Whether you enjoy 'Viva Villa!' is dependent on what your feelings are on star Wallace Beery. Have found him a lot of fun in some roles, in others he overdoes the hammy bluster and takes one out of the film. So my stance on Beery is mixed. The supporting cast is a quite talented one. Am familiar with Jack Conway, though as others have said the great Howard Hawks started it, and have liked (a lot in most cases) what has been seen of his work. The subject matter was very fascinating.
Found myself quite mixed on 'Viva Villa!', leaning towards moderately sort of liking it but not without having some big reservations with it. It is a long way from being bad, with a good deal to admire and is quite entertaining. It just doesn't do an interesting man with an interesting story justice and no it is not just that most of it is fictionalised and even romanticised. Despite its good merits, its distracting flaws made 'Viva Villa!' an uneven experience for me.
'Viva Villa!' looks great. Some may argue that the sets are obviously studio bound, but they nonetheless are suitably grand in scale and look and still make the jaw drop today. The black and white photography is beautiful, though imagine how the film would have looked like in colour, it perhaps may have given the film even more sweep. The music score is stirring enough and it is expertly directed by Conway.
Parts of the script compel and have an amusing irony, while the story does have some rollicking action and some quite epic crowd scenes. The supporting cast generally do quite well, with an attractive Fay Wray bringing heart to the proceedings and Joseph Schildkraut and Henry B. Walthall (as the film's most colourful supporting character) suitably ruthless. Donald Cook also does admirably.
Beery though was more troubling in the lead role and a lot of the problem was to do with how the character was written. He does give it everything and is charismatic, but the characterisation felt inconistent and like the writers weren't sure what they wanted the character to be. The script has moments but tended to be awkward and much of the humour felt overdone in use and how it was delivered.
The story could be dull and too slight, very on the surface and with no real depth. A shorter length of about 15-20 minutes would have helped. Generally the characters were colourless stereotypes and some of the portrayal of Mexicans don't hold up particularly well today and could be seen as tasteless. While the supporting cast were generally fine, for me Stuart Erwin was bland though props to him for being a practically last minute replacement.
On the whole, not bad but heavily flawed. 5.5/10
Found myself quite mixed on 'Viva Villa!', leaning towards moderately sort of liking it but not without having some big reservations with it. It is a long way from being bad, with a good deal to admire and is quite entertaining. It just doesn't do an interesting man with an interesting story justice and no it is not just that most of it is fictionalised and even romanticised. Despite its good merits, its distracting flaws made 'Viva Villa!' an uneven experience for me.
'Viva Villa!' looks great. Some may argue that the sets are obviously studio bound, but they nonetheless are suitably grand in scale and look and still make the jaw drop today. The black and white photography is beautiful, though imagine how the film would have looked like in colour, it perhaps may have given the film even more sweep. The music score is stirring enough and it is expertly directed by Conway.
Parts of the script compel and have an amusing irony, while the story does have some rollicking action and some quite epic crowd scenes. The supporting cast generally do quite well, with an attractive Fay Wray bringing heart to the proceedings and Joseph Schildkraut and Henry B. Walthall (as the film's most colourful supporting character) suitably ruthless. Donald Cook also does admirably.
Beery though was more troubling in the lead role and a lot of the problem was to do with how the character was written. He does give it everything and is charismatic, but the characterisation felt inconistent and like the writers weren't sure what they wanted the character to be. The script has moments but tended to be awkward and much of the humour felt overdone in use and how it was delivered.
The story could be dull and too slight, very on the surface and with no real depth. A shorter length of about 15-20 minutes would have helped. Generally the characters were colourless stereotypes and some of the portrayal of Mexicans don't hold up particularly well today and could be seen as tasteless. While the supporting cast were generally fine, for me Stuart Erwin was bland though props to him for being a practically last minute replacement.
On the whole, not bad but heavily flawed. 5.5/10