Blue (1968) Poster

(1968)

User Reviews

Review this title
16 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Blue is worth seeing
bill00337 June 2005
Although it has been castigated by the critics, this movie still has a lot going for it and is definitely worth seeing. Given a big budget for its time, it has outstanding photography, beautiful scenic vistas, a very good music score and great stunt work by the legendary Yakima Cannutt. It also has Terence Stamp, who is always worth watching, no matter what he does (if we skip Priscilla, Queen of the Desert). Yes, it is not hard to tell that he is an Englishman playing an American raised by Mexicans, but his lines are few and far between, and who cares anyway? If we can have Englishmen and Australians playing Roman gladiators without critical comment, let's give this one a break. I admit that, although the plot line intended to contrast a violent past with the power of love, a complete lack of tenderness in the love scenes was laughable. But overall, this movie beats most of John Wayne's westerns by a mile.
14 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
BLUE (Silvio Narizzano, 1968) **1/2
Bunuel197611 August 2011
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!
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I am flat out pounding the table for this rarely seen western ......
merklekranz18 January 2014
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
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Loved this film
fanaticita20 June 2003
As a long-time Terence Stamp fan, I finally was able to rent this video after a long search. I don't care if Terence's cockney accent slipped through now and then. It didn't distract me from watching his beautiful performance as Azul/Blue, who finds it difficult to fit into either world: the Mexican world to which he belonged after his parents were killed and he was found by the "bandit" Ortega, or the world of the "gringo" from which he came. There was some residual "Billy Budd" quality in this film which may have been unintended on Stamp's part. It was a delight to see Stamp in this role -he is such a natural. The ending was somewhat enigmatic, but the filming of the last scenes in the river were beautiful, believable, and tragic.
17 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Prepared for not liking it, but quickly changed early point of view.
mark.waltz8 October 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Far from a classic 60's western, but unlike capsule reviews read from famous critic guides, I found this engaging, exciting and well acted, particularly by Terence Stamp (when he began to talk), Ricardo Montalban, Joanna Pettet and Karl Malden. Raised among Mexican bandits, British accented Stamp, blue eyed and as light haired as adopted papa Montalban, saves Pettet from one of his adopted brothers and is nursed back to health by Pettet and her father (Malden), and decides to stay and work for them.

However, the locals don't trust him, but they must when Montalban declares revenge on the son who he feels has betrayed him and his people and only Stamp knows how to defend the homesteaders against a brutal gang of bandits, one of which he is. There's certainly a viable conflict, and even though Montalban is obviously declared a villain, there are obvious believable reasons for his actions no matter how sinister they are. It's very bloody and brutal, with absolute prejudice from both sides, so it's a timeless story too. It's just missing necessary exposition that could have made this great. A touching ending mixed with bittersweetness and tragedy.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Pale blue eyes, pale "Blue" impact
ofumalow2 May 2018
(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.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Beautiful cinematography wasted on routine, talky, overlong western
highwaytourist23 August 2010
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.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Blue is an excellent movie
edinadental16 December 2017
This is an excellent movie.

Blue (Terrence Stamp) is an American rescued (actually kidnapped as a child) by the leader, Ortega (Ricardo Montalban), of a Mexican band of criminals. He is separated from the gang in a failed raid, meets the beautiful and lovely Joanne Morton (Joanna Pettet), and falls in love with her. His former gang and his stepfather want him back, and at any cost to him and anyone who stands in the way or by his side.

The movie Blue is based in an excellent screenplay by Ronald M. Cohen, that provides a good story and interesting dialogue for the film's main actors, many of whom were very familiar because of their extensive TV exposure at the time. Karl Malden, Joanna Pettet, and Ricardo Montalban were all very recognizable characters to TV audiences in the 1960's.

I don't know if there is any explanation, but Karl Malden appeared in a number of western movies from 1960 to 1970; including the Nevada Smith, How the West was Won, Cheyenne Autumn, The Adventures of Bullwhip Griffin, Blue, and Wild Rovers. He did not appear in westerns before or after this decade (1960 to 1970). His performance in Blue is excellent. He plays the resolute character with strong convictions that he does so well.

Joanna Pettet was an underrated and under-performing actress. Directors never seemed to take this actor to her potential. She does a wonderful job in this movie, playing both a vulnerable woman and a strong lover. I found myself worrying more about Blue (Terrence Stamp) because of Joanne Morton (Joanna Pettet) character's love for Blue.

Blue (Terence Stamp) is the intense young man possessing an extremely dangerous skillset (he is a gunfighter and a killer). He is confused by his conflicting loyalties (his sudden love for a woman he has just met that opposes his gang affiliation).

My only negative comment on this film is Terrence Stamp's strong British accent that seems out of place for an American kidnapped by Mexicans.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unusual, but great
fanaticita23 June 2003
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!
15 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
maimed by melodrama, iconic in imagery
JIMu-24 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Maimed by melodrama yet iconic in imagery. Strange and evocative. With Brit, Terence Stamp playing "Blue" or "Azule" depending on which side of the American/ Mexican border you're on, the film surprises and I find myself watching it again. Certain scenes register effectively and haunt such as Azule's impromptu execution of a captain. Mounted on his steed, Azule simply scoops up the officer, performs the deed and follows with a ritual of circling the victim after words. The poignant ruthlessness of this act silences even hardened men. Stamp does this with such ease and 'style' that it leaves an impression that continues to shock. All humour stops in that instant. There is something iconic here that traumatizes and replays itself - leaving a silent and remote character that is truly formidable. The others fear him and Stamp's gun play is impressive, especially in it's relish. Conflict and violence give him pleasure and the action is good.

Cultures collide and this results in the film's indelible imagery. The look of the ragtag bandit bunch contrasts well with the Sunday best of the homesteaders who inhabit this film. The hunt and chase scene through cornfields is quiet vivid, realistic and leaves a crisp impression. Great photography throughout. The fabulous stunt riding that belies the wild flamboyance and daring of these bandits is very apt indeed. So well done and enjoyable to watch. Crazy good.

Azule's apparent transformation to gentleman is fun as the mystery man charms the ladies at an evening social and caps a challenge from his antagonist with a classic line - "I'm tired Mr. Parker...particularly of you" before retiring. A class act. However,there is rage within.

This film's budget should have demanded more accent coaching for Mr. Stamp but his performance is still appealing. Stamp seems to use any awkwardness to dramatic effect and to his advantage proving he is one terrific actor. Joanna Pettet although truly beautiful is lacking. Maybe she lacked that femme fatal or something to warrant betrayal and the tragedy which follows.

A tale of loyalty, love and betrayal by an already torn man. Well worth watching over despite it's defects and the action is good.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Film Didn't Live Up To Fond Memories
ccthemovieman-126 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
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!
13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Singin' the Blue
NoDakTatum3 December 2023
Terence Stamp is Azul (Spanish for "Blue"), the adopted son of Mexican bandit Ortega (Ricardo Montalban). Ortega, tiring of the same old robbing and pillaging, and sensing unrest from all of his sons, decides to cross the river into the United States and do some damage to the country that recently took part of Mexico for itself. The bandits raid a settlement, but Azul begins having a change of heart- deciding not to kill, and wanting to stay in the United States. He saves Joanne's (Joanna Pettet) life, and is nursed back to health by her father Doctor Morton (Karl Malden). The rest of the bandits head back to Mexico, mourning their losses. For the first time, and halfway through the film, Blue speaks. He is called Blue because of his eye color. He is not your "typical" Mexican, possessing blonde hair and fair skin. He begins to take a liking to Joanne, and stays on to help farm the doctor's land. Blue is introduced into the settlers' society, but not without raising the suspicions of some of the bandits' victims. Eventually, Ortega and the boys return to reclaim one of their own.

Made in 1968, this western has a definite contemporary feel to it. There are no good guys and bad guys, and Blue is an antihero if there ever was one. His romance with Joanne is expected but never forced or false. Malden is excellent as the doctor who is supposed to help people, murderers or not. Stamp is good as Blue, never speaking through the first half of the film, so when he finally does open up about himself I was hanging on his every word. Narizzano shows a wonderful directorial eye, highlighting great Utah scenery. He is able to generate suspense (Pettet's attack in the general store), lust (a very good clothed love scene), and violence (the final showdown) without getting show-offy with the camera. Yakima Canutt was stunt coordinator, and the explosive finale is some of his best work. While "Blue" might be hard to find, it is worth the search, and I highly recommend it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Worst casting ever
The Fuzz7 April 2002
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.
11 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Uneven western - some will like it, some will hate it
Wizard-824 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
"Blue" seems to be a western that was made with the intention to mix elements of Hollywood westerns at the time with elements from Italian westerns made at the same time. With two sensibilities aimed at, it's probably no surprise that the end results are kind of uneven. Terence Stamp's character seems to have been concocted as some kind of silent spaghetti western individual, but he is so silent and aloof that it's hard to figure out what is going on in this cowboy's head. The problem is made worse by the pacing of the movie, which is really slow and didn't have to be stretched out to almost two hours in length. And there are some plot details that seem unfinished, like the romance that is brewed up between Blue and the daughter of the man who brings him in. Still, there are some good moments here and there, the photography of the movie is magnificent, and I have to admit that the movie has some sort of hypnotising spell that's hard to explain. As I indicated earlier, this movie is kind of mixed bag, so I think it's best reserved for western fans who are patient and are willing to put up with some flaws.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tangled up is Blue
dbdumonteil2 October 2016
Silvio Narizzano mainly worked for TV but this movie and "why shoot the teacher"in the seventies are worth seeking out;the former told the story of a young teacher (Bud Cort),fresh from the university ,who winds up in middle Canada where he realizes that what he learned does not help much in a hostile nature ;although liked by his pupils ,he was ill at ease,an intruder in this rural God-forsaken world.

Five years earlier,Azul's place is nowhere too;his parents were killed by Mexicans ,the chief of whom adopted him ;but his biological sons (from different mothers)never accepted him :he is too delicate,too gentle to live in this hyper macho world.Had they continued their political struggle against the French (as Juarez ' allies against Napoleon The Third? the screenplay does not mention them),Azul would perhaps have found a reason for this struggle which actually consists of pillage and rapes .All that deals with Ricardo Montalban and his wild bunch recall spaghetti western ,but it's not:the director was Canadian.

On the other hand ,the scenes with the Americans would not be out of place in stuff like " friendly persuasion" with their shimmering colors ;the good doctor (played by Oscar-winner Karl Malden ) , his daughter (Joanna Pettet) and the villagers seem to come from another world,compared to the bestial brutes milieu in which Azul was nurtured.

Actually ,born an English man (as Terence Stamp,whose restrained performance is in direct contrast with that of Fellini 's "Tommy Dammit" in "spirit of the dead" ,released the very same year),Azul is torn between the two worlds ;and the ending ,lyrical and epic,is really the only one which could have concluded this offbeat tale.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not that Spaghetti for me....
searchanddestroy-119 January 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I was scared to deal with a Spaghetti western; scared because I prefer Spaghettis in my plate, not on a screen. Many reviewers say this movie is an Italian western like feature. Well, the influence is obvious, but not that much after all. This is also mostly an American production and that supposed the Spaghetti element is partly "swallowed" - the proper word concerning spaghetti - and that's pretty good for me. It is not Hollywood like, that's sure. But in the late sixties, there were not so many Hollywood like westerns any more; except the Andrew mcLaglen's westerns. So, back to this one, Terry Stamp steals the show, among all the rest of the cast. Typical ending of the sixties.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed