Von Ryan's Express

Introduced as a kid to 1963's The Great Escape, I fell hook, line and sinker for the entire prisoner of war genre. Some like 'Escape' and Bridge on the River Kwai are instantly recognizable among movie fans while many others have taken some digging on my part to track them down. How about one of the best? One of my all-time favorites? Oh, yes, one I always enjoy revisiting, 1965's Von Ryan's Express.

As the Germans try to hold off advancing Allied forces in Italy in August 1943, an American Army Air Corp pilot, Colonel Joseph Ryan (Frank Sinatra) is shot down and sent to a prisoner of war camp where he becomes the ranking officer. There he clashes quickly with his second-in-command, a fiery, stubborn British officer, Major Eric Fincham (Trevor Howard). When the camp's Italian guards abandon the camp, Ryan makes a difficult decision, one that ends up backfiring as almost 400 prisoners are rounded up and boarded on a German train heading north. Heading the wrong way away from the advancing Allied forces, it seems hope has run out for Ryan, Fincham and their fellow prisoners. When all seems lost though, Colonel Ryan has one more trick up his sleeve, a daring plan that has the prisoners attempting to take over the train. The closely packed train is headed to Germany, but not if Ryan has his say. Instead? They look to Switzerland, but can their plan hold together?

If there is one major difference between 'Von Ryan's' and other prisoner of war movies, it is this. While all entertaining, movies like The Great Escape, River Kwai, Stalag 17 and others are high drama, often delivering a message. That's not to say Von Ryan's Express isn't high drama, director Mark Robson doing a fine job in this WWII actioner. It's more than that. It's more than just describing it as a prisoner of war movie. I've long thought this is one of the most perfect popcorn flicks ever made, the most entertaining, the most adrenaline-pumping action/dramas I can think of. It clocks in at 116 minutes but with each viewing, it goes by quicker and quicker. There isn't a weak moment. There are no slow portions, no parts where the momentum lets up. It's the rare movie that can accomplish that. From beginning to surprising finale, I love it all, one of my all-time favorites, one film I can watch over and over again.

What's the best thing going here for this 1965 war movie? There's a ton to mention! Just a few weeks ago in my review for 100 Rifles I mentioned how much I loved composer Jerry Goldsmith's score. Well, as good as that score was, I think his score here is one of his bests (and that's saying something considering the breadth of his career). Listen to the main theme HERE. This is the perfect score to back up the action, the heart-pumping moments, the quieter, more inward scenes and everything in between. An underrated score that deserves more of a reputation. Right up there with the musical score as an additional character is the choice to film on location in Italy. The filming locations give an air of authenticity that Hollywood backlots just wouldn't have accomplished. From the hills and streams to the ancient ruins to the weathered towns and train stations, wouldn't you know it? The film actually looks like it takes place in Italy. Go figure, right?!?  These are things that if mishandled wouldn't be a deal-breaker, but when handled correctly.....well, they can lift the movie up a notch or two or 10.     

You know who's cool? Totally caught me off guard, but it's that guy -- maybe you've heard of him -- named Frank Sinatra. By the mid 1960s, Sinatra played variations on tough guy parts that allowed him to more or less, be himself. In other movies, it might seem too familiar, but there's an energy here as Sinatra brings this intriguing character to life. Dubbed 'Von Ryan' by his fellow prisoners for helping the Germans, he's forced to make difficult decisions left and right, often putting lives at risk with each passing decision. There's an easy-going confidence to Sinatra's Ryan, a 90-day wonder as he calls it, a capable leader making some impossible decisions. The best supporting part not surprisingly comes from Trevor Howard as the stubborn, action-driven Fincham. Their Odd Couple-like relationship works, the quiet, cool American and the fiery Brit officer providing some good energy, some good sparks throughout. Their chemistry is evident any time and every time they're on screen together. Two excellent leads.

Lost in the shuffle can be a damn good supporting cast beyond Sinatra and Howard. In the eye candy department, Raffaella Carra plays Gabriella, a beautiful Italian girl who becomes a part of the escape. As for the villains, there's Adolfo Celi as a Fascist Italian officer and commandant of the camp and the very German Wolfgang Preiss as a very German officer in command of the prison train. My favorite supporting parts are Ryan's fellow prisoners, a cool group, an almost oddball crew that includes Bostick (Brad Dexter), one of the few American prisoners, Capt. Oriana (Sergio Fantoni), a well-meaning Italian officer thrust in with the P.O.W.s, Orde (John Leyton, also in Great Escape), Fincham's right-hand man, Father Costanzo (Edward Mulhare), the naive at times but very brave priest, and Stein (Michael Goodliffe), the camp medic. Also look for James Brolin, Michael St. Clair, Richard Bakalyan and James Sikking as other prisoners with smaller parts.  

Based off a novel by David Westheimer, 'Von Ryan' certainly has plenty to offer, including a handful of memorable set pieces. The opening 40 minutes are spent in the camp, the next 15 or so on the road and the last hour is when the prisoners are boarded on the prison train. I loved Ryan's scene with an inquisitive Gestapo agent (supposedly William Berger, I'm not positive) asking about Ryan's American watch. I loved Mulhare's masquerade as a German officer hoping to dupe an inspection. There are all these great moments that embrace this ludicrous possibility of this happening and run with it. We go along because it's so damn fun. This is a thrill a minute flick that's meant to entertain scene in and scene out. Nowhere is that more evident than....

The finale. As strong as the movie is, 'Von Ryan' is at its absolute best over the last 25 minutes, the prison train making a desperate run to the Alps and Switzerland, a German troop train (commanded by John Van Dreelen) hot on their trail. Throw in a trio of Messerschmitt fighters, a bombed out bridge (Spain standing in for Italy), and a stunning backdrop on a mountainside railway trestle....well, you've got a winner. It is in the ending that the film deviates most from Westheimer's novel, but it is a doozy of a finale. In terms of pure excitement, of really getting your blood pumping, I can think of few movies that can the ending here. A race against time, Germans edging ever closer, it has it all. Just a great movie, one I can rewatch over and over and always pick up something new.

Highly recommended. One of my all-time favorites.

Von Ryan's Express (1965): ****/****
Rewrite of October 2009 review

Our Man Flint

By 1966, the James Bond series was up and running, international hit one after another with Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger and Thunderball already hits with audiences. Where there's success, comes knockoffs though, and the spoofs weren't far behind. One of the first to follow in Bond's footsteps was 1966's Our Man Flint.

All around the world, horrific weather catastrophes are wreaking havoc. What's the cause? Three scientists working for international criminal organization Galaxy have created a weather machine that can cause thunderstorms, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions. Galaxy demands that all the world's nations capitulate to them, but a N.A.T.O.-like organization, Z.O.W.I.E. (Zonal Organization for World Intelligence and Espionage) has one last solution; get super-spy Derek Flint (James Coburn) out of retirement and let him try to take out Galaxy and its weather weapon. Flint is a hard sell, but he takes the job eventually. There is little in the way of clues and no idea where Galaxy's base is. Flint pursues the one piece of evidence he does have, but Galaxy and its henchmen are waiting for him.

As a huge fan of the 007 series, I'll give any spoof a shot. I'd seen In Like Flint (the sequel to this 1966 original) and liked it if I didn't love it, the same for Dean Martin in the Matt Helm series. From director Daniel Mann, 'Our' is a solid if unspectacular entry into the spy spoof genre. It pokes fun at James Bond, even mentioning a rival and fellow agent of 007, his code name Triple-O 8. At one point, Flint even brings up Spectre, Bond's main rival, and calls 007's Walther PPK, booby-trapped briefcase 'crude.' It knows where it's coming from and has some fun with it while still paying tribute, not like the goofier but still funny Austin Powers series.

The biggest thing going for both movies is the casting of James Coburn as Flint. Already a star thanks to his parts in The Magnificent Seven, The Great Escape and Charade (among others), Coburn wouldn't seem like an obvious choice to play Flint, but he makes it is own. Up until this point, he was more of a stoic anti-hero and man of few words. It's a showier part here but never an obvious one. Coburn's Flint is an epically successful ladies man, knowledgeable about anything and everything, and a specialist in karate and hand-to-hand combat, disliking the brutality of guns. His lankiness, that charming smile, that ever-calm demeanor, it all adds up to make a great character. At one point, he pursues a lead because he knows the ingredients to bouillabaisse, visiting every restaurant in Paris until he can find it, just knowing how it would taste. There's some pressure playing the American James Bond, but Coburn kills the part.

What's lacking though beyond Coburn is any more memorable characters behind him. Lee J. Cobb is a scene-stealer as Cramden, the Z.O.W.I.E. commander and Flint's former commanding officer, always trying to keep tabs on his agent but usually just going along for the ride. Gila Golan is the gorgeous Flint girl, playing Gila (original name, huh?), a Galaxy member tasked with bringing in Flint, preferably alive and before he can complete his mission. The main villain is Malcolm Rodney, played by Edward Mulhare, but he lacks any real charisma, any punch in terms of an intimidating Bond villain. He never really poses a threat to Flint, too bad because his henchman, Gruber (Michael St. Clair) is dispatched far too quickly. The three quasi-evil doctors are played by Benson Fong, Rhys Williams and Peter Brocco. As for Flint's harem of beautiful, scantily clad women, look for Shelby Grant, Sigrid Valdis, Gianna Serra and Helen Funai, around as eye candy without more than 10 words said among the four.

The rebellious, roguish super spy, the sexy women around every corner, the impregnable island fortress, the power-hungry villain, the impossible situation that screams suicide. This spoof has all the touches of a good Bond film, but just in the laugh department it is missing that special something that could bring it up a notch or two. It only runs 107 minutes, but it drags, especially in the second half. One episodic set piece to another, they don't always add up to a really good final product. Through it all, Coburn's laconic, smart-assed Flint makes it worthwhile, but it's not a classic. Just an enjoyable movie that's good for a couple laughs.

Our Man Flint (1966): ** 1/2 /****

Signpost to Murder

Because it has been awhile and I can't think of a better lead for today's review, we're going with the character actor intro. And today's special guest is Stuart Whitman, come on down! An actor with a prolific filmography, Whitman appeared in over 200 television shows and feature films starting in the late 1950s and right on through into 2000. He started off like many other actors from the time in television, including a starring role in Cimarron Strip. Whitman was never a huge star, but he was one of those faces you recognize in a movie and are glad to see him.

He's probably most well known for his part alongside John Wayne in 1961's The Comancheros, more than holding his own against the Duke at the height of Wayne's popularity. Whitman was a good tough guy lead, able to take that lead role but just as easily taking a supporting role. Most fans will recognize him from action and adventure movies, including ones like Rio Conchos where he works well with a strong ensemble cast.  There were the exceptions, the films where he was given a prominent starring role, like 1964's Signpost to Murder, a well-made mystery thriller based off a Monte Doyle play. It's a pretty decent movie, one I enjoyed as I tried to figure out the twist only to see the movie fall apart in the end. They can't all be winners.

Having served a five-year sentence after being found guilty by insanity of murdering his wife, Alex Forrester (Whitman) is denied a parole from the British mental institution he's been living in. His psychiatrist, Dr. Fleming (Edward Mulhare), vouches for Alex, claiming he's turned a new leaf and has come back to some normal sense of sanity. Desperate and frustrated, Alex escapes and plans to hide out for 14 days, citing an archaic Victorian law that allows an escaped prisoner a new trial if he remains free for two weeks. He hides out in a nearby town, basically kidnapping a pretty middle-aged woman, Molly Thomas (Joanne Woodward), and keeping her in her house while the heat dies down. Molly's husband is due home anytime, but Alex has nowhere to go. The search is closing in, giving him few options as to what to do, and where does Molly stand with her knowledge of his escape?

Like so many plays turned into a feature film, it's pretty easy to spot.  Besides an early introduction at the mental institution, the whole story -- the run-time is only 74 minutes -- is set in the Thomas house, a large, expansive country home that ends up being a character right alongside Whitman and Woodward.  Director George Englund takes advantage of this very cool set, filming it in wide angles so you can see the whole house seemingly while still giving it a claustrophobic feel as Whitman's Forrester hides out as best he can. Englund also shoots in black and white, giving even more of a creepy, atmospheric feel to the developing story. Playing over the mystery is a great score from composer Lyn Murray. His score is soft and soothing at times, almost lulling you to sleep and then building slowly to surprises and revelations. As for as plays turned movies go, this is a good example of the transition being a smooth one.

Another positive -- before I proceed to rip the movie apart -- is the casting.  In Whitman, Woodward and Mulhare, 'Signpost' has three really solid actors who were never huge stars but were nonetheless very strong, reliable actors.  Much of the movie takes place in just one night as Alex and Molly go from kidnapper and victim to two struggling souls bonding through their weirdness.  Somehow and some way, that chemistry works.  Whitman pulls off the mystery well because we're left twisting in the wind for much of the movie whether he is actually insane.  Woodward plays well off of him, and for the first time in a movie I've seen her, I thought she was just drop dead sexy. I don't intend that as a weird sexist comment because it's a key part of the character, and she is highly convincing.  Mulhare is equally good as Dr. Fleming, the psychiatrist looking out as best he can for his patient who he genuinely wants to get better and rejoin society as a normal, rational individual.

And then there's the ending. This is the type of movie where you just know there will be a huge, surprising twist.  If you're like me, you end up trying to figure it out yourself before the movie tells you what it is.  My natural assumption was that it would be relevant to Whitman's Alex and his possible sanity or insanity and his guilt in murdering his wife, slitting her throat and letting her bleed out in the bathtub.  The twist is relevant to that, but not in the way you'd think.  I'm all for a good, well thought out twist where everything comes together nicely in a way you did not normally expect. If a movie pulls the wool over my eyes and I'm blindsided, but the twist still works, well, kudos to you for making a hell of a twist. But about halfway through the movie, the twist leans in a different direction, making Woodward's Molly a possibly involved player in all the mystery, murder and mayhem.

Then, Englund's movie pulls the rugs out from under you.  Even at just 74 minutes, the pacing is somewhat leisurely with dialogue dominating the screen-time.  With about five minutes to go, the story throws everything at the fan with twists coming left and right.  If you've spent this much time developing the twist and the story, why not take a little more time and let it breathe, let it figure itself out?  Instead the finale as is ends up being incredibly rushed.  It's so interested in revealing the twist that countless other things don't end up getting explained at all.  Talk about open-ended, we don't even know if Alex is guilty of murdering his wife!  Some explanation -- however weak -- would have been appreciated, but it never comes.  It basically ruins an otherwise solid thriller, leaving quite a bad taste in your mouth. It is probably still worthwhile to watch for the performances from the three leads and a cool setting, but beware of the disappointing ending.

Signpost to Murder <---TCM trailer (1964): **/****

Eye of the Devil

How long does it take for a movie to grab your attention? You always read reports that a movie has about five minutes to bring you in because you've already made your decision whether it is going to be good or bad.  I'm impatient in any number of things, but with movies, I have a tad bit more patience. I've seen some awful flicks saved (partially at least) by great twist or surprise endings. At the other end of the spectrum, 1966's Eye of the Devil grabbed me instantly. I had to know what the odd opening sequence meant.

I'll get into the specifics more later about the pre-credit sequence that opens the movie. As someone who typically steers clear of horror movies, I couldn't pass this one up stumbling across it on TCM's schedule recently.  The cast is mostly what caught my eye because the story description certainly didn't sound too interesting.  This isn't a horror movie of 2011 with shock value and gore, instead building up suspense and tension with its gothic feel. What to make of it? I have no idea. It was weird, but I think...think...I liked it.

A well to-do businessman in Paris, Phillipe de Montfaucon (David Niven) must return home when news of his estate's vineyards dying reaches him. A few days later, his wife, Catherine (Deborah Kerr), joins him at the estate -- called Bellenac -- with their two children. Catherine begins to see strange, unexplainable things one night but can't find anyone to answer her questions. She even sees members of something that looks like a cult gathering in the expansive estate home, but just can't figure it out. Her mother-in-law, Countess Estelle (Flora Robson), seems to know what's going on but won't tell her a thing. She begins to worry for her safety, her children's, and also of her husband. Could he possibly be involved with these strange happenings? More importantly, if he is involved, can Catherine save him?

For starters, let's start at the start...words are fun.  Before a credits sequence or a title cards, we get a lightning quick montage, edited within an inch of its life that immediately sets the tone for the rest of the movie. Now as I look for it, I of course cannot find a clip of this sequence.  It is an odd assortment of quick images -- a dove pierced with an arrow, a woman's eye, a man's head, a train speeding down the tracks, among many others -- that is edited together so quickly it can be hard to make anything out of it. The sequence feels like something A Clockwork Orange would have used 5 years later. Regardless of the background though, it pulls you into the movie. You want to, you need to know what those disparate images mean and how they're related.

Cheap thrills are one thing, and genuine fear and uneasiness are another. Gory, shocking, 'Gotcha!' moments are part of the reason I dislike horror movies so much. There is a subtlety to older horror movies that more recent ones are just missing. Some complaints are that director J. Lee Thompson does go to the old horror cliche book a few too many times, but for the most part the scares are genuine. The off-center camera angles telegraph everything that's going to happen, and the dark, spooky shadows always reveal something hidden away.  But still, the scares are there. 'Devil' is filmed in black and white, and it definitely has a gothic feel, especially in this immense, extravagant, lavish French manor that looks like it's out of the 1700s.  Throw in composer Gary McFarland's eerie, Church choir-like score, and you've got all the makings.

I'll admit it. I'm a sucker for big names when I see a cast listing. Why else would I watch a basically unknown British horror movie from the 1960s?  David Niven and Deborah Kerr in the starring roles sounded perfect for me so surprisingly enough, I thought they were the weakest parts of the cast.  Niven sleepwalks through his role, disappearing for long stretches of the movie. Kerr basically looks nervous the whole movie, screaming occasionally.  The rest of the cast makes up for it. Master of understated creepiness Donald Pleasence plays a creepy priest, Pere Dominic, Robson is the tortured woman who knows the whole truth, and Edward Mulhare is a longtime friend of Kerr's Catherine. The best thing going for 'Devil' is David Hemmings and Sharon Tate as Christian (an albino archer?) and Odile, brother and sister who always know more than they let on.

You know that feeling on Christmas Eve when you see your presents wrapped up nicely under the tree? Now, I loved my presents -- always have -- but the anticipation and mystery is part of the appeal.  More and more, I find that's the case with movies that hold out on you until the finale with a huge, major revelation. The build-up here is all the fun because the reveal disappoints.  Think mix between The Wicker Man and The Omen, but that's all I'll say. The ending never quite explains everything either, hinting at and beating around the bush, but never laying everything out.  I definitely was creeped out by this movie, but the ending left me disappointed unfortunately.

Eye of the Devil <---TCM trailer (1966): ** 1/2 /****