TheLittleSongbird Elvis Presley was a hugely influential performer with one of the most distinctive singing voices of anybody. He embarked on a film career consisting of 33 films from 1956 to 1969, films that did well at the box-office but mostly panned critically (especially his later films) and while he was a highly charismatic performer he was never considered a great actor.'Charro' was not a success financially and was and still is critically derided. Seeing it for myself with no prejudice, and as someone who enjoyed most of his earlier films and considered Elvis a very capable actor when the material allowed it (which his early films did but quality dipped significantly in the mid-late 60s), to me 'Charro' is not as bad as its reputation. At the same time, although its departure from the fluff of his later films and its return to the grittier approach of his best films is to be applauded, of his westerns (this, 'Love Me Tender' and 'Flaming Star') it is by far his weakest.Not his worst film, 'Harum Scarum' and 'Stay Away, Joe' are far stronger contenders for that title and it is better than 'Paradise Hawaiian Style', 'Double Trouble', 'Kissin' Cousins', 'Frankie & Johnny' and 'Easy Come Easy Go' too. At the same time it is no 'King Creole', 'Flaming Star', 'Jailhouse Rock', 'Viva Las Vegas' and 'Loving You' either.Granted, the scenery is lovely and hardly cheap-looking. Songs are few here, which may be sad for fans but considering how bad a good deal of the songs in some of his later films have been it wasn't a big issue for me. The title song is very good and catchy, and there are some nice moments in the music score. Not everybody likes Elvis' performance here, he does have some uncomfortably stiff moments and he is criminally under-utilised but he is nowhere near as bored-looking or non-trying as most of his late 60s period and he looks great. Victor French is suitably menacing.On the other hand, Solomon Sturgess shouts his way through his role and overacts embarrassingly. Ina Balin struggles with a very poorly written and misused character. The music score mostly is repetitive and sounds like it belongs better in a low-budget film riffed by Mystery Science Theater.Characters are underwritten and underused, with some very abrupt situations that don't ring true. The dialogue is stilted and not gritty enough (the atmosphere feeling somewhat safe and bland) with one too many impregnated pauses, the scenery is not done justice by the static photography and slipshod editing and the direction is far too made for TV. The story started off pretty good, but drags badly in the middle and becomes more and more ridiculous until the awfully anti-climactic and insultingly bone-headed ending.In summary, not that bad but Elvis deserved far better than this. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Edgar Soberon Torchia Not very convincing western, with standard acting from its cast, "Charro!" has a constant homoerotic undercurrent that has been overlooked by almost everybody, not to mention the incestuous tone of the relationship between two villainous brothers. Its real problem is the credibility of the situation (and I do not know much about ballistics), related to a valuable historic cannon that has been stolen from the Mexican army. Presley is framed as the thief and he must clear his name. In the cast, Solomon Sturges (son of famous director Preston Sturges), maybe not a bad actor, overdoes all the scenes he is in (no wonder he had a brief career); Tony Young does a clichéd Latino impersonation, and Ina Balin is as misused as usual.

ThePhrozenPhoenix So I bought a new box set of Elvis movies. In it was "Charro." I thought it looked refreshing to see Elvis play a more serious role instead of the usual musical. I did some research and found this generally to be poorly received. Well I watched the film anyway. . .I honestly was expecting this to be utter garbage. The first five minutes went by. I thought it was pretty good so far - I was wondering when it would start to suck. 20 minutes go by. I was being drawn into the plot and finding the action riveting and exciting, with a nice musical score, too (Still isn't bad yet).Then I get to the climax - - - Original and intense. What was so bad about it? The acting was solid, it had a good script, and I found it a very pleasurable experience. Is it just the general bias towards any Elvis film after the '50s or is it because it's not some hoity toity British trash? I say, if you're a fan of westerns and/or Elvis. You should certainly give this movie a chance.*** / **** stars.

noyb cutshall After 30 films of watching Presley sing to everyone including the guy he just beat up, can you imagine trying to take Presley serious in a western? Not for fans like me. This film could have been a hit for Clint Eastwood or John Wayne but Presley...no way. Presley sings only the title song and only a fan with more time on his hands than brain power could sit through the first 30 minutes. Presley was showing obvious signs of extreme boredom during this film and you can tell his movie contracts were close to being finished. The unshaven, dirty western appearance of Presley was not tolerated by fans in 1969 and fans have not changed, So even from the biggest fan, Charro does not come with a recommendation.