Odd Couple, The (1968)

Odd Couple, The (1968)

Comments 2 comments

“You don’t understand — I’m nothing without my wife and kids!”

Synopsis:
When compulsive neat freak Felix Ungar (Jack Lemmon) is thrown out of his house by his wife, he goes to live with his good friend Oscar Madison (Walter Matthau), who is quickly driven batty by Felix’s incessant housekeeping.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Divorce
  • Friendship
  • Jack Lemmon Films
  • Play Adaptation
  • Walter Matthau Films

Review:
The characters of (neatnik) Felix Ungar and (slob) Oscar Madison have become so culturally iconic that it’s easy to forget just how clever their original big-screen incarnation was. Neil Simon’s screenplay (based upon his own play) plunges us immediately into surprisingly challenging territory, as we witness Felix wandering despondently through the streets of New York, hoping to die; his depression is palpable, and we feel for his situation. From there, we’re shown the true concern expressed by his circle of friends (nicely acted by John Fiedler, Herb Edelman, David Sheiner, and Larry Haines); while their attempts to prevent Felix from committing suicide are played for laughs, they’re consistently bolstered by a refreshing undercurrent of genuine love and concern. The increasingly tense situation that emerges once Felix and Oscar attempt to live with one another is likewise both hilarious and poignant: we can relate to Oscar’s sense that he’s slowly going crazy, yet we simultaneously feel compassion for what is clearly Felix’s (undiagnosed) obsessive-compulsive disorder (or some variation thereof) — and we certainly understand why his wife could no longer live with him!

Lemmon and Matthau are perfectly cast as the title “couple”; their comedic timing and rapport is impeccable. Interestingly, Matthau originally thought he would be better suited as Felix — either given that he was a neatnik in real life (according to a quote in TCM’s article) or because he felt he was too much like Oscar and the role wasn’t enough of a stretch (according to a piece of IMDb trivia); do any readers know the true reason? At any rate, while both performances are excellent, I find Lemmon particularly impressive, given how fearlessly and emphatically he embraces his character’s “feminine” tendencies without devolving into stereotypes of any kind (naturally, one can’t help thinking of his memorably gender-fluid performance in Some Like it Hot). Also of note are Monica Evans and Carole Shelley (who reprised their characters in the long-running T.V. series) in hilarious supporting roles as the sexy British sisters Walter’s hoping to have a good time with, but who are instead distracted by Felix’s sob story.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Jack Lemmon as Felix Unger
  • Walter Matthau as Oscar Madison
  • Monica Evans and Carole Shelley as Cecily and Gwendolyn Pigeon
  • A clever tale of friendship put to the ultimate test
  • Neal Hefti’s memorable score

Must See?
Yes, as a finely written and acted comedy. This one is a “good show” you’ll look forward to revisiting!

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Underworld (1927)

Underworld (1927)

Comments 1 comment

“Nobody helps me! I help other people.”

Synopsis:
An inebriated man (Clive Brook) is picked up by a notorious gangster (George Bancroft), who takes pity on him and gives him a place to stay — but when Brook and Bancroft’s girlfriend “Feathers” (Evelyn Brent) fall for each other, and Bancroft’s chief rival (Fred Kohler) continues to make aggressive passes at Feathers as well, tensions quickly get heated.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Clive Brook Films
  • Gangsters
  • George Bancroft Films
  • Josef von Sternberg Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Silent Films

Review:
Peary lists three of Josef von Sternberg’s final silent films in his GFTFF: The Last Command (1927), The Docks of New York (1928), and this title, often cited as the thematic forerunner of several classic 1930s gangster flicks. Ben Hecht wrote the Oscar-winning screenplay, basing it upon real-life scenarios and people in Chicago’s gangland — but ultimately the film’s focus is less on the broader world of gangsters (Bancroft doesn’t seem to belong to a larger organization, for instance) than on the emotional conflicts faced by the key players. Indeed, the narrative is primarily concerned with exploring how Brook and Brent will deal with their love/lust for one another, given their sense of moral obligation to big-galoot Bancroft:

… and how Bancroft will handle their perceived disloyalty when his rivalry with Kohler turns fatal and he’s sent to jail.

Unfortunately, none of the characters are fleshed out enough for this rather simplistic scenario to become engaging on anything other than a surface level; we’d love to know more about stoic Brook, for instance, and how he ended up on the streets, or how and why “Feathers” feels such undying loyalty for Bancroft. With that said, von Sternberg’s directorial talents are in clear view — especially during the creatively filmed mid-way party sequence. While this one can’t quite be elevated to must-see status, it’s far more accomplished than most other films of its era, making it worth a one-time look.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • The creatively filmed party sequence

Must See?
No, though it remains of interest for its clear influence on future classics of the genre.

Links:

My Brilliant Career (1979)

My Brilliant Career (1979)

Comments 1 comment

“Why does it always have to come down to marriage?”

Synopsis:
In 1890s Australia, a strong-willed young woman (Judy Davis) is determined to transcend her family’s hard-scrabble life and pursue a career in the arts — but when she becomes close friends with a handsome, wealthy acquaintance (Sam Neill), romantic tensions begin to complicate her goals.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Australian Films
  • Career-versus-Marriage<
  • Feminism and Women’s Issues
  • Historical Drama
  • Romance
  • Strong Females
  • Writers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Judy Davis is perfectly cast” in director Gillian Armstrong’s “popular adaptation of [an] autobiographical novel” by (Stella) Miles Franklin, about “an aspiring writer and avowed bachelorette” in early 20th century Australia who “sees how repressed married women in all classes of society [are], and realizes that in order to write, she must remain single” — which means “turning down a kind, handsome, understanding, playful man (Sam Neill), although they love each other”. Peary argues that “while praised for its feminism, [the] picture has rightly been criticized for ignoring the fact that [the central character, Sybylla Melvyn] was a lesbian”. Regardless, “what is positive is that Davis truly enjoys the company of women (and they benefit from her friendship)”; however, while these women “don’t realize their potential because they married”, they nonetheless “expect free-spirited Davis” — who “knows better” — to “follow their lead”.

Just as we can’t help questioning Jill Clayburgh’s ultimate romantic decisions in the final scenes of An Unmarried Woman (1978) (released the previous year), it remains somewhat challenging to watch Davis respectfully rebuffing Neill’s initial marriage proposal. (He’s so wealthy! So handsome! So playful! So PERFECT for her!) Indeed, the romantic purist in us desperately wants these two kindred spirits to be united. Yet it’s to Armstrong’s and screenwriter Eleanor Whitcombe’s credit that they maintain their film’s focus on its feminist “agenda”: evoking a particular historical era (the period sets are stellar) when to be married was truly much more of a “life sentence” for women than we can conceive of today. From our modern perspective, we wish youthful Davis would be truly radical and reconsider the terms of marriage altogether, thus having her cake and eating it, too. But her decisions are made within a very specific milieu: having seen so many females around her suffering — most notably her once-beautiful mother [Julia Blake], now burdened with too much work, a good-for-nothing husband, and far too many kids; and her quietly heart-broken aunt (Wendy Hughes), whose husband abandoned her — we ultimately admire her strength of will.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Judy Davis as Sybylla Melvyn (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  • Fine cinematography
  • Remarkably authentic period sets

Must See?
Yes, for Davis’s stand-out performance, and as a fine feature debut by a talented female director.

Categories

  • Important Director
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

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

Links:

Foolish Wives (1922)

Foolish Wives (1922)

Comments 1 comment

“It is a dangerous place for strangers — so many hungry sharks lying in wait to get hold of one’s money.”

Synopsis:
A con-artist (Erich von Stroheim) posing as a count in Monte Carlo attempts to seduce the wealthy, neglected wife (Miss DuPont) of an American envoy (Rudolph Christians) while continuing a duplicitous affair with his jealous housemaid (Dale Fuller), and trying to bed the “half-witted” daughter (Malvina Polo) of a counterfeiter (Cesare Gravina).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Con-Artists
  • Erich von Stroheim Films
  • Mistaken Identities
  • Silent Films

Review:
The production history of this extravagantly produced long-con flick by writer/director Erich von Stroheim — whose original budget of $250K skyrocketed to over $1 million, and whose initial cut ran for no less than 6 hours — is legendary, though it was merely the first in a series of several creatively thwarted films (followed by Greed, The Wedding March, and Queen Kelly) that led to von Stroheim’s downfall as a director. As viewed in its recently restored version (running approximately 2 1/2 hours long), it’s obvious that narrative strands are missing and/or truncated; however, most of it coheres quite well, thanks to a relatively straightforward storyline featuring an unambiguously evil central character, played with perverse glee by von Stroheim himself (known by audiences at the time as “The Man You Love to Hate”). Indeed, von Stroheim’s Count Karamzin remains one of cinema’s most dastardly protagonists — a psychopathic conman and sexual predator who lies and cheats with astonishing agility.

In the film’s most disturbing sequence, he’s interrupted just as he’s about to rape the unconscious DuPont; for an agonizingly long stretch, we watch him sitting in a chair nearby DuPont, visibly irritated as the cabin’s recently-arrived caretakers prevent him from carrying out his plan. Later in the film, a von Stroheim-favorite — the expressively distinctive Dale Fuller, playing his love-struck, deceived mistress — becomes a key player in the story, helping to move the film towards its relatively satisfying (though terribly truncated) ending. Despite its sorry-looking physical state — much of the recent restoration remains patchy-looking at best, unfortunately — Foolish Wives should be seen by all film fanatics as prime evidence of von Stroheim at his most unrepentantly reprehensible (as a character) and extravagant (as a director).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Fine direction by von Stroheim


  • Dale Fuller as Maruschka

Must See?
Yes, as one of von Stroheim’s earliest successes — and as a prime example of the iconoclastic director at his vilest (character-wise, that is). Listed as a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

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

Links:

Man You Loved to Hate, The (1979)

Man You Loved to Hate, The (1979)

Comments 0 Comment

[Note: The following review is of a non-Peary title; click here to read more.]

“Never before had a studio so ruthlessly exercised its power over a major director.”

Synopsis:
Austrian emigre Erich von Stroheim becomes one of silent-era Hollywood’s most talented directors, but perfectionism and extravagance bring a halt to his promising career.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Documentary
  • Movie Directors
  • Rise and Fall

Review:
Years before cable network channels such as AMC and TCM began airing biographies of famous directors and movie stars, Patrick Montgomery helmed this revealing documentary about the troubled life of Austrian emigre Erich von Stroheim, whose notorious extravagance, perfectionism, and rigidity quickly led to the demise of his directorial career. It’s both surprising and impressive to learn that von Stroheim — born simply Erich Oswald Stroheim, the son of a Jewish hatmaker — was an entirely self-made man, someone who gambled on his own talents and won (for at least a brief while). The fact that nearly all of his full-length films were butchered by studio heads and/or producers speaks to his inability to conform to the studio system, or to tailor his vision in light of pragmatic concerns; we learn, for instance, that he insisted on utilizing real caviar in an opening breakfast scene from Foolish Wives (1922), claiming that he (the character eating the caviar) would know the difference (!).

Unfortunately, while the film does an admirable job demonstrating why and how von Stroheim’s career took such a rapid nosedive, certain elements of his personal life remain frustratingly opaque. For instance, we’re told that he had a lover during many of his later years, yet he remained married until his death, and this wife — who’s interviewed for the film — doesn’t seem particularly upset; in addition, we can’t help wishing interview clips with von Stroheim himself were included (are there any? there must be). Regardless, this engaging documentary remains must-see viewing for all film fanatics, and it’s a puzzling omission from Peary’s GFTFF. Fortunately, it’s easily available for viewing these days on a Kino DVD release of Foolish Wives, as a full-length second feature.

Note: The film’s title refers to the nickname von Stroheim earned during his early years as a character actor, playing a villain — a trend he continued even as he gave himself starring roles in his own films (viz. his vile Count Karamzin in Foolish Wives, to name the most obvious example).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A revealing look at one of Hollywood’s most notorious directors

Must See?
Yes, as an informative overview of von Stroheim’s troubled but patchily brilliant career.

Categories

  • Important Director

Links:

Passion de Jeanne D’Arc, Le/Passion of Joan of Arc, The (1928)

Passion de Jeanne D’Arc, Le/Passion of Joan of Arc, The (1928)

Comments 2 comments

“Listen, Joan — we know that your visions come not from God but from Satan!”

Synopsis:
Joan of Arc (Maria Falconetti) faces intense interrogation before being sentenced to burn at the stake.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Carl Theodore Dreyer Films
  • Christianity
  • Courtroom Drama
  • Falsely Accused
  • Religious Faith
  • Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to this iconic silent classic — written and directed by Carl Theodore Dreyer, who based his story “on Pierre Champion’s transcript of the actual trial of Jeanne d’Arc” — as “one of the greatest, most intense films ever made”. He writes that Dreyer “creates a sense of feverishness and horror at the trial through repeated camera pans across the line of intimidating inquisitors, eerie zooms into their ugly faces as they menacingly move forward toward Jeanne, and sharp camera angles which make the inquisitors especially domineering”. But he notes that “we are constantly surprised to feel waves of tranquility come over us each time Jeanne looks to the heavens and, judging from her smile and the calm look in her eyes, is obviously in a state of grace”, with “only the tears on her cheeks remind[ing] us of the terrible things that have happened and will continue to happen to her during the course of this farcical trial”. He points out that “the actors got so much into their roles that bystanders heard them condemning Jeanne d’Arc off screen as well as on”, and that “it’s probable Falconetti” (who was discovered “doing boulevard comedy”) “really got to feel she was Jeanne, so strongly and believably does she convey the young martyr’s feelings”.

I agree with the essence of Peary’s review: there’s no denying the audacious visual power of Dreyer’s work, which stands apart from its same-era peers as a daringly minimalist cinematic presentation of this much-studied historical event. And Falconetti’s performance — shown almost entirely in extreme close-ups — is indeed marvelous; the fact that she was an unknown actress merely adds to the veracity of the tale. Yet I disagree with Peary’s claim that this is “one of the greatest, most intense films ever made”, simply given its narrative limitations. As a silent film, it remains a masterful tone poem — a gorgeously evoked elegy to a tragic young martyr, allowing one to palpably feel the “feverishness and horror” of this infamous trial and its gruesome outcome. But given that it covers such a limited portion of Jeanne D’Arc’s storied existence, it ultimately lacks narrative depth, and begins to feel repetitive. The first few times Dreyer’s camera masterfully pans across the leering faces of Jeanne’s inquisitors, one shivers at how perfectly Dreyer has captured the essence of their menace; the fourth time, one begins to question exactly where else the material can go.

With that caveat stated, I’ll reiterate that Le Passion de Jeanne D’Arc nonetheless remain essential viewing for all film fanatics, at least once — and it’s thankfully now available in a gorgeously restored version, with a lovely soundtrack by composer Richard Einhorn (sung by the Anonymous Four).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Maria Falconetti as Joan
  • Stunning direction and cinematography




Must See?
Yes, of course, as a genuine silent classic.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

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

Links:

Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid (1982)

Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid (1982)

Comments 1 comment

“My plan was to kiss her with every lip on my face.”

Synopsis:
A private detective (Steve Martin) interacts with a host of iconic Hollywood characters while helping a sexy female client (Rachel Ward) investigate the mysterious disappearance of her father.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Carl Reiner Films
  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • Satires and Spoofs
  • Steve Martin Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “ridiculous noir parody” — about a “forties detective” who “says a lot of… stupid things, shaves his tongue, strangles anybody who says ‘cleaning lady’, makes java with about 1000 beans per cup, and dresses like a lot of women” — is, when “taken a scene at a time”, “quite amusing (and often hilarious) and genuinely clever”; but he posits that “without breaks… the novel concept becomes tiresome.” Time Out’s reviewer similarly argues that while “some amusement is derived from watching a film that so obviously had to be worked out backwards”, it occasionally feels like merely a “fairly amusing, clever exercise in editing”. However, I believe the film deserves a bit more credit than this. Given that it was made at a time when splicing “vintage footage from forties melodramas” with “newly shot black-and-white footage” was a purely mechanical (rather than digital) feat, one can’t help marveling at how masterfully this is done, with nearly every scene carefully plotted and blocked; film fanatics will be in trivia heaven as they attempt to determine which classic movie each clip is taken from, and how director Carl Reiner will manage to integrate pre-existing dialogue into the new (connective) storyline.

Meanwhile, Edith Head (in her final cinematic credit) does marvelous work crafting and matching outfits across films, and Miklos Rozsa was an inspired choice to write the appropriately atmospheric score. My main complaint is that the humor occasionally feels a bit forced and/or juvenile. For instance, the cited scene involving Martin’s inept attempt to make coffee goes on for about three times too long, and Martin’s obsession with “readjusting” Ward’s breasts simply makes one sigh. But for every groaner, there’s a clever line or interaction up ahead — and both Martin and Ward (“surprisingly funny and a good sport as Martin’s comic foil”) remain appropriately invested in their roles, never letting on that they’re actually in a parody. This one is definitely worth a look by all film fanatics.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Remarkably seamless screenwriting and editing

  • Michael Chapman’s b&w cinematography
  • Edith Head’s impressive “costume-matching” work
  • Miklos Rozsa’s classically “generic” score

Must See?
Yes, for its obvious film fanatic appeal.

Categories

  • Cult Movie

Links:

Nickelodeon (1976)

Nickelodeon (1976)

Comments 1 comment

“Any jerk can direct!”

Synopsis:
In the early days of Hollywood, an attorney (Ryan O’Neal) and a cowboy (Burt Reynolds) — both in love with the same woman (Jane Hitchcock) — become involved in the burgeoning motion picture industry.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Brian Keith Films
  • Burt Reynolds Films
  • Comedy
  • Hollywood
  • Lawyers
  • Movie Directors
  • Peter Bogdanovich Films
  • Ryan O’Neal Films
  • Stella Stevens Films

Review:
Peter Bogdanovich’s unabashedly affectionate paean to the earliest days of the motion picture industry remains a curiously uninvolving effort — one so focused on recreating elements and attributes of its era that it forgets to tell a compelling tale in its own right. The ultimate point of the storyline seems to be that luck and timing (i.e., serendipity) played a defining role in determining who found work and success in early Hollywood — see the selected quote above for an indication of the attitude on display, supposedly meant as a contrast to the arrival of “real” (i.e., auteurist) cinema (as signified by the film’s powerful culminating sequence, in which the various characters join a wider audience to watch the inaugural screening of D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation). Meanwhile, Bogdanovich’s screenplay incorporates weak attempts at silent-era slapstick (bespectacled O’Neal is a sort-of stand-in for Harold Lloyd), as well as a standard-issue love triangle subplot which fails to involve us. While serious cinephiles will surely be curious to check this one out given its subject matter, it’s ultimately a missed opportunity; see Howard Zieff and Rob Thompson’s Hearts of the West (released the previous year) for a much more successful and authentic evocation of early Hollywood.

Note: TCM’s article offers some valuable insights into why this film wasn’t as successful as it could have been; Bogdanovich’s vision was apparently thwarted.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Burt Reynolds as Buck Greenway
  • An affectionate homage to early Hollywood

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look simply for its obvious interest to cinephiles.

Links:

Wedding March, The (1928)

Wedding March, The (1928)

Comments 1 comment

“There is no such thing as accident. It is Fate — mis-named.”

Synopsis:
A fun-loving Viennese prince (Erich von Stroheim) is warned by his parents (George Fawcett and Maude George) that he must marry for money in order to maintain his sumptuous lifestyle; but despite becoming engaged to a club-footed heiress (Zasu Pitts), he falls in love with a beautiful innkeeper’s daughter (Fay Wray) whose own fiance (Matthew Betz) is a bullying brute.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cross-Class Romance
  • Erich von Stroheim Films
  • Fay Wray Films
  • Royalty and Nobility
  • Silent Films
  • Star-Crossed Lovers

Review:
Peary seems to be an enormous fan of this fragmented silent epic by Erich von Stroheim, whose notoriously sadistic, perfectionist tendencies on set resulted in a bloated initial cut (11 hours!) which was eventually edited down into two films — this and its sequel, The Honeymoon (the only copy of which was lost in a fire in the 1950s). As with von Stroheim’s Queen Kelly (1929), The Wedding March must thus be viewed as a butchered version of the director’s original vision — yet despite being lauded by many as one of von Stroheim’s finest films, I simply can’t agree. Yes, the cinematography is lovely and the sets painstakingly rendered — but the melodramatic storyline and stereotypical characters (other than Wray’s luminous “Mitzi”) leave one feeling decidedly neutral about the actual proceedings. While it’s argued that the film’s story arc stands just fine on its own, one can’t help feeling that it is indeed (as intended) merely part of a longer, richer narrative. The Wedding March is ultimately only must-see for fans of silent cinema and/or von Stroheim’s uniquely truncated oeuvre.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Fay Wray as Mitzi
  • Meticulously crafted sets

Must See?
No; only von Stroheim fans need seek this one out. Listed as a film with Historical Importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book, and named one of the Best Films of the Year in his Alternate Oscars. Selected for preservation by the National Film Registry.

Links:

Hearts of the West (1975)

Hearts of the West (1975)

Comments 1 comment

“There’s no such thing as wasted time for the writer; he’s always thinking.”

Synopsis:
An aspiring western writer (Jeff Bridges) accidentally steals money from a pair of crooks (Richard B. Shull and Anthony James) running a sham correspondence school in Nevada, and escapes to Hollywood, where he finds work as an actor for a skinflint producer (Alan Arkin), falls for a pretty script girl (Blythe Danner), and receives advice from a grizzled performer (Andy Griffith).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Alan Arkin Films
  • Andy Griffith Films
  • Blythe Danner Films
  • Comedy
  • Con-Artists
  • Donald Pleasence Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Hollywood
  • Jeff Bridges Films
  • Westerns
  • Writers

Review:
This humorous tale of an innocent Iowa farmboy fleeing from the clutches of villainous crooks and landing smack-dab in the middle of Depression-Era Hollywood remains a hidden treasure, one film fanatics will be pleased to discover. Bridges’ “Lewis Tater” is eminently likable: we care about his travails from the moment we first see him acting out a western scene playing in his head, and talking earnestly to whoever will listen about the craft of writing. He refuses to let any obstacles get in his way, instead viewing whatever happens to him — and my, quite a bit happens! — as welcome fodder for his prose. Director Howard Zieff and screenwriter Rob Thompson affectionately evoke the milieu of ’30s Western matinees, taking us behind the scenes to expose the business side of this kiddie-fantasy world, complete with both fond camaraderie and bitter bargaining. All supporting actors on board — Arkin, Danner, Griffith, and others — give fine performances, rounding out this consistently enjoyable coming-of-age tale, which never takes itself too seriously (viz. the comedic omnipresence of Shull and James, complete with their own theme music), yet maintains an unexpected level of poignancy throughout.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Jeff Bridges as Lewis Tater
  • Andy Griffith as Howard Pike
  • A fun look at film-making in old (young?) Hollywood
  • Excellent period sets
  • Rob Thompson’s smart, affectionate screenplay

Must See?
Yes. Listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book — a perfect designation.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links: