Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

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.

leethomas-11621 Amazing yet uneven oater. Almost a psychological study of Old West characters and their tormented relationships. Fonda's performance holds it all together but at times it appears very formal and all over the place. If it had been pruned by 30 mins and tightened up thus could have been a great movie. There are overtones of a gay relationship between Clay (Fonda) and Morgan (Quinn), but what does it all mean? Ostensibly a study of courage in the face of violence and lawlessness but when the Shakespeare-quoting Morgan displays a death-wish when Clay wants to settle down with a girl, you wonder what it's all leading to. The film's treatment of Morgan fascinated me because the cause of his disability is never revealed. Unusual for a leading character. Film focuses on too many characters and comes across as disjointed, confusing. Despite its placid surface, events happen abruptly and without explanation. For example, the independent Clay falling in love overnight and making wedding plans to marry Jesse in a fortnight! And this important conversation took place off-screen. It led to Morgan and Clay's estrangement and Morgan's breakdown. Trivia: Extraordinary number of blue-eyed actors in leading roles! Was it a prerequisite?!

writers_reign The film adaptation of John Van Druten's stage success Bell, Book, And Candle was released around the same time as this oddly-named Western and chances are that several moviegoers who had seen Jack Lemmon playing a warlock (male witch) in BB&C thought they were in for more of the same. Far from it; Warlock is simply the name of the town that forms the setting, a town more or less terrorised by a local gang led by Tom Drake of all people - yep, The Boy Next Door himself, who also played Richard Rodgers in Words and Music. When enough finally becomes too much the townsfolk hire a pro, Henry Fonda, to restore law and order. On paper you couldn't find a simpler plot but in reality the film is bristling with sub-text and psychological overtones, not least the complex relationship between Fonda and his side-kick Anthony Quinn, outlaw-turned-lawman Richard Widmark's equally complex relationship with his own brother and this is before Dorothy Malone shows up harbouring all kinds of resentment against both Fonda and Quinn one or both of whom offed a man she was about to marry. In short this is a heady wine, a rich broth with fine performances from the likes of DeForest Kelly, Frank Gorshin, Wallace Ford to say nothing of the principles. Well worth a second look.

madmonkmcghee Great cast, good story, famous director....boy, this is gonna be one fine movie. You'd think. And you'd be....well, disappointed. What exactly went wrong here? For one thing, both direction and camera-work are average at best. Every scene is shot head on, without any crosscutting or editing to focus the action and increase tension. Any studio hack could have made this. The actors also have no highs or lows in their portrayal of their characters. Widmark is especially low-key, and for half the movie he's just there, and doesn't really pick up the pace for the other half. Fonda and Quinn don't create much fireworks either. Malone is the only one in continual overdrive, but to no avail. These guys will not be riled. This movie just simmers along and ultimately fizzles out. Thank the saints for the Italians for reviving the comatose genre in the Sixties.

secondtake Warlock (1959)Director Edward Dmytryk is one of those dependable Golden Age mainstays who is pulling off tightly made movies even this late in the game. After many archetypal movies, often just short of greatness, he is still putting on a good game with first rate camera-work (Joe MacDonald) and top shelf actors (Henry Fonda, Anthony Quinn, and Richard Widmark, all in major roles). And so this is actually a strong, complex movie.It helps that the plot, even though apparently another retread of Western clichés, is complex and well balanced. That the bad guys are partly very good and vice versa is exactly what the genre needs, and it is filmed so gorgeously--the night and interior stuff especially--it has a feeling of total command. It's a strong if still conventional film, a true Western in the best Anthony Mann sense rather than John Ford. The plot is too complex to even analyze quickly, but a couple key elements play out. First, Fonda and Quinn play hired marshals who come into towns overwhelmed by some bad guys. They are hired for their ruthlessness because the town has no choice, but when they get to work, the town begins to doubt itself. And then there are all the secret past events that seem to converge here, almost too perfectly, but creating a layered and sometimes confusing backstory that gradually moves front and center.All three male actors are in top form--I'll assume it's because the whole lot of them were consummate professionals there to get a job done well. While this was made years after the official end of the old studio system, it still is made (on location) with the same general factory ethic--tight production standards, familiar genres, efficient entertainment. It works, and it works better than it should. Certainly not a classic like "High Noon" or "Stagecoach," but a solid entry even for people who think they don't like westerns.