FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
During a trip to the big city, Mari (Sandra Cassell) and her friend Phyllis (Lucy Grantham) are kidnapped and tortured by a sadistic gang of escaped convicts (Davis Hess, Fred Lincoln, Jeramie Rain, and Marc Sheffler) while Mari’s concerned parents (Richard Towers and Cynthia Carr) wait back at home ready to celebrate her 17th birthday.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Fugitives
• Horror Films
• Kidnapping
• Revenge
• Serial Killers
• Wes Craven Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “repulsive, controversial cult film” — notorious as the breakthrough movie of writer-director Wes Craven and producer Sean S. Cunningham — “starts out humorously”:

… but quickly devolves into a middle section that’s “an outright embarrassment” and a “final section” that’s “hogwash”.

He accurately notes that the “humor [and] happy music are offensive”, that “you’ll feel ashamed to be watching it”, and (presuming you’re seeing it in a theater) you’ll “feel paranoid about the men around you who are grinning and taking delight in the girls’ torture.” He argues that the “major problem is that the film is so convincingly made — and the sadists and their victims so authentic — that the torture scenes really seem to be happening.” Remarkably (or, sadly, not so), the film has a significant cult following and was recently released on Blu-Ray. Regardless, as DVD Savant writes, “it’s still an indefensible carnival of cruelty and carnage, with unendurable pain and suffering meted out to two innocent girls by a quartet of pitiless human monsters.” Meanwhile, Howard Thompson’s review for The New York Times is worth copying here in its (short) entirety:

In a thing (as opposed to a film) titled “Last House on the Left,” four slobbering fiends capture and torture two “groovy” young girls who airily explore the bad section of a town and more or less ask for trouble. When I walked out, after 50 minutes (with 35 to go), one girl had just been dismembered with a machete. They had started in on the other with a slow switchblade. The party who wrote this sickening tripe and also directed the inept actors is Wes Craven. It’s at the Penthouse Theater, for anyone interested in paying to see repulsive people and human agony.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Decent production values
  

Must See?
No, though film fanatics may be curious to check it out given its cult status.

Links:

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

Synopsis:
When his wife (Lee Remick) loses her baby during childbirth, a diplomat (Gregory Peck) is urged by a hospital’s chaplain (Martin Benson) to secretly give her a replacement baby whose mom has just died. Soon, however, their son Damien (Harvey Stephens) — cared for by a nefarious new nanny (Billie Whitelaw) and her big black dog — begins showing distressing signs of evil; and when a mysterious priest (Patrick Troughton) repeatedly warns Peck that he must investigate the truth behind his adopted son’s birth, Peck enlists the help of a journalist (David Warner) in learning more.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Amateur Sleuths
• David Warner Films
• Evil Kids
• Gregory Peck Films
• Horror
• Lee Remick Films
• Satanists

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “big-budget horror film, given class by a distinguished cast, starts out well, but becomes extremely unpleasant”, with the deaths “repugnant” — “particularly a decapitation (a scene known for its effective special effect).” Peary goes on to write that, “In The Exorcist, God defeats Satan; in Val Lewton’s films, God and the devil fight to a stalemate; but this picture joins Rosemary’s Baby and other recent films in which the devil emerges triumphant — it’s part of a depressing subgenre.” While I agree with Peary that the deaths become increasingly “unpleasant” (and a particular plot twist will sit like a lump in your stomach), it seems to me they’re part and parcel of how a tale like this would be told. The inherent tension of the story — starting with Peck deceiving his wife in such a profound way — carries the narrative along, as we watch the unbearable discomfort of a woman fearing her own son:

… and Peck’s eventual realization that he will have to take unthinkably drastic actions. Of special note is Billie Whitelaw as Damien’s nanny; she steals the show each moment she’s on screen.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Billie Whitelaw as Mrs. Baylock
  
• Gregory Peck as Robert Thorn
  
• Lee Remick as Katherine Thorn
  
• Atmospheric cinematography and sets
  
  
• Many creepy and/or horrific moments
  
  
• Jerry Goldsmith’s score

Must See?
No, but it’s definitely worth a one-time look.

Links:

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

Synopsis:
An arrogant, driven scientist (Fritz Weaver) who has worked for years on a powerful AI machine named Proteus IV leaves his estranged wife (Julie Christie) at home, not realizing she will soon be terrorized by the super-human computer, who has nefarious plans for propagating his own existence through her.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Computer-Out-of-Control
• Horror
• Julie Christie Films
• Pregnancy
• Rape
• Science Fiction
• Scientists

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “controversial science-fiction film” — based on a novel by Dean R. Koontz — “somehow manages to be erotic and anti-erotic, daring and offensive”.

He adds that the film’s “premise is intriguing but disturbing — it’s tasteless enough seeing movie heroines raped by monsters in some recent pictures, but Christie being molested by a mechanical apparatus is ludicrous and appalling…” With that said, he notes that “Christie’s about the only actress who could retain her dignity playing such a victim”, and indeed “gives one of her finest, most vulnerable performances”.

Peary writes that while “the film’s cultists don’t like the ending”, he finds “it to be satisfying”, and notes that the “scariest scene, other than the rape of Christie, is when Proteus attacks scientist Gerrit Graham”.

While Demon Seed is undeniably cliched, illogical, and silly in many ways, it remains surprisingly suspenseful and relevant to our modern times, when “personal devices” control far more of our existence than they (very likely) should, and we’re equally — or more — at risk of AI surpassing our own ability to control what we’ve created. If you’re curious, watch this fun 10-minute overview of the film. (YouTube has added a whole new dimension of possibilities to film blogging!)

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Julie Christie as Susan
  
• Trippy special effects
  

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a look.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Moria Review
• And You Call Yourself a Scientist Review

Synopsis:
An actress (Ellen Burstyn) seeks help from a priest (Jason Miller) and his exorcist-colleague (Max von Sydow) in saving her preteen daughter Regan (Linda Blair) from demonic possession.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Ellen Burstyn Films
• Horror
• Lee J. Cobb Films
• Max von Sydow Films
• Mercedes McCambridge Films
• Possession
• Priests and Ministers
• Single Mothers
• William Friedkin Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “powerful, controversial, influential adult horror film — a one-time cult phenomenon” presents a world “breaking apart,” in which “the Devil can make a dramatic entrance”, taking “possession of Regan [by] inhabiting her body and eating away at it.” He points out that the “film is at times almost unbearably intense” and “not for the squeamish, because some of the language and imagery is quite shocking: Regan’s face becomes monstrous, her speech is vulgar, she vomits green slime, she violently attacks all who come close, she masturbates with crosses, she levitates”.

Peary notes that the “special effects make-up by Dick Smith and Rick Baker revolutionized the horror genre”, leading one to “feel sorry for Blair.” (She has since acknowledged it was “grueling” to go through being made-up for two hours each day — and we’ve also learned she fractured her back during the scene in which she’s bounced violently up and down off her bed.)

Peary refers to Friedkin’s direction simply as “solid”, noting he likes “the way he refrigerated Blair’s room so that steam pours out of everyone’s mouth”, and he asserts that the “most interesting aspect of the picture is that it conveys a fear that is rarely dealt with: Regan doesn’t have those around her turn into monsters (a basic primal fear) but becomes a monster herself. Not since Pinocchio grew donkey ears and a tail has a child become so bestial.”

Peary argues that the “caliber of acting and production gave the film needed class to attract a mass audience” — but this understates the fact that The Exorcist had a tremendous cultural impact. Documentary footage reveals that audience members waited in line for hours to see the film, and would routinely leave and/or faint mid-way, unable to continue their viewing. Despite costing twice as much as its initial budget (and taking twice as long to film as projected), it remains the ninth highest grossing film of all time (adjusted for inflation).

Viewed on its own terms today (almost 50 years later), The Exorcist has held up remarkably well: for better or for worse, Friedkin’s draconian directorial style (doing whatever he deemed necessary to get the responses he wanted from his actors and set) resulted in a film which authentically represents humanity at its most vulnerable and terrorized. This is not a film to watch or take lightly — and while modern-day audiences may be less astonished by the impressive special effects (all achieved on-set, rather than altered during post-production), they remain truly noteworthy and frightening.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Linda Blair as Regan
  
  
• Fine performances by the adult cast
  
  
  
• Highly atmospheric cinematography and direction
  
  
• Creepy make-up
  
  
• Impressive special effects
  
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical notoriety and enduring cultural impact. Selected for preservation by the Library of Congress in 2010 as being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant”.

Categories

• Historically Relevant
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• Jigsaw Lounge Review
• Roger Ebert’s Original Review
• Roger Ebert Review (comparison of producer’s cut)

Synopsis:
A suburban mom (JoBeth Williams) and dad (Craig T. Nelson) try to protect their kids Dana (Dominique Dunne), Robbie (Oliver Robins), and Carol Anne (Heather O’Rourke) from malevelent forces in their house, eventually drawing on the help of a team of paranormal experts (Beatrice Straight, Richard Lawson, and Martin Casella) and a medium (Zelda Rubenstein).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Ghosts
• Horror Films
• Kidnapping
• Steven Spielberg Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “thrill-a-second horror movie” — directed “by Tobe Hooper under the close supervision of Steven Spielberg” — is “suspenseful, scary, witty, [and] imaginative”. He points out that Richard Edlund’s special effects are dazzling, especially the parade of the ‘lost’ ghosts down the staircase and the startling appearance of the giant demon head”:

But he argues that “what makes [the] film really nerve-wracking — especially if you’re a young viewer — is that every thing (trees, dolls, toys, records, furniture) comes to life and becomes hostile.”

He adds that the “characters are appealing” (though he complains that “Dunne’s character has nothing to do”):

… and posits that the “finale, which is too much like the end of The Amityville Horror, is anticlimactic — all the skeletons, the mud, and the loud screaming are annoying.”

I’m of two minds about Poltergeist, which I never saw as a kid or teen (I was horror-averse until my adulthood, when I could finally approach the genre from a sufficiently analytical lens and avoid sensory overload). While I recognize its innovation in terms of special effects and numerous thrilling moments, I find the storyline and characters frustratingly inconsistent. (To name just two glaring errors, Nelson has purportedly missed days of work while his younger daughter is missing — without the police being notified? And distraught Williams apologizes to Straight for inconveniencing her?!) Some have argued for “hidden depths” in the film, finding meaning and nuance in each narrative or visual twist, while others have semi-jokingly pointed out “everything wrong” with the movie. Ultimately, film fanatics will need to decide for themselves whether this becomes a beloved favorite or a once-and-done cult flick with historical significance.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine central and supporting performances
  
  
  
  
  
• Nicely done special effects
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  
  

Must See?
Yes, simply for its cultural relevance and cult status.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Historically Relevant

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review
• Roger Ebert Review
• Moria Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review

Synopsis:
The Rolling Stones perform live in 1981 for audiences in Arizona and New Jersey.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Concert Films
• Hal Ashby Films
• Rock ‘n Roll

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately dismisses this “dull concert film” — which “captures none of the excitement of the events or the intensity of the Stones’ performances” — as perhaps an instance of director Hal Ashby “accidentally jettison[ing] the good stuff and [keeping] the reject material.”

He argues that “the camera seems incapable of achieving any intimacy with the performers”, and that “even Mick Jagger seems distant”. Indeed, I was surprised and dismayed to see what a lost opportunity this film is, given the possibility of concert films not only to not only give viewers an up-close view of their favorite performers in action, but to show behind-the-scenes interactions leading to or following the event. We don’t hear any dialogue here, and the few cutaways to non-performance footage are oddly interspersed. The one semi-cool scene shows a concert stadium being set up for the evening’s show in time-lapse:

As Peary notes at the end of his very brief review, “You’ll have better luck with Gimme Shelter” (I agree).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine cinematography
  

Must See?
No; you can skip this one unless you’re a die-hard Stones fan.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Onion AV Club Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review

Synopsis:
Desperately in need of virgin blood, sickly Count Dracula (Udo Kier) is taken by his loyal manservant (Arno Juerging) to Italy, where he intends to woo the supposedly “pure” daughters (Milena Vukotic, Dominique Darel, Stefania Casini, and Silvia Dionisio) of a landowner (Vittorio de Sica) and his wife (Maxime McKendry), not realizing that two of them are sexually involved with the family’s “Bolshevik gardener” (Joe Dallesandro).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Horror Films
• Looking for Ms./Mr. Right
• Paul Morrissey Films
• Vampires
• Virginity

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that while this horror satire is “not as popular as Andy Warhol’s Frankenstein, also directed by Paul Morrissey”, it’s “a much better film”. He describes it as “erotic, cleverly scripted by Morrissey and very funny, but concedes that it’s “so super bloody, gross, and violent that viewers will surely be scared away”. While Peary considers “the entire cast… impressive”, he notes that “best of all is Arno Juerging, who plays Dracula’s always angry assistant. He speaks in the most unpleasant tone imaginable and his argument-conversations with the overly-excited Kier are classics.”

Peary calls out Juerging’s “bar-game scene with peasant Roman Polanski” as “also a highlight”.

I agree with Peary that this cult favorite is well worth a look: it’s sumptuously filmed, cleverly scripted, and offers plenty of atmospheric, tongue-in-cheek enjoyment. Chances are you’ll enjoy it more than you expected to.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Numerous campily humorous moments
  
  
  
  
• Fine cinematography and sets
  
  
• Claudio Gizzi’s guitar-drenched score

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• Classic Horror Review
• Moria Review

Synopsis:
When an exhausted, insecure, emotionally volatile singer named the Rose (Bette Midler) pleads unsuccessfully for a break in touring from her harsh manager (Alan Bates), she runs away with and falls for a chauffeur (Fredric Forrest) who wants to help rescue her from her chaotic life — but Rose is drawn back time and again both to Bates and to the allure of acceptance and adoration from her fans.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Alan Bates Films
• Bette Midler Films
• Downward Spiral
• Fredric Forrest Films
• Harry Dean Stanton Films
• Singers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary’s strongly worded review of this film — which chronicles “the last days in the life of a fictional rock superstar… patterned on the ill-fated Janis Joplin” — put me off from watching it for years. He opens by writing, “Some day a money-mad producer will make a film about the last days of John Belushi; it will be about as unenjoyable as this film”, and later he adds that “this film is for masochists only”. He writes that “it’s hard to watch one awful thing after another happen to Midler: not only is she self-destructive, but everyone she trusts lets her down, walks out on her, or exploits her.” He posits that “the movie should have been about an hour shorter,” but since “the filmmakers weren’t satisfied having individuals hurt Midler just once”, they “bring them back to hurt her again”. He concedes that “Midler gives a great performance and does a terrific job singing rock songs (as well as the haunting title ballad),” but has nothing else positive to say.

While I’m in agreement (of course) that this film offers up a deeply distressing narrative — it’s not one to watch when you’re in the mood for something light-hearted — I disagree with Peary’s framing. Midler’s character — a “vulnerable, burned-out singer who is loved by her fans but suffers loneliness because she hasn’t a man to love and protect her”, and thus “drinks heavily, takes too many drugs, and picks up men” — is clearly a complex individual who makes life challenging for those around her. The moment she first speaks harshly to Forrest is truly shocking:

She causes him to flee in (rightful) self-preservation to a nearby male-only bath-house, which Midler enters without hesitation:

The Rose’s life is shown as an endless and exhausting push and pull between her tentative acceptance of love and joy, and her fears that she’s not worthy, thus leading her to make bad or misguided choices time and again. Underlying all is her seriously dysfunctional and co-dependent relationship with short-sighted Bates, who doesn’t seem to realize that all humans need periods of rest and recovery to stay functional and (ahem) money-generating.

Forrest, meanwhile, is an admirably complex character — someone who is living out his own secret life of rebellion, and has “hangs-ups of his own”.

Thankfully, David Keith’s kind soldier-turned-bodyguard:

… serves as welcome relief from the litany of troubled and/or malicious men Midler encounters — including Harry Dean Stanton in a bit role early on as a mean-spirited musician.

Peary also neglects to discuss how beautifully filmed this picture is (especially evident in Blu-Ray). Director Mark Rydell, working with DP Vilmos Zsigmond, presents a vibrantly saturated world of concert halls, bars, and various other locales, including Midler’s economically depressed home-town.

Meanwhile, Midler’s performance really is spectacular: her Oscar nomination was deserved, and it’s too bad she never had a chance to shine like this (cinematically-speaking) again. She plays every single scene she’s in (which is many or most) as though she’s living out the Rose’s heartbreak, exhaustion, insecurity, and exuberance in real-time. It’s astonishing how electric she is on stage (it makes sense her fans adore her), and how easily she slips into realistic despair. While not all scenes work as well as others, the arc of this story coheres just fine — and I disagree with Peary that it should have been an hour shorter.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Bette Midler as the Rose (nominated as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars)
  
• Fredric Forrest as Dyer
  
• David Keith as Mal
  
• Stunning cinematography
  
  
  
• Fine location shooting
  
• Many gut-wrenching moments
  
  
• Powerful concert sequences
  
  

Must See?
Yes, for Midler’s Oscar-nominated performance and as an all-around powerful show.

Categories

• Noteworthy Performance(s)
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Talk Review
• Q Network Review
• Spinning Image Review
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
When a jazz pianist (David Hemmings) witnesses the murder of a psychic (Macha Meril), he enlists help from a feisty reporter (Daria Nicolodi) in tracking down the mysterious serial killer.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Amateur Sleuths
• Dario Argento Films
• Horror Films
• Serial Killers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “imaginatively directed” horror film by Dario Argento “is extremely exciting,” with “the mystery itself” interesting given “there is an abundance of clues [and] the murders are suspenseful and properly gruesome.” He argues this “may be Argento’s most stylish film: his music is loud; his colors are bright, but he also makes use of shadows and darkness”, and “he makes great use of a fluid camera… but also gives you chills with extreme close-ups of eyeballs:

… weird props, etc.” He adds that Argento “gives class to what could have been another sleazy slasher movie by having: Hemmings play classical music:

… the mystery center on a painting” (as was the case in Argento’s The Bird With the Crystal Plumage [1970]), “his characters… educated, and his scenes set in art schools, libraries, and large rooms with tasteful decor.”

Finally, Peary notes that the film features “excellent use of props (paintings, mirrors, dolls, knives, clothes, etc.)”:

… as well as “striking nocturnal shots of deserted streets”.

While giallo films aren’t a personal favorite, I can appreciate Argento’s artistry here, and consider this a must-see simply for its cult status.

Note: For me, part of being a film fanatic is trying to understand why others deeply enjoy a certain genre of film that doesn’t necessarily appeal to me. To that end, I highly recommend The Maniac’s clear and thorough video overview of this film, contextualizing it within the history of giallo films.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Striking cinematography and sets
  
• Many memorable scenes
  
  

Must See?
Yes, for its cult status.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• TCM Article
• Q Network Review
• Classic Horror Review
• TV Guide Review
• Mondo Digital Review
• Jigsaw Film Lounge Review
• The Maniac Video Review
• DrumDums Review