(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 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.