FilmFanatic.org - Movie discussions for the true film fanatic

Touch of Evil (1958)

April 18, 2021 admin Comments 2 comments

“All border towns bring out the worst in a country.”

Synopsis:
A Mexican detective (Charlton Heston) travelling across the border with his new American wife (Janet Leigh) investigates a death-by-bombing which seems to involve the head (Akim Tamaroff) of the local crime family. Meanwhile, American detective Hank Quinlan (Orson Welles) and his loyal assistant (Joseph Calleia) attempt to implicate the Mexican husband (Victor Millan) of the victim’s daughter (Joanna Moore) in the bombing crime by planting evidence, and Tamiroff tries to incriminate Leigh and Heston as drug users.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

Akim Tamiroff Films
Charlton Heston Films
Corruption
Detectives and Private Eyes
Falsely Accused
Framed
Janet Leigh Films
Joseph Cotten Films
Marlene Dietrich Films
Mercedes McCambridge Films
Mexico
Newlyweds
Orson Welles Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “producer Albert Zugsmith gave Orson Welles his long-awaited chance to again direct a Hollywood film” in this very loose adaptation (by Welles) of “Whit Masterson’s novel Badge of Evil.” He notes that “Welles the writer turned out the sleaziest story imaginable — with seedy characters and locations, drugs, sex, corruption, murder, racism, etc.” while “Welles the director shot it like an artist, employing some of the most audacious visual strokes of his career” — resulting in “a masterpiece.” He points out that “Welles’s Detective Hank Quinlan is one of his most interesting, complex characters”: a “great detective but he thinks himself above the law,” and while he’s “always correct when he accuses someone of a crime,” he nonetheless “always plants incriminating evidence” to “assure convictions.”

Peary writes that “Welles’s characters are potentially great men but none of them act nobly on their way to the thrones of their particular worlds” — which is why “Calleia, who loves Welles’s Quinlan, is so disappointed: real heroes must have pure pasts.”

Peary notes that “Leigh was never sexier — Welles was the rare director to emphasize her large chest”:

… and “Dietrich (as the only person who understands Welles) has a memorable cameo.”

In the years since Peary’s GFTFF was published, this classic has undergone an infamous revision based on Welles’s 58-page memo written to the studio, which (typical for Welles) messed substantially with his original vision. The “1998 version” is the one I watched for this review (and saw in theaters back in ’98), but the DVD provides ample evidence and discussion of the differences, for those who are interested. Regardless of which version you see, it remains powerful and provocative viewing, clearly demonstrating Welles’ cinematic gifts. With that said, I do have a few quibbles: I’m not a fan of Tamiroff’s intermittently comedic characterization as “Uncle” Joe Grandi:

… or Dennis Weaver’s performance as a loony motel manager:

… and I find it hard to believe that Leigh’s character would go off with a stranger in a border town at night, then get pissy when confronted by the head of a notorious criminal family.

(I know she’s meant to be a “tough cookie” but she simply comes across like a foolhardy rube.) However, Heston acquits himself nicely (despite not attempting a Spanish accent):

… and Welles and Calleia have authentic chemistry together. Watch for tiny cameos by Big Names, including not just Dietrich but Joseph Cotten, Zsa Zsa Gabor, and Mercedes McCambridge (!).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

Orson Welles as Harry Quinlan
Joseph Calleia as Sergeant Menzies
Fun cameos in the supporting cast
The still-impressive 3 1/2 minute opening tracking shot
Russell Metty’s cinematography
The excitingly shot finale sequence

Must See?
Yes, as a still-powerful classic by a master director.

Categories

Genuine Classic
Important Director

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

Links:

Belle de Jour (1967)

April 17, 2021 admin Comments 3 comments

“You like being humiliated.”

Synopsis:
A frigid housewife (Catherine Deneuve) unable to make love with her caring husband (Jean Sorel) is intrigued to hear from an acquaintance (Michel Piccoli) that houses of prostitution still exist in Paris, and she secretly begins working for a madam (Genevieve Page) in the afternoons, participating in numerous odd fantasies — but when an edgy client (Pierre Clementi) falls for Deneuve and she’s equally attracted to him, she puts her private existence in danger.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

Catherine Deneuve Films
French Films
Housewives
Infidelity
Luis Bunuel Films
Marital Problems
Mistaken or Hidden Identities
Newlyweds
Prostitutes and Gigolos
S&M
Sexual Repression
Surrealism

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “popular, controversial” film by Luis Bunuel is either — “depending on your viewpoint” — an “erotic or sexually reprehensible film.” He describes Deneuve’s character as feeling “no guilt for participating in sex” when she’s “at the brothel each afternoon”, becoming “part of the male clients’ weird fantasies” — and “it’s interesting that as she becomes more liberated through sex (breaking free of bourgeois shackles), she begins to reject the depraved, masochistic sex that characterized her early desires”, which is “a form of self-hatred” reflecting “her shame at having been molested as a child.” He continues his analysis by noting that “as her fantasies become more normal, at least as far as her role in them is concerned, [Deneuve] becomes ready to enter a normal sexual relationship with her husband” — but “he must be liberated as well, because guilt over his repressed sexual desires toward Deneuve cripple him, figuratively — and literally — speaking.”

Given that “in time we can’t distinguish between fantasy and reality,” Peary notes it’s possible that “the entire film, excluding the opening carriage ride and the final moment, might even be imagined by Deneuve,” which makes sense (though I’m not sure why he would exclude the “opening carriage ride” given its distressingly surreal outcome). Peary’s take on this enigmatic story — based on a 1928 novel by Joseph Kessel — makes just as much as sense as others that have been floated; Bunuel himself stated, “I myself cannot tell you what is real and what’s imaginary in the film. For me they form the same thing.” While it’s not a personal favorite, I admire the narrative risks taken, and believe all film fanatics should view this film at least once.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

Catherine Deneuve as Severine
Sacha Vierny’s fine cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as an enigmatic classic by a master director.

Categories

Genuine Classic
Important Director

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

Links:

Old Ironsides (1926)

April 16, 2021 admin Comments 1 comment

“For three hundred years, these pirates have gone unchecked. This is their last day — or ours.”

Synopsis:
While sailing on a merchant ship in the early 19th century, a bos’n (Wallace Beery), gunner (George Bancroft), cook (George Godfrey), and young shipman (Charles Farrell) in love with the captain’s daughter (Esther Ralston) find themselves involved with the USS Constitution in a lethal fight against Mediterranean pirates.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

At Sea
George Bancroft Films
Historical Drama
Pirates
Silent Films
Wallace Beery Films

Review:
Three years after helming The Covered Wagon (1923), director James Cruze turned to the high seas for this rousing recreation of early American efforts against piracy. The storyline is pure hokum, centering entirely on: 1) jovial rivalry between Beery and Bancroft:

… and 2) the inevitable romance that blossoms between the film’s two gorgeous young leads (including an impossibly impeccable Ralston making moon eyes at Farrell during the most inopportune times).

Naturally, what one watches for are the impressive shots of sailing ships at sea (filmed off of Catalina Island). This film is also notable for use of a process known as Magnascope, in which certain sections of the movie were magnified for dramatic effect. While Old Ironsides isn’t must-see for all film fanatics, it will likely be of interest to silent film aficionados.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

The exciting culminating battle
Refreshing inclusion of a Black actor (George Godfrey) as part of the primary cast

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look if you’re curious. Listed as a film with Historical Importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Testament of Dr. Mabuse, The/Crimes of Dr. Mabuse, The/Last Will of Dr. Mabuse, The (1933)

April 15, 2021 admin Comments 2 comments

“The ultimate purpose of crime is to establish the endless empire of crime.”

Synopsis:
A disgraced cop (Karl Meixner) is driven insane before he’s able to tell his boss (Otto Wernicke) who the mastermind is behind mysterious plans to establish an “empire of crime”. During his investigation, Wernicke visits an asylum where Dr. Mabuse (Rudolf Klein-Rogge) is housed, not realizing that Mabuse has manipulated the asylum’s director (Oscar Beregi) into doing his will. Meanwhile, when one of Mabuse’s hapless minions (Gustav Diessl) decides to tell his girlfriend (Monique Rolland) about his work as a counterfeiter, she supports him in breaking free from Mabuse’s clutches.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

Detectives and Private Eyes
Fritz Lang Films
Gangsters
German Films
Mad Doctors and Scientists
Mind Control and Hypnosis

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “for his second sound film Fritz Lang decided to bring back Dr. Mabuse (Rudolf Klein-Rogge), the heinous genius criminal of his 1922 silent classic Dr. Mabuse the Gambler” — who, despite being unable to speak and living in an insane asylum, “has regained his desire to mastermind great crimes, commit terrorist acts, dominate people’s wills through mind control, [and] rule the world.” The bulk of Peary’s review is taken up with discussion of the film’s logistics — i.e., the fact that it was filmed in both French and German, that Joseph “Goebbels seized the German version because the script (although written by Lang’s Nazi wife, Thea von Harbou) drew parallels between madman Mabuse and Hitler,” and that (at the time GFTFF was published), one was only likely to see poorly dubbed versions in circulation (a situation since rectified). Peary does note that “you’ll still enjoy several sequences that have impressive visual elements,” including “a high speed car chase on a country road at night:

… a murder at a stoplight:

… Baum [Beregi] visualizing ghostly presences:

… and an underwater explosion.”

However, this sequel can’t quite live up to the atmospheric dread generated by its predecessor, and is only must-see for fans of Lang’s evolving oeuvre.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

Fritz Arno Wagner’s cinematography
Fine special effects and sound effects

Must See?
No, unless you’re a Lang fan.

Links:

Dr. Mabuse, The Gambler / Dr. Mabuse, Der Spieler (1922)

April 15, 2021 admin Comments 1 comment

“There’s no love; there’s only desire. There’s no luck — there’s only the will to power!”

Synopsis:
A diabolical hypnotist-criminal named Dr. Mabuse (Rudolf Klein-Rogge) — who relies on assistance from his cocaine-addicted personal servant (Robert Forster-Larrinaga) and various other goons, as well as dance hall girl “Cara Carozza” (Aud Egede-Nissen) to carry out his gambling cons — sets his sights on the son (Paul Richter) of a millionaire industrialist, not realizing Carozza will fall for Richter. Meanwhile state prosecutor Norbert von Wenk (Bernhard Goetzke) goes undercover to try to identify the mysterious criminal wreaking so much havoc, enlisting help from a bored countess (Gertrude Welcker) whose husband (Alfred Abel) is one of Dr. Mabuse’s most recent victims.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

Cat-and-Mouse
Con-Artists
Detectives and Private Eyes
Fritz Lang Films
German Films
Mind Control and Hypnosis
Mistaken or Hidden Identities
Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary opens his review of this two-part epic silent film by Fritz Lang by noting the high variability of its length in various iterations; thankfully, recent technology and restoration efforts allow modern film fanatics to view it in its full length of 229 minutes, with DVD commentary on (if desired) to clarify its historical positioning. Peary writes that the film was “certainly influenced by Caligari, and probably Nosferatu as well,” with “Fritz Lang’s diabolical villain” relying “on mind control to destroy people.” Dr. Mabuse is a true forerunner of the cinematic supervillain — someone who “doesn’t care about making money, although his criminal activities make him and his gang rich, but gets his pleasure from wielding power and, as he says, interfering in people’s lives and determining their fates.” Peary argues that “critics have rightly criticized the decision to have Mabuse fall in love” (with Welcker) “because it diminishes him from being a supervillain to being just a villainous human,” but I disagree; there’s no evidence that Mabuse’s kidnapping of Welcker is anything other than part of his grand scheme for ultimate control.

Peary notes that the “film’s visuals aren’t as impressive as those in other Lang silents, and the melodrama is not as exciting as one would hope — due in part to Goetzke being a dull hero — but Mabuse is a classic character who would become the model for future screen villains: he is proof that there is little distinction between genius and madness, that the criminal mind works in the same way as the minds of the men (like Goetzke) who work to prevent crime (Lang often makes the link between the criminal and the policeman).” Other reviewers have similarly supplemented our understanding of Mabuse’s symbolic resonance, with DVD Savant writing that he “felt he’d been hit by one of Colonel Kurtz’ diamond bullets of enlightenment when he saw Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler in 1980,” given that “it seemed like the missing link of pulp fantasy for the twentieth century, the story that connected Batman to James Bond to Cody Jarrott to Judex to Sherlock Holmes to Darth Vader.”

DVD Savant further adds that:

… author Norbert Jacques’ idea of taking all the ills of his dysfunctional society, and representing them with one monstrous villain with supernormal powers, has been an unstoppable formula throughout the last century, so popular and penetrative that most of the world today seems to think that the problems and conflicts of our modern world are ’caused’ by villainous individuals, instead of being the result of conflicting ideologies and power-based inequities.

While it’s overlong, slow, and creaky at times, I believe film fanatics will be curious to check out Dr. Mabuse once — particularly given Klein-Rogge’s surprisingly powerful performance in the title role; the look of pure malice in his eyes is enough to convince you that evil personified does exist in the world.

Favorite throw-away line: “Cocaine or cards?”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

Rudolf Klein-Rogge as Dr. Mabuse
Impressive make-up and disguises for Mabuse
Memorable supporting characters
Fine special effects
Atmospheric cinematography and sets

Must See?
Yes, once, for its historical importance and as early evidence of Lang’s brilliance.

Categories

Historically Relevant
Important Director

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

Links:

Metropolis (1927)

April 14, 2021 admin Comments 2 comments

“Maria speaks of peace — not killing. This is not Maria!”

Synopsis:
In a future dystopia, the wealthy son (Gustav Frohlich) of a city leader (Alfred Abel) is inspired by a righteous messenger (Brigitte Helm) to descend into the bowels of the workers’ realm and get to know his “brothers”. Meanwhile, a mad scientist (Rudolf Klein-Rogge) previously in love with Abel’s now-dead wife creates a robot which he eventually infuses with the life of Helm in order to confuse her followers.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

Dystopia
Fritz Lang Films
German Films
Mad Doctors and Scientists
Robots
Science Fiction
Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Fritz Lang’s colossal silent [science] fiction classic” — “set 100 years in the future” — “was visually inspired by New York’s skyline, which Lang had recently seen, and thematically inspired (in part) by the increasingly dehumanizing industrialization within Germany.” He notes that this “epic was originally almost 200 minutes long” — and given that GFTFF was published in 1987, he couldn’t have known that years later, an original version would be found and painstakingly restored. With that said, Peary’s frustration with the “drastically shortened prints” — that “there’s no way to figure out why Maria tells the workers not to revolt and to wait for a ‘mediator’, when revolution is definitely their only hope”, or to know why “Frederson [Abel] would want to destroy all the machinery below, since the robot workforce would have to use it anyway” — remain salient concerns even in the reconstructed version. As DVD Savant notes:

“This reviewer was hoping that the nearly complete 2010 restoration would plug a frustrating plot hole in Metropolis, a lack of logic around the actions of the mastermind Joh Fredersen… When the power goes out, Joh is not upset, merely interested in seeing the city lights dimmed for the first time… Why? The answer is still not certain. Fritz Lang may have left a hole in the story, or the German restorers may have neglected to tell us everything that happens in the still-missing fight scene between Joh [Abel] and Rotwang [Klein-Rogge].”

Regardless, “the film is a visual tour-de-force” and “much is stunning,” including “the march of the workers:

… the fabulous robot-transformation sequence (which would be copied many times):

… Helm’s erotic, bare-chested dance:

… [and] the great flood.”:

Peary notes that “of course the look of the future it presents would serve as the model for almost all futuristic cities in film and conceptual art until Blade Runner.” Indeed, Metropolis remains must-see viewing for its iconic relevance, not its less-than-satisfying storyline.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

Brigitte Helm as Maria
Karl Freund’s cinematography
Edgar Ulmer’s set designs
The truly surreal dream sequence

Must See?
Yes, for its historical status as a classic of sci-fi cinema by a master director.

Categories

Genuine Classic
Historically Relevant
Important Director

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

Links:

Umbrellas of Cherbourg, The (1964)

April 13, 2021 admin Comments 3 comments

“He’ll be away for two years. I can’t live without him — I’ll die.”

Synopsis:
When her lover (Nino Castelnuovo) is sent to fight in Algeria, a young woman (Catherine Deneuve) working with her mother (Anne Vernon) in an umbrella shop faces the challenging decision of how to manage a wealthy would-be suitor (Marc Michel).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

Catherine Deneuve Films
French Films
Love Triangle
Jacques Demy Films
Musicals
Romance
Star-Crossed Lovers
Veterans

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “experimental work by Jacques Demy” — “for all of us who occasionally burst into song at the dinner table, with a melodic ‘Will youuuu pass theeee bread, pleeeease???'” — is “a throwback to the all-singing Hollywood musicals of the late twenties,” given that “all the dialogue — including mundane lines — is sung.” He asserts that “everything is so pretty — the enchantingly colored pink-and-red-dominated sets:

… the music by Michel Legrand, the dubbed voices, and the young faces:

— that you’d expect to be sickened by the whole thing,” but it “is, surprisingly, quite pleasant to sit through.” He notes that the “picture was extremely popular because it manages to be cheerful due to its colorful look and music, yet cynical due to the sad events that occur and Demy’s lyrics” — and he adds that “young people in the sixties liked it because, despite its fairytale appearance, it dealt with what was important to them: premarital sex, love, pregnancy, dealing with parental figures, and war.”

While I appreciate everything about this film that makes it a distinctive and masterfully directed entry in mid-century French cinema, I’ll admit to not being a personal fan. It’s certainly beautiful, well-acted by young Deneuve, and charmingly scored — yet the far-too-bleak storyline makes it ultimately unpleasant “to sit through”. The realism of its narrative — including its heart-wrenching final scene — is what many seem to appreciate about it, but not me; and I ultimately find the incessantly sung dialogue to be tiresome and over-the-top. However, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg is unique and visually distinctive enough to merit a one-time viewing by all film fanatics.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

Catherine Deneuve as Genevieve
Vibrant cinematography and sets
Fine use of location shooting
Michel Legrand’s incomparable score

Must See?
Yes, as a cinematic classic — though you may or may not want a repeat visit.

Categories

Foreign Gem
Genuine Classic

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

Links:

This Is Spinal Tap (1984)

April 11, 2021 admin Comments 1 comment

“What day did God create Spinal Tap — and couldn’t he have rested on that day, too?”

Synopsis:
A documentarian (Rob Reiner) follows the British band Spinal Tap — consisting of childhood friends David St. Hubbins (Michael McKean) and Nigel Tufnel (Christopher Guest), bassist Derek Smalls (Harry Shearer), keyboardist Viv Savage (David Kaff), and drummer Mick Shrimpton (R.J. Parnell) — as they tour America with their manager Ian (Tony Hendra) and eventually with David’s astrology-following girlfriend Jeanine (June Chadwick).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

Ed Begley, Jr. Films
Has-Beens
Mockumentaries
Rock ‘n Roll

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “riotous ‘rockumentary’ about a fictional British heavy-metal band” whose “tour becomes a disaster” features Rob Reiner playing filmmaker Marty DiBergi, who accompanies the group into humiliation, and, spoofing Martin Scorsese in The Last Waltz, asks his idols questions and nods throughout their absurd answers (which were brilliantly improvised by the actors).” Peary points out that “Reiner’s parody is not just a question-and-answer session interspersed with performance clips and interviews” but rather “has a story format that allows the actors to develop distinct personalities,” with “the emphasis… placed on the shredding relationship of” McKean and Guest, who, surprisingly, you “really gain affection for.” While “this is a ridiculous film on many levels”, it’s nonetheless “so convincing” that “some not too swift people in preview audiences wondered why Reiner had chosen to make a documentary on such a mediocre, unknown band.”

Humorous scenes abound, ranging from Nigel explaining why his amp goes all the way up to 11:

… to the group performing “Stonehenge” with an 18-inch replica and two dancing dwarfs:

As the first of several hilarious mockumentaries co-written by Guest — including Waiting for Guffman (1996), Best in Show (2000), and A Mighty Wind (2003) — this original outing remains well worth a look by all film fanatics.

Note: This Is Spinal Tap is notable for the being the only movie rated out of a total of 11 stars on IMDb (rather than 10).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

Many inspired moments, songs, and lines of dialogue

Must See?
Yes, as a cult comedy classic. Nominated as one of the Best Movies of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars.

Categories

Cult Movie

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

Links:

Jesus Christ Superstar (1973)

April 10, 2021 admin Comments 2 comments

“Why should I die — oh, why should I die?”

Synopsis:
In the week leading up to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ (Ted Neeley), Jesus’s disciple Judas Iscariot (Carl Anderson) — worried that Jesus is becoming too popular and spending too much time with the prostitute Mary Magdalene (Yvonne Elliman) — remains deeply conflicted about betraying his whereabouts to the Romans.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

Betrayal
Biblical Stories
Musicals
Norman Jewison Films
Play Adaptations

Review:
Norman Jewison directed this adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice’s rock opera, filming on location in the Middle East and opening with a bus full of modern-day actors emerging and preparing to put on the show. Thankfully, this hybrid conceit works remarkably well, showcasing the enduring legacy of Christianity across the millennia while tapping into the then-current cultures of hippies and so-called “Jesus Freaks”. The storyline offers a fascinating psychological glimpse into the tortured decision by Judas (powerfully played by Anderson) to betray Jesus; Jesus’s acceptance of his fate while also railing against God for putting him in such a position; the reluctance of Pontius Pilate (Barry Dennen) to execute a man guilty of no crime; and Mary Magdalene’s abiding love for Jesus. The soundtrack by Webber and Rice is dynamic and catchy, nicely suiting the dramatic tensions inherent in Jesus’s final week of life. While it’s not must-see viewing for all film fanatics, I recommend this flick as an enjoyable, colorfully mounted musical.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

Fine performances by the three leads (Ted Neeley as Christ, Carl Anderson as Judas, and Yvonne Elliman as Mary Magdalene)
Lovely cinematography by Douglas Slocombe
Good use of authentic locale shooting
A creative reimagining of the final days of Jesus Christ
A rousing soundtrack

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended.

Links:

Eraserhead (1977)

April 10, 2021 admin Comments 2 comments

“Mary tells me you’re a very nice fellow.”

Synopsis:
A man (Jack Nance) raising a mutant infant with his girlfriend (Charlotte Stewart) imagines that a squirrel-cheeked girl (Laurel Near) in his radiator is dancing and singing about heaven.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

David Lynch Films
Father and Child
Living Nightmare
Mutant Monsters
Science Fiction
Surrealism

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary describes “David Lynch’s fascinating independently made debut film” as “at once repellent and hypnotic, ugly and beautiful, heartbreaking and hilarious, cruel and tender.” He notes that it’s not only “one of the most popular midnight movies” but “could be the strangest picture ever made,” given it’s “an intense mood piece; an absurdist’s vision of the future; a mix of abstract art, surrealistic painting, and minimalist cinema” — not to mention “the ultimate student film,” “the ultimate experimental film, [and] the last word in personal filmmaking.” He writes that Eraserhead is “the visualization of your worst nightmare, or, more accurately, that of the most paranoid manic-depressive on the eve of committing suicide or donning a Doomsday placard.” Peary notes that our ‘hero’, Henry — “a depressed, pudgy guy” with “mismatched clothes” and “electrified hair that stands straight up” — “lives in a noisy… post-apocalyptic age, in a spooky industrial town (perhaps in Pennsylvania, perhaps in Poland)” and is “forced to marry his pregnant girlfriend” who gives birth to a “hideous-looking” mutant baby that simply “lies in the dark and wails.” Peary adds that “this unique film has marvelous special effects, frame-by-frame animation, black-and-white photography, and scenic design,” as well as “startling moments of horror, sex, and brilliant black comedy.” While “it may adversely affect the squeamish and will undoubtedly confuse everyone a bit (Lynch intentionally left questions unanswered),” it’s “worth a gamble.”

Peary discusses this iconic film at greater length in his first Cult Movies book, where he notes that it’s “unpleasant and often repellent, but all the while it is riveting and fascinating, not unlike sideshow acts at the carnival. It is cruel and sadistic, but has moments of compassion and humor; is about all things alien, but about things that ring a responsive chord; is full of images that are in themselves ugly or bland, yet… everything is touched with beauty.” He describes Henry’s apartment building as “the type… one fears ending up in when stranded in a strange town after all the decent hotels have closed down,” and points out that “Henry’s room is worse than depressing” given that “his one window faces a brick wall.” When Henry “visits his plain-looking, shabbily dressed girlfriend, Mary X, in a scene that outdoes every awful boyfriend-meets-girlfriend’s family sequence you’ve seen (or experienced),” we undergo a “painful excursion into black comedy” which includes a “man-made chicken which spurts awful slime and moves by itself” for dinner. Suffice it to say that every element of Lynch’s vision defies easy explanation and leaves us “never (mentally) finished ‘working out’ [the] film, never through thinking about it.”

Note: Citing a critic from The Village Voice, Peary describes Henry and Mary’s mutant baby as “a mewling, eye-rolling first cousin to the skinned rabbit from Repulsion (1965)” — which is absolutely, freakily accurate.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments: