VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

JinRoz For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

bsmith5552 Unless I'm wrong, "Firecreek" was the first time that James Stewart and Henry Fonda appeared on screen together. It was also the first time, I believe, that Fonda played a villain.A gang of gunfighters led by Larkin (Fonda) and including Earl (Gary Lockwood), Drew (James Best), Norman (Jack Elam) and Willard (Morgan Woodward), ride into the small town of Firecreek to buy supplies. When they see how timid the townspeople are, they decide to stay over night.A farmer, Johnny Cobb (Stewart) and his wife (Jacqueline Scott) are about to have their third child. Cobb takes their two boys and a neighbor's sexy teen-age daughter Leah (Brooke Bundy) to town where he encounters Larkin and his gang. Cobb you see, is the town sheriff who is paid two dollars a month and wears a homemade tin badge. He breaks up a tussle between Drew and Earl with the young simple minded Arthur (Robert Porter) looking on.Larkin who has been shot goes to the local hotel run by Mr. Pittman (Jay C. Flippen) and his granddaughter Evelyn (Inger Stevens) for rest. Evelyn is a bitter unsmiling woman who at first does not take to Larkin.Meanwhile the gang is left to drink and carouse. Drew spots a young Indian woman Moli (Barbara Luna) and slips away to assault her. Arthur catches him in the act and in the ensuing confusion, accidently kills Drew with his own gun. It's at this point that Cobb is summoned back to his farm to be with his wife. But it turns out to be a false alarm.Cobb returns to town only to discover that the gang, led by Larkin have lynched young Arthur. Cobb loses it and goes to storekeeper Whittier (Dean Jagger) to obtain a gun and.................................................................Stewart and Fonda play well off of each other with the final showdown a highlight. A great supporting cast adds to the enjoyment of this film. Gary Lockwood as the trigger happy Earl stands out with James Best not far behind. Inger Stevens, if I'm not mistaken, doesn't crack a smile throughout the ordeal. Dean Jagger and John Qualen also stand out as town losers.Fonda and Stewart would re-unite in 1970's "The Cheyenne Social Club". more of a comedy than anything else.

Wuchak RELEASED IN 1968 and directed by Vincent McEveety, "Firecreek" stars Jimmy Stewart as a farmer living on the outskirts of a small town of 'losers' where he's the 'honorary sheriff.' When a group of ne'er-do-wells comes to town he's compelled to take action. Henry Fonda plays the leader of the rabble-rousers while Inger Stevens appears as the quiet woman who sparks his interest. Gary Lockwood plays the top troublemaker with Jack Elam & James Best in tow. BarBara Luna is on hand as an irresistible squaw and Robert Porter as the "stable boy," the catalyst.The director was a reliable TV director of shows (e.g. Star Trek) & movies, but "Firecreek" was his first theatrically-released film. While his oeuvre includes a handful of other theatrical films, he mainly stuck with TV. I point this out because "Firecreek" has a bit of a TV Western feel to it, which isn't to say it's not a solid Western, it's just not on the level of the contemporaneous "Bandolero!", also starring Stewart. The build-up is long and low-key, but the dialogues are good for the most part and you get to know the characters and their situation in a remote town of 'losers,' as Dean Jagger's character humbly describes them.Speaking of the town, this is a decidedly town-bound Western, with some scenery shots at the beginning. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as the celebrated "Rio Bravo" (1959) was a town-bound Western, but this limits the movie. In other words, don't expect a wilderness Western with numerous breathtaking scenic shots in the background, e.g. "Jubal" (1956).Stevens plays the notable intelligent lady that trips the trigger of Fonda's character. Unfortunately, she'd be dead less than two years after the release of "Firecreek" from (supposedly) intentional overdose. She was only 35; what a shame.The producers made a good decision to NOT make Fonda's character a one-dimensional villain. Actually, the man's nothing of the kind, but he has to fulfill his part, his duty, in order to maintain the respect of his men. The success of the movie all depends on if Stewart can deliver the goods when the protagonist is finally forced to make a stand, come hell or high water. And he does so superbly.THE FILM RUNS 104 minutes and was shot in North Ranch, Agoura Hills, California, as well as Warner Brothers Burbank Studios with establishing shots in Sedona, Arizona. The screenplay was written by Calvin Clements Sr. ADDITIONAL CAST: Morgan Woodward, Ed Begley, Jay C. Flippen, Jacqueline Scott & Brooke Bundy.GRADE: B/B- (6.5/10)

vincentlynch-moonoi I wonder if anyone has ever figured out how many Western movies have been made over the years. Thousands? And they all boil down to a half-a-dozen basic plots. You could probably take 90% of the Westerns ever made and dump them in a vat of hydrochloric acid, and not many people would ever notice. You'd still have hundreds left.So the question is, what makes a Western worth watching now that we are well over the 1950s mania for Westerns. Well, somewhat unique plots get extra points (perhaps along the lines of "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence"). Star power is another factor (such as in "Rio Bravo"). Or the unique ability of a particular director who can weave something special out of very common cloth (such as John Ford)."Firecreek" is certainly not one of the GREAT Westerns. But I wouldn't dump it in that vat of HCL acid, either. It's saving grace are the performances of the 2 primary stars -- Jimmy Stewart and Henry Fonda. And, the director (whom you probably never heard of) does a nice job (though not award winning level) of telling the story. That story is simple -- the bad guys ride into town (in this case they appear to be ex-Confederates), and it's up to the honorary sheriff (Stewart) to solve the problem. There is a twist -- the chief of the bad guys is none other than Henry Fonda. Of course, Stewart has a family, including a wife who is about to deliver a baby.There's a problem here, and one that I rarely am concerned with. Jimmy Stewart was 60 years old when he made this film, and yet he's going to be a father again. Not impossible, but this was out of his age range. I much preferred him in "Bandolero" (with Dean Martin), made the same year, where he pretty much acted his age. So, to enjoy "Firecreek", you're going to just have to get over the age issue. I was thinking that they could have solved the issue by having the wife of Stewart's son, who was away for some reason, and Stewart acting as the father/grandfather. That would have worked. I've always felt, also, that Stewart sometimes overacted PHYSICALLY in some action scenes, and he does here; perhaps it's just because of him being so lean and lanky. But it's still a really fine performance.I'm a little surprised that Henry Fonda accepted this role. In it, he plays a totally pathetic character. He has far fewer good scenes than Jimmy Steward, although a few are really good.Another problem with this film is that most of the film is a growing menace, and it takes a very long time for the real action to start. When it does, I am reminded of Gary Cooper in "High Noon". Although it's hardly the same story, once again it is one man against the bad guys.One of the best scenes in the film belongs to Dean Jagger.The film has some of the best supporting actors around at the time. Inger Stevens An old Dean Jagger. An old Ed Begley. An old Jay C. Flippen. Jack Elam in one of his final films.This is not one of the great Westerns, but it is heads above your average Western. Recommended.

Jeff (actionrating.com) Skip it – After 1970, westerns started getting weird. Even though this film was made in 1968, it's got a very 70's feel to it. I think you know what I mean. Fans of classic westerns can recognize when they're watching a movie that doesn't have that classic feel to it. I tried to like this movie because it's the only movie starring Jimmy Stewart and Henry Fonda together. ("How the West Was Won didn't have the two together on screen). The main complaint I have with this film is that it's not much of an action movie. The final gunfight is impressive, but I would compare this to a western like "Three Violent People" because the movie dies well, but doesn't live well. 1.5 out of 5 action rating