VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Beanbioca As Good As It Gets

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

denis888 I hated this awful mess of a movie. Mind you again, I like US Civil War Movies a lot and think I have watched them all. Almost all. So, this one is based on a real event of 1864, the premise is cool, actors, Mr. Holden as a main one, are great, the scenery is nice, and yeah there are many beautiful ladies in the plot. What can possibly go wrong? Well, everything. The pace, the tone, the mood, the setting, even the dialogues - all seem to be as odd as oil on vinegar all mixed with water and mercury. The plot is OK, but very quickly loses its momentum and gains only laughable predictability and sheer "Have I seen this before" feeling. Yeah, it reminds all the previously seen films and smack strongly of a half-baked second-rate raw pancake. What is worse, this war movie does not convince. It does not deliver a message or a moral, it only crawls along like a wounded cow (pun intended) and leaves a trail of stench boredom. Yawn. Rating - zero

Jeff (actionrating.com) See it - William Holden plays his trademark role as a smooth-talking womanizer caught in a war he doesn't want to be a part of. He's a rich cattle driver in the Civil War looking to sell his horses to the highest bidder. Richard Widmark plays the eyepatch-wearing Confederate villain. Some might say these two actors can't carry a movie by themselves, but together they are fantastic. The script in this movie is surprisingly sharp and smart. This is rare for a western. The dialogue is very witty and actually pretty funny at times. The movie has also aged very well, meaning that it is still relevant and doesn't have that "old" feel to it. For example, the things that are supposed to be funny are funny, etc. The only problem with this movie is that there's not much action until the end. This is easily forgivable because of the good story. After seeing the movie, I immediately compared it to Horse Soldiers, which Holden co-starred in with the Duke. Worth seeing once. 2 out of 5 action rating

MartinHafer William Holden plays the title character--a man who could NOT care less whether the North or South won the Civil War. Oddly, this character is supposed to be from Mexican and Irish ancestry and I have absolutely no idea why they wrote this back story with William Holden in mind--especially since this IS a perfect role for Anthony Quinn. Imagine a film where Quinn actually got to play his TRUE ethnic background instead of an American Indian, Philipino or so many other odd casting choices that plagued much of his early career. But William Holden?! What a stupid casting decision! Plus, this character was supposed to be amoral--so who do you root for in this film?! The Southerners are often portrayed as rather unlikable and mean and the Northerners are generally shown as being rather bland and stupid.While Richard Widmark and William Holden aren't the greatest or most familiar Western stars, they were excellent actors and with these two and a rather substantial budget, this still should have been a much more compelling picture. Even with morally questionable and unlikable characters and miscasting of Holden, the film should have generated some level of excitement. Instead, it's at best a time passer--and not a particularly memorable one due to occasionally over-done music, indifferent acting, and some portions that are just too talky and dull. Overall, this is one of the poorer films either Widmark or Holden made in the 1960s--one that is easy to skip.A final note--Although I am sure that some slaves were so brainwashed that they actually rooted for the Confederates to win the war, this surely was NOT the norm. However, in this rather insensitive film, the "good Negroes" conspire to save the day for the South during one supposedly poignant scene! Yeah, right!

rhp6033 In the early 1960's, there was quite a bit of interest in the Civil War during the centennial observances of events over the four-year period. Quite a few films were released either about the war, or which had the war in the background or as preludes to western films, which were very popular at the time. This film fits within that genre - both as a "civil war" film, which is also a bit of a "western", considering the cattle-rustling angle.This movie is (loosly) based upon an actual event. In September of 1964, Lee's Army of Northern Virginia was besieged by Grant's forces in entrenchments which stretched along the eastern side of Richmond, then south across the James river, then along the southern border of Petersburg, Virginia. A confederate scout noticed a large heard of cattle (approaching 4000 head) located at Coggins Point on the James River, not far from Grant's headquarters. In the army parlance of the days before refrigeration or canning to preserve meat, this was referred to by the commissary services as "beef on the hoof".Confederate Lt. Gen. Wade Hampton organized a raid which swung wide around the Union lines, traveled through Union-held territory to the site, overcame the small guard, and herded 2,468 cattle back into the Confederate lines where it became a welcome addition to the scanty rations the Confederate troops normally received. The Confederate losses were quite small - 10 killed, 47 wounded, and 4 missing, according to Hampton's official after-action report.The raid went down in history as either "Hampton's Cattle Raid", or simply "The Great Beefsteak Raid".Of course, the lead character "Alverez Kelly" from the movie has no real counterpart in history of which I am aware.