred performance; Bologna as Kaiser (his interactions with real-life crime boss Karl Rojeck [Cameron Mitchell] are hilariously bold):

… and a delightful show-stopping ending — to recommend it for one-time viewing. Also of special note: O’Toole dancing with a smitten woman (Gloria Stuart) out celebrating her anniversary at a club.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Peter O’Toole as Alan Swann
  • Joseph Bologna as King Kaiser

Must See?
Yes, once, for O’Toole’s performance, and for the satisfying ending.

Categories

  • Noteworthy Performance(s)
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

Blue Collar (1978)

Blue Collar (1978)

Comments 0 Comment

“Maybe we should’ve robbed a liquor store like everybody else.”

Synopsis:
When a trio of in-debt auto workers — Zeke (Richard Pryor), Smokey (Yaphet Kotto), and Jerry (Harvey Keitel) — conspire to rob the safe of their corrupt union, unexpected consequences quickly ensue.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Ed Begley Jr. Films
  • Harvey Keitel Films
  • Heists
  • Labor Movement
  • Paul Schrader Films
  • Political Corruption
  • Richard Pryor Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “excellent, unusual film by Paul Schrader, which he wrote with brother Leonard” at first “threatens to become a comedy, perhaps like 9 to 5, in which three exploited employees ‘screw’ the boss.”

An early scene taking place at Pryor’s apartment — when he receives an evening visit from an IRS agent (Leonard Gaines), and quickly rallies with his wife (Chip Fields) to “produce” the additional children he has claimed on his returns:

… is definitely written with a comedic undertone, though the circumstances behind it (constant, unrelenting financial pressures) are all-too-real;” and “when the union gets serious, the comedy disappears.”

Peary notes that this “cult film is strongly written, provocative, [and] extremely well acted” — and for the time the movie was made, “Schrader’s to be commended for having two of his three leads be black.”

To that end, all three lead actors turn in impressive, believable performances — though I’ll admit it was hard to watch a scene in which the men gather at Kotto’s apartment for a coke-and-sex-fueled party, given that both Pryor and Keitel have lied to their sweet wives (Fields and Luca Saroyan) about going out.

I get it that the men want to let loose and relieve some tension, given the extreme frustrations of their work — but their wives don’t deserve either deception or STDs. With that caveat aside, the script is heavy-hitting in a refreshing way: we understand the massive corruption at play across all systems (including the union) right away, and how challenging these men’s choices are. There’s a particularly gruesome (and effective) murder scene that shifts the film into horror-flick territory — and things get even more harrowing from there. This isn’t an easy film to watch, but it’s a powerful and important one.

Note: Watch for Ed Begley, Jr. in a small role as a fellow employee and friend.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Yaphet Kotto as Smokey
  • Harvey Keitel as Jerry
  • Richard Pryor as Zeke
  • Fine location cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a still-powerful neo-realist thriller.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Walking Tall (1973)

Walking Tall (1973)

Comments 1 comment

“Nothing wrong with guns – in the right hands.”

Synopsis:
The wife (Elizabeth Hartman) of a wrestler-turned-sheriff (Joe Don Baker) is dismayed when she sees him taking on increasingly corrupt townsfolk, at the risk of his own and his family’s safety.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Corruption
  • Elizabeth Hartman Films
  • Phil Karlson Films
  • Sheriffs and Marshalls
  • Vigilantes

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “this once controversial box-office smash is a highly fictionalized account of real-life Tennessee sheriff Buford Pusser (Joe Don Baker), a former wrestler who used club (literally) and fang tactics to clean up crime and corruption.”

He notes that “Phil Karlson’s hard-hitting action film is a throwback to old-style westerns in which well-intentioned lawmen never had to make excuses for ringing up a high body count each day,” and he points out “it also recalls Karlson’s Phenix City Story, in which a crusading lawyer cleans up corruption, and vigilante-with-badges urban melodramas like The Big Heat and Dirty Harry.”

He asserts that while “initially, leftist viewers [at the time] joined the rednecks in applauding Pusser’s efforts, figuring he was a populist figure who hated corrupt authority figures as much as they,” “in retrospect this film helped start the unfortunate Hollywood trend in which thuggish lawmen who shoot first and ask questions later are presented as appealing ‘rebels’ because they’re willing to risk their jobs and promotions by circumventing the law to make our streets safer.” He points out that “nowhere to be found are the moral citizens who take a stand against vigilante justice,” and notes that this “modestly budgeted film is crude, brutal, and manipulative.”

I agree with Peary’s overall review: given that most people these days won’t have heard of Pusser, the biopic relevance of this picture is much lower, and we’re left instead with simply an action-packed vigilante flick set in the south, with plenty of violence and a sad ending (not to mention a ridiculous-looking face-cast on Baker that I just can’t imagine being a real thing).

With that said, fans of Hartman — who died by suicide 14 years later, at the age of 43 — will want to check this out for her appearance as a wife who knows her husband is playing with fire, but can’t do much to stop him.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Good use of Tennessee location shooting

Must See?
Nope; you can skip this one.

Links:

Macon County Line (1974)

Macon County Line (1974)

Comments 1 comment

“For these two weeks, we’re just gonna be out cattin’ around and havin’ us a ball.”

Synopsis:
Before enlisting in the army, a pair of brothers — Chris (Alan Vint) and Wayne (Jesse Vint) — pick up a hitchhiker (Cheryl Waters) and meet a sheriff (Max Baer, Jr.) who accidentally involves them in a vendetta with two dangerous drifters.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Mistaken or Hidden Identities
  • Road Trip
  • Sheriffs and Marshalls

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, Max Baer, Jr. — primarily known as “gentle but stupid Jethro on The Beverly Hillbillies” — “wrote, produced, and played a key role in this strange, violent, low-budget film that became a surprise box-office smash and cult favorite.”

Peary asserts that this is “not a bad film,” adding that the “acting is convincing, and the script presents an original view of the militarist (fascist) mentality (as represented by Baer) and takes a strong stance against it.” Without giving away too much of the plot (which unfolds with reasonable suspense), I would agree with Peary that the “ending is like something from a horror movie.”

The majority of the film is spent following the Vints on their aborted road trip:

… which includes meeting up with an odd, suspicious gas station owner (Geoffrey Lewis) along the way:

… and, of course, some romance (along with plenty of violence). The film’s primary interest, however, is showing what happens when worlds collide, identities are mistaken, and guns (introduced early on) continue to play an outsized role.

Note: This film is known for being one of a spate of pictures at the time purportedly based on a real story, but actually purely fictional.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Daniel Lacambre’s cinematography

Must See?
No, unless you’re curious, given its cult status and popularity.

Links: