Alvarez Kelly (1966)

Waste of time

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

'Alvarez Kelly' did have things going for it. Civil War westerns always peak interest, and then you have William Holden and Richard Widmark, who are immensely talented on their own but the dynamite explodes even more when together. One just wishes that 'Alvarez Kelly' was much better than it was. It is easy to see why some would be enamoured by it, and every bit as easy to see why others would be frustrated. Even more so if, like me who is still not sure what to make of the film and still on the fence, you are in neither extreme and found it not a waste of time but far from great. There are a good deal of things that do work in 'Alvarez Kelly', there are also a lot of things that don't.Holden and Widmark are the reasons to see the film. Holden plays his role in a way that's very commanding and compelling to watch, there is a tough guy charisma that translates believably on screen. Widmark's accent may be patchy, but his sinister intensity and charisma cannot be denied and are also very much evident. Their chemistry, as rivals and enemies, is terrific and explodes like dynamite. Patrick O'Neal is decent in his role, the only other one other than Holden's and Widmark's that isn't so badly misjudged. 'Alvarez Kelly' is beautifully shot, with lots of atmosphere, grit, beauty and majestic sweep. The scenery and costumes are evocative. There is some wit in the script, some of the action excites, especially the climax, while the music rouses and the theme song is very much memorable. Conversely, the story tends to be paced ponderously, with too many scenes not going very far if anywhere, and is further disadvantaged by constantly being side-tracked. Meaning the tone is wildly inconsistent (from jokey at first and then jarringly changes to a more serious tone) and the story structure is so unfocused and sprawling that the storytelling lacks clarity. The direction is routine at best.With the exceptions of Holden, Widmark and to a lesser extent O'Neal, the rest of the cast are poorly used, underwritten and with little to do, this is including the two leading ladies that have the beauty but not the screen presence thanks to their blandly written roles. The script is vapid and oddball while also being over-reliant on talk, very little of it interesting and sometimes relevant. The one-sidedness may put some off.In conclusion, apart from the production values, music, the odd bit of wit and excitement and performances and chemistry between the two leads, 'Alvarez Kelly' is heavily problematic. 5/10 Bethany Cox

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

This is a movie dominated by Whitmark & Holden. To say anything other is to deny the facts of the films. The cast and acting keeps you here watching the movie. This film is for the cast's fans only.The script is another matter. This movie appears to have started shooting with out a real script making up stuff along the way. William Holden was totally frustrated during filming. He took his copy of the script & tried to stick it in his horse where the sun don't shine, he had so little respect for it.There is a bridge explosion sequence on this movie in which the bridge looks much like the bridge in the Horse Soldiers that Holden had done years earlier with John Wayne. I am not sure if they used the same set area or the same people to build the bridge as in both movies the bridge is blown up.

Alvarez Kelly, Mexican national, has just sold a herd of cattle to the North during the American Civil War. Yankee Major Stedman insists he accompany the cattle all the way to Richmond where they're to feed Grant's troops besieging the city. Only Confederate Cavalry hero Tom Rossiter has different ideas for the cattle and for Kelly.William Holden as Kelly and Richard Widmark as Tom Rossiter settle down in roles familiar to them. Ever since Sunset Boulevard Bill Holden has brought us a fine line of cynical protagonists to the silver screen. Holden's good, but he's not breaking any new ground here.Richard Widmark as Rossiter is a bit more idealistic than Kelly, but only because he believes in a cause. He's no less cynical than Kelly in his methods of getting Kelly's cooperation in his scheme. The scheme being to get the cattle passed union lines to Richmond. We're not talking here about slavery and the causes of the Civil War. Just the prevention of disease and starvation.The only other larger role of note is Patrick O'Neal as Major Stedman of the Union Army. He is such and unctuous and boring man and written deliberately so by the writers that we will understand why Kelly is tempted by the Confederate offer. Of course Widmark uses other forms of persuasion, but you have to see the movie for that.It's a nice action film by two very capable male stars who were passed the peak years of their respective careers in the Fifties. Also you will not be able to get the title song, sung by the Kingston Trio over the opening credits out of your mind. Very catchy indeed.