Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

jazerbini This is a great value western. It is worth to review Arizona, especially Jean Arthur, beautiful, and William Holden early in his career, in a nostalgic and authentic Western. The film shows the colonization of the American West with the intense conflicts between cattle ranchers, cowboys, gangsters and all sorts of adventurers who have moved to that wilderness of the USA, many paying dearly for their daring: with their own lives. What we see in Arizona is certainly no different from what has happened in the vast majority of American states. The images are perfect, people dress with what was possible in a backward and resourceless region. The physical types, all indications, are perfectly displayed, dirty, with ragged clothing. Violence prevailed in a region without law and without a minimum of justice. Everything here was very uncertain, one never knew if it would be possible to return to the place where one was and even if there would be a day after. Relations were too superficial and life too short. But it also shows the spirit realized of the people of the Wild West, and the character of Jean Arthur fully incorporates this spirit of struggle, of achievement. It is a magnificent film, worthy of being among the best westerns of all time. I believe that if it had been produced in color, surely today it would be appearing among the great westerns.

steve snyder I have been a fan of Jean Arthur for many years, and the reason for this post is not so much to review the movie (which I enjoyed), but to share some trivia about the production. I have a letter from a man associated with the production, Charles Bimbo, and in his letter he describes working on the set and how Jean Arthur gave him the job of taking care of the farm animals that appeared in the film. His letter has the name of the film, and directors name on the envelope itself. On the back of the letter is a studio stamp from the picture. It's just a nice piece of history, and I'm glad to own it. I have submitted an additional crew member to the cast and crew list, as he was not listed and I have historical proof of his role. It still is in excellent shape even after 73 years. Apparently he was a friend of my family and sent them an update of his life and times; just wanted to share.

Neil Doyle "Well done, but seems to go on forever," was Leonard Maltin's verdict. Same here. It's a feminist's western, with JEAN ARTHUR strutting around like she thinks she's still playing Calamity Jane and striking an occasional male pose while discussing her business plans with good man WILLIAM HOLDEN and bad guy WARREN WILLIAM. It serves the role well enough but doesn't seem completely natural.Her particular talents were better served by good comedy roles, in my opinion. What's more, she seems too mature to be a plausible leading lady for a 22 year-old--and very youthful looking--Holden. I recall reading that she didn't want Holden to be her leading man, and I can understand why. Gary Cooper wasn't available, according to Robert Osborne and Arthur finally consented to Holden's selection.Arthur plays a pioneer woman with a lot of backbone, ordering men around, making plans that include a hubby and a good piece of ranch land and a future--always spunky and up to the challenge, whether it's a petty thief or a downright criminal trying to take over her business.She never quite convinced me that she was completely at home on the range, while WILLIAM HOLDEN is very engaging in one of his less cynical roles and is refreshingly natural in a western role.***** POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD *****WARREN WILLIAM, too, is expert as a con man posing as a helpful friend to Arthur while in reality leading a gang of swindlers, and not above shooting his partners in the back.It's a well mounted western with plenty of shooting and riding, lots of Indian extras and cattle herds--but some draggy spots before a climactic showdown between hero and villain, after which our hero and heroine head for the proverbial sunset as a married couple.Fans of Jean Arthur and William Holden should enjoy this one.

rpgray7 The story line in this film is basically fictional, but real names of people who lived in Tucson, Arizona Territory, in the late nineteenth century are given to members of the cast, and the set that was created specifically for its production still exists just over the hill from the real Tucson of today. As someone who remembers visiting that set during filming in 1940, I am still impressed by the place and by this film. Jean Arthur's character was indeed a prototype of the independent frontierswoman . But even more important from the perspective of today as I stand among the remnants of the old set (still used, together with a sound stage on the property, to produce "Westerns") and look back sixty years just as the producers looked back sixty years for their story, I think of it as a story within a story. Anyone visiting Arizona today would do well to think of the film "Arizona" as a true picture of 1880 and, in another context, of 1940, and let their imaginations wander. The social attitudes and mores of both periods stand in great contrast to those of the 21st century.