For years Elvis Presley had been desperate to do a movie as a drama character with a non singing part. He was also wanting to a spaghetti western. He had done well in his earlier years with "Love Me Tender", "Flaming Star", Wild In The Country", and "King Creole". These parts had singing in them but it was a chance to stretch his ability to do drama. Spaghetti westerns were still hot so he thought he had finally found the project he was looking for.This was intended to be a TV movie and Elvis thought this would be an opening for him to take his movie career in a different direction. A TV movie would not rely on the box office to carry it. It failed in the box office since it was not supposed to be released to the theaters and had a TV movie look to it. Colonel Parker did not want him to do TV movies and this was probably a set up to keep Presley in line. Parker was always worried about losing his meal ticket. Presley almost fired Parker he did his TV Special in 1968.As mentioned earlier, it was a well made movie that should have succeeded but it was never meant to be released to the theaters. He got to look like a part and he and the movie had a gritty look to it. Charles Marquis Warren was one of the premier western directors then but most of his work was TV so with the supporting actors mostly coming from TV, it did not fly then in the theaters. At that time, it was hard for actors to do both TV and movies and be bankable. Today, that is not the case so maybe Charro was ahead of its time. Elvis could have had a whole new career with this movie if only he had gotten the right support. Maybe he would have lived longer since he would have had a new interest to stimulate him. Rest in peace, Elvis.

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

Released in 1969, "Charro" stars Elvis as Jess Wade, an ex-outlaw whose former gang seeks to pin the blame on him for stealing a gold cannon from a Mexican shrine. Wade ends up trying to protect the Arizona town that holds one of the gang members in jail from the gang's cannon assault.If nothing else, "Charro" shows that Elvis could've easily been a Western hero in Eastwood's league if he chose to keep with it and got better scripts. Obviously influenced by the rise of the Spaghetti Westerns of the mid-late 60s, this is easily Elvis' best Western of the three he did, the others being 1956' "Love Me Tender" and 1960's "Flaming Star." These prior Westerns had too much of what made Westerns in general laughable before the 60s. There are many exceptions, like "The Last Wagon" from 1956" but -- generally speaking -- the downside of Westerns before the 60s include contrived plot elements, an unrealistic vibe, bad music, white actors playing Natives and dumb Indian dialogue. "Charro" is the least guilty of these sins of Elvis' three Westerns."Charro" has a good first and last act, but a weak mid-section. The score and Arizona locations are great, the cast too, but the movie's hampered by the lame second act and a TV-production vibe.The movie runs 98 minutes and was shot in Apache Junction and Gold Canyon, Arizona, with further studio work done in California.GRADE: Borderline C+/B- (or 5.5/10)

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.