Alvarez Kelly

I have just watched this movie on Spain's Canal Sur, in Spanish, which probably did not make much difference, as the Spaniards are wizards at dubbing, and the main character in any case is an Irish-Mexican. In addition, I avoided by this means Widmark's Southern drawl, said by those better qualified to judge than myself to be hilariously bogus. When I have seen him in films with English dialogue including Westerns, he has always sounded very urban to me, probably hailing from some part of New York and I have never noticed that he has attempted to change his accent before. So this was probably an isolated attempt that didn't work out. He is, nonetheless, an excellent actor, and we must recall that even our late great Sir John Gielgud made a terrible hash of this too, on the very rare occasions he was induced to speak with a different accent from his plum-in-the mouth, silver tones.

If you are looking for a Western of the inferior spaghetti type (I do not include Sergio Leone in that description), with non-stop violence and a corpse a minute, be sure to give this one a miss! Although a war film, its mood for the greater part of the footage is great calm, but a calm fraught with tensions. It takes at least three quarters of an hour for the first death to occur (unless there was a fatality at the Alvarez hacienda in the first few seconds, which I happened to miss, and that is unlikely). And immediately after this fatality, a party of Blues capture a party of Greys, who with hardly a pause turn the tables on the former, but without causing any further losses to either side or even anybody getting wounded. The development of the plot is mainly without physical action, so that I must admit it does tend to drag at times. The main protagonists quietly and stealthily pitch their wits against each other: that is why the incident of the severed finger(already mentioned on the general introduction page) comes as such a brutal shock. But the true nature of war, including the American Civil War, is like that: much manoeuvring (Am. maneuvering) without very much happening for most of the time, interrupted by sporadic, sudden flare-ups.

The main characters are well-drawn with many quirks and foibles and there is much humour in their interaction and the awkward situations they find themselves in. A good example of this is the frustration of Widmark, the one-eyed Confederate colonel, who with the reluctant help of the devious civilian,but pro tem acting colonel, Holden, tries to turn the dude grey-coated soldiers into competent cow-hands. Both Widmark and Holden take turns in being the butt of the various ironies, but the stiff-necked, self-opiniated and bumbling Union major played by O'Neill, is the object of such ironies for most of his on-screen time, including from his commanding officer.

The photography is good, the scenery (supposed to be Virginian although the film was said to be shot in Louisiana) is very beautiful, and the costumery and indoor décor quite colourful and well-researched. The women,however, are rather insipid, especially when compared to those belles in a similar situation in the Wayne-Holden opus "The Horse Soldiers", not to mention the vivacious Vivienne Leigh in "Gone with the Wind", though that is an unfair comparison.

Not a movie,then, for those Western fans who like fast action. But, if you are patient enough, there is a terrific finale with a battle, which (to avoid giving too much away), is very reminiscent of a scene from "How the West was Won" which also involved Richard Widmark and, now I come to think of it, also of a sequence in "The Wild Bunch", starring Holden.

Although I had already been around for some time when this film first came out, I had hitherto never seen it or even heard of it, despite the fact that I am quite fond of good Westerns, a fan of both the main actors, and have have often been impressed by O'Neill too. I can only imagine that this occurred because it proved a commercial flop, by reason of the faults above-mentioned, and was shelved. It had never been shown before on the channel where I saw it, and there is little that they do not repeat again and again and again.

Alvarez Kelly is directed by Edward Dmytryk and stars William Holden & Richard Widmark. It's written by Elliott Arnold & Franklin Coen (Dan Taradash uncredited for tidying it up), the locations for the shoot are Baton Rouge & Clinton, Louisiana, with Joseph MacDonald on photography (Panavision). Story is apparently based on a true US Civil War incident in 1864, it sees Alvarez Kelly (Holden) kidnapped by Confederate's led by Tom Rossiter (Widmark) and forced to drive a herd of Union owned cattle to the hungry Reb troops in Richmond.

Slow moving and blighted by a tepid script, Alvarez Kelly relies on its stars and photography to keep it out the trough. Evidently the makers were going for a social conscious piece based around an historical incident. All that is achieved is an overly talky piece, with periods of inane conversations; that is only briefly lit up by its action packed finale. And even then it can be argued that the "battle for the bridge" and the subsequent "stampede" isn't worth waiting 90 minutes for. The acting is solid, where Holden plays a role he could do in his sleep, and Widmark, sporting an eye patch, convinces as a rough and ready Colonel. Most pleasing is MacDonald's photography, not just for capturing the essence of the barren South in Baton Rouge, but also his choice of lenses for the top notch costuming (take a bow Seth Banks) afforded the ladies of the piece (Janice Rule & Victoria Shaw). There's a lovely print for this film, where in High Definition the colours positively ping from the screen.

Dmytryk (Broken Lance/Warlock), Holden (The Horse Soldiers/The Wild Bunch) & Widmark (The Last Wagon/Cheyenne Autumn) owe Western fans nothing, but this is one from the three guys that's easily forgotten once the end credit rolls. 5/10

During the partial siege of Richmond-Petersburg in September 1864 a troop of Confederates mean to acquire 3000 cattle from Mexico meant for consumption by the Union Army. William Holden plays the livestock businessman while Richard Widmark and Patrick O'Neal play opposing Confederate/Union officers. Roger C. Carmel is on hand as the Captain of a blockade runner.

"Alvarez Kelly" (1966) is a Civil War Western based around the real-life Beefsteak Raid. It's similar to "The Horse Soldiers" (1959), also co-starring Holden, mixed with "Major Dundee" (1965). While it's the least of these, with "Horse Soldiers" easily being the best, it's still worth checking out for those interested, just don't expect a conventional Western or Civil War yarn.

Critics complain that it's too talky with not enough action, which I suppose is true, but I appreciated the settings and the authentic scruffiness of the Rebs, not to mention the wartime intrigue and a thrilling stampede in the last act.

My top qualm would be how easy it seemed the cattleman is secretly taken into Richmond. Yet this can be overlooked on the grounds that it wasn't a classic military siege wherein a city is fully surrounded and all supply lines cut off. You could still enter Richmond from the west.

The flick scores well on the feminine front with stunning Southern belles Janice Rule, Victoria Shaw and Stephanie Hill, plus peripherals.

The two stars became best buds during shooting. Widmark remarked how the four months of being constantly together during shooting was the equivalent of 10-15 years of friendship. Meanwhile Steve McQueen happened to be filming "Nevada Smith" in the same area and the three ran into each other one day wherein McQueen and Holden ended up drinking together for the rest of the evening.

The movie runs about 1 hour, 55 minutes, and was shot in Louisiana (the vicinity of Baton Rouge), with the opening sequence done in the Southwest.

GRADE: B-

See it - William Holden plays his trademark role as a smooth-talking womanizer caught in a war he doesn't want to be a part of. He's a rich cattle driver in the Civil War looking to sell his horses to the highest bidder. Richard Widmark plays the eyepatch-wearing Confederate villain. Some might say these two actors can't carry a movie by themselves, but together they are fantastic. The script in this movie is surprisingly sharp and smart. This is rare for a western. The dialogue is very witty and actually pretty funny at times. The movie has also aged very well, meaning that it is still relevant and doesn't have that "old" feel to it. For example, the things that are supposed to be funny are funny, etc. The only problem with this movie is that there's not much action until the end. This is easily forgivable because of the good story. After seeing the movie, I immediately compared it to Horse Soldiers, which Holden co-starred in with the Duke. Worth seeing once. 2 out of 5 action rating

Good surprise for a film by Edward Dmytryk. The scenario is rich and invites an interesting story with multiple twists on an original theme. Because it is about showing the confrontations between the northerners and the Confederates who are fighting over a herd of cows that will be used to feed a regiment on one side and a besieged city on the other. There is therefore a lot at stake in taking possession of the herd. Which is one thing, but then you have to know how to manage the cows and the herd.

That's where William Holden comes in, between the two sides, playing a Mexican, actually a Texan, who brings the herd, but finds himself kidnapped by one side, then the other. He is in the middle of everyone and is motivated by money, and women, because he will find his interest thanks to the female characters he will meet. First Victoria Shaw and then Janice Rule, Richard Widmark's fiancée, but who will leave him; elements of romantic comedy and love triangle are well integrated into the action.

The script contains multiple twists and turns. The film relies mainly on the relationship between Richard Widmark and William Holden, which is very mechanical, but works in the end, via their relationship to the female characters.

This ensemble works and is successful.