User reviews

"Alvarez Kelly", made in 1966, supposedly tells the story of a cattle herd that was headed for Union lines during the latter months of the Civil War but was stolen by Confederate raiders, and ended up in Richmond, or so the movie says. That brings the quote listed in my summary to bear. While this may have been a fictitious event in the American Civil War, the movie does give a decent look at life during those turbulent years when one side was simply using might to slowly beat down the other side.

William Holden plays the owner of the cattle herd who has arranged, for a price, to deliver a prime beef herd to Union lines during the latter year of the War, 1864. As Kelly, he'll do anything that can be done, as long as there is a handsome fee at the end of the task. Richard Widmark plays the leader of the Confederate raiders who is just as determined to get the herd delivered, but not to Yankees, but instead to starving Confederate soldiers and citizens. His Southern accent is a bit contrived, but bearable. Widmark is able to convince Holden to change the route of the herd; however, the Union army is going to have to be contended with, as they know this herd was intended for them.

An easy film to watch, just don't put much historical truth with it.

See it - William Holden plays his trademark role as a smooth-talking womanizer caught in a war he doesn't want to be a part of. He's a rich cattle driver in the Civil War looking to sell his horses to the highest bidder. Richard Widmark plays the eyepatch-wearing Confederate villain. Some might say these two actors can't carry a movie by themselves, but together they are fantastic. The script in this movie is surprisingly sharp and smart. This is rare for a western. The dialogue is very witty and actually pretty funny at times. The movie has also aged very well, meaning that it is still relevant and doesn't have that "old" feel to it. For example, the things that are supposed to be funny are funny, etc. The only problem with this movie is that there's not much action until the end. This is easily forgivable because of the good story. After seeing the movie, I immediately compared it to Horse Soldiers, which Holden co-starred in with the Duke. Worth seeing once. 2 out of 5 action rating

I have just watched this movie on Spain's Canal Sur, in Spanish, which probably did not make much difference, as the Spaniards are wizards at dubbing, and the main character in any case is an Irish-Mexican. In addition, I avoided by this means Widmark's Southern drawl, said by those better qualified to judge than myself to be hilariously bogus. When I have seen him in films with English dialogue including Westerns, he has always sounded very urban to me, probably hailing from some part of New York and I have never noticed that he has attempted to change his accent before. So this was probably an isolated attempt that didn't work out. He is, nonetheless, an excellent actor, and we must recall that even our late great Sir John Gielgud made a terrible hash of this too, on the very rare occasions he was induced to speak with a different accent from his plum-in-the mouth, silver tones.

If you are looking for a Western of the inferior spaghetti type (I do not include Sergio Leone in that description), with non-stop violence and a corpse a minute, be sure to give this one a miss! Although a war film, its mood for the greater part of the footage is great calm, but a calm fraught with tensions. It takes at least three quarters of an hour for the first death to occur (unless there was a fatality at the Alvarez hacienda in the first few seconds, which I happened to miss, and that is unlikely). And immediately after this fatality, a party of Blues capture a party of Greys, who with hardly a pause turn the tables on the former, but without causing any further losses to either side or even anybody getting wounded. The development of the plot is mainly without physical action, so that I must admit it does tend to drag at times. The main protagonists quietly and stealthily pitch their wits against each other: that is why the incident of the severed finger(already mentioned on the general introduction page) comes as such a brutal shock. But the true nature of war, including the American Civil War, is like that: much manoeuvring (Am. maneuvering) without very much happening for most of the time, interrupted by sporadic, sudden flare-ups.

The main characters are well-drawn with many quirks and foibles and there is much humour in their interaction and the awkward situations they find themselves in. A good example of this is the frustration of Widmark, the one-eyed Confederate colonel, who with the reluctant help of the devious civilian,but pro tem acting colonel, Holden, tries to turn the dude grey-coated soldiers into competent cow-hands. Both Widmark and Holden take turns in being the butt of the various ironies, but the stiff-necked, self-opiniated and bumbling Union major played by O'Neill, is the object of such ironies for most of his on-screen time, including from his commanding officer.

The photography is good, the scenery (supposed to be Virginian although the film was said to be shot in Louisiana) is very beautiful, and the costumery and indoor décor quite colourful and well-researched. The women,however, are rather insipid, especially when compared to those belles in a similar situation in the Wayne-Holden opus "The Horse Soldiers", not to mention the vivacious Vivienne Leigh in "Gone with the Wind", though that is an unfair comparison.

Not a movie,then, for those Western fans who like fast action. But, if you are patient enough, there is a terrific finale with a battle, which (to avoid giving too much away), is very reminiscent of a scene from "How the West was Won" which also involved Richard Widmark and, now I come to think of it, also of a sequence in "The Wild Bunch", starring Holden.

Although I had already been around for some time when this film first came out, I had hitherto never seen it or even heard of it, despite the fact that I am quite fond of good Westerns, a fan of both the main actors, and have have often been impressed by O'Neill too. I can only imagine that this occurred because it proved a commercial flop, by reason of the faults above-mentioned, and was shelved. It had never been shown before on the channel where I saw it, and there is little that they do not repeat again and again and again.

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.

1864: during the American Civil War a herd of cattle owned by rancher Alvarez Kelly becomes the centre of attention. While Kelly is selling it to the Union Army, Colonel Rossiter of the Rebels is planning to steal it, and he needs an expert cattleman to do it.

Slow moving at times and even talky, Alvarez Kelly is a vastly underrated western that depicts the futility of war, but not in outward fashion. It's still a large scale western, unusual, well-mounted and hugely diverting largely due to the well-etched characters, particularly in William Holden and Richard Widmark; their confrontations is one of the highlights of this Edward Dymtryck directed film and compensates somewhat for the lack of action, though the finale features a vigorous stampede and blowing up of bridges (what's with William Holden and bridges). I have seen this film on BBC2 in my youth and I have found it a nice western. Love the title song.

Good surprise for a film by Edward Dmytryk. The scenario is rich and invites an interesting story with multiple twists on an original theme. Because it is about showing the confrontations between the northerners and the Confederates who are fighting over a herd of cows that will be used to feed a regiment on one side and a besieged city on the other. There is therefore a lot at stake in taking possession of the herd. Which is one thing, but then you have to know how to manage the cows and the herd.

That's where William Holden comes in, between the two sides, playing a Mexican, actually a Texan, who brings the herd, but finds himself kidnapped by one side, then the other. He is in the middle of everyone and is motivated by money, and women, because he will find his interest thanks to the female characters he will meet. First Victoria Shaw and then Janice Rule, Richard Widmark's fiancée, but who will leave him; elements of romantic comedy and love triangle are well integrated into the action.

The script contains multiple twists and turns. The film relies mainly on the relationship between Richard Widmark and William Holden, which is very mechanical, but works in the end, via their relationship to the female characters.

This ensemble works and is successful.

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

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.

During the partial siege of Richmond-Petersburg in September 1864 a troop of Confederates mean to acquire 3000 cattle from Mexico meant for consumption by the Union Army. William Holden plays the livestock businessman while Richard Widmark and Patrick O'Neal play opposing Confederate/Union officers. Roger C. Carmel is on hand as the Captain of a blockade runner.

"Alvarez Kelly" (1966) is a Civil War Western based around the real-life Beefsteak Raid. It's similar to "The Horse Soldiers" (1959), also co-starring Holden, mixed with "Major Dundee" (1965). While it's the least of these, with "Horse Soldiers" easily being the best, it's still worth checking out for those interested, just don't expect a conventional Western or Civil War yarn.

Critics complain that it's too talky with not enough action, which I suppose is true, but I appreciated the settings and the authentic scruffiness of the Rebs, not to mention the wartime intrigue and a thrilling stampede in the last act.

My top qualm would be how easy it seemed the cattleman is secretly taken into Richmond. Yet this can be overlooked on the grounds that it wasn't a classic military siege wherein a city is fully surrounded and all supply lines cut off. You could still enter Richmond from the west.

The flick scores well on the feminine front with stunning Southern belles Janice Rule, Victoria Shaw and Stephanie Hill, plus peripherals.

The two stars became best buds during shooting. Widmark remarked how the four months of being constantly together during shooting was the equivalent of 10-15 years of friendship. Meanwhile Steve McQueen happened to be filming "Nevada Smith" in the same area and the three ran into each other one day wherein McQueen and Holden ended up drinking together for the rest of the evening.

The movie runs about 1 hour, 55 minutes, and was shot in Louisiana (the vicinity of Baton Rouge), with the opening sequence done in the Southwest.

GRADE: B-

'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

It's 1864. The south is losing and starving for beef. Her armies have been driven back to Richmond. Mexican cattleman Alvarez Kelly (William Holden) is delivering a herd of cattle to the Union under Major Albert Stedman (Patrick O'Neal)'s directions. The two men do not get along. They come upon southern lady Charity Warwick who invites them for dinner. She's working with Confederate raiders led by Colonel Tom Rossiter (Richard Widmark) and they kidnap Kelly. The Confederates want him to lead a cattle drive into Richmond.

William Holden's macho defiance does the opposite of its intention. It's suppose to show how real these characters are but it just shows how fake it actually is. They aren't black and white but in a real situation, Rossiter would be a lot more harsher. Instead of yacking it up behind enemy lines, he would hog-tie and drag Kelly as quickly as possible back to Richmond. Once there, Kelly would never be allowed to mingle with society. I actually got excited when Rossiter shoots Kelly's finger off. That's more fitting of the situation. It's a half step up from standardized characterizations. I would like for them to take the full step. Also Stedman should have arrested Warwick. He's willing to shoot a Mexican for stealing a bottle of wine but the white lady gets away free and clear. I guess nothing has changed over the years. It would be more compelling if he arrested her and freed her slaves. I actually like the slaves being uncooperative but it would be interesting to see them if their master gets arrested. This is a great premise for a war movie adapted from a real battle. It deserves to be a tougher, grittier war movie. I like the cattle drive but unless cows are suddenly bulletproof, that situation would never be real. Nevertheless, it's a fun unusual war movie.

There is promise in this movie however it wasn't kept to the viewer. I will salute the Director for working well with cattle, dust and locations issues but I am wondering what the main actors were thinking at times. Is this a Western, comedy or drama? It dabbles a little too much in all three and it doesn't for those reasons become its full potential. There is a scene in the movie where a man makes $50k the equivalent of 1.5 million today and that concept is totally mistreated, disrespected and wasted here not only by the players involved but by the South coming into possession of it. It, for instance is not wasted in Gone with the Wind where Rhett Butler makes a fortune in similar ways. Rhett become mega-wealthy, and the storyline built around it. Not so here. Also, the movie promotes whiskey, women and wealth as the pay-off for all the hard work and sacrifices. Really? Kinda shallow methinks. How about some dialog about buying a ranch, raising crop or cows or starting a business? Why not rebuild some of the fallen South too such as schools, roads, factories? This would have given the movie and the characters depth, meaning & purpose. Worth watching but not a comeback experience. I expected more from this.

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.

Classic, Classic, Classic! Yeah, you can complain about being a bit slow nearly 50 years later, but what movie from that time wasn't. This movie is loosely based on Hampton's and General Rosser's Cattle Raid. Not filmed in Virginia, but I am from near Richmond and played as a child on some of the land the actual raid crossed over and it has the same feel. Holden and Widmark both hit home runs, hard to tell which is better. Widmark has the southern Virginia accent down pat, he sounds like a couple of my uncles which were about his age. The score and the cinematography just add to the ambiance. There are some slight imperfections with the script, but the strengths of this film tower over it's shortcomings.

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!

"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

How can the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia look like the Sierras?

Not enough of Victoria Shaw.

Widmark a southerner? Not believable.

Music: Tales of The Vienna Woods was not composed until 1871.