Rio Lobo

Being the John Wayne/Howard Hawks fan that I am, I expected great things from "Rio Lobo." Unfortunately, it's one of the Duke's weakest efforts. Howard Hawks has a style all of his own, but none of it is in evidence here. As a matter of fact, the one thing this picture reminds me of is those cheesy A.C. Lyles westerns from the '60s, which were made cheap and loaded with familiar faces like Rory Calhoun, Howard Keel, Rod Cameron, etc.

The biggest problem in this film is the performances of the younger cast members. Jennifer O'Neill is ravishingly beautiful but can't act her way out of a paper bag. Her scenes with Rivero are among the most embarrassing on record. Rivero has trouble with English and seems to be reciting his lines phonetically; O'Neill doesn't seem to have the slightest idea of what she is doing. She steps on other actors' lines, forgets hers, misses cues, and is a pretty good argument for models not being paid for opening their mouths. Future studio head Sherry Lansing has a small part as a Mexican girl who ges beaten up by bad sheriff Mike Henry; she was a much better studio head than an actress. It's up to the old pros like Wayne, Bill Williams, Jim Davis, Victor French and especially David Huddlestson as a frontier dentist to give this picture some semblance of professionalism, performance-wise. Jack Elam as an ornery old codger gives an over-the-top performance that is nevertheless fun to watch. Mike Henry is quite good as a sadistic, crooked sheriff. Yakima Canutt staged the rousing action scenes with his usual flair, and there's a good Jerry Goldsmith score. Unfortunately, however, the trite script and the incompetent performances are obstacles that neither Hawks nor Wayne can overcome. O'Neill has a line early in the film that pretty much sums up her performance: "I'm acting like an idiot, aren't I?"

Yup.

After the Civil War, Cord McNally (John Wayne) searches for the traitor whose perfidy caused the defeat of McNally's unit, a shipment of gold to be stolen, and the loss of a close friend.

I loved the beginning with the train robbery. Every part of it was executed perfectly, and the first ten minutes or so are probably the highlight of the film. And then the idea that the yanks and rebels could be friends was questionable but nice... and the shift from the war and the heist to tracking down a traitor, great. But it seemed to have a good deal of turns and subplots that were not quite necessary.

The worst was Jennifer O'Neill, who played Shasta. I would gladly give this film another star if it was not for her. Every line was delivered so poorly. I guess Howard Hawks feared John Wayne was too old for the role... I thought Wayne was great. It was O'Neill that was the weak link. She just has no acting ability to speak of.

Also, a special nod to Jack Elam, who was the comic relief. His wit and delivery (almost) make up for O'Neill, and on that count I have revised my 6 stars in 2015 to 7 stars in 2016 upon a second viewing. This may not be the best known Hawks-Wayne collaboration, but it certainly has its strong points.

I think that most John Wayne buffs would agree that this is a remake of 2 previous picture-"Rio Bravo",and "El Dorado".We have the same characters,the same basic situations,and the same resolutions.What I found interesting is the way that the "Duke"was able to kid his image in this one.He's not just strong,tough,brave,resourceful,and quick;he's also able to show a middle-aged man whose libido might not be as urgent as it was previously.Let's face it,being a lover isn't just performance,but also being tender and"comfortable"(the word that they use in this picture.)Let's not be too hasty about the performances of O'Neill,Rivero,and Mitchum-they were young and needed experience,and they got it in this film.(And Rivero is every bit as tasty looking as O'Neill.Isn't he delectable?)Nice to see Victor French as a porcine,slimy villain,and Mike Henry manages to play against his Tarzan image as the sheriff.I found him tough enough,and certainly brutish,but I didn't see him as quite enough of a sadist to go around cutting up women.David Huddleston does a first-rate job as Dr.Jones.The real acting honors of the evening,however,do go to the redoubtable Mr.Elam.This is a scenery-chewing,rip-roaring,over-the-top performance of such eye-rolling looniness that it's a joy to behold.Watch this film for fun,and don't take it too seriously.

When I decided to write a review of Rio Lobo, I had every expectation of visiting the website and finding that the movie's weighted average was a 2.5. I was pleasantly surprised to see that it's a 7.5, and that's actually a half-point higher than my own score. To cut to the chase: I liked Rio Lobo.

It was fashionable in 1970 to trash Rio Lobo because (a) it was the supposedly feeble, last effort of a great director, Howard Hawks, who had supposedly lost interest in the picture; (b) it was too derivative of Rio Bravo and El Dorado; (c) the Duke was too old to play the part of a cavalry colonel (to say nothing of being too big; the average cavalryman in the Civil War was 5'7" and 135 lbs.); (d) the supporting cast was pathetic; (e) the production values were poor; and (f) the movie paled in comparison to Little Big Man, which was released at the same time. Much of the criticism was true. But, it was fun to watch, anyway.

Ford had his cavalry trilogy, and Hawks had his Rio trilogy, and the Duke was in all six of them. The Ford set is a cut above the Hawks set, but all six films are worth watching. Ford was working with Wayne (1947-50) at a time when Wayne's acting ability was still very much in question. And Ford succeeded on every level, especially in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, where the character development of Capt. Nathan Brittles (Wayne) is nothing but sheer genius. Hawks, on the other hand, had (by 1959, in Rio Bravo) a very established star, and was thereby free to dwell more on story telling than he was on character development. Besides, with those amazing exteriors, the cinemagography alone was worth the cost of admission to all six pictures.

The Duke was too old to play a romantic lead in this picture (but so was Cary Grant in his last picture, Walk, Don't Run, when he, too, was about 63 years-old.) The fact that he was not a "threat" to O'Neill's character (in those pre-Viagra days) was nothing more than an extension of the persona the Duke captured the year before in True Grit, and would continue to build on in such films as The Cowboys and The Shootist. Let's face it: Wayne was becoming a likeable old coot.

Hawks was, according to reports, disappointed in Jennifer O'Neill, and by the last reel, her part has been cut in favor of Sherry Lansing's part. (Hawks did the same thing to John Ireland's part in Red River, 30 years earlier.) Actually, O'Neill didn't do THAT bad. My problem with her is that she couldn't decide whether she would play her part as the New York high-fashion model that she was, or as Kim Darby reprising her role in True Grit. At times, O'Neill's semi-imitation of Darby gets on one's nerves.

And, Hawks was rightfully disappointed in the desultory performances of the supporting cast, with the exception of Lansing and Jack Elam. The Confederate cavalry captain: He might as well have been created by computer graphics, for all the vitality he brings to the role. But, take a look at the stock players, including Hank Worden ("Old Mose" in The Searchers) and Jim Davis (Jock Ewing of Dallas fame). These are virtually cameos, if not walk-on parts, but they are effective.

I do not think Hawks gave up on this film, at least, not to the extent that people have claimed. Yakima Canutt ably handled the second unit, and the train hijacking he directed (with Hawks' help) was unusual and exciting; the cinematography, but for the occasional lighting or filtering error, was acceptable; and the editing was fairly crisp. The interior sets were shabby, that is true.

But what carries the picture is the wonderful dialogue, and Wayne. The dialogue is "pure Hawks": spare, unambiguous, natural, and realistic. Wayne's onscreen personal is so great, and his presence so magnificent, that all of the films shortcomings are rendered irrelevant.

Thank you, Mr. Hawks. Well done.

As you might have noticed in some of my other reviews of John Wayne films, I am not exactly a huge fan of his later films (during the last 10 years of his life)--though there are exceptions, such as THE SHOOTIST. It's because the films look like they were just churned out--with occasionally silly scripts and Wayne playing more a caricature of himself than acting like he did in earlier films. Plus, in many of these films the supporting cast just seemed second-rate. This movie is a prime example of a second-rate cast. While Wayne is fine, there just isn't a lot of real support from anyone--no ensemble cast of Harry Carey (Junior OR Senior), Ward Bond, James Arness or even John Agar! Now considering some of these people were dead when the film was made, I could certainly understand the decision NOT to put them in the film. But, couldn't they have gotten some better actors instead? The only one worth watching was Jack Elam (who was GREAT) but he was only in the last half of the film and could have used a lot more screen time as the crazy old man. Although I've seen this movie 3 or 4 times, I can't even remember WHO the two supporting Confederate soldiers were or even what they looked like--and that's very unusual for me. The three ladies, though pretty, were also equally bland.

So, overall this is a decent time passer for the average viewer (you can take it or leave it) and important for fans of John Wayne.