Two giants of hollywood came together for this great movie. A brilliant movie to watch.Wayne and Hudson at their best form.A great soundtrack too.
shareI had never heard of it before, just watched it on AMC. What an underated movie! Like someone mentioned in the comments section, this is a very good movie, that came out in a year of exceptional movies, so it got lost in the crowd. Great performances by all too, not just Wayne and Hudson.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I'm not going to preach gay or nay here, but to me Hudson's being a homosexual was not even an issue in my enjoyment of this movie any more than Wayne's right wing conservatism was an issue. It's a fun western movie with talented and entertaining actors portraying characters. I first came to like this movie when I was a kid and had no knowledge of Hudson's sexual orientation. To me it's just irrelevant to the movie. His character was not a homosexual.
Good movie but the ending has always left me feeling a little empty. The Juarez army captured them and threatened to execute them unless they handed over 5000 horses. They give them the horses, have a drink with the General that betrayed them, and ride off with big smiles on their face. They should have turned around after they got everyone out and went back to steal the horses back.
http://www.homeincomedepot.com
- The web's #1 source for work-at-home opportunities!
Maybe it was because True Grit was so good (except for Glen Campbell) that I didn't like this one as much as other Duke Western's,...or as an above poster said Colonel Queer riding around with a Plume in his hat, chatting up a really bad Southern accent. If just about anyone had been in that role besides Rock it would have been better. And the ending just should have been better. If you put this movie up to let's say The Wild Bunch,...it look's very amateurish. Even (in beginning) little thing's like all the Soldier's Uniform's are damn near 'spotless'. Yep, now I'm nitpicking, but this could be a great remake with the right actors and director. A bit of trivia on True Grit,...Elvis was supposed to be in Glen's role, but for some damn reason,...????
The Smoker You Drink, The Player You Get!
You stupid *beep* freaks.
shareWOW!? What a snappy & imaginative come-back! You should be proud, I hear there's an Idiot like you born every 3 minutes, you must be sooooooooo happy!
The Smoker You Drink, The Player You Get!
I think you're in the closet.
shareAnd You're out! With so much wit, you should be a screen-writer!
The Smoker You Drink, The Player You Get!
Don't even respond anymore to this guy. He just recently joined -- 4 days ago, in fact. I believe he's probably one of the trolls who's been banned under several different names from these boards before. He goes on another computer, registers under a new name and starts trolling again. Just ignore him and other trolls.
shareThe only trolls are the people here. Apparently Wayne had no problem working with Hudson. Btw, "The Undefeated" = Sucks ass.
shareIt does, clivey? and all this time I thought it was you who did.
"Mr. Holmes, they were the footprints of a gigantic hound!"
It's funny, the Duke was wearing his lifts and Rock was still two inches taller than him.
shareIs this Clive? I've been looking for you!
shareI always thought Duke and Rock were both 6'4". And in spite of Rock's sexual orientation, or questionable southern accent, I thought he was well cast. I first saw this, at 16, at my dad's theater, when it first opened.
share[deleted]
"The only trolls are the people here. Apparently Wayne had no problem working with Hudson. Btw, "The Undefeated" = Sucks ass."
Trivia: Wayne asked Hudson to play the part. Apparently neither man was as two-dimensional as some of the "trolls" posting here. As both men are long since dead and buried, best y'all leave it at that and take your off-topic stuff to a war-bored where people *care* about your personal problems.
Thanks Imcvo,...yes;...sad isn't it? It get's difficult at times, anywhere, trying to express an opinion. Then somebody react's with a lame response with dumb profanity, to try and make a point? Ha! Oh well. Rock On & Thanx for the tip. I kept getting e-mail's from this person, but quit responding yesterday.
Nice to see other people on the look-out for each other. I owe ya' one!
The Smoker You Drink, The Player You Get!
Very good review...I agree with everything you say.
Kenneth Rorie
"great story but we didn't need Colonel Queer"
Gee, a little homophobic are you? Damn, you seemed so intelligent too...
[deleted]
the fact that Hudson was queer is not why he ruined this movie..no..either gay or straight he still sucked as an actor THAT'S why they could've found someone better...hell, there were lots of better actors that enjoyed working with Duke and would've happily signed on and could SOUND SOUTHERN...Robert Mitchum, Dean Martin, James Stewart (maybe not Stewart he was getting a bit old for this part)....but anyway, it could've been cast a lot better.
"Oh Renfield you disappoint me so"-Dracula
[deleted]
i'm not gonna get into what people see in Wayne..i'm a huge fan of his so my opinion will not sway you..he was 62 years old he had a right to be overweight..i know people who are 32 who are much fatter than he was..and kudos to the man for working with one lung and six fractured ribs. I never appreciated Hudson's work in movies like Pillow Talk cause that's just not my kind of film. But i've seen Giant and found it rather dull...and his performance didn't go far towards saving it. In my opinion James Dean was the only bright spot in that film (of course Elizabeth Taylor was beautiful as always but her performance wasn't anything Oscar-worthy..she's done much better)
"Oh Renfield you disappoint me so"-Dracula
[deleted]
I agree with you on Jet Pilot and The Conqueror. Donovan's Reef was one of the most enjoyable films in Duke's whole career...also, a swan song for the partnership between him and John Ford. and while Cahill was far from the best western he made, i personally think it was an imrovement over this film..the only thing The Undefeated had going for it over Cahill was the presence of Ben Johnson. Cahill's story was better, more close to Wayne's real life experiences (the distance between himself and his children) plus i enjoyed Neville Brand and George Kennedy as co-stars much more than i did Rock Hudson.
"Oh Renfield you disappoint me so"-Dracula
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Hudson's homosexuality was fairly well known in most Hollywood circles. Wayne must have known it. Yet, the two remained good friends for the next 10 years until Wayne's death. John Wayne may have been "ultra-concervative", but he was a man. And for the most part, friendships were to be honored. A far cry from the "men" we see out of Hollywood today.
"Shortgrub, for four years I've been trying to get you to call me Colonel. Now it's too late."
[deleted]
[deleted]
I have nothing against the acting or casting but somehow I was expecting a more somber, dramatic movie with a more driven plot. After being bored by the un-funny picnic brawl that ground the story to a halt I realised that it just wasn't the movie I expected. North to Alaska and McLintock! seemed to be better at comedy. There just seemed to be no build up of dramatic tension when you compare the end of this film with the ending of the great The Wild Bunch. John Wayne's character just sucumbs to Gen. Rojas' will and breaks his deal he had made earlier -very uncharacteristic of a John Wayne movie and unsatisfying. Even Chisum, which most would agree didn't reach the heights of True Grit or even The Cowboys had a much more satisfying finale. All the horses looked nice though.
shareI enjoy this film--as I do just about all John Wayne westerns--but I think it definitely belongs to a subset I refer to as 'lesser Duke'.
I can't imagine that Wayne would have agreed to co-star with Hudson if he was that opposed to his sexual orientation. I do find it interesting, though, that in the 4th of July picnic argument scene with Bruce Cabot as the Sergeant, the scene plays in one unbroken take with Wayne taking a drink and handing the bottle back to Cabot, then Hudson taking a drink and handing the bottle back to Cabot--Wayne, I believe, doesn't take a drink from the bottle after Hudson (until there's an edit). Just an observation...
vaya con dios...
'We all dream of being a child again - even the worst of us. Perhaps the worst most of all...'
This film ends with The Duke basically saying when he reads the note: "Well, I guess we better give him what he wants". At this point you would have hoped that The Duke would have taken a more aggresive and retaliatory stance.
shareI watched the movie this morning on AMC. Hatred for both sides in the beginning that warms up during the movie and culminates in giving away the horses to save their former enemies' lives.
[deleted]
I'm interested in watching this movie, not just because I'm a big fan of the Duke, but because I'm a big fan of Antonio Aguilar, one of Mexico's greatest actors, singers and amabassadors of the country, as well as an all around "mensch".
When I read this topic's title, I foolishly assumed that it was about JW and AA. But then, it should be "Three Giants", to include Wayne, Hudson and Aguilar. Truly, the latter was one of the most influential, talented and prolific artists in the history of the country, and I think Hollywood should've used him as much as they did with Pedro Armendariz.
I enjoyed the film, though I do agree with some about the ending. Sort of wish it took a "Wild Bunch" type of shootout-to-the-death over the horses.
And does anyone really care if Hudson was gay? It didn't make a difference with his performance. JW knew he was gay & had no problem having him in the film.
Just enjoy it for what it is...a great Duke western.
Just enjoy it for what it is...a great Duke western.
I have never been a big fan of John Wayne but always of Rock Hudson and I liked both of them in this movie together. The ending could have been better, but all in all it is enjoyable. What does Rock Hudson's sexuality have to do with his acting and the roles he plays onscreen? Some have made reference to his being gay as a reason not to like his performance or his appearance in the movie. It gets pretty old hearing this.......
shareMost of the film was shot in Durango, Mexico, and if Rojas were meant to be completely unsympathetic, the film couldn't have been shot there. The big problem with this film is that there really is no real villain other than the banditos, who are really minor ones A secondary problem is that John Henry Thomas and Col. Langdon are courting trouble by even doing things that support Maximillian, Langdon by wanting to fight for him and John Henry by selling Maximillian's forces his horse herd. If Rojas were meant to be a villain, he'd have had Langdon shot anyway, and John Henry and his men would have gone Wild Bunch.
shareI thoroughly enjoyed this movie, with the only disappointing thing being the ending as has been previously mentioned. The performances by John Wayne and Rock Hudson were excellent, the high point of the movie in my humble opinion, along with the great supporting cast (especially one of my favorite supporting actors ever, Ben Johnson). I am very conservative and don't care about Hudson's orientation, anymore than I would care about the Duke's politics if I were liberal. Just enjoy the movie. They couldn't make this film today because it wouldn't meet the "PC" standards, having the Confederates as all good, honorably people. Wonder if they'll start editing out the flag on AMC showings of this film...?
"Courage is being scared to death- and saddling up anyway"