Leofwine_draca It's testament to SHALAKO's efficiency that it ably passes for a Hollywood western despite being a British/West German production; the mountainous Spanish scenery accounts for much of the authenticity here and the story that follows is surprisingly decent, although perhaps not one of the absolute classics of the era. I'm just surprised that the team made a likable western despite the problems that could have arisen with it.One of these is Sean Connery, perhaps playing one of the most unlikely cowboys ever; he acquits himself well and gives a taciturn performance which suits the film nicely. Brigitte Bardot doesn't have much to do other than stand around and look ravishing, which of course she does with ease. The excellent supporting cast includes the likes of Jack Hawkins, Eric Sykes (!), Honor Blackman, Peter van Eyck, Stephen Boyd, and, in an odd but effective bit of casting, Woody Strode as a Native American leader.The spare narrative doesn't have a great deal of plot structure but that fits well with the survivalist tone. The action scenes are very effective, particularly a mini siege that brings to mind ZULU. The film was based on a book by popular western writer Louis L'Amour, and was directed by old-time Hollywood pro Edward Dmytryk.

Wuchak 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+

Neil Welch What an oddity this is.If you put to one side the Louis L'Amour source novel, and Woody Strode in the supporting cast, this traditional western has no US input at all. Even the spaghetti westerns usually had a Yank at the top of the cast list.This European western has quite a high profile cast list - Sean Connery (Scots), Brigitte Bardot (French), Stephen Boyd (Irish), Peter van Eyck (German), Jack Hawkins and Eric Sykes (English) - none of whom would be obvious choices for a western. The Spanish locations are, I suppose, redolent of some American desert areas, but still aren't really the sort of places which evoke the US places where one might expect a European hunting party to visit.This sense of geographical dislocation gives the movie a weird feel. When you factor in the fact that this is quite a sadistic picture, with a level of violence not commonly seen in westerns in 1968, you get a movie which doesn't easily bear comparison with anything else. It's like wandering through an art gallery looking at portraits by old masters and suddenly seeing a landscape painted by Steven Spielberg - yes, it's a painting, and yes, Spielberg is undoubtedly a man of great artistic vision and ability, but this particular item simply doesn't fit.Is it any good? It's OK, and I think it would be better if you could shake off the air of weirdness which is there whe whole time you're watching it.

winner55 The premise of the film is just dumb. That a handful of European aristocrats, with an outlaw for a guide, would refuse to escape an Indian reservation when they discover they are about to be attacked by a small Indian army, just because they are racist enough to believe that they are superior to any number of Indians, may not be utterly incredible - racists can get pretty dumb - but it is just incredible enough to make all that follows difficult to swallow. I mean, obviously these people are too stupid to be liked or even pitied - let the Indians massacre them and get it over with.And speaking of racism, it's hard to believe this film was made in the late 1960s, this is the most regressive presentation of Native Americans as "savages" since the 1930s. In fact there are a couple John Wayne oaters from the Lone Star studios of the '30s that present Indians in a much more favorable and humane manner than this.So let's talk about the casting - or let's not, everyone is so badly miscast, you wonder what film the casting director thought needed these actors. They're all well known and respected for other roles in other films - they just don't belong here. The worst case of this - Woody Strode, wholly unbelievable as an Indian warrior with a grudge against Connery's Shalako.And don't get me started on that bizarre, '50s-retro title song! Might actually have been fun if it didn't drag out so bad. Action scenes are below par. Unless you have a Connery crush or a Bardot fetish, better stay away.