Hooper

Names like Yakima Canutt, Bud Ekins, Dar Robinson, Chuck Roberson, and Chuck Hayward may not ring a bell as an instantly recognizable Hollywood icons. They should though. These are just some of the thankless stars of the stunt business, doing the crazy stunts the actors/actresses just couldn't. Right up there with that crew (and countless others we could mention) was stuntman-actor-director Hal Needham. Who better to direct the story of an aging stuntman trying to hold on for a little more glory? N-O ONE. Here's 1978's Hooper.

For years now, Sonny Hooper (Burt Reynolds) has been the BEST stuntman working in Hollywood. Versatile in all his stunts, from car chases to aerial acrobatics, chases on horseback to a brutal fistfight, there's nothing Sonny can't do and there is no stunt he'll turn down. He'll try anything. That reckless attitude toward his work is catching up with him. He's now in his 40's and has a laundry list of broken bones and horrifically painful injuries to show for his well-earned reputation. Well, now that reputation is on the line a little bit. Though everyone still respects Sonny and looks to him to pull off the craziest of the crazy, there's a new kid on the lots, Ski (Jan-Michael Vincent), who's showing a similar knack for pulling off the impossible. How far will Sonny go to keep his unofficial title as 'Best Stuntman Around'? Maybe the most dangerous stunt of his career will do it...

Movies and stories about the making of said movies can be funny, dramatic, condescending, pretentious, revealing, and sometimes all of the above. A movie about stunt men being crazy and goofy and generally acting like idiots? Say what you want about Needham's 'Hooper,' but it is fun. It is dumb, slightly disjointed and drifts too much, but from beginning to end, it is F-un. At 100 minutes, it doesn't overstay its welcome and in the second half does feature some darker (potentially at least) moments. That said, it's a Burt Reynolds movie. Things aren't going to get too dark here. Sit back with a beer and enjoy this one.

Through the general goofiness, the most pleasant part of the story is seeing that behind-the-scenes world of the stunt men. They walk onto the set, do their stunt and...yeah, they're done for the day. Now yeah, those stunts are horrifically dangerous but you get the idea. They're celebrities among the cast and crew, albeit anonymously to the viewing public. Coming from Needham and Reynolds (who got his start as a stuntman), you know the respect will be there with the profession, along with the helter-skelter mindset of these nutcases who willingly put themselves in peril day-in and day-out. The conversation doesn't seem scripted, just guys being guys busting each other left and right. So as mentioned, the story isn't necessarily the most pointed thing around, just a series of connecting scenes linking it all together. Fun though. Definitely fun.

Who better to help us jump into the world of the stuntman headfirst than Burt Reynolds? Nobody! One of the biggest stars of the 1970's, this isn't a heavy acting part -- most of his best parts seem to be variations on his own personality -- but it is nonetheless a strong performance. You get a feel for Reynolds' Sonny, past his prime but still kicking strong. He's seen and done it all in a career that's not young anymore. Now, he has to decide how far he wants to push it. At the height of his star power, Reynolds is excellent. Playing off that familiar new fast gun in the area, Vincent is a good match for Reynolds. It's a rivalry between the dueling stuntmen, but there seems to be a genuine friendship and respect between the two men. Like I said, it never gets too dramatic along the way. The tone and spirit is generally pretty lighthearted.

The cast overall here is pretty impressive, especially if you're a fan of countless guy's guys movies from the 1960's and 1970's. Also keep an eye out for Sally Field (the girlfriend), Brian Keith (the former best stuntman around/potential father-in-law), James Best (Sonny's friend/manager), John Marley (the film's producer), Robert Klein (the ego-maniacal director), Adam West (the star), and even NFL QB Terry Bradshaw has a fun appearance. Also look for Jim Burk as a stuntman and friend of Sonny's. Burk was a frequent performer in John Wayne's later movies and finally gets a part that lets him say a few words.

The best thing going here is the actual stunts. Stands to reasons we're here for a stuntman movie so might as well see some ridiculously cool stunts, right? Reynolds does a lot of his own work, but 'Hooper' runs the gamut in terms of the variety of what we get to see. A whole bunch of craziness -- the movie they're working on seems like a James Bond knock-off -- and all of it leading to a ridiculously choreographed sequence that Klein's director wants shot in one take. ONE TAKE! It's lunacy but just go along with it. The capper? The longest car jump ever as Sonny and Ski are supposed to drive a rocket car over a river where a bridge has recently been demolished. Yeah, crazy, kooky stuff. Make sure to stick around for the end though with Reynolds pulling his usual shtick and breaking the fourth wall.

A fun movie. A dumb movie but fun!

Hooper (1978): ** 1/2 /****

Fools' Parade

So you know what sounded pretty awful? The Great Depression. Man, I'm good at writing introductions to these reviews, aren't I? For every well-known Depression-era movie out there, it seems like there's that many more generally forgotten in a wave of flicks. Here's one I stumbled across on a cable movie channel recently and simply couldn't pass up because of an impressive cast, 1971's Fools' Parade.

It's 1935 and three convicts are being released from a West Virginia penitentiary, including Mattie Appleyard (James Stewart), Lee (Strother Martin) and Johnny (Kurt Russell), all of them having served their sentence for varying crimes. They're driven to the train station by a vicious prison guard, Doc Council (George Kennedy), who ominously states that he'll see them soon. The trio boards the train with plans of opening a general store down the train line, using Mattie's hard-earned savings as a bankroll to get things started. There's a problem though as they get further away from the town and penitentiary. Mattie's check -- earned and saved from 40 years in prison -- can only be cashed back in Glory...where they've been less than pleasantly told to never come back. If they do, Council will be waiting for them. That's not their only problem. Council may not even be waiting that long to hunt them down...

From the older classic like The Grapes of Wrath to the newer entries like O, Brother, Where Art Thou, Depression-era flicks are a cool little genre of flicks that doesn't always get a ton of attention. Maybe it's the whole soul-killing tone of these flicks. Maybe. I don't know. The 1970's especially had some cool entries, including this flick, Emperor of the North Pole, Hard Times, Paper Moon and Dillinger among others. 'Parade' belongs in that group. It's dark(ish), gritty and has the look and feel of one of America's roughest historical stretches.

So why then does this 1971 drama with some light comedy touches have virtually no reputation? Virtually no following? Well, for starters, it most definitely and assuredly is very, very odd. I can't specifically put a finger on said oddness, but it is. It's there. It...is...odd. Maybe as close as I can get is the tone, or lack of. From director Andrew McLaglen and a screenplay by James Lee Barrett, 'Parade' is just a bit of an oddball flick. It's able to build up an impressive sense of doom early on but it never quite takes off. Things slowly derail as the 98-minute running time nears its finish. Still, this is a movie that's never dull or boring. Very watchable, just odd.

Sometimes, an all over the place tone comes in second to something, anything else that's far more appealing. Here, that's easy. It's the cast. That cast. We mostly follow our three recently-freed crooks in Stewart, Martin and Russell. Stewart's Mattie served a 40-year sentence for killing two men, Martin's Lee six years for bank robbery, and Russell's Johnny a shorter sentence for an incident with a girl that's generally left unexplained. The story doesn't linger long on our trio's past criminal transgressions (wisely), instead focusing on them trying to start over again, albeit at different points in their lives. I especially liked Stewart as Mattie, sporting a bizarre-looking glass eye, the oldest of the three who most strongly wants that fresh start. He stashed away all his money during his 40-year sentence (earning a ridiculous-sounding $25,000) and now meets all sorts of roadblocks in getting that cash. Martin's Lee is seemingly a little simple-minded in his obsession with putting together a general store inventory while Russell's Johnny is stubbornly loyal to Mattie. Still, there's something charming about the trio, and there is a solid chemistry among the group.

An interesting cast all-around. When he wanted to, George Kennedy could play one interesting bad guy, and that's on display here. It's just creepy watching him. You're rooting for him to get his due and get it badly. Who else to watch for? An unrecognizable Anne Baxter as a madam who's fallen on hard times, William Windom as an unlucky traveling salesman, Mike Kellin and Morgan Paull as Doc's oddball killers, Robert Donner as a train conductor, Katherine Cannon as Baxter's lone "girl," and David Huddleston as the greedy bank owner. Quite the eclectic bunch!

I can't quite put my finger on it as to 'why' exactly, but I very much enjoyed this movie. Though the subject matter is dark, it is an easy-going, mostly pleasant movie. Yeah, it is a touch slow at times for a movie that runs just 98-minutes, but it is never dull. The West Virginia filming locations are an ideal backdrop for the story as well, giving it an authentic sense of watching where this story would have actually happened. Worth a watch. Apparently, it's somewhat difficult to find so here's my help to the situation. I watched it on Retro, a movie channel coupled with the Encore package on cable. It's a movie I recommend tracking down. Hope you enjoy it!

Fools' Parade (1971): ***/****

Skin Game

You know what isn't particularly funny? There's no way this introduction isn't in poor taste but...slavery! In recent years, even movies like Django Unchained that were fan favorites and critically loved caused a stir because of its slavery subject matter. So movies like Django, 12 Years a Slave, miniseries like Roots, the subject matter is played straight. That is NOT the case with 1971's Skin Game, a pre-Civil War story with comedy and drama rolled into one.

It's 1857 in Missouri when two men ride into a small town. Quincy (James Garner) is a plantation owner with some money problems, meaning he has to sell one of his slaves, Jason (Lou Gossett Jr.). He gets several hundred dollars for him and they part ways, Quincy onto the next town with Jason waiting to travel with his new owner. Well, that's what you'd think at least, what the supposed-plantation owner and his slave want you to think. In reality, they're con men, going from town-to-town, Quincy "selling" Jason to one plantation/land owner after another and getting out of town while Jason manages to escape in one way or another. The plan has worked well for quite a while now with a hefty bank account waiting for them back in Chicago when they decide they've had enough. Jason, he's had enough as he's the one taking more risk. Quincy, he'd like to travel to a couple more towns and pull off their successful con. What could possibly go wrong?

I've long been aware of this 1971 comedy-drama but never caught up with it. Thank you, Turner Classic Movies! It was worth the wait. From director Paul Bogart -- and an uncredited Gordon Douglas, I imagine there's a good story there -- it takes a touchy, potentially explosive subject matter in slavery and manages to tread the fine line between funny, at-times dramatic and just in poor taste. Come on...slavery. There's just nothing funny in that department. 'Game' doesn't minimize it or make light of it, instead attacking one of the most horrific periods in American history from the side. Considering it that way, it's actually pretty smart. Two con men looking to make some serious cash out of the sale of fellow human beings, now that is creative and certainly unique.

Playing on an oddball variety of a familiar storytelling device, Garner and Gossett have a ton of fun with their odd couple, buddy relationship. We don't learn too much about them, only that they've been con men for several years now piling up the cash with their risky play in each new town. We do learn that Jason was born a free man in New Jersey and chooses to do this, an important detail in my opinion. In a brief, quickly-cut flashback, we also see how the duo met, a fun aside and a necessary one that shows and tells a lot about these two. Sure, there are differences between the two men, but they're cut from the same cloth. The chemistry between Garner and Gossett is not in question with plenty of laughs and some great dialogue flying back and forth throughout the 102-minute running time. A great buddy combo to lead the way.

Also look for Susan Clark in a fun part as Ginger, a fellow con-man...um, con woman who crosses paths with Quincy and Jason at some inopportune moments. Brenda Sykes plays Naomi, a slave who Jason meets and wants to buy her freedom. Ed Asner is perfectly slimy as Plunkett, a slave trader with brutal tactics and no regard for his "merchandise." As for assorted slave and plantation owners, look for Andrew Duggan, Parley Baer, George Tyne, J. Pat O'Malley, and Henry Jones. Also watch for a quick appearance by Royal Dano as violent abolitionist John Brown.

There are some portions in the final act that run a tad sluggish with a story that has some pretty decent surprises. It tends to drift at times, but for the most part, this is an interesting story. I'm mostly recommending it though for the unique, inventive story and the spot-on, perfect chemistry between James Garner and Lou Gossett Jr. This isn't a movie that breaks any new ground, but it deserves more of a reputation than it currently does. Worth a watch for a creative story, unique setting in the pre-Civil War south and a very solid cast. Give it a watch!

Skin Game (1971): ***/****

Rolling Thunder

The Vietnam War ended, and American soldiers came home to a country that felt strongly opposed to what had been done as part of the fighting. They were not greeted as heroes as our veterans had been welcomed in previous wars, especially World War II. For some -- and not to sound too flowery -- the fighting was just beginning as those vets tried to re-acclimate to living back home. That's what we've got in 1977's Rolling Thunder as a jumping-off point.

Major Charlie Rane (William Devane) is coming home to San Antonio, Texas. He's spent the last seven years as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese, subjected to horrific treatment and torture meant to beat him down into nothing. Somehow, some way, he survived though, and he is welcomed back as a hero. Rane on the other hand, he's not so sure. He steps back into a home situation where his wife wants a divorce so she can remarry. His son is almost 10 years old, and he barely knows him. Rane simply doesn't know how to readjust to life as he used to know it. What little balance he finds is quickly destroyed when personal tragedy strikes, the reasoning...simple, pure greed with too many lives as an expense. Rane himself barely survives the incident, telling the police he doesn't remember much about what happened. The Air Force veteran...he remembers though, and Rane intends to exact his own revenge.

I'd never heard of this Vietnam War-themed flick from director John Flynn until recently it popped up on the movie channel Retroplex. It certainly sounded interesting, and in the end, it was. It's not a great film, but 'Thunder' is darkly entertaining, a morbid cloud of cynicism hanging over the proceedings. Isn't that what we all want to see?!? No nonsense about the story either. Straightforward revenge with a more vigilante-themed story mixed in with the more message-oriented story of Vietnam vets struggling to readjust to life back in the states after the horror of what they saw during their tours of duty. It ain't flashy, but it's violent, gritty and uncomfortable to watch. Worth seeking out.

A good to great character actor who never quite became a full-on movie star, William Devane does not disappoint with one of his few starring roles. It's his movie, and he carries it. His time spent as a North Vietnamese prisoner has worn him down while making him tougher in the process. His Major Charlie Rane is almost mute, is claustrophobic, has some form of PTSD and struggles to get back to the things he used to know and love. It is an unsettling performance, full of intensity and menace as Rane struggles to piece it all together. What does it? A release of hatred, a hate-oriented goal of retribution and revenge. He seems to find himself when tasked with a mission, however dangerous. Devane is excellent in a quiet, emotional leading performance. Two thumbs up for a guy often relegated to bad guy roles. Part Travis Bickle, part Paul Kersey, part Wild West vigilante, this is a fascinating character.

I haven't seen much of Tommy Lee Jones' pre-Lonesome Dove work, but here the 31-year old actor shows off that quiet, intimidating charisma that has served him so well in the 35-plus years since. He's underused as Johnny Vohden, a fellow prisoner who experienced everything Rane went through. Through their common, horrifying experience, they've bonded to become friends that can't be broken up. Excellent supporting part. Linda Haynes plays Linda Forchet, a young woman in her 20's fascinated with Rane, drawn to him in ways she can't describe. It's a good part, but somewhat distracting, as her character's personality seems to be wearing tight, thin shirts without a bra. Just an observation. Also look for James Best and Luke Askew as two gutter-trash crooks who wrong Rane in a big old way (wait for those fireworks!). Also look for Dabney Coleman, Lisa Blake Richards and Lawrason Driscoll in supporting parts.

'Thunder' is a bit of a slow burn, even following the surprising, horrifically violent twist about 35 minutes into the 95-minute long flick. It's trying to build that intensity to almost unbearable levels as we wait for Devane's Rane to blow like a volcano. In that sense, it treads that fine line. Things can be a little slow in parts. Never boring, but at the same time, never as interesting as things could have been. I'll give credit where it is due though. Everyone involved seems to know where they want to end up, all the while building up to a blood and bullet-riddled finale. It could have gone for a horrifically dark ending but taps the brakes a bit.

So overall, good but not great. A crime thriller set along the Texas/Mexico border has a gritty, dark feeling, almost like a film noir with a lot of blood squibs! This is a revenge movie that certainly belongs along the likes of movies like Taxi Driver and Death Wish and the Dirty Harry movies. A tad on the slow side at times, but worth checking out.

Rolling Thunder (1977): ** 1/2 /****

Three the Hard Way

In this day and age, it seems the world is tearing itself apart from the inside. The killing, the hate, the violence, it seems worse than ever, especially when it comes to race relations. Where am I heading with this with a movie review? As bad as race relations may have been in the past in the United States, movies were still able to have some fun (in some instances, much, much harsher views) with cliches and stereotypes. Take 1974's Three the Hard Way. It's a movie that instantly gained a cult following, but my goodness, I can't see a like-minded movie hitting theaters in 2015.

Living in Los Angeles, Jimmy Lait (Jim Brown) is a successful music producer who's thrown a curve when an old friend shows up dying on his doorstep, all the while mumbling something about someone promising to "kill them all." Jimmy doesn't make much of it until the friend is murdered while recovering in a hospital. He turns to two friends, Jagger Daniels (Fred Williamson) and Mister Keyes (Jim Kelly), a karate expert, for help, and the three follow the evidence to a startling conclusion. A white supremacist group has developed a serum that when placed in waterwill kill any black person who drinks that water, all within 72 hours. The whites? They remain untouched, an ethnic cleansing just waiting to be unleashed. Time is running out, and with three release points -- Washington D.C., Detroit and Los Angeles -- Jimmy, Jagger and Mister are racing the clock.

Wow. Just wow. What an amazing mess of a movie. I'm all for cult favorites, whole cult genres, and count spaghetti westerns as one of my all-time favorites. 'Three' comes from the blaxploitation genre, well, sorta according to director Gordon Parks Jr. This was a genre aimed at African-American audiences, focusing on the black culture, the black hero and for better or worse....how dumb, stupid and/or evil us white folks are. There's a style, a cool factor to these movies that permeates itself through the stories regardless of how goofy (and/or dumb) the stories might get. And let me tell you, this one is D-U-M-B. Thankfully, the cast is pretty cool and there's basically non-stop action through the second half of this flick.

Sometimes, a cool cast can cancel out a whole lot of badness, and that's at least partially the case here. It's really, really cool to see Jim Brown, Fred Williamson and Jim Kelly working together. The trio is having a ton of fun to the point the script....well, gets thrown by the wayside. It's three guys B.S.'ing each other, shooting the breeze, with lots of cool "jive" talk. Am I using that word correctly? Huh? Anyone? Okay, moving on. These are three actors capable of carrying an action-driven movie on their own so when you combine them you create UNSTOPPABLE AMOUNTS OF AWESOME. The trio kicks a lot of ass, gets a lot of action in the bedroom and assorted other places and yes, saves the entire African-American community from a dastardly fate that sounds like something ripped out of a D-level James Bond movie or the worst kind of 1960s espionage/intrigue. Blah blah blah cool heroes kicking ass!!!

Seriously though, that story. It's amazing. The villain's name is Monroe Feather (Jay Robinson), and he's obsessed with wiping out all black people in America. There's Doctor Fortrero (Richard Angarola), a brilliant physician who's developed the concoction that can only kill blacks while leaving whites and other races unharmed. And yeah, he looks unkempt and crazy. Too many scenes to count where they talk about their evil, master plan, too many hilarious scenes in general. Obviously, it's meant to be stereotyped and over-the-top and goofy, but this is just great stuff. None of it is to be taken even remotely seriously. Just sit back and laugh. Also look for Sheila Frazier as Jimmy's loving girlfriend, captured and taken as a hostage by Feather and his small army of inept enforcers. Even 1970's thug Alex Rocco comes around to act tough but really do nothing.

Where 'Three' differentiates itself is its action. Things are a little slow-going through the first 40 minutes or so as things are laid out, but once our triumvirate of heroes are introduced and assembled....it's ass-kicking time!!! They split up and head to our three choke points (D.C., L.A., and Detroit) where they stumble into a world where only action cliches can survive. Our heroes hit everything they aim at while whole squads of bad guys can't hit a the broadside of a barn if their life depended on it (and it does). When it comes to hand-to-hand combat, the bad guys attack one at a time rather than rushing and overpowering their opponent. In the process, an impressive body count is racked up. It ends up being pretty fun along the way.

Overall, things are pretty disjointed, brief scenes of dialogue holding the action together. We get some male bonding in between mixed in with some horrifically odd. Case in point? Three topless women -- three dominatrix -- torture a suspect until he can't handle anymore...and dies. From what though? Seriously, from what? Fear of holding off sexual release? It's a baffling, hilarious scene. There's a whole lot of that mixed in with some very cool location shooting, including some great shots of 1970's Chicago. Fun soundtrack from The Impressions and generally a sense of "Screw you" if you're not on-board. It's not good -- not by a long shot -- but it is mindlessly entertaining because it is so freakishly bad. And seriously, how does Jim Kelly dispatch villains so easily while wearing whole outfits made entirely of leather? One of those mysteries we'll never know the answer to I guess. Too bad...

Three the Hard Way (1974): ** 1/2 /****

Billy Two Hats

I've been watching westerns for as long as I can remember. It's to the point I'm always searching for westerns -- especially from the 1960's and 1970's -- that I haven't seen. Well, God bless Turner Classic Movies and MGM-HD, because they've helped me out with some harder-to-find westerns. Our latest go-around, a revisionist western from 1974, Billy Two Hats.

In a sleepy western town, Sheriff Henry Gifford (Jack Warden) rides into town after a long time on the trail. He's tracking three bank robbers who escaped with a little over $400 and killed a man in a recent robbery. His ambush in the hotel works, killing one, capturing one, Billy (Desi Arnaz Jr.) while the third, Arch Deans (Gregory Peck), escapes, getting out of town unscathed. The sheriff rides out with Billy -- a half-breed with a Kiowa mother and white father -- in tow, riding across the desert to get back to town where Billy will be tried and likely hung for his involvement in the robbery, even though it was Arch who did the killing. Billy has accepted his fate to a point, going along quietly, but out in the desert hills, Arch has a plan to get his partner and friend free. Gifford's trapped in the middle, all the while trying to do his job.

Ah, revisionist westerns, where the goal is to show the wild west as it really was, not as a pleasant, adventure-filled time and place where a good 'ole time was had. Instead, it was horrifically violent where life was cheap and death waiting around every corner. There was little noble, heroic or pleasant about it. The good revisionist westerns just lay it all out there. The not-so-good ones, they lay it on thick with a heavy hand. Where does 'Billy' fall?

Unfortunately....it's right in the middle. While I was intrigued by the premise (and the fact I'd never seen it), I'm not sure what the point of the film was. The story is a quasi-chase with two major stops where everything concerning action grinds to a halt as characters opine about how awful their lives in the west are. The story was already pretty slow just getting to those scenes. The character development is nil, and at no point did I feel like I got to know either Arch or Billy even though they talk a fair amount. It's a story in its entirety that takes place over  three or four days but accomplishes little. I left this revisionist western feeling entirely "meh." I didn't especially like it, and I didn't hate it. It be right in the middle, a movie that had little to no impact on me at all.

Gregory Peck is the man, one of my favorites here at Just Hit Play. In the second half of his career, Peck turned to the general action genre -- westerns, adventure, war films -- early and often. No classics, but some solid movies. His Arch character is certainly interesting, an aging Scottish bandit who desperately misses the greenery of the Scottish highlands. He has a sort of fatherly/brotherly relationship with young Billy, but there's never much of an explanation or reason given for anything. Arch tries to look out for Billy, giving him advice on how to act, how to grow up. The fault is that the script does absolutely nothing for Arnaz Jr. as Billy Two Hats. It is one of the most poorly written characters I can think of and gives him nothing to do to help alleviate that lack of development.

That puts us, dear reader, in a delicate spot. I found myself not caring about any of the characters even a little. The script feels like it was half-written, following a sorta outline of a slow-paced chase with several talkative, unlikable characters. Winning formula, huh? Warden too is undone by the script. His sheriff is dedicated to his job, but he's so obsessed with this particular prisoner. He's filled with hate, maybe just epic frustration at the futility of what the criminals are up to. David Huddleston plays Copeland, an owner of a remote trading post who's moved on from his days as a buffalo hunter who's waiting for the railroad to come through his lucrative land while also wondering what his squaw wife is up to. Last, there's Spencer (John Pearce) and his recently purchased wife, Esther (Sian Barbara Allen). The dense, money-conscious farmer and his stuttering wife, adding to the general doom-and-gloom of an already pretty dark western.

When you're wrapping up a movie, there's not much worse than a general feeling of frustration of what could have been. 'Billy' has some potential, but it just has too many holes to help it live up to that potential. It was filmed in Israel, giving the film a bleak, stark, end of the world visual look. You're ALONE in this vast expanse of a desert and almost completely dependent on yourself. The music -- though little used -- is appropriate, and I thought pretty good. The script is the ultimate death rattle though. It's bad. It never jells together. The characters are poorly drawn and developed in worse fashion. When the bullets start to fly in this revisionist western, there's absolutely no emotional connection with anything going on in the story, and that ain't good. A disappointing negative review.

Billy Two Hats (1974): * 1/2 /****

China 9, Liberty 37

Monte Hellman isn't necessarily a household name among movie fans. He worked pretty regularly in the 1960's and 1970's and has worked on and off since. He doesn't have a huge, crazy classic to his name, a director who usually was at the helm of low-budget, straightforward flicks. His best film -- for me at least -- is Two-Lane Blacktop. His others? More hit or miss, like 1978's China 9, Liberty 37, a western I didn't like at all.

Wasting away in a prison cell, Clayton Drumm (Fabio Testi) is minutes away from walking to the hangman's noose when he's given a reprieve. Well, sort of. Local government and train officials have an offer for the infamous gunfighter. They'll let him go free and avoid the noose if he agrees to ride out and kill a farmer, Matthew Sebanek (Warren Oates), who owns a piece of land that the railroad needs to continue building across the country. Somewhat suspicious, Clayton takes the deal and rides to the Sebanek homestead where he meets the farmer and his younger wife, Catherine (Jenny Agutter). Drumm doesn't ride up and shoot the farmer but instead introduces himself as a drifter passing through looking for a roof over his head for the night and maybe a meal. Sebanek agrees, but he's no dummy. He knows what's Drumm is up to. What will come of the slow-burning showdown?

Hmm, interesting...interesting. I wanted to like this 1978 quasi-spaghetti western. I did, but it just isn't very good. As a director of westerns, he specialized in low-key, low-budget stories that were more about the reality of western life than the romance or the glory or the heroes. It was a dark, nasty life where death seemingly hovered in the air. There wasn't any romance or glory or glamour. In that sense, 'China' is spot-on. It is cynical, violent in quick strikes, and with a touch of irony sprinkled in for good measure. All these little positives though, they got lost in a sea of a wayward story, out of place soundtrack and a disappointing go-nowhere direction.

First, the biggest issue. The first 40 minutes are interesting. I kinda sorta maybe thought I was getting a story about a gunfighter who must make a difficult decision. Do what's right? (Not kill the farmer). Do what he's spent his life doing? (Kill the farmer). It isn't even close. It becomes a forced, uncomfortable love story about the gunfighter, the farmer and wouldn't you know it, the farmer's wife. Yeah, we're talking about some low-budget porn. All the potential goes out the window in an instant, and the rest of the movie is far different than what I thought I was watching. The switch itself isn't awful (but it ain't good either), but the pacing dies and any interest I had in the story was gone with the snap of a finger.

The casting definitely intrigued me, but that too came up a little short. Warren Oates is the man. I'll watch him in anything, even when he's just chewing the scenery. This is a good part for him, a for the most part quiet performance, a farmer who knows he's in a hell of a pinch and must decide how far he's willing to fight to keep what is his. So yeah, 40 minutes and then he's just an angry husband looking for vengeance. Testi was a big star in the 1970's, and I've typically liked him. The performance is -- again -- potentially interesting, the infamous gunslinger with a chance for redemption of sorts, but it goes literally nowhere. He isn't dubbed either so I had trouble understanding his very heavy Italian accent. There are some great scenes between Oates and Testi as they talk about how they got to this point, what to do from here that indicates this could have been an excellent, thoughtful western...but it isn't.

Instead, 'China' degenerates into soft-core porn. Agutter is nude for much of the movie and Testi goes shirtless a lot in awkward, truly uncomfortable love scenes as Testi and Agutter stare into each other's eyes before getting to the oh so sexy lovemaking. Except they don't have any chemistry, and they literally look like robots when they're kissing. It is truly awkward, almost like they were told to do it that way. It wouldn't be a huge issue except that this happens four and five times, long sex scenes set to equally uncomfortable and out-of-place folk songs that dot the soundtrack. When things should be quickening the pace, that pace goes nowhere as we get one more repetitive sex scene. So yeah, the good western goes bye-bye.

'China' was filmed on-location in Spain as so many classic to good to god-awful westerns were in the 60's and 70's. It is a mix of the American revisionist westerns and the hard-hitting, horrifically violent spaghetti westerns but never finds its own groove or rhythm. You get the sense Hellman was going for something lyrical and beautiful with a story about true love that can't be denied, but that never comes together. The running time is 102 minutes -- and I did get to watch a beautiful print on Turner Classic Movies -- but the last 100 minutes dragged in a big way. A major disappointment because it feels like there was so much wasted potential. So much potential that never goes anywhere.

China 9, Liberty 37 (1978): */****

Catlow

Before his death in 1988 at the ripe, old age of 80, author Louis L'Amour had 89 novels, 14 short story collections and two non-fiction books to his name. Kinda a busy career, huh? He's always been one of my favorites, and a personal favorite (one of many) is one that doesn't always get mentioned as one of his best or most well-known. It's a 1963 western that got a feature film adaptation with the same-named 1971 flick, Catlow.

It's the years following the Civil War in the American southwest and veterans from the war have had to move on to other things, some good, some bad. Ben Cowan (Richard Crenna) is a marshal out on the trail looking for an outlaw wanted for rustling cattle and horses. Jed Catlow (Yul Brynner) is that outlaw, an amiable fella who always has a smile on his face. The problem? Cowan's warrant is for Catlow, but the two men are old friends having served together during the War, making that potential arrest a little more difficult. Well, sorta. Through a series of mistakes and misadventures, Cowan just can't seem to bring his friend in. Now, Catlow could have bitten off more than he can chew. With his gang, the outlaw is heading into Mexico after a recently discovered hidden gold treasure. He's not the only one in pursuit though, with Cowan and others on his trail.

Not quite an American western, not quite a spaghetti western, 'Catlow' lies somewhere in between. Director Sam Wannamaker's western has been basically completely forgotten, lost in a wave of one of the more tumultuous times in the genre's history. It reflects more the past than what's coming, a tongue-in-cheek tone unfortunately stepping to the forefront. That tone does feel a bit weird, a bit forced, especially against the Almerian backdrops. Spaghetti western fans will see a long list of familiar locations, all those locations providing a ton of fun along the way. The score is a mixed bag, two main themes dominating the soundtrack (listen HERE). One is more serious, the other reflecting the light mood, that tongue in cheek angle. The weird thing? Well...

L'Amour's source novel is not light or comedic or tongue in cheek at all. It's pretty standard stuff, and I mean that in a good way. A likable, resolute anti-hero of sorts, a bad guy who's not so bad, a not so trustworthy gang, conniving, greedy female characters, and a treasure that would change any man's life. Getting there is part of the fun so even the story drifts and isn't that pointed...it is fun. The cast, the winding, often goofy story, the locations, It...Is...Fun. L'Amour's novels are always entertaining, even when the film versions aren't so great. That's a case in point here. Original? No, sir. Entertaining? You bet. Don't expect too much of a coherent story, and you'll be aces.

So....hmm...fun, there's gotta be something positive to talk about, right? I'm going with Yul Brynner, one of my favorites and clearly having a lot of fun here as the affable Catlow. His most iconic parts are The Magnificent Seven and Westworld where he plays stoic, almost emotionless gunfighters so it's cool to see him branch out and show off some comedic timing. He's an underrated comedic presence. His chemistry with Richard Crenna is very solid, two old friends who are on opposite sides of the law but don't seem to let that bother them too much. They're always getting each other out of one sticky situation or another, and they're always able to laugh it off in the end. I will say Crenna's Cowan as presented here could be the dumbest sheriff/peace officer I can think of in a western. He continuously walks into one ambush after another and takes his fair share of lead in the process. Still, Brynner and Crenna are excellent together throughout.

The rest of the cast is interesting to say the least. Mr. Spock himself, Leonard Nimoy, plays Miller, a gunman hired out to bring Catlow in dead or alive (preferably dead). For you Star Trek fans, yes, you do get to see Nimoy's naked ass in all its glory. Talk about bizarre, huh? We need some sexy love interests too and get them in Daliah Lavi as fiery, murdering, betraying Rosita (Catlow's sorta girlfriend) and Jo Ann Pflug as Catherine, the beautiful daughter of a Mexican rancher who falls for Cowan (naturally). Jeff Corey plays Merridew, a grizzled trailhand and Catlow's right-hand man, while Michael DeLano plays Rio, the more treacherous, greedy member of the gang. Also look for Julian Mateos as Recalde, a Mexican officer who Cowan meets on the trail.

Look, this ain't rocket science. It's a fun, pretty mindless American/spaghetti western. It doesn't try and rewrite the genre by any means and is quite content being fun and pretty mindless. Watch it for Yul Brynner, Richard Crenna, Leonard Nimoy's naked butt, some pretty ladies, fun action and cool Spanish locations filling in for the American southwest and Mexico. If you can, watch for it on Turner Classic Movie's schedule. The print they showed was by far the best -- clean, very clean -- I've seen.

Catlow (1971): ** 1/2 /****

An Enemy of the People

Steve McQueen was the King of Cool. He was Virgil Hilts, Cooler King. He was Detective Frank Bullitt. He was the laconic anti-hero, a superstar on-screen who hated dialogue. So naturally, late in his career he did a complete 180 with a film that has been basically forgotten in the annals of movies. McQueen helped spearhead the film that's based on a Norwegian play from the 1880's. Here it is, 1978's Enemy of the People, the only starring McQueen role I hadn't seen. Verdict? Keep on reading.

Dr. Thomas Stockmann (McQueen) is a middle-aged man, a successful, respected and well-liked physician who is also a family man who desperately loves his wife, Catherine (Bibi Andersson), and their three kids. They live in a small Norwegian village, Stockmann mostly responsible for the town's hot springs, known for their healing powers and a bit of a tourist attraction. The good doctor though is worried and his worries are confirmed when he receives a report that the spring water is filled with bacteria that could easily kill. It seems an easy fix; shut the springs down and repair them, diverting the poisoned water. It seems an easy fix. The town, especially the mayor and Thomas' brother (Charles Durning), questions what the doctor's methods are while also weighing the impact of the potential decision. It all seems so simple, but it is so far from it as Stockmann is met with barriers wherever he turns.

This is an anti-Steve McQueen movie. Made in 1976, it was ready to be released in 1977...but wasn't. It wasn't even given a major release, only seeing the light of day briefly in some college towns in 1978. No one quite knew what to do with it because it was such a departure for its star. So what is the verdict? It's good, not great, a little stilted at times, but even just as a novelty, 'Enemy' is worth seeking out. It is based off a play (of the same name) from Norwegian writer Henrik Ibsen from the 1880s and is heavy on message and dialogue and general disgust with the establishment and system. So...yeah, a fastball down the middle for the King of Cool, right?

Basically from the moment he arrived as an actor, McQueen was a man of few words. He was a huge presence, able to do something physically or with a look that wiped away pages of unnecessary dialogue. He was the anti-hero, the cool as hell badass you couldn't help but root for. This is by far his biggest departure for a career that was cut short by his tragic death in 1980 from cancer. He's unrecognizable, sporting long almost shoulder length hair and a thick beard. He delves into the role, speaking more dialogue here than he probably did in other movies combined. His presence is still there even with the expanded...ya know, talking. He's a ball of righteous energy, knowing that he's right and something must be done immediately to fix this immense problem facing the town, its town council, its mayor, and the people itself, both now and for the future. 

Steve McQueen is an all-time favorite of mine. He's up there with John Wayne and Clint Eastwood in my holy triumvirate of movie stars so it was incredibly cool to see him try something so entirely new and different. As an actor, he didn't want to do the same old, same old. He wanted to jump into new and fresh territory so without a doubt, McQueen's performance is the best thing about 'Enemy.' I think his best acting is still The Sand Pebbles and Papillon, but this certainly belongs in the conversation.

Only two other names really jump out from the cast, Andersson as Thomas' wife, eternally faithful to her husband even when his actions threaten to tear the family apart. An excellent performance from Andersson, the wavering in her face evident as she decides if she should continue to back her husband (even if it's not the most logical thing to do). Durning does what he does best, underplayed, bubbling intensity, usually as a slithering villain you just want to slap upside the head. Two excellent performances. Also look for Richard Dysart as the experienced (somewhat cautious) editor of the local paper with Michael Cristofer and Michael Higgins as his two younger, idealistic writers/editors. Eric Christmas plays Catherine's father (a good twist late about him) while Robin Pearson Rose is excellent as Petra, Thomas' daughter, intelligent, thoughtful and starting to figure things out in life as she becomes an adult.

'Enemy' is at times limited by its budget, giving it the look of a made-for-TV movie. It isn't a crippling flaw, but it is noticeable throughout. The cast is small, and the visual appeal certainly reflects the play's roots with long, extended scenes full of dialogue marking the 109-minute film from director George Schaefer. Things limp to the finish line a bit in the final half hour, leading to a finale that tries to go for a touch of hope, but in reality, this is a downbeat ending no matter what we see on-screen.

An interesting movie with an interesting message. It reeks of the 1970's when no one really trusted in the government, politics and those in trouble across any field. I guess that hasn't really changed in 2015 either, huh? The movie is unsettling in those instances as we see a majority rule even though they're wrong, a mob making decisions because who in their right mind would stand up to them? I liked the cynicism of 'Enemy,' the general darkness and bleakness in its outlook on life. Is there hope? Sure, there's always hope, but sometimes you've got to fight for it a little harder. An interesting movie, especially notable because of its scarcity over the last 30-plus years and an excellent performance from the King of Cool himself, Steve McQueen.

An Enemy of the People (1978): ** 1/2 /****

Freebie and the Bean

Let's get down to business. And I mean business. The buddy cop genre is the greatest genre in the history of cinema. Go ahead. I dare you to identify one that is better. See? You simply can-not. There were sprinklings before here and there, but the genre took off in the 1980's. One of those early sprinklings? An oddball, off-the-wall, politically incorrect comedy from 1974's Freebie and the Bean.

Longtime partners working the Intelligence Unit in San Francisco, Bean (Alan Arkin) and Freebie (James Caan) usually get the job done, sometimes in spite of themselves with their constant bickering. Their latest target? The duo has long sought to put well-known and long successful racketeer Red Meyers (Jack Kruschen) behind bars. After most of a year investigating, they've got the evidence -- finally -- but the key witness can't be put into custody for three more days. The solution? Freebie and Bean must shadow Meyers and make sure nothing goes wrong before they can officially arrest him. There are problems of course. Many people would be in trouble should Meyers testify so a hit man from Detroit (maybe more) has been dispatched to finish him. Oh, and it's Super Bowl week. Oh, and Freebie and Bean might kill each other in the process. What could possibly go wrong?

Reading some reviews and message boards about this 1974 buddy cop flick, I saw a lot of people questioning why this is a movie just about completely forgotten over the years. I'm glad I wasn't the only one to think of that issue. I love James Caan and Alan Arkin, and I'd never even vaguely, remotely even kinda heard of it. Why is that? Well, it's not a classic, but it's pretty good. It is kooky, completely without a story, has tonal shifts left and right, is especially goofy and is incredibly politically incorrect. There are flaws, but my goodness, is it a fun ride.

Arkin and Caan. Caan and Arkin. How can you possibly go wrong? You can't here. Two of my favorite actors working together make it look effortless. As you expect from any buddy cop pairing, the duo has to bitch and moan and criticize and ridicule...even though they're the best of friends. Arkin is Bean, a Mexican officer, all business, no nonsense. Caan is Freebie, wild and all over the place and not one to turn down a free gift here and there (hence the nickname). The story drifts as needed, and you get a sense the script was a couple set pieces, an outline of a story, and just blank sports for Arkin and Caan to improvise, to fire lightning fast insults and jokes and one-liners for as long as they could. Too many classic lines to mention -- most of them foul-mouthed, racist, sexist and generally inappropriate -- but quite the Batman and Batman (no Robin here) to lead the way.

'Freebie/Bean' comes from director Richard Rush and comes as a bit of fresh air considering the time it was released. We're talking cynical cop flicks like French Connection, Bullitt, the Dirty Harry movies and plenty others. It's just a funny movie. That's all and that's it. That's not a bad thing. You sit back and enjoy it because there isn't any messages in sight or anything dark or hard-hitting. These are two cops who are friends and fight like an old married couple bombing their way through San Francisco who stop at nothing to put their case together. If half the city should be destroyed in the process....well, so be it. We had a good time. San Francisco looks great as a backdrop as well, an interesting choice considering so many cop movies were shot on-location there. Moral of the story? As much as I love those previously mentioned flicks, it's cool to see a cop movie do a complete 180.

Who else to look for? Some fun, familiar faces. Kruschen has a ton of fun as Meyers, the racketeer who can't believe how stupid the cops pursuing him really are. Loretta Swit of MASH fame plays his pretty young wife. Also look for Alex Rocco as the conviction rate-minded district attorney, Mike Kellin as the boys' lieutenant, Paul Koslo and Christopher Morley as a couple witnesses, and a scene-stealing Valerie Harper as Bean's possibly cheating wife, Consuelo.

So there's gotta be something wrong...right? It's the bizarre, often out of left field shifts in tone. It's dark and funny and politically incorrect, and then a complete direction change into a never-ending car and motorcycle chase (had...HAD to be an influence on The Blues Brothers) that relies on sight gags and Keystone Cops-esque humor. There's little warning too as things shift, especially toward the end with more than a few crazy twists, some that work, some that are shocking, and one that almost had me questioning the whole movie. Thankfully, it was a twist within a twist in a mystery surrounded by a paradox. Anyhoo, this is all complaining to complain. The movie is a ton of fun with one laugh after another. It's James Caan and Alan Arkin basically spending 2 hours causing collateral damage and bitching at each other in their downtime. If that's not a recipe for success, I don't know what is.

Freebie and the Bean (1974): ***/**** 

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): **/****

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): ***/****

The Cheap Detective

From a career that spanned six decades, Peter Falk accomplished it all, but he will always be remembered for one specific role, that of rumpled, seemingly frazzled detective Colombo. Lost amidst the great scripts and guest stars is Falk's impeccable comedic timing, usually lost because he played it so freaking straight. The man was an actor but he could have been a comedian. Colombo fans, Falk fans, I highly recommend 1978's The Cheap Detective.

It's 1939 and the world is about to tear itself apart, but working as a longtime private detective in San Francisco, Lou Peckinpaugh (Falk) is just looking to get out alive. He receives a phone call late one night informing him that his partner at the P.I. firm has been murdered and several other people were killed around him. Making it worse? Lou has been having an affair with his partner's wife, Georgia (Marsha Mason), and the cops think Lou might be the killer! They don't have the evidence though to convict him -- yet -- so Lou must figure out who the actual killer is. Later that night he meets a mysterious woman (Madeline Kahn) in his office who needs help finding her missing sister. This woman isn't telling Lou everything he needs to know though, plunging Lou deeper into a world of backstabbing and betrayals, Nazis and smugglers, and everything in between. Hopefully and maybe (just maybe), Lou can make it out innocent and alive.

As I've beaten to death in countless reviews as I continue to serve as a broken record, I like spoofs...when they're handled the right way. Basically in not too heavy-handed, obvious fashion. Mel Brooks was a master of such smart-minded yet incredibly stupid spoofs while others like the seemingly never-ending Scary Movie series just...keep...going. From director Robert Moore and a script from Neil Simon, 'Cheap' is more in the Brooks vein. It is equal parts smart, wicked humor mixed in with stupid, dumb laughs with everything from a subtle line delivery to a perfect site gag. At just 92 minutes, it crackles along at a ridiculously quick pace, scenes coming across as episodic more than joined in any sort of linear fashion. It's one bit and onto the next. No time to sit and catch a breath here!

To spoof, you need something to spoof and 'Cheap' jumps headfirst into film noir mysteries with private detectives, using that as a jumping off point with The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca as story points. So yes, we get entire scenes -- classic, iconic scenes -- absolutely torn to pieces, most of them working in almost effortless fashion. We've got a cheating private detective, a small harem of women who want nothing more than to jump into bed with him, international intrigue, murdering Nazis, shady underworld types, lost love, new love and confusion around every corner. To say there's a story is inaccurate. It instead is those episodic set pieces, deliver the joke and move on, and more less, it's all somewhat kinda sorta related. You don't notice though. There's too much going on -- most of it pretty funny -- to complain.

Peter Falk is the man. I love the guy. He's one of my favorite actors ever, a character actor who never disappointed when given a chance at the spotlight. Here as private detective Lou Peckinpaugh, Falk is clearly having a ball. The entire performance is based off being Humphrey Bogart. Not acting like him, Being him, and Falk hits it out of the home run. The best kind of spoof is a loving one, and Falk loves his source material, nailing his spot-on impression of one of the all-time Hollywood greats. The dialogue, the physical look, the mannerisms, he never hams it up or tries for the laughs. He just gets them with ease. His Lou has ready-made drinks in desk drawers everywhere. When he answers the phone, not sure who's on the other end, he pulls a gun on the phone (Ya know...just in case) and holds it there. Through all the craziness that develops, Falk's steady hand keeps things going.

That's not to say this is a one-man show. Falk often plays straight man to the avalanche of laughs around him, but there's so much talent on display it's ridiculous. Kahn is hysterical (similarly deadpanning all her lines), but she's just the first of the love interests. There's crazy with love Mason, sexed-up Ann-Margret, lounge singer Eileen Brennan (doing a great Lauren Bacall), lost love Louise Fletcher (Ingrid Bergman of Casablanca) and Stockard Chaning as Lou's secretary who just wants to be "thanked" properly. I loved Dom DeLuise as a smelly smuggler (doing Peter Lorre), a perfect John Houseman doing his best Sidney Greenstreet impression, wearing an enormous oversized suit to sell it, So many names here, including Sid Caesar, James Coco, Nicol Williamson, Fernando Lamas, Phil Silvers, Abe Vigoda, Paul Williams, Vic Tayback, David Ogen Steirs, and Scatman Crothers, all getting their chances at their fair share of laughs.

If there's anything flawed here, it was the commitment to the spoof. If that makes any sense I guess. There are a ton of laughs (genuine, out-loud laughs), but the story gets so goofy, feels so disjointed at times, that it loses some of its edge. By the time the end does come along, it comes with one twist after another, bing bang boom in rapid fire. It's still an excellent comedy, but not a true classic. Still recommending it though, especially as a companion piece of sorts with the same director and much of the cast working together in Murder By Death. Not quite on par with that one but still damn funny.

The Cheap Detective (1978): ***/****

Brannigan

Let's give him points. John Wayne could admit a mistake when he made one. Offered the part of San Francisco detective Harry Callahan -- better known as Dirty Harry -- in the late 1960's, Wayne turned down the part only to see the cop series blow up in a big way for star Clint Eastwood. It took him a couple years to answer, but Wayne turned to the cop genre himself, first with 1974's McQ, and a year later with 1975's Brannigan.

A longtime Chicago cop, Lt. Jim Brannigan (Wayne) has built up quite a reputation for himself over the years, both for good and bad. He's always done his job well but built up quite a list of enemies in the process, especially Ben Larkin (John Vernon), a gangster with a whole lot of knowledge about a whole lot of mob money. With the district attorney's case against Larkin finally coming together, the mobster bails and heads for London on the run. The Chicago police are well aware of the move and with Scotland Yard have Larkin under full surveillance. The catch? They need somebody tough to bring him back. Who better than the man who's been on his case for years, Brannigan himself. The veteran cop heads to England, but what starts as a simple pick-up is quickly thrown out the window when Larkin is kidnapped and ransomed off. Can Brannigan and London police track him down before someone else finishes him off?

As Wikipedia is quick to point out, this 1975 cop drama/thriller follows in the footsteps of Coogan's Bluff (also starring Mr. Eastwood) in terms of the cop as the fish out of water. This isn't fast, brutal Chicago where police work doesn't always play by the rules. This is London, an almost gentlemanly situation where guns are forbidden and rules are made to be followed. Who better than John Wayne to mess that world up? I submit that NO ONE would have been more suited to it. From director Douglas Hickox, 'Brannigan' is a solid if unspectacular cop story, benefiting from Wayne's presence, some solid supporting cast members and very cool on-location shooting in both Chicago (too briefly) and London. Like McQ, it's no classic, but there's enough to recommend.

If you've poked around my reviews these past years, you can tell I kinda like John Wayne. Through good and bad, I'll give his movies a watch. By the 1970's as his health took a turn for the worse (again), he made movies that weren't ground-breaking or world-shattering. Instead, these are movies and roles that are fun. That are entertaining, and in a way, serve as a sort of comfort food. In a way, they were almost a Farewell Tour for one of Hollywood's all-time greats. Much like McQ, Wayne is able to fill the screen with his larger-than-life persona, a gruff, aging cop while still allowing the script to have some fun with his senior citizen status. I've lived in Chicago my whole life, and let me tell you, there's no 68-year old cops running around. From what I've read, Wayne was very much struggling with health concerns during filming, but it doesn't show.

He brings that John Wayne energy in all his scenes, whether he's interrogating a suspect, working with his appointed British partner (Judy Geeson), or going toe-to-toe with his British Scotland Yard counterpart, the very Commander Swann (Richard Attenborough). Health concerns or not (the Duke would only make two more films), Wayne brings that familiar energy to the screen. He has some great chemistry with Geeson in some flirty scenes that aren't pushed too far or too cheesy. The same for his alpha male showdowns with Attenborough's Swann. These are two guys used to doing things their way and getting things done their way. It was very cool to see two pros like Wayne and Attenborough play off each other so effortlessly, one scene ready to murder each other, the next cops doing whatever it takes to get the job done. Some fun parts for surely.

Three years away from his most famous, iconic role in Animal House, Vernon is excellent -- as always -- as the slimy, smooth villain, although he's underused as his characters gets twisted and turned around. Still, it's John Vernon as a bad guy. Hard to pass that up. Mel Ferrer gets to have some fun as Larkin's equally slimy lawyer, forced to work with the cops when the ransom negotiation begins. Also look for Ralph Meeker as Brannigan's commanding officer (a very quick part), Daniel Pilon as a hired killer tasked with offing Brannigan, John Stride as Traven, one of Swann's officers, and James Booth (of Zulu fame) as one of Larkin's sneering kidnappers.

'McQ' had its fair share of flaws, but overall, it was a pretty decent cop flick. I put Brannigan a touch below it. The story and running time feels a little bloated, like 10 or 15 minutes could have been edited here and there. The action is solid -- especially a car chase through London -- and packs quite a punch. It's fun especially seeing Wayne when he does get to unleash all his fury in some interrogation scenes. There are too many times though the story simply drifts. Even the ending disappoints a little, a pretty decent twist livening things up thankfully. It's not a classic and maybe it's not very good at all, but I enjoyed it for what it is.

You only get so many flicks from your favorite actors so enjoy them and focus on the positive. It ain't a classic, but it's entertaining.

Brannigan (1975): ** 1/2 /****

McQ

By the mid 1960's John Wayne wasn't just John Wayne anymore. He was the Duke, an icon and a star. He came to represent something bigger, something Wayne thought people needed to look up to. Because of that sentiment, he turned down some roles that he thought were too much against type. The two big ones? The Major Reisman part from The Dirty Dozen and the role of a famous rogue cop named....Dirty Harry. Wayne regretted not taking the part made famous by Clint Eastwood and went about fixing the issue. The result? Two cop movies, starting with 1974's McQ and following a year later with Brannigan (soon to be reviewed).

A longtime detective on the Seattle police force, Lieutenant Lon 'McQ' McHugh (Wayne) has seen everything there is to be seen. After years on the force, he's sick of the politicians and the glad-handing and all the garbage. He's interested in putting the crooks away, but now one attempted murder hits too close to home when his partner, Lt. Stan Boyle (William Bryant), is shot in the back with a shotgun with no witnesses. Boyle's chances aren't too good, but McQ intends to do something about it. Who shot his partner? The clues are there, and McQ begins to suspect there's a whole lot more going on than meets the eye. He begins to find evidence that could point to any number of trails worth following, from a high-level drug supplier to corruption within the police force. Can he piece it all together before those people he's chasing get him instead?

I've been a huge John Wayne fan for as long as I can remember. If he's starring in a movie, I'll give it a shot. Mostly, they're winners but occasionally there's a dud here and there. I'm looking at you The Conqueror. In this last portion of his career -- mostly the late 1960's and into the 1970's -- Wayne was making movies he wanted to make, movies he figured his fans and audiences wanted to see. Are they classics? With the exception of True Grit and The Shootist, no. On the other hand, they're F-U-N, movies like Big Jake, The Train Robbers, Chisum, The Cowboys and several others. So regretting not taking the Harry Callahan role (a big thank you from Eastwood), Wayne dove headfirst into the renegade cop genre. The winners? Us. McQ and Brannigan aren't classics, but man, are they ever fun.

The rogue/renegade cop movies of the 60's and 70's were everywhere, ranging from Bullitt to Dirty Harry to Magnum Force to The French Connection with plenty more in between. The crime thriller as a whole was at its absolute best. But a John Wayne take on the genre? Yes. Yes. The script gives him some nice touches to show he's a cool cop, like his houseboat, his Pontiac trans am, his efforts to stay involved in his daughter's life, even though ex-wife Julie Adams just couldn't take their marriage anymore. By 1974, Wayne was 66 years old, a little thicker around the midsection and sporting a toupee but you know what? He makes it look effortless. That no-nonsense, all-business attitude plays well as the frustrated cop role. Rules? Meh. Hippies? Don't bug him about them. Getting the crooks behind bars? NOW you're talking.

It doesn't matter the genre. It doesn't matter the script really. It's John Wayne, and he's going to make the most of it. The cast across the board is pretty cool. Eddie Albert gets to glare and snare as Kosterman, McQ's commanding officer who's sick of his take no prisoners attitude, and has some great scenes, two pros going toe to toe. Diana Muldaur plays Boyle's wife, always close with McQ, while Colleen Dewhurst plays Myra, an informant, waitress and drug addict who McQ milks for dirt. Among the cops on the case, also look for Clu Gulager, David Huddleston, and Julian Christopher while Roger E. Mosley plays a pimp/snitch, quite the one-two punch. And last but not least, Al Lettieri does what he does best...in be a slimy 1970's villain, this one a drug supplier with a checkered history with McQ so you know that's going to end well. Some fun parts to back up the Duke throughout.

If you're a fan of Bullitt, the Dirty Harry movies, or assorted other 1960's/1970's cop movies, you'll like this one. Director John Sturges does a good job using his on-location shoots in Seattle to give the story that sense of authenticity, and composer Elmer Bernstein turns in a cool, funky, jazzy score...that's still very clearly an Elmer Bernstein score (and that's a good thing). There's a really cool car chase through and around Seattle's highways about halfway through (just like Bullitt), and the shootout finale on oceanfront beach is very well-done as three 1970's boats, um, I mean "cars," tear after each other. Oh, and John Wayne gets to unleash a heavy-duty automatic machine gun.

Is it a classic? No way, but it is a heck of a lot of fun with a story that never really slows down and has some fun with twists you think you'll see. More than enough to recommend, and John Wayne is having some fun from beginning to end. What would it have been like if Wayne took the Dirty Harry role? We'll never know, but it seemed to turn out generally okay for everyone involved. I guess. Right, Mr. Eastwood?

McQ (1974): ***/****  

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): **/****