FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
When bank robbers Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) and the Sundance Kid (Robert Redford) realize they’re being followed by a posse that will stop at nothing to kill them, they convince Redford’s girlfriend Etta (Katharine Ross) to flee with them to Bolivia.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cat and Mouse
• Cloris Leachman Films
• Friendship
• George Roy Hill Films
• Katharine Ross Films
• Outlaws
• Paul Newman Films
• Robert Redford Films
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary opens his review of this box office hit by noting that “it’s hard not to immediately like these two legendary outlaws of the 1890s — sly, emotional, funny Butch Cassidy and the fast-drawing, deadpanned, funny Sundance Kid — especially when Paul Newman and Robert Redford are imbuing them with their own ingratiating qualities.” He writes that “their comic bantering even in the face of danger is enjoyable, delivered with the ease of a veteran comedy team”:

… and “we think this will be a delightful pair to watch as they undertake several adventures.” However, he argues that “what happens is simply that writer William Goldman and director George Roy Hill repeatedly place the duo in danger and have them react in the same exact manner.”

He asserts “there is no real story… just constant references… to a posse on their trail” — and while “we had figured that their glib humor was just a part of their personalities and we [simply needed to] wait for the characters to reveal depth,” this never happens; instead, “it turns out to be the trait that dominates all others.”

I’m in agreement with Peary’s assessment. Less than halfway through this film, I realized that the remainder of the storyline would simply consist of watching our protagonists attempting to escape their fate, which we know in advance (this film has one of the single most famous closing shots in cinematic history, so I’m not spoiling anything here).

Sure, Butch and Sundance made their bed (having plenty of fun doing so), and then had to lie on it — but why should viewers be asked to watch so much of their downfall? I suppose the primary point of this ultimate buddy adventure flick is to see how closely they stuck together through it all — but I found it depressing. With that said, it was nonetheless interesting and informative to listen to a featurette about the making of the film, in which George Roy Hill talks us through his experiences and decisions scene by scene; it’s highly recommended for anyone wanting an insider’s look into this movie, which was expertly crafted on every front.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Paul Newman as Butch Cassidy
  
• Robert Redford as the Sundance Kid
  
• Numerous exciting sequences
  
• Conrad Hall’s cinematography
  
  
• Fine location shooting in Durango and Silverton, Colorado; St. George and Grafton, Utah; and Cuernavaca and Taxco, Mexico (in place of Bolivia)
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance and the enjoyable chemistry between Newman and Redford.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Articles
• Movie Diva Review
• FilmSite Review

Synopsis:
121-year-old Jack Crabbe (Dustin Hoffman) tells a young historian (William Hickey) tales from his storied life, including being adopted as an orphan by a Cheyenne chief (Chief Dan George), then being “rescued” by a preacher’s wife (Faye Dunaway) before working for a snake oil salesman (Martin Balsam); sharpshooting with his long lost sister (Carole Androsky); meeting Wild Bill Hickok (Jeff Corey); becoming a married storeowner; working as an Indian scout for mad General Custer (Richard Mulligan); and returning repeatedly to his adopted tribe of Cheyenne “human beings” before ending up the sole remaining White survivor at Little Big Horn.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Arthur Penn Films
• Cavalry
• Dustin Hoffman Films
• Faye Dunaway Films
• Flashback Films
• Historical Drama
• Martin Balsam Films
• Native Americans
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Arthur Penn’s Brechtian western, with a script by Calder Willingham, does justice to Thomas Berger’s marvelous epic tale” (a 1964 novel) of a man “who tells a skeptical interviewer his recollections of his early life.” While much has been said about the “tall tale” nature of Crabbe’s storytelling, it’s actually not hard to imagine he may have lived out the stories he tells here — especially given that he’s not self-aggrandizing by any stretch; rather, like Forrest Gump, he simply finds himself bouncing across the landscape of history and landing in different pockets time and again.

Peary argues that “While not everything Crabbe tells us is [necessarily] true, the gist of the story, about Custer and the Indians, is true. Through the horrifying scenes of the cavalry massacring Indians, Penn and Willingham obviously were trying to draw parallels to the systematic genocide being carried out by equally arrogant American soldiers on yellow-skinned villagers in Vietnam” — thus making this “a political film about the chauvanism and brutality of white American imperialists.”

Peary points out that the “portrayal of Indians” in this film “should be commended — it’s so sympathetic and insightful that it allows for some humor about Indians (i.e., Chief Running Nose; the Indian who walks backward).”

To that end, I was pleased to see Chris Eyre — director of Smoke Signals (1998), and of Cheyenne and Arapaho descent — introducing this film for the AFI Movie Club as “one of his favorites,” and to know that Chief Dan George was rightfully nominated as Best Supporting Actor (the first Native American to garner this designation).

Hoffman’s performance, meanwhile — Peary nominates him as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars — is truly impressive; this role exhausted him to the point that he took up cigarettes again after an 8-month hiatus.

Also noteworthy is Mulligan’s “bravura” portrayal as “monstrous, conceited, insane General Custer”.

While I’m not a fan of all the film’s humor:

… I can understand its inclusion, and it all comes across as part of the wacky panorama of Penn’s attempt to subvert the genre. This unsung western remains well worth a look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Dustin Hoffman as Jack Crabbe and Little Big Man
  
  
• Chief Dan George as Old Lodge Skins
  
• Richard Mulligan as General Custer
  
• Refreshing inclusion of a “two spirits” character (Robert Little Star)
  
• Fine production design (by Dean Tavoularis), art direction (by Angelo P. Graham), set decoration (by George R. Nelson), and costumes (by Dorothy Jeakins)
  
• Impressive aging make-up (by Dick Smith)
  
• Harry Stradling, Jr.’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as an unusual modern classic. Nominated as one of the Best Movies of the Year in Alternate Oscars, and selected for preservation in the National Film Registry in 2014.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Q Network Review
• DVD Savant Review
• DVD Talk Review

Synopsis:
Two college students — Jonathan (Jack Nicholson) and Sandy (Art Garfunkel) — lose their virginity to the same woman (Candice Bergen), then go on to have divergent experiences with other women, including Jonathan shacking up with a buxom model (Ann-Margret) and Sandy dating a young hippie (Carol Kane).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Ann-Margret Films
• Art Garfunkel Films
• Candice Bergen Films
• Carol Kane Films
• Jack Nicholson Films
• Mike Nichols Films
• Rita Moreno Films
• Sexuality
• Womanizers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this fourth feature film by director Mike Nichols — after Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966), The Graduate (1967), and Catch-22 (1970) — was “an ‘in’ film of the early seventies, when college-age viewers defended its sexual frankness — indeed, this was a rare film about sex — and argued about its themes.” He writes that this movie (scripted by Jules Feiffer) “about two friends… and how their attitudes toward sex and women evolve from the late forties to 1971” is “the story of men who think of women as the enemy, who [thus] can’t be treated with sincerity because they’re putting on an act themselves in order to trap a man.”

However, “it’s not women who dehumanize and emasculate these men, but their own fear of women (‘ballbreakers’ as Nicholson calls them).”

Peary asserts that “Nichols’s direction is innovative but very cold,” while “the acting is exceptional” (he nominates Nicholson as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars). I agree with Peary that the “best scene” (albeit the hardest to watch) “is the volatile argument between Nicholson and the depressed Ann-Margret, who reveals her desire for marriage.”

This film is one I resisted rewatching for as long as possible, knowing it’s a rough if distressingly honest ride — however, it remains worth a one-time look for the performances and its historical significance. Watch for Rita Moreno in a small but crucial closing scene with Nicholson.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Ann-Margret as Bobbie
  
• Giuseppe Rotunno’s cinematography
  
  

Must See?
Yes, once, for its historical relevance.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Village Voice

Synopsis:
When an aspiring Olympian athlete (Mariel Hemingway) falls for her female trackmate (Patrice Donnelly), her coach (Scott Glenn) worries that their romance will get in the way of their competitive spirit.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Lesbianism
• Love Triangle
• Olympics
• Scott Glenn Films
• Sports
• Strong Females

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “controversial, underappreciated film” — “written and directed by Robert Towne (who won the Oscar for his Chinatown script)” — is “an undisguised celebration of the bodies of female athletes.” He describes in detail how often Towne takes advantage of locker rooms, steam baths, bedroom scenes, and “raunchy female dialogue” to “serve [his] purpose,” “taking what we consider tasteless and deviant acts and making them seem perfectly natural and unembarrassing.” As Peary writes, it’s “evident that Towne likes his women” (a little too much) — they “are funny, sensitive, dedicated, self-confident, competitive yet supportive, strong, and, because they’re athletes, beautiful.”

This film was heralded upon its release for its casual treatment of Hemingway and Donnelly’s same-sex romance long before this was de rigeur in cinema. As Peary writes, “We accept Donnelly’s homosexuality and don’t begrudge her initiating the naive Hemingway into a lesbian affair,” even though “it might be true that once Hemingway figures out her self-identity she’ll discover herself to be heterosexual” (what about the possibility of bisexuality?!). He adds: “It’s also interesting that we feel happy that… Hemingway got to experience one” (?) “beneficial and exciting homosexual experience,” since “Hemingway feels no guilt about the affair and no anger towards Donnelly for possibly taking advantage of her.”

Unfortunately, while Towne should (perhaps) be applauded for attempting to normalize bodily interactions across all spheres of life, it’s also impossible not to imagine how much he personally enjoyed filming every… single… close-up… [often slo-mo]… of toned female flesh — and there are oh-so-many during this movie’s two-plus-hour running time; one can’t help thinking somewhat uncomfortably about Leni Riefenstahl’s glorification of athletic prowess in The Olympiad (1936).

Note: In addition to Donnelly, this film is noteworthy for featuring another real-life athlete among its cast: Olympian Kenny Moore as Hemingway’s boyfriend-after-Donnelly.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Mariel Hemingway as Chris Cahill
  
• Patrice Donnelly as Tory Skinner
  
• Michael Chapman’s cinematography
  

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
When martial arts expert Tang Lung (Bruce Lee) travels to Rome to help his uncle (Chung-Hsin Huang) and cousin (Nora Miao) fight against gangsters hoping to take over their restaurant, he eventually finds himself in mortal combat with a hired fighter named Colt (Chuck Norris).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Bruce Lee Films
• Chinese, Hong Kong, and Taiwanese Films
• Chuck Norris Films
• Martial Arts Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this third film by Bruce Lee (his “only attempt at directing”) features “several kung fu battles, which are fun to watch but repetitive,” and then a “much more exciting” set of fights featuring “martial-arts experts Bob Wall, Wang Ing Sik, and in his film debut, Chuck Norris” — all playing “the villains who take on our hero.”

There’s not much more to say about this film other than that it represents Lee playing “a fists-for-free-hire character whom he would have played in several other films if it hadn’t been for his sudden death” (which is sad to contemplate), and to point out that the “Lee-Norris confrontation, set in the Colosseum, is one of the highlights of Lee’s movie career.”

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Numerous fabulous fighting sequences
  
• Good use of location shooting in Rome
  

Must See?
No, but the fight scenes are well worth a look.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
When a Chinese man (Bruce Lee) working in Thailand learns that his new boss (Ying-Chieh Han) is smuggling heroin through ice blocks and killing off anyone who questions his grift, he begins to question his vow of non-violence.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Bruce Lee Films
• Chinese, Hong Kong, and Taiwanese Films
• Drug Dealers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Bruce Lee’s first martial arts film” is “generally considered [his] best, least pretentious film,” but he notes that he finds “it somewhat disappointing.” He argues that “the film suffers because Lee spends too much of it being reluctant to fight and not joining in several melees” (indeed, the entire first half of the film is “free” from Lee fighting):

… and “when he does fight, it’s too apparent that none of the villains is a match for him.” (This didn’t bother me; Lee’s fighting is amazing no matter what.) Peary concedes that “Lee does have one spectacular fight sequence in which he singlehandedly kills about 15 men”:

… and also points out that Lee “has his only scene with a nude women,” but forewarns fans that “he’s in a drunken sleep at the time.”

While this isn’t must-see viewing for all film fanatics, it’s undeniably enjoyable seeing handsome Lee on screen in one of his too-few feature-length starring roles before his untimely death.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Lee’s extraordinary fighting skills
  

Must See?
No, but of course Bruce Lee fans will consider it must-see – and they don’t need this review to give them permission!

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Talk Review
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
A martial arts student (Lieh Lo) leaves behind the beloved daughter (Ping Wang) of his teacher (Wen Chung Ku) to join the studio of a master instructor (Fang Mien), who enlists the help of Japanese thugs in rigging an upcoming tournament.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Chinese, Hong Kong, and Taiwanese Films
• Martial Arts

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this “first Chinese martial-arts film to hit America” started “the crazy and pav[ed] the way for the Bruce Lee classics” — and he adds that while the “picture has been mercilessly attached for its poor dubbing” (I watched a subtitled version) “and hokey plot,” he finds “it great fun to watch an extremely bland hero (Lo Lieh):

… taking on a fabulous array of Chinese and Japanese villains, each more outrageous than his predecessors.”

While “these villains are all considered unbeatable in battle,” “only Lieh possesses the mystical ‘Iron Fist’ to defeat them.”

Peary argues that this “picture has flare, imagination” and at “the very least, it has great camp value” and “would make a good second feature to Infra-Man.”

I’m in agreement with Peary’s review. While it doesn’t offer up much more than it promises, this film remains a colorful, finely choreographed example of why kung-fu became such a craze in the 1970s, and remains worth a one-time look.

Note: The “anger siren” used when Lieh becomes aware of his super-powered hands is the same “ironside motif” used in Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill movies, and was created by Quincy Jones.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Many impressive fight sequences
  

Must See?
Yes, once, for its historical relevance.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Classic Film and TV Cafe Review
• Spinning Image Review