Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

James Hitchcock "Viva Max!" is a satirical comedy about what might happen if the Mexicans attempted to retake the Alamo. Following the battle in 1836, the Alamo has become an icon of American patriotism, even though the battle was technically a Mexican victory and even though the defenders were not fighting for the United States but for the long-defunct Republic of Texas. The standard patriotic version of the events of 1836 is narrated in the John Wayne epic from 1960, a film referred to several times in "Viva Max!" The Mexicans, of course, also have their own patriotic take on these events, seeing themselves as gallantly resisting U.S. aggression and conveniently forgetting that it was the dictatorial high-handedness of their government which provoked the War of Texan Independence and the incompetence of that government which led to them losing it.The "hero" of the film is General Maximilian Rodriguez de Santos, a Mexican officer who is inspired to mount his invasion not by patriotism but by the desire to impress his mistress, who has taunted him that his men would not even follow him into a brothel. Despite his elevated rank, the General only has a single platoon of soldiers under his command, but this proves to be sufficient. They bluff their way past the American border guards, catch a bus into the centre of San Antonio and then storm into the Alamo just before closing time, capturing it without needing to fire a shot. (Which is just as well, as they have forgotten to bring any ammunition with them).The film's star, Peter Ustinov, does not appear to have had a very high opinion of it; in his witty and entertaining autobiography "Dear Me" he dismisses it in a single sentence. He does, however, find room to tell us that it was banned in Mexico. The Mexican authorities presumably took exception to the depiction of their army as an incompetent, cowardly, ill-disciplined rabble led by buffoons like General Max. It was fortunate for the film-makers that the American constitution guarantees free speech, including the right to lampoon national institutions, otherwise the film might also have been banned north of the Rio Grande.Certainly, the Americans in this film are satirised just as mercilessly as their Mexican counterparts. The National Guard general tasked with retaking the Alamo is more concerned with his furniture business than with warfare and is reluctant to order an attack for fear of alienating his customers (most of whom are Mexican-Americans). There is also a regular general who proves no more competent, a State Department official whose patronising attitude to the Mexicans prevents a peaceful resolution to the standoff and a right-wing militia who believe that Max and his men are part of a gigantic Chinese Communist conspiracy to take over America. The political left are also satirised in the person of Paula, the glamorous radical-chic student who manages to persuade herself that Max is a heroic Marxist revolutionary in the Che Guevara mould.Although the Academy unaccountably awarded him an Oscar for his role in "Spartacus", I have always thought that Ustinov's talents lay more in the field of comedy than of serious drama. Some have taken exception to his performance in this film, largely on the grounds that they consider it politically incorrect for an actor to portray a character of an ethnicity different to his own, but given that Ustinov was the son of a Russian mother and a German father of Russian extraction, also had French, Italian, Ethiopian and Polish ancestry, held a British passport and lived in Switzerland it would be difficult to define precisely what his own ethnicity was. His varied background made him a master of different accents, a skill he puts to good use here. His Max is a brilliant comic creation, a satire on the military mind, and yet at the same time a human being who manages, for all his flaws, to retain a certain amount of sympathy.Not all the satire really works, although Ustinov receives some good support from Jonathan Winters as the furniture-dealing General Hallson, John Astin as the bullying Sergeant Valdez and Kenneth Mars as the militia leader who finds out too late that his men would rather talk tough about Communism than fight it. Perhaps the greatest tribute to the film was paid by those Texans who staged protests against the movie, stopping filming taking place in the Alamo itself, which they regarded as a "sacred shrine". They evidently didn't realise that it was this sort of jingoistic pomposity that the film was sending up. 6/10

ianlouisiana Sophisticated cosmopolite Peter Ustinov blots his copybook here with a caricature of a performance "browned up" as the eponymous "Max",a Mexican army officer unbelicose by nature who recaptures The Alamo to impress his girlfriend.Now clearly this episode of American history is a sensitive area to many,but is rather too domestic for us Europeans to understand the subtle nuances involved.Pride on both sides of the border is easily ruffled so General Max may well have had at least the tacit support of many of his fellow Mexicans.Where I feel they may have not been so happy is with the performances of Mr Ustinov and his comic book accent and Mr John Astin as his Sancho Panza. The Texans are only slightly better served,the exception being the great Mr Harry Morgan - saviour of many a picture - who,along with Mr Keenan Wynn,drags "Viva Max" up from the vaudeville level of entertainment it had reached before their appearance. Mr Ustinov,bon - viveur,writer,actor,chat show guest non - pareil and wit,was a wizard with accents as he proves here,but,to me,there is something distasteful,even patronising in his performance. It may have seemed a wacky idea in the summer of love when most of the movers and shakers in Hollywood were presumably stoned out of their gourds,but "Viva Max" has not travelled well I'm afraid.

theowinthrop VIVA MAX takes its basic story from a single idea. Supposedly at reasonably placid relations with our southern neighbor Mexico (the film was made in 1969, so the problems of illegal immigrants from Mexico is not considered here), what would happen if a column of Mexican troops entered San Antonio, Texas, and retook the Alamo? The idea is that the shock waves in this country (and probably Mexico) would be a "10" on the diplomatic seismograph. The symbol of the fight at the Alamo is so important in this country (particularly in the western section, and especially in the ex-Republic of Texas) that such a move would not be tolerated here. Yet at the same time, the move might be very popular in Mexico. That country was robbed (we don't refer to it that way - we say they lost land in two wars) by Americans, and they have never been happy about it ever since. Only native Hawaiians who want independence for their old kingdom could possibly understand the feelings of the Mexican thinking about the half of their country that was lost*. Adding to the galling loss of Texas and the Southwest, the symbol of Texas Independence is a battle-site which (technically) was a Mexican victory. For, as we know, all the Americans were killed at the Alamo, and (no matter how many Mexicans got killed) Santa Anna put the Mexican flag up at the end.(*I suppose I could also add descendants of American Loyalists (mostly Canadians now) who resent their post 1783 exile from their native land, as well as Southerners who still think the Confederacy deserved to survive. Oddly enough it would be harder to find resentment from those countries like Germany and Italy that we fought in World War II (and, in Germany's case World War I) as these - but then we have an odd type of mutual resentment balance with Japan dealing with Pearl Harbor v. Hiroshima/Nagasaki.)VIVA MAX develops because General Maximilian De Santos is trying to prove himself to his girlfriend. She feels he is such a loser that he cannot lead his men anywhere. So he decides (on his own) to take his men into San Antonio and grab back the symbol of Texas and American land greed, and reclaim it for what it is - the symbol of Mexican military success. He does so not really knowing what his next step is - after all, he is just trying to impress his girlfriend. His second in command, Sergeant Valdez (John Astin) slowly realizes what a can of worms were opened up (Valdez and the other men thought the General got his orders for some diplomatic visit). The Americans are not happy at all. Led by Texas National Guard General Billy Joe Halston (Jonathan Winters) and San Antonio Police Chief Sylvester (Harry Morgan) they are facing a crisis that they honestly can't fathom. They try to negotiate De Santos into leaving, but he realizes the publicity at home is on his side. He's avenged the Mexicans killed at San Jacinto and Cerra Gordo and Buena Vista and Vera Cruz by the gringo invaders. He knows that his girlfriend will have to take him more seriously in the future. Finally the Americans have no choice: they send in American troops to retake the Alamo. But the National Guardsmen turn out not to have the necessary spirit to do this (who can blame them - most are like Winters, part-time weekend warriors and full-time businessmen*). So when a confrontation occurs with both sides ready to shoot, Valdez cleverly uses a sudden surprise to give the "victory" to the Mexicans.(*The film was dated in the period of Vietnam, but was written as a novel earlier. Nowadays, with the use of national guardsman in Iraq and Afghanistan, this view is no longer realistic).Washington steps in, and sends in a regular Army regiment under General Lacomber (Keenan Wynn). He is less polite than the earlier negotiators, and really ready to re-blood the ground of the Alamo with fresh Mexican casualties (he also is rather bigoted - towards the end of the film he gets a merited rebuke from Winters' "Halton" about his use of derogatory language to people that Winters knows are hard working and decent). The film ends with a tactical withdrawal, but the honors of war are with Max and his men.One wishes that old animosities were settled so easily - I suspect they cannot always be so. Ustinov's Max is well done, his flawless accent maintained in the film (in his memoirs "Dear Me" he mentions how a retired American General saw him at a San Antonio hotel and really believed he was a Mexican officer!). Astin, for a change, got a lead role and did very well with it. Winters, Morgan, Wynn, and Kenneth Mars (as a doctor in the National Guard) also were quite good. It is a pleasant film, and serves to sting us Yanquis about what our national image is south of the border.

c382000 What a hoot! Wa-a-a-ay too subtle a depiction of Texas characters for a Scotsman to understand. Then there's the action: Border crossing? - If only it were this stringent... San Antonio - yep. Mexican Army - Yeah: been there, seen them. State Department characters - figures (in fact, it's rather flattering to our "diplomats".) Other images: El General riding his horse, while the soldados walk; the "army" riding the bus into San Antonio - PERFECT. John Astin as El Sargente - que bueno! Then there are the main characters: Peter Ustinov - perfect for the role. Pamela Tiffin - The Baylor coed - exactly as shown. Thumbs up for Viva Max from a life-long Texan.