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!

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!).

'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