Blue (1968)

Boring

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

(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.

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!

For some reason I always looked back fondly on this film that I saw in the theater in the late '60s. However, when I watched it again almost 30 years later on VHS, I was really disappointed. Since I know now that lead actor Terrence Stamp grew up in England, I found his American/ Mexican character accent - at that time - not that believable. A few times he slipped back to his native British accent.This is one of those unusual films in which the good guy dies in the end. Many times, that makes for a more dramatic, memorable ending. Howevr, in this case, all it made for was a very unsatisfying finish. This is not something I'd eagerly wait another 30 years to see!

Terence Stamp is an actor of some range, but that range doesn't extend to playing naturalized Mexicans. His extreme unsuitability for his role is apparent as soon as he speaks: his first words - "I'll do that" - are delivered in what appears to be thick cockney; a little later his delivery has a Devon burr. Only when Blue gave an account of his upbringing did I realised he was meant to be American. The mystery is why, having kept their leading man silent for the first forty-five minutes, the film-makers should have allowed him to speak at all.