FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A baby elephant is ridiculed because of his enormous ears, and exiled to working as a clown — but with the help of his friend Timothy Q. Mouse (Edward Brophy), he soon discovers his true potential.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Animated Features
• Carnivals and Circuses
• Misfits
• Talking Animals

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately labels this classic animated feature about a misfit/freak who is “laughed at and rejected by the ones [he tries] to befriend” a “Disney film with heart”, noting that while it was “made on the cheap, to help recoup heavy studio losses”, it nonetheless remains one of the studio’s “finest, sweetest, least pretentious films”. He points out that “the characters are a memorable lot and are drawn expertly”, that the “action animation is exceptional” (with “excellent use… made of quick cuts and extreme angles”), and that “the story… manages to be both frightening (like, say, Oliver Twist) and charming.” He calls out in particular the famed “Pink Elephants” dance sequence — representing a “nightmare the drunk Dumbo is having” — as “one of the greatest bits of animation in all of Disney”. At just an hour long, the heartwarming story literally flies by, from its inspired opening sequence (involving a stork — Sterling Holloway — delivering Dumbo to his eagerly awaiting mother), to the infamously distressing scene in which Dumbo attempts to communicate with his wrongly caged mother, to its triumphant finale (preceded by a pivotal scene involving a quartet of helpful jivin’ crows). Dumbo deserves its celebrated spot in animation history, and merits multiple enjoyable viewings by all film fanatics.

Note: Other than the “traumatic” mother-child separation scene cited above, Dumbo is probably the film most suitable for young children out of all of Disney’s early features.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• A truly heartwarming (and at times heartbreaking) screenplay
  
• Creative animation
  
• The memorably infamous “pink elephants” sequence
  

Must See?
Yes, as one of Disney’s most justifiably acclaimed classics.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Moria Review
• Ultimate Disney Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A recently deceased man (Don Ameche) reflects on his womanizing past and troubled marriage to a beautiful midwestern girl (Gene Tierney), as he tries to convince the Devil (Laird Cregar) that he belongs in Hell.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Charles Coburn Films
• Death and Dying
• Don Ameche Films
• Ernst Lubitsch Films
• Fantasy
• Flashback Films
• Gene Tierney Films
• Historical Drama
• Laird Cregar Films
• Louis Calhern Films
• Marital Problems
• Play Adaptations
• Womanizers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Critics remain divided about this late-career outing by Ernst Lubitsch, a film which Peary refers to as “an immensely enjoyable comedy of manners”. He notes that, “with the exception of one early scene”, it’s a “rare Lubitsch film in which the characters don’t take turns successfully deceiving one another into believing they’re someone they’re not” — yet, ironically, it’s about a “self-deluded man” trying (unsuccessfully) to convince the Devil (a perfectly cast yet underused Cregar) that he’s “sinned so much in his life playing Casanova that he qualifie[s] for entrance into Hades”.

Peary argues that while the “film is a bit too long”, “its rewards are plenty”: in addition to its “superb” acting, he calls out the “consistently splendid dialogue by Samson Raphaelson”, noting that “every time anyone says anything, you’ll think that’s exactly what should have been said”. He cites a number of “wonderfully written, beautifully played two-character scenes”, and notes that, “this being Lubitsch’s first color film, much attention was paid to period detail and art design”.

Interestingly, the film’s flashback structure — beginning and ending in a remarkably tasteful Art Deco Hell — wasn’t part of the original play upon which the film is based (Birthday, by Leslie Bush-Fekete); yet it firmly grounds this episodic story as the reflective tale of a man who feels deeply guilty for not being more faithful to his gorgeous, loyal wife (Tierney, truly stunning in Technicolor turn-of-the-century outfits).

Ironically, it’s this very premise (Ameche’s enduring playboy lifestyle) that’s somewhat lacking in the film’s screenplay — perhaps to strategic effect. One’s first reaction while watching this film is, “Hey! When are we going to see some evidence of Ameche’s supposed Casanova ways?”, given that other than his nicely handled wooing of Tierney — and a later seduction scene with a young chorus girl (in which all is not what it seems):

— we really don’t see adult Ameche playing the field at all. Instead, we’re a witness to his extreme devotion to Tierney over several decades — a devotion which belies his own belief that he’s somehow sullied their marriage enough to merit a permanent spot in Hell. And perhaps — as Peary suggests — that’s the film’s essential point.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Don Ameche as Henry Van Cleve
  
• Fine supporting performances
  
• Vibrant technicolor cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as one of Lubitsch’s (contested) classics. Nominated as one of the best films of the year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars book.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review (spoiler alert)
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• Chicago Reader Capsule Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A henpecked store owner (W.C. Fields) receives an inheritance and dreams of moving to California, against the wishes of his overbearing wife (Kathleen Howard).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Comedy
• Family Problems
• Henpecked Husbands
• Inheritance
• W.C. Fields Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “side-splitting W.C. Fields comedy” — essentially “a series of set-pieces strung together” — is “the best showcase for the comedian’s unique brand of humor, which is based on characters annoying one another.” He notes that “it is these annoyances, piled one on top of the other, that in Fields’s eyes summed up the life of a married man in America”; indeed, It’s a Gift probably remains the most iconic representation of henpecked-dom in cinematic history. Peary points out, however, that while “the domesticated Fields is suffocating, he isn’t entirely defeated by his constrained life”, given that he “still has his wonderful vices”, and “remains an iconoclast in a world of conformists”. Indeed, Peary argues that while Fields’s Harold Bissonnette apparently “endures indignities without self-pity or complaints” and “accepts the absurdity of his world”, we are nonetheless privy — at least in the final shot — to “how Harold feels about his life under his expressionless facade”.

I recall being truly enamored by It’s a Gift when I first saw it years ago, and was looking forward to a revisit — yet I must admit that I no longer find the film quite as “side-splitting” as Peary (and so many other diehard fans) consider it to be. While I continue to appreciate the craftsmanship of each “hilarious”, expertly orchestrated vignette (which Peary spends the remainder of his review summarizing), I apparently wasn’t in the right mood to enjoy watching Bissonnette passively accepting one indignity after the other: a little of Fields’s characteristic sarcasm and mean-spirited retorts were actually missed! With that said, first time viewers (at the very least) are sure to enjoy watching the classic grocery sequence (involving a reckless blind patron, an irate kumquat requester, and a molasses-spilling child):

… the attempted porch-sleeping sequence (interrupted by countless annoyances, both inanimate and human):

… and the truly jawdropping manor picnic sequence (in which Bissonnette and his family cluelessly trash the lawn of an estate they’ve mistaken for a park).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Numerous humorous vignettes
  

Must See?
Yes, as an acknowledged comedic classic. Peary nominates the film as one of the best pictures of the year — and Fields himself as one of the best actors of the year — in his Alternate Oscars book. Discussed at length in Peary’s Cult Movies.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TV Guide Review
• Greatest Films Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A young pigkeeper named Taran (Grant Bardsley) is sent on a mission to locate and destroy a magical black cauldron coveted by the evil Horned King (John Hurt).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Animated Features
• Coming of Age
• Fantasy
• John Hurt Films
• Search

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of this “25th cartoon feature” by Disney — its “first 70 mm cartoon since Sleeping Beauty” — by noting that “critics overpraised” it “out of appreciation for the studio’s attempt to return to old-style, ambitious animation”. He argues that it “doesn’t have the subtlety of the Disney classics”, but notes that “while the backgrounds are lifeless”, obvious “care was taken in animating foreground action, as well as character movements and facial expressions”. He accurately points out that “the human characters are a bit innocuous” (indeed, they’re imminently forgettable), and that “the plot has few surprises and many weak points”. However, he argues that kids “won’t be bored”, that it’s a “pleasant diversion” for adults, and that it “makes the refreshing point that loyalty and friendship are more important than heroism”.

These days — especially knowing that a handful of neo-Disney masterpieces (i.e., The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast) were yet to come — The Black Cauldron definitely strikes one as more of an innocuous “miss” than anything worth celebrating as a come-back. Indeed, Time Out calls it a “major disappointment”, while many others note that it simply recycles a number of cliches from earlier Disney films while failing to bring any charm or originality to the proceedings. Meanwhile, Richard Scheib of Moria points out that the film’s timing was unfortunate as well, given that it was conceived right around the time when Star Wars (1977) was enjoying tremendous popularity, but not released until the mid-80s, when “the genre had moved on”. Ultimately, then, this one is only must-see for Disney completists.

Note: The “cowardly half-human-half-creature Gurgi” — erroneously labeled by Peary as “cute” and “cuddly” — has got to be one of Disney’s most annoying sidekicks EVER. (“Oh, poor miserable Gurgi deserves fierce smackings and whackings on his poor, tender head. Always left with no munchings and crunchings.” Arrgh!). He’s eerily reminiscent of Andy Serkis’s Gollum in The Lord of the Rings trilogy (which in itself was a clearly an inspiration for Lloyd Alexander’s original children’s fantasy series, upon which this film was based).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Some effectively creepy animation
  

Must See?
No, unless you’re a Disney completist.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Q Network Review
• Stomp Tokyo Review
• Moria Review
• DVD Dizzy Review
• NY Times Original Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A young American (Joel McCrea) sailing the South Seas falls in love with a Polynesian princess (Dolores del Rio) doomed to a fiery fate.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cross-Cultural Romance
• Dolores del Rio Films
• Joel McCrea Films
• King Vidor Films
• Play Adaptation
• South Sea Islands

Response to Peary’s Review:
In his review of this “exotic South Seas romance” by director King Vidor, Peary notes that it’s “very stilted” and “doesn’t hold up as well as” either its thematic predecessor — F.W. Murnau’s Tabu (1931) — or Tarzan the Ape Man, released the same year. In typical Peary fashion, he argues that “the major enjoyment comes from looking at [the] healthy bodies of [the] two leads and hoping that the wind blows up the lei that covers Del Rio’s naked breasts” (!!) — a point which, to give him credit, is actually not that far from the truth. McCrea and del Rio (both just 27 years old at the time) are enormously striking young lovers, and — given the film’s pre-Code release date — their physical attraction to one another is presented in a refreshingly sensuous manner. Peary accurately notes that this early talkie is shot and scored (by Max Steiner) like a silent film; indeed, without too much effort, it could easily have been one. With that said, however, it’s refreshing to hear how Luana (del Rio) and Johnny (McCrea) are unable to communicate with each other verbally for a realistic period of time — that is, Luana doesn’t suddenly become fluent in English after just a few weeks in Johnny’s presence. Watch for the erotic and touching final scene between the two lovers, which also highlights the enormous cultural divide that exists between them.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Sexy Joel McCrea and Dolores del Rio
  
• Creative direction
  
• Clyde de Vinna’s atmospheric cinematography
  
• Max Steiner’s historically groundbreaking score

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

Links:

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

Synopsis:
A team of researchers traveling on the Amazon River encounter a mysterious humanoid fish, which clearly has designs on the crew’s sexy female scientist (Julie Adams).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Jack Arnold Films
• Julie Adams Films
• Mutant Monsters
• Science Fiction
• Scientists

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that while this “popular science-fiction film” — with clear thematic parallels to King Kong — is “somewhat overrated”, it’s “still one of the fifties’ best entries in the genre”. He notes that it’s “skillfully directed by Jack Arnold”, features “solid acting”, and possesses “a consistently eerie atmosphere, suspense, and a first-rate monster” (at least for the time in which it was made — though having just rewatched Alien, it’s difficult to argue that the Gill Man is still TRULY frightening to modern audiences). Peary notes that “more than any other fifties science-fiction film, the emphasis is on sex”, given that Adams — a truly stunning B-movie actress, eerily reminiscent of Jennifer Connelly — “always wears revealing shorts or swimsuits”, and “in the sensuous, spooky underwater scene it’s obvious what’s on the creature’s mind”.

While the storyline is ultimately too basic to entice me into multiple viewings (it’s essentially an extended cat-and-mouse encounter between the Gill Man and the crew, all taking place within limited confines), it’s all done so well that this remains a seminal “creature feature” of its era — one all film fanatics should at least be familiar with.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Julie Adams as Kay Lawrence
  
• Reasonably effective (for the time) monster make-up
  

Must See?
Yes, as one of the seminal ’50s sci-fi “monster” flicks.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• Classic Horror Review
• Moria Review
• TCM Article
• Tired Old Queen at the Movies Video Review

Synopsis:
When the alcoholic wife (Allison Hayes) of a philandering lout (William Hudson) is exposed to radiation and grows 50 feet tall, she seeks revenge on both her husband and his lover (Yvette Vickers).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Atomic Energy
• Homicidal Spouses
• Marital Problems
• Mutant Monsters
• Revenge
• Science Fiction<

Response to Peary’s Review:
Along with many others, Peary refers to this infamously titled bad sci-fi film as “laughable camp”, generously labeling its shoddy special effects simply “amusing” (they’re not; they’re horribly disappointing). Peary argues that “the film could be taken as a feminist treatise, in which a woman who has been suppressed… and maltreated breaks free of her bonds and, too angry to talk things out, gives her cheating husband his just deserts” — but then concedes that “most of the fun comes from watching statuesque Hayes run around in a scanty outfit”.

Sadly, this is actually true; the problem is that we only see her in her impressive giantess form for the last ten minutes of the movie. Until then, the rest of the film is a rather laughably B-level tale of marital infidelity, with Hudson and Vickers (a truly conniving pair of bastards, if there ever was one) plotting to murder Hayes for her money.

This is a film that one simply wishes was more fun than it is.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Allison Hayes lumbering on her rampage at 50 feet tall; too bad there’s less than 10 minutes of this footage
  

Must See?
Yes, simply for its undeniable notoriety.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• All Movie Guide Review