Khartoum

That British Empire, it got around in its heyday. You couldn't go far without stepping on some territory that Great Britain had an interest in. So with so big an empire, things didn't always go well, and in steps film and movies. Today's entry is 1966's Khartoum, an epic story about a little-known part of history (to me at least) with some impressive scale.

In 1883, an English general marches into the Sudan with 10,000 Egyptian troops looking to capture or put down a rebellion of Muslim zealots being led by the Mahdi (Laurence Olivier), believing himself to be the one appointed by Muhammad as a savior. The army is massacred to a man, leaving the British government in a spot.  The Prime Minister, William Gladstone (Ralph Richardson), doesn't want to commit a British army to the Sudan to resolve the situation, but what other measure can be taken? A solution is found in the form of a British military hero, General Charles "Chinese" Gordon (Charlton Heston), the man who helped rid the Sudan of slavery. The plan seems doomed to failure -- the British admitting to him they will only offer military assistance as a last ditch effort -- but Gordon takes the job just the same. What is his reasoning? Can he accomplish a mission with little hope of success? What does the Mahdi have in store? It's all going to be played out on an international stage.

I love a good epic from The Alamo to Spartacus, Ben-Hur to Lawrence of Arabia. This 1966 epic from director Basil Dearden doesn't quite have the huge scale of those other movies, but it is most definitely a gem. It clocks in at a modest 134 minutes (not quite the 3-hour behemoths) but accomplishes a lot in its running time. 'Khartoum' is based on a true story about Britain's quasi-involvement in the Sudan during the 1880s, filming on location in Egypt to give it some authenticity. Most importantly, it has the feel of an epic from the look to the far-reaching story to the music (composer Frank Cordell's score is solid) to the action. It doesn't have quite the reputation or following of so many other historical epics from the 1950s and 1960s, but it is well worth seeking out.

Who better to lead the way in this epic than Mr. Epic himself, Charlton Heston? Here's a case of some excellent casting. This is an underrated performance in a career that featured plenty of memorable roles, his Gordon interesting because there's so much mystery. A military hero, he's religious, loyal, intelligent, stubborn, and so much more. Does he take on this mission because he believes he can accomplish the impossible? Or is it ego, his vanity? Is it more than that? Is it something else? Whatever the answer, this is a layered, deep character who possibly only has one for sure intention...to do good. Gordon himself -- read about him HERE -- was a fascinating person, and Heston more than does him justice. We see all the sides of Gordon, a capable leader, a strong military strategist, and a man brimming with personality. It's easy to see why people believed in him, why people followed him and turned to Gordon when times were tough. An excellent performance from Heston.

The depth of the cast isn't the cast of thousands we've come to expect from an epic, but what's there is excellent. Olivier's part isn't huge -- kinda an extended cameo -- but once you get past the point that the very British actor is playing a very Muslim Arab, it's a good part. His scenes with Heston's Gordon are a high point, two Hollywood legends going toe-to-toe in quiet, underplayed scenes dripping with tension. Richard Johnson is excellent too as Colonel J.D.H. Stewart, the one officer granted to Gordon, working as his aide who sees the writing on the wall with their desperate mission. Richardson leads the government contingent as the wishy-washy prime minister, Michael Hordern, Hugh Williams and Ralph Michael as his government tools. In the military department, Nigel Green plays General Wolseley, the army commander tasked with "rescuing" Gordon, while Peter Arne plays Major Kitchener, the signal corps officer sent somewhat close to Khartoum to aid the defense. Also look for Johnny Sekka as Khaleel, Gordon's house servant, and Alexander Knox as a British official working with Gordon in Khartoum.

Enough with all this acting stuff, let's talk about some epic scale! I liked the story and the characters, feeling like I really learned something from this historic story. What resonated most though in 'Khartoum' was the impressive scale from three extended battle sequences. The opening massacre really sets the tone, the Mahdi's army swarming down hillsides at an exhausted army. Seemingly thousands of extras fill the screen in an amazingly tone-setting sequence. The middle action sequence has Gordon's forces holding off a nighttime ambush of the Mahdi's forces while the final assault on Khartoum packs the screen with Gordon's small forces in the city and the Mahdi's army charging the city in endless waves. Cinematographer Edward Scaife and second unit director Yakima Canutt (a former stunt man, a hugely underrated name in Hollywood stunt/action history) film right there in the dirt and sand with the action. They put the cameras on trucks and speed right into the battle like cavalry charging into its own battle. Great, adrenaline-pumping sequences that belong in the conversation of memorable battle scenes.

I liked a lot about this 1966 epic. It's able to cover a lot of ground, the siege of Khartoum lasting almost a full year. Things never feel rushed as we get to know Gordon, his motivations (sort of), the international situation, the British "solution" to the plan, and the slow-burn Gladstone and Parliament use to hopefully resolve it all. While it's an up and close and personal story, the script from Robert Ardrey does a good job keeping it in an international perspective. All the while, the doom builds right up until the conclusion. I liked it a lot, the expansive look from the opening prologue narrated by Leo Genn to the desert scenes and everything in between. Highly recommended.

Khartoum (1966): ***/****

Doctor Zhivago

By 1965, director David Lean had already completed two of his most highly regarded and well-respected movies of his prestigious career. With 1957's The Bridge on the River Kwai and 1962's Lawrence of Arabia, Lean basically defined how a director should make a gigantic film epic. So some three years later, he followed up with 1965's Doctor Zhivago, a film I'm still digesting -- for good and bad -- some three days later.

A doctoral student who grew up with an adopted family of sorts, Yuri Zhivago (Omar Sharif) is an aspiring poet in the early 1910s in Russia. He marries childhood friend and longtime love, Tonya (Geraldine Chaplin), and starts a family. Growing up with a single mother, Lara (Julie Christie) goes through some harsh teenage years as she deals with a troubled single mother. As Russia is thrust into World War I -- the fighting eventually turning into the Russian Revolution -- Yuri (working as a doctor) and Lara (as a nurse) meet amongst the aftermath of a battle. They are instantly drawn to each other as they work side-by-side, but as the conflict escalates, this is a relationship that seems doomed to failure.

Wow, I'm not proud of that plot synopsis. It sounds like I'm reading a cheesy romance novel. Anyways, onto bigger, better and more on-point things. This is a GIGANTIC movie as one would come to expect from a David Lean epic. With locations in Spain, Canada and Finland, the scale is a pleasure to watch. Lean and cinematographer Freddie Young shoot each scene -- the snow-capped mountains, the desolate wastelands, the flower-covered plains -- like a Renaissance painting. It is a stunningly gorgeous film, one you can just sit back and experience. Composer Maurice Jarre's score won the Oscar -- rightfully so -- with Lara's Theme (listen HERE) an instantly recognizable, beautiful tune, one that you'll be humming for days. The sets are expansive, the cast numbering in the thousands with extras, and the story covers a time in history (Russia in the 1910s/1920s) that is rich with depth.

So what happens then? Why do I feel conflicted about this Lean-directed epic? In a 200-minute movie, there exists little to no story. It moves from location to location and time to time with transitions that can be jarring at times. My lack of knowledge about Russian history certainly did NOT help my enjoyment and/or appreciation of what was going on. I don't think lyrical is the right description, but it's all I'm coming up with. Story is also a word I use lightly. It isn't really a story so much as a budding relationship that develops over many years and all the people caught up and effected by it. We see snippets of a time/conflict/place, and then zip to another spot. Because of that, I never felt in tune with what was going on, feeling at times very disconnected from the plot.

And onto the cast, much easier to decipher. For one of the all-time great love stories, I didn't think much of the chemistry (or lack of) between Sharif and Christie. Omar Sharif is a very talented actor, and he does a fine job as Yuri Zhivago showing a man's flaws, imperfections and talents. Christie too as Lara is an interesting character, neither individual perfect by any means. I appreciated that. We're watching human beings, not immaculate individuals, but in terms of on-screen chemistry I was not buying Sharif and Christie as a couple that is drawn to each other in an unexplained way, not letting time or circumstances tear them apart. Christie is stunningly beautiful as Lara with Lean electing to photograph her like an angel, especially her blue, blue, BLUE eyes.

The name recognition from the supporting cast will draw in many film fans and understandably so. You don't put a cast together with the likes of Rod Steiger, Alec Guinness, Tom Courtenay, Chaplin, Klaus Kinski and Ralph Richardson together without causing a stir in the acting department. Among that group, there isn't a weak link in the bunch. Some are more impressive than others -- Steiger, Guinness, Chaplin and Kinski -- but the lack of a true, developing story hurts all of the performances. Steiger and Courtenay disappear for long stretches, only to reappear as the story requires. I just don't know how to describe this. I enjoyed the actors, enjoyed seeing their performances, but something just didn't click.

There are moments of near perfection amidst some of the rather leisurely 200-minute running time. After a sluggish first 45-60 minutes, things get flowing at a quicker, more enjoyable pace. Not surprisingly, the high points are several chaotic, impressively staged action sequences. One especially, Bolshevik cavalry charging across an ice-covered lake, stands out. An encounter between Russian replacements and Russian deserters on a wayward, desolate plain is simple in its brutality. Much of the success in these moments come from the visual that Lean and Young created. A framing device at the beginning and end with Guinness (a veteran Communist officer) interviewing a young woman (Rita Tushingham) who could be Yuri and Lara's daughter too is especially effective. The ending too goes right for the jugular, a heart-breaking ending for Yuri and Lara.

I'm torn on what to do here. I can appreciate why so many film fans adore this movie. I can also easily appreciate why some struggle to go along for the ride. Not to use a cop out, but I fall somewhere in between. I loved parts of it, liked others and struggled to go along for other portions. I love both 'River Kwai' and 'Lawrence' so Zhivago had some big shoes to fill in the expectations department, but it never quite lived up to them. Still a must-see film just for the scale and talent involved, but not the classic I was hoping it to be.

Doctor Zhivago <---trailer (1965): ** 1/2 /****

Our Man in Havana

I think the best description I ever heard of British actor Alec Guinness was that he was a chameleon.  There wasn't a role he couldn't get into and really flesh it out.  Countless actors were asked to play the part that he may be most known for in The Bridge on the River Kwai, Charles Laughton even admitting "I didn't know how to play that part until I saw Guinness perform."  That's him.  Comedy, drama, sci-fi, action, he could do it all.  His comedy is often a perfect blend of physical and subtle, like 1959's Our Man in Havana. 

Based on a novel by the typically dark but never dull Graham Greene, 'Havana' gives Guinness a chance to show off his impressive acting chops.  You look at him and think he just doesn't look like a comedic actor.  He's too stiff upper-lip British, too gentlemanly, and then you see him do his thing.  It is a story based in the months leading up to the Fidel Castro takeover in 1959, and more interesting than that, the movie was filmed in Havana after Castro took over...with some serious restrictions of course.

Running a small vacuum cleaner store in Havana, 40-something salesman Jim Wormold (Guinness) is one day approached in his shop by another British national, Hawthorne (Noel Coward). An agent for British intelligence, Hawthorne wants Wormold to set up his own ring in Cuba, keep tabs on all the goings on.  The salesman laughs off the offer and moves on.  That is until his daughter (Jo Morrow) is growing up and needs all sorts of things. Wormold agrees to become an agent, but when he attempts to recruit his own sources he draws blanks left and right.  So instead, he starts to report he has countless agents who have stumbled upon a major Cuban military venture, possibly a missile? Apparently not thinking things through, trouble is about to hit the fan when British intelligence investigates, wanting to know more about all these things Wormold has fabricated.  In trouble much?

This is the darkest of comedies mostly because of that trouble that arises.  For the early parts of the story, Wormold's deception is played for laughs, including a great montage as he "reports" how he came to recruit his throng of agents compared with what actually happened upon meeting them.  Then his codes are broken by other rival intelligence agents -- who we never find out -- so when a support team (including secretary/assistant Maureen O'Hara) comes to help coordinate everything, the jig is up.  It's only a matter of time before everything and everyone gets figured out.  As for that dark humor, some of Wormold's "agents" start showing up dead.  Oops, didn't mean for that to happen.

Guinness might not be considered a great comedic actor, but you can chalk that up to how dry he was on screen.  He's never over-performing.  He's subtle and sells lines with a quick look or a blink and you'll miss it reflex.  The best part of this performance is when Wormold is forced to improvise, convincing O'Hara's Beatrice that he's on the up and up.  She believes him, but his actions are played so off the cuff like he's calm and suave, not bothered that his "agents" are ignoring him and in some cases upset he's anywhere near them.  I love Guinness in his dramatic parts, but he's no slouch when it comes to comedy.

Basically playing straight men/women to Guinness's predicament is a great supporting cast.  O'Hara plays a different part than usual, a career woman in an intelligence agency that has her moving around constantly.  She has a good patter with Guinness who wants to tell her the truth but never seems to be able to get around to it.  Burl Ives plays Dr. Hasselbacher, a German doctor and friend of Wormold's who thinks he's gotten too far into something he can't possibly control. Ernie Kovacs takes a stab at the slimy villain, Captain Segura, a Bautista enforcer curious as to what's going on while also showing interest in Milly, Wormold's daughter. Coward is perfectly British as agent Hawthorne, and Ralph Richardson as 'C,' the supervisor trying to piece it all together, get laughs just by playing it all straight.

Stories and impressive casting aside, the coolest part of this movie is a look into 1959 Havana, Cuba just months after Castro and his army overthrew the Bautista regime.  Director Carol Reed received permission to shoot in Havana, choosing to film in black and white. Reed's camera is right there in the street with his actors, giving the proceedings a real sense of what's going on.  The indoor scenes were filmed in studios in England, but they can't all be winners.  An interesting, often very funny movie with Guinness at his comedic best.

Our Man in Havana <---trailer (1959): ***/****

The Wrong Box

Like any sense of humor, British humor can be an odd thing. There's the very dry laughs where the proper Englishman chuckles softly to himself, but then's there is also the Monty Python, Benny Hill slapstick that's played for the out loud laugh. A movie virtually unknown to American audiences, 1966's The Wrong Box, provides a perfect pairing of both senses of humor with a great cast and a tale of confusion and trickery.

The story begins simply enough with the signing of a 'tontine' where 20 young men are entered into a lottery. Their fathers pay $1,000 pounds for their sons which will be put into a bank account and allowed to grow. The last surviving son will be rewarded with all of the money. So it begins and the years pass, 63 to be exact, with the boys growing up and some meeting their maker in an inspired scene that had me rolling. Then, it comes down to 2 brothers, the Finburys, Masterman (John Mills) and Joseph (Ralph Richardson), who live next to each other but haven't spoken in 40 years.

Joseph is away on vacation with his two nephews, Morris (Peter Cook) and John (Dudley Moore), so when Masterman finds out they're the only two remaining men, he sends for him with a very made-up deathbed message. Masterman intends to kill his brother and give all the money to his grandson, Michael (Michael Caine), to help pay off the family debt and also put him through medical school. Morris and John catch wind of the news and are thrust into an awkward situation when the train they're riding on crashes, and they believe Joseph was killed. The money is so close, and they believe all they need is Joseph to outlast Uncle Masterman for a few days. Not so fast though, Joseph is very much alive.

So starts a story that bounces around and all over the place with far too many cases of misunderstanding and scheming to even mention here. If it all sounds ridiculous, it is but don't be scared away. The humor comes out of these ridiculous situations and the crazy reactions these individuals have to 'solve' their problems. Having the two brothers live next to each other provides for an easy use of general confusion as boxes intended for the other house goes to the wrong one. Some unnecessary but still funny title cards help move things along.

What makes this work from start to finish is the casting. Mills and Richardson as the two longlost brothers are dead-on. Mills is made up to look like he is on death's doorstep but he's really anything but as the scheming, murdering brother, and Richardson nails the part of the clueless brother who collects facts and bores people to death with everything he's learned. Caine is even funny in an early part as the straight man, including a possibly forbidden love with his cousin Julia (Nanette Newman) who lives with Uncle Joseph. The best part of Caine's role is his scenes with Peacock the butler (Wilfrid Lawson), the weary, tired, slow-moving house attendant who hasn't been paid in 7 long years.

In the more slapstick scenes, Cook and Moore as the bumbling but still devious brothers provide their fair share of laughs, especially Moore who can't curb his interest in working class women. And in a small but still funny cameo, Peter Sellers plays Dr. Pratt, a clueless drunk of a doctor who provides Morris with a death certificate for his dead grandfather which you can check out here and here. I've never been a huge fan of Sellers, I just don't get some of his humor, but he's too much here, making the most of his two-scene appearance.

The movie isn't available in DVD format, and VHS tapes can be a little expensive to track down but good news from Youtube! A user has kindly made The Wrong Box available broken up into 10-minute segments. The link earlier is Part 1, and you can go from there if you wish to watch the rest of the movie. It's not well known at all here in the States, but I'm glad I stumbled across it. Dry and slapstick humor, it's laugh out loud however you look at it.

The Wrong Box (1966): ***/****

Netflix review #25: The 300 Spartans

Before there was Frank Miller and Zack Snyder's ridiculously over the top, highly stylized, ultra-violent movie 300, which I really liked, and before Steven Pressfield's excellent historical novel The Gates of Fire, also highly recommended, a movie released at the height of the historical epic was released in 1962 detailing the famous last stand of Spartan king Leonidas and his 300 warriors at the pass at Thermopylae, appropriately called The 300 Spartans.

Stories of massacres and last stands, Thermopylae, the Alamo, the Little Big Horn, translate well to movies. There's something noble about men believing so strongly in what they do that they are willing to give up their lives in a hopeless battle, knowing the end before it even starts. Nowhere is that more evident than with the story of the Spartans, a culture of warriors trained from the moment they could pick up a sword so they could one day gloriously die in battle fighting for their land and people.

For those that don't know the history, here's the basic rundown of the battle of Thermopylae, which the movie sticks pretty close to in terms of storytelling. It's 480 B.C. and Persian king Xerxes (David Farrar) is sweeping across the free world with his enormous army totaling in the millions. He's nearing Greece and all her city states, looking at an easy victory because the states remain divided and refuse to unify to fend off their destruction. Pride, huh? The only way the city states will organize is if the Spartans will lead them to battle.

Promising that the Spartans will be at the front of the Greek armies, Spartan king Leonidas (Richard Egan) begins to prepare the battle plan with Athenian leader Themistocles (Ralph Richardson). Leonidas will lead the Spartan army to the pass at Thermopylae which the Persians will have to come through. With a smaller force the Spartans will hope to negate the Persian numbers because the pass is too small to let large numbers of men in. At the same time, Themistocles will lead the Greek navy against the Persian fleet. But problems arise immediately, none of the Greeks can send their armies to help, and even the Spartans refuse to send their whole force.

Going against policy that requires warriors to wait till the end of a festival to fight, Leonidas leads his personal bodyguards, a unit of 300 Spartans, to the pass at Thermopylae to hold off the millions of the Persian army. It's a suicide mission from the start as Leonidas and the 300 must buy time for the rest of Greece to organize and prepare. Filmed in Greece, 'Spartans' feels pretty authentic even if the Thermopylae pass is really just a Greek hillside that slopes down into water. Hey, it looks nice though.

The problem with massacre/last stand movies is getting to that point. Everyone knows it's coming, but the movie can't cut right to it, otherwise we'd be watching 15 minute movies. The 300 Spartans takes too long getting to the battle, too long even to when the Spartans leave for the pass. The first hour is extremely heavy on dialogue, and not in an interesting way. Persians are coming, Greek representatives waver on what to do, the Spartans sacrifice themselves. Seems basic enough to me, but it moves along at a snail's pace getting there.

Part of the struggles can be chalked up to the script which is just kind of there. It's not bad, but it never really comes to life. Maybe because Gerard Butler in 300 was so theatrical and I had that picture in my head, but these Spartans never come to life. Egan is all right as Leonidas but it's not a memorable performance. The two lines that everyone knows, 'the Persians have so many archers their arrows will blot out the sun....Then we'll fight in the shade' and 'Lay down your weapons...Come and take them!' are delivered without any flair or emotion. None of the supporting cast other than Richardson really distinguishes themselves, with Diane Baker and Barry Coe as a young Spartan couple in love, got to have a love story, Donald Houston as Xerxes' top general, Anna Synodinou as Leonidas' wife Gorgo, and John Crawford and Robert Brown as two Spartans.

What does work in the movie is the production values, the spectacle of the story. Battle scenes are well done, especially the fight with Xerxes' Immortals, with hundreds of extras playing both the Spartans and the Persian army. The last stand is handled nicely, historically accurate too, but it doesn't have the emotional punch of the ending to 300. The costuming, the sets, all those things work, but other than that, the movie never comes to life.

The DVD at under $10 at Amazon is a safe buy with a cleaned-up widescreen presentation, a trailer in English and Spanish, and trailers for Cleopatra, The Robe, and Demetrius and the Gladiators. The DVD is cheap so you won't be spending a ton to buy it, but I'd recommend renting it first or at least trying to see it before buying. For me, I'll stick with the more recent and much more enjoyable 300.

The 300 Spartans (1962): **/****