FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
Two penniless drifters (Humphrey Bogart and Tim Holt) partner with an aging prospector (Walter Huston) to search for gold in the Sierra Madre Mountains of Mexico, but quickly find their quest marred by bandits, greed, and distrust.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Betrayal
• Gold Seekers
• Greed
• Humphrey Bogart Films
• John Huston Films
• Mental Breakdown
• Walter Huston Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this adaptation of B. Traven’s novel represents “masterful storytelling by John Huston, who won Oscars for his direction and his script adaptation” — indeed, it “is one of the greatest American films.” He writes that “Humphrey Bogart had one of his finest roles as Fred C. Dobbs, revealing the brittleness and paranoia that his ’40s heroes felt but held in check.” Meanwhile, Supporting Oscar-winning Huston plays a “wise, fast-talking” man who “teaches his two partners about mining” but warns that they may “become distrustful of each other” — which does indeed happen, leading to a “brilliantly played character transformation” by Bogart in which he “nears madness”. Peary notes that this “epic has dynamic scenes in wilderness and civilization, superior dialogue, exciting action-adventure, [and] interesting characters” — but “what really makes this film special is that Dobbs, who proves anything but moral or heroic, is the lead (most emphasized) character rather than having that designation going to the moral Curtin [Holt], who, in movie storytelling terms, is the more logical choice.”

In Alternate Oscars, Peary names this the Best Movie of the Year (over Laurence Olivier’s Hamlet), and elaborates on what makes it such a fine picture. He writes that in order to “achieve authenticity, as well as a dirty, gritty, dangerous feel to his picture, Huston insisted on shooting on location in Mexico” — making it “the first narrative American movie filmed entirely out of the States” — and “hired Mexican character actors and amateurs,” wisely chancing on “including long bits of dialogue that were delivered in Spanish and had no subtitles.” However, Peary argues that “Huston’s major contribution to the film was making Gold Hat” (a bandito played by Alfonso Bedoya) “a continuing character”: he’s a “vile, smiling, almost comical” bandit who “could have been conceived by Luis Bunuel” and “is one of the screen’s great punk-bully villains”, with his “great moment” coming when “he tries to pass himself and his men off as federales, and Dobbs (Bogart) asks to see their badges:

“Badges? We ain’t got no badges. We don’t need no badges. I don’t have to show you any stinking badges.”

Peary notes that while “at first glance The Treasure of the Sierra Madre seems to be an action-adventure film geared for young boys, with its treasure hunt in unknown territory, gunplay, fisticuffs (the scene in which Dobbs and Curtin fight with their boss… in a bar is a classic), tension and squabbling among partners, brutal villains, [and] no women”, it’s “also a complex character study about what the discovery of gold can do to individuals.” Peary further points out how “most of the tension in the picture is caused by intrusion: the lure of gold intruding on [the] minds of and relationships among the three men, and different characters intruding on space ‘belonging’ to others.” Suffice it to say there’s much rich material here to be explored, and Huston does a marvelous job presenting a story with numerous surprises — both brutal and heartwarming — but one that never pulls any punches.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Humphrey Bogart as Fred Dobbs
  
• Walter Huston as Howard
  
• Tim Holt as Curtin
  
• Ted McCord’s cinematography
  
  
  
• Highly effective location shooting in Mexico
  
  
• Many memorable moments
  

Must See?
Yes, as a genuine classic.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TV Guide Review
• DVD Talk Review
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
A man (Kirk Douglas) and his brother (Arthur Kennedy) find work at a diner, where Douglas romances the beautiful daughter (Ruth Roman) of the owner but disappears when he’s forced by her father into a shotgun marriage. With the help of a retired trainer (Paul Stewart), Douglas works his way to the top of his game and eventually becomes famous — but will he alienate everyone he loves during his climb to success?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Arthur Kennedy Films
• Boxing
• Corruption
• Kirk Douglas Films
• Mark Robson Films
• Ruth Roman Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that while “most boxing films contend that the sport corrupts individuals”, this classic — directed by Mark Robson, and “shot like a B-film in shadowy noir style by Franz Planer” — “contends that some individuals want to be corrupted”. Kirk Douglas stars as Midge Kelley — one of his “quintessential ‘heels'”, a “ruthless man who’ll do anything necessary, rub shoulders with anyone…, and step on friends and loved ones in order to get ‘people to call me mister‘.” Peary describes him as “the typical man in the American rat race, a scoundrel moving up in the business world” in which “boxers sell out their scruples to get ahead,” and “men such as Midge dupe the public into idolizing them and buying tickets to their fights.” In Alternate Oscars — where Peary gives Douglas the Best Actor Award — he adds that “Midge’s motivation isn’t so bad” and “we like Midge at times because he is protective of his brother, smothers his mother with kisses, and has guts enough always to get in the last punch, even when defeated.” In addition to Douglas’s fine central performance, Champion is noteworthy for its striking cinematography and a well-cast roster of supporting players, especially Kennedy as Douglas’s “lame” brother:

… Ruth Roman as a young woman who falls for Douglas’s charms before he makes a name for himself:

… Paul Stewart as a self-proclaimed “boxing addict” who agrees to help Douglas out.

… and Lola Albright as a sculptress who’s shocked to find that Douglas’s ambitions really do trump all else.

Note: To see Roman, Stewart, and Kennedy co-starring the same year in very different roles, be sure to check out The Window (1949).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Kirk Douglas as Midge
  
• Fine supporting performances
  
  
• Franz Planer’s cinematography
  
  

Must See?
Yes, for Douglas’s performance and as an all-around good show.

Categories

• Good Show
• Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• DVD Savant Review
• NY Times Original Review
• TV Guide Review

Synopsis:
A young woman (Judy Davis) travels to British-colonized India with the mother (Peggy Ashcroft) of her intended (Nigel Havers), and given their interest in getting to know the “real” India, they soon find themselves invited by a local widowed doctor (Victor Banerjee) to visit the nearby Marabar Caves. When the journey turns unexpectedly traumatic, Banerjee’s name and livelihood are in jeopardy; can he count on the support of the local school superintendent (James Fox) to help him be acquitted of a crime he didn’t commit?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Alec Guinness Films
• Courtroom Drama
• David Lean Films
• Falsely Accused
• India
• James Fox Films
• Racism and Race Relations

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, David Lean returned “after a 14-year hiatus” to write and direct “this epic adaptation of E.M. Forster’s novel, which had long been considered unfilmable.” He notes that just like the “sexual tension when the virgin girls move through phallic and vaginal rock formations in Picnic at Hanging Rock,” that “sensation is captured again when the dazed, sexually repressed/frustrated Miss [Adela] Quested [Davis] stands inside a dark cave and looks out toward the entrance, where Aziz stands, ready to come inside” (he is eventually accused of attempted rape). Peary argues, however, that the “ambiguities that result from our not knowing what happened make us even further detached from the major characters than we already are.” He posits that while “we watch an interesting story, we marvel at the majestic sights, and we’re impressed by the acting,” it’s “hard to be more than a spectator and get emotionally involved.” He adds that while “we delight in watching Lean become another British director to take swipes at the snooty British upper crust,” his “failure to individualize a sufficient number of Indians… is regrettable.”

I’m ultimately more taken with this adaptation than Peary seems to be. Of course the issue of “what happened in the caves” is of paramount importance — and was famously never revealed by Forster himself — but is meant to be shrouded in mystery, as it is here. (I disagree with Peary’s suggestion that the film indicates Aziz “did attempt something” and “might have been guilty.”) What is clear, however, is that Adela’s ambivalence over whether or not to marry Havers — combined with the sensory overwhelm of being in a hot new country with so many sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and customs to become used to — combine to put her into a decidedly hallucinatory and unwell state. As DVD Savant writes in his review, “In one of the best-edited scenes, Lean communicates Adela’s sexual fear in a confrontation with erotic sculptures and a horde of very non-cute monkeys. She’s never even in the same frame with a monkey, yet Lean makes us feel their threat. Monkeys show up at several key moments in the movie, and seem to represent the savagery and sexual chaos that the British fear in the Indian culture.”

To that end, Lean does a powerful job representing the very-real tensions between colonial Britons and fed up Indians, who are rightfully ready for change and increasingly intolerant of Britain’s patronizing attitudes and actions. Dr. Aziz (Banerjee) personifies this tension, with his attitude shifting over the course of the film as he gradually realizes that his own well-being — and that of his nation — will depend on extrication from his desire to “present well” to the British. Fox’s role (though minor) is equally pivotal in the movement towards respectful equality between Indians and the British.

While Peary writes that “it’s hard to tell if Lean is trying to impress us with the glorious scenery or the cinematography itself”, this comment doesn’t make much sense — he does impress us, but I’m not sure how or why this is problematic. India’s landscape is indeed gorgeous and awe-inspiring, and Ernest Day’s cinematography is stellar.

Meanwhile, the performances across the board — particularly by Davis, Ashcroft, and Banerjee:

— are outstanding, with just one exception: Lean’s selection of Alec Guinness to play a minor role as a Hindu-Brahmin professor feels decidedly antiquated and inappropriate. (They apparently didn’t get along well on set.)

However, Guinness is on screen for such little time that it doesn’t much impact the overall movie. This remains a powerful, finely crafted epic by a master director, and is well worth a one-time visit.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Victor Banerjee as Dr. Aziz
  
• Judy Davis as Adela
  
• Peggy Ashcroft as Mrs. Moore
  
• Gorgeous cinematography
  
• Excellent use of outdoor locales
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a beautifully-mounted and haunting adaptation.

Categories

• Important Director
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
Now housed in a mental asylum, aging Antonio Salieri (F. Murray Abraham) — former court composer for Emperor Joseph II (Jeffrey Jones) — tells a priest (Richard Frank) about his intense rivalry with Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Tom Hulce), whose musical brilliance was often overshadowed by his struggles to support his wife (Elizabeth Berridge) and child.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Biopics
• Composers
• Flashback Films
• Historical Drama
• Milos Forman Films
• Play Adaptation
• Revenge

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that Milos Forman’s “Oscar-winning, large-scale adaptation of Peter Shaffer’s 1979 fictional play about the obsessive jealousy an 18th-century Italian hack composer, Antonio Salieri, felt for Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s musical genius” features “great” acting — but he argues that “while the characters are interestingly unusual the first time we see them, they don’t vary in the slightest from then on” and “anyone could fill in their dialogue, reactions, etc.” He posits that “in fact, each time a group of characters gets together, they virtually replay an earlier scene — there are only about four basic scenes in the movie, which are repeated in different settings.” He adds that the “dialogue and situations are embarrassingly anachronistic,” and that “if characters weren’t in fancy period dress… viewers would have laughed it off screen.” Peary does concede, however, that the “period detail and lavish recreations of excerpts from four Mozart operas give the film immense flavor”, and notes that the movie “should be applauded for trying to convey what it is to be an artistic genius, and to show a genius actually in the act of creating.”

I think Peary largely misses the mark in his overly harsh review. If the characters here don’t “vary”, it’s because they’re coherent protagonists in a compelling narrative (consisting of much more than simply “four basic scenes”) which shows the doomed trajectory of a brilliant but insolvent genius (Mozart) — and the lifelong regrets of the man (Salieri) who most fully recognizes Mozart’s gifts while simultaneously cursing God for giving them to such a “shockingly vulgar” young man. The actors’ American accents aren’t distracting, given they’re uniform across the production, and the occasional anachronisms can easily be forgiven if viewing this as a passionate tale of jealousy and revenge rather than a faithful historical biopic (which it’s not; it’s largely fictional). The flashback structure — in which aging Salieri, who has just attempted suicide, explains his “sins” to a priest — works well as a framing device for depicting an aging man coming to terms with his own inadequacies and failings:

… but most importantly, we deeply understand the reverence both Salieri and Mozart held for music — and how challenging it was for each of them (in different ways) to rely on the charity of patrons to survive. Berridge is nicely cast as Mozart’s wife — one can see both why she’s chosen him as her partner, and how he causes her so much consternation.

Meanwhile, the music throughout is — naturally — top-notch; conductor Neville Marriner only agreed to participate in the film if not a single note of Mozart’s music was changed.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• F. Murray Abraham as Antonio Salieri
  
• Tom Hulce as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
  
• Elizabeth Berridge as Constanze Mozart
  
• Beautiful period detail and sets
  
  
  
• Fine stagings of several of Mozart’s operas
  
  
• Luminous cinematography (with all-natural lighting)
  

Must See?
Yes, as a noteworthy Oscar-winning film and for the lead performances.

Categories

• Noteworthy Performance(s)
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• SF Gate Review
• FilmSite Review

Synopsis:
On a bicycling trip across the French countryside, two student nurses (Pamela Martin and Michele Dotrice) part ways temporarily after a quibble — but soon Martin learns Dotrice has gone missing, and she is unsure whether or not to trust a young man (Sandor Eles) who claims to be an amateur sleuth.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Horror
• Mysterious Disappearance
• Road Trip

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that if “Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda convinced hippies not to cycle through America’s South” in Easy Rider, then Martin and Dotrice “should convince young women not to bicycle through the French countryside — particularly if a sex maniac is on the loose.” He argues that while “certainly this thriller is no gem,” it “has some suspense and titillation, and, as always, Franklin is a sympathetic heroine-in-jeopardy.” Indeed, not too much happens in this slow-moving film about a couple of naive young travelers who really should have learned a bit more survival-French and decided on a safer route through unknown territory. With that said, director Robert Fuest generates a fair amount of tension through creative framing and pacing, and we’re left wondering until the end how plucky Franklin will get herself out of the mess she’s landed in.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Pamela Martin as Jane
  
• Fine direction and cinematography
  
  
  

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• NY Times Original Review