FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A hustler (Joe Dallesandro) whose wife (Geraldine Smith) has requested money for an abortion for her girlfriend (Patti D’Arbanville) engages in numerous adventures throughout the day, including hooking up with a young john (John Christian), posing nude for an older artist (Maurice Barddell), giving advice to a new hustler (Barry Brown), making out with his former girlfriend (Geri Miller), and requesting money from a friendly Korean War vet (Louis Waldron).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Counterculture
• Paul Morrissey Films
• Prostitutes and Gigolos

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “early attempt by Andy Warhol” (directed by Paul Morrissey) “to cross over from strictly underground to more commercial movies” features “no real story” but is instead “just a series of vignettes shot on New York streets and inside apartments, with Warhol regular Joe Dallesandro either hustling gays in order to get money for his disgruntled wife… or meeting and having sex with his weird friends.” He points out that it’s filled with techniques — including “a cinema verite camera style, improvisation, [and] intentionally sloppy jump-cut editing — that were unique in the commercial cinema of the day”, and equally “unusual” were the film’s themes: “homosexuality, transvestitism, casual sex, [and] male prostitution”, all meant to “subvert bourgeois sensibilities.” Peary writes that Dallesandro — who “is his young, likable self” — has “several amusing scenes with oddball characters, particularly a sequence with a philosophical artist” and “a sex scene with his wife when she asks what he wants her to do most and he says his laundry”. I’ll admit to quickly tiring of Morrissey’s “sloppy jump-cut editing”, but otherwise becoming oddly absorbed by this glimpse into “the peculiar lifestyle of a fringe element of the counterculture.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Some effective neo-realist footage in New York
  
• Joe’s encounters with a Greek-loving artist
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look as Warhol’s breakthrough feature film.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TV Guide Review

Synopsis:
When a new principal (Mary Woronov) arrives at a rock ‘n roll-obsessed high school, she vows to make life even stricter and less pleasant for its students — especially Riff Randall (P.J. Soles), a hardcore Ramones lover. Meanwhile, a “love broker” (Clint Howard) promises to help a socially awkward football team captain (Vincent Van Patten) get a date, while also helping Riff’s nerdy best friend (Dey Young) to catch Van Patten’s eye.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Comedy
• Dick Miller Films
• Generation Gap
• High School
• Obsessive Fans
• Rock ‘n Roll

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that Rock ‘n’ Roll High School — “directed by Allan Arkush and [uncredited] Joe Dante” — is the “prime example of a picture that was designed to be a cult movie,” given that “New World [Pictures] premiered it as a midnight movie, hoping that it would attract fans of its musical stars… as well as college-age viewers who were curious about any midnight movies”. He writes that “a strong following has kept it one of the most popular of the midnight movies”, but I’m curious if that designation still stands. Peary notes that the film is “full of nonsensical humor”, but “lacks diabolically conceived outrageousness and sick humor” — indeed, he argues it “needs more bawdiness and, better, raunchiness in spots”: while it’s “fun watching fascist monitors demand hall passes, watching rebellious students throwing ‘Tuesday Surprise’ at the cooks, and Woronov threatening Soles with ‘detention for life!'”, there’s “not enough of this.” He asserts that the “best thing about this film is the high-spirited cast headed by Soles, bebopping and high-kicking non-stop,” and notes that the Ramones “are amusing in this film and fun to watch while performing”. Discussed in further detail in Peary’s first Cult Movies book.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• A colorful and energetic satire
  
  
  
  

Must See?
No, though it’s certainly worth a one-time look for its cult status.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Spinning Image Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A sociopathic James Dean-wannabe (Martin Sheen) falls for a baton-twirling 15-year-old (Sissy Spacek), and kills her father (Warren Oates) when he refuses to allow them to date one another. Soon the couple are on the lam, but the killings continue.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Criminal Couple On the Run
• Martin Sheen Films
• Outlaws
• Serial Killers
• Sissy Spacek Films
• Warren Oates Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is not a big fan of this “meticulously directed” but “too self-consciously arty” debut film by Terence Malick — based on the “intriguing real-life story” of “the infamous and unmotivated Charles Starkweather–Caril Fugate murder spree of 1958″ — about “an impressionable 15-year-old from Fort Dupree, South Dakota, who accompanies her new, older boyfriend… on his Midwest murder spree and becomes [the] object of a nationwide manhunt”. He writes that while it’s a “trifle boring”, it does feature “captivating performances by Spacek and Sheen” and “stunning photography of the rugged landscape”. In his analysis, Peary focuses primarily on the first-person perspective of Holly (Spacek), who “has no capacity for distinguishing between reality and fantasy or right and wrong”, and “is in essence an unformed character, willing to be led in any direction, by anyone who pays attention to her.” He posits that her “haunting, emotionless, bizarre purple-prose narration makes it appear as if she were trying to compose a story of her own life that’s fitting for one of [the] magazines she reads”, and adds that “nothing that happens on their journey… is real to her — even the people Kit [Sheen] murders are just characters in her story”.

Peary argues that this film “is a grim study of two… products of an American society that, during the apathetic, lethargic Eisenhower era, is so emotionally, morally, and culturally bankrupt that it not only spawns and nurtures killers but makes them folk heroes as well.” (However, given that every era seems to spawn such warped individuals, I’m not sure this analysis is quite accurate.) He writes that the murders are “properly deglamorized” by Malick, and are “a function of their yearning to escape the vacuum that is their world.” Indeed, Kit’s “obsession with leaving behind a record of his life at every stop” (a nice narrative touch) “is his misguided attempt to remind people he was special in an era of conformity.” Peary concludes his review by noting the film is “more than worthwhile” and “has a cult among critics who consider it an important, original film”. In his Cult Movies book, he further praises Malick’s “wonderful attention not only to the plants and trees of the landscape but to nature’s sounds, like the swirling breezes and even the chirping crickets”, and reiterates again that “the visuals are extraordinary: the enormous sky and the large full moon and red clouds that fill it; indoor settings lit by the sun filtering through the windows; great gobs of dust sweeping across the barren land at twilight.”

In Cult Movies, Peary also provides an extended comparative analysis of Badlands with Pretty Poison (1968) — a connection I wouldn’t necessarily have made (I’m more apt to think of Bonnie and Clyde), but does make sense given they’re both films “in which a director intends his characters to embody a sociological ‘sickness’ that is spreading through America’s heartland.” As Peary writes, both girls are first seen doing something innocent and all-American (baton twirling, marching while carrying a flag), and are attracted to an older stranger to whom they lose their virginity. Both “have strict single parents who order [the] male suitors to stay away from their daughters or face harsh consequences”, and “the murder sequences” of these parents “begin much the same way.” However, after this, the films clearly diverge, with Kit and Holly not “wavering in the least from what we already know about them and expect of them.” He argues they “lack the unpredictability, the intelligence, the spark, and the emotion that make” the characters in Pretty Poison “so interesting to watch.” Indeed, as Peary writes, we find out by the end of Badlands that these two murderous individuals are simply “dull, empty people.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Beautiful cinematography
  
  
• Fine location shooting
  
• George Tipton’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a visually impressive debut by an expressive director.

Categories

• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• TV Guide Review
• Moria Review
• Spinning Image Review
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
When a male assassin (Perry King) arrives at her house, a housewife (Carroll Baker) running an electrolysis trade and an all-female murder-for-hire business out of her home finds her life disrupted, as her dumpy daughter-in-law (Susan Tyrell) with a fussy baby becomes increasingly distressed about the level of meanness and violence all around her, and a corrupt cop (Charles McGregor) pressures Baker into giving him the name of a perpetrator.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Black Comedy
• Carroll Baker Films
• Hit Men

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “satirical look at a completely rotten society” — “perhaps the most ridiculous film ever distributed by a Hollywood company (Roger Corman’s New World Pictures)” — is “also the only Andy Warhol film to at least ‘look’ like a mainstream film.” He points out that 26-year-old director “Jed Johnson wisely kept his characters under tight control, making sure they delivered their preposterous dialogue… in a very off-key manner,” and as a result, “this absurd black comedy” — which “deserves more of a cult than it has” — “beats the odds and works beautifully”. He notes that “the main thrust of the humor has less to do with the overtly outrageous violent acts than with characters’ simply being mean to one another or pulling cruel jokes to intimidate those people they don’t like.” Interestingly, “nothing is taken seriously except a poignant scene between King and an autistic boy,” leading Peary to argue that “unlike John Waters, Warhol doesn’t treat truly sensitive subjects irresponsibly” (well, it’s all relative, I guess!).

Peary goes into further detail about this absurdly dark comedy in his first Cult Movies book, where he points out “it has always been the intention of Warhol and his directors to ‘disturb’ the American audience’s movie-watching sensibilities as conditioned over the years by the dominant Hollywood product.” Warhol forces us “to accept his redefinition of cinema” — indeed, his characters “are so nasty that they’d give that Richard Widmark villain of Kiss of Death (1947), who kicks an old lady in a wheelchair down a flight of stairs, a good run for his money.” For instance, “working on a contract for Mrs. Aiken, P.G. [Stefania Casini] lowers a car on a garage mechanic’s legs”; a mother (Susan Blond) who’s “too impatient to wait for the hired assassins” “tosses her crying baby out the window herself; Glenda [Geraldine Smith] and Marsha [Maria Smith] even go so far as to stab a dog with a sharp knife.” And that’s not even mentioning the wanton pyromania that goes on in both a movie house and a car. I’m curious how many film fanatics these days are familiar with and/or interested in Warhol’s work, given that more recent directors have continued to push the envelop in terms of what’s “acceptable” to put on screen or not — however, Warhol’s film-making factory remains an important enough part of underground cinema history that I believe his major films (like this one) should continue to be one-time must-see viewing.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Carroll Baker as Mrs. Aiken
  
• Susan Tyrrell as Mary Aiken
  
• Many bizarrely memorable scenes
  
  

Must See?
Yes, once, for its cult status.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A virginal young man (Bud Cort) living in a bomb shelter in the Houston Astrodome receives support from his guardian angel (Sally Kellerman) to build a pair of wings that will allow him to fly. Meanwhile, a rash of strange murders — all involving bird shit splatted on awful people — occurs across the city, leading a California detective named Shaft (Michael Murphy) to be called in to help. When an Astrodome tour guide (Shelley Duvall) with a cool racing car meets Brewster (Cort) and initiates a romance with him, events take an even stranger turn.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Black Comedy
• Bud Cort Films
• Detectives and Private Eyes
• Inventors
• Michael Murphy Films
• Robert Altman Films
• Sally Kellerman Films
• Serial Killers
• Shelley Duvall Films
• Virginity

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “prior to his success in Harold and Maude, Bud Cort had the title role in this earlier cult comedy,” a “twisted fairytale” by Robert Altman (scripted by Doran William Cannon of Skidoo infamy) “about a gentle young man” whose “mother-protector (Sally Kellerman) … has brought him up to believe that the way for him to achieve ‘freedom’ (what all young people wanted in 1970) is to learn to fly.” He notes that this “crazy black comedy-satire doesn’t hold up as well as Altman’s other early films”, and that “much of the sick humor seems tasteless where once it was funny”; however, he concedes it’s “still an original, full of enjoyable quirky moments”, and points out that “Altman’s unusual storytelling methods, including the intertwining storylines, anticipated Nashville.” I’m not personally a fan of Brewster McCloud — which, as DVD Savant writes, “is less of a story than a collection of ideas flying in loose formation”; however, the overall quirkiness and uniqueness of the film — including Duvall’s inimitable debut presence — make it worth a one-time look by all film fanatics.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Quirky performances across the board
  
  
  
• Many memorable scenes and images
  
  
  
• The final flight sequence
  

Must See?
Yes, once, simply as a unique cult favorite.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• Moria Review
• TCM Article
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
After making a drug deal in Mexico, two motorcyclists (Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper) ride across the United States to New Orleans, first picking up a hippie (Luke Askew) who brings them to his commune, then riding with an alcoholic ACLU lawyer (Jack Nicholson) they meet in jail. Will they make it safely across the Deep South without being harassed by bigoted anti-hippies?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Counterculture
• Deep South
• Dennis Hopper Films
• Drug Dealers
• Jack Nicholson Films
• Karen Black Films
• Motorcyclists
• Peter Fonda Films
• Road Trip

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “low-budget commercial blockbuster” — about a pair of motorcyclists who “make a big dope sale (to Phil Spector!), hop on their flashy motorcycles, and begin an odyssey across American’s Southwest and South” — “makes no real statement, political or otherwise, other than to tell us longhairs of the period not to travel through the South.” He writes that the film’s cinematic relevance lies in how it “changed the face of Hollywood for years to come”, given that “every studio would begin producing low-budget ‘personal’ films geared for the youth market.” However, “many in its target audience were disappointed, preferring films like Medium Cool because of their obvious leftwing politics.” He notes that while audience members “loved the great background music (including the Byrds and the Band), adored the lively, drawling performance by Nicholson (who grins from ear to ear under his football helmet in the role that caused his career to take off):

… admired Hopper’s bizarre editing techniques, and packed their knapsacks after seeing Laszlo Kovacs’s stunning photography of the southwestern landscape… they objected to the females being mere sex objects” and were upset by “the flimsiness of the script,” including the “thoroughly depressing rather than progressive finale.”

In Cult Movies 3, Peary expands his discussion of this film, which he writes has become “legendary” — a “celluloid symbol of freedom.” However, while it “has been romanticized” by those who want to “just chuck it all and ride free and easy across our beautiful land,” he notes that these viewers “refuse to acknowledge/remember that Wyatt [Fonda] and Billy [Hopper] discover there is no real freedom in our cemetery-lined ‘land of the free’.” Peary adds that “one forgets that the ‘personal’ films of the late sixties and early seventies were almost all pessimistic, and that Easy Rider was the biggest downer of them all.”

I agree with Peary’s overall assessment, and was surprised upon my revisit of this film to see how aimless and unsatisfying it really is. The pacing is odd (perhaps due to Hopper originally envisioning it as many hours long): we never have a sense of where things will go or what will happen to these characters, who might be infinitely more sympathetic than the bigoted Southerners who hurl invectives at them simply for having “long hair”, but are not exactly people you want to spend time with (they’re cocaine smugglers, after all). Nicholson remains the bright light in the storyline, showing the vibrant lunacy that would serve him so well in coming films. Otherwise, as Peary points out, “the other characters in the film are as insufferable as Wyatt and Billy.” For instance, “the obnoxious, lamebrain male and female commune dwellers — dummies in the desert — are a sorry lot”, and “Hopper, Fonda, and co-writer Terry Southern (added to give the film class) give no indication there were also more admirable, more socially involved members of the counterculture.” Film fanatics should definitely check this film out once, given its iconic relevance in American movie history — but prepare to be disappointed.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• László Kovács’ cinematography
  
  
• Jack Nicholson as George
  
• A fine soundtrack

Must See?
Yes, once, simply for its historical and cult value.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Roger Ebert Review
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Talk Review
• Spinning Image Review
• DVD Savant Review
• FilmSite Review