FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
When a man (Bill Cone) is murdered by a woman (Kathy Lester) he’s just had sex with in a graveyard, his friends Jody (Bill Thornbury), Reggie (Reggie Bannister), and Jody’s younger brother Mike (Michael Pearson) begin an investigation in a nearby mausoleum, where a creepy mortician (Angus Scrimm) is wandering the hallways with nefarious plans.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Amateur Sleuths
• Horror Films
• Living Nightmare
• Orphans

Review:
This cult favorite by 25-year-old writer-director Don Coscarelli spawned several sequels and has legions of dedicated fans who consider Scrimm’s “The Tall Man” to be one of the great horror villains of all time:

However, I personally find Phantasm to be a mess of a movie — to the extent that I started talking back to it at a certain point, simply out of incredulity at the choices being made:

“That guy just fired a pistol near his own head to kill off the mutant creature that’s pounced on top of him — good thing he was okay with only having a few inches to spare in his aim!”

“Why are we suddenly back in the mausoleum again?”

“Where do all these guns keep coming from?!”

Coscarelli clearly seems to be aiming for a form of giallo in his use of atmospheric cinematography and Goblin-esque music (as well as a windshield shattering at one point), but can’t seem to make up his mind which horror film tropes he wants to settle on, ultimately simply throwing them all in — including killer hooded dwarves:

… a blind seer:

… a disembodied finger:

… a (seemingly) self-driving car:

… the discovery of meaningful old sepia-toned photos in a cluttered antique shop:

… a chase scene through the dark woods:

… and death-after-sex:

In addition, there’s a brief time/space warp sequence that presumably gives Pearson all sorts of insights into what the Tall Man is ultimately aiming for:

… as well as a truly random musical interlude:

… and a special effects sequence — a lethal silver ball hurtling straight at a bad-guy — which nearly all viewers seems to agree is one of the film’s highlights (too bad there’s no rhyme or reason to its nifty if terrifying existence).

Finding out that Phantasm originally ran over three hours helps to explain the many narrative fragments that simply don’t cohere. I understand that this film was originally conceived through dreams by Coscarelli, and should be viewed as a nightmare-like tale. But for those who prefer narrative cohesion, you’ll want to stay away.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Highly atmospheric cinematography and sets
  
  

Must See?
Yes, once — but only for its strong cult status. Listed as a Sleeper and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• Moria Review

Synopsis:
When J. Edgar Hoover (Broderick Crawford) dies suddenly in 1972, his secretary (Ellen Barber) rushes to shred his massive “personal files”, filled with secrets about numerous political elites — including Robert Kennedy (Michael Parks), Martin Luther King, Jr. (Raymond St. Jacques), FDR (Howard Da Silva), JFK (William Jordan), and others. Meanwhile, a former FBI agent (Rip Torn) reflects on his years of service to Hoover, as well as the “open secret” of Hoover’s deep friendship with his closest aide (Dan Dailey).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Biopics
• Blackmail
• Broderick Crawford Films
• Celeste Holm Films
• Dan Dailey Films
• Jose Ferrer Films
• Larry Cohen Films
• Political Corruption
• Rip Torn Films

Review:
So-called “guerrilla filmmaker” Larry Cohen — best known for directing It’s Alive! (1974) and God Told Me To (1976) — was bold to make this openly critical film about notorious FBI head J. Edgar Hoover at a time when Hoover had only been dead a few years, and politicians were understandably leery about having the skeletons in their closets exposed.

Thanks to ingenuity and grit — as well as former First Lady Betty Ford’s appreciation for Dan Dailey, in what ended up being his final role:

— Cohen managed to direct this movie in many of its original locations, including casting Hoover’s actual barber and waiter:

Unfortunately, the film itself isn’t all that satisfying or comprehensible unless you happen to be an American history buff with knowledge of the various rapid-fire events unfolding between the 1920s and 1970s; as noted by Janet Maslin in her review for the New York Times, the movie “hovers midway between soap opera and expose”, and “mostly barrels along at a flat, uninteresting pace, with no big scenes to give it any structure.”

With that said, I felt much better informed after following up by watching an actual documentary about Hoover, which filled in many gaps, and helped me understood writer-director-producer Larry Cohen’s intent to highlight the rampant corruption (no surprise!) behind just about every political situation and figure in U.S. history — and how Hoover managed to keep his position for decades due to his savvy intelligence. Among many scenes, we see young Hoover (James Wainwright) taking over the FBI just after the Palmer Raids:

… Hoover’s desire to give the FBI both respectability and authentic clout:

… the deep mistrust Hoover held for women (Ronee Blakley, Celeste Holm) who were romantically interested in him at various points in his career:

… the role Hoover’s hovering mother (June Havoc) may have played in his personality and/or sexual orientation:

… Hoover’s frustration at suddenly being the underling of a much-younger RFK (and how he managed to reassert his authority):

… Hoover’s close alliance with Joe McCarthy (George Wallace):

… and Hoover’s lifelong addiction to gambling, which may have led to his avoidance of dealing with the Mafia.

Note: You’ll have to give wide berth to the appearances of the actors playing various Big Names in History here, who look almost nothing like their real-life counterparts (see if you can guess who’s on screen in each of the stills below):

(1. FDR, 2. LBJ, 3. MLK.)

Note: I haven’t (yet) seen Clint Eastwood’s 2011 film J. Edgar, starring Leonardo Di Caprio in the title role, though I’m especially curious now to check it out in comparison.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• A boldly scathing (for the time) look at Hoover’s instrumental role in shaping the FBI
  

Must See?
No, though of course it’s worth a look if you’re interested in Hoover and the FBI. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Through the Shattered Lens Review

Synopsis:
After sending their 11-year-old son (Daniel Holzman) to stay with a family friend (William Wellman, Jr.), a man (John Ryan) and his wife (Sharon Farrell) go to the hospital so Farrell can give birth to their second child — but things quickly go awry with Farrell’s unusual mutant infant, who turns out to be murderously self-protective, and kills numerous people while seeking the security of its own home.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Evil Kids
• Horror Films
• Larry Cohen Films
• Living Nightmare
• Mutant Monsters

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “cleverly written and directed” cult film by Larry Cohen is “at once terrifying and repugnant.” He asserts that it “deals with the relevant issue of doctors indiscriminately giving women unsafe drugs, but only so it can use the shameful baby-as-monster premise, which Cohen exploits to the nth degree.” I disagree that Cohen’s conception of a mutant baby on a rampage is “shameful”, given that his film — while silly, sloppy, often too slow, and badly made in some ways (how can the baby kill and wreak havoc so quickly?!) — carries multiple layers of meaning and subtext within its surprisingly complex storyline. Peary concedes that “at least Cohen has us rooting for the baby by [the] film’s end”, which hints at the fact that a form of connection has been made by those closest to the baby — but most definitively not by the host of outside actors who have ulterior motives for wanting the creature destroyed (ranging from covering up inhumane medical practices to wanting to study the infant).

Peary points out that Ryan — a classically trained actor who spent many years of his career on stage — gives a “surprisingly fine performance”; indeed, he elevates the entire script up a notch, particularly during the touching moments near the end of the film. I like how the L.A. River Basin is used as a metaphorical watery womb for Ryan and his baby to bond within and emerge from (albeit to a fatally hostile crowd). Equally sympathetic and nuanced is Farrell as the creature’s mother, who knows something is “not right” but is ignored by the men-in-power around her throughout her pregnancy, during the birth process, and after her baby has gone missing. I agree with Cohen’s choice to not show much of Rick Baker’s mutant baby design, instead hinting at Its demonic appearance through quick flashes without dwelling on It; appropriately enough, It exists primarily in the shadows. (Cohen has cited Val Lewton’s horror films as an influence, and this makes sense.)

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• John Ryan as Frank Davis
  
• Sharon Farrell as Lenore Davis
  
• Good use of Los Angeles locales (including the L.A. River Basin)
  
• Rick Baker’s special effects and make-up work
  
• Bernard Herrmann’s score

Must See?
Yes, as an unusual cult film.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• And You Call Yourself a Scientist Review
• Moria Review

Synopsis:
An actor (Craig Wasson) with severe claustrophobia leaves his set one day to come home and find his girlfriend sleeping with another man. Despondent, he eventually connects with a fellow actor (Gregg Henry) who offers him a luxurious house-sitting gig, complete with a telescopic view of a woman (Deborah Shelton) who does an elaborate solo erotic dance each night. Soon Wasson finds himself enamored with Shelton, and concerned to see her threatened by a menacing man who seems determined to kill her.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Actors and Actresses
• Brian De Palma Films
• Framed
• Peeping Toms

Response to Peary’s Review:
In discussing this “disappointing suspense thriller by Brian De Palma”, Peary writes that the fact that De Palma “borrows from Hitchcock’s Vertigo, Rear Window, and Psycho is not as annoying as his repeating himself” by making “so sure his scenes have parallels in Hitchcock that his own storyline gets muddled.” He notes that while “De Palma’s camera is fluid, and his direction is so imaginative at times that you almost gasp”, Wasson is “much duller here than in other films” (I think that’s intentional):

and “the storyline’s so predictable that the intricacy of De Palma’s direction seems wasted” (only the fact that Wasson’s clearly being duped is predictable; everything else caught me by surprise). Meanwhile, he asserts that “when De Palma starts showing off with one of his long non-dialogue passages (when Wasson follows Shelton), the picture becomes boring.”

He adds (I agree) that “as a platinum-blond [adult film] star, Melanie Griffith is the best reason to see this picture”.

While I’m not as dismissive of this film as Peary seems to be, I’ll agree it’s not must-see viewing and ultimately one of De Palma’s lesser films. However, there’s enough creativity to recommend it for one-time viewing, especially if you’re a De Palma fan.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Melanie Griffith as Holly
  
• Good use of Los Angeles settings
  
  
  
• Pino Donaggio’s score

Must See?
No, but De Palma fans will certainly want to check it out.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• Moria Review
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Talk Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A talented composer (William Finley) is betrayed by an evil mogul named Swan (Paul Williams) who steals his music for the grand opening of his new rock palace, The Paradise, and has him framed for drug possession. After escaping from prison, Finley seeks revenge against Swan but is instead disfigured and devocalized by a record-pressing machine, and becomes locked away as the Phantom of the Paradise. Finley makes a deal with Swan to write additional music for him if Swan will cast his true love, Phoenix (Jessica Harper), in the lead of a new show — but when Swan betrays him yet again by hiring a flamboyant gay performer named Beef (Gerrit Graham) to sing his songs instead, the Phantom can no longer contain his anger.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Brian De Palma Films
• Composers
• Horror Films
• Jessica Harper Films
• Musicals
• Pact With the Devil
• Revenge
• Rock ‘n Roll

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately writes that “Brian De Palma’s one-of-a-kind rock-music black-comedy horror film is a tribute to movies and filmmaking (from the silent era to the present) and a devastating attack on the mean-spirited glitter rock scene of the seventies, where young lynch mob-like audiences demanded increasingly vulgar and cruel entertainment.” He notes that while the “film is flawed throughout and has a terribly trite and confused ending”, it “also has amazing vitality, wild humor, a clever score by [Paul] Williams, a likable cast, and visual bravura.” He points out that “Stylistically, De Palma pays homage to Hitchcock, Rouben Mamoulian’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, silent American films like Lon Chaney’s Phantom of the Opera, and silent German expressionist films like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (the distorted images, the high-key lighting, [and] the surreal Jack Fisk sets that seem appropriate for an amusement-park crazy house).” De Palma juxtaposes “all this… with modern techniques (i.e., split screen), ‘hip’ irreverent humor, and violence — the distinguishing trait of seventies horror films.”

While Phantom of the Paradise was “poorly received by many critics when released, it has attained a large cult following” — and in his Cult Movies 2 book, Peary discusses this movie at greater length. He writes that, “Remarkably, De Palma put together a simple storyline despite combining plot and theme elements from numerous sources, including Goethe, Oscar Wilde, Nathanael West, Gaston Laroux’s 1911 novel The Phantom of the Opera as well as the 1925, 1943, and 1962 movie adaptations, King Kong (1933), Beauty and the Beast (1946), possibly The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923 and 1939 versions), and Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960) and The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956), with its assassination-attempt-at-concert sequence.” He notes that, “looking back, it’s hard to believe the hostility some critics felt toward the film” — but it’s equally fortunate that Pauline Kael “expressed admiration for [De Palma’s] wit, manic theatricality, and wild love for his medium,” in addition to recognizing “back then that De Palma’s amateurish streaks and erratic talents (which are still very much in evidence) are not, in his case, liabilities.” Indeed, “his unpredictability — you can’t count on him to direct or write two scenes in a row that are polished or follow cinematic conventions — is one of the reasons he’s been an interesting filmmaker.” I agree with both Kael and Peary.

Peary points out how appropriate it is that this film “begins with [a] Rod Serling… narration,” given that “most episodes on Serling’s classic television anthology The Twilight Zone were about characters who lose their identity” — and “in Phantom, Winslow [Finley] becomes the symbol of all struggling young songwriters whose music (their identity) is stolen by big-shot record producers and musicians.” In fact, he notes, Winslow “represents all young artists, filmmakers included, who are used and discarded without the world ever knowing they existed.” Indeed, while this black comedy is often played for laughs — it’s easy to ridicule how naive and inept Finley’s Phantom comes across time and again — he does metaphorically represent the extreme result of every insult ever hurled at a deeply creative person. Meanwhile, Beef’s campy performance instantly evokes The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1976), which at the time was still just a stage production; while Graham can’t really hold a candle to Tim Curry (who could?), he has a lot of fun with his role and is consistently enjoyable to watch. Also weirdly good is Williams as the gnome-ish Swan: the sway this guy holds over seemingly the entire world is truly diabolical.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fun performances by the entire leading cast
  
  
  
• Highly creative sets and costumes
  
  
• Strong direction and cinematography throughout
  
  
• The amusing Psycho shower-sequence homage
  

Must See?
Yes, as a wacky and still-enjoyable cult classic.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Moria Review
• Spinning Image Review