Joseph_Gillis

When respected film people like Martin Scorsese and Jonathan Rosenbaum recommend a film for your consideration, you naturally welcome the opportunity to view it. (In my case, I'd bought this film as part of a package of 4 Westerns, a few years back and having filed it away at the back of the shelf, hadn't happened to notice it, in the meantime.)

The opening shots were familiar enough, and reassuring, but when too much of dialogue followed - much of it too literal and atypical for a Western - I began to fear the worst. Dana Andrews' character being assaulted in his hotel bedroom, under cover of darkness, raised my expectations somewhat, but I gradually got to appreciate why this film has been so infrequently mentioned.

I think other reviewers' comparisons with 'Drums along The Mohawk' are appropriate: doubly so, as that's one of my least-favourite of the 'name' Fords. Perhaps even more than with the Ford, for too much of this film's running length I felt I was being beaten over the head with a history book, and was being shown how it was for those first settlers, confronted by 'savages': being shown,too, how necessary compromises had to be made, to adapt, and at how justice was meted out in those rough-hewn, uncivilised territories (as if I wasn't convinced enough, the barely recognisable Ward Bond - who stole what movie there was to be stolen - was near-savage himself, perhaps for having lived too close for too long with them.) And too many of the characters had 'important' and 'weighty' dialogue to get off their chest. But there were too many scenes that jarred, too: was I really going to believe that a man newly-convicted of murder would be left unguarded, facilitating his friend's setting him free, while those who had imprisoned him were conveniently otherwise occupied; that a young bride, seemingly out of her mind after her home was ransacked by 'savages', should immediately afterwards choose to remain among them, when presented with what seemed an infinitely more attractive option.

Hoagy Carmichael's singing - if not his presence- was a highlight, particularly his rendition of 'Ol' Buttermilk Sky', but I just hated his pseudo-Fool wry commentator. The device worked brilliantly in Shakespeare's 'King Lear', in Kurosawa's 'The Hidden Fortress', and, yes, even 'Star Wars', but just jarred here, so much so that I felt like reaching in and smacking him in the mouth, every time he popped up. Perhaps it didn't help especially, here, for him having to depend on a slovenly low-to-the-ground donkey as his means of transportation: definitely not recommended when you need to escape the clutches of bloodthirsty savages. (I don't even want to consider it, in allegory terms.) Yes, the film looks great, but are you saying you watch Westerns for their beautiful vistas.

Jacques Tourneur directed arguably my all-time favourite film noir, 'Out Of the Past'; he was no slouch in the horror film stakes, either. I keep reading all these claims for him as a Western director; if this really is the best of them, I'll pass, next time. Of course, maybe he was just unlucky with the script.

Which shows just how much mileage you can get from top-of-the-line production design and special visual effects, particularly when combined with inventive camera angles and lighting. To be fair, in a film which relies so much on 'make-the-audience-jump-out-of-their-seats' shocks, quality acting probably wouldn't have made a huge amount of difference, but it might have made those 'internal conflicts' of the group dynamic so much more credible. Too often, those conflicts smacked too much of 'Primer' calibre 'pulled punches', which fizzle out before they've built up a sufficient head of steam, at least until the next unconvincing argument rolls around. It didn't help, also, that the group's character profile smacked too much of quota-filling and genre stereotypes.

Story-wise, we've probably seen it all before, probably dating back 60 years and more: a spaceship crash-lands on an uncharted, unforgiving planet, and its motley crew - including one dangerous criminal - recognising that compromises need to be made, and unlikely alliances formed, if they are to make it off the planet alive. Story-wise, too, you can probably fill in the blanks although, to be fair, you can probably do likewise with the best of that sub-genre. Except that from early on, I frequently found myself comparing it unfavourably with far superior films, made by longer-established, if not also superior filmmakers: like the 1950s 'creature-feature' 'Them!' which, perhaps benefitted from being more homebound, and its creatures being a product of radioactivity, and from the presence of a lead actor of considerable and plausible gravitas; and 'The Thing', whose director, John Carpenter had acquired a certain facility in the short sharp shocks department; he was particularly well-served, though, in that film, by an ensemble of actors who knew their place and their roles, and rose to the occasion, no matter that the subject matter might have been just a little hard to swallow for them. Although, though to be fair, that's august company who would put most genre directors in the shade.

A feast for the eyes, rather than the brain: file under 'honourable failures'

And, like me, they won't get with all the negativity for this movie. Sure, we could've done with more Brando, with less Angela Bassett (a waste of fine acting talent), with less jazz-club ambience and sophisticated jazz-club owner De Niro lifestyle (which smacked too much of faux-Melville for me, but De Niro - even a close-to-what-we'd-come-to-love of De Niro - is no 'Bob Le Flambeur')

But as more than adequate compensation what we do have is a cracker of a 'how is he gonna get around that?' heist set-up; a heist with heart-stopping tense moments at every turn; a nice little wacky cameo from a not-to-be-messed-with mother-dominated computer geek; a doozy of a 'handover', in a public park; three memorable 'intros', for each of the stars. And not just one, but two 'twists in the tail'. And that's without even talking about the performances - from three generations of Hollywood acting royalty - each, in their own way, more than holding up theirs and their respective character's end (although, to be fair, Brando could've spent most of his screen time reading the telephone directory and I still would've been gagging for more!) And would it be controversial of me to say that I enjoyed this acting 'Summit Meeting' considerably more than I did its 'Heat' equivalent? (Well there, I've said it!) Although Jamie Harrold, who played the computer geek, might just have stolen the film from right under their noses!

And how many films with 119 minute running times have left you wanting more. Take a bow Mr. Oz, and scriptwriters Kario Salem, Lem Dobbs and Scott Marshall Smith. And editor Pearson, too. And I was fine with the jazz music, but only as background. Leave the jazz-clubs at Melville's door, next time

A most wonderfully unexpected pleasant surprise. And I thought I'd had my fill of heist movies. Who woulda thunk it, and from The Muppet King, too? No muppets, here!

DVD sidenote: usually when you see 'additional material' on the list of extras you go 'ho hum' and end up saying "yeah, interesting, but..' and you can see why it ended up on the cutting room floor. Included here you get four takes, shot in quick succession of a key exchange between Brando and De Niro, with Brando improvising and altering his dialogue noticeably, from take to take, without missing a beat. Don't miss it! (almost worth the price of admission alone, if it's not already up on YouTube!)