Alvarez Kelly

Most reviews here range from mixed to egregious. Except for a few shocking holes in the script and underproduced scenes (e.g. the Confederate ambush at the apple cellar and Stedman's escape with Ruthie and her subsequent death), just like a kid at the movies I felt swept up in the film's patched-together, on-with-the-show spirit.

Given the production's reliance on a cattle herd as its main prop and the health problems of its aging stars, much credit goes to the film's editors. Plus one must bow to the astonishing gift of William Holden, reportedly a wreck throughout the making, but managing his horse like a pro and looking like a man you or any woman would keep giving another chance.

Overall this film probably represents a pathetic last gasp of the studio system whose problems are worthy of dismay, but once again that studio system produced a work that soldiers on to some kind of colorful, noisy, almost dignified end.

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

"Alvarez Kelly", made in 1966, supposedly tells the story of a cattle herd that was headed for Union lines during the latter months of the Civil War but was stolen by Confederate raiders, and ended up in Richmond, or so the movie says. That brings the quote listed in my summary to bear. While this may have been a fictitious event in the American Civil War, the movie does give a decent look at life during those turbulent years when one side was simply using might to slowly beat down the other side.

William Holden plays the owner of the cattle herd who has arranged, for a price, to deliver a prime beef herd to Union lines during the latter year of the War, 1864. As Kelly, he'll do anything that can be done, as long as there is a handsome fee at the end of the task. Richard Widmark plays the leader of the Confederate raiders who is just as determined to get the herd delivered, but not to Yankees, but instead to starving Confederate soldiers and citizens. His Southern accent is a bit contrived, but bearable. Widmark is able to convince Holden to change the route of the herd; however, the Union army is going to have to be contended with, as they know this herd was intended for them.

An easy film to watch, just don't put much historical truth with it.

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.

Classic, Classic, Classic! Yeah, you can complain about being a bit slow nearly 50 years later, but what movie from that time wasn't. This movie is loosely based on Hampton's and General Rosser's Cattle Raid. Not filmed in Virginia, but I am from near Richmond and played as a child on some of the land the actual raid crossed over and it has the same feel. Holden and Widmark both hit home runs, hard to tell which is better. Widmark has the southern Virginia accent down pat, he sounds like a couple of my uncles which were about his age. The score and the cinematography just add to the ambiance. There are some slight imperfections with the script, but the strengths of this film tower over it's shortcomings.