FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
Four months after Woodstock, the Rolling Stones hire Hell’s Angels to keep the peace during their notorious free concert at the Altamont Speedway in San Francisco. But tragedy ensues when a gun-toting spectator (Meredith Hunter) is stabbed to death.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Concert Films
• Documentary

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, “the Stones are really in peak form” in this infamous concert film-turned-tragic time capsule. The Maysles brothers — with their “famous cinema verite style” — do indeed “do [the Stones] justice”; it’s easy to see why Jagger, with his remarkably effeminate clothing and performance style, was such a potent symbol of the anything-goes counterculture. Yet even Jagger’s dynamic presence is overshadowed by the pall of what was to come. As Peary notes, Gimme Shelter sadly “squashed the euphoria created by Woodstock”, but I disagree that it “signaled the beginning of an era that would have no place for the love generation” — in reality, Gimme Shelter simply highlights the tensions and dualities that had always existed in America. The clashing of two notorious counterculture groups — Hell’s Angels and hippies — is a harsh yet realistic demonstration of why Free Love will likely never exist on a universal basis, and why attempting to simply “get along” with one another (the ineffectual Jagger sounds for all the world like Rodney King as he pleads for the violence to stop) is a naive pipe dream. Call me a cynic — I guess I am one.

Note: Though Peary (and others) refer to the tragic death of Meredith Hunter as a “murder”, it was likely homicide in self-defense. Regardless of one’s personal views about the Angels, any security guard worth his salt would react defensively and immediately upon seeing a gun drawn at a high-profile concert.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Mick Jagger’s energetic, effeminate prancing on stage
  
• Tina Turner singing “I’ve Been Loving You Too Long”
  
• A time-capsule glimpse — a la Woodstock — of 1969’s hippie counterculture
  
• A devastating document of chaos and violence during the era of Free Love
  

Must See?
Yes. This invaluable documentary should be seen by all film fanatics.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Wikipedia Article
• DVD Savant Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
The Marx Brothers stow away on an ocean liner, and soon find themselves working as bodyguards for rival gangsters.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• At Sea
• Comedy
• Fugitives
• Gangsters
• Marx Brothers Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, it’s likely “that the Marx Brothers were never more energetic” than in Monkey Business, their first film written directly for the screen. It’s pure, zany comedy the entire way through, with amusing wordplay coming a mile a minute, and endless gags easily overwhelming the unimportant storyline. With that said, I’ll admit I don’t enjoy Monkey Business as much as the Brothers’ more narratively-polished films (such as A Night at the Opera); I also miss the inimitable presence of the “fifth Marx Brother”, Margaret Dumont. Nonetheless, it remains essential viewing for anyone seriously interested in the history of comedic cinema.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Plenty of zany sequences — as when the well-meaning Chico and Harpo gradually “trim” off a man’s entire mustache
  
• Harpo accompanying a soprano while she sings “O Sole Mio”, then performing his own piece (my favorite moment in the entire film)
  
• Countless hilarious puns (most by Chico) and one-liners (most by Groucho):
  

  “You’re just wasting your breath — and that’s no great loss, either.”

Must See?
Yes. While it’s not quite on a level with either A Night at the Opera (1935) or Duck Soup (1933), Monkey Business should be seen by all film fanatics.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

Links:

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

Synopsis:
Baron Frankenstein (Udo Kier) and his loyal assistant Otto (Arno Juerging) attempt to create a new race of humans by mating the reconstructed bodies of a handsome man (Srdjan Zelenovic) and a beautiful woman (Dalia di Lazzaro). Meanwhile, Frankenstein’s sex-crazed wife (Monique Van Vooren) seduces her studly field worker (Joe Dallesandro), who was friends with the ill-fated Zelenovic.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Frankenstein
• Horror
• Incest and Incestuous Undertones
• Mad Doctors and Scientists
• Paul Morrissey Films
• Satires and Spoofs
• Zombies

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is subtle in his criticism of this satirical horror flick by director Paul Morrissey, noting that “the explicit violence in [the] film overwhelms the subtle humor and sex”, and that “the repetitive images and dialogue make [the] film tiresome.” What he neglects to mention is how hideously — indeed, distractingly — bad the acting is; while Morrissey apparently instructed his cast not to act “realistically”, the actors (with the possible exception of Kier) aren’t capable of achieving campy delivery (which might have been fun). Equally awful are the special effects — at a certain point, when Frankenstein is delving orgasmically into the innards of his “ideal woman”, he looks for all the world like he’s smearing red paint on her skin (which he probably was). Even the most diehard fans of Flesh for Frankenstein have noted that it isn’t for all tastes, and I guess I fall into this category; I greatly prefer its tongue-in-cheek companion piece, Blood for Dracula (released just a few months later); as Peary notes, the latter was “not as popular… but a much better film.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Some amusingly campy moments
  

Must See?
Yes, simply due to its cult following.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Moria Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
The beer-loving Mackenzie brothers (Dave Thomas and Rick Moranis) get jobs at the Elsinore Brewery, where they soon discover the nefarious plan of Brewmeister Smith (Max von Sydow) to take over the world.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Canadian Films
• Comedy
• Max von Sydow Films
• Mental Illness
• Siblings
• World Domination

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this “foolish comedy” (a cult favorite for many) “drags on forever”, with only “a few snickers along the way”. Its primary worth seems to lie in its good-natured yet merciless portrayal of Canadian stereotypes and sayings — every other phrase out of these brothers’ mouths is either “take off!”, “eh?”, “ya knob!” or “ya hoser!” The plot (more complicated than synopsized above) is convoluted, and relies overly heavily on both slapstick (which, as Peary notes, “seems out of place”) and shameless references to other hit films of the year (including Return of the Jedi and Superman III). Strange Brew is notable as the precursor to later “dumb buddies” flicks — such as Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure (1989), Wayne’s World (1992), and Dumb and Dumber (1994) — but is this necessarily a worthy achievement?

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• A mildly entertaining satire of Canadianisms — eh, hoser?
  
• A few amusing moments of juvenile humor
  

Must See?
No. While it’s a guilty cult pleasure for many, it’s ultimately not must-see viewing.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
During the Great Depression, a destitute city couple named Mary (Karen Morley) and John (Tom Keene) take over Mary’s uncle’s farm. Soon they’ve invited other out-of-work families to join them on their land, and a thriving collective emerges.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Collective Activism
• Depression Era
• Farming
• Femmes Fatales
• John Qualen Films
• Karen Morley Films
• King Vidor Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this “unique, politically subversive Depression film by King Vidor” — a sequel to Vidor’s “1928 silent masterpiece The Crowd” (but with different lead actors) — suffers from overly simplistic characters, a naively Hollywood air of “Hey-let’s-get-together-and-form-a-cooperative”, and a contrived conflict involving a femme fatale (Barbara Pepper). (According to TCM’s article, “director Vidor admitted that the floozy with the Jean Harlow platinum hair was brought in purely for box office.”) It’s frustrating to watch a film based on such an intriguing and original premise devolving into platitudes and easy fixes — there’s potential here for something much greater. With that said, I agree with Peary that “Vidor’s film works on many levels: its sincerity is to be commended, [and] its vision of an alternate lifestyle is tantalizing.” The final lengthy sequence (in which the collective members work together to dig a ditch which will bring water to their drought-ridden crops) shows evidence of Vidor’s cinematic genius — as well as heavy influence of Soviet-era films.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• A stirring — if hopelessly naive — vision of collectivism in action
  
• The “famous impressionistic finale” — which, as Peary notes, “is great cinema”
  

Must See?
Yes, simply for its historical importance.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
A sweet, simple orphan named Lili (Leslie Caron) falls in love with a womanizing magician (Jean-Pierre Aumont), and joins his carnival troupe to be near him. Meanwhile, a disabled dancer-turned-puppeteer (Mel Ferrer) is enamored with Lili, but afraid to show her his true feelings, and speaks to her through his puppets instead.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Carnivals and Circuses
• Coming of Age
• Leslie Caron Films
• Love Triangle
• Mel Ferrer Films
• Musicals
• Orphans
• Puppets and Ventriloquism
• Romance

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, Leslie Caron is “truly captivating” in this “charming one-song musical” which was nominated for six Academy Awards. Indeed, as many reviewers have pointed out, Lili would not work without Caron’s magical performance; she literally lights up the screen, and we immediately care about her. But while Peary argues that the “sentimental story is skimpy and dated”, I disagree: I see Lili as a fable-like romance, in which two misfits eventually come to terms with both their naive dreams (Caron follows Marc around like an eager puppy, not recognizing him for who he really is) and their lost hopes (Ferrer is bitter about his dashed career as a dancer).

I also disagree with Peary that Caron is surrounded by “supporting players [who] aren’t particularly exciting”. Aumont is perfectly cast (and drolly amusing) as a womanizer who lusts after Lili, but recognizes that she’s still a child — I especially love the line when he tells her, “Lili, you mustn’t throw yourself at a man! It isn’t nice! Well, it’s nice, but you shouldn’t do it!” And Ferrer is appropriately moody as the brusque puppeteer; one of my favorite shots in the film shows his face behind the puppet booth after he’s first interacted with Lili — we can literally see his hard shell melting. Lili may be a simple story, but it’s finely told, and guaranteed to tug at your heartstrings if you let it. At the very least, you’ll be humming “Hi Lili, Hi Lo” for days afterwards.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Leslie Caron as Lili
  
• Jean-Pierre Aumont as Marc
  
• Lili failing miserably in her first attempt at waitressing
  
• Lili interacting with the puppets
  
• Lili’s dream dance, in which she competes with Zsa-Zsa Gabor for Aumont’s attentions
  
• The touching final dance sequence
  
• A clever, magical screenplay

Must See?
Yes. This Oscar-nominated musical is worth seeing for Caron’s performance alone.

Categories

• Noteworthy Performance(s)
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

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