Stewart Granger finished off his stint at MGM with this B Western which Granger always thought the studio assigned him out of spite because he would not renew his contract (which in hindsight he should have done -he could have played Messala in Ben Hur then, and he wound up signing a three picture deal with them in the 60s anyway)."Spite" may not be the right word but the film is certainly top a top grade production, with a rather run-of-the-mill plot, third rate director (studio hack Roy Rowland, whose wife was Louis B Mayer's niece) and third rate cast.
Granger acquits himself surprisingly well on a horse and is believable as a gambler-gunslinger, but seems unable where to pitch his performance- sometimes he's taciturn and tough, other times friendly (the latter happen when he's with his son and girlfriend so I guess it makes sense -it just seems an unnatural switch on screen, especially when its remarked upon).
He's still a charismatic star and you watch him - rather, the problem lies with the guy who plays his son; he's oo old and awkward for the role, tries to compensate by taking off his shirt to show some muscles but sorry that's not enough, a bewildering choice when you consider some of the players under contract to MGM at the time, e.g.Rod Taylor, Don Burnett - but not when you consider he's the director's son.
Rhonda Fleming is pretty as the slightly shady lady who becomes Granger's housekeeper - she walks around pushing her large chest forward, as if aware these are among her main attributes as an actor.The baddies are undercast (one of the henchman giggles with blonde hair and you wonder if he's trying to be an imitation Richard Widmark), though Chill Wills, who pops up as a preacher and the bloke who plays a bitter cripple with a hankering for Fleming makes the most of what is the meatiest role in the film.
The story is a bit of a mess - it involves neglectful Granger coming back after having been away for along time, faced with a resentful son. This conflict is fixed up all too easily (on the first night really) - but every now and then its as though the filmmakers remember it and go "hey we should do something with this conflict thing" and shove in a father-son argument, which is then resolved quickly again.
The main action plot concerns a cattle baron who wants to drive his cattle through some land. Why is this so bad? Why would he be willing to kill to do it? OK, he doesn't want to go the long way round... but I can't see the cause for urgency. And why are the townspeople so keen on opposing him? OK, his cattle are going to eat some grass, why don't they just charge him a fee? There isn't a lot of bang bang except at the end, though this is of pretty good quality, with a rock avalanche and stuff.
The story is a bit of a mess - it involves neglectful Granger coming back after having been away for along time, faced with a resentful son. This conflict is fixed up all too easily (on the first night really) - but every now and then its as though the filmmakers remember it and go "hey we should do something with this conflict thing" and shove in a father-son argument, which is then resolved quickly again.
The main action plot concerns a cattle baron who wants to drive his cattle through some land. Why is this so bad? Why would he be willing to kill to do it? OK, he doesn't want to go the long way round... but I can't see the cause for urgency. And why are the townspeople so keen on opposing him? OK, his cattle are going to eat some grass, why don't they just charge him a fee? There isn't a lot of bang bang except at the end, though this is of pretty good quality, with a rock avalanche and stuff.
No comments:
Post a Comment