Rage (1972)

One of the beauties of Turner Classic Movie's summer programming is August's Summer Under the Stars, each day devoted to one star's films. I was able to check out several from George C. Scott that I'd never seen before, including this 1972 timely drama that you can see appealing to all sorts of audiences upset with the government, politics, and the System as a whole. Here we are with 1972's Rage.

Dan Logan (Scott) is a small-time rancher who lives in Wyoming with his 12-year old son, Chris (Nicolas Beauvy). Dan's wife died years before, leaving him to raise his son alone, something he takes to heart and very seriously. They've got a good life on the Logan spread, just father and son making a living. One night they're out camping on a hillside when Dan wakes up to find Chris unresponsive and bleeding profusely from the nose. He races into town to the hospital and Chris is immediately taken away from him. Doctors aren't sure exactly what happened, but one doctor especially, Holliford (Martin Sheen), assures him that everything will be taken care of. Dan too is asked to stay for observation, just to see if anything has happened to him too. What's going on? What Dan doesn't know is that a local army base is covering up an accident with a nerve gas accidentally being released...

Here's a trivia question for you. With what film did actor George C. Scott make his directorial debut? You're looking at it. That would be 1972's Rage. It's an interesting debut for the longtime actor. It's timely. It's hard-hitting, cynical, violent (horrifically at times), intensely uncomfortable so yeah, basically made for an early 1970's audience fed up with any sort of establishment. While it doesn't get too heavy in getting it across, it's safe to say 'Rage' is a "message" film. It wants to get a message across and make the audience get down to basics and think about what the story is really saying. The nerve gas reveal in the above plot line is a relative spoiler. You find out pretty quickly actually what's going on. The point is, it's the start of something. It's what the nerve gas represents.

That being...anyone trying to keep things under wraps from you because as a people, we're too stupid to handle something dangerous. Whether you agree with that is up to you. 'Rage' is a movie for those folks fed up with information being withheld from them, of someone in power dancing around the truth, of that person treading the fine line between the truth and a flat-out lie "for your benefit." Your establishment a-holes? Sheen plays an army doctor working undercover of sorts who really knows what's going on. Richard Basehart is Logan's longtime doctor and friend, quickly realizing the truth as he puts the clues together. Also look for Kenneth Tobey, Paul Stevens, Barnard Hughes, Ed Lauter and others trying to keep things under wraps.

Whether it be from behind the director's chair or in front of the camera, this is Scott's movie. His single father and small-time rancher character is about as archetypal American as you can get. He's created a life and carved it out of the landscape for himself and his son. He'll do anything to protect it. While there are some familiar Scott outbursts, I liked the Logan character most in the quiet moments. Dan is looking out for his son, pleased he sees his boy picking things up quickly as he grows up. We see a lot of this in an extended montage through the movie's first 15 minutes as Dan and Chris interact all over the ranch, ultimately ending up playing checkers while camping next to a small fire.

Also look for Dabbs Greer and John Dierkes in small supporting parts.

I was both intrigued and struggled with the slow pacing here in Scott's feature film directorial debut. The first hour is intensely slow as we begin to realize how bad the situation is, how dangerous the nerve gas really is, and the depths the army/establishment will go to keep that news under wraps. It is about the hour-mark when Logan puts it all together and FREAKING LASHES OUT. We're talking Death Wish meets Falling Down with any other vigilante movie you want to mention thrown in for good measure. He becomes a man possessed to right a wrong done against him. I kinda figured where the story was going, but not to these depths. It is dark. It is uncomfortable, and that's no doubt what Scott set out to do. Life ain't easy, especially when the powers that be have rooted interests in something not getting out.

The ending itself is tough to watch. It's supposed to be. As far as it goes, I wish it would have gone a little further. From the word 'go' we know this won't be a happy ending, but some more revenge and vengeance being dished out would have been so much better. So many more needed to be punished for their actions. Man, I'm getting all sorts of Old Testament here, but it's true. The actual finale is heartbreaking because it doesn't feel forced. There aren't any easy answers so my complaints of wanting more revenge being doled out go unanswered. That's life. It's tough. A depressing movie, flawed at times but interesting throughout.

Rage (1972): ***/****

Time Limit

The Korean War helped change things when it came to portrayals of war in film. Sure, there were still huge, blockbuster epics to come like The Longest Day and The Greatest Escape. The nastiness of the war, changing times in America, darker methods of war, it all added up to something new, different and often times, uncomfortable. This wasn't soldier shoots soldier anymore. Part mystery, part prisoner of war drama, part courtroom drama, here's 1957's little-known Time Limit.

An officer in the Judge Advocate General's Corps, Colonel William Edwards (Richard Widmark) is wrapping up interviews for a messy little case that has crossed his desk. An Army major, Harry Cargill (Richard Basehart), has been accused of collaborating with the North Koreans during his time in a prisoner of war camp during the Korean War. Edwards has 14 other witnesses testifying what Cargill did in the P.O.W. camp and complicating matters is that Cargill absolutely refuses to defend himself, turning down legal counsel. If anything, it seems that the officer in question wants to be found guilty and prosecuted to the fullest extent, even if that court martial hearing sentences him to death. It seems like an open and shut case, and that's what makes Edwards curious. Something doesn't add up. What happened in that mountaintop prisoner of war camp in North Korea?

Despite the talent assembled to round out the cast in this 1957 military legal drama, I'd never really heard of this film. I've never seen it pop up in TV listings, and the DVD isn't readily available in Best Buys and Barnes and Nobles. But that Christmas stuff, you get some good presents, and I got this flick! What an interesting movie, one that doesn't get the attention and respect it deserves. Actor Karl Malden takes a crack at the directing chair (his only directing effort) and doesn't disappoint. It is a military film ahead of its time, willing to tackle some brutal, harsh realities about the changing concepts of war. As I mentioned earlier, this isn't Soldier A shoots Soldier B. This is total war that goes far beyond the battlefield. Maybe it's because 'Time' tackles those difficult to talk about subjects that its legacy has been buried over the years. Moral of the story? It's worth catching up with.

A co-producer who also encouraged Malden to direct the film, Widmark clearly had an interest in bringing this film to life. He's always been one of my favorite actors, and this is a performance that clearly shows off his ability. Some of his most well-known performances are big and bold, but this one is understated and subtle (and the better for it). His Colonel Edwards just wants to find out the truth, however dark it may be. It's also a performance that foreshadows Widmark's part four years later in Judgment at Nuremberg, a somewhat similarly-themed courtroom drama. Basehart gets the showier part as Major Cargill, an officer and former prisoner clearly struggling with some past demons. It's never over the top, just emotionally charged. Instead, this is a part of a man just trying to hold it all together as a secret from his past tears him apart.

'Time' doesn't have a huge cast, but there isn't a weak link in the bunch. Dolores Michaels provides a bit of a sexy secretary interest as Edwards' secretary, Jean, while Martin Balsam plays Sergeant Baker, Edwards' adjutant. I really liked and appreciated the dynamic among the trio in the office, three different people with different backgrounds all working toward the same goal. Some of the witnesses Edwards seeks out include June Lockhart as Cargill's worrying wife and Rip Torn as Lt. Miller, a fellow prisoner and bunkmate of Cargill's from the POW camp. Also look for Carl Benton Reid as Edwards' superior officer with a vested interest in the case and Khigh Dhiegh as Colonel Kim, the brutal POW camp commander.

Clocking in at 96 minutes, 'Time' is based on a play and definitely has that distinct feel. Malden's focus is on the actors, letting the camera linger for long, dialogue-driven scenes without a cut. Much of the movie is shot in Edwards' office with a quick departure near the halfway point to visit Lockhart's wife character. That lack of style oddly, gives 'Time' some style in a weird way. It's filmed in black and white and with some interesting camera angles, adds an unforeseen sense of tension that helps build the mystery. It isn't always the quickest movie -- especially the first 45 minutes -- but that momentum picks up in a huge way about the 45-minute mark as things start to reveal themselves.

I thought I had the twist pegged, but I was wrong. The final act features two different twists, one working just as well as the other. These aren't just twists for the sake of a surprise or shock either. These are genuine twists that work while also asking some tough questions. An underrated flick that deserves more of a reputation. Definitely worth checking out.

Time Limit (1957): ***/****

Chato's Land

Here's one of my biggest pet peeves as I watch westerns. Well, any movie that resorts to this hackneyed technique. When you need someone to play a Native American character or a Mexican or an Asian or whatever....you just cast a white guy who can pass as a different ethnicity. It almost always fails in grand fashion...so when it does work? Enjoy it. Go figure, but Charles Bronson of all people makes for a passable Apache in 1972's Chato's Land.

Picking up supplies in a desert town in Arizona, Pardon Chato (Bronson), a half-breed, is told by the sheriff to leave the saloon without getting a drink. The sheriff draws on Chato, forcing the half-Apache, half-Mexican to turn and fire, killing the sheriff. Chato mounts his horse and rides out of town as news spreads across town. A former Confederate officer, Captain Quincey Whitmore (Jack Palance), organizes a posse and sets off into the desert in pursuit of the Apache fugitive, fully intending to hang Chato should he be captured. The posse has trouble tracking him though across the desert and begins to question if the hunt should be continued. But then when they seem to be at the end of their rope, the posse stumbles across Chato's home and more importantly, his wife and child. Now, the hunters have become the hunted.

A frequent collaborator with Charles Bronson, director Michael Winner takes a lot of grief because of his total filmography. They're not necessarily good films, but son of a gun, they're usually pretty entertaining. His forays into westerns though are pretty good, both 'Chato' and 1971's Lawman. Filmed in Almeria, typically a backdrop for spaghetti westerns, 'Chato' is a violent, dark, uncomfortable and yes, revisionist western. It isn't necessarily a movie you love, but one you watch with a sick sense of dread. This isn't the polished, clean western of the 1950s. This is a dark, filthy, world where violence and betrayal reign supreme. Horrific people in a dusty, sweaty world where anything and everything can and will kill you. If that doesn't sound like fun, I don't know what does!

A star in the 1960s, Charles Bronson became an international star in the 1970s with movies like this, Death Wish, The Mechanic and many others. What's impressive about his titular performance as Chato? Well, he's on-screen for maybe 15, maybe 20 minutes total. He says about 48 words the entire movie. This is a movie about his presence alone being the star. Bronson is ideal casting for this steely-eyed, cold, calculating and brutally efficient Apache warrior looking for revenge. The posse spends whole scenes talking about him, Chato waiting in the darkness or over the next ridge to attack, a one-man army. In the second half, Bronson strips down and wears nothing but a loincloth as he goes after the posse. The dude was 51 years old at the time and looks like he could kick anybody's ass. Like anybody. Go ahead, challenge him. It's weird that the title role is almost a cameo, but Bronson kills the part.

So who does he get around to killing on the posse? Another actor who found second life in Europe and internationally in the late 1960s and 1970s, Jack Palance. This is a great part for the grizzled actor with the perfectly, smoky (some would say evil) voice. He waxes eloquently about the Civil War, the desert, the Apaches, anything and everything. Not quite chewing the scenery, but he nibbles a bit. As for the posse, there's some townspeople (Richard Basehart, Paul Young, William Watson, Victor French), some ranchers doing their civic duty (James Whitmore, Roddy McMillan), a Mexican scout (Raul Castro) and three brothers who ranch and are looking for blood (Simon Oakland, Ralph Waite, Mr. Walton himself, and Richard Jordan). We see their unity at first, their eventual turning on each other, and then their desperate bid for survival. There's some cool names, lots of recognizable faces among the posse.

Now if you look back and read some original reviews, they were startlingly negative. I get it. It would be easy to peg this 1972 revenge western as a snuff film of sorts. Much of the second half of the movie is finding interesting ways for Bronson to kill the posse that isn't so pure, isn't so interested in justice or doing what's right. Given a chance to do something horrific, they don't hesitate. They don't flinch. We know virtually nothing about Chato, but we're rooting for him simply because he isn't the posse. And it's there where the snuff aspect comes out. Quite an ending, quite a final shot too. Know what you're getting into but a western definitely worth seeking out. Come on, how many movies can you see a man use a rattlesnake as a throwing weapon? Not too many, huh?

Chato's Land (1972): ***/****

The Good Die Young

Four actors that I like a lot but were never huge stars. A British crime drama with touches of American film noir. Oh, and I've never heard of this movie...at all. Released in 1954, The Good Die Young popped up recently on Turner Classic Movie's schedule, and I couldn't pass up the chance.

On a quiet night on the streets of London, four men sit in a car, one of them, 'Rave' Ravenscourt (Laurence Harvey) passing pistols out to the other three. The quartet is readying themselves to pull off a robbery that will net them each some serious money. What drove them to this point? How did they get here? How did they become so desperate that these four non-criminal types would turn to armed robbery? Rave, Joe Halsey (Richard Basehart), Eddie Blaine (John Ireland) and Mike Morgan (Stanley Baker) are just that though, incredibly desperate with nowhere else to turn. Can they somehow pull the job off?

Tweaked from a novel by Richard MacAulay, 'Die' certainly sounded pretty good to me. Director Lewis Gilbert's film was transplanted from America to London, a nice touch, and certainly pays tribute to its American film noir influences. Filmed in a shadowy, moody black and white, the look of the film reflects the pretty dark, doomed tone of the story. I liked composer Georges Auric's score, appropriately dark and foreboding, building up to the finale we all could see coming. As well, the acting is solid across the board, but I still managed to come away disappointed here. I'm disappointed I was disappointed too, mostly because I really wanted to like this one.

What mostly caught my eye was the casting of the four leads. Laurence Harvey, Richard Basehart, John Ireland and Stanley Baker?!? And in a quasi-film noir?!? The excitment unfortunately ends there. Following the quick, hard-hitting, mysterious opening, the rest of 'Die' is all flashback leading up to what we've already seen. The story bounces among the four different storylines/main characters, the quartet eventually meeting in a London bar and bonding over their generally pathetic situations. They meet everyday, drinking early and often even though none of them really have any money. Obviously, this part was necessary to show the depths they've all sunk to, but they get tedious...very quickly. The movie only runs 94 minutes, but it feels significantly longer. I guess I was expecting more of the crime drama angle so my expectations may have been slightly off, but I still struggled in those later portions before the actual crime.

The acting is still pretty decent even if it just gets to be one thing on top of another late. Harvey becomes the villain, his Rave a suave, smooth, debonaire gentleman who married Eve (Margaret Leighton), a very rich, well to do woman who's got a few years on him. Basehart's Joe is trying to get his British wife, Mary (Joan Collins), to come back to the states with him, ripping her from his evil mother-in-law's grip, (played by Freda Jackson). An infantryman in Germany, Ireland's Eddie is married to Denise (Gloria Grahame), a small-time actress aspiring to be more and with her co-stars too. Lastly, there's Baker's Mike, a boxer trying to leave the ring with the little money he's saved with his loving wife, Angela (Rene Ray), but her family keeps causing them issues. Of the four, Harvey and Baker represent themselves the best, or at least in the most interesting fashion. Also look for Robert Morley in a one-scene part as Rave's father who hates everything that his son has become.

If there is a saving grace in 'Die,' it's the last 20 minutes or so, the flashbacks left behind as the actual robbery develops. Harvey's Rave manages to convince them all to go in on the job, the amateur crooks deciding whether the reward is worth risk. If noirs and crime dramas have taught us anything, it's that crime just will not pay in the long run, and that foreboding sense comes true here. It's the ending you would expect here. I wanted to like the movie a whole lot more, but it loses its momentum in the first hour. Worth seeking out for the cast, but disappointing on most other levels.

The Good Die Young (1954): **/****

21 Hours at Munich

It was an event in history that captivated the world in its truth. The Munich massacre in 1972 at the Summer Olympic Games was unbelievable in the sense that it really happened. It is an event that shows how far motivated people will go to accomplish what they want, the depths they'll go to. As far as film versions go, the story spawned Steven Spielberg's Munich, a story about the fallout after the massacre, but there is a version of the facts, a TV movie from 1976, 21 Hours at Munich.

It's early on September 5, 1972 and the summer Olympic games are in full swing in Munich, West Germany. In the predawn darkness, eight members of the terrorist group Black September headed by a man named Issa (Franco Nero) sneak into the Olympic Village where athletes from around the world bunk and take 11 Israeli athletes captive. German officials from both the police and the government descend on Olympic Village, including Dr. Manfred Schneider (William Holden), the Chief of Police, to negotiate with the terrorists and find out what they want in exchange for the Israeli hostages. The clock is ticking though, the demands more ludicrous than they could have ever imagined. With the lives of the hostages at stake, the German government and the Olympic committee work to resolve the situation knowing that Issa and his compatriots will kill their hostages if they feel their demands won't be met. What can be done either way?

Besides a lousy print on Netflix, I'd never been able to track this one down until I found it recently on MGM-HD on TV. Finally a good print for a pretty good movie. From director William A. Graham, 'Hours' was originally a TV movie that received a theatrical release in some countries overseas. While the scope isn't huge like a theatrical epic, it doesn't have that distinct feel of a TV movie. Shown on TV just four years after the real-life events that inspired it, it certainly seems like the wounds would have been too fresh for audiences. That's probably going to go a long way in determining if you will like or dislike this movie. It isn't supposed to be entertaining. Interesting? Yes, very much so, but if you're remotely aware of the incident, you know how it ends. It becomes more and more uncomfortable to watch, a painfully tense movie that builds to its inevitably dark, frustrating conclusion.

Sticking as close to the facts as possible, 'Hours' is particularly memorable because of the facts. The truth of the story leads to some incredible set pieces to watch. If you've seen Steven Spielberg's Munich, you've got an idea of what to expect. Sneaking into the Olympic Village and taking the Israeli hostages, the opening sequence is beyond tense. Done with almost no dialogue, it's like we're there with them as the athletes run, hide, fight back as they realize what's going on. The Israeli wrestling coach, Moshe Weinberg, fights back in an incredibly heroic way, as does Yossef Gutfreund (Paul L. Smith), an Israeli wrestling judge), who first discovers the Black September attackers and desperately tries to hold them back at the door. Knowing the truth, reading about it, it all adds up to that incredibly discomforting level that makes it incredibly tough to watch. But at the same time, seeing the harrowing truth of it all makes it real in a visceral, blood-curdling, shiver up your spine way.

The same qualifies for the finale as the hostages and their Arab captors have been transported to an airport/airfield outside Berlin. A plan has been devised to take out the Black September members, but it's come together quickly, not to mention it's pitch dark and far from an ideal situation of how to rescue the Israeli athletes. We see how the plan crumbles in execution, all the little things becoming big problems. Without giving anything away (for those that don't know the truth), it's an incredible ending, a moving, equally uncomfortable finale to a story that defies logic, in the sense that something this horrific could happen at all.

Taking a backseat to the story is a very capable cast. Nero ends up delivering the best performance as Issa, leader of the Black September terrorists. It's a great part because it is a villainous part -- a pretty obvious one -- but Nero makes Issa a human being, not some ridiculously cliched international villain. Sympathetic? Nope, not supposed to be. Fascinating? You bet. His cat and mouse negotiating game with the always solid William Holden becomes the most interesting part of the fast-developing story. Also look for Shirley Knight as an Olympic committee member tasked with being a go-between with Issa and those trying to stop him, Anthony Quayle as a veteran officer of the Israeli special forces/secret service, Richard Basehart as a member of the German government spearheading the rescue effort, and Noel Willman as another German official closely working with Holden's Schneider.

With the feel of a documentary, 'Hours' presents the facts and lets them be. It was filmed on the actual locations where the Munich incident took place in Olympic Village. The actual on-location sites provide an eerie, dream-like feel to the fast-developing story, knowing what actually happened there just a few years before. If you can track a copy down or stumble onto at MGM-HD, I highly recommend it. Well worth it.

21 Hours at Munich (1976): *** 1/2 /****

The Satan Bug

Because guns, grenades and bombs weren't good enough at killing people, a new type of weapon started to be developed in the 20th century. It started as early as WWI with mustard and poison gas being used during trench warfare. It escalated and became more sophisticated, more efficient over the years. As part of the Cold War mutual destruction strategy, world powers turned to scientists to give them an edge in fighting...a different sort of fighting. Germ and chemical warfare became a topic of conversation, little strands of diseases that could destroy the world in minutes, days, and weeks without a weapon fired. That's the background for 1965's The Satan Bug.

This is one of those hidden gems that you're glad you stumbled upon, in this case, because of the director of the film, John Sturges. I knew his other movies like The Magnificent Seven and The Great Escape so reading through his list of films, I happened upon this one, a well-made and exciting if at times confusing espionage thriller centered around germ and chemical warfare. It is based on a novel by Alistair MacLean of Guns of Navarone and Where Eagles Dare fame, originally published under his pseudonym Ian Stuart. In a different setting from his usual WWII adventures, some changes were made to MacLean's book for the movie version, transplanting the story from dreary old England to the arid, dry American southwest. It is the rare novel that makes it to film completely the same as it was written, but as far as novel-to-film transformations go, this is a good one.

At remote, isolated and heavily guarded Station 3 somewhere in the Southwestern desert, two men are killed and several flasks of a recently developed germ/disease strand have been stolen. The robbery and murder seem too perfect considering the heavy security at the facility, but former security head and all-around rebel Lee Barrett (George Maharis) is called in to investigate. He's given some sobering news early on in his investigation. One strand of botulinus that's been stolen has the potential to wipe out hundreds and thousands of lives but has a short life once its oxidizes. The other strand is far more dangerous, a world killer that if unleashed will destroy every living thing on Earth. What mastermind orchestrated the job, and more importantly, what do they intend to do with the new formula, dubbed simply the Satan Bug. Up against the clock, Barrett has to figure out who did it, why, and where exactly the flasks are. Can he do it in time though?

If I had to pick a decade as my favorite in terms of movies, it would be the 1960s, and the decision isn't a tough one. I love the epic quality, the stars, the character actors, and especially the style. In one of the great descriptions I've ever read of an era, one reviewer pointed out that The Satan Bug is one of the last hurrahs of the suit and hat. This movie has style. All the characters wear a suit and tie and stylish hats as they race all over the Southwest looking for these disease-filled flasks. These aren't rogue agents who look like bums off the street. These are the good guys, and they're going to look good catching the bad guys. The sets scream 1960s leisurely style, and composer Jerry Goldsmith turns in an eerie, unsettling score that keeps things moving at a brisk pace. It  will also ring in your head for a couple days so beware of that too. Sometimes all a movie needs to work is that style, and The Satan Bug is a very cool movie to watch.

As a director over four decades with more than 40 movies to his name, Sturges made a career out of tough guy movies with typically male-dominated casts (Great Escape, Mag7, Bad Day at Black Rock), and while the big star name recognition doesn't qualify here, the cast is still impressive. Maharis is a good lead, the super intelligent investigator who pieces things together quicker than any man should be able to do. He's also worried about ex-wife Mary (Anne Francis), but that's understandable. Dana Andrews is General Andrews, a former military man who still holds a mysterious position in the government who also happens to be Barrett's father-in-law. Richard Basehart is Dr. Hoffman, one of Station 3's top doctors who include John Larkin and Simon Oakland. John Anderson plays Reagan, the security officer in charge of Station 3, albeit briefly. Richard Bull is Cavanaugh, a police investigator working with Barrett to catch Ed Asner and Frank Sutton, two of the murdering thieves. Yes, Lou Grant and Sgt Carter as bad guys. It takes some getting used to. The star quality might not be there, but the cast makes up for it, working smoothly together from the start.

Now I like this movie, but I can admit I have no idea what's going on half the time. My first viewing? I must have watched it in a daze, only to review it a couple days later. I understood more if not everything.  MacLean's novel The Satan Bug is a mystery thriller, throwing lots of characters and suspects at you. It's just hard to keep up. In the movie, characters are introduced, killed off, and then we find out they were important much later. Nothing is spelled out at all, forcing the viewer to jump to or make their own conclusions. Not always the best idea when it comes to movies.  Maharis' Barrett makes some ridiculous jumps in logic too, piecing together pieces of evidence so effortlessly that it is almost laughable. By the end, I feel I've got some sort of grip on what was happening, but it is all relative. Explanations, reasoning, development, not really present at any point.

Just like MacLean's novel, the movie takes some liberties with these mankind-killing diseases, but I won't spoil them here. They're supposedly able to wipe out men everywhere...except...well, it doesn't matter. But if Barrett needs to survive, he comes up with some off-the-wall plan to postpone death, mostly because the story requires his presence. These characters are also surprisingly lax with an easily breakable flask carrying the disease that will literally wipe out the Earth. This isn't a great movie, and it might not even be a good movie, but the 1960s style and ensemble cast make up for the lack of logic in the rest of the movie. It is available to watch at Youtube, starting HERE with Part 1 of 11.

The Satan Bug <---trailer (1965): ***/****

La Strada

For all my efforts trying to watch as many movies as I can, I can't help it that some slip through the cracks.  Stars, genres, directors, some of each.  Just because I'm not familiar with a name/movie doesn't mean I'm not aware of them. For example, I recognize Italian director Federico Fellini and could name two or three of his movies. But other than that he was a highly influential director with a unique movie-making style, I know little to nothing about him.

The one Fellini movie I'd seen until recently was 8 1/2 which was supposed to be weird, different, and existential, dreamlike in its execution.  It was just too much for me, and I was never able to get into the movie.  It is definitely a movie I would revisit only because it's so universally acclaimed I feel like I missed out on something.  Never one to completely shut down on a director, I gave Fellini's 1954 movie La Strada a chance this weekend, and I ended up liking it if nothing being blown away by it. You've got to start somewhere, right?

The oldest daughter of a single mother trying to raise a family of four kids, Gelsomina (Giulietta Masina) has always been a little different from other people, but no one knows why. In an effort to help her family, her mother sells the teenage girl to Zampano (Anthony Quinn), a traveling performer who moves from town to town performing his act. Very naive, very innocent Gelsomina is thrust into a world she just can't comprehend, growing up quicker than she ever anticipated.  Zampano looks out for her at times but generally treats her poorly. She doesn't know any way out of the situation, even when she meets a fellow circus performer, the Fool (Richard Basehart), who could possibly be an outlet for her, an escape from this prison of a life she finds herself in.

I've made no bones about my preference for movies that are more realistic and therefore more downbeat and generally cynical.  But of all the movies I've seen, this is one of the darkest.  This is a world without much hope in it, especially for the innocent (is she mentally handicapped in some way? The story hints at it subtly) Gelsomina.  It is a dog eat dog world where anyone and everyone will turn on you if it possibly helps them.  If anything, it's even too dark for a cynical moviegoer like me. With a few exceptions, there always has to be hope in the end, something positive to strive for however slim.  There's none of that here, Fellini's movie's outlook on life and survival getting dimmer and dimmer with each passing minute as the climax approaches.

Not too complain about subtitles because I don't mind reading and watching a movie, but the dubbing distracted me from the performances. Always a very physical, verbose actor, Quinn lives up to his reputation, delivering a fiery part as Zampano, a character that's hard to judge. But with his very distinct voice, it's off-putting when you hear someone else's voice come out of that mouth. The same goes for Basehart, which by the way, how did the very American-looking Basehart end up playing an Italian circus performer? Somebody explain that to me.

Three performances dominate the movie for better or worse.  Quinn never disappoints, and he certainly doesn't here.  Never afraid to play an unlikable character, he plays maybe his most despicable character in a long career. There is nothing redeeming about his Zampano, and a shady past is hinted at often.  Gelsomina's sister was sold to him the year before but died. What happened to her? Most likely he just abandoned her somewhere.  Basehart is more hit or miss, the existential link to the story, a fool, a circus performer who wonders aloud about life and its meaning, what everyone's purpose truly is.  He is a talented actor, no doubt about it, but even just being there he feels out of place.

The brightest spot here is Masina as Gelsomina.  By no means a classical beauty, she brings something different to this very tragic character.  From the moment she is introduced, you just know she's doomed in one way or another.  Fitting well with Fellini's very visual style, Masina says so much with her eyes (maybe the saddest eyes I've seen in a movie ever), not wasting time with long passages of dialogue. It is so easy to feel bad for this character because you're rooting for her. You want her to escape, to live her life, to go back to that convent that seemed to appeal to her.  But in this incredibly dark world of Fellini, life doesn't always end up so rosy. One of the darker movies I've come across, and not necessarily for the better.

La Strada <---TCM clips (1954): ** 1/2 /****

Tension

Would it be reasonable to assume that a movie titled 'Tension' has well, tension?  You'd think so, but 1949's Tension is missing it for the most part.  Half a good movie is there in the 95-minute running time, but the second half limps to the finish with plot holes you could drive a school bus through, and some stupid decisions that no real person could or would ever make.  Other than that? It's a decent movie. 

There were times early on in this 1949 that I was reminded of Alfred Hitchcock's stories revolving around murder, deception and intrigue, especially classics like Dial M For Murder or Strangers on a Train.  It keeps you guessing even when you have a sense of where it's going, and when you think you have everything figured out it throws you for a loop.  But that is just the build-up to the actual twist because once it is revealed things start to fall apart, especially the ending.

Working long hours and odd shifts at a 24-hour pharmacy, meek, quiet pharmacist Warren Quimby (Richard Basehart) is doing everything he can to make his wandering wife, Claire (Audrey Totter), happy. No matter what Warren does though, Claire always ends up with another man, but Warren loves her too much and looks past every single one of her flaws so that he can still be with her.  Finally, he's had enough though when he sees her with another man as she basically rubs it in his face. He comes up with a plan to murder the man and goes as far as creating a man out of thin air who will be pointed to as the murderer.  Everything starts to come together, and it looks like the plan is going to work until Claire shoots the man instead, turning to Warren for help.  Now the police are involved, and the evidence looks like it points to Warren.

The movie derails during the scene where Claire shows back up on Warren's doorstep, basically begging him to take her back.  Warren has moved on, even starting to see a woman (Cyd Charisse) he meets when setting up this fake life. On a sidenote, what did Warren think was going to become of this relationship? At some point I'm guessing he'd have to come clean.  Anyways, back to the story once Barry Sullivan and William Conrad show up as the bumbling yet still competent cops investigating the murder.  Through all their idiotic actions, a picture of Warren in his alternate life is given to them, and they don't IMMEDIATELY recognize him.  Now that's just good police work in my opinion.  It gets better as they manipulate everyone involved to basically giving themselves up.

This keeps building and building as Warren and Charisse's Mary continue to meet, Sullivan's detective sees them and does nothing.  Then after a whole movie of Totter's Claire being perfectly calm through all the ups and downs, she falls apart and does the stupidest thing possible; I'm assuming because they needed to wrap everything up, and the movie was getting a little long in the tooth.  Sullivan's cop reveals a twist in the ending that if I understood it right, cancels everything out that just happened, making the confession he just got completely false.  Who knows though? By then I could have been drifting in and out of the story.  It's a film noir, and it's obvious who is or isn't going to pay.  Basehart planned a murder but never actually killed someone. This movie is not going to kill off or send its most sympathetic character to jail.

Basehart is an underrated actor to begin with, and this is a part that gives him two roles to play.  His Warren Quimby is a quiet man who goes about his job and work without ruffling any feathers.  At some point in his past, he might have been more forthcoming and outgoing because he won Claire over, but he's just not the same anymore.  His alter-ego is everything he wishes he could be, confident, cool and smooth.  When the chips are down and his perfect plan hits the fan, he goes back to being skittish Warren who gets easily rattled.  A solid performance(s) that rises above the often very dull story.  Totter too is a scene-stealer, the femme fatale film noirs became known for.

Tension <---trailer (1949): **/****

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 /**** 

Hitler

Where to start with a movie biography about one of history's most violent people, responsible for the deaths of millions of people, many of them his own people?  Automatically a director is biting off a lot when taking on a true historical story but even more so when considering the main character is one of the most controversial individuals of all-time.  That person is Adolf Hitler, the German dictator who attempted to take over the world and ended up killing millions in the process. 

Looking at IMDB's character page of Hitler, I was absolutely blown away by how many characterizations there have been of Hitler in movies, miniseries and on TV.  Some like last year's Inglourious Basterds was more of a cartoonish look at the dictator while others like Downfall tried to tell the story of his final days.  Then there's 1962's appropriately titled Hitler which treads somewhere in between those two descriptions.  One problem though is that it tries to do far too much, telling almost 25 years of story in a 104-minute movie.  Not to say a 3-hour movie would have been better with similar subject matter, but one that clocks in at under 2 hours stands little chance of being successful.

Starring Richard Basehart as Adolf Hitler, this biography attempts to do too much.  The bio begins with Hitler in prison transcribing Mein Kampf to a secretary and moves from there with his rise to power as chancellor of Germany, appointing himself dictator of the country, and his ultimate downfall, World War II.  A miniseries with 2-hour segments documenting each of these individual chapters in his life would be better suited if a director really wanted to explore the life of Hitler.  Instead, director Stuart Heisler spends too much time on certain things -- especially an Oedipus complex for Hitler -- while glossing over other aspects, like a rushed 15-minute look at WWII and his ultimate suicide.

Certain roles sound like career assassination to me, and playing Adolf Hitler is right at the top of that list.  Basehart was never a huge star in Hollywood, often playing supporting characters and getting third or fourth billing or playing guest starring roles on TV series.  He's an interesting choice for sure and does a fine job making something out of a poorly written character.  The characterization isn't so much about his actions as a dictator but more about his psychological makeup.  Because of that, we see stark raving mad Hitler more often than not, and Basehart's talents are wasted as a cartoonish, exaggerated portrayal takes over.

The cartoonish, over the top tone though isn't just limited to one character.  The whole tone of the movie plays like a big joke, especially in the portrayals of Himmler, Goering, Goebbels, and other members of Hitler's ring of supporters.  Introduced by their flaws -- personal and otherwise -- that include pervert, sadist, murderer, clubfooted, these are nothing more than cardboard cutouts of flesh and blood people that, while despicable, are interesting to look at.  The best is saved for the man in front though as Hitler is presented as impotent, a megalomaniac, homosexual, and an Oedipus complex that basically makes him crazy.

This is shown through two relationships in his life, one with his niece Geli (Cordula Trantow) who he may or may not have a sexual relationship with, and two, his mistress Eva Braun (Maria Emo) who stands by him even in the most difficult times.  For starters, neither actress is that talented and at times it's hard to watch their scenes that come off as amateurish.  A story about one of the most controversial characters in human history is diminished to a story about a man struggling with inner demons about feelings for his mother and how he takes it out on the people around him and the world as a whole.

It's just a bizarre movie on the whole, not helped at all by a budget that makes the movie look incredibly cheap.  Extensive footage from WWII is inserted throughout the story to replace scenes of the Munich rallies or any of Hitler's speeches.  In the big picture though of a movie's success, the cheap look can be a tipping point in deciding if it's good or great.  This biography never gets to that point because it's just not very good.  Cartoonish, over-exaggerated, stereotypical and a wasted effort.

Hitler <---TCM clips (1962): * 1/2 /****

Fourteen Hours

In 1951 renowned director Billy Wilder's Ace in the Hole hit theaters and tanked in a big way. Watching it now almost 60 years later, it's easy to see why. It's ahead of its time in dealing with criticisms of media, mob mentality, even society in general. Basically, 'Ace' doesn't pull any punches. It tells a story and doesn't care how you feel about it. Released the same year as 'Ace,' Fourteen Hours deals with a similar subject but never rises to the same level as Wilder's forgotten classic.

Combining a documentary-like filming style and an impressive list of character actors given a chance to step into the limelight, 'Fourteen' tries to do a lot of things. The premise -- a man standing on a ledge on the 15th floor of a New York hotel and ready to jump -- doesn't seem to bode well for a feature-length film. But that's for later because I've got some complaints about that man out on the ledge.

Delivering breakfast to a 15th floor room at the Rodney Hotel, a waiter (Frank Faylen) loses track of where the hotel guest is in the room. Looking around, he notices the curtains blowing all over the room. Sticking his head out the window, he sees the guest (Richard Basehart) standing on the window ledge. Far down below on the empty New York streets, traffic cop Charlie Dunnigan (Paul Douglas) spots the man on the ledge and races inside the hotel to try and help. So starts a day-long media event as Dunnigan and seemingly all of the NY police force try to talk the man down, first trying to find the man's name and then looking into his background.

That sort of storyline opens the door for a long list of possibilities. At the heart of the movie is Basehart's man on the ledge and Douglas' flat-footed traffic cop, the only man Basehart will talk to. But feet away in the hotel room and the adjacent hallway is a throng of people, cops, reporters, hanger-ons trying to help or hurt the situation. Far below on the streets, NY turns into gridlock as crowds gather to see whether the man will jump to his death. A group of cab drivers place bets on which hour he will jump while waiting for the traffic to clear. Additions like that reminded me of 'Ace' in its cynicism of human nature, but 'Fourteen' balances that out with a love story between two strangers, Jeffrey Hunter's Danny and Debra Paget's Ruth.

As the man on the ledge and the average Joe cop trying to talk him down, Basehart and Douglas dominate the screentime, but that doesn't mean a long list of varying characters is left behind. Agnes Morehead and Robert Keith play the man's overbearing mother and the father who abandoned his family, Howard Da Silva as police commander Moskar who leads the rescue effort from the hotel room, Martin Gabel as Dr. Strauss, a psychiatrist trying to figure out Basehart's background and mental make-up, Grace Kelly in her screen debut as a divorcee watching the proceedings from a nearby building, and Ossie Davis and Harvey Lembeck as two on-looking cab drivers looking to make a buck.

The premise -- as interesting and tense as it is -- has some holes that probably needed to be dealt with. First, the biggie, Basehart gets out on that ledge early in the morning and stands there for (like the title says) 14 hours. But once Douglas' cop shows up, the man starts asking for cigarettes, glasses of water and coffee. Whenever any effort is made to bring him down from the ledge, he starts freaking out, screaming 'Get back or I'll jump!' Basically, that's my problem with the character who, credit going to Basehart, comes across a whiny, shrill, not mentally all there individual. I'm not sure what it says about me, but after the fifth or sixth freakout at seeing a cop or net, I was rooting for him to jump. And on the reality meter, he's up there 14 hours and drinking water and coffee. The dude's gonna have to use the bathroom at some point. Come on now.

My complaints aren't enough to not recommend this movie, just enough to detract overall from a worthy story and bring down an above average movie to an average flick. Great cast, some very cool uses of New York as the story's backdrop, and an interesting premise that for the most part delivers. Look for 14 Hours, but also track down Wilder's Ace in the Hole, a forgotten classic from a great director.

Fourteen Hours <---- typically overdramatic 1950s trailer (1951): **/****

Kings of the Sun

When movies in the 50s and 60s were trying to figure out how to deal with the growing popularity of TV, studios tried to tell stories that TV just couldn't duplicate. Translation, big, sprawling historical epics in widescreen with big casts and big stars. Like any grouping of movies, some were better than others with classics like Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments, and Spartacus. But there's something appealing about all of them, good or bad, because they're at least trying to shoot for the stars.

Directed by J. Lee Thompson, 1963's Kings of the Sun is a prime example of an average epic that has enough going for it overall to recommend. Historical setting? Mayans running from fellow tribesmen who've joined with the Spaniards. Check. Big names in the cast? Yul Brynner and George Chakiris, double check. Unnecessary love triangle because the story on its own isn't enough? Of course, what would an epic be without it?

As his father dies and he's appointed king, Mayan king Balam (Chakiris) must deal with a new threat. A large group of fellow tribesmen led by tyrannical Hunac Cel (Leo Gordon) have teamed with European invaders and are rampaging across the land, destroying everyone who doesn't join them. With a small group of survivors, Balam heads to the coast with Hunac Cel close behind. It's there they find a village of fishermen and farmers, and before they too are wiped out, they join Balam in sailing across the Gulf of Mexico to safety and hopefully freedom.

After days of sailing with no end apparently anywhere in sight, the new tribe finally sees land. They reach the beach and start to build a new life, sacrificial temple and all with a stockade to prevent any natives from attacking. It's not long before those natives show up, including Black Eagle (Yul Brynner), a chief of a tribe of hunters and wanderers. Black Eagle is taken prisoner with plans to sacrifice him to the gods in hopes of having a good harvest. Will Balam go against his beliefs to let him go or is the inevitable showdown coming?

This is another time in history that's too often ignored when it comes to movies. I'm no expert when it comes to Mayan culture and history, but KotS seems to get the basics right. One of the main issues with new king Balam is how he keeps up their religion, their beliefs. The high priest, Ah Min (Richard Baseheart), looks out for Balam and tries to guide him, but the main dispute is over sacrificing their own tribesmen. Does it work or are they just too superstitious and believe it has some effect?

Thompson went to Chicen Itza and Mazatlan to film extensively for KotS which gives the story an authenticity, a realism that would be missing if it had just been filmed in the hills around Hollywood. Shot with a Panavision camera, the cinematography is one of the best things about the movie. The main set once the tribe has set up camp is in a beautiful, sunny Mexican bay that fits perfectly.

The main set then provides a cool location for a final battle with Balam's Mayans, Black Eagle's tribe and Hunac Kel's barbarian tribesmen in the village and up the scaffolding of the temple slowly being built. It's the set piece the whole movie builds up to, and it doesn't disappoint. Hundreds of extras, Elmer Bernstein's booming and appropriately epic score, good action with fighters going toe to toe.

The casting is somewhat hit or miss, but Brynner is at his best. At the ripe "old" age of 43 when the movie was released, Brynner looks like he could handle someone half his age, the dude's ripped. Instantly recognizable with his shaved head, he presents an imposing figure as his tribe's most respected warrior. But more than that, his character has a depth missing from other parts in the movie. About to be sacrificed, Black Eagle bonds with Ixchel (Shirley Anne Fields), a young woman promised to Balam as a wife. While the action is good in other scenes, these quiet scenes work just as well and keep the movie somewhat grounded. As his rival, Chakiris doesn't leave much of an impression. Fresh off the success of West Side Story, he just doesn't have the presence needed to keep up with Brynner. Here's their first meeting.

Also worth mentioning, Kings of the Sun has more than a few connections with 1960's The Magnificent Seven. Both films were made by the Mirisch Company so that'll have something to do with it, both star Brynner and Brad Dexter, as Balam's right hand man, Bernstein did the score for both films, and even laconic gunfighter Britt, um, I mean James Coburn provides the opening narration. Just some cool trivia, or at least cool to me.

All things considered, Kings of the Sun is a worthwhile epic. It doesn't have the scope or size of some of the true classics, but it gives a good effort and if nothing else is a fun watch.