FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
Brilliant Dr. Forbin (Eric Braeden) and his team — including colleague Dr. Markham (Susan Clark) and the U.S. President (Gordon Pinsent) — celebrate the launch of a supercomputer known as Colossus, which has been designed as the “perfect defense system”; but within minutes Colossus has discovered the presence of a similar supercomputer in the U.S.S.R. known as Guardian, and the two begin talking with one another. Soon the state of the entire world is in peril as Colossus and Guardian threaten to destroy various cities and people unless their demands are met.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cold War
• Computer-out-of-Control
• Nuclear Threat
• Science Fiction
• Scientists
• Susan Clark Films
• World Domination

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “thought-provoking, exciting science fiction” “expanded on the computer-out-of-control theme of 2001: A Space Odyssey and anticipated the computer-out-of-control theme of WarGames,” showing that putting trust in a “fail-safe” machine “will have catastrophic results.” He notes that the film is “extremely well directed by Joseph Sargent and scripted by James Bridges, who adapted D.F. Jones’s novel Colossus.” Very quickly, “as in 2001, we can see that the computer’s emotionless and arrogant personality is a reflection of the people — specifically Forbin — who made it.”

Indeed, a deeply disturbing element of the smart screenplay is how smug and bemused the humans remain for far too long after it’s clear that their creation has gotten the better of them. They continually — stupidly — assume that by using their own intelligence they can outsmart a computer they’ve designed to be literally impenetrable.

In his review, Peary makes numerous comparisons between this film and 2001, noting that in both stories, “man must regain his human nature before challenging the computer. Whereas Keir Dullea’s 2001 character, Bowman, becomes emotional for the first time, Forbin distinguishes himself from the machine by having regular sex with his female assistant (Susan Clark) in order to pass on ideas about rebellion.”

Peary notes that “as we see, man becomes a human being only when he fights for his survival and the preservation of personal liberties — the freedom to do even the most inconsequential things by choice and by using his own brain and hand,” though as the film cautions, “by then it may be too late.” What I appreciate most about this thriller is how quickly it moves; the only time we have a chance to breathe (appropriately so) is when Dr. Forbin and Dr. Markham have negotiated their private (unmonitored) sex time together. Otherwise, we’re taken along on the relentless ride of two super-smart computers — which, of course, would be even more “intelligent” at this point, decades later — driven purely by their own (uber-rational) logic, thus leading to several shockingly abrupt moments of brutality. Be forewarned that this isn’t a feel-good film by a long stretch, though it remains scarily compelling.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Eric Braeden as Dr. Forbin
  
• Susan Clark as Dr. Markham
  
• Creative cinematography
  
• A truly freaky screenplay
  

Must See?
Yes, as a classic sci-fi thriller.

Categories

• Good Show

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
A sailor on leave (Dennis Hopper) falls in love with a beautiful woman named Mora (Linda Lawson) who works for a carnival barker (Gavin Muir) as a sideshow mermaid attraction. When Johnny (Hopper) learns from a merry-go-round operator (Tom Dillon) and his granddaughter (Luana Anders) that Mora’s last two lovers have mysteriously died, he wonders if his own life may be in danger, and seeks input from a tarot card reader (Marjorie Eaton).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Dennis Hopper Films
• Mermaids
• Obsessive Love
• Sailors
• Star-Crossed Lovers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “peculiar low-budget, low-key horror-fantasy was the first commercial feature of former experimental filmmaker Curtis Harrington,” who later directed the GFTFF-listed titles Planet of Blood / Queen of Blood (1966), What’s the Matter With Helen? (1971), and Who Slew Auntie Roo? (1972). He points out that “the plot owes much inspiration to Val Lewton’s Cat People,” while “stylistically, it is obviously influenced by Cocteau” given that “in approach, the mood piece is a mix of the surreal (perhaps this is Hopper’s dream) and avant-garde.”

He concludes that while the film is “always interesting and the ending is satisfying,” it “could use a few jolts that would at least temporarily turn Hopper’s dream into a nightmare.”

Unfortunately, I disagree with Peary that this film is “always interesting.” While it’s atmospheric and strives hard to be intriguing, the dialogue is dull and it simply plods along. Hopper is presented as a man obsessively (perhaps stupidly) in love with a beautiful cipher:

… while Anders pines away too-obviously for Hopper (back up love interest, anybody?):

… and “Captain Murdock” (Muir) is simply creepy (wait until you hear the bizarre exchange he has with a cigar-chomping, bare-chested masseuse).

Writer/director Harrington had amazing access to prime location shooting spots (I felt a ton of nostalgia for my home town of Santa Monica), but the storyline doesn’t do them justice.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine location shooting in Santa Monica and Venice
  
  
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  
  

Must See?
No; you can skip this one.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Spinning Image Review
• DVD Talk Review

Synopsis:
A peasant (Semyon Svashenko) whose father (Stepan Shkurat) prefers old-fashioned means of farming arrives in his Ukrainian town with a tractor purchased to help them collectivize — but a land-owning “kulak” (Ivan Franko) and his son (Pyotr Masokha) resist the transition, with lethal results.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Farmers
• Russian Films
• Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “simply filmed, lyrical” film by Alexander Dovzhenko, “about the formation of a collective in a Ukrainian village” whose celebration of a tractor purchase is cut tragically short when a murder takes place, is a movie which “celebrates life”: while it “expresses grief for the recent dead, it is more concerned with rebirth than with the inevitable death.” Peary points out that Dovzhenko links “people to the soil…, the crops (there is dignity in work), [and] the farm animals.”

While “several scenes were [originally] deleted for foreign distribution” — including “the peasants cooling down the tractor with their urine (we see connection between man and machine)”:

… “Semyon’s grieving fiancee (Yelina Maximova) tearing off her clothes”:

… and “a woman giving birth at Semyon’s funeral”:

… these have now all been restored to the modern-day version one can easily find online. Peary concludes his review by noting this is “an optimistic film about people who refuse to be defeated by what might appear to be major setbacks.”

Peary’s review is all accurate, but viewers should be forewarned that this “landmark” film — like Dovzhenko’s Arsenal (1928) — is heavy on symbolic imagery, and short on narrative depth. We are vaguely introduced to characters who — appropriate for a collectivist society — represent an entire class of people rather than nuanced protagonists; what’s important here is the class struggle, not these individuals. With that caveat in mind, film fanatics will likely appreciate seeing the visual creativity on display, including ample use of montage and “painterly” close-ups.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Memorable imagery
  
  
  
• Daniil Demutsky’s cinematography
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, simply for its historical significance in world cinema.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Senses of Cinema Review

Synopsis:
A Ukranian soldier (Semyon Svashenko) returns home from World War I to participate in the Kiev Arsenal January Uprising.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Revolutionaries
• Russian Films
• Silent Films
• World War I

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary asserts that this “beautifully photographed, poetic silent film by Alexander Dovzhenko” exalts “the revolutionary spirit of Russia’s farmers, workers, and soldiers.” He notes that it takes place near the end of World War I, which “is causing misery throughout Russia,” with “poverty and hunger… widespread and women mourn[ing] the fathers and sons being killed in combat” — a time when “the seeds for armed insurrection against the Czar have been planted, but for now the bourgeois Social Democrats, the White Russians who would eventually support Kerensky’s provisional government, try to crush the Bolsheviks.” Meanwhile, “we stand firmly behind the arsenal workers in Kiev who go on strike and the common men of Ukrainia who bravely stand up to the guns of the counterrevolutionaries.”

One should be forgiven for not immediately understanding the nuances of this very-specific slice of time, which is likely not well known to anyone other than Russian history buffs — but suffice it to say that this second of three films in Dovzhenko’s “Ukraine Trilogy” does indeed have a “story [that] is hard to follow at times” (most of the time!) while also containing “a succession of images (many used symbolically) [which] have amazing force.” Peary calls out a number of especially memorable scenes, including “a one-armed farmer standing in the field with his skinny horse”:

… “a funeral procession in the snow”:

… “the bourgeois reacting with fear when the motors of the arsenal come to a halt”:

… “the portrait of a revolutionary leader, Shevtshenko, coming to life”:

… “and, in an uplifting final shot, our own hero… standing firm”:

… though Peary surprisingly leaves out an impactful early sequence in which a bald, bespectacled German soldier becomes insane from laughing gas:

Unfortunately, the film’s lack of narrative clarity — coupled with our overall ignorance of the specifics of what’s going on — make for a frustrating viewing experience; this one isn’t must-see other than for fans of early Soviet cinema.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Many powerful, disturbing images
  
  
  
• Danyl Demutskyi’s cinematography
  
  

Must See?
No, unless you’re particularly interested in early Soviet cinema.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Cinematic Threads Review
• NY Times Original Review (scroll down)

Synopsis:
When three cowboys (Jack Nicholson, Cameron Mitchell, and Tom Filer) accidentally spend the night with a group of outlaws headed by one-eyed Blind Dick (Harry Dean Stanton), they become wanted by vigilantes, and after Otis (Filer) is killed, Vern (Michell) and Wes (Nicholson) set out as fugitives across the harsh landscape. Eventually they come upon a homestead run by a patriarch (George Mitchell) whose wife (Katherine Squire) and daughter (Millie Perkins) live a hard-scrabble existence; will Vern and Wes be able to stay safe in their home until the vigilantes have passed?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cameron Mitchell Films
• Falsely Accused
• Fugitives
• Harry Dean Stanton Films
• Jack Nicholson Films
• Millie Perkins Films
• Monte Hellman Films
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of this “existential western” by noting it was “written by its co-star, Jack Nicholson, and directed in Utah in 1965 by Monte Hellman, back to back with The Shooting.” He points out that “just as in other Hellman films, our heroes make a long journey that seems to go nowhere,” and he describes the movie as a “gritty, fascinating western with solid acting, offbeat characters, [an] intriguing setting, and odd bits of dialogue” (as during Nicholson and Mitchell’s checkers game):

He further notes that at the time of GFTFF’s publication in 1986, it remained an “unpredictable cult movie” with a “strong reputation in Europe.” Peary analyzes the film in greater detail in his first Cult Movies book, where he formally lists The Shooting but discusses it hand-in-hand with this (slightly) earlier film. Indeed, many reviews seem to take the two movies as an automatic double-billing, given their coupled production history and many similarities, with Peary even asserting that “they seem to have been written by the same person.”

In his (dual) review, DVD Savant further describes what makes Ride in the Whirlwind so unique, noting that its “finer qualities begin with Monte Hellman’s refusal to go for big dramatic effects and climaxes. We’re given no standard cues for ‘genre outcomes’ — nobody is an obvious hero, characters don’t live and die based on their billing in the credits… The crooks aren’t particularly vicious:

… the posse is honest in their duty:

… and everybody knows the score.”

Indeed, while Hellman’s two westerns have been described as the first “acid westerns” — a term coined by Pauline Kael to denote westerns that subvert earlier conventions of the genre in favor of more openly acknowledging that some western journeys are towards death rather than liberation — it’s also easy to see them as simply a more depressingly realistic look at the harshness of survival in Western times. While we watch in fascination to see how the unusual storyline will unfold, we hold out no hope that anything resembling a happy ending is in sight — and as Peary writes, the “life endured by Perkins and her mother sticks [particularly] in the mind.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Jack Nicholson and Cameron Mitchell as the lead protagonists
  
• Natural and convincing supporting performances
  
• A powerful depiction of vigilante justice and harsh survival in the West
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a unique western with a cult following.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Good Show

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• Q Network Review

Synopsis:
When a British couple (Edward Underdown and Jennifer Jones) in an Italian port town meet up with a group of men (Humphrey Bogart, Robert Morley, Peter Lorre, Ivor Barbard, and Marco Tulli) hoping to claim uranium-rich land in Kenya, various adventures quickly ensue — including Gwendolyn (Jones) falling for Billy (Bogart), and Billy’s wife Maria (Gina Lollobrigida) falling for Harry (Underdown).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• At Sea
• Black Comedy
• Con-Artists
• Get Rich Quick
• Humphrey Bogart Films
• Infidelity
• Jennifer Jones Films
• John Huston Films
• Peter Lorre Films
• Robert Morley Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary describes this “legendary lark” — “directed by John Huston, scripted by Huston and young writer Truman Capote, and starring Humphrey Bogart, Jennifer Jones, Gina Lollobrigida, Robert Morley, and Peter Lorre” — as “the fifties’ most peculiar A-budget film.” While it was “a flop at the box office, it immediately became known as a ‘cult film’ and has remained a favorite of movie connoisseurs ever since.” Peary points out parallels between this and “the Huston-directed The Maltese Falcon,” in which Bogart plays “a tough, morally ambiguous hero who sidesteps his way through a corrupt world of greedy, double-dealing savages, outrageous flirts, and pathological liars” — however, in the case of Beat the Devil, Capote ultimately devised “a sly, one-of-a-kind spoof of all international-intrigue pictures and populate[d] it with a cockeyed, disparate group of people,” some of whom play “the film for comedy” while others continue to play it straight.

Peary writes that in this film about a “boat trip from Italy to Africa,” “no one is happy with their station in life. Each wants what the other has” — and while “all hope the journey will result in personal happiness,” “as in most Huston films, characters fail at [their] missions” (though a few “reach some sort of fulfillment”).

Peary goes on to write that this “film has [a] unique Continental flavor (it was filmed in Ravello, a small coast town in Italy), hilarious, delectable moments, and wonderfully attitudinizing characters.” While he wishes “it had more coherence… and a couple of more serious, creepy scenes like the bit with the player piano”:

… he concedes that the film is “so disarming and so lionized by intelligent film fans that [he worries] it may be better than [he thinks].”

In his Cult Movies 2 book, Peary analyzes the film in greater depth, pointing out that the film’s “remarkable fascination” has “as much to do with its background” (including, crucially, hiring Capote to work on the script) “as with its zany characters, performances, and tone.” While it wasn’t well-received upon release, Peary argues that it has a sort of timeless, international quality, given that “the emotional, involved, chatty people in this film could mingle easily with those in a Jean Renoir film, particularly Rules of the Game (1939).”

He adds that “whatever their failings and degrees of pomposity, they believe in living life to its fullest” — yet they “have conflicting personalities” that make them a decidedly “disparate group,” with “even the married couples [not seeming] to belong together.”

The best performance of all is given by “Jones, once the sainted Bernadette but now a compulsive liar… Wearing a blond wig (!), gabbing nonstop, flirting with Billy, knitting, exercising (while Maria paints), Jones turns in a bravura performance that equals her only other comic role of note in Ernst Lubitsch’s Cluny Brown (1946).”

All the supporting players are game as well, making this a unique trip worth taking at least once.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Jennifer Jones as Gwendolyn Chelm
  
• Truman Capote’s wildly unique screenplay:
  

  “Time. Time. What is time? Swiss manufacture it. French hoard it. Italians squander it. Americans say it is money. Hindus say it does not exist. Do you know what I say? I say time is a crook.”

Must See?
Yes, as a quirky cult favorite by a master director.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review
• TCM Article