Edgar Allan Pooh . . . (if that Shamu was wearing elevator shoes), says a Rebel soldier capturing John Wayne and struggling to lift the unconscious icon early in RIO LOBO. I remember seeing a TV miniseries about England's King Henry VIII, which showed how the geriatric monarch had to be winched up via a tripod hoist to attain a mounted horseback status in his declining fatso years. It's easy to picture a similar apparatus being commissioned for "Il Duce" as he insisted upon abusing horses and making Westerns well into his twilight years. Most NASCAR fans watch their "sport" primarily for the wrecks, and these people's grandparents probably flocked to the theaters for a similar reason in the mid-1900s, not realizing that Wayne's stumbles (whether from the saddle or as a pedestrian) would be edited out of his pictures through Hollywood trickery. The chicks in RIO LOBO treat this one-time singing cowboy like an old Saint Bernard, spooning with him in their long johns merely for nighttime warmth. Though THE LION IN WINTER was barely a blood relation to Henry VIII, Wayne--nicknamed after his childhood dog--proves to be more of an ordinary canine than a regal feline here in RIO LOBO, as in "Come out and see how Westerns have really gone to the dogs!"

Karl Ericsson Yeah, who cares if it's all the same? This isn't a movie, it's a good time and it feels. Not so much as in Rio Bravo or, even better, El Dorado but still, it's there and the heist in the beginning is rather well carried through, in spite of all the nonsense.Just the stubbornness of doing the same film for the third time with almost the same locations is so downright disrespectful that it deserves extra praise just that. Who does he think that he is, Howard Hawks? He doesn't care and cares even less than a flying fart what you think of him. Well if that isn't charming, what is? What I'm really saying with this review is that Howard Hawks shows us how little a story really means and how many different things can be said without changing the story.

Lechuguilla The basic problem with "Rio Lobo" is the script. It's dreadful. Set during the Civil War, the plot begins with a Confederate Rebel train robbery of a Union gold shipment. This twenty minute sequence is a long, tedious, drawn-out affair. Then, the plot shifts to a different focus, as character motivations make a dramatic U-turn, and we move from a Civil War setting to a Western setting.Except for Cord McNally (John Wayne), Pierre Cordona (Jorge Rivero), and Tuscarora (Chris Mitchum), characters in the last third of the film bear no relation to characters in the first third of the film. Indeed, the entire plot seems put together with loose strands that barely connect.Once we get to the Western town of Rio Lobo, at least the daytime visuals look good, with convincing production design and costumes, even if the reason we're here is unclear and confusing. Yet, though the daytime images look fine, nighttime scenes look fake owing to the use of camera filters.Casting is dubious. John Wayne looks too old for the role he plays. Rivero and Mitchum seem too inexperienced. Acting trends below average; I'm not sure any of the actors took their roles seriously. Given McNally's motivation, Wayne plays the role too sweetly and amiably, hardly the tough and intense character we would expect.The best that can be said for "Rio Lobo" is that some of the daytime camera shots are quite pleasing, in that they convey images that romanticize the Old West. Apart from that, the production is far from ideal. But the most serious weakness is a script that needed a complete rewrite.

Blueghost Maybe it's because I'm in an exceptionally foul mood today, but after I bought this DVD, and saw the first half hour, I was reminded of why I didn't like this film the first time I saw it.Pic starts off strong with some convincing and innovative action, that itself is quite spectacular, but the supporting cast and sexual tension amongst thereof is a yawner, and will anger the most ardent Wayne fans. Me included.Model's turned actresses deserve a shot at acting just like anyone else; through auditions. How these pretty faces got past reciting their sides for Hawks is no mystery. They're attractive. Wayne fans are split and/or at odds with his pro-Vietnam war flick "The Green Barets", so Wayne goes back to doing Westerns, and Hawks probably obliged with Wayne's faltering rep by casting a couple of honeys for the film.Note that no other big names were in this film. No surprise. We're left with a bunch of flat toned supporting cast (save maybe Ed Asner), and unbelievable gunfight scenes (even for a John Wayne western).The only redeeming quality of this film, other than Wayne himself, is the fact that it was respectably shot. Not well shot, but passable for a pro-grade feature.Me, personally I think this film is a bust. There should have been more action at the end in the tradition of "War Wagon" or maybe even the calming tones of "El Dorado". "True Grit" had a pretty spectacular finish too, as did its sequel. But this film?I don't know. Maybe they figured the genre was wearing thin for a lot of people. The Western was transforming with the nation back then. I know, I was there and remember it. But to create something like this with women who can't act? And an unsympathetic Duke who isn't outraged when a woman gets cut or beaten? Huh?Like I said, maybe I'm just sore and angry with a lot of other things in my life, but this film brought back all the memories of why I quit watching John Wayne films (not that he did a whole lot after this flick).I salute the Duke, and always will, but not this movie. It's more TV movie of the week material than a solid theatrical release.Watch at your own risk.