SunnyHello Nice effects though.

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Rpgcatech Disapointment

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

elvircorhodzic BEND OF THE RIVER is a film that is based on the conflict between two strong characters that have the same past. However, they completely opposite think about the future. The director in this film, pay attention to the story, psychological analysis and demonstrated the sheer sense for psychology of personality. The former robber is scout who seeks a caravan of immigrants to bring in their new home in Oregon. The story shows how he joins with a man similar to the past, but due to different views on the future, the two become enemies. Well, partly because of the beautiful immigrant. I'll be sure to praise the picture and realism conflict between two characters.James Stewart as Glyn McLyntock He experienced wins space in the film. The gunman who tried to escape from the past and become a farmer and cattleman. However, his past catches up him with every step. Mr. Stewart is a pretty good deal with the challenges in this film. Arthur Kennedy as Emerson Cole on the robber that his past can not be hidden. He's too fast on the trigger. Character that has a strange sense of justice and friendship, as long as he at one point smells money.Adventure western that is worth seeing.

staven600 I have a thing for westerns. I think it appeals to my inner child more than any other genre except maybe sci-fi because it's set on the "frontier," or what was the frontier of the American west, which means unexplored terrain, wide open spaces, sun and adventure. Of course it's not a realistic depiction of the wild west by any means, but there's a cosy innocence to that ideal that is appealing, and a youthfulness and sense of adventure.This is my favourite of the Anthony Mann westerns so far for a number of reasons. Like Red River it is about a journey to a new place, in this case a place for a bunch of settlers to call home. The film opens with the hero, played by James Stewart, and his roguish friend played by Arthur Kennedy defending the settlers from a group of Indians. They find themselves at Portland, a small harbour town, and then head up river to find a new land beyond the mountains. So far so corny, but beyond the beautiful cinematography, what I liked about this film is the conflict between the two leads, one of mercenary nature who likes the town life, and James Stewart's character, who's no longer cares for monetary gain and wants to live a quiet life in the new settlement. This divide is not only between the main characters but between the settlers and the greedy bandits of the local gold mine. Fate has them discover gold at just the right time so that the two are separated by their motivations, one turns to the evil of materialism and quick gains and the other follows his heart. In the end of course it's obvious how it turns out, but I liked the idea and the look of the film as much as anything, and it's one of the most entertaining.

James Hitchcock "Bend of the River" is the second of the five Westerns made by James Stewart with director Anthony Mann during the 1950s, and the first they made in colour. Here Stewart's character, Glyn McLyntock, is the scout for a wagon train of settlers heading to Oregon. Along the way the settlers have to contend with all the perils which normally beset wagon- train pioneers in movies, including an attack by hostile Indians. (During this period Hollywood only occasionally acknowledged that there could be any other sort of Indian; Native Americans who were happy to let wagon-trains pass by unmolested clearly did not make good box- office). Most of the film, however, deals not with the journey itself but with what happens after they arrive at their destination. The plot is quite a complex one so I won't set it out in full. Basically, it revolves around a consignment of food which the settlers will need if they are to make it through their first winter. Although the supplies have already been paid for, a gold rush in the region has inflated the cost of food and Tom Hendricks, a corrupt trader in Portland, wants to renege on the deal and re-sell the supplies at a higher price to the gold miners. McLyntock manages to foil this plan, at considerable risk to his life, but on the way back to the settlement he discovers that there are others who covet the supplies. Another important element in the story is the relationship between McLyntock and a man named Emerson Cole whom he saves from being lynched for alleged horse-stealing.The Mann/Stewart Westerns often tried to get away from the traditional "good guys versus bad guys" theme and to introduce a greater emphasis on character development into the genre. They also introduced a new persona for Stewart, who in his films from the thirties and forties usually played straightforward good guys. In his collaborations with Mann his characters were often rougher, edgier, more willing to resort to violence and more ambiguous, although never straightforward bad guys. For most of its length "Bend of the River" seems more like a traditional Western with a traditional morality, a straightforward adventure story with some exciting action sequences such as the Indian attack and the battle with Hendricks and his gang. McLyntock and the settlers are the good guys, while the bad guys are Hendricks and the Indians. The one ambiguous element is supplied by Arthur Kennedy's Cole. Although he seems amiable enough, befriending McLyntock and even saving his life during the Indian attack, there is always something of a roguish air about him and we begin to suspect that those horse-stealing accusations may have had some substance to them. We learn that he was at one time a "border raider"; the exact significance of this phrase is never established, but it appears to mean some sort of outlaw or bandit. Jeremy Baile, the settlers' leader, shares the viewer's distrust of Cole, but McLyntock does not, arguing that a man can change from good to bad. The film only becomes more character-driven in the last few scenes when Cole finally shows himself in his true colours and we discover that McLyntock also has a chequered past of his own. Stewart is not as successful here at suggesting a "man with a past" as he was to be in "The Naked Spur" and we never learn enough about the psychological journey which has led him to try to make amends for his previous misdeeds. Apart from Kennedy, who is good as the mysterious Cole, the rest of the cast do not have a lot to do. Julie Adams as Laura, one of the pioneers, is there to provide a love-interest for McLyntock and a young Rock Hudson is there to provide an ally for McLyntock and a love-interest for Laura's sister Marjie. (Adams, here billed as "Julia", is today best remembered as the glamour girl from "Creature from Black Lagoon"). I could certainly have done without Stepin Fetchit's caricatured performance. There were plenty of black people in the Old West, but you rarely see them in Westerns except in racist stereotypes like this. The film is a decent action Western shot against some spectacular scenery in the Pacific North-West, but I didn't enjoy it as much as some of the later Mann/Stewart Westerns such as "The Naked Spur" and "The Man from Laramie" or for that matter its predecessor "Winchester '73". Its theme of men being corrupted by greed was dealt with much better in "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre". 6/10

dougdoepke Across mountains, two cowboy-drifters with suspicious pasts try to get provisions to settlers in 19th century Oregon.Despite the talent involved, the western's far from a classic. It's got plenty of action and loads of great scenery. But it's also got enough plot for five westerns. It's like the screenplay didn't want to exclude anything in the novel. So if you can follow the various threads and intrigues between the army of characters, there's a place for you at MIT. Then too, the editing doesn't help. Too often, developments are cut off before they can clarify (follow Trey's changes, if you can). The result is a series of clouded events, anchored only by McLyntock's moral steadfastness.Of course, Stewart's grouchy good guy and Kennedy's slippery smile do a lot to compensate, and I can see why director Mann used them again and again. But speaking of noir-meister Mann, the shootouts here are poorly staged, a surprise for such an accomplished filmmaker. Catch how the bad guys ride in again and again, only to be mowed down by Stewart and crew. Yet no riderless horses leave, and surprisingly, about the same number of men ride away from the attack as rode in. I guess I expect better attention to important detail from such an expensive production.I'm not trying to discredit the entire movie, only point out those facets I believe prevent it from reaching the caliber of other Stewart-Mann westerns. Certainly, a tighter script and better editing would have made a notable difference. Otherwise, it's got great scenery and good acting.