Shalako (1968)

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

At the risk of offending the purists, the animal lovers and the rest of the supercilious self-righteous know-alls, I thoroughly enjoy this film every time I watch it (yes, I come back to it, now and then). It's right up there with my other favorite westerns, "The Magnificent Seven," "Duck, You Sucker," and "MacKenna's Gold." Nothing serious. Just entertaining, off-the-beaten-track plots, and good-looking people. I don't know about you, but I DETEST being preached at. Never could take it, either from my parents, or my teachers. Not even from my church, truth be told. So I'm certainly NOT going to take it from the hypocrites in the film industry. And that's why I like Shalako. No preaching. No whining about big bad America. No oh-dear-weren't-we-awful-to-the-natives chest-beating, so prevalent in the 60s and 70s. Just a bit of fun. Which is all the entertainment industry should stick to.

This is a most peculiar oddity -- a British Euro-Western shot in Spain by veteran American director Edward Dmytryk. It should come as no surprise that everything, especially the casting, seems a bit off. A group of snooty European aristocrats, and a U.S. senator, goes on a fancy hunting expedition in the Old West. They haul along all the cumbersome trappings of civilization: servants, fine wine, expensive silverware, etc. But their unscrupulous cowboy guides, led by Bosky Fulton (Stephen Boyd), foolishly encamp on Apache land. When a French Countess (Bardot) wanders off, she is attacked by the Indians. Fortunately, Shalako (Sean Connery), an experienced cowboy known by the Indians, happens along. He rescues the Countess and brokers a truce with the Indians. The hunting party is given till dawn to leave Indian territory. But the Europeans, led by a German Baron (Peter van Eyck), arrogantly refuse to be run off by a gang of savages. They decide to make a stand, trusting their superior firepower and breeding to win the day. The next morning the expected Indian attack is just barely repelled. To make matters worse, their guides run off with most of their supplies (and Honor Blackman). This is the first of many lessons in humility for the hunting party as they struggle to survive. Shalako must now lead them to safety through a hostile landscape.The story, based on the book by Louis L'Amour, is essentially a study of class divisions. This is what must have appealed to the British producers in the first place. It is the opposite of "Zulu", in which the besieged Army of the British Empire nobly held out against a massive native attack. In "Shalako" a group of seemingly superior Europeans are trounced and harassed by savage Indians and must turn to a working class saddle tramp for salvation.Sean Connery, with his thick Scottish accent, is woefully miscast as Shalako -- a role originally intended for Henry Fonda. A fine actor in most roles, Connery simply isn't believable as an American cowboy. His presence only serves to derail the film. Plus, playing him against a group of European co-stars destroys the contrast that is at the heart of the story. Connery had just quit the James Bond series and was eager to establish himself as a versatile actor. He could not have picked a worse film to demonstrate his range. With a dark tan, longer hair, and sideburns, Connery was never more handsome, but he never seems comfortable in this setting. Brigitte Bardot, with her trademark heavy eyeliner, looks like a sexy French raccoon. She and Connery are given a brief romantic interlude, but even that doesn't work. The lack of chemistry between the two stars is obvious.Honor Blackman (who was in "Goldfinger"), as English lady Julia Daggett, was clearly a bit of stunt casting. The fact that she has no scenes with Connery makes her being in the film all the more absurd. But the oddest casting choice in this off-kilter film is Woody Strode as the Apache leader. Strode is the imposing African-American actor best known for "Spartacus" and "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance".All of this had a chance of working with a different cast and a better script. As it is, this is an unfortunate misfire of a film in which its obvious flaws are its only points of interest.

See it – Let's be honest, the main reason you'll want to watch this movie is to see Sean Connery as a cowboy. But this is a surprisingly good rip-roaring western. In fact, the strangest thing about this movie is that it revolves around a group of British hunters on a big game hunt, and none of the British characters are played by Connery. He plays the American. The only western he ever did, Connery doesn't even attempt to change his accent, but it's okay. This is an action movie, and it is as exciting and action-packed as they come. The hunting party is attacked by Indians, and James Bond…I mean Shalako, has to save the day. This movie is a mix between "Duel at Diablo" and "Last of the Mohicans." Plus, the story was written by the legendary Louis L'Amour himself, so that should be enough right there. 4.5 action rating

What an oddity this is.If you put to one side the Louis L'Amour source novel, and Woody Strode in the supporting cast, this traditional western has no US input at all. Even the spaghetti westerns usually had a Yank at the top of the cast list.This European western has quite a high profile cast list - Sean Connery (Scots), Brigitte Bardot (French), Stephen Boyd (Irish), Peter van Eyck (German), Jack Hawkins and Eric Sykes (English) - none of whom would be obvious choices for a western. The Spanish locations are, I suppose, redolent of some American desert areas, but still aren't really the sort of places which evoke the US places where one might expect a European hunting party to visit.This sense of geographical dislocation gives the movie a weird feel. When you factor in the fact that this is quite a sadistic picture, with a level of violence not commonly seen in westerns in 1968, you get a movie which doesn't easily bear comparison with anything else. It's like wandering through an art gallery looking at portraits by old masters and suddenly seeing a landscape painted by Steven Spielberg - yes, it's a painting, and yes, Spielberg is undoubtedly a man of great artistic vision and ability, but this particular item simply doesn't fit.Is it any good? It's OK, and I think it would be better if you could shake off the air of weirdness which is there whe whole time you're watching it.