MovieChat Forums > Rio Lobo (1970) Discussion > Really bad movie.

Really bad movie.

posted 18 years ago by agoreski
20 replies | jump to latest

A really really bad movie. I've seen close to 40 Duke flicks, and this one is by far the worst of all. I've given his "B" flicks teh benefit of being early films which helped set the stage for the better westerns of the 40's and 50's. The acting in this one was just ughhh!. I guess Duke was being hopefull Hawks had one last gem to give hollywood. Not a chance here. The dames were ceratainly cute but they too seemed to be giggling at the cliche` plot. 2 or 3 out of 10. I gave it some points just because of Duke. Other wise a 1 out of 10.

[–] Kurohambe 18 years ago

I wouldn't be that strong but it certainly was disappointing. The plot was rather tired (after a good start with the train robbery) but the main problem was the supporting actors like Jorge Rivero, Christopher Mitchum and particularly Jennifer O'Neill who were pretty terrible.

Not terrible but in the bottom half of The Duke's films.

[–] tween_us 18 years ago

I don't know that I'd label this movie "really bad," but I will say that it's certainly not one of John Wayne's best flicks ever. Taking it a step further, it's not even one of his best westerns of the 1960s.

I will agree that the train robbery plot seemed to have greater possbilities, but those possibilities slowly dissolved over the remaining ninety plus minutes or so. And, true enough, the supporting cast was unremarkable at best.

If you're a die-hard "Duke" fan, you'll probably still like this film; if you're a bit more discerning, you'll note its inherent deficiencies and turn your attention elsewhere.

Overall, I'd give this a 6/10 at best, maybe closer to a 5/10. Not terrible for a rainy/snowy day rental, but definitely not worth buying (even from the bargin bin).

[–] tbennett20 17 years ago

I agree tween us. I'm a big fan of John Wayne but, sometimes I wounder what he was thinking when He did this movie, if he could have done anything to help, or something. It started off with real potential but then the script and actors, I don't know. It started getting sort of silly and Jennifer O'neill while REALLY EASY to look at, was just terrible as an actress. The other two women weren't any better. It seems great scripts and acting were were lacking in several Howard Hawks westerns, while the movies are pretty good they get a little silly in parts. Actually,I think the only ones doing all the acting were John Wayne and Jack Elam in this one. Jack has always been a solid class act. I think he interacted with Wayne really well too. You can kind of see in Waynes face, he enjoys working with Elam. I have the DVD in my Western collection though and wouldn't give it up.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bjelkier 9 years ago

I think at the time he needed the money. He produced "The Alamo" himself and it flopped. He lost a lot. That is why he asked $250,000 for his part in "The Longest Day", while all the other actors received only 1/10th of that.

[–] buddyboy28 10 years ago

"It's not even one of his best westerns from the 1960's"

Of course it isn't.It was made in 1970.

- - -
Fill your hand you son of a bitch!

[–] fcabanski 8 years ago

"I don't know that I'd label this movie "really bad," but I will say that it's certainly not one of John Wayne's best flicks ever. Taking it a step further, it's not even one of his best westerns of the 1960s. "

Of course it isn't one of the best of the 1960's. It was made in 1970.

[–] dpatricksawyer-827-554207 10 years ago

[b]I agree Kurohambe, the acting of the support actors was dreadful, MOST especially, Jennifer O'Neill, and to believe she is still suckering casting directors and directors to this day. Shameful.

Otherwise, not a bad film, but the acting of some, really turned me off.

[–] akira_pat 17 years ago

I'm with Eggman here,couldn't say it better myself.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] titusmoody 17 years ago

As are your posts, bent -- just terrible, terrible, terrible

"Howdy, Bub"

[–] paulbrasch 16 years ago

Solid John Wayne fare with a slight ending but never the less more entertainment than most movies they've pumped out in the last 20 years.
I'm a firm believer in a bad Hawk's film is still better than most.

[–] tbennett20 14 years ago

I don't know. At first I had a hard time dealing with the bad acting, especially Jennifer but, damn she is so beautiful it doesn't really matter.It's another John Wayne western that I'm glad to have in my collection. As I said before, I think Wayne and Jack Elam actually had a fun time making this movie. They probably laughed all the way to the bank too. They have both well earned it. They have entertained us many many times over the years. I miss them both.

[–] rich56 16 years ago

Just watched it recently and it definitely is one of the Duke's lesser efforts. The somewhat amateurish performances of the supporting cast is probably the primary reason, although even Wayne can't seem to muster much enthusiasm in his deliveries. Wouldn't say it was terrible exactly...has a nice beginning and a decent shoot-em-up finale but the middle section was kind of blah. I'd give it 5/10.

I should add the new DVD transfer is excellent. The film looks as good as the day it was released. As an aside I should add those of us old enough to remember George Plimpton's TV specials should note his brief cameo(billed as 4th gunman) with the immortal line "I've got a warrant right here sheriff...".(whereupon he's immediately shot and has a rifle slammed into his face by Wayne) I remember seeing the original special he made about this appearance. Very amusing stuff.

[–] LostSok0523 13 years ago

I agree that the supporting actors in this collectively turn in one of the worst ensemble performances in a John Wayne film (almost painfully so at times), but the opening train sequence is still thrilling, and the action in the latter part of the film rock solid.

Perfectly executed, this still would have been a middling film for The Duke. The bar was never set as high as Liberty Valance, The Quiet Man, True Grit, etc. But it COULD have been on the level of Big Jake or one of the more action/comedy oriented films. The poor acting and sluggish story between the train robbery and when Wayne and company get to Rio Lobo doom it from anything more than mediocrity.

Still...I wouldn't consider my John Wayne collection complete without, warts and all.

[–] CyrustheSoSo 12 years ago

Hawks was already in his 70s apparently too old by then to deliver a quality film and wangle good performances from the cast.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bettyj5 9 years ago

A really bad movie is right. I love John Wayne movies - this is the worst I've seen. The acting of all the 'girls' in the movie is 2nd rate. I fast forwarded half of the movie to get the merciful ending. I can appreciate the good movies even more after seeing this stinker.

[–] riogarhed 8 years ago

I suspect Hawks torqued the plot of this film to reprise the situation of staying holed up in the jail developed in "Rio Bravo" and "El Dorado," also the hostage swap of "Rio Bravo." Hawks liked it when Cahiers du Cinema lavished praise on him as an auteur and wallowed in it in interviews and probably while shooting this his last film.

I agree that none of the acting of this film is inspired, but I dislike even more the awful and obvious ADRs that add little to the story and poorly match the action.

Hawks after the film was released remarked that Wayne had difficulties getting on and off his horse, and there is a bit of choreographic genius in one nocturnal shot showing the elaborate steps taken to make it look like Wayne gets himself mounted. It involves about five men and five horses. Wayne standing on the stoop keeps his gun leveled on French as Elam gets on his horse. Another horse, meant for Wayne, is led into frame. Wayne steps off the stoop and for a moment is hidden by the shifting figures of men and beasts. He climbs on his horse. But it isn't Wayne! It's plainly a double, fully in view. But Hawks quickly fades out as the men ride out of frame and has achieved an impressive sleight of hand. You could see this movie many times before noticing the trick and wonder, where did the real Wayne go?

[–] milesaheadlds 8 years ago

That's an interesting snippet about Wayne's health and probably explains his slightly tired performance.

Overall, it's mediocre fare, but even a low-powered John Wayne film is a lot better than a great many movies nowadays! It's what I think of as a good rainy afternoon movie, as it begins and ends well (a little like the Train Robbers). If the main supporting cast had performed better, it would certainly have lifted the film somewhat.