User reviews

"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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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 ****

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fantastic what-if story. They picked only serious actors for this politically correct film on manifest destiny. Peter Ustinov is General Maximilian Rodrigues de Santo. Although the story revolves around him many others help carry the story such as John Astin Sergeant Valdez who keeps the general out of trouble and Jonathan Winters as General Billy Joe Hallson of the National Guard.

This film was made in San Antonio. Written by Lehrer, James

The basic story is Mexican general is going to retake the Alamo as an act of heroism for his men. What happens if he does take the Alamo? How will the U. S. government respond? Can there be a positive outcome?

Seems this film was banned in Mexico for some staring reason.

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.

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.

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.