FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A recently deceased man (Don Ameche) reflects on his womanizing past and troubled marriage to a beautiful midwestern girl (Gene Tierney), as he tries to convince the Devil (Laird Cregar) that he belongs in Hell.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Charles Coburn Films
• Death and Dying
• Don Ameche Films
• Ernst Lubitsch Films
• Fantasy
• Flashback Films
• Gene Tierney Films
• Historical Drama
• Laird Cregar Films
• Louis Calhern Films
• Marital Problems
• Play Adaptations
• Womanizers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Critics remain divided about this late-career outing by Ernst Lubitsch, a film which Peary refers to as “an immensely enjoyable comedy of manners”. He notes that, “with the exception of one early scene”, it’s a “rare Lubitsch film in which the characters don’t take turns successfully deceiving one another into believing they’re someone they’re not” — yet, ironically, it’s about a “self-deluded man” trying (unsuccessfully) to convince the Devil (a perfectly cast yet underused Cregar) that he’s “sinned so much in his life playing Casanova that he qualifie[s] for entrance into Hades”.

Peary argues that while the “film is a bit too long”, “its rewards are plenty”: in addition to its “superb” acting, he calls out the “consistently splendid dialogue by Samson Raphaelson”, noting that “every time anyone says anything, you’ll think that’s exactly what should have been said”. He cites a number of “wonderfully written, beautifully played two-character scenes”, and notes that, “this being Lubitsch’s first color film, much attention was paid to period detail and art design”.

Interestingly, the film’s flashback structure — beginning and ending in a remarkably tasteful Art Deco Hell — wasn’t part of the original play upon which the film is based (Birthday, by Leslie Bush-Fekete); yet it firmly grounds this episodic story as the reflective tale of a man who feels deeply guilty for not being more faithful to his gorgeous, loyal wife (Tierney, truly stunning in Technicolor turn-of-the-century outfits).

Ironically, it’s this very premise (Ameche’s enduring playboy lifestyle) that’s somewhat lacking in the film’s screenplay — perhaps to strategic effect. One’s first reaction while watching this film is, “Hey! When are we going to see some evidence of Ameche’s supposed Casanova ways?”, given that other than his nicely handled wooing of Tierney — and a later seduction scene with a young chorus girl (in which all is not what it seems):

— we really don’t see adult Ameche playing the field at all. Instead, we’re a witness to his extreme devotion to Tierney over several decades — a devotion which belies his own belief that he’s somehow sullied their marriage enough to merit a permanent spot in Hell. And perhaps — as Peary suggests — that’s the film’s essential point.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Don Ameche as Henry Van Cleve
  
• Fine supporting performances
  
• Vibrant technicolor cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as one of Lubitsch’s (contested) classics. Nominated as one of the best films of the year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars book.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review (spoiler alert)
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• Chicago Reader Capsule Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A henpecked store owner (W.C. Fields) receives an inheritance and dreams of moving to California, against the wishes of his overbearing wife (Kathleen Howard).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Comedy
• Family Problems
• Henpecked Husbands
• Inheritance
• W.C. Fields Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “side-splitting W.C. Fields comedy” — essentially “a series of set-pieces strung together” — is “the best showcase for the comedian’s unique brand of humor, which is based on characters annoying one another.” He notes that “it is these annoyances, piled one on top of the other, that in Fields’s eyes summed up the life of a married man in America”; indeed, It’s a Gift probably remains the most iconic representation of henpecked-dom in cinematic history. Peary points out, however, that while “the domesticated Fields is suffocating, he isn’t entirely defeated by his constrained life”, given that he “still has his wonderful vices”, and “remains an iconoclast in a world of conformists”. Indeed, Peary argues that while Fields’s Harold Bissonnette apparently “endures indignities without self-pity or complaints” and “accepts the absurdity of his world”, we are nonetheless privy — at least in the final shot — to “how Harold feels about his life under his expressionless facade”.

I recall being truly enamored by It’s a Gift when I first saw it years ago, and was looking forward to a revisit — yet I must admit that I no longer find the film quite as “side-splitting” as Peary (and so many other diehard fans) consider it to be. While I continue to appreciate the craftsmanship of each “hilarious”, expertly orchestrated vignette (which Peary spends the remainder of his review summarizing), I apparently wasn’t in the right mood to enjoy watching Bissonnette passively accepting one indignity after the other: a little of Fields’s characteristic sarcasm and mean-spirited retorts were actually missed! With that said, first time viewers (at the very least) are sure to enjoy watching the classic grocery sequence (involving a reckless blind patron, an irate kumquat requester, and a molasses-spilling child):

… the attempted porch-sleeping sequence (interrupted by countless annoyances, both inanimate and human):

… and the truly jawdropping manor picnic sequence (in which Bissonnette and his family cluelessly trash the lawn of an estate they’ve mistaken for a park).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Numerous humorous vignettes
  

Must See?
Yes, as an acknowledged comedic classic. Peary nominates the film as one of the best pictures of the year — and Fields himself as one of the best actors of the year — in his Alternate Oscars book. Discussed at length in Peary’s Cult Movies.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TV Guide Review
• Greatest Films Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A young pigkeeper named Taran (Grant Bardsley) is sent on a mission to locate and destroy a magical black cauldron coveted by the evil Horned King (John Hurt).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Animated Features
• Coming of Age
• Fantasy
• John Hurt Films
• Search

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of this “25th cartoon feature” by Disney — its “first 70 mm cartoon since Sleeping Beauty” — by noting that “critics overpraised” it “out of appreciation for the studio’s attempt to return to old-style, ambitious animation”. He argues that it “doesn’t have the subtlety of the Disney classics”, but notes that “while the backgrounds are lifeless”, obvious “care was taken in animating foreground action, as well as character movements and facial expressions”. He accurately points out that “the human characters are a bit innocuous” (indeed, they’re imminently forgettable), and that “the plot has few surprises and many weak points”. However, he argues that kids “won’t be bored”, that it’s a “pleasant diversion” for adults, and that it “makes the refreshing point that loyalty and friendship are more important than heroism”.

These days — especially knowing that a handful of neo-Disney masterpieces (i.e., The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast) were yet to come — The Black Cauldron definitely strikes one as more of an innocuous “miss” than anything worth celebrating as a come-back. Indeed, Time Out calls it a “major disappointment”, while many others note that it simply recycles a number of cliches from earlier Disney films while failing to bring any charm or originality to the proceedings. Meanwhile, Richard Scheib of Moria points out that the film’s timing was unfortunate as well, given that it was conceived right around the time when Star Wars (1977) was enjoying tremendous popularity, but not released until the mid-80s, when “the genre had moved on”. Ultimately, then, this one is only must-see for Disney completists.

Note: The “cowardly half-human-half-creature Gurgi” — erroneously labeled by Peary as “cute” and “cuddly” — has got to be one of Disney’s most annoying sidekicks EVER. (“Oh, poor miserable Gurgi deserves fierce smackings and whackings on his poor, tender head. Always left with no munchings and crunchings.” Arrgh!). He’s eerily reminiscent of Andy Serkis’s Gollum in The Lord of the Rings trilogy (which in itself was a clearly an inspiration for Lloyd Alexander’s original children’s fantasy series, upon which this film was based).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Some effectively creepy animation
  

Must See?
No, unless you’re a Disney completist.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Q Network Review
• Stomp Tokyo Review
• Moria Review
• DVD Dizzy Review
• NY Times Original Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A young American (Joel McCrea) sailing the South Seas falls in love with a Polynesian princess (Dolores del Rio) doomed to a fiery fate.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cross-Cultural Romance
• Dolores del Rio Films
• Joel McCrea Films
• King Vidor Films
• Play Adaptation
• South Sea Islands

Response to Peary’s Review:
In his review of this “exotic South Seas romance” by director King Vidor, Peary notes that it’s “very stilted” and “doesn’t hold up as well as” either its thematic predecessor — F.W. Murnau’s Tabu (1931) — or Tarzan the Ape Man, released the same year. In typical Peary fashion, he argues that “the major enjoyment comes from looking at [the] healthy bodies of [the] two leads and hoping that the wind blows up the lei that covers Del Rio’s naked breasts” (!!) — a point which, to give him credit, is actually not that far from the truth. McCrea and del Rio (both just 27 years old at the time) are enormously striking young lovers, and — given the film’s pre-Code release date — their physical attraction to one another is presented in a refreshingly sensuous manner. Peary accurately notes that this early talkie is shot and scored (by Max Steiner) like a silent film; indeed, without too much effort, it could easily have been one. With that said, however, it’s refreshing to hear how Luana (del Rio) and Johnny (McCrea) are unable to communicate with each other verbally for a realistic period of time — that is, Luana doesn’t suddenly become fluent in English after just a few weeks in Johnny’s presence. Watch for the erotic and touching final scene between the two lovers, which also highlights the enormous cultural divide that exists between them.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Sexy Joel McCrea and Dolores del Rio
  
• Creative direction
  
• Clyde de Vinna’s atmospheric cinematography
  
• Max Steiner’s historically groundbreaking score

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• SciFilm Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A team of researchers traveling on the Amazon River encounter a mysterious humanoid fish, which clearly has designs on the crew’s sexy female scientist (Julie Adams).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Jack Arnold Films
• Julie Adams Films
• Mutant Monsters
• Science Fiction
• Scientists

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that while this “popular science-fiction film” — with clear thematic parallels to King Kong — is “somewhat overrated”, it’s “still one of the fifties’ best entries in the genre”. He notes that it’s “skillfully directed by Jack Arnold”, features “solid acting”, and possesses “a consistently eerie atmosphere, suspense, and a first-rate monster” (at least for the time in which it was made — though having just rewatched Alien, it’s difficult to argue that the Gill Man is still TRULY frightening to modern audiences). Peary notes that “more than any other fifties science-fiction film, the emphasis is on sex”, given that Adams — a truly stunning B-movie actress, eerily reminiscent of Jennifer Connelly — “always wears revealing shorts or swimsuits”, and “in the sensuous, spooky underwater scene it’s obvious what’s on the creature’s mind”.

While the storyline is ultimately too basic to entice me into multiple viewings (it’s essentially an extended cat-and-mouse encounter between the Gill Man and the crew, all taking place within limited confines), it’s all done so well that this remains a seminal “creature feature” of its era — one all film fanatics should at least be familiar with.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Julie Adams as Kay Lawrence
  
• Reasonably effective (for the time) monster make-up
  

Must See?
Yes, as one of the seminal ’50s sci-fi “monster” flicks.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• Classic Horror Review
• Moria Review
• TCM Article
• Tired Old Queen at the Movies Video Review

Synopsis:
When the alcoholic wife (Allison Hayes) of a philandering lout (William Hudson) is exposed to radiation and grows 50 feet tall, she seeks revenge on both her husband and his lover (Yvette Vickers).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Atomic Energy
• Homicidal Spouses
• Marital Problems
• Mutant Monsters
• Revenge
• Science Fiction<

Response to Peary’s Review:
Along with many others, Peary refers to this infamously titled bad sci-fi film as “laughable camp”, generously labeling its shoddy special effects simply “amusing” (they’re not; they’re horribly disappointing). Peary argues that “the film could be taken as a feminist treatise, in which a woman who has been suppressed… and maltreated breaks free of her bonds and, too angry to talk things out, gives her cheating husband his just deserts” — but then concedes that “most of the fun comes from watching statuesque Hayes run around in a scanty outfit”.

Sadly, this is actually true; the problem is that we only see her in her impressive giantess form for the last ten minutes of the movie. Until then, the rest of the film is a rather laughably B-level tale of marital infidelity, with Hudson and Vickers (a truly conniving pair of bastards, if there ever was one) plotting to murder Hayes for her money.

This is a film that one simply wishes was more fun than it is.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Allison Hayes lumbering on her rampage at 50 feet tall; too bad there’s less than 10 minutes of this footage
  

Must See?
Yes, simply for its undeniable notoriety.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• All Movie Guide Review

Synopsis:
The crew of an interstellar mining ship battles for its survival when it encounters a vicious alien species.

Genres:

• Aliens
• Androids
• Harry Dean Stanton Films
• Horror
• Ian Holm Films
• Ridley Scott Films
• Science Fiction
• Sigourney Weaver Films
• Strong Females
• Survival

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that Ridley Scott’s “frightening, ferocious science-fiction film” — which “incorporates many elements of the horror film” — is “loved by many science-fiction fans” but “despised by others” (really? is it still?). He himself argues (and I agree) that it’s an “underrated”, “extremely scary, well-made, interesting film” — one which could be viewed as simply a “violent, big-budget rip-off of [the] cheap fifties SF film, It! The Terror From Beyond Space” but deserves recognition on its own merits, as a modern-day cult classic. In addition to the “stunning” design work (by H.R. Giger, Ron Cobb, and Michael Seymour) and truly creepy special effects (the “terrifying scene” in which “a creature attaches itself” to John Hurt’s face makes me jump every time), Scott’s direction of the film — essentially an “old dark house” thriller, in which one character after the other is murdered — is “as imaginative as it is (properly) manipulative”, given that he “builds tension by having characters talk in hushed tones, smoke incessantly, drink coffee, pace nervously, sweat, [and] argue”.

Indeed, for an action thriller, Alien is surprisingly character-driven. As Peary points out, this is the “first space film that has working-class heroes rather than scientists and astronauts flying a ship”, and the entire supporting cast — most notably Tom Skerritt as Captain Dallas, Harry Dean Stanton as Brett, Veronica Cartwright as Lambert, and Ian Holm as the android “Ash” — give effectively memorable and nuanced performances. In her first starring role, Weaver (as Ripley) is a refreshingly focused and competent leader — so much so that we’re almost willing to forgive Scott for turning her into a temporary sex object during the film’s infamous final “strip” sequence (the precursor to a genuinely terrifying denouement). What’s perhaps scariest of all about this film, however, is the fact that it’s not the alien, but instead the ship’s “home corporation” who is the “real villain of the piece”, given that it willingly “sacrifices people for discovery”.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Sigourney Weaver as Ripley
  
• Memorable supporting performances across the board
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  
• Effectively futuristic sets and production design
  
• Excellent special effects
  
• A remarkably freaky screenplay
  

Must See?
Yes, as a modern classic of the genre.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Good Show

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Beaver
• Classic-Horror Review
• Slant Magazine Review
• SF, Fantasy, and Horror Review
• Tired Old Queen at the Movies Video Review

Synopsis:
A has-been silent movie director (Richard Dreyfuss) is reduced to making stag films in his house with a drug-addicted starlet (Veronica Cartwright) and an oafish stud (Stephen Davies).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Black Comedy
• Bob Hoskins Films
• Has-Beens
• Jessica Harper Films
• Movie Directors
• Richard Dreyfuss Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary’s review of this “sexually perverse” film — which earned “devastating reviews” as well as a “deserved X rating” upon its release, but eventually “developed a strong cult following” — is largely positive. He argues that it’s “neither as pretentious nor as self-indulgent as most critics” found it, and notes that it’s “hard not to be impressed by the terrific ensemble acting; the biting, witty script about Hollywood types; and how director-writer John Byrum” (whose disappointing follow-up film was 1980’s Heart Beat) “uses sex not only to entrance viewers but thematically as well”. He points out that while “the film starts out with stereotypical situations”, the plot eventually “takes weird twists and the characters turn out to be genuinely quirky”. He calls out the “deadpan” humor, which is “always on the edge”, turning the film into a “satirical comedy” (a point which “some critics overlooked”). He notes that “because of the style of the dialogue and the use of one large set, the picture seems as if it might have been written for the stage”, but it “is about film and its power”; ultimately, he argues that “the film’s message is simply that life is restrictive and film is liberating”.

I’m largely in agreement with Peary’s points above — for its first hour, that is. While it took me a while to get used to the film’s markedly theatrical tone, I was fascinated by Byrum’s premise, and wanted to know more about these oddly believable characters. Playing an annoyingly voiced actress reduced to starring in stag films after the introduction of talkies, Cartwright (you’ll barely recognize her at first):

gives an incredibly charismatic and fearless performance: we’re immediately intrigued by her relationship with Dreyfuss (also very good):

and astonished by her willingness to play a role so aggressively sexual. At about the mid-way point, unfortunately, her character is no longer central to the screenplay, and Jessica Harper as “Cathy Cake” suddenly dominates the story — and it’s at this point that the artificiality of Byrum’s set-up is suddenly glaringly apparent.

To cut to the chase, I’m astonished that neither Peary (nor any other critic I’ve read so far) points out how disturbingly skeletal Harper is (Peary simply calls her “great” in the role). This feature makes much more sense in her best-known role as a ballerina in Dario Argento’s Suspiria (1977), but is almost laughably inappropriate here. Her character — girlfriend of a producer (Bob Hoskins) 00 is desperate to play a role in Dreyfuss’s latest film (most specifically, to help out with his sexually explicit “inserts”) but this defies all common sense, given that she looks nothing like Cartwright. Naturally, women of all sizes and shapes might desire a role in porn films, yet her request here simply comes across as a plot device, one meant to lead us to the film’s revelatory denouement. I hate to focus on a woman’s appearance as a deal-breaker in her suitability for a role — but in this case, it put a serious damper on my ability to believe in (or pay attention to) what I was seeing.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Richard Dreyfuss as the Boy Wonder
  
• Veronica Cartwright as Harlene
  

Must See?
No, though the first half is definitely worth a look — especially to see Cartwright.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
A British baronet (Leslie Howard) secretly rescues French aristocrats from death during the Reign of Terror, hiding his identity from both his unhappy wife (Merle Oberon) and a ruthless French ambassador (Raymond Massey) determined to nab the elusive “Scarlet Pimpernel” at any cost.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Folk Heroes
• French Revolution
• Historical Drama
• Leslie Howard Films
• Merle Oberon Films
• Mistaken Identities
• Royalty and Nobility

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately labels this Alexander Korda production “one of cinema’s most enjoyable historical romances/adventures”, noting that it has “suspense, ironic wit, excellent cinematography…, beautiful costumes, and impressive sets”.

In perhaps his best-known role (other than playing Ashley Wilkes in Gone With the Wind), Leslie Howard is note-perfect as the title character, the “damned elusive” Scarlet Pimpernel — a “fine and dandy hero who, refreshingly, succeeds by quick wits rather than a quick sword”, and possesses a simply fabulous alter ego. (Indeed, I may call this one of the best “mistaken identity” films out there.)

He fearlessly presents his non-heroic front as “a frivolous, foppish, clothes-conscious, poetry-reciting weakling” — the exact stereotype of the nobility he’s risking his life to save. To that end, as Peary notes, there is a “bias” in the film in terms of the way it makes us “fantasize nobleness in the nobility”, but we’re willing to roll with this given that it clearly wasn’t okay for Robespierre and his henchmen to wantonly kill off an entire class of people, no matter how disgruntled they may have felt. Meanwhile, Oberon, as Peary notes, “is a stunningly beautiful heroine” in her “tight bodices” and “fancy hats and dresses”:

and Raymond Massey gives an appropriately “devilish performance” as the film’s ruthless baddie.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Leslie Howard as Sir Percy Blakeney (nominated by Peary as one of the best actors of the year in his Alternate Oscars book)
  
• Merle Oberon as Lady Blakeney
  
• Raymond Massey as Chauvelin
  
• Harold Rosson’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as a genuine classic. As a public domain title, it’s available for free viewing at http://archive.org.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Classic Film Guide Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A mad scientist (Bela Lugosi) determined to create a race of atomic superman turns a snoopy journalist (Loretta King) into his next victim.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Atomic Energy
• Bela Lugosi Films
• Ed Wood Films
• Horror
• Journalists
• Mad Doctors and Scientists

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately labels this “horrid low-budget horror film” by Ed Wood “not as terrible as Plan 9 From Outer Space,” but notes that “there are enough campy elements to keep Wood fanatics pleased” (including the “truly hilarious” final sequence in which Lugosi battles a rubber octopus and “must wrap the tentacles around himself”).

Ironically, it’s the (marginal) competence of this rather standard mad scientist flick — with semi-decent performances by at least a handful of actors involved — that prevents it from being as howl-worthy, or as enjoyable, as Plan 9. Bride of the Monster is “bad”, naturally, in many of Wood’s typical ways (campy dialogue, laughably low-budget props, shoddy direction, the presence of hulking Swedish wrestler Tor Johnson):

— but to be honest, I found it a struggle to stay engaged. Bela Lugosi is the film’s primary redeeming element: he consistently gives 110% percent in a film clearly not “worthy” of his fame, and film fanatics may be curious to check it out simply to see him in his final “meaningful” role.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Bela Lugosi as Dr. Vornoff
  

Must See?
No. While Ed Wood completists will surely disagree, I don’t believe this one is must-see for all film fanatics.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• DVD Savant Review (scroll down)
• Moria Review