Shalako (1968)

The presence of Bardot and Connery should have been enough to ensure a winner., 6 April 2006

What a shame! Shalako could have been so good. Two of the biggest stars in films at the time and a unique, fairly entertaining story should have made for a good movie. Instead, Shalako turns into a dull Western with too many traditional stereotypes, actors who give among the worst performances of their careers that I've seen, and an ending that will leave you scratching your head. The whole notion of a hunting party full of European aristocrats in the American Southwest is intriguing. Unfortunately, other than the odd dinner scene, nothing is made of this opportunity to present a different look at the West. Instead, Edward Dmytryk takes every opportunity possible to fill the plot with "good white people" and "bad Indians". We've seen it before at least a million times. These are the same old stereotypes that had been around since the beginning of movies. The presence of Brigitte Bardot and Sean Connery should have been enough to ensure a winner. Both, however, appear terribly miscast and uninterested in what's going on. And then there's that ending. What a mess! If a little fistfight was all it took to get the "bad Indians" off the trail of the "good white people", why not have it out at the beginning of the movie and be done with it. Shalako features over an hour long build up to one of the more disappointing endings I've seen.

It's not that the whole thing is a complete disaster. There are moments where Shalako really shines. The dinner scene I mentioned is a surreal moment that's very pleasing. Honor Blackman's death scene is another standout moment. And, watching the butler shine silver in the middle of the desert is something you don't' see everyday. But these scenes are too few and far between to save Shalako.

4/10