FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A pulp western novelist named Holly Martins (Joseph Cotten) arrives in occupied post-war Vienna ready to work for his friend Harry Lime (Orson Welles), but soon learns Lime has recently been killed. While attending Lime’s funeral, Martins meets his grieving lover (Alida Valli), as well as two British Army policemen (Trevor Howard and Bernard Lee) who inform Martins that Lime was a criminal, and try to convince him to leave town. However, Martins is determined to figure out what happened to his late friend, and soon stumbles upon a startling discovery.

Genres:

• Alida Valli Films
• Amateur Sleuths
• Betrayal
• Carol Reed Films
• Expatriates
• Friendship
• Joseph Cotten Films
• Orson Welles Films
• Trevor Howard Films
• Writers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “classic of the British cinema” has “suspense, wit, [and] fine performances”, as well as “many classic scenes”. He adds that “through shots of Vienna in ruins, the extensive use of bizarre camera angles, and the presentation of a sinister-corrupt-nightmarish atmosphere”, director Carol “Reed conveys a world out of order, where good men do evil deeds, where the British and the Russians work side by side, [and] where betrayal is more moral than loyalty” — which he believes “is the film’s major theme”. He notes that “Anton Karas’ classy zither-playing gives the film a romantic, haunting quality”, and is “just the right ingredient that takes this picture to masterwork level”.

It’s actually hard to name just one element that contributes to this film’s success; as noted by Peter Bogdanovich:

“It’s one of the best — if not the best — non-auteur films ever made, where you have this extraordinary coming together of a bunch of really first-rate talents, all working at their top: Graham Greene as a writer, Alex Korda as a producor, Carol Reed as a director, Vienna looking very photogenic right after the war, Trevor Howard at his best, Orson Welles certainly at his most mysterious in a role that he was born to play…”

Indeed, everything about this expertly crafted, finely acted film keeps one glued to the screen and the storyline — thanks in large part to consistently innovative cinematography, with action taking place on inherently atmospheric sets.

The attention to period detail and overall ambience in this film is especially significant; this is not simply any old “murder mystery”, but rather one that’s inextricably entrenched within the unique milieu of a city split into fragments by various occupiers, its motley inhabitants dealing with the inevitability of post-war chaos, corruption, and mistrust. Lonely Martins stumbles into this unsettled setting, mourning the loss of a man he considers “the best friend he ever had” while falling hard for stunning beauty Valli (excellent in her most iconic role). Meanwhile, Howard’s cynical-realist policeman is perpetually on the sidelines, ready to remind Cotten what kind of man his friend Harry Lime really was.

Countless memorable images stand out from The Third Man: “Holly being bitten by a parrot, Holly being chased by a little boy who’s telling everyone within earshot that Holly’s a murderer, Lime and Holly speaking while on a Ferris wheel, Lime being chased through the sewers, and in the finale, Holly waiting for Valli as she walks toward the camera”. Also notable are Holly’s disastrous (indeed, nightmarish and Hitchcockian) talk in front of an audience of “cultured” Brits ready to hear him expound on high-falutin’ literary topics; “Baron” Kurtz (Ernst Deutsch) playing violin at the Casanova Club while an overweight female sips soup right under his chin; the many scenes in which faces of random citizens are shown in crowded, close focus on the screen; Lee punching Holly and then, without missing a beat, politely helping him get back up. There’s no sentimentality here: as much as Holly may want to imbue his old friend with the glow of eternal loyalty, his idealized vision is broken down bit by bit, and there’s no happy ending in sight (though surely he has plenty of material to bring to his work as a novelist).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Joseph Cotten as Holly Martins
  
• Alida Valli as Anna
  
• Orson Welles as Harry Lime
  
• Trevor Howard as Major Calloway
  
• Finely realized supporting performances
  
  
• Highly atmospheric cinematography
  
  
• Effectively stylized camera angles
  
  
• Excellent use of authentic (and/or authentically recreated) locales
  
  
• The final shootout chase through Vienna’s sewers
  
  
• Grahame Greene’s script
• Anton Karas’ oh-so-memorable zither score

Must See?
Yes, as an indisputable classic of the era and genre.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• FilmSite Review
• TCM Articles
• Salon Review

Synopsis:
After the death of an infamously self-absorbed newspaper tycoon named Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles), a magazine editor (Philip Van Zandt) sends a reporter (William Alland) to investigate the meaning of Kane’s final word (“Rosebud”) by viewing newsreels and interviewing various key players in his life — including Kane’s business manager (Erskine Sanford), his estranged friend (Joseph Cotten), his second wife (Dorothy Comingore), and his butler (Paul Stewart).

Genres:

• Agnes Moorehead Films
• Flashback Films
• Joseph Cotten Films
• Journalists
• Marital Problems
• Millionaires
• Orson Welles Films
• Paul Stewart Films
• Rise-and-Fall
• Tycoons

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that “Orson Welles’s debut film can justifiably be called the greatest picture of all time because it not only taught other directors how to tell a story through film but also taught moviegoers how to watch a film”. He writes that the “film is about a search for the essential missing part (‘Rosebud’) needed to document a man’s life”, and notes that Welles “creates ‘realism’ (the ‘true’ picture of Kane) through illusion and expressionism, and so his picture becomes a tribute to the camera”. He adds:

“The visuals show past events not as the six storytellers remember them but as the filmmakers (primarily director Welles and cameraman Gregg Toland) interpret the storytellers’ words… We learn about Kane and the other characters not only through dialogue and action but through Welles’ creative, flamboyant use of props, screen space, set design, music, editing, sound (including voice inflections), costumes, freeze frames, deep-focus photography, and lighting.”

Peary further points out that the “picture has great acting, music (by Bernard Herrmann), photography, editing (by Robert Wise), [and] countless classic moments”.

Peary discusses Citizen Kane not only in his GFTFF but in his first Cult Movies book — where he offers an in-depth overview of the film’s notorious production and release — and Alternate Oscars, where he names it Best Picture of the Year, and refers to it as “stunningly directed, magnificently acted, and brilliantly written”. He argues that while not all would consider it “the greatest film ever made”, it’s “at [the] very least… the most influential film of the sound era, the picture that best illustrates the potential of film as a storytelling medium and as an outlet for personal and artistic expression”. All of Peary’s praise rings true: the film does indeed “astonish” those seeing it for the first time, and “repeated viewings only increase the impact”. Whether one merely admires Citizen Kane or actively enjoys it, there is never a visually dull moment; it’s well worth a look or two (or three, or more).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Gregg Toland’s legendary cinematography
  
  
  
• Excellent use of unusual and diverse sets
  
• Many memorable images
  
• Orson Welles as Kane (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  
• Fine supporting performances
  
  
  
• Herman J. Mankiewicz and Welles’ Oscar-winning script
• Bernard Herrmann’s score

Must See?
Yes, of course, as a justifiable cult classic.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review
• FilmSite Review
• TCM Articles
• Entertainment Weekly Review

Synopsis:
A woman (Celia Johnson) married to a kind but boring man (Cyril Raymond) falls unexpectedly in love with a married doctor (Trevor Howard) she meets at a train station — but how long can their furtive romance last before they’re either found out or consumed with guilt?

Genres:

• Celia Johnson Films
• David Lean Films
• Flashback Films
• Housewives
• Infidelity
• Marital Problems
• Noel Coward Films
• Romance
• Star-Crossed Lovers
• Trevor Howard Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “David Lean’s subtle tearjerker about a suburban housewife… and married doctor… who meet by chance at a railway station and begin having weekly rendezvous, each less innocent than the time before”:

… is a “nicely acted film” representing the “visualization of a fantasy of many sexually repressed women” given that “Johnson is married to a bore (Cyril Raymond) who takes her for granted; surely they have no sex life.”

He adds that the fact “Howard is a doctor is… significant. I would have thought he’d be a heart specialist who ‘revives’ Johnson’s long-lost emotions. But he’s a lung doctor, indication that Johnson’s home life is stifling.” Peary ends his brief review by noting that “If [the] ending is frustrating for viewers, it is equally frustrating for the two would-be lovers — if they’d been French rather than British, it all would have worked out fine.”

Peary’s review of this fourth collaboration between director David Lean and producer-playwright Noel Coward — after In Which We Serve (1942), This Happy Breed (1944), and Blithe Spirit (1945) — is perhaps overly succinct and pat; DVD Savant adds some more thoughts to the analysis:

A man of more than a few affairs, David Lean takes pains to portray incipient adultery as misery for the unhappy people that consider it. Soap operas about wandering spouses typically take place in glamorous settings and the people involved get a chance to enjoy “the thrill of romance” before the inevitable problems settle in. … Frequently listed among the most romantic films ever made, Brief Encounter is really about romance frustrated.

Indeed, Brief Encounter is a bittersweet film, and is not one I particularly enjoy watching, though I certainly appreciate its honesty and fine craftsmanship. Rachmaninoff’s piano concerto number 2 (purportedly Coward’s favorite musical piece) is used to memorable effect, the cinematography is consistently atmospheric, and all sets — from the crowded train station cafe:

to shadowy tunnels —

suit the characters’ secretive situation perfectly. The storyline itself — expanded from Coward’s original half-hour play Still Life (1936) — is expertly structured, framing the entire “brief encounter” as a self-reflective moment in the life of a woman who knows she will ultimately stay faithful to her husband and boring life, but recognizes what a gap this affair has filled (or opened up?) for her. One hopes she may be able to bring her newfound passion back to her marriage and convince her husband she wants more than simply kindness and expectations for dinner served on time; the final image of her embrace with Raymond is, to that end, perhaps an encouraging one.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Celia Johnson as Laura
  
• Atmospheric cinematography and sets
  
  
  
• Fine use of Rachmaninoff’s Piano Concerto No. 2

Must See?
Yes, as a fine if ultimately depressing classic.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Articles
• FilmSite Review
• DVD Savant (scroll down)
• Q Network Review
• Tired Old Queen at the Movies Video Review

Synopsis:
A 10-year-old boy (Henry Thomas) enlists the help of his younger sister (Drew Barrymore) and older brother (Robert MacNaughton) in preventing their distracted mother (Dee Wallace) from learning about the existence of a short, odd-looking alien longing to go back home.

Genres:

• Aliens
• Friendship
• Homecoming
• Science Fiction
• Steven Spielberg Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “marvelous sci-fi fantasy from Steven Spielberg” — which “broke box-office records and dazzed everyone but your local party-pooper” — features a “title character… designed by Carlo Rambaldi” who “is a sweet little wide-eyed alien” (modeled in part after Rambaldi’s own cat’s ‘innocent eyes’) “with child-like qualities (although we can deduce that he is an adult) and the power to heal and cause dying plants to bloom instantly and objects to fly”.

Peary notes that when the “fragile creature becomes sickly because he longs to return home”:

… the “film becomes a twist on The Wizard of Oz: three youngsters help an adult return to his own world (there’s no place like home).” However, “in truth, this film has far more sympathy and understanding of children than The Wizard of Oz, and it’s a celebration of youth and innocence — significantly, unlike in Oz, these children do not ‘grow up’!” He adds that the “film has suspense, wit, magical special effects, [and] numerous scenes that have etched themselves into memories of moviegoers”:

… and while “Spielberg occasionally manipulates us into shedding tears, the film is genuinely sweet.”

Peary goes on to further describe why E.T. himself is so appealing, noting he’s “a wonderful creation with universal appeal — kids respond to him with such affection because he truly satisfies their need for [an] ‘imaginary playmate’, the ideal friend for all kids (especially those who don’t have two parents always there) who wish their stuffed animals could hug them back”.

He adds that “adults, of course, are also taken with E.T. — when he dons a long robe and waddles through the house, he may remind us of our favorite, quirkiest visiting relative”.

Peary also calls out that the “amazing success of the film” is due to “the performance of Henry Thomas”, who “in a difficult part [as Elliott]… is so appealing that we gladly accept him as our surrogate and allow him to fulfill our dream of meeting the perfect alien”.

In Alternate Oscars, Peary names this movie Best Picture of the Year in place of Gandhi (1982), noting that E.T. “quickly emerged as the only figure in 1982 who would have beaten Gandhi in an international popularity contest”. He writes that while Spielberg — who “made the film when he himself was lonely” — “expected E.T. to be a small picture… it hit a universal nerve” given that “E.T. could be seen as a myth figure… It was a picture made for kids, but it had elements to which adults responded more strongly.” I loved nearly all aspects of E.T. when I saw it as a kid — other than the creepy final sequences with adult scientists in suits taking over Elliott’s house, which scared me:

… and I was curious what my reaction would be like revisiting this flick as an adult.

While I’m less enamored overall by the storyline, I can still appreciate the film’s many charms and special qualities, and especially enjoy the collective effort put in by McNaughton’s “naughty” teenage friends in the final sequence to help E.T. to go back home (this circles back nicely to the opening scene of the teens simply sitting around playing cards, excluding Elliott from their fun).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Many iconic moments
  
• Fine special effects
  
• Allen Daviau’s cinematography
  
• Henry Thomas as Elliott
  
• Drew Barrymore’s precocious and still-adorable performance as Gertie
  
• Robert McNaughton as Michael
  
• Dee Wallace as the kids’ harried mom
  
• John Williams’ iconic score

Must See?
Yes, as a cult classic.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review (scroll down)
• FilmSite Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Moria Review
• SF Gate Review
• Entertainment Weekly Review

Synopsis:
Just after World War II ends, a USO singer (Liza Minnelli) is romanced by a womanizing saxophonist (Robert De Niro) and soon they begin a slow climb to grow their careers while navigating a rocky marriage.

Genres:

• Dick Miller Films
• Liza Minnelli Films
• Marital Problems
• Martin Scorsese Films
• Musicals
• Musicians
• New York City
• Robert De Niro Films
• Singers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Martin Scorsese’s romance — with musical numbers — was unfairly panned when released and praised when re-released in 1976 in its uncut version.” He argues that “if you can’t tolerate De Niro’s character because he’s abrasive, immature, and incorrigible and you feel that his treatment of the sweet, ‘perfect’ Minnelli is too inconsiderate and selfish for any woman to bear, then you’ll probably hate this picture” — and I’ll admit I fall into this camp.

I can’t relate to or agree with Peary’s follow-up comments: “… don’t forget that Minnelli does her part to break them up: leaving him behind to run off with a band, leaving his band when pregnant although that will cause its ruination:

… accepting a record contract although not bothering to tell him or wonder how it will affect him when he’s so down on his luck:

… and, finally, not coming back to him when he’s doing well also.

He does bad things — she is the villain.”

Hold the phone, Peary. De Niro’s character is a pushy, womanizing schmuck from the moment he enters the screen, and doesn’t let up.

Minnelli allows herself be swayed by his persistence and ignores signs of abuse until she’s finally had enough, and rightfully frees herself from his clutches to pursue her own career and motherhood. Her success is to be celebrated, as is her tolerance of De Niro near the end (he’s still a jerk), regardless of her ultimate choice.

Peary writes that the “acting by the two leads is wonderful” and that “the tear-jerking scenes result from De Niro revealing his sensitivity”, but none of this matters given that we’re watching deeply unpleasant power plays for nearly three hours. What remains impressive are the cinematography, sets, and songs, which are consistently stunning; the color palette alone makes this one worth sitting through, if you can handle it — and Minnelli’s in fine vocal form, as usual.

Note: This film is discussed at length in Peary’s Cult Movies 3 book, where he asserts: “My feeling is that viewers appreciate New York, New York more the second time around because they’re better prepared for De Niro’s Jimmy Doyle… Because they know he is on a self-destructive path, they now can have sympathy for this man who can’t control himself, who can’t conform… Because they know Jimmy will be punished, it becomes easier to put up with his abrasive personality and callous, immature actions.” Maybe so, but I still have no intention of revisiting this one.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Stunning cinematography and sets
  
  
  
  
• The fun closing musical sequence
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look for the visuals and songs, if you can stomach it.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review
• Onion A.V. Club (scroll down)
• Combustible Celluloid Review

Synopsis:
A team of paranormal scientists (Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Harold Ramis) hire a secretary (Annie Potts) and open a business to help rid New York City of its ghosts. But when a beautiful client (Sigourney Weaver) and her nerdy neighbor (Rick Moranis) appear to be possessed by ancient spirits, the Ghost Busters — joined by a new employee (Ernie Hudson) — find their work suddenly much more urgent.

Genres:

• Bill Murray Films
• Black Comedy
• Dan Aykroyd Films
• Ghosts
• Horror Films
• New York City
• Sigourney Weaver Films
• Superheroes

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “amusing diversion” which “somehow became one of the biggest box-office successes of all time” is as “zany and irreverent as expected and the special effects are a lot of fun”, but he argues that “the self-impressed dialogue seems forced and feeble”. He concedes that “Murray has a field day — he provides most of the wild hilarity”, but notes he wishes “audiences weren’t so easily charmed by his rude, childish, chauvanistic characters simply because they hint that they are only playacting”, and that he believes “this Murray character is really a jerk with whom we shouldn’t laugh”. Interestingly, while I find Murray insufferable most of the time, this is the one Peary-listed film where his antics and deadpan delivery seem to fit perfectly: what else should one be but calm, cool, and snarky in the face of existential paranormal crises? Sure, his character is a boorish and womanizing cad, but his super-smart colleagues are busy rocking it in their own way, and Weaver more than holds her own, especially when she gets to face off against Murray supernatural-style.

Speaking of Weaver, she has immense fun with her role, and looks stunning even when — or perhaps especially when — possessed. The special effects are surprisingly effective for a film of this era, and excellent use is made of New York City sets. Meanwhile, the entire storyline of ghosts being captured and held in electronic captivity couldn’t resonate more aptly with our modern-day concerns over digital security; the film is almost prescient in its depiction of evil forces itching to take over the world, let loose by bumbling bureaucrats (in this case, a clueless EPA employee played by William Atherton). Film fanatics should enjoy checking out — or revisiting — this iconic ’80s cult favorite, which has held up well as a silly horror-comedy.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Bill Murray as Dr. Peter Venkman
  
• A surprisingly appealing set of nerdy superheroes
  
• Sigourney Weaver’s fun performance as possessed-Dana
  
• Fine special effects, costumes, and make-up
  
  
  
• Excellent use of New York City sets
  
• Ray Parker, Jr.’s inimitable theme song

Must See?
Yes, as a fun cult favorite.

Categories

• Cult Movie

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• DVD Savant Review
• SF, Fantasy, and Horror Review
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
A gifted violinist (William Holden) disappoints his father (Lee J. Cobb) when he pursues a career as a prizefighter in order to earn money for the family. While an ambitious manager (Adolphe Menjou) and his loyal girlfriend (Barbara Stanwyck) — who Holden falls for — do what they can to keep Holden in the game, their influence is limited when a local gangster (Joseph Calleia) wants a piece of the action.

Genres:

• Adolphe Menjou Films
• Barbara Stanwyck Films
• Boxing
• Lee J. Cobb Films
• Love Triangle
• Musicians
• Play Adaptations
• Rouben Mamoulian Films
• William Holden Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that while “four writers ‘Hollywoodized’ Clifford Odets’ gritty play,” the “story retained much of its original power and its anti-boxing message”, adding that “this is a prototypical boxing film in that it’s about a decent boy from the ghetto who is hardened by the boxing business and his striving for materialistic gain” — though in a twist, the film “doesn’t have the boxer’s girlfriend try to get him to quit the ring”.

Peary argues that the “film is schmaltzy, Cobb is overbearing as the music-loving papa:

… and there isn’t enough fight atmosphere”, but it “never loses interest” given that “Rouben Mamoulian’s direction is satisfactory” and “newcomer Holden, looking handsome and energetic, and the fetching Stanwyck, who took him under her wing, are an appealing screen couple”.

Meanwhile, making the film look fantastic are “two of the best” cinematographers, Nicholas Musuraca and Karl Freund.

However, while there’s much to commend about Golden Boy, it’s not quite must-see viewing. Cobb’s over-the-top portrayal quickly has us annoyed rather than sympathetic for his plight: indeed, Holden’s choice of boxing over music makes sense as a way for him to distance himself from stifling parental expectations, thus complicating our sense of what, exactly, we should be hoping for as the outcome for this gifted yet conflicted young man.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Barbara Stanwyck as Lorna
  
• William Holden’s earnest portrayal in his breakthrough role as Joe
  
• A fine supporting performance by Calleia
  
• Nicholas Musuraca and Karl Freund’s cinematography
  
  

Must See?
No, but it’s certainly worth a look for its historical importance.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• TCM Article
• NY Times Original Review