THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY (1966) - Review

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Adventure/Western
2 hours and 41 minutes
Approved

Written by: Agenore Incrocci, Furio Scarpelli, Sergio Leone, and Luciano Vincenzoni
Directed by: Sergio Leone
Produced by: Alberto Grimaldi

Cast:
Clint Eastwood
Lee Van Cleef
Eli Wallach

They formed an alliance of hate to steal a fortune in dead man's gold.

There's something magical about the spaghetti westerns of the 1960s - particularly, the ones made by Sergio Leone. Sure Corbucci and Petroni had some fantastic entries in the genre, but no filmmaker ever came quite close to the sheer perfection that Leone was able to touch upon several times within the genre, and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is arguably Leone's greatest film of all.

The film begins with the standard Leone direction, closeup cinematography of nameless killers attempting a coup on one of the story's main characters. This same direction in camerawork is a common reoccurrence in Leone's work - and it was handled well by director of photography Tonino Delli Colli. These closeups are inserted in scenes to build tension and add claustrophobia to moments that warrant such a build. The perfect example of this (besides the film's epic climax) is the opening scene where the audience is introduced to the character of Angel Eyes, portrayed by Lee Van Cleef. Van Cleef's character enters the home of a man who is about to eat breakfast with his family. His presence in the house is undeniably unsettling. This is conveyed to the audience through Leone's perfect use of closeups, as well as the sheer and utter silence that dominates the first half of the scene. Van Cleef is able to express his sinister intentions before he even utters his first line of dialogue, a testament to what was his fantastic acting capabilities. Indeed, it is this opening scene with Van Cleef that remains possibly the most memorable moment in the entire motion-picture.

Ennio Morricone's score is perfect for every moment within the film. I'm not entirely sure that the man is capable of producing bad music, and I'd argue history will look favorably upon him as being one of the greatest (if not the greatest) composer of his time. It's obvious why such filmmakers as Leone, John Carpenter, and Brian De Palma would want to work with him.

A unique quality to this film that sets it apart from not just other spaghetti westerns, but period pieces set during the American Civil War, is its setting. While most films with scenes set during the Civil War tend to glorify the bravery of the soldiers, or express how devastating the losses were on the battlefield (which Leone does here as well), The Good, the Bad and the Ugly examines - albeit somewhat briefly - the cruelty and conditions bared by prisoners of war. It's interesting that such a topic is discussed in the plot of an Italian-made western, considering how minuscule in importance the American Civil War was to the rest of the world's history in comparison to America's. Perhaps it took the eye of an outsider to examine such a disturbing topic. Surely there was cruelty and torture committed against Civil War POWs, but it's easy for Americans to choose not to discuss such an ugly topic - especially considering how ugly the Civil War was overall. It's incredibly refreshing to see that ugliness brought to light, even if it does only act as a backdrop for a section of the story.

The actors within the film are all perfect for their roles. Eastwood handles "the Man with No Name" with such ease at this point, one has to wonder if he even had to memorize his lines or if they just came naturally. Wallach is entertaining, and acts terrifically as a much needed comic relief from the darker, more serious tones conveyed through the rules of the genre. The dialogue between Wallach and Eastwood stands as some of the best written in a spaghetti western. The most fun is watching Van Cleef portray such a sinister character - something he had been typecast to do since the beginning of his career. His portrayal of such an intelligently evil villain is remarkable, mainly due to how simple it appears for him to do so.

Whenever I have the opportunity to revisit this motion-picture, I always attempt to find some flaw with it. After who knows how many screenings, the conclusion has always remained the same - it is flawless. It remains the pinnacle of success and standards for what a spaghetti western should look like - and indeed, it was the success of this film that led to the "Italianization" of American westerns, or their becoming more gritty and scandalous in their content.

An outstanding motion-picture, that could quite possibly be Sergio Leone's masterpiece, which boasts amazing settings, beautiful cinematography, breathtaking performances, and has the bravery to handle darker, uglier backdrops in US history - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly remains a perfect film to this very day and, as long as people are interested in movies, will continue to remain so.

10/10

THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL (1978) - Review

The Boys from Brazil

Drama/Sci-Fi/Thriller
2 hours and 5 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: Heywood Gould
Directed by: Franklin J. Schaffner
Produced by: Stanley O'Toole and Martin Richards

Cast:
Gregory Peck
Laurence Olivier
James Mason

If they survive ... will we?

The 1970s brought audiences into an apex of Nazi related films. This mainly was due to the underground success of the Nazisploitation genre. Films like The Night Porter (1974), The Gestapo's Last Orgy (1978), and of course the incredibly influential Ilsa: She Wolf of the SS (1974), became overnight guilty pleasures for audiences to indulge in. Films that showcased the ruthless ugliness of the Nazis, in a pseudo-cartoonish fashion, but still ensured audiences that good will prevail by any and all Nazi antagonists' brutal deaths. In a way, The Boys from Brazil doesn't stray too far from this exploitation formula.

Essentially a large budget exploitation (more specifically, a Nazisploitation) film, The Boys from Brazil remains to this day an impressive piece of cinema in general. Based on the novel by Ira Levin, who authored Rosemary's Baby, the film promises to be a highly intelligent story right off the bat. The story itself may seem confusing for the first hour and a half or so, but this is to put the audience in the place of the protagonist. Nothing is given to us until it is given to him. This works tremendously, keeping the film's suspense levels on high at all times - ultimately leading to the film's nail-biting conclusion.

The film boasts some fantastic locations all over the globe. South America, Austria, London, New England, and Pennsylvania are all captured terrifically. They are photographed enough to identify where the location is, but they never boast a "tourist-esque" quality that most big-budget films with multiple locations suffer from. Equally impressive are the film's close-ups. Used only to capture the intense emotions of the film's tremendous cast, and to disorient the audience when slight clues are given before the mystery is solved. Henri Decaë is responsible for this magnificent cinematography.

Just as magnificent is the film's editing, done by Robert Swink. Swink seems to know and understand what makes the many genres that Boys is grounded in work. The dialogue heavy, dramatic sequences are filled with few cuts, made at appropriate intervals. During the film's climax, and scenes of sensationalism or violence, quick cuts are used to raise the tension of the film even further.

But it is not the editing, nor the cinematography, that are The Boys from Brazil's tour de force. It is the acting. As if it weren't enough to have a protagonist played by Laurence Olivier and an antagonist played by Gregory Peck, the film is loaded with even more impressive actors, including: James Mason, Denholm Elliot, Rosemary Harris, and Walter Gotell. Gotell actually has a terrific scene in the film, one of only three that he's in, that - if it wasn't for the climax - would be the most terrifying and suspenseful moment within the movie. 

But in the end, nothing can surpass the talent of the film's two leading men. Olivier does an amazing job, making the audience sympathize with his portrayal of an aging Nazi-hunter. His frustrations are felt, and his sense of good and evil is what drives the audience to power through the film's length, never feeling a dull moment. The character is the most believable and interesting within the entire story. Peck's performance as Dr. Josef Mengele, starts off appearing as if it's going to be a Nazi caricature, something directly out of Nazisploitation cinema. This over-the-top quality may at first glance appear that it is going to wear thin - but by the end of the film, one comes to understand Peck's brilliance. Mengele is notably remembered for his hot to cold temper. Screaming, shouting, and acting out of passion and anger one minute, and then appearing cool, calm, and collected the next. In a way, Mengele is history's Nazi-caricature. Peck, the character actor that he was, portrays him so excellently, that the science-fiction/Nazisploitation elements that surround his character are melted away into reality. This is also helped in part by the realness of Olivier's character. When the two characters come together in the film's intense climax, we are shown what happens in a fight between reality and sanity versus fantasy and insanity. Maybe a metaphor for the events of World War II or the Holocaust?

Perhaps the only flaw in The Boys from Brazil is the performance (or multiple performances, rather) of the then newcomer Jeremy Black. Black's performances aren't crucial to the film's plot, even though the characters themselves are incredibly important to the story. His limited screen-time may have been for a reason, but even still, his moments on screen seem much too long, and we have to wonder why the producers would have cast such an untalented child actor to hold the screen with Laurence Olivier and Gregory Peck. Maybe it's just Peck's and Olivier's talent that is able to make a so-so actor appear terrible.

With only minor flaws that ultimately don't affect the film as a whole, The Boys from Brazil is an outstanding motion-picture that includes stand-out performances from its leading men, and will remain a prime example of exploitable elements working perfectly in a mainstream film.

9.5/10

TORMENTED (1960) - Review

Tormented

Horror/Thriller
1 hour and 15 minutes
Unrated

Written by: George Worthing Yates
Directed by: Bert I. Gordon
Produced by: Bert I. Gordon and Joe Steinberg

Cast:
Richard Carlson
Susan Gordon
Lugene Sanders 

A ghost-woman owned him body and soul!

Here we have one of the many B-horror-movies to come out in the late-1950s/early-1960s. Tormented most likely ran as a second feature for drive-in horror double-features. Essentially, it is a film with very few merits.

The film, almost right off the bat, begins with some relatively good special effects work - the contribution of Herman E. Townsley. Townsley pulls off some remarkable moments, considering the film's low budget. In particular, there's a ghoulish, Addams Family moment, involving the ghost of the dead lover's hand appearing, crawling on the floor wearing the new lover's wedding ring. Another sequence involves a pair of ghostly footprints in the sand, and another flowers wilting at the presence of a ghostly specter. These moments are paired with some rather dull special effects as well - including the image of a flying dead-ex-lover, the severed, talking head of the ex-lover's ghost, and a corpse disintegrating into the form of a blob of seaweed.

The film's production design isn't much to discuss, considering that the film really only boasts two locations: a lighthouse (the scene of the crime) and our hero's home. Because of this back and forth between the two settings, one almost gets the feeling that we're watching a theatrical performance rather than a feature-film. 

The cinematography gets along fine with having to work with only the two main locations - but it is the early scenes of the film, located on the shoreline, that are really beautiful. The wide open shots filmed in black & white are the film's tour de force.

Tormented boasts some standard B-movie performances. The players are all there, but they lack any sort of convincing quality that a high level performer might have. Because of this, we're left with a rather flat, or dull, ghost story - that certainly could have had a more shocking climax had the actors been better.

What's most disappointing with this film is how dull and infrequent its scares are. The film is more of a love story than a ghost story. The majority of the scenes focus on the hero's internal struggle between his new lover and the memory of his dead ex-lover, and the fact that he could have saved her from her death. The scares are so scattered throughout these long sequences of discussion and self-reflection, that at times it's entirely possible to forget that what you're watching is a horror film. Because of this "sprinkling" of scares throughout a dialogue heavy, what-should-have-been-performance-driven, storyline - Tormented ends up feeling much longer than its actual running time of 75 minutes.

Boasting little more than some standard, but impressive, special effects work, Tormented is one of those forgotten B-horror films from the drive-in heyday that probably has remained forgotten for an appropriate reason.

4/10

THE YOUNG RACERS (1963) - Review

The Young Racers

Action/Drama
1 hour and 21 minutes
Not Rated

Written by: R. Wright Campbell
Directed by: Roger Corman
Produced by: Roger Corman

Cast:
Mark Damon
William Campbell
Luana Anders
Patrick Magee

They Treated Beautiful Women as If They Were Fast Cars ... ROUGH!

Here we come upon one of the rarest of films ... the boring Roger Corman film. Sure, Corman has had some "cheap" productions - but by no means are any of his previous works as boring and non-compelling as The Young Racers.

In the early and mid 1960s, there was a major influx of melodramas. Films like The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, Shoot the Piano Player, and Marnie had set the trend of Hollywood produced melodramas. Why on earth anyone thought these films were entertaining is beyond me.

The Young Racers suffers from what burdens most melodramas: a predictable, soap-opera, storyline. Talk-talk-talk, love. Talk-talk-talk, betrayal. Talk-talk-talk, anger. Talk-talk-talk, emotions. Essentially, every moment of dialogue is so overblown with emotions, it becomes boring. The film never goes anywhere, it simply lingers on the plateau of extreme emotions.

The storyline itself is predictable. A young ex-grand prix racer attempts to get close to another racer who ruined his engagement, by pretending to be interested in writing his biography - only to expose him as a womanizing, speed-freak, sociopath - forever tarnishing his image. What's predictable is that the two men actually start caring for one another, and by the end of the film, all is forgiven and everyone is good friends. How this script ever got someone like Roger Corman behind it is beyond me. The man's previous, and later, works all have some level of excitement, exploitable elements, and intelligence behind them. The Young Racers has none of those three qualities.

I suppose the argument could be made that the film is in fact a carsploitation film. This is an argument, however, that I do not agree with. Sure, the film's got plenty of fast cars, racing one another throughout what precious few grand prix sequences there are, but ultimately these take a back seat to the film's melodramatic plot. Thus, because the cars are not part of the central focus of the film's story, The Young Racers cannot be labeled as an exploitation film, let alone as a carsploitation film.

The acting is atrocious. One would expect more from Corman regulars like Luana Anders and Patrick Magee, who both did a tremendous job in the Francis Ford Coppola/Roger Corman film: Dementia 13. Here, it appears that all the actors must have been told by Corman to act as "over-the-top emotionally" as possible. When in love, be as in love as you can. When angry, be as angry as you can. This continuous over-playing of emotions only hurts the movie, and makes it feel flat - the exact opposite of what it should be doing. 

The film is not all terrible. It boasts some marvelous settings - Paris, England, Belgium - but these settings don't do enough to pull the film out of its tiresome story. The cinematography in the film is astounding. Director of photography Floyd Crosby is responsible for this. Crosby captures beautiful wide shots of the European cities, and throughout the racing sequences gets some remarkable shots as well.

The racing sequences should have been the film's saving grace, but unfortunately these fail to give the film a sense of excitement that was so needed. Watching these sequences is almost as entertaining as watching a nascar event. The audience is watching these fast cars racing and passing one another, ultimately hoping that a crash, accident, or act of God will happen just to spice things up. Unfortunately, none of these things happen - until the very end of the film, and even here the crash is so unremarkable that it's as easily dismissible as the rest of the film.

The Young Racers suffers from an over-display of emotions, that makes most 1960s melodramas boring beyond any point of being a good motion-picture. Its cinematography is remarkable, but it's not enough to help recommend the film as a whole. Whether this was Roger Corman's attempt to cash in on the growing success of melodramas in the early 1960s is debatable, but the point still stands that this is below the standard of quality that Corman is usually associated with.

2/10