T-Men.

Review #2489: T-Men.

Cast: 

Dennis O'Keefe (Dennis O'Brien, a.k.a. Vannie Harrigan), Mary Meade (Evangeline), Alfred Ryder (Tony Genaro – aka Tony Galvani), Wallace Ford (The Schemer), June Lockhart (Mary Genaro), Charles McGraw (Moxie), Jane Randolph (Diana Simpson), Anton Kosta (Vantucci), Art Smith (Gregg), with Reed Hadley (Narrator), and Herbert Heyes (Chief Carson) Directed by Anthony Mann (#1048 - He Walked by Night, #1408 - El Cid, #2010 - Winchester '73)

Review: 

"Violence is always pictorially shocking. You can achieve fantastic effects of violence just by implication and design. And it is one of the good parts of our medium - it tends to shock and tends to excite the imagination and to rouse feelings in the audience that they’ve seen something and experienced something."

Sure, here's another movie involving a government department. Okay, we're not actually talking a paragraph about the U.S. Department of the Treasury, but they are the ones who oversee the U.S. Mint and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, so yes, it is important that fake currency is investigated and taken out as quickly as possible. The film even features an introduction by Elmer Lincoln Irey, who served as an official for the department before serving as the first Chief of the IRS Intelligence Unit, which prosecuted thousands of people for tax evasion (so yes, the guys who busted Al Capone). Ironically, the movie actually had partial financing from organized crime with John Roselli, a member of the Chicago mob that happened to like movies and formed a silent partnership with Joseph Breen (head of the Production Code Office)*. T-Men was the first film Mann stated as "the first big one" as his previous works were basically ones that were thrust upon him (Mann stated that his days at Republic were fairly grim). Mann worked on the script from scratch and had involvement from William Eirie from the Treasury Department to bring files and create a story with John C. Higgins (of course, Virginia Kellogg was credited with the story while Higgins was credited with the screenplay - however, it has been speculated Henry Blackfort may have been involved somewhere); the research they did there led to them discovering the story of what later became Border Incident (1949). The key producer was Edward Small, who produced one other film with Eagle-Lion and Mann with Raw Deal (released in 1948 that also had O'Keefe as the star) but didn't get fully involved with the company due to feeling like they minimized his contributions. 

Released in late December 1947 on a budget of roughly over $400,000, the movie made over two million dollars, and it was the first of five collaborations between Mann and cinematographer John Alton. I'm sure you can figure out why it matters to have money that isn't fake going around in the general public (hell, how many places do you know that don't have one of those markers around that marks fake money?). What we have here is a lean affair that is definitely entertaining in showing tight work and the people that surround it. Even with the film telling you of its inspiration from an actual case (nicknamed "Shanghai Paper Chase"), you get a worthy semi-documentary feel early on with how it treats the material with efficiency and respect. It's a noir that has respect for its audience and builds its house of excitement for 92 minutes of generally involving fare, which mostly comes at the hands of O'Keefe, who apparently wanted to break into dramas (it helps to have Small as an agent). He proves pretty first rate for what the movie needs in crafty charm that has to play undercover with sincerity that rolls along like a typewriter in rattling consistency. Ford (a vaudevillian in earlier days) makes for a quality gangster presence in usefully odd disposition that gets a particularly brutal end (a steam room). The machinations that arise in trying to seep into the underbelly, even at the cost of being recognized on the street or seeing the death of those who can't cut it, is executed with swift interest by Mann and company (Alton was a pro after all) that makes one invested with the chase from the get-go. As a whole, T-Men is a solid effort for involved, having clear interest for its subject matter with useful energy in its foundation to make a worthy crime noir to recommend.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Roselli apparently was later involved in recruitment by the CIA in an attempt to kill dictator Fidel Castro. And then I guess he might be implicated in the boring and worthless conspiracy web of the Kennedy assassination (here's the only take: Kennedy was killed by one and only one loser. The end.). A decade later, he was found dead in a 55-gallon drum in Florida because yes, even 71-year-olds have to get whacked.

The Birds.

Review #1739: The Birds.

Cast: 

Tippi Hedren (Melanie Daniels), Rod Taylor (Mitch Brenner), Jessica Tandy (Lydia Brenner), Veronica Cartwright (Cathy Brenner), Suzanne Pleshette (Annie Hayworth), Ethel Griffies (Mrs. Bundy), Charles McGraw (Sebastian Sholes), and Lonny Chapman (Deke Carter) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock (#219 - Rope, #223 - North by Northwest, #446 - Spellbound, #447 - Psycho, #450 - Vertigo, #455 - Rear Window, #553 - Strangers on a Train, #800 - Shadow of a Doubt, #910 - Notorious, #963 - The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog, #964 - The Ring (1927), #965 - Downhill, #970 - Mr. and Mrs. Smith, #977 - Frenzy, and #1343 - The 39 Steps)

Review: 

The thing about doing a creature feature is that one has to really allow themselves to become immersed in the idea that the director (or writer) wants to show in taking something you could see any day of the week and make it something that could potentially unnerve you, or at the very least pique your curiosity. I suppose if anybody seemed up to the task of trying to make a movie about birds, Alfred Hitchcock (described by some as "The Master of Suspense") would spring to mind quickly. Of course, this happens to be the first film that was directed by Hitchcock after the success of Psycho (1960), which has been argued to be his most famous work. Perhaps the biggest credit is the use of the sodium vapor process to get the shots of the birds to look effective (as opposed to the bluescreen process), and Hitchcock brought in Ub Iwerks (of Walt Disney Studios, the leader in the process) to work on the film - the process involves a variety of things such a yellow screen, an optical printer and two different elements of the footage. Evan Hunter (best known for his work in crime fiction with the 87th Precinct novels and a writer on Alfred Hitchcock Presents for two episodes) was brought in to write the script (for his part, he would later state that Hitchcock would "take outrageous liberties with what I had written" with what he allowed his actors to do with the script). This was adapted from the short story of the same name by Daphne Du Maurier, which had first been published in 1952 as part of her collection The Apple Tree (radio adaptations had been done of the story, incidentally). Hitchcock had adapted her works before with Jamaica Inn (1939) and Rebecca (1940). Apparently, Du Maurier did not like this adaptation, probably because it changes the setting from England to California while going from a focus on a family in a cottage to an offbeat coupling and a controlling parent. Of course, one inspiration that helped Hitchcock involved him hearing about a 1961 attack in Capitola, California that involved birds crashing into buildings with disorientation (three decades later, it was discovered that this occurred due to the birds eating algae that had become toxic). Hitchcock would ultimately do three further films in the 1960s that resulted in varying levels of success before he closed his career with thrillers in Frenzy (1972) and Family Plot (1976). 

Perhaps there was too much responsibility placed on the shoulders of a green actress. Hedren (a model for over a decade) was approached by Hitchcock after he had seen her in a commercial while watching The Today Show, and she soon signed a seven year contract; she had assumed she would soon be on the aforementioned Presents program, but actually he aimed for turning her into a film actress that would debut in a lead role (complete with screen tests and training); perhaps amusingly, she would appear in the "sequel" three decades later with The Birds II: Land's End (1994), which is about as much one needs to really know about. Of course, maybe one really needs a certain type of understanding of what it means to cultivate suspense that might seem familiar for those who would see future films such as Jaws (1975) or Tremors (1990). Perhaps one cannot be too harsh for a film that is meticulously executed in its shots and effects, one that is a worthy movie to look at with patience. All of this is a crock for me to say what became evident before the last shot: dignified lingering in a bit of muck is at the end of the day still one that has a bit of muck on it that needs picking no matter how pretty it is. Simply put, it lingers for quite a bit of time on folks that barely justifies having two hours with them, as if I really need an entire justification for someone wanting to go on a whim to somebody's place and give them lovebirds; it is far more interesting with thrills than anything it tries to do in humor or with family drama, that much is for sure. Maybe the tension reflects the times that the birds attack, but we are still talking about a movie that only gets some of its tense atmosphere with the right amount of cohesiveness. You can put all the window dressing you want about what the film represents in themes, but I don't see it as being any more useful in execution than something like Them! (1954), which if you recall involved mutated ants. But at least one can say the effects are well done, particularly since it was a blend of animated and live birds for various shots. So yes, there is a main group of actors, and they are fairly decent here despite my misgivings about just who matters or doesn't matter. Hedren might seem a bit anxious here, but she does eventually grow into the suspense (i.e. when the film stops trying to make me care so much about her journey into the Bay) that helps us get more and more gripped in tensing one's nerves. Taylor is stuck in the middle, as if one is begging him to be more involved with the birds than with the aforementioned Bay element, and the parts with Tandy are more "move the hand along" than anything - overall, not flat, but still. Tandy is okay, but being okay in a Hitchcock film with clinging mothers is a weird distinction (of course Cartwright being just an okay kid also makes it weird). Pleshette honestly is the most inviting presence, and she only has a few moments to really spring interest in being the earthy contrast when paired against Hedren (again, this is probably personal preference).

Honestly, testing one's patience in life could probably be assessed by how you view the sequence in the diner, where there is a discussion that goes on and on about supposed bird attacks and so on (gee, are the birds around?); one bird attack later where everyone is a bit rattled, a hysterical lady yammers on about who to possibly blame and honestly the one thing that works comes when Hedren slaps her and moves on to other things. I suppose I am not fair to the first hour, since the birds attack twice in that same span of time. But hey, there are moments that plod along in each hour, more so in the sequence involving an incessant playing of "Risseldy Rosseldy" in an attempt to build suspense that only results in an earworm. I guess there are benefits to making a monster movie that doesn't explain its story or end its reign of terror with a pat resolution (Hitchcock did not even want to have any kind of credits to follow after the last shot of the film, but Universal added in a brief studio logo shot). Oh please, my brain says: how much does one need to say about why birds are attacking when most people have both positive and negative memories that involve birds in the first place? But I guess that makes it an interesting predecessor to later films that wouldn't spring to easy solutions (such as say Halloween, for example), and for that one has to appreciate its efforts. Besides, if one really wants to watch someone try to make a movie about birds with absolute zero execution of tension or characters (complete with a brief shot of Hedren!), Birdemic (2010/2013) is right there to make you appreciate filmmaking or the bounds of using your time wisely. As a whole, being an overrated movie can still mean one has made a good movie if the right hands are at the wheel, and Hitchcock for the most part does what is needed to make things stay on course for a thriller. It certainly was an interesting step for Hitchcock in his fifth decade of filmmaking, that much is for sure, and it works out for any Hitchcock devotee for all of its qualities (flaws or no flaws) whenever your curiosity for birds is at hand.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Spider Baby (1967).

A Boy and His Dog.

Review #1665: A Boy and His Dog.

Cast: 

Don Johnson (Vic), Tim McIntire (voice of Blood), Susanne Benton (Quilla June Holmes), Jason Robards (Lou Craddock), Alvy Moore (Doctor Moore), Helene Winston (Mez Smith), Charles McGraw (Preacher), Hal Baylor (Michael), and Ron Feinberg (Fellini) Directed by L. Q. Jones.

Review: 

I will admit that this film has piqued my curiosity for quite some time, mainly because of its interesting place within science fiction - namely the fact that it is a black comedy in the middle of a decade with plenty of distinct features that has a collection of useful presences for a cult favorite. How many weirdo dystopia movies are there? There may be several of these films, but one cannot deny the irresistible amusement that comes from its depiction of a wasteland - both in material and in its ethics. As one might expect, it is an adaptation of previous material, in this case it is an adaptation of the novella of the same name that was written by Harlan Ellison in 1969. It would soon evolve into a narrative cycle, as Ellison would write further stories in the timeline over several years; for example, Ellison would also write stories that took place before and after the original novella, such as with his graphic novel collection Vic and Blood, but Ellison had apparently written another section that would be collected for a book (called Blood's a Rover), which was in his words in "screenplay form". Jones had ideas to do a follow-up film, one that would take place through the eyes of a woman (named Spike, which incidentally was the same name of the character Ellison used in his follow-up story), but funding issues and the death of the dog hindered any serious thoughts. In 2018, Blood's a Rover was published by Ellison, which collected the stories from before alongside a teleplay that he had written for a failed-to-launch television series. Oh, right, who is Harlan Ellison? To describe Ellison is something I'm sure those who have read his works or heard of his exploits can do better, so the best way to say it is that he was a prolific writer that described his work as "foursquare for chaos." The Cleveland native wrote the gamut when it came to speculative/science fiction that ranged from short stories (over a thousand) to screenplays (for which just one was filmed in The Oscar...no joke) to teleplays (such as "The City on the Edge of Forever", which true to form had Ellison griping upon the changes made for what ended up being one of the best Star Trek episodes of the original series) before his death in 2018. Ellison was favorable to the film, although it was the final line that caused him considerable consternation; the film ends the same way the novella did in its shocking (but darkly humorous) conclusion, with the novella ending on a title reference and the film ending on a spry pun - he called it a "moronic, hateful chauvinist last line, which I despise", although he mellowed slightly over it in later years. Given that Ellison had his share of causing/being involved in contentious disputes that ranged from Texas A&M University to James Cameron, it certainly seems quite amusing to note. 

Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that this proved an inspiration to a subsequent dystopian work with Mad Max (1979). This was the second and last film that was directed by L. Q. Jones (who had changed his name from Justus McQueen to the name of the character he played in his first film - Battle Cry), who had directed The Devil's Bedroom (1964). Ellison had started work on the screenplay for the film before having writer's block that resulted him turning it over to Jones (who Ellison described as "fiery" in independence) to write the screenplay, which he would do for over a year. Jones was a character actor in film and television for five decades until his retirement in 2006. He certainly has an interesting foresight when it comes to the future of depraved weirdos, even if it didn't exactly come out with an apocalypse; instead, one will settle with a weird R-rated version of a buddy movie that is certainly not for the faint of heart, where the only thing worse than glowing people in the dark is not having enough to eat or women to have sex with. And that is a good thing, because who needs their dystopian movies to be routine and quiet? I adore irreverent movies that engage for 93 minutes with no easy out answers or effects plays. Our star is Johnson, appearing in his fifth film role. The Missouri native had first done his share of acting within high school in the theater program before doing a spell of study at the University of Kansas and the American Conservatory Theater before getting into work within the theater and film/television. I'm sure most of you folks know that this features Johnson years before he became a household name with Miami Vice (and I would too, since it is on my schedule), but one can't forget the fact that he is quite effective here. He drives the film with dog in tow with good timing, doing so with a craven energy that resonates with the offbeat energy of the movie in a way that would have felt off-kilter with perhaps any other actor. When one needs an actor to play a strange savage that is nevertheless quite watchable, Johnson delivers. McIntire makes up the other part of the duo, and he was cast after hundreds of auditions (with one reported voice in name being James Cagney, but the filmmakers felt he was too recognizable a voice). He was a character actor that had a handful of roles within television and film, although others might recognize his contribution in the music department to films such as this one and Jeremiah Johnson (1972). He and Johnson make for some quality timing when it comes to their time spent together, an unlikely pair in terms of cynicism meeting amorality that make for a different kind of road movie. In other words, he chills the surface in misanthropy that we gravitate to (besides playing a dog, obviously) that makes a diverting time in the not-too distant future of 2024. Benton manipulates her way through with enough flourish to make a worthwhile contrast to the main duo - in a different movie she might have been the scheming focus of a cold underground, but we are talking about a movie that focuses on survival of the nuttiest rather than just survival of the smartest. In that sense, she does well for what is needed in the balance between the duo and the overall underground. Robards makes his extended appearance midway through the movie (in a place where everyone is caked in white makeup), and he handles the proceedings of rural caricature with what you would see from a key presence in cinema as Robards was, where he does not need big speeches or action shots but instead just needs to drive odd moments forward. By the time it gets to the underworld, one is curious to where else can it go in the varying perspectives of folks "surviving" the apocalypse and the craven ways to maintain it. At the end of the day, it proves charming enough in its shock value or those who like movies with irreverence and the guts to follow through all the way in its details to make for a grisly and capable good time, if one has the time, taste, and stomach for its trek into the wasteland.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

In Cold Blood.

Review #1426: In Cold Blood.

Cast: 
Robert Blake (Perry Smith), Scott Wilson (Dick Hickock), John Forsythe (Alvin Dewey), Paul Stewart (Jensen, the reporter), Gerald S. O'Loughlin (Harold Nye), Jeff Corey (Walter Hickock), John Gallaudet (Roy Church), James Flavin (Clarence Duntz), Charles McGraw (Tex Smith), Sammy Thurman (Flo Smith), Will Geer (Prosecuting attorney), John McLiam (Herbert Clutter), Ruth Storey (Bonnie Clutter), Brenda C. Currin (Nancy Clutter), and Paul Hough (Kenyon Clutter) Written, Produced, and Directed by Richard Brooks (#871 - Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and #1033 - Dollars)

Review: 
"If you’re thinking of getting into the movies, you better like it a whole lot. You better love making movies. Because it’s not easy--it’s not easy to make even a bad movie. You better be prepared to eat it, unsalted, because that’s the job of a movie maker. You better like it, because that’s what you’re going to have to do.”

The late 1960s were exactly a time for boundaries to be pushed further for film. Richard Brooks proved to be one of numerous directors that would bridge the gap between the studio system style of directing films and the growing independence (with some studio influence) of later years to make for a career of over 40 years of directing, writing, and producing. He had originally started work as a journalist and sports reporter before deciding to move to work in the theater and work on B-films. He also wrote novels as well, with The Brick Foxhole (1945, written while in the Marine Corps) being adapted as Crossfire (1947) being turned into a film. He moved to noir thriller not long after the war ended, helping to write works such as The Killers (1946) and Key Largo (1948) before given a chance to direct with alongside write with Crisis (1950). He would do 24 films in total as director (with the ones after Cat on a Hot Tin Roof being done independently after leaving MGM), with highlights including Blackboard Jungle (1955), Elmer Gantry (1960), and The Professionals (1966). Even early in his career he received respect, being described by French magazine Cahiers du Cinema as a "rebel" American auteur filmmaker, who believed that telling and doing a story was most important (stating that directing, editing, and scoring was writing). This went hand in hand with his reputation as a hard-as-nails man of his work who was prone to outbursts of anger, even when he became producer of his films (six of his last nine were produced by him including this one). On one of his films, he gathered the crew on their first day and told them that while they may have their own ideas and contributions about how to make it improved, they should keep it to themselves since it is was going to be done his way as "his fucking movie".

This was adapted from the novel of the same name by Truman Capote, who wrote what he labeled a "non-fiction novel" (being one of the first works to be associated with that genre) over the span of six years (while accompanied by friend Harper Lee) that detailed the 1959 murders of the Clutter family in Holcomb, Kansas that that had a triple narrative that jumped around the lives of the killers, the family, and the other members of the rural community (two films were subsequently made involving Capote's experience with writing the book in Capote and Infamous). The film strives for realism right down to the locations, since the sites of the actual crime in Kansas were used for a good deal of filming, most notably with the Clutter home (although the state penitentiary scenes were not allowed to be filmed in the prison, so sets were used instead). One noted difference between the novel and film was the adding of a reporter character to the proceedings, no doubt inspired by Capote (who went to Kansas after hearing about the murders to cover the manhunt and do interviews, where he eventually formed a bond with Smith). They even had some of the original jurors from the trial appear for the film. The attention to detail, combined with a documentary-style cinematography from Conrad Hall makes for a highly effective film. Brooks was firm in his intent to not have big stars play the main characters, feeling that it would be a distraction (Columbia Pictures originally wanted Steve McQueen and Paul Newman, for example). Blake was a child star who had grown up to less known roles as an adult while Wilson was in only his second ever film role, recommended by Sidney Poitier and Quincy Jones (who both worked with Wilson earlier with In the Heat of the Night). Blake proves the best performance of the whole group, one riddled with creeping conviction that lures you into a world of darkness as a brutal contradiction that creeps under the surface until the climatic flashback, with his conversation about his father in the rain sequence (where it looks like tears that stays on his face) being a somber highlight. Wilson captures dark charm that fits the other side of the crazed coin with an impulsive nature that seems likes a ticking time bomb, whether that means trying to lure someone into a trap or force their way through street senses. Forsythe (known for his television work) delivers quality as the real-life authority figure, while Stewart (a portrayer of often sinister and cynical characters in film, television, stage, and radio) delivers cynicism like a Greek chorus (which Capote took exception to) that observes the pursuit with eventual narration that contrasts him with everyone else, particularly since he is the one to ponder over the events that have occurred with the film after it closes, and the other members of the cast do well whenever there is some focus on them (such as Corey and McGraw each talking about how they tried to raise their kid). The film balances its narratives with care that builds to its violent action near the end with key amounts of darkness and shock (likely better than if it had just been shown in the first half), with a message that mostly hits its mark in the end, depending on how one feels about the death penalty. On the whole, this is a efficient film, filled with detail and execution with devastating lead performances and a 134 minute run-time that makes for a creeping experience that packs a punch after five decades as a gem of realism and a study of human nature.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Narrow Margin.

Review #870: The Narrow Margin.

Cast:
Charles McGraw (Det. Sgt. Walter Brown), Marie Windsor (Mrs. Frankie Neall), Jacqueline White (Ann Sinclair), Peter Virgo (Densel), Gordon Gebert (Tommy Sinclair), Queenie Leonard (Mrs. Troll), David Clarke (Joseph Kemp), Don Beddoe (Det. Sgt. Gus Forbes), and Paul Maxey (Sam Jennings) Directed by Richard Fleischer.

Review:
With a cast of unknowns and a low budget, this is a film that manages to be a serviceable efficient little film noir. There is some sense of suspense within itself, not spending too much time wasting away, establishing characters without much effort. They have the characteristics of ones you might notice in other noirs of the time, but this manages to click at the right points in part due to its cast. McGraw is a pretty good everyman, and Windsor is also pretty alluring as well. They have a fine amount of banter mixed with bits of cynicism that is engaging enough to work. White is also pretty interesting, having some decent chemistry with McGraw. The rest of the cast also does fine (Maxey stands out in part due to his scenes with McGraw), and even the kid actor (Gebert) isn't too annoying. The train setting helps keep the movie compressed and interesting. There is some action (and at least one fight on a train), which is nice and dandy to watch. The twist at the end is pretty clever as well, not being too far fetched or too unknown. On the whole, this is a nice flick because of it goes through the motions in a satisfactory manner.  As such, the directing is good for the time, having some fairly decent shots and a fairly balanced plot that more often then not knows what it wants to be. Quite simply, if you like film noirs, old cinema, or movies that don't overstay their welcome, this is the one for you.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Threat.

Review #723: The Threat.

Cast
Michael O'Shea (Detective Ray Williams), Virginia Grey (Carol), Charles McGraw (Arnold "Red" Kluger), Julie Bishop (Ann Williams), Frank Conroy (District Attorney Barker MacDonald), Robert Shayne (Inspector Murphy), Anthony Caruso (Nick Damon), Don McGuire (Joe Turner), and Frank Richards (Lefty) Directed by Felix E. Feist.

Review
It's a cheap little quickie of a b-movie that runs 66 minutes, made in the heyday of film noirs, with this being released at the turn of the decade. Yeah, that's a boring way to describe the movie, but at least the movie isn't as boring, so there's that. The movie is at least quick with its approach, and it also manages to make McGraw a main focus, and he does an excellent job as the villain, mainly because of his voice, which rings well with his chemistry with Grey and O'Shea. It's a rough and tough kind of movie, with the kind of hostage formula style you'd see from old movies, but it at least is entertaining enough if you're in the mood for it. If you'd like a movie from the 40's that will be short, to the point, and decent enough, this is for you. Is it great? No, but it is at least something to not be embarrassed by. You won't remember much from it after a while, but it is passable enough.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Hang 'Em High.

Review #518: Hang 'Em High.

Cast
Clint Eastwood (Jed Cooper), Inger Stevens (Rachel Warren), Ed Begley (Captain Wilson), Pat Hingle (Judge Adam Fenton), Ben Johnson (Dave Bliss), Charles McGraw (Ray Calhoun), Ruth White (Peaches Sophie), Bruce Dern (Miller), Alan Hale Jr. (Matt Stone), Arlene Golonka (Jennifer), James Westerfield (Prisoner), and Dennis Hopper (The Prophet) Directed by Ted Post.

Review
I had reviewed the Dollars Trilogy that starred Clint Eastwood and directed by Sergio Leone (#015 - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, #017 - A Fistful of Dollars, #019 - For a Few Dollars More), and the success of the trilogy led to this film, one that Eastwood's business manager (Irving Leonard) described as a cross between Rawhide and Leone's westerns, and I can see why. But how is the film? It's okay. Eastwood is raw but intriguing, and Stevens delivers a contrast despite not having too many scenes, only near the end does she get her chance to shine. Begley and Hingle are good, but it seems the one who is really memorable despite having once scene is Dennis Hopper, he sticks out and rambles, and he certainly made an impression on me for his one scene. The film is raw at times and somewhat interesting and while it may take its time, it's an alright film and it is a film you could watch if you're still reeling from Leone's masterful Trilogy, take this for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.