Alvarez Kelly (1966) User Reviews

Loosely based on actual historical event

[rhp6033 · 6/10 · 24 October 2007]

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.

"The slickest piece of cattle-rustling I've heard tell of" A. Lincoln

[Mickey-2 · 7/10 · 26 June 2001]

"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.

ALVAREZ KELLY (Edward Dmytryk, 1966) ***

[Bunuel1976 · 7/10 · 27 April 2008]

This is another film I decided to re-acquaint myself with in order to pay a well-deserved tribute to the late, great Richard Widmark. It’s one of the last Westerns he did and, in fact, it came at a time when the old-style Hollywood approach to the genre was coming to an end; actually, Widmark’s co-star from ALVAREZ KELLY – William Holden (here playing the title character) – would only a few years later feature in the film that gave the Western new-fangled maturity and an equally potent elegiac tone i.e. Sam Peckinpah’s THE WILD BUNCH (1969)!

Anyway, to get back to the matter at hand, ALVAREZ KELLY seems to me to be unjustly neglected when it comes to discussing large-scale Westerns of the era. It may be because there is little action per se – though the climactic skirmish/chase (culminating in the blowing-up of a bridge: let’s not forget that Holden was one of the leads in two big-budget, star-studded war adventures, namely THE BRIDGES AT TOKO-RI [1954] and THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI [1957]) is exciting enough – or the fact that the plot is atypical (inspired by a true incident in which a herd of cattle, sold to the Yanks by neutral Holden during the American Civil War, is stolen en masse from under their very noses by the opposing Confederate side, led by Widmark and who has abducted Holden to this end!). With respect to this curious narrative, the film opens with a nice animated sequence depicting the importance of securing food at a time of war throughout the ages.

The two stars’ respective parts have been tailor-made for their established screen personas. Holden is cynical, opportunistic and charming (ironically, I’ve just recalled that I used these exact same words to describe Widmark’s younger character in GARDEN OF EVIL [1954]!). Widmark, on the other hand, is here a tough army man whose commitment to the Southern cause makes him ruthless above all else – alienating him from fiancée Janice Rule, and even considering drowning the entire herd in a swamp if it’s to fall back into the hands of the Yanks; sensing his unreasonable outlook early on, Holden quips: “God save me from dedicated men”! They’re at their best in a couple of major confrontation scenes: the first in which a one-eyed Widmark shoots off one of Holden’s fingers (while the latter is in prison) because of his lack of co-operation, and when Holden coolly explains to an aghast – and subsequently furious – Widmark that the clandestine passage he arranged for (on a steamboat which has just sailed) was not for himself but rather the disenchanted Rule! Predictably, but believably, the two men’s relationship ends in mutual respect – with Widmark even saving Holden’s life towards the end.

The supporting cast is led by the afore-mentioned Rule, who does quite well by her Southern belle role (another lady – played by Victoria Shaw – proves more responsive and loyal to Widmark’s exploits), and Patrick O’Neal in the part of the Unionist Major who negotiated the initial deal with Holden, is having a hard time convincing his superiors of the enemy’s incredible plan, and who can’t fathom how the black slaves are unwilling to emancipate themselves (but rather shield those who want to keep them under their thumb!). By the way, surely one of the film’s main assets is John Green’s cheerful and memorable score (complete with a hackneyed yet agreeable title tune sung by The Brothers Four, an obscure folk group which seems to have remained active to this day).

This unusual Western, then, is more than just a pleasant diversion (an epithet by which it’s often dismissed): good-looking, engaging, and certainly never boring – despite a not inconsiderable length of 110 minutes (though it’s listed officially on most sources at my disposal as being 116!).

How the North Almost Lost the Civil War

[theowinthrop · 7/10 · 20 April 2007]

This is a peculiar western turned American Civil War film. William Holden is Alverez Kelly, a citizen of Mexico of Irish ancestry, and a gentleman cattle herd leader. He has, we learn, had involvement with the U.S. before 1861 - 64. His father, the owner of a large estate in Mexico, was killed in the "Mexican War" (Holden says it has a different name in Mexico) by American troops, some of whom are now Confederates. But he is totally uninterested in the results of the war: he is a foreign citizen intent to sell cattle to the best payer. This means, however, that he has to deal with the Union more than the South (at one point he is asked if he doubts the value of Confederate currency, and starts telling the Confederate Secretary of War what one could do now with Confederate currency).

It is Holden's fortune that he gets a Union Army contract for 4500 steers that it takes him three months to bring up from Mexico. Unfortunately he is met by Major Steadmen (Patrick O'Neill) at the point where Holden felt he was supposed to deliver. Steadman is one of the most obnoxious men one can mingle with. A citizen of Boston, he was a lawyer before the war. He prides himself on being able to manipulate people by his brains (an example I will give in a moment). He drew up the contract, and in very fine print (he does apologize for it's tiny size), he had a clause added that the commanding General in the area that needs the meat can insist it be delivered there before payment. That is General Grant: the cattle have to be brought to Richmond.

Holden has no choice, but he will be paid. Unfortunately this leads to a 1,400 mile railway trip from Texas through the Midwest to Maryland and into Virginia - accompanied by Steadman. Earlier we saw Steadman as a stiff type - he had to wait an additional ten days for Kelly to appear at the point Kelly thought was delivery point, and does not like being kept waiting (even though the army would have been footing his bill in the border town). But on the ride he tells Kelly his "war stories" about being a lawyer in Massachusetts. The one we hear the great tail end of is about how he trumped a judge on a legal point in a case by use of a writ of certiorari (this legal document demands to know from the judge what is the statutory power the judge is using that is the grounds for his decision). I'm sure that most people would love to hear this type of story....

I'd love to know who the Masssachusetts Judge was. Hopefully, for Steadman's career sake, it was not Lemuel Shaw, the Chief Justice of the Commonwealth, a man of formidable mind and presence. He looks it from his photos. He was also the father-in-law of a one time sailor and writer, later a customs house man named Herman Melville. Shaw, had he been embarrassed by some idiotic glory seeking lawyer would have swallowed and remembered the idiot. And the idiot would have paid in the long-run throughout Massachusetts' court system.

The cattle are delivered at a plantation now in Union hands outside Richmond. But after Kelly is paid, he becomes a target of southerners led by Colonel Tom Rossiter (Richard Widmark). Rossiter sees all that wonderful meat nearby and wants it for the folks in Richmond and for Lee's forces. So he kidnaps Kelly (with the help of the plantation owner Charity Warwick (Victoria Shaw)), and Kelly soon is in Richmond being offered a chance to do the Confederacy a small aid by stealing the herd back.

Rossiter is no sweet guy, but a genuine patriot who has already sacrificed an eye for the Confederacy.* He uses methods as vile in their way as Steadman's (including intentional minor maiming) to force Kelly to help him. The interest in the film really centers on the mental warfare between Rossiter and Kelly, as each tries to see how far they can force the other back on track or off track. For Kelly sees that Rossiter's plan is a desperate last chance - and a long shot that he has no real concern about.

(*There actually was a noted Confederate Cavalry leader, General Thomas Rosser, who survived the war in tact and ended his career as an engineer on U.S. and Canadian railways. His last military action was in 1876 - he heard his pal George Custer (army differences forgiven) was killed at Little Big Horn. Rosser took leave from his job to join the U.S. forces seeking Crazy Horse's army)

The film is well acted and plotted actually - far better than other mad last gasp Confederate tales are (witness VIRGINIA CITY). Kelly finds a way to avenge his maiming through an act of kindness to Elizabeth Pickering (Janice Rule) Rossiter's fiancé. But in the end he is the one who wins - by getting the cattle to the right place, and finding out his own finer senses.

Also note the performances of two favorite character actors from television (usually), Howard Caine and Roger C. Carmel. Caine (best recalled as the nasty S.S. Major Hochstadter on HOGAN'S HEROS) is a northern spy who gets most of the cards in his hands, and deals the wrong answer out. Carmel (best recalled for his role as Kay Ballard's husband on THE MOTHERS - IN - LAW, or as Harry Mudd on STAR TREK) is Captain Fergusson, a clever Scotish Blockade Runner (for profit of course - like Rhett Butler was too). Both help enliven an above average adventure flick.

Has aged very well

[scheelj · 7/10 · 14 April 2012]

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

Slow but sure

[harryelsucio1212 · 10 June 2007]

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.

Odd, uneven, almost heroic in failure

[whitec-3 · 6/10 · 21 August 2008]

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.

Efficient

[norbert-plan-618-715813 · 7/10 · 24 March 2022]

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.

Underrated western

[coltras35 · 7/10 · 16 January 2022]

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.

I guess the Confederates needed to eat.

[mark.waltz · 7/10 · 9 September 2020]

Even though I would realistically find myself on the side of the Union, I couldn't help but enjoy the irony of this lively "southern" (which I have stashed in my western collection) that finds two adversaries, William Holden and Richard Widmark, working together to steal cattle from General Grant's troops to deliver to the South. Holden doesn't really seem to be on either side, but when he gets a bullet in the hand (allegedly losing a finger and threatened with losing more), he's forced to comply with Widmark's demands. This leads to a nice little adventurous Journey with lots of action and plenty of comical moments as well, giving them a little bit of romance with Janice Rule and Victoria Shaw before dealing with sneaking hundreds of cows across the enemy's line.

You'll not soon forget the opening credits, gorgeous drawings of battles throughout history starting in the ancient times and moving up to the Civil War, over a song that for the most part is pretty catchy. The direction by Edward Dmytryk is certainly tight and reminiscence of the bits of irony he would utilize in his 1940s film noir.

The photography and editing and pacing, aided by a boomerang musical score, are terrific, and the two leads really work very well off of each other even though it is apparent that they are supposed to hate each other. The narration at the end has an ironic twist from old Abe himself that shows that even a northerner could laugh at the irony of the situation when it didn't aide his mission. All in all a truly enjoyable if slightly fictional view of history, but memorable from a tall tale perspective.

In every war...in every age...the forgotten weapon is food....

[hitchcockthelegend · 5/10 · 16 September 2010]

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

The Ay-Ay-Irish Senor

[bkoganbing · 9/10 · 31 May 2005]

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.

Confederate and Union troops fighting over a herd of cattle

[Wuchakk · 6/10 · 15 March 2022]

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-

Whose In The Know

[DKosty123 · 5/10 · 30 March 2008]

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.

One of the worst western films I've ever seen.

[panamajaq04 · 2 May 2004]

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.

unusual war movie

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 27 September 2020]

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.

HOLDEN & WIDMARK what happened?

[Richie-67-485852 · 6/10 · 9 January 2022]

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.

"In every war...in every age...The forgotten weapon is...food. For to kill, soldiers must live...And a herd of cattle is as vital as a herd of cannon."

[scorfield-51711 · 6/10 · 15 June 2021]

Based on the real-life event, known to Civil War historians as 'The Beefsteak Raid', this film depicts fictionalised characters thrown into this desperate attempt by Confederate forces to keep their war effort going as Grant's army encircled them in both St Petersburg and Richmond in September 1864. In presenting such a philanthropic purpose of feeding the starving soldiers and residents of besieged Richmond behind the motives of the Confederate forces here, this feature stands out from the much darker deeds of Confederate characters within the majority of Western movies.

The strength of the screenplay is the moulding of the eponymous anti-hero, a Mexican national, and cattle rancher, driven by opportunism at a time when the United States had been riven apart by individuals' steadfast political and ethical ideals. As this character declares at one point: 'God deliver me from dedicated men.' As his nemesis here, the patrician former Bostonian lawyer, Major Steadman, disparagingly declares Kelly's 'three deities - money, whisky, and women.' Yet, once he has accepted his fate at the hands of his Confederate kidnappers, he becomes patient tutor to the arrogant, elite cavalrymen, so incompetent at the skills of herding cattle. Moreover, once the critical and climactic action scenes are reached, Kelly will even be prepared to risk his own life under a fusillade of Union fire to save the life of a downed Confederate cavalryman.

The film's director was initially reluctant to work again with William Holden, having had a poor experience when Holden had a 'bit part' in his 1939 production, 'Million Dollar Legs'. Holden would return to the screen here after an absence of two years, once again driven to alcoholism after the loss of his second brother to a plane crash, the first having fallen in World War II. Dmytryk's fears proved correct with Holden frequently appearing hungover on set, and so drunk on the first day of shooting that an understanding Widmark had to resuscitate his co-star with black coffee. Indeed, these two strong character-actors would strike up a lifelong friendship after their appearance together on this feature.

There is no question that, in spite of his open and virulent condemnation of the quality of the script - at one point threatening to shove it up the rear end of an unruly horse, declaring 'that's where it belongs!' - his performance here as the charismatic ladies-man and man of action would be of a style almost akin to his depiction of Pike in the much greater acclaimed 'Wild Bunch' three years later. When the Southern belle, who would sell him out to her friends in the Confederate forces, declares her astonishment that given his own father's loss of their ranch due to the actions of the US Army during the Mexican War, Kelly does not share the sympathies of the Secessionist states, Holden has one of the few lines of quality in the script. 'I have no sympathies, only instincts. And they shy away from losers'.

As for his co-star, Richard Widmark, once more he gives his characteristic menacing performance as Kelly's kidnapper, readily prepared to shoot off his captive's fingers one by one to persuade him to undertake what President Lincoln would once surmise as 'the slickest piece of cattle stealing I ever heard of'. Sporting an eye-patch three years before John Wayne's Rooster Cogburn, Widmark convinces as the fictional Confederate officer, Colonel Tom Rossiter, determined to fight to his last breath for the Secessionist cause, and to use Kelly as the instrument of deliverance for his besieged hometown. This has 'blinded' him, no pun intended, to the needs of his intended, leading to Kelly's opportunity to both come to the aid of a damsel in distress, and also seek reprisal for his captor's brutality towards him.

As for his working relationship with Holden, and the lengthy delays in shooting caused by Hurricane Betsy and Holden contracting salmonella, Widmark would state: 'That four months of being constantly together on a film location was the equivalent of ten or fifteen years of friendship'. Indeed, when Widmark contracted flu himself, Holden, aware of his love for instruments, bought him a snare drum.

The rest of the cast apply themselves well, none more so than the two female cast members, despite the woeful development of their characters within the script. Firstly, the Australian actress, Victoria Shaw, as the dignified Southern belle and reluctant hostess to Union forces on her plantation, and secondly, an all-too-brief but memorable performance by Janice Rule, wife to Ben Gazzara, who brings her intellect and renowned sense of self-assuredness to her portrayal of Tom Rossiter's trapped intended, seeking an escape from the war-ravaged South. There are also creditable performances from Richard Rust in a typical Widmark role as the vengeful Sgt Hatcher, determined to take his final revenge on Kelly, and Patrick O'Neal as the loathsome Union officer equally determined to both repulse the Confederate cattle-rustling, and settle the score with Kelly, whose values he consider inferior to his own tarnished ones.

The lengthy delays which undermined the production also led to the film being finished at the Hollywood studios, rather than on location. This is a shame, as is the greatly curtailed action sequences, given the superb cinematography on display from Joseph MacDonald in the environs of Baton Rouge. At the other end of the critical spectrum is the turgid soundtrack, featuring the oddly addictive but definitively 'cheesy' title tune in honour of our 'Irish Señor', performed by the obscure folk quartet, 'The Brothers Four'.

Overall, the film suffers from a distinct lack of pace before any real action kicks in. There are also preposterous, quite comical, scenes such as the early capture of our Confederate crack troops in the apple cellar. When the action does arrive, it is worth the wait, though Holden may wonder why action sequences in his career would be so tied to bridges. Another weakness of the production is the unfortunate and inappropriate portrayal of the slave-owning south, not in any way comparable to the level of DW Griffith, but still uncomfortable to watch in how the house slaves are shown to collude with the Confederate attempts to outsmart their Union rivals.

An oddball battle

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 20 January 2018]

'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

Classic

[msprouse-7-431049 · 10/10 · 31 May 2013]

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.

Amazingly bland and uninteresting considering the cast and scope of this film

[planktonrules · 4/10 · 4 December 2007]

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!

Amigo William Holden

[wes-connors · 4/10 · 8 June 2010]

"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

" The slickest piece of cattle-stealing I ever heard of"

[philip-davies31 · 8/10 · 9 July 2020]

A rip-roaringly good yarn, and an interesting gloss on Civil War history that shows food rather than glory, honour or empty triumph as the most important thing, being a forceful reminder that survival is all anyone wanted at the end of this terrible conflict.

A shocking small scene with the Union officer commanding in the field, when he effects his escape, from capture by the Confederate troops, by grabbing a black woman for a human shield, is very telling. Just previously, before the enemy trap was sprung, he had been asking this woman, who was refusing to inform on the whereabouts of the Confederate troops, why a slave like her supported this Southern army. His manner at the time seemed to indicate an ulterior and very unsavoury reason for his interest in this woman, rather than any urge to propagandise the putative Yanqui mission to free the slaves. This scene encapsulates the hypocrisy which the conduct of the war against the Secession States - and the later cynical implementation of the peacetime 'reconstruction' - had exposed.

The boasted 'honour' of the south is itself exposed by the savage mistreatment of prisoners - one of whom Kelly is, losing a finger when tortured to make him collaborate - and the completely ungentlemanly boorishness with which his tormentor treats a lady friend. By contrast, our Mexican-domiciled Texas cattleman, Alvarez Kelly, demonstrates genteel charm and practical self-sacrifice in rescuing this war-weary damsel from her uncongenial soldier-beau and his collapsing Secessionist cause.

Author John H. Lenihan compares the film to 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly', in that both films "offer no consolation in their vivid deglamorization of war. The heroes, or antiheroes, of both films pursue selfish pecuniary ventures as a conscious alternative to becoming committed in a pointless destructive war". (Thanks to Wikipedia for this detail).

A kind of reconciliation of the two sides finally proceeds as the cattle herd is delivered to starving Richmond, under siege by General Grant's forces, as during the historical 'Beefstake Raid' of 1864, and the deliberate stampede of the stolen herd, that targets and breaks through the Union lines, Alvarez - caught in a careless moment of selfless humanity - rescues a Confederate officer at peril of his own life.

And there it is: An epic of essential individual humanity and redemption, distilled out of the obscene conditions of a Civil War whose pretensions had been besmirched and degraded in the blood and muck of mutual destruction. The film's message was particularly well received in late 1960's America.

President Lincoln savoured this Confederate 'Beefstake Raid' very much, as a voiceover during the final shot reports, saying that" This is the slickest piece of cattle-stealing I ever heard of". What a disaster for the South that the complex and magnanimous Lincoln did not live to preside over Reconstruction.

so bad it's bad

[rhinocerosfive-1 · 1/10 · 14 September 2007]

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.

Unbelievable

[halsey-3 · 3/10 · 11 July 2000]

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.