FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
In St. Tropez, a dissatisfied teenager (Brigitte Bardot) marries a local boy (Jean-Louis Trintignant) to avoid being sent back to the orphanage, but continues to covet Trintignant’s brother (Christian Marquand) and is desired by a middle-aged businessman (Curd Jurgens) hoping to purchase land owned by Trintignant and Marquand’s family.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Brigitte Bardot Films
• Curt Jurgens Films
• French Films
• Infidelity
• Morality Police
• Orphans
• Roger Vadim Films
• Sexuality

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Brigitte Bardot became an international sex symbol as the result of her role in husband Roger Vadim’s debut film,” spending “the entire film wrapped in towels or in tight, sexy outfits, or nude.” He describes Bardot as “the forerunner of many young females in future French film in that she lives for herself, is sexually promiscuous, is guiltless about her disloyalty toward men, [and] has an eager body that sends stronger messages to her brain than her conscience” (!). Peary argues that “you’ll forget the men” in this picture “and remember Bardot sunbathing,” “standing nude behind a sheet on the outdoor clothesline”, “in bed with Trintignant”, “on the beach with Marquand”, and “doing a sizzling dance in front of many men.” You’ll also likely remember the lovely location shooting in St. Tropez, which is a distinctive plus. Peary writes that while the “picture tends to be dismissed as simply the film that made Bardot famous,” it “could very easily be called the first picture of the French New Wave”, and as such merits a look by historically minded film fanatics — but be forewarned that the storyline is both boring and overwrought, and none of the characters are particularly sympathetic.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Brigitte Bardot as Juliete
  
  
• Fine cinematography
  
  
• Lovely location shooting in St. Tropez
  
  

Must See?
Yes, simply for Bardot’s performance — and its historical relevance as a precursor to the French New Wave.

Categories

• Historically Relevant
• Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Criterion Review
• Q Network Review
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
A newly transferred private (Montgomery Clift) at Pearl Harbor Army Base is harassed by his captain (Philip Ober) and several colleagues for refusing to join the boxing team, but finds friendship with a spunky soldier (Frank Sinatra) and romance with a local dance hall hostess (Donna Reed). Meanwhile, Ober’s assistant (Burt Lancaster) woos Ober’s unhappy wife (Deborah Kerr), and Sinatra becomes increasingly agitated by a sadistic, piano-playing guard (Ernest Borgnine).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Burt Lancaster Films
• Deborah Kerr Films
• Donna Reed Films
• Ernest Borgnine Films
• Frank Sinatra Films
• Fred Zinneman Films
• Infidelity
• Military
• Montgomery Clift Films
• Soldiers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that the appeal of this “solid version of James Jones’s novel” is that “Lancaster, Clift, Sinatra, Kerr, and Reed all anticipate the rebel figures that would dominate the rest of the fifties” by breaking “army rules and society’s rules.” He points out that “they are the only characters with compassion, who can love — so here rebels are positive figures,” and notes that the “picture has superb acting, [and] strong direction by Fred Zinneman.” In Alternate Oscars, Peary adds that this remains “a quality picture in spite of its soap elements and the unsatisfying resolutions for most of its characters” (though he gives the Best Picture Oscar to Shane instead).

However, Peary does name Clift the Best Actor of the Year, noting that “Clift was such a cerebral, introspective actor that it is exciting just to watch him think.” In addition to Clift doing “a lot of wordless acting” in the film, Peary points out that his performance “is extremely physical”, given that we “see Prewitt box, have a knife fight, shoot a little pool, fall down some stairs, run, march, dig a hole, get down on his knees to do chores, [and] stumble about when drunk.” Playing a “hardheaded” soldier who “knows he must make correct choices or he won’t be able to live with himself,” Clift is enormously appealing, and we want nothing but good outcomes for him. Faring well in an array of supporting performances are a host of stars willing to give Clift his deserved limelight; none unduly hog the screen, but we believe in their characters and their challenges — particularly Lancaster and Kerr’s forbidden romance; the infamous beach scene in which “Lancaster and Kerr [are] kissing while lying in the surf” remains as sexy and evocative as ever.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine performances by the entire cast
  
  
  
  
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  
• Numerous memorable moments
  
• The well-filmed Pearl Harbor bombing sequence
  

Must See?
Yes, as an Oscar-winning classic.

Categories

• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Articles
• Time Out Capsule Review
• FilmSite Review
• DVD Talk Review
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
A woman (Dee Wallace) who has recently confessed to her husband (Daniel Hugh-Kelly) that she’s been having an affair with a local handyman (Christopher Stone) takes her son (Danny Pintauro) with her to get their car repaired at the home of a mechanic (Ed Lauter) who has just gone away for the week, and a rabid dog named Cujo is lying in wait for victims.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Horror Films
• Infidelity
• Killer Animals
• Stephen King Adaptations
• Survival
• Trapped

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “simply plotted, surprisingly nerve-racking adaptation of Stephen King’s novel” is “fast-paced,” with “economical direction by Lewis Teague, who’d later direct King’s Cat’s Eye.” He points out that while it’s “a good date movie”, it “may be too frightening for little kids” — no kidding! (There is no way I would show this film to my own kids, currently ages 8, 10, and 12.) However, I agree with Peary that it’s a nifty little flick, one which generates a surprising amount of suspense and terror given the (necessarily) limited setting and circumstances. Wallace is highly sympathetic as a woman given the ultimate opportunity to atone for her transgressions (she becomes the epitome of a bad-ass mom), and Pintauro is one of the more natural kid actors to grace the screen. Fine cinematography and location shooting add to the appeal of this movie, which remains worth a look.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Dee Wallace as Donna
  
• Danny Pintauro as Tad
  
• Fine location shooting (albeit in Northern California rather than Maine)
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  
• Many highly effective sequences
  

Must See?
Yes, as a good (horror) show.

Categories

• Good Show

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Moria Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
While on a picnic at Hanging Rock, a group of four boarding school teens — Miranda (Anne Lambert), Irma (Karen Robson), Marion (Jane Vallis), and Edith (Christine Schuler) — are given permission by their French instructor (Helen Morse) to explore a little higher. Edith eventually comes back screaming hysterically, and their math instructor (Vivean Gray) heads up to investigate but is soon declared lost along with the three missing girls. A British boy (Dominic Guard) who witnessed the girls set out on their exploration is determined to help find them, and enlists the help of his servant (John Jarratt) in returning to the formation. Meanwhile, back at the boarding school, the strict headmistress (Rachael Ray) is panicked by the ramifications of this scandalous event, and takes out her wrath on an orphan (Margaret Nelson) whose financial accounts are in arrears. Will the missing girls eventually be found — and if so, will we learn what happened to them?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Australian Films
• Boarding Schools
• Mysterious Disappearances
• Peter Weir Films
• Psychological Horror
• Teenagers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary points out that this “enigmatic cult film” — adapted by Peter Weir from a “1967 novel by Joan Lindsay, Australia’s first female novelist from a well-known and esteemed aristocratic family” — is “fiction passing as fact about the inexplicable disappearance of three young ladies and an instructor from Appleyard College as they explored Hanging Rock — a formidable, 500-foot high, million-year-old, uncharted volcanic formation — during a St. Valentine’s Day picnic in 1900.” He argues that “the first part of the film is absolutely spell-binding — no picture has more sinister atmosphere”; but he asserts that “compared to what happens on the Rock — a great, haunting, imaginatively photographed scene — everything that comes afterward is anticlimactic,” especially given that “horror movies with sadistic headmistresses are a dime a dozen.” He points out that while “Weir is faithful to Lindsay,” “on the whole this film is less satisfying because we miss the first-person perspective of former Victorian boarding-school survivor Lindsay.” However, he notes that the picture is “beautifully photographed by Russell Boyd, who put dyed (orange-yellow) wedding veils over his lens to capture the feel of Lindsay’s outdoor scenes, to capture a ‘lost summer’ feeling.”

Peary’s GFTFF review is excerpted directly from his much longer Cult Movies 2 article, where he goes into extensive detail about his thoughts on this unusual story’s translation from novel to film. First, he firmly reminds us that Lindsay’s tale was NOT based on any kind of an actual historical event, thus leaving interpretation of “what happened” up to a much wider array of possibilities (including primeval and/or super-natural ones) — though he ultimately argues that “no theory… totally works.” Next he offers his thoughts on the many ways in which he finds the film less satisfying than the novel (including how a late-in-the-film death is handled). Finally, he offers his own take on what the various events and characters represent — most specifically Miranda, who he refers to as “not of this world” and “not a human being”. He writes:

She is a flower to Sara. She is a swan to Michael [Guard]. A sex object to Albert [Jarratt]. A love object to the rest of the girls. A vision, a dream to herself. An ideal (a goddess) to Mrs. Appleyard [Roberts]. A (Botticelli) angel to Mlle. de Poitiers [Morse]. To us she is the embodiment of sexual desire stifled.

Indeed, it’s impossible not to pick up on strong hints that “it was Miranda’s mission to deliver sexually repressed girls, and even virginal Greta McGraw [Gray], into a world of sexual freedom, far away from adults like Mrs. Appleyard and the uncaring parents who would entrust them to such a witch.” Regardless of what “really happened,” one’s enjoyment of this film will depend on how much you’re willing to accepts its puzzle-like nature, and be swept up in its mood rather than searching for literal answers to its many mysteries.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Russell Boyd’s stunning cinematography
  
  
  
• Fine period detail
  
  
• Many haunting and memorable moments
  
  
  
• Bruce Smeaton’s distinctive score

Must See?
Yes, both as an enigmatic classic and for its historical relevance in Australian cinema.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Historically Relevant

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Q Network Review
• Spinning Image Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
A painter (Abel Ferrara) living in New York with his “sensible” girlfriend (Carolyn Marz) and her “spacy” lover (Baybi Day) becomes increasingly unhinged as he struggles to pay his bills, and a rock band rehearses incessantly above his apartment. Soon he is taking his fury out on random male victims across the city, using a power drill as his weapon of choice.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Artists
• Mental Breakdown
• Revenge
• Serial Killers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “sleazy cult film was the first venture of independent New York director Abel Ferrara,” who — under the stage name ‘Jimmy Lane’ — “plays a struggling artist” who “paints obsessively and begins to lose his senses” and eventually “has a complete breakdown”. Peary notes that this “grisly film is not your typical slice-and-dice splatter fare”, given it’s “not about a man stalking scantily clad females” (the “artist’s victims are all men”) — but while Peary asserts he believes “Ferrara is making some point about the artist feeling hatred toward men because he fears he is a homosexual himself,” I disagree with that interpretation; Ferrara’s victims are almost all down-on-their-luck vagrants who perhaps represent Ferrara’s fears of his own fate if he isn’t able to survive as an artist — a point highlighted when his finally-finished “masterpiece” is scorned by his agent (guess what happens to him?). Peary writes that Ferrara “scores with a lot of weird touches and humor”, but the “storyline is hard to follow and the violence is unnecessarily graphic”; indeed, this creatively filmed but self-indulgent flick can easily be skipped.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Good use of location shooting in New York City
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  

Must See?
Nope; you can most certainly skip this one unless you happen to be interested in Ferrara’s output.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Spinning Image Review
• Moria Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review