FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A free-spirited young woman (Barbara Hershey) offers to serve as a surrogate for an infertile woman (Collin Wilcox Paxton) and her husband (Sam Groom), but soon finds that her boyfriend (Scott Glenn) isn’t happy with all the changes this brings to their lives.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Barbara Hershey Films
• Counterculture
• James Bridges Films
• Pregnancy
• Scott Glenn Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “James Bridges’s directorial debut features a fine, heartfelt performance by Barbara Hershey as a hippie who is hired by a straight-laced, well-to-do couple… to be a surrogate mother.” He notes that the “story emphasizes the awkward relationship between the three characters, beginning with the day Groom first has sex with Hershey, through her pregnancy, to after the birth of the child.”

He argues that while the “dialogue, as well as the look of the film, is dated,” the “premise is still timely,” and points out that Hershey “gives a believable, sensitive characterization playing a young woman who very much fit her own early free-spirit image.”

What Peary doesn’t mention is the equally important emphasis on how Hershey’s decision impacts her relationship with Glenn. At first he’s fine with the idea of his girlfriend making money in this way (and it’s her choice, anyway) — but he soon realizes what a (legitimate) imposition it is on their lives, and thankfully, he isn’t villainized for making a tough call at a certain point.

Indeed, to the film’s credit, it doesn’t shy away from any of the many challenging dilemmas this type of arrangement evokes — starting with the negotiated logistics, handled under-the-radar by a mysterious woman (Lili Valenty) whose house in the hills of Malibu is only accessible through a funicular.

A contract is drawn up and signed, but that doesn’t prevent emotions from running high all around — as they would. While it’s far from perfect, I’m recommending this film as must-see viewing simply for its bold willingness to handle such a sticky topic.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Barbara Hershey as Tish
  
• Fine supporting performances
  
• A bold exploration of a challenging social dilemma
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance as the first (American) film to deal with this topic — and for Hershey’s performance.

Categories

• Historically Relevant
• Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review

Synopsis:
An aspiring rock musician (David Essex) and his band receive support from their manager (Adam Faith) and a wealthy funder (Larry Hagman) in rocketing to fame — but will success lead to happiness or isolation for Essex?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Michael Apted Films
• Musicians
• Rise and Fall
• Rock ‘n Roll

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “cult film is an ambitious sequel to That’ll Be the Day, with Michael Apted replacing Claude Watham as director” and Adam Faith playing the role of carnie “Mike” (previously inhabited by Ringo Starr).

The film is primarily concerned with showing what happens when an obsessive following develops around a single star; in this case, “as his fame increases, Essex begins to feel increasingly that he’s a product” and “he learns not to trust anyone but the band members,” who in turn become increasingly resentful of their more peripheral roles. Meanwhile, as “Essex goes on to superstardom,” “he is alone, confused, [and] corrupted,” and “there is isolation, drugs, [and] tragedy.”

Peary points out that this film offers “a vivid, cynical look at the rock business and a Beatles-like group” — and while “there are few surprises in the film,” “it is extremely well done, compelling, and has credibility because real rock stars Essex (who does a solid job), Faith, Dave Edmunds, and Keith Moon play major roles.”

Peary adds that “everything has a nostalgic ring,” and he “particularly likes the early scenes when the group is playing other people’s music and is zipping around, feeling excited about having waxed its first record;” however, the “innocence of the era” is “shattered in America.”

I’m in agreement with Peary’s review. This movie is depressing but well-filmed, and features “a good score.” Watching Essex’s tragic trajectory here makes one grateful for all the talented superstars who have managed to find a way out of the trap of fame, and to craft a reasonable existence for themselves outside of the industry.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• David Essex as Jim MacLaine
  
• Fine production design
  
  

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a look.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• NY Times Original Review
• TV Guide Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A young man (David Essex) whose single mother (Rosemary Leach) runs a small grocery store runs away to work at a carnival, where he meets an orphan (Ringo Starr) who introduces him to a world of petty crime and sex — but when Essex eventually reconnects with his old schoolmate (Robert Lindsay) and starts dating Lindsay’s sister (Rosalind Ayres), he seems to be heading towards a more stable lifestyle.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Carnivals and Circuses
• Coming of Age
• Ringo Starr Films
• Womanizers

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “somber drama” about a “working class youth in 1959-60” who “feels little attachment to anyone… and avoids commitment” is “the type of kitchen-sink drama Alan Sillitoe or John Osborne might have come up with if they’d been writing for the younger 1974 British audience.”

Peary points out that real-life rock star David “Essex doesn’t sing, as he [would] in the better, more flamboyant sequel, Stardust,” but “there’s a great rock sound track” and he personally relates to a scene in which Essex “has a friend bringing over a Ritchie Valens album that Essex has been dying to hear.”

He notes that Starr (in one of his best film roles) “does a good job as Essex’s pal” (not to mention having “an interesting haircut”):

… and adds that “Essex turns in a strong performance, playing someone audiences will feel ambivalent about” given that “he looks for one-night stands” and “he won’t put himself on the line for a friend [Starr] who’s getting beaten up.”

Indeed, Essex’s character — someone who “girls flock around” given “he’s cute and shy” — is surprisingly complex: the opening scenes show him as a young child running to meet his long-gone dad (James Booth), and spending only a short time with him before he disappears once again (for good).

This abandonment inevitably influences Essex himself once he comes of age — and while we sympathize with his beleaguered mother, who assumes her bright son will go to college and find security:

… it’s also entirely believable that he would rebel and seek out new adventures (including losing his virginity).

The problem is how badly Essex acts during key decision-making moments of his life, such as whether to force himself on a teenage girl at the carnival; whether to help Starr during a potentially fatal fight; whether to pursue a “final fling” before his marriage night; etc. His worst decision comes near the very end — and given that this film ends on a freeze-frame, it inevitably leaves one feeling like the story is unfinished (which it is); I’ll return with my assessment of Stardust shortly.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• David Essex as Jim
  
• Ringo Starr as Mike
  
• Rosemary Leach as Mrs. MacLaine
  
• Fine use of location shooting
  
  

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

Links:

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

Synopsis:
Richard Pryor performs in front of a live audience in Hollywood, sharing how he nearly burned to death in 1980.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Richard Pryor Films
• Stand-Up Comedy

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that while Richard “Pryor’s return to the concert scene after nearly being burned to death while freebasing cocaine” includes much “sidesplitting” humor, it is “overall… not as sharp-edged, wild, ’embarrassing,’ or sustained as in 1979’s Richard Pryor Live in Concert.” He adds that Pryor “doesn’t rely on mobility or his mime talents as much,” and “most irritating is that director Joe Layton keeps cutting to audience members cracking up.” (This didn’t bother me at all.)

Peary writes that “a highlight has Pryor showing his painful reaction to being bathed for the first time following his accident,” and that other stand-out moments include Pryor’s “recollections of a night with a Playboy bunny who gets turned on when he uses a little-boy voice, and his meetings with black murderers at an Arizona penitentiary.”

It’s been enough years since I watched any of Pryor’s routines that I found it enjoyable to spend time with him again — and it was especially poignant hearing him address his near-fatal addiction with humor and humility. However, if film fanatics choose just one filmed Pryor show to watch, it should probably be his earlier “Live in Concert”, thus making this recommended rather than must-see.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Haskell Wexler’s cinematography
  

Must See?
No, though it’s must-see for Pryor fans, and well worth a look.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
Shortly after finding a mysterious gold amulet, Sinbad (John Phillip Law) encounters an evil magician (Tom Baker) desperate for the amulet, and is launched on an adventure involving a beautiful slave girl (Caroline Munro), a disfigured Vizier (Douglas Wilmer), and several magical creatures.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Fantasy
• Ray Harryhausen Films
• Search
• Witches and Wizards

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “tenth collaboration of Charles H. Schneer and model-animation genius Ray Harryhausen” — “the second of three Sinbad movies” — was made “17 years after The 7th Voyage of Sinbad” and while it’s “not as enjoyable as that classic, it still is quite entertaining.” He points out that although the “picture is a bit slow,” “it contains five excellent Harryhausen creations: a six-armed, dancing, sword-wielding statue”:

… “the Siren figurehead on Sinbad’s ship that Koura [the magician] brings to life”:

… “a tiny, ugly, winged Homunculus that serves as Koura’s spy”:

… “and a centaur and griffin, whose battle is a highlight.”

The final sword battle between Sinbad and his nemesis Koura — involving a “shield of darkness” — is also nicely handled.

I’m essentially in agreement with Peary’s assessment. This escapist fantasy is a little slow at times, but it’s creatively filmed, and Harryhausen’s unique creations are always worth watching. Meanwhile, Munro is gorgeous eye candy:

… and Baker is effectively evil as a magician whose very life is predicated upon locating the mythical fountain of youth.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Fine performances by the cast
  
• Ray Harryhausen’s creature effects
  
• Magical sets
  
• Ted Moore’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, for Harryhausen’s effects, and as an overall good show.

Categories

• Good Show

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Spinning Image Review
• TCM Articles
• Cinemologists Video Review