Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

ClassyWas Excellent, smart action film.

Limerculer A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

James Hitchcock "The Comancheros" is ostensibly set in the independent Republic of Texas, which existed between 1836 and 1845. (References to the presidency of Sam Houston, who held office twice, mean that the action can be dated to either 1836-38 or 1841-44). Even by Hollywood standards, however, there was little attempt to make the film historically accurate. Most of the clothes and weapons we see are those of several decades later, and there is a reference to the city of Yuma, Arizona, which did not exist at this date. One character is even referred to as a former Confederate officer, although the Confederacy would not come into existence until a number of years after the events depicted.Paul Regret, a Louisiana gentleman, kills a man in a duel and flees across the border into Texas. He believes that he will be safe there, but the Texan government are anxious not to offend the United States and Jake Cutter, a Texas Ranger, is sent to arrest him in order to return him to Louisiana to face trial. Regret speaks English without any foreign accent, and even pronounces his own surname in an anglicised manner, but because he is of French ancestry Cutter always addresses him as "Monsieur", which he insists on mispronouncing as "Mon Sewer".Before Regret can be extradited, however, he and Cutter are forced join forces when they are caught up in an attack by the Comanche Indians. Although the film was made as late as 1961, it reverts to the traditional Hollywood stance of depicting American Indians as bloodthirsty savages. (Some Westerns from the fifties, such as "Broken Arrow" and "Apache", had tried to show Indians in a more positive light). Certainly, the Comanche had the reputation of being ferocious warriors who took no prisoners, but the film never explores the question of whether they might have had good cause to hate the white man; Mirabeau Lamar, President of Texas between 1838 and 1841, went so far as to advocate their genocide.The real villains of the film, however, are not so much the Comanche themselves but the "Comancheros", described here as white men fighting alongside the Indians, although in reality Comancheros were traders, mostly of Hispanic stock, who made a living by trading with the Comanche. These Comancheros are a gang of criminals whose main activity is supplying the Comanche with guns and whiskey and who are based in a secret hideout in the Texas desert. Their leader is the aforementioned "former Confederate officer".This is not John Wayne's greatest film, but he does enough to keep matters interesting, and combines well with Stuart Whitman (a largely forgotten actor today) as Regret. The changing relationship between Cutter and "Mon Sewer" Regret is at the heart of the film. At first, of course, the two are adversaries, although Regret frequently refers to Cutter as "my friend". (To which Cutter invariably replies "I'm not your friend"). After the Comanche attack, however, they unexpectedly find themselves on the same side and they become, if not exactly friends, at least partners. Regret never does have to stand trial over that killing in Louisiana, a breach of the normal Production Code requirement that killers should be seen to pay for their crimes. Perhaps the censors took the old-fashioned view that duels were a matter of honour rather than wilful murder.Nehemiah Persoff is good as the ruthless wheelchair-bound Comanchero leader Graile, but the rest of the supporting cast have less to do. Ina Balin as Graile's daughter Pilar is largely there to provide a love- interest for Regret. At one time it seems that Cutter will also get his own love-interest in the shape of Joan O'Brien's attractive widow Melinda, but this potential plot-line never goes anywhere. Lee Marvin, probably the second-biggest name in the cast after Wayne, is featured in a surprisingly minor cameo as an outlaw who gets killed off early on.Officially, "The Comancheros" was the final film of that great director Michael Curtiz, who died shortly after it was completed. (I know his work could vary in quality, but "great" is the only adjective that will do for a man with films like "The Adventures of Robin Hood", "Dodge City" and "Casablanca" on his CV). In fact, Curtiz was taken ill during filming and Wayne himself took over as director to complete the picture, although he was not credited. (Wayne's only official directing credits were for "The Alamo" and "The Green Berets"). Changing directors in mid- stream in this way is never an easy process, and this may account for the fact that the film does not always seem to flow particularly smoothly, but overall this is generally an enjoyable western. 6/10

Dark Jedi This movie was directed by both Michael Curtiz and John Wayne himself although the latter was never credited as a director. I so enjoyed myself when watching this movie. It is indeed a classical John Wayne western very far from todays special effects loaded action movies. I guess you must have a bit of a nostalgic attachment to old classics, characters like John Wayne and western movies in order to enjoy this movie.John Wayne plays his classical slightly grumpy, all honest, tough guy that I really like. I remember one of my greatest disappointments as a kid was when John Wayne played a character that actually turned out to be the bad guy at the end. On top of everything he died at the end! I was so pi--ed off, almost traumatized.The story is pretty much what the book blurb says. Nothing fancy. There is a pretty lady thrown in of course although it is not John Wayne who gets her at the end, or even aspires to get her, but the gambler, Paul Regret, who, not surprisingly, turns out to be one of the good guys. The story holds together pretty well and there are of course plenty of opportunities for both fist-fights and gun-fights.The gun-fight are where it turns a bit silly though. The big fights are mostly a whole bunch of Indians mixed up with some white crooks attacking on horseback riding around shooting wildly until the directors decides that it is time for the next scene and they ride away. A handful of people, sometimes barely that, repeatedly stand against 50 or more bad guys on horseback yet they always come out on top. That is pretty silly to me. It makes for some nice old-fashioned gun-fights but it is still rather silly. More the kind of stuff that would be put in a children's movie today.Still the movie was really fun for me to watch. The good guys are really good guys and the bad guys are well done. I especially appreciated Lee Marwin's performance as Tully Crow in the bad guy department. Also, as is usual in these oldie movies, the opponents can have a fight (verbal as well as physical) and still communicate fairly intelligently without swearing their heads off.I would recommend this movie when you are in a nostalgic Western mood looking for some light entertainment.

Bill Slocum Watching "The Comancheros" is a lot easier than trying to make sense of it.Okay, so there's this gang of bad guys in the Old West, whites and Mexicans who form a secret colony from which they help renegade Comanches attack isolated ranches and steal cattle. Only Texas Ranger John Wayne can stop them, but he keeps getting sidetracked by the clever Louisiana gambler he's bent on getting hung. Fortunately, he's armed not only with anachronistic weapons but the fact the Comancheros' preferred form of attack involves riding around heavily-armed adversaries over and over until they get shot off their mounts.It's pretty silly stuff even before it works its way to a cringe-worthy slipshod ending, but in the meantime you are having fun, especially if you are a John Wayne fan, watching his Big Jake character growl and deliver the kind of comebacks you wish you could pull off in the heat of the moment."You killed him?"Seemed like the thing to do at the time."How d'ya know you killed him?"Wasn't time not to."You're all fools!"Well, it's fun sometimes.Duke's right; this is foolish stuff, but still fun most of the way. Wayne has a terrific cast working under him, led by Stuart Whitman as the gambler Regret, playing the angles while working our sympathies. Nehemiah Persoff is the Comancheros' cagey, somehow respectable leader; Guinn Williams is a gunrunner who with hilarious ineptitude tries to demonstrate how rehabilitated he's become after a couple of hours in a cell; and Lee Marvin is even more dangerous and drunk than usual, not to mention funnier than he ever was in "Cat Ballou."There's also a goodly amount of tension, much of it set around various unstable partnerships, dances of distrust and mistrust that define this film. Big Jake and Regret have a lot of stuff to work out, even beyond the fact Regret doesn't quite go along with Big Jake's plans for hanging him. Big Jake, working undercover, teams up with the evil Lee Marvin character for a while, who rightly doesn't trust Jake but can't quite catch him out. Whitman gets involved with a beautiful, mysterious woman (Ina Balin), who may reciprocate his feelings or just want a few hours' amusement before hanging him up like a butchered steer. And so on.Balin's fine, too - for the first half of the film. Then the script goes wobbly and she goes from fiery and independent to dumb as a post, forcing you to focus on the actress's lovely cleavage instead of her lines. It's not the worst trade-off, but it still leaves you wishing James Edward Grant, Wayne's usual scribe at the time working here with Clair Huffaker, had avoided his usual tendency for lazy endings. With just a little work, this could have up there with Wayne's best.Michael Curtiz called it a career here, a fitting swansong for one of Hollywood's greatest action-film directors ever. "Comancheros" gets the blood going anyway, and showcases the stars, two things that made Curtiz Curtiz. I have a feeling the horses didn't miss him, but this time at least the many wild falls seem to have been non-lethal.Overall, this is a solid crowd-pleaser with more than its share of memorable highlights to remember long after you forget the weaker moments. I just wish they weren't there.

Uriah43 This movie starts off with "Paul Regret" (Stuart Whitman) killing a man in a duel in Louisiana. What he doesn't know is that the man he killed is the son of a powerful judge who willingly disregards the honor of a duel and charges him with murder. Having little choice but to flee the state, Paul boards a steamboat to Galveston, Texas. On the way there he meets a mysterious lady by the name of Pilar Graile (Ina Balin) who he falls in love with. However, upon the ship's arrival into port he is arrested by a Texas Ranger by the name of "Jake Cutter" (John Wayne). Although he is intent on taking Paul back to Louisiana for trial, Jake encounters problems with the Comanches and their trading partners, the Comancheros. At any rate, rather than give the entire story away I will just add that this is an old-style Western movie which flourished at drive-in theaters across America during this period. John Wayne gives his usual top-notch performance. Additionally, Stuart Whitman and Lee Marvin (as the Comanchero named "Crow") are also quite good. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast don't necessarily distinguish themselves and the plot at times lacked realism. For example, the marksmanship of the Texas Rangers was too incredible to be believed--especially since their targets were riding at full speed on horseback. But again, this an old-style western which requires a little bit of latitude in that regard. All in all though it was entertaining and definitely worth a look for those who enjoy Westerns.