Helen of Troy (1956)

There are stories, and then there are STORIES. Written by Homer, The Iliad is one of the latter, an epic in every sense of the word about honor, love, war, betrayal, loyalty, and a lot of other great stuff that wouldn't seem out of place in a daytime soap opera. In the early 2000s, a rash of feature films and TV movies came out telling the story, most notably 2004's epic Troy.  It is a story that lends itself well to the epic format that Hollywood used as its bread and butter in the 1950s and early 1960s, including 1956's Helen of Troy.

If you're known as the person in history with "the face that launched a thousand ships," you're clearly not going to be forgotten anytime soon.  With all the different versions and takes on the Iliad, it was cool to see this epic from Helen's perspective as opposed to the more major players. Yes, she was the cause of the decade-long confrontation between the Trojans and the Spartans, but once the war did start, she's almost an afterthought as the major players step to the front. It is cool to see the story from her perspective, but there's only one problem. Director Robert Wise forgot to make her or her lover Paris interesting in even the slightest way.

With war brewing on the horizon, Trojan prince Paris (Jacques Sernas) travels to Sparta to see if he can negotiate a treaty for peace after all other efforts have failed. On the trip there he is washed overboard in rough seas only to float to shore where he is saved by Helen (Rossana Podesta), Queen of Troy, who is instantly drawn to the prince, but knows nothing can come of it and instead poses as a slave girl. Paris heads to the city to meet Menelaus (Niall MacGinnis), King of Sparta, and is more than a little surprised to see Helen there too at his side. Sparta is far from willing to negotiate any deal with Troy so Paris prepares to leave, but as he goes he takes Helen with him. Menelaus and his brother Agamemnon (Robert Douglas) prepare for war, bringing their army together from all corners of their empire, ready to bring back Helen and destroy Troy in the process.

The characters here are some of the best you will ever come across in literature, and here in the movie version. These are larger than life individuals, battling on a huge stage with thousands of lives hanging in the balance over a love triangle (this is one of the few exceptions where the love triangle plot device actually works). How then does a movie make these people boring, uninteresting and un-engaging? No idea, but this movie accomplishes that not so pleasant feat. Even at just over two hours, this is an epic shooting for the heights of Ben-Hur or Fall of the Roman Empire. It is all about the spectacle and what the eye can behold more than plot or character development. That's somewhat fair with this story because most people are somewhat familiar with the Iliad. But effort -- even a small one -- would have been appreciated.

Using 2004's Troy as a jumping off point, I mentioned that seeing Helen and Paris' perspective was interesting...at first. My biggest issue is that both characters are nearly impossible to like.  They love each other so much that they're willing to basically allow two warring countries to wipe each other out. Oh no, we're so drawn to each other we can't be apart. Bah, they're two of the whiniest characters ever. Troy wisely pushes them aside once the story is presented. Not helping the cause is that Podesta as Helen and Sernas as Paris are two of the most lackluster, wooden performers I've ever seen.  They have passionate embraces (oh, scandalous) and exchange some knowing glances, but I couldn't have cared less about either of them.

Piling on to the casting department, let's rip the rest of the cast. Granted this is not your prototypical epic that goes for three hours with an all-star cast and sets the world on fire. It tries to be though. I can't think of a cast from an epic that left as little of an impression on me as this 1956 epic did.  The cast is backed into a corner right away with a dud of a script so it's not entirely their fault, but just about every one on-screen is just angrily reciting lines. Stanley Baker is a relative bright spot, hamming it up as a near-lunatic Achilles, Harry Andrews is miscast as Hector, the good prince and son of Troy, and Cedric Hardwicke plays Priam, King of Troy, among a long listing of actors and actresses who I've seen in little else. These are great characters who end up being cardboard cutouts of something better. If nothing else, look for a 22-year old Brigitte Bardot in a supporting role as Helen's attendant/slave, Andraste.

Helen of Troy is not a complete waste, mostly because of the scale and the spectacle. Wise films his movie in Italy so the locations are gorgeous, and the sets and costuming were clearly spared no expense. The scale of the movie is impressive. The Spartans' first attack on Troy and its high city walls is something to behold. Literally thousands of extras were used to fill out the ranks of either army. That is the one part of the movie that truly feels like an epic. It is too bad then that the story and character and any sort of plot tension is completely missing.

Helen of Troy <---trailer (1956): **/****   

Viva Maria!

Other than the name recognition, I know little about French actress and all-around beauty Brigitte Bardot.  I've seen her in only one movie -- 1968 Euro-western Shalako -- and nothing else. All I do know about her? Not to sound sexist, but it's her looks.  She wasn't in a ton of movies to begin with before retiring from the movie business in 1973, and more than that, she wasn't in many American-made movies.  Hurting her cause is that Netflix doesn't think I'll enjoy some of her more existential works in French films.  But there's got to be something to her, and I'll take what I can get so that's why I looked into 1965's Viva Maria! 

I went in to this movie with one minor misconception.  Call it miscommunication, or just my head making a transition where there wasn't a transition.  I read that it was a Euro-western with touches of a spaghetti western, but neither really applies.  It is one of the more off-the-wall movies I've watched in recent memory with a surreal edge to the story, and a general feeling of the absurd, the crazy.  Viva Maria is neither good nor bad. It's just weird.  Plus, Bardot and co-star Jeanne Moreau performing a handful of stripteases is never a bad thing.

It's 1908 in the tiny Central American country of San Miguel, and Maria 1 (Bardot) is fending for herself after her father, an Irish revolutionist, is killed trying to sabotage a bridge. On the run, she latches on with a traveling stage show touring the country, joining another Maria 2 (Moreau) in an act that has them singing and dancing for the audience.  The act is a bust until Maria 1's clothes start ripping on-stage, and a hit is born.  Audiences come out to see them in droves.  But on one stop, the Marias and the stage show/circus end up mixed up in a revolution.  Both women end up at the front of the charge, leading the population of San Miguel in a desperate effort to overthrow the dictator and the ruling families.

If you can think of a movie that does a bigger 180 than this one, you're better than me.  Take out the obvious bonus of Bardot and Moreau performing stripteases through the first hour, and we're talking one of the most incredibly dull movies I've ever seen.  Long, uncut shots of the stage show caravan are thankfully interrupted by the duo on-stage.  Then when you think the story is going one way, BAM, they get involved and end up leading a revolution?  Yeah, I can't say I saw that one coming.  In a weird way, it does work just because it is all so bizarre.  At other times, I just shook my head that I was sticking with this movie.

The very beautiful Bardot and Moreau are the main reasons to see this oddity of a flick.  No question about it, Bardot is easy on the eyes, but as an actress (here at least), she's stiff and not always very convincing.  Maybe her character is supposed to be a tad awkward, but it's a little much at times.  Still, no matter what I thought of her acting the image of Bardot with her strawberry blonde hair and gorgeous eyes blasting away at waves of soldiers with a machine gun is worth watching.  It just is. No explanation needed, and I won't be providing one.  Of the few movies I've seen of Moreau, she's always been a sort of plain Jane, her looks dulled down.  Boy, was I wrong.  She's beautiful, and shows off some comedic and her always on-point dramatic ability.  Watch their first striptease HERE if curious.

Throwing so many elements into one movie, Viva Maria certainly has the potential to be good.  Claudio Brook is a scene-stealer as Rodolfo, ringleader of the stage show circus obsessed with building a curved rifle that can fire around corners.  Seeing his circus in a large scale battle is hilarious too with a strongman, acrobats, and a magician all helping the cause. The action scenes in the movie's second half are something else too, highlighted by a running battle with Bardot gunning for a hidden artillery battery and the finale, the attempted overthrow of the dictator in a scene reminiscent of the end of 1954's Vera Cruz.  Composer Georges Delerue's score is a highlight too, memorable without being over-powerful, especially the main theme.

For the positive, there's also the negatives.  I'll start with George Hamilton as Flores, a revolutionary caught up in the fighting who falls for Moreau's Maria.  Did he get blackmailed into this bizarre part? It's the tone of the second half of the movie that feels so odd, like an existential, surreal dream on LSD.  Sight gags galore around every corner, and a sense of humor that falls flat.  A group of monks/priests prepare for torture straight out of the Spanish Inquisition, and I'm wondering again, "What the hell am I watching?!?" I just don't know what to make of this movie. When it's not weird, it's slow and even boring at times. When it's full of action, it's everywhere.  A mess of a movie, one I'll give a slightly positive recommendation.

Viva Maria! <---trailer (1965): ** 1/2 /****

Shalako

By 1968, James Bond himself, Sean Connery, was riding high off the success of the first five 007 movies he made, most recently with You Only Live Twice.  When he wasn't playing Bond, Connery did his damnedest to avoid being typecast, generally succeeding with a wide-ranging list of roles that continued into the 1970s and 1980s.  But in all those movies, he only did one western, and it's a good one, 1968's Shalako.

Based on a Louis L'Amour novel, this Euro-western has a lot going for it with a lot of different elements thrown together in the final product.  Start with the uniquely international cast that includes American, English, French, Scottish, German and Spanish actors and actresses, all of them with speaking roles.  While the story ends up being somewhat familiar late in the movie, the build-up to that point is different from about 99.9% of other westerns.  At times it can be a little too much with so many different elements working together and sometimes against each other, but the positives outweigh the negatives...for me at least.

Frontiersman and former U.S. cavalry officer Shalako Carlin (Connery) stumbles across an Apache ambush, saving a beautiful French woman, Countess Irina Lazaar (Brigitte Bardot), from certain death. Irina is part of a European hunting party headed by Baron Von Halstatt (Peter Van Eyck), Sir Charles Daggett (Jack Hawkins), and U.S. senator Henry Clark (Alexander Knox) who are touring the American west, killing any animals they see, their wives along for the adventure. Knowing what awaits them, Shalako tries to convince them to leave the territory as the Apaches don't take kindly to anyone riding onto their land.  The party ignores him, but when their guide, Bosky Fulton (Stephen Boyd) and his men double-cross them, they have no one to turn to other than Shalako.

Above all else, I'd say watch this movie for the cast, starting with Connery and on down the line through all the supporting parts, some much bigger than others.  If anything, there may be too many names involved because characters aren't given the attention they deserve at times.  Connery's Shalako -- an all around badass like most L'Amour heroes -- doesn't even dominate the screen, and the movie's named after him!  Those I could get into the plot review are just some of the names, there's also Honor Blackman as Hawkins' wife, Woody Strode as an Apache chief (not as bad as a Mongol bandit I guess), Valerie French as the senator's wife, and Julian Mateos and Don Barry as two gunmen along for the ride.

Seeing Connery in a western setting might seem odd -- Scottish actor dudes up in bucksins and six-shooter -- but it works.  He is typical of most L'Amour heroes in his ability to handle himself in even the hairiest situation, loyal and honest, and does the right thing over the thing that makes the most sense.  In the end, you know he'll win and get the girl.  Oops, did I just give away the ending?  My bad.  Director Edward Dmytryk had a bit of a predicament with leading lady Bardot, the definition of a 1960s sex kitten. Basically do you make her look like a woman on the frontier or like, well, Brigitte Bardot.  He goes with option B.  Hair always look perfect as does the makeup.  I'll disagree with a lot of reviews, I thought Connery and Bardot had good chemistry, and her sexy French accent goes a long way.  It just does, no other explanation needed.

Keeping it all together is the movie's biggest problem as Dmytryk juggles all these characters and subplots.  The story is at its strongest when sticking with Shalako and the motley crew of survivors he's leading.  Boyd is always a solid villain but his character could basically be erased from the storyline and it wouldn't skip a beat.  Van Eyck and Hawkins do what they can with stiff upper lip aristocratic characters.  If nothing else, there is more eye candy than usual in a typical western.  Along with Bardot -- who is given a topless scene with strategically placed hands -- there's Blackman and French, neither of whom are too bad to look at.

I wish there was more I could say about this Euro-western, but I'm drawing a blank.  The cast is solid if under utilized, the action is exciting, and the Spanish desert fills in nicely for the American southwest.  Be forewarned, there's a truly awful theme song -- give it a listen HERE -- that plays over the credits on either end of the movie.  I'll apologize in advance for the song being stuck in your head for the next few days.  It is a western that does nothing spectacularly, but instead does everything in a solid, workmanlike manner.

Shalako <---TCM clip (1968): ***/****