Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Supelice Dreadfully Boring

Senteur As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

reisen55 My father rented this on 16mm many years ago and I remember it well, particularly Ustinov and the music. I recently found a print and it is all I thought it to be, and that is just a gentle smile of a movie, no BIG laughs, good cast and a little premise of a plot. The jokes often work and there is even some drama along the way. In particular, Kenneth Mars plays a frightening role indeed. But we are among friends - Jonathan Winters (always fun), Keenan Wynn, Alice Ghostly and others whom we have seen a dozen times over. This forgotten film sticks with you as time passes so if you ever catch it, have a cup of coffee with some cinematic friends and at the end you will even say VIVA USTINOV.

JoeytheBrit Viva Max is a mildly diverting but inconsequential piece of fluff whose main idea – the retaking of the Alamo by the Mexicans 130 years after they famously failed to oust Davy Crockett and his mates – just doesn't have strong enough legs to carry it much beyond a 20-minute skit. Peter Ustinov – an undoubted talent, but not one that was probably not best-suited to film – just about avoids slipping into broad caricature. His character is inspired by wounded personal pride rather than national fervour, which effectively shuts off a possibly richer vein of humour, but Ustinov does at least manage to make him kind of believable within the context of the film. There is even an element of pathos toward the climax in the relationship between him and his loyal sergeant (John Astin – probably the best thing about this). Jonathan Winters, Harry Morgan and Keenan Wynn clearly don't have Ustinov's keen eye for emphasising the few interesting aspects in their broadly drawn characters and therefore resort to broad farce which weakens things considerably. This one's unlikely to appeal to any casual viewer born after 1970.

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.

bob the moo In an attempt to win the respect of his girlfriend and father, General Maximilian Rodrigues de Santos takes a group of 100 Mexican soldiers and heads north. Despite the fact that his men are poorly organised and view the General as being unfit to lead a dog, they manage to bluff their way past the bemused border guard. They go through Texas and make for San Antonio, home of the Alamo. They easily manage to capture the tourist attraction and are easily holed up inside, claiming it back on behalf of Mexico. Meanwhile, outside, the Texan authorities scratch their heads and wonder what they are supposed to make of all this.The idea sounds simple and indeed it is – it all depends what you do with it whether or not it is as simple as all that or better. What could you do with it? Perhaps a wacky zany Carry On style jape? Or perhaps an absurd satire with relevant digs at the political systems? Or perhaps a cross between the two? Well, I'm not sure what the makers of this film tried to do with it but to my mind they didn't actually manage to make anything come off that well. At times it has some nice digs and ironies within it but these are very liberally scattered throughout the film rather than being the core of it. For the majority of the film it is surprisingly light on laughs or good comedy; it is roundly amusing but I did want more belly laughs. Funnily enough the best material happens outside the Alamo with some funny portrayals of the Texan response.This leaves Ustinov just trying to mug his way to laughs and, to his credit he makes a good fist of it considering. However, like I said, the better material goes to people like Morgan, Winter, Wynn and a few others who are amusing and benefit from not having the title role on their shoulders to carry. The direction makes reasonable use of the Alamo but somehow still manages to make some parts of it look like it is on a set somewhere.Overall this is a distraction at best; it is pretty amusing and has some nice touches but mainly it doesn't do anything consistent of note. Ustinov tries hard to carry the film but the best material is saved for the support cast playing the American response, meaning that I found myself in the funny situation of not wanting the lead actor/title character to be on the screen. Amusing and distracting at best, certainly no more than that.