KnotMissPriceless Why so much hype?

Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

vincentlynch-moonoi I wonder if one of the turnoffs to this film (since it lost money) was that at least in the beginning it sort of reminds one of "High Noon", in that a town is caught in the middle between the "bad guys" (a dictatorial rancher) and what is right to do. Cowardice versus courage.However, the film quickly veers off in another direction as Henry Fonda proves to be a new activist unofficial sheriff with a fabled past (but how accurate is it). And then there is Richard Widmark -- a man caught between the evil rancher (for whom he used to work, and for whom his brother still works), and what he knows is wrong. But, this isn't a two handed deal. Anthony Quinn is along for the ride as an ally of Fonda's although hardly a man with a sparkling past...or present. Dorothy Malone plays the ex-lover of Quinn, with her own agenda.There are several reasons to give this movie high points. First, even though the basic story may be fairly traditional, there's more complexity here than we usually see in a western.Henry Fonda is superb here, Almost as good as I've ever seen him. Fonda is interesting. Certainly in the A list of actors in that era, but never quite as successful as a Cary Grant or Jimmy Stewart. And I've never quite figured out why.Richard Widmark interests me. He was able to transfer from a true bad guy in his early pictures to a rather odd leading man. Very underrated, Here his role is a little slim in the early part of the film, but gets more screen time and complexity as the film proceeds. And when his role expands, he's very good.Anthony Quinn was doing better than his early films here, but he was not yet into his most productive period. There hints here that Anthony Quinn's character was gay or bi. It occurred to me several times throughout the film, particularly toward the end. And what was he supposed to have -- a club foot? That wasn't clear to me...or why I never cared much for Dorothy Malone, and still don't.There are a number of well-known character actors along for the ride, including Frank Gorshin.A word needs to be said here about the scenery. It's outstanding, and mostly filmed around wonderful Moab, Utah, including Dead Horse State Park.This film is worth watching for one very good reason -- it's very different. Additionally, the acting is, overall, quit good. Recommended.

dougdoepke Complex psychological western. I like another reviewer's point about the conflict between law and order in the film. Only Widmark's Gannon appears concerned with enforcing law in addition to order, while the rest of the town is more concerned with simply order. Fonda's Clay Blaisdell stands as the pivotal character, a morally ambiguous gunslinger with a dubious past. The mutual attachment between him and sidekick Morgan (Quinn) is highly unusual for a macho western. As hired gunslingers, they're a formidable team. However, it turns out that Clay is stuck in the risky business as long as he and Morgan remain together. On the other hand, Morgan's definitely unhappy with Clay's budding relationship with blonde Jessie (Michaels). It's likely that Morgan uses their hired status to keep them together, as the ending appears to show. I expect casting the macho Quinn in what amounts to a suggestive role was no accident.The 2-hour runtime is pretty well filled as the various undercurrents and conflicts play out. Viewers who cotton to dramatic showdowns should love this screenplay, which has at least four. Surprisingly, it's hard to predict who will be involved, a tribute to the screenwriter. Overall, it's an unusual oater that doesn't follow genre formulas. On the downside is a lot of talk, plus complexities-- especially the characters' backstories-- that at times are hard to follow. Nonetheless, the three leads are excellent, especially an emotional Quinn, along with a supporting cast of familiar 50's faces. So, for western fans, the movie's well worth snagging despite its relative obscurity.

MrAkimbo Warlock is a peculiar film. I admire the director's intention, and having not read the original novel, I cannot state whether the interpretation was faithful to the book or whether the director chose wild sweeps of dramatic license instead? When the film concludes I saw it as a failed film. Many of the reviews so far comment on the caliber of the performances. While I agree, I would use the metaphor, a poorly constructed car can still have an engine that runs fine.In its favour the film has a brooding quality to it, scenes are careful in its precision and placement as the casts are framed at different planes of the screen space. It makes you work hard to notice, hear the dialogue in its almost stage like presentation, and consider the underlying emotions. Indeed Fonda himself never the most outward of performers adds to the enigma of the film, and what its trying to achieve which some may declare as perfect casting for a fictional character beset with ambivalent emotions. As the film advances to the denouement, the imagery is rich, predetermined in its lavish design to illustrate the metaphor of long lasting friendship, yet still I found myself feeling cheated somewhat.Without giving too much away, the reason I believe and is somewhat endemic of the other reviewers who have hinted at the subtext of homosexuality contained in the film. The creative choices used by the director at times are awkward and incoherent. E.g. there are scenes where the character portrayed by Quinn, 'Morgan', although saying something his body language suggests something different - this could be seen as great direction - the point is the unspoken body language hint at homosexuality rather than anything else. At times he is framed in the back plane of the screen space, akin to the way soap operas will frame a nagging wife who complain to their husbands. Similarly, Fonda's character a much respected and feared gunman at one point disarms a rowdy character. He instructs the character to approach him and then clouts him with the butt of his revolver. This scene rang false to me. A feared gunslinger should never have to instruct anybody - they just act. The concept of repercussion means nothing when they are ingrained with toughness.This is why I find the film frustrating, and ultimately a failed but honourable film. Dmytryk took, no doubt a challenging novel, and attempted to realise it.I can't help but consider what John Ford would have done with the material, or any other notable Western luminary film director. Maybe he would have left it well alone believing it a mismatch of emotions and themes to portray?

A_Different_Drummer Another one of those very unusual films that really has no analogue, no similarities, to anything before or after. A tale of a spit and polish travelling Marshall who, for a price, will show up in your town and do the dirty work that has to be done. But note he does not show up alone. Clay Blaisdell (Fonda is a role that literally no other actor on the planet could play, voice and mannerisms completely unique and unforgettable) arrives with an entourage composed of just one man. The assistant played by Anthony Quinn (who I believe had the LONGEST END TO END CAREER in the history of western film) is a fussy, detail-oriented kind of mother hen. He says his job is to watch out to make sure "no one shoots Clay in the back" (very handy to have in that profession) and later in the film (spoiler!) he lets it slip that he is actually faster on the draw than his boss! When a film is one of a kind, it is hard to rate, because what do you compare it to? Another from the stable of Edward Dmytryk, the direction is flawless. Highly recommended. And watch out for the not-too-subtle hints that Quinn's character's fondness for Fonda (!) went a little further than it was supposed to, especially when Clay suddenly drops the bomb that he wants to end the partnership and settle down with a woman.