FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
As a group of American tourists descend upon Paris, Mr. Hulot (Jacques Tati) makes his way through the increasingly modernized and mechanized city.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Comedy
• Jacques Tati Films

Review:
Jacques Tati’s fourth feature-length film — after Jour de Fete (1949), Mr. Hulot’s Holiday (1953), and Mon Oncle (1958) — was this enormously budgeted spectacle (the most expensive made in France to that date) which lost money and bankrupted Tati, yet remains a personal favorite for many. Because I’m not a Tati fan, I’ll cite extensively from DVD Savant, who in his review seems similarly attempting to make sense of a film which perhaps he appreciates more than enjoys. He notes:

“Playtime is as subversive and important as anything in the French New Wave. It’s a completely uncompromised, lavishly filmed vision as personal as anything by David Lean or Stanley Kubrick. Since it’s so clearly aimed at its own inspiration and not the box office, Tati grows in the mind as one of the most pure cinema artists that ever was. It’s indescribable, baffling, and definitely not a mass-audience movie, yet it was shot in 70mm!”

In terms of plot — what plot? Who needs one? Writing in his essay for Criterion, David Cairns refers to this film’s plot as “slender to the point of deniability.”

Meanwhile, DVD Savant explains:

“The shots are always very wide and open to the possibilities of action and development from any direction. Hulot is the ostensible main subject, but he’s as randomly observed as anyone else in the show.”

“Droll humor is the most we get: very often there’s nothing funny about what’s going on and Savant is sure that many a 1967 audience felt they were the victims of a colossal private joke. Movies that are private jokes, almost always become known by their other name, failures, and whether or not Playtime succeeds will depend on your inclination toward humor that is more conceptual than overt, and droller than droll. There are mistaken-identity gags, frustration gags, the works, but it all exists within this ‘you have to find it for yourself’ world that will either delight the viewer or bore him silly.”

He adds, “In Playtime Tati shows us our world in transition, without making it into a dysfunctional nightmare, as in Godard’s Science Fiction comic book of a movie [Alphaville (1965)]. People adapt, every place that has happiness is magical, and the film ends with another crowded airport. This one transforms into a giant mechanized whimsical carousel.”

For an enjoyable primer on visual gags in Tati’s films, click here.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Truly impressive sets
  
  

Must See?
No, though most film fanatics will naturally be very curious to check it out — and probably should, once. Listed as a film with Historical Relevance and a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Q Network Review
• Time Out Capsule Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Criterion Essay
• DVD Savant Review (scroll down to third review)

Synopsis:
An aging actress (Sylvia Miles) with a dysfunctional daughter (Andrea Feldman) becomes smitten with a young former-child-star (Joe Dallesandro) living in her daughter’s apartment complex — but can she get him work in Hollywood?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Actors and Actresses
• Aspiring Stars
• Hollywood
• May-December Romance
• Paul Morrissey Films
• Sylvia Miles Films

Review:
The third film in Paul Morrissey’s Andy-Warhol “trilogy” — after Flesh (1968) and Trash (1970) — was this low-grade send-up of Sunset Boulevard (1950), complete with an ending shot on a pool and a gun. Miles — Oscar-nominated for her supporting performance in Midnight Cowboy (1969) — is perfectly cast here as an aging diva with attachment issues:

… and Dallesandro once again plays — well, himself, as handsome, casual, and pan-sexually appealing as ever.

Andrea Farnsworth — memorable in Trash (1970) as “the rich girl” with the funny voice (her voice is equally strange here) — plays one of the most obnoxious grown-daughters in cinematic history:

— a whiny ingrate who would come close to winning the worst-mother-in-the-world award (she carries her baby around in a bag and gives him sedatives so she can head out). (Sadly, Farnsworth committed suicide just before this film premiered.) Perhaps having the most fun with their performance is Pat Ast as Lydia the landlady, who isn’t afraid to show her roaring appetite for Dallesandro.

Unfortunately, the semi-improvised screenplay isn’t very engaging or clever, leaving us simply waiting for any reasonably juicy zingers (“Is that a way to bring up a boy? He’ll be a lesbian!”). At least the final shot has a surprise in it.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Sylvia Miles as Sally
  
• John Cale’s jaunty score

Must See?
No, though it’s worth viewing for Miles’s performance.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
When a dolphin-training marine biologist (George C. Scott) and his wife (Trish Van Devere) are visited at their research center by a nosy journalist (Paul Sorvino), they soon learn about a nefarious plan involving their beloved animals.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• George C. Scott Films
• Kidnapping
• Mike Nichols Films
• Science Fiction
• Scientists
• Talking Animals

Review:
Director Mike Nichols and screenwriter Buck Henry teamed up for a third time — after The Graduate (1967) and Catch-22 (1970) — for this sci-fi-thriller adaptation of a 1967 novel by French author Robert Merle. Unfortunately, it’s a much less successful collaboration, ultimately coming across like a weird missed opportunity — a movie which surely would have been quite different in the hands of Roman Polanski (the originally intended director). Obviously, one must suspend disbelief right away in order to go with the film’s premise that dolphins have learned to understand and speak English:

… which at first seems reasonably plausible, but as the movie progresses and the dolphins are shown to possess even greater comprehension, I simply couldn’t buy it. To their credit, the cast seems fully committed:

… and there are a couple of character switcheroos that one doesn’t see coming. While it has its fans (see DVD Savant’s review, for instance), I’m more in agreement with Vincent Canby’s review for the NY Times in which he refers to this as “a Flipper film for adults, a Day of the Jackal for kids and a Lassie film for scuba divers of all ages.”

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• George C. Scott as Dr. Terrell
  
• William A. Fraker’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Nope; you can skip this one unless you’re curious.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• Moria Review
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
A college radical (Jon Voight) frustrated with the slow pace of his campus group parts ways with his girlfriend (Collin Wilcox Paxton) and flirts with a wealthy young woman (Jennifer Salt) while working for an activist boss (Robert Duvall), and eventually aligning with a revolutionary bomber (Seymour Cassel).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• College
• Jon Voight Films
• Revolutionaries
• Robert Duvall Films
• Seymour Cassel Films

Review:
After debuting with Out of It (1969) and before helming Dealing: Or the Berkeley-to-Boston Forty-Brick Lost-Bag-Blues (1970), Paul Williams directed this adaptation of screenwriter Hans Koning‘s novel of the same name, about a discontented college student who is drawn towards increasing action and violence. Unfortunately, the protagonist here — named simply “A” — is as bland as can be; as played by Voight — on a roll after performances in Midnight Cowboy (1969), Out of It (1969), and Catch-22 (1970), and before starring in Deliverance (1972) — he’s simply dull and opaque.

We don’t learn much about where “A” comes from, why he became radicalized, or why he’s so instantly drawn towards a young woman-of-privilege (Jennifer Salt) he catches sight of. Other characterizations are similarly lacking in detail: Robert Duvall’s “Despard”, for instance, is unknowable:

… and all we understand about Cassel’s Leonard II (though perhaps it’s plenty) is that he’s able and willing to carry out immense violence.

Perhaps the most intriguing character is chain-smoking Ann (played by Paxton — best-known for her supporting role in To Kill a Mockingbird), though she’s not treated well by clueless Voight, and once again, we don’t really learn enough about her.

Note: Watch for Jeffrey Jones — Dean Rooney from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (1986) — in his film debut here as a student activist.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• A seemingly realistic glimpse into a particular era and context

Must See?
No; this one isn’t must-see.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Time Out Capsule Review
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
During the French Reign of Terror, Georges Danton (Gerard Depardieu) arrives in Paris to meet with his friend Maximillian Robespierre (Wojciech Pszoniak), but soon finds that his life is in danger.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Courtroom Drama
• Falsely Accused
• French Films
• French Revolution
• Historical Drama
• Gerard Depardieu Films
• Living Nightmare
• Play Adaptation

Review:
Andrzej Wajda directed this loose adaptation of Stanisława Przybyszewska’s 1929 play “The Danton Case,” focusing on the rivalry between two Revolutionary leaders: Maximillian Robespierre and Georges Danton. From the opening moments of the film — with Jean Prodromidès’s horror-inducing score prominently featured — we see Danton riding into a rainy, desperation-filled Paris:

… and know things are headed for nowhere good (sorry, I had to get that pun out of the way right away). Absolutely nothing is sugar-coated here — not the despair of the starving peasants:

… nor the compromises required of those like print-shop owner Camille Desmoulins (Patrice Chéreau) who must choose between loyalty to their cause and the safety of their family:

… nor the intensity of the rampant paranoia that has inevitably cropped up in the midst of such a bloody historical transition. When we first meet Robespierre, we see that he is weak and living a relatively austere life, but willing and ready to get dressed up for his very-serious work as the architect of the Reign of Terror.

He is at first reluctant to order the execution of Danton, given that he’s seen as a hero by many; the primary plot elements for the remainder of the film center on who is involved in which potential coup against who, and which faction will act first. Because this is an historical drama, we know how things will end — which doesn’t make it any less grueling to see such mass violence, betrayal, and corruption of power playing out. Indeed, it’s hard not to despair while watching this movie — which speaks to its enduring power.

Note: Interestingly, all actors in this international co-production who played supporters of Danton were French, while those in support of Robespierre were Polish — an unsubtle choice that did not go unnoticed. According to the IMDb’s trivia section:

At the time, Poland’s Solidarity movement was very popular in France and, with the film being directed by a Polish director, Andrzej Wajda, everything seemed right for the film to be a hit. There are elements in the film that seemed to draw an analogy between the French Revolution and Solidarity’s fight against Communism. However, the Government had swung to the right by the time the film was released in January 1983. The harsh, icy portrayal of Robespierre was considered particularly objectionable and the attitude was that Wajda had denigrated the French Revolution by misrepresenting its icons.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Wojciech Pszoniak as Robespierre
  
• Gerard Depardieu as Danton
  
• Fine period detail and cinematography
  
• Jean Prodromidès’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a creepily effective historical nightmare-drama.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Q Network Review

Synopsis:
When an aging king (Paul Scofield) attempts to divide his kingdom amongst his three daughters — Goneril (Irene Worth), Regan (Susan Engel), and Cordelia (Anne-Lise Gabold) — based on their purported love for him, he quickly discovers that their loyalties are not what he expected; meanwhile, his friend the Duke of Gloucester (Alan Webb) experiences filial issues of his own, as his “bastard” son Edmund (Ian Hogg) seeks vengeance against his half-brother Edgar (Robert Lloyd).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Family Problems
• Grown Children
• Inheritance
• Paul Scofield Films
• Peter Brook Films
• Royalty and Nobility
• Shakespeare

Review:
Peter Brook adapted his acclaimed 1962 Royal Shakespeare Theatre production of King Lear into this b&w cinematic rendition, once again starring Scofield in the title role, Worth as Goneril, Webb as Gloucester, and Tom Fleming as the Earl of Kent. Set in a bleak Danish landscape (it was partially filmed in the peninsula of Jutland and the sand dune of Råbjerg Mile), it’s highly atmospheric:

… but challenging to follow if you’re not already familiar with the complex storyline and its players (which involves not just King Lear and his daughters and their romantic interests, but the parallel story with Gloucester and his sons).

Indeed, as I started watching, I took plenty of pauses to refresh my own memory (it’s been many years since I read this play), and was pleased to stumble upon Good Tickle Brain’s stick figure overview, which clarified everything — including how many scenes and tidbits were (likely by necessity) cut.

With that said, Scofield and the rest of the cast are all appropriately brooding for such a brutal tragedy:

… in which (thank you again, Good Tickle Brain) the ultimate dead count is 10 out of 12, on top of a hideous eye-gouging. (“Out, vile jelly! Where is thy luster now?”) With all that said, I’m a fan of Brook’s cinematic style and was visually engaged throughout — so those interested in his work, or Scofield, will certainly want to check it out.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Paul Scofield as King Lear
  
• Fine performances by the supporting cast
  
• Atmospheric direction and cinematography
  

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
In a French mental asylum, the Marquis de Sade (Patrick Magee) stages a production of events that happened 15 years earlier: Charlotte Corday (Glenda Jackson) attempts to assassinate Revolutionary hero Jean-Paul Marat (Ian Richardson) while he’s taking a bath.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Assassination
• French Revolution
• Glenda Jackson Films
• Mental Illness
• Peter Brook Films
• Play Adaptations

Review:
Formally titled The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade, this adaptation of Peter Weiss’s 1963 play (originally in German) was directed by Peter Brook, who also directed the three leads in the Tony-winning Broadway production. It’s most definitely a literate movie — meaning, those who understand the multiple layers behind its historical play-within-a-play will best appreciate it — but it actually stays remarkably engaging and visually arresting given that it takes place exclusively within one setting: an asylum.

Richardson is appropriately haunting as a man who spent the majority of his final three years soaking in a tub to deal with a debilitating skin disease:

… while Magee — perhaps best recognized by film fanatics for his supporting role in A Clockwork Orange (1971) — manages to convey de Sade’s intensity and perversion without hysteria:

… and Jackson shows her star potential in a crucial, tricky role. While this film is most certainly not for all tastes, it’s well worth viewing — particularly given Brook’s relatively small overall cinematic output.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Glenda Jackson as Charlotte Corday
  
• Patrick Magee as the Marquis de Sade
  
• Ian Richardson as Jean-Paul Marat
  
• David Watkin’s cinematography
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a unique adaptation of a most unique play. Listed as a film with Historical Relevance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
When a meek antiques shop owner (Peter McEnery) and his shrewish wife (Glenda Jackson) meet a bold German photographer (Diane Cilento), their odd marriage gets even stranger.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Glenda Jackson Films
• Love Triangle
• Marital Problems
• S&M

Review:
Just before her breakthrough role in Women in Love (1969), Glenda Jackson co-starred in this directorial debut by Peter Medak, an odd marital thriller based on a 1961 novel by Peter Everett. Jackson’s screen-husband (McEnery) is likely most recognizable to GFTFF fans as the titular character in Entertaining Mr. Sloane (1970), while odd Cilento is best known for her Oscar-nominated supporting performance in Tom Jones (1963), as a boarding house manager in Hombre (1967), and as a librarian in The Wicker Man (1973). From the opening scenes, we can tell that Jackson and McEnery’s marriage is a decidedly unusual one: he dresses up as the Edwardian wife-killer Hawley Harvey Crippen (who I’ll admit to not having heard of before):

… though it turns out his wife is really the driving force behind this kink.

Suddenly another woman (Cilento) comes into the picture, seemingly as a sexual distraction for McEnery:

… though that’s ultimately debatable, as are most of the twists and turns along the way. By the times get undeniably weird:

… we’ve almost stopped wondering what logic lies behind any of it. To the film’s credit, it held my attention throughout — but that doesn’t necessarily mean it coheres.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Ken Hodges’ cinematography
  

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a one-time look if you’re curious. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

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

Synopsis:
After the end of the Civil War, General Sheridan (Lawrence Tierney) sends General Custer (Robert Shaw) to take over the Western Cavalary, where he eventually becomes involved in a fight-to-the-death against Indian warrior Dull Knife (Kieron Moore).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Biopics
• Historical Drama
• Lawrence Tierney Films
• Military
• Native Americans
• Robert Ryan Films
• Robert Shaw Films
• Robert Siodmak Films
• Westerns

Review:
Robert Siodmak directed and Philip Yordan produced this highly fictionalized western — shot entirely in Spain on 70mm film, with British actor Shaw in the lead — about General George Armstrong Custer.

Unfortunately, Shaw can’t seem to keep his accent under control; it’s distracting hearing him shift in and out of sounding reasonably American. Even worse, most of the storyline is a mess: we don’t really get a sense of who Custer was (from this cinematic depiction) other than that he was a teetotaler (until suddenly he… wasn’t?), a commander with no compunction about driving his soldiers to the ground from exhaustion:

… and generally disliked by his top men, Major Marcus Reno (Ty Hardin) and Captain Benteen (Jeffrey Hunter). Benteen is meant to be the voice of reason about how badly the Native Americans have been treated:

… but then at one point Shaw suddenly stands up for them in front of Congress (who we don’t see; apparently none of the $4 million budget was spent on this scene).

To that end, random parts of the script are refreshingly progressive: “There is not an Indian problem; there is only a White problem,” Custer tells Congress, calling out the corruption he knows exists (and ultimately paying dearly for this). His relationship with his loyal wife (Ure) is sweet:

… though she’s barely given anything to do other than literally serve him; and Tierney is fine as General Sheridan, a military figure who I didn’t know much about until reading up on him, but who had quite the storied career.

Meanwhile, as DVD Savant writes:

The most embarrassing part of the movie are the “Cinerama” episodes confected to show off the widescreen dynamics of the Ultra-Wide Super Technirama 70 format. Railroad cars are set rolling by themselves, a wagon runs wild down a road without any brakes, and a lumberjack escapes down an endless wooden water logging chute. Whenever these scenes hit, the story stops dead for minutes at at time, to allow for repetitive POV shots of blurry scenery whizzing past.

The film’s most impressive feature by far is the often-effective use of a widescreen landscape to show off the vastness of the West.

Note: Robert Ryan has an extended cameo in an entirely unnecessary bit about a gold seeking deserter.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Fine cinematography
  
  

Must See?
No; you can skip this one unless you’re curious.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• DVD Talk Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
Three surfing buddies — Matt (Jan-Michael Vincent), Leroy the Masochist (Gary Busey), and Jack (William Katt) — reflect back on their idyllic teen years, dodging (or entering) the draft, and growing into young adulthood.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Barbara Hale Films
• Coming of Age
• Friendship
• Gary Busey Films
• Surfers

Review:
Writer-director John Milius — perhaps best known as screenwriter for Apocalypse Now (1979) and director of Conan the Barbarian (1982) and Red Dawn (1984) — helmed this semi-autobiographical paean to surfing and White-male coming-of-age during the 1960s. Apparently George Lucas and Steven Spielberg thought this flick would be “the American Graffiti of surfing films”:

… but it was a box office flop; indeed, I was interested but not surprised to read this bit of trivia on IMDb:

Warner Bros. initially budgeted $5,000,000 for this film, but production costs went way over that figure, finally costing the studio $11,000,000. Anthea Sylbert, an executive at Warner Bros. at the time, in an interview in the 30 August 1981 edition of the Boston Globe newspaper, said the film was “…a classic example of an egomaniacal man going over budget and not listening to anyone.”

Watching it now, it’s easy to see why only some viewers — i.e., surfing lovers — would find it appealing, since these scenes are (minimally) what keep it afloat, so to speak.

The only half-way interesting sequences are those set in the draft office, which presumably represent how chaotic this scene was.

Otherwise, there is really nothing to enjoy or appreciate about these boring characters and the exceedingly lame dialogue: “Who knows where the wind comes from; is it the breath of God?”

Note: Barbara Hale had the dubious notoriety of appearing here in her final film role, playing mother to her own (real-life) son.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Bruce Surtees’ cinematography
  

Must See?
Nope; this one is strictly must-see for surfing enthusiasts. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Article
• Chicago Reader Capsule Review
• Time Out Capsule Review