Rio Lobo (1970)

Good movie but grossly overrated

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

The final film is Howard Hawks The good guys vs bad guys trilogy(as i like to call it)is set during the closing days of the civil war and involves military secrets being sold the other side,a robbery in gold,and one mans quest for vengeance and justice.First of all,this is one of the greatest westerns ever made,it got brilliant acting,perfect storyline and excellently staged,fast paced action scenes.John Wayne is again reprising his role as a Man on a Mission,and he's brilliant at it(in one scene he turns the tables on his captors which results in them being sent to a POW camp),other good performances come from Mike Henry who plays the sadistic town sheriff,Jack Elam is really funny as the bitter old man who helps the duke on his quest and David Huddleston is great as the town dentist,some of the scenes in this movie are nearly the same as El Dorado(food being brought to the sheriffs office which is under siege).The storyline is excellent as it focuses a lot on betrayal and revenge,the dukes friend is killed in a train robbery and he sets out intent on finding those responsible,the idea of military secrets falling into the wrong hands was great and it gives the movie the feel of a spy thriller.There's plenty of good old western action to enjoy,including a train robbery,a house being raided and an epic shootout to climax the film,during which many a man is shot and dynamite is tossed around and a building is blown up(it quite similar to the shootout at the end of Rio Bravo),the action is very loud and it's really exciting.This is a gem of a movie,i recommend it to all John Wayne and western fans.

Yeah, who cares if it's all the same? This isn't a movie, it's a good time and it feels. Not so much as in Rio Bravo or, even better, El Dorado but still, it's there and the heist in the beginning is rather well carried through, in spite of all the nonsense.Just the stubbornness of doing the same film for the third time with almost the same locations is so downright disrespectful that it deserves extra praise just that. Who does he think that he is, Howard Hawks? He doesn't care and cares even less than a flying fart what you think of him. Well if that isn't charming, what is? What I'm really saying with this review is that Howard Hawks shows us how little a story really means and how many different things can be said without changing the story.

Out of Paramount Pictures, Rio Lobo is directed and produced by Howard Hawks (the last film he would direct) and stars John Wayne, Jorge Rivero, Jeniffer O'Neill, Jack Elam & Christopher Mitchum. It's written by Leigh Brackett & Burton Wohl, musically scored by Jerry Goldsmith and photographed by William H. Clothier on location at Cuernavaca, Mexico & Tuscon, Arizona. It's the third film in a loose trilogy by Hawks & Wayne that follows Rio Bravo (1959) & El Dorado (1966). Plot follows Wayne as Union officer Cord McNally who loses gold shipments (via the railway) to Confederate guerrillas led by Pierre Cordona (Rivero) & Tuscarora Phillips (Mitchum). It's the start of a relationship that will see all parties end up in Rio Lobo, Texas, where a traitor and a despotic sheriff are in their midst.Rio Lobo is easily the weakest Western that Hawks made with Duke Wayne. He himself would say that he didn't like the film, felt it wasn't any good, while Wayne himself was quoted as saying that he had already made the film twice before. Almost everything about Rio Lobo is tired, from the formula of the story to Wayne sleepwalking thru a role that held no challenge, it's a poor send off for one of America's finest directors. The script is solid enough, with many Hawksian themes evident; and it's nice to see the three lady characters be important to the story, but the cast put around Wayne are poor and out of their depth and this rubs off on the normally professional Wayne who finds he has nothing to act off of.It's not a total stinker, tho, certainly Clothier's photography and Goldsmith's score are worthy of investing time with, and the lead off sequence involving the train robbery is well put together and stirs the adrenalin. Sadly the film is never able to reach those heights again, with the ending being a rather tame affair that doesn't do justice to the bitter revenge tone that Hawks has steered the film towards. Of the sub-standard support cast there's only Jack Elam who is worth watching, be it for comedy value or for just giving it some gusto. All told the film just about comes out as watchable Sunday afternoon fodder. A running theme in the film sees fun poked at the ageing Wayne's expense, one of which involves the word comfortable. That is an apt word to use for Rio Lobo, because director and star are in the comfort zone, comfortably making an unchallenging and old hat movie. 5/10

Maybe it's because I'm in an exceptionally foul mood today, but after I bought this DVD, and saw the first half hour, I was reminded of why I didn't like this film the first time I saw it.Pic starts off strong with some convincing and innovative action, that itself is quite spectacular, but the supporting cast and sexual tension amongst thereof is a yawner, and will anger the most ardent Wayne fans. Me included.Model's turned actresses deserve a shot at acting just like anyone else; through auditions. How these pretty faces got past reciting their sides for Hawks is no mystery. They're attractive. Wayne fans are split and/or at odds with his pro-Vietnam war flick "The Green Barets", so Wayne goes back to doing Westerns, and Hawks probably obliged with Wayne's faltering rep by casting a couple of honeys for the film.Note that no other big names were in this film. No surprise. We're left with a bunch of flat toned supporting cast (save maybe Ed Asner), and unbelievable gunfight scenes (even for a John Wayne western).The only redeeming quality of this film, other than Wayne himself, is the fact that it was respectably shot. Not well shot, but passable for a pro-grade feature.Me, personally I think this film is a bust. There should have been more action at the end in the tradition of "War Wagon" or maybe even the calming tones of "El Dorado". "True Grit" had a pretty spectacular finish too, as did its sequel. But this film?I don't know. Maybe they figured the genre was wearing thin for a lot of people. The Western was transforming with the nation back then. I know, I was there and remember it. But to create something like this with women who can't act? And an unsympathetic Duke who isn't outraged when a woman gets cut or beaten? Huh?Like I said, maybe I'm just sore and angry with a lot of other things in my life, but this film brought back all the memories of why I quit watching John Wayne films (not that he did a whole lot after this flick).I salute the Duke, and always will, but not this movie. It's more TV movie of the week material than a solid theatrical release.Watch at your own risk.