Che!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Che! (1969): ***/**** 

The St. Valentine's Day Massacre

I grew up in Chicago so I love just about everything in the Windy City, all the sports teams, the downtown area, all that great food from Chicago style hot dogs to Chicago style pizza. But that Chicago history? My goodness, there are some dark moments from the Black Sox scandal to the Chicago Fire, the riots at the 1968 Democratic convention and generally all sorts of political corruption and deception. One of the most violent incidents in the city's history? That's told in a 1967 B-movie, The St. Valentine's Day Massacre.

It's early 1929 and the streets of Chicago are filled with warring gangsters from two rival gangs. On one side is Al Capone (Jason Robards), a brutal, possibly maniacal Italian gangster with Mafia ties, who rules Chicago's South Side with an iron fist. Running the city's North side is George 'Bugs' Moran (Ralph Meeker), his Irish gang trying to hold onto their territory.  Things across the city are building to an unavoidable confrontation as both sides fight for control of thousands of speakeasies, Prohibition still raging. Capone has grown tired of Moran's gang trying to build up their power and has put into work a plan to execute his rival gang leader. Can one gang win out over the other? Can anyone win with the city's streets riddled with bullets and blood?

Everyone's heard of producer/director extraordinaire Roger Corman? He's one of Hollywood's all-time greats at getting movies made on the cheap so basically the King of B-Movies. That's not a bad thing, and I say it as a compliment. This generally forgotten 1967 gangster flick is one of his best, telling the true story of one of Chicago's darkest moments. It was filmed on studio streets -- cheaper than Chicago's downtown area -- but it works, giving the city a closed in, wintery and claustrophobic effect. This is a flick that works almost like a quasi-documentary, like something you'd see on The History Channel...but darker, much darker. With narrator Paul Frees and his perfectly gravelly voice laying things out, introducing dates, people and times, it all fits together like puzzle pieces.

Where 'Massacre' separates itself from the quasi-documentary feel is that darkness, that gangster world we're thrust into. Low budget though it may be, the movie looks great with countless gangsters wearing impeccably cool suits with fedoras, rocking vicious tommy guns and 1920s boats of cars that look as cool as ever now in 2014 as they would have in 1929. As for the real life gangsters, this isn't The Godfather where you kinda sorta maybe sympathize with the Corleones, however vicious and murdery they are. There ain't a single sympathetic character anywhere in sight. These are nasty, brutal, violent folks interested in making money and killing some rival gangsters in the process. You're not rooting for anybody. You're not hoping these guys come out unscathed. You just wanna see how it all shakes out and who's gonna make it. Let me tell you...not many do.

One of the coolest aspects of 'Massacre' is its ridiculously deep cast. We're not talking a disaster flick type of cast full of aging A-list stars. We're talking a couple very solid movie stars/actors at the top and a cast backing them up absolutely packed to the guts with familiar, recognizable character actors. As for the leads, Robards is terrifyingly hammy as everyone's favorite Chicago gangster, Al Capone. He's got that look in his eye, you just never know what he's going to do next. Meeker is excellent too in a more understated but just as sinister part, Bugs Moran, an Irish gangster and Capone's main rival for power. Also look for a young George Segal in one of his best early roles, playing Peter Gusenberg, one of Moran's enforcers/lieutenants working closely with his brother, another enforcer, Frank (David Canary) while constantly fighting with live-in girlfriend (Jean Hale).

Okay, brace yourself because you're about to get hit with a whole lot of links to actor's IMDB pages. These are all the real-life people involved in the 1920s world of Chicago gang wars, an extremely interesting historical time if you're interested in the subject matter. On the Capone side keep an eye out for Clint Ritchie as the massacre's mastermind, Frank Silvera, Harold J. Stone, Paul Richards, Joe Turkel, Alex Rocco, Leo Gordon, John Agar, and Richard Bakalyan and Jack Nicholson (Yes, that Jack Nicholson) as two hired mafia killers. On the Moran side of things, watch for Bruce Dern, Kurt Kreuger, Tom Reese. Some appearances are quicker than others, but it's cool to see so many people in one movie, even if it is only for a scene or two.

Just an entertaining dark and dirty movie. If you're a fan of history whether it be Chicago or gangsters or anything in between, this gritty, cynical, particularly vicious flick is for you. I loved it.

The St. Valentine's Day Massacre (1967): *** 1/2 /****

Valdez is Coming!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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