User Reviews

This is an entertaining John Wayne movie, with a good cast. It may not rank right up there with the great John Ford westerns and other films The Duke was in, it nevertheless presents the essence of John Wayne during this phase of his career (call it "mid-career"), and actually foreshadows the John Wayne we would see for the rest and remainder of his career. This is a high quality, well-made film --probably a testament Michael Curtiz's directing-- and the quality of the film, and its obvious production values, are evident throughout. One way this shows itself is, although the movie was made in 1961, it really seems and feels like a much newer movie, made 5 or even 10 years later than it was. I don't know what to attribute that quality to other than simply it being a well-made film.

In a way the movie is three movies, consisting of three separate but connected story arcs, any or each of which could have been beefed up and expanded into movies unto themselves. The story is thusly layered with complexity, which keeps it all interestingly moving along apace, never bogging down. It is also however the source of the movie's only real flaw. And that flaw is, as other reviewers have noted, the movie's presentation of a dubious and flawed historical chronology. And it isn't just little anachronisms like repeating rifles out of time. There is a complete confusion of historical eras and historical settings. Even though the story is set in 1843, its time seems to vacillate throughout, in one arc staying true to the story it is or purports to be, a story set in the antebellum south, but then jumping in another arc to a story appearing to be more similar to the further-western and decades later Indian wars, circa the 1870s. It seems as if there was lot of trouble deciding which of those two kinds of stories the movie was telling, a story about events in the antebellum south or a shoot-em-up story of the western Indian wars. It is likely a problem of scriptwriting, having had numerous "treatments" or rewrites by more than one writer, and those seams show. My guess is ultimately director Michael Curtiz and producer George Sherman must have decided that the typical ticket-buyers for this movie would be fans of John Wayne westerns, and that target audience would not be comprised of history majors or even history buffs, or be ones to get hung up on historical details, so they just let the historical flaws slip through.

There is one unintentionally funny moment in the movie. About mid-way through, watch for the blood-curdling scream by the bed-ridden lady (Joan O'Brien?) at the outpost when she looks out the window and sees the supposed Indian raiders crossing the river. It is truly a classic and world-class movie scream. I wonder how many takes that took.

One of the movie's three story arcs features Lee Marvin. This is a pre-Cat Ballou, pre-Dirty Dozen Lee Marvin who at this point in his career wasn't really yet a bigtime Hollywood household name, at least not like he would later become. Marvin turns in a marvelous over-the-top performance as a gun-dealing rapscallion, in my opinion flat-out stealing every scene he's in. That's no small feat, considering in all of his scenes he was playing directly off against John Wayne, who almost fades into the woodwork in the comparison. Actually Wayne sublimates himself quite well. He knew how to be a team player, and the chemisrty between Wayne and Marvin is good. Unfortunately this story arc is really nothing much more than a side-story than anything else, so Marvin's role is quite limited. Too bad. I would've liked to have seen a lot more of Marvin in this film. It would have been a better movie for it.

Lee Marvin, John Wayne and Marvin appeared together again two years later in John Ford's Donovan's Reef, with Marvin again playing a lesser role.

This movie pops up regularly on the Encore Westerns channel. I've seen it there about 5 times over the last 6 months. Watch for it.

One of John Wayne’s best latter-day films also happened to be legendary (and versatile) director Curtiz’ last: he was ill with cancer at the time, and the star himself (who had recently tried his hands at directing for the first time with the large-scale THE ALAMO [1960]) stepped in when the latter proved too weak to work; incidentally, the two had previously collaborated on the atypical TROUBLE ALONG THE WAY (1953) which has just been released on DVD by Warners. Ironically, Wayne – who is at one time called “Big Jake” in the film – would likewise deputize as a director for the ailing George Sherman (who produced THE COMANCHEROS) on another solid Western of his entitled BIG JAKE (1971)!

Coming right in between the farcical NORTH TO THE ALASKA (1960) and the elegiac THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE (1962), it’s neither as comic as the former nor as grim as the latter, but manages to strike a good balance between the two. The film has an interesting episodic structure: Texas Ranger Wayne chasing gambler Stuart Whitman (accused of murder), Whitman meeting mystery woman Ina Balin on a boat (having slipped from Wayne’s fingers), Wayne crossing paths with psychotic arms dealer Lee Marvin (with a prominent scalp), Wayne and Whitman eventually team up to rout the Comancheros – a renegade band with their own strict code of ethics who’s in league with the Indians (they’re led by Nehemiah Persoff, incidentally Balin’s father).

Wayne and Whitman work well together: the latter eventually co-starred in a similar Fox Western, RIO CONCHOS [1964], which is yet to be released on DVD – but, as it happens, has just been shown on Italian TV and I taped it for an instant reappraisal; Marvin has a brief but showy role, Persoff makes a fine villain, and Balin’s strong character is unusual for a Western (though she eventually reforms for the sake of Whitman!). There’s also a good supporting role for Wayne’s son, Patrick; and, while I don’t know how much say Curtiz had in casting the film, it was great to see two alumni of his in nice bits – Henry Daniell (from THE SEA HAWK [1940]) and Guinn “Big Boy” Williams (from DODGE CITY [1939]).

As can be expected, THE COMANCHEROS features plenty of well-staged action sequences (including a climactic bout in which all the various parties involved clash) – all set to a rousing Elmer Bernstein score, fresh from THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN (1960). Watching the film got me thinking about another good Wayne Western from this later period which I haven’t watched in over 20 years – THE WAR WAGON (1967; incidentally, the last of 3 collaborations with Kirk Douglas) – which is actually upcoming on R1 DVD as part of a Universal “John Wayne Screen Legends” set...

Never a huge fan of John Wayne, I watched this because I knew it was the last film by Michael Curtiz (he died soon after filming was completed). I thought it would be an average diversion.

I was pleasantly surprised. This movie is a lot of fun, as long as you do not try to make sense of it, and do not take it seriously.

Beautiful landscapes, a great score by Elmer Bernstein, a terrific, performance by Wayne (who looks like he's having the time of his life surrounded by his real-life children on the set) and a show stealing role by Lee Marvin, who looks as though he has a bunch of "Silly Putty" sitting on top of his head (not the best make-up job, guys).

I'm so glad I invested the time to watch this. You will be too.

I Recently got The Comancheros on DVD and watched it last night. I believe that is the first time that I have seen this film completely. I must admit to having a preference for John Wayne's earlier films from Stagecoach into the late 40's. This was the period when the studios were stills casting John Wayne in assorted roles with greater for lesser degree of success(who could forget him as the Mongolian emperor?) So only recently, I have been rediscovering his great performances in his middle period. But this is about another actor in this film. I just read all the other user comments listed about this film. Several correctly praised the small part played by Lee Marvin. He is always reliable for standout performances. But not any of the comments mentioned the truly standout performance by unknown "Guinn 'Big Boy' Williams" in the part of Ed McBain, the gunrunner. It was a small role but to my thinking probably the best acting in this or many other movies. Well, that's my two cents. "Nuff sed"

The Comancheros" , Curtiz's last film , deals with a Texas Ranger named Jake Cutter ,a big man with soft heart , (the Duke John Wayne), assigned to bring a dandy gambler named Paul Regret (Stuart Whitman) for killing . Comancheros is a word that refers to those who favored or advantaged of Comanche Indians by selling weapons and alcohol . The relationship shared between the Ranger " and his prisoner" a dandy accused for murder in a duel to the son of an officer , gets enjoyable nuances and charm enough . Along the way confront bad boy (Lee Marvin) and a gang of liquor-and-gun running nasties of the title commanded by a villain ( Nehemia Persoff) whose daughter (Ina Balin) falls in love with Paul .

This actioner Western contains a wonderful friendship , thrills , adventures , rider pursuits , impressive attacks and loads of crossfire . ¨The Comancheros" Curtiz does the human touch including lots of nice moments , it is a very fine picture that could become another western worthy of any anthology. In the film "The Comancheros" the spectator enjoys because it has a lot of issues that make it agreeable . Even the female character played by attractive Ina Balin as "Pilar", reveals a woman who knows that she wishes and makes it irresistible. Large support cast formed by Western usual players as Edgar Buchanan , John Dierkes , Michael Ansara and special mention to big Lee Marvin . Breathtaking and lively musical score by Elmer Berstein , one of the best of Western genre along with ¨The Magnificent Seven¨ soundtrack. Colorful and spectacular cinematography in Cinemascope by William Clothier , John Ford's ordinary .

This well-paced film is stunningly directed by Michael Curtiz . He does the human touch and full of insight that accompanied him during most of his films and the story develops pleasantly in a large frame with an interesting plot and fully adjusted to the requirements of the action, which had to be shot in long part by specialist Cliff Lyons . Even in a time of filming, Curtiz had to be briefly hospitalized and the actor John Wayne, a character who gets very nice here, had replaced on the set. He was already sick, but accepted, perhaps because they wanted to die in a movie set . Michael Curtiz concludes a great legacy that included dramas, adventures, comedies, musicals, horror, historical films, police ... and a few westerns . He was an expert in strictly American film Noir genre and in drama as proved in ¨Bright Leaf , Flaming Road , Passage Marseille¨ and of course ¨Casablanca¨ . But also was specialist on adventure genre as ¨Adventures of Robin Hood , Sea Hawk ,Charge of the light Brigade , Private lives of Elizabeth and Essex¨ and Western as ¨Proud rebel, Dodge city¨and of course ¨Los Comancheros¨ . After directing about 180 films, the Hungarian director Michael Curtiz was already 73 years old, when he was called to lead what would be his last film and among all these pictures , many of them form already part of the great classics of cinema as ¨Angel with dirty faces¨ . .Rating : Good , above average . Worthwhile watching .

John Wayne will probably be always remembered as the most representative western film star. In his long carrier he made a few real good ones and many standard or below standard products ("Stagecoach", "The Searchers", "The Shootist" and "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" belong to the first group, in my opinion, and the rest belong to the second one).

"The Comancheros" looks to me as sort of an "in the middle" western in Wayne's carrier. It is not a great movie but it is clearly better than standard films of the genre. The story is interesting and sort of original: it deals with the mission Texas Ranger Jake Cutter (Wayne) overtakes in order to put an end to an outlaws organization dedicated to provide with rifles and ammunition to the Comanche Indians that will be used for the redskins in their rides against the white man.

The picture is intense and entertaining and is full of action and adventure. It was shot in wide open sceneries in fine color and has a very good musical score too. It also has the romantic touch in the roles of Stuart Whitman (as a forced sidekick for Wayne who has him under arrest) and Ina Balin (as the Comacheros chief's daughter). Lee Marvin sort of repeats his previous work as Liberty Valance as "Crow" a gunman engaged with the outlaws.

You wont's see a great western film and not even one of Wayne's best, but "The Comancheros" is undoubtedly a product to watch for fans of the genre.

as far as John Wayne movie go this is a decent.one.for the most,it's fast paced lots action,excitement,danger.of course there also a bit of a romance angle.the scenery is magnificent here as well.the only downside is that somewhere about halfway through,the movie slows down and loses momentum,which it never completely regains.it ranks somewhere in the middle as far as Wayne's Westerns go.Here,Wayne's ranger Capt.Jake Cutter teams up with Stuart Whitman(prisoner Paul Regret)and they are reluctantly forced to become allies,and they make a pretty good team.Lee Marvin co stars in a smaller role as an unlikable sort,to say the least.what more is there to say,really.if you're a fan of the Western genre,or of John Wayne,you might want to check this one out.for me,The Comancheros is a 6/10

Let's start with what would most easily escape notice - the costume design. It is subtle and so quiet, the costumes seem to fit just any old Western, but that's not quite true. In fact the clothing makes an exceptional impression. How much so? Compare the costuming here to that used in Leone's "Good, Bad, and Ugly," and notice more than a little resemblance in style.

There's also the magnificent cinematography and some striking set designs (which also left impressions on Leone). And there's John Wayne's bravura performance, and Lee Marvin's brilliant portrayal of a drunken killer.

Having remarked all this, we can now get to the heart of the film - which is that it is one of the silliest ever made.

The film begins as a likable picaresque, then suddenly goes absurd. The turning point is the scene where 5 Texas Rangers hold off a hundred bad guys until reinforcements arrive. They manage to kill about 50 bad guys, and only one of them is shot - Do we find this believable? More to come! We then learn that the whole story takes place in about the fourth year of the old Texas Republic.

Unfortunately, neither the clothes, the repeater rifles, the double-action revolvers used, the 'comanchero' phenomenon, nor the Texas Rangers (at least not as they're presented here)were in existence before the Civil War - that is, twenty years after the events of the story.

And the whole story rests on the presumption of an extradition of a criminal from Texas to Louisiana, although no treaty of extradition existed between the two at the time.

Of course, it's unclear why, if you're extraditing a criminal to Louisiana you move him SouthWest, AWAY from Louisiana, judging by the landscape, as anyone who has merely passed through Texas can confirm.

Then of course, after insisting he cannot let a prisoner go because he's made an oath to uphold the law, the Texas Ranger arranges for a corrupt judge to let the prisoner go. Apparently the judge didn't take the same oath? Wait, there's more! We have to accept that a daughter who loves her dad (who happens to be a major criminal) would simply fall in love with a riverboat gambler and - hand her dad over to get hung, not because she's morally outraged - nothing wrong in murder, pillage and rape, apparently - but because the Texas Ranger is a friend of her beloved gambler. Are we believing this any more? The scene that really appalled me was where the criminal's daughter discusses all this with the Texas Ranger - with a man swinging from a makeshift gallows, his mother praying for him below, in the background. This is one of the most gallingly insensitive moments in the history of Hollywood. It would make sense if the script and director thought they were making a point - but, despite occasional hints at some political theme, concerning the corruption of government - there's really no such point here, it's all sound and fury signifying nothing.

Oh well, let it all go. Curtiz clearly set out to make a "John Wayne movie," as this sub-genre of the traditional Western was known even then, and he actually turns in a fine example of that sub-genre; I mean this is a "John Wayne movie" of the time, and it has the Duke in his prime, and it is wildly adventurous, occasionally amusing, and action-packed (really superlative shoot-outs, even when very silly) - and did I mention the beautiful cinema-photography?.

Please understand that it is all fantasy - but as such, it is for the most part pretty entertaining.

John Wayne made better films with John Ford and Howard Hawks and he even made more historically accurate films. But for pure entertainment value this is the quintessential Duke.

Cecil B. DeMille was of the opinion that motion pictures have to move. He wouldn't have anything to complain about The Comancheros on that score. There's not a dull moment in the film. This was the last directorial effort of Michael Curtiz and he kept the action flowing.

Three things stand out in The Comancheros. First Elmer Bernstein's music keeps the action going. You will be humming that theme days after viewing this film. Secondly the Cinemascope photography is breathtaking even viewing a formatted VHS copy. I remember seeing The Comancheros in the Sheepshead Bay Movie Theatre in Brooklyn as a lad and a theater is where this film should really be viewed.

But mostly since the two of them are on the screen together for about half the film, the chemistry with John Wayne as Texas Ranger Jake Cutter and Stuart Whitman as fugitive Paul Regret is what sets the whole tone of the film. Wayne and Whitman only worked one other time together and that was in The Longest Day. They were such a perfect fit it's a pity they didn't do more together.

This was also the first time the Duke worked with Lee Marvin. Marvin's character is only on screen for about 10 minutes, but you remember him throughout. This is also the final screen appearance of Guinn "Big Boy" Williams who must have done at least fifteen films with Michael Curtiz back in the heyday of Warner Brothers.

The Comancheros deserves an honored place in the performances of John Wayne and can't be beat for entertainment. A MUST for Duke fans.

There should be a drinking game for every time John Wayne says "Monsieur". It gets a little tedious! Completely teased by an earlier post - Ina Balin's headlights were a little disappointing (but still good - I wish she was in more films - a true beauty). All in all, entertaining fare but not nearly one of the Duke's best, although it was great to see him in such a great mood that came across in his performance. Also not a great way to got out for Michael Curtiz - the prolonged shootout with the Comancheros early in the film was just ridiculous - I've never seen such amazing shooting. In addition, the scene where Balin and the Duke talk on the hill that was shot in a studio looks horrible - a sloppy decision to add it instead of whatever was shot on location - even if the scene helped advance the plot. Just watched "Chisum" last week - check that one out, it's a little better!

Directed by Michael Curtiz, the man who made Casablanca and The Sea Hawk, this film rises above most John Wayne movies of the era. It has enormous scale in the rocky horizons of the Southwest, lots of action and heroism, a young and beautiful Ina Balin, and an inspiring sound track courtesy of Elmer Bernstein, who was working up to his movie soundtrack masterpiece, The Magnificent Seven. It's not a typical Western plot. The Duke and his buddy fall into an evil hidden empire from which there is no escape. It has all the makings of a rustic James Bond situation. If you ever liked any Western, you have to like this one.

After winning a duel with a prominent and connected New Orleans man, gambler Paul Regret (Stuart Whitman) has to flee on account of impending arrest for murder. But he is soon captured by Texas Ranger, Jake Cutter (John Wayne), who sets about returning him to Louisiana to be hanged. However, in spite of their obvious professional differences, the men are forced to come together to fight The Comancheros, renegade white men who smuggle guns and whiskey to the Comanche Indians.

The credentials for The Comancheros are out of the top draw. Directed by Michael Curtiz, starring John Wayne, with support from the likes of Lee Marvin, Henry Daniel, Edgar Buchanan, Ina Balin, Jack Elam & Bruce Cabot. While the score is provided by Elmer Bernstein and cinematography is courtesy of William H. Clothier. It's based on a story by Paul Wellman and although far from being a top tier Duke Wayne Oater, it's an amiable action packed movie that has an old fashioned feel to it.

This was to be Curtiz's last film as he was to pass away shortly afterwards, he was helped on the direction by Wayne who requested to be uncredited for his work, while Cliff Lyons was on hand for some of the action sequences. The acting is solid and the cast seem to be having fun, though a romantic strand between Whitman's Regret & Balin's Pilar is badly developed, but around them all is the Utah & Arizona locale which is beautifully utilised by the talented Clothier.

An entertaining Oater to pass away a Sunday afternoon with. 6/10

My dad loved John Wayne so I grew up watching films like the Comancheros. When I was a kid I enjoyed cowboy films, but I watched this film for the first time in decades and I was surprised how bad it was. John Wayne plays John Wayne. Most of the other performers just ham it up and chew the scenery. There is no real attempt at acting.

There is also no attempt at realism. Although the film was supposedly set in Texas, nobody has a Texas accent. In the film Wayne and Whitman leave Galveston bound for the Louisiana border and stumble into Monument Valley, Utah. I live in Texas and there is grass and woods in this part of the state,it's not desert country. Although supposedly set in 1843 the characters use Winchester rifles and Colt Peacemaker pistols which were not available for another 25-30 years. Nobody in this film dressed or looked like they lived in the 1840s. The story didn't make a lot of sense either.

Wayne by this time had become an institution and represented the type of man, men of my father's generation aspired to be. He epitomized rugged masculinity. Wayne was tough, likable,honest and personified integrity. Which is all very well, but the film just seemed terribly old fashioned and was hard to enjoy because of the bad acting, ridiculous plot and its overall laziness.

I really enjoy this film, though it's more about how much I love the sights in the American Southwest, and William Clothier's Cinemascope photography of locals in Utah and Arizona is simply stunning here, and the wonderful Elmer Bernstein score, and less to do with the conventions of the Western genre in general and John Wayne movies in particular. Both had become pretty stale by the time this picture was made. As a 'serious' Western it can be dismissed; it's about as historically accurate as "Blazing Saddles" and I don't know what's supposed to look worse, the scalped head make-up Lee Marvin (who practically steals the film) wears or the wig-pieces Wayne sports. However, this forty-year-old movie plays as better entertainment than most movies made today. It's hardly cynical, tries to reinforce ideas of right and wrong, and knows it's not to be taken seriously anyway. You can also tell that everyone seems to be having a very good time making this movie. It's also the last of more than 150 films directed by Michael Curtiz (though Wayne had to direct a lot of it himself when Curtiz fell ill [Curtiz died shortly after filming ended]). A beautiful letterboxed transfer of this movie was done for laserdisc in 1993. It also featured commentary by stars Stuart Whitman, Patrick Wayne, Michael Ansara and Nehemiah Persoff, as well as production stills, script pages, posters and lobby cards. Somebody at Fox at the time thought the movie deserved this 'Collector's Edition' treatment, so I can only hope that person is still there and that this will be replicated on DVD soon.

Texas Ranger Jake Cutter arrests gambler Paul Regret, but soon finds himself teamed with his prisoner in an undercover effort to defeat a band of renegade arms merchants and thieves known as Comancheros.

The film's production is almost as interesting as the film itself. Heck, maybe even more so. Paul Wellman's novel had been bought for the screen by George Stevens who wanted to direct it after "Giant" (1956). However, he then became interested in making "The Diary of Anne Frank" and sold the film rights to Fox for $300,000.

Clair Huffaker ("Seven Ways from Sundown") was signed by the studio to adapt it for producer Charles Brackett with Gary Cooper to star. However, Cooper was in ill health and in early 1961 Douglas Heyes was announced as writer and director. John Wayne and Charlton Heston were announced as stars, but Heston dropped out and was replaced by Tom Tryon, then Heyes dropped out and was replaced by Michael Curtiz. Fox had the script rewritten by Wayne's regular writer James Edward Grant ("Angel and the Badman"). Because of Wayne's involvement, Paul Regret (who was the lead in the novel) was played down and Wayne's part had to be amplified.

Ultimately, this is very much a John Wayne film. His preferred writer, him starring, and even him directing at some points when Michael Curtiz was too ill to come to set. There are many things about John Wayne as a person that are despicable, but as a Hollywood personality he is among the biggest.

Some of the reviews posted are pretty brutal. So it wasn't a great movie, and certainly not one of John Wayne's best, but it's anything but bad. Just by starring "The Duke" makes it worthwhile entertainment. There was only one John Wayne but even he couldn't make up for mediocre story writing. In my book it's an OK western flick. Just wish there were more around today like The Duke.. sigh.

Enjoyable western with the surprisingly nice pairing of John Wayne and Stuart Whitman. Wayne plays Texas Ranger Jake Cutter. That's quite possibly the manliest name ever. Cutter arrests gambler Paul Regret (Whitman), who is wanted for killing a man even though it was in a fair duel. A lot of stuff happens but basically Cutter grows to respect and like Regret and the two team up to take on the Comancheros and the Comanches. I could explain the difference but it's probably better if you look it up. Solid cowboys and Indians western with a good cast. Nice support from Lee Marvin, Nehemiah Persoff, Jack Elam, Bruce Cabot, and Patrick Wayne. Henry Daniell appears briefly. The obligatory love interests are Ina Balin and Joan O'Brien. This is legendary director Michael Curtiz's last film. He was sick with cancer throughout the filming so an uncredited Wayne did quite a bit of the directing.

This peripatetic 1961 John Wayne western, notable as the last film Michael Curtiz directed, moves all over the place, from riverboat to the wide open spaces of the far west, with nary a dull moment. The plot revolves around Texas Ranger Wayne and his prisoner, elegant gambler Stuart Whitman, tracking down an evil bad guy with a private army. Whitman is miscast in a role that would have fit Gene Barry or even Dean Martin like a glove. Aside from this, the movie works nicely, and Whitman isn't bad in his rugged action scenes. Brainy-seeming Ina Balin makes an interesting, if incongruous love interest, Nehemiah Persoff is the Evil One, while veteran players Bruce Cabot, Bob Steele and Edgar Buchanan add to the fun. Lee Marvin has a small showy role that seems to have been designed as a small showy role for Lee Marvin. There's real bounce to this movie, which doesn't take itself too seriously. Wayne is in good humor throughout, which is nice to see. No brooding cattle baron or Indian fighter he, this is the Wayne that topped the box-office top ten for years, and if one wants to know why, this is as good a movie as any to check out. Wayne loosened up considerably in his later years, as he no longer seemed to care how many nightclub comedians imitated his western drawl and loping walk. Indeed, he seems to have learned a thing or two from them by the time The Comancheros came along, and gently kids himself along the way, showing himself to be a good sport no less than a shrewd manager of his screen image.

Good plot, stirring musical score and some welcome familiar faces. (I wonder why Guinn Williams was uncredited?) John Wayne lightens his customary toughness with dry humour, calling Regret "Monsewer" and complaining about strangers calling him "Friend".

The obligatory love interest is supplied by Ina Balin, who's not a great actress and looks a bit too nice to live among the Comancheros. Stuart Whitman does very well alongside Wayne.

The opening shot and a couple of topical references tell us that it's the early 40s, but this decade has no relevance at all to the plot. The film has an 1860s/1870s look to it - the buildings, outfits and, most of all, the guns are all of the latter period, and many anachronisms have been listed by other contributors. Of course using period guns that needed to be reloaded after every shot would have made for less spectacular battle scenes. So why not set it in the 1870s? After all, the very similar 1964 film "Rio Conchos", also with Stuart Whitman, was set after the Civil War, with former Confederate officers substituting for the Comanchero leaders.

I wonder if the cast said anything about this? I gather than Wayne was disgruntled when the year before the Mexican army in "The Alamo" was issued with the wrong guns, but this wasn't evident to any but the most experienced eye.

Apart from these anachronistic annoyances, the film makes very good viewing.

Probably a classic example of why so many John Wayne films have endured for so long. This isn't anything "great," but it's great fun to watch.

Lee Marvin is very memorable in his short appearance, and Nehemiah Persoff (The Bad Guy)would have made a great James Bond villain. He seems almost born for that role. Ina Balin is quite convincing as the cold, almost emotionless (and later in the film, we learned she was raised to be essentially emotionless).

Really, one of The Duke's (many) enjoyable pictures. Clearly, he knew how to pick scripts that audiences would like. And they still do. This one is 50 years and, like many of Wayne's movies,still regularly seen on TV.

It's 1843. In New Orleans, gambler Paul Regret (Stuart Whitman) is in a pistol duo over allegations of cheating. He kills the other guy who turns out to be a son of a judge. He becomes a wanted man. Texas Ranger Jake Cutter (John Wayne) captures the fugitive intent on returning him to Louisiana. While Cutter is burying friends killed by Comanche, Regret escapes. The Comancheros are renegades headed by a former Confederate officer who smuggle guns to the Comanche Indians. Cutter tries to infiltrate by befriending gunrunner Tully Crow (Lee Marvin). He ends up killing Crow in a card game but he recaptures Regret.

The story is a mess of anachronisms. This is simply cowboy (Texas Rangers) and Indians. It's a lot of shoot em up action. John Wayne is John Wayne. There are stunts galore. It doesn't make it a good story but this is old fashion action western.

Don't let Leonard Malton's video guide review of 3-stars for this film misguide you. There are many well done westerns, some of them Wayne's, that are worth your time and money. This one, Curtiz's last, is a colorful, but tediously long, sugar-coated, Hollywood western. Committing numerous sins this film has supposedly Texas Comanches that look like Kansas Plains Indians, set in an Arizona landscape, with outfits that come right out of central costuming. There is little action, and even that is disappointing. The story, as others have written, is confusing and rambling. Characters, Lee Marvin for one, are written out of the script with little or no credible motivation ( late contract dispute?). All in all, a film that may have only made a quick trip to the drive-ins when it came out in it's own day.