Salvatore Giuliano

Hero, outlaw, bandit, revolutionary, Robin Hood, all names to describe a historic figure who fought against the government or authority in some fashion. Depending on their motivations, tactics, techniques and ultimate goals, one and all of those descriptions can apply. As for their film stories, how are they portrayed? Pancho Villa, Che Guevara, and Salvatore Giuliano, an Italian bandit from the 1940s. Let's go with an Italian film of the same name, 1962's Salvatore Giuliano.

It's 1950 in a Sicilian town in the hills and a dead body has been found in an alleyway. Authorities identify the body as Salvatore Giuliano (Pietro Cammarata), an infamous bandit who has terrorized the countryside since late in WWII. In the wake of the Allied victory in Sicily, a power void was created with many different groups trying to grab that power. One group, the MIS, approaches Salvatore with an offer. Can he continue to cause the government and police as much trouble and chaos as possible? The Italian bandit takes up the offer, his group of bandits and gunmen wreaking havoc. The power is there, but one government change after another, one election after another, his group's desires aren't met, putting Salvatore on the outlaw path again. How does he end up dead in the alleyway? What led him to the situation that eventually led to his death?

Ready for a twist? Are you sure? The titular character, the one who was the only character mentioned in that plot description....is a secondary, even minor character. By my count, he had maybe three lines, and those are simple orders to his men as they prepare for battle. He has little to no dialogue, has no real close-ups and is a key character in name only. It's what his name represents that's important. He's discussed in just about every scene, and we actually see him more as a corpse than a living human being. What's more surprising? How well it works. His name and the idea of his name becomes more than he ever could have hoped. The film from director Francesco Rosi obviously takes a favorable point of view upon Giuliano so his intentions, motivations and personal relationships become secondary to what his name actually means to the people. I would have never thought this would have worked, but it ends up working on just about all levels.

Filmed almost like a documentary -- a neo-realist documentary style according to the InterHighway -- 'Giuliano' can also be viewed and appreciated solely in terms of style. It is filmed in black and white, giving the story an eerie calmness throughout. Rosi films on location in Italy, the Italian countryside providing a criminally simplistic background that gives the story quite an air of authenticity. Also, Rosi and cinematographer Gianni Di Venanzo shoots in a variety of fashions. The neo-realist style comes into play here with an almost complete lack of editing. Rosi and Di Venanzo set the camera up and let things go, long, interrupted shots that are a marvel to watch. We see scenes come together -- action or drama or both -- and the camera simply follows the action, countless extras walking in and out of frame as needed. It's less editing than just about any movie you'll see out there now, but by doing so much less in terms of filmmaking, they actually do a lot more. Again, it's crazy how well it works on a very simple, aesthetic level.

Actually delving into some story, there's actually more style to be discussed. The opening scene is an eerie, unsettling scene, police and investigators milling around Salvatore's bullet-riddled, bloody corpse just lying in the dirt in an alley. For starters, once we learn it's Salvatore, we know in a sense how the movie will end. Salvatore Giuliano will die. The rest of the story is told in a non-linear flashback style, scenes bouncing back and forth between Giuliano's rise to power (of sorts) and the fallout following his death. It's tough to keep up with -- reading Italian subtitles aside -- because there aren't very obvious transitions. Sometimes, it took me quite awhile to realize the story had bounced back and forth. You get into a rhythm, but it is an atypical story that definitely forces you to pay attention scene in and scene out.

Now, everything can't be perfect so here we go. The movie runs 125 minutes, and for the first 60-plus minutes, things are pretty perfect. I loved the first half of the movie. LOVED it. Then the bouncing story bounces forward, following the fallout of Salvatore's death including a trial as some of his men/followers, including right hand man and deputy, Gaspare Pisciotta (Frank Wolff), who may or may not have betrayed Salvatore. Wolff is one of two true actors in the film (and hams it up), along with Salvo Randone as the judge presiding over the trial, the rest of the roles being given to locals and peasants in the area while filming. The court sessions go on for too long, dragging on with screaming matches about principles, guilt and ideologies. It's the opposite of what's good about the first half, and the resolution just isn't satisfying enough for all the build-up.

This movie is one that has lots going on, most of it very good, some of it difficult to get through. Without having much knowledge of the Sicilian fight for freedom in the 1940s, it is a tough movie and story to keep up with. Lots of groups, lots of individuals with their own motivations, it's hard to know who is on what side when Salvatore, the Mafia, the changing governments, the police, and the Carabinieri (the national military) are discussed from scene to scene. There are flaws here and there, but for me, the strength and power of the first hour wins out. If it's a little heavy-handed at times, so be it -- ooh, Salvatore's dead body looks like Jesus! -- but when it works, it's a great example of the power of film.

Salvatore Giuliano (1962): ***/****

Gangster Squad

I'm a simple guy when it comes to movie. Entertain me, and I'll be pleased. Not every movie needs to be some groundbreaking, never before seen story that rewrites how films are made. Take 2013's Gangster Squad. It has taken a ridiculous amount of heat because.....I have NO IDEA. It is familiar in a way, but it's stylish, entertaining and action-packed with a ridiculous, loaded cast. Screw all the Debbie Downers. I loved this movie.

It's 1949 in Los Angeles and former boxer turned gangster Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn) is taking over the city bit by bit. Gambling, prostitution, drugs, Cohen is buying up cops, judges and politicians left and right as fast as he can. One of seemingly few clean cops, Sgt. John O'Mara (Josh Brolin) is fed up with what he's seeing in a city he wants his family to grow up in. He's approached by the similarly clean police chief, Parker (Nick Nolte), with an offer; assemble a small crew of officers and take the war to Cohen. O'Mara's squad will work as their own separate unit, completely removed from the laws and rules that would typically limit officers. He puts his crew together, including roguish Jerry Wooters (Ryan Gosling), and goes to work, attacking casinos, bars and clubs all over the L.A. area. They immediately find success, but it's only a matter of time before Cohen figures out who's gunning for him. Can O'Mara's Gangster Squad take Cohen's illegal businesses out before he gets to them?

There is little to nothing I didn't like about this movie. Playing like a modern film noir, it's a gem of a flick. It plays like a mix of L.A. Confidential, The Untouchables and The Magnificent Seven. If you put those three movies together and can't get a winner, then you're doing something wrong. Director Ruben Fleischer (Zombieland, 30 Minutes or Less) is at the helm of a damn entertaining movie. It feels like a throwback film to the Hollywood glory days with a huge cast -- much, much more on that later -- to go with a well-written script, exciting, well-choreographed action and a story that never really slows down. More than anything, it is just F-U-N. That's all. There are good guys and bad guys, cops and gangsters, a femme fatale and not a damsel in distress. Is it so wrong for a movie to just be entertaining? I read a surprising amount of reviews that were highly critical of this movie. Maybe I missed something, but I loved it from beginning to end.

Watching the trailer for the first time last year, I have no doubt my eyes were as big as dinner plates. A movie about cops and gangsters in post-WWII L.A. already drew me in, but with this cast?!? It's a ridiculously deep, very talented cast. Because there is so much talent assembled, we're not talking in-depth character studies, but there isn't a weak part in the bunch. For starters, Josh Brolin as the hard-headed, stubborn O'Mara is a hero cop gem. A WWII veteran, he's sick of Cohen and his antics so given a chance to take him down a whole lot of notches, he jumps at the chance. He has a pregnant wife (Mireille Enos) weighing on his mind, but he wants to get the job done, on principle alone. Brolin is aided by Ryan Gosling as Wooters, the cop who sees what L.A. has become and just doesn't care too much, but he's given a reason to care while also getting the love interest, Grace (Emma Stone), Cohen's girl. Uh-oh, more issues!

The names already mentioned would be enough for most movies, but not this one. Penn gets to ham it up as real-life boxer turned gangster Mickey Cohen, sneering and intimidating his way into the part. This is an out-and-out villain, a bad guy you just love to hate and can't wait to see get taken down. Nolte makes the most of his smallish but effective part as Chief Parker, the chief of police who sends O'Mara on his dangerous, illegal mission. Also look for Sullivan Stapleton as Jack Whalen, a bookie and friend of Wooter's working in Cohen's organization (a supporting but excellent part), Holt McCallany as Lockwood, Cohen's bodyguard and enforcer, and Troy Garity as Wrevock, a hired killer working for Cohen.

Not surprisingly, a certain part of the cast caught my eye....O'Mara's Gangster Squad! Uh-oh, it's another men-on-a-mission movie! Assemble a crew of misfits and specialists and let them go to work. How can you lose? Brolin and Gosling are the stars, showing off that hero-sidekick chemistry that every group of specialists needs. But wait, there's more! Rounding out the crew/squad are Harris (Anthony Mackie), a specialist with gun or knife looking to clean up the streets of drugs, Keeler (Giovanni Ribisi), a WWII intelligence officer and expert in radio technology, Kennard (Robert Patrick), the veteran cop and part-Wild West lawman who favors a six-shooter, and Ramirez (Michael Pena), a young Mexican officer who's looked down upon by much of the rest of the force. It's a good group of some really solid actors, all comfortable and willing to take a supporting part to flesh out an impressive cast.

Originally supposed to be released in summer/fall 2012, 'Gangster' was pushed back for re-shoots following the Aurora shooting at a movie theater. What remains is still an action-packed movie that will appease most moviegoer's needs for some shoot 'em up action. The script never goes long without a gunfight or shoot out of some sort. A couple different sequences stand out, including a failed ambush in a busy street in Chinatown and the finale at Park Plaza Hotel especially leaving their mark. It's pistols and machine guns to aid the throwback feel with some pretty cool uses of slow-motion without going overboard. Bloody but not overly graphic, the action sequences are just another selling point.

It's hard to describe this movie without describing the style. The late 1940s (and heading into the 1950s) were an inherently cool time looking back on them. Cops and police officers wore a suit, tie and a hat. The cars were ridiculously cool, the streets even more so, and Fleischer and Co. took that to heart. Part of the appeal here is the look of the movie, like we were transported to 1949 Los Angeles. Just like a scene where O'Mara and crew walk away from the L.A. City Hall, there's a cool factor that's hard to touch or classify. It's stylish and cool....because it is. How about a montage of the Squad doing their work to big band music? It works. There is style on display in every scene whether it be the clothes and sets or the quick, speedily delivered dialogue. I liked everything about this movie and look forward to future and repeat viewings.

Gangster Squad (2013): ****/****  

Gray Lady Down

From World War II to the Cold War and everything in between, the submarine has become its own war movie genre. Up Periscope to Hunt for Red October and many others, it's quite the list. How about a sub-sub genre (pun intended)? The submarine in distress!!! A quasi-war movie, quasi-disaster flick, here we go with 1978's Gray Lady Down.

Awarded a promotion, Commander Paul Blanchard (Charlton Heston) is on his last patrol, bringing in the U.S.S. Neptune -- a nuclear submarine -- into port. In foggy conditions though in the Atlantic, the surfaced submarine is struck by a Norwegian freighter and sinks, falling over 1,400 feet below the surface. The Neptune manages to land on a ledge above the ocean floor, perched precariously and one slip-up away from sinking all the way to the bottom of the ocean. They manage to send out an S.O.S. though, and the U.S. Navy is quickly sending rescue ships and crews to the site, headed by specialist Captain Bennett (Stacy Keach). Time is running out though, and the surviving members of Neptune's crew have a limited amount of air. The mission is obviously extremely delicate, the Navy turning to an eccentric officer, Capt. Gates (David Carradine), with a specialized two-man sub to save the day. Can they do so in time?

My first thought when I stumbled across this movie was that it was based on a similar story, even sounding similar to a British war movie about a similar accident, Morning Departure. Nope, I was wrong. From director David Greene, 'Gray' is a disaster flick that doesn't play like a disaster flick. For me, that was a good thing. This isn't some natural calamity, no huge building on fire, no airplane trying to stay in the air. Instead, it feels like a war story that could be true. A horrific accident at sea? A group of survivors desperately holding out? An all-out effort by the Navy to rescue them? Yeah, I could totally buy that as being a true story. It plays well without pandering or being too obvious. There aren't a lot of stand-out examples of "Oh, drama! People are in danger!"

The danger is established and recognized throughout, but for me, it never felt really obvious. That's saying something considering the end-game here. The Neptune sinks several hundred feet below its crush depth, meaning that at any second the submarine could simply be ripped to pieces by the extreme pressure of the water. I can't think of too many worst ways to die than drowning near the bottom of the ocean. Making it worse, the Neptune was torn up nicely in the collision, forcing the survivors to band together in the parts of the sub that are still operational. Just inches and feet away though, the water pressure is beating away at the air-tight doors. Credit to composer Jerry Fielding for turning in a score that doesn't need to be in the forefront either. It is a solid, underplayed score that reveals itself in some key moments.

The one way 'Gray' does stick to its disaster flick roots is in the casting. It's not a huge A-list cast like Towering Inferno or Poseidon Adventure, but it's solid just the same. Mr. Disaster himself, Charlton Heston is a rock-solid lead. It's a quieter, less obvious part that Heston handles well, the sub commander trying to keep his men going while hiding his own worry, concern and guilt over the accident. Keach does a solid part in a more workmanlike role that simply doesn't give him much to do. It's Stacy Keach though, and that ain't a bad thing. As for Blanchard's crew, Ronny Cox is Cmdr. Samuelson, the Neptune's second-in-command who starts to question how things came about. Also look for Stephen McHattie as Murphy, the officer on watch who blames himself for the accident, a pre-Caddyshack Michael O'Keefe as the radioman, Hilly Hicks as Page, the medic, and more than a few other familiar faces. Rosemary Forsyth makes a quick cameo-like appearance as Blanchard's wife.  

The best part though goes to David Carradine as the eccentric Navy officer who doesn't have much use for authority in any form. His Capt. Gates has developed a two-man submersible with a hydraulic arm that can be used underwater. When the Neptune's escape hatch is blocked, Gates and his assistant, Mickey (Ned Beatty), are called in to remove the underwater debris. Gates isn't interested in protocol, orders and what should be done. He's more interested in getting the job done and rescuing the trapped men in the Neptune. It is a part and character we're supposed to like, but Carradine's roguish Navy officer handles it perfectly. Solid casting from top to bottom, Carradine rising to the top.

Sure, things get to be a little much by the end. How many different things can be thrown at this seemingly doomed submarine? It's one thing after another and all against a ticking clock getting close to its deadline. The tension gets ratcheted up throughout, especially when the Navy is finally able to use its Deep Submergence Rescue Vehile (DSRV) in conjunction with Gates' submersible. The final 45 minutes feature a couple pretty big surprises, including one shocker in the final scene that caught me by surprise. Critics and reviews ripped this one to pieces for any number of reasons, but I liked it. It's a solid, entertaining and pretty dramatic story that kept me interested throughout. Also, look for a pre-Superman Christopher Reeve making his screen debut.

Gray Lady Down (1978): ***/****

Parker

I like Jason Statham. I typically like him even if some of his movies are pretty bad. Even in the schlockiest of flicks, he's typically pretty cool, a badass action star who dispatches bad guys left and right. Can it be too much at times? It seems like we're seeing the same movie over and over again. I liked 2013's Parker, but it most definitely feels like 'been there, seen that.'

A professional thief with a unique code of thieving ethics, Parker (Statham) is a solid man to have on your team when trying to pull off a job. Through his well-connected father-in-law, Hurley (Nick Nolte), Parker accepts a job with four other thieves, men he hasn't worked with in the past. The job is successful as the crew takes down a packed cash room at the Ohio State Fair, but following the heist, the rest of the crew, including volatile Melander (Michael Chiklis), approaches Parker with an offer for a far more lucrative job. He doesn't like the sound of it and refuses, the team turning on him in the process, shooting him and leaving him for dead by the side of the road. Parker is seriously wounded, but he doesn't die, vowing to exact revenge on his betrayers. How to do it? Foul up the very job they had offered him.

From director Taylor Hackford and based off a Donald E. Weslake novel, 'Parker' is an enjoyable if unspectacular crime film. It isn't nearly as bad as some reviews make it out to be, nor is it as convoluted as some would lead you to believe. The story bounces around, never standing in one place too long and features solid amounts of action and shootouts, all capably done. I liked the cast, liked parts of the story, and what do I come away with? Meh, it was all right. For lack of a more descriptive wrap-up, 'Parker' is just sort of there. It doesn't jump off the screen and pull you in, doesn't have you at the edge of your seat as we wonder what's coming up next. 'Parker' is a well-made, capably done crime flick that still manages to be dull and more than a little lifeless.

It feels familiar which isn't always a bad thing, but this is a film that needed something more. Jason Statham fights and argues, mumbles and stares menacingly, beating the hell out of people as the story requires. As is so often the case, Statham is a more than suitable lead. As an action star, he has few rivals. His man of few words anti-hero is a seminal character in the action genre. Playing Parker, he does a solid job, his professional thief who has some Robin Hood-esque tactics. He lives by a code, taking what he's owed and nothing more, expecting his cohorts to work by the same code -- with varying results (crooks tend to be selfish and greedy, go figure). The only problem? We've seen this character in the Transporter series, the Crank series, Killer Elite, The Mechanic, The Expendables I and II, War, Safe and Blitz. Statham's good but a change of pace film couldn't hurt.

The rest of the cast is hit and miss. Jennifer Lopez is surprisingly pretty good as Leslie, a down on her luck Palm Beach real estate agent unknowingly brought into Parker's elaborate plan of revenge. She has a good chemistry with Statham and blends well with the story although the script does find a way to get her down to her bra and panties. Nolte is wasted, given little to do but growl his lines unfortunately. Chiklis is always an imposing presence but similarly given nothing to do with Wendell Pierce, Clifton Collins Jr. and Micah A. Hauptman as his fellow conniving crooks. Patti LuPone plays Ascencion, Leslie's nagging mother while Bobby Cannavale is a cop with eyes on Leslie, but nice eyes, not menacing "I'm a cop so you have to do what I say" eyes if that makes any sense. 

Beyond just saying the movie isn't good because it's too familiar, 'Parker' does have its flaws. The pacing can be frenetic at times, moving at breakneck speeds because it can, especially in the first hour. Plot advances without any real explanation or reality, just bouncing to bounce. As good as Lopez is, too much time is spent on her background and her money woes. In general, there's just too much going on with too many characters, twists and turns in a meandering story. The action is good, bloody and vicious, especially the finale as Parker's plan comes together and Statham's earlier scene with a hitman (Daniel Bernhardt) in a Palm Beach hotel room. Something is missing from the word 'go' though. Something doesn't translate. It is a decent enough time waster, but nothing more unfortunately.

Parker (2013): ** 1/2 /****

The Comancheros

Following Texas' war for independence with Mexico in 1836, the expansive republic was on its own for government, economy and protection without help from outsiders. Who came to the forefront to help protect the fledgling republic? The Texas Rangers, and no, not the Major League Baseball team, instead a small group of law officers who patrolled Texas trying to protect its citizens. Recurring characters in the western genre, one of the best portrayals of the Rangers is 1961's The Comancheros.

It's 1843 when a Louisiana gambler, Paul Regret (Stuart Whitman), finds himself on the run following an accidental death in a duel. Regret heads for Texas but as he readies to disembark from the riverboat, he is instead arrested for murder by a Texas Ranger, Captain Jake Cutter (John Wayne). The duel was fair by all accounts, but the dead man was the son of a powerful judge who wants vengeance. Intending to bring Regret back to Louisiana, Cutter instead finds himself working with the man. All through the territory, Comanche raiding parties are attacking one ranch and homestead after another. Cutter has long thought the Comanches are being led by a gang of white men who pull the strings, but he has no proof. Posing as a gunrunner and with Regret as his somewhat unwilling partner, Cutter heads into Comanche territory and finds just what he thought he would, a gang of drifters, bandits and killers -- Comancheros -- working with the Comanches. Can they get out alive?

The 1960s were a big time for John Wayne. He wasn't just a box office star, but by now after 30-plus years in the business, he was a screen legend. This was the decade where -- for better or worse -- he started playing himself more than meaty roles like The Searchers, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. His mindset changed some as he started to make movies that typically had one objective....please the audience. These were movies meant to entertain, movies the whole family could go see. They would revolve around action-packed stories, good casts of familiar faces, great locations and whistle-worthy scores, movies like this one, The Undefeated, Sons of Katie Elder, McLintock!, Donovan's Reef and Hatari. This is a prime example of that type of movie. It's fun, exciting and with a whole lot of action. A groundbreaking, innovative western? Nope, but as far as popcorn movies go, it's hard to beat.

This obviously isn't a comedy western, but it isn't as dark and downbeat as the plot description might imply. For me, the best thing going for 'Comancheros' has always been the pairing of Wayne and Whitman, an Odd Couple pairing that works extremely well. It almost plays like a buddy western movie, the resolute Ranger and the roguish gambler. Wayne especially gets to show off a comedic side that most of his movies just didn't allow. His backwoods Ranger mispronounces Monsieur as Mon-sewer, providing some good laughs throughout. Whitman too looks right at home alongside the Duke, the duo exchanging some great dialogue scenes together on the trail. It looks easy watching them. Regret is far from a veteran trailsman, but he picks it up quick. Cutter bristles at times with his prisoner's unique ways, but thrust into a do-or-die situation, they end up becoming unlikely friends. Two good lead performances for sure.

While the A-list names might not be there, 'Comancheros' offers a very solid cast, one all western fans should appreciate. Lee Marvin makes what amounts to a cameo as Tully Crow, a brutal, vicious Comanchero, stealing the show and providing some great moments with Wayne in their scenes together. The one weak point is Ina Balin as Pilar, a beautiful young woman who falls for Regret and vice versa. Her scenes are pretty painful, especially as she "analyzes" love. Nehemiah Persoff is similarly a scene-stealer as Graile, the handicapped, brutal leader of the Comancheros with Michael Ansara as his sadistic henchman, Amelung, and also look for Jack Elam as one of the Comancheros. As for the other Rangers, look for Bruce Cabot as Major Henry and Patrick Wayne as Tobe, a young ranger along on the mission into Comanchero territory. Also look for the beautiful Joan O'Brien as Melinda, a widow who cares deeply for Cutter (and maybe more...uh-oh!) with Wayne's daughter Aissa playing Melinda's daughter.  

Looking at the credits, Michael Curtiz is listed as the director, but Curtiz became sick during filming and was unable to complete the movie, dying soon after its release. Wayne stepped in and directed in uncredited fashion, finishing the movie. The story itself is pretty episodic, the first 45 minutes spent with the hunt and escape and hunt and escape between Regret and Cutter. It covers a lot of ground before the Comancheros are even introduced, but it's never dull and never really slows down. There actually isn't a ton of action, but what's there is enjoyable. What is noteworthy is a talented cast clearly having some fun with a story that's hard not to go along with. Also worth mentioning, Elmer Bernstein's memorable score, especially the theme. Listen to it HERE. Get your popcorn ready, sit back and enjoy this one.

The Comancheros (1961): ***/****

The Beast of Hollow Mountain

Growing up, one of my favorite movies was a combination of two of my favorite genres, a western and a science fiction, 1969's Valley of Gwangi. It tells the story of a prehistoric dinosaur that somehow survived to modern times and is now being hunted by a small group of rodeo cowboys. I loved the movie then and still do now in all its guilty pleasure charm. I had no idea that it was actually a loose remake of a 1950s MGM production, 1956's The Beast of Hollow Mountain, but I wasn't going to pass up a chance to see it.

It's around the early 1900s in Mexico with an American cowboy, Jim Ryan (Guy Madison), and Mexican cowboy Felipe (Carlos Rivas) working as partners on a small but successful cattle ranch. The partners are in trouble though as all their workers abandon their jobs, claiming that the ranch is cursed and a beast waits in the mountains to kill them all. Both Jim and Felipe think otherwise but can't prove it. A local rancher seeking more land, Enrique (Eduardo Noriega), would like nothing more than to drive the duo off their land, and he's got the plan in place to do just that. Running low on money and with no one willing to help them, Jim and Felipe have signed a contract to deliver some of their cattle to a needy buyer. That may be the least of their problems as the mythical creature in the mountains isn't a myth and is ready to strike.

I thought the Turner Classic Movies description had screwed me again upon first viewing here. The beast is only even hinted at once through the first hour, finally making his entrance at the 60-minute mark. Come on, creature features! The build-up can be a tad slow here, a pretty typical western story revolving around ranchers competing for who can be the most successful. A subplot among Madison's Jim, Noriega's jealous Enrique and Patricia Medina's Sarita is pretty slow with Sarita engaged to the fiery Enrique. Uh-oh, here comes that dreamy American cowboy! It's a tad on the slow to dull side, waiting too long in an 81-minute movie to introduce the titular character, in this case an allosaurus, a lone dinosaur (that we see at least) that managed to live on all these years.

Okay, so it's 1956 and computer generated images are years away. How then should a moderately budgeted film show a dinosaur? In stepped special effects legend Willis O'Brien to handle the shooting of a dinosaur, done here with a stop motion technique known as replacement animation. Sure, at times it looks pretty bad, but for the time it was made? It looks pretty impressive. The last 20 minutes of the movie plays like one bad chase, countless characters running from the beast that's finally revealed itself. Watch a big chunk of those scenes HERE. What it lacks in special effects polish that we might take for granted in this CGI-World, it makes up for in excitement and energy. It can be a slow-moving trial to get to this point, but the payoff with the dinosaur and one extended chase helps make it worthwhile.

Fans of the western genre will no doubt get a kick out of this one. 'Beast' was made by MGM Studios and was filmed in Cinerama, a filming technique that truly took advantage of a giant screen, filling the screen with shots of impressive scale and scope. Making that decision better is the choice to film on location in Mexico with some familiar locations popping up. If you've seen The Magnificent Seven, Vera Cruz, Bandido, The Wrath of God and many others I'm probably forgetting, you'll enjoy watching this movie. The story may lag at times, but on visual terms alone, it's worthwhile from beginning to end. The main location was in Tepoztlan, almost the entire movie shot outdoors away from indoor sets. Never a bad thing if you ask me.

Beyond Madison, almost the entire cast is Mexican actors who typically starred in Mexican films. Playing the archetypal western hero, Madison is solid as usual as Jimmy Ryan, an American cowboy trying to carve a life for himself far south into Mexico. If nothing else, he looks to be having a lot of fun, including Rivas in a decent supporting part as his partner, Felipe. Medina is eye candy and given little to do, Noriega a weak back-boned bad guy to go up against Madison, and Julio Villareal as Don Pedro, the local mayor trying to keep his territory in peace and in check. Another nod to The Magnificent Seven, but look for Mario Navarro as Panchito, a young Mexican boy trying to keep his tequila-loving father, Pancho (Pascual Garcia Pena) in check. Navarro played one of the three village boys who tries to look after Charles Bronson's Bernardo O'Reilly.

A mixed bag overall, worthwhile in the end if you can make it through a sluggish, too familiar first hour. Kinda difficult to find so jump if you really want to see it and get the chance.

The Beast of Hollow Mountain (1956): ** 1/2 /****

The Burglars

Well, give me credit. I'm timely every so often....now whether I intended to be timely, that's a different story. A few days ago I reviewed an underrated film noir from 1957, The Burglar, only to find out I had also recorded another version of the same novel by author David Goodis. Well, it's alike in basic -- very basic -- storyline alone, going down a different route in 1971's The Burglars. It's plural this time!

Working with a small crew of thieves, a master crook named Azad (Jean-Paul Belmondo) pulls off an impossible job, robbing a wealthy Greek businessman (Jose Luis de Vilallonga) of a million dollar's worth of rare emeralds. The plan goes off without a hitch, or so Azad and the crew think. A suspicious police officer, Abel Zacharia (Omar Sharif), is onto them and knows what they're trying. His only issue becomes proving their guilt, finding them while they're carrying the emeralds. Azad is ready to make his getaway out of a Greek port, but the ship is undergoing maintenance and can't leave for five more days. Now, he must improvise, getting the persistent -- and dirty -- cop off his trail. Can the crew stay quiet and hidden away until they're ready to escape?

Okay, get the basic plot from Goodis' novel and then go with it. That's all this 1971 version really has to do with its source novel or its 1957 predecessor. Now that said, it isn't a bad thing. Director Henri Verneuil has a good film somewhere in his 120-minute movie, but it's finding that movie that proves difficult. Reading a plot description, I thought I was getting a hard boiled heist flick, and in doses, that's what it is. Without much of a transition, one scene will be brutally dark, the next oddly off the wall. Then, we get some weird aside at an "erotic club" followed by one of the craziest, best car chases I've ever seen in a film. While I liked 'Burglars,' I also thought it was far too schizophrenic to be a movie that received a straight-up positive review. When it works though, it really works. It's getting to that point.

The positives are pretty obvious, starting with Belmondo and Sharif as the two leads, the cat-and-mouse rivals. I've yet to be impressed with Belmondo -- I still don't get the appeal of Breathless -- in the films I've seen, but this performance is a gem. He sounds dubbed but apparently that's him (go figure). Most surprisingly though, he proves himself as an action star, handling his own stunts for the most part including a couple ridiculous stunts. He literally rides the side of a handful of buses on busy streets and later takes a rolling fall down the side of a hill with an almost sheer face. His character itself is pretty cool, a confident, slightly showy thief who thinks he has no rivals, always believing he can outsmart Sharif's cop if it comes down to it. That smartass smile/smirk plays well though, and I really liked what he did with the character.

 Doing a 180 from most of his hero performances, Sharif looks to be having a ball as the sinister, truly brutal cop, Abel Zacharia, looking to line his own pockets in "catching" Azad. At first glance, he appears to be a pretty normal cop but with each passing scene we learn the true depths of how far he'll go for a payday. Dyan Cannon plays Lena, a nude model and quasi-Playmate of sorts who catches Azad's eye and may be letting on more than she knows. Robert Hossein, Nicole Calfan and Renato Salvatori round out Azad's crew, none really given much to do with the spotlight on Belmondo and Sharif. 

Coupled with the tough guy leads, 'Burglars' manages to stand free of the crowd because of the action. A 13-minute car chase about 30 minutes into the movie is ridiculous to the point of being overindulgent. We're talking two cars that should have blown up miles and crashes ago still running and doing so smoothly. It gives us some solid new additions to the car chase sequence too, never a bad thing. Watch it HERE. When there is action, it's handled expertly, including another slightly lower key chase with Belmondo jumping from moving bus to moving bus (again, doing all his own stunts seemingly). Watch a really solid stunt montage HERE. There is a simple professionalism to these scenes that just works well. Not flashy, just efficiently effective. Oh, and composer Ennio Morricone turns in a quiet, understated gem of a soundtrack. Didn't see that coming, did you?

So anyhoo.....the movie does have some flaws. The opening heist sequence is so interested in the gory, boring and downright dull details of how they're pulling the job that any tension gets thrown out the window. What should be a great opening, building momentum is actually a hindrance to a story that ends up being pretty good. A later departure to Cannon's "erotic club" goes on far too long, and in general, too much time is spent with Cannon for a disappointing payoff late in the movie. It is a movie that could have been tightened up at several different points along the way. It's also trying to be funny, action-packed, slightly romantic, full of drama, and it just doesn't always work. In the end, it could have been a near classic, but as is, it's a very watchable heist movie with some pretty severe flaws. Give the movie a watch HERE at Youtube.

The Burglars (1971): ** 1/2 /****

The Switch

For lack of a better, more well thought out description, sometimes all a movie needs to succeed, to pull audiences in is to have a gimmick. When it comes to comedies, the gimmick has to tread that fine line. A bunch of friends on a bachelor party weekend rediscovering what they did in Vegas via flashback? Good gimmick. A drunken man destroys his female friend's semen sample she was going to use to artificially inseminate herself and instead replaces it with his own? Oh goodness, what a horrifically contrived gimmick. Yep, 2010's The Switch.

Wally (Jason Bateman) and Kassie (Jennifer Aniston) have been friends for years following a couple dates that didn't go so well. Kassie is at a point in her life where she wants to have a kid, but she's had no luck finding the right guy and chooses to go to a sperm donor and be artificially inseminated. There's an issue. She does so at a 'Getting Pregnant' party, and a very drunk -- possibly high -- Wally accidentally destroys the semen sample. In a drunken stupor, he replaces the lost sample with his own, not even remembering what he did by the next morning. Some six years go by, Kassie moves from NYC and has a son, leaving Wally behind. She moves back to the city, giving Wally quite the shock. The boy is like him in every way right down to his neurotic, hypochondriac ways. It all starts to come together. Should he tell Kassie? How do you even tell someone that? Uh-oh, we've got a problem.

I almost didn't make it through this comedy. I try and give every movie I see a fair shot, but this one pushed the limits early on. The biggest reason? Well, it could be the horrifically awful gimmick that puts the story into motion, but it isn't. It's Bateman as Wally, an obsessively neurotic, shrill, rude and inconsiderate guy who is so easy to root against that it made me question why I was watching the movie. It's clear he has feelings for Aniston's Kassie, but that almost-relationship never worked out. In the meantime, he intervenes in her life -- more than just a friend -- while also sabotaging his own relationships. It's explained later that his Dad left the family when he was younger so I guess that makes it all okay. Still, for the first 40 minutes or so the character is so downright unlikable that it almost derails the movie.

While the second half of the movie is actually pretty decent, it is the first half that does its best to drive us away. Directors Josh Gordon and Will Speck rely on a screenplay that builds itself around such a badly contrived gimmick that it's just rough to watch. Bateman's Wally keeps trying to convince Kassie not to go through with the sperm donor but can't pull it off. At her 'Getting Pregnant' party, he gets drunk and also takes some herbal pill that clearly messes with his consciousness. Destroying the sample, he actually masturbates and replaces the missing donation with his own donation. Oh, but he's drunk so he can't remember it!?! It feels like a cop-out that he simply can't remember what he did. I'm all for gross-out jokes and comedy, but this just seemed like a little much on the gross-out meter. It also seems all sorts of wrong ethically, but that could just be me up on my high horse.

Go figure then, but when Kassie returns to NYC, 'Switch' actually manages to find an enjoyable, likable and entertaining tone and story. That switch-up comes when Wally meets Sebastian (Thomas Robinson), a 6-year old version of himself....but really cute. He's a unique little kid from his hypochondria to his general intelligence. Named Sebastian, he's got quite the nerdy name and after bonding early on with Wally, turns to his "Uncle" for advice. I liked the Sebastian character a lot. He's curious about his real dad. He likes to collect photo frames but keeps the inserted pictures, not replacing them with his own. The chemistry between Bateman and Robinson is pretty perfect, helping make up for the rather obnoxious early portions of the movie.

The rest of the cast is familiar but not bad. Aniston is okay as Kassie, but she's not given enough to do other than look kind of worried and be nervous. Patrick Wilson plays Roland, the actual donor who thinks Sebastian is his son. It's a tough part because we're supposed to think Roland is a doof, but other than some weird little traits, he seems like a good guy. Juliette Lewis is wasted as Debbie, Kassie's appropriately kooky character, a must-have character in a quasi-rom-com. I did like Jeff Goldblum as Leonard, Wally's co-worker who usually gives him a good dose of brutal honesty as the problems arise. Not surprisingly, things get uncomfortable late as Wally decides to tell Kassie the truth. The ending seems a little forced to make things a happy ending. I for one, imagine Kassie being eternally pissed at Wally, but I'm not writing screenplays.

So while I really intensely disliked parts of the movie, the parts that do work are excellent. It's a moderately positive review, but don't be looking for a comedy classic.

The Switch (2010): ** 1/2 /****   

Shoot the Piano Player

Taking a film class in my college years, I was introduced to the French New Wave with an example here and there. I wasn't especially impressed, but I could at least appreciate what the new type of film accomplished. They broke with tradition in terms of storytelling, camera techniques and even just what the actual film could get away with showing audiences. Often enough, I think these films become too self consciously obnoxious, begging audiences to appreciate how original and unique they are. Well, I found one I liked, 1960's Shoot the Piano Player.

Working at a small but successful bar in Paris, Charlie Kohler (Charles Aznavour) lives a quiet life playing the piano for bar patrons on a nightly basis. Trying to forget about an incident from his past, he's content to live his life, play the piano and care for his younger brother, Fido (Richard Kanayan). One night, his brother, Chico (Albert Remy), comes running into the bar, begging him for help because he's got two double-crossed mobsters on his tail. Charlie helps him escape, but the mobsters come looking for him in hopes of getting some answers as to his brother's whereabouts. He does his best to avoid them, hiding out with the help of a longtime crush and co-worker at the bar, Lena (Marie Dubois). Charlie thinks he's managed to shake them, but far from it. The mobsters go after Fido instead to get to Charlie that will hopefully lead to Chico too.

This is a film that defies a simple plot explanation. From director Francois Truffaut, 'Shoot' plays like a tribute on steroids to American crime and film noir stories. It is based off a novel by noir author David Goodis with some pretty major tweaks. Truffaut set out to do something different that audiences hadn't seen, and he succeeds. The opening 10 minutes meander to say the least, following Chico on the run in the Paris night as he talks for minutes (literally) with a complete stranger about marriage. Charlie isn't even the focus of the story until 20 minutes in. A long flashback is dropped into the story explaining Charlie's past and then goes right back to the present time. It's never difficult to follow, but it does force viewers to keep you on your toes, especially with some fast-moving subtitles. I can only imagine what 1960 audiences thought when they watched this one.

Some unique storytelling techniques are one thing, but where Truffaut and the New Wave directors set themselves apart from the norm was in terms of style. His camerawork is aggressive and right there with the action. He follows the action close-up, walking with characters, putting a camera in the front seat of the car. There is a touch of that independent, roguish filmmaking with the camera. Some edits and cuts are rough, other scene wipes coming out of nowhere. More than that, it's how Truffaut pushed the limits. A prostitute (Michele Mercier) climbs into bed with Charlie topless and sits there for several seconds. First off, American movies were still shy about actual sex on-screen (even the implication), much less show nudity. Later, one of the mobsters (Claude Mansard) admits he once wore women's panties, capping off an odd conversation with his partner (Daniel Boulanger) about sex and how all women want "It." Can you imagine any of that in an American film from 1960? Even a little? Um....no.

With so many new techniques in storytelling and camerawork going on, the characters get a tad lost in the shuffle at times. The best though is Aznavour -- a French singer, songwriter and actor -- as Charlie, a quiet, shy diminutive piano player. It's a "hero" unlike any I've seen in a film noir, a hero of sorts that constantly questions what he should, his voiceover narration providing some really funny moments (like THIS one). In a weird way, we feel sympathetic for him, not because he's a particularly sympathetic character, but because there's this almost pathetic aura hanging over him. Whatever it is, Aznavour does a fine job. Mansard and Boulanger similarly play against type as the pursuing henchmen. They're not just killing machines; they have a sense of humor, they argue. It's just one more thing that tries to be different -- and succeeds in most ways -- from the norm in a familiar genre.

More than just the stylistic differences is Truffaut's ability to juggle so many different tones in his ever-moving story. It is a romance, especially Charlie's explained past with a former love (Nicole Berger) but also his current relationships with Lena and Clarisse. It is a film noir, Charlie forced to go on the run to protect himself and Lena. Most surprisingly, it can be really funny. Mansard's hit man says "May my mother drop dead if I'm not telling the truth" followed by a cutaway of an older woman keeling over and dying. It's incredibly dark, but it works. All these different ingredients just shouldn't work so well, but they do. The pieces fit together like a puzzle for the better.

So while things may meander around a bit, introducing characters and backgrounds, Truffaut throwing different things are way.....well, because he can. Too often the French New Wave films were condescending in their unique qualities, but 'Shoot' manages to keep it unique and original without being too cute. I liked it a lot, and that's more than I can say for so many other films from the genre.

Shoot the Piano Player (1960): ***/****