AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Ortiz Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

merklekranz 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

highwaytourist 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.

ccthemovieman-1 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!

bill0033 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.