Mr. Ricco

"Mr. Ricco" is the final starring role for Dean Martin in films, though he'd make a few more appearances in smaller parts.

In many ways, "Mr. Ricco" seems a lot like the other tough-as-nails and gritty cop movies of the 1970s, though he is NOT a cop...just a defense attorney. Soon after getting a black militant off on a murder charge, it appears as if this defendant is on a killing spree...killing cops and now trying to kill Ricco. Can Ricco manage to stay alive long enough to discover the truth about this maniac?

"Mr. Ricco" is one of the most difficult films I've seen recently. This is because it's quite good in some ways...and quite sloppy in others. The main plot, though hard to believe, is exciting and interesting. Also, Martin isn't bad in the lead and there's a lot of action. But on the other hand, MUCH of Ricco's actions are hard to understand. Why does he punch so many people?! Isn't he supposed to be an attorney and not some slap-happy goon? Also, the use of stuntmen for Martin was SLOPPY.

Again and again, it's pretty obvious the 58 year-old actor isn't in many of the action scenes.

Additionally, some of the plot (such as WHY would the killer shoot cops??) also didn't make a ton of sense. Overall, a film where the good and bad are about equal. Worth seeing if you love Dean Martin but clearly one of his lesser films.

It's possible that Dean Martin might have taken the title role in Mr. Ricco because every player likes doing a courtroom drama and Mr. Ricco is a high priced San Francisco defense attorney. But other than the very beginning when Judge Harry Wingreen dismisses with prejudice the charge of murder against Dino's client Thalmus Rasulala we don't see a courtroom again.

Right after that a rash of killings start breaking out and there is an attempt in fact a couple of attempts on Martin's life. Eyewitnesses identify the sniper with a rifle as Martin's own client. That doesn't make sense to Martin, why would the man he just got off be trying to kill him? But somebody is certainly using him for target practice.

Dino looks pretty bored with the whole business, he's got an air of disinterestedness throughout the film. According to Nick Tosches's fine biography of Dean Martin, his co-star Thalmus Rasulala said he never was able to connect with him on any level during the production of Mr. Ricco. At the time Martin was going through a lot financial and romantic entanglements and the film was clearly one he did for the money.

Geraldine Brooks plays a woman who Dean's friends try to fix up with and Cindy Williams plays a girl Friday assistant. Mr. Ricco has the look and feel of a television pilot and Dino had shown some spark might have been picked up as a series.

As it is he saunters through the film like it was his nightclub act in Vegas.

I always enjoy watching '70's movies, even when it are bad ones. '70's movies always have a certain atmosphere and are made with a great style of movie-making, that is realistic, gritty and straightforward and also always makes uses of some experimental, non-formulaic techniques when it comes down to its storytelling and cinematography, among other things. "Mr. Ricco" might not the the best '70's movies around, it still is a good example of good old film-making from the golden '70's.

The movie its story is quite messy and weak but still made look interesting at times, due to its style of film-making. It provided the movie with a couple of nice moments, including a typical '70's-like car chase trough the streets of San Fransico.

San Fransico serves as a pretty good backdrop for the entire movie, as it always does in any movie.

The storytelling makes sure that is hard to keep track on the movie, with as a result that all the movie its weaker points become less notable as well. The movie its story is actually quite unlikely and ridicules at points but due to the muddled way the entire story is told, it becomes less obvious and notable all. Lots of things don't really make sense in the movie once you start really thinking about them and to make it all the more confusing, the movie features many, unneeded, characters, that don't add enough to the movie and only provide the story with some needless and distracting subplots.

Dean Martin of course already had his best years behind him but he still puts down a pretty good main character for the movie. The character is well developed and deepened out more thanks to Dean Martin's performance, who makes the character likable, by playing him mostly in a non-likable way.

The movie on all accounts is a pretty average one. Nothing too exceptional, just another good enough movie from the golden '70's but you're just as good off watching a "Law & Order" episode, or something along those lines.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

San Francisco defense attorney Joe Ricco (Dean Martin) gets his black militant client Frankie Steele (Thalmus Rasulala) free from murder charge and then Steele murders two cops. Ricco's friend's young son is the witness identifying Steele. Jamison (Cindy Williams) is his faithful assistant. His friend George Cronyn (Eugene Roche) is the police detective in charge of the case. During a raid of Steele's group, the Black Serpents, an unarmed Calvin Mapes is killed by a cop and his brother Purvis Mapes (Philip Michael Thomas) is framed with a planted drop-gun.

Who is Joe Ricco? That's the main question left hanging. Dean Martin is basically out of his elements. He's not doing much with the character and it's not asking much from him. He's in a perpetual hangover but he's never shown drunk. It reminds me of The Verdict with aging actors doing flawed aging lawyers. The comparison is not in Martin's favor. He's old and tired which fits the character but it's not terribly compelling. This has the slower 70's pacing without the action to jack up the intensity and the acting to create more depth. It's on the border and I put it slightly below grade.

Anyway, starring Dean Martin in a Chandler like story, it could not be anything else than cool, without being necessarily a light hearted film or even a comedy. I have always craved for the late sixties and early seventies period, for stories, atmospheres, characters....here, as in any private eyes plots, I would not be able to summarize this confused and too complicated tale for me. But photography, music, way of filming, everything is genuinely from the seventies, entirely, totally. The director Paul Bogart was already guilty of CHANDLER, back in 1971. I was very amused to see a director named Bogart directing a move called MARLOWE. You also have understodd why....