I had pretty high expectations for this movie. Comcast's guide listed it with four stars, which is rare. It also shows up on some "Top Western" lists.
It is a very good movie and deserves high praise, especially considering that it was ahead of its time in terms of psychological realism. There is well developed tension and good solid plot development. It held my interest until the end and I cared about the characters. I also appreciated the minimal violence.
However, it has a number of shortcomings which knocks it out of my own "Top Westerns" list. Here are some of my objections, not necessarily in order of importance:
It is a very good movie and deserves high praise, especially considering that it was ahead of its time in terms of psychological realism. There is well developed tension and good solid plot development. It held my interest until the end and I cared about the characters. I also appreciated the minimal violence.
However, it has a number of shortcomings which knocks it out of my own "Top Westerns" list. Here are some of my objections, not necessarily in order of importance:
- Gregory Peck is an ultra-reserved actor and he talks like he's constipated. This makes for a great Atticus Finch, but charismatic gunfighter? A credit to his acting skills that he pulls it off, but he's fundamentally miscast. Compare to Victor Mature's Doc Holiday in "My Darling Clementine".
- Very little humor is employed. There's a nice scene in the jailhouse that parodies the town stuffed shirts and a scene where Sheriff Street pours water on a couple of guys, but otherwise zero comic relief. You want to be a top movie, you have to make me laugh and cry. "The Gunfighter" made me cry, but not laugh.
- Ringo is morally too one-dimensional. Are we really supposed to believe that he gained the reputation as the most fearsome gunfighter in the West, yet never once shot anyone except in self defense? Eastwood got this right in "Unforgiven". We like Munney, but he was a legit bad ass.
- Speaking of "Unforgiven", Will Munney is tortured by guilt over the people he killed. Ringo? Not a chance. Apparently, everyone he killed deserved it. HE'S the victim, wallowing in self pity because he can't settle down and become a rancher. Just in case it wan't completely clear to us how good, innocent and pure he is, the plot has an old man try to bush wack him over a killing he didn't even commit!!
- Where are the Indians? For me, a "classic" Western should deal with this issue is some way. I understand Indians can't be central to every story idea for a Western, but at the absolute minimum, there should be an Indian character i.e. Ned Logan's wife in "Unforgiven", the drunken Indian who shoots up the bar in "My Darling Clementine". A classic Western should not pretend these people didn't exist.
- This was strictly a backlot production with no landscapes or location shooting. I realize this is a problem with "town" Westerns, but most movies of this subgenre find ways to work in some Western scenery.
- Skip Homeier was mediocre as the obnoxious, hot head punk. This stock character is a critical counterpoint to the stoic hero. This is especially true for the low-charisma Peck. Compare Homeier's performance to guys that did this right: Jack Lord in "Man of the West", Chuck Conners in "The Big Country" or the master, Lee Marvin in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence".