A Gunfight.

Review #1716: A Gunfight. 

Cast: 

Kirk Douglas (Will Tenneray), Johnny Cash (Abe Cross), Jane Alexander (Nora Tenneray), Karen Black (Jenny Sims), Keith Carradine (Young Gunfighter), Dana Elcar (Marv), Raf Vallone (Francisco Alvarez), Eric Douglas (Bud Tenneray), Robert J. Wilke (Marshal Tom Cater), and Paul Lambert (Ed Fleury) Directed by Lamont Johnson. 

Review: 

Sure, there are two interesting things to note about this movie. For one, this was funded by the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, of which most live in the state of New Mexico that have a significant portion of their income come from oil and gas wells. It was documented at the time as one of the first movies entirely funded by Native Americans, and it is perhaps ironic since it is a Western without any Native Americans. Of course, the other thing is that it features legendary singer Johnny Cash in an acting role. It was actually his third appearance in a motion picture, having starred in Five Minutes to Live (1961) and being featured as himself in The Road to Nashville (1967); of course, there was also the The Johnny Cash Show (1969-71), which had an episode featuring him with Douglas (who at the time of filming was approaching 55). This movie was released 50 years ago today, one that was made for $2 million while distributed to limited audiences by Paramount Pictures (at least, that is what one assumes, since there aren't that many contemporary reviews for it and you likely had never heard of it until today).

So yes, here we are with a movie that certainly tries to be offbeat and interesting in the differences from the usual expectations of a Western...in that the gunfighters seek the opportunity to make money to fight, as opposed to some sort of simmering difference between them, and they even arrange to duke it out in an arena fit for bull-fighting (get it?). 88 minutes take up time for what is meant to be an interesting look upon the dark side of folks with a lust to see people kill for sport. Of course, it also thinks it is clever by having more than just a swift finish at the arena with an imagined sequence at the end, so here we are. Boy, what a mediocre movie. The movie was written by Harold Jack Bloom (also a co-producer), best known for his work in television alongside his work on The Naked Spur (1953) and You Only Live Twice (1967). For his part, Johnson was also pretty familiar with Westerns from his TV work on stuff such as Have Gun - Will Travel along with a plethora of TV movie work that was fairly noted by audiences. Honestly, if you want a movie that shows the price of a killer trying to live with himself after a killing, you might as well just stick with Shane (1953). A Gunfight manages to be as generic as the title, one that is even bereft of the quality of oddness that could be possible with a Western meant to draw on weirdos wanting to see people kill each other. I have seen and heard more interesting moments come from people trying to justify a bizarre sports opinion than anything that comes from this movie, really. Ideally, one could do with just Cash and Douglas. A character study movie with just them might have worked if it was a more limited cast, since each are decent here. Cash never seems to be outmatched, collected in his weary pauses that looks for a different time than the one he is set upon - i.e. this isn't a star vehicle or a gimmick. Douglas simmers just as well like an opportunist ready for the big moment with confidence (granted, it is hard to top stuff with Douglas when Lonely Are the Brave (1962) exists). It takes quite a bit of time to see them meet, and it is probably an odd sign that there is nothing more interesting at any point before or after than when they meet and talk to each other (this includes the gunfight), since they play off each other with neat banter that at the very least makes this look like something more than just "uh huh, next." Well, that's not quite true, because Carradine is technically a curious and brash presence to see for like five minutes. Everyone else though is pretty much exactly what you might see coming, from the doting presences of the people close to the lead performers to the side folks, et cetera, et cetera. You might get more insight into the curiosity of folks wanting to see blood drawn at a horror convention. Honestly, by the time it lumbers to the fight, the interest is fairly mild as to just which choice the movie goes with...and yes, the fight is swiftly accomplished before being followed by imagination. I suppose it is meant to show the perspective of how neither gunfighter really wins despite being alive - uh huh, sure. You might as well just have them shoot to kill simultaneously if you want to pull a cheap message, particularly since I really care more about the idea of bringing interesting presences together rather than the usual Western stuff (i.e. a movie with presences doesn't mean one wants something with ego). Sure, the genre was still going okay in the 1970s, but this was the year of different types of Westerns like Billy Jack and McCabe & Mrs. Miller to grab the attention of audiences, and A Gunfight just doesn't have the confidence required to really make a meaningful statement that counts. Despite having Cash and Douglas, it proves to be just too average everywhere else and thus flops out in the overall end game - it might be a curiosity, but folks will find a movie with the bare minimum of filling rather than a show to look for.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Gunfight at the O.K. Corral.

Review #1395: Gunfight at the O.K. Corral.

Cast:
Burt Lancaster (Marshal Wyatt Earp), Kirk Douglas (Doc Holliday), Rhonda Fleming (Laura Denbow), Jo Van Fleet (Kate Fisher), John Ireland (Johnny Ringo), Lyle Bettger (Ike Clanton), Frank Faylen (Sheriff Cotton Wilson), Earl Holliman (Deputy Sheriff Charlie Bassett), Ted de Corsia (Shanghai Pierce), Dennis Hopper (Billy Clanton), Whit Bissell (John Clum), George Mathews (John Shanssey), John Hudson (Virgil Earp), DeForest Kelley (Morgan Earp), Martin Milner (James 'Jimmy' Earp), Lee Van Cleef (Ed Bailey), and Jack Elam (Tom McLowery) Directed by John Sturges (#427 - The Magnificent Seven)

Review: 
"Take one for spontaneity."

Everyone needs an entertaining picture. John Sturges could do an entertaining picture when given the chance to do so. He had started in the film business with RKO through a connection to his brother in their Art department, gradually rising from bluebrints to editor in a period of seven years. He subsequently served in World War II under the US Army Air Corps (where he did direction on training films and documentaries with William Wyler such as Thunderbolt) before returning to Hollywood with Columbia Pictures, who gave him his shot at directing with The Man Who Dared (1946), the first of a bunch of b-movies for them, with The Walking Hills (1949) being his first Western. A move to MGM in 1949 led to films with a bit more prominence, where he continued to make dramas, noirs, and Westerns. His most significant film through the studio before he turned independent was Bad Day at Black Rock (1955). Ultimately, Sturges (who favored just one take to get a scene done) would direct over 40 films in a 30-year career before his death in 1992 at 82 years old.

Making a film about the Old West can be an interesting time when there is some historical precedent to it, which has been the case for numerous Westerns about the legend of Tombstone, although most of those films probably didn't have a ballad to them. Of course one isn't going to particularly learn all there is to know about a famed gunfight in a movie like this (particularly an event that in reality lasted less than a minute and had just three people killed), where even an acclaimed Western on the subject like My Darling Clementine (1946) had tinges of inaccuracy (which also featured Ireland), with the formerly considered factual novel Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal having risen the late Earp into a famed Old West icon. While this film is not as particularly good on the subject as say Tombstone (1993), this is a solid Western for its era, building itself with quiet ambition and a capable duo in Lancaster and Douglas for a useful climax. Lancaster, the circus performer-turned-war veteran-turned actor (along with occasional producer) resonates with calm authority, which goes well when acting alongside Douglas, as they worked together on several films together. Douglas (another fellow war veteran turned actor, albeit with a rough childhood) commands attention each time he is on screen, a forceful presence even when coughing as the film goes on that showcases plenty of discipline that he was known for. They click the most together, with scenes of the Earp family together being second and everything else being okay at best. Fleming (who had "Queen of Technicolor" as a nickname by others) does okay, but a film with a fictional character to make a romance (Earp married three times, each common-law) doesn't prove to have much structure anyway since she doesn't have as much screen-time anyway, while Van Fleet delivers a few weary wicked moments. Ireland and the other adversaries do fine with stoking tension, which includes a young Dennis Hopper in just his fourth film role. On the whole, while the film can sometimes seem a bit too pedestrian at 122 minutes, there is a fine quality to follow along with its two leads and the conflict which work to serve an action-stuffed climax just the same. It isn't a great Western by any means, but it will serve its purpose of entertainment just the same with its own particular grip of a legend of the Old West for its time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Lonely Are the Brave.

Review #1229: Lonely Are the Brave.

Cast: 
Kirk Douglas (John W. "Jack" Burns), Gena Rowlands (Jerry Bondi), Walter Matthau (Sheriff Morey Johnson), Michael Kane (Paul Bondi), Carroll O'Connor (Truck Driver), William Schallert (Harry), George Kennedy (Gutierrez), and Karl Swenson (Rev. Hoskins) Directed by David Miller.

Review: 
Sometimes you come across a Western that is a bit different from the rest. This Western drama is adapted from Edward Abbey's 1956 novel The Brave Cowboy with a screenplay from Dalton Trumbo. The film deals with the difficulty an individual can have living within growing society, one where wires and fences loom over the open country, where one lone man stands with his principles. Douglas (who calls this his favorite film) was attracted to playing the lead after reading the novel, with him getting Universal Pictures to help fund the film with him as star, complete with cast and crew recruited from his production company Joel Productions. Filmed on a budget of two million around Albuquerque, New Mexico, Lonely Are the Brave is a stark and excellently done tragic classic, headlined by a great performance from Douglas alongside a capable supporting cast to go alongside him in a film that stands out from other Westerns of its time, both in setting and in tone. Key moments include Douglas and his fight with a one-armed man (Bill Raisch, a stand-in for Burt Lancaster on occasion best known for his appearances on The Fugitive beginning the following year), well-done cinematography by Philip H. Lathrop that shows off vast landscape shots without trouble and fine detail and an understated performance from Matthau, who was more known for his work on the stage (winning his second Tony Award the same year of this film's release, in fact). For the most part, this is a film for Douglas to grab with his performance, which is quite wonderful, running the gamut in grace as a man of the West trapped in a tragic fate of a moving world that makes this revisionist Western stand tall. Rowlands and Kane do fair with their brief time on screen, being the kind of people who could cross paths with a rogue like our lead without seeming completely in the background, trying to roll with their path in a weary world. The other members of the cast (including a young O'Connor) do just fine, including a rough Kennedy. It did not prove to be a huge hit upon initial release, in part because of disputes between Douglas and Universal over how the film should be released, with Douglas believing it should be released in art-houses and gradually build its audience and the studio preferring to release it wide without any sort of big support. Despite this, the film has its own cult following and it isn't hard to see why. It has a solid headliner with Douglas in a role he excels with, making it obvious why he would adore it still after half a century since, since it is a solid production with its own bit of thrills and distinctive voice among Westerns that make it a fair piece to recommend out of curiosity on the trail.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Saturn 3.

Review #1194: Saturn 3.

Cast: 
Farrah Fawcett (Alex), Kirk Douglas (Adam), Harvey Keitel (Captain Benson; voiced by Roy Dotrice), and Ed Bishop (Harding) Directed by Stanley Donen (#137 - Bedazzled (1967), #227 - Singin' in the Rain, #346 - On the Town, and #1029 - Charade)

Review: 
Whether a film is good or not, even the terrible ones can have an interesting story to tell about how it came to be. John Barry was a production designer for hit films in the 1970s such as A Clockwork Orange (1971), Star Wars (1977), and Superman (1978). He had expressed an interest in making a film of his own, and he approached Stanley Donan with an idea that would be presented as a Gothic sci-fi thriller. Although Donan was not interested in directing the feature due to not having much interest in science fiction, he encouraged Barry to develop an outline, which he developed into a draft that he showed to Donan. He felt that the idea could work for Barry's directorial debut, albeit with a need for help with developing the screenplay. Martin Amis (writer of novels such as Dead Babies but who had no prior experience with screenplays) was enlisted to develop a draft, which was presented by Donan to Lord Lew Grade (producer of shows such as Thunderbirds and The Prisoner) in 1978 for consideration. While having the script in his possession on an airplane trip, Grade happened to be seated next to Fawcett and her representative; he showed her the script (under the working title The Helper), and she expressed interest, which led to her making a deal with Grade to be in the project. After signing Douglas and Keitel, the film had their prime trio and began production in late January 1979. Donen described the film at one point as “...both sensuous and sensual, full of chills, fright and horror. It’s science fiction, but not ‘comic strip’ SF....It’s something of a Frankenstein story, and meant to frighten audiences in a very unusual way.” Colin Chilvers dealt with the construction of the robot, which cost over $1 million to make, while Stuart Craig was charged with production design, such as the interior of the Titan research station - it should be noted that the Saturn 3 set took over four months to build while running a distance of 280 feet for a film with a final budget of $10 million, with production overruns from Raise the Titanic (ITC Entertainment's other big production at the time) resulting in cutbacks for this film.

As much I do not like to emphasize age when it comes to a film, it certainly is a bit odd to see Fawcett and Douglas as a couple, in part because of the 30 year age difference between the two. Originally the idea was to have Sean Connery cast in the role of the older male lead, but plans fell through for that, leading to Douglas being cast. Douglas had strife with Barry, whose time as director proved short. Two weeks into production, he left the production, with Donan stepping in as director. Donan stated that Barry's departure was due to Barry's lack of experience on a film set in dealing with actors and staging scenes (as said by Donan, while calling him a "terrific talent"). It should be noted that the film has a run-time of 88 minutes; at least fifteen minutes were cut out of the movie (reportedly due to Grade's objection to them), with one notable scene being cut out involving a dream sequence of Adam killing Benson after the two try some sort of space pill. It should be mentioned that there also existed a television cut of the film that was 96 minutes long that included extensions and additions while toning done some of the film's violence. The final little nugget of weirdness came when Keitel refused to post-synch his dialogue, leading to a re-dubbing of his character by Roy Doctrice. Imagine making a film relying on three main characters and having one of them not even use their own voice the whole time - it sure is a strange thing.

With all of that background, it is no wonder that this did not turn out to be a great film. It is a tremendous exercise in ridiculousness for the science fiction genre, having a hodgepodge of cliches that make the movie seem like a strange blend of numerous movies, such as Alien (1979), Forbidden Planet (1956), but also Demon Seed (1977) while being worse than all three. It is a strange little movie, having no real sense of tension or wonder while having one of the stranger love pursuits - this time with a nutty creep and his lumbering Frankenstein robot (powered by baby brains). It is pretty evident that this script must have gone through numerous revisions, which reminds me of the Infinite monkey theorem (a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text) and if it was like that, but with script doctors. How can anyone make dialogue such as "Your body is very beautiful. I'd like to use it" or scenes such as Douglas (wearing no clothes) choking out Keitel work without making someone cringe (or giggle)? Fawcett seems to come out of it with the least lost, in part because her warmth and charm works just fine that fits the horror type okay. Douglas is simply not the right guy for the part, but at least he is hammy enough to enjoy in his attempts to have chemistry with Fawcett. Keitel (or more specifically, Doctrice) is creepy, but he isn't too particularly interesting to go along with, not having enough menace to really make this seem worthy of chills. By the time the film tries to pull a shocker for a climax (at least I assume its supposed to be surprising), the film already has run out of air. At least the robot seems interesting, but it seems as if they really wanted to make something different involving this robot as some sort of innocent Frankenstein's monster type, but really it is not much more than a killer robot that inhabits passion for Fawcett. The effects are decent, and the sprawling set is interesting - but it can't elevate the movie and its material to anything captivating. What we have here is a movie that is occasionally weird to point and look at while perhaps having a laugh, but what we don't have is something that is actually any good. It is a middle-of-the-road kind of film that can't be trashed as all-around terrible (despite some efforts on the part of the film) nor one that merits much of a following. It could be worth it as a curiosity for someone looking for a ridiculous failure piece - or some groans.

Next Review - Raise the Titanic.
 
Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Redux: The Man from Snowy River.

Redux Review #032: The Man from Snowy River.

Cast: 
Tom Burlinson (Jim Craig), Sigrid Thornton (Jessica Harrison), Kirk Douglas (Harrison / Spur), Terence Donovan (Henry Craig), Tommy Dysart (Mountain Man), Bruce Kerr (Man in Street), David Bradshaw (Banjo Paterson), Jack Thompson (Clancy), Tony Bonner (Kane), June Jago (Mrs. Bailey), and Chris Haywood (Curly) Directed by George T. Miller.

Review: 
On March 26, 2011, I reviewed this film as part of Season Two of Movie Night. Over seven years later, I have decided to do a Redux Review as part of a venture to revitalize certain reviews of the past and make them better in terms of their words and rating, which has evolved in some part since I was 14 as opposed to now. The original review wasn't even 100 words when I wrote it, so it is evident that this film deserves a re-look. Enjoy.

It is interesting to watch this film again, having not touched it since watching it with my dad in 2011. I described it as a film that had good acting (particularly from Kirk Douglas) that worked as a family film being comfortable being what it is. The film is an adaptation of the 1890 poem of the same name by Andrew "Banjo" Paterson, who is held in esteem to where he is on the Australian ten-dollar note, among other honors (including even being depicted in the film). This was the second adaptation of the poem, with the first being a 1920 film that also was an Australian production, although this movie is now lost. Obviously the film added aspects in its transition from poem to film, namely by having more characters and giving the title character a name - but that doesn't hurt the film in any sort of discernible way. This was filmed near the Victorian High Country in Australia, and the imagery is certainly beautiful to look at due to the cinematography by Keith Wagstaff. On a technical level, the film is wonderful, with the sets certainly selling themselves well. The horse action, particularly in the climax, is mesmerizing to watch, with Burlinson doing his own horse riding stunts. The most famous shot is one where he and the horse go over a cliff at a full gallop down, and that is something to behold, particularly since horse action isn't something you can't really fake. In any case, the chase at the end is exciting to watch. The main theme by Bruce Rowland is a particular standout, having a grace to it that I appreciate very much. The theme has been utilized for golf events and Rowland himself composed a special version of the theme for the 2000 Summer Olympics opening ceremony held in Sydney, Australia.

The acting performances are fairly well-done. Burlinson proves to be capable in his performance, having a fair sense of determination to him in his pursuit that comes off pretty convincingly. Thornton also proves pretty fair in her role; the romance between the two isn't too passionate, but it is at least convincing enough to make for a few interesting moments. It should be noted that Burt Lancaster and Robert Mitchum were considered for the dual role prior to Kirk Douglas signing on to portray Harrison and Spur. In any case, Douglas pulls it off pretty well, handling both characters with their own kind of personality without being too hammy. The rest of the cast do alright in their time on screen. As a Western, it has a plot structure that follows along the lines that you might expect (particularly with the romance), but the film earns its adventure and triumph through its execution and how it handles its story with enough care. At 102 minutes, the run-time is fairly paced, having a decent pace that never becomes too boring. Sometimes it feels a bit like a TV production, which makes a bit of sense given the TV background of some of the filmmakers such as Miller and John Dixon (who served as writer for the movie), but it all stays consistent enough to feel authentic enough without much distraction, whether for oneself or for families. This is a fair gem in a frontier of dramas and Westerns.

Thank you to you fellow readers who took the time to read this review. The decision to revise the rating is one made out of honesty and care for the system of doing rating decisions. Thank you for your consideration.

Next review: The Man from Snowy River II.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Lust for Life.

Review #620: Lust for Life.

Cast
Kirk Douglas (Vincent van Gogh), Anthony Quinn (Paul Gauguin), James Donald (Theo van Gogh), Pamela Brown (Christine), Everett Sloane (Dr. Gachet), Henry Daniell (Theodorus van Gogh), Madge Kennedy (Anna Cornelia van Gogh), Noel Purcell (Anton Mauve), and Niall MacGinnis (Roulin) Directed by Vincente Minnelli (#405 - The Reluctant Debutante and #510 - Father of the Bride)

Review
Vincent Willem van Gogh was a very talented painter who suffered a very tormented life, he painted many things, but he didn't have much success until after his death. There have been a few movies based off his life (and one episode of a certain television show revolving around one of his paintings...Alright, I admit, "Vincent and the Doctor" was a fine episode, go watch it.), but we're (I mean me, but let's just say 'we' to make you readers feel like you're involved in this review, if you don't feel like you are already) focusing on the 1956 version with Kirk Douglas, who does looks like Gogh, especially with his red flowing hair, and he delivers a really great performance, you empathize with this poor guy, and even watching Douglas painting is fun to observe. Anthony Quinn doesn't has much screen time, but he certainly does leave an impression on you, which is good and all; honestly I was surprised he won an Oscar for this role, it takes an hour for him to appear, even Donald is seen first, but oh well. Lust for Life lists credit to the various galleries (along with collectors) that allowed the works of Gogh to be photographed for the film, and it helps the film with its artistic edge, it makes the movie more colorful and it just shows the genius that was Vincent van Gogh. This is a powerful movie that is sometimes slow, but mostly cool to watch, especially with its paintings, seriously, go google Vincent van Gogh (or go to an art museum), and look at the colorful and vividness of his paintings, they are magical, just like the film.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Devil's Disciple.

Review #612: The Devil's Disciple.

Cast
Burt Lancaster (Anthony Anderson), Kirk Douglas (Richard Dudgeon), Laurence Olivier (General John Burgoyne), Janette Scott (Judith Anderson), Eva Le Gallienne (Mrs. Dudgeon), Harry Andrews (Major Swindon), and Basil Sydney (Lawyer Hawkins) Directed by Guy Hamilton (#280 - Diamonds Are Forever, #289 - The Man with the Golden Gun, #291 - Goldfinger and #293 - Live and Let Die)

Review
It figures to review a movie (based on a play) based around the Revolutionary War on the day of America' declaration of Independence 238 years ago, and The Devil's Disciple fits that bill just nicely. Is the movie good though? Yeah, pretty much. The most interesting actor is Kirk Douglas, playing a clever little character that fits so unevenly with the rest of the character, and yet he's the most interesting one of the bunch. Lancaster is at least commanding, and Olivier is as well, the cast is pretty good all in all. The action is brief, but it is fun to watch, and while the movie may run short, it does its job pretty well. The movie may take its time to get where it wants, but it eventually makes its mark, and it works well overall, especially today. Happy Independence Day to all, and stay safe.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Ace in the Hole.

Review #194: Ace in the Hole.

Cast
Kirk Douglas (Chuck Tatum), Jan Sterling (Lorraine Minosa), Robert Arthur (Herbie Cook), Porter Hall (Jacob Q. Boot), Frank Cady (Mr. Federber), Richard Benedict (Leo Minosa), Ray Teal (Sheriff Kretzer), Lewis Martin (McCardle), John Berkes (Papa Minosa), Frances Dominguez (Mama Minosa), and Gene Evans (Deputy Sheriff) Directed by Billy Wilder (#106 - Some Like It Hot)

Review
Nearly sixty one years old, this film still has some bite. Originally called The Big Carnival, it was not a success initially, but today it is a classic. Cynical and nail biting to the point, it also has good acting from Kirk Douglas, who is the father of another great actor, Michael Douglas, who I mentioned already (#095 - Wall Street). Both can play alluring roles that charm you into watching the movie. Fun fact: Kirk's real name was Issur Danielovitch. Wilder directed, wrote, and produce, and yet this wasn't much of a success back then. But as time passes, so does opinions, and I feel that way as well. Unrelenting yet still realistic with good noir with a good ending shot to top it off. It might be a bit slow in the beginning, but it all tops out in the end. Countdown to 200: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.