FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
Laurel and Hardy head to Brushwood Gulch to deliver a gold mine deed to the daughter (Rosina Lawrence) of a dead prospector. Once there, however, they find themselves swindled by the girl’s bosses (Jimmy Finlayson and Sharon Lynn), and must do what they can to return the deed to its rightful owner.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Comedy
• Con-Artists
• Laurel & Hardy Films
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this classic Laurel and Hardy flick is “consistently funny”, “well-paced”, and full of “sight gags, slapstick, and witty verbal repartee”. Along with Sons of the Desert (1933) and Block-Heads (1938) (both also recommended by Peary), it is required Laurel and Hardy viewing for any film fanatic.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Hardy forcing a tearful Laurel to eat his hat
  
• Lynn tickling Hardy into giving her the will
  
• Laurel and Hardy’s soft-shoe dance number
  

Must See?
Yes. This is one of Laurel and Hardy’s best works, and not to be missed.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Greatest Films Review
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
Oliver Dee (Oliver Hardy) and Stanlee Dum (Stan Laurel) attempt to rescue Little Bo Peep (Charlotte Henry) from the evil clutches of Silas Barnaby (Harry Kleinbach).

Genres:

• Folk Tales, Fairy Tales, and Mythology
• Fantasy
• Laurel & Hardy Films
• Musical
• Revenge

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this imaginative operetta — which has “always been a favorite of children” but has recently “become a cult favorite of adults as well” — has much to recommend it: multiple familiar fairy tale friends; “nifty” costumes; an exciting story of good versus evil; and the wonderful comedic team of Laurel and Hardy. He argues that this “MGM production is one of the best fantasies of the pre-Wizard of Oz days,” given the “storybook characters are fun, [and the] battle between the soldiers (whose march is animated) and the Bogeyman is as exciting as anything that would turn up in Flash Gordon.” As Peary notes, however, some of the songs could probably have been cut; unlike the highly memorable roster of tunes in The Wizard of Oz (1939), Victor Herbert’s operatic arias here are sappy and instantly forgettable.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Laurel and Hardy as the infinitely clueless Dum and Dee
  
• Inventive sets and costumes
  
  
• Fun incorporation of multiple fairy tale characters into one story
  

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review
• SciFilm Review

Synopsis:
After the defeat of the South in the American Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan fights against what it perceives as the emergence of black supremacy.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• African Americans
• Civil War
• Deep South
• D.W. Griffith Films
• Lillian Gish Films
• Racism
• Silent Films
• Slavery

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to this groundbreaking, highly controversial silent movie as “the birth of the feature film”. Indeed, as Roger Ebert argues in his “Great Movies” review, in Birth of a Nation, director “[D.W.] Griffith demonstrated to every filmmaker and moviegoer who followed him what a movie was, and what a movie could be.” Peary notes that the film — “based on the Reverend Thomas Dixon’s racist Reconstruction play The Clansman, which celebrated the KKK for restoring the politics and life-style of the antebellum South” — will “astonish you with its visuals” (see here for an extensive list of the cinematic techniques Griffith brought to the film) yet “repulse you with its content”. Peary chastises Griffith for promoting a narrative in which “the klansmen become our heroes when they rescue whites who are about to be killed by black militiamen”, and concludes his review by arguing that Birth… is “a great film… marred by a reprehensible viewpoint”. He concedes, however, that it’s “too important to miss, if only to see what once passed as history.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• An abundance of exciting new cinematic techniques — including cross-cutting, night photography, the “iris shot”, and color tinting
  
• Highly realistic Civil War battle recreations
  

Must See?
Yes. While difficult to watch, this film is nonetheless too historically important for any film fanatic to miss.

Categories

• Controversial Film
• Historically Relevant

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

Links:

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

Synopsis:
A humble cotton farmer (Daniel Haynes) is seduced by a gambling vamp (Nina Mae McKinney), then repents for his sins by becoming an itinerant preacher.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• African Americans
• Christianity
• Deep South
• Femmes Fatales
• Gambling
• King Vidor Films
• Musicals

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this landmark all-black film — made and financed by white director King Vidor — is actually rather dull. In addition, it “established many negative black stereotypes that would become common in the white cinema”, and “was the first to contend that black people were happy living in isolation (from whites), in ignorance, and in poverty because they have religion to fall back on.”

Nonetheless, the film is worth checking out for its historical status, as well as to see Nina Mae McKinney’s truly electric performance as a wily femme fatale — a “hip-swaying, sexually uninhibited tigress” who “would serve as [a] model for numerous black vamps in years to come, including those played by Dorothy Dandridge.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Nina Mae McKinney as the beautiful, seductive, deceptive Chick
  
• Mammy Johnson (Fannie Belle DeKnight) singing a lullaby as she rocks one of her children to sleep
  

Must See?
Yes, simply for its status as the first all-black film to come out of Hollywood.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review (Note how reviewer Mourdant Hall refers to this early “talkie” movie as an “audible film”)

Synopsis:
Jed Cooper (Clint Eastwood), wrongly accused of cattle rustling, is hung by a group of vigilantes and left to die. When he survives, Cooper becomes a marshal for the local judge (Pat Hingle), and vows to seek revenge on the men who nearly killed him.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Ben Johnson Films
• Bruce Dern Films
• Clint Eastwood Films
• Courtroom Drama
• Ed Begley Sr. Films
• Falsely Accused
• Pat Hingle Films
• Revenge
• Vigilantes
• Walter Brennan Films
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary doesn’t seem to like this western much, calling it “derivative”, “stilted”, and “cliche-ridden”. I suspect, however, that the film suffers primarily from guilt-by-comparison, since it was made immediately after Sergio Leone’s string of brilliant “Man With No Name” westerns. In reality, Hang ‘Em High is actually an enjoyable revenge tale, one which manages to comment on the public thirst for bloody spectacle without coming to any neat-and-tidy conclusions. In addition, Judge Fenton is played with surprising nuance by Hingle; his struggle to bring justice to the vast, untamed Oklahoma Territory makes for an interesting contrast with Walter Brennan’s more humorously sadistic Judge Roy Bean in The Westerner (1940).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Pat Hingle as the frustrated, hard-nosed Judge Fenton
  
• Bruce Dern in an early villainous role
  
• The “Hanging Circus” scene, which makes public corporal punishment come across as a viable entertainment alternative to the County Fair
  

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
Lenny Bruce debunks the obscenity charges made against him in New York City.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Stand-Up Comedy

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that Lenny Bruce’s second-to-last live performance — “filmed in San Francisco in August of 1965 in San Francisco, the one place in the states where he could get bookings” — is crudely shot (the director “keeps a nervous camera focused on Bruce at all times”) and only intermittently funny (“one wishes his material were a bit stronger”). Nonetheless, Bruce still manages to come across as both highly intelligent and naturally witty; it’s easy to catch glimpses of his genius through the haze of his (legitimate) obsession with the “politics of obscenity”. As Peary writes, Bruce was “a comedian who relied on his intelligence and natural wit rather than a memorized set of irrelevant jokes,” and it’s clear he “seems amused by life’s sad ironies.” Most enjoyable for me was seeing what a master Bruce was at voice characterizations — watch how easily and convincingly he’s able to switch from character to character during his running jokes.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Bruce’s improvisatory discussion of the obscenity charges made against him
  
• The skewering “How the Jew and the Negro Got Into Show Business” schtick (much less offensive than it sounds)
  
• If you’re renting the DVD, don’t miss the oddly hilarious short “Thank You Mask Man”, in which one of Bruce’s most famous running jokes is set to animation
  

Must See?
Yes. As Lenny Bruce’s only live performance preserved on film, it holds a special place in cultural history.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Combustible Celluloid Review

Synopsis:
While on an eXpedition to the Moon (X-M), an astronaut (John Emory) and his flight crew — including a mathematician (Osa Massen), a colonel (Lloyd Bridges), a navigator (Harry Chamberlin), and a flight engineer (Noah Beery, Jr.) — find their rocketship heading towards Mars instead.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• George Pal Films
• Lloyd Bridges Films
• Nuclear Threat
• Science Fiction
• Space Exploration

Response to Peary’s Review:
Viewed by many as an irredeemably “bad movie”, this dated sci-fi flick is primarily notorious for beating out George Pal’s Destination Moon (1950) as the first of the “fifties science fiction cycle”. In his review, Peary insists that Rocketship X-M — despite its much lower production values and infinitely inferior scientific credibility — is “at least as entertaining” as its Technicolor counterpart. While this is true to a certain extent, the number of sexist comments directed towards the lone female on board the ship made it difficult for me to focus on anything else:

Dr. Lisa Van Horn (Osa Massen): I suppose you think women should only cook, and sew, and bear children.
Col. Floyd Graham (an annoyingly smug Lloyd Bridges): Isn’t that enough?

In terms of the plot, blacklisted screenwriter Dalton Trumbo framed the story as a cautionary tale about nuclear power: once the explorers arrive on Mars, they find that a nuclear holocaust has caused the “once advanced civilization” of (conveniently) humanoid Martians to revert to a brutish cave-man existence. Unfortunately, the scenes on Mars — actually shot in the American Southwest with an added sepia tint — are underdeveloped, slowly paced, and largely unsatisfying.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine cinematography
  
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look for its place in film history.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• SciFilm Review

Synopsis:
A high school student (Derrel Maury) takes revenge on the bullies who crippled him.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Bullies
• High School
• Horror
• Revenge
• Serial Killers

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this unusual hybrid film is “a real sleeper”. Unfortunately, its misleading slasher title will prevent most mainstream viewers from seeking it out (not to mention disappointing horror fans who are looking for typical mindless fare). The story tells of a trio of bullies (Ray Underwood, Steve Bond, and Steve Sikes) who effectively rule Central High with their scare tactics.

But when newcomer David (Maury) manages to knock them off one by one (without adult intervention, it should be noted):

… the remaining students prove themselves incapable of handling their newfound freedom — thus prompting Maury (once sincere and heroic, now cynical and heartless) to continue his descent down the slippery slope of retribution-by-death.

Peary offers a fascinating, in-depth political analysis of the film in his Cult Movies 2 (which I recommend reading). In a nutshell, he proposes that every character represents “a different political force”, and that Maury’s job “is to politicize [the two sympathetic protagonists], who are always neutral, and make them into activists willing to fight.”

Many have likened this film to George Orwell’s Animal Farm — another tale of power and corruption told from the perspective of “lower class” citizens — and the analogy is apt: high school students and farm animals both represent “oppressed” citizens who ultimately require more than simply “freedom” to improve their lot.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fascinating use of a popular genre (teen slasher flick) to support a subversive message
  

Must See?
Yes. Don’t let the low budget and mediocre acting turn you off; it’s the story that counts in this one. Discussed at length in Peary’s Cult Movies 2 (1983).

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• Terror Trap Review (and detailed plot summary)

Synopsis:
A group of British soldiers, led by inept Commander Goodbody (Michael Crawford), is assigned the task of clearing a mine-ridden cricket field in North Africa.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Black Comedy
• Flashback Film
• Richard Lester Films
• Soldiers
• Satires and Spoofs
• World War Two

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary describes this Richard Lester anti-war spoof as “shaky but funny and fanciful” — all true, though the “absurdity of war” trope has been played out to stronger effect numerous times since this film’s release, i.e. in Three Kings (1999). In addition, as Roger Ebert points out, it’s difficult for American audiences to understand what the British actors are saying much of the time. Meanwhile, John Lennon — the major attraction for many would-be viewers, especially given that his face envelops the video/DVD cover — plays such a minor role it’s tempting to sue for false advertising.

It is actually spindly-legged Michael Crawford (of Phantom of the Opera fame) who is the primary protagonist and narrator of the movie, and he carries the role well.

The film’s best moments occur when Crawford is befriending the German commander in his POW camp — an “absurd” situation with the potential for genuinely radical consequences, yet one which is sadly underdeveloped.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Clever use of colored costumes to designate dead soldiers rejoining their platoon
  

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• Moria Review
• The Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
A naive college student named Charles (Gerard Blain) comes to live with his sophisticated cousin Paul (Jean-Claude Brialy) in Paris, and falls in love with the beautiful yet emotionally unavailable Florence (Juliette Mayniel).

Genres:

• College
• Claude Chabrol Films
• French Films
• Love Triangle

Response to Peary’s Review:
I agree with Peary that it’s difficult to feel much attachment towards the characters in this bleak yet innovative New Wave film. Part of the problem is that it takes too long for things to get rolling, given that the first half-hour or so is devoted simply to showing Charles’s initiation into the wild student life of partying, bar-hopping, playing cards, and sleeping around.

Then, once the plot finally begins to develop some steam, we must watch in frustration as hapless Charles falls head-over-heels in love with the beautiful Florence, only to have her stolen from right under his nose by Paul. Indeed, Paul — with his devilish goatee and cavalier arrogance — is utterly unappealing, and is a large part of what made this movie rather unpleasant for me.

What is ultimately more interesting than either the plot or the characters, however, is director Claude Chabrol’s palette of filmic techniques, which include (as Peary points out) strategic character placement and an “inventive use of foreground and background”. It’s an impressive display of experimentation, and makes the film a treat for the eyes if not for the heart.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine direction
  
• A revealing glimpse of 1950s student life
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes. As a forerunner of the French New Wave, it’s worth a look for historical purposes alone.

Categories

• Historically Relevant
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review