The Last Run

I like crime thrillers. Could you tell? If movies have taught us anything about the criminal underworld in all its glory, it's that it is easy to get into crime but not so easy to get out. You could do a whole sub-genre of films where an aging, veteran crook (a safecracker, a killer, a gun runner) is trying to walk away but someone or something ain't letting him. I stumbled across 1971's The Last Run years ago, and it definitely applies. Kudos to Turner Classic Movies for airing this hard-to-find flick!

Living in a small, quiet fishing village in southern Portugal, Harry Garmes (George C. Scott) leads a day-to-day life that's almost monk-like. He used to be one of the best drivers around, getting the job done no matter what but through some personal and family drama, he ended up in Portugal alone. It's been nine years since he's taken a job...until now. Garmes cuts a deal to be at a certain place at a certain time and drive someone out of harm's way and into France. The plan goes off without a hitch as Garmes picks up young, cocky Rickard (Tony Musante) after a highway prison bus escape, Rickard making him stop in a nearby town for his girlfriend, Claudie (Trish Van Devere). Even though Rickard rubs him the wrong way, Garmes has taken a contract and he intends to keep it, but what exactly is going on? What was Rickard put away for and is someone else on their trail? The border and relative safety can't come quick enough.

I first heard of this 1971 crime story a few years back courtesy of Warner's DVD-on-Demand offer where a disc was burned and sent to you instead of mass-producing it. The price was a little steep so patient movie review guy kicked in, and finally TCM obliged! Reviews were encouraging, a low-key, almost artsy crime drama that seemed to have touches of so many solid French new wave crime movies. Oh, and George C. Scott. That's almost never a bad thing. Well, the movie is okay but nothing special. Filming and production was beset by one thing after another from director John Huston bailing because he fought with Scott non-stop, and also Scott falling in love with Van Devere during filming....and his then-wife was in the movie at the time.

Good formula for success, huh? I don't know how much the production issues came into play, but 'Run' is a tad uneven. Director Richard Fleischer replaced Scott and took the helm, directing a crime drama that is straight forward, underplayed, no-nonsense and boasting all sorts of potential. It does have that Euro-feel of being almost minimalist in its development. The music is kept to a minimum, the focus is kept on the actors, and...well, I don't know. There just isn't much to it. Yeah, there is a sense of impending doom gathering on the horizon, but you've got a pretty good idea of where this is going pretty quick. I was curious to see the twists you know are coming, what exactly Scott's Garmes has gotten himself into, but the twists and payoffs weren't anything special unfortunately. Lots of potential -- but I say it too much -- but you've got to do something with that potential and not stand pat.

Scott was always a huge personality, and as I've learned reading about this production, that wasn't only on-screen but off. He fell in love with Van Devere during filming (and was eventually married) but his then-wife Colleen Dewhurst was actually in the film (playing a prostitute) as well. Fun, huh? Oh, and he chased Huston off apparently. His performance is an interesting one. His Harry Garmes is the definition of a doomed anti-hero. His life has retreated in on itself and thrust back into his past life -- being a hell of a getaway driver -- he sees that what he'd been doing wasn't really living at all. It is a quiet, imposing part with some typical Scott bursts of fire and rage and intimidation. What I'm looking for (usually) in my doomed anti-hero is some sort of sentiment and that wasn't necessarily on display here. I wasn't rooting for him to pull the job off, to get out alive, to get the girl, whatever the case may be. Scott or the script? Your call, but I guess it's both.

Musante and Van Devere are the only other cast members given much screentime. Musante does what he does best as a smooth (probably too smooth) crook who you can never get a read on. Is he telling you the truth or getting ready to stab you in the back? The future Mrs. Scott, Van Devere is okay in a similarly odd part just because it's never quite clear what she's up to. The whole subplot with Garmes and Claudie is forced and doesn't have much chemistry. Along with Dewhurt, look for spaghetti western regular Aldo Sambrell in a quick part.

I wanted to like this one a lot more, but I keep thinking they were trying to be something, trying to do this, trying too hard. When the twist comes as Musante reveals what's up, I had no idea what he was talking about. Then when the chases start and the bullets start to fly....yeah, still no idea. That can be a problem if you like following the story. 'Run' instead seems content to have you know that those guys are bad guys, and that's all. Any back story is unnecessary unfortunately. There are positives, the Spanish/Portuguese/French locations providing a beautiful visual backdrop and a couple car chases dotting the 99-minute running time. A disappointment unfortunately, but man, am I glad I didn't buy it!

The Last Run (1971): **/****

His Kind of Woman

Occasionally I have some genuine freak-out moments. Case in point? I’ve been writing movie reviews here with Just Hit Play since January 2009. I must be getting old! I’ve mentioned before though the timing of starting some of these reviews. I watched some good, even great, movies in the months right before I started this site but never reviewed them, not feeling confident enough to review months later from memory. That’s today’s review, a film noir from 1951, His Kind of Woman, that’s one of my favorites.

A down on his luck gambler living in Los Angeles, Dan Milner (Robert Mitchum) is drifting along with the clothes on his back and very little money in his pocket. Then, his luck turns on a dime, but it seems so easy. A mysterious man with underworld connections offers him a huge payday if he’ll simply leave the country and visit Mexico. There’s a catch though. He can’t know why, only get to a remote hotel on the Baja California peninsula and wait. From there, he won’t be able to return to the United States for at least a year. Suspicious but in need of the money, Milner takes the deal and heads to Mexico. There at the hotel, he meets a beautiful singer, Lenore (Jane Russell), in pursuit of a popular Hollywood actor, Mark Cardigan (Vincent Price), and an odd assortment of guests and locals. Milner sits back and waits for what’s heading his way. What has he gotten himself into exactly?

I saw this 1951 film noir in November 2008, two months before I started writing these reviews. Talk about bad timing, huh? I loved it, something pulling me in and keeping me interested throughout its two-hour running time. It comes from bazillionaire Howard Hughes and had a whole bunch of production problems that become evident in the final act. Now that said, there’s something charming and fun about it from beginning to end. It hasn’t been distributed much, if at all, since its release and ‘Kind’ doesn’t have a huge following. The moral of the story is simple. It should. I highly recommend it.

To say this is a film noir is limiting. It is to be sure, but it tries to do a lot more and generally, succeeds on most of those fronts. Director John Farrow (and an uncredited Richard Fleischer when Hughes didn’t like Farrow’s work) is at the helm of an equal parts film noir, love story, comedy with some action and shootouts thrown in. It isn’t always perfect, but the script makes a mostly successful go at it. Six different people are listed at the IMDB page for this movie as having written part of ‘Kind’ (again reflecting the behind the scenes drama). It’s smart. The dialogue crackles. The story is sorta kinda there, relying on the actors to bring the at-times slow story to life. I think the biggest compliment I can say is that it almost plays like a spoof of the film noir genre itself…but never truly becomes a spoof. Now that takes some doing. Not too light, not too heavy-handed, but more importantly and more successfully, somewhere in between.

Just a few weeks ago, I reviewed 1952’s Macao, another pairing of stars Robert Mitchum and Jane Russell. I watched ‘Kind’ back in 2008 in my Jane Russell phase. I’d never seen her films but fell hard for her right away, and this was only my second Russell film I believe. Again, talk about an on-screen match made in heaven. It’s easy to say Mitchum does the same thing movie in and movie out – that laconic, loner anti-hero – but he brings a different edge and energy with each passing film. I loved his Milner character, a man who knows he’s in trouble but keeps going along to figure out what’s up. The same for Russell’s Lenore, a young woman looking for love but with a fair share of failed attempts behind her. The duo just WORKS so well together. Their scenes are pretty pitch perfect throughout. They’re believable, you like them, and they seem to like each other. How can you go wrong?

What surprised me about the movie’s general unknown quality is the cast. With the cast assembled, how does it not have more of a reputation even by accident? Mitchum and Russell are excellent, but it’s Vincent Price who steals the show. His Mark Cardigan is an Errol Flynn-like movie star, a swashbuckler who’s looking for his movie star life to become his real life. A little too much at times, but very funny. Still not enough? There’s also Tim Holt as an investigating cop, Charles McGraw as a thug and enforcer, Raymond Burr as a mobster trying to get back into the U.S., Jim Backus as a talkative investment banker, Philip Van Zandt as the hotel owner, and an uncredited Anthony Caruso a brooding sidekick to Burr. Not bad at all.

An additional character worth mentioning is the hotel set on the Baja California peninsula. It’s so 1940s/1950s stylish with its bungalows and pool and just some really cool architecture. The sets date the movie a bit, but it truly becomes an additional character. The ending? Yeah, things fall apart a bit as the last 40 minutes get a little too kooky. Even when it goes off the tracks though, ‘Kind’ is still a really fun movie. Definitely worth seeking out, the 1951 film noir popping up occasionally on Turner Classic Movie’s schedule.

His Kind of Woman (1951): *** 1/2 /****

Che!

So by all accounts, everyone agrees a movie is awful. It's made some lists as one of the worst movies ever made. It tackles a controversial subject matter when the wound was still fresh in one of the most turbulent times in world history. The man? Revolutionary Che Guevara. No, it's not Steven Soderbergh's two-part Che. Silly you, I reviewed that HERE and HERE two years ago. It's time for a flick that's been critically panned for years, and don't we all love that?!? Here's 1969's Che!

It's 1956 and a young Che Guevara (Omar Sharif) lands in Cuba with a small revolutionary force of around 80 men commanded by Fidel Castro (Jack Palance). Having studied to be a physician, Che is brought along to be a medic, to treat the wounded but quickly becomes much, much more. As the revolution picks up momentum and followers all across Cuba, Che becomes an essential figure in the fighting, even becoming Castro's right-hand man, a key strategist and tactician in the fighting. It all leads to an overthrow of the government as Fidel, Che and their followers take the head of the coup, installing their own socialist government in 1959. It's just the start though as Cuba becomes a thorn in the side of the United States and worldwide. The revolution has changed though, and Che begins to feel uncomfortable. Maybe he can be of more use elsewhere where the fighting still rages...

Judging by reviews, IMDB ratings, word of mouth, all of the above, this movie from director Richard Fleischer is considered an all-around dud. As a jumping off point, I don't know what it says about me that I didn't think it was that bad. Rather, I was entertained throughout so go figure. Whether you love it or hate it, it's certainly an interesting film. It was made just two years after Che's death in 1967 as the world was tearing itself apart with one bloody conflict after another. My biggest question is 'What was the rush?' in getting a Che Guevara movie into theaters. The script certainly has some issues, packing a ton of stuff (about 10 years) into a 96-minute movie. It has far too many preachy scenes where Sharif's Che expresses his beliefs to anyone and everyone who will listen, and many who couldn't care less. Is it a good movie? No, but it's a fascinating flick in a guilty pleasure sort of way.

Talk about a daunting task. Mr. Sharif, would you be interested in playing infamous revolutionary Che Guevara? Working with a flawed script that tries to accomplish too much in its relatively short running time, Sharif makes the most of it. The screenplay certainly seems based off Guevara's diary and sticks relatively close to the facts of the revolutionary's life. The moments when he's preaching -- repeatedly -- his revolutionary beliefs, his hatred of imperialism (especially America) get to be tedious, but it is in the other, quieter moments where Sharif does an admirable job. We start to see Guevara as a man obsessed with revolution, with chaos, with taking down the system. These beliefs ultimately prove to be his undoing as Che becomes blinded with his goals rather than seeing that his plans simply can't work.

Now the rest of the cast, one actor in particular, has taken some abuse for his role. That man? Steely-eyed, gravelly voiced Jack Palance as Fidel Castro. Wearing a prosthetic nose, sporting big, wire-rimmed glasses and always chomping on a cigar, Palance seems to be playing a stereotype, a cliche of Castro rather than a flesh and blood individual. Fascinating, but not in a good way. The unfortunate part of the cast is that it features a long list of recognizable character actors who popped up in countless 1960s/1970s flicks. Oh, the unfortunate part? They're basically background performers. Some get a line here and there, but for the most part, they walk with Che or are visible in action scenes and dialogue exchanges.

Too bad. Among Che's followers we see Cesare Danova, Robert Loggia, Woody Strode, Perry Lopez, Rudy Diaz, Tom Troupe, Barbara Luna, Linda Marsh and Sid Haig. Other key parts go to Frank Silvera, Albert Paulsen, Rodolfo Acosta, Abraham Sofaer, and Paul Picerni. Just wish they could have been better utilized.

The one thing I can give credit for to this film over the Soderbergh version is that 1969 Che! takes a stance on the revolutionary icon. He's one flawed individual for good and bad. We see what his actions cause in terms of consequence on himself and those around him. In a somewhat odd storytelling device, we see some of the cast directly addressing the camera like a documentary, addressing the developments in Che's life but also in Cuba and Bolivia. Things obviously get a tad dark in the last half hour as Che's efforts in Bolivia never develop as planned. So you know what? I liked this movie. It's not necessarily good, but it's always entertaining (sometimes in a bad way). Still, it's worth a look.

Che! (1969): ***/**** 

Tora! Tora! Tora!

One of the most infamous days in American history, December 7, 1941 is one of those instantly recognizable dates. The ones that live on in history itself. The Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was a world-changer, the United States thrust into World War II in a flash. Released in 1970, Tora! Tora! Tora! takes an almost documentary look at one of the most horrific days in American history.

In 1941, World War II is raging across Europe, Adolf Hitler's army marching and conquering all over the continent. In Japan, a new commander, Admiral Yamamoto (So Yamamura), has been named in the Japanese Navy with huge plans in play. Negotiations have been going on for months with the America and will continue for months to come. The American fleet all over the Pacific waits and braces for an attack that many believe is imminent while American intelligence back in Washington D.C. tries to decipher countless pieces of information, clues and evidence that will point to Japan's intentions. Will the Japanese attack? At the navy base at Pearl Harbor in the Hawaiian islands, Admiral Himmel (Martin Balsam) tries to decide what to do next. As the end of November 1941 nears, a meticulous Japanese plan of attack is put into action; much of the fleet sailing toward Pearl Harbor to unleash a surprise attack that hopes to cripple the American navy.

From director Richard Fleischer, with Kinji Fukasaku and Toshio Masuda directing the Japanese sequences, 'Tora' is the anti-Longest Day. While that 1962 epic told the true story of the D-Day invasion at Normandy with an epic cast of Hollywood legends, 'Tora' goes for the true story angle but without the star power. Fleischer and Co. are interested in the details, the history, the build-up, the intelligence, the government responses, all those little things that history buffs will eat up. It takes a little while to get going -- clocking in at 144 minutes overall -- but it is never dull and once it finds its rhythm, the momentum gets going in a big way. This was a movie that struggled in American theaters but was a huge hit in Japanese theaters. Why is that you ask?

Well, the true story of the attack on Pearl Harbor is hard to believe in itself. There's no way it should have worked on so many levels. That's where 'Tora' is special. The Japanese surprise attack was a brilliant military plan, a reliance on air power leading to the success and that almost complete surprise on the American naval base. From the American side, any number of people and issues impacted the attack. Intelligence reports were handled slowly and sent to the wrong people and places. When the radar spotted the hundreds of Japanese fighters, reports were ignored. It's an amazing series of events, Fleischer's movie interested in all those little things. 'Tora' finds its groove near the hour-mark as the attack becomes imminent. The shots of the Japanese fighters and bombers taking off from carrier decks in the pre-dawn darkness as the sun rises in front of them are eerie, oddly beautiful and intensely uncomfortable as we know what their plan will accomplish.

That's the movie at it's absolute best. Nominated for five Academy Awards, 'Tora' won the award for Best Special Effects. Why? Because of the extended attack on Pearl Harbor, bringing one of the darkest moments in American history to life. The Pearl Harbor sequence is remarkable, starting about the 100-minute mark. The amount of ground it covers is remarkable from the attacks on Battleship Row to Hickam Field and anything and everything in between of military importance. The camera films from ground level to put the American POV in perspective while also filming in the air to give the view the Japanese pilots saw as they attacked. The sequence of the Japanese planes flying across Hawaii to Pearl Harbor especially resonated with me in terms of the reality of what we're watching. Amazing aerial sequences, some incredible stuntwork, and composer Jerry Goldsmith's score boosting it all up a notch, this is a sequence that works on all levels. It brings the horrors of the real-life incident to life to the point it is uncomfortable to watch. A great sequence.

With hopes of leaving the focus on the true story of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the cast was filled out with recognizable, respected actors who didn't exactly have star power. Among the high-ranking American military, look for Balsam, James Whitmore and Jason Robards, and with the Intelligence, E.G. Marshall and Wesley Addy. Among the Japanese there's Yamamura as Admiral Yamamoto with Takahiro Tamura as the flight commander leading the attack on Pearl with and Eijiro Tono as the Admiral leading the attack group across the Pacific toward Hawaii. There's gotta be a 100 or so speaking roles so far too many to mention here, but also look for Joseph Cotten, Richard Anderson and Neville Brand among many others.

An interesting movie basically across the board. Told from both the American and Japanese perspectives on seemingly countless levels, you get an excellent sense of the events leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor, the actual attack, and the immediate fallout. It ends on a somber note, the world truly thrust into the war at this point on an international level, Yamamoto expressing his thoughts. "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and filled it with a terrible resolve." Profound words and a fitting end to the movie.

Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970): ***/****

The Spikes Gang

Growing up is tough, and yes, here we are with another coming of age movie. No, it's not a teenager in the 1980s, a little boy growing up in Germany during the Holocaust, but a sub-genre from one of my favorite genres, growing up in the wild west. Movies from The Culpepper Cattle Co. to True Grit and others, it's an always interesting sub-genre. We can definitely add 1974's The Spikes Gang to the list.

Living with his parents on an isolated farm in Texas, teenager Wilson Young (Gary Grimes) has had about enough of his father's strict, one might say cruel, treatment. Walking around out in the isolated brush country with his two friends, Les (Ron Howard) and Tod (Charles Martin Smith), Will finds the body of a seemingly dead man. He isn't though, the three teenagers nursing the severely wounded man back to health. They find out the man is Harry Spikes (Lee Marvin), a notorious bank robber who thanks the boys for their help and rides out. Not soon after, Will, Les and Tod all leave home, vowing to live life and explore the world and all it has to offer. Life on the road isn't everything it's made out to be though, the trio ending up in a Mexican prison with no hope...until now. Spikes lucks upon them, bribing the guard to let them out. His solution? He likes the boys and teaches them how to become bank robbers, forming the oddest gang of bank robbers around.

I was worried as I watched the credits for this Richard Fleischer-directed western. The soundtrack was a soft, folksy-sounding guitar playing, and I'm thinking I stumbled into a lyrical, whimsical 1970s western where everyone's nice and cute and the world is just dreamy. Well, I'm glad I stuck with it. There certainly are moments like that, the three boys hitting the road and ready to experience the world. That sentiment is quickly thrown out the window, and the movie gets better immediately. With no money and starving, Will decides to rob a bank out of nowhere. They get away with some money but Tod accidentally shoots a passerby trying to stop them. From there, the story's previously happy, go-lucky story degenerates, getting darker with each passing scene. Is that a good thing? Um, yes, my name is Tim. Have you read any of my reviews?

This is a gem of a western, one that deserves a much bigger reputation. Fans of westerns typically love or hate 1970s westerns, movies that ripped away the idea that the wild west was glamorous, romantic or anything like most John Wayne westerns. As an interesting touch, 'Spikes' was filmed in Almeria and Andalucia in Spain, the familiar locations for countless spaghetti westerns. So we've got an unsentimental American western interested in exposing the myths of the old west in locations made famous by spaghetti westerns, a genre similarly interested in blowing open the American west. How can you lose? The 96-minute western covers a lot of ground but never feels rushed, an episodic story a positive here. We see some quick appearances from Arthur Hunnicutt as a past-his-prime gunslinger/saddle tramp, Noah Berry Jr. as an unlikely ally, and it all works in perfect fashion.

Beyond the story, the movie works because of the cast. It starts with Lee Marvin as infamous bank robber Harry Spikes. This is a part equal parts charming/disarming and frightening in its reality. He genuinely likes the three boys, looking after them, feeding them, buying them clothes and guns, teaching them how to become outlaws, but he's also brutally honest about it. If they get hurt, he'll leave them. This is a dangerous profession he's chosen and the boys have chosen. It can end at any time, and all it takes is one bullet. Marvin's performance is a gem, one that deserves to be considered one of his best. It's funny, charming, disturbing at times, and he steals every scene he is in. This isn't a part that requires him to be in every scene, drifting in and out at times as needed. When he's on-screen though, it's impossible to look away.

With a lead performance like Marvin as Harry Spikes, it'd be easy for his teenage counterparts to get lost in the shuffle. These are three talented young actors though, and any such worry is unfounded. The best part is for Gary Grimes as Will, the unofficial leader of the trio. He's sick of his father's constant nagging (and occasional beatings with a belt), opting to hit the road. The transformation he goes through is the most profound, the darkest of the three. He was a specialist in the youngster role in 70s westerns, also starring in Culpepper Cattle Co. and Cahill, U.S. Marshal, ultimately retiring from acting in the late 1970s. It's a very human part with some startling developments late. The same year Happy Days premiered, Howard is also very good as Will's closest friend, a logical thinker who's almost the group's conscious. Martin Smith too is excellent as Tod, the most religious and worrisome of the trio.

I wasn't sure exactly where this 1974 western was heading although there were some hints at the finale. The ending is perfectly executed, a major twist revealing itself in the last 15 minutes. It isn't glossy, polished or romantic. This is the west as it was. Dark, nasty, bloody and all about survival. In other words, it's realistic and far from a happy ending. I loved this western, can't recommend it enough.

The Spikes Gang (1974): *** 1/2 /****

Fantastic Voyage

Groundbreaking doesn't mean groundbreaking for all-time. It qualifies only in the moment, maybe a few months, or even a year in the luckiest of situations. If a movie is considered groundbreaking, it kicks the door open and hundreds of rip-offs and wanna be follow-ups storm through the opening. That kept cycling through my head as I watched 1966's Fantastic Voyage.

A scientist (Jean Del Val) working for the Soviets has defected with American intelligence agencies desperate to help him and bring him to the United States. In the transport though, enemy agents attack, severely wounding him. He's in a coma with an unreachable blood clot on his brain, but he has info that the American government desperately wants. To relieve the pressure of the clot, a new technology will be utilized. A team of surgeons (including Arthur Kennedy and Donald Pleasence), a security officer (Stephen Boyd), and two others will travel via a submarine, be shrunk down to a microscopic size and injected into the scientist's body, traveling through his body and ultimately break up the clot and save his life. There's problems though. The body will most likely do everything it can to slow down the intruders, and they only have 60 minutes to get the job done before they begin to grow back to their normal size, whether they're in the body or not.

From director Richard Fleischer, this science fiction story won two Oscars, one for Best Art Direction and one for Best Special Effects. So while I didn't really care for the movie, I can appreciate the crazy visual on display. A tiny submarine the size of a period with five people inside traveling through a human body? How couldn't that be a great visual experience as a movie? Much of it comes from a green screen visual -- sets of the human body would be rather immense I'm supposing -- and just in terms of color alone, it's a beautiful movie. The little prototype submarine travels through the veins, arteries, lungs, heart, ears and ultimately, the brain.

So what do you think? A trip through the body and all its inner workings is unique, no doubt about that. Why then is this story so dull? I was bored to tears almost the second the submarine went to work. There's plenty of detours that provide some excitement. A miscalculation forces the crew to travel through the heart, but the problem is that the heart beating should tear the submarine apart. The medical staff monitoring the body basically shuts down the heart, giving the crew 60 seconds to travel through it. The premise presents all kinds of impressive, should-be cool situations like that. The crew is told that the body is going to do its best to protect itself, assuming that the submarine is a disease or virus of sorts. Those provide some cool visuals as well, antibodies swarming to the sub and the crew, but it's the weirdest thing. If that wasn't enough, someone involved with the mission is an enemy agent, but even that reveal is disappointing. It's a dull story of a very cool idea.

In a variation on one of my favorite sub-genres, 'Voyage' is a men-on-a-mission movie. Check that; a men-on-a-mission movie with Raquel Welch in a tight white bodysuit. So there it is, a group of specialists working to accomplish a mission. Along with Boyd's security and government agent, Kennedy's extremely talented lead surgeon, and Pleasence's reliable medical officer, there is Welch as Cora, Kennedy's assistant, and William Redfield as Capt. Owens, the Navy officer piloting the prototype submarine. Back at normal size, Edmond O'Brien and Arthur O'Connell play the bickering officers forced to make the difficult command decisions.  Also look for a young James Brolin as one of the technicians working in the lab. None are given much in the way of background so instead of characters working to accomplish a dangerous mission, we're watching Stephen Boyd, Arthur Kennedy and Raquel Welch accomplish the mission. In other words, there's little personal investment in accomplishing the mission.

I thought I would enjoy this movie a lot in the early goings. The virtually silent, unexplained opening is a great scene-setter, eerie and unsettling because we don't know what's going on. It reminded me a lot of 1965's The Satan Bug in its simple style. I can't explain it though, but the second the miniaturized mission was presented I lost almost all interest in the story. There are some cool moments, but they didn't add up to a finished product that I enjoyed that much. Sorry to say it because I've long wanted to see it, but I came away disappointed with this 1960s sci-fi classic.

Fantastic Voyage (1966): **/****

The Vikings

In the age of the epic in the 1950s and 1960s, there wasn't a historical era not covered by Hollywood ranging from ancient times in Ben-Hur and Spartacus to more modern times like Around the World in 80 Days and Lawrence of the Arabia. Not quite on the scale of those movies but just as entertaining, 1958's The Vikings is an underrated epic that is as much fun now as it was over 50 years ago.

Leading a raid on an English camp, Viking warrior/chief Ragnar (Ernest Borgnine) rapes the English queen who secretly gives birth to a son nine months later. Almost 20 years pass and Ragnar is still leading his Viking warriors, his son, Einar (Kirk Douglas), at his side. Neither are aware that the son,  Erik (Tony Curtis),  has been among them for the last 20 years, living as a slave to the Vikings, unaware he is Ragnar's son and Einar's half-brother. Erik has an intense rivalry with Einar -- each one wanting to kill the other -- and it is ratcheted up even further when Ragnar's warriors kidnap the young woman, Morgana (Janet Leigh), promised to the king in marriage. Both men fall in love with her as the Vikings prepare a surprise attack on the King's castle.

The appeal of many epics is the scale. They aren't always fun movies, just big movies. From director Richard Fleischer, this is an exception. At 116 minutes, it isn't as long as so many 3-plus hour epics, but it is fun, entertaining and still manages to present an impressive scale of the time of the Vikings. It was filmed in the fjords of Norway while also visiting Germany, France and Croatia, the locations providing an accurate and stunningly beautiful backdrop for the adventure story. The music is especially memorable from composer Mario Nascimbene, including the main theme (listen HERE) that you'll be whistling for days. What's so fun about it all is Fleischer and his cast and crew committing to being accurate as possible. The sets look like actual Viking villages. Three Viking warships were built from actual blueprints of Vikings ships, and the shots of these ships, packed with warriors, making their way up the sun-lit fjords is a stunning visual. The movie shows the day-to-day lives of these people. We see some of their rituals, their beliefs, their parties, and it feels authentic from the very start.

Working together for the first time -- they'd reunite two years later in another epic, 1960s's Spartacus -- Douglas and Curtis are great leads, the half-brothers who are unaware they're related. Douglas isn't a villain, but he clearly isn't the good guy either, his Einar an anti-hero if he's anything. It's a big, showy part for Douglas, the type of role he excelled at. Curtis gets the less-interesting character, but his intense part as Erik is still worthwhile. Mrs. Tony Curtis -- Janet Leigh -- is the eye candy, the beautiful Morgana who finds herself in a love triangle and must choose who she truly loves. If you're going to do a love triangle, do it right like 'Vikings' did here. Life and death, an intense rivalry where the stakes are high, not just a happy winner and a mopey loser. Also be careful not to poke your eyes out with Janet Leigh's pointiest of bras.

My favorite character though is from Ernest Borgnine as Viking chief Ragnar. It's funny that he's cast as Douglas' father because in real-life he's actually two months younger than his movie "son." Just like Douglas is perfectly cast as Einar, so is Borgnine. Heavily bearded and spouting his love for the Viking god Odin, Ragnar is an exaggerated, scene-stealing part for Borgnine. I can't think of a better duo to play these larger-than-life ancient heroes. For a topper, Ragnar's death scene is one of the all-time greats, a man literally laughing death in the face. Also look for James Donald as Egbert, an English lord secretly working with the Vikings, and familiar epic bad guy Frank Thring as Aella, the weakly English king, and Eileen Way as Kitala, the Viking medicine woman who is in touch with all the Viking gods.

From the time I first saw this movie as a kid, it was the action sequences that stuck with me. I remembered Douglas' Einar running across the rigid oars of the Viking ships as they returned to the village, but the high point is the finale, a Viking assault on Aella's heavily guarded castle on the English coast (actually Fort-la-Latte in France). A real castle, it is a gorgeous setting for the attack in all its scale, seemingly hundreds of Vikings bursting through the gates and scaling the walls. Einar's entrance to the castle -- climbing up a ladder of thrown axes into the raised drawbridge -- stands out, Douglas doing some of his own stunts. It concludes with an epic showdown at the top of one of the castle's towers, Einar dueling with Erik. Both Douglas and Curtis handled much -- if not all -- of their stunts, making the dangerous fight scene a couple hundred feet up even more impressive. Action galore, the ending is a whopper of a climax.

Part of the appeal here is of childhood memories, but it stands the test of time. It isn't remembered as well as many other historical epics, but it's just as fun and probably more entertaining than many more. Big story, memorable theme, great cast, and can you really go wrong with those bloodthirsty, fun-loving Vikings? I submit that you cannot. The movie is available to watch at Youtube, but it's 111 minutes while the DVD runs 116 minutes so something's missing.

The Vikings <---trailer (1958): *** 1/2 /****

Bandido

Something about Robert Mitchum and Mexico just worked well together. Mitchum consistently returned to Mexico during his career for a handful of film roles, many of them playing similar characters. He specialized in the American adventurer making his way through the Mexican Revolution in movies like The Wrath of God, Villa Rides, The Wonderful Country, and 1956's Bandido.

It's 1916 along the U.S.-Mexican border, and American gunrunner/businessman Kennedy (Zachary Scott), traveling with his wife, Lisa (Ursula Thiess), has cut a deal with the Mexican government with an enormous shipment of arms, ammunition and explosives. Catching wind of the shipment, American adventurer Wilson (Mitchum) sees a chance for a huge payday. He approaches Colonel Escobar (Gilbert Roland), a revolutionary leader, about cutting his own deal, stealing the shipment and taking his fair share. Escobar is suspicious, but his forces desperately need the supplies. With so much on the line, everyone is ready to turn on each other.

Just a few weeks removed from reviewing Viva Zapata, here's a prime example of a Zapata western; the Mexican Revolution with adventurers, idealists, freedom fighters, opportunists and so many more fighting it out. It's not flashy here in director Richard Fleischer's film, but everything is handled in a more than capable fashion. For anyone familiar with any other Zapata westerns, you're going to feel like you've seen it before, the same characters, storylines and backstabbings coming down the road. Not a bad thing, just an observation.

Much of 'Bandido' was filmed on location in Mexico, and the movie benefits greatly from it. IMDB's Trivia section even says that many of the locations were the actual spots where Pancho Villa and his forces battled with the Mexican Regular army, adding a sense of authenticity to the proceedings.  It looks like Mitchum, Roland, and Co. are part of the revolution. Mexico is a beautiful country, and Fleischer's camera certainly shows that.

What often comes out of these Zapata westerns are the uneasy alliances between the profiteering Americans and the more idealistic revolutionaries. Cue Mitchum's Wilson and Roland's Escobar. Anytime these two are together the movie is above average. Once they're separated? The story slows down far too much. Escobar dubs Wilson 'El Alacran,' a deadly scorpion just waiting to sting his victims, just one little example of how their scenes and dialogue together crackles. Who better to play an American adventurer without a care in the world than Mitchum? His laid back, 'I don't give a damn' attitude is perfect. Roland basically played the same character the year before in The Treasure of Pancho Villa, and he hams it up like nobody's business. A 'Ay Chihuahua' drinking game would be appropriate.

The two of them provide 'Bandido' with its "cool factor." Mitchum is introduced walking calmly through the middle of a battlefield in a bullet-riddled town. Overlooking the battle, he deftly pulls two grenades from his pockets and throws them at Mexican gun crews working artillery pieces and machine guns. His work done, he lights and cigar and pours a drink. Roland is the picture of smooth too as Escobar, always observing and planning, ready to join in as needed. He is an idealist, fighting for Mexico's freedom more than riches and fame. Together, the duo is the perfect Zapata western equivalent of the Odd Couple.

Unfortunately too much time is spent on other things, taking away from that dynamic between Mitchum and Roland.  I think the movie wold have been significantly better if Kennedy, the gunrunner, and his wife were completely removed from the story. It's clear that Kennedy will make a deal with anyone that will pay him, and the same goes for Thiess' Lisa. Is it any surprise she will end up with Mitchum? Thiess -- not a great actress to begin with -- doesn't have much in the way of chemistry with Mitchum either. Other supporting parts include Henry Brandon (Scar in The Searchers) as Kennedy's German source working with the Mexican government with Rodolfo Acosta and Jose Torvay as two of Escobar's revolutionaries.

I do like this movie -- I've watched it twice over the years -- but I don't love it. The action is exciting, especially the finale on a barge loaded with supplies, Wilson and Escobar shooting it out with a company of Mexican soldiers. The cast is good, the locations gorgeous, and composer Max Steiner's score good if not great. It's an exciting popcorn movie, mostly worthwhile for Mitchum and Roland.

Bandido <---trailer (1956): ** 1/2 /****

10 Rillington Place

Growing up, I was introduced to a lot of movies that I love to this day.  One of those is The Great Escape -- I'll get around to reviewing it sooner or later -- and it remains my favorite movie some years later.  In a cast full of stars, one of the best was Richard Attenborough as Big X, the leader of the POW escape.  So from there on in, any movie with Attenborough in it, I can't help but see him as that character.  Usually it wears off at some point during the movie because he was too good an actor to be typecast, but it's always there in the back of my head.

So heroic British prisoner of war as the base, and how about a British serial killer as an adjustment?  That's 1971's 10 Rillington Place, a drama based on the life of British serial killer John Reginald Christie with Attenborough playing Christie.  It's a remarkable part for the British actor that earned him tons of critical praise.  Playing a historical figure is one thing on the intimidation meter as an actor because there's little room for personal interpretation. But what about playing a killer?  There's a certain amount of respect for playing an Abe Lincoln or George Patton.  But a killer?  Directed by Richard Fleischer, 'Place' doesn't try to present Christie in any sort of positive light -- thankfully -- and just tells the story as accurately as possible.

It's 1944 London and John Reginald Christie (Attenborough) welcomes a woman into his house to treat her for an ailment.  He kills her and buries her in the backyard of his home, an apartment building at 10 Rillington Place.  Fast forward five years to 1949 and  Christie welcomes a young couple who are moving into the building.  Timothy Evans (John Hurt) and his wife Beryl (Judy Geeson) have an infant daughter and are struggling to make ends meet. Worse news for Beryl, she's pregnant and there's no way the young couple can afford a second child.  With some medical background, Christie offers to help perform an abortion, but the Evans' have no idea what the landlord is up to.

Beyond the acting, Fleischer films a movie light on style and heavy on characterization and doom and gloom.  The movie was actually filmed at 10 Rillington Place -- where Christie is believed to have murdered as many as six women -- and gives the story a real sense of macabre and death.  Plainly put, it's creepy knowing these things actually happened in the locations we're watching.  The London as presented is dark, gloomy and plain with no sense of life or color at all on the streets or in the dank, little apartments.  All smart choices in putting this together to make a stark, depressing and unsettling movie.

On pure acting skill, this has to be one of Attenborough's best parts.  Reading through some Christie bio information, it looks like he clearly did his homework on the man's behaviors, speech patterns and mannerisms to bring this serial killer to life.  He kills his victims with a variety of carbon monoxide that basically knocks them unconscious and then strangles them.  We only see this in any sort of detail once, but that's plenty. Bringing this character to life though, we're not taking Jason or Freddy Krueger.  He's quiet, keeps to himself, typically very polite, but all these things hide moments where his true self comes out.  Those scenes are incredibly unsettling to watch, especially a prolonged abortion procedure.  On top of that, it doesn't hurt that he physically resembles the real-life Christie. Safe to say, this is unlike any other Attenborough role I've come across.

Along with Attenborough, the screen is dominated by Hurt and Geeson in a smaller cast.  Hurt's Timothy Evans is an illiterate factory worker prone to exaggeration in his stories and a little too much drinking.  His character isn't exactly sympathetic, but compared to Christie, this guy's a lamb.  His stupidity in not seeing what's happening around him is frustrating because you want him to figure it all out, but Christie just keeps pulling the strings and pushing his buttons to get him to do what he wants.  Geeson is the sweet young wife trying to make the best of an awkward situation.  She takes the best possible alternative -- which isn't all that great to begin with.  Both parts are well-acted and could have easily been overshadowed by Attenborough's performance, but Hurt and Geeson hold their own.

There's something about the movie I'm struggling to put my finger on, but it's definitely a positive.  As near as I can figure, it's the honesty in which the true story is told.  A majority of the story focuses on this one specific incident between Christie and the Evans with the aftermath rushed to a certain extent.  It's not bad rushed though, just fast paced.  The ending is a blink and you'll miss it.  Overall, the storytelling is a highpoint just in terms of its pacing, honesty and briskness.  It doesn't try to whitewash anything, and the movie is that much better for it.

10 Rillington Place <---TCM clips (1971): ***/****