Bucket of Blood, A (1959)
“The artist is; all others are not.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review: Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
Links: |
Strange Brew (1983)
“Take off, ya hoser!”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
Our Daily Bread (1934)
“There’s nothing for people to worry about — not when they’ve got the earth!”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
Links: |
Lili (1953)
“A song of love is a sad song.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: I also disagree with Peary that Caron is surrounded by “supporting players [who] aren’t particularly exciting”. Aumont is perfectly cast (and drolly amusing) as a womanizer who lusts after Lili, but recognizes that she’s still a child — I especially love the line when he tells her, “Lili, you mustn’t throw yourself at a man! It isn’t nice! Well, it’s nice, but you shouldn’t do it!” And Ferrer is appropriately moody as the brusque puppeteer; one of my favorite shots in the film shows his face behind the puppet booth after he’s first interacted with Lili — we can literally see his hard shell melting. Lili may be a simple story, but it’s finely told, and guaranteed to tug at your heartstrings if you let it. At the very least, you’ll be humming “Hi Lili, Hi Lo” for days afterwards. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
Links: |
Bank Dick, The (1940)
“You’d like to have a nose like that full of nickels, wouldn’t you?”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review:
he nonetheless finds himself haplessly caught up in one adventure after the other.
Unfortunately, though Fields is as enjoyable as ever, much of the humor in The Bank Dick is either dated (there’s far too much physical slapstick), blatantly offensive (note the awful scene with the wild-eyed black customer at the bank), or simply a retread of themes from his earlier films. With that said, The Bank Dick possesses wonderful performances by its cast of supporting actors (particularly Franklin Pangborn and Grady Sutton), and remains essential viewing for all film fanatics. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die) Links: |
Invisible Invaders (1959)
“Unless Earth surrenders within 24 hours, we will begin a massive invasion.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review:
Interestingly, an initial subplot about a scientist (John Carradine) who blows himself up while conducting research on atomic energy turns out to be little more than the narrative catalyst which brings the aliens down to Earth; atomic research is thus posited as a defining frontier which finally marks humankind as a threat to its more advanced intergalactic neighbors.
As to be expected for a B-budget film of this caliber, the special effects in Invisible Invaders are lame, and the acting is mostly sub-par. Fortunately, B-regular John Agar (who sounds uncannily like John Wayne) is suitably cast as the no-nonsense major, and British Philip Tonge (in one of his final roles) somehow manages to make campy lines such as “We need time… They must give it to us! They must!” and “Cyclic pulsations? It doesn’t make any sense at all!” sound semi-natural.
It should also be noted that Invisible Invaders is a clear thematic precursor to George Romero’s Night of the Living Dead, and will probably be of interest to sci fi/horror fans for this reason alone. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
Wobblies, The (1979)
“There was only one thing to do: you either stopped living, or you became a rebel.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review: Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
Links: |
Beginning or the End, The (1947)
“Our country must have an atomic bomb. It’s your job — and mine — to get it.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review: This general attitude is most effectively characterized by Tom Drake’s character, a young physicist who harbors a constant sense of unease about the ultimate purpose of his work; on the other hand, screenwriters Robert Considine and Frank Wead make sure to include plenty of dialogue about why America ultimately felt justified in dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It’s a sticky dilemma, and the film does an admirable job balancing the two perspectives. Unfortunately, The Beginning or the End is marred by blatant sexism (women are exclusively secretaries or love interests); two distracting romantic subplots (Beverly Tyler as Cochran’s long-suffering wife is particularly annoying); stilted dialogue (the conversations between the scientists sound especially inauthentic); and some heavy-handed morality. Yet it remains a valuable first attempt at documenting the emergence of atomic power in the world, and for this reason alone, it’s worth seeking out. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
Links: |
Our Mother’s House (1967)
“Don’t worry… We’ll manage. We managed all the time mother was ill, and we’ll manage now. We’ve got to have faith!”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review:
Equally impressive is Dirk Bogarde, who does wonders with a difficult role: while he’s clearly the baddie, he’s never one-dimensional, and at times — such as when he takes the children out for a boat ride on the lake — we actually even like him. The story (based on a novel by Julian Gloag) is a compelling mixture of horror, humor, and intrigue. The film is basically split into two distinct parts: in the first half, we see the children coping in the best way they can with the death of their mother; they truly believe that she’s “still here”, and hold spooky seances to try to converse with her. The scene in which Diana (Franklin) acts as a medium and is “told” that Gerty (Nicholls) must be punished for accepting a ride on a scooter is truly scary, and reminds one immediately of Lord of the Flies.
Yet Clayton also shows us the ways in which these self-sufficient children are able to have fun with their newfound freedom — such as the glee they experience when they’re successfully able to convince the bank to cash their mother’s monthly check. The tone and direction of the film suddenly shift about midway through, once Bogarde’s character appears at the door of “mother’s house”.
Charlie is a genuinely mysterious wildcard, and we’re kept in constant suspense about both his true identity and his ultimate motivations. Yet he also introduces the story’s one major flaw, which is that it’s impossible to believe that none of these children would recognize Charlie, given that he claims to be their mother’s husband (and, by extension, their father). If you can get beyond this gap in logic, however, you’ll undoubtedly find yourself intrigued and delighted by this unusual ensemble tale, which dares to posit children as intelligent beings who may be better off on their own than under the “guidance” of self-serving adults. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
Links: |
5,000 Fingers of Dr. T., The (1953)
“Tomorrow, down below me, I will have 500 little boys, 5,000 little fingers — and they’ll be mine, all mine!”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: With that said, as much as I enjoy discrete elements of Dr. T., I’m ultimately more in agreement with DVD Savant’s review than Peary’s. While I can see its cult appeal, I find the movie as a whole to be surprisingly dull: the songs are insipid, the pacing is off, and, for the most part, the direction is uninspired. In addition, Hayes isn’t all that appealing as Rettig’s would-be father figure, and Healy is eminently bland (her colorful costumes are the best thing about her). Although I understand that Seuss and co-screenwriter Alan Scott meant to posit Healy as a sort of emotionless Stepford widow, easily brainwashed by Dr. T., she doesn’t play this for camp (as she should) — indeed, Conried is the only character who seems to recognize that the film’s scenarios are literally crying out for laughs. (It’s unfortunate, as Conried himself has lamented, that so many of his scenes were cut, because he’s the most interesting character in the film by far.) Note: In his review, Peary points out the “anticommunist propaganda” of Dr. T., noting that “these children are being turned into obedient automatons”. But there are multiple other possible readings as well, including its valorization of the 1950s nuclear family (Bart wants nothing more than to secure Hayes as a father-figure who will take him fishing), and its latent fear of homosexuality (the evil Dr. T. dresses in lavender and pink, and is surrounded by a cast of equally effeminate men). Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
Links: |
