Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

robertguttman "Bad Lands" is one of those rare movies that features no big-name actors in the cast ("The Mask of Demetrius" comes to mind as another example). That is not to say that the cast is composed of unknown actors or amateurs. Instead, the entire cast is made up of actors with well-known faces that appeared in hundreds of films, though usually in supporting roles. However, it is probably just as well that no well-known star, such as John Wayne or Randolph Scott, was placed at the head of this cast, because their presence would only have served to overbalance things, and ruin the ensemble nature of the story.Yes, it is granted that "Bad Lands" is a western redo of John Ford's famous 1934 film, "The Lost Patrol". The basic plot of "The Lost Patrol", which is so well known that it scarcely needs mention, seems to have been a favorite source for story-lines in Hollywood in those days, and particularly during the early days of World War II, when it was recycled in such films as "Bataan" and "Sahara". And yes, it is granted that "Bad Lands" was produced as a relatively low-budget B-picture, and was further handicapped by being limited to a running time of only a little over an hour. Nevertheless, it is definitely a very superior B-picture, and one of the better re- hashes of the now-cliché "The Lost Patrol" story, which was not yet regarded as so much of a cliché in 1939.Like a lot of movies produced during the 1930s, "Bad Lands" would never be remade today in the same form because it would be regarded as far too politically incorrect. The "Native Americans" are depicted unequivocally as bad guys, and the only "Latino" in the cast is depicted as being off his head (although the fact that his wife had recently been raped and murdered by the bad guy does provide a plausible excuse for his madness). It is also interesting to note that there are no women in the cast, a comparative rarity even in those days, and something the producers would never be permitted to get away with today. In addition, not one of the cast is African American, something else the producers would never be permitted to get away with today.Although "Bad Lands" is ostensibly an ensemble production, the leader of the cast is played by Robert Barrat, a veteran actor who portrayed a side variety of different types of characters in hundreds of films from the 1910s to the 1960s. Ironically, perhaps his best-remembered performance was in the titular title-role of the well-known 1936 movie version of "The Last of the Mohicans", in which he portrayed a "Native-American". "Bad Lands" may not be the best or most famous of Western movies, but is better than most, and is still worth a look. This may have been a "B" picture, but it definitely rates as a "B-Plus".

MartinHafer To say that "Bad Lands" is a remake of "The Lost Patrol" isn't exactly the case--it's more a case of a reworking of this earlier film. So many things have been changed (the location, the enemy, the discovery of silver, etc.) that it is worth seeing on its own. Oddly, however, I am not sure why I recorded it to watch later--but as long as I did, I decided to give it a try--mostly because I liked the no-name cast. Several of the actors (in particular, Robert Barrat) were very good supporting actors who never got a lot of fame--and it's nice to see him in a starring role. Plus, while it is a B-movie (with a low budget and relatively low production values), it has a more adult theme and style than the average B-western. As another reviewer put it, you won't find this theme in a Roy Rogers or Gene Autry film! A posse tracks a man who is accused of rape into the desert. Eventually they find an oasis where they strike camp. Soon, a couple in the party discover a huge bein of silver and they imagine great wealth. However, when someone steals their horses and then they are attacked, it looks like their find is in vain (vein....get it? Oh, never mind...it's not that funny). Can any of them escape with their lives...let alone claim the silver? While there are obvious similarities to "The Lost Patrol", one obvious improvement is in the characterizations. While John Ford was a genius director, in "The Lost Patrol" the characters (particularly the obviously insane Boris Karloff--who chewed scenery unmercifully in this film) were often far from subtle in their portrayals. While it's considered a minor classic, several reviewers (including myself) think it's aged poorly because of this. While lacking originality, at least "Bad Lands" does not have the cartoony characters the other film had. As a result, I actually preferred "Bad Lands"--as it offered more bang for the buck and excelled in its realistic portrayals--even if it is a tad slow.

MountainMan Most westerns of the 30's and 40's are all alike. Usually shallow representations of the wild west, with no real development of the characters, and always a hero cowboy present to steal the show. This old gem of a movie appeared to be a sincere attempt by the excellent director (Lew Landers) to go a step further. The main character (and only survivor) was a middle-aged sheriff of so-so looks versus the handsome super cowboy. Along with the laughable bullet-flinging scenes (*sigh*) we are shown some of the personality of the other actors. How many times have you seen an old old western where the Lord's Prayer is prayed aloud by one of the cowboys? Barrat does a good job as the sheriff of the posse. I wish they hadn't killed off Henry Cluff (Andy Clyde) so early in the film. Further development of his character might have added to the film, in my opinion. It was fun to see Noah Beery Jr. in his 20's in this film (remember the Rockford Files?). Although it was a short role, great to see John Payne, who was a favorite of mine as a teenager. I rated this a 6/10, which is a good rating.

boblipton A topnotch ensemble cast and brilliant photography by Frank Redman make this little-known RKO western a sleeper that can only be compared to John Ford's Stagecoach, released the same year.A posse pursues Apache Jack (played by John Payne) into the dessert, in a western variation of The Lost Patrol. The result is a nice variety of types played by veteran -- and up-and-coming -- character actors.While Ford had begun using Monument Valley at this time, this movie was shot at Mount Whitney -- after seeing it in a hundred movies from Gunga Din, released the same year, on downward, you get so you can recognize the boulders. But while the prints of Ford's movie are pretty battered, this one is nearly pristine: the beautiful shadows producing shots like Hurrell portraits. See what a black and white movie is supposed to look like!So this goes to the top of my list of sleepers. If you get a chance to see it, do so and let me know what you think.