FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
When three go-go dancers — Varla (Tura Satana), Rosie (Haji), and Billie (Lori Williams) — go drag racing in the desert, Varla ends up killing the boyfriend (Ray Barlow) of a bikini-clad girl (Susan Bernard) who the group then kidnaps. They end up at the home of a reclusive, secretly wealthy sociopath in a wheelchair (Stuart Lancaster) who is cared for by his two sons: a mentally slow hunk nicknamed “The Vegetable” (Dennis Busch) and his brainier brother (Paul Trinka). Sex-obsessed Billie pursues Busch, while Varla attempts to bed Trinka in order to learn where Lancaster’s money is hidden, and Bernard tries to escape.

Genres:

• Kidnapping
• Millionaires
• Revenge
• Russ Meyer Films
• Strong Females

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this “impressive early Russ Meyer film” — notable as “John Waters’ favorite film” — features “three independent, aggressive, voluptuous females who do as they please”, though “as role models for recently ‘liberated’ women, they are the pits.” In his synopsis, he writes that “Tura Satana is an eye-poppingly beautiful, large-chested karate expert who bosses around her two companions, sex-crazed, blonde Lori Williams and Italian Haji, who is amenable to following orders because she has strong feelings toward Santana”. He points out that the “well-made picture [is] shot almost exclusively outdoors”, that the “action scenes have zip”, and that “it’s noteworthy that women are actively involved in them” — especially given the presence of “hand-to-hand combat with men”. Peary is more critical of the film in Cult Movies 3 (1988), where he attributes Meyer’s success as a director to his honest admission “that he’s a male chauvinist who’s turned on by big-breasted women and makes exploitation films because he wants to make a lot of money”. Peary asserts that he doesn’t “think Meyer’s films are important enough to get really angry about”, but he finds it annoying that Meyer “dupes” college-aged fans (as he himself once was) into thinking he’s a “maverick filmmaker”.

Peary goes on to write that this, Meyer’s tenth film, is his “least objectionable” — “so outrageous that it’s funny”, and only bordering “on being off-putting”. Given that “there are no rapes, just rape attempts” — and no resorting to “having… women’s clothes ripped off” — Peary “can accept Meyer stuffing his four female leads… into skimpy costumes and shooting them at every possible compromising angle so that their enormous chests seem to jump toward our eyes”. He appreciates “some quirky and amusing touches” in the film (including the “swingin’ lingo” employed by the girls), noting that the deaths “are all boldly directed and have strong impact” and that “all the action sequences have pizzazz”. Peary is pretty accurate in his fair but critical assessment of this cult feature, which surely should be seen once by all film fanatics simply given its utterly unique stars (Satana particularly), its unforgettable title, and its striking imagery — but a return visit isn’t necessarily necessary.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Tura Satana as Varla
  
  
• Strong direction and editing by Meyer
  
  
  
• Walter Schenk’s b&w cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, of course, as a long-time cult favorite.

Categories

• Cult Movie

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
On his way to meet and marry his fiancee (Sylvia Sidney), a hardworking man (Spencer Tracy) is falsely accused of kidnapping and put in jail. When locals hear rumors about Tracy’s imprisonment, they collectively decide to seek vengeance — with devastating consequences.

Genres:

• Character Arc
• Courtroom Drama
• Falsely Accused
• Fritz Lang Films
• Living Nightmare
• Revenge
• Spencer Tracy Films
• Sylvia Sidney Films
• Walter Brennan Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “frightening social drama” — “Fritz Lang’s first American film” — “gave Lang the opportunity to advance several of his most important themes: it is unsafe to be a stranger in this world”, given that “people are very territorial; when townspeople band together they may turn into a mob; a man’s innocence or guilt is not what determines how a jury or a mob will judge him; [and] there is no such thing as justice” given that “a hero who seeks revenge and continues the violence initiated by the villains becomes as bad as they, because to play on their terms he relinquishes his humanity”. While Peary points out the “ending is disappointing”, this remains “one of the strongest indictments of America’s small-town lynch-mob mentality.” The film is too nightmarishly surreal at times to be considered strictly realistic — Tracy’s flipped-switch character is a precursor to his role in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941); most of the townspeople are caricatures — but the sentiments and morality behind this living-nightmare flick remain scarily authentic. Mob violence is no joke, and continues to cause untold misery across the globe; surely few knew this better than Lang at the time, who had just fled from Jewish persecution in Nazi-occupied Germany.

With that said, it’s important to note that this film was thoroughly whitewashed in order to be more palatable to white audiences of the day; according to TCM’s article:

The story was conceived during a shocking time in American history when lynching and mob violence escalated in the early 1930s. The fires of injustice were further stoked when a federal anti-lynching bill drafted by NAACP lawyers was killed by the U.S. Senate. But with his hands tied by the notorious movie censorship of the studio years, Lang was unable to explicitly treat lynching as a crime against black people. Lang was even forbidden to use black actors as minor characters in the film, though he initially shot several scenes featuring peripheral black characters to subtly drive home the idea of lynching as a threat to black Americans. In one deleted scene, a black laundress sings a song of freedom as she hangs out the wash, and in another a crowd of Southern blacks is shown responding to a radio speech by Fury‘s district attorney condemning lynching. Both scenes were cut from the film at the studio’s behest.

Clearly another, more authentic film remains to be made about the true horrors of lynching against black Americans in early 19th century America.

Note: Fury was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress in 1995 for being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Sylvia Sidney as Katherine
  
• Spencer Tracy as Joe Wilson
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  
• The truly frightening mob scene
  

Must See?
Yes, as a still-powerful indictment of mob brutality.

Categories

• Historically Relevant
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
The son (Jimmy Stewart) of a wealthy businessman (Edward Arnold) tries to convince a stenographer (Jean Arthur) to marry him, despite her concerns that her eccentric household — including her grandfather (Lionel Barrymore), her mother (Spring Byington), and various semi-permanent guests — won’t meet his stuffy parents’ approval.

Genres:

• Ann Miller Films
• Class Relations
• Cross-Class Romance
• Edward Arnold Films
• Frank Capra Films
• Jean Arthur Films
• Jimmy Stewart Films
• Lionel Barrymore Films
• Nonconformists
• Play Adaptations
• Romantic Comedy

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this winner of “Best Picture and Best Director Oscars” — an adaptation by Frank Capra of George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart’s Pulitzer Prize-winning “stage success” — is “not among Capra’s best films.” He points out that while “there are funny moments and the cast is great”, the “film is too preachy and many of the political-social points made — especially about the wonderfully peculiar character of democratic Americans — are too vague or unconvincing.” He further adds that “themes such as ‘the richest man is the one with the most friends’ are better and more honestly conveyed in Capra’s later It’s a Wonderful Life (1946).” Peary’s assessment is spot-on, as is DVD Savant’s lengthier analysis of the film’s many problematic elements — particularly the presentation of non-starring characters as brainless morons, and Capra’s preaching of:

” … a primitive form of Anarchism, one still sold by the pundits. Do your own thing, turn your back on reality. Let somebody else make the sewers work, pay the firemen, and worry about society as a whole. True love always triumphs, and the nastiest villains are really creampuffs. And no problem is bigger than one’s personal emotions. Capra is an Anarchist-know-nothing-fantasist.”

While this movie was a top box office earner in its day, it hasn’t held up nearly as well as many of Capra’s other fine works, and isn’t must-see viewing.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur as the romantic leads
  

Must See?
No, though of course Capra fans and Oscar-completists will likely want to check it out.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
A down-and-out boxer (Jamie Smith) reflects on his affair with a dance hall girl (Irene Kane) whose gangster-boss (Frank Silvera) isn’t happy with her decision to leave him.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Boxing
• Flashback Films
• Gangsters
• Stanley Kubrick Films
• Star-Crossed Lovers

Response to Peary’s Review:
In his brief review (which, in a pre-IMDb era, gets the names of the romantic lead actors wrong — whoops!), Peary writes that “Stanley Kubrick’s second feature exhibits flare rather than style, promise rather than skill”. He calls out the “weak story” and notes that the “acting is terrible” — but he concedes that “within this low-budget context Kubrick impresses with dashes of surrealism, strong use of New York locales (when pizza was 10¢), and a wild, medieval fight in a loft full of mannequins.” Along with most other reviewers, I’m pretty much in agreement with Peary’s assessment — though I would argue that the film actually shows plenty of skill and style, and I’m not sure “surrealism” is how I would describe its at-times quirky sensibility. It’s primarily the hackneyed storyline and dialogue that fail us; visually, this one is a consistent stunner.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Powerful cinematography and direction
  
  
• Fine on-location shooting
  

Must See?
No, though of course all Kubrick aficionados will want to check it out.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• TCM Article
• Film On Trial Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review

Synopsis:
During World War II, an alcoholic non-conformist (Cary Grant) is forced by a Royal Australian Navy commander (Trevor Howard) to watch for Japanese planes off an isolated island in Papua New Guinea — but Grant soon finds his beloved solitude interrupted by the arrival of a French woman (Leslie Caron) caring for seven stranded school girls.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Battle-of-the-Sexes
• Cary Grant Films
• Character Arc
• Leslie Caron Films
• Nonconformists
• Romantic Comedy
• Trevor Howard Films
• World War Two

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “genial comedy” — Cary Grant’s next-to-last film before retiring from the screen — “has none of the typical elements of a ‘cult’ movie”, but he notes that he’s “come across an amazing number of people who are truly devoted to it.” (He’s “told in some places it always plays on television at Easter.”) Peary expresses wonder that the script won an Oscar (he refers to it as “typical”), but adds that it “benefits from inspired teaming of the stars, who work extremely well together”. When contemplating why “this film [is] so popular, especially with women”, Peary conjectures “that many women look at the heavy-drinking, gone-to-seed men sitting next to them in front of the TV and hope that they’ll follow Grant’s example and reform, to display once more those qualities that made them so lovable in the first place.”

Peary’s somewhat dismissive review of this film led me to expect less than what I found when revisiting this enjoyable romantic comedy, which starts off somewhat strained (both Grant and Caron’s characters are pills) but goes in surprisingly delightful and quirky directions. Watching as “Grant reforms and reveals his bravery, resourcefulness, and concern for the trapped females” (Caron and her charges) is heartwarming and humorous, and Caron’s evolution (thanks to being plied with alcohol after a snake bite) plays out well. Thankfully, the gaggle of girls are nicely (under)played by the unknown young actresses, adding to the veracity of the scenario. There are numerous memorable moments, both humorous and frightening; it’s the interplay between these two moods that provides so much authentic tension.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Cary Grant as Walter
  
• Leslie Caron as Catherine
  
• Many memorable moments
  
  
• Peter Stone and Frank Tarloff’s Oscar-winning script
  

  Caron (while fishing): How do you know it’s a she?
  Grant: Her mouth is open! Now be quiet.

Must See?
Yes, for the delightful script.

Categories

• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• TV Guide Review

Synopsis:
When a priest (Wyrley Birch) is brutally murdered on the streets of a small Connecticut town, the chief detective (Lee J. Cobb) heads an investigation leading to the state’s attorney (Dana Andrews) being called in to prosecute a man (Arthur Kennedy) who has been tortured into confessing. Soon Andrews finds himself caught in an elaborate scheme of corruption involving, among others, the Commissioner of Public Works (Ed Begley) and the head of the political opposition party (Taylor Holmes).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Arthur Kennedy
• Corruption
• Courtroom Drama
• Dana Andrews Films
• Ed Begley Sr. Films
• Elia Kazan Films
• Falsely Accused
• Jane Wyatt Films
• Karl Malden Films
• Lawyers
• Lee J. Cobb Films
• Murder Mystery

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary asserts that this “dated, overrated semi-documentary by Elia Kazan” — based on a real-life story involving veteran Harold Israel and U.S. State Attorney Homer Stille Cummings — starts out as “a daring attack on corrupt machine politics, mob violence, press irresponsibility, and fascist police tactics”, but “turns out to be the glorification of an honest man”. He writes that the “trouble is that Andrews is the only character who comes out smelling like a rose”, and complains the screenplay deviates from the facts given that the real “case was never solved”, instead “presenting another suspect (a perverted fellow about whom the priest was about to tell authorities [Philip Coolidge])” in a move Peary refers to as “unfairly manipulative”. He also argues it’s “unfair of Kazan not to let on that Andrews was conducting a serious investigation until the hearing”, given that “we [are] led to believe it is only a hunch that makes him think Kennedy innocent”.

I think Peary holds a grudge against Kazan for being “a friendly witness before H.U.A.C”, and it shows. There’s nothing wrong with the introduction of Coolidge as a player in this fictionalized drama, just as there’s nothing at all misleading about leaving Andrews’ investigation of the case as a series of dramatic flashbacks in the film’s culmination. While the film is perhaps overly bold in its assertion of corruption around every corner, who’s to say that’s not (still and always) the case? Indeed, it’s terrifying to watch the police “drag in anybody wearing a dark coat and white hat” as a suspect; to see a jilted former girlfriend (Cara Williams) willfully lie to get Kennedy persecuted; to witness a confession tortured out of Kennedy through sleep deprivation; and to recognize the overall relief of nearly everybody involved when someone — anyone — is held responsible for the death of their beloved priest. (Not a whole lot has changed in our collective desire for criminal “justice” at the cost of potentially innocent lives.) The film is expertly directed by Kazan, with fine use of on-location shooting in Connecticut, stark angles and cinematography, and strong performances by a roster of familiar supporting faces.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Dana Andrews as Henry Harvey
  
• Arthur Kennedy as John Waldron
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  
• Fine on-location shooting
  
• Strong direction by Kazan
  

Must See?
Yes, once, as a worthy early film by Kazan.

Categories

• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• DVD Savant Review
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
A woman (Anne Baxter) despondent after being dumped by her long-distance soldier-boyfriend accepts the offer of a womanizing painter (Raymond Burr) to go on a date, not realizing he will ply her with drinks and try to rape her. When Burr is found dead in his apartment the next morning with a blue gardenia lying on the floor, an ambitious reporter (Richard Conte) tries to crack the case by promising to help out the “Blue Gardenia” killer if she calls him.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Amateur Sleuths
• Amnesia
• Ann Sothern Films
• Anne Baxter Films
• Framed
• Fritz Lang Films
• Journalists
• Media Spactacle
• Raymond Burr Films
• Richard Conte Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “mediocre Fritz Lang film takes too long to get started, forcing the final, more interesting scenes to be rushed.” He notes that “typically, Lang has Baxter [the protagonist] ignore her moral senses for a slight indiscretion, fall into fate’s trap, become involved in a crime that she might be convicted of whether innocent or guilty, and become increasingly paranoid that she is alone and everyone is pointing accusing fingers” — though he adds that “significantly, this is the only time Lang lets this happen to a woman.” Indeed, in Ben Sachs’ review of the film for the Chicago Reader, he notes this is “the only Fritz Lang film that could be categorized as a women’s picture”, given that “the central characters are three single women” — Baxter lives with two blonde roommates, divorced Crystal (Ann Sothern) and crime-fiction-obsessed Sally (Jeff Donnell) — “navigating hazards of working life and the dating scene as they try to get by in Los Angeles.” The scenes between the three supportive roommates are among the most memorable in the film, adding a humorous and humane touch to the proceedings. Burr, meanwhile, is effectively menacing, voicing his lines with a thorough degree of veiled creepiness: “Women always surprise me when they take off their… shoes.” While I agree that this Lang flick is nowhere near his best, even one of his “mediocre” outings is worth a one-time look by his fans.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Nicholas Musuraca’s atmospheric cinematogrophy
  
• Raymond Burr as Harry Prebble
  
• Ann Sothern and Jeff Donnell as Norah’s roommates
  

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Chicago Reader Review