Browsed by
Category: Original Reviews

Responses to Peary’s “must see” movie reviews, as well as my own “must see” movie reviews up to and after 1986 (when Peary’s book was published).

Gertrud (1964)

Gertrud (1964)

“The man I am to be with must be mine entirely.”

Synopsis:
When a former opera singer named Gertrud (Nina Pens Rode) decides to divorce her work-obsessed husband (Bendt Rothe) to be with her younger lover (Gustav Kanning), her former flame (Ebbe Rode) tries to warn her against this and win her back himself.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Carl Theodor Dreyer Films
  • Feminism and Women’s Issues
  • Historical Drama
  • Infidelity
  • Love Triangle
  • Marital Problems
  • Play Adaptations
  • Scandinavian Films

Review:
Carl Theodor Dreyer’s final film was this slow-moving, contemplative adaptation of Hjalmar Söderberg’s 1906 play. While it’s now generally highly regarded — earning a spot in 1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die — critics at the time of its release were much more divided and/or derisive. Before saying more, it seems worth citing 75-year-old Dreyer himself, as quoted in James Steffen’s article for TCM:

Declaring it to be “a film about words,” Dreyer said of his basic approach to Gertrud: “What interests me – and this comes before technique – is reproducing the feelings of the characters in my films… The important thing … is not only to catch hold of the words they say, but also the thoughts behind the words. What I seek in my films, what I want to obtain, is a penetration to my actors’ profound thoughts by means of their most subtle expressions. For these are the expressions … that lie in the depths of his soul. This is what interests me above all, not the technique of the cinema. Gertrud is a film that I made with my heart.”

Fair enough. With all that in mind, viewers will have to decide for themselves what they think of a ~2 hour film with less than 90 overall shots, consisting primarily of measured dialogue between two people who rarely look at one another. It’s a stylistic choice that of course any director should feel free to make, but one that risks alienating and/or boring viewers. At least Gertrud herself is a consistent and insistent feminist protagonist; she is clear on what she wants from life, and unafraid to share this with her husband:

… her callow new lover:

… or her loyal former flame.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Henning Bendtsen’s cinematography

Must See?
No; you can skip this one unless you’re a Dreyer fan. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

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

Links:

Train, The (1964)

Train, The (1964)

“No one’s ever hurt — just dead.”

Synopsis:
During the final days of World War II in Europe — when German officer Colonel Franz Von Waldheim (Paul Scofield) places a collection of priceless French art on a train, intending to send it to Germany — the museum’s director (Suzanne Flon) begs the Resistance movement, including engineer Paul Labiche (Burt Lancaster), to help save the art rather than having it blown up.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Burt Lancaster Films
  • Jeanne Moreau Films
  • John Frankenheimer Films
  • Paul Scofield Films
  • Resistance
  • Trains and Subways
  • World War II

Review:
John Frankenheimer and Burt Lancaster’s fourth film together — after The Young Savages (1961), Birdman of Alcatraz (1962), and Seven Days in May (1964) — was this action-packed wartime thriller set almost entirely in, on, or around trains. After a suspenseful opening sequence in which we see countless European art treasures being deliberated over and then packaged away:

… we are taken on a wild ride (literally) of cat-and-mouse maneuvering between determined Colonel Von Waldheim (“The paintings are mine; they always will be! Beauty belongs to the man who can appreciate it!”) and equally determined, highly agile resistance fighter Paul Labiche (“You know what’s on that train? Paintings. That’s right — paintings; art. The national heritage — the pride of France. Crazy, isn’t it?”).

With no models used (all action was real), the film possesses a consistently heady air of real-life danger, with one expertly filmed action sequence after the other — including a railway station bombarded through “140 separate explosions and a ton of T.N.T., two thousand gallons of gas and twenty two cameras.”

Watch for Michel Simon as a sabotaging train engineer:

… and Jeanne Moreau as a gradually-sympathetic supporter who serves as an almost-love-interest to Lancaster.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Paul Scofield as Colonel Franz Von Waldheim
  • Highly atmospheric cinematography
  • Numerous excitingly staged, often dangerous action sequences

Must See?
Yes, as a fine film by a master director. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Prime Cut (1972)

Prime Cut (1972)

“Uppers, downers — all the livestock get their shots.”

Synopsis:
When a Chicago hitman (Lee Marvin) is sent to settle a score with a rival gangster (Gene Hackman) in rural Kansas, he discovers a disturbing sex-grooming ring involving young women like orphaned Poppy (Sissy Spacek).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Gangsters
  • Gene Hackman Films
  • Lee Marvin Films
  • Michael Ritchie Films
  • Revenge
  • Sissy Spacek Films

Review:
Michael Ritchie’s second cinematic feature — after Downhill Racer (1969) — was this oddball gangster revenge flick with a darkly droll theme of “flesh as livestock” at its core. From the opening sequence in a slaughterhouse (where it’s intimated that a corpse has been made into sausages):

… to a shocking scene of a literal cattle-call for doped up, naked girls, we realize that the social commentary offered here is no-holds-barred. Indeed, as DVD Savant puts it, it’s “an undeniably gross gangster movie that packs a surfeit of purposely, pointedly taste-challenged non-PC content.” With that said, the film certainly has its fans, and does contain some redeeming elements — including cute-as-a-button Spacek in her first speaking role:

… and some colorful, innovative set pieces.

Also to their credit (I think), Ritchie and screenwriter Robert Dillon point out the existence of sex trafficking rings long before public consciousness allowed for the idea of such things on American soil — so that’s a “service” of sorts, though it’s exploited (naturally), and we’re meant to believe that male knights must come and save the poor girls.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Sissy Spacek as Poppy
  • The exciting combine chase sequence

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one time look if you can stomach it (bad pun), simply for its cult status. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book, which makes sense.

Links:

Downhill Racer (1969)

Downhill Racer (1969)

“A good racer turns everybody on — but he’s not for the team, and he never will be.”

Synopsis:
When a cocky American skier (Robert Redford) arrives in Switzerland to train with an Olympics-level coach (Gene Hackman), he falls for an attractive secretary (Camilla Sparv) and struggles to connect with his fellow teammates.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Gene Hackman Films
  • Michael Ritchie Films
  • Olympics
  • Robert Redford Films
  • Sports

Review:
Director Michael Ritchie’s cinematic debut — prior to helming Prime Cut (1972), The Candidate (1972), Smile (1975), and The Bad News Bears (1976) — was this insider’s glimpse into Olympics-level skiing, complete with novel (at the time) filming from the perspective of someone on the slopes. James Salter’s screenplay (based on a 1963 novel by Oakley Hall) focuses on Redford’s isolating arrogance, perhaps having emerged from his cold, no-nonsense father (Walter Stroud), who doesn’t understand his son’s desire to be a “champion”.

The primary tension in the storyline stems from Redford’s interactions with Hackman, who is frustrated by Redford’s arrogance and wants to convince him to be more of a team-player.

We see Redford drawn to the allure of a gorgeous but shallow “sports groupie” (Sparv):

… with some odd connections hinted at regarding whether Redford might be sapping his “strength” by sleeping with her. Regardless, the main thing on display in this film is gorgeous location shooting (in Switzerland, France, and Austria):

… exciting race sequences:

… and a seemingly authentic glimpse into the minutiae of high-stakes competitive skiing.

Note: The score (by Kenyon Hopkins) seems oddly unsuited for the material.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Well-filmed action sequences
  • Beautiful location shooting

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look.

Links:

Bronco Billy (1980)

Bronco Billy (1980)

“Do you understand what Bronco Billy and the wild west show are all about? You can be anything you want — all you have to do is go out and become it!”

Synopsis:
When the owner (Clint Eastwood) of a struggling traveling rodeo show runs into an heiress (Sondra Locke) marrying a man (Geoffrey Lewis) simply to earn her inheritance, a series of interesting adventures ensue.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Clint Eastwood Films
  • Comedy
  • Cross-Class Romance
  • Ex-Cons
  • Heiresses
  • Misfits
  • Rodeo
  • Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “No one expected Clint Eastwood ever to direct and star in a sweet movie, or a picture rooted in screwball comedies of the thirties, but this charmer came right out of the blue.” He notes that since this is an Eastwood movie, “his group of misfits can be whoever they want to be,” and his own character (“Bronco Billy”) is naturally “the best sharpshooter in the West.”

When “naive, headstrong, sentimental Billy falls for snooty millionairess Antoinette Lilly (Sondra Locke), who hides out with his show,” the tables are turned given that “Eastwood is the oddball and the woman finds him beguiling rather than the other way around.” He argues that “Eastwood and Locke” (a real-life couple making their fourth of six films together) “are a wonderfully offbeat love match”:

… though “the picture has more to do with loyalty than love.” He points out that “the fierce loyalty felt by Billy’s troupe for him and each other reflects the loyalty Eastwood felt toward the actors in his ‘stock company’ and the technicians who repeatedly worked for him.”

Peary was writing his review of this film at a time when Eastwood was at the top of his directing game, so it’s easy to understand how critics were playing close attention to what he was putting out. These days, we have a good sense of what Eastwood’s overall oeuvre has been, and this flick is a gentle enough entry — though the gaps in its screenplay (by Dennis Hackin) are pretty glaring. For instance, the entire subplot around Locke marrying Lewis — and a plot by her stepmother (Beverlee McKinsey) and family lawyer (William Prince) to pretend Lewis has killed her — is sorely underdeveloped:

… not to mention unrealistic. However, the main focus here is on these quirky characters being okay with who they are, and finding a way to do what they love — which is ultimately what it offers.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Good use of location shooting

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look if you’re an Eastwood fan.

Links:

Lone Wolf McQuade (1983)

Lone Wolf McQuade (1983)

“Forget it, kid; I work alone.”

Synopsis:
With help from his eager new partner (Robert Beltran), Texas ranger J.J. “Lone Wolf” McQuade (Chuck Norris) enters into a vicious battle against a psychopathic drug runner (David Carradine) whose girlfriend (Barbara Carrera) falls for Norris.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Chuck Norris Films
  • David Carradine Films
  • Drug Dealers
  • Sheriffs and Marshals
  • Westerns

Review:
Chuck Norris does what he does best — stereotypically embody traditional notions of masculinity — in this neo-western which was purportedly inspired by Sergio Leone’s spaghetti westerns. While there’s apparently a popular drinking game in which rounds are consumed upon hearing the term “Ranger” being spoken, I found it more fascinating to focus on how relentlessly one hyper-masculine image or trope after another — guns, explosives, beer, drugs, horses, tanks, turbo-charged cars, helicopters, planes, smoking, seduction — manage to be crammed into this film, ranging from Norris’s initial take-down of a horse thief and his banditos:

… to his single-move slamming of a bully in a bar up onto a pool table:

… to a strategically placed image of bullfighting (I guess they couldn’t justify an actual scene of that!) behind Norris in a later sequence:

… to his chemistry with Carradine’s mistress (Carrera), who has requisite sultriness and allure but was more amusingly memorable as a Bond villainess in the same year’s Never Say Never Again (1983).

Sweater-clad Carradine, meanwhile, seems to be having a ton of fun playing a sadistic baddie who’s equally comfortable blowing people away and showing off his martial arts chops.

In his third film after Zoot Suit (1981) and Eating Raoul (1982), Beltran is well-cast but given too little to do (perhaps inevitably) as Norris’s sidekick; he’s primarily meant to represent a nervous new ranger who learns to overcome his fears and act like a “real” man by heading out guns blazing.

In the image above he’s shown alongside character actor L.Q. Jones, who has some memorable early moments as “Dakota Brown.” Also adding extra quirkiness to the cast is Daniel Frishman as a megalomaniac little person in a wheelchair:

… and William Sanderson — “Sebastian” in Blade Runner (1982) — as a buffoonish drug dealer named Snow, with coke bottle glasses.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Good use of location shooting in El Paso
  • Norris and Carradine’s final battle

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look as an archetypal Norris film, especially given his duels with Carradine.

Links:

Good Guys Wear Black (1978)

Good Guys Wear Black (1978)

“I’m saying we’ve been set up.”

Synopsis:
A former elite CIA assassin (Chuck Norris) collaborates with a fellow vet (Lloyd Haynes) in uncovering a plot by a corrupt politician (James Franciscus) to have all survivors of a certain raid in Vietnam assassinated.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Assassination
  • Chuck Norris Films
  • Political Conspiracy
  • Veterans
  • Vietnam War

Review:
Chuck Norris’s first notable role was in this post-Watergate political conspiracy thriller, starting with an action-packed raid in Vietnam which goes terribly wrong.

Flashing forward, we see that Norris is now a graduate student in political science at UCLA, who enjoys racing cars on the side:

… and has no trouble being pursued by numerous beautiful women — including a mysterious reporter (Anne Archer) who he quickly becomes involved with.

Meanwhile, we see Haynes getting increasingly suspicious about a spate of strategic murders taking place across the nation — all involving men who were part of their elite team.

The film takes us across various scenic locales, including a ski resort at Lake Tahoe:

… with bloody sniper kills interspersed at regular intervals. What role does aging alcoholic politician Edgar Harolds (Dana Andrews) play in all of this?

That’s not revealed until much later on; but one thing is guaranteed: we will get to see Norris fighting at least once.

Note: Watch for Jim Backus in a cameo role as a doorman.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Dana Andrews as Edgar Harolds
  • Creative sets

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for Norris fans. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Cockfighter / Born to Kill (1974)

Cockfighter / Born to Kill (1974)

“I’m gonna keep my mouth shut until I’ve won that medal.”

Synopsis:
A down-on-his-luck cockfighter (Warren Oates) takes a vow of silence until he’s able to win back his fame, fortune, and girlfriend (Patricia Pearcy).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Ed Begley Jr. Films
  • Gambling
  • Harry Dean Stanton Films
  • Millie Perkins Films
  • Monte Hellman Films
  • Troy Donahue Films
  • Warren Oates Films

Review:
Notable as the only film which lost money for producer Roger Corman, this Monte Hellman-directed movie — based on a novel by screenwriter Charles Willeford — was re-released under various other names (including Born to Kill) but ultimately remains what its title implies: an 83-minute film about cockfighting, a sport which is now illegal across all 50 of the United States (though not in Puerto Rico, where it remains a thriving industry). Your appreciation of this offering will depend on a few factors: 1) how much you enjoy watching Oates turn in an impressive performance despite being limited to just a few lines of speech (in a flashback); 2) how curious you are to see this bloody sport in action (though you could alternatively just watch a short documentary about it on YouTube):

… and/or 3) how much of a Monte Hellman completist you are. Watch for numerous big-name actors in small roles, including Harry Dean Stanton as fellow cockfighter Jack Burke:

… Troy Donahue as Oates’ brother Randy:

… Millie Perkins as Randy’s curler-clad wife:

… and Ed Begley Jr. as a lanky local fighter.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Warren Oates as Frank Mansfield
  • Nestor Almendros’ cinematography

Must See?
No, unless you’re curious or a Hellman fan. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Zulu (1964)

Zulu (1964)

“The sentries report Zulus to the southwest — thousands of them.”

Synopsis:
In 1879, Lieutenant John Chard (Stanley Baker) — with support from Lieutenant Bromhead (Michael Caine) — assumes command of a missionary station at Rorke’s Drift in Natal, South Africa, where they prepare for advancement of 4,000 Zulu warriors.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Africa
  • Historical Drama
  • Jack Hawkins Films
  • Michael Caine Films
  • Military

Review:
Stanley Baker produced — and formerly blacklisted director Cy Endfield helmed — this colorful historical epic, based on a real-life battle and featuring a cast of 700+ Zulu extras (most of whom were descendants of the warriors). Although the subject matter is inherently problematic — we are asked to watch and sympathize with White settlers defending land they recently stole — the film itself does a masterful job showing events in a reasonably respectful way; while the Zulu warriors are primarily an indistinguishable mass (we never get to know any of them as humanistic individuals), they are at least portrayed as worthy, skilled, reasonable, and insanely brave combatants.

With that enormous caveat aside, the movie is exciting and almost impossibly tension-filled, as we wonder how in the world a tiny group of men will manage to hold off forces 26 times their size, circling in from all directions.

The script — by Endfield and John Prebble, whose original story the screenplay is based on — does a nice job setting us up to understand the complexity of the colonists’ situation. As the film opens, we see missionary Otto Witt (Jack Hawkins) and his daughter (Ulla Jacobsson) observing a mass Zulu marriage ceremony.

From there, after hearing about the crushing defeat of British soldiers at Isandlwana, they are taken to the hospital at their mission station, where we’re quickly introduced to a group of men who are either hurt, malingering, doctoring (Patrick Magee), or keeping camp — and none of whom have any idea what they’re about to be in for.

Hawkins (secretly alcoholic) and Jacobsson are firmly against asking the hospital’s inhabitants to stay and fight — and eventually they’re taken away to safely; but violence for those staying is inevitable, and the majority of the film shows how the entire company (well and sick) manages to hold out (though of course not without plenty of death on both sides).

Note:Jacobsson is the only listed female in the cast of this film, which most definitely does not pass the Bechdel Test.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Michael Caine (in his breakthrough role) as Lt. Bromhead
  • Fine supporting performances


  • Truly impressive battle sequences
  • Stephen Dade’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes, once, but with caution (as noted above).

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Edvard Munch (1974)

Edvard Munch (1974)

“How can a young man who looks so nice create things like this?”

Synopsis:
Norwegian Expressionist artist Edvard Munch (Geir Westby) creates paintings and other works of art inspired by his traumatic childhood and various romances, including a formative one with married Fru Heiberg (Gro Fraas).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Artists
  • Biopics
  • Peter Watkins Films
  • Scandinavian Films

Review:
Peary only lists three of iconoclastic writer-director Peter Watkins’ films in GFTFFThe War Game (1965), Privilege (1967), and this — but they’re each must-see in their own way. This unusual biopic was made in collaboration with the Norwegian (NRK) and Swedish (SVT) state television networks, and was originally aired on TV in addition to being screened at Cannes — though for unknown reasons, it remained challenging to see for many years, and Watkins was unable to pursue similar projects on other artists.

Utilizing a unique docudrama approach (including Watkins himself in voiceover), the film features primarily non-professional Norwegians in its cast — including Westby (who looks eerily like him; this is his only credit) as grown Munch.

I’ll cite next from DVD Savant’s review, which emphasizes the ingenuity of the film’s style:

“This biography of the great painter is assembled in a consistently brilliant free-association style that resembles a cinematic version of what the late 19th century painters were doing — tearing down conventions and exploring new ways of looking at the world. Edvard Munch is a long film but a fascinating one, an honest work of conceptual art that follows no rules but its own. There was nothing like it in 1974.”

Savant, an editor himself, adds that “Edvard Munch cuts all over the temporal map and communicates its intentions with pinpoint accuracy. A dozen formative memories and traumatic incidents are ever present in Munch’s work, and they recur time and again.” Indeed, it’s easy to see how (understandably) influential it was to Munch to live a childhood of illness and death (his mother and favorite sister both died):


… and to wonder if or when heritable mental illness would land upon him. (It did, eventually, though we don’t really see that depicted here.) We do see the strong influence of living amongst free-loving, philosophizing bohemians:

… in particular nihilist Hans Jæger, who apparently enjoined him to “paint what he felt” — eventually leading to his unique style of “soul painting,” which we learn was rejected by many if not most critics around him.

I was intrigued to learn a little more about one of his most famous paintings, “Madonna,” which more likely was meant to depict a partner’s view of a woman during love-making.

His model and lover, Dagny Juel (Iselin von Hanno Bast), is shown in the film (she had a horrific ending in her real life).

Munch’s existence was an undeniably challenging one — though it’s fortunate he managed to live his later years in relative peace (other than Nazis occupying Norway and calling his work degenerate; oh well). Neither Munch nor any of his siblings ever had kids — which I mention because I happen to be related to him (though obviously not directly). My maternal grandmother, Nanna née Munch, was his second-cousin once removed: she was the child of two Munchs (Jens Lauritz Munch and Nanna Munch), both of whom were children of Munchs as well (Jonah Storm Munch and Peter Christian Munch, respectively). (A little inbreeding, anybody?) Jonah and Peter’s grandfather, Peder Munch, was father to an older Edvard Munch, who gave birth to Kristian Munch, father of “the Edvard” of painterly fame.

All to say, I grew up knowing about my Munch heritage, seeing copies or cheap prints of his paintings all over the house, and visiting the same Edvard Munch Museum in Oslo that inspired Watkins to make this film. I can attest to their vibrancy, and also the strong theme of expressionist angst that literally pervades his work; it’s fortunate that he left all his estate to the city of Oslo, so viewers can continue to appreciate and learn from them.

Note: Munch was featured on a 1,000 kroner banknote (removed from circulation in 2019), which leads me to share one more personal tidbit: from my father’s side of the family, Norwegian scientist Kristian Birkeland was on the 200 Kroner note until 2017, when he was replaced by an image of cod. Birkeland, like Munch, was consumed by his work (he was nominated for a Nobel Prize 7 times), never had kids, and died a very mysterious death in a hotel in Tokyo; he’s related to my paternal great-grandmother Birkeland. Norway is a small country. And no, I don’t think I’m related to either Edvard Grieg or Henrik Ibsen, darn it.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Odd Geir Saether’s cinematography
  • Fine period sets
  • A fascinating glimpse into the artistic process (both creation and recreation)

  • Truly impressive editing

Must See?
Yes, as a powerful and unusual biopic. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links: