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).

Dr. Mabuse, The Gambler / Dr. Mabuse, Der Spieler (1922)

Dr. Mabuse, The Gambler / Dr. Mabuse, Der Spieler (1922)

“There’s no love; there’s only desire. There’s no luck — there’s only the will to power!”

Synopsis:
A diabolical hypnotist-criminal named Dr. Mabuse (Rudolf Klein-Rogge) — who relies on assistance from his cocaine-addicted personal servant (Robert Forster-Larrinaga) and various other goons, as well as dance hall girl “Cara Carozza” (Aud Egede-Nissen) to carry out his gambling cons — sets his sights on the son (Paul Richter) of a millionaire industrialist, not realizing Carozza will fall for Richter. Meanwhile state prosecutor Norbert von Wenk (Bernhard Goetzke) goes undercover to try to identify the mysterious criminal wreaking so much havoc, enlisting help from a bored countess (Gertrude Welcker) whose husband (Alfred Abel) is one of Dr. Mabuse’s most recent victims.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cat-and-Mouse
  • Con-Artists
  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • Fritz Lang Films
  • German Films
  • Mind Control and Hypnosis
  • Mistaken or Hidden Identities
  • Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary opens his review of this two-part epic silent film by Fritz Lang by noting the high variability of its length in various iterations; thankfully, recent technology and restoration efforts allow modern film fanatics to view it in its full length of 229 minutes, with DVD commentary on (if desired) to clarify its historical positioning. Peary writes that the film was “certainly influenced by Caligari, and probably Nosferatu as well,” with “Fritz Lang’s diabolical villain” relying “on mind control to destroy people.” Dr. Mabuse is a true forerunner of the cinematic supervillain — someone who “doesn’t care about making money, although his criminal activities make him and his gang rich, but gets his pleasure from wielding power and, as he says, interfering in people’s lives and determining their fates.” Peary argues that “critics have rightly criticized the decision to have Mabuse fall in love” (with Welcker) “because it diminishes him from being a supervillain to being just a villainous human,” but I disagree; there’s no evidence that Mabuse’s kidnapping of Welcker is anything other than part of his grand scheme for ultimate control.

Peary notes that the “film’s visuals aren’t as impressive as those in other Lang silents, and the melodrama is not as exciting as one would hope — due in part to Goetzke being a dull hero — but Mabuse is a classic character who would become the model for future screen villains: he is proof that there is little distinction between genius and madness, that the criminal mind works in the same way as the minds of the men (like Goetzke) who work to prevent crime (Lang often makes the link between the criminal and the policeman).” Other reviewers have similarly supplemented our understanding of Mabuse’s symbolic resonance, with DVD Savant writing that he “felt he’d been hit by one of Colonel Kurtz’ diamond bullets of enlightenment when he saw Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler in 1980,” given that “it seemed like the missing link of pulp fantasy for the twentieth century, the story that connected Batman to James Bond to Cody Jarrott to Judex to Sherlock Holmes to Darth Vader.”

DVD Savant further adds that:

… author Norbert Jacques’ idea of taking all the ills of his dysfunctional society, and representing them with one monstrous villain with supernormal powers, has been an unstoppable formula throughout the last century, so popular and penetrative that most of the world today seems to think that the problems and conflicts of our modern world are ’caused’ by villainous individuals, instead of being the result of conflicting ideologies and power-based inequities.

While it’s overlong, slow, and creaky at times, I believe film fanatics will be curious to check out Dr. Mabuse once — particularly given Klein-Rogge’s surprisingly powerful performance in the title role; the look of pure malice in his eyes is enough to convince you that evil personified does exist in the world.

Favorite throw-away line: “Cocaine or cards?”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Rudolf Klein-Rogge as Dr. Mabuse
  • Impressive make-up and disguises for Mabuse

  • Memorable supporting characters

  • Fine special effects

  • Atmospheric cinematography and sets

Must See?
Yes, once, for its historical importance and as early evidence of Lang’s brilliance.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

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

Links:

This Is Spinal Tap (1984)

This Is Spinal Tap (1984)

“What day did God create Spinal Tap — and couldn’t he have rested on that day, too?”

Synopsis:
A documentarian (Rob Reiner) follows the British band Spinal Tap — consisting of childhood friends David St. Hubbins (Michael McKean) and Nigel Tufnel (Christopher Guest), bassist Derek Smalls (Harry Shearer), keyboardist Viv Savage (David Kaff), and drummer Mick Shrimpton (R.J. Parnell) — as they tour America with their manager Ian (Tony Hendra) and eventually with David’s astrology-following girlfriend Jeanine (June Chadwick).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Ed Begley, Jr. Films
  • Has-Beens
  • Mockumentaries
  • Rock ‘n Roll

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “riotous ‘rockumentary’ about a fictional British heavy-metal band” whose “tour becomes a disaster” features Rob Reiner playing filmmaker Marty DiBergi, who accompanies the group into humiliation, and, spoofing Martin Scorsese in The Last Waltz, asks his idols questions and nods throughout their absurd answers (which were brilliantly improvised by the actors).” Peary points out that “Reiner’s parody is not just a question-and-answer session interspersed with performance clips and interviews” but rather “has a story format that allows the actors to develop distinct personalities,” with “the emphasis… placed on the shredding relationship of” McKean and Guest, who, surprisingly, you “really gain affection for.” While “this is a ridiculous film on many levels”, it’s nonetheless “so convincing” that “some not too swift people in preview audiences wondered why Reiner had chosen to make a documentary on such a mediocre, unknown band.”

Humorous scenes abound, ranging from Nigel explaining why his amp goes all the way up to 11:

… to the group performing “Stonehenge” with an 18-inch replica and two dancing dwarfs:

As the first of several hilarious mockumentaries co-written by Guest — including Waiting for Guffman (1996), Best in Show (2000), and A Mighty Wind (2003) — this original outing remains well worth a look by all film fanatics.

Note: This Is Spinal Tap is notable for the being the only movie rated out of a total of 11 stars on IMDb (rather than 10).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Many inspired moments, songs, and lines of dialogue



Must See?
Yes, as a cult comedy classic. Nominated as one of the Best Movies of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars.

Categories

  • Cult Movie

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

Links:

Jesus Christ Superstar (1973)

Jesus Christ Superstar (1973)

“Why should I die — oh, why should I die?”

Synopsis:
In the week leading up to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ (Ted Neeley), Jesus’s disciple Judas Iscariot (Carl Anderson) — worried that Jesus is becoming too popular and spending too much time with the prostitute Mary Magdalene (Yvonne Elliman) — remains deeply conflicted about betraying his whereabouts to the Romans.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Betrayal
  • Biblical Stories
  • Musicals
  • Norman Jewison Films
  • Play Adaptations

Review:
Norman Jewison directed this adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice’s rock opera, filming on location in the Middle East and opening with a bus full of modern-day actors emerging and preparing to put on the show. Thankfully, this hybrid conceit works remarkably well, showcasing the enduring legacy of Christianity across the millennia while tapping into the then-current cultures of hippies and so-called “Jesus Freaks”. The storyline offers a fascinating psychological glimpse into the tortured decision by Judas (powerfully played by Anderson) to betray Jesus; Jesus’s acceptance of his fate while also railing against God for putting him in such a position; the reluctance of Pontius Pilate (Barry Dennen) to execute a man guilty of no crime; and Mary Magdalene’s abiding love for Jesus. The soundtrack by Webber and Rice is dynamic and catchy, nicely suiting the dramatic tensions inherent in Jesus’s final week of life. While it’s not must-see viewing for all film fanatics, I recommend this flick as an enjoyable, colorfully mounted musical.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Fine performances by the three leads (Ted Neeley as Christ, Carl Anderson as Judas, and Yvonne Elliman as Mary Magdalene)

  • Lovely cinematography by Douglas Slocombe

  • Good use of authentic locale shooting
  • A creative reimagining of the final days of Jesus Christ
  • A rousing soundtrack

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended.

Links:

Wizard of Gore, The (1970)

Wizard of Gore, The (1970)

“Have you ever seen the sight of human butchery IN PERSON?!”

Synopsis:
A sadistic magician (Ray Sager) uses mind control to lure women to his stage, where he dismembers them in what appears each time to be a harmless trick but soon thereafter results in their demise. Can a plucky reporter (Sherry Carson) and her boyfriend (Jack Ward) discover what’s going on before yet another gory murder takes place?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Amateur Sleuths
  • Herschell Gordon Lewis Films
  • Horror Films
  • Journalists
  • Magicians
  • Mind Control and Hypnosis
  • Serial Killers

Review:
While this “existential” splatter flick is considered a favorite among fans of fabled goremeister Herschell Gordon Lewis, there’s nothing whatsoever to recommend about it for anyone who’s not already (inexplicably) enamored with his work. The central premise of a plucky duo trying to determine why all the women who volunteer to be “killed” on stage by Montag the Magnificent (Sager) eventually end up legitimately dead:

… is stupid beyond belief (not to mention never explained in terms of the mysterious gap between the gruesome mutilations we see Montag delighting in, and what the audience actually witnesses). Then again, that’s the “point” of this film: who really knows what’s reality versus our imaginations or an illusion? Profound. It’s too bad the same sentiment written by Peary in his review of Blood Feast (1963), HGL’s debut flick, applies just as well here: “If you detest horror films that show how many shocking ways a creative sadist can do away with young women:”




… “then Lewis is the man you’ll want to blame and this is the film you’ll want to burn.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Not a thing

Must See?
Nope. Listed as Trash and a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book (yes, it does indeed have a cult following, and was even remade).

Links:

Repulsion (1965)

Repulsion (1965)

“They’re all the same, these bloody virgins — they’re just teasers, that’s all.”

Synopsis:
A shy beauty salon assistant (Catherine Deneuve) living in London with her sister (Yvonne Furneaux) becomes increasingly unhinged when Furneaux leaves for a week-long trip with her lover (Ian Hendry), and Deneuve is visited first by her suitor (John Fraser), then by their landlord (Patrick Wymark).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Catherine Deneuve Films
  • Mental Breakdown
  • Psychological Horror
  • Roman Polanski Films
  • Sexual Repression

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary’s review of this “classic psychological horror film” by Roman Polanski consists primarily of a summary of Deneuve’s gradual mental breakdown throughout the film: she is “disturbed by the constant presence of her sister’s boyfriend… and their lovemaking at night”:

… “taken aback by the rude remarks made by construction workers as she goes to and from work”:

… and feels so ill after “a young suitor… kisses her” that “she goes home and brushes her teeth”.

However, it’s when “Furneaux goes out of town for two weeks” that Deneuve’s “mind completely deteriorates.”

She “begins to imagine that men are breaking into the apartment and raping her”:

… and that “walls [are] cracking” and “hands [are] shooting out of the walls to caress her.”

Peary notes that this “unforgettable film” is differently scary from Psycho in that “we identify with the insane murderer” rather than the victims — and he points out that it’s “not for the squeamish.”

A number of other reviewers have provided insightful remarks about this “landmark” film which “helped to re-establish the primordial power of the genre and its thematic and emotional complexities.” As James Hendrick writes in his review for Q Network:

After the 1950s had turned horror into something of a joke via teen-cheapie drive-in staples and Abbott and Costello comedies, the 1960s was a decade of reinvention, starting with Psycho and culminating with Repulsion and George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead (1968), three psychologically dense, visually inventive, and thematically rich explorations of what scares us most, which always amounts to some drastic collapse of what we consider “normal.”

Along similar lines, Richard Scheib of Moria writes that:

A recurrent theme of Roman Polanski’s work, particularly his horror films, seems to be paranoia, of protagonists finding the familiar around them suddenly turned strange and obliquely sinister. Polanski’s evocation of paranoia is always intensely subjective, something he frequently suggests could just as easily be being imagined by his protagonists.

Finally, DVD Savant notes:

Repulsion synthesizes elegant visions from Cocteau fantasy and Val Lewton horror to chart [Deneuve’s] headlong fall into the pit. By the time the film resorts to overt Guignol, we’re locked in a horror landscape with rotting corpses and murders by straight razor.

He further comments on the film’s memorable ending, comparing it with Psycho by noting:

When all is said and done, Polanski offers a clue to the mystery of the catatonic Carol [Deneuve] with the use of an extreme zoom into a family photo. This compromise for viewers in need of closure is a major improvement on Hitchcock’s epilogue with the psychiatrist. The big mystery is why Stanley Kubrick would copy it so lazily for his later The Shining.

Touché.

In his Alternate Oscars, Peary names this film Best Picture of the Year (with no other contenders). He writes that while the Oscar-winning The Sound of Music (1965) “still affects millions of viewers emotionally, thanks mostly to [Julie] Andrews”, he prefers the performance of “another blonde, France’s Catherine Deneuve”: “While Andrews brought sunshine into people’s lives on- and offscreen, Deneuve gave the year’s darkest portrayal as a psychotic young woman who literally tries to brush sunlight away.” He notes that today, Repulsion “seems more unnerving than terrifying — although viewers still jump when they see the fantasy man’s reflection in the mirror.”

Indeed, Repulsion “remains fascinating as an erotic psychological thriller; an enigmatic portrait of a woman who sinks into madness; and an early look into the macabre mind of Roman Polanski” — who “based his heroine on a woman he knew, who seemed quiet but was prone to inexplicable moments of violent behavior.” Peary adds, “As he would do in later films, the Polish-born director, whose one previous feature was Knife in the Water, placed his main character in a bewildering, inhospitable setting” which “is a fit landscape for a breakdown.” Deneuve’s Carol is unknown to all, including her older sister, who “isn’t at all like her.” Meanwhile, “at a cosmetics clinic” Carol “is employed by an ugly, older woman to give manicures to equally grotesque, equally old women whose faces are covered with grease and mud.”

While Carol “can’t deal with sex,” “everything she hears in the shop is about men (being beasts) and everything she sees has sexual connotations” (not surprising, given how sexualized she is by nearly every man who sees her) — and while everyone she knows gets “the urge to take care of Carol, as if she were a child,” they all “in some way turn against her or become aggressive toward her.” Carol exists “in a sad world in which no one offers to help” and “no one recognizes [her] problem or makes a real attempt to understand what is wrong.” Peary writes it’s “little wonder that reality and illusion merge in Carol’s troubled mind.” While apparently “some critics chastised Polanski for his depiction of ‘woman as man-killing monster’,” I agree with Peary that “Carol doesn’t represent evil” — instead, “Polanski treats her extremely sympathetically.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Catherine Deneuve as Carol
  • Gilbert Taylor’s cinematography

  • Numerous frightening moments

Must See?
Yes, as a now classic psychological horror film by a master director.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Important Director

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

Links:

King Kong vs. Godzilla (1963)

King Kong vs. Godzilla (1963)

“If we do not destroy Godzilla soon, the monster will destroy us all.”

Synopsis:
Shortly after Godzilla is accidentally released from his icebound habitat, representatives (Tadao Takashima and Yû Fujiki) from a pharmaceutical company stumble upon King Kong on Faro Island and decide to bring him back to Japan for publicity purposes. What will happen when Godzilla and King Kong encounter one another?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Japanese Films
  • Mutant Monsters

Review:
This third entry in the Godzilla franchise brought together two literal giants of the big screen: Godzilla (first introduced in 1956’s Godzilla, King of the Monsters!) and King Kong (first seen in 1933’s King Kong). Unfortunately Kong’s rendering was taken away from the brilliant hands of his original creator, Willis O’Brien, instead turning into what DVD Savant refers to as “an immediate source of derision”. He adds that “Toho had made ape suits before but this one is truly pathetic. The instructions seem to have been to not frighten 4-year-olds, and to slap it together in 24 hours.”

Meanwhile, lengthy sequences taking place on Faro Island feature the disturbing use of Japanese actors in blackface:

Partially redeeming this silly flick are effective use of a real-life octopus to simulate a gigantic one, and the final duke-out between two of cinema’s most formidable monster foes. However, this one is really only must-see for diehard Godzilla or Kong fans.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • The impressive octopus special effects
  • King Kong and Godzilla’s battle on Mount Fuji

Must See?
No; only fans of the series need to check this one out.

Links:

Little Shop of Horrors (1986)

Little Shop of Horrors (1986)

“Excuse me: I couldn’t help noticing that strange and unusual plant!”

Synopsis:
An unsuccessful flower shop owner (Vincent Gardenia) is happy when his nebbishy employee (Rick Moranis) purchases a small, unusual plant that draws massive attention to his business. However, Seymour (Moranis) soon finds that his plant needs more than the usual substances to survive, and turns to the sadistic boyfriend (Steve Martin) of his beloved co-worker (Ellen Greene) as a source of sustenance.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Aliens
  • Bill Murray Films
  • Dentists
  • Horror Films
  • Killer Plants
  • Misfits
  • Musicals
  • Steve Martin Films
  • World Domination

Review:
Frank Oz directed this enjoyable adaptation of an off-off Broadway horror-comedy musical which was itself inspired by Roger Corman’s quirky b&w cult favorite from 1960. It moves quickly, building on the intriguing storyline in Corman’s original (scripted by Charles B. Griffith) while taking it to even wilder extremes and with much more color (and music). Speaking of music, it’s integral to the script, with each song (by playwright/lyricist Howard Ashman) helping to move the narrative and/or character development forward (they’re all quite catchy).


Perhaps most impressive, however, is Frank Oz’s puppeteering of “Audrey II”, which grows from a tiny and seemingly harmless potted houseplant:

… to a fully-grown force-to-be-reckoned-with:

[SPOILERS]

… to a Godzilla-like monstrosity that has taken over the Earth:

(This ultra-dark, apocalyptic ending was the original one conceived and filmed by Oz; it was altered to something cheerier for theatrical release, but has now been restored.)

Also amusing are various cameos by comedic favorites — especially Steve Martin and Bill Murray’s interactions as a sadistic dentist who encounters his most enthusiastic patient ever.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Fine performances by the leads
  • Steve Martin as Dr. Scrivello
  • Bill Murray as Martin’s sadomasochistic dental patient
  • Truly impressive puppeteering
  • A most enjoyable soundtrack

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite.

Categories

  • Cult Movie

Links:

Phantom of the Rue Morgue (1954)

Phantom of the Rue Morgue (1954)

“There seems to be a killer instinct — frequently blind, pointless — running through the entire animal kingdom.”

Synopsis:
A police inspector (Claude Dauphin) investigating a series of mysterious murders on the Rue Morgue suspects and arrests a psychology professor (Steve Forrest), not realizing that a nefarious zookeeper (Karl Malden) who is romantically fixated on Forrest’s fiancee (Patricia Medina) is actually responsible in some way.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Edgar Allan Poe Adaptations
  • Falsely Accused
  • Horror Films
  • Karl Malden Films
  • Murder Mystery
  • Primates
  • Roy Del Ruth Films

Review:
Warner Brothers’ 3D follow-up to House of Wax (1953) was this disappointing adaptation (directed by Roy Del Ruth) of Edgar Allan Poe’s short story “The Murders in the Rue Morgue”. Forrest and Medina’s characters are pretty nondescript:

… and poor Malden is given a thankless role as a secretly deranged villain:

Most impressive is make-up expert Charles Gemora’s work on the gorilla suit used for a critical primate character in the film; it’s remarkably authentic and effective.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Some reasonably atmospheric cinematography and sets

  • Charles Gemora’s gorilla suit

Must See?
No; you can skip this one.

Links:

Ganja and Hess / Double Possession / Blood Couple (1973)

Ganja and Hess / Double Possession / Blood Couple (1973)

“Everybody’s some kind of freak!”

Synopsis:
After a Black anthropologist (Duane Jones) is stabbed by his suicidal assistant (Bill Gunn), he becomes a vampire, eventually seducing Gunn’s widow (Marlene Clark).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • African Americans
  • Horror Films
  • Vampires

Review:
Writer-director-actor Bill Gunn was expected to make a follow-up vampire flick akin to the phenomenally popular blaxploitation film Blacula (1972), but instead made this highly atmospheric experimental film which requires some analysis (and likely a re-watching) to fully parse. As noted by Stuart Galbraith in his review for DVD Talk, “There’s practically nothing to compare Ganja & Hess to in either all of black cinema or the horror genre, and because the film is very much its own animal, audiences often don’t quite know what to make of it.” Indeed, Ganja and Hess was notoriously re-cut and re-distributed numerous times under different titles in an attempt to make it more appealing, but is thankfully now available once again in Gunn’s original vision — which seems entirely appropriate for such an experimental film. While it’s not for all tastes and moves too slowly at times, it’s recommended for one-time viewing given its unique place in Black cinema.

Note: Fans of Night of the Living Dead (1968) will likely be thrilled to see its star, Duane Jones, on-screen again in one of his very few movie roles.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Fine performances by the three leads


  • Atmospheric cinematography by James E. Hinton

  • Sam L. Waymon’s score

Must See?
Yes, once, as an unusual cult movie and for its historical significance.

Categories

  • Cult Movie
  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Entity, The (1982)

Entity, The (1982)

“I don’t know what they were; I couldn’t see them — I felt them.”

Synopsis:
After a single mother (Barbara Hershey) of a teenager (David Labiosa) and two girls is violently raped by an unseen entity in her bedroom, she struggles to get those around her — including her best friend (Margaret Blye) and a psychologist she begins seeing (Ron Silver) — to believe her. Eventually, as the attacks persist, she secures help from a pair of paranormal researchers (Richard Brestoff and Michael Alldredge) working for a noted professor (Jacqueline Brookes), all of whom are determined to help document what might be happening to Hershey.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Barbara Hershey Films
  • Horror Films
  • “No One Believes Me!”
  • Psychotherapy
  • Rape
  • Single Mothers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this horror film — “supposedly based on a genuine case history” — includes “rape scenes [that] are truly scary (though the brutality may turn off some viewers),” and “shows how males immediately try to give females the weaker inadequate position in relationships.”

He notes that Silver is presented as someone “who simultaneously tries to get [Hershey] to believe there is something wrong with her and to take him as her lover,” and points out that while “it seems that Silver will be the film’s hero despite playing mind games with Hershey,” “fortunately, in a very good scene, Hershey permanently rejects him.” He concludes by noting that “director Sidney J. Furie wisely shot the beautiful Hershey in close-up to build intensity:

… [and] gave her free reign,” resulting in “a truly great performance that, because it’s in a very flawed horror film, won Hershey little attention instead of a deserved Oscar nomination.” I’m essentially in agreement with Peary’s assessment of this intriguing but over-long, overly brutal horror flick which pulls no punches in depicting a truly demonic entity ravaging poor Hershey. Hershey’s performance is consistently compelling, and it’s satisfying to watch her holding her own in the midst of the numerous men who fail to support her — but with that said, I won’t be returning to this deeply disturbing flick any time soon (if again).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Barbara Hershey as Carla Moran (nominated as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars)
  • Impressive visual and special effects

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a look for Hershey’s performance.

Links: