Viva Max (1969) Poster

(1969)

User Reviews

Review this title
23 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Witty satire on jingoism and the military mind
JamesHitchcock31 December 2009
"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
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Amusing, but broadly-played, trifle
herbqedi6 July 2002
This one-joke chestnut seemed hilarious to me at age 14, but hasn't aged that well. Still, Ustinov is wonderful in lead role, and much of the shtick still provokes guffaws despite the lack of subtlety. It's certainly a family film with a sense of American history and some delicious ironies. I gave it 6 out of 10.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Reasonably entertaining comedy handling a Mexican/American Sore Point
theowinthrop10 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
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.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Gentle smile of a movie
reisen5515 August 2016
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.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Well, my parents loved it when it debuted.
planktonrules29 August 2016
The story is about a crazy Mexican, General Santos (Peter Ustinov). He's in command of a few dozen men and tells them they are heading up to Laredo, Texas for a parade. Little do any of them but his second in command (John Astin) know but his plan is to retake the Alamo! Soon, they have secured this National Monument...and the locals are all at odds as to what to do. Little do either side know that their respective troops have no bullets.

I remember when I was a little boy that my parents saw this film and talked on and on and on about how funny it was. Now, almost five decades later I'm getting around to seeing it. Overall, I am not so sure why they thought it was so funny. I'm not saying it was bad...but don't quite understand why they loved it so much. Perhaps it was just something about 1969. Now I am not saying it's bad...but I was left wondering why the film wasn't funnier. The premise sure sounded fun.

By the way, it would have been nice if perhaps some Mexicans had actually played the Mexicans...such as Cantinflas playing the General or his aide.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Inconsequential fluff
JoeytheBrit2 October 2007
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.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
what if mexico tried to retake the alamo ?
ksf-221 April 2024
When generalissimo maximillian de santos (ustinov) from mexico brings his troops over the border to retake the alamo, nobody takes it seriously. Until he takes over the alamo! And then the chief of police (morgan) gets involved. Some fun supporting names... ken mars, jon winters, john astin. Alice ghostly. It's okay! Not going to win any awards. The script needed some spicing up to make it funnier. Or something. Ustinov always had perfect comedic timing, but he's pretty much wasted in this role. Not bad. Directed by jerry paris. He's probably best known as jerry helper, the next door neighbor on dick van dyke. Later, he directed tons of television. Story by an unlikely writer... jim lehrer, newscaster of many years!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Entertaining, but nothing more
the-antichrist-is-near1 November 2022
A nice movie with a nice cast in a nice setting, shot in a nice way, with nice cinematography. As bland as this sounds, the movie is too. It's entertaining for sure and does bring some laughs throughout, but in the end, the story line is as thin as a hair. It's not a movie that keeps you thinking about it for a while, while and after the end credits roll down.

Acting overall is very decent though; Pamela Thiffin stands out playing a driven left-wing student, but due to the rest of the movie being as it is, her acting kind of drowns into all the blandness too.

Not a waste of time to watch, but also not a keeper.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
A Great Idea Very Badly Done
reymunpadilla5 November 2023
I really wish this was a better film than it was. A satire on Texas nationalism and all the ridiculousness surrounding the Alamo. Ustinov, Astin, Winters, Morgan, all great comedic actors. What a waste.

Start with the terrible decision to have very obviously white actors play Mexicans. The makeup doesn't do a thing to make them believable. The accents are thick and it seems like none of them have ever been around an actual Mexican in their lives. They sound like what they are, whites imitating whites doing an insulting version of Spanish speakers.

There is not one single Latino in the whole thing. Look at the cast and you see they were all played by Italians and Jewish actors. It's just not believable they couldn't find Mexicans in Los Angeles and Texas, not even to play extras.

There are moments that are slightly amusing, mocking a militia group and the whole notion that the Alamo was heroic or noble. Even that is undone by poor direction that's usually off and undercuts the comedy.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Foreign military comedy...already played out in 1969, but with amusing asides
moonspinner5523 January 2011
James Lehrer's novel becomes sporadically funny modern-day military-takeover satire featuring a band of Mexican soldiers and their blustery Brigadier General who enter the States by way of Texas and assume control of the Alamo. For the first three quarters of an hour, a sprightly, silly/funny comedy with exaggerated accents...but the plot has nowhere special to go and quickly peters out. Pamela Tiffin (in a blonde wig, and resembling Shelley Fabares) plays a graduate student who is taken hostage and falls for Ustinov, while souvenir shopper Alice Ghostley inexplicably thinks the U.S. has been invaded by the Chinese. Ustinov probably hoped this would be a colorful showcase for his acerbic brand of humor--sending up the outrageous nature of human behavior--but his jokes are too obvious, and the character actors in bit parts nearly steal his thunder. ** from ****
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
One of the Best Comedies I have ever seen!
gamedoc14 November 2005
OK, So I'm not old enough to have seen this movie in the theaters. Either way, It's really late, and I'm flipping through old reruns of Lassie, and Star Trek. I come upon this movie that has John Astin in it. Now I'm a bit of an Addams Family Fan, so I figure "Why Not?" To Put it simply, It was hilarious!! And it really showed that Astin can do more than one type of comedy. Pretty much every comedy character I have ever seen him play is the zany, sometimes idiotic, REALLY out of touch guy.(Gomez Addams, Buddy from Night Court) In 'Viva Max' as Sgt. Valdez His comedy is far more serious, and quite deadpan. After seeing this movie my appreciation of Astin as an actor and comedian raised considerably.

This movie was also my introduction to Peter Ustinov as an actor. He plays the General, the central character of this movie, and he really carries the role well. In fact, without his serious portrayal of this character, the movie wouldn't be nearly as funny. His acting ability clearly shows through in this movie, even making an authoritative character into a sympathetic character at some points. After watching this movie, I sought out other Ustinov movies (there were quite a few) and I can honestly say that now Ustinov is one of my Favorite actors of all time.

Harry Morgan is back again in his Support your local sheriff / Colonel Potter role. But it is still quite entertaining.

All I can say is that if you get the chance to watch this movie, do so...You will not regret it.
23 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Viva Min
writers_reign6 June 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Apparently this is based on a novel by Jim Lehrer and I wonder if I'm the only non-American who thinks this could be a misprint as the satire is more reminiscent of TOM Lehrer. Basically Peter Ustinov rides into the Alamo astride a one-trick pony and reclaims it in the name of Mexico, a premise as funny for about as long as it takes to write it. For me the basic flaw is that EVERYONE involved is a buffoon with not even ONE credible character who knows his ass from third base. Keenan Wynn, of course, was in another satire with a military flavour, Dr. Strangelove and appears to be searching for Peter Sellers in one of his three personas. Ustinov is a fine actor and brilliant raconteur but is handicapped by a weak script and inept direction. See it if you must.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mexicans NEVER PLAYED MEXICANS...But CHICANOS WILL!
streetprisoner28 November 2021
This movie was a total wreck it should never have been produced it is so demeaning and really really an ill disrespect to all Raza.

I can enjoy comedy and I can enjoy a good book but when it comes to something that is a total disregard for quite frankly what really happened at the Alamo it's upsetting I would've understood a more definitive way to take back the Alamo would've been a replay with the real narratives.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Quixotic comedy of stereotypes hasn't travelled well...........
ianlouisiana17 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
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.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not Much Of A Tribute
Theo Robertson8 April 2004
Peter Ustinov died a few days ago and is traditional with stars dying the BBC showed a film as a hasty tribute , and what film did we get as a tribute ? SPARTACUS where Ustinov gives a show stopping performance as a slave trader ? Nope . Another Oscar performance this time from TOKAPI ? Nope . What about ASHANTI ? , it`s a film a lot of critics can`t stand but Ustinov`s politically incorrect performance had me in stiches . No can do . The film we got was VIVA MAX a slap stick comedy that seems a bit of a slap in the face as far as tributes go

Ustinov plays the title character of Max very well but to be honest VIVA MAX isn`t much of a comedy . It might be politically incorrect but it`s also very unsophisticated . The Mexicans decide to recapture the Alamo . Let`s be honest , does that sound like there`s going to be a lot of milage in this premise ? You`re right there isn`t so we`re treated to scenes featuring silly Mexican soldiers fighting off silly American soldiers with fire hoses and exchanges of dialogue along the lines of " Drop your weapons - No you drop your weapons - No you drop your weapons - No you drop your weapons " and it`s all done with the subtlety of THE BLUES BROTHERS another film where I didn`t start laughing
3 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Politically Correctness Takes a Well Deserved Beating
Gidget7 February 2001
If you love Jonathan Winters, Harry Morgan and Peter Ustinov you shouldn't miss this send up to nationalism and its short comings. However, if you find jokes about KKK members, who can't find white sheets because the local merchant only carries flower printed bedding, offensive then maybe this film is not for you.

As a former Texan who loves and can still laugh at some of the larger than life historical figures that make up the Texas Mystic, I can only say this was a fun film, and should not be missed even if it never makes it to DVD. I recalled this film fondly when watching the history textbook discussion at the beginning of Lone Star, and during my many viewings of Miss Congeniality too. This one's not only for those who have been to the Alamo, but will be extra fun for those who have.
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A good cast in a fairly dull, simple comedy
SimonJack2 October 2023
Well, the producers were able to get the Alamo Village shut down for a time to do some of the shooting for this film. That's a nice piece of history preserved in San Antonio, Texas. But other than that, there's not much to this simple and silly story, in which a modern Mexican general tries a plan to re-take the Alamo. Without any gunfire or fighting, of course. It's all done to bolster his image among his own troops and his people.

Besides Peter Ustinov, the cast has some well-known and liked actors who provide some funny moments. But, the little comedy and a very simple yet drawn-out plot don't do much to keep one awake. Except for Ustinov, Jonathan Winters and Harry Morrgan fans, most viewers will probably turn it off or find something else to do.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Wow, 1969!
jimel987 May 2007
I have not seen this movie since I saw it in the Drive-in when it was first released and I was a mere 9 years old. Yet, despite this, it amazes me that I can recall little snippets from this movie and the theme song has NEVER LEFT MY BRAIN! If that isn't a sign that a movie can have an impact, nothing is.

There's a chance that if I were to see it today, I might say, 'Gee, I guess that was amusing' and shrug it off, but I doubt it. I will have to watch for this movie and see it again and find out if I find it as hilarious today as I did then.

With a cast like this, odds are in favor of me enjoying it even more today.
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Incredibly realistic for a 1969 movie!
c3820008 September 2005
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.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of my all time favorites!
tutorsontap8 September 2017
One of my all time favorites and I'm a Daughter of the Republic of Texas! The views inside the Alamo and those on the streets of San Antonio are accurate and evocative. The actual history of the Alamo is one that should not be overlooked and this lighthearted tribute is among the most congenial.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Enjoyable nonsense!
JohnHowardReid4 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
A Mark Carliner Production. Copyright 18 December 1969 by Commonwealth United Entertainment, Inc. and Cine Nova Ltd. Released in the U.S.A. by Commonwealth United: 18 December 1969. U.K. release through Commonwealth United: floating from July 1970. 8,311 feet. 92 minutes. (Available from Amazon on an IDA Films NTSC DVD).

SYNOPSIS: Leading a small force of ill-assorted, ill-disposed troops across the United States border from Mexico, General Maximilian Rodrigues De Santos is planning to make a gesture more triumphant than appearing in an annual parade. He takes his grumbling "army", held together mainly by the untiring efforts of faithful, if none too scrupulous, Sergeant Valdez, to the city of San Antonio; and there, barely squeezing through the gates before closing time, he seizes the Alamo, now a shrine for flocks of tourists, two of whom are taken prisoner. San Antonio's Chief of Police, George Sylvester, and National Guard commander, Billy Joe Hallson, fail to move Max with threats or pleas. Eventually, fire-eating regular army General LaComber is called in to storm the Alamo, while inside the fortress one of Max's prisoners -- Paula Whitland, a young student — is rather fruitlessly trying to persuade Max that his motives for stealing the relic were revolutionary rather than romantic.

VIEWER'S GUIDE: A borderline case which just squeezes in under the wire of suitability for general exhibition.

COMMENT: An entertaining bit of nonsense that will delight Ustinov's many fans, this movie also comes equipped with many fascinating exteriors, actually photographed in San Antonio (and then expertly joined with interiors filmed a couple of worlds away in Rome's Cinecitta Studios).

Brilliantly directed by Jerry Paris who makes it seem that all the principals are really enjoying themselves in tailor-made roles. In fact, the scenario is very Cleverly written with all the variously intriguing characters and sub-plots coming together for a rousingly satisfying conclusion.

Observantly and wittily directed with wonderfully effective use of all the actual locations, the movie's top-drawer technical credits also include an outstandingly apposite music score, astute photography and most agreeably sharp film editing.

ANOTHER VIEW: Directed against such alluring targets as America's historical, civic and military pomposities, "Viva Max!" is a comic broadside more often scattering confetti than buckshot. — Monthly Film Bulletin.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Amusing and distracting at best, certainly no more than that
bob the moo25 July 2005
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.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Why Can't We all Learn to Live Together?
aramis-112-8048803 February 2023
Jim Lehrer (of PBS journalism fame) wrote a slight, comic novel turned into "Viva Max," a slight, comic movie with a remarkable cast.

Russian-rooted English actor Peter Ustinov plays a Mexican general (it's called acting, folks) determined to retake the Alamo.

John Astin (almost always reliable) is Max's able assistant. And, by the way, the only one on either side who comes to the General's little war with ammunition.

Americans include Harry Morgan, Jonathan Winters and a gung-ho Kenneth Mars.

This film could not be made today because of p.c. Censors. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? That depends on how invested you are in censorship and your views on the ability of gifted actors to play outside their own nationalistic boxes. P.c.-ism seems to oppose nationalism but likes chaining people to their type in carefully-Balkanized divisions. That's one of the myriad contradictions in its code that lets p.c.-ers say "Gotcha" whatever you do so they're always justified. Sort of like when accused witches were thrown in ponds and were deemed innocent if the didn't float.

This movie is like unto "Dr. Strangelove" and "The Russians are Coming, the Russians Are Coming."

"Dr. Strangelove"! I hear you cry. Am I saying this is a work of genius? No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying the message (if I may use such a godawful term) is similar. Of course, in "Doctor Strangelove" no one tried to stand in front of the message shouting "Look at me!" by condemning Peter Bull for using a Russian accent (or the great Peter Sellers for adopting an American one).

It's hardly "Doctor Strangelove" in quality, but it's one of a spate of little movies on a similar theme of why can't we just get along? And I think this movie has the final word on that line, which is my title.

Are the Mexicans held up for ridicule? Some. These, anyhow. But the Americans get it worse. And there's a little thread running through it that these are Chinese Communists invading the U. S. one of the best-kept secrets of the Cold War is that the Soviets and Chinese were more likely to start bombing each other. They even had an underreported scrap or two. Because Communists and Socialists can't get along with anyone, even Communists and Socialists of other denominations. Look at erstwhile allies the Soviet Socialists and the National Socialists.

I won't say "Viva Max" is a good movie. I won't say it's a bad movie. I won't say it's worth watching. Such determinations are invariably subjective and this movie, perhaps, is more subjective than most.

It depends on how open you are to the humor of former times. In this case, the Carnaby-Street, anything-goes, flower-power 1960s. This movie springs firmly from that time and is perhaps suitable to no other.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed