Conversation, The (1974)

Conversation, The (1974)

Comments 2 comments

“If there’s one surefire rule that I have learned in this business it’s that I don’t know anything about human nature.”

Synopsis:
An increasingly paranoid surveillance expert (Gene Hackman) becomes convinced that his most recent assignment — trailing the young wife (Cindy Williams) of a business executive (Robert Duvall) as she meets her lover (Fredric Forrest) — will result in murder.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Allen Garfield Films
  • Francis Ford Coppola Films
  • Fredric Forrest Films
  • Gene Hackman Films
  • Guilt
  • Harrison Ford Films
  • Robert Duvall Films
  • Spies
  • Teri Garr Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary reveals his true feelings about this quietly tense thriller (written and directed by Francis Ford Coppolla) in his Alternate Oscars, where he names Hackman Best Actor of the Year for his role as Harry Caul but asserts that “the picture is extremely flawed”. He argues that “Coppola’s worst mistake is to delve into pretentious fantasy (Harry’s nightmares) and arty images when realism is the picture’s strongest suit”; however, he concedes that “as a character study it works quite well, because Gene Hackman is brilliant at portraying a unique movie protagonist: … a dull man, a paranoid man, a secretive man, an isolated man, [and] a very, very guilty and depressed man”. While I agree with Peary’s assertion about Hackman’s excellent, nuanced performance, I disagree with his overall assessment of the film: by intentionally making it unclear whether Harry’s paranoid suspicions are grounded in reality or his own mind, the movie becomes an increasingly haunting meditation on how guilt effects a “moral (Catholic) man whose work is sleazy and immoral”; the “arty images” and fantasy elements work extremely well in the context of what’s slowly unfolding.

While Peary claims that “Coppola’s pacing is a bit too methodical”, I find the entire narrative gripping from beginning to end — including the intriguing mid-script scenes in which Hackman attends a surveillance expo, reconnects with a sleazy rival (Allen Garfield), and is bedded by one of Garfield’s acquaintances, a frantically seductive middle-aged call girl (Elizabeth MacRae). Peary complains that this seduction turns Harry into a “foolish amateur”, given that his tapes disappear while he’s sleeping with her, but he concedes that “in Coppola’s defense, he may have been showing Harry’s slip-ups as being symptomatic of his deteriorating mental condition” — an assertion I fully support. To that end, The Conversation bears close thematic resemblance to several other paranoia-themed films of the (Watergate) era — including Roman Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby (1968) and The Tenant (1976), as well as Allan J. Pakula’s The Parallax View (1974). The Conversation remains a powerful, masterfully crafted tale — one well worth repeated viewings.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Gene Hackman as Harry Caul
  • Fine cinematography
  • Excellent use of strategically designed sets

  • Powerful editing (of both visuals and sound)
  • Coppola’s provocative script
  • David Shire’s haunting score

Must See?
Yes. This classic merits multiple viewings.

Categories

  • Cult Movie
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

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

Links:

CrazyLegs / Zero Hour (1953)

CrazyLegs / Zero Hour (1953)

Comments 1 comment

“You forget about everything out on that field, don’t you?”

Synopsis:
Football legend Elroy “Crazylegs” Hirsch stars as himself in this overview of his fabled athletic career.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Biopics
  • Football

Review:
It’s difficult to understand why Peary includes this tepid, poorly scripted biopic of football star Elroy Hirsch — a.k.a. “Crazylegs” — in his GFTFF, given that it suffers from a serious lack of genuine dramatic tension, and will only be of interest to diehard sports fans or those specifically interested in Hirsch’s story. For what it’s worth, Hirsch — who has a decent on-screen presence — actually seems like a nice enough guy: he’s hardworking, devoted to his all-American “girl” (Joan Vohs) and loyal parents (Norman Field and Louise Lorimer), and intensely committed to both his country (he voluntarily enlisted as a Marine) and to sportsmanship in general. But niceness and a strong work ethic don’t necessarily make for a particularly interesting protagonist or storyline.

While he’s best known for his stellar work as a running back and receiver for the L.A. Rams and Chicago Rockets, Hirsch was also the only University of Wisconsin student to win a Varsity letter in 4 major sports in one year. To that end, the thesis of the film seems to be summed up in the following quote:

Sports aren’t just a sideline; it’s a way of life, competing against the very best. There’s a special way you feel about things — you can’t buy it, you can’t explain it to anybody else; you have to live it.

It’s unfortunate that such an intriguing life perspective — ripe for dramatic exploration — is handled so dully. Don’t bother seeking this one out unless you’re a true football fan (in which case you’ll likely appreciate all the vintage footage of actual games).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Vintage footage of Hirsch on the field

Must See?
No; this one will only be of interest to fans of football history.

Links:

Night Monster (1942)

Night Monster (1942)

Comments 3 comments

“All matter is really cosmic substance in vibration.”

Synopsis:
A reclusive cripple (Ralph Morgan) with a seemingly insane daughter (Fay Helm), a lurking butler (Bela Lugosi), a skittish maid (Janet Shaw), and a menacing chauffeur (Leif Erickson) invites a diverse group of guests to his decaying mansion — including a mystic (Nils Asther), a psychiatrist (Irene Hervey) hoping to help Helm, two doctors (Frank Reicher and Francis Pierlot) who may or may not have played a role in botching Morgan’s recovery from his disabling accident, and a young crime novelist (Don Porter) intent on solving the series of murders that are shortly played out.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bela Lugusi Films
  • Lionel Atwill Films
  • Murder Mystery
  • Old Dark House

Review:
While this “old dark house” thriller (directed by Hollywood workhorse Ford Beebe of Flash Gordon fame) will clearly be of most interest to Bela Lugosi fans, they’ll quickly find that his role is peripheral at best. Fortunately, the storyline — though predictably convoluted, and overpopulated by too many characters — is engaging while it lasts; of particular interest is the sequence in which Asther works his creepy mumbo-jumbo (“There are certain details in the process that we are not allowed to explain to the uninitiated.”), and Atwill’s nicely handled “big reveal” scene. Not must-see viewing, but not a total snooze, either.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Atmospheric cinematography (by Charles Van Enger)
  • Some humorously corny dialogue:

    “How is it dames always know what’s on a guy’s mind before he knows himself?”

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for diehard Lugosi fans.

Links:

Three Strangers (1946)

Three Strangers (1946)

Comments 1 comment

“We’re three strangers — that’s the point.”

Synopsis:
On Chinese New Year, three strangers — a socially-aspiring attorney (Sydney Greenstreet), the wealthy wife (Geraldine Fitzgerald) of a philanderer (Alan Napier), and a petty thief (Peter Lorre) — share in the outcome of a lottery ticket after praying to a goddess of fortune.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Geraldine Fitzgerald Films
  • Jean Negulesco Films
  • John Huston Films
  • Peter Lorre Films
  • Sydney Greenstreet Films

Review:
Jean Negulesco directed this atmospheric, fast-paced thriller, based on a script by John Huston and Howard Koch and featuring Maltese Falcon (1941) co-stars Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre (as well as luminous Geraldine Fitzgerald, who seemed to specialize in playing women with a potentially loose screw). Huston and Koch’s tight screenplay intrigues and invites from the very beginning; we’re held captive throughout, wondering what will befall each of our hapless, all-too-human protagonists. There’s really not a false step taken here, with uniformly strong performances, atmospheric cinematography (by Arthur Edeson), and a satisfyingly ruthless screenplay, complete with potent character names (“Crystal Shackleford”, “Icey Crane”, etc.). Enjoy this one!

Note: Warner Brothers teamed Lorre and Greenstreet in one other title — 1944’s The Mask of Dimitrios, also directed by Negulesco and listed in Peary’s GFTFF.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Excellent performances by the three leads
  • Fine cinematography by Arthur Edeson

Must See?
Yes, as a most enjoyable sleeper.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Barbarella (1968)

Barbarella (1968)

Comments 1 comment

“An angel does not make love; an angel is love.”

Synopsis:
In the distant future, a sexually liberated female astronaut (Jane Fonda) is sent by the President of Earth (Claude Dauphin) to find a nefarious scientist (Milo O’Shea) who has invented the ultimate weapon — the Positronic Ray.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Jane Fonda Films
  • Mad Doctors and Scientists
  • Revolutionaries
  • Roger Vadim Films
  • Satires and Spoofs
  • Science Fiction
  • Strong Females

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary asserts that despite the dizzying amount of activity occurring throughout this cult futuristic film — based on an adult comic strip by Jean-Claude Forest — it’s nonetheless “quite dull”. He writes that “the whole production… lacks imagination” and that “Barbarella herself is a weak heroine”, given that “her actions have little effect on what transpires at the end”. He notes that the “film’s cult has to do with [both] the campy humor” — which he finds “unintentionally amusing” — as well as the “uninhibited, scandalously garbed Fonda”, who “gives her body to all men who assist her”. He complains that director Roger Vadim (married to Fonda at the time) “subjects his heroine to ghastly tortures while she is either nude or having her clothes ripped off”, and posits that “trying to stimulate men by showing pretty women being physically abused is irresponsible”.

In Cult Movies 2 (where he analyzes the film in more detail), Peary notes that Fonda herself has claimed Barbarella isn’t one of her “many mistakes” (“I like it — it’s fun”, she’s insisted, without elaboration). Actually, the erstwhile brouhaha over Barbarella‘s role in Fonda’s otherwise (mostly) esteemed acting career feels entirely irrelevant these days, given that she’s no longer so actively in the limelight, and her recent attempts at an acting comeback have been less-than-memorable. Ultimately, I agree with Peary that the film — while undeniably visually provocative — is essentially an “innocuous” and dull piece of ’60s soft-core fantasy erotica. For instance, where’s the humor in exchanges like the following (taken from IMDb’s Quotes page)?:

Dildano: [radioing instructions to the rebel army] And our password will be… Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.
Barbarella: You mean the secret password is Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch?
Dildano: Exactly.

I’ve seen Barbarella twice, and read about it plenty — but the point of its needlessly convoluted storyline continues to elude me, and I can only understand its cult appeal on an intellectual level.

Note: The best-known piece of trivia associated with Barbarella is the fact that the ’80s English rock band Duran Duran named itself after the central villain, “Durand-Durand” (O’Shea).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Imaginative set designs and costumes


Must See?
Yes, once, simply for its cult status.

Categories

  • Cult Movie

Links:

Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life (1983)

Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life (1983)

Comments 1 comment

“Would you like to talk about the meaning of life, dear?”

Synopsis:
British comedy troupe Monty Python enacts a series of sketches about the absurdity of birth, child-rearing, and human existence.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Episodic Films
  • Monty Python Films

Review:
The Trivia section on IMDb provides some revealing insights into the inception and production of this final Monty Python collaboration, openly acknowledged by the troupe as one of its lesser (and less coherent) efforts. Python claims to have refused to show Universal Studios a script, instead relying on collective inspiration and strategic ad-libbing to produce a series of loosely linked vignettes — some of which are (inevitably) more successful than others. It opens with a Terry Gilliam-directed live short entitled “The Crimson Permanent Assurance” — originally conceived as an homage to the cinematic convention of showing a short film before the feature presentation, though in typically surreal Python fashion, it re-emerges later as part of the overall episodic arc. Next we’re presented with a developmental overview of humanity, beginning with the Miracle of Birth and proceeding through Growth and Learning, Middle Age, Live Organ Transplants (!), the Autumn Years, and Death (with the Middle of the Film and the End of the Film — as well as an exploration of the Meaning of Life — thrown in for the sake of cohesion and philosophical rigor).

Sketches in Part I (The Miracle of Birth) and Part II (Growth and Learning) are the most memorable and inspired, and could easily be considered must-see viewing in their own right — indeed, all film fanatics should likely be familiar with the magical “machine that goes ping”, with what happens when one believes that “every sperm is sacred”, and with the fact that a classroom setting can turn even a live sex act into a humdrum, yawn-inducing mundanity. Unfortunately, most of the later vignettes are decidedly less amusing, though the infamous “Mr. Creosote” sketch — in which a morbidly obese man is enjoined to eat one more “wafer thin” treat before literally exploding — should likely be endured once, simply for its cultural relevance. (Quentin Tarantino apparently admitted to finding it beyond his own considerable gruesome-tolerance level — no small admission.) Ultimately, however, film fanatics unfamiliar with Monty Python’s cinematic genius should start with their cult masterpiece, Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) — and decide from there whether they’re interested in exploring more.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Several genuinely surreal, hilarious, and memorable sequences

Must See?
No, though it’s obviously must-see for Monty Python fans, and certainly worth a look by all film fanatics. Listed as a Cult Movie and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Life With Father (1947)

Life With Father (1947)

Comments 1 comment

“Vinnie, we have four children — if we’re not married now, we never will be!”

Synopsis:
In 1880s New York, the domineering father (William Powell) and scatterbrained mother (Irene Dunne) of four red-headed boys (Jimmy Lydon, Derek Scott, Johnny Calkins, and Martin Milner) deal with a series of household challenges — including Lydon’s crush on a beautiful visiting teen (Elizabeth Taylor), and Dunne’s distress that Powell has never been baptized.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Edmund Gwenn Films
  • Elizabeth Taylor Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Irene Dunne Films
  • Michael Curtiz Films
  • Play Adaptation
  • William Powell Films
  • Zasu Pitts Films

Review:
Clarence Day Jr.‘s affectionate homage to his Victorian-era upbringing was originally published as an autobiographical memoir in 1935, then turned into the longest-running non-musical play on Broadway before gaining an even wider audience via this cinematic adaptation (directed by Michael Curtiz) and finally being made into a T.V. series in the mid-’50s. Clearly, Day’s recollections of his parents’ loving yet contentious pre-Suffrage marriage struck a nerve with audience members of the day, many of whom likely appreciated watching a domineering control freak effectively “managed” by his clever wife. To that end, Dunne’s ability to run her household the way she wants to — through strategic use of deception, feigned ignorance, and passive-aggressive techniques — is played for laughs, most notably in her extended ploy to trick her reluctant husband into getting baptized.

While dosing his anecdotal storyline with plenty of humor and nostalgia, Day makes it clear that one of his primary goals is to reveal the inanity (and futility) of his father’s dated patriarchal beliefs:

“Men have to run this world, and it’s not an easy job. It takes work and it takes thinking. A man has to reason things out. Now you take a woman, a woman doesn’t think at all. If a man thinks a certain thing is wrong, he shouldn’t do it. If he thinks it’s right, he should do it. You just have to let the women know that what you’re doing is for their good. Be firm.”

The fact that Day manages to salvage his father’s character while simultaneously skewering such nonsensical drivel reveals the secret to the film’s blockbuster success. Meanwhile, Michael Curtiz’s solid direction helps move the proceedings along smoothly. With that said, Life With Father will likely only hold minimal appeal for modern film fanatics, and remains of interest primarily to see Dunne and Powell’s typically solid lead performances. Fans of Elizabeth Taylor will also, of course, want to watch it for her:

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • William Powell as “Father”
  • Irene Dunne as Vinnie

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look simply for Dunne and Powell’s performances.

Links:

Our Town (1940)

Our Town (1940)

Comments 1 comment

“The day wouldn’t come when I wouldn’t want to know everything about our town.”

Synopsis:
A narrator (Frank Craven) reflects on the lives, hopes, and dreams of citizens in the small American town of Grover’s Corners, focusing specifically on young sweethearts Emily (Martha Scott) and George (William Holden).

Genres:

  • Beulah Bondi Films
  • Fay Bainter Films
  • Flashback Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Play Adaptation
  • Sam Wood Films
  • Small Town America
  • Thomas Mitchell Films
  • William Holden Films

Review:
This early cinematic adaptation of Thornton Wilder’s Pulitzer Prize-winning 1938 play remains a solid telling of an oft-staged, deeply philosophical tale about the beauty and value of everyday life. With effectively stylized sets by William Cameron Menzies, atmospheric cinematography by Bert Glennon, a typically distinctive score by Aaron Copland, and confident direction by Sam Wood, the film successfully “opens up” Wilder’s play, maintaining some theatrical conventions while also making creative use of cinematic possibilities. Other than a substantial change to a major event in the third act (sanctioned by Wilder himself, who agreed the play’s original ending would be too downbeat for movie audiences), the film remains relatively faithful to its source material. Watch for fine performances by Oscar-nominated Martha Scott (in her cinematic debut):

a very young William Holden:

and stalwart character actors Fay Bainter, Beulah Bondi, Guy Kibbee, and Thomas Mitchell as Emily and George’s parents.




Note: Film fanatics may be curious to watch this title on a “double bill” with Wood’s 1942 melodrama Kings Row, which offers a less nostalgic, more cynical glimpse into small town life in early-20th-century America.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Fine cinematography by Bert Glennon
  • William Cameron Menzies’ stylized sets
  • Aaron Copland’s memorable score

Must See?
Yes, as a solid adaptation of an American theatrical classic.

Categories

  • Good Show
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

And Then There Were None (1945)

And Then There Were None (1945)

Comments 4 comments

”Let’s face it – we’re in a trap.”

Synopsis:
A group of strangers invited to an isolated island learn that they all have one thing in common: they caused someone’s death in the past and were never punished. Soon they’re being killed off one by one, and must discover the identity of the murderer in their midst before it’s too late.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Barry Fitzgerald Films
  • Ensemble Cast
  • Judith Anderson Films
  • June Duprez Films
  • Louis Hayward Films
  • Murder Mystery
  • Old Dark House
  • Rene Clair Films
  • Richard Haydn Films
  • Walter Huston Films

Review:
As Peary notes, this “highly entertaining adaptation of Agatha Christie’s Ten Little Indians (called Ten Little Niggers in England, as was the film)” features “an unbeatable cast” (most notably Barry Fitzgerald, Walter Huston, Judith Anderson, and Louis Hayward), and benefits from both a “witty script by Dudley Nichols and light-touch direction by Rene Clair, who effectively keeps the multi-murder story from becoming bleak” (in part by making “good use of lively music”). He points out that while “it’s fun trying (and most likely failing) to figure out the murderer’s identity… this mystery is just as interesting the second time around when you can watch the killer closely and see how cleverly we are being manipulated by Christie and the filmmakers”.

I’m in complete agreement with Peary’s assessment of this enjoyable, surprisingly light-hearted “Old Dark House” mystery — based on the best-selling mystery novel of all time (though its ending was changed to that of Christie’s stage play of the same name). The characters are all smartly cast and play nicely against one another; this is truly a seamless ensemble piece, with no one performance standing out above the other (though the interactions between Walter Huston as Dr. Armstrong and Barry Fitzgerald as Judge Quinncannon are especially fun). Clair’s creative direction — beginning with the cleverly shot silent opening sequence on the boat, and extending through the exposure of each murder — is seamlessly fluid, keeping us consistently visually engaged, and on the edge of our seats in nervous anticipation.

Note: Film fanatics will likely recognize that this movie serves as a forerunner — both thematically and tonally — for the cult satire Murder By Death (1976); they would make a fun double-bill.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Effective direction by Clair

  • Fine ensemble performances
  • Atmospheric cinematography by Lucien Andriot
  • Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco’s levity-inspiring score

Must See?
Yes, as an enjoyable example of the “Old Dark House” genre.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

Links:

Has Anybody Seen My Gal? (1952)

Has Anybody Seen My Gal? (1952)

Comments 1 comment

“At least when you’ve got money, you can afford to buy your own kind of misery.”

Synopsis:
An eccentric millionaire (Charles Coburn) decides to secretly live with the descendants of a woman who once turned down his proposal of marriage, to determine whether they’re worthy of becoming his heirs. He quickly grows to like the Blaisdell family — including beautiful Millicent (Piper Laurie), her young sister Roberta (Gigi Perreau), her brother Howard (William Reynolds), her parents (Lynn Bari and Larry Gates), and her boyfriend (Rock Hudson) — but when he anonymously gifts the Blaisdells with $100,000, he learns that money is actually causing them more grief than true joy.

Genres:

  • Charles Coburn Films
  • Douglas Sirk Films
  • Inheritance
  • Millionaires
  • Mistaken or Hidden Identities
  • Musicals
  • Piper Laurie Films
  • Rock Hudson Films
  • Small Town America

Review:
The premise of this frothy ’20s-era “musical” by Douglas Sirk is preposterous — but it’s fun seeing bristly character-actor Coburn in a rare leading role as an avuncular if screwy benefactor, and we can’t help hoping his “Secret Santa” maneuvers will yield positive results. Unfortunately, once Bari’s character shifts into bitchy petulance and snobbery, we get the feeling that Coburn has put all his eggs-of-charity in the wrong basket. One wonders what Sirk’s satirical and narrative aims here are, exactly — especially given that the ultimate moral of the story (money can’t buy love or happiness) isn’t exactly groundbreaking. Sirk’s production values are as colorful as always, and the opening credits are fun — but this one ultimately remains simply a curiosity in Sirk’s oeuvre. For a more potent example of how unexpected wealth can yield surprising challenges, see the fast-paced comedy Brewster’s Millions (1945).

Note: Step away and you’ll miss a brief appearance by James Dean as an (uncredited) “youth at the soda fountain”! (Check out the strange writing on his pants in the still below… I can make out “HOT DOG”.) Does anyone have more info on his presence here?

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Charles Coburn as “John Smith”
  • Coburn’s fun interactions with Gigi Perreau (as young Roberta)
  • Typically fine “Sirk-ian” production values
  • Fun opening credits

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look. Listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book.

Links: