Blue

This kicks off a four-movie tribute to the recently-deceased Silvio Narizzano who, in spite of his Italian name and Canadian origins, worked almost exclusively in English-language films; he made his name with the Oscar-nominated "Swinging Sixties" hit GEORGY GIRL (1966) which briefly took him to Hollywood where – like his contemporary Sidney J. Furie with THE APPALOOSA (1966) – he found himself turning a very ordinary cowboy tale into a Western with pretensions. In fact, I had missed out on this one a couple of times on Italian TV over the years, owing perhaps to its bad rep (Leonard Maltin rates this a measly *1/2) and, thus, made for a surprising choice to be issued on DVD (albeit emerging a no-frills affair) from Paramount...but, for this same reason, was extremely well-served by the transfer that utilized a gorgeous print whose colors leapt right off the screen on my 40" HD-TV!

In any case, this is a Western that, while not quite following the "Spaghetti" model (apart from the reasonably graphic violence), was still deemed an arty aberration (not least because it had British leads!) – stylistically, the film seemed to evoke the self-indulgent ONE-EYED JACKS (1961; down to recruiting Karl Malden for a major role!) whereas, thematically, it owed a good deal to HOMBRE (1967) with its racial issues and martyr hero. Its lack of critical and commercial success, for one thing, sent off star Terence Stamp (as much a brooding presence here – he is silent for the first half-hour or so, with the title itself a reference to the color of his eyes and, in fact, he goes by the name Azul i.e. Spanish for 'blue' – as Marlon Brando and Paul Newman in the two-mentioned films respectively) into a 10-year period of European wanderings mainly devoted to highbrow/obscure fare! For the record, it was originally intended for Robert Redford who, bailing out at the proverbial 11th hour, subsequently found himself slapped with a lawsuit by the studio for breach-of-contract!

The cast includes a couple of other popular names from this era: Joanna Pettet (who had been one of THE GROUP {1966}, here affecting a convincing drawl – though her acting and Stamp's is too modern for the genre, this only adds to the inherently offbeat nature of the film) and Stathis Giallelis (if only in a minor role – he is dispatched early on – having been the lead in Elia Kazan's America, America {1963}). Rounding out the protagonists are Malden, ever-reliable while not particularly taxed by his role of Pettet's dad (a doctor and thus a leading member of the settlers) and Ricardo Montalban, excellent as Stamp's own bandit-leader father (albeit only a surrogate) who had singled him out as his successor but now is inevitably drawn towards a face-off with him.

Typically, when he is prone to be civilized, the hero has to withstand backlash from both the whites for his 'animalistic' behavior (especially from Pettet's boyfriend, though the two men eventually make up and the latter is virtually made Stamp's lieutenant!) and his adoptive 'family' for turning on them (he killed a 'brother' who had tried to rape the heroine). With this in mind, the finale is properly tinged with tragic poignancy as son shoots father dead and is himself gunned down by an uncle! When Montalban threatens to decimate the entire community over what he takes to be Stamp's treason, the latter feels obligated to teach the settlers how to defend themselves: though booby traps are effectively laid along the stretch of beach where the battle is waged, the bandits' come-uppance is dealt a bit too quickly and overwhelmingly (with few losses among their own numbers!); incidentally, Pettet takes a nasty fall (clearly unintended) during her rush to comfort the dying Stamp which the director opted to retain for the finished version!

In the end, the chief assets here emerge to be pictorial and aural – courtesy of Stanley Cortez' sprawling cinematography and Manos Hadjidakis' flavorful score respectively – and these go a long way towards smoothing over the obvious narrative deficiencies (in the form of clichéd characterization and situations). A curious footnote: the contemporaneous FADE IN, a made-for-TV effort about the movie-making business that starred Burt Reynolds and which would eventually be credited to the fictitious Alan Smithee, reportedly features behind-the-scenes footage from the set of BLUE!

Although less effective than the Sergio Leone "spaghetti westerns", "Blue" deserves to be ranked up there with the likes of "The Big Gundown", and "Hang Em High". Let's start with the photography. It is better than any of the above mentioned films, including "Once Upon a Time in the West". The only flaws that keep "Blue" from greatness, are the melodramatic elements, and a less than convincing romance. Terence Stamp's torn allegiance between Mexican and American sides is perhaps overplayed, and tends to drag down the middle of the movie somewhat. However the opening and finale more than cover this annoyance. If you are a fan of the "spaghetti westerns", then "Blue" is a must see. - MERK

A typical Western in a way, but with Terence Stamp as the star, it is anything but typical. As a man who doesn't fit in anywhere, Blue tries to enter the culture he was born into, but is not entirely accepted. He doesn't want to return to his adoptive father and the lifestyle of a bandit. His journey to acceptance by all and his lingering affection for the only life he had known previously finally comes to a conclusion in one of the most devastatingly beautiful yet tragic scenes I've seen in a long time.

Yes, it's true Stamp's British accent slips in and one wonders where the heck is this cowboy from??!! But it's not a big distraction. Rent it and see for yourself. Stamp is awesome!

In spite of a somewhat interesting premise, this turned out to be completely routine, similar to many westerns of the 1960's. British actor Terence Stamp is completely miscast in the title role, playing a Mexican-raised white bandito (gringro) who is cast into American society after stopping one of his compatriots from raping a woman during a raid. The rest of the cast includes some excellent actors (Karl Malden, Ricardo Montoblan, & Sally Kirkland), but they're stuck in cliché roles and can only go through the motions. The beginning and end of this film feature the usual shootouts and horseback chases, while the middle section is mostly the supporting cast talking. And boy do they talk, and it's the kind of talk you've heard in every western ever made. However, Stanley Cortez's color photography is lovely and it takes full advantage of the scenery. In the romantic lead, Joanna Pettet is also very beautiful, but her romance with Stamp's character is unconvincing. It's hardly worth two hours of melodrama and clichés. I'd call this strictly for hard-core fans of westerns.

(mild spoilers)

This isn't as bad as its critical reputation, but it isn't very good either. In fact, it's pretty much "not enough one thing or another" in every department-an attempt at a sort of hip new antihero western that nonetheless isn't at all sufficiently committed to that path, as it's far too old-school in execution.

The score is a big, traditional, old-fashioned one (despite the odd, gratuitous sitar flourish); the whole look is very much trad Hollywood-studio western (presumably the establishment crew and resources were foisted on director Sergio Narizzano, then hot from the British New Wave hit "Georgy Girl"); the casting conventional apart from Terence Stamp. The latter may indeed be miscast to a degree-yes, his English accent carelessly slips through a lot-but at least he does provide a certain moody outsider coolness that Robert Redford (who dropped out at the last minute) wouldn't have channeled so easily.

The racial tolerance theme is "modern," yet the script chickens out by having Blue-who was raised by the Mexican bandidos who killed his Yankee parents-yearn to be "tamed" and "civilized" by the white folk who've taken him in after he's wounded, thus reinforcing all cultural stereotypes. Nor is it credible that the settlers who are suspicious of Blue would so easily accept his command later on when they're under threat. Or indeed that Blue would command forces against his "own people"-it's one thing to reject his Mexican background, another to lead a massacre of those people. Blue gets an eve-of-battle speech trying to explain his contrary psychological makeup, but it's too little, too late.

This is a handsomely photographed film with a lot of nice scenery in vivid color, and the climactic shootout is effective enough. But coming out the same year as "Butch Cassidy" and other truly revisionist westerns that embraced a fresher style and sensibility, "Blue" must have felt old-hat in 1968. And it's still a disappointing mediocrity.