MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

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.

Curt Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

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.

Armand comedy, western,cartoon, music and Telly Savalas. in one film. a film about nothing except easy amusing. because each character is only caricature. few fight scenes are not worthy spice for this salad.and poor Pancho Villa is absent. his story is only subject for not very inspired party. is it a disappointment ? no way ! it is only slice from a time.small experiment for a kind of public, ironic piece about USA and different form of cartoon about a really Mexican hero.nothing more. after 40 years it can be a curiosity. but the purpose is entertainment, discover of a good actor as clown and few drops of comedy with French nuances.

sddavis63 Telly Savalas put on a passable (but no better than that) performance as Pancho Villa, the notorious Mexican bandit/revolutionary in this account of Villa's raid on the town of Columbus, New Mexico in 1916. Villa is not really a historical figure who I'm overly familiar with, so I won't say much about the historical details of the film. As a movie, this isn't great, although it has a smattering here and there of both action and humour. Chuck Connors' performance as Colonel Wilcox, commander of the U.S. Army base near Columbus struck me as a bit over the top, and Clint Walker as Villa's Gringo sidekick Scotty didn't really do very much for me. The movie is obviously a pretty low budget effort of limited technical quality. For a movie with a runtime of only slightly over an hour and a half I have to say that this movie dragged in places, particularly in the last 20 minutes or so. Villa's raid into the United States was an interesting (if, in the overall scheme of things, not especially important) historical sidebar, and probably deserved better treatment than this. 4/10

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.