Logan's Run

My timing really couldn't have been more impeccable. I just turned the big 3-0 a few weeks ago in mid-June. Through dumb luck, Turner Classic Movie's always solid schedule, and my inability to catch up with this movie over the years, I watched 1976's Logan's Run for the first time. The premise? A futuristic society where everyone is killed once they turn 30 to help control the population. Well, if that isn't downright bad timing, I don't know what is.

It's late in the 23rd Century and what remains of mankind lives in a domed city protected from all outer dangers. This is life at its hedonistic, fun-loving, screw the consequences best...with a catch. You get to live life to the fullest, but at the age of 30, you must undergo Carousel, a renewal process to let you start life over again. Among the population is a man in his late 20s, Logan 5 (Michael York), a 'Sandman' who helps track down 'Runners,' those not interested in the Carousel process. As he watches on renewal ceremony though, Logan begins to question more and more about the whole layout. Something just doesn't make sense. Something doesn't add up. The problem is though, he's good at what he does -- very good -- and doesn't want to risk anything by investigating. Some things though...they're just too perfect to pass up.

Well, here we sit. I do love me a good science fiction flick. I especially love those ventures from the 1960's and 1970's, movies like Planet of the Apes, Fahrenheit 451, Westworld, Soylent Green (more on that later), and The Omega Man. This flick from director Michael Anderson is one I've always wanted to see but never actively sought out. It is based off a novel by authors William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson, but it sounds like the film and novel have very little in common other than the name and the basic premise. My biggest issue though? I liked it, but as has been the case with a lot of so-called twist movies, the twist works...but not afterward in using that all-important twist as a jumping off point.

It's my Christmas Eve theory all over again. Do you want the mystery of your presents or do you want to know what's under all that wrapping paper?!? I like the mystery so naturally, I love the build-up in mysterious, twist-based movies. The other issue is pretty obvious. Of course everything isn't hunky-dory in this futuristic world!!! It doesn't come as a surprise that the whole 30-year old Carousel renewal process is garbage. The build-up is solid as Logan 5 begins to piece things together. All humans have a crystal implant in their left hand inserted at birth and once they reach 30, it begins to flash. Your turn for renewal! I felt like something was missing. The "twist" seemed far too obvious to me, especially actually seeing the renewal process. Still, though there are flaws through the first hour of the 119-minute movie, it is still an above average, tension-filled sci-fi story. I just wish the second half could have followed suit with it.

The cast definitely has some fun along the way, whether it be starring roles or just key supporting parts. I thought York was okay as Logan, but it's missing something in that lead role department. His female companion is Jenny Agutter's Jessica, a 20-something young woman drawn to Logan who may know more than she's letting on. They spend much of the movie running for safety and whining when they have some free time. They just aren't the most compelling characters and that takes away from the drama and mystery. Richard Jordan is excellent as Francis, Logan's best friend and fellow Sandman who wants his friend to simply get in line, stop questioning and enjoy life but when it comes right down to it, he's got his own job to do. In other supporting parts look for Michael Anderson Jr., Roscoe Lee Browne, Farrah Fawcett (feathered hair and all), and Peter Ustinov.

Just last year, a movie was released that I don't remember seeing in any theaters, and I only noticed it on Redbox. It's called Space Station 76, and is a futuristic sci-fi movie, 1970's style. Just check out that poster! 'Logan' is a prime inspiration for that spoof. This futuristic world, a domed city, looks like it was shot in a mall. A nice mall at that, but you get the idea. Everyone wears pastel colors because God bless, everyone is happy. The women refuse to wear bras (so there's that), instead opting for loose, almost sheer quasi-dresses. The effects too are horrifically dated, both obvious miniatures and more obvious green screen shots. Considering all these things, there is a certain charm in small doses, but combine them all together and you've got quite a lot of 1970's science fiction cheese. At times, it reminded me of the classic Soylent Green, but the payoff there was far better than it was here.

And that's what my disappointment comes down to. 'Logan' has a ton of potential and delivers on it at certain points but ultimately comes up short. It's played straight but too often comes through like a spoof. Roscoe Lee Browne providing his voice for a ridiculous-looking killer robot? Peter Ustinov as the oldest man alive, a crazy cat man at that? Shouldn't someone be controlling the questioning? Just a computer is in charge of this last beacon of hope for mankind? There are simply too many unanswered questions and predicaments that ultimately did the movie in for me. A disappointing rating because I definitely wanted to like this one more.

Logan's Run (1976): **/****

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): ***/****

Rooster Cogburn

By the 1970s, there weren't too many bigger and better Hollywood legends than John Wayne and Katharine Hepburn. Both stars had been just that, stars, non-stop since the 1930s and by the mid 1970s were in the later parts of their careers. But even with all those classics films, classic roles and interesting pairings of stars, the duo had never worked together...until 1975's Rooster Cogburn, also known as Rooster Cogburn...and the Lady.

Still working as a U.S. Marshal, Rooster Cogburn (Wayne) is up to his old tricks again. Not too interested in how the law says he should bring suspects in, Cogburn has been suspended for his overzealous ways...for now. He's given his badge and title back if he promises to bring in a dangerous gang of killers led by a maniacal outlaw, Hawk (Richard Jordan). The outlaw's gang murdered an army convoy carrying nitroglycerin, shipments of rifles and a Gatling gun. Their goal? Knock off a federal depository up in the mountains. Cogburn is on their trail quickly, but he's got a problem. In Hawk's wake, the marshal finds an older woman, a missionary of sorts, Eula Goodnight (Hepburn), who saw her father and his mission almost wiped out by the gang. Cogburn hopes to bring her back to safety, but Eula has other plans. She intends to go with, helping bring her father's killers to justice.

I'm usually completely against sequels, especially when the first movie wraps up everything so nicely. That's the case with 1969's True Grit, a western that brought Wayne his only Oscar win for a long, distinguished career. It isn't a great western, but it has stood the test of time because of Wayne's scene-stealing part as Marshal Rooster Cogburn. This 1975 follow-up from director Stuart Millar takes the formula and takes it a step forward, pairing Wayne with Hepburn in a similarly scene-stealing part. Much the same way 'Grit' resonates, so does 'Rooster.' It's typical of many other late Wayne entries, straightforward and entertaining, likable, fun good guys versus dastardly bad guys, and just a lot of fun throughout. Laurence Rosenthal's score is solid, tweaking Elmer Bernstein's score from the original. Listen HERE for the theme. The Oregon locations go a long way too, the backgrounds for the shots providing a stunningly good-looking backdrop to the story.

Who are we kidding though? This is a movie that exists solely to put John Wayne and Katharine Hepburn together. The wait was worth it, the two Hollywood legends stepping to the plate in a big way. They make it look effortless. We learn some more about Rooster (including his first name), but he's still the same fat, one-eyed marshal who likes a good drink and is a tough as nails peace officer. Hepburn is not quite a spinster, but an older woman who looks to religion for answers, nagging Rooster about his drinking, his language, his boasting, a little bit of everything. The chemistry is on display from their first scene until the final scene. They argue, they bond, they talk about their pasts, finding there's plenty of differences between them, but there's also more similarities than they would have originally thought. Along for the trip is Wolf (Richard Romancito), an Indian boy in his teenage years, a capable rider who looks up to Rooster. 

If you're going to have a great hero to lead the way, you need an equally bad villain to put in his way. In steps Richard Jordan, an underrated actor who never became a huge star. His Hawk is beyond intense, his upcoming robbery of a gold depository becoming almost an obsession. In some nice touches with Hawk and his gang, we learn about some past meetings with Cogburn. In his gang, look for Anthony Zerbe as Breed, a tracker/scout who used to ride with Rooster, now on the outlaw trail, and Hawk's maligned right-hand man, Luke, played by 1970s tough guy Paul Koslo. John McIntire makes a quick but memorable appearance as Judge Parker, the court representative who always has to deal with Rooster. Strother Martin hams it up in a one-scene appearance as McCoy, a cantankerous veteran of the sea now renting his raft for river crossings.

Heading into this movie, if you're looking for any sort of groundbreaking western, you're going to be disappointed. The focus is clearly on Wayne and Hepburn, the highpoints their scenes sitting around a campfire, talking while riding on a wagon, moving along the trail. The potential was there for a darker western with more shoot 'em up and gunplay, but for the most part Jordan as Hawk is underused. This is a good, old-fashioned western that plays like comfort food. Just sit back and enjoy this one.

Rooster Cogburn (1975): ***/****

Netflix review #26: The Friends of Eddie Coyle

After years of not being available in any format, The Friends of Eddie Coyle was released on DVD late this spring by the Criterion Collection. I'd never heard of it prior to a Criterion email but reading about the casting, the director, the story, I couldn't pass it up. Of course, I wasn't the only one itching to see it, the movie status on Netflix for most of 2 months was 'Very Long Wait' which never sounds too good. So after most of three months of waiting on and off, Eddie Coyle came in the mail this week.

Everything about this movie is underplayed from the characters to the shooting style to the dialogue. It is what it is. There are no huge theatrics as the story unfolds. Stuff happens sometimes, and you have to roll with the punches. A lot of the credit goes to director Peter Yates of Bullitt fame among other movies. Yates doesn't call much attention to himself and knows from the start that the attention should be on the actors. Novel concept, isn't it? 'Eddie Coyle' looks like a documentary film, just following characters around as they live their lives. It's gritty and realistic, giving you the sensation of a fly on the wall as several seemingly unrelated storylines converge on each other.

With those unrelated stories, the movie can be hard to follow because it's not always easily apparent where it's going or how all these different things will come together. Looking back, it all comes together and makes sense. While a lot is going on, the main attention is paid to Eddie 'Fingers' Coyle, maybe a career-best performance for Robert Mitchum. Eddie is a small-time crook, as low level as they get, but who still has a way of being involved in every little thing. He's a gunrunner and puts people where they need to be to pull off a job. But Eddie's in trouble, he got arrested for transporting liquor and is facing a jail sentence of at least a couple years. With nowhere to turn and a wife and three kids to look after, Eddie goes to his last resort, becoming a snitch for Foley (Richard Jordan), a cop you're never quite sure of his motives.

Also involved is Jackie Brown (Steven Keats), Eddie's supplier who sells/transports the guns out of his souped-up muscle car. He plays dumb at times but when it comes down to it, he knows how to handle himself and stay alive when trouble arises. Then, there's Dillon (Peter Boyle), an ex-con working as a bartender who is similarly in trouble and looking for a way out. And all the while as Eddie works to save himself, Jimmy Scalise (Alex Rocco) is leading a crew who have their routine down pat for pulling off bank jobs. The stories are introduced and develop without much background or anything to go on, and that's what makes it hard to follow at some points.

But there is a connection and it all comes together nicely in the last 30 minutes. What sets this apart though from other difficult movies to follow is that I barely noticed it at all. The dialogue, the exchanges between this group of people are so perfect, so natural that it's just a pleasure to watch them do it. None of the characters are even particularly likable, they're all low-level hoods and thugs, even Jordan's Foley gives off a bad vibe, but I was drawn in nonetheless.

Often playing the anti-hero who when it came down to it was a good guy, Mitchum plays Eddie differently. He's looking out for his family, but as he's told, he put himself in this predicament. He's never rose in the ranks, but Eddie's got experience. Check these scenes with Jackie Brown and a meeting with Foley about his situation and one more with Jackie negotiating for the guns. Pulling off a tough Boston accent, Mitchum portrays Eddie as worldweary man who has backed himself into a corner and must now respond. It's scenes like this that are a pleasure to watch. No big over the top acting, no calling attention to themselves, just good old fashioned acting.

It's Mitchum's movie, but the rest of the cast is just as strong. Boyle is only in a few scenes but his actions help put the final scenes into motion, including a frustrating ending that works for the story but isn't the typical easy ending. Jordan stands out, again, as Foley, the cop trying to pull off any number of cases who just as easily could have been on the other side of the law. Having seen a handful of movies with Jordan from early in his career, it's hard to believe he never became a big star. His parts are always picture perfect, and he's becoming one of my favorite character actors. Along with Joe Santos, Rocco gets the less glamorous part as Eddie's associates but both actors make the most of it.

Not a typical crime movie, it's more low-key with little action and less gunplay/violence. The movie suceeds and fails on the performances of the cast so for my money, The Friends of Eddie Coyle is a huge success. It's not a movie you watch for the huge twists, the big gun fights, the exciting car chases. 'Eddie Coyle' you watch for the characters and the dialogue. It hasn't been available for years so take advantage of the Criterion Collection DVD, don't let this one slip by.

The Friends of Eddie Coyle <----trailer (1973): ***/****

Valdez is Coming!

Sorry, couldn't resist myself with the spaghetti western title. In the second half of his career, Burt Lancaster, like many aging stars, turned to the western for movie roles. Some, like 1966's The Professionals is highly regarded and respected by fans, but it was in the 70s that Lancaster made a quasi-trilogy of revisionist westerns that were so common at the times. All done in a 2-year span, Lancaster made three movies that tried to show the wild west wasn't so glamorous, instead showing it as it really was.

First, came Lawman, followed by Valdez is Coming, and wraps up with Ulzana's Raid, my favorite of the three. I'd seen the bookends, but finally got around to seeing Valdez is Coming this week. To be fair, there's no common link to these three movies, no recurring character or anything of that sort. But in tone and message, they're very similar. The west in the last half of the 19th Century was a nasty place. People looked out for No. 1 first, second and third before helping others out. It was a tough life that often ended violently and bloody. So in that sense, these three movies serve as a trilogy.

Bob Valdez (Lancaster) is a Mexican sheriff in the little town of Lanoria. No one pays him much mind as he keeps tabs on the "Mexican part of town." But when trying to bring in a suspect, a deserter from the 10th Cavalry, the Buffalo Soldiers, Valdez is forced to kill him, leaving an Apache widow behind. Seeing she's left with nothing to survive on, the kindly constable tries to raise money to help her. A town council of sorts say they'll put up $100 for her if cattle and land owner Frank Tanner (Jon Cypher, great as the villainous rich land owner). Valdez goes to see Tanner, only to be humiliated. He's tied to a cross and set off into the desert. Pushed too far, Valdez goes after Tanner and his gunhands.

First off, the casting of Lancaster as a Mexican sheriff seems odd, but he was such a great actor, he makes it believable with a decent accent and a heavy tan/makeup. It sounds cliched, but Valdez is a man of a few words. When he talks, you'd better listen. Here's a great sample of some of the dialogue. The dialogue in general is a highlight of the movie, and coming from a novel by Elmore Leonard, it's no surprise. Westerns were perfect for just plain cool exchanges. One of my favorites here, Valdez is approached by El Segundo (Barton Heyman), Tanner's right hand man. Segundo asks, "Do you know how many you've killed?" Valdez: "11." Segundo: "So you can count?" Valdez: "You bet." It's so simple but perfectly effective.

Filmed in Almeria with several familiar locations from spaghetti westerns, 'Valdez' has several touches of 1970s westerns. The violence for one thing, utilizes a fair share of squibs a la The Wild Bunch, but it's never gratuitiously graphic. There's some language, but it always fits and never seems forced in for the sake of swearing. And with the violence, much is saved until the last 30 minutes or so when Valdez goes up against Tanner and his men. Here's an example, Valdez picking off riders with his Sharps buffalo rifle. The trailer too makes it look like an action-packed movie, but don't be confused. When it comes, the action is well-choreographed, but it's spread out evenly over the movie's 91 minutes.

Joining Lancaster in the cast is Susan Clark as Gay Erin, Tanner's fiance with a past. She becomes an unwilling participant in the cat and mouse game between Valdez and Tanner, but it's a strong part, especially when female characters in westerns could so often be left out of a movie. Frank Silvera makes the most out of a small part as Diego, an old friend of Valdez who feels conflicted between his loyalty to his friend and also to his family. And in just his second movie, he also starred in Lawman, Richard Jordan plays R.L. Davis, a young gunhand trying to prove himself to whoever will listen. There's an intensity to his part that Jordan brings, making a supporting character a very memorable one.

Valdez is Coming is a relatively straightforward look at the western. The thing that starts it all is so simple it almost makes the story hard to believe. But Valdez sees a wrong and tries to right it, not cause he wants to or is told to. He knows it is the right thing to do, and when pushed to his breaking point, he has no option left other than to respond with force.

The DVD is a good buy at under $10. Good if not great widescreen presentation, but it's a very watchable print of the movie. Special feature is just the trailer I linked to earlier. Western and Burt Lancaster fans should definitely enjoy this one. Give Valdez is Coming a shot!

Valdez is Coming (1971): ***/****

Netflix review #18: The Yakuza

Finishing a Robert Mitchum bio last week, I was in a Mitchum frame of mind when I filled up my Netflix queue. Having read about all these movies I'd only heard about, I thought I'd give some a shot. First up, 1974's The Yakuza directed by Sydney Pollack.

When his daughter is kidnapped by Japanese gangsters, American businessman George Tanner (Brian Keith) turns to old friend and army buddy Harry Kilmer (Mitchum) to help bring her back. Harry has to call in a favor of a man named Tanaka Ken (Ken Takakura) to first find Tanner's daughter and then bring her back to safety. Ken is a former Yakuza, a Japanese gangster, who after 10 years is forced into the life he so willingly left. The actual rescue goes smoothly, but that's when the real problems arise. A big man in the Yakuza, gangster Tono, still has issues with both Tanner and Kilmer.

For a movie listed as an intelligent thriller, it's awfully slow-paced and laid back. The plotline unravels slowly as we get to know other characters and sub-plots. For one, Harry's long-lost love Eiko (Keiko Kishi) lives in Tokyo with her young daughter. The background? As an occupation soldier following WWII, Harry saved Eiko and her daughter's life. They fell in love, only to have Ken, Eiko's brother, show up and say she can't love an American. He owes a great debt to Harry, but at the same time he's torn because of his beliefs. With all the unraveling plot, expect a fair share of twists and turns, one big reveal in particular.

What does work here is the strained relationship between Harry and Tanaka Ken. They have little in common and have fought in the past. But because of their crossed paths, each owes the other something. It's never easy to do, but it's the right thing to do. They have an obligation to live up to their shared pasts. Watching the movie, all I could think was that this would make a great western, just like Seven Samurai inspired The Magnificent Seven. Like those movies, the characters are looking for redemption, and they're honor-bound to get the job done.

With the slowish pace, the confrontations then are that much more startling. Pollack lulls you into a comfortable state with scenes of dialogue between all these different characters, and then WHAM! gunshots and samurai swords everywhere! Here's a good example, although here's a SPOILER warning because one main character is killed. But the best thing is the final showdown and Harry, armed with pistol and double-barreled shotgun, and Ken, with his samurai sword, seek revenge against a small army of Tono's henchmen.

Now as I'm writing this, I'm liking the movie more now than I did watching it. It's not a long movie at 111 minutes, but the storytelling pace can be so slow at times it feels much longer. The ideas were all there but something doesn't translate. With too many characters and backgrounds, some get left in the background. I would have liked to know more about Keith's Tanner, but instead he vanishes for large chunks of the movie. The same for Herb Edelman as Oliver, a man who adopted Japan as his home after WWII who goes way back with Harry and George. In general, it feels like Pollack wasn't quite sure where to go with the movie, especially after the final showdown.

As the grizzled, emotionally-scarred Harry, Mitchum is dead-on. He's laid back but ready for a fight at a moment's notice and more than capable of handling himself. In his early 50s, the actor had a world-weary look to him that fits the part so well. Takakura matches Mitchum well as Ken, a warrior himself forced to do something that doesn't come easy for him. Also standing out in the cast is Richard Jordan as Dusty, George's personal bodyguard sent along to help Harry out if he can. He's young but experienced and is starting to figure things out about the world.

I'm conflicted about this one because I'm somewhere in the middle on a rating. Some parts really worked, and others didn't. It's definitely a movie that would benefit from another viewing with all that's going on. I wanted to like this one, but it didn't grab me. So for now, I'll give it a positive rating with an asterisk next to it. Enough was worth watching to recommend this one.

The Yakuza (1974): **/****