StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

ofumalow (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.

dbdumonteil 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.

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

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.