Review of Johnny Cool

Johnny Cool (1963)
3/10
Good Acting Can't Save It
25 September 2010
This movie is just bad. Big name stars and great acting throughout from everybody can't save this tedious jumble.

Elizabeth Montgomery is the best I've ever seen her, although the character she is given to play is not all that believable -- a wealthy socialite from Westchester County who falls so ragingly in lust in a matter of hours that she's willing to throw away everything she's ever known to become a gangster moll and commit murder. The movie is almost as much about her as about Johnny. I bet she was recruited from here for Bewitched, which debuted the following year. Her first shot in the movie looks remarkably like Samantha on the first episode, except for her Angela-Lansbury-in-the-Manchurian-Candidate hairdo.

Her acting here, though, is absolutely stunning, showing a depth and power I've never seen her achieve in anything else. This is the only possible reason to watch this movie, and even it is not enough for me to recommend that you do so.

I have liked Henry Silva in most things I've seen him in on TV, so I watched this film, interested in an opportunity to see him in a leading role. The thing that impressed me most about his portrayal was that his Italian accent is appalling. Part Mexican, part Russian, mostly American. It is particularly grating because all the other Italian accents in the film are authentic.

Big names from many generations abound: Elisha Cook (Jr.), Mort Sahl, Jim Backus (doing a couple of Mr. Magoo impersonations in addition to his serious lines), Joey Bishop in a fabulous portrayal of a used car salesman, Sammy Davis Jr., Telly Savalas, Gregory Morton and a couple of TV stars, Richard Anderson and John McGiver. The acting from them as well as the other players I'm less familiar with is top notch.

So how can it be so bad? To start with, it is totally confusing. It is set in Sicily, Rome, New York, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Newport Beach and maybe some other locations. It was impossible for me to tell where the action was taking place at any given point, except that when Miss Montgomery is on the boat, you know she's in Newport Beach.

It starts out in Sicily. If you're good at recognizing St. Peter's and the Vatican Palace from the air, you'll know that it has moved to Rome, otherwise you'll think you're still in Sicily. Then it moves to New York. After that, it's anybody's guess, moving from city to city seemingly at random, and without any explanation or even clue that the location has shifted.

I vaguely suspected we were in Las Vegas when I saw The Silver Slipper sign. But before that, there was a craps game, a very enigmatic scene starring Sammy Davis Jr. as a (maybe?) crooked gambler, where Silva holds a gun to Davis's head and makes him shoot winning rolls for some reason that was not comprehensible to me. I don't know if that was in Vegas, or in some illegal place in New York.

Suddenly Elizabeth Montgomery is in LA. Johnny calls her from Idlewilde, which I assumed meant he was in New York, but in the next scene, he is sitting next to her in a convertible, as they drive past a marquee with "PETER LAWFORD" in large letters (second-billed to Jimmy Durante at some LA hotel). Telly Savalas mentions later that he they are Las Vegas, which is the only reason I'm certain some of the movie took place there, but two scenes later, he and the same cronies are in New York. At least, I'm pretty sure they are.

Maybe if you've been to all those cities a lot, so you can recognize any anonymous back street in town, you might be able to follow it, but I sure couldn't.

How can a movie that's "action packed" and confusing be boring at the same time? I blame it mostly on the direction, which is atrocious, but the complete lack of budget and production values are also partly to blame. Lots of useless walking around. Maybe it was supposed to be suspense, which I found completely lacking in the film.

Or any other kind of excitement, for that matter.

Silva kills a lot of people, but the movie is not gory, and he does so completely without emotion, the way he is during most of this stone-faced performance. The rape occurs off-camera, and it takes some extracting to even be sure that's what happened. You see a bit of the explosion, but no aftermath. The stabbings might just as well have been a punch in the stomach. The whole thing is delivered kind of dead-pan, atypical for a gangster movie.

I found nothing about it gripping in any way, although the performances are often riveting. I don't know how many times I looked at the counter to see how many minutes remained. I don't really know why I watched it to the end, which isn't all that great anyway. Like everything else in the film, rather perfunctory, and not much to it. I'm glad Peter Lawford mostly stuck to acting. He only produced four movies, none of which I ever heard of.

Speaking of which, ever wonder why you never heard of this movie, when it has so many big name stars?
7 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed