SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie
MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting
Cleveronix A different way of telling a story
AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.
rodrig58 Well, it's Telly Savalas, an actor who turned gold any role he accepted. 20 years before, in 1952, the great Marlon Brando played Emiliano Zapata. Now, in 1972, Savalas offers us a very special Pancho Villa. I thought I will see a stupid western spaghetti (usually they are very bad) but no, I had the surprise to see a good decent film. It's not Sergio Leone's genius but it's pretty well-done. With Sergio Leone has in common only the fact that it was filmed in Spain, as well as the dollars series. Of course the best ingredient is Telly Savalas, without him, the movie would be hard to watch. The other actors are OK but only at the functional level, nothing out of the ordinary, nothing brilliant. I am referring especially to Clint Walker and Chuck Connors. Anne Francis is much better in the role of Flo. Does anyone know that Savalas was, besides a brilliant and unique actor, a very good singer, with a warm voice and a few hits under his belt? He plays a song at the end of this movie too. Telly Savalas did another role in the same year, 1972, Capt. Kazan, in "Horror Express", directed by the same Gene Martin (real name Eugenio Martín). Eugenio Martín, who directed before some other Westerns, "Bad Man's River"(1971), with Lee Van Cleef, "Requiem for a Gringo"(1968), "The Ugly Ones"(1966). 7 stars for the charm of Savalas and the accurate direction of Martin.
Wuchak Released in 1972 and directed by Eugenio Martín, "Pancho Villa" is a Western farce starring Telly Savalas as the eponymous Mexican revolutionary general who decides to "invade" America with his raid on Columbus, New Mexico, a town three miles from the border, on March 9, 1916. Clint Walker plays his right-hand man, Scotty with Anne Francis as the latter's wife in a troubled marriage. Chuck Connors plays the US Army officer assigned to repelling the raid. In real life, Pancho was commander of the northern division of the Constitutional Army and governor of the northern state of Chihuahua, Mexico. He was in line for leadership of Mexico and thus had the sympathy of the US Feds who ultimately forsook Villa in favor of his rival, Carranza, who defeated Villa in two major Mexican battles in 1915. Embittered, Pancho took his wrath out on America with his raid on Columbus, which was a slap in the face to the USA, resulting in the death of 8 American soldiers and 10 civilians. Woodrow Wilson retaliated by sending General Pershing and a punitive expedition into Mexico to apprehend Villa. They went pretty deep south of the border, capturing and killing several of Villa's lieutenants, but failed to capture the famous revolutionary himself. The Perishing expedition ended due to Mexican protests and the US entering into WWI. Villa died seven years later when assassins ambushed his car in Parral, Chihuahua.The movie focuses on the Battle of Columbus and is an odd mixture of serious drama/violence and utterly goofy comedy, like the ridiculous kill-the-fly sequence, which I guess was to make fun of Connor's more-military-than-thou character. Due to the farcical elements it's hard to take the radical violence seriously. Is it funny to see Mexican citizens shockingly shot on the spot at Villa's whim? Is it funny to see American soldiers & civilians slain during the raid on Columbus? For me, this absurdly incongruous tone ruins the movie. Despite my cavils, "Pancho Villa" is somewhat entertaining as a what-were-they-thinking early 70's curiosity, not to mention Savalas & Walker are amusing as the protagonists and Connors as the often silly antagonist. As for Anne, she was still stunning. For anyone who's interested, Savalas sings the credits' song. Obviously this movie shouldn't be taken too seriously, but it IS somewhat amusing, highlighted by a great train collision at the climax, not to mention the movie DOES inspire you to research the real-life events. A joint English/Spanish/American production, the film runs 92 minutes and was shot in Spain. GRADE: Borderline C-/C (4.5/10 Stars)
classicsoncall Finally, the mystery solved as to how Telly Savalas became bald! Starting out, "Pancho Villa" appears to be a serious treatment of the Mexican revolutionary's legend, but it quickly dissolves into a farcical comedy Western. Things get under way somewhat tentatively with Colonel Wilcox' (Chuck Connors) 'fly in the mess hall scene', quickly followed by Villa trading a horse for Miss Clara's tin lizzy. By the time Villa feigns being dead, I realized for sure that this one was intended to be an over the top flick, with Savalas going over the top more than once. Without even knowing anything about the historical Pancho Villa, I'm sure this film had nothing remotely to do with him.It's always neat though, to see legendary TV Western personalities make a comeback, in this case, both 'Rifleman's' Connors, and Cheyenne Bodie himself, Clint Walker. Walker portrays Villa's American sidekick, though it's never made clear why he sides with the Mexicans. A full decade following the end of the 'Cheyenne' series, he looks as good as ever, but it's a mystery why he's in that seafaring get up, though it makes as much sense in it's way as the rest of the film. Even Anne Francis makes an appearance as Scotty's (Walker) ex-wife, giving further star power to this revolutionary tale.Others on this board have mentioned that train crash scene with some enthusiasm, so I'm not sure if the print I viewed was edited in some way. It appeared to me that once the locomotives made contact with each other the action froze and then we see the aftermath. Why not just show the whole wreck take place, unless it was to save those great antiques for real.Best line of the film - "He don't need a doctor, he needs a change of underwear", as a doctor removes a lizard from Pancho's shirt while he appears to be dying from some sort of convulsion. But the one each of the principals had to be thinking by the end of the story - "You know, if I was you, I'd jump off this train".
wotamovie1 The genre of westerns fell on hard times during the 1970's after its flourish in the 1960's. Still, there was a handful of good westerns in the seventies. Unfortunately, this isn't one of them. There is essentially no plot here. It seems that the movie's sole function was to cash in on the rising popularity for Telly Savalas at the time. Naturally, with very little to work with, he simply chews up the scenery. I'll be the first to admit that Telly was one of the coolest and charismatic actors ever to make his presence on the screen. I'll even go as far as to call him an "icon" of the seventies. Still, there is really no excuse for this garbage. The actors seem to know what they got themselves wrapped into as evidenced by their "ridiculous" performances. The scene with Chuck Connors and the fly "buzzing" around him has got to go down as cinema's most appallingly bad and incompetent sequence. One simply has to see it to believe it! If you treated the whole movie as one long bad joke, then you might feel a little better at the end of the film. You may even come away with a grin. Just don't expect much from this movie. On the plus side, I truly enjoyed the last sequence with Savalas on the caboose of the train fading out of the screen with the soundtrack in the background of Telly belting out the theme song. Truly astonishing! For me, it negated the pain and suffering I had endured through the length of the movie. For others, it may not be enough.
