I decided to take this film for review based purely on the fact that Connery and Bardot were paired. I had NO idea this was going to be a western; if I had, I wouldn?t have touched this with a barge pole. And rightly so, after watching it. I was hoping for a retro, European-style film whose 60?s d?cor and wardrobe would make up for a possibly mediocre film. The idea of Bardot slinking around in that cat-like manner of hers in dresses far too tight was impossible to resist, and a clean-cut, ?suited up? young Connery is always a sight to behold. AND WHAT I GOT WAS?..a ho-hum US western with a scruffy Connery playing a selfless drifter looking for someone to save, and a ridiculous looking Bardot tottering through the canyons in full 19th century hunting garb. Yes, hunting garb. YUK! We are led to believe that she is a European upper-class lady of refinement who hates all the self-serving conventions of her class, and thus is portrayed throughout the film as an independent, ?thinking? woman who is trapped like a beautiful bird in a gilded cage. Well, at least it explains her thick ACCENT! The credits tell me she had a dialogue coach ? WHY? Sounded like a French accent to me?she IS French, after all!

THIS is the clincher ? to top it all off - her ?signature? heavily eye-lined makeup was there with her ALL the way ? am I SERIOUSLY meant to believe that this is how they wore makeup then?! Not to mention those tousled, just-got-out-of-bed blonde tresses that materialized as if by magic as soon as her quaint little hunting hat was removed! I don?t THINK so! Yet, somehow, I can imagine?the film was trying to promote Bardot for the US market, and she still had to look as sexy as possible - even if it clashed with the pretext of the film!? Or perhaps Bardot just simply would not appear without her trademark ?look?? Either way ? it was really weird to watch. It didn?t work for me at all.

I guess the storyline itself was watchable ? once I got over Bardot?s wacky look in this film. I?ve never been into the whole ?cowboys and indians? style of Western, so this was another aspect that irked me. The hunting aspect also grated on me. The director, Edward Dmytryk, is a real Hollywood veteran ? he must?ve approached this film with a certain cynicism, surely! More money for the retirement fund, I wonder?

Synopsis follows: Shalako (Connery) is a lone drifter who comes to the aid of Countess Irina Lazaar (Bardot) when she is spotted fending off a small group of Indians who attack her and her guide when they wander off from the rest of their party ? a European hunting expedition. What they don?t know is that they are smack-bang in the middle of an Indian reservation, and the Indian?s want them out by sunrise or else. Naturally, the pompous old farts in the hunting party don?t wanna comply, so Shalako ? who seems to have a reasonable rapport with the Inidans - gets dragged into things. Shalako, being a gentleman, wants to keep an eye on the hapless women in this doomed party. What?s a lone drifter to do?

THE EXTRAS

Nothing at all besides scene selection. No language options.

CONCLUSION

You?ll have to be a true fan of all things ?western? to enjoy this one, I think! Bardot and Connery are a weird pairing in this 1968 film directed by Hollywood veteran Edward Dmytryk. Bardot is not playing her trademark sex-kitten role, nor Connery his suave, clean-cut urban male. If you ditch ALL expectations, you?ll find the film entertaining. But it?s not a great film by any stretch of the imagination. There are a few interesting scenes, and Honor Blackman?s role is quite odd. No extras, no languages. For $9.99 you could do worse, but then again?. If it wasn?t for Bardot looking so tragically miscast in this film, it would be quite forgettable.