The Bridge on the River Kwai

When you're talking about great prisoner of war movies, that conversation is inevitably going to come down to two movies. For me, it's an easy distinction, an easy pick for which one is the best. That's one of my two favorite movies ever, 1963's The Great Escape. What's the other classic P.O.W. film? One of Hollywood's all-time greats, 1957's The Bridge on the River Kwai.

It's 1943 in western Burma and a battalion of British prisoners has arrived at Camp 16 along the Burma Railway. Allied prisoners are being used all along the railway to help build the tracks and bridges it needs to move supplies up and down the country. The commandant of the camp, Colonel Saito (Sessue Hayakawa), has been given a quick deadline in order to build a bridge over the river Kwai, but he quickly hits a roadblock in the form of the ranking officer among the Brits, Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness). Both men are career officers, both of them stubborn and strong-willed that they know what is right and how to do it. What follows is a battle of wills as the two commanders see who will crack first with the deadline fast approaching. Unbeknownst to both of them, Allied intelligence has caught wind of the bridge across the river. A former prisoner, Shears (William Holden), of the camp is working with an experienced commando, Warden (Jack Hawkins), to lead a team back into Burma and take out the bridge. 

That David Lean, he was a halfway decent director, winning two Best Picture Oscars in his storied career. One win was for Lawrence of Arabia. One was for River Kwai. My favorite? You're reading that movie's review right now. It is a film remembered as one of the all-time greats, and it deserves that status. The portrayal of war, its message about war, the instantly recognizable Colonel Bogey March (listen HERE), the phenomenal casting, the on-location shooting in Ceylon (Sri Lanka), the gorgeous filmography, and a great musical score overall from Malcolm Arnold. The scale is gigantic, but the story remains personal. It is a giant movie with an ability to never lose its focus or get too far away from where it wants to go. On my most recent viewing, I thought (more than I remember) there were some slow/sluggish portions in the 161-minute movie but not nearly enough to fault an otherwise pretty perfect movie.

The name evades me, but I remember seeing another British actor say in an interview "I didn't understand the Nicholson part until I saw Guinness' performance." That's how good Alec Guinness is in his Oscar-winning performance. This is an incredible acting job, a layered character that is baffling at times to understand. Colonel Nicholson is a fascinating character because his word, his beliefs and his stubborn make-up are everything to him. If he believes he is right, he IS right. This is a career soldier willing to put his life on the line to stand by his beliefs. A career officer, he knows nothing else other than the army. His dynamic with Hayakawa's Col. Saito is the guts of the movie, two officers believing they're right and seeing who will blink first. Who needs the other more to accomplish their goal? A late scene where Guinness' Nicholson discussing his career illuminates what drives the man. He wants to leave something that will be remembered. He does, but what if it helps the Japanese war effort?

What a cast! Guinness rightfully deserves first mention, but that's only the start. William Holden's character, Shears, is underwritten some, but it is a necessary, still very interesting character to move the action along. Holden is one of my favorites, and I liked his Shears, especially when a big twist is revealed near the halfway point. Jack Hawkins is just solid as Warden, the unlikely commando officer, an interesting similarity to Nicholson in the very, very British officer category. Hayakawa at times gets lost in the conversation, but he too is highly memorable as Saito, rough facade, terrified/worried inside at a possible failure. James Donald (also starring in The Great Escape) is the viewer, playing Major Clipton, the medical officer, trying to figure things out, to understand what's going on. Also worth mentioning is Geoffrey Horne as Joyce, the young, inexperienced commando trying to prove he can handle the job.

Also look for Andre Morell as Colonel Green, a key officer in Force 316, and Percy Herbert and Harold Goodwin as two British soldiers in the camp, Grogan and Baker.

Without resorting to hitting us over the head with a message, Lean does an understated job of delivering an anti-war message. What is it? Well....war is crazy. This isn't a horrifically violent movie, and the portrayals of a Japanese P.O.W. camp are pretty tame, but 'Kwai' effortlessly lays out all these different responses to war. Shears = Survival. Warden = A job. Clipton = Chaos and confusion. And Nicholson? A career. There are some moments of humor, usually pretty dark, mostly cynical, but Lean's movie (working off a novel by Pierre Boulle) presents the lunacy of war and simply lets it breathe. Decide for yourself who is right, if anyone.

So let's talk about that ending. No real SPOILERS here, but still, I'm talking (hopefully vaguely) about the finale. Great movie overall, one of the best ever. The ending to 'Kwai' is maybe top 5 finales to a movie ever as Force 316 (Warden, Shears, Joyce, a Siamese guerrilla and several Siamese girls) attempts to destroy the bridge at its grand opening. With nothing given away, there's a twist that is too perfect to describe. The last 35-40 minutes are phenomenal, and it only gets stronger in the final 15 minutes when the twist is revealed. Talk about tension built to an almost unbearable level. You can't believe what you're seeing, especially when Nicholson makes an amazing decision. It is a finale that leaves you drained and hammers home Lean's anti-war message. In the end, what is accomplished and at what cost? Boulle's finale is a doozy, a true whopper, if you read the novel.

Sometimes movies just work, a synergy of everything assembled clicking together. It is a beautiful movie, and Arnold's score works in unison with that visual, especially when Warden, Shears, Joyce and Co. finally arrive deep in the jungle at the bridge site. It is the first time we're seeing the completed bridge, and there's something simple and beautiful about the structure. Arnold's score soars, and all the pieces fit together. I think that's the beauty of it. This is my favorite David Lean movie overall, and it deserves its status as an all-time classic.

The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957): ****/****

Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies

When I think of the big roadshow epics of the late 1950s and into the 1960s, I typically think of historical epics, big period pieces with casts of thousands. There were the comedies out there too though, like the classic 1963 road epic It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, 1965's The Great Race and on a slightly smaller scale, 1965's Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines. By 1969, the big road epic comedy had played out its course....almost. A quasi-sequel to 'Machine,' here's 1969's Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies.

It's the 1920s and the Monte Carlo Rally, a race across Europe ending in Monte Carlo, is fast approaching. Racers from all over the world are heading to several different starting points around Europe hoping to win the prestigious race. Among them? Sir Cuthbert Ware-Armitage (Terry-Thomas), an Englishman with a mean, devious streak up his back, looking to save his father's car company. His opposition and co-owner courtesy of a shrewd poker move? Fun-loving, kooky American, Chester Schofield (Tony Curtis), who has some big ideas about what to do with the far-more traditional English cars. The two men agree to race for it all, whoever beats the other in the Rally takes complete control of the company. But with racers from all over the world coming to compete, this will be one crazy race.

Dubbed Monte Carlo or Bust! for international audiences, 'Jalopies' is a sequel to 1965's air adventure, director Ken Annakin returning while also writing the screenplay with Jack Davies. It features an animated credit sequence, a title song sung by Jimmy Durante, and goes for that same stylish effect that previous road comedy epics went for. At 122 minutes, it's relatively short compared to its predecessors, Annakin forced to cut anywhere from 10 to 30 minutes depending on the market (and the source). What's left? A movie that's unfortunately a little lackluster in just about all accounts. It's not as funny as it wants to be, not as stylish and entertaining as it should have been. It's not bad, but it's not good either.

While it isn't my most original critique, all I can say here is that 'Jalopies' simply tries too hard for its laughs. The sped-up physical comedy sequences -- cars, drivers and spectators moving at ridiculously fast speeds -- are goofy for their own sake. Funny here and there, tedious when used time after time. The same for the BIG sequences, like two drivers navigating an iced-over lake full of hockey players. How many times can we see a car sliding/drifting and people jumping out of the way before you just want to turn it off? Well, I don't know the answer there because I lost track, and for the sake of the review, I finished the movie out, hoping at some point it would get better. It didn't really, a big disappoint because I enjoyed the other three previously mentioned road epics so much. They can't all be winners I guess. 

The cast is good and bad, some undone by uninteresting characters, others by the over-reliance on the physical humor, and some by a script that gives them little to do. A star of The Great Race, I liked Curtis as American racer Schofield (favoring 'Zowee!' as one of his go-to phrases) who commits to the goofiness but never really overdoes it. He's given a driving partner of sorts, Susan Hampshire's Betty, who may or may not be trying to slow him down. As his English counterpart, Thomas is good as Cuthbert (Thomas played Cuthbert's father in 'Machines'), the definition of an Englishman, this one so desperately trying to stop Schofield -- and all the other racers for that matter. Also returning is Eric Sykes as Perkins, Cuthbert's much-maligned and blackmailed assistant. This rivalry is the only one that was really appealing to me, the rest falling short here and there.

One of the other positives is Peter Cook (Major Dawlish) and Dudley Moore (Lt. Barrington), two British army officers driving together, Dawlish unleashing all his new-fangled inventions with every opportunity. Their very British demeanor provides some good laughs. Who else to look out for? Another star from 'Machines' but in a different part, Gert Frobe plays a convict look-a-like recruited to race as a famous racer (with Peer Schmidt as his partner)...and smuggle some diamonds for an underused Jack Hawkins (playing a sinister Count). There's also two Italian police officers (Lando Buzzanca and Walter Chiari), one looking for glory, one looking not to get married to an ugly woman, and a female racing team that includes Mireille Darc, Marie Dubois and Nicoletta Machiavelli who I don't believe are ever identified by name. They look pretty. That's their requirement for being there. Also, Bourvil plays the champagne-guzzling race organizer.

When 'Jalopies' gets down to it, there are some entertaining racing sequences. We see 1920s-era cars -- not exactly sleek racing cars -- bombing across Europe (with some great on-location shooting across the continent), especially the finale as the remaining racers gun it into Monte Carlo. There's just too little of it, and far too much use of miniatures and green screen work for a whole lot of sequences. In the end, a disappointment. If you want to be funny, just tap the brakes some and let it happen.

Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969): **/****

Rampage

Released in 1962, Hatari! starred John Wayne, Hardy Kruger, Red Buttons and existed mostly to show off its African locations as Wayne's team of specialists capture exotic animals and sell them to zoos around the world. It's good enough, entertaining but generally forgettable. It was a big success though, and what does success mean in the movies? The same old stories shoved right down our throats, like 1963's Rampage. 

Working for whoever will pay him, trapper and big game tracker Harry Stanton (Robert Mitchum) is the best at what he does; finding and capturing exotic animals for zoos all around the world. Visiting Berlin, he's approached for a job that even he's not sure he can pull off. Traveling to Malaysia, Harry must capture two tigers, but that's just the start. He must also track and capture the Enchantress, a half-tiger, half-leopard, a rare animal that's been spotted several times. Along for the hunt of sorts is a big-game hunter and guide, Otto Abbot (Jack Hawkins), who immediately butts heads with the equally strong-willed Harry. The rivalry for supremacy is one thing, but it gets ratcheted up even more when Otto's girlfriend, Anna (Elsa Martinelli), accompanies them on the dangerous hunt.

Like the much-better Hatari!, 'Rampage' works at its best when it is on location. According to the recent airing on TCM, director Phil Karlson shot on location in Hawaii (filling in nicely for Malaysia). It is a beautiful movie to watch, boasting a very 1960s look and style to it. The first hour-plus serves as a nice tour of "Malaysia," Harry's crew of Sakai hunters (including guide Sabu) navigating their way through the lush, green jungles full of beautiful streams, cliffs, hills and waterfalls. It has a distinct cheese-ball quality, not quite low budget, but getting there. It is a popcorn film, one that transports you to somewhere else and lets you enjoy the adventure and the scenery for a little while. Composer Elmer Bernstein aids the cause with his score, at times jazzy and fun, other times emotionally more effective, bits of 'The Great Escape' evident at times.

When I did stumble across this late night on TCM, I was surprised I'd never seen it, much less heard of it, considering its star power at the top. Now to be fair, both Mitchum and Hawkins made much better movies with much better roles. I wouldn't calling this slumming for either actor, but neither delivers a career-defining role. Still, it's fun to see them in a more mainstream, straight entertainment part. As he always was, Mitchum is effortlessly cool. The early 1960s were transitional for Mitchum, the veteran actor finding his nice, but this is a fun, lead man type part. Hawkins too is perfect for the part, a great actor who could more than hold his own but seemed at his best as the second fiddle and/or banana to the lead. They have some great banter back and forth, that banter eventually turning into a heated rivalry (more later there). Also starring in Hatari!, Martinelli just isn't a great actress. Words that come to mind? Eye candy. One scene has her swimming naked, some "digital" rocks obscuring her.....talents?

Did it seem like the movie -- and this review -- was going too smoothly? Yeah, I thought so too. 'Rampage' couldn't have just been content with a hunting/safari trip to exotic locations, could it? No, that would far too easy. Instead, the story resorts to one of my favorite plot devices, the love triangle. The second Martinelli's Anna was introduced, I groaned as both Harry and Otto stare her down. Oh, so the movie's about this. Yeah! I thought watching Mitchum and Hawkins fight over her might be interesting, but nothing even somewhat entertaining comes of it. Is there any doubt who she will end up with in the end? If you said she ends up with Sabu, slap yourself for me. The love triangle is dull, drawn out, and predictable. The supposedly impossible hunts for the tigers and the Enchantress end up being relatively easy, the story clearly wanting to get back to the love triangle.

Making it worse is that 'Rampage' has no real idea how to wrap things up. I can't help but wonder if Michael Crichton was a fan of this movie because the end could be a forerunner for The Lost World. The Enchantress has been captured, its delivered to Berlin and what happens? SPOILERS STOP READING SPOILERS In an effort to have Anna all to himself, Otto traps Harry in the train car, lets the Enchantress out, and runs. Cue the Berlin zoo director who opens the car and unleashes the exotic animal on a sea of expectant, waiting fans. Cornball much? As if the love triangle aspect wasn't painful enough to watch, we've now got to see a homicidal, lunatic in Otto trying to kill Harry who just wants to capture his prize. What a big, old mess.

Rampage <---TCM clips (1963): **/****

The Cruel Sea

Considering the epic scale of war, I think it's interesting that the stories that seem to resonate are the ones that are the most personal. They may focus on the bigger picture -- a battle, a mission, the home front -- but the success rides on the individual and their efforts at survival. Focusing on the personal but maintaining that picture of the bigger events at hand is a sub-genre of WWII films, the cat and mouse game of ships vs. submarines. The ships on the surface hunt while the subs sneak in for their attacks, like 1953's The Cruel Sea.

An experienced sailor in the Merchant Navy, Lt. Commander Ericson (Jack Hawkins) is called to active duty at the outbreak of WWII and given command of an escort ship assigned duty in the Atlantic. His ship -- the Compass Rose -- is given a relatively inexperienced crew with only a few veteran officers who've even been to sea. After a quick but mostly successful training period, the Compass Rose heads out for its duty, helping escort convoys all over the Atlantic, doing their best to stop the German U-boats that are wreaking havoc on Allied shipping. They find that war isn't an action-packed adventure, but instead long stretches of clear sailing broken up by the constant threat of attack from the German subs. It doesn't take long, and that fear begins to wear on even the strongest men.

Not a hugely well known WWII flick, this British-made production is nonetheless quite worthwhile. It has its flaws like any movie, but as I mentioned earlier, it works because it is an intensely personal story. This will sound obvious, but think about how big the ocean is. Actually think about it. Then place a relatively "large" ship on that water with a mission to protect other ships from raiding subs that have thousands of miles of open water to hide out in. A torpedo can tear your ship to shreds any second and from any direction. I don't even want to think about that feeling, knowing that death hangs in the air just waiting to strike. Director Charles Frend gets credit for creating that unbearable feeling of dread as the Compass Rose sails through the Atlantic.

A name synonymous with big epic films, Jack Hawkins was one of Britain's great actors. It's great to see him in a still-big film, but not quite the epics of Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on the River Kwai and Zulu. He had a knack for playing the stiff upper-lip Brit, a man of honor and duty who doesn't let much rattle him, but this part is different. As he takes command of the Compass Rose, he finds out -- along with every member of his crew -- that the war is nothing like he imagined. There's no glory or heroes. You kill your enemy before he kills you. That's all. It's a dirty, filthy business. He wants to aid the war effort but also to get his crew through the war unscathed, knowing that one doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with the other. A father-son/maybe brotherly relationship develops with his first officer, Sub Lieutenant Lockhart (Donald Sinden), an inexperienced officer who picks things up quickly as the war escalates. They look to each for support in the most tense of situations, knowing that they can trust the other one.

If I could do anything to improve on the story even a little, it would have been to develop the other officers and crew a little more. We get to know a handful of other officers but never learn much about them other than a fairly vague "personality." The group includes Denholm Elliott as Lt. Morrell, the officer who's wife is a famous actress. The rest of the crew envies him, but Morrell's home life isn't as idyllic as they think, along with John Stratton, John Warner and Stanley Baker in a part that forces him to leave the story far too soon. One interesting -- if somewhat cliched -- storyline has one officer, Tallow (Bruce Seton), introducing one of the crew, Chief Watts (Liam Redmond), to his almost-spinster of a sister (Megs Jenkins). The background is kept to a minimum, holding us as a viewer at arm's length.

The best parts of 'Cruel' show the horrors of war, much of it happening off-screen. Several set pieces bring the movie up a notch, the best coming when Hawkins' Ericson must make a decision to go after a possibly fleeing submarine at the expense of sacrificing Allied sailors in the water from a nearby sunken ship. Seeing what happens wouldn't have been as effective as hearing the explosions in the water and seeing the facial reactions of the men on-board the Compass Rose. Hawkins does an amazing job at that scene, weighing the lives of a few versus the lives of hundreds and maybe thousands. Frend makes a wise choice in his story; we don't see the Germans in any form -- their ships, their planes, their men -- until the end of the movie. He isn't condemning them as savage foes, just an enemy that must be beaten, and I think that took some courage, especially in 1953 when WWII was still fresh in people's minds. The hunts for the German subs highlight the movie, showing the crew come to life at a chance to get into the action.

Because a war story wouldn't have been complete without some sort of forced, hammy love story, we do get a sub-plot with Sinden's Lockhart and Virginia McKenna's 2nd Officer Julie Hallam. I don't hate any and all love stories, just ones like these that do nothing to advance the story and are there for the purpose of being there. Lt. Morrell's wife and their story helps develop that character, but this relationship doesn't work. They can't all be winners, right? Other than that and some early pacing problems, I really enjoyed this movie. There is some great footage of these ships at sea -- calm water and pitching, violent water -- as well as some impressive stock footage from WWII. Hawkins leads a decent cast, his performance carrying the movie.

The Cruel Sea <---TCM trailer (1953): ***/****

The League of Gentlemen

One of the many positives I can take away from my Netflix membership is a feature available to me right up there with the DVD queue.  There is an option to 'Save' DVDs, those that are not available currently, the disc has been lost, or Netflix hasn't acquired said DVD yet.  Spending far too many hours cruising through available movies, I've stumbled across my fair share of hidden gems (or so I hope), just waiting for them to become available.  The most recent to make the jump from Saved to Queue was 1960's The League of Gentlemen.

As a sucker for heist films, I fell hook, line and sinker for this British heist flick. Add in the element of a team of specialists working together to pull off an impossible job, and I was officially done for. 'League' was released this summer through the Criterion Collection as part of the Basil Dearden's London Underground Collection, featuring three other movies. The cover art grabbed my attention right away, and once I read who starred in the movie, I couldn't wait to see this one. One of the earlier heist films I've seen, it's an obvious influence on countless movies since, all the while maintaining its own unique British style.

After 25 years serving in the military, Colonel Norman Hyde (Jack Hawkins) is being forcibly retired.  He's devoted his life to the army, and being separated from his wife has little to occupy his time. With nothing but time to spare, he goes about preparing a heist, a bank robbery, an intricate job that will need to be planned down to the tiniest detail.  To help him pull off the robbery, Hyde assembles a group of seven fellow ex-soldiers, including right hand man and wheeler dealer Race (Nigel Patrick). As they plan for the robbery, Hyde insists his crew live by military standards and rules, instilling a mindset in them of efficiency and effectiveness.  With a huge payday almost in their laps, he reasons that nothing can stop an organized, brutally efficient group of highly trained soldiers. But with a job like this, there's always something you can't plan for.  

There is something that's hard to explain about the appeal of a movie like this. It is easy to see its influence on future heist movies from the characters to the set-up to the actual heist to the aftermath. Dearden is calm behind the camera, and it rubs off on the movie. It runs 116 minutes and is a patient -- some critics say boring -- story that slowly builds tension. It is filmed in black and white, reflecting a general darkness and cynicism in the story. There are some odd moments of attempted humor that fall short, but some lines work because they do come out of left field. When asked if his wife is dead, Hawkins' Hyde replies "No, I regret to say the bitch is still going strong." It's 1960. How great a line is that?  An easy-going confidence is an inherent part of the story, helping out the slower parts because you know it's heading in the right direction.

That general darkness and cynicism comes across best in the casting and the characters. Would it have been nice to get some more personal development, some background on these men? Yes, but the importance is the team aspect, all of them working together, not individually.  Hawkins and Patrick just work smoothly together, their scenes together flowing with an equal give and take. The catch with Hawkins' team is that they're all ex-soldiers cashiered out of the army for one thing or another. The group includes Richard Attenborough as Levy, the radio expert, Roger Livesey as Mycroft, a con man who works as a priest, Bryan Forbes as Porthill, a possible executioner of prisoners, Kieron Moore as Stevens, a Fascist, Terence Alexander as Rupert, a money launderer, and Norman Bird as Weaver, the former alcoholic and demolitions expert. With the exception of Hawkins, none of the characters are particularly likable, but I still found myself hoping they pull off the job. Go figure.

Like so many quality heist movies before and since, 'League' succeeds because other than a few vague details we don't know how the actual robbery is going to be pulled off.  Relative to some more modern heist flicks, this one is pretty simple, although it does depend on split second timing, and a lot of things going right.  The sequence is Rififi-esque, around 15 minutes in length where little is said, just the action and build-up and musical score moving things along.  You're waiting for something to go wrong, anything at all, especially after almost 90 minutes of that slow-burning adrenaline.

Where the movie fails somewhat is the end. It is still 1960, and the whole 'crime doesn't pay' angle is one that movies often played up. It's not how something will get messed up, but when it will get messed up. If you can call it one, the twist is somewhat disappointing, partially because it was hinted at earlier, and also because it wastes a ton of potential. It could have been a classic ending, one that would have been true to the movie's dark roots.  As is now, it is still far from a happy ending, but the movie ends on a bit of a whimper if you ask me.  That said, I still very much enjoyed the movie. Little known but worth seeking out.

Also, keep your eye out for Patrick Wymark as a sugar daddy, Nigel Green as angry man on a date, David Lodge in a quick but funny supporting part, and Oliver Reed as a gay actor. Three odd, but funny parts considering the caliber of actor and the stars they would become. 

The League of Gentlemen <---trailer (1960): ***/****

Shalako

By 1968, James Bond himself, Sean Connery, was riding high off the success of the first five 007 movies he made, most recently with You Only Live Twice.  When he wasn't playing Bond, Connery did his damnedest to avoid being typecast, generally succeeding with a wide-ranging list of roles that continued into the 1970s and 1980s.  But in all those movies, he only did one western, and it's a good one, 1968's Shalako.

Based on a Louis L'Amour novel, this Euro-western has a lot going for it with a lot of different elements thrown together in the final product.  Start with the uniquely international cast that includes American, English, French, Scottish, German and Spanish actors and actresses, all of them with speaking roles.  While the story ends up being somewhat familiar late in the movie, the build-up to that point is different from about 99.9% of other westerns.  At times it can be a little too much with so many different elements working together and sometimes against each other, but the positives outweigh the negatives...for me at least.

Frontiersman and former U.S. cavalry officer Shalako Carlin (Connery) stumbles across an Apache ambush, saving a beautiful French woman, Countess Irina Lazaar (Brigitte Bardot), from certain death. Irina is part of a European hunting party headed by Baron Von Halstatt (Peter Van Eyck), Sir Charles Daggett (Jack Hawkins), and U.S. senator Henry Clark (Alexander Knox) who are touring the American west, killing any animals they see, their wives along for the adventure. Knowing what awaits them, Shalako tries to convince them to leave the territory as the Apaches don't take kindly to anyone riding onto their land.  The party ignores him, but when their guide, Bosky Fulton (Stephen Boyd) and his men double-cross them, they have no one to turn to other than Shalako.

Above all else, I'd say watch this movie for the cast, starting with Connery and on down the line through all the supporting parts, some much bigger than others.  If anything, there may be too many names involved because characters aren't given the attention they deserve at times.  Connery's Shalako -- an all around badass like most L'Amour heroes -- doesn't even dominate the screen, and the movie's named after him!  Those I could get into the plot review are just some of the names, there's also Honor Blackman as Hawkins' wife, Woody Strode as an Apache chief (not as bad as a Mongol bandit I guess), Valerie French as the senator's wife, and Julian Mateos and Don Barry as two gunmen along for the ride.

Seeing Connery in a western setting might seem odd -- Scottish actor dudes up in bucksins and six-shooter -- but it works.  He is typical of most L'Amour heroes in his ability to handle himself in even the hairiest situation, loyal and honest, and does the right thing over the thing that makes the most sense.  In the end, you know he'll win and get the girl.  Oops, did I just give away the ending?  My bad.  Director Edward Dmytryk had a bit of a predicament with leading lady Bardot, the definition of a 1960s sex kitten. Basically do you make her look like a woman on the frontier or like, well, Brigitte Bardot.  He goes with option B.  Hair always look perfect as does the makeup.  I'll disagree with a lot of reviews, I thought Connery and Bardot had good chemistry, and her sexy French accent goes a long way.  It just does, no other explanation needed.

Keeping it all together is the movie's biggest problem as Dmytryk juggles all these characters and subplots.  The story is at its strongest when sticking with Shalako and the motley crew of survivors he's leading.  Boyd is always a solid villain but his character could basically be erased from the storyline and it wouldn't skip a beat.  Van Eyck and Hawkins do what they can with stiff upper lip aristocratic characters.  If nothing else, there is more eye candy than usual in a typical western.  Along with Bardot -- who is given a topless scene with strategically placed hands -- there's Blackman and French, neither of whom are too bad to look at.

I wish there was more I could say about this Euro-western, but I'm drawing a blank.  The cast is solid if under utilized, the action is exciting, and the Spanish desert fills in nicely for the American southwest.  Be forewarned, there's a truly awful theme song -- give it a listen HERE -- that plays over the credits on either end of the movie.  I'll apologize in advance for the song being stuck in your head for the next few days.  It is a western that does nothing spectacularly, but instead does everything in a solid, workmanlike manner.

Shalako <---TCM clip (1968): ***/****