King of Kings

Is there a more daunting task as an actor to play a man millions of people around the world believe to be the Son of God? Sure, any portrayal of a real-life person has to be intimidating, but playing Jesus? That's gotta be on a whole other level. As I learned from the Internet, this movie was the first American film to show an actor's face portraying Jesus Christ. Here it is, a childhood favorite and one I revisited this past Easter weekend, 1961's King of Kings.

This is the story of Jesus (Jeffrey Hunter), a man who grew up in tumultuous times in Judea as Roman occupiers keep the Jewish/Hebrew people oppressed under their thumb. Revolts and rebellions rise up from year to year as Judea seeks its freedom, its independence to get away from the control of the Roman empire. Into this world, Jesus grows up into manhood ready to do his life's calling. Having worked his entire life and living in the Galilean town of Nazareth as a carpenter, Jesus in his late 20's ventures out into the world to embrace his calling as the messiah, the son of God who will teach the world how to live. It is a message that preaches peace but will no doubt send ripples throughout the Roman empire. As Jesus travels around the country with a small group of disciples, his name, his message and his words begin to spread. His followers increase, but so does the danger around him as many want nothing more than to kill him before he becomes too dangerous.

A plot description for a film about the life of Jesus Christ is pretty unnecessary, but I had to lay things out at least a little bit. In the age of the historical film epic, this entry from director Nicholas Ray has always been one of my favorites. I grew up watching it with my Mom every spring, and even years later, it holds up. If anything, I liked it more as a 29-year old viewer as opposed to a 10-year old kid. A whole lot of history is covered in 168 minutes but things never feel rushed. 'King' was filmed on-location in Spain with countless lavish sets and natural backdrops adding an incredibly authentic feel to the proceedings. The TCM print shown on Easter looked PHENOMENAL. Just a stunningly good-looking visual movie. The musical score from composer Miklos Rozsa is pretty perfect too, big and booming mixed in with softer, quieter and just as effective emotional moments. Listen to a sample HERE.

What struck me most in this 1961 epic about Jesus is that...well, it isn't just about Jesus. Ray and writer Philip Yordan use Jesus, his life and his teachings to tell a story about the times this man lived his life. Yes, the focus is on him, but it isn't exclusively focused on him. The casting is very solid with Jeffrey Hunter playing Jesus. Up there with The Searchers as his most famous, respected and recognizable role, Hunter does an excellent job here. It isn't the most human part, but that's not his fault. Hunter is sincere and likable and genuine with a script that keys in on Jesus' teachings more than getting to know the man as a person, as an individual. What works so well is the quieter moments and the impact we see as viewers that this man has on those around him, both the believers and the non-believers. Hunter never became the huge star he could have before his tragic death in 1969, but performances like this show his acting skill.

Four years later, a similarly-themed Jesus epic -- The Greatest Story Ever Told -- would set the bar for ridiculously overdone all-star casts. That ain't the case here. Ray fills out some major roles with recognizable faces and some stars, but this is even't close to being considered an all-star cast. Oh, and that's a good thing. The best supporting part goes to Ron Randell as Lucius, a Roman officer in the garrison at Jerusalem tasked with figuring out if Jesus is a threat to be dealt with. A human, questioning part, and a really good one. Next up, Irish actress Siobhan McKenna as Mary, Jesus' mother, making the character memorable with just a few quick scenes. And then there's the most recognizable face, Robert Ryan getting a meaty part as John the Baptist, a prophet more fiery than Jesus but who preaches the same peaceful message, one predicting the coming of the Son of God.

Who else to look for? If you're familiar with Jesus and the gospels, you know the names. Also in the cast are Pontius Pilate (Hurd Hatfield), Roman governor of Judea, Claudia (Viveca Lindfors), Pilate's more open-minded wife, Herod Antipas (Frank Thring), the Judean governor, his wife, Herodias (Rita Gam), and his stepdaughter, Salome (Brigid Bazlen), disciples Peter (Royal Dano) and Judas (Rip Torn), Barabbas (Harry Guardino), and Mary Magdalene (Carmen Sevilla).

Working consistently throughout the 1950s, director Ray carved a niche for himself as a director of smaller scale human dramas. A biblical epic about Jesus? Not his usual cup of tea. For all the immense scale though, it is the softer, quieter scenes that work. Quick montages of Jesus' miracles set to Rozsa's score are beautiful and effective. The sermon on the mount boasts all sorts of massive scale but is effective because of the dialogue and Hunter's acting. Certain events are glossed over more than others with a bigger focus late on the Passion and Resurrection. Obviously not nearly as graphic as the Passion of the Christ, it remains a moving finale.

King of Kings works because it doesn't try to be gigantically epic. It is content to tell a big story -- maybe history's BIGGEST story -- and to tell it well. Well worth it though, definitely worth checking out. Also listen for Ray Bradbury's uncredited narration, Orson Welles reading said narration, and future familiar face from the spaghetti western genre, Aldo Sambrell, making his screen debut.

King of Kings (1961): ****/****

Casino Royale (1966)

After a four-year gap since Pierce Brosnan's final James Bond movie, MI6 agent 007 returned in a big way in 2006 with Daniel Craig taking over the part of the secret agent.  It was a huge success and served as an excellent reboot for the franchise, quickly climbing into my top 5 all-time Bond flicks.  Why did it work? Like most of the best movies from the franchise, it stuck close to the Ian Fleming source novel that had not been made previously...in a serious fashion at least.  That's where 1966's awful Casino Royale jumps in.

By 1966, star Sean Connery had already completed four 007 movies and had turned James Bond into one of the world's biggest stars.  It was so popular that spoofs started popping up like James Coburn as Derek Flint and Dean Martin as Matt Helm among others.  I get it, strike when the iron is hot, but in a saturated market of spy and espionage movies -- serious and spoof -- don't you want to at least turn out a quality product?  With six different directors shooting different portions of the movie, this was like How the West Was Won: 007 Style.  Besides an occasional laugh here and there, the only redeeming quality is an out-of-this world (if wasted) cast, but more on that later.

All over the world, American, British, Russian, and French agents are turning up dead and their agencies don't have the slightest clue or evidence as to who's pulling off the jobs.  The agency heads turn to retired MI6 agent, Sir James Bond (David Niven), to root out the problem. Bond is a legend in the espionage business, but his best days are behind him, and he questions what has happened to the field he worked so well in, carving out a name and reputation for himself.  He concocts a crazy plan to smoke out whoever is behind the murders; using his name, agents all over the world (Peter Sellers, Ursula Andress, Daliah Lavi, Joanna Pettet, Woody Allen, Terence Cooper) will see if working as bait draws the mastermind out of his lair. The plan might be too good though because SMERSH and mastermind Le Chiffre (Orson Welles) send agents to kill the original and still best James Bond around.

Now anyone familiar with Casino Royale -- Fleming's novel or the Craig movie -- knows that the plot described there is nothing like the book or the movie.  Bond's effort to detain Le Chiffre at the baccarat table is handled in a scene that takes about 10 minutes, not an entire movie.  Using other spy spoofs as an example, there is clearly potential here.  A character as ripe for the picking as James Bond is hard to mess up in the humor department, but this movie is a mess.  For all the subtle, perfectly delivered lines that pepper the script, there's huge scenes of excess of physical and slapstick humor that even Mel Brooks must have shaken his head at.  The finale is the worst of all with one of the 14 directors obviously not knowing where to cut things off.

Let's start with the crazy amount of talent involved here behind the camera, including John Huston (also playing M in one scene) and Robert Parrish among four other less notable names.  The writing too includes Sellers, Billy Wilder, and Joseph Heller.  How did this much talent put together such an awful movie? On top of the cast listed above, there's also parts for Deborah Kerr, William Holden, Jean-Paul Belmondo, Peter O'Toole (on-screen for about 6 seconds), Charles Boyer, George Raft, Jacqueline Bisset, and Barbara Bouchet. What's worse is that the cast appears to be having a blast making the picture.  It's just that much worse that what they're working with is beneath all of their talent.  Bit parts and extended cameos for almost all of these names limit actual on-screen time, but just in terms of name power, this movie is impressive.

The only star that I thought was legitimately good was David Niven as retired 007, Sir James Bond, enjoying his retirement in an isolated English country villa only to be thrust back into the world of espionage.  Because it is an older Bond, Niven has some fun with the part, poking fun at Connery's portrayal especially.  He gets some good laughs from his constant curiosity of how all secret agents have become sex fiends, leaving lonely, beautiful women in every city all over the Earth.  He shakes his head at all the changes he sees in the life of a spy only to embrace them once he's back into it.  A professional plain and simple, Niven makes the most of the material, rising above it to deliver a worthwhile performance.

So this movie was bad, downright awful at times, okay? I am scraping the bottom of the barrel here looking for something to write about.  Most of the movie was just so stupid and dumb I can't even complain.  It's so bad it is surreal at times.  So what can I recommend? If nothing else with this overabundance of characters, the script calls for a long list of beautiful actresses who are required to wear slinky outfits and do little else.  Kerr, Lavi, Pettet, Andress, and Bouchet are all half-naked for about 90% of the movie, and that's all I've got.  So stupidly bad, this movie has to be seen to be believed.

Casino Royale <---trailer (1966): */****

Moby Dick

Just the name of certain books have the ability to send chills down the spines of high school and college students.  War and Peace, The Grapes of Wrath, Moby Dick, and any number of books from authors like Hemingway, Joyce, Hawthorne, Shakespeare, and many, many more.  They're classics and are recommended for a reason, but that doesn't always mean they are good.  Honors English in high school and advanced English/Literature/Composition sure proved that to me.  Want the easy way out?  I avoided it during my high school and college career, but how about watch the movie?  I've never read Herman Melville's source novel, but I'm "halfway" caught up having seen 1956's Moby Dick.

Melville's novel is a pretty good example of a book students are afraid to even go near.  For starters, it's a long book no matter what edition you pick up.  That's not necessarily a breaking point because long books can still be good books.  More importantly though, what style is it written in?  Is it period appropriate? Is it heavy on words and vocabulary readers won't understand without looking up?  I had that problem with director John Huston's movie version of Melville's novel.  A movie with some issues, but a fair share of positives too.  Bear in mind I'm reviewing the movie, not the novel as I jump in.

It's 1841 and a young sailor Ishmael (Richard Basehart) signs up on a whaler named the Pequod with hopes of experiencing and exploring the high seas and making some good money in the process.  Even having sailed before on previous non-whaling voyages, Ishmael isn't quite sure what to expect of the journey that awaits him, but the crew seems a likable enough group.  There's second-in-command Starbuck (Leo Genn), officer Stubb (Harry Andrews) and a multi-international crew with men from all over the world.  For days though, no one sees the captain on deck, a man known only as Ahab (Gregory Peck), a veteran of the sea. When he does reveal himself, he delivers a speech about the success the Pequod's crew is about to have, but he has other plans.  Above all else, he wants to kill a white sperm whale named Moby Dick, and nothing is going to stop him.

Reading the critical reviews of this 1956 version, one aspect of the movie seems to polarize critics more than anything else; the casting of Gregory Peck as Captain Ahab.  I was surprised to read these complaints because I thought Peck's performance was one of the better things about the movie.  The criticisms state that he was too young an actor to play one of literature's most notorious characters.  Ahab was an old, grizzled veteran of the sea, his leg bitten off by Moby Dick, and now he wants revenge.  His descent into madness, his obsession in killing Moby Dick worked in terms of character and story. Peck admitted later in his career it wasn't his best performance, stating there was too much prose from the novel in the film.  For me, that was a problem throughout the film.  Peck's performance? Not so much.

My biggest complaint of Huston's film was the feeling of being talked at, of being preached to.  Many scenes drag on as characters talk in a very proper Victorian sounding conversation.  These are whalers, not exactly upper class, high end sailors so they should talk naturally.  Instead, much of the conversation feels stilted and generally a little off, and there is a lot of it.  Early on, Orson Welles makes a cameo as a priest giving a sermon about Jonah and the whale (ooooohhh, foreboding!) that moves at a pace paint drying would be jealous of.  These long-winded conversations take away from the movie's pacing which is otherwise able to move along at a good rate.  Authentic to the book in terms of being true to the source, but maybe not so much commitment would have been better.

I'll be the first to say that I know little to nothing about whaling and its history.  Seeing the movie's depiction of whaling certainly gives you an appreciation of how dangerous the job actually was.  Men in small boats leave their bigger ships and chase after whales near the ocean's surface, then hurl harpoons and spears at the beast until they're dead.  These are the scenes I enjoyed most as Huston gives us a feel of what sea life had to be like.  Because for every hunt on the waters, there's time where the crew is bored to tears waiting for some action on-deck.  I don't know if it was the quality of TCM's print or how Huston filmed the movie, but a washed-out almost sepia coloring certainly adds to the doom and gloom of this horrific hunt.

For a movie that clocks in at just under 2 hours, one thing I realize looking back is how little actually happens until the end.  I don't know about the novel, but the pacing is all over the place.  Ahab is introduced by face until 30 minutes into the film, Moby Dick doesn't make an appearance until the last 30 minutes, and in the end it all feels rushed, especially the sea battle with this giant white sperm whale.  Behind Peck, the cast is all right, Basehart wasted as Ishmael because he's given little to do while Genn solid as Starbuck.  I liked the movie, but the more I thought about it, the more problems I had.  Still, it's worth a watch, if for nothing else than for you to decide what you think of Peck's performance.

Moby Dick <----trailer (1956): ** 1/2 /**** 

The Tartars

Three years after the release of The Vikings starring Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis, an Italian movie with a somewhat similar storyline about Vikings was released with some interesting casting choices.  It is a story that focuses on a conflict between a Viking tribe and the Tartars, a large nation of nomadic warriors sweeping into Eastern Europe for land, riches and power.  The Tartars are clearly the villains, and for no reason other than name-repeating, we get 1961's The Tartars even though they're the secondary characters. 

The movie is a sign of the times where any, and I mean any, historical story had a shot at making it into a feature length movie. Studios were giving audiences what they wanted, and moviegoers wanted big, epic spectacle movies.  The Tartars makes an attempt at least at being an epic movie, but it's one of those movies that is not particularly good or bad.  It sits somewhere in between although thanks to two fairly odd casting choices it is very much worth watching.

Those stars are Victor Mature and Orson Welles, both logical choices to play a Viking and a Russian warrior, don't you think? Both actors are well past their starring days in Hollywood and look to be taking on whatever role they can find.  Mature, with his slicked back black hair and and dark skin, may be the weirdest choice to ever play a Viking chieftain leading a tribe full of pale, blonde-haired people.  Welles was quite the presence by 1961, and that's nothing to do with his acting ability.  He was a BIG man by this time and looks like if he fell over he might roll off the set.  Good starting point for a historical epic if you ask me.

Visiting a nearby Tartar tribe to pay homage, Viking chief Oleg (Mature) ends up in a bloody brawl and kills the Tartar chief.  Oleg, his brother Eric (Luciano Marin) and their men escape the bloody fight, kidnapping the Tartar chief's daughter Samia (Bella Cortez) in the process. The deceased chief's brother, Arundai (Welles), comes to avenge his brother and destroy the Vikings once and for all.  Arundai offers Oleg one last chance to join him in their conquest of the world but the Viking chief refuses.  Arundai has one last ace up his sleeve though as he has kidnapped Oleg's wife Helga (Liana Orfei) and wants to arrange a trade.

Clocking in at under 90 minutes, this story certainly keeps up a fast pace and never really slows down.  The setting is an Eastern European steppe, an equivalent of the American prairie but closer to a desert in terms of lack of water or landmarks.  With the setting and the warring factions, it definitely has the feel of an American western with Vikings and Tartars replacing the cowboys/settlers and the Indians.  It's a fun movie though and entertaining throughout partially because it is pretty bad.  Money was clearly spent on certain things -- extras, costumes, filming locations, sets -- while clearly not spent on others, like the script for one.  Really though, it's a minor complaint.  You don't head into an Italian made movie about a Viking tribe breaking new ground in terms of storytelling.

Even at 83 minutes, the scale of 'Tartars' can be impressive.  There are basically two sets, Arundai's palace (which looks grander because of some matte paintings) and the Viking fort which looks awfully similar to the U.S. cavalry forts that dotted trails all through the American west.  Interesting, hhmm?  Some action is thrown in here and there to keep you interested along the way with most of the fireworks saved for the finale as Arundai's enraged warriors assault Oleg's fortified garrison.  I was impressed with the scale of the battle, a pretty impressive effort considering this is a lower budget Italian movie.

This is not going to be a very long review mostly because the movie doesn't try to be anything other than entertaining.  Sure, there's some weird moments like Mature being dubbed by a different actor in certain scenes while in others it is clearly him speaking.  The whole movie is so bad that it's good.  If Mature as a Viking and Welles as a Tartar chief doesn't intrigue you, you should probably steer clear of this one.  If it does sound interesting, sit back and enjoy the badness.

The Tartars <----TCM trailer (1961): ** 1/2 /****

The Kremlin Letter

Sometimes I get fed up with movies spoon-feeding their stories, their twists and turns with supposedly shocking revelations. They are the type of movies where you don't even have to be fully conscious to follow the story. Call it attention deficit disorder in younger viewers -- I'm 24 and resent people saying 'younger audiences' can't sit still for more than 10 minutes -- but for whatever reason movies more and more go down the road where original stories are dummied down so the average chimp can keep up.

So when I stumble across a movie that requires your attention for every second of screen time I jump at the chance. Movies with lots of information thrown your way in a short period of time can be frustrating and enjoyable at the same time. And where would this all work better because the genre framework is already established? Spy movies where betrayals, deceptions and double crosses are part of the landscape. Virtually forgotten 40 years since its release -- thanks to no DVD or VHS release -- 1970's The Kremlin Letter, directed by John Huston, is a nice little twist on the spy movie.

Released in the midst of the James Bond craze, The Kremlin Letter is basically the anti-007 in terms of action and storytelling. Huston's take is heavy on dialogue with almost no action from start to finish. Instead of action, there's tension to spare as a team of American and British agents go undercover in Moscow to accomplish a perilous mission. Countless bits of information and explanations about the setting and the characters are thrown your way without warning, forcing you to file away little bits of information in your head so a scene or a line makes sense later in the movie. With all that said, the "twist" revealed late isn't that much of a surprise -- if you're paying attention or have seen even a couple spy movie or two you'll spot it early -- but it does work because of how the twist affects the story.

In the midst of the Cold War, a single letter could tear apart the world if it falls into the wrong hands. A high-ranking American official has written a letter saying the U.S. would help the USSR in taking out China's nuclear weapons program, and the agent holding the letter turns up dead...without the letter. A new agent, Charles Rone (Patrick O'Neal), is assigned to assemble a team with the help of agents who have experience dating back to WWII. This group of American and British agents will be headed by Ward (Richard Boone) who will lead a group of specialists (Nigel Green, Dean Jagger, George Sanders, and Barbara Parkins) in hopes of getting the letter back before all-out war breaks out. Getting that letter won't be so easy though with two Russian agents, Kosnov (Max von Sydow) and Bresnavitch (Orson Welles) also involved.

Reading through that cast listing when I saw this movie on TCM's schedule, I'm not going to lie; I was a little disappointed in myself I'd never even heard of this movie...not even in passing, even a little bit. It's not a classic spy movie, but it is an above average entry. Most of that credit goes to Huston's directing and the performances he gets from this very impressive grouping of actors and actresses. With very little action, the spotlight is squarely on the cast to carry the movie. Some are in it more than others -- Jagger, Green and Sanders are criminally underused with some great eccentric characters -- but even the smaller performances leave an impression.

Never a huge star but always a reliable lead, O'Neal is the anti-007 in his portrayal of a spy. His Rone doesn't carry a gun, is a last-minute replacement for his position, and with his photographic memory and ability to remember everything told to him is a valuable member of the team. Instead of fighting his way out of a situation, Rone thinks things out before putting his life on the line, especially in a key subplot that sees him develop a relationship with von Sydow's Kosnov's wife, Erika (Bibi Andersson). As the veteran agent working with Rone, Richard Boone makes the biggest impression, and that's saying something considering the cast. His Ward is a scene-stealer, always addressing Rone as 'Nephew' with his Texan drawl, and demanding your attention every minute he's on-screen.

Their counterparts, von Sydow and Welles, have less time and development but don't waste a second. And really can you think of two better actors to play imposing, always intimidating Russian agents? Much like his role in 3 Days of the Condor, von Sydow is frightening with his steely glare, and when wasn't Welles an intimidating presence? The whole cast seems to be enjoying themselves with Green as a pimp/drug dealer, Sanders as a transvestite, and Parkins as a wet behind the ears safecracker. Raf Vallone even makes a quick appearance as an espionage teacher. They play the type of characters that could probably carry a movie on their own, but instead play supporting roles here. If I can find a copy of Noel Behn's source novel, I'll be sure to pick it up just to see if how much had to be cut for a feature film.

An interesting movie for any number of reasons, especially considering the year and time it was released in. It's hard to figure out why this little gem has been forgotten over the years (maybe it was too different from what audiences were seeing with the Bond series), but it is worth tracking down just to watch this great cast go to town with an interesting spy story. Convoluted at times but everything clears up in the end, including one last twist in the final scene.

The Kremlin Letter <----TCM clips (1970): ***/****

The Third Man

The IMDB Top 250 can provide a funny way of looking at movies. Any big budget new release almost automatically jumps onto the list -- only now is The Dark Knight starting to drop some -- while other above average but not classic movies, like The Shawshank Redemption reside in the No. 1 spot. Make a point some time and cruise through the list which does have it's fair share of classic movies which actually deserve their spots, like 1949's The Third Man which I'm still wavering about.

Before I start, I will say I don't know if there's a way to review this movie without giving away key plot twists and revelations. Sooooooo, if you haven't seen The Third Man and don't want the ending spoiled for you, I'd stop reading pretty soon. It is a tricky movie to review to start off with a lot in the good and a few things in the bad.

It's 1948 post-war Vienna where the city is still feeling the effects of WWII with the city cordoned off into four sections (U.S., French, Russian, British) and piles of rubbles from bombings still dotting the streets. Holly Martins (Joseph Cotten), an American pulp fiction writer with a drinking problem, travels to Vienna to take a job offered by his best friend, Harry Lime, who he has not seen since 1939. Upon arriving, Holly finds out that Harry was killed in a car accident right outside his apartment. Talking to the people involved, including Harry's girlfriend Anna (Alida Valli) and several people who were at the scene, Holly starts to question the story with several inconsistencies arising.

Also involved and seemingly with a lot of information they're not willing to give out are Major Calloway (Trevor Howard) and Sergeant Paine (pre-James Bond Bernard Lee), police officers on the Lime case. Apparently Harry Lime was a low-level racketeer taking part in some shady dealings, but Holly doesn't believe that his best friend could be capable of the things being pegged on him. Could it all be true? The issue off the bat for me is with the cast listing. Orson Welles gets third billing right from the start but doesn't appear in the movie for quite a long time. So the obvious connection, Welles is Harry Lime and this good old boy sure ain't dead. Was it supposed to trick people? Who knows, but the reveal doesn't come as much of a surprise.

Welle's star-power aside, the reveal that Harry is alive is one of the coolest character entrances in movie history with Welles delivering that smart-ass smile that only he could deliver. That scene is just one example of the movie's incredible cinematography from Robert Krasker. Director Carol Reed opted to shoot the movie on location in Vienna and using black and white photography creates a shadowy underworld full of dark alleys and eeriely empty streets. Story and characters are one thing, but you could watch The Third Man on mute and still take something away from it. The ending is a highlight especially with SPOILERS Harry being chased through the sewers underneath Vienna, and then the final shot is one that lingers on and on.

Welles makes the most of his part, mostly an extended cameo because he isn't introduced until well over an hour into the story. His scene on a Ferris wheel with Cotten's Martins is one of the better scenes in the movie, full of quick, snappy dialogue that's punctuated with one of my new favorite lines. Cotten is all right as Holly, but his character doesn't come across well and I found myself disliking him more and more as the movie moved along, especially his blooming love with Valli's Anna. Howard and Lee are perfectly cast as the stiff upper lip Englishmen, both aiding and slowing down Martins' investigation.

On to my complaints, starting with the sountrack. No orchestra or band playing, just a zither providing the musical score. Sounding at times like a ukelele, it just doesn't fit in certain scenes and is overused to the point where I'd cringe every time the same tune kept playing over and over again. Here's the main theme that is used in several variations throughout. It just doesn't fit the tone and suspense of the movie, which is incredibly dark with it's subject matter especially for a movie released in 1949. Otherwise, I really enjoyed this movie after some early concerns through the first 45-60 minutes or so. Definitely watch The Third Man, even if it's just for the on-location Vienna B&W shooting.

The Third Man <----trailer (1949): ***/**** Part 1 of 12 on Youtube