The Italian Job (1969)

Review #2221: The Italian Job (1969)

Cast: 
Michael Caine (Charlie Croker), Noël Coward (Mr. Bridger), Benny Hill (Professor Simon Peach), Raf Vallone (Altabani), Tony Beckley (Camp Freddie), Rossano Brazzi (Roger Beckerman), Maggie Blye (Lorna), Irene Handl (Miss Peach), John Le Mesurier (the Prison Governor), Fred Emney (Birkinshaw), and John Clive (Garage manager) Directed by Peter Collinson (#608 - Tomorrow Never Comes)

Review: 

There are plenty of summer movies that could be chosen to roll with the long hot days or just as warm nights, but it probably stands to reason that The Italian Job is a good choice to kick things off on its good side. The original idea was thought of by Ian Kennedy Martin (a writer generally known for his British television work) as a TV drama idea involving a robbery in a traffic jam in London. It didn't go anywhere, but his brother Troy (also noted for his TV work, such as Z-Cars) bought the idea and wanted to make a movie set in Italy, completely with Michael Caine envisioned as the lead. And so, he made his spec script that eventually got the attention of Paramount Pictures and to the attention of producer Michael Deeley. He made a suggestion for a bit lighter film in terms of a caper (in his memoirs, he described the first draft as a bit complicated in political emphasis). Paramount chose Peter Collinson to direct the film, which would come out after The Long Day's Dying (released in 1968 that had Deeley as producer, as he wanted to see how Collinson would handle a film production); he would be a steady director in the following decade before his untimely death in 1980 at the age of 44. It was Deeley who came up with the iconic ending of the film, which he conceived as a solution to the fact that the endings that Martin tried to come up to conclude the film because in his words, the endings thought of all seemed to fall under "Irving the Explainer", where dialogue ends up being the thing for the filmmaker to depend on to get out of a problem (as opposed to visual explanation); he also thought of the idea because, well, he had ideas of possibly doing a sequel. Shot mostly in Turin, Italy with a hodgepodge of cars and stunts, the film was a success in its native England (but not so much in America) that has achieved a fame not always seen by caper films, even inspiring a charity fundraising event that sees plenty of Minis driving around the United Kingdom and Italy. A remake (of sorts) was released in 2003.

It really is just one of those films that invites delight and wonder even if you've seen a good deal of these caper and chase films. It is a pretty efficient 99-minute film that delights itself as firmly British and yet firmly amusing to those who encounter it. It indulges the pleasures of building up a caper that lives well on the great charm that arises in bringing together Caine at the pinnacle of his 1960s sharpness alongside a few neat cars and locations. Caine always seemed to know just the right moment for timing and charm, whether that involves plans or in casual dialogue that goes to show one can make anything sound cool, I suppose. This was the last film appearance of Coward (famed playwright and president of the orphanage that Collinson had spent most of his childhood in), who had been suffering from arteriosclerosis prior to his subsequent death in 1973. It may not be a plentiful part (they had him for just a few days), but he has the dignity to keep the role from waffling into nothingness. He just has the look and aura to sound on point when it comes to using the time wisely for esteemed lords of the manor (whether jail or otherwise). There are a few names known for those familiar with television of the time (as stated by its producer), and it only makes sense that Hill was there in his ragged weirdness. Car commercial or not, it does make the Mini look like its own character when it comes to handling the action (amusingly, there was a shot scene that had a part of the car chase occur while an orchestra played "The Blue Danube" but it was deleted). The music score by Quincy Jones (such as say, "The Self Preservation Society song, as sung by the cast or the intro song as sung by Matt Monro) only adds to the comfortable nature of the film when it comes to general mood. It builds its setup and execution with worthwhile timing that has a nice balance of humor (that one line about doors is the easy one to go with), but undeniably it is the climax that makes me appreciate how it all goes together: it really is just better to have the film dangle right on the Alps. As a whole, it is pretty neat in engaging a clear caper with winning charm and commitment to make for a pretty good time. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

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.

El Cid.

Review #1408: El Cid.

Cast: 
Charlton Heston (Don Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar, El Cid), Sophia Loren (Doña Ximena), Herbert Lom (Ben Yusuf), Raf Vallone (García Ordóñez), Geneviève Page (Doña Urraca), John Fraser (Alfonso VI, King of Castile), Douglas Wilmer (Al-Mu'tamin, Emir of Zaragoza), Frank Thring (Al-Kadir, Emir of Valencia), Michael Hordern (Don Diego), Andrew Cruickshank (Count Gormaz), Gary Raymond (Prince Sancho), Ralph Truman (King Ferdinand), and Massimo Serato (Fañez) Directed by Anthony Mann (#947 - He Walked by Night)

Review: 
"I'm not a genius, I'm a worker."

Epic films, when in the right hands, can prove to be entertaining spectacles that make one interested in the subject matter or in its setting. Anthony Mann served to be a good choice to make an epic film, despite having most of his work being film noirs and westerns. Mann found his first calling with the theatre as an actor and eventually as director. After some work in the Theatre Guild and the WPA Federal Theatre Project, he was hired by David O. Selznick to scout talent and serve as casting and screen test director, doing so for films like Gone with the Wind (1939). After a few years of assistant directing, he made his debut as main director in Dr. Broadway (1942). He directed B-movies (mostly noirs and dramas) for numerous studios such as Paramount Pictures, RKO, and Eagle-Lion in his early years, with highlights being T-Men (1947), Raw Deal (1948) and un-credited work on He Walked by Night (1948). He soon added Westerns to his foray with Winchester '73 (1950), which would be the first of his with James Stewart. This was the fourth-to-last film (along with his last major success) of a career that spanned over thirty films in 26 years before suffering a heart attack at the age of 60. This film was produced by Samuel Bronston, who was behind a few historical epics such as John Paul Jones (1959), King of Kings (1961), 55 Days at Peking (1963, also starring Heston) and The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964, also directed by Mann and starring Loren).

It should figure that theatre-turned film star Heston would star in an epic like this, since a selection of his memorable films over a career that spanned six decades and dozens of movies were from epics like The Ten Commandments (1956), The Big Country (1958), and Ben-Hur (1959). Accompanying him is international star Loren, who came from poverty as a child to beauty pageant participant and eventual actress who became the first thespian to win an Academy Award for a non-English language performance with Two Women (1960). When the film isn't spending time on its sets or setting up its battles with bombastic nature, Heston and Loren are present to make a fair couple of passion to look upon a film that spans years and sometimes seems to feel like it too. This is a loose depiction of El Cid, the celebrated national hero of Spain that lived in the eleventh century, which has proven a source for numerous works such as the epic poem El Cantar de Mio Cid, and noted historian Ramón Menéndez Pidal was a consultant on the film. There is plenty of time to spend in three hours with something that wants to depict honor and legend that makes for a diverting time that keeps its conflicts in check without too much confusion or becoming a shell of itself and seeming outdated. It won't win all the credit for complete accuracy to history (such as the actual fate of El Cid), but the legend still presents itself with enough power from this film to inspire further interest regardless. Heston and Loren did not get along too well in making the film, but they still manage to come off together decently, perhaps in part because of that tension that carries over to a good chunk of its first half, and it eventually ekes its way out of seeming wooden on both sides, with Heston being a towering presence and Loren being a timeless figure of devotedness. The rest of the actors fall in line just as well, but the true highlight is undoubtedly the battle sequences. Any time that one gets to see a tremendous execution of horses and knights is a good one to have, with the jousting sequence being a fun one to view especially. The strangest thing is not the fact that Heston was unimpressed by the film (with some of that reason being Mann's insistence on shooting the battles himself), it was the fact that he felt that director best suited for the film was William Wyler, while conversely feeling that Mann would have been the better choice for Ben-Hur (1959). Regardless of that fact, one cannot deny that this is a fair epic to stand for its era, mixing spectacle and romance with a capable director and stars to make it a useful experience to view once as a showing of a tale worth looking into further.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.