Beystiman
It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.
Twilightfa
Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.
Bluebell Alcock
Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies
JohnHowardReid
Copyright 1957 by Loew's Inc. A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. New York opening at the Palace (supporting the usual vaudeville bill): 19 July 1957. U.S. release: August 1957. U.K. release: 15 December 1957. Australian release: 18 July 1957. 7,981 feet. 88 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Well acted and directed, this western deals with a rover (Granger) who returns home to find his son (Rowland, the real-life son of the director) grown up and embittered. Needless to say, thanks to the encroachments of a wicked cattleman against whom our rover eventually proves his mettle, dad eventually wins his son around. There is plenty of riding and shooting and the photography is equally exciting. — Adapted from Picture Show.NOTES: Steve Rowland had a modest career. I was told he debuted in "The Student Prince", but I've not checked this information. Other films I have for him are 'Wild Youth' (1961), 'The Thin Red Line' (1964), "Battle of the Bulge" (1965), his father's 'Gunfighters of Casa Grande" (1965), and "Hallucination Generation" (1966).COMMENT: Some wag of a colorful showman once described DeLuxe as "DeLousy". I wonder what epithet he came up with for "Metrocolor" — Eastman Color processed by M-G-M's laboratory. If "Gun Glory" is a fair sample of the lab's proficiency, you'd imagine the critics having a field day — if most of them weren't half blind. (Did I ever tell you about a certain city's two leading critics, one who couldn't see very clearly any further than three feet — even with her spectacles on — and the other who had to wear dark glasses at film screenings because the light hurt his eyes).Actually, the exteriors come across with a fair degree of impact, but the interiors don't flatter the players, particularly Rhonda Fleming, erstwhile queen of Technicolor, who looks as if she's spent the day bathing her face and fingers in a basin of bleach. (The result of poor color grading by the lab). Her acting is not great shakes either, though Rowland Junior beats her hollow in the Least Convincing Performance department.As for Rowland Senior, his direction is pretty routine, though he does put the action material over effectively enough for fans of the double-bill western. And that's what "Gun Glory" is — a movie designed at best for the top half of a midweek double bill, unpretentious, but moderately entertaining in its own modest way.
Uriah43
After leaving his wife and son to begin a quest for fame and fortune a gunman by the name of "Tom Early" (Stewart Granger) finally returns home to discover that his son no longer respects him and his wife has passed away and been buried. Although he tells his son that he wants to change his ways when he rides into town he has to shoot and kill another man in self-defense which convinces everyone that he is still the same. Additionally, when he hires a pretty, young woman named "Jo" (Rhonda Fleming) to help out at his ranch it creates gossip and even more trouble among the townspeople as well. Now rather than reveal any more of this film and risk spoiling it for those who haven't seen it I will just say that this was a decent western movie by and large. It had a decent cast and both Stewart Granger and Rhonda Fleming performed in their usual professional manner. Likewise, Rhonda Fleming was also quite attractive. Having said that I must admit that the plot was rather predictable and some of the scenes could have used a bit more passion or excitement in some parts. Even so I suppose it was enjoyable enough for the time spent and I rate it as about average.
RanchoTuVu
The story of peace-loving farmers and townspeople fighting for land, water, law and order, and the respect and ultimate subjugation of the long entrenched cattle interests and their hired guns had been worked over better in earlier (Shane) and probably later films as well. There's some good action scenes and the general layout of the story, excluding a disappointing ending, is well executed. Law and order and religion have established roots in the town, but the old order of cattle drives, cowboys, and gunslingers is still around as well. The clash of the two occurs in a nicely staged ambush scene where the townsmen ride right into a trap. Granger, an ex-gunfighter, plays the guy who is shunned by the very townspeople who need his expertise with a gun.
dbdumonteil
Stewart Granger comes back to his native one-horse town to find his wife dead ,and his son,Tom,a resentful bitter young lad.The son is an idealist,who cannot understand why you've got to make your gun speak .But he will find out. This is a routine western,but one which retains a certain charm:it's too bad that some characters were not more developed:the disabled man who's burning with a desire for his protégée Fleming;the priest who welcomes the renegade in his not-yet-finished church and urges the whole congregation not to judge (if they do not want to be judged themselves).The action scenes are kept for the final third and the screenplay mainly focuses on the relationship Granger/Fleming/son .The female part sometimes recalls Rachel's in "Rachel and the stranger" ,the last line recalls that offbeat western too. Splendid colors,Granger's presence and Fleming's charm make up for the triteness of the plot.... and the dubious side of its moral.
