Alvarez Kelly

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

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.

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.

This is a true story of the civil war. It is said that when Gen. Grant found out what had happened to the cattle, the words that he uttered could not be repeated orally. I could just imagine what the good general would have said if he saw this mess of a film. Bill Holden is Kelly. The North and the South both want his sheep to feed people during the civil war. The south, led by Gen. Richard Widmark, in a totally phony southern accent, go as far to kidnap Kelly. Widmark shoots off a finger and threatens a finger a day until Kelly complies. The shocking thing is this awful picture is that by the end of it, Kelly plays along with the south. Widmark is willing to forget that Kelly has allowed his girl friend, (Janice Rule) to flee from Richmond. This film is uneven at best. There are far too many questions to ask, but why bother since it's a real clinker anyway.

In the early 1960's, there was quite a bit of interest in the Civil War during the centennial observances of events over the four-year period. Quite a few films were released either about the war, or which had the war in the background or as preludes to western films, which were very popular at the time. This film fits within that genre - both as a "civil war" film, which is also a bit of a "western", considering the cattle-rustling angle. This movie is (loosly) based upon an actual event. In September of 1964, Lee's Army of Northern Virginia was besieged by Grant's forces in entrenchments which stretched along the eastern side of Richmond, then south across the James river, then along the southern border of Petersburg, Virginia. A confederate scout noticed a large heard of cattle (approaching 4000 head) located at Coggins Point on the James River, not far from Grant's headquarters. In the army parlance of the days before refrigeration or canning to preserve meat, this was referred to by the commissary services as "beef on the hoof". Confederate Lt. Gen. Wade Hampton organized a raid which swung wide around the Union lines, traveled through Union-held territory to the site, overcame the small guard, and herded 2,468 cattle back into the Confederate lines where it became a welcome addition to the scanty rations the Confederate troops normally received. The Confederate losses were quite small - 10 killed, 47 wounded, and 4 missing, according to Hampton's official after-action report. The raid went down in history as either "Hampton's Cattle Raid", or simply "The Great Beefsteak Raid". Of course, the lead character "Alverez Kelly" from the movie has no real counterpart in history of which I am aware.

Spoilers included. "Alvarez Kelly" takes place mostly in Virginia (so it isn't technically a western, is it?) during the Civil War. Kelly, played by William Holden, is some kind of cow expert who is enlisted by the Union army to handle their cattle. He is soon kidnapped by a band of Confederates. The rebels are led by a one-eyed man (Widmark) who is supposed to be a Southern gentleman but sounds a lot like the cartoon version of a Chicago gangster. This is a forgettable movie, but Widmark's accent is so hilarious that the film is almost worth watching. My favorite part was when the rebels kidnap Kelly. Kelly has some money in his pocket, and Widmark's character wants it. He points his revolver at Kelly and says "HAND OVER DA MONEY!". Sometimes Widmark actually tries to sound Southern. He'll have it right in one scene, but in the next scene he'll be back in Chicago gangster mode. After kidnapping Kelly, the rebs take him to Richmond where he is enlisted by the Confederates to help steal the same cattle he used to be handling. Kelly refuses at first because he only wants to help the side that will pay him the most. Kelly changes his mind when the eyepatch guy shoots one of his fingers off. By the end of the movie, Kelly has a conscience. He sympathizes with the rebels and is willing to fight for something besides money. I have to say that I was deeply offended by this movie. I really can't stand Civil War flicks that show the Confederates as noble and heroic while showing the Northerners as dastardly and snobbish in the manner that "Alvarez Kelly" does. Most Civil War movies seem to portray the North and the South as either equally good or equally bad, but there are also many pro-Confederate movies out there. For once, I would like to see a movie that shows the Northerners as the good guys. Politics aside, this is a dull and dreary western that should be skipped by anyone who values their time. There are a few redeeming values, including some truly lovely actresses (Janice Rule and Victoria Shaw) but they don't have nearly enough screen time - Did the script writer really think that the audience would be more interested in a bunch of cows than these two women? If you like William Holden you should see some of the other movies he's been in, because he has been in some good ones. "Alvarez Kelly" isn't one of them, though. There are so many great westerns, it baffles me that anyone would waste their time watching junk like this.

This film is a real, merit-less time-waster. Wm. Holden (passed away drunk, how un-Christian-like) is too old for the role that should have gone to an athletic actor twenty years younger, although the crafty producers got their money's worth action-wise from the old man, considering Holden was an alcoholic and chain smoker! Widmark is all over the map playing a non-Christian Confederate soldier something or other, but I did enjoy O'Neal as the Union Capt., or is it Sgt? Anyways, the film drags until the rousing climax, at which point I thought another movie had come on. The writing could have presented a clearer story about the moral God (good) versus the Devil (impure) conflict inherent in a nation when it goes to war against itself, but that worthy idea is never fleshed out.

"Alvarez Kelly" is set in Virginia, during the U.S. Civil War, and William Holden plays the title role. His character is called a "Mexican National" - the son of an Irish father and Hispanic mother. While clothed in a suit resembling a cross between period and modern dress, Mr. Holden is unconvincing. He certainly does not favor his Mexican side. In fact, he looks and performs as if he just flew in from a Hollywood cocktail party. At least, the velvety smooth Holden voice is pleasing. The film has some production strengths. But, watching amigo Holden get dirty and have his finger shot off is disarming. Even worse, the story is a deathly bore. **** Alvarez Kelly (10/6/66) Edward Dmytryk ~ William Holden, Richard Widmark, Patrick O'Neal, Janice Rule

Sometimes shockingly idiotic, this movie occasionally manages to entertain through the perversity of its decisions. Basically, a game Richard Widmark and a drunk, bored William Holden wait an hour and a half for a battle sequence we were told about at the top, and we know, you and I and Bill and Dick, everybody knows, that what's coming will be one of the cheapest, least exciting battles in the whole canon of mostly or completely lame Civil War movies (has there ever been a good one?); but we also know, and the sheer insanity keeps us around, that this otherwise pedestrian Civil War battle scene will be perhaps the first to make the startling inclusion of a cattle stampede. First, though, we get to hear them say clever things to each other: "Damn you, Kelly! Why?" "Let's say I was getting even with someone for shooting a finger off." and to their women: "What's the matter, darling?" "War's the matter, I guess." We are treated to the spectacle of Confederate troops at cattle-drive school, learning to sing "Dixie" to spooked dogies. We are escorted in no hurry at all through a series of plantation homes, hotels, whorehouses and restaurants, all featuring the same salmon-colored window treatment on - yes! - the same French windows. For four minutes, we are stunned by the awesome vision of soldiers cutting trees to shore up a bridge. Of course, this means later we'll get to watch the bridge blow up, and we fear that it will be one of the stupidest bridge-blowing-up sequences in history. And it is, with Holden reeling half-heartedly to the middle of the span, noticing the explosion behind him, and jumping off a perfectly safe part which does not blow up, so that he can dive into the river and have planks fall on his head. Good thing there wasn't a coffee table on that bridge. This stinking potboiler of conflicted loyalties must have reminded Edward Dmytryk of the HUAC fifties. It seems to have been directed by absentee ballot. It looks like the whole crew was home by lunch every day. The dirt roads have visible tire ruts; dirty commando Rebs use knives shiny as chrome. Nobody bothered much about the script, either. We are asked to accept that, at great expense and effort, the Confederate army would rather shadow, catch and release and chase and catch again a man whom they obviously should, simply and legally, shoot as a spy (this also is a major failing of "The Great Escape", which at least has other virtues). "Alvarez Kelly" is further handicapped by apparently having been shot during the great Culver City period uniform and prop shortage of '65 - the Union army consists of about twelve soldiers; the Rebs have maybe forty. When the big fight finally comes, it takes place in some bushes, and the soldiers hide so well, you almost can't tell that it's a really major battle. A shrubbery nearly obscures the single cannon, and Columbia manages to arm both the North and South with Winchester repeaters that would not be mass produced for about 10 years after Appomattox. Most incredibly, the whole story takes place in Virginia, and yet we hear the voice of only a single African-American in the entire picture. In a crowning touch of genius, Union officer Patrick O'Neal takes this slave woman hostage and uses her as a human shield while evading Confederate capture - and the Rebs not only don't shoot, they just stand staring, perhaps because, being the only slave with the power of speech, she is very valuable; or perhaps because this could only happen in a world gone mad. Or senile. Dmytryk directs like he's already dead. And the pretentious road-show title sequence with eponymous song: "Sometimes a herd of cattle... is worth more than a herd of cannon!" (I swear to God), featuring lusty tough-guy lyrics sung by a gelded, milquetoast barber-shop quartet. One of the all-time worst songs in a movie, it serves as a spectacular opening to a remarkably terrible film.

William Holden plays the title character--a man who could NOT care less whether the North or South won the Civil War. Oddly, this character is supposed to be from Mexican and Irish ancestry and I have absolutely no idea why they wrote this back story with William Holden in mind--especially since this IS a perfect role for Anthony Quinn. Imagine a film where Quinn actually got to play his TRUE ethnic background instead of an American Indian, Philipino or so many other odd casting choices that plagued much of his early career. But William Holden?! What a stupid casting decision! Plus, this character was supposed to be amoral--so who do you root for in this film?! The Southerners are often portrayed as rather unlikable and mean and the Northerners are generally shown as being rather bland and stupid. While Richard Widmark and William Holden aren't the greatest or most familiar Western stars, they were excellent actors and with these two and a rather substantial budget, this still should have been a much more compelling picture. Even with morally questionable and unlikable characters and miscasting of Holden, the film should have generated some level of excitement. Instead, it's at best a time passer--and not a particularly memorable one due to occasionally over-done music, indifferent acting, and some portions that are just too talky and dull. Overall, this is one of the poorer films either Widmark or Holden made in the 1960s--one that is easy to skip. A final note--Although I am sure that some slaves were so brainwashed that they actually rooted for the Confederates to win the war, this surely was NOT the norm. However, in this rather insensitive film, the "good Negroes" conspire to save the day for the South during one supposedly poignant scene! Yeah, right!