Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Other Films => Topic started by: HEX on October 03, 2005, 07:44:17 PM



Title: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: HEX on October 03, 2005, 07:44:17 PM
hey i have heard nothing but good stuff about this flick. havent seen it myself. i was wondering what u guys think. is it worth a buy? since i hate watching films on t.v.( the tele) i have to buy it. is it worth it?


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on October 03, 2005, 08:46:33 PM
Its very good, there are two versions here , Leon & The Professional. 


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: HEX on October 03, 2005, 08:50:43 PM
thanks cigar joe. ;)


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: boardwalk_angel on October 03, 2005, 09:07:32 PM
Yeah...it's a terrific movie...just make sure you get--> Léon: The Professional...Deluxe Edition.
It's uncut...w/ over 20 minutes of restored footage.
You don't want the 110 minute version.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: HEX on October 03, 2005, 09:11:12 PM
yeah i know. iam aware of it. it has been sitting at the nearest BEST BUY shelf for months now waiting for me.


thanks guys. much appreciated. if any one else has an opinion id like to hear it. especially if its someone  who disliked the  film. that would be different.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Tim on October 03, 2005, 09:33:49 PM
  You could always rent movies before you buy them.  I found I've saved quite a bit of money renting a movie and not liking it instead of rushing out and buying it.  Just my philosophy.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: HEX on October 04, 2005, 09:37:23 AM
thanks TIM but the nearest BLOCKBUSTER  near my house doesnt have it to rent, for whatever reason. u would think a pretty big fan base film like that they would have. >:(


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Franks Harmonica on October 05, 2005, 11:25:04 PM
Just buy it Dammit!
It should be in everyone's dvd collection.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on November 14, 2005, 07:12:01 PM
A question for our euro members, it came to my attention today that the version of the film we have here in US is different from the international print ie., Claudia shows Bert her boobs, kown if there is any truth to this guys/gals?


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: HEX on November 14, 2005, 07:23:16 PM
i know this is for our brothers in europe but...

she does show him her boobs. of course u dont really see them it is below camera level. so i am going to assume u mean full frontal nudity.

it comes to my attention in many interviews(and a lot of searhing on the web! ;D) that CLAUDIA CARDINALE
never posed or was photographed nude in a picture or movie ever in her career(unless u count her wearing a towel over her naked body as nudity, but i for one do not.).

which is actually very noble of her. she is very much a sex symbol. i cant really think of another sex symbol that has not posed nude at least once in her career.

women celebrities like BRITNEY SPEARS and others will eventually do one day. trust me once britneys 15 minutes are up she will resort to anything. and that goes for all attractive female celebrities today.

but sadly CLAUDIA never has had anything done in the buff. which in my opinion makes her even more sexy, since her body will be a mystery forever.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: indio on November 15, 2005, 12:21:13 AM
i've never heard this one joe, god if only it were true!


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Banjo on November 15, 2005, 02:25:24 AM
Please correct me if i'm wrong but on the commentary track of the OUATITW DVD Cardinale pretty much says what Hex mentions about her never posing nude in any movies.Apparently Leone wanted a camera view of below her skirt as she stepped of the train but Cardinale would have none of it!
However i'm definately gonna have another look at my Professionals video!!


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Banjo on November 16, 2005, 05:24:45 AM
Cigar Joe,i watched my Professionals video last night and as Hex says she does reveal her boobs but you only get to see her back and shoulders(unfortunately!).
I had a look at the SE OUATITW dvd and it is in the first documentary on disc 2 where Cardinale says she would never sell her body for money!
I suppose it is possible,CJ,that continental versions of The Professionals may reveal a bit more flesh.Apparently a few of the late 60's/early 70's Hammer horror films contained extra nude footage on the continental releases because it was thought there was more of a market for titilation than in Britain! 


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on November 16, 2005, 06:00:17 AM
thats what i'm talking about, we need to hear from our non english members on it.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Banjo on November 16, 2005, 06:07:40 AM
Sorry CJ,but i interpreted "euro members" to include us chaps in Jolly Old Blighty!
Cardinale did sound adament that she keeps her tits to herself though!


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Juan Miranda on November 16, 2005, 06:20:06 AM
a few of the late 60's/early 70's Hammer horror films contained extra nude footage on the continental releases because it was thought there was more of a market for titilation than in Britain! 

This wasn't the case, the same versions were released in the UK, but the BBFC (the British censorship board) hacked every single one of them to buggery, reducing both the horror content and the nudity. It's only recently, with some excellent restored DVD's, and the BBFC showing some sense at last, that we are getting to see them in all their glory. Almost 40 years since their inital release!

To judge the warped thinking that goes on at the BBFC, just look at the recent restored THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY DVD release. It's certified as an 18. Why? What's in it that's so shocking these days?

A few weeks ago I saw a low budget horror film called ROOM 36, which contained full frontal male and female nudity, lots of sex (including an utterly gratuitous shot of a woman's anus), gallons of swearing, and some extreme gore, including a bloke having his head almost sawn off (at great length) with a broken bottle.

It was certified a 15.  :o


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Banjo on November 16, 2005, 06:37:40 AM
Hi Juan Miranda,i've just been frantically flicking through my "Cult Films of Christopher Lee" by Jonathan Sothcott
to back up what i said about the continental market being catered for differently than the UK.It says about the Tigon production of Curse of The Crimson Altar(1968) "two versions were lensed:the English language version and a more explicit cut for Europe and the Far East.These extended sequences feature additional nudity and violence in the witchcraft scenes,and an impromptu striptease at the party"
I'm sure there are other examples in the book regarding other British horror films made during this period and the above film was the first i stumbled upon.However as you say i would not be surprised to hear about cuts to the versions filmed for the English speaking nations.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Juan Miranda on November 16, 2005, 06:52:47 AM
Yes, it's true that some studios did make a UK and a "continental" version. INCENSE FOR THE DAMNED springs to mind, which had an orgy scene tacked on for non UK screenings.

It's just that as far as I know, with the sole exception of some stronger violence in a Japanese version of THE LEGEND OF THE SEVEN GOLDEN VAMPIRES, Hammer never did this.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Banjo on November 16, 2005, 07:51:52 AM
O.K. i'm not going to waste time scouring through the whole of my book to disprove this,and i'm not a horror expert by any means.Like many others i was actually using the Hammer term very loosely to encompass all British horror films made during that period.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Juan Miranda on November 16, 2005, 01:07:44 PM
Why do you seem so irritated Banjo? (http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/a1.gif) Wrong choice of words, that's all.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Le Bon on November 16, 2005, 01:28:07 PM
Yes there were rumours about "Hammer" films having extra scenes but some of their rivals such as Tigon and Berman & Baker did. For example the DVD of Witchfinder General has some topless scenes in it.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Banjo on November 17, 2005, 04:52:13 AM
Hi Juan Miranda,i am in no way irritated,i'm a very happy bunny in fact,but i'm very sorry if it came across that way!!


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Leone Admirer on November 17, 2005, 06:00:12 AM


To judge the warped thinking that goes on at the BBFC, just look at the recent restored THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY DVD release. It's certified as an 18. Why? What's in it that's so shocking these days?


This has always been a question on my mind. It really doesn't warrant an 18, especially with what gets passed with a 15 rating these days (I'm looking at you Land of the Dead  ;D )


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: HEX on November 17, 2005, 09:36:30 AM
This has always been a question on my mind. It really doesn't warrant an 18, especially with what gets passed with a 15 rating these days (I'm looking at you Land of the Dead  ;D )


i am guessing u are saying LAND OF THE DEAD was a dissapointment in the gore catergory? i would have to agree with u on that.

and today i am sure that GBU would get a pg-13(15)


in america it is still considered an R(18)


except for the uncut version which is not rated.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Leone Admirer on November 17, 2005, 10:51:14 AM
I wasn't dissapointed at all Hex, its just seeing an almost (there were a few bits missing) uncut print both in the best city in the world (New York) and London surprised me, especially with the trigger happy BBFC.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on November 19, 2005, 04:56:36 AM
Was browsing in the Film section of Barnes & Nobel the other day and saw a DR. Skin celebrity skin book (your favorite actresses and the films they bared all in) on the shelf, checked out the Cardinale entry and it basically says that the international print does show her hooters, lol, there is also a reference to a web site, so any of you adventuerous surfers can check it out for the rest of us,  ;D


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: HEX on November 19, 2005, 11:19:22 PM
Was browsing in the Film section of Barnes & Nobel the other day and saw a DR. Skin celebrity skin book (your favorite actresses and the films they bared all in) on the shelf, checked out the Cardinale entry and it basically says that the international print does show her hooters, lol, there is also a reference to a web site, so any of you adventuerous surfers can check it out for the rest of us,  ;D



even if it said in the constitution that it showed her hooters in the international version i would have my doubts.


but still it would be interesting to know if it were a fact or not, and would encourage all of our over seas friends
to check up on it and post a picture. but i get the feeling it is a wild goose chase.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on November 20, 2005, 03:56:54 PM
It could be, you never know.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Tim on November 20, 2005, 06:35:03 PM
  When I watch the Region 1 special edition that came out last spring, there is something like pixelation over Claudia's chest during the scene where she's trying to entice Lancaster.  It's like a big black mark over her upper body.

  I just always assumed this is how everyone's dvd looked.  As was pointed out, Claudia Cardinale never wanted to do nude scenes, so this was how they went about it. 

  Until someone says otherwise, I'll agree with Hex on this one being a wild goose chase.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: HEX on November 20, 2005, 09:18:18 PM
  When I watch the Region 1 special edition that came out last spring, there is something like pixelation over Claudia's chest during the scene where she's trying to entice Lancaster.  It's like a big black mark over her upper body.

  I just always assumed this is how everyone's dvd looked.  As was pointed out, Claudia Cardinale never wanted to do nude scenes, so this was how they went about it. 

  Until someone says otherwise, I'll agree with Hex on this one being a wild goose chase.


the same with my dvd. mine is more of a dark shadow over her chest rather then a huge black mark.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: titoli on May 07, 2008, 01:52:45 AM
THe dvd SE distributed in Italy is the same as the one distributed in USA. BTW the interview with Cardinale in the featurettes does explain that she wore before shooting the scene tons of necklaces and what else to cover them. So it is possible that the blacking of her breast was added not to cover her nudity but to cover whatever she put on and let the audience suppose she had her breast  naked. I don't know about an International edition but I tell you that I saw the movie on tv 20 years ago and I would have noticed CC naked breast, believe me. And, like me, so would have all her fans. But there are some pics of her in topless shot by paparazzi 30 years ago for those who care and which I presume can be easily found with a google search.

About the movie, I liked it very much, almost perfect were it not that the finale is disappointing, very conventional hollywooden crap. One wonders why did it take them so long to make a decision they could have made just after having seen how things do stand : if not after having peeped Cardinale and Palance love scene, at least after CC telle them how things really are. I give it an 8\10 only because of Marvin's great performance.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: dave jenkins on June 03, 2008, 10:44:10 PM
The Beev on the Blu-ray: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews37/the_professionals_blu-ray.htm


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: The Firecracker on June 04, 2008, 04:09:50 PM
But there are some pics of her in topless shot by paparazzi 30 years ago for those who care and which I presume can be easily found with a google search.

Those have been posted on this site several times.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Groggy on June 04, 2008, 04:59:07 PM
I haven't seen this in at least two years. Definitely needs a rewatch. O0


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: dave jenkins on June 24, 2008, 12:05:42 PM
Savant on the BR disc: http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s2595prof.html


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: tucumcari bound on July 05, 2008, 01:23:08 PM

I'm hearing Tuco Harmonica thinks this this film is just "ok." To hell with that, it's one of the greatest western's ever in my opinion. Yes, the film has Claudia Cardinale, and she's great in it, but the film is GREAT with or without her. The cast is exceptional here and I love the story.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Dust Devil on January 01, 2011, 10:57:11 AM
I haven't seen this film many times in my life, maybe three, more probably two, and a long time ago, in what now seems like a galaxy far, far away... Ah...

The biggest fault this movie carries on its shoulders is the indecisiveness. What is this, an entertaining flick starring a bunch of tough guys on a mission, or a revolution drama? - This movie tries being both, and ends up being neither. Eat the cake and have it too, it doesn't work that way, lads. Maybe once in a million times.

What was Robert Ryan doing here, btw? I understand why Woody Strode did it, as much as I'm sure we all like him in here, he wasn't a star, he must have figured it wouldn't hurt at all to be in a W with Lee Marvin and Burt Lancaster (and he was right too), but I can see no reason whatsoever for RR to be in it, especially his character being half-dead most of the time. I'm sure they could have found anybody to fill that part. They tried something in the beginning with him, when he wouldn't kill those horses, and then he just got lost as a character. Woody's character's very simple also. What the hell, a bunch of guys on a mission flicks, I want jokes every 36 seconds, take no prisoners.

The action's okay and Marvin and Lancaster carry the show, but that's about it. This doesn't seem to be a great W by any definition. I liked the episodes with the Mexican bandits in the first half, that's when the title of the movie seemed right, later they just disconnected from that frequency, beats me why.

Tooooooooooo looooooooooooooooooooooong...

Ralph Bellamy's in it, then where the hell is Don Ameche?


(hoping for a) 7/10 (on a good day)


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Dust Devil on January 01, 2011, 10:59:35 AM
I haven't seen this in at least two years. Definitely needs a rewatch. O0

Anytime sweetheart.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: stanton on January 01, 2011, 12:09:02 PM
Spoiler comment !!!


My only complaint is that at least one of the 4 should have died. Ryan, who was already wounded, or Lancaster on his last stand.

Ohh, and the big action scene at the camp is not that good.

Whatever, this mercenary western is much better than Mag 7. I wished Brooks had done some more westerns.



Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on January 01, 2011, 05:10:31 PM


 this mercenary western is much better than Mag 7. I wished Brooks had done some more westerns.



Pretty much agree with this.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Dust Devil on January 02, 2011, 01:50:43 AM
TMS is more entertaining, this one seems more... professional. They climb up to approximately the same rating in my book, though.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 04, 2011, 11:53:29 PM
The first time I saw it I didn't think much of it but a second view turned me straight.
Great movie. Very entertaining.
I still think Robert Ryan is terribly underused though.
He has , maybe, one good scene.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 10, 2011, 09:43:44 PM
just saw The Professionals for the first time. Real good film, but I have 2 problems with it; both are with the script

SPOILER

1) the ending was absolutely ridiculous. 4 guys who will do anything for $10,000 including put their lives at risk, and backstab their own former comrades, suddenly get a conscience cuz of a couple's love for each other? puhleez. It was about as ridiculous as the ending to Red River

2) As some of you have mentioned, the Ryan character wasn't written well. First he seems to be a big player, and then he just disappears for the latter part of the film. I understand that in any gang/film, some players will be bigger and some will be smaller. eg. the Woody Strode character never says that much, so I feel he is consistent. But what is weird about the Ryan character is how he seems to have more of a part at first, and then just fades away



Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: stanton on May 11, 2011, 05:45:47 AM

1) the ending was absolutely ridiculous. 4 guys who will do anything for $10,000 including put their lives at risk, and backstab their own former comrades, suddenly get a conscience cuz of a couple's love for each other? puhleez. It was about as ridiculous as the ending to Red River




No problem for me, instead this scene shows the cynicism of the film.They are professionals, and they do their job, even if they halfway through have to realise that they were put on.
But after the job is done they do what they think is right. But now many more people have died only for their code of professionalism. Very cynical.
That's a pretty strong end, and I like it very much.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Groggy on May 11, 2011, 06:39:42 AM
Yes the ending sucks. It might have worked had it been set up at all (like The Dogs of War), but it plays as a really lame, "crowd-pleasing" cop out in this film.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 11, 2011, 02:43:21 PM
Yes the ending sucks. It might have worked had it been set up at all (like The Dogs of War), but it plays as a really lame, "crowd-pleasing" cop out in this film.
Seems so to me too.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Groggy on May 11, 2011, 02:47:01 PM
Maybe Brooks was reacting to the reception of Lord Jim, which definitely had a downer ending?


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: stanton on May 12, 2011, 02:05:15 AM
Ooops, nobody else here who thinks the end is somehow great?

My only complaint with The Professionals: At least one of the four should have died. (Ryan or Lancaster the way the film goes)

For me the much better mercenary film compared to Mag 7


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: mike siegel on May 12, 2011, 03:43:19 AM
The ending is neither weak nor strong. But I think it fits the rest of the film which is just a pure joy. It is a great fun western with some undertones. But it isn't HEART OF DARKNESS or THE WILD BUNCH. If you kill one of the guys, you'd be in a different league immediately. Such a touch and a slightly altered ending would have lifted the film into something more acclaimed but I'm not sure it would have had the same kind of success. I don't think my girlfriend would have liked it :) And this is one of the very few westerns she REALLY liked... Great soundtrack.

(http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/peckinpah69/divers/p17x-klcopy.jpg)
(http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/peckinpah69/divers/p1x-kl.jpg)
(http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/peckinpah69/divers/p16x-klcopy.jpg)
(http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/peckinpah69/divers/p13x-kl.jpg)
(http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/peckinpah69/divers/p7x-kl.jpg)


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Groggy on May 12, 2011, 07:16:28 AM
I don't know Mike, the Magnificent Seven got away with killing four of its main characters without sacrificing its tone.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on May 12, 2011, 08:46:37 AM
I like it a lot also.  O0


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: mike siegel on May 12, 2011, 09:57:06 AM
I don't know Mike, the Magnificent Seven got away with killing four of its main characters without sacrificing its tone.

Sure, but to me the Marvin-gang are PROFESSIONALS, like Rambo, Murtaugh & Blondie. They are not supposed to die :)
After all Brynner made a point with 'We lost. We always lose.'


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: emmo26 on July 19, 2012, 01:34:43 PM
Interestly this "violent" zapata western got oscar nominated 3 times in the same year as GBU



Best Cinematography, Color
Best Adapted Screenplay
and
Best Director


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: mike siegel on July 20, 2012, 01:59:50 AM
Well, both Brooks and Conrad Hall were already regulars when it came to the Academy, so it was no real surprise. Richard had been nominated four times andwon for Best Screenplay (Elmar Gantry). Hall had been nominated in 1966. Both worked together again in 1967 (In Cold Blood), both would be nomintated again! (Hall won his first one two years later, BUTCH CASSIDY).
I like their work a lot, but Oscars always has been a lot of crap. With the exception of Lean, Wilder, Ford and certain others most films & creators we highly regard now, who's works stood the test of time , never were acknowledged really. Kubrick, Hitchcock, Hawks, Peckinpah, LEONE....


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 21, 2012, 10:40:59 PM
IMO this ending was far worse than the ending to Red River, which is considered the gold standard for awful endings to a good Western. Red River's is probably more famous because it is considered among the very greatest Westerns of all-time; while The Professionals, is real good, but generally not rated that high. If you vomit on the Mona Lisa, history will remember that more infamously than if you vomit  on, say, Nighthawks -- even if the vomit on Nighthawks  was a bigger, fatter, and uglier bunch of vomit!) But IMO, the ending to The Professionals was worse. (At least with Red River I was expecting it; I mean, come on, did you really expect Tom and Matt to shoot it out? With The Professionals, I absolutely dd not see it coming. You can argue whether that should be better or worse).


Otherwise, this was a very good movie. The best performance I've seen by Lee Marvin.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: stanton on July 22, 2012, 02:02:19 AM
IMO this ending was far worse than the ending to Red River, which is considered the gold standard for awful endings to a good Western.

Who says so? In all my books about film, about westerns, about Hawks, there was never any complaint about the ending.

Quote
I mean, come on, did you really expect Tom and Matt to shoot it out?

Not as a duel between them, that would have been indeed unlikely, but that he got shot by Ireland (and not only wounded).
I did expect him to die, and the screenplay had it that way. Wayne wasn't the big star then, he just became the superstar in the late 40s.
The role and the film absolutely demand his death, not the bad guy death, but the sentimental good/bad guy death which allows him to find comprehension and salvation shortly before he dies.
I still think that the ending was a brave choice against a typical convention.

And the ending of The Professionals is as cynical as the whole film, and is in accordance with the idea of professionalism the film is about.

A real surprise ending is btw the one of King Vidor's Billy the Kid (1931)

In Reap the Wild Wind he also played the good/bad role, and died at the end.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 22, 2012, 03:47:16 AM

I did expect him to die, and the screenplay had it that way. Wayne wasn't the big star then, he just became the superstar in the late 40s.
The role and the film absolutely demand his death, not the bad guy death, but the sentimental good/bad guy death which allows him to find comprehension and salvation shortly before he dies.
I still think that the ending was a brave choice against a typical convention.


Everything I've read online trashes the end of Red River. You really think it was a brave choice against a typical convention? Having these two hardened guys who are about to kill each other break it up and become friends again just because the girl says "aww, can't you get along?" That's just a ridiculous ending. And certainly the cutesie ending I'd have expected in Hollywood; so I don't see how you can say that it was against convention. If anything, the conventional happy ending would have them making up just like they did; because neither one is really a "good guy" or a "bad guy." Tom has built the land from the ground up, spent years of his life building this herd, conceived of the plan to go on the cattle drive, and then ultimately he wants to administer frontier justice -- common at the time -- when someone is caught stealing. You can say he was correct, being strict, per custom at that time, to hang or flog food thieves, whatever they were gonna do. Or you can say he was being too tough, or yo can say that he was going crazy,( kind of like Bogie in The Caine Mutiny?) Om the other hand, Matt was off in school for much of the time, it's not his herd; he just takes it over when he feels that Tom has become unqualified to lead cuz he's nuts, very similar to The Caine Mutiny. Well, if you want something conventional and happy, it's: have them make up  -- after the GIRL says don't you know you love each other! and they all live happily ever after. That's what happened. And that's why the ending to Red River is the absolutely most atrocious ending to an all-time great Western.

Anytime in the future that I will watch the movie, I will shut it off a minute before the end. As soon as they  are about to fight, I'll end the movie on that


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: stanton on July 22, 2012, 04:35:15 AM
People say that, because it is Wayne, the icon, but he wasn't an icon in 48, he wasn't a superstar, only a star of minor films (but not b-pictures), and "only" a co-star in bigger budgeted films (like in Reap the Wild Wind, They Were Expendable, Fort Apache). And the logical ending for that film would be his death (but never caused by Clift), and if you understand Hollywood this is the expected-by-the-audience ending and for that a conventional ending. To have a happy end in a film which was demanding a tragic ending is a surprise.
Dunson is too hard from the beginning on, he loses the girl due to his false decision to leave her behind. He takes the land, which is not his, with violence, and then he becomes too hard, becomes inhuman in the process of the trail to defend his dream. If he fails with the herd, the girl at the beginning would have died a 2nd time for him. And it is the meeting with another girl which starts his inner change.
The ending is even realistic for me. He bears still his grudge but inwardly he searches for a reason not to shoot Matt. If Matt had pulled his gun he would have tried to kill him, but when Matt refuses to draw he can't kill him anymore, he has the reason not to shoot, and the fistfight only manifests his change. And that change doesn't come out of nowhere in the final scene, this change had already happened long before in the confrontation with Dru. Which is one of the best scenes of the film.

The line of Dru at the end is of course not good, which Hawks also admitted, but apart from that the scene works very well, and Hawks always defended it. The ending would have worked better without that line, which only makes clear what is visible anyway. Too many films don't trust the audience too understand a film only by the pictures.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: stanton on July 22, 2012, 04:40:46 AM
Just found a quote from Robin Wood from his Hawks book:

"With this ending Hawks did not only broke with the rules of the classic western, but also with the rules of the classic tragedy."



Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Groggy on July 22, 2012, 08:42:50 AM
People say that, because it is Wayne, the icon, but he wasn't an icon in 48, he wasn't a superstar, only a star of minor films (but not b-pictures), and "only" a co-star in bigger budgeted films (like in Reap the Wild Wind, They Were Expendable, Fort Apache).

You're forgetting Stagecoach.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: stanton on July 22, 2012, 09:59:30 AM
No, Stagecoach made him a star, after he made dozens of B-westerns in the 30s.

He had already starred in The Big Trail (1930), which flopped, but got him his B-picture contract. After Stagecoach he made A-stuff ,but not the real big movies. Between Stagecoach and Fort Apache and Red River he wasn't in the same league as Flynn, Bogart, Cooper, Fonda or other big stars were. He was on the level of Randolph Scott or maybe Rod Cameron or Dan Dureya.

But after Red River he was a real big star.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: emmo26 on July 22, 2012, 02:38:43 PM
Maybe a better ending would be......



Sorry Mr Randolph Duke (Trading places) we cut a deal with Jack Palance and his mexican gold


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: mike siegel on July 22, 2012, 04:08:02 PM
No, Stagecoach made him a star, after he made dozens of B-westerns in the 30s.

He had already starred in The Big Trail (1930), which flopped, but got him his B-picture contract. After Stagecoach he made A-stuff ,but not the real big movies. Between Stagecoach and Fort Apache and Red River he wasn't in the same league as Flynn, Bogart, Cooper, Fonda or other big stars were. He was on the level of Randolph Scott or maybe Rod Cameron or Dan Dureya.

But after Red River he was a real big star.

He was a star after Stagecoach. Nevertheless it was a western, and before that he was known for cheap western. So he became a Western 'Star'. But then the war broke out and his career went up. Like Flynn and certain others he made one film after the other. Almost 20 films until Ford came home and made THEY WERE EXEPENDABLE with him. The main reason why so many of his films at that period were B-films was the fact that he had a contract with Herbert Yates' Republic Pictures. The best they ever did was probably THE QUIET MAN (and that was rather too big for them. By then Wayne was a big star and Ford was anyway, he made it merely because Yates let him film in Ireland.)
RED RIVER was filmed in 1946, not 1948.
To let him die would not have worked. Nobody knew Clift at the time, it would have been to shocking if the only star in the film dies. After all, this was not SANDS OF IWO JIMA.



Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 22, 2012, 05:54:48 PM
He was a star after Stagecoach. Nevertheless it was a western, and before that he was known for cheap western. So he became a Western 'Star'. But then the war broke out and his career went up. Like Flynn and certain others he made one film after the other. Almost 20 films until Ford came home and made THEY WERE EXEPENDABLE with him. The main reason why so many of his films at that period were B-films was the fact that he had a contract with Herbert Yates' Republic Pictures. The best they ever did was probably THE QUIET MAN (and that was rather too big for them. By then Wayne was a big star and Ford was anyway, he made it merely because Yates let him film in Ireland.)
RED RIVER was filmed in 1946, not 1948.
To let him die would not have worked. Nobody knew Clift at the time, it would have been to shocking if the only star in the film dies. After all, this was not SANDS OF IWO JIMA.



I'm not complaining about the fact that Wayne lives. But it shouldn't be Dru's silly speech that does it.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: stanton on July 23, 2012, 01:51:11 AM
I'm not complaining about the fact that Wayne lives. But it shouldn't be Dru's silly speech that does it.

Maybe you don't understand Red River ? ;)


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: mike siegel on July 23, 2012, 02:06:48 AM
Well, Hawks had this thing about strong women (he was a pioneer on that field). It worked
very well with Bacall and various others. You'll find them in almost all of his films. In this case one
just feels the scene is a bit too much. I never liked it either. But I like her, so I don't care really :)


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 23, 2012, 03:04:50 AM
On the dvd commentary to Wagon Master, Harry Carey, Jr, who is still with us, said the following story (I think I've mentioned it before, but what the hell, it's funny): Dru was hosting a poolside party at her home, a bunch of Hollywood people were there, but not John Ireland, who was her husband at the time. One of the guests started hitting on her, so she reaches into her bathing suit... and hands him a falsie and says "here, play with this."  ;D 

Personally, I don't see much in her.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Groggy on July 23, 2012, 06:22:46 AM
If Dru's character figured more prominently in the story than she does I could buy the ending. But she has only a few fairly short scenes beforehand and therefore her effect on the film is cheap and unsatisfactory.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: stanton on July 23, 2012, 02:17:13 PM
Hawks wasn't very fond of her either (but what does he know), but for me she was great in most of her scenes, and they worked pretty good.
(I also liked her in Yellow Ribbon and Wagonmaster. Did she make anything else?)

Ahh you guys, you don't understand Johnny Guitar, you don't understand Lady from Shanghai, you don't understand fuckin Nolan, you don't understand Frayling, you don't ... is there anything you understand except vague  theories about dreams and ghosts?


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Groggy on July 27, 2012, 07:24:56 AM
Why is disliking something not "understanding" it? Please let's avoid needless condescension, especially when concerning Batman films.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: stanton on July 27, 2012, 02:17:00 PM
Can't say that the understanding part was meant to be taken serious.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 27, 2012, 05:41:51 PM
Thanks Groggy for being vigilant about the politeness and etiquette of the boards  ;)


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Alias on July 30, 2016, 05:59:31 PM
Just re-watched this for the first time in years, and my immediate thought was how much it would have benefited from a Five Man Army-style Morricone score.  Maurice Jarre's music is OK, but nothing special. Also disappointed that Woody Strode and Robert Ryan were given so little to do. Even Palance. Leone, who in 1966 was beating Hollywood at its own game, would have known how to make the most of this material.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: uncknown on October 14, 2016, 02:47:31 PM
The current issue of CINEMA RETRO has a great piece on this film.

It says something interesting.
Claudia Cardinale appears topless in the trailer but in the film her breasts were optically covered!
Can anyone tell me where to find that trailer? >:D
bruce marshall


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: stanton on October 16, 2016, 03:02:21 AM
The current issue of CINEMA RETRO has a great piece on this film.

It says something interesting.
Claudia Cardinale appears topless in the trailer

Really? Unlikely for a Hollywoodfilm from 1966, and as far as I know CC never made any nude scene in any film. But if the guys say that they probably have seen it.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on October 16, 2016, 02:54:19 PM
The current issue of CINEMA RETRO has a great piece on this film.

It says something interesting.
Claudia Cardinale appears topless in the trailer but in the film her breasts were optically covered!
Can anyone tell me where to find that trailer? >:D
bruce marshall

The trailer was shown on TV or in theaters or both? Did they allow tits on European TV back then? They still don't allow it today, in USA.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on October 16, 2016, 02:55:00 PM
And btw I have never seen nudity in any trailer, TV or theater.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: stanton on October 16, 2016, 04:18:01 PM
The trailer was shown on TV or in theaters or both? Did they allow tits on European TV back then? They still don't allow it today, in USA.

Really?

Nudity is since the early 70s part of TV here. Most likely already earlier.

First only here and there, meanwhile there is nudity all over the place in TV. Not only in the evening, and all kinds of nudity are possible, inclusive pornographic explicitly scenes if it is some kind of art. But no real porn films of course.

Films like Idiots, L'Empire des sens, AntiChrist, 9 Songs or some Catherine Breillat films were shown uncut.

And btw I have never seen nudity in any trailer, TV or theater.

That's even stranger ...


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: uncknown on October 16, 2016, 06:49:43 PM
Mr. SKin says she appears nude int the "uncut Euro version" which is probably a mistake
I have seen French films, mainstream ones from the 50's with female nudity.
so, it is possible that the original THEATRICAL trailer had nudity( we all now that some things in trailers never appear on the film itself}

USA films started in the mid to late 60's. I think THE PAWNBROKER was the first US film to have clear female flesh
Uk 's BLOW-UP has a lot of nudity (1966)
bruce marshall


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: noodles_leone on October 17, 2016, 01:37:12 AM
Sooooooo you guys are saying she may be nude in the french version of the film or of the trailer? I bought the film on iTunes the other day, if anyone cares to tell me what scene we're talking about and where it is exactly in the movie (I haven't seen it in ages) I'll be happy to report.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: mike siegel on October 17, 2016, 02:11:53 AM
CC was smart enough never to really expose herself. She believed in fantasy :).

BUT in the trailer there is a very quick flash, when she dresses herself up again. Totally harmless.
In the film it is this two-shot: TC  88:47 - it was darkened for the final release print and maybe even
more so for the Blu-ray version.
Maybe they didn't include the trailer on the BD for that reason? (it is on youtube though,
and although minor quality you still can see what I'm talking about). I have it on 35mm,
maybe I'll scan the bit when I got some time left.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: stanton on October 17, 2016, 05:17:11 AM
Mr. SKin says she appears nude int the "uncut Euro version" which is probably a mistake
I have seen French films, mainstream ones from the 50's with female nudity.


There are surprisingly many European films with a bit nudity throughout the 50s. No full frontal nudity though, but female breasts, yes, (and not as bashful as in later Hollywood film), and completely naked from behind.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on October 18, 2016, 05:25:08 AM
It's probably in that sequence, I think in the desert, where she has a shirt or something draped over both shoulders hiding her assets.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Cusser on October 18, 2016, 06:40:14 AM
For Spartacus, Kubrick had Jean Simmons nude in the pond/bath scene, possibly planned to cut the scene anyway to appease/bargain with US censors.
(https://iheartingrid.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/f8781777a59907c48b9bc82d2a9719d8.jpg)


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: uncknown on October 18, 2016, 01:34:10 PM
CC was smart enough never to really expose herself. She believed in fantasy :).

BUT in the trailer there is a very quick flash, when she dresses herself up again. Totally harmless.

....it is on youtube though,.


I think I speak for all the horny males on this board when I say that we all were knocked out by CC's heaving bosom in OUTIW
and wanted to see more! :D
The scene as depicted in the You Tube clip (thanks, Mike!) doesn't quite satisfy our/my lustful desires :(

Oh well, we will always have Mariana Hill doing a total striptease in EL CONDOR  >:D O0


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on October 18, 2016, 09:00:03 PM
The Pawnbroker was the first film in USA to be released with the Production Code seal of approval and show tits. Soon thereafter, the Code was gone.

By the way, my comments earlier about what can and can't be shown on American TV, were about netwotk TV, not cable TV. Of course, cable TV can show nudity - like TCM shows movies with nudity. But network TV does not show tits.

A TV show called NYPD Blue, sometime around 15 years ago, made headlines by showing naked ass. On network TV, ABC (though it was a 10:00 pm show). So I guess you can occasionally get away wih that. When Schindler's List was shown on network TV, you know inmates in concentration camps are naked shown naked, -'dvsome conservative senators flipped out, it was controversial - though I think that was on PBS, a publicly funded network TV station.

But generally, in 2016, no nudity at all on network TV in USA. IMO that is a good thing. Parents should be able to let their kids  network TV without worrying that they might see nudity.  Though these days, the presidential debates are pretty dirty  ;D


In BLOW UP, back in the mid-60's, I recall reading that a huge deal was made over the possibility that public hair was shown. It was (or wasn't) just for a split second. Was it or wasn't it?? Big debate and controversy. Same with PSYCHO and the question of whether a tit was shown for a split second.
BTW, in PSYCHO, a clear shot of Janet Leigh in a bra (getting ready for the shower) was censored out. I believe that in the opening scene of the movie, there is a shot of her in a bra and an open shirt, which was kept in the movie. But in the deleted shot I am referring to, she takes off her shirt as she gets ready for the shower, and you see her in just a bra – and that was censored out. I have seen some earlier movies with women wearing older-style big bras or corsets (KILLER'S KISS), but not sure what was the first American film to even show a clear shot of a woman wearing a modern-style bra with nothing on top of it.

America is a Puritan country   ;)


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on October 18, 2016, 09:37:54 PM

America is a Puritan country   ;)

speaking of which, Playboy is no longer showing nude photos http://www.etonline.com/news/173873_playboy_to_stop_publishing_nude_photos/


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: stanton on October 19, 2016, 04:54:21 AM
The Pawnbroker was the first film in USA to be released with the Production Code seal of approval and show tits. Soon thereafter, the Code was gone.

By the way, my comments earlier about what can and can't be shown on Americab TV, were about netwotk TV, not cable TV. Of course, cable TV can show nudity - like TCM shows movies with nudity. But network TV does not show tits.

I know, and what I wrote was about what you call network TV. Full frontal nudity possible at least since the early 70s, and meanwhile also penetration, but of course only as a big exception.


Quote
But generally, in 2016, no nudity at all on network TV in USA. IMO that is a good thing. Parents should be able to let their kids  network TV without worrying that they might see nudity.  

But for me that's strange. Nothing wrong with a bit nudity, and today that is completely anachronistic, as in the net you get everything you want with every possible detail.

Quote
In BLOW UP, back in the mid-60's, I recall reading that a huge deal was made over the possibility that public hair was shown. It was (or wasn't) just for a split second. Was it or wasn't it?? Big debate and controversy.

Hmm, what is public hair?


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: noodles_leone on October 19, 2016, 05:31:28 AM
Hmm, what is public hair?

The 60's were a simpler time.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on October 19, 2016, 11:59:59 AM
* PUBIC HAIR.  was not supposed to be public  ;) 🇺🇸 (I guess you'd never see pubes in a USA film cuz American women SHAVED! It rook a Brit to export the Bush. No relation to Billy Bush, who, I suspect will join our conversation soon We should change the title of this thread to  "Locker-Room Talk"


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: dave jenkins on October 19, 2016, 01:22:12 PM
BTW, in PSYCHO, a clear shot of Janet Leigh in a bra (getting ready for the shower) was censored out. I believe that in the opening scene of the movie, there is a shot of her in a bra and an open shirt, which was kept in the movie. But in the deleted shot I am referring to, she takes off her shirt as she gets ready for the shower, and you see her in just a bra – and that was censored out.
The U.S. cut is not the only cut of the film: https://deadlymovies.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/deadly-movies-investigates-the-strange-case-of-the-german-uncut-version-of-psycho-196/


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: stanton on October 19, 2016, 02:33:16 PM
* PUBIC HAIR.  was not supposed to be public  ;)

Ahh, pubic hair, that was what you meant, couldn't guess that ...

But you are right the pubic hair has turned into public hair, and now there is often no hair at all. Hairy facts ...

One of the most surprising early nude scenes was this one from 1964: http://www.aufwinnetousspuren.at/assets/images/autogen/a_go__3_.jpg

Surprising, because it is in one of the naive and children friendly German Karl May westerns. It is supposed to be Dahlia Lavi, but of course it is actually a body double.



Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on October 19, 2016, 02:41:11 PM
I much prefer no hair at all  ;)


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: stanton on October 20, 2016, 03:19:06 AM
In recent years, yes.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on October 20, 2016, 04:59:00 AM
I much prefer no hair at all  ;)

I prefer some fuzz, no hair has lost its allure, it's has too much of a prepubescent look, and can look a bit creepy. 


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: uncknown on November 18, 2016, 02:44:43 PM
CC was smart enough never to really expose herself. She believed in fantasy :).

BUT in the trailer there is a very quick flash, when she dresses herself up again. Totally harmless.
In the film it is this two-shot: TC  88:47 - it was darkened for the final release print and maybe even
more so for the Blu-ray version.
Maybe they didn't include the trailer on the BD for that reason? (it is on youtube though,
and although minor quality you still can see what I'm talking about). I have it on 35mm,
maybe I'll scan the bit when I got some time left.


the "uncensored' trailer is on the standard US dvd! O0


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: uncknown on November 18, 2016, 02:49:02 PM
Seems so to me too.

id..id..idi ;D


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Moorman on January 31, 2017, 08:22:39 PM
Just saw this tonight. Excellent movie.  I was pleasantly surprised. Usually, when you get a team of big actors together,  the movie is all hype and fluff.  This went the other way. My quick review.

1. Cinematography. It was ok. I love movies filmed in Panavision. I gotta see this on blu ray.

2. Musical Score.  Pretty good.  It didn't particularly stick out with me, but it was ok.

3. Actors.  Everybody was on point. Everybody. Robert Ryan was too subdued for me though. Not bad, but his character wasn't as forceful as the others. Love Woody Strode's character. He was excellent. Jack Palance came thru towards the end. I didn't initially like the idea of him playing a Mexican, but he pulled it off.

4. The plot. This was the best part of the movie.  The twists that came about were unexpected.  The screen writers and the director didn't over do it either.  Spoiler Alert... Toward the end, the way they had Burt Lancaster's character singlehandedly deal with the uncoming Posse. That was a EXCELLENT move.  That was something you wouldn't expect, particularly in a movie where there is a group of Professionals. Instead of doing the last gunfight showdown, the movie went with something else. Brilliant move. Usually, when someone is left behind like that, its a sacrifice of somebody who couldn't make it anyway. In this instance, it was a tactical move that worked.

The obvious comparison is the original Magnificent 7.  The director learned a BIG thing from The Magnificent 7. He came with some fantastic gunplay. THAT alone makes this a better movie.  The plot twist is another thing that makes it a better movie. If i had one gripe with the movie, it would be them not taking the money at the end. Other than that, the plot was almost flawless.

I rate this movie a 8/10 and a must have for your Blu Ray collection...


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on February 01, 2017, 04:01:25 AM
If you liked Burt Lancaster and Marie Gomez "Chiquita" in this then watch Burt in his three other post 50s Westerns Lawman, Valdez Is Coming, and Ulzana's Raid, and Marie in Barquero with Lee Van Cleef and Warren Oates. Enjoy  O0 O0 O0


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: stanton on February 01, 2017, 05:47:09 AM
Just saw this tonight. Excellent movie.  I was pleasantly surprised. Usually, when you get a team of big actors together,  the movie is all hype and fluff.  This went the other way. My quick review.

1. Cinematography. It was ok. I love movies filmed in Panavision. I gotta see this on blu ray.

2. Musical Score.  Pretty good.  It didn't particularly stick out with me, but it was ok.


I think photography and score are excellent, especially the photography.

And btw Brooks wrote also the screenplay.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Moorman on February 01, 2017, 02:27:01 PM
If you liked Burt Lancaster and Marie Gomez "Chiquita" in this then watch Burt in his three other post 50s Westerns Lawman, Valdez Is Coming, and Ulzana's Raid, and Marie in Barquero with Lee Van Cleef and Warren Oates. Enjoy  O0 O0 O0

I tried watching Ulzana's Raid a few days ago and didn't wanna finish it. Is it REALLY any good?  Gonna try Valdez is Coming and Barquero... Thanx.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Moorman on February 01, 2017, 02:27:43 PM
I think photography and score are excellent, especially the photography.

And btw Brooks wrote also the screenplay.

I gotta see it on Blu Ray.  The screenplay was awesome. 


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on February 01, 2017, 03:28:41 PM
I tried watching Ulzana's Raid a few days ago and didn't wanna finish it. Is it REALLY any good?  Gonna try Valdez is Coming and Barquero... Thanx.

It's very realistic compared to other cavalry films prior.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: stanton on February 01, 2017, 04:56:14 PM
I tried watching Ulzana's Raid a few days ago and didn't wanna finish it. Is it REALLY any good? 

What's the problem?


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Moorman on February 03, 2017, 08:36:40 AM
What's the problem?

It started off looking like a Calvary, Walt Disney Movie...


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: stanton on February 03, 2017, 01:41:22 PM
It started off looking like a Calvary, Walt Disney Movie...

That's even odder than thinking that Major Dundee is a comedy.

Ulzana's Raid is very well the opposite of any Disney movie.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Moorman on February 03, 2017, 01:48:44 PM
That's even odder than thinking that Major Dundee is a comedy.

Ulzana's Raid is very well the opposite of any Disney movie.

I wouldn't know because i turned it off after a couple of scenes...lol


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: stanton on February 03, 2017, 01:53:51 PM
I wouldn't know because i turned it off after a couple of scenes...lol

Watch it, it is a demanding film, unusual, sometimes shocking.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on February 03, 2017, 02:09:42 PM
I wouldn't know because i turned it off after a couple of scenes...lol

In all your typical Cowboy/Cavalry vs Indian Westerns before this film you seem to always have this chase scene where a wagon/stagecoach is chased by a horde of Native Americans, usually you have someone in the wagon/stagecoach shooting down the chasing natives.

In the first chase in the film a soldier is driving a woman in a wagon they get chased by a group of natives, they show what anybody with a lick of common sense would probably always ask, why don't the indians shoot one of the horses?

They shoot one of the horses, the wagon stops abruptly. The Apaches approach the wagon, the soldier takes out his revolver, and shoots himself in the head rather than get tortured.  The woman is left to a fate "worse" than death, as they used to say.

Disney it's not,  O0


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Moorman on February 03, 2017, 02:49:51 PM
Ok. I'll go back and watch it..


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: stanton on February 03, 2017, 04:39:53 PM


In the first chase in the film a soldier is driving a woman in a wagon they get chased by a group of natives, they show what anybody with a lick of common sense would probably always ask, why don't the indians shoot one of the horses?

They shoot one of the horses, the wagon stops abruptly. The Apaches approach the wagon, the soldier takes out his revolver, and shoots himself in the head rather than get tortured.  The woman is left to a fate "worse" than death, as they used to say.


Actually the scene ends a bit different, but I won't spoil it here. That's a very, very powerful scene. And a shocking one. Especially as the scout later explains that the soldier did right.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on February 03, 2017, 04:52:19 PM
Actually the scene ends a bit different, but I won't spoil it here. That's a very, very powerful scene. And a shocking one. Especially as the scout later explains that the soldier did right.

Yea you could be right it's been a while since I've screened it.  ;)


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: T.H. on May 13, 2017, 01:15:59 PM
It's been years since I've last seen this, but I generally have the same thoughts as I did outside of not giving the first hour or so nearly enough credit. It's almost perfect.

After watching Jaws recently and seeing that movie perfectly follow the unofficial Leone action rule where every action scene needs to be bigger than the last...The Professionals fails pretty badly in this regard. The great action scene in the middle of the movie is way too good and towers over the disappointing gunfight near the end.

That brings us to the conclusion, which has been rightly ripped in this thread. Normally, I'm not as harsh as the typical SLWBer when it comes to 'cop-out' endings like Red River, but this one is really hard to defend. I get that they finished their job and maybe that's all that mattered, but this could have been such a better movie if Palance's character and the Professionals joined together (or had to join together) earlier in the movie. This also could have solved the action problem in the second half of the movie by undertaking a bigger mission etc.

But once the movie slows down, Claudia Cardinale (who looks stunning in HD, I highly recommend the bluray) steps into the picture and gives things a fresher feel, but the movie is heading towards a disappointing conclusion and you feel that. Even with the disappointing second half (or everything after the big action set piece), the pace is totally on point. The Professionals has the pacing of a truly great movie, also the cinematography is excellent, the desert has rarely looked prettier with the tones of the rock formations, mountains, etc. The score is good as well.

Even with the bad ending and somewhat disappointing second half, I'd still give this an 8.5/10 because the photography, pacing, cast (even though Robert Ryan's character wasn't properly utilized) are all so good. And even the pacing doesn't suffer once the movie takes a less interesting direction, it at least still flies by.

B+/A-

Sidenote: I'd say Claudia Cardinale has never looked better in a color movie than here. For B&W my pick would be Girl With a Suitcase.



Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Spikeopath on May 14, 2017, 12:24:09 AM
I love it!

4 soldiers of fortune, one kidnapped wife, one explosive mission.

The Professionals comes out of Columbia Pictures and it is based around the novel "A Mule for the Marquesa" written by Frank O'Rourke. Written and directed by Richard Brooks it stars Burt Lancaster, Lee Marvin, Robert Ryan, Woody Strode, Jack Palance and Claudia Cardinale. A Panavision and Technicolor presentation it features cinematography by Conrad L. Hall and Maurice Jarre scores the music.

One of the stand out Oaters from the 1960s that is often forgotten in light of what was to come from Sam Peckinpah three years later. Though far more light hearted than "Bloody Sam's Magnum Opus" that was The Wild Bunch, Richard Brook's film has many similarities. Themes of friendship, loyalty, disillusionment and of course the changing of the Old West all get dealt a hand here, with Brooks and his team upping the action stakes in a ball of explosions, gun fights and verbal jousting. Hell! The film is even a touch risqué, with nudity, sex and a wife in distress that is not as saintly as one would expect.

Set in 1917 on the Mexican-Texas border, just after the Mexican revolution, The Professionals' only real problem is the thin story. However, Brooks is not interested in going too deep with his plot, he's more concerned with playing it for thrills and back slapping camaraderie. Which works magnificently due to the impressive cast that has assembled for the movie.

Marvin plays it restrained as Henry 'Rico' Fardan, the weary leader of the group sent into Mexico to "rescue" Claudia Cardinale's (sultry but some fluctuating accent issues) Mrs. Maria Grant from the clutches of Palance's (excellent) Bandido supreme, Jesus Raza. Lancaster is a whirlwind of testosterone as explosives expert Bill Dolworth, while Ryan and Strode are smooth background characters as the conscientious Hans Ehrengard & muscular tracker and bowman, Jake Sharp, respectively. The only complaint about the characters comes with Ralph Bellamy's Joe Grant, the apparently fraught husband who sets the men off on their mission. He's in the beginning and the end of the pic, but it's just not enough screen time to really grasp his make up and thus the character is rendered as underdeveloped.

Hall's photography is exceptional as he shoots on location at Death Valley, Lake Mead and the Valley of Fire State Park in Nevada. The browns are smooth on the eye and the capturing of the odd rock formations a real treat. He was nominated for an Academy Award for his work, as was Brooks in the Best Direction and Best Screenplay categories. The shoot actually suffered some serious problems such as dust storms and flash floods, thus causing severe delays. But the end result was worth it for the film was a success at the box office. The public promptly lapped it up, yes it's a bit close to the knuckle sometimes, but there's never a dull moment in it. It's basically a ripper of a good time. 8/10

Own collection, Region 2 DVD.


Title: Re: The Professionals (1966)
Post by: Jessica Rabbit on May 15, 2017, 09:07:38 AM
I love it too. It stands in between the classic Western and the new breed of Western of the 60s.

The cast is great. So much testosterone flying around.  O0