Browsed by
Month: May 2024

Beach Red (1967)

Beach Red (1967)

“Some of us put up a better front than others, but underneath, all of us were god-awful scared.”

Synopsis:
During an invasion of a Japanese-held island during World War II, a Marine captain (Cornel Wilde) oversees his group of men — including death-hungry Gunnery Sergeant Honeywell (Rip Torn) and a pair of friendly young soldiers (Burr DeBenning and Patrick Wolfe) — while they and their Japanese counterparts reflect on their lives back home.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cornel Wilde Films
  • Rip Torn Films
  • Soldiers
  • World War Ii Films

Review:
Director/producer/writer/star Cornel Wilde followed up The Naked Prey (1966) with this differently unique adventure film, an adaptation of a 1945 novella by Peter Bowman set during World War II. The artistic opening credits –depicting paintings and a voice-over song by Wilde’s real-life wife, Jean Wallace — shift directly into action on a boat (here’s cigar-chomping Rip Torn):

… as scared Marines are preparing to land on and invade an unnamed Japanese-held Pacific island. Well over the first half-hour of the film shows us the non-stop living nightmare of invasion, comparable to that shown in Saving Private Ryan (1998) (note also that we see the first cinematic depiction of live filming during battle here):

… complete with limbs being shot off:

… and no easy decisions, ever.

Meanwhile, we are made privy to thoughts and memories of various characters throughout the film — not just Wilde but random men, both American and Japanese, with no subtitles provided for the latter (though we can easily see what’s on their hearts and minds, thus very effectively humanizing them in the midst of sheer bloody hell).


We’re shown a refreshingly unvarnished vision of the impact of war on men, including vomiting, the runs, fear, humor, paralysis, insecurity, anger, disgust, and shame. Comic “relief” of a sort comes primarily from DeBenning, who happily eats can after can of nasty rationed food:

… and reminisces about various drunken sexual escapades he enjoyed before the war.

We also see Jaime Sanchez’s Colombo thinking about various ways to win a medal and/or get sent home safely.

While critical opinions on this film seem mixed, I’m impressed by Wilde’s creative moxie; as he said in a 1970 interview with “Films and Filming”:

I think that a cut from one scene to another should have an impact, should carry you from a certain degree of involvement and excitement to something else without letting you down . . . I really think that a good deal of happenstance editing still goes on, and part of my style is that I like to feel there is a reason and impact to every frame of film. Nothing should be wasted.

This is exactly what we see playing out. While Beach Red isn’t a movie I would necessarily choose to revisit, it’s well worth one-time viewing.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • The artistic opening credits
  • The terrifying early invasion sequence
  • Creative direction, editing, and inclusion of memory-flashbacks
  • Refreshing humanization of the Japanese

Must See?
Yes, as a uniquely told wartime flick.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Mouchette (1967)

Mouchette (1967)

“I love the dead; I understand them.”

Synopsis:
A teenager (Nadine Nortier) in rural France endures a life of abuse, ridicule, and death all around her.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Coming of Age
  • French Films
  • Living Nightmare
  • Robert Bresson Films

Review:
Robert Bresson’s eight feature-length film — following (among other titles) the GFTFF-listed Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne (1945), Diary of a Country Priest (1951), Pickpocket (1959), and Au Hasard, Balthazar (1966) — was this adaptation of Georges Bernanos’ 1937 novel of the same name. As indicated in my synopsis above, with just one notable, brief exception during a bumper car ride at a fair:

… there is nothing but pure misery on display here, made worse — for me, anyway — through Bresson’s intentionally stylized method of having his non-actors simply move through their scenes like automatons. Nortier (who never made another movie) does still manage to tug at our heartstrings, making it all the more distressing to watch her suffering nearly endless indignities and abuses, such as having her head shoved into a piano at school when she doesn’t get a chorus note just right:

… being teased and taunted by her classmates:

… caretaking for her infant brother while tending to her mortally ill mother:

… and being coerced into lying on behalf of (then being assaulted by) an alcoholic, epileptic poacher.

While this remains among Bresson’s most acclaimed films, and is beloved by many — including Ingmar Bergman and Andrei Tarkovsky — I’m not among this crowd of admirers.

Note: Other Bresson films listed in GFTFF include Une Femme Douce (1969), Lancelot of the Lake (1974), and L’Argent (1983).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Stark cinematography

Must See?
No. Listed as a film with Historical Importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

China is Near (1967)

China is Near (1967)

“The things you believe in — which I also believe in — will never become true.”

Synopsis:
In an upper class Italian family, middle-aged Countess Elena (Elda Tattoli) has an affair with a lower-class man named Carlo (Paolo Graziosi), while Vittorio (Glauco Mauri) — in love with his young secretary Giovanna (Daniela Surina) — seeks a shift from teaching to a political career despite having no such skills, and young Camillo (Pierluigi Aprà) takes a hard-line approach to Socialist politics and sex.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Black Comedy
  • Class Relations
  • Cross-Class Romance
  • Italian Films
  • Marco Bellocchio Films
  • Political Corruption
  • Siblings

Review:
After wowing the cinematic world with his debut film Fists in the Pocket (1965), Italian director Marco Bellocchio followed up with this political satire also focusing on grown siblings, but with much more intentional digs at structures, class, religion, and corruption.

Because I wasn’t particularly taken with this film, I browsed around on IMDb to see what others thoughts, and saw this informative review by someone with a different opinion.

This playfully weird, dark satire of, well, everything from over-serious young Marxists, to the Church, to class climbing, to family, to marriage, to abortion to political ambition, to wimpy socialists who don’t really believe in anything except ‘success’ entertained me in a way Bellocchio’s much better known and more highly praised Fist In His Pocket never quite did.

As with that earlier film, this is a very dark comedy, where everyone’s morals, beliefs and ethics are paper thin and no one is worthy of much admiration. The young Bellocchio had quite a bleak view of human nature, and the shallow, manipulative way we use each other, our sexuality and our emotions. But here, like a Paddy Chayefsky film on acid, we laugh at the darkness at the same time we shudder.

I appreciated this assessment of what one might get out of it (and why) — though I honestly found it challenging to remain focused on the (intentionally chaotic) storyline; and given that we really don’t like or admire anyone, there is very little to hold onto.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Tonino Delli Colli’s cinematography

Must See?
No, though of course Bellocchio fans will definitely want to check it out.

Links:

Born Losers, The (1967)

Born Losers, The (1967)

“If we allowed citizens to take the law into their own hands, our streets would become jungles — armed jungles.”

Synopsis:
A Green Beret veteran (Tom Laughlin) joins forces with a young rider (Elizabeth James) in fighting against a vicious motorcycle gang.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Gangs
  • Jane Russell Films
  • Motorcyclists
  • Tom Laughlin Films
  • Veterans
  • Vigilantes

Review:
Shot over a period of three weeks, this mostly self-financed film was Tom Laughlin’s cinematic debut for the character of Billy Jack, who he would resurrect in four more films: Billy Jack (1971), The Trial of Billy Jack (1974), Billy Jack Goes to Washington (1977) and The Return of Billy Jack (1986) (not listed in GFTFF). The screenplay — “based on a real incident in 1964 when members of the Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang were arrested for raping five girls in Monterey, California” — was written by co-star Elizabeth James, and made specifically to capitalize on the motorcycle gang movie trend.

However, the film also very much wants to be a western of sorts, as evidenced by a variety of iconic settings (open landscapes, bars, town centers); villains versus Laughlin’s good-guy (a “sheriff”); Laughlin’s cowboy hat and laconic nature (until he’s pushed to action); and motorcycles serving in place of horses. (I got specific vibes of Peckinpah’s Ride the High Country [1962] due to James’s pixie haircut a la Mariette Hartley.)

But the most direct cinematic reference is the strategic poster of rebellious James Dean, which provides the backdrop for later exploitative confrontation scenes.

James is super cute and sexy in her white bikini, glasses, boots, and head scarf — though the female rider in me (when I rode, I wore a full-on armored suit) was screaming at her internally for not wearing more protective gear of all kinds on the open road…

There’s not much else to say about this film other than to be fully prepared for vile characters committing gross acts of violence and intimidation, repeatedly.

However, with Billy Jack on the horizon, rest assured justice of some kind will be served. Watch for Jane Russell in a cameo role as the mother of an impacted girl; apparently she got upset enough at Laughlin that she channeled this into her scene of anger at authority figures, and it shows.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Fine location shooting across California

Must See?
No, though you’ll likely enjoy it if this is your cup of tea.

Links:

Stranger, The (1967)

Stranger, The (1967)

“I’m not quite sure what to say; it doesn’t seem to matter very much to me.”

Synopsis:
Shortly after attending the funeral of his mother, a French clerk (Marcello Mastroianni) in 1930s Algeria befriends a shady neighbor (Georges Géret) and becomes inextricably involved in a life-altering crime.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Courtroom Drama
  • Italian Films
  • Luchino Visconti Films
  • Marcello Mastroianni Films
  • Morality Police

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary asserts that Luchino Visconti’s “adaptation of Albert Camus’s existential novel” is “reasonably well made but philosophically shallow.” He argues (and I agree, though not all do) that “Mastroianni is well cast as an alienated man whose great guilt — over his indifference as well as the murder he committed — cannot be decreased because to him God doesn’t exist and the hypocritical men who judge him cannot forgive an atheist anything.”

Peary writes that while Meursault (Mastroianni) “does have feelings and kindness,” “his contempt for the world and his meaningless existence serves to anesthetize his emotions almost entirely” — to the point where taking lethal action on the beach could be seen as “almost a positive act!” given that “he has finally moved out of passivity” (no, but I understand Peary’s point).

Peary adds (somewhat randomly) that “scenes with [a] scabrous old man and his scabrous dog are memorable.”

I don’t necessarily agree with Peary that this adaptation is “philosophically shallow.” While the film can’t — and doesn’t really — get into the novel’s meaty themes of the irrationality of the universe, the meaningless of human life, and the importance of the physical world, we are nonetheless presented with a sufficiently complicated and complex scenario: should a man be judged based on some of his perceived character flaws, such as not showing overt emotions at his mother’s funeral (how dare he smoke a cigarette!):

… going out with his girlfriend (Anna Karina) — who he admits he doesn’t love — the next day:

… befriending and staying loyal to a pimp:

… and not believing in God; and/or could (should) these very actions and attitudes easily be interpreted differently? And even more importantly, should they even matter? For what it’s worth, as pointed out by Meursault’s defense lawyer (Bernard Blier, who co-starred with Mastroianni in 1963’s The Organizer):

… Meursault was actually showing responsibility for his mother by sending her to a facility where she could socialize and receive sufficient care. Regarding his affect and actions at the funeral, people react very differently to grief; it’s incredibly dangerous to judge people based on how they look during a time of stress. Meanwhile, we see Meursault being friendly with the (socially unacceptable) “scabrous man” — and his friendship with the criminal could be seen as simply refusing to judge others for their lifestyle (by which I do NOT mean to condone or justify this man’s hideous treatment of a woman). While we do feel sad for Karina that Meursault won’t tell her he loves her, he is at least relentlessly honest with her — as he is about his lack of faith. This film remains worthy one-time viewing as an interesting adaptation of a morally challenging novel — though I would be curious to see an updated version in which colonial/racial tensions and injustices are given fair due.

Note: The Stranger has an unusual release history which bears noting. According to J. Hoberman’s 2017 review in The New York Times: “It has long been without an American distributor and, owing to complicated rights issues, was never released here on DVD… The movie was eagerly anticipated but suspiciously received when it opened in New York in December 1967.”

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Marcello Mastroianni as Meursault
  • Anna Karina as Marie
  • Giuseppe Rotunno’s cinematography
  • Excellent use of naturalistic outdoor settings

  • Mario Garbuglia’s production design

Must See?
Yes, once, as an effective adaptation.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Who’s That Knocking At My Door (1967)

Who’s That Knocking At My Door (1967)

“You know: there are girls, and then there are broads!”

Synopsis:
When an Italian-American named J.R. (Harvey Keitel) learns that his new girlfriend (Zina Bethune) was violently assaulted by a former boyfriend, he is unsure how to respond.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Feminism and Women’s Issues
  • Harvey Keitel Films
  • Martin Scorsese Films

Review:
Martin Scorsese’s debut film has a bit of a complicated origin story, which bears mentioning right away. According to IMDb trivia:

Originally, the movie was conceived as a short film about J.R. and his friends, titled “Bring on the Dancing Girls”, and filmed in 1965. In 1967, the romance plot with the Girl was filmed, and added to the earlier short film with the title “I Call First”. This version was the one premiered at the Chicago Film Festival, in November 1967. In 1968, exploitation distributor Joseph Brenner offered to buy and distribute the movie, with the condition to add a sex scene, which was shot by Martin Scorsese in Amsterdam. The film, with that new scene, was premiered in September 1968, with the title “Who’s That Knocking at My Door”, and is the version of the movie as we know it today.

Despite its cobbled together nature, every scene of the film was storyboarded, thus showcasing Scorsese’s nascent cinematic voice: he uses techniques such as double-exposure, extreme close-ups, unusual angles, flashbacks, slow motion, an eclectic soundtrack, and freeze frames.


Indeed, Scorsese’s clear love (obsession) for film shows through in some portions of the semi-awkward screenplay, including when Keitel and Bethune “meet cute” over a French magazine and he grills her on whether she’s seen The Searchers or not.

Other instances are less direct, but will still be obvious to cinema fans — such as the rooftop scene when the couple discusses pigeons (hearkening, of course, to On the Waterfront, which similarly features a tentative romance between an Italian-American New Yorker and a lithe blonde).

Scorsese’s trademark machismo and violence are in full evidence — such as during a scene when J.R.’s friend forces him out of the car (then lets him back him), and a slo-mo sequence involving a gun being waved around at a party.

Although she’s not given much dimensionality, we like Bethune’s character enough that it’s distressing to see how she’s treated after sharing her dark story; but to Scorsese’s credit, he doesn’t shy away from depicting exactly how such a scenario may have gone down in such a deeply (toxically) Catholic culture. While this film isn’t pleasant — and its amateur status is clear — it will probably be of interest to Scorsese fans.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Harvey Keitel as J.R.
  • Zita Bethune as the Girl
  • Effective cinéma vérité cinematography, location shooting, and editing

Must See?
No, though of course diehard Scorsese fans will for sure want to check it out. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Reflections on Must-See Films From 1966

Reflections on Must-See Films From 1966

Hello, film lovers! I’ve just finished watching all titles from 1966 listed in Guide for the Film Fanatic — culminating with one of the most massive, Tarkovsky’s 3+-hour historical epic Andrei Rublev — and I’m ready to reflect!

  • Out of 68 movies from 1966, I’m voting 30 (or 44%) must-see. Of these, 7 are in a language other than English: one German, one Swedish, one Russian, and four French, including a Bresson film, a Rossellini title, Senegalese director Ousmane Sembene’s debut, and Gillo Pontecorvo’s gripping The Battle of Algiers.

  • A personal favorite from 1966 is John Frankenheimer’s Seconds — often referred to as the third of Frankenheimer’s “paranoia trilogy”, following The Manchurian Candidate (1964) and Seven Days in May (1964). It “remains a fascinating — if undeniably emotionally challenging — viewing experience” about a middle-aged banker who undergoes extreme plastic surgery and emerges as… Rock Hudson. Is it worth it? (As you can probably guess — no, but watch to find out more.)

  • Strong female characters were featured in numerous titles this year, including Anne Bancroft’s Dr. Cartwright in John Ford’s satisfying swan-song Seven Women:

    … Liv Ullmann and Bibi Andersson in Ingmar Bergman’s Persona:

    … Claudia Cardinale in The Professionals:

    … Millie Perkins’ nameless “The Woman” in Monte Hellmann’s The Shooting:

    … and Florence Marly’s mute but powerful green alien in Planet of Blood / Queen of Blood. While much of this film is slow-going, “Marly’s wordless performance is a marvel to behold, as she hypnotizes the men around her and clearly has malevolence up her sleeve (or perhaps up in her beehive-do).”

  • Of course, that year’s most infamous “strong female” was Elizabeth Taylor’s Martha in Mike Nichols’ Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, which effectively opens up Edward Albee’s Broadway play by employing “the power of close-ups, angles, editing, and mixed settings to maximize the impact of Albee’s grueling tale about marital discord.”

  • Speaking of play adaptations, don’t miss Fred Zinnemann’s A Man For All Seasons, featuring Paul Scofield in an Oscar-winning role as Sir Thomas More — a man calmly willing to sacrifice his life on behalf of his beliefs. He kindly reminds us:

    “I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos.”

  • Meanwhile, in Robert Wise’s The Sand Pebbles, “Steve McQueen gave one of his best, most introspective performances in the central role of Jake Holman — a soldier genuinely ‘in love’ with engines, who situates his integrity as a man within his ability to care for them effectively.”

  • Film fanatics should definitely seek out John Korty’s fable-like Crazy-Quilt, an “unusual portrait of an unconventional love affair” offering a “delightful taste of mid-century independent American cinema.” (Click here to see an extended trailer, and scroll down for a link to purchase it.)

  • Another interesting cult favorite — and much easier to find — is Richard Fleischer’s The Fantastic Voyage, featuring a wild sci-fi plot you simply won’t believe until you watch it; here is my synopsis:

    “During the Cold war, a U.S. secret agent (Stephen Boyd) is recruited by General Carter (Edmond O’Brien) of the CMDF (Combined Miniaturized Deterrence Forces) to join a team — including Dr. Duval (Arthur Kennedy), Dr. Duval’s assistant Cora (Raquel Welch), Dr. Michaels (Donald Pleasence), and a pilot (William Redfield) — travelling on a submarine into the brain of a dying scientist (Jean Del Val) in order to remove a blood clot so he can share a vital secret about miniaturization.”

    Yep; that happens.

  • Finally, no film fanatic worth their weight in cinematic gold will want to miss seeing a few other iconic titles from that year — including Richard Lester’s A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the Forum:

    … Michelangelo Antonioni’s Blow-Up:

    … Robert Aldrich’s gritty survival flickThe Flight of the Phoenix:

    … and Sergio Leone’s The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

    “You see, in this world there’s two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig.”

You dig? Happy viewing!

Andrei Rublev (1966)

Andrei Rublev (1966)

“I’ve spent half my life in blindness.”

Synopsis:
In 15th century Russia, iconographer Andrei Rublev (Anatoliy Solonitsyn) attempts to carry out his work in the midst of societal upheaval and raids.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Artists
  • Christianity
  • Historical Dramas
  • Medieval Times
  • Russian Films

Review:
Andrei Tarkovsky’s second feature film — made after Ivan’s Childhood (1962) (not listed in GFTFF) — was this lengthy historical drama very loosely “based” on the life of a Russian iconographer, about whom we know very little. Andrei Rublev is well described by Steve Rose in his review for The Guardian, where he writes that it’s:

“… a film that people often feel they don’t, or won’t get. It is 205 minutes long (in its fullest version), in Russian, and in black and white. Few characters are clearly identified, little actually happens, and what does happen isn’t necessarily in chronological order. Its subject is a 15th-century icon painter and national hero, yet we never see him paint, nor does he do anything heroic. In many of the film’s episodes, he is not present at all, and in the latter stages, he takes a vow of silence. But in a sense, there is nothing to ‘get’ about Andrei Rublev. It is not a film that needs to be processed or even understood, only experienced and wondered at.”

With that extensive caveat noted, the various episodes are as follows: in the “Prologue,” we see a random man (Nikolay Glazkov) floating up to the sky in a hot air balloon, looking down at the vista below him. (This brief sequence does nothing to inform us about what we’re about to watch, though it’s beautifully shot.)


In the first formal episode — entitled “The Jester (Summer 1400)” — we see our title character (Anatoliy Solonitsyn) and two other monks, Danil (Nikolay Grinko) and Kirill (Ivan Lapikov), wandering into a barn where a jester (Rolan Bykov) is performing. (The jester does not meet a happy fate.)

Next we see jealous Kirill encountering “Theophanes the Greek (Summer–Winter–Spring–Summer 1405–1406)” and hoping to apprentice with him — but much to Kirill’s displeasure, Theophanes is more interested in working with Rublev.

“The Passion (1406)” depicts a snowy, violent passion play:

… while “The Holiday (1408)” shifts gears to show Rublev encountering a party of reveling pagans.


“The Last Judgement (Summer 1408)” includes a hideous scene of vengeance in the forest, which Rublev responds to by angrily throwing paint onto the wall of a church he’s working in.

The next episode — “The Raid (Autumn 1408)” — is undoubtedly the most disturbing of them all, showing the ruthless invasion of a village by Tatars on horseback; only Rublev and a mute female “fool” (who we were introduced to in the last sequence) are left alive.

In “Silence (Winter 1412),” we see that Rublev is now in a monastery, having taken a vow of silence after killing someone during the raid. Kirill comes and begs for forgiveness, too.

The last episode — entitled “The Bell (Spring 1423-Spring 1424)” — is surprisingly gripping, though we’re suddenly following an entirely new character/artist: the son of a deceased bell-maker who is attempting the dangerous work of overseeing the casting of a giant bell (if it doesn’t work, he will be beheaded).

“The Epilogue” is finally in color, showing images of the real Rublev’s actual work.

If you don’t feel like you understand much about Rublev himself from this overview of the film, you’re not alone — however, it’s an engaging enough visual experience that it should be seen at least once.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Truly impressive sets and historical recreations of medieval Russia
  • Vadim Yusov’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance as Tarkovsky’s first significant film, and as the most elaborate Soviet-era epic since Eisenstein’s work. Listed as a film with Historical Relevance and a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Man For All Seasons, A (1966)

Man For All Seasons, A (1966)

“No; I will not sign.”

Synopsis:
In 16th century England, Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield) risks his life to uphold his beliefs regarding the divorce and remarriage of King Henry VIII (Richard Shaw).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Fred Zinnemann Films
  • Historical Drama
  • John Hurt Films
  • Orson Welles Films
  • Paul Scofield Films
  • Play Adaptations
  • Robert Shaw Films
  • Royalty and Nobility
  • Susannah York Films
  • Wendy Hiller Films

Review:
Peary doesn’t review this Oscar-winning adaptation of Robert Bolt’s Tony-winning 1960 play in his GFTFF, but he does discuss it a bit in his Alternate Oscars, where he refers to the “strained politeness of Zinnemann’s classy but strangely dispassionate work” (I disagree) “about how Sir Thomas More (an Oscar-winning Paul Scofield) chose to give up his life rather than sanction Henry VIII’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon and remarriage to Anne Boleyn.” In comparing A Man For All Seasons with his personal pick for Best Picture that year — Roman Polanski’s Cul-de-Sac — he notes that each film “contains scene after scene of confrontational, power-play conversations”; each is “about a man who loses everything while battling for his integrity”; and each “uses the catalytic appearance of intruders/visitors into a couple’s home to cause them to confront what’s drastically wrong with their marriage.” (That last point is a bit of a stretch for A Man of All Seasons, though More’s marriage — to Wendy Hiller’s Alice — does indeed become seriously strained.)

While Peary doesn’t award Scofield the Best Actor — he gives it instead to Richard Burton for Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? — he does concede that Scofield “gave a disarmingly dignified performance, quite unlike what moviegoers were used to in historical dramas.” He adds, “Until More’s outburst at his trial,” Scofield “delivers almost all of his lines quietly, with patience and restraint” — yet “his every word has both eloquence and force.”

I agree. I went into my viewing of this historical drama intentionally fuzzy on details (hoping to maximize impact), and given that I was unprepared even for well-known final outcomes, I found myself entirely gripped — thanks largely to Scofield’s consistently compelling (and, yes, understated) performance. However, the film itself is wonderfully mounted in its own right, with rich cinematography, opulent sets, colorful costumes, and excellent supporting performances across the board. Among the cast we see an appropriately larger-than-life Robert Shaw as King Henry VIII:

… Orson Welles as an appropriately larger-than-life Cardinal Wolsey:

… John Hurt (in his first significant cinematic role) as the socially aspirational Richard Rich:

… Susannah York as More’s daughter Margaret:

… Leo McKern as Thomas Cromwell:

… and, in a very brief cameo, Vanessa Redgrave as Anne Boleyn.

Note: If you’re curious to know what happened after the film’s infamous final shot, click here.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Paul Scofield as Thomas More
  • Fine supporting performances
  • Ted Moore’s cinematography

  • Elizabeth Haffenden and Joan Bridge’s Oscar winning costume design
  • Georges Delerue’s score

Must See?
Yes, for Scofield’s performance and as an overall good show. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Noteworthy Performance(s)
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, The (1966)

Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, The (1966)

“I know the name of the cemetery now — and you know the name of the grave.”

Synopsis:
During the Civil War, a drifter (Clint Eastwood) collaborates with a wanted felon (Eli Wallach) and a sociopath named Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef) to find hidden gold.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Civil War
  • Clint Eastwood Films
  • Eli Wallach Films
  • Gold Seekers
  • Lee Van Cleef Films
  • Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, Sergio Leone’s “exceptional, extremely exciting, extravagant, and funny epic western” — “released in the U.S. in 1968, a year after A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More” — is another “episode in the life of Clint Eastwood’s deadly, nameless superwarrior (a myth figure riding through America’s West)” who “is, ironically, ‘the good’ — so designated because he kills only bad guys.”

Eastwood’s ‘Blondie’ “forms an unholy alliance with Eli Wallach’s Tuco, a ruthless (although humorous) murderer who, besides killing people, has ‘robbed countless post offices’ and taken almost everybody over the border for immoral purposes” — and is thus “the ‘ugly’ — a flawed superwarrior” (I wouldn’t use this term for him) “who has emotions, talks a lot, is religious and feels guilt”:

… “and is more human than either Eastwood or Lee Van Cleef’s ‘Angel Eyes,’ Leone’s ‘bad’ — a fallen angel/superwarrior who kills anyone who gets in his way.”

As Peary synopsizes the storyline: “All three men are after a cache of gold and they won’t let even the Civil War get in their way.” (!!! True.)

Peary points out that the film features “an imaginative storyline, elaborate set pieces (some employing hundreds of extras)”:

… “several terrific shootouts” — including “the film’s sensational climax” in which “the three invincible characters face each other in a graveyard, with the gold going to the victor”:

… “much humor (built around the Eastwood-Wallach relationship)”:

… “striking cinematography by Tonino Delli Colli, and Ennio Morricone’s best score.” He notes that the “film has [a] vague anti-war theme and, like all Leone’s works, points out that America was civilized by men who killed for profit.”

He asserts that “the three leads make lasting impressions,” and notes that “even the ugly bit actors Leone puts in close-up have remarkable screen presence.”


Peary’s review nicely sums up the strengths of this iconic western, which isn’t a personal favorite but has clearly been hugely influential, with Quentin Tarantino naming it the best directed film of all time. It should be seen at least once by all film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Eli Wallach as Tuco
  • Lee Van Cleef as Angel Eyes
  • Tonino Delli Colli’s cinematography
  • Fine use of location shooting across Spain
  • The creative opening sequence
  • Ennio Morricone’s truly iconic score

Must See?
Yes, as the third in a classic western trilogy.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links: