Ever wonder why some movies don’t quite work even when everything one might reasonably associate with success seems to be in place, on paper at least. I’m not talking about outright flops here, failures where all the flaws are appear to be almost proudly displayed. No, I mean those vaguely disappointing films, the kind we come to initially with all kinds of heightened and elevated expectations due to the pedigree of the people involved. When those expectations aren’t met there is often an aftertaste to the experience that has a tartness and bitterness to it. Such films can rankle in a way a more brazen turkey never will. Ten Wanted Men (1955) was one of those titles that had provoked dissatisfaction in me when I viewed it. The deficit between what it promised and what it delivered was a source of discontent for me for a long time, and so I thought I might revisit it to see how it would fare when approached in a different frame of mind. Read on…
Western movies whose plots revolve around range wars are legion, that collision of ambition, greed and vanity providing storylines and thematic possibilities that are ripe for exploitation. When a little extra spice in the form of romantic rivalry or sexual obsession is added to the mix, it’s not unreasonable to think that what is finally served up will be even more tantalizing. Such is the case with Ten Wanted Men, where after an exciting and tense yet ultimately deceptive opening, the character of John Stewart (Randolph Scott) is introduced. He’s just had a harmless laugh at the expense of his greenhorn brother (Lester Matthews) and nephew Howie (Skip Homeier). Stewart is a big man in the territory, and the lavish party he is hosting is a testament to his generosity and largesse. As this is a fairly quick moving picture not much time is wasted in presenting the main source of conflict which will carry the viewer through till the climax. This is embodied in the person of Wick Campbell (Richard Boone), a neighbor of Stewart’s and a rival for the right to dominate the land.
If that all sounds somewhat feudal, the theme is further alluded to by the fact that Campbell not only yearns for but also feels himself entitled to the affections of Maria Segura (Donna Martell), the young Mexican girl he has nurtured. That she does not reciprocate that feeling is one thing, but matters are brought to a head by the interest Howie shows in the girl. When she seeks sanctuary and protection under Stewart’s roof all of Campbell’s pent up resentment and thwarted passion burst forth. Emotionally burnt and humiliated, he must have vengeance, and now it won’t be enough to merely supplant Stewart as top dog, there is a debt that must be repaid in full and in kind. So it is that Campbell hires a crew of gunmen led by Scavo (Leo Gordon) with the aim of drawing his rivals into a shooting war.
So, did Ten Wanted Men fare better this time round? Well, yes and no. It is not some misunderstood and unfairly maligned gem. However, it’s not an irredeemable dud either. Director Bruce Humberstone is not someone with extensive experience of the western, I mainly think of him as the man in charge of a handful of entertaining Charlie Chan features as well as the proto-noir I Wake Up Screaming. That said, his handling of this movie is fine, if not especially remarkable. The Old Tucson locations are attractively shot by Wilfrid Cline, who has the frequently used interiors looking good too, while the essentially minimalist score by Paul Sawtell has a moody and vaguely melancholy quality to it that I found appealing. These are all more or less pluses with the sharp pace and abundance of incident contributing a little more weight to that side of the scales.
Nevertheless, it’s not a wholly satisfying experience, certainly not in the way the level of talent involved might encourage one to believe. I think it stems from the writing, or aspects of it at any rate. The script is by Kenneth Gamet from a story by Harriet Frank and Irving Ravetch. Gamet had scripted a number good westerns, many featuring Randolph Scott – A Lawless Street, Coroner Creek, Man in the Saddle, The Doolins of Oklahoma to name just a few. Harriet Frank had a compact but extraordinarily strong list of credits. She was a writer on the underrated Silver River, provided the story for Nicholas Ray’s Run for Cover, would go on adapt two Martin Ritt/Paul Newman pictures in Hud and Hombre (the latter offering a memorable role for Richard Boone) from novels by Larry McMurtry and Elmore Leonard respectively, and scripted a Vincente Minnelli film I’m particularly fond of in Home from the Hill. As such, we are not talking about writers with a poor track record here. And yet some things don’t quite gel.
There is not much to fault in the performance of Randolph Scott, and in fairness there rarely was in his work throughout the 1950s, but the character itself is a little lacking. He starts out with that characteristic gallantry firmly to the fore and then later lets the harder core become more apparent as circumstances conspire to try him. However, there’s a flatness to the arc this character describes, as though the experiences he has do not appear to shape him and there is no sense that I can detect of his having learned anything about himself by the time the credits roll. Then there is Boone, a brooding and truculent presence early on, he grows more tightly coiled and repressed as he relentlessly applies pressure to his enemies. It’s only near the end though that another dimension makes an appearance, when his desperation and frustration strip away restraint as he confronts Martell and confesses the full extent of his infatuation. This is one of the better and more intense moments yet it comes too late in proceedings. Of course Scott and his producing partner Harry Joe Brown clearly saw enough in what Boone put on screen to hire him for the pivotal role of Frank Usher in The Tall T.
Skip Homeier must have made an impression too as he would also get cast in both The Tall T and the later Comanche Station. Jocelyn Brando has the biggest female role in the picture but her romance with Scott has little spark about it and it’s largely superfluous. In a crowded field of talented supporting players Leo Gordon is as malevolent as ever and one could hardly ask for a finer chief henchman. Lee Van Cleef makes the most of a showy bit part and Denver Pyle exits relatively early, but not before his slyly provocative troublemaker brings matters to a head. Finally, mentions ought to be made for the likes of Kathleen Crowley, Dennis Weaver, Tom Powers and Alfonso Bedoya.
Ten Wanted Men came out on DVD from Sony years ago, looking sharp and colorful in an open-matte presentation. If it has subsequently appeared anywhere in high definition, I don’t recall hearing about it. To the best of my knowledge, I’ve never heard anything especially positive about this movie and I can’t say it enthused me much when I first saw it. Returning to it now after the passage of a good many years, I still wouldn’t go so far as to say it deserves reassessment. Nevertheless, it’s far from an objectively bad piece of work. Certain aspects of the writing and characterization lack the fire it needs to raise it yet there are points of interest and enjoyment to be found as there are in almost all of Scott’s westerns. All told, I can’t say I regretted revisiting this title.
Riding the High Country 
Colin, good write-up of a not very highly regarded Scott-Brown Western. I first viewed this oater on tv, by way of the WREC Channel 3 EARLY MOVIE, out of Memphis, Tennessee, in 1969. As we know, not every movie is a winner and sometimes it is hard to put a finger on just why it isn’t. Yes, TEN WANTED MEN(filmed 1954, released 1955) should have been better, but I think it is okay viewing, although I would rather view THE TALL T(1956) any day of the week.
LikeLike
“Okay viewing” is probably as good a way to describe the movie as any, Walter. Trying to compare work is unfair and often unproductive – although the temptation to do so can be powerful – and puts a movie such as this at a disadvantage, an insurmountable one in many ways. True, it’s not near the standard of any of the Boetticher films, but then few movies are.
LikeLike
Colin, I agree about comparing TEN WANTED MEN with THE TALL T, because I think it’s unproductive and puts TEN WANTED MEN at a disadvantage. TEN WANTED MEN has some good things going for it, which you put forth in your write-up.
For me, Leo Gordon is always a pleasure to see in anything and I enjoyed his performance here, especially when he was digging at Richard Boone’s character.
LikeLike
Yeah, I thought the shifting nature of the dynamic between those two was very well done.
LikeLike
Due to Colin’s description of Boone’s scenes and the anticipated southwestern landscapes (a planned retirement location now a dead dream thanks to human driven climate change), I’m inclined to see “Ten Wanted Men”, at least if one of the local public libraries has the DVD. In “Tall T” many of Boone’s deliveries (including those to O’ Sullivan) were riveting. In fact, to the extent that they were uncomfortably so is what to me made that movie one of Scott’s most unpredictably thrilling.
LikeLike
If you have an opportunity to check the movie out without hassle or unnecessary cost then that would be great, Greg. Just don’t go in expecting to see Boone in a dry run for Frank Usher. He grows into his part and makes it more interesting and involving as he goes along but it’s a very different role. The location work is much more limited than is the case in the Boetticher movie too. There is some in the opening and a lot of town stuff shot in Old Tucson, but there is plenty of interior work.
LikeLike
It struck me that what largely drove viewers probably disliked about “Ten Wanted Men” was that almost the story and action hinged simplistically on Campbell’s obsession with Maria, and which drove him to horrific and sadistic acts, like murdering that farmer for his land abutting Stewart’s. And then Stewart’s brother, bullet by bullet. Of course, what I admired was Boone’s performance, with a depth and dimension I’ve rarely witnessed of such character portrayals. Throughout several scenes we see a hideously cruel killer; the same man drowning in loneliness and self-hatred, though with humility to show love for a woman he has no chance of having but then rejects to save himself. I felt like I was watching the unfolding psychic variant of a Norman Bates or Rod Steiger’s Christopher Gill.
What I also found unique and admirable was that this was the first Scott movie I recall seeing where his character too had hardly a noble past. That was pointed in that first scene during the gala by none other than Campbell, who described Stewart’s empire as being built on deceit if not outright swindles, to which Stewart offers no denials. Had proceeding plot lines echoed and expanded on this it might have made for a far more complex and exciting movie.
LikeLike
Those are all good points. There is plenty bubbling beneath the surface, but not enough is explored as it ought to have been.
LikeLike
Colin, you have defined underrated. It means you like a film or performance others do not care for, and I agree about Silver River. As for as Ten Wanted Men is concerned, It stinks, no analysis is required. What a bore.
LikeLike
Barry, I wouldn’t try to argue that this movie was underrated, that would be going too far for me and I’m certainly not blind to its flaws. I can only say I came away from this viewing feeling slightly better than I had before.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Colin, you have defined underrated. It means you like a film or performance others do not care for
I think that for all of us there’s a handful of movies that we love and that nobody else seems to like. We’re mystified that others don’t like these movies, and other people are mystified by the fact that we do like these films.
For me one such movie is Land of the Pharaohs. I’m aware of its faults. It was a flop. It seriously derailed Howard Hawks’ career. It attracted some scathing reviews. It still brings out the snarkiness in modern reviewers. It causes people to use that word that always makes me see red – camp.
But I’ve seen it countless times and I love it every time.
The charm of most Hollywood historical epics is that they’re so fake. We don’t believe for a second that we’re really in Ancient Rome, or Babylon, or mediæval England, or whatever. Land of the Pharaohs actually has me believing I’ve been transported to ancient Egypt. I actually think it may be the least camp of all Hollywood historical epics.
LikeLike
When you get right down to it, everything in filmmaking is fake, although I think I might prefer the word unreal as it carries less negative baggage around with it. Sometimes when people comment on movie they focus too much on this, setting up some kind of unattainable and frankly undesirable gold standard for artistic expression. Truth and honesty in the writing and performances – and I do not mean something as trite as fidelity to historical fact or source texts when I say that – matter much more. Other opinions are of course available.
LikeLike
Colin, on the whole I agree. I dislike the cult of realism. I like movies that deal in unreality, or exaggerated or heightened reality, or distorted reality or even pure fantasy.
But I do find that a lot of historical epics fail to achieve the right kind of interesting unreality. In a lot of epics of the 50s the characters are just 1950s Americans in historical costumes. More modern historical epics just have 21st century Americans in historical costumes. Land of the Pharaohs on the other hand really seems like it takes place in a different time and a different place, a world in which the rules are different, in which people look at the world and at life in a different way.
Historical or fantasy movies should transport us into a world that is not like the world we live in.
LikeLike
Transporting us to a world that is not like the one we live in is a nice way of putting it and does make sense in relation to kinds of historical movies, at least those set in a particularly distant past.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I find myself at odds with Barry on this one as I find this film more appealing than “SILVER RIVER” personally – but hey! if we all agreed about everything how boring would that be?
I rate “TEN WANTED MEN” as ‘lesser Scott’ but not ‘least Scott’ (“SHOOTOUT AT MEDICINE BEND” e.g.). which is unusual for one of the Scott-Brown productions for Columbia. Whilst I think of it as ‘lesser Scott’ I think it still stands up against many other westerns of the period.
I agree though that it is in the writing that any weakness lies (the cast is terrific generally) which again is unusual for Kenneth Gamet who provided screenplays for several of my absolute favourite Scotts.
LikeLike
Lesser Scott is an apt enough descriptor, and there is generally something of worth in any of his 50s pictures. OK, obviously some of undoubtedly great and in a whole different league, but even efforts such as this should not b written off entirely. I wouldn’t refer to this as “a stinker” myself – it’s weaker than I’d like and it frustrates me that the ingredients don’t come together more satisfactorily but there are far worse westerns out there. It puzzles me too what went wrong with the script as it has potential and the people responsible were very capable.
By the way, I have a copy of Shoot-Out at Medicine Bend awaiting a rewatch, but my one previous viewing left me distinctly underwhelmed and I keep putting it off.
LikeLike
OK, gang, seems I too have to come to the defense of this movie. It may not be Scott’s all-time best, but for me this is a very solid entry into his filmography.
The cast alone is to die for. Both Richard Boone and Leo Gordon are charismatic and at their (evil) best. It’s nice to see Skip Homeier not play a punk for once.
I agree about Jocelyn Brando though, probably Scott’s blandest leading lady. A flame-thrower couldn’t ignite any sparks between them. They came off more like brother and sister.
LikeLike
I quite pleased to see some support being expressed for this movie. It will never be a favorite with me but I feel better about it now than I once did.
Margot, a cast like this is tough to be tough on. Just watching these guys on screen together is enjoyable in itself.
LikeLike
A fair and apt review of one of Scott’s weaker westerns. To add, Bruce Humberstone also gave us a mildly entertaining swashbuckling, The Purple Mask starring Tony Curtis.
LikeLike
And that is a movie I have yet to catch up with, Chris. As I recall, although I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m mistaken, it’s not turned up anywhere in its correct aspect ratio.
LikeLike
I think you are right that there is no correct aspect ratio of this. Saw it some time ago on You Tube. First saw it in the 50s as a weekend matinee. Nothing special, standard maskman rider ala Zorro in the Napoleonic era.
LikeLike
“It’s the writing. It’s always the writing.”
Who said that? Musta bin me.
I’m no expert Colin. Don’t claim to be. But in the Golden Age of Westerns
there was a pile that weren’t so golden.
Even Randolph made a couple of clunkers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sometimes I think I fixate on writing, but weakness there can hurt a movie a lot.
Yes, there are indeed lots of below par westerns to be found (something which is true of all genres of course) and there’s no sense denying that. Scott generally gave a boost to anything by his presence alone, which is not to say he could rescue everything he appeared in.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like Jerry’s description terms “lesser Scott” and “least Scott.” Also, I think that the “lesser” and “least” Scott movies are okay viewing, as far as I’m concerned and I think they stack up well with many other Western Movies made at the time. I’m going to have to have a return visit with SHOOT-OUT AT MEDICINE BEND(filmed 1956, released 1957), because it has been awhile since I viewed it. I recall seeing it as more of a Western Comedy. It isn’t a Scott-Brown Production and is written by John Tucker Battle and D.D. Beauchamp and directed by Richard L. Bare, who directed 166 episodes of the CBS-TV comedy series GREEN ACRES(1965-71).
I like a good story, so the writing is very important too me. Like Jerry wrote, screenwriter Kenneth Gamet scripted some of my favorite Randolph Scott Westerns, also. CORONER CREEK(filmed 1947, released 1948) and MAN IN THE SADDLE(1951) were both scripted by Gamet. Of course, good source material always helps. Western novelists Luke Short and Ernest Haycox wrote the two novels mentioned above respectively. Gamet received story and screenplay credit for THE DOOLINS OF OKLAHOMA(filmed 1948, released 1949), which is a movie that I like.
Margo, here is one for you, if you haven’t viewed it already. A LAWLESS STREET(1955) with Randolph Scott and Angela Lansbury. I’m not going to give anything away here, but it was scripted by Kenneth Gamet from a novel THE MARSHAL OF MEDICINE BEND by Brad Ward(Samuel A. Peeples) and directed by Joseph H. Lewis. Also, a Scott-Brown Production. I think it is a good one.
LikeLike
Yes, I agree, Walter, that good source material makes a load of difference. I like “A LAWLESS STREET” too even though I’ve not read any of Brad Ward’s work.
“THE DOOLINS OF OKLAHOMA” that you mention is among my favourite Scott films and I am surprised it is not mentioned more when discussing Scott’s films.
LikeLike
Regarding The Doolins of Oklahoma, I like it too but might the fact it seems to have been harder to view than some of Scott’s other movies be a factor?
LikeLike
DOOLINS can be viewed now on YouTube. The quality pretty good at 1080 HD. Here’s the link……….https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZVhe6b49rQ
LikeLiked by 1 person
Walter, yes, I’ve seen The Lawless Street. It’s a good one. I think I’ve seen all of Scott’s Westerns now. At least I think so.
LikeLike
Margo, that’s a lot of Westerns and most are well worth viewing, in my opinion.
Randolph Scott, thank you.
LikeLike
Jerry, THE DOOLINS OF OKLAHOMA is a favorite of mine, also. The movie has a lot going for it. Look at the cast, which has George Macready as a good guy lawman, instead of playing his usual heavy. A Scott-Brown production written by Kenneth Gamet and directed by
Gordon Douglas. Charles Lawton, Jr. directing the good black and white photography and Yakima Canutt second unit director. I realize that the story is about real Historical people and the movie plays loose with some of the facts, but I think it’s well done and it has the right ending. I’m saying all this, by way of being related to the real Bill Doolin. My Grand Aunt Eulia May Patterson Doolin married into the Doolin family.
While viewing THE DOOLINS OF OKLAHOMA I got the feeling that no matter if Bill Doolin(Randolph Scott) tried to go straight, that he was doomed to fail and I’m glad the moviemakers saw it this way.
Why isn’t the movie mentioned more when discussing Randolph Scott’s films? That’s a good question. Well, as we know a lot of ink and computer print have been used in critical discussions of the Boetticher/Scott-Brown, Peckinpah, and the De Toth/ Scott-Brown Westerns(less so, of course). Those deserve their accolades and more, but there are other deserving Scott Westerns out there to be talked and written about, aren’t there? Toby Roan will be devoting a couple of chapters in his forthcoming book on MAN IN THE SADDLE(1951) and THE LAWLESS STREET(1955), which will be good. Colin is a very good writer and he appreciates Randolph Scott Westerns. Is there a book in the future? I think there could be.
Colin, you asked, ” might the fact it seems to have been harder to view than some of Scott’s other movies be a factor?” Has THE DOOLINS OF OKLAHOMA been harder to view? Thinking about this, it could be. The movie eluded me for years and the local tv programmers in my neck of the woods showed a lot of Randolph Scott Westerns. I first viewed it when I bought a vhs tape titled HOLLYWOOD MOVIE GREATS: THE DOOLINS OF OKLAHOMA released in 1990 by GOODTIMES HOME VIDEO. It had been released earlier, in around 1987 by COLUMBIA-TRISTAR on vhs. It aired on Cable tv’s CINEMAX in 1990 and was shown on TURNER NETWORK TV from 1991-94. Since then it has been shown on TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES, ENCORE/WESTERNS, and currently it airs a lot on GRIT. Also, there is a dvd out there released by somebody. It’s out there to see, if anyone wants to view it, bad enough. I’m grateful for today’s technology, which is a “Golden Age” for viewing.
LikeLike
Colin
After rooting around in a few of my storage boxes I unearthed an unopened copy of TEN WANTED MEN. Lol, I must have bought it a decade ago. Anyways, I discovered that it was a Scott film I had never seen before. There are more of the man’s films I need to take in, so it is always nice to see a new one. A little on the weak side if forced to comment. Trimming 10 minutes or so would have helped. But as we all say, Scott is Scott.
Having said that, your write-up was a fair assessment of the film.
Gord
LikeLike
I wonder if you might feel better about the film on a subsequent viewing, Gord. For myself, coming back to it after a less than enthusiastic first viewing was a more positive experience. The flaws were still there but I found I was noticing the good things more this time.
LikeLike
Colin
LOL !!!!!
I had already put it on the rewatch list. That should take a year or so to get to the top of said list. Also, in the box with “Ten Wanted Men” was the Scott and Glenn Ford duster, “The Desperadoes” (1943) This is another Scott film I have never seen. Directed by Charles (Gilda, Thunder in the East) Vidor. This was Columbia’s first Technicolor feature so it should be a real looker/
Gord
LikeLike
‘The Desperadoes’ is a good old fashioned Western. The HD transfer I have from Randolph Scott Mill Creek box set is quite nice and has a good commentary on the film to boot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Guys, “THE DOOLINS OF OKLAHOMA” was one of 4 films on THE RANDOLPH SCOTT WESTERNS COLLECTION put out by TCM on DVD in 2014. It looks terrific too plus the set includes another personal favourite, the very fine “CORONER CREEK”. I don’t believe it is available any more but well worth it if you can find a copy (luckily I did!).
LikeLike
Walter referred to some TV screenings above, but that TCM box was the first opportunity I had to see the movie.
LikeLike
On the subject of movies that don’t quite make it, a lot of the movies that I enjoy are movies that I categorise as Interesting Failures. Movies that have such serious flaws that they can’t be considered successes, but which have some major compensating strengths which for me make them worth seeing.
Movies such as the 1949 The Great Gatsby. I’m aware of its flaws but I love Alan Ladd’s performance so much (he was born to play Gatsby) and I love the idea of Gatsby done as a hardboiled crime story with film noir visuals so much that I can (at least partially) overlook its flaws.
I’m not sure I’d say The Great Gatsby is an underrated movie. But I think it’s a movie worth seeing in spite of its (possibly deserved) indifferent reputation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with you about Ladd and Gatsby. Indeed, Robert Redford was miscast; he is a good boy, and Jay Gatsby is a gangster. Di Caprio is just a soft body and does not count. I have been involved, on and off, with Fitzgerald biographers, one of them, Matthew Bruccoli raised the question, who should have played Gatsby, I thought, Clark Gable. Matt’s reply was, ‘exactly what Fitzgerald thought.’
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting failures? That’s a neat way to put it. Burt Lancaster has two that spring to mind: ‘Gypsy Moths’ by Frankenheimer and ‘Castle Keep’ by Pollack. Two very interesting flawed films that bedevil the viewer. Now ‘The Swimmer’ I think is just wonderful from the same time period with Lancaster.
LikeLike
Lancaster seemed willing to try out all types of material at around that time, didn’t he?
LikeLike
Yes, a star actor not afraid to take risks. I really like that. Oh and to think he was in the ultimate cult western ‘Ulzana’s Raid’ then around that time too. I really also like though it is later in the ’70s his performance in the Vietnam war film ‘Go tell the Spartans’. Like Mitchum he did a ton of films I like.
LikeLike
There are six of Scott’s Columbia Westerns so far not available on Blu Ray: THE WALKING HILLS,GUNFIGHTERS,THE DOOLINS OF OKLAHOMA, CORONER CREEK,TEN WANTED MEN and SEVENTH CAVALRY. I feel TEN WANTED MEN the only weak entry in the set – hopefully Indicator or Mill Creek will oblige.
I’m very fond of THE WALKING HILLS and I’ve been watching quite a few early Sturges lately. THE CAPTURE I guess nowadays one would call it a Neo Western, at any rate the relationship between a widow (Thresa Wright) and her husband’s killer (Lew Ayres) is intriguing. JEOPARDY recommended by Colin recently was also very good, a taut tale told in a trim 69 minutes. Finally caught up with MYSTERY STREET a police thriller tracking down a killer through science as opposed to detection. MYSTERY STREET was very good and shows Sturges,like Mann was equally at home on the city’s mean streets as the Western range.
TEN WANTED MEN’s Bruce (Lucky) Humberstone gained that nickname because his films were generally hits despite their quality.
Maureen O Hara liked to call him Lucky Stumblebum. Humberstone’s best picture possibly was I WAKE UP SCREAMING, a nifty Noir by anyone’s standards. He also directed TARZAN AND THE LOST SAFARI the first Tarzan film in CinemaScope (and color) if that’s your idea of a movie milestone.
LikeLike
Your tangential reference to Mann reminds me that I must make an effort to revisit some of his films – it’s been quite a while now.
LikeLike
Oddly enough I’ve got SIDE STREET on the way and have just ordered TWO O CLOCK COURAGE, which I’ve never seen. The early Mann I really would love to track down is STRANGE IMPERSONATION as I really like the three leads. It’s a Republic picture so there’s all sorts of horrid bootlegs floating around-perhaps Imprint might include it on one of their Noir sets. I refuse to watch films online-if it’s there I don’t care! RAW DEAL is an early Mann that never fails to amaze – it can stand multiple viewings it’s so good.
LikeLike
I would love to know what you make of Two O’Clock Courage whenever you around to it. I fond it something of a hybrid movie, albeit a very enjoyable one. It plays a bit like a Falcon or Thin Man film for in tone if not visuals and then lurches into noir territory.
LikeLike
I remember thinking Side Street was fairly good but having looked it up I find that I saw it fifteen years ago. It’s probably one I need revisit. Raw Deal really is superb.
I won’t watch movies on streaming services either. If it’s not on physical media it doesn’t exist for me.
LikeLike
My goodness, THAT one!! One of the all time WORST endings I’ve seen in all my years of cinephilia, from what was otherwise a very intriguing and well crafted movie.
https://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/mpv-shot0007-2.jpg I saw this pathetic thing many years ago on a well mastered DVD (forget the label), and as the scenes progressed I thought I was in for some unique excitement. Later, of course, I had always wondered if it was lazymindedness on the part of the story and/or screenplay writer or the studio head and/or producer who couldn’t have displayed the image of a sharp minded woman scientist overcoming professional or personal obstacles by her own wits, training and courage. Instead, all of her triumphs and tribulations throughout the entire movie amounts to her man shaking here out nothing more than a bad dream.
How incredibly lame.
LikeLike
A rainy day here today so I found the excuse (er, I mean opportunity) to re-watch the 1957 western “FURY AT SHOWDOWN”, directed on a low budget by Gerd Oswald and starring a superb John Derek. Anyone out there familiar with this minor classic? It is a great example of what can be done (supremely well) on a small budget.
Filmed at the 20th Century Fox western town and the Alabama Hills, Lone Pine.
LikeLike
I’ve not seen it myself but I think I’m right in saying Toby Roan speaks highly of it.
LikeLike
I believe you would like it, Colin.
LikeLike
It’s on the list, Jerry, and has been for some time now. It’s just that the list is a particularly big one and seems to expand all the time. 🙂
LikeLike
Yup!
LikeLike
I know FURY AT SHOWDOWN and also am a great admirer.
What you say is exactly right. It’s just brilliantly directed, and very strikingly so as I am sure you agree, Jerry. Nothing is nondescript–the staging, camera movements, attentiveness to nuance–it could not be better if Oswald had had two months and ten times the budget. One more example of how a B movie can be all anyone would ever want if made in this kind of engaged and caring way.
Just one example–a central relationship is between two brothers
(John Derek–I am never surprised when he is this good) and as the younger one who kind of idolizes him Nick Adams (who surprised me–I never thought he could be this good and he is simply superb). The younger is pleading for the older one to come settle on their ranch and live a peaceful life rather than try to settle old scores. Adams stands at the window in their hotel room, framed by pretty curtains emblematic of the kind of life he wants them to have. The composition makes the dramatic playing of the emotions in this scene that much more expressive.
I never tire of Westerns like this–where characters are struggling with difficult emotions and their task is to make peace with the painful past, all while being challenged by the violent moment of the present.
Given the chance, no one who cares about Westerns of this period in the way most here do should miss this one.
LikeLike
You put into just the right words what I am thinking and then try to express less successfully, Blake. Yes, I absolutely agree and urge Colin to bump it up your list as soon as possible. I know you will not be disappointed.
LikeLike
It certainly sounds very enticing and I will try to give it a higher priority after reading that.
LikeLike
Jerry, I too like Fury At Showdown when I first saw it. In fact Derek’s westerns etc upto his supporting role in The Ten Commandments are equally entertaining.
LikeLike
Yes, I agree, Chris. John Derek was very well-suited to the genre. He as very good in “AMBUSH AT TOMAHAWK GAP” & “THE LAST POSSE” but my other favourite is “THE OUTCAST” , directed by William Witney for Republic. I wish he had made more.
LikeLike