Shalako

The caste alone is worth the admission: Connery, Bardot, Hawkins,Steven Boyd, Eric Sykes, Honor Blackman, Woody Strode, others ... Mostly European (actors) - strange for a Western - but not unrealistic to the times. Hawkins and Boyd - both recently out of starring in Ben Hur. A coterie of fine acting talent and charismatic screen artists. Proves my theory as to why Western Film will never die: Every Actor and every Director want to make a Western at some point. Connery and Bardot have some nice interplay in sharing the bulk of the screen time. Meanwhile here's some decent action here in what is a pretty well a straight up Western adventure tale. Possibly a Western that will enjoy greater appreciation with time.

DIRECTOR: Edward Dmytryk. WRITERS: Louis L'Amour (novel) and Clarke Reynolds (screenplay). CAST: Sean Connery, Brigitte Bardot, Sephen Boyd, Honor Blackman, Jack Hawkins, Woody Strode and Valerie French. RUNTIME: 1 hour 53 minutes. LOCATIONS: Spain. COUNTRY: UK/West Germany.

THE STORY: A pompous group of European nobles on a hunting vacation in New Mexico are beset by a band of Apaches who don't appreciate them trespassing on their lands. After the Europeans are abandoned by their guides they are helped by an intrepid loner named Shalako (Connery). Can they make it out alive?

As you can see, this European film has a lot going for it. It's based on a Louis L'Amour novel and has a great cast. Yet, it bombed when it was originally released, but it's actually a very good realistic Western. Besides, how can you go wrong with Sean Connery and Brigitte Bardot?

Disregarding the horrible title song, the opening is reminiscent of "Duel at Diablo" and the rest of the film resembles "Hombre," which were both released in the late 60s as well. "Shalako" has the same tone, so if you like those films you'll probably appreciate "Shalako."

Although there's a lot of good Western action, including one excellent long battle sequence between the whites and the Natives, there's quite a bit of drama. As such, I encourage you to utilize the subtitles due to the heavily-accented dialogue; it helps you to keep up with the story and characters. There's also some good character definement.

The film is a story of arrogance and betrayal -- the arrogance of the Europeans who have no respect for the "lowbred" cowboys or "savages," and the betrayal of the American guides, headed excellently by Stephen Boyd (Messala in "Ben-Hur"). But, to my pleasure, "Shalako" is mostly a survival story. I love survival stories, like "Sands of the Kalahari" and "Flight of the Phoenix." This brings to mind other survival-themed Westerns like "Escape from Fort Bravo," "They Came to Cordura" and "Duel at Diablo." "Shalako" stands well with these films.

Can you believe Woody Strode, a black man, is cast as the main Native American antagonist? It works, believe it or not, as he looks convincingly Indian.

THE BABE REPORT: Of course, Brigitte Bardot is one of the most beautiful women to ever grace God's earth. With the exception of one bathing scene she's dressed to the hilt throughout. But -- man -- she has such a cute, pouty face and incredible locks of full blond hair. Interestingly, she was chosen to play Bond's love interest in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" (the only non-Connery Bond picture of the 60s with George Lazenby as Bond), but she was ironically booked with Connery doing this movie. Honor Blackman, who played Pussy Galore in "Goldfinger," is also on hand. I never thought she was all that beautiful, although I like her as an actor.

Of great interest to me was the appearance of the underrated brunette Valerie French. She played the hottie in "Jubal" (1956) when she was 28. "Shalako" was her final film and she was 40 at the time of release. She's mainly a background character but she does have some lines and you'll catch quite a few good glimpses of her. She's almost as beautiful as Bardot, albeit brunette. And, no, it makes no difference that she's 40.

FINAL ANALYSIS: I fully expected to not like "Shalako" due to the bad or lukewarm reviews, but I was pleasantly surprised. The critics are way off. This is a really good late-60's Western. Those with ADHD might not like it 'cause there's a lot of character-defining drama, but I found it worthwhile for all the above reasons.

Some criticize the ending as ridiculous, but I liked it. Would it likely happen in real life? Probably not. But I didn't find it all that unbelievable. In other words, the filmmakers pulled it off. It's a good MOVIE ending. That's why they went with it.

GRADE: B+

Brigitte Bardot went on to Hollywood but did not fare any better... 'Shalako,' a British-produced Western directed by Edward Dmytryk, teamed her with Sean Connery and Stephen Boyd (her partner in 'The Night Heaven Fell') in a smoldering relationship charged with tension and passion...

The idea is cute and unbelievable: A party of European aristocrats are on a hunting safari in New Mexico in the 1880's... They are traveling with full equipage including butlers, maids, fine linens and vintage wines...

When their safari is led upon an Apache reservation, the Indians become annoyed, and Countess Irina Lazaar (Brigitte Bardot) is attacked by a savage Apache... Shalako (Sean Connery), a scout for the U.S. Army, bravely attempts to save her and leads the aristocrats away from imminent annihilation... With the Indians determined to attack, each member of the hunting party faces the greatest peril of their lives...

Edward Dmytryk seems to have attempted to recapture the freshness and essence of the 'B.B.' that Roger Vadim had helped to shape... But the re-creation escapes him, despite the careful choice of Louis L'Amour's novel and the casting of international stars as Jack Hawkins ('Lawrence of Arabia'), Peter Van Eyck ('The Longest Day'), Honor Blackman ('Goldfinger'), Woody Strode ('Spartacus'), and Valerie French ('Jubal').

The film never becomes exciting despite incidental brutalities...

SHALAKO is a movie that often appears in peoples least favourite western lists and looking at this page many people have said how much they dislike it but as someone who doesn't like the genre all that much I can't say it's all that bad First of all the premise is fairly simple without being threadbare which while not being a guarantee you'll be watching a great movie is often a guarantee you won't be watching an awful one: A bunch of European toffs on a hunting trip arrogantly wander into an Indian reservation and after being warned to leave by former army scout Shalako decide to ignore his expert advice which leads to some nasty consequences .

It's not a great story but it does allow for some character conflict and some serious violence . It might seem tame today but this movie was produced in 1968 when audiences were still being treated to war films where when people were shot they give a pained expression , clutched their wound and slowly sank to the ground like a dying swan . The somewhat sadistic violence is probably the main talking point of SHALAKO especially the scene with the sand and the necklace , you'll know the scene when you see it

Yeah it's flawed film . One point is the many accents used which makes it rather difficult to understand the dialoguein some scenes which probably annoyed an American audience while many of the characters remain somewhat underwritten , I kept forgetting senator Henry Clarke was in the story until he appeared on screen in an infrequent manner . As for the casting Eric Sykes seems to be doing his comedy routine while Apache chiefs shouldn't be played by African Americans

But all in all SHALAKO isn't as bad as some people would have you believe

Hundreds upon hundreds of westerns have been made by Hollywood and other cinematic centers of creation, but this one can at least claim a pretty unique premise and an unusual cast. The story concerns an arrogant and stubborn party of European nobility who have come to the wilds of the North American west to hunt for sport. They blithely roam onto an Apache reservation and invoke the wrath of the tribe, which has had its fill of broken treaties. Connery, as the title character, plays a well-known loner in the area who has a tenuous relationship with the Apaches and finds himself having to try to rescue the hunters. The hunters include the snobby, condescending van Eyck, his feisty fiancé Bardot, cuckolded Hawkins, his discontented wife Blackman, blithering ex-senator Knox and his Latino wife French. Their guide is the dubious Boyd, who is exploiting them for the fees they pay for his services. It is, at once, jarring and fascinating to see these characters in a western setting. The clothing, furnishings, behaviors, etc...are at odds with the typical western visuals. A butler frets that the champagne may not be cold enough, while they all sit at a dining table in the middle of the desert. The characters are so shallow and bigoted that the viewer can hardly wait to see them get their comeuppance and most of them do...in spades. Where the film primarily fails is in its storytelling, editing and location. The script is vague at times, to say the least. It's not always easy to determine the motivations of the characters. This is not helped by the fact that many of their accented murmurings are spoken softly while the musical score blares, making it hard to settle on a volume level. The editing is, at times, striking and effective, but other times it is weak and harms some of the dramatic impact of the story. The location (Spain) resembles nothing like the American west. This is immediately distracting and sometimes continues to be. There's a horribly silly title song. The direction is occasionally on the lazy side as well. However, the sheer intensity and savagery of the action sequences and some various intriguing story elements make this quite watchable. Connery is appropriately rugged, if unexpected, as a western hero. Bardot is lovely, but doesn't really get a chance to shine much. She is a striking figure on the range, even if her HEAVY eye make-up has nothing to do with the time or place. She and Connery have a slight, subdued chemistry between them that isn't fully developed. The real sparks fly between Boyd and Blackman. He is a great slimeball and she is wonderfully desperate. Her tussle with the Indians is a high point of the film. The Indians are portrayed in a throwback way...speaking pigeon English and basically doing what they did in westerns of the '30's. It's surprising that in 1968, Strode was cast as one of the leaders. Ultimately, the climax renders most of what has taken place inconsequential, another flaw in the storytelling. Still, the film has merit for it's collection of international actors, it's inventive violence and it's unusual approach to the western genre. (In some ways, it resembles a 1970's disaster movie! An all star cast gets dressed up, faces peril, gets dirty, and only a handful survive!)