Shalako

SHALAKO is a movie that often appears in peoples least favourite western lists and looking at this page many people have said how much they dislike it but as someone who doesn't like the genre all that much I can't say it's all that bad First of all the premise is fairly simple without being threadbare which while not being a guarantee you'll be watching a great movie is often a guarantee you won't be watching an awful one: A bunch of European toffs on a hunting trip arrogantly wander into an Indian reservation and after being warned to leave by former army scout Shalako decide to ignore his expert advice which leads to some nasty consequences .

It's not a great story but it does allow for some character conflict and some serious violence . It might seem tame today but this movie was produced in 1968 when audiences were still being treated to war films where when people were shot they give a pained expression , clutched their wound and slowly sank to the ground like a dying swan . The somewhat sadistic violence is probably the main talking point of SHALAKO especially the scene with the sand and the necklace , you'll know the scene when you see it

Yeah it's flawed film . One point is the many accents used which makes it rather difficult to understand the dialoguein some scenes which probably annoyed an American audience while many of the characters remain somewhat underwritten , I kept forgetting senator Henry Clarke was in the story until he appeared on screen in an infrequent manner . As for the casting Eric Sykes seems to be doing his comedy routine while Apache chiefs shouldn't be played by African Americans

But all in all SHALAKO isn't as bad as some people would have you believe

Given its director (Edward Dmytryk) and its cast (Sean Connery and Brigitte Bardot) it is rather odd that 'Shalako" (1969) is such an obscure film and that so many of the comments/reviews are totally negative. "Spaghetti" westerns (filmed in Italy or Spain) were quite the rage in the late 1960's and "Shalako" is about what you would get if "Hombre" (1967) had been given a mild "Spaghetti" treatment.

While not even remotely on the level of Monte Hellman's stuff, "Shalako" is an entertaining and comprehensible western that most viewers will get into and enjoy until about the ¾ mark when the wheels fall off and it drags along to a less than spectacular resolution.

Dmytryk was a veteran action director who occasionally ("Eight Iron Men" and "The Young Lions") even did a good job of directing actors for the camera. This was one of his last efforts and he seems to have stayed focused on the action and paid little attention to the performances themselves.

Connery plays the title character, an experienced frontiersman who (like Paul Newman in "Hombre") is forced by circumstances into guiding a bunch of clueless civilians to safety. "Hombre" had Newman (a white man raised by Indians) in the moral dilemma of having to assist a group of people for which he has total contempt. Shalako ' s situation is simpler: he must extract a European aristocrat's hunting party who have ticked off the Apache's by coming onto their reservation and who have been betrayed by their cowboy hunting guides. Although he has little use for most of this group he has developed a grudging respect for a plucky countess (Bardot). There is decent chemistry in the early Connery-Bardot scenes but it does not sustain itself as the relationship begins to turn romantic.

As in "Hombre" there is an interesting twist with the young wife (Honor Blackman) of one of the aristocrats deciding to leave her husband for the dangerous cowboy (Stephan Boyd) who has just placed the group at the mercy of the elements (and the Indians). Blackman is excellent in this part , the only really challenging role in the production.

Dmytryk does an excellent job with his first three action sequences, including a surprisingly credible dawn attack on the camp of the hunting party and a more traditional stagecoach chase sequence. But as already mentioned, the film is extremely front-end loaded and he has dissipated all the tension before the climatic sequence even begins.

"Hombre" on the other hand withheld its best sequence until the end and managed to pack some nice irony into its resolution. You won't find this in "Shalako", in fact the final 20 minutes are so listless your mind begins mulling over the plot holes. Like how did Boyd's character manage to walk all the way to the top of the plateau without being detected by the Indians? When you have to insert a detailed verbal explanation for something totally inexplicable (that has happened "off" camera) a competent editor knows that it is time for some major trimming and a focused director begins revising his script.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

The idea behind Shalako is not as preposterous as it sounds. Lots of European nobles came here for hunting parties during the American wild west period. As was pointed out in the beginning of Shalako among others was the Grand Duke Alexis of Russia where Buffalo Bill served as a guide to his party.

That being said I'm sure none of them were as dense as Peter Van Eyck who when warned of Indian danger, refuse to leave an area. Quite frankly those Indians should have wiped those blockheads out and would have if not for the efforts of intrepid Indian scout Shalako, played by Sean Connery in a cowboy suit.

Connery looks real nice, but if he wanted to play a western a better script would have done for him. Sean knows this thing is a turkey, but if you had the opportunity to work with Brigette Bardot, would you pass it up.

Stephen Boyd is the best one here as the turncoat guide of the Europeans. Boyd was a good looking man with a trace of arrogance in his screen persona that made him right for a part like Messala in Ben-Hur, but wrong for Livius in The Fall of the Roman Empire. He's back in his proper element.

And I can't give the ending away, but folks take my word for it, it is ridiculous.

Still if you want to see some unfamiliar faces for westerns, this is a good movie to see.

This offbeat Euro-Western based on Louis L'Amour novel concerns Shalako (Sean Connery) whose Indian name means ¨he who brings rain¨ . He's an US scout who intervenes to save some European aristocrats on a hunting journey in New Mexico when they are attacked by Apaches circa 1880 .

This is a British Western set in Almeria (Spain) where in the 60s and 70s were filmed numerous Spaghetti or Paella Westerns , as Shalako is a high budget film , but poorly directed . The gun-play , Indian attacks , shootouts are gripping but the movie is just another cold British product . Violent scenes abound as the attempted rape and a creepy murder of one of the protagonists . The casting is frankly magnificent but the film gets an incredible waste of a talented cast like happens with Sean Connery , though the first choice by the producers was Henry Fonda . There appears various notorious main and secondary actors that are usual in Western genre . Gorgeous Brigitte Bardot who played with Jeanne Moreau ¨Viva Maria¨ and with Claudia Cardinale ¨The legend of Frenchie King¨ . Stephen Boyd played Western as ¨Hanna Coulder¨ and ¨The Bravados¨ . Woody Strode at one of his habitual Indian roles as ¨Winterhawk¨ , ¨Loaded gun¨ , ¨The Gatlin gun¨ ,¨Keoma¨ , ¨Once upon a time.¨ . Julian Mateos , a famed Spanish actor , player in US Western as well as Spaghetti such as ¨Hellbenders¨ , ¨Four rode out¨ , ¨Catlow¨ , ¨Return of seven magnificent¨ . Honor Blackman , pairing with Sean Connery in ¨Goldfinger¨ , here also makes love in a straw loft , this time with Stephen Boyd . Ernie Sykes playing a servant like in ¨The others¨ and Don Red Barry from Republic Pictures serial : ¨Adventures of Red Ryder¨.

Lively and spectacular musical score by Robert Farnon . Colorful cinematography by Ted Moore , he's the cameraman of most classic period in James Bond series : ¨Diamonds are forever¨ , ¨Goldfinger¨ , ¨From Russia with love¨. The motion picture was regularly directed by Edward Dmytryck who also made other Westerns as ¨Alvarez Kelly¨ , ¨ Warlock¨ , ¨Broken Lance¨, ¨Raintree County¨ . For somebody is a monumental bore but I think is a fairly watchable European Western , nothing more . Succeeds only in waste a lot of talented actors , onlyf or Brigitte Bardot and Sean Connery fans .

Hundreds upon hundreds of westerns have been made by Hollywood and other cinematic centers of creation, but this one can at least claim a pretty unique premise and an unusual cast. The story concerns an arrogant and stubborn party of European nobility who have come to the wilds of the North American west to hunt for sport. They blithely roam onto an Apache reservation and invoke the wrath of the tribe, which has had its fill of broken treaties. Connery, as the title character, plays a well-known loner in the area who has a tenuous relationship with the Apaches and finds himself having to try to rescue the hunters. The hunters include the snobby, condescending van Eyck, his feisty fiancé Bardot, cuckolded Hawkins, his discontented wife Blackman, blithering ex-senator Knox and his Latino wife French. Their guide is the dubious Boyd, who is exploiting them for the fees they pay for his services. It is, at once, jarring and fascinating to see these characters in a western setting. The clothing, furnishings, behaviors, etc...are at odds with the typical western visuals. A butler frets that the champagne may not be cold enough, while they all sit at a dining table in the middle of the desert. The characters are so shallow and bigoted that the viewer can hardly wait to see them get their comeuppance and most of them do...in spades. Where the film primarily fails is in its storytelling, editing and location. The script is vague at times, to say the least. It's not always easy to determine the motivations of the characters. This is not helped by the fact that many of their accented murmurings are spoken softly while the musical score blares, making it hard to settle on a volume level. The editing is, at times, striking and effective, but other times it is weak and harms some of the dramatic impact of the story. The location (Spain) resembles nothing like the American west. This is immediately distracting and sometimes continues to be. There's a horribly silly title song. The direction is occasionally on the lazy side as well. However, the sheer intensity and savagery of the action sequences and some various intriguing story elements make this quite watchable. Connery is appropriately rugged, if unexpected, as a western hero. Bardot is lovely, but doesn't really get a chance to shine much. She is a striking figure on the range, even if her HEAVY eye make-up has nothing to do with the time or place. She and Connery have a slight, subdued chemistry between them that isn't fully developed. The real sparks fly between Boyd and Blackman. He is a great slimeball and she is wonderfully desperate. Her tussle with the Indians is a high point of the film. The Indians are portrayed in a throwback way...speaking pigeon English and basically doing what they did in westerns of the '30's. It's surprising that in 1968, Strode was cast as one of the leaders. Ultimately, the climax renders most of what has taken place inconsequential, another flaw in the storytelling. Still, the film has merit for it's collection of international actors, it's inventive violence and it's unusual approach to the western genre. (In some ways, it resembles a 1970's disaster movie! An all star cast gets dressed up, faces peril, gets dirty, and only a handful survive!)