Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Other Films => Topic started by: cigar joe on September 04, 2004, 06:36:24 AM

Title: Shalako (1968)
Post by: cigar joe on September 04, 2004, 06:36:24 AM
Rented and wathched this DVD the other night.

Shot in Spain, English production, Sean Connery, Brigitte Bardot, Honor Blackman, with Woody Strode as a Native American chief and other players. It was a good print but not to exciting a storyline based on a Louis Lamore story.

It took place almost all in the desert, not a lot of sets at all and I didn't recognise Woody at all, lol. Did have a short scene of Brigitte parially naked covering her breasts washing off the trail dust, it may have showed more in an international print, you guys/gals out there know?

A time killer with some familiar SW scenery. Worth a watch.

Title: Re: Shalako (1968)
Post by: The Smoker on April 06, 2005, 12:53:52 PM
I caught it not long ago coming back from the pub. Its not that bad. Connery tracker like charactor havin to safe some mis-behaving european great white hunters from indian slaughter. Woody Strode voice was a bit amusing. Good knife fight thou.

Title: Re: Shalako (1968)
Post by: The Smoker on October 27, 2005, 02:58:26 PM
This was on TV again last night again.... thats 2nd for ITV. Caught bits of it. Guardian Guide stated it as a Paella Western. Its more a British Euro Western to me.

Worth the watch for Bardot..  Still think that Woody Strode vs Sean Connery knife fight is the business.   ;D

Title: Re: Shalako (1968)
Post by: Juan Miranda on October 27, 2005, 08:27:29 PM
Another Brit western obscurity from round about the same period was THE HUNTING PARTY, starring Oliver Reed and Gene Hackman. I haven't seen it for years, but remember enjoying it when I was going through my Hackman completist phase.

In answer to Cigar Joe's question at the start of the thread (a wee while ago now), you've seen as much of Bardot in this movie as any of the rest of us. ;)

Title: Re: Shalako (1968)
Post by: Marco Leone on October 28, 2005, 01:20:40 PM
Aaaaargh!!!  I videod this off of TV the other night, and the ending missed off!   :'(  I hate it when that happens!

Title: Re: Shalako (1968)
Post by: Banjo on October 30, 2005, 05:39:49 AM
This seems to happen quite alot on ITV1 Marco,even when using the videoplus  facility,and i've been caught out a few times on this channel.Therefore in this case i took the trouble to sit up to past midnight to press the record button!

Title: Re: Shalako (1968)
Post by: Marco Leone on October 31, 2005, 02:01:23 PM
On this occasion it was my own fault (although I am a self-confessed hater of ITV generally!).  I didn't check how much tape there was left, and it missed off the ending.  Annoyingly, I stayed up late to turn it on too - maybe I should have just stayed up later and actually watched it!!  ;D

Title: Re: Shalako (1968)
Post by: Banjo on November 01, 2005, 05:33:10 AM
Know what you mean about itv,Marco-they even insist on superimposing the annoying logos on itv2 &itv3.

Title: Re: Shalako (1968)
Post by: Marco Leone on November 01, 2005, 01:43:58 PM
And they bought us "I love the 70's" and "80's".  They massacred our football programmes.  They show Coronation Street!!  Virtually every day.  They must be stopped!!!

Title: Re: Shalako (1968)
Post by: Banjo on November 02, 2005, 02:41:14 AM
Burn them,i say!!!

Title: Re: Shalako (1968)
Post by: marmota-b on September 26, 2008, 01:52:25 PM
Do you think this is worth buying? It comes out tomorrow on one of those cheap DVD's I've already mentioned many times. I'd love to have more westerns, but on the other hand if it weren't good...

Title: Re: Shalako (1968)
Post by: Arizona Colt on September 27, 2008, 01:46:12 AM
It's also been on digital cable quite a lot lately.

Title: Re: Shalako (1968)
Post by: marmota-b on September 27, 2008, 03:14:41 AM
It's also been on digital cable quite a lot lately.

That doesn't help me, we don't have TV. Please, is it worth buying?

Title: Re: Shalako (1968)
Post by: cigar joe on September 27, 2008, 09:17:55 AM
no, I don't think you should (not that good), rent it if you want to see it.

Title: Re: Shalako (1968)
Post by: marmota-b on September 27, 2008, 09:28:44 AM
The problem is, I don't know whether it's available for renting. Because very often these cheap DVD's are films that weren't out on DVD before. And I suppose the rental stores don't bother buying them, because the renting would usually be as much as buying the cheap DVD, so everyone buys it straight away...
But, well, if you say it's not that good, I think I can leave it be.

Title: Re: Shalako (1968)
Post by: cigar joe on September 30, 2008, 09:38:43 AM

check them out if possible.  O0

Title: Re: Shalako (1968)
Post by: marmota-b on September 30, 2008, 10:07:29 AM
Thanks. But I think I can easily live without it. Especially because now 3:10 to Yuma came out. ;) (I hope they'll still have it... I fell ill at the most unfortunate moment.)

Title: Re: Shalako (1968)
Post by: uncknown on August 10, 2010, 08:59:09 PM
Finally got to see this after finding a 5 dollar dvd (which i will sell at cost to anyone who wants it)
I remember this film being a big deal when it came out because it was Connery's first film after quitting as James Bond.
Strange, that he would pick this one. Not a very inspired screenplay  and the film becomes very tedious towards the end.
ANyone notice the line from Shalako/Connery about how he "hopes the wine has been properly chilled" I took that as a wink to his 007 days.
Strange coincidence: watched this right after CHATO'S LAND. The chief's name in SHALAKO
is Chato!!!! :o

Title: Re: Shalako (1968)
Post by: Dust Devil on September 25, 2010, 12:11:19 PM
After years and years of watching separate bits of this I finally sat down and watched it all in one piece. To my surprise: this isn't even nearly as bad as you'd believe from the comments circulating around the net. I must take IMDb's 5.3/10 rating as a joke, I'd say from people that have some sort of problem with either Edward Dmytryk or Sean Connery. The direction is not great: it is scarred by the lack of dramatic elements, memorable moments and distinctive locations, but on the other hand pretty much all of the action scenes are very dynamic and involving. This makes it overall okay for me. I also thought Sean Connery was rather good, this is probably because he seems out of focus most of the time, as the rest of the characters take their share of the script, so he doesn't have to order a martini, If you know what I mean.

The premise is intriguing, but the drama isn't quite as heavy as it should have been, and so the last 10 minutes seem there just to be there - because a movie has to have an ending at some point.

By no means a great W but a decent time-killer.


P.S. Woody Strode as an Indian... Should we laugh?

Title: Re: Shalako (1968)
Post by: titoli on September 16, 2011, 01:50:34 PM
Agreed with DD. I never saw this before and reading what you wrote had me thinking my 3 euros wasted. Instead it is a solid work, with good and, say, sometimes great moments like Blackman's death. Great landscapes, a great scene like Connery put the knife under Van Eyck's throat. A Connery-Bardot chemistry seems to operate only during their first intimate dialogue and that's enough. I could have done without Strode's Chato impersonation (he's not the chief but his son; and the final fight  is with spears, not knives) and with BB's heavy '60's make-up. But head and shoulder above your average westerns.

Title: Re: Shalako (1968)
Post by: mike siegel on September 18, 2011, 08:52:50 AM
What a turkey. Can't imagine why anybody would defend that film.
It's just awful.
Considering the fact that this was one of the hottest projects of 1968/1969
I'd rate it with 2/10 maybe. I almost like everybody involved in the production
(and some I even admire), but here everything went wrong that could go wrong.
First of all, the British just shouldn't make westerns. Just like us Germans. SHALAKO
is just slightly better than your average Karl May - film. Maybe the Italians were so
good at it because they speak rather fast. SHALAKO is so slow-moving, it hurts.

Dmytrik made some great films in the 40s/50s, not in the 60s. Ted Moore did some great
stuff for 007 & Harryhausen, SHALAKO looks like he didn't get his paycheck. Actors
walking into the light, shining like Moses in the desert struck by lightning.

The costumes are bad, hair make-up is bad. The music. Oh boy. Starts with that
lala tune and then gets worse. Really bad. Woody Strode finally was allowed to play
an Indian (him having Indian blood in his veins), but outside of him all those
actors are totally miscast in a Western. Add an uninspired static direction and you have
a real bore. Some attached violence & blood can't help it here. It really reminded
me of MACKENNAS GOLD. THE PROFESSIONALS was really one the few great non-italian
westerns at that time. Those all-star westerns almost never work.

Thank God the three Sergios appeared on the scene, and Peckinpah, Eastwood
and various others. CONNERY and BB were the biggest European stars of the 60s,
they would have deserved something much much better.
The only good thing about SHALAKO are the behind-the-scenes photos showing
Leone visiting the set. He was probably in awe, yet around the corner he shot
one of the 10 best westerns ever made while SHALAKO became only a footnote
thanks to 007 & BB.

Title: Re: Shalako (1968)
Post by: stanton on September 18, 2011, 09:14:26 AM
I agree with Mike.
But I'm a bit more favourable, as Shalako is at least much better than MacKenna's Gold. Shalako looks good on the paper and bad on the screen.  4/10

Title: Re: Shalako (1968)
Post by: Groggy on October 12, 2011, 08:24:57 AM

P.S. Woody Strode as an Indian... Should we laugh?

I wouldn't laugh, given that Strode was half-Cherokee.