Review of Chuka

Chuka (1967)
Most audiences will want to "chuck" it
22 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
An unfortunate veneer of artificiality hangs over this otherwise rugged western, giving it a cheap feeling despite its impressive cast. Taylor plays the title character, a drifter and a gunman, who comes upon a distressed stagecoach and escorts it to a nearby fort. On the coach is a former love of his (Paluzzi) and her ward Vetri. Once inside, rather than finding the relief of security, Taylor and the others discover that the fort is actually manned by inept, almost mutinous soldiers and run by a stubborn tyrant with esteem issues. The colonel in charge (Mills) is about to incite an attack from local Indians because he reuses to aid them with food or supplies. Taylor urges him to desert the fort before everyone in it is slaughtered, as they are mightily outnumbered, but Mills is steadfast in his decision. Soon enough, Indians are attacking with rage as the fort's inhabitants options dwindle. Taylor, a reliable and appealing actor, was co-producer on this film. He clearly saw it as an opportunity to essay a serious, deep character. Unfortunately, his inherent amiability makes his tough character a harder sell than it might be for another actor. Still, he does a decent job. Oddly, his character's name comes from the fact that, as a boy, he could always be found around the "chuck wagon", hence the pronunciation "chuck-a" which looks like it would be "chew-ka" (why not just spell it "Chucka"?? Why not "Chuckie" or "Chuck-O" for that matter?) This is stupid and makes viewers glad that Taylor didn't hang out at the "sh*t hole" as a boy. Borgnine is pretty good as one of Mills devoted flunkies who clashes with Taylor in an extended fight sequence. Mills has a badly written role to play and comes very close to embarrassing himself at times. Thankfully, he had an Oscar with his name on it just around the corner for "Ryan's Daughter". Paluzzi, best known as a Bond girl from "Thunderball" is mostly made to stand around and stare, which she does attractively. Vetri barely registers. Her initial scenes are distracted by having a huge crueller stapled to her head. Later, she's basically furniture. If she'd been allowed to show any type of skin besides her face and hands, maybe she'd have been more memorable. Speaking of clothing, this must be a low point for the legendary costume designer Edith Head (if she even, in fact, had anything to do with the dull, non-evocative costumes.) A few other actors pop up in supporting roles including Whitmore as a boozy scout, Hayward as a jaded major and Cole (soon to be one of TV's "The Mod Squad") as a rebellious soldier. Noted voice-over actor Sirola appears as the stage coach driver and a pal to Taylor. Apart from Taylor and, to a lesser degree Borgnine and Mills, the only creative or arresting acting comes from the ever-reliable Whitmore. The script, derived from a novel by the novel's author, is not cohesive enough and really should have been streamlined in order to retain a particular focus. It allows too many characters and subplots to chip away, to no great effect, at the primary story. Even so, the movie is nearly undone by the horrendous lack of authenticity in the settings. A key outdoor scene features plainly artificial snow made up from chipped tissue paper. The fort is almost entirely constructed (obviously) indoors. All the distress to the set, such as char, aging, etc..., is done with all the skill of 4th grade art students. Time and again, the cheapness and confining restriction of an indoor set takes the viewer out of the moment. There is also an atrociously bad matte painting of an Indian camp. These things brand the film as being just above a TV show, if even that! Most of the action occurs at the tail end of the film and it isn't staged in any grand way. This is for die-hard Cavalry and Indian buffs or for fans of the stars only.
13 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed