FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A sexually frustrated housewife (Angie Dickinson) who has just met with her psychiatrist (Michael Caine) is seduced by a man (Ken Baker) she meets at a museum, then brutally murdered in the elevator as she’s leaving his apartment. A call girl (Nancy Allen) who briefly witnessed Dickinson’s bloodied body is harassed by a detective (Dennis Franz) who considers her a prime suspect, so Allen — who is now herself being pursued by the mysterious killer — enlists the help of Dickinson’s grieving son (Keith Gordon) in determining which of Caine’s clients may have been responsible for the murder.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Amateur Sleuths
• Angie Dickinson Films
• Brian De Palma Films
• Gender Bending
• Horror Films
• Michael Caine Films
• Murder Mystery
• Nancy Allen Films
• Prostitutes and Gigolos

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “almost every character in Brian De Palma’s erotic thriller has a split personality”, with “the person on the outside… not like the person on the inside.” He notes that he thinks “this is De Palma’s best film, one in which [he doesn’t] mind being manipulated” given that “watching De Palma at work turns out to be a lot of fun.” Peary points out that “De Palma does everything with an audience in mind; there’s a great deal of titillation, subtlety, and shocks;” in addition, the “characters are all offbeat and have senses of humor, and all have energy”. He writes that the “dialogue is sharp, but [the] film’s best scenes are visual, relying on editing or a mobile camera, as is the long Hitchcock-like sequence in the museum.”

He concedes that “De Palma does, as usual, borrow from Hitchcock, stylistically and thematically” and “even has two scenes with women in the shower”. [As Richard Scheib of Moria puts it so bluntly in his review, “Dressed to Kill is Brian De Palma’s homage to Psycho. It is clear and obvious and there is no doubt about it.”] Peary adds that “typical of De Palma, the violence is strong, and there’s a dirty-trick ending,” and he points out that De Palma makes “good use of New York locales”. What Peary fails to mention is the highly questionable use of a “troubled transvestite” as the killer; click here to read a recent analysis of the film from that standpoint (but be forewarned that spoilers abound). And click here to read an even more forthright denouncement of the film, written to the movie itself rather than to De Palma.

Most memorable-while-darkly-amusing scene: Dickinson casually riffling through her new lover’s drawers and finding documentation of something truly horrific.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Nancy Allen as Liz
  
• Angie Dickinson as Kate
  
• Michael Caine as Dr. Elliott
  
• Keith Gordon as Peter
  
• The spectacularly filmed “museum sequence”
  
• Clever, atmospheric cinematography
  
  
• Many freaky moments
  
  
• Pino Donaggio’s score

Must See?
Yes, once, for the masterful direction.

Categories

• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• TV Guide Review
• Moria Review

Synopsis:
A sound recordist (John Travolta) who accidentally records a car crashing into a river rescues a young woman (Nancy Allen) from drowning, but is asked to cover up his heroics when it turns out the car’s driver was a presidential hopeful (and Allen a prostitute). Soon Travolta becomes obsessed with sharing his audio evidence that the car tire’s blow-out was from a bullet shot, and that the politician’s death was anything but an accident — but the killer (John Lithgow) behind the plot wants to get rid of all witnesses.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Amateur Sleuths
• Brian De Palma Films
• John Travolta Films
• Nancy Allen Films
• Political Conspiracy

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this film “allowed Brian De Palma to combine his obsessions with the Kennedy assassination-conspiracy, the themes of Antonioni’s Blow-Up, and the visual style of Hitchcock.” He notes that the “first half of the picture is prime De Palma, but then the picture becomes bogged down with self-conscious camera work”, and he adds that at least “if you don’t care about the characters, you’ll be intrigued by the editing in the final sequence.” I’m in agreement with Peary’s tepid assessment of this atmospherically shot (by DP Vilmos Zsigmond) but disappointing thriller in which De Palma “refuses to develop Allen’s character” — or more accurately, fails to provide her with much of a meaningful presence other than as a bubble-headed foil. Travolta’s character comes across much better, and his lengthy audio-investigation sequence is impressively shot:

… but it’s not enough to redeem this film over-all as must-see.

Note: It was interesting watching this hour-long discussion between De Palma and Noah Baumbauch about the making of Blow Out, and hearing De Palma describe movies in this way:

“We create illusions for you to fall in love with. That’s something totally unique to cinema: beautiful women doing unusual, interesting, exciting things. We follow them, we look at them, and we get involved with them. It’s one of the basic tools of movies… It’s a gun and a girl. With a gun, when’s somebody going to fire it? With a girl, when’s somebody going to undress it?” (bold mine)

If “girls” (not women) are viewed simply as beautiful objects for audience members to watch and enjoy, it’s no wonder that Allen (De Palma’s wife at the time) — as well as the other females in this film — come across literally as pretty pawns in the bloody proceedings. Thank goodness Travolta is such a sympathetic male character.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

John Travolta as Jack

Atmospheric cinematography

Fine location shooting in Philadelphia

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
When an aspiring writer (Jack Nicholson) and his wife (Shelley Duvall) and clairvoyant son (Danny Lloyd) arrive to work as winter caretakers in a shuttered hotel in the Colorado Rockies, they’re shown around by the hotel chef (Scatman Crothers) before being left on their own — at which point things become increasingly spooky and dangerous for Duvall and Lloyd.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Ghosts
• Homicidal Spouses
• Horror Films
• Jack Nicholson Films
• Psychic Powers
• Psychopaths
• Shelley Duvall Films
• Stanley Kubrick Films
• Writers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “Stanley Kubrick adaptation of what may be Stephen King’s finest novel utilizes a big budget, stars Jack Nicholson, and has some amazing camera work, but comes off as being no better than a mannered version of The Amityville Horror,” in which “a father… goes insane/becomes possessed after moving into an evil residence and tries to kill his family, just as a previous tenant had done.” Peary posits that “the film doesn’t concentrate enough on [Lloyd’s] primal fears” that “Nicholson [will try] to harm him and his mother”, and that Kubrick insufficiently exploits “the fact that [Lloyd] has a special gift.” He continues comparing the movie to the novel, noting that “in King’s book, the boy’s power is why the hotel wants the boy to be sacrificed to it, so that he’d become part of it (just as the house in The Haunting desires Julie Harris, who has extrasensory powers).” In the novel, “the hotel is the embodiment of evil, a major character, the major force that affects the father and son” whereas in Kubrick’s film, “the hotel houses evil entities but is, strangely, pretty neutral.” Peary adds that “Kubrick seems so entranced by Nicholson’s creation of a psychotic that he neglects much that was essential to King’s book”, making the mistake of having “Nicholson act weirdly from the outset, so that he seems only a couple of writer’s-block and cabin-fever days away from insanity.”

Peary argues that “for us to fully grasp Danny’s primal fear that his father will turn on him and his mother, it’s important that the father begin the story as a sympathetic, loving father and husband” — though I’m not sure I agree with this assessment. Much to King’s stated chagrin, Kubrick most definitely made this story his own — but within the logic of Kubrick’s interpretation, it makes sense that Lloyd’s fear of his father (who abused him sufficiently to prompt him to stop attending school) would simply intensify upon moving to an isolated house away from the rest of humanity. Peary posits that “Nicholson’s crazed performance begins to wear on one’s nerves, no matter how remarkable it is at times” (I would agree), and that “by [the] picture’s end, one realizes that Duvall has outacted him” (well, she certainly gives a powerhouse performance — perhaps the best of her career!). Peary concedes that “there are scary things in the movie — the appearance of the dead twins:

… Duvall reading her husband’s lengthy manuscript and discovering that it’s proof positive he is insane:

… Nicholson chasing his son through the outdoor maze with an axe”:

— and he writes that “for a while it is both powerful and creepy”. But he believes that “the moment Nicolson talks with the ghost bartender, the picture loses its grip,” and “from then on everything comes across as absurd.”

Peary also hates the famous final shot, arguing that it’s “a terrible choice” and illustrates that “neither Kubrick nor his co-writer, Diane Johnson, was familiar enough with horror films to know what were the cliches of the genre.” In the film’s favor, Peary notes that “as do all Kubrick pictures, this one (in which he employed a Steadicam) looks great — better, in fact, than all other horror films”, and that Kubrick’s “familiar mannered, intentionally rapid dialogue (in which everyone uses the other person’s first name repeatedly) does create tension.”

Given what a tremendous fan base this film has — an entire documentary, Room 237 (2012), is devoted simply to various potential explanations of underlying themes — it’s impossible to deny its importance in cinematic history. Like Peary, I appreciate much of the craftsmanship on display in The Shining — and unlike Peary, I’m not upset about the numerous significant shifts from King’s novel (which I haven’t read); I believe viewers should watch this film as part of Stanley Kubrick’s oeuvre, rather than as a “King adaptation”. However, I’ll admit to not being a huge personal fan of the film, simply because the pacing seems off (it takes more than half an hour for the family to finally be left alone in the hotel), and Nicholson’s psychopathic character is so utterly unlikable and obnoxious from start to finish that he’s challenging to watch for so long. I do recommend that all film fanatics give Room 237 a look, simply to take a deeper dive into what might possibly be going on in Kubrick’s meticulously planned storyline (is the shift in typewriter color an accident of continuity, or intentional? what is the significance of Danny’s Apollo USA sweater?). Agree or disagree with the views espoused, you’ll surely begin to understand the depth to which many people obsess over this movie.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine central performances (albeit questionably directed in the case of Nicholson)
  
  
  
• Highly effective direction, cinematography, and sets
  
  
• Many genuine moments of terror
  
  

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

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• NY Times Original Review
• Moria Review
• Honest Trailer

Synopsis:
A boarding school student (Jennifer Connelly) who has the power to communicate telepathically with insects befriends a wheelchair-bound entomologist (Donald Pleasence) with a pet chimpanzee, and together they try to solve the mystery of who has been stalking and killing local girls.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Amateur Sleuths
• Boarding School
• Dario Argento Films
• Donald Pleasence Films
• Horror Films
• Insects
• Serial Killers
• Supernatural Powers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “brutal Dario Argento horror film” — also known as Phenomena — “has the striking visual style we’ve come to expect from the Italian director, and there are a couple of his customary shocks”, but he “too often forgoes legitimate shocks for nauseating sights — lice crawling on a rotting head, Connolly throwing up, heads crashing through glass, deformed faces” (who enjoys this kind of fare?!). In addition, as Peary notes, “Argento’s script is extremely weak”, with “Connelly’s sleepwalking:

… and even her control over insects smack[ing] of writer’s ‘convenience’; in fact, the insect premise has such little effect on what happens that they could easily be eliminated without serious damage being done to the film.” Indeed, everything about the screenplay is awkwardly handled, clumsily plotted, occasionally illogical, and woodenly acted. To that end, Peary points out that Pleasence’s chimp “gives the film’s most impressive performance” (!). While 15-year-old Connelly is undeniably stunning:

… she’s given terribly lame dialogue and situations to play out. Feel free to skip this one. To watch a humorous overview by a fan of this film (who generously points out its many laughably bad moments: “It’s time for another Donald Pleasence monologue…”), click here.

Note: For this review, I’ve used the American-release title of the film as referenced in Guide For the Film Fanatic, which had 20+ minutes removed. This is likely the version Peary saw, though I watched the 116 minute version known as Phenomena.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Atmospheric cinematography
  
• Beautiful location shooting
  

Must See?
No.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review

Synopsis:
When a researcher (Rollo Linsky) informs a doctor (Paul Hampton) that his insane colleague (Fred Doederlein) has implanted parasites in his young lover (Cathy Graham) and then killed her, Dr. St. Luc (Hampton) and his girlfriend (Lynn Lowry) begin an investigation, quickly finding that an increasing number of residents in their apartment complex — including a businessman (Alan Migicovsky) whose wife is friends with a lonely neighbor (Barbara Steele) — have become infected.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Barbara Steele Films
• David Cronenberg Films
• Horror Films
• Mad Doctors and Scientists
• Zombies

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this “first of David Cronenberg’s low-budget horror films to play in the United States” “quickly established his cult”. Shivers presents an “intriguing setting” — an “isolated, sterile apartment complex which is a planned, self-contained community” — wherein a parasite with “the power to drive its carrier violently insane” is travelling “on its own from apartment to apartment through the plumbing”, and can also “be transferred from its carrier through sexual contact.” He posits that the “film has some tension at the beginning when the initial people are infected”, noting that the creepiest moment comes “when the parasite crawls between unsuspecting Barbara Steele’s legs while she bathes” (ewww!), then transfers from her throat to her lover’s while kissing — but he argues that the “story, character development, and the film itself go out the window when almost everybody in the building” (except Hampton) “becomes infected and runs through the halls looking for people to attack.”

Peary writes that while this “exploitation picture is too violent and crude”, the “special effects (i.e., creatures moving beneath the skin) by Joe Blasco anticipated those that would appear in future big-budget SF and horror films” — like Alien (1979). Because the sub-genre of “sci fi body horror” films isn’t a personal favorite, it’s hard for me to comment on whether Cronenberg’s film goes off the rails or simply continues along its own perversely logical trajectory; I can say that things certainly build to a tense fever pitch by the end, leading to a sense of claustrophobia and despair.

As Richard Scheib of Moria writes, “Shivers is Night of the Living Dead construed as a satire on the 1970s swinger lifestyle” — a very apt analogy indeed.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Some effectively creepy moments on a low budget
  

Must See?
No, though of course Cronenberg fans will be curious to check it out.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Classic Horror Review
• Jigsaw Film Lounge Review
• Moria Review
• SF Gate Review
• Classic Horror Review