Showing posts with label Samuel Fuller. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Samuel Fuller. Show all posts

May 27, 2026

Pickup on South Street.

Review #2541: Pickup on South Street.

Cast: 
Richard Widmark (Skip McCoy), Jean Peters (Candy), Thelma Ritter (Moe Williams), Murvyn Vye (Captain Dan "Tiger"), Richard Kiley (Joey), Willis Bouchey (Zara), Milburn Stone (Winoki), Vic Perry (Lightning Louie a.k.a. "Godkin"), Harry Carter (Detective Dietrich), George E. Stone (Willie, police desk clerk), George Eldredge (Fenton), and John Gallaudet (Detective Lieutenant Campion) Directed by Samuel Fuller (#1790 - Park Row, #2234 - The Steel Helmet, #2400 - The Baron of Arizona)

Review: 

Sure, it's time again to encounter a Samuel Fuller movie. Pickup on South Street was his sixth feature as a director. With the finishing of Park Row, Fuller, under contract with Darryl F. Zanuck at 20th Century Fox, was approached with a script called "Blaze of Glory" by Dwight Taylor (a former reporter for The New Yorker before becoming a writer with films such as When Tomorrow Comes [1939] and I Wake Up Screaming [1941]) about a woman lawyer falling in love with her criminal client in a murder trial. He liked it, but as a newspaper man in his old days, he knew those cases take time to play out, so he instead wanted to do a film about an outlaw and their gal but on the scale of small-time thieves. Alluding to hot button issues of the time such as fears of communists and secrets being sold (such as the mostly recent case of Klaus Fuchs), Fuller stated later that he wanted to "take a poke at the idiocy of the cold war climate of the fifties". Incidentally, the working title was "Pick-pocket", but executives thought it sounded too "European", so it eventually landed on a title that was inspired by Fuller's special memories of South Street in New York (in 1959, French filmmaker Robert Bresson directed a movie, called, well, Pickpocket). He soon did research on pickpockets through NYPD Detective Dan Campion, who he based the character Tiger on*. Fuller was given credit for the screenplay while Taylor was credited with the story. Despite grumblings from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover about the nature of the film (which never refers to the FBI at any point), the movie breezed through to release without a hitch, which saw it make double its budget of $780,000 back with audiences. In 1967, 20th Century Fox released The Cape Town Affair, a film shot in South Africa that basically was a remake (with Fuller being co-credited for the screenplay with "Harold Medford") that had James Brolin and Jacqueline Bissett cast in the lead roles alongside Claire Trevor.

All Fuller cared about was making a thriller about people on the margins, and he sure got it here with a satisfying feature that has a dark streak in people that wanted to get by with what they had. Even in a movie filmed on a set, you still have the feeling of seeing a tremendous city of strange seediness. It's a noir movie that is both rich and lean enough for all to enjoy for 80 minutes. It all rides on the cool nature of Widmark (who worked with Fuller once more with Hell and High Water [1954]), who is the usual cocksure self that is easy enough to like for what he does in the long run of tricks and guile. He doesn't care for flag-waving or people trying to get one over on him because if anybody is going to be the conman (physically or emotionally), it's going to be him. Fuller wanted an "average-looking woman" for the lead, which namely meant not wanting Ava Gardner or Betty Grable (contemporary articles apparently stated Grable rejected it, while Fuller's autobiography claimed otherwise) and landed on the bow-legged walking of Peters, who I guess is the kind of person who could make a guy like Widmark try to walk a semi-straight and narrow path, even if they have some offbeat scenes together; at one point, trying to confront someone breaking into his little shabby place. Widmark socks the first thing he sees, which happens to be Peters. Ritter (in an award nominated role) makes for quality support as a stoolie that still has a semblance of charm that shines right through to her final scene, an informant of the streets with standards right to the bitter end. The adversaries are the usual type of crook to lie within the lines of noir (really it could be anybody besides Commies), even if at a certain point you know where it's going to go. With a cast like this, it's got something for everyone with the type of people that show up every now and then. As a whole, if you like the hard touches of Fuller in tabloid narratives and being straight to the point, you'll have plenty to appreciate here. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.


*Daniel J. Campion served 27 years on the force, which saw him serve as a detective on the pickpocket squad beginning in 1929. He retired in 1954, and died in 1958 at the age of 54. 

August 21, 2025

The Last Movie.

Review #2413: The Last Movie.

Cast: 
Dennis Hopper (Kansas), Stella Garcia (Maria), Don Gordon (Neville Robey), Julie Adams (Mrs. Anderson), Peter Fonda (The Young Sheriff), Sylvia Miles (The Script Clerk), Samuel Fuller (Sam), Dean Stockwell (Billy the Kid), Russ Tamblyn (Charlie Bowdre), Tomas Milian (The Priest), Toni Basil (Rose), Severn Darden (The Mayor), Roy Engel (Harry Anderson), Henry Jaglom (The Minister's Son), Warren Finnerty (The Banker), Michelle Phillips (The Banker's Daughter), Kris Kristofferson (The Minstrel Wrangler), Michael Anderson Jr (The Mayor's Son), and Rod Cameron (Pat Garrett) Directed by Dennis Hopper (#1430 - Easy Rider).

Review: 
“I'm trying to say our lives are fragmented. That some people care and some people don't care and some don't know how to care."

Hey, remember Easy Rider (1969)? That was the movie where Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda worked together on the counterculture movie to end all counterculture movies. The veracity of who wrote what with that movie (as also worked on by Terry Southern) is debatable, but what you saw with that movie was one directed by Hopper and starring him and Fonda that, well, yes, it was a hit. Hopper and Fonda would go into their own paths after the success of the movie because studios thought that they could replicate movies like that (cheap and "cool") for themselves. Paradoxically, the idea for what became The Last Movie came a number of years prior to Easy Rider, as Hopper, in the midst of finishing The Sons of Katie Elder (1965), came up with an idea during the wrap party under the influence of what else but pot that saw him come up with an idea about "making movies and the effect it has on people, and what they do when a movie company leaves town." Enter Stewart Stern. Hopper enlisted the services of the screenwriter (having done such scripts as Rebel Without a Cause [1955]), with each partaking in certain practices (namely blowing smoke down the snorkel of a scuba mask) that resulted in a script that would have a "far out" ending involving the culmination of a stuntman staying in a Latin American town and seeing the people react to a film company having shot a Western there. Long story short, the idea would go through several hands considered for producers and stars (Phil Spector was once thought to be involved as a producer alongside Jason Robards to star). The success of Easy Rider would make one think that the company led by Bert Schneider would back The Last Movie, but that was not to be. Instead, Universal Pictures dropped right in and even gave him final cut privileges as long as he did it on a tight budget. There are various roads that all seem to intersect with the making of the film, which started in Peru in 1970 and went through a road of drugs and other various substances behind the scenes (as captured in The American Dreamer, a documentary that followed Hopper around that at one point showed him carry a gun around), although the shoot itself was apparently not that chaotic. Funny thing about that script: Hopper basically junked it in favor of improvisation, not even bothering to shoot the ending (as noted by Stern, because Hopper asked him to come to New Mexico when he was editing it down). It eventually culminated in a disjointed print in 1971 (apparently, Alejandro Jodorowsky, director of films such as El Topo, had a hand in the editing process). The end result, after such strange sorrow, was a movie that barely made it into theaters and was essentially dropped by Universal with the energy of a wayward child being dumped onto a military school. Hopper (who took the movie on lecture tours as late as 1978) did not direct another movie until Out of the Blue (1980). The movie was not available on DVD for many years and a restoration of the movie only happened in 2018.*

Universal apparently had the belief that if you gave a couple of young directors a budget of $1 million, you would get something worthwhile. The result was the following: Douglas Trumbull made Silent Running, Monte Hellman made Two-Lane Blacktop, George Lucas made American Graffiti, Peter Fonda's The Hired Hand and the aforementioned Last Movie as made by Hopper. Honestly, the only way to view the movie is to just see it. You can't really get a great description of the movie that isn't just describing things that happen (such as "scene missing" or credits that pop up out of the blue). It wasn't exactly a critic favorite (Roger Ebert called it a "wasteland of cinematic wreckage"). It isn't even a movie you could watch for the acting, unless you want to see people improvise on the level just above dinner theater or to see the weird wacky weary world of one Dennis Hopper. It probably won't do many favors to those who thought Zabriskie Point (1970) was obtuse to watch. But it is quite the trip for 108 minutes to realize that reality and ritual can in fact collide for what you might call a new type of heaven or hell. One probably fades in and out about the same level as this movie does, complete with having an uncertain road close right from under one's skin. The whole movie could be called as one that gets under your skin: arrogant, free-wheeling, beautiful to look at (as shot by the famed László Kovács), rambling, pick any adjective you want. But there is something about it that is hard to resist when it comes to just calling it a mess. Hopper is a fascinating presence to be around even in the moments that might resemble a drifter on a stormy night. You'll see people come and go (yes, the director Samuel Fuller appears at one point alongside the film debut of the immeasurable Kristofferson) and that I suppose is just how it feels in our own lives to have people love and betray us in where they come and go (a chunk of this might sound like syrupy hokum, but life is bullshit enough before one goes around not saying what they think, don't you think?). Real or imagined, we live the life we make for ourselves and sometimes that can be a slice of heaven or a piece straight from hell. We see violence on TV and film and sometimes we just believe that it is something to slip by us with no muddling into our own lives but it does fester in us because that is just how things are as one of the supposed creatures of a certain power. It is a bit funny to see Universal foot the bill for such a weird movie. In truth, it took me a while to ponder what the hell I watched with this movie and the end result is that I found it to be a curious movie that exists in the realm of near-unrankability: you either will like it or you won't like it, but at least Hopper made something he could be proud of cultivating.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
*By sheer coincidence, that was the same year that The Other Side of the Wind (the movie where Hopper appeared in that was shot in the 1970s) came out.

July 16, 2025

The Baron of Arizona.

Review #2400: The Baron of Arizona.

Cast: 
Vincent Price (James Reavis), Ellen Drew (Sofia; Karen Kester as child Sofia), Vladimir Sokoloff (Pepito), Beulah Bondi (Loma), Reed Hadley (Griff), Robert Barrat (Judge), Robin Short (Lansing), Tina Pine (Rita), Margia Dean (the Marquesa), Jonathan Hale (the Governor), Edward Keane (Miller), and Barbara Woodell (Mrs. Lansing) Directed by Samuel Fuller (#1790 - Park Row, #2234 - The Steel Helmet)

Review: 
"The cameraman is master of his own kingdom. I feel the same about the rest of my crew: sound technicians, makeup people, hairdressers, costume designers. We'd discuss the kind of picture I wanted to make. Then I'd give them ample freedom to get the job done. They always did, no matter the budget or time constraints. I was always lucky with my production crews...The Baron from Arizona wasn't a big success. At least it was fun to make." - Samuel Fuller

Once ago, the West was a weird place. There once was a man named James Reavis that claimed to be a Baron of Arizona. The Missouri native apparently first learned he was good at forging signatures when enlisted in the traitorous Confederate Army as a teenager. He soon decided to surrender to the Union and served briefly there before doing a variety of jobs, one of which was real estate. It was only in 1880 that Reavis visited the then-Arizona Territory. He soon honed his plan that would see him file papers involving grants, deeds, and a claim that would've effectively nullified all existing land titles within the grant. Complications arose in the grant that saw him go to a second plan: an heiress to the grant that he could marry. Finally, in the year of 1889, the ball was rolling for nailing down the lack of validity of the claim, most notably with surveyor general Royal Johnson that noted the irregularities such as using a steel-nibbed pen rather than a quill for 18th century documents. Reavis did sue the United States government that went down the toilet in 1895. He was tried for forgery and found guilty in 1896, where he served prison time until 1898. He died in a pauper's grave in 1914. Incidentally, the tale of Reavis loosely inspired the 1939 film The Night Riders. According to Samuel Fuller's autobiography, he came across the Arizona story in the 1930s when drinking in New Mexico, as one does when on the writing beat. At any rate, years later Robert Lippert, satisfied with I Shot Jesse James (1949), was ready to produce another of Fuller's films and liked the pitch Fuller (who aspired to not leave Lippert after having one good time with him) gave to him. To beef up the curiosity, the movie states a source with a 1949 article in The American Weekly by Homer Croy, which had apparently also had material from Sam White that had been published earlier in True magazine. By Fuller's own admission, he wrote a script that he believed was more interesting than the actual Reavis story, particularly in the planning and with the love story.  Fuller even had the benefit of James Wong Howe as cinematographer because Howe, a friend of his, didn't care about the money for shooting a film and just wanted to do it. 

Admittedly, even though the movie is fine at best with the overall experience, you can clearly see the development present in a growing talent. The movie does take a bit of time to really get going with its setup (with narration present in setting certain things up, as they say), but the 97-minute runtime is generally watchable to make things worth it. Obviously first choices don't come to most movies, as Fuller had Fredric March in mind first for the lead role, but Lippert couldn't afford him. Instead, Fuller went with a gentleman that he saw on Broadway with a worthwhile voice and movements: Vincent Price. Fuller wrote a lead character that is arrogant and a conniving swindler to nearly everyone he meets and he has the absolute right guy for the film to work when you consider that Price was more than just a guy in horror movies (which happened later in the decade, as we all know), he could even do comedy in films such as Champagne for Caesar (1950). Simply put, Price makes me smile anytime I see him in a film because the mannerisms and voice just fit right from the word go even when playing a swindler. You love to see him in how the cogs turn in his head about where to jump to next in zest that in some way we all wish we had. The rest of the cast by comparison is okay, as if somehow looking at the film behind them (because Howe's cinematography is nice to experience, for one) is more interesting, but nobody detracts from the experience. You can at least believe Drew's character really does have affection for Price even with all that comes with someone who constricts an entire narrative about being descended from great things. The ending is the old fashioned "leave 'em happy going home", but it is definitely the result of a director that wanted to show that even con men can make schemes they didn't see coming work in their favor (besides, the part beforehand involving revealing ink is charming). As a whole, Fuller's second effort as a filmmaker is relatively fine, telling a worthy enough yarn of a conman and the spirit that it takes to carry things as long as it takes to get what they desire most in the game of life. For those who want a curious type of Western that plays fast and loose with history in the most curious of ways with an icon (for me, at least) in his young years, The Baron of Arizona is practically right up your alley.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

July 28, 2024

The Steel Helmet.

Review #2234: The Steel Helmet.

Cast: 
Gene Evans (Sergeant Zack), Robert Hutton (Private Bronte), Steve Brodie (Lieutenant Driscoll), James Edwards (Corporal Thompson), Richard Loo (Sergeant Tanaka), Sid Melton (Joe), Richard Monahan (Private Baldy), William Chun ("Short Round"), Harold Fong (The Red), Neyle Morrow (First GI), and Lynn Stalmaster (Second Lieutenant) Written, Produced, and Directed by Samuel Fuller (#1790 - Park Row)

Review: 
"I hate violence. That has never prevented me from using it in my films. It's part of human nature." - Samuel Fuller

It isn't too surprising that there were a few films made about the war effort in Korea while the war there was occurring, particularly one made by a veteran of the last World War. Samuel Fuller had served in the United States Army within the infantry. He went from working on screenplays to offering his services to direct with I Shot Jesse James (1949), which worked well enough to get him to continue as a director, which led to The Baron of Arizona (1950). With this film, he added producer to his line of credits (each of these first films were produced in some way by Robert L. Lippert). In his autobiography, he stated that he wanted to make a movie different from the usual stuff seen involving war, such as seeing the "genuine hardship of soldiers" to go with the fact that war in its confusion and brutality needed to be shown more so than straight heroism. Fuller cast Evans (an actor who had done only bit parts after returning from U.S. Army after having served as an engineer) on the strength of his actions when he approached for the role: when Fuller tossed an M1 rifle at him, he grabbed it, complete with racking it back when asked to by Fuller. He was kept even when suggestions were made to cast Larry Parks (of course, bigger studios earlier had thought of making it with John Wayne as the lead). Fuller shot exteriors for the film at Griffith Park in Los Angeles. His attempts to show the "organized insanity" that comes in war managed to ruffle feathers on each side (lefty or not), particularly with a visit with Army officials because of certain actions depicted in the film that, well, matched with actual events seen by Fuller, such as the shooting of a prisoner of war. The resulting film was a general hit (incidentally, the war would enter a period of stalemates that lasted until the 1953 ceasefire) that saw Fuller get a contract with 20th Century Fox for a time, for which his next film in Fixed Bayonets! (1951) also was a war film.

What we have is a straight-to-the-point story that manages to achieve the brilliance of looking like a thoughtful movie about the madness that arises in war that struck differently from the angle of the time within budgetary limitations that do more than if it had been a multimillion-dollar film. One gets an honest movie for 85 minutes with a worthwhile ensemble that shows the worry that arises from being packed in such a rough situation without turning it into a mark for eventual ra-ra heroism. In fact, the end of the film merely has a card saying, "There is no end to this story", which one doesn't usually get from their war films. It stokes curiosity for seeing strangers in a strange land rather than just being a mark for patriotism. Of course, they also don't usually see people asked about why they maintained their service even in the face of racism back home (such as the prior internment of Japanese Americans less than ten years prior). Fuller acts on his instincts to make a pulpy war film (dedicated to the U.S. infantry, as seen in the intro) that likely will leave a cutting impression on its viewer after it is finished. It doesn't take long to see the wisdom of having casted Evans (who would feature in a few more Fuller films) when it comes to his naturalistic performance that we follow along with in great interest in its gruff glory from the word go. The melting pot within the people around Evans is a curious one (one even is a conscientious objector) that consisted of actors who either didn't get many chances to get their due that do pretty well, such as the weariness played by Loo (a Hawaiian-born actor with Chinese ancestry that did plenty of stock roles) and Edwards. The bond of Evans and Chun is a curious one because of how each fit in the loosest of senses with the others, particularly since most of it is spent in a Buddhist temple with tension bubbling among these strangers that probably match the quote stated best in the film involving two kinds of soldiers, "those who are dead and those who are going to die." Aside from its partial time with Fong, one is mostly here with these shaky band of brothers before that fateful climax (as skillfully done with a handful of extras in a park) that drifts to a sobering conclusion for those who survive as opposed to the ones that did not get killed that day. As such, this is a worthwhile hard-nosed war film that rises above expectations with a useful cast and director all working in stride that results in an honest winner.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

January 19, 2022

Park Row.

Review #1790: Park Row.

Cast: 
Gene Evans (Phineas Mitchell), Mary Welch (Charity Hackett), Bela Kovacs (Ottmar Mergenthaler), Herbert Heyes (Josiah Davenport), Tina Pine (Jenny O'Rourke), George O'Hanlon (Steve Brodie), J. M. Kerrigan (Dan O'Rourke), Forrest Taylor (Charles A. Leach), Don Orlando (Mr. Angelo), Neyle Morrow (Thomas Guest), Dick Elliott (Jeff Hudson), Stuart Randall (Mr. Spiro), and Dee Pollock (Rusty) Written, Produced and Directed by Samuel Fuller.

Review: 
"Film is like a battleground ... Love, hate, action, violence, death. In one word, emotion!"

Generally, maverick directors are an interesting breed to consider when it comes to film. Samuel Fuller is no different, even if he had the interesting quirk of directing both studio features and independent features. Born in Massachusetts but later raised in New York, his first job was a copyboy of the New York Journal, doing so at the age of thirteen. He eventually moved to become a crime reporter for the San Diego Sun. He took up writing in the 1930s: Hats Off (1936) was his first screenwriting credit (he co-wrote it with a handful of writers). One of his novels, The Dark Page (written in 1944) was even adapted into a film in Scandal Sheet years later. He served in World War II for the United States Army in the U.S. Army’s 1st Infantry Division that saw him fight in various countries and saw him awarded with the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, and the Purple Heart. He directed his first film with I Shot Jesse James (1949) at the age of 37. Fuller's films may not have always enjoyed success, but he did receive considerable attention from countries abroad (particularly in France), and he appeared in a handful of films from other directors. He made over two dozen feature films in a career that spanned four decades, for which he did a variety of genres that ranged from war dramas to Westerns to thrillers (studio-based and independent), with notable films such as The Steel Helmet (1951), The Naked Kiss (1964), The Big Red One (1980), and White Dog (1982).

Well, there are some interesting historical tidbits one can find through this film. For one, Park Row refers to the variety of newspapers in the late 19th century that were located in New York City near City Hall, such as The New York Times. Later, newspapers would have early skyscrapers built as headquarters, and newspapers would stay around there until the 20th century. People from history are utilized here in the bridge jumper Steve Brodie (believed to have jumped from the Brooklyn Bridge) along with Ottmar Mergenthaler, inventor of the Linotype machine. A newspaper (New York World, published by Joseph Pulitzer) did indeed help fund the Statue of Liberty (which had begun fundraising in 1882 but did not start construction until 1885), in that it helped raise funds for the pedestal (which had started in 1882) that helped keep the statue in New York that published the names of the contributors in the paper. Park Row was the fifth feature film for Fuller, and he funded it entirely on his own, as one might expect from someone making a clear passion project. In fact, Fuller later stated that this was his favorite film of his. Of course, the film did not do well with audiences, suffering from a lack of big-name stars or even a gimmick to attract enough interest to earn Fuller his money back (dedicating it to the nation's papers did do some publicity, but not quite enough). He persisted in making this an independent feature (as opposed to making at 20th Century Fox, where he had made some of his first few films) as his studio employer suggested making it in color or even as a musical. So, for $200,000 (give or take) and sixteen days to shoot, Fuller did it himself, with most of the budget going to making a replica of the famed Park Row. As a whole, it is a decent movie, one that certainly has pulpy filming methods utilized exactly to what Fuller wants in efficient moviemaking that is meant to pull a useful punch for the craft of news making that succeeds in most of its goals. Granted, its ties to history are a bit fast and loose, but it is the enthusiasm that pulls through more than anything, one that prevents the movie from falling into the trap of becoming history hokum or murky sentimentality. 

Evans first attracted the interest of Fuller he was casting for The Steel Helmet (1950); Fuller threw a rifle at him, and Evans responded by inspecting it like a soldier, which convinced Fuller to want him for the lead role no matter what (which despite demands by producers for others was allowed). He apparently lost over forty pounds to do the film. He certainly seems right for the role, in that he fits the pace of the film with harsh determination. He seems like the kind of hero that Fuller would love to be - one who fights for truth in both print and his fists, for which one will likely appreciate. This was the first and only film appearance of Welch, who was primarily a stage and television actress before her sudden death in 1958. Fuller later described her in his autobiography as "beautiful, self-possessed woman with an inner strength that shone through her personality." He seems apt in his statement, in that she does pretty well with a steely role that eventually shows layers in those sequences paired with Evans, which is interesting. Heyes is the "elder" character, and he does what is needed in a role that could have screamed of pap (such as say, the scene where two characters are reading his "obituary", for example). At any rate, there is enough present in 83 minutes when it comes to its handful of interesting sequences that keep its message of truth on level, whether involving the assembling of the fictional newspaper to be featured in the film or when it comes to scenes with a bit more punch to them (the sequence where Evans punches a man who did a terrible crime to the paper in front of two statues is the showstopper). By the time one gets to the end (one with predictability that you could see coming for a passion project that doesn't look like a depressing time), learning a bit of history within a movie made fast and cheap with dependable character actors and a suitable presence behind the camera results in a decent movie. Whether one sees it as their first Fuller experience or not, Park Row makes a serviceable impression seventy years later.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.
Next Time: I Bury the Living (1958).