Von Richthofen and Brown

The name Manfred von Richthofen may not ring a bell with a lot of people, but his nickname certainly will....or it should at least. That name you ask? That would be the Red Baron, a German fighter pilot from WWI who became the most famous fighter pilot of all-time. His life has been made into several films and books, but this one....well, it ain't especially good. Please read on anyways! It's 1971's Von Richthofen and Brown, an interesting title if there ever was.

As World War I rages across Europe, a young German officer, Manfred von Richthofen (John Phillip Law) transfers from the cavalry to an air squadron of fighter pilots. He picks up flying quickly and it's only a matter of time before he becomes an ace himself. His fame spreads across both sides, both German and British pilots fearing and respecting him. As his fame and notoriety rises, Richthofen's ego grows, but it's more than that as he starts to see the tide of war turn toward the Allies. Across the lines at British airfields, a new Canadian pilot has arrived, Roy Brown (Don Stroud), with some new thoughts on how the air war should be handled. Two very different pilots with very different outlooks, both Richthofen and Brown seem destined to meet on a collision course as the war wears on. 

From movies like Top Gun, Red Tails, and Behind Enemy Lines to older movies like Wings, The Dawn Patrol and Twelve O'Clock High and countless movies in between, audiences have long had a fascination with aerial combat. An untapped source of said movies is World War I, the first war to feature aerial combat of any sort. We've got entries like Flyboys, a throwback type film, entertaining if highly cliched, like The Blue Max, a bit long in the tooth with lots of potential that I should rewatch soon. Where does this 1971 entry fall? Well, it ain't good for starters. As a counter though, it doesn't have a ton of potential to begin with. We're talking a real winner here, huh? I had modest expectations heading into this flick -- there just isn't much in the way of World War I movies out there -- but I managed to come away disappointed.

It's never a good start when your two title characters have the on-screen personality of brooding, annoying and boring pieces of cardboard. I always thought John Phillip Law was a likable enough on-screen presence if not exactly a huge acting presence. The script does him no favors, but Law is downright boring as one of the most famous war heroes ever. Early on, he's an idealistic, capable soldier who revels in each of his kills. With each passing month, Richthofen becomes more and more disillusioned with the war and its cost. And then there's Stroud as Roy Brown, an actor who typically played a villain, a bad guy, a nut bag, or any and all. Wow, this performance is just bad. Stroud's Brown hates war and all its horrors. Interesting premise, huh? I don't know if he had one line that wasn't some preaching, whiny, condescending about the profoundly awful qualities of war. A dud for both potentially very interesting characters.

Made on the relative cheap from director Roger Corman, 'Richthofen' certainly tries to be a good movie. There's an abundance of aerial sequences, WWI era planes in one dogfight after another. Yeah, there's too actually too many of such sequences, and they all seem to have been filmed over one particular field. The editing just goes on and on with no real flow to the dogfights. Making it worse, the narration from Richthofen, Brown and several other pilots/officers/commanders rambling on and on about their problems, the pressure, the knowledge that death awaits them at any minute. Even composer Hugo Friedhofer's score can't save this dreck.

Lookie here, there ain't too much to say here. I didn't like this movie, and it has little to nothing to recommend. It's dull and does little in 99 minutes. There aren't any other characters/performances worth mentioning, and the only two I did mention weren't very good. My personal favorite in the most cringe-worthy department was Stroud's Brown examining a wounded, possibly dead pilot. He yells at everyone to get back, examines the body himself, and then says in almost sing-songy fashion "Well, he's dead!" and walks away. You couldn't make it up if you tried. It plays fast and loose with the historical facts, and it's just a bad, dull movie.

Von Richthofen and Brown (1971): */****

Danger: Diabolik

Unlike any other decade, the 1960s had a style that was indescribable in its cool factor. There was an ease to the style; the clothes, the music, even the self confidence that what was going on was simply.....cool. From the Rat Pack to James Bond and everything in between, the 1960s were full of stylish films. One of the most suave, cool, stylish and truly bizarre entries was 1968's Danger: Diabolik.

A veteran police investigator, Inspector Ginko (Michel Piccoli) is at wit's end. He has long tried to catch, arrest and prosecute Diabolik (John Phillip Law), an international thief who can and will steal anything and everything. The more improbable the heist, the more closely guarded the target, Diabolik will get what he wants. After years of successful jobs, the thief has created quite a reputation for himself, drawing the ire of both police forces and organized crime, including mob boss, Valmont (Adolfo Celi), who wants nothing more than to have him killed. The ploy? Ginko, the police, Valmont and the mob will set a trap for Diabolik, an emerald necklace that is worth millions. Can Diabolik pull it off and make it out alive?

As I write this review, it's been three full days since I watched 'Danger,' and I can safely say I have no bleeping idea how to interpret this movie. None, not even a little. Is it a spoof? Is it for real? Is it both and neither where I'm completely missing something? I need answers!!!! From Italian director Mario Bava, this is a movie that basically defines what a 'cult classic' is. Those who love it will defend it to the death. And the rest? Like me, they're trying to figure out exactly what they're watching. What I do know about this movie is this; it is so ultra-stylish, stylized within an inch of its life, dripping and oozing with style. Get what I mean? It is a prime example of an oddball retro 1960s style. If that's a good or bad thing, I'll have to leave that up to you.

Not surprisingly, that style produces an incredible visual look to the story, sometimes at the cost of said story. It is a retro style on steroids, full of crazy zooms and close-ups, very 60s clothing and sets/locales, and a score from Ennio Morricone that defies description. Give the main theme a listen HERE. It should be pointed out that the character/story is based on an Italian comic book series which had to be tamed down -- apparently a lot -- for a film version. That steroid-induced style now blends Euro-Italian trends, a comic book background, and a futuristic look/feel that is unreal and difficult to describe. Like so much about this movie, it comes with the good and bad. There are moments where the style is impeccable, like the silent exploration of Diabolik's underwater lair, expansive and seemingly never-ending in its future decor. There are others that are not so lucky, the style coming at the expense of an already disjointed feel.

Who better to play ultra-cool anti-hero and all around cool dude Diabolik than....John Phillip Law????? Yeah, not my first thought either. God bless him, he could be good in certain roles (Death Rides a Horse, Attack Force Z), but he was as wooden as a board as an actor. His line deliveries are so laughably stiff that it's hard to take anything he says serious even in the least. Part of the effectiveness of the character is that inherent cool factor from his futuristic hideout, his cars, his babely girlfriend, Eva (Marisa Mell), and his basic and general disdain for anything to do with authority. All those things are fine and dandy, but Phillip Law brings basically nothing else to the character. I'm also fairly convinced he was cast in the role because of his ability to stare in a truly unsettling fashion, especially in his leather-clad outfit that conceals everything but his eyes. Check out that stare HERE, but beware! It is truly creepy.

There are really only three other parts of consequence, one more stock character on top of another. The best of the three -- acting-wise at least -- is Piccoli as Inspector Ginko. The worn-down veteran cop trying to bring down his adversary is a well-worn character, but a good one nonetheless. It's easy to see his ever-growing frustration at his ability to catch Diabolik. Playing Diabolik's girlfriend, Eva, Mell is there for one reason and one reason only; eye candy. She appears nude (but always strategically covered up) and in various degrees of undress. Not quite ahead of its time, it is just the same pretty scandalous in its depiction of on-screen quasi-nudity. Celi hams it up as expected as Valmont, but doesn't leave much of an impression. Also look for a shrill, out of place Terry Thomas as the country's (Italy) minister of finance.

So in the end, my biggest frustration comes from a complete refusal to be pegged down as one type of film. That in itself isn't a deal breaker, but is it a spoof, a hardcore violent picture, a comedy, a mix of it all? I have no idea at all what to make of it. Decide for yourself. You can watch it at Youtube starting HERE.

Danger: Diabolik (1968): **/****   

Attack Force Z

Can a movie having a cheap budget actually be a good thing? Maybe with less expectations heading in, moviegoers enjoy a movie more when a B-movie lives up to or exceeds the already low expectations. I know I look at big Hollywood blockbusters differently than I do a cheapie B-movie because it's unfair to compare the two. An Australian WWII movie, 1982's Attack Force Z, was clearly made on the cheap, and while not a classic, certainly provides some bang for your buck.

Relatively unknown in the U.S., 'Attack' has achieved a bit of a cult following since its release, not because of the quality of the movie, but because of the casting with Mel Gibson and Sam Neill having starring roles. Gibson had been in a handful of movies already but was not well known to audiences yet with and Mad Max not yet released in the U.S.. Neill similarly was an up and comer in the Australian movie industry. If you pick this movie up because you stumble upon these two names, like me, it's certainly interesting to see these two not-yet stars in an early role.

Based on an actual incident in WWII, 'Attack' tells one story of a Force Z, an Australian commando unit, stationed in the Pacific. It's late in the war in 1945 when a five-man commando team is dropped off by submarine at a Japanese held island. Their mission is simple; find a plane that crashed in the days before several miles inland. An important passenger that could quicken the end of the war was on board, and the commandos must either rescue him or make sure he's dead. With some help from the local resistance, the commandos start the search and rescue mission amidst Japanese patrols all around.

At a brisk 90 minutes or so, this is not a movie with a lot of back story about characters, plot, and the general context of the war. The objective of their mission isn't even revealed until almost an hour in. With little time to waste, a good share of war movie cliches are used to keep the story moving. From those cliches though, the movie doesn't pull any punches. Just minutes after the opening credits, one of the team is wounded and is killed by his own team so he won't fall into enemy hands. The message is clear...no one is safe and any one of the remaining four could be next.

Going to the cliches, we get a variety of characters in the team. Gibson is Capt. Kelly, an inexperienced officer leading his first mission and therefore trying to prove himself as a leader. John Phillip Law plays Lt. Jan Viech, a Dutch soldier joining the Australians who falls for a local girl, Chien Hua (Taiwanese actress Sylvia Chang in a solid part) with Neill starring as Sgt. Danny Costello, an experienced commando who is starting to question the actual effect these missions have on the course of the war. Rounding out the team are Chris Haywood as Sparrer Bird, the radioman, and John Waters (no, not that John Waters) as Lt. King. Chun Hsiung Ko plays Lin, the local resistance leader helping out the team who is also more than capable of handling himself in a fight.

Even in a situation ripe with tension -- five men moving through a jungle crawling with Japanese soldiers -- the movie lacks a certain energy early on. The commando team gets split up, but there's never a sense of urgency on the mission, and when the twist is revealed as to who they're trying to save there's never any explanation as to how the man's going to end the war, he just will apparently. Shot on location in Taiwan, the locations feel authentic with a sense of claustrophobia as the jungle seemingly closes in, but something is missing that I can't quite put my finger on.

With the mission though, the action starts from the beginning. With a smallish budget, these aren't huge battle spectacles, instead they're small skirmishes with the team shooting it out against roaming Japanese patrols. The finale is exciting and well-shot by director Tim Burstall as the commandos team with the resistance to fight the Japanese in the cramped, winding roads and alleys of a village near their getaway. The ending delivers another twist, and the shootout isn't a glamorous one. The commandos aren't superheroes who are invincible in battle, like in war these men can be shot and killed. Too often movies forget that, and make the characters Rambo-like heroes, but not here as the commando team dwindles down late.

Not a movie I loved but one I'd recommend to war movie afficionados. It's interesting to see up and coming actors like Mel Gibson and Sam Neill in early starring roles, and there's enough small-scale action to keep you interested until the shootout in the finale. I couldn't find a trailer at Youtube, but here's a couple scenes for your viewing pleasure, one and two, no major SPOILERS to worry about.

Attack Force Z (1982): ** 1/2 /****