FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A woman (Luana Anders) whose husband (Peter Read) dies from a sudden heart attack dumps his body in a lake and attends a gathering at the castle-home of his mother (Ethne Dunn), who has been in continuous mourning since the drowning death of her young daughter Kathleen (Barbara Dowling) years earlier. Anders soon learns that Read’s brother Billy (Bart Patton) is equally haunted by Kathleen’s death but his brother Richard (William Campbell) — a temperamental artist — would prefer to bury the incident and simply marry his lovely American fiancee (Mary Mitchel). Meanwhile, the family’s longtime doctor (Patrick Magee) hopes to resolve Dunn’s perpetual angst by getting to the bottom of Kathleen’s tragic death.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Francis Ford Coppola Films
• Horror Films
• Inheritance
• Murder Mystery
• Old Dark House
• Roger Corman Films
• Serial Killer

Response to Peary’s Review:
This reasonably effective low-budget serial killer flick is primarily notable as the first “mainstream picture” directed by Francis Ford Coppola, who “was working as Roger Corman’s soundman in Ireland during filming of The Young Racers when he wrote this horror script in three nights”, “got Corman to match his $20,000 investment, borrowed the stars from Corman’s film”, and used “a Dublin castle and estate as his main setting”. Peary writes that he finds “the story hopelessly confusing”, but I must say I disagree: in typical whodunit fashion, there are plenty of red herrings and mysterious passages throughout the film, but they all clearly build towards a “big reveal” of how and why Dowling died, and which of the many suspicious characters has turned into a vicious axe murderer in an attempt to hide the truth. Peary does acknowledge that “the horror sequences are very exciting”, and that the initial death of a main character “is [an] extremely well done”, “gory, creepy sequence” that is also “erotic and poetically filmed.” He further notes that “the composition on night shots is extremely impressive”. It’s fun to see Coppola’s explicit narrative nod to Psycho (1960) as well as other “Old Dark House” films.

Note: Peary puzzles over the film’s odd title, which has since been clarified: an earlier cult film was already named Dementia (1955), so 13 was added “to get the film played on the 13th of each month” (according to an interview by Coppola with James Lipton).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine direction by Coppola
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  
• Excellent use of authentic locales
  
• Ronald Stein’s score

Must See?
Yes, as Coppola’s impressive debut film.

Categories

• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• Classic Horror Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Time Out Capsule Review
• SciFilm Review

Synopsis:
A teenager (Nikolas Vogel) with emotionally abusive parents befriends a rebellious motorcyclist (Roger Schauer) and finds himself increasingly drawn into Schauer’s subculture of fascism and neo-Nazi ideology.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Coming of Age
• German Films
• Nazis

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “terrifying, important” film — about “how in present-day Germany and Austria bored, alienated, out-of-work youths are joining neo-Nazi organizations to find excitement, a sense of power and importance, sexual fulfillment (with Nazi groupies), and camaraderie” — “caused riots when first shown in Germany”: a reminder that the type of backlash uncovered in the 2006 documentary The Unknown Soldier (about a controversial museum exhibit showcasing war crimes by “ordinary” German soldiers) was already alive and well in the early 1980s. Given that right-wing ideologies continue to flourish in Europe, America, and elsewhere, The Inheritors — conceived after producer-director-screenwriter William Bannert “and some friends were attacked in a pub by a Nazi youth gang” — feels, sadly, more relevant than ever. Unfortunately, it’s a flawed film, with overly simplistic home lives presented for its two main characters, and weirdly “exploitive” [sic] sex scenes that make it inappropriate to show to younger viewers. But it’s worth a one-time look if you stumble upon a copy.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• A frightening look at neo-Nazi ideology continuing to flourish
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth checking out for one-time viewing if the topic is of interest.

Links:

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

Synopsis:
An alien named Ro-Man plots to kill the remaining six Hu-Mans on earth — a mother (Selena Royle), her professor-husband (John Mylong), their two young children (Gregory Moffett and Pamela Paulson), their grown daughter (Claudia Barrett), and Barrett’s boyfriend-scientist (George Nader) — who are protected from his death ray by a neutralizing serum. But when Ro-Man falls for Barrett, he finds his annihilation impulses in conflict.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Aliens
• Science Fiction
• World Domination

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this “laughably lousy sci-fi film, made for $20,000 in LA’s Bronson Canyon” “gets more ludicrous as it goes along” — then he spends the rest of his review detailing exactly how inept it is, and essentially dismissing it as outright dreck. Other online reviews (see links below) provide a more detailed skewering, combined with admiration for all the many ways in which the film presumably deserves its bad-movie cult status: Richard Scheib notes that “the cheesiness of its ineptitude provides… an enormous degree of sheer entertainment value”, while DVD Savant argues that it is actually “very entertaining” and will “bring a smile to anyone’s face”. A redeeming perspective of sorts does emerge near the end, when we learn exactly what the entire adventure has been based on, and many aspects — including the jarring incorporation of “stock footage” such as “a lengthy sequence of prehistoric monsters fighting taken from One Million B.C.” — come into somewhat clearer focus. Watch for the infamous “ending in which Ro-Man emerges from a cave three times in succession (the shot is repeated)”, which “may have inspired Edward D. Wood” when making Plan 9 from Outer Space.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Countless ludicrously bad elements
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, once, simply for its cult infamy. Maybe it’s the type of film that grows on you (and most definitely requires a bad-movie-appreciating crowd to enjoy).

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Bad Movies Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Fantastic Movie Musings Review
• Moria Review
• TV Guide Review

Synopsis:
A sheriff (Vic Savage) returns from a honeymoon with his new wife (Shannon O’Neil) to find a spaceship has landed, and an enormous shaggy monster is devouring everyone it sees.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Mutant Monsters
• Science Fiction

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “stunningly bad low-budget sci fi film… features the worst excuse for a monster in history” — a creature that “looks like an old deformed carpet with several white misshapen beards and a large mouth”. He points out that the “actors playing the [creature’s] victims actually have to force themselves into the mouth of the barely mobile creature”, and notes that “adding to the absurdity” is the fact that “director Art. J. Nelson” (who also starred as the sheriff under the stage name Vic Savage) “lost his soundtrack, but, rather than tossing out footage of a lot of people having conversations, he simply added a narrator so we wouldn’t be curious about what everyone is saying”. He concludes his review by noting that the “film is for bad-movie lovers only — but even they may find [it] pretty tiresome.”

Indeed, I can’t really imagine watching this sub-Z-grade movie without the “assistance” of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 crew, who add appropriately derogatory commentary and/or supplemental dialogue to every scene in the film — humorously highlighting all of Peary’s complaints above blow-by-blow. Viewed simply as a TRULY TERRIBLE movie, however — how much worse could it be? — this flick holds a certain surreal allure: as Richard Scheib writes, it “exerts a terribleness that is fascinating to see. The gap between what it sets out to achieve and what it actually does achieve is a gaping chasm.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Stunningly bad — everything
  
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes — simply for its cult infamy as such a truly terrible movie.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• BadMovies.org Review
• Moria Review
• SciFilm Review
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
In a dystopian vision of 1985, a congressional committee holds a hearing to discuss an uncensored television station which Americans are staying at home all day to watch.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Courtroom Drama
• Satires and Spoofs
• Television

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is generally dismissive of this darkly satirical spoof of public viewing tastes, featuring snippets from shows, previews, and advertisements that futuristic Americans can’t stop watching. He argues that “you’ll never be able to figure out why anyone would stay home to watch this stuff”, given that “it’s hard enough to sit through 67 minutes of it” — but I think his quibble misses the point. Thanks to the film’s strategic framing structure — attendees at the congressional hearing are shown a “representative sample” of clips — we’re privy to mercifully truncated snippets of the channel’s hit-and-miss offerings, just enough to either unhinge or bore us before quickly moving on. Notable highlights include James Bacon in a “funny bit as a movie reviewer”, clearly meant to gently spoof Rogert Ebert (RIP); and an eerily prescient public service announcement in which a cheery woman demonstrates how to utilize a “pollution control box, located at every street corner” while men collapse in real-time on the sidewalk nearby: “This may slow down your trip a little”, she chirps, “but at least you get to your destination alive. Remember, use your pollution control box: it’s a matter of life and breath.” Sadly, this message couldn’t be more salient today.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Some spot-on satirical spoofs of the cultural zeitgeist
  
  
  
  
• James Bacon’s “impersonation” of Roger Ebert
  

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended if you enjoy this kind of fare.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
A touring boat helmed by a testy captain (John Carradine) becomes stranded on an island inhabited by an aging SS officer (Peter Cushing), who tries to warn the passengers (Brooke Adams, Jack Davidson, and D.J. Sidney) and crew (Luke Halpin and Don Stout) to leave before they’re harmed by Nazi zombies lurking in the water.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• At Sea
• Brooke Adams Films
• Flashback Films
• Horror
• John Carradine Films
• Nazis
• Peter Cushing Films
• Zombies

Response to Peary’s Review:
In what is likely one of his shortest reviews for GFTFF (just six sentences long), Peary writes that while the premise of this “exciting, unexpected treat for horror fans” “isn’t promising”, it’s nonetheless a “well made” “low-budget chiller”. Peary’s sentiment echoes that of many fans, who seem to concur that this film holds a unique grip and possesses a “weird atmosphere that will haunt you for entire days”. Unfortunately, the movie is heavy on atmosphere but short on plot; given that it’s structured as a flashback flick with the sole survivor identified, there’s little actual suspense — and yet, those bespectacled Nazi zombies sure are disturbing nonetheless… The idea of Nazis enduring in superhuman fashion and continuing to wreak random havoc on humanity is an undeniably powerful one. As the Q Network’s James Kendrick writes in his generally positive review, the film “is decidedly creepy and quite clever in masking its limitations and highlighting its strengths.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Haunting imagery of water-logged Nazi zombies
  
  
  
• Richard Einhorn’s score

Must See?
No, though it’s certainly worth a look if this genre is your cup of tea — and it’s of general interest given its cult status.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Reel Film Capsule Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Moria Review
• Q Network Review

Synopsis:
A boy (Sabu) raised by wolves in the Indian jungle returns to live with his birth-mother (Rosemary DeCamp) while nurturing an obsession to kill his mortal enemy, a tiger named Shere Khan. Meanwhile, the greedy father (Joseph Calleia) of his sweet girlfriend (Patricia O’Rourke) bullies Mowgli (Sabu) into revealing the location of a lost city of hidden treasure, and joins two partners (John Qualen and Frank Puglia) in seeking it out.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Hidden Treasure
• John Qualen Films
• Jungles
• Sabu Films
• Zoltan Korda Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
In his review of this “popular fantasy-adventure”, directed by Zoltan Korda and based on stories by Rudyard Kipling, Peary writes that he wishes “a little more emphasis were placed on the boy’s trying to reconcile his wild nature with his desire for human companionship, but not even the early Tarzan movies dealt with such themes”. He points out the “excellent use of [live] animals”, and notes that the movie is “excellent family fare, but there are death scenes that may be too strong for some youngsters”. Unfortunately, the storyline itself isn’t particularly compelling; the film’s primary selling point is its visual appeal. Peary points out that it “has some of the finest color you’ll ever see”, and Stuart Galbraith, Jr. notes in his review for DVD Talk that the effect of using “every filmmaking tool available then” — including “glass shots and optical matte paintings, large-scale miniatures, [and] full-size jungle sets” — is “splendid and unique”. (The entire film was shot in Hollywood.) Fans of the 1967 Disney cartoon will likely be curious to check this one out, but otherwise it’s only must-see viewing for fans of the iconic Indian actor Sabu.

Note: This movie is available for free viewing as a public domain title here.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Stunning Technicolor cinematography and sets
  
  
  
  

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for Sabu fans.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Spinning Image Review
• DVD Talk Review (scroll down)
• Moria Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
A woman (Margarethe von Trotta) eager to divorce her husband (Friedhelm Ptok) and find personal fulfillment discovers that life as a single woman is incredibly challenging — from securing a sustainable job to regaining custody of her son to fending off advances from both well-meaning and womanizing men.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Divorce
• Feminism and Women’s Issues
• German Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary posits that this early major film “to come out of the women’s liberation movement” — about a woman “who divorces her husband but discovers that being unmarried in a male-dominated world does not mean she is ‘free'” — “never really breaks loose”. He argues that because writer-director Volker Schlondorff and von Trotta (his wife and co-screenwriter) have given von Trotta’s character Elisabeth “modest goals”, “her failures don’t seem consequential enough”. I disagree. In “a world where sexist men not only define women, but pass judgment on them”, Elisabeth’s situation as she tries to regain custody rights to her son (who she initially left behind to avoid sending her husband over the edge) is clearly an impossible one: to imply anything other than “that single mothers needn’t all be so defeatist”, as Peary argues, would belie the film’s point, which I believe is to highlight the irony of the film’s (Americanized) title.

Like faulting former slaves for not immediately turning their lives around and becoming successful and happy after years of disenfranchisement, blaming Elisabeth for the challenges she faces as she tries to carve a new life for herself is both insulting and patronizing. Having married early and given up her job to be a housewife and mother, she never had an opportunity to explore her interests, let alone pursue a meaningful career. She certainly has potential and talent (some of the most touching and authentic scenes take place as she ventures forth into singing and dancing lessons), but her downfall lies both in the inherently womanizing society she lives in (her smug, obese, married boss comes on to her matter-of-factly while on a business trip, nearly raping her before he passes out) and in the wrath she invokes by divorcing her husband for no apparent reason: he is vengefully determined to prevent her from gaining custody of their son, and blames her for giving up his dreams of novel-writing to become an editor. Perhaps the famously empowered ending to Paul Mazursky’s An Unmarried Woman (1978) was a deliberate “response” to this earlier, more cynically realistic film.

Note: I looked up the meaning of the film’s original German title, and learned that summer lightning refers to “distant sheet lightning without audible thunder, typically occurring on a summer night”. I’m still puzzling through what this implies about the movie’s premise…

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Margarethe von Trotta as Elisabeth
  
• Sven Nykvist’s cinematography
  

Must See?
No, though it’s recommended if you can find a copy.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• NY Magazine Review