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).
“I think we’re being supplied with the victims of murder.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review:
… while Sands’ attraction to Twiggy is clearly doomed from the get-go:
… and we don’t feel much sympathy for Dalton’s “science above all else” lecturer who is willing to overlook some pretty obvious ethical challenges in his quest for “fresh” bodies to study.
You can skip this one. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
“If I do something bad, will you still love me?”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review:
He notes that the “picture’s main selling point is the special effects, most of which involve people and objects bursting into flames”, in addition to a climax “filled with flying fireballs.”
He writes that “George C. Scott, wearing a pony tail, has a field day as a maniacal government assassin who literally wants to bash Charlie’s brains in”:
… but “all the other actors are poorly used.” I’m essentially in agreement with Peary’s assessment of this film, which was purportedly a major disappointment to King. The special effects are super-cool, and Barrymore inhabits her role with conviction — but there’s far too much we never learn about her family’s situation (what, exactly, happened after Keith and Locklear underwent experimental treatment, apparently married, and had a child?), and various supporting characters — including Art Carney and Louise Fletcher as kindly farmers who offer shelter to the runaway duo:
… and Sheen as a corrupt politician:
— are underdeveloped. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
“I’m a scientist — I know what I saw. I just want somebody to believe me!”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review:
… [the] direction is bizarre, [and] characters act uniquely.”
However, he posits that “the later scenes are sloppy and more conventional,” and “unfortunately, the final bit in the story virtually erases everything bad that happened earlier” (which is true, though I found this comforting rather than disappointing). Peary asserts that this movie has “a good premise, worth making into a film, but sadly, it doesn’t work.” I’ll agree that Strange Invaders doesn’t quite deliver on what it hopes to do (paying homage to 1950s alien invasion flicks), but I disagree that there are “too many disgusting shots of aliens ripping off their human skins”: they’re not too frequent, and actually really cool-looking.
I also appreciate the clever casting of Kenneth Tobey — star of The Thing (From Another World) (1951), The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms (1953), and It Came From Beneath the Sea (1955) — as the lead alien in Centerville, who is either deadly serious or creepily smirking throughout many of his scenes.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
“Don’t you sense a strangeness — an unwanted curiosity?”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review: Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
“When there’s no more room in hell, the dead will walk the Earth.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: I disagree completely with Peary on this film, which has become a cult classic in its own right. His description of Romero’s choice to set the film in a shopping mall — given that it represents “a gathering place, home-away-from-home, and self-contained community that, significantly, is minus only a church” — is, to be honest, over-thinking things. (Romero has said that his friend gave him a behind-the-scenes tour of the mall used in the movie and he simply thought it would be a good place to “hole up during an emergency.”) Meanwhile, the blood and violence throughout are so obviously fake (intentionally so) that it’s hard to get too upset about them. Instead, one simply roots for this motley group of protagonists as they face the truly freaky prospect of battling hundreds of undead creatures who move slowly but bite aggressively, causing near-certain transformation. All the leads do a fine job in their roles, and Tom Savini’s special effects are impressive given the budget and era. This one remains well worth a look. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die) Links: |
“I’d do anything to help Regan — anything!”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review:
The performances by esteemed actors Richard Burton, Louise Fletcher, and James Earl Jones are passable at best:
… while Blair’s portrayal of adolescent Regan is laughably inadequate.
The actors aren’t helped by a screenplay that shifts away from the original film’s solid emphasis on Catholic guilt and demon possession towards a much more amorphous conceptualization of spirituality across various spheres and continents.
Meanwhile, the dialogue is uniformly awful; it’s challenging to pick out the most egregious stinkers, but here are just a few:
With that said, this big-budget flick looks beautiful, and features some memorable imagery; it’s too bad the storyline fails it so badly. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
“You know, he is a strange dude!”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review:
He points out that Blacula is a “vampire [who] can fall in love and can make love (how happy he is — you’ve never seen a vampire smile so broadly and sincerely — when McGee hugs him and asks him to spend the night).” Indeed, everything about this film works well — starting with the clever opening premise in which we learn that Marshall effectively gives up his life while attempting to end slavery, thus making it incredibly easy to sympathize with him from then on. We don’t blame McGee in the slightest for falling for Marshall, and their romance is surprisingly touching.
Action scenes and make-up are handled well, with some effectively spooky moments — including all the vampires Blacula has already managed to infect descending upon their new prey:
… and a former taxi-driver-turned-vampire (Ketty Lester) running after nebbishy Elisha Cook, Jr. (who doesn’t stand a chance).
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
Links: |
“I’ve got a lot more presents for you, Jean.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review:
From there, we’re introduced to a sweet-looking young woman (Frederick) — purportedly a former ice skating champion (though this thread is never followed up on in any way) — who fears for her life when a recently released ex-con (Watson) seems hell-bent on seeking her out and destroying her newfound happiness.
What role, exactly, did Watson play in the traumatic childhood memories Frederick keeps flashing back on intermittently?
Is Frederick’s husband (Leyton) a good guy or scum, given his willingness to postpone their honeymoon by two weeks, and his overly affectionate attitude towards her bubbly friend Beth (Beacham)?
What will happen when Frederick’s housekeeper (Watts) invites her to a seance where her bespectacled daughter (Trisha Mortimer) serves as a medium?
Frederick is a sympathetic protagonist, and I’ll admit to being kept in surprise about the identity of the killer, but the storyline ultimately doesn’t cohere very well. Slasher flick fans may want to check this one out — but it’s not must-see viewing. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
“These banana murders are really strange.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review: Fun fact: I grew up across the street from the woman (Eliza Garrett) who plays Mindy the blind girl (though she was ten years older and a mom by this point; my younger sister played occasionally with her son Keaton).
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
“Wolves don’t kill people — that’s a myth. I mean, they’re too smart.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review: Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
