Pretty solid, entertaining western, could have been better, but worth watching.
I was hooked for most of the first half; I particularly thought the scene where Ford (as Parrish) confronts Jaekel's character was thrilling, as was the scene where Ford tries some guerrilla warfare against the Anchor boys. But this scene also marked the turning point in the film where I started questioning small things.
****THE REST OF THE REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS****
In the scene where Parrish allows the thugs from Anchor to burn his ranch (in order to entrap them as they make their getaway), the dialogue between Parrish and the Warner Anderson character bugged me. The scene would have been better without so much talk. It seemed ridiculous. "You're going to let them burn the ranch?!" It was clear from the action - we didn't need it spelled out. In fact it's much more fun for the audience if they get to figure things out for themselves - even if they don't get it at first. Not sure I can explain it.
(And then Anderson had a short speech - though it seemed long, in that particular situation - about how attached he was to the old place. I thought, "This guy must be driving Parrish to distraction with all this dull talk." It really diminished the suspense of the scene to have to listen to this nonsense.)
Then, I found the ambush itself not very thrilling. And it seemed, from then on, nothing was really as good as it had been. Pretty good, but not as good. Not as believable.
For one thing, the character played by Ford, the character that drove the plot up to that point, seemed to be pushed into the background, somehow, once the Anchor Ranch burned. (And where was he, anyway, in that scene?)
It was almost as if the writer needed to beef up the role of the wife so that a big star like Barabara Stanwyck would agree to play it. It became more about her, and what I felt were her somewhat unbelievable actions following her assumption that she had caused her husband to die in the fire. I don't know why but I didn't buy this. She was a careful woman and an expert plotter and schemer. I think she would have somehow made sure he was dead before she went around stupidly acting as if he was. I'm not sure how she would have been able to verify it; nonetheless, going off half cocked was not very believable, it seemed more like a scripted plot twist than real life, and just served to remind me I was watching a movie. And a plot-heavy one, at that.
I also felt that the film was trying to say something about mindless violence, and did so, very well, up to a point. Drawing us in by getting us frustrated at how Ford is being railroaded, then thrilling us when he does fight back, then allowing us to see that the violence, which at first seemed necessary, has gone out of control - all this was great, but the way Ford's character was written, he never really seemed to change. If he had seemed, at first, peaceful, then forced into violence, then consumed by revenge until it started eating at him, and the had some kind of epiphany - that would have been dramatically better than anything I saw on the screen. Also, I felt the film should have reached some kind of dramatic climax when the Dianne Foster character tells off the "violent men," but somehow it didn't come off.
Another thing that was, unfortunately, weaker than necessary, was the bit where Stanwyck sees her husband alive and freaks out and runs off and gets killed by Brian Keith's little girlfriend. It was clear this was strictly to satisfy the production code. But this could have been done with finesse, and it was done rather poorly. It just wasn't directed well, so it came off like a "wtf?" moment instead of the scheming bitch getting her just deserts. (Part of this had to do with the film's failure to develop the Mexcan girl enough for us to care what she does. She just seems to be there to serve the plot.)
As for the performances, they were pretty much excellent by the leads - Ford and Robinson were particularly great - as was Basil Ruysdael as a farmer whose son is killed by the Archor boys, and too many others to mention. May Wynn (from The Caine Mutiny, Columbia, 1954) though gorgeous, was somewhat weak as Ford's fiancée. The male actors were uniformly believable as western characters.
Despite its faults it's an enjoyable and entertaining western - plenty of action, great location shooting, and a score by Max Steiner, too!
The Anchor ranch had some pretty modern-looking furnishings - but this is typical of 50's westerns. All that seemed to be missing was the 32 inch TV set in one corner of the living room.
I was hooked for most of the first half; I particularly thought the scene where Ford (as Parrish) confronts Jaekel's character was thrilling, as was the scene where Ford tries some guerrilla warfare against the Anchor boys. But this scene also marked the turning point in the film where I started questioning small things.
****THE REST OF THE REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS****
In the scene where Parrish allows the thugs from Anchor to burn his ranch (in order to entrap them as they make their getaway), the dialogue between Parrish and the Warner Anderson character bugged me. The scene would have been better without so much talk. It seemed ridiculous. "You're going to let them burn the ranch?!" It was clear from the action - we didn't need it spelled out. In fact it's much more fun for the audience if they get to figure things out for themselves - even if they don't get it at first. Not sure I can explain it.
(And then Anderson had a short speech - though it seemed long, in that particular situation - about how attached he was to the old place. I thought, "This guy must be driving Parrish to distraction with all this dull talk." It really diminished the suspense of the scene to have to listen to this nonsense.)
Then, I found the ambush itself not very thrilling. And it seemed, from then on, nothing was really as good as it had been. Pretty good, but not as good. Not as believable.
For one thing, the character played by Ford, the character that drove the plot up to that point, seemed to be pushed into the background, somehow, once the Anchor Ranch burned. (And where was he, anyway, in that scene?)
It was almost as if the writer needed to beef up the role of the wife so that a big star like Barabara Stanwyck would agree to play it. It became more about her, and what I felt were her somewhat unbelievable actions following her assumption that she had caused her husband to die in the fire. I don't know why but I didn't buy this. She was a careful woman and an expert plotter and schemer. I think she would have somehow made sure he was dead before she went around stupidly acting as if he was. I'm not sure how she would have been able to verify it; nonetheless, going off half cocked was not very believable, it seemed more like a scripted plot twist than real life, and just served to remind me I was watching a movie. And a plot-heavy one, at that.
I also felt that the film was trying to say something about mindless violence, and did so, very well, up to a point. Drawing us in by getting us frustrated at how Ford is being railroaded, then thrilling us when he does fight back, then allowing us to see that the violence, which at first seemed necessary, has gone out of control - all this was great, but the way Ford's character was written, he never really seemed to change. If he had seemed, at first, peaceful, then forced into violence, then consumed by revenge until it started eating at him, and the had some kind of epiphany - that would have been dramatically better than anything I saw on the screen. Also, I felt the film should have reached some kind of dramatic climax when the Dianne Foster character tells off the "violent men," but somehow it didn't come off.
Another thing that was, unfortunately, weaker than necessary, was the bit where Stanwyck sees her husband alive and freaks out and runs off and gets killed by Brian Keith's little girlfriend. It was clear this was strictly to satisfy the production code. But this could have been done with finesse, and it was done rather poorly. It just wasn't directed well, so it came off like a "wtf?" moment instead of the scheming bitch getting her just deserts. (Part of this had to do with the film's failure to develop the Mexcan girl enough for us to care what she does. She just seems to be there to serve the plot.)
As for the performances, they were pretty much excellent by the leads - Ford and Robinson were particularly great - as was Basil Ruysdael as a farmer whose son is killed by the Archor boys, and too many others to mention. May Wynn (from The Caine Mutiny, Columbia, 1954) though gorgeous, was somewhat weak as Ford's fiancée. The male actors were uniformly believable as western characters.
Despite its faults it's an enjoyable and entertaining western - plenty of action, great location shooting, and a score by Max Steiner, too!
The Anchor ranch had some pretty modern-looking furnishings - but this is typical of 50's westerns. All that seemed to be missing was the 32 inch TV set in one corner of the living room.