chrisart7

"Rio Lobo" does not compare well to some of John Wayne"s prior vehicles like "Rio Bravo" or "El Dorado." Wayne himself looked overweight and terribly out of shape in this one. Simple premise doesn't help the film much either. Jennifer O'Neil is pretty to look at, but her character is rather shrill and unappealing otherwise. The best part of the cast emerges in the final act of the film, and his crazed, comical performance elevates it considerably. This was Jack Elam, who in my estimation stole what would have otherwise been a tepid movie.

Set during the Civil War and shortly afterwards, few of the clothes or hairstyles look like authentic late 19th century. Jerry Goldsmith's score is serviceable, but has occasional touches that oddly recall his work on "The Planet of the Apes" two years earlier. Perhaps he should have been listening to some old Stephen Foster tunes for period flavour.

Watch it only for Jack Elam, or if you are a completist fan of the Duke.

"Mistress of Atlantis" was filmed in 1932 in German, French, and English language versions, with mostly the same cast in each. The English version was so choppy and confusing in its editing that I am curious to see if the German or French version were the same.

Brigitte Helm was famed for playing Maria (and her evil robot counterpart) in "Metropolis," Fritz Lang's 1927 classic, but here she is Antinea, queen of Atlantis, replete with angular Art Deco eye mascara. "Mistress of Atlantis" was made three years after "Trader Horn" and three years prior to "She," but all of these share the trope of a Caucasian woman ruling in a mysterious, exotic locale until some western males happen upon her hidden regime.

The script (and the aforementioned bad editing) is the weak link in a film with an interesting premise, opening with the French foreign legion in a north African outpost, but character motivations are unclear throughout the entire film. Mood overpowers logic in these oddball proceedings. Director G. W. Pabst fared far better with "Pandora's Box" and "Diary of a Lost Girl," both filmed in 1929 and starring Louise Brooks.

"The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" was panned and patronised upon release in 1962. I can see why. Legendary director John Ford made a wide-screen, full colour epic with breathtaking photography in 1956, "The Searchers." This 1962 western, in stark contrast, looks like a low budget black-and-white TV show. John Wayne is the star, but he has so little screen time that he's really a co-star. When Jimmy Stewart's attorney character is robbed, he suddenly has the money to buy a perfectly new suit in the next scene...and *another* one after paint gets all over it. They are so clean, pressed, and perfectly tailored that nothing of "the old West" is suggested, but rather studio artifice.

The same goes for handwritten signs and placards in another scene. The penmanship is 1960s, not 1860s. There is no hint of frontier semi-literacy or the calligraphy of the day. Worse still, the cinematography is flat and uninspired. It looks like amateurish garbage next to David Lean's masterful "Lawrence of Arabia," filmed the prior year.

The story is also rather by-the-numbers. The greatest strength of this film is a fine cast. Lee Marvin is utterly convincing (and despicable) as Liberty Valance. On the other hand, Edmond O'Brien hams it up relentlessly as newspaperman Dutton Peabody, as does John Carradine as Major Arbuckle in an extended cameo. Fine actors, but director Ford must have been asleep at the wheel when he lensed their scenes.

No, this film is quite ordinary. A great cast couldn't save it.