FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
An advanced alien species attempts to prevent the Earth from destroying the universe with atomic weaponry by taking over the minds of three recently deceased corposes (Bela Lugosi, Vampira, and Tor Johnson).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Aliens
• Bela Lugosi Films
• Ed Wood Films
• Mind Control and Hypnosis
• Science Fiction
• World Domination
• Zombies

Response to Peary’s Review:
In the opening of his review for this infamously awful film — voted the “World’s Worst Film” by readers of the Medved brothers’ Golden Turkey Awards — Peary writes that in an “era when bad-film freaks have come out of the closet and really awful films are looked on with affection, Edward D. Wood’s berserk sci-fi film is revered by a large and growing cult who contend that it has moved beyond camp to legend status” (indeed, he analyzes it at length in his first Cult Movies book). Peary facetiously notes that if you “give a monkey a camera… it’ll make a better picture”, and will “certainly do a better job with the money” (neither of which is quite true), and notes that “every facet of this production, from acting, script, and direction to special effects, prop selection, and editing, is putrid” — “so putrid that the film is hilarious”.

The production history of this notoriously awful howler is so well-documented that I humbly refer you to any of the reviews referenced below (or to Wikipedia’s article). In a nutshell, Wood appears to have cobbled his film together out of the very limited resources he had at hand — starting with two minutes of footage of his recently deceased friend, Bela Lugosi, whose character is thereafter played by his wife’s chiropractor, hiding his face behind a cape. The result is a film in which nearly every “bad movie” element one can think of shows up — and (as noted in Peary’s Cult Movies review), “except for about a hundred dull spots”, it’s actually “a lot of fun”. In his more extended review, Peary calls out the film’s many hilariously awful features, including the “terrible cheap sets”; the hideous interpolation of shots taking place in daytime and nighttime; the flying saucers (made out of paper plates) which “look like chinaware flung into the air”; the way that “everyone fails to respond while The Ghoul Man… strangles Officer Calvin in front of their eyes”; and, of course, the “incomparable dialogue” — all of which make for a surprisingly entertaining viewing experience, if you’re in the right mood.

Interestingly, Peary argues that Wood made a film which is so “atrocious” that perhaps he hoped “censors wouldn’t bother with [the] subversive themes”. He suggests that in “this one God-awful, terribly made, poor excuse for a picture, Wood is more critical of America’s government (which conceals much from the public) and military strategy (that calls for an arms build-up and further nuclear testing) than any other director of the period dared to be.” That alone, as Peary writes, may be reason enough to relegate “another, less daring film to wear” this film’s dubious “World’s Worst film banner”; he quickly notes, however, that he’s “just kidding”.

P.S. In his review, Peary mentions that “God [only] knows what the first eight ‘Plans’ were” — but if you’d like to hear one band’s take on this hypothetical question, click here.

P.P.S. Since Plan 9 is in the public domain, it’s available for free viewing at http://www.archive.org/.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Laughably bad dialogue: “Future events such as these will affect us in the future.”
  
• Plenty of unintentional “bad movie” laughs throughout
  
• A surprisingly provocative and subversive “message”

Must See?
Of course — as the ultimate “bad movie” experience. Check out the second paragraph of Richard Scheib’s review for an illuminating overview of the various types of “bad” movies out there; he convincingly argues that the term “bad” is far too vague to fit the spectrum of ineptitude present in the world of cinema.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• BadMovies.org Review
• Classic Horror Review
• Moria Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
The young new wife (Vivien Leigh) of a middle-aged widower (Alan Mowbray) falls in love with Lord Nelson (Laurence Olivier), a gallant married officer fighting in the Napoleonic Wars.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Biopics
• Flashback Films
• Historical Dramas
• Infidelity
• Laurence Olivier Films
• Romance
• Royalty and Nobility
• Star-Crossed Lovers
• Vivien Leigh Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Perhaps best known as Winston Churchill’s favorite film (he purportedly saw it over 80 times), That Hamilton Woman is, as Peary notes, a “combination of great romance… and pro-British wartime propaganda”, and arguably “features Vivien Leigh’s finest performance”. He notes that it’s “a tribute to the bravery, intelligence, and resourcefulness of women”, and lauds Leigh’s Lady Hamilton — one of cinema’s “most impressive woman characters” — as “brainy, witty, flirtatious when need be, serious when she wants to be, able to handle any situation or impress any person, beautiful, optimistic, helpful, caring [and] passionate”. He calls the film “lavishly produced, maturely scripted, [and] beautifully acted and directed”, and concludes that Churchill “had good taste”.

While not all critics feel the same way, I am largely in agreement with Peary’s generous assessment here. Alexander Korda’s production is superbly mounted on all counts, from its sumptuous sets and costumes to the finely nuanced performances by all involved. Leigh and Olivier — whose real-life adulterous relationship notoriously mirrored their characters’ on-screen affair — make for an undeniably romantic star-crossed couple, one which “has few equals in romantic annals”, given that Olivier (in superbly done make-up) “is rigid but dashing” while Leigh “is radiant, alive, aware, [and] available”. Meanwhile, Alan Mowbray and Gladys Cooper are surprisingly convincing and sympathetic in what could have been merely thankless roles, playing cuckolded spouses who are helpless in the face of a love which clearly transcends marriage vows.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Vivien Leigh as Lady Hamilton (nominated by Peary as one of the best actresses of the year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• Laurence Olivier as Lord Nelson
  
• Alan Mowbray as Lord Hamilton
  
• Gladys Cooper as Lady Nelson
  
• Rudolph Mate’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, for Leigh’s performance, and as an overall good show.

Categories

• Historically Relevant
• Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• Q Network Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
An embittered veteran (Chuck Norris) returns to Vietnam to rescue missing prisoners of war, enlisting the help of his buddy (M. Emmett Walsh).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Chuck Norris Films
• Prisoners of War
• Revenge
• Veterans
• Vietnam War

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary’s inclusion of this “huge [Chuck Norris] hit” in Guide for the Film Fanatic is suspect at best, given that he labels it “surprisingly passionless and boring”, and laments its “predictable” storyline. He notes that there is “not enough dialogue”, and argues that even for a Norris film, the “action sequences seem familiar”. He further adds that “the lack of regard for human lives is appalling”, that the film is “directed with no feeling for [the] subject”, and that “Norris looks like he needs some Geritol” (ouch).

So why, pray tell, does he deem this piece of cinematic drek must-see? Presumably its box-office status (close to the time of GFTFF‘s publication in 1986) was enough to cause Peary to believe that all film fanatics should at least be familiar with it — but this is certainly no longer the case. In truth, this really is a painfully boring “action” flick, one which (I don’t mind admitting) I watched in fast-forward mode throughout the entire second half, without missing much. (As Peary notes, even the action sequences “take forever to develop”.)

And, since Norris “uses guns more than karate”, there aren’t even many fight sequences to look forward to. By the way, I’m not a total Norris-snob — in fact, I’ve given a must-see “thumbs up” to his next film, Code of Silence (1985), and recommend that you consider this film your required “dose of Norris” (whose iconic status as the ultimate in laconic action heroes has, interestingly, continued to grow exponentially in recent years).

There is some minimally campy humor to be found throughout the film, in terms of how often Norris finds excuses to go bare-chested in front of the camera, for instance, or in his consistently “soulful” gaze as he contemplates what he knows he must go back to Vietnam (the “pearl of the Orient”) to do:

— but there’s not nearly enough of this to make it worth subjecting yourself to the entire film.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Some beautiful on-location scenery (in Thailand)
  

Must See?
No; despite its dubious notoriety, this one definitely can be skipped.

Links:

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

Synopsis:
A police chief (Michael Murphy) investigates a rash of murders which may be linked to mind-control experiments conducted by a local university’s psychology department.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Horror
• Louise Fletcher Films
• Mad Doctors and Scientists
• Michael Murphy Films
• Mind Control and Hypnosis
• Murder Mystery

Response to Peary’s Review:
I am largely in agreement with Peary’s assessment of this “low-budget horror film” that was “photographed in New Zealand but is set in America’s Midwest” — and, as noted by DVD Savant, “has an engaging appearance and an odd tone”. Peary writes that he finds “the script by Bill Condon and Michael Laughlin pretty witty and inventive”, but argues that the “direction by Laughlin is weak”, given that he “has no sense of timing during suspense scenes”. Indeed, the film’s pacing is noticeably off during more than just the suspense scenes: in her review of the film for the New York Times, Janet Maslin notes that Laughlin’s “timing with his actors is often dangerously slow, allowing many more pregnant pauses than his players can comfortably handle”. I disagree with Peary, however, in his assessment that the script is at times “so offbeat that… it becomes confusing”: while there are definitely some narrative inconsistencies, and a number of scenes (particularly the murders) are handled sloppily, the plot is always comprehensible, up until its final revelatory moments.

The performances throughout Strange Behavior are a mixed bag, given the mostly amateur, low-budget cast. Murphy — one of the film’s few “big names” — is solid but not particularly compelling in the lead investigative role; Dan Shor as his teenage son is more intrinsically charismatic, and his character should probably have been given even more screentime. Louise Fletcher provides typically excellent support in a tiny role as Murphy’s long-suffering girlfriend, but she is mostly — as Peary puts it so bluntly — “wasted”. Fiona Lewis gives the most memorable performance: she’s clearly having fun as the film’s unabashed villainness, a woman who takes great delight in puncturing her “subjects” in the eyeball with an enormous syringe. (A bit of trivia: apparently her futuristic hairstyle here influenced the vision for Sean Young’s character in Blade Runner.)

Note: Laughlin and Condon’s follow-up to this film was the alien flick Strange Invaders (1983), also included in Peary’s book.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• A few effectively creepy sequences
  

Must See?
No; despite its erstwhile cult status, this one isn’t must-see.

Links:

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

Synopsis:
When his wife (Nicole Garcia) dies in a car accident, a grieving man (Patrick Dewaere) must deal with his increasingly seductive 14-year-old stepdaughter (Ariel Besse), who professes to be in love with him.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Bertrand Blier Films
• Coming of Age
• French Films
• Incest and Incestuous Undertones
• May-December Romance
• Widows and Widowers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is spot-on in his review of this typically provocative outing by Bertrand Blier, France’s most anarchic portrayer of unconventional romance. He notes that, following the (relatively) mainstream success of Blier’s Oscar-winning romantic comedy Get Out Your Handkerchiefs (1978), Blier “really test[ed] his audience” by turning … Handkerchief‘s tale on its head, portraying an affair between a grown man and a teenage girl rather than a grown woman and a boy — only this time, as Peary points out, “the comedy is not so obvious”. Indeed, I can’t quite bring myself to categorize this as any kind of a comedy, though there are occasional, subtle hints at Blier’s trademark satire — most noticeably during a later scene when Besse’s father (Maurice Ronet) comes to visit his daughter, now in the full throes of a sexual affair with Dewaere.

In his analysis, Peary argues that Beau Pere, while “not exploitative”, is nonetheless “dishonest”, given that “anytime Blier wants Dewaere and Besse to become more deeply involved, he writes words of seduction for Besse — not Dewaere — and has her deliver them in a mature manner, so we always know the affair is her idea”. In addition, Blier makes sure to show us “innocent scenes of Dewaere and Besse together before Besse’s mother was killed and [Besse] quickly evolved from daughter to wife and lover”. Whether one considers this “dishonest” or merely strategic screenwriting, it all leads to palpable sympathy on the part of audience members, who likely will find it difficult to blame Dewaere for eventually giving in to the temptations of his aggressively forthright — but understandably confused — stepdaughter.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• A provocative yet surprisingly tasteful script
  

Must See?
No, though it’s certainly worth seeking out for at least one-time viewing.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Cinematic Threads Capsule Review