Warpath (1951)

Coursing through one story after another, the concept of good, old-fashioned bloody revenge/vengeance seems quite at home in the western genre. Don't it? And sometimes, that's all you need for a good story. Take 1951's Warpath, a decent little western that could have been pretty good. If it had just stuck to its revenge-driven guns...

Riding into a dusty, wind-swept town in the west, a man named John Vickers (Edmond O'Brien) gets off a stagecoach and promptly runs into the man's he long been after. He prods him into drawing first and shoots him dead, but not before getting some information out of the dying man. Vickers is looking for two other men and has been doing so for the previous eight years, always on their trail, always one step too slow. Now, he's got to take it one step further. Those two men he's pursuing have joined the cavalry. What to do? Driven solely by revenge, Vickers joins up too, knowing the regiment the duo enlisted with. That outfit? The infamous Seventh Cavalry, commanded by General George Armstrong Custer. Vickers hopes he can finish his mission, but has he bitten off more than he can chew?

I'm always on the lookout for new westerns, especially harder-to-find B-westerns like this entry from director Byron Haskin. Nothing too fancy here, a pretty straightforward revenge story that's undone by some story choices. It brings together all sorts of genre conventions, throws them in a mixer and you get to watch the finished product, a western clocking in at about 100 minutes that has a somewhat disjointed feel. Not especially good, not especially bad, but worth a watch for genre fans.

Edmond O'Brien is criminally underrated. Westerns, film noirs, dramas, thrillers, this guy could and did do it all. His John Vickers manages to hold things together throughout all the bouncing balls. He's a Civil War veteran hellbent on revenge, looking to avenge the death of his fiance who was shot and paralyzed as an innocent bystander during a bank robbery. He watched her die slowly, wilt away, and intends to exact revenge no matter where it takes him. It's a good part for O'Brien, simmering with rage and intensity as he puts himself through all sorts of trials and tribulations to exact that revenge, often putting himself at great danger to do so. Or is that his plan and has been all along? Hmm, interesting. Something to think about, huh? :)

The cast has some familiar names and faces, helping smooth out the rough patches. Among the cavalry soldiers O'Brien's Vickers finds in the Seventh Cavalry, there's Forrest Tucker, Paul Fix, Wallace Ford, and the always welcome Harry Carey Jr. Also at the fort, Vickers meets the comely daughter (Polly Bergen) of the owner of the general store (Dean Jagger). Wouldn't you know it? She likes Vickers...but she also likes another soldier! Oh, no! Yeah, the story goes down that path. A story that already bounces around too much grinds to a halt in those oh so painful moments.  If you're a western fan, the solid supporting cast overall should pull you in. It did for me!

There's enough here to recommend. It's a solid B-western from the early 1950's, but it certainly has an edge to it. It's a kinda leisurely revenge-seeking trip -- how does it take 8 years to track 3 people down when you seemingly are always on their tail? -- and O'Brien's Vickers seems to take quite a risk enlisting in the army in the hopes of finding two men in an entire cavalry regiment. And as mentioned, the forced love interest never really takes off.

Still, 'Warpath' does take some risks that pay off. It's clearly made on the cheap, including an art insert of the fort walls as the cavalry troops ride in and out. Helping cancel things out are a combination of some western notables. A midway action scene has a twist on the Battle of Beecher's Island, one of the more fascinating, little-known battles in the wild west. Then, the finale is set against the backdrop of Custer's Last Stand, maybe the most iconic moment in American history in the wild west. So yeah, if the ending is a little abrupt -- oh, right, Custer and the whole regiment are dead! -- so be it. It's a fun little western.
Warpath (1951): ** 1/2 /****

Forsaken

While superhero, horror and animated flicks dominate theaters on a week-to-week basis, the western....well, you've got to search out that generally forgotten genre quite a bit more. There's been some options at least in '16, including Jane Got a Gun (pretty good) and Diablo (pretty bad), and a Magnificent Seven remake is even scheduled for an August release. So where does 2016's Forsaken fall? Keep on reading, pardner!

It's been years since the end of the Civil War and John Henry Clayton (Kiefer Sutherland) is finally coming home. He's spent those years drifting along from town to town, hiring on as a gunfighter, as a hired gun, whoever needs his service with a pistol. Now, he's looking to hang up his gunbelt and move on, settle down, and especially mend his relationship with his father, a reverend, William (Donald Sutherland). Years apart has not mellowed either man with some past wounds still very fresh. John Henry is committed though, and he intends to go straight. That's going to be easier said than done. James McCurdy (Brian Cox), a local businessman, is looking to scoop up all the land for miles and doing so with fear tactics, intimidation and straight-out murder. The only one capable of stopping McCurdy and his own gunmen? John Henry Clayton, who must now decide if he'll strap on his gunbelt one more time.

I rented this western from Redbox this week. The Internet reports that 'Forsaken' was released theatrically in February, but it must have been the shortest theatrical release ever. I look for flicks like this and didn't see it anywhere near the Chicago-area! So however its release was handled, the end result is the same....

It's a good, old-fashioned, traditional western. It doesn't try to rewrite the genre, bringing to life one of the more familiar western stories around. Bad guy wants land, land owners can't/won't fight back, gunfighter must stand up to bad guy. Lather, rinse and repeat! It's Shane and The Magnificent Seven and countless other westerns, but director Jon Cassar is a more than capable filmmaker to have in the director's chair. Filmed in Canada and borrowing some locations from Open Range (along with some basic storytelling devices), 'Forsaken' is content to be a good, old-fashioned western. It looks gorgeous, the score from composer Jonathan Goldsmith is above average and blends well with the story and visual. If you like westerns, this is more than a safe bet. An easy recommendation.

Not surprisingly, 24's Jack Bauer is a pretty easy transition into the western anti-hero. Kiefer Sutherland is very solid as John Henry Clayton, a gunfighter with a checkered past who's looking to go straight. The grizzled, trail-worn look fits Sutherland well, and he slides easily into the genre. His past is doled out in small doses as we see what's driven him to the breaking point. Long story short? He's very good with a pistol but that ability has gotten himself into trouble. There's a cool dynamic -- rather heated at times -- too between the real-life father and son, Kiefer and Donald Sutherland. The elder Sutherland has some unresolved feelings toward his son, long brewing in his gut and struggling to put into words when his son arrives without warning after years away. Surprise member of the cast? Demi Moore -- a welcome addition! -- as a lost love of Kiefer's who's moved on...or has she?!?

Now the fun of the pretty straightforward good guy vs. bad guy angle is that the bad guys can be very, very bad. Dirty, despicable, murdering, conniving, backstabbing folks. Who better for that than Brian Cox? No One. He's clearly having some fun as the sneering villain who you just love to hate. Aaron Poole plays his brutal enforcer while Michael Wincott is a scene-stealer as Gentleman Dave Turner, a well-dressed, polite, lives by a code hired gun who's nonetheless brutally efficient with a gun. It's the best part in the movie, and Wincott's scenes with Kiefer Sutherland are a gem, featuring some great dialogue as two tough guys test out the water back and forth to see where they stand.

Nothing fancy here from beginning to end with a western that clocks in at just under 90 minutes. The action is saved for the finale when John Henry has finally had enough -- you can only pushed a deadly gunfighter so far I've learned :) -- and decides to do something about it. Some cool moments, a good twist, and a satisfying ending to a pretty decent little western. Worth checking out.

Forsaken (2016): ***/****

Hour of the Gun

One of the seminal moments in American history, especially in the 19th Century, the gunfight at the O.K. Corral is synonymous with the wild, wild west. It was a gunfight that only lasted 15 or 20 seconds, but the men involved would became famous because of their actions. What about after the gunfight though? What happened next? That is a story that is far less well-known, but it gets a fascinating examination in a mostly forgotten 1967 western, Hour of the Gun.

It's October 26, 1881 in the Arizona silver boom-town of Tombstone. Deputy Marshal Wyatt Earp (James Garner), his two brothers, and their friend Doc Holliday (Jason Robards), are heading for a fight after a long-running, long-simmering feud with Ike Clanton (Robert Ryan) and his gang of gunmen, bandits and rustlers. A gunfight ensues with three men -- all outlaws -- killed while Wyatt's brothers are wounded. The fight does nothing to end the feud, only adding fuel to the fire. The immediate response begins in a courtroom as Wyatt, Doc and the Earp brothers are brought up on charges for their actions that led to the gunfight and then for outright murder. This won't be resolved with words though. Too much has passed between the two sides with too many deaths for it to be fixed so easily. Wyatt and Doc live by the gun as does Ike Clanton. Let the bullets fly and those who get caught in the way...so be it.

From the first time I saw 1993's Tombstone, I was fascinated not just by the gunfight at the OK Corral but what happened after it. Unless I'm missing a flick, this is the first western to dive in headfirst to the aftermath. An unofficial sequel from his film 10 years earlier, Gunfight at the OK Corral, director John Sturges turns in a dark, moody, character-driven angle of the story. There's gunplay but not a ton. The story condenses months and months of history into a tightly-packed 105-minutes but one that doesn't feel too rushed. It's a daunting extended stretch to handle but Sturges and writer Edward Anhalt do a pretty solid job condensing and tweaking and twisting here to make it more manageable.

Two years later, Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch would kick open the door for the western, effectively starting the genre on a path that proved to be its doom. The spaghetti westerns started it, Peckinpah continued and the revisionist westerns of the 1970's finished it off. Where's 'Hour' fit? Somewhere in between. It isn't a revisionist western. It's just a straightforward, mostly honest, not heroic interpretation of the real-life events. There aren't heroes, just less unlikable individuals. Case in point is Garner's Wyatt, not the crisp, clean, honest lawman he's often portrayed as. Here, he's a hypocrite, blinded with rage and almost completely driven by it. Towns are run by the rich, everything depends on power and money, and that power depends on backstabbing, back-shooting and all sorts of underhanded dealings. This ain't no good guys in white hats vs. bad guys in black hats. A precursor of the things to come in the western genre.

In film or on television, James Garner has a reputation as a likable presence, a sympathetic hero so....it's awesome to see him take these darker roles, like 1970's A Man Called Sledge. As we've learned, Wyatt Earp wasn't necessarily the heroic, noble lawman he's often portrayed as. 'Hour' delves right into that concept. Here, he's a revenge-seeking murderer hiding behind a marshal's badge and a warrant for arrest. It's a fascinating character and not necessarily sympathetic. Garner doesn't disappoint with this darker role. Just wish he had done more roles like this!

The key relationship in all the Earp/Tombstone movies though is between Wyatt Earp, the law officer, and Doc Holliday, the gambling dentist slowly dying of tuberculosis. All Holliday performances pale in comparison to Val Kilmer in 1993's Tombstone, but Robards is pretty damn good and belongs in close second with Dennis Quaid in the otherwise painful Wyatt Earp. Robards does what he always does. He quietly steals all his scenes to the point you don't even realize he's doing it. His chemistry with Garner is impeccable, a friendship with more of an edge than we're used to seeing. Their arguments become heated to the point of lashing out violently. Through it all though, there's an unspoken bond between them, two loners, two outsiders who have found the unlikeliest of friends. Two excellent leading performances.

Beyond Ryan, 'Hour' is light on star power, but that's not a bad thing. Ryan's Ike Clanton is probably the most exaggerated part here with the movie Clanton not resembling the actual historical Clanton. Still, it's Robert Ryan in sneering, condescending villain mode, and that ain't a bad thing. Wyatt's misfit posse includes Monte Markham, William Windom and Lonny Chapman. Their targets include Michael Tolan, Robert Philips, Steve Inhat and a very young Jon Voight. Too many familiar faces from film and television to mention, but also look for Albert Salmi, Karl Swenson and Bill Fletcher among many others.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but I liked 'Hour' much more on this second viewing than the first (it had been at six or seven years). It isn't an easy western to watch, and doesn't do much to pull you in in any sort of obvious fashion. That said, there's just something about it. Filmed in Mexico with cinematographer Lucien Ballard (one of the all-time greats), the movie looks stunning. Throw in one of Jerry Goldsmith's more underrated scores and it all adds up. Listen to the score HERE. It's a familiar story by now, that of Wyatt Earp and the OK Corral, but this adult western holds together quite well. Highly recommended.

Hour of the Gun (1967): ***/****

Diablo

I love westerns, but by 2016, it can be genuinely hard to bring something new to the genre. To any genre really. It's tough. So what do you say about 2015's Diablo? It's a western with some potential to be pretty decent...but it just ISN'T. It's not very good, but there is a twist. A good twist. What's your take though? Is that twist enough to save an otherwise mediocre-to-bad movie?

It's 1872 in the Colorado Territory and a young rancher, Jackson (Scott Eastwood), is woken in the dead of night. His home, his barn, his corrals are on fire, and he sees three men riding away to the south with his wife. He rides out in the morning having to make up time and miles on the trail, all with the hope of getting his wife back and exacting revenge on the men who kidnapped her. Nothing will come easy though in the pursuit as Jackson meets all sorts of obstacles though. His biggest obstacle? That could be himself as his violent past threatens to tear him apart before he can catch up and save his wife. Can he somehow do it?

As I write today's western review, I check the count and see that I've written 245 western reviews since starting my movie review blog. I've been in a good place lately, watching and re-watching westerns as quick as I could. So while this western from director/writer Lawrence Roeck didn't get a theatrical release (that I'm aware of), I had to give it a shot. The verdict is pretty straightforward. Though there's potential, it simply isn't very good. I'll give westerns the benefit of the doubt for the most part but this one has too many holes.

What's most disappointing is that Roeck and his crew are clearly fans of the genre. Filmed in Alberta, Canada, 'Diablo' is a beautiful-looking film. This isn't the sun-drenched desert vistas you might expect in a western. This is the snow-capped mountains, the frigid air, the bundled-up cowboys so that's pretty cool, an interesting change of pace. The shots of Eastwood's Jackson riding through the mountains, across a snowy ridge, cutting across the horizon, they're gorgeous...at first. The movie's only 82 minutes long, and I'm betting 30 minutes are simply establishing shots of a rider riding. Helicopter shots, overhead shots, from the side, from the other side, from behind, straight-on....oh my goodness. It's repetitive and repetitive and repetitive. The same for the musical score. It's appropriate but it tries to be too big and epic-based when the story just doesn't call for it. 'Diablo' knows and respects the western genre but can't quite get there.

Then there's the twist. Looking back on it and the build-up, there are hints as to what's coming. I didn't pick up on them at the time. Either they're too subtle or I just take the western at face value too much (See it and you'll understand my issue; read 'dumbness.') Reading some message boards, some other critics' reviews, the twist is pretty divisive; love it or hate it. For me, it took me by surprise completely. I didn't see it coming. I thought it worked...but it is underutilized. No spoilers, but the reveal comes at the hour-mark after a painfully slow first hour. Then when we should be reveling in the reveal, the movie ends 15 minutes later. The credits roll at the 77-minute mark. We waste so much time getting to that point that it feels completely -- no check that, COMPLETELY -- wasted. I'll give credit where it's due, and the final scene ends on a creepy shocker, but again, it is almost all potential.

The son of the legendary Clint Eastwood (still the coolest), Scott Eastwood has been working in film and television since 2006 and he seems to be taking off a bit in the star department. He's still developing though as an actor and struggles at times when he doesn't get any help from the script. Eastwood does show his skill though, but in a short movie with so many moving pieces, he kinda gets lost in the shuffle. Who else to look for? Some cool names, some recognizable faces including Walton Goggins, Danny Glover, Tzi Ma, Camilla Belle, Jose Zuniga, Adam Beach and Joaquim de Almeida as some folks who pop up along the trail. Most aren't around for more than a scene or two, but it is cool to see them in a western story. Just wish the source material was a little stronger.

Too bad in the end. With some tweaks here and a fleshed-out story there, we're talking a pretty decent little flick. There's just too many holes here. A short movie is almost unbearably slow, the dialogue is some of the most stilted I've ever heard, and a potentially really cool twist never gets a chance to take off. I'll ever so slightly recommend it for the gimmick, for that twist, but other than that, probably for diehard western fans only.

Diablo (2015): * 1/2 /****

The Moonlighter

Not often remembered as one of Hollywood's great on-screen couples -- I'm totally stealing Turner Classic Movie's Ben Mankiewicz's introduction! -- Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck worked together four times during their illustrious characters. Double Indemnity is a classic, and I loved the Christmas-themed Remember the Night. Let's add a third to the list with today's review, 1953's The Moonlighter.

Wasting away in a jail in a small western town, an outlaw, Wes Anderson (MacMurray), has been captured for cattle rustling and is awaiting trial. Outside the jail though, some restless cowboys don't want to wait for that trial though, and through a case of mistaken identity, the wrong man is lynched, leaving Wes to escape with his life. He's torn up inside because a relatively innocent man (a hobo) died for absolutely no reason and struggles with how to handle the guilt. The only thing Wes knows is the outlaw life, whether it be rustling or bank robbing, and that's right where he reverts back to with no other options available to him. As Wes puts together a plan to rob a bank -- with some help from an old partner and his down-on-his-luck brother -- he finds out that a woman from his past, Rela (Stanwyck), is on his trail and looking for some answers.

I love westerns. I thought I'd like this generally forgotten, low-budget(ish) entry to the genre from director Roy Rowland. I was wrong. It's just not very good with too many negatives that cancel out some of its elements with some potential to offer. Good cast? Check. Story with rapid changes in tone? Double check. As soon as there's something to sit back and enjoy/appreciate, there's something equally frustrating that cancels it out.

That starts with the Wes character, MacMurray getting a rare chance at a villainous character. Sounds good, right? Can't go wrong with a star often associated with Father Knows Best and several Disney movies as a cattle-rustling outlaw...until you can. The script is rough. It starts off promising as we meet a grizzled Wes who hasn't shaved in days and is patiently sitting in a jail cell. When everything goes to hell with a lynching of mistaken identity (new band name?), so does the character. Wes' guilt is too much, and he takes it out on the lynching party. It's played like we should feel for him as he's wracked with guilt over what happened, but yeah, I'm not seeing it. His "revenge" is pretty weak too, roping some of the lynchers and then dragging them for awhile. He ropes Jack Elam (because Jack Elam was a villain in EVERY 1950 western) and we're not necessarily sure how much he does so there's that, but come on, if he's full of angst and vengeance, do it right. Make him pissed off and vengeful!

Further removing any edge off the character is the reliance on the love story. MacMurray and Stanwyck had unquestioned chemistry, but again, there's little reason to feel sympathetic for their stories. A tortured love from the past is typically a western-killer, especially when Stanwyck's Rela admits that "her love was too demanding, too strong" and that her demands drove...Wes...to...crime. Ugh, gag me. That's weak. And true love if you ask me! There's also a wasted subplot that doesn't live up to its potential with Wes' younger brother, Tom (William Ching), now engaged to Rela but struggling with where he's at in life. Never quite lives up to its dark potential, including the final act after a genuinely good -- if somewhat telegraphed -- 'twist.' Meh, why go with interesting when you can go with never-ending love full of passionate hugs and adults rubbing cheeks with their love?!?

Also look for Ward Bond as Cole Gardner, Wes' old partner, another rare opportunity for an actor who typically played good guys to get a bad guy role. Along with Elam, look for familiar faces John Dierkes and Morris Ankrum in small parts.

Just a western that tries too much. It's 75-minutes long and tries to tackle way too much. It even has an intermission! It starts off very strong but derails following the lynching scene, including a bizarre flashback as Wes starts to exact his revenge on the lynching party and the town. The scene develops with an intense tone of doom but ends up playing like a spoof. 'Moonlighter' is unfortunately never truly able to recover. It isn't awful -- there's simply too much talent on display -- but it sure ain't good either. Worth it as more of a western novelty than anything, especially with MacMurray, Stanwyck and Bond leading the way.

The Moonlighter (1953): **/****

Westbound

Well, I did it. It may have taken me years, but I finally did it! Thanks to a recent airing on Turner Classic Movies (my go-to movie station), I was able to finally watch the only Budd Boetticher-Randolph Scott pairing I had not seen. That entry? From 1959, Westbound, actually the sixth of seven films the director and star worked together on. Where does it end up among the seven? Read on and find out!

It's late in the Civil War as the Union and Confederacy continue the bloody fighting, both sides looking for more gold to bankroll all the fighting. One of the keys? Getting that gold from California across the southwest to safety so it can be deposited in banks and mints. In steps John Hayes (Scott), an extremely capable Union cavalry officer who has a background in running a stagecoach line. He's now being sent to start up a line on the fly, one that will be running coaches full of gold being shipped as fast as humanly possible. The task is incredibly difficult, especially because Southerners in abundance are going to do their damnedest to stop him from succeeding. First up on that list is his former employee, Clay Putnam (Andrew Duggan), a Confederate sympathizer who's hijacked much of the already-established stage line. Into it all, Hayes steps in with little room for error and less time to get things right.

As a western fan, it is hard not to like these films, these seven pairings between Boetticher and Scott. Their reputation has grown over the years -- thankfully! -- to the point that western fans look to these films as some of the best of the genre, a canon to be recognized. Where does 'Westbound' fall? Right in the middle. I liked it a lot, but I can't put it on the same level as 7 Men from Now and Ride Lonesome, my two favorites of the bunch. It's better too than Decision at Sundown and Buchanan Rides Alone, putting it instead among Comanche Station and The Tall T as the 'good, but not great' entries. None of them are bad, just some better than others. 'Westbound' is one that grew on me during its 72-minute running time. Something clicked in about the 25-minute mark or so, and I was hooked.

I've made no bones about my dislike and worry over so many heavy, overdone adult westerns from the 1950's. The drama, the emotion, the betrayals, it was all laid on so thick. One of many beauties of the Boetticher/Scott films is their outlook on the west. There was good, bad and those caught in the middle, those who have to decide to do what's right (and possibly dangerous) or just go along with the easy payday, what's easy. Among westerns -- and films, stories in general -- there's nothing more direct than good vs. evil. Where will everyone fall in the end? Boetticher follows the similar formula, the same archetypes and at just 72-minutes, 'Westbound' is a fast-moving, often dark, adult western that flies by. An excellent, underrated final product.

Leading the way and navigating through the good and bad is star Randolph Scott, an ideal lead for these movies, a necessary front man. Movie-in and movie-out, Scott was what these movies needed. His John Hayes is no different, resolute in getting the job done no matter what odds are stacked against him. He doesn't see black or white or shades of grey. Hayes sees what is right and intends to get the job done. There's never a doubt of his intentions. These aren't anti-heroes, but instead, a last wave of true western heroes. Scott throws himself into those parts with abandon. He's believable. You buy it that he will never take the easy way out. But you ask, even when a lost love (Virginia Mayo) is waiting there to be swept away? NO! Our hero wouldn't dream of it! What about a lovely young bride (Karen Steele) who he's clearly attracted to? Double NO! It just ain't gonna happen, a true western hero, a dying breed by 1959 in the genre.

There's some good parts all around in this Boetticher western. I liked Duggan a lot as Putnam, the Confederate sympathizer determined to stop Hayes but even he has limits. His enforcer, Mace (Michael Pate), has no such limits, providing some tense moments as their plan is put into action. Mayo is Putnam's wife, a woman torn by her past feelings of Scott's Hayes and her genuine feelings for her current husband. Steele is a bright spot also as Jeanie Miller, a young bride to Rod (Michael Dante), a Union soldier who lost an arm in the fighting and was sent home. There's an interesting dynamic among Hayes, Jeanie and Rod as the stage plan comes together that takes some surprising turns as the story develops. Wally Brown provides some comic relief as Stubbs, the stagecoach driver, with John Daheim memorable as the sneering henchman of Mace's...Russ.

Nothing flashy, nothing too out of the ordinary. It wouldn't fit with Boetticher's straightforward, no-nonsense smile. This is a western at its finest with a story that doesn't pull any punches, a hero who it's easy to root for, villains you can't wait to see get their due, and all of it wrapped tightly in a nice 72-minute package. If you're a fan of the other Boetticher/Scott pairings, you'll definitely enjoy this one too.

Westbound (1959): ***/****

3:10 to Yuma (2007)

Oh, remakes...we meet again. And a western at that?!? Oh, the horrors! As for my rule though, if you're going to do a remake, you'd better be ready to do something different, something with a twist. Here's a perfect case in point with 2007's 3:10 to Yuma, a remake of a 1957 western of the same name. The original is a good if not great western that with some tweaks could be great. Does the remake capitalize on that potential?

A rancher in New Mexico with a wife and two kids, Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is struggling. A drought has left his land barely getting by, and he's running out of money to pay off some significant debts. What can he do to save his family and their land? A highly lucrative, highly dangerous option has presented itself. An infamous outlaw and killer, Ben Wade (Russell Crowe), has been captured in the town of Bisbee following a successful payroll robbery. The railroad wants Wade brought to justice, hoping to send him to Yuma Prison where he will be tried and prosecuted, hopefully ending up in a noose. For $200, Dan agrees to go along in transporting Wade to the town of Contention where the outlaw can be put on a train to Yuma. With a small, not too capable posse helping, Dan and Wade hit the trail. Not far behind? Wade's murdering, bloodthirsty gang, looking to free their boss and not caring if they've gotta kill a few people in the process.

The 1957 3:10 to Yuma from director Delmer Daves stars Glenn Ford (as Wade) and Van Heflin (as Dan) in a pretty good but not great western. It's solid. It's entertaining. A remake isn't necessarily needed, but if you're gonna do it right...do it like this.

From director James Mangold, 2007 'Yuma' injects some energy into the western genre. Some of the DVD special features address that aspect, the love of the western, the general death of the western in theatres, and without getting preachy...the need for westerns in theaters. The original is a talkative movie, but the 2007 version is talkative, action-packed, highly entertaining, and features some great performances. Filmed on-location in New Mexico with an Oscar-nominated score from Marco Beltrami, 'Yuma' feels and looks authentic. It's dirty, dusty and grimy with gunplay and death hanging in the air. There's nothing glamorous or romantic about the late 19th Century in the American southwest. Throw it all together though, and we've got a western with a ton of energy that is just fun. It's entertaining. 'Yuma' shows you can be a so-called "adult western" while still having fun.

Who better to inject that energy into a decidedly-American genre? Lead actors from New Zealand and England of course! Crowe and Bale are perfectly cast in their respective roles. Crowe's Ben Wade is a killer, a bandit, brutal, ruthless....but damn, he's charming when he wants to be. Lightning-fast with a gun, he's also freakishly quick with a disarming line. Wade can play mind games with few equals, providing some fun as he messes with his captors. Crowe is clearly reveling in the part, clearly having a ton of fun with the amiable but brutally efficient outlaw. As farmer/rancher Dan Evans, Bale gets the more straight role but similarly throws himself into the part. His Civil War past still weighs on him, and he desperately wants to provide for his family, including his wife (Gretchen Mol) and two sons. While few men would take the risks associated with transporting a notorious outlaw, Dan has no other options. Two fascinating characters.

Crowe and Bale are excellent together, featuring some great banter throughout. The most memorable part though, that goes to Ben Foster as Charlie Prince, Wade's right-hand man, a lightning-fast gunslinger who's also just a touch unhinged. Foster is terrifyingly good here from his wardrobe, to his evil smile to ability with a gun. A great supporting part. Also look for Logan Lerman as Dan's oldest son, Dallas Roberts as Butterfield, the railroad representative, Peter Fonda (who's always welcome) as McElroy, a grizzled Pinkerton agent, Alan Tudyk as Doc Potter, Kevin Durand as the maniacal Tucker, Vinessa Shaw as a madam who meets Wade's liking, and in the odd, out-of-left-field department, Luke Wilson in a random part as a gunslinging miner.

A couple things bugged me on the recent viewing. Trying to stay ahead of the vengeful Prince and Wade's gang, Dan, Butterfield and Co. seem to be in absolutely no rush to get to Contention. They set down and camp....a lot. We're talking long, restful sleeps each night it seems like! Before that, they stop and have a nice dinner at the Evans ranch. Eh, time isn't of the essence or anything, right?

Some plot holes and discrepancies aside, this was a great western. There isn't a ton of action, but what's there is excellent. The opening stagecoach robbery -- featuring a gatling gun! -- is a quality scene-setter and some gunplay is sprinkled throughout until the finale, an exciting, bullet-riddled chase through Contention to the train depot. Where the remake differentiates itself from the original is the mix of drama and action. Mangold knows what he's working with in Crowe and Bale and lets the camera and story stick with his star duo. Their chemistry is without doubt throughout, two pros in a heavyweight fight just waiting to deliver the knockout punch.

As for my general complaint about remakes, do something different if you're gonna remake a movie that didn't need it. The 2007 version does plenty different, including quite a different ending. Some critics took issue with the ending and Wade's reasoning for what he does, but if you're paying attention, clues are dropped throughout as to his intentions. An excellent all-around western that's highly recommended!

3:10 to Yuma (2007): *** 1/2 /****

Stagecoach (1986)

Released in 1939, John Ford's Stagecoach is one of the all-time great westerns. It was hugely influential in countless westerns that followed, and of course, is famous for helping make John Wayne a huge star, one of the biggest movie stars of all-time. So what's the biggest form of flattery? A remake! And unnecessary ones! Ford's western has been remade twice, first in 1966, and with today's review, a 1986 TV western, Stagecoach.

In the small town of Tonto, a stagecoach is set to leave and keeps its schedule in making it to its next stop in Lordsburg. It is far from an easy ride though across the desert, especially when reports of Geronimo and his Apache warriors being on the warpath start to hit the town. An already dangerous ride is that much worse. The driver, Buck (John Schneider), intends to do his job though, taking the coach through, Apaches be damned. So with a full coach of passengers, Buck leaves Tonto with a cavalry escort hoping to avoid Geronimo and his warriors. His passengers, all of them, have reasons to undertake such a dangerous trip. Some are trying to get somewhere while others are simply trying to get away, but to a person, they believe they're right. Are they? Can they get to Lordsburg safely without coming under attack?

Okay, No. 1. Something that needs to be said. There's no reason to remake Ford's film. NO reason. It's about as perfect a western as you'll find out there. So to remake it in different formats twice? Unnecessary to say the least. I haven't seen the 1966 version -- I'd like to, the cast is pretty crazy -- but I feel safe saying the original is better. The same here. Why bother remaking a movie that didn't need to be remade? Well, the answer isn't one you might easily come up with.

Any ideas? This TV western actually puts a country music spin on the original formula! Didn't see that one coming now, did you?!? The cast includes Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, Waylon Jennings and Kris Kristofferson in major roles. Now even as a non-country music fan, that's an impressive pairing of talent! The biggest difference between the '86 TV flick and the '39 original is the re-working of certain characters so the Big 4 Country Stars are actually given something to do. Cash is Marshal Curly Wilcox, on the hunt for Kristofferson's Ringo Kid, with Nelson as the Doc Holliday (quite the change!), and Jennings as Hatfield, a talented gambler (some would say cheater) looking for some redemption. Take the original characters/story, add country stars, lather, rinse and repeat and you definitely get some tweaked stories! That's not a bad thing, giving a refreshing new look at a familiar story.

Of the four, I thought Cash and Nelson come out the best. Cash isn't the greatest actor, but he's very natural, and his scenes with John Schneider's Buck are excellent, two experienced trailhands discussing what their best plan is and should be. Nelson too is excellent as maybe the most famous dentist ever, Doc Holliday (not any old Doc like the Ford version), philosophizing and smoking a cigar and generally having a good time. Obviously he's having some fun with the part. Jennings is okay as Hatfield but nothing crazy. I'm a big Kristofferson fan, but it's a bit of bad casting here. Maybe it's because John Wayne's take on Ringo is so iconic, but Kristofferson is too old for the part and his scenes with Dallas (Elizabeth Ashley), an aging, disillusioned prostitute, lack some chemistry. It kinda feels like a western Last Vegas or Grumpy Old Men, four aging stars getting together and having some fun. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Who else to look for on the crowded stagecoach? Also look for the always welcome Tony Franciosa as Gatewood, a corrupt banker getting out of town with his bank's latest deposit (some $30,000), Anthony Newley as Peacock, a traveling whiskey salesman, and Mary Crosby as Lucy Mallory, a very pregnant young woman traveling west to meet up with her husband, a cavalry officer.

So while there are some changes along the way -- some major, some not as significant -- mostly this TV western sticks with the original's story. The soundtrack isn't entirely country (featuring some solid uses of guitar), and the locations are solid but don't register like Monument Valley does -- I know! Go figure in that department. The biggest changes are saved for the end in a finale that feels somewhat disjointed and/or rushed. It's not an especially good flick, but it is entertaining from beginning to end. The novelty of the country casting is just enough to give it a recommendation. It ain't on par with the 1939 original, but few are. Still....it's not bad.

Stagecoach (1986): ** 1/2 /****

Jane Got a Gun

I'm a western nut. I feel right at home with them. And unfortunately for me and other western fans, the genre hasn't had a prominent theatrical presence since...well, since before I was born. As for today's review, I imagine a lot of people haven't even heard of it. Released in theaters this past Friday, it's had a dramatic production and is basically being released in theaters because....I don't know, it takes millions of dollars to make a movie. So what's the verdict on the little-advertised Jane Got a Gun?

It's 1871 in the New Mexico territory, and Jane Ballard (Natalie Portman) lives on a small spread with her husband, Bill (Noah Emmerich), and their young daughter. Bill staggers home one day, falling off his horse with his back riddled with bullets. As Jane digs the bullets out of his back, Bill mumbles that "The Bishop boys are coming." Their past has caught up to them and with her husband recovering and unable to help, Jane is on her own. With time running out and desperately in need of help, Jane seeks help with a man from her past, Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton), an accomplished gunhand, who at first wants nothing to do with her. After a change of heart though, Dan follows her on the trail, agreeing to help. Riding back to the spread, they have to decide what their plan of both attack and defense will be against John Bishop (Ewan McGregor) and his gang. The odds are already stacked against them though, and that's without considering if they can work through through their checkered past.

Haven't heard of it? Few have. This western has received little to no advertising in recent weeks. After a checkered production, it seems the studio backing the film simply wants to get it off the books. If it's a financial bomb? Eh, it's not sitting on the shelf. 'Jane' was actually filmed back in 2013 and has been sitting on that shelf ever since because of its original studio going bankrupt with the Weinstein Company buying it. The production itself seemed like a revolving door of directors and actors as well. Easy-peasy, right? Well, let's make the best of a lousy situation.

Moral of the story? It's a pretty decent little western. I liked it a lot. Director Gavin O'Connor stepped in after some drama with previously-attached directors and does a solid job with an old school western that would have been comfortable if it had been released in the 1960's/1970's. While it isn't cut and dry black and white, it is a pretty straightforward good guys vs. bad guys. More importantly, it's clear that those involved are fans of the genre, know how to do a western right. Filmed on location in New Mexico, 'Jane' looks authentic, the wide expanses of the desert serving as a backdrop. It's a big, lonely place. O'Connor and cinematographer Mandy Walker have fun with some genre conventions, riders sprinting at the camera in a sun-soaked, vision that looks like a mirage, riders silhouetted against a setting sun. Throw in a good if not flashy score from Lisa Gerrard and Marcello De Francisci, and you've got some positives across the board.

What isn't exactly abundant in the western genre? For one, female leads. For two, strong female leads. In steps Natalie Portman, one of the best actresses currently working in Hollywood (wish she'd work more!). Her Jane Ballard is a welcome character, a real character. She's a good shot with a rifle but far from a killer. She makes tough choices for the sake of her family and will do just about anything to protect them. Her backstory is especially interesting which we see in some well-handled flashbacks featuring some genuinely surprising revelations. So while she seeks help from a man, her Jane is far from a damsel in distress. This is a lead female character that is a welcome addition to the genre, not a side character who's brushed aside at the slightest sign of trouble. There's been far too many of those so welcome to the club, Natalie Portman/Jane Ballard!

Having worked together on 2011's Warrior (an excellent movie, one of my favorites), Edgerton teams up with director O'Connor and again, doesn't disappoint. His Dan Frost is the archetypal western hero, capable, stubborn and even when the odds indicate he shouldn't, he does the right thing, in this case agreeing to help Portman's Jane. Edgerton is fast becoming one of my favorite actors, and he shows why here. It's a fascinating character, one dealing with his own past demons and with his own reasons for helping Jane out. He also has one of the best lines in the movie as he dispatches one of Bishop's henchmen. Playing Bishop, the again always reliable Ewan McGregor is a scene-stealer as the steely-eyed John Bishop, a notorious bandit but a well-dressed, well-coiffed gentleman bandit at that. Just wish there was some more of him!

With a small cast, Emmerich isn't given much to do as the wounded, laid-up husband, but some revelations about his past help flesh out the character. Also, look for Rodrigo Santoro as Fitchum, a slimy member of Bishop's gang, and Boyd Holbrook as Vic, John Bishop's younger, sadistic brother. A smaller cast definitely leaves the focus on Portman and Edgerton once things get moving.

This isn't an action-packed western so don't expect shootouts every minute. The action -- like the story -- is about setting the scene, building the tension to nearly unbearable levels. When the firing starts, it's lightning-quick. Most of the action is saved for the finale when Bishop's gang descends on the Ballard house, a violent mix of Home Alone meets Straw Dogs. The story itself has some surprises up its sleeve, much of it revealed in the well-handled flashbacks going back to the later years of the Civil War. If the ending is a tad too tidy, so be it. It's a good ending to an above average western that deserves better. I can't imagine it will stay in theaters too long so get your butts out to theaters quickly or wait for it on DVD/Blu-Ray. It's well worth it!

Jane Got a Gun (2016): ***/****

The Professionals

The western is my genre, my spirit animal, my go-to when I'm looking for a type of movie I just know I'll like. There are very few so-called "perfect" westerns out there, but I've got my favorites. Some are obvious, highly respected and known by even non-western fans. One that seems to get lost in the shuffle at times? A classic, a true gem, and one I never tire of, 1966's The Professionals.

It's 1917 and the Mexican Revolution is still raging strong all over the country. Along the U.S./Mexico border, four men, Rico Fardan (Lee Marvin), Bill Dolworth (Burt Lancaster), Hans Ehrengard (Robert Ryan) and Jake Sharp (Woody Strode), have been brought together to perform a dangerous mission. The little group, each of them a specialist in one way or another, has been hired by rancher and oil tycoon Joe Grant (Ralph Bellamy) to ride deep into Mexico and rescue his wife, Maria (Claudia Cardinale), who's been kidnapped by a bandit and revolutionary, Jesus Raza (Jack Palance). Maria is believed to be stashed away in a hacienda in the mountains with Raza's small army standing guard. This quartet is the best of the best with few equals, but even this job seems to be too much, especially if they haven't been told the whole truth of what they're riding into. Can they pull off the job?

Aired recently on Turner Classic Movies, host Robert Osborne introduced the movie stating that director Richard Brooks deserves more of a reputation, of a following for a career that produced six Oscar nominations and plenty of good to great to classic movies, as a director, producer and writer. For me, this is easily his best work. It's one of my favorites, and I always enjoy catching up with it. Mutually appreciated by both audiences and critics, 'Professionals' is one of the best westerns of the 1960's and really, one of the best westerns of all-time. It picked up two Oscar nominations, one for Brooks' directing and one for his script. Not a flaw in sight. Sit back and enjoy this one, hopefully with a big tub of popcorn.

Let's get the boring technical stuff out of the way. Boring, but necessary. Brooks earned a Best Director nomination for blending a movie that features the technical, storytelling, characters, humor, action and visual look. With filming locations in the Valley of Fire, Death Valley, along with Nevada, California and Sonora, the visual appeal is evident. On the trail thanks to some key landmarks, you're always aware of where you are. As well, the traveling and action scenes are aided immensely by composer Maurice Jarre's score, especially the main theme. Listen HERE. Throw it all together, and you feel like you're right there with our Professionals in the sweaty, sun-baked desert where bandits and revolutionaries are there behind every rock waiting to ambush you.

The cast is pretty insane in terms of pure talent and star power, but with each repeated viewing, it always comes back to the script for me. Adapting a western novel called 'A Mule for the Marquesa,' Brooks transformed a good book into a great movie. This is a story that loves it characters, both the good and bad, and more importantly, knows them well. The script absolutely crackles, Lancaster and Marvin especially relishing delivering one memorable one-liner after another. I can't think of too many westerns that have the ability to tread that fine line between serious action and a sense of humor. Read IMDB's memorable quotes HERE. What's impressive? Even out of context, they still can put a smile on your face, give you a good laugh. When you actually see Lancaster, Marvin and Co. deliver said lines? Oh my, you're in for a treat.

I love a good men-on-a-mission movie, and this one belongs right at the top with The Magnificent Seven, The Guns of Navarone and The Dirty Dozen as my favorites. Seriously...Lancaster, Marvin, Ryan and Strode...oh, and Palance, Cardinale and Bellamy! That sound you hear is my head exploding from awesomeness. Brooks' script introduces our characters with lightning-fast ease and we get to know them in that quick flash. Marvin's Fardan is an ex-soldier, a leader, an organizer and a planner, Ryan's Ehrengard a horse wrangler, a cowboy and the very best, Strode's Jake an expert tracker and scout and specialist with bow and arrow, and last but not least, Lancaster's Dolworth is a mercenary, a philosophizing dynamite expert. That is a ridiculously talented cast with a lousy script, but combined with Brooks' script, the end result is some of the most memorable western characters ever with a story to boot. You can't pass that up now, can you?!?

When I think of Burt Lancaster and Lee Marvin working together here, it puts a smile on my face. Their Bill Dolworth and Rico Fardan are the heart of the movie, mercenaries, soldiers and adventurers who are good friends who have worked together in the past, including previously in the Mexican Revolution. They too have a history with Palance's Raza, making their job a touch more difficult. What the script and actors do so effortlessly is bring these characters to life. They're tough, rough-hewn men who live by their word and their hard-fought ability to survive. They fight because they're good at it, and maybe, just maybe, they like it a little bit. Their one-on-one scenes are some of the most memorable in the entire movie. When you throw the always reliable Robert Ryan and Woody Strode into the mix, you're in for a treat.

Okay, we need an actor in the mid 1960's to play a Mexican revolutionary....naturally, it's Jack Palance! His Raza though is an underrated character, an equal to our Professionals, a somewhat disillusioned fighter who fights on because he loves Mexico, the people, and wants those in power out.  Then there is Claudia Cardinale, maybe the most beautiful woman to ever grace the screen. Her Maria has some tricks up her sleeves as we're introduced to her about halfway through. Bellamy is perfect in his part, beginning and end, as the worrying Joe Grant (or is he...). Also look for Jorge Martinez de Hoyos, Joe De Santis and Rafael Bertrand in key supporting parts. In a scene-stealing part, Marie Gomez plays Chiquita, one of Raza's soldiers who has a history with Lancaster's Bill.

What's funny about 'Professionals' is that it isn't an action-heavy story. Yes, there's gunfights, chases and some memorable sequences, but it isn't a 2-hour action scene. It's the better for it. We get to know our characters really well in quick scenes featuring Brooks' snappy dialogue. When the action does come, is it ever worth it, especially the pre-dawn attack on Raza's hacienda deep in the mountains. Loud and chaotic, it is a gem. The other action is on a smaller-scale, tightly-edited firefights in claustrophobic canyons. So if there isn't an overabundance of action, who cares? The general tone of the movie aids that cause. It's not just a western. It's also a buddy flick, a heist movie, a chase story, a love story, a history lesson of sorts, and with a bit of a twist mystery in the second half of a 117-minute feature film.

They don't come along much better than this. One of those perfect action-adventure movies, one that's hard to poke holes in. A phenomenal cast, a memorable script, and all you can ask for in a western. A true classic, for fans of the genre and even those who aren't.

The Professionals (1966): ****/****
Rewrite of a March 2011 review

The Yellow Tomahawk

Every so often, I just need a good, old-fashioned B-western. It doesn't have to be great or even particularly good, but I need that dose of WESTERN. So while 1954's The Yellow Tomahawk is pretty run-of-the-mill, I liked it. Entertaining, surprisingly violent and with a cool cast, it's a solid western that's worth a watch.

Riding out of the wilderness, frontiersman Adam Reed (Rory Calhoun) finds himself being chased by Cheyenne warriors. He's cornered and looks to be in trouble until his blood brother, Cheyenne warrior Fire Knife (Lee Van Cleef), steps in, all of it a show to arrange a meeting. Fire Knife has a warning and a message he would like delivered. The U.S. cavalry is building a new fort nearby with a commander, Major Ives (Warner Anderson), who lead a bloody massacre months prior against a peaceful Indian camp. His reputation has preceded him with Fire Knife passing his message along to Reed. What is it? Tell Ives to stop building the fort and risk an attack that will wipe out the partially-assembled fort. Reed rides down to the fort and passes it along but Ives isn't having it, doubting the truth of the threat. What awaits for the small garrison and the soldiers' families who have traveled west? Reed sees the writing on the wall but no one else seems to believe what's coming.

Nothing flashy here, nothing too crazy. From director Lesley Selander, 'Tomahawk' is nonetheless an entertaining, pretty solid western that isn't limited by its budget or limitations. A longtime director in film and television, Selander is a pro at spinning a movie like this. So often, westerns are town-bound. limited by a fake-looking set that never allows the story to breathe. This particular entry does not have that problem with virtually no sets! The cavalry building a fort allows for no sets other than a couple half-assembled walls. It was shot on-location at the Kanab Movie Ranch and Fort, giving the story a cool, intimidating, scary sense of the openness of the desert and wilderness. You're all alone out there, and with the threat of an imminent Indian attack, there's no place to hide.

A star of B-westerns who often played supporting roles in bigger budget pictures, Calhoun is a favorite of mine. He plays a memorable, roguish good guy, a solid anti-hero with an edge who is quite comfortable in the western and in the saddle. His Adam Reed character, a frontiersman and scout of sorts, is interesting because of his hinted-at backstory. It's never told in detail, but it appears he lived with the Cheyenne at some point, his brotherhood and family connection with a young Lee Van Cleef as warrior Fire Knife. If there was a little more time to breathe ('Tomahawk' is a very pleasant 82 minutes), maybe we could have learned some more about out hero. Still, what's there is pretty cool.

No A-listers on-hand here, but that doesn't detract from an overall good cast. Peggie Castle (Lily Merrill on TV's Lawman) is the necessary love interest, a beautiful woman visiting her fiance, a cavalry officer, at the budding fort. She's no damsel in distress either, a welcome addition to the genre. Noah Beery Jr. has some stereotypical fun as Tonio, an ay-ay-ay Mexican horse wrangler with a beautiful Indian girl, Honey Bear (Rita Moreno), who follows him around. As the stupidly blind officer, Major Ives, Warner Anderson is frighteningly uncomfortable, portraying an officer that was probably all too familiar in the wild west. Also look for Peter Graves (gold prospector) and Adam Williams and James Best (cavalry troopers) in key supporting parts.

One good western after another followed a simple formula. Introduce a disparate group of survivors and individuals, throw them into a survival situation with an ever-present Indian war party, and see who makes it out. After an intense, tension-building first 30 minutes or so, that's what 'Tomahawk' uses as a base. We follow a small group of survivors of an Indian attack trying to get across the desert to safety. The action itself is pretty intense in itself, especially the Cheyenne attack on the hastily-built and poorly-defended fort. It's not hugely graphic -- it is still 1954 after all -- but the violence is incredibly rough and if it had been shown on-screen, whoo, we're talking one nasty picture. The ending too is pretty honest for a mid-1950's western, something that surprised me, caught me off-guard a little bit.

A solid western overall. Worth checking out.

The Yellow Tomahawk (1954): ** 1/2 /****

The Ridiculous 6

Haha people are so dumb. Did you read THIS story? It says that Netflix has stated that 2015's The Ridiculous 6 got the most-ever views for a movie in its first 30-days upon its release. Hahaha why would you watch that crap? Ah, so, yeah, I watched that crap. Call it morbid curiosity, but I watched it. If this doesn't prove that I'll watch just about any western, I don't know what does. And away we go!

An orphan who has lived with the Apaches most of his life, Tommy (Adam Sandler), a.k.a. White Knife, has grown into a respected warrior who's a specialist with knives. One day, a famous bandit named Frank Stockburn (Nick Nolte) rides into the village claiming to be Tommy's father, and that his long-lost treasure is not too far away. Before they can go get it though, a vicious gang of killers swoops in and kidnaps Frank. Stunned at the revelation his father is alive, Tommy is in hot pursuit behind the bandits, but he's in for another surprise. Out on the trail, he keeps meeting the seeds of Frank's past. That's right, he meets five half-brothers, including Ramon (Rob Schneider), Little Pete (Taylor Lautner), Herm (Jorge Garcia), Chico (Terry Crews) and Danny (Luke Wilson). Working together, can the six brothers save their long-lost father from certain death?

To say this flick had a checkered production would be an understatement. Originally supposed to be released by Warner Bros., it was dropped. Netflix scooped it up and on things went! During production, 'Ridiculous' caused a stir when some of the Native Americans working on-set walked off, upset with the movie's portrayal of Indians. My thought there is 'Really? What did you think this was gonna be?' It all led to that point where I saw the trailer for the movie and thought "Oh, come on, that can't be good if Netflix had to showcase it rather than a theatrical run.' So what's to say of director Frank Coraci's straight-to-Netflix western? Well...

It's pretty awful. There are some laughs along the way -- genuine laughs -- but they're generally lost in a sea of recurring jokes that go nowhere, awful characters, and a story at 119 minutes that is a touch on the long side. I've mentioned my worries about comedic westerns early and often as I've written these reviews over the years, and the same issues are here. If you don't handle it right, it's just goofy to downright dumb. Coraci (a frequent Sandler director), Sandler and co-writer Tim Herlihy clearly know the western genre. They pick and choose some stereotypes here and some cliches there and mix it all together into one jumbled-up mess. Some of the end results pay off with laughs while others flop.

Two things ultimately got me through this flick. Okay, maybe 3. 1. I wanted to write a review. Look at all those movie stars! 2. I love westerns. 3. Okay, it was just 2. Adam Sandler's movies aren't meant to be classics. They're supposed to be fun. So what I did like here was the often very stupid dynamic among the actual Ridiculous 6. White Knife is the stoic anti-hero, Schneider's Ramon, the Mexican bandit, Little Pete, the mentally challenged idiot (a truly painful performance to watch), Garcia's Herm, the mute, mammoth mountain man, Crews' Chico the saloon piano player, Wilson's Danny the gunfighter looking for redemption. The group even...sings (so there's that) about finding their Dad. There are some good gags here, including Chico "revealing" to his brothers that he's actually black (gasp!). Same for a scene where they discuss their ridiculous skills and talents, The payoff is worth it.

Who else to watch out for? I liked Will Forte as the leader of the Left-Eye gang, bandits who have shown the commitment to the gang by tearing out their right eyes, including Clem (Steve Zahn), already down to one eye when he joins the gang. I won't give away all the surprises -- you can do that by looking at the full cast listing -- but it was cool to see guys like Harvey Keitel (a gunslinging saloon owner), Danny Trejo (bandit leader), Steve Buscemi (barber/doctor in a truly disgusting scene), and John Turturro (Abner Doubleday introducing baseball to Indians) pop up here and there. Plenty more familiar faces pop up here and there so keep your eyes peeled throughout for some good, some bad and some just plain dumb.

What's unfortunate I thought was that there actually was a fair share of potential for a western spoof/satire here. I did laugh here and there throughout. Unfortunately, most of that potential gets swept away in a sea of donkey diarrhea scenes (twice), one scene of bathroom humor after another, jokes about third nipples, odd special effects overdone sight gags and generally that feel that a 13-year old giggled his way through writing the screenplay. I'm not giving it a positive rating, but it isn't so awful that it's not worth a watch, at least to experience the mostly badness mixed with the at-times goodness.

Now what about a sequel...

The Ridiculous 6 (2015): * 1/2 /****

Mackenna's Gold

Oh, cable, how I love you. I basically have two channels on if I'm watching TV, either MLB Network or Encore Westerns. A whole channel devoted to western TV shows and movies?!? Aaahhh my head just exploded! It gives me a chance to revisit a whole bunch of movies I haven't seen in years, like 1969's Mackenna's Gold, a big-budget, all-star extravaganza that I remember liking (I think) on my first viewing. Does it hold up?

A marshal for the western town of Hadleyburg, Mackenna (Gregory Peck) is out on the trail when he's ambushed by an old Apache man who dies after a quick shootout. Before he dies, the Apache gives Mackenna a map to a famous, supposedly lost, canyon of gold ('Canon del Oro') that treasure hunters have long sought. Mackenna throws the map in the fire but not before noticing a couple landmarks on it. He's soon cornered by a Mexican bandit, Colorado (Omar Sharif), and his gang who similarly are looking for the canyon of gold. They're not alone. The desert seems full of treasure hunters and gold-hopefuls desperately searching for the gold. Discovering that Mackenna may hold the key to finding the canyon, he's taken along as Colorado's unwilling prisoner. The supposed location is days away across the vast desert with Mackenna, Colorado and his men forced to deal with a do-good posse out of Hadleyburg, an intervening cavalry troop and an Apache war party. How far will the prospect of gold drive all these folks?

I'm a sucker for westerns -- good and bad -- but this one is bad and just not that enjoyable. Talk about a movie where the ingredients don't come together (at all), and you've got this movie. The talent on-hand is unquestionable from director J. Lee Thompson, stars Gregory Peck and Omar Sharif leading a ridiculously deep cast, a cool, potential-filled story and a drop-dead look to it all...it should have been so much better. Or I guess I'd settle for just 'good' too. The formula seems to go after a western Guns of Navarone meets Treasure of the Sierra Madre combination, but it never jells into anything remotely coherent or especially enjoyable. That's tough to say because a cast this good should make a movie pretty decent on its own but alas, it wasn't meant to be this time! If you're looking for a Peck-Thompson-Carl Foreman pairing, stick with 'Navarone.'

Kudos to Encore Westerns. Watching the movie for the second time but first time since 2009, I watched it in widescreen, as it was meant to be. Thompson filmed in Super Panavision 70, a filming technique that fills the screen to epic proportions, almost like a panoramic picture. Shooting on-location in Monument Valley, Glen Canyon and Canyon de Chelly in Arizona adds a great visual appeal to the movie. Shots of riders galloping across these expanses are excellent to watch, a sight to behold, and unfortunately, one of the few genuine positives to take away from a western that's too long at 128 minutes. When a movie's looks are the best thing going...that's never a good thing.

Poor Gregory Peck, he looks like he's as bored as all get-out and doesn't quite know what to do. One of my all-time favorite actors, he's undone by all the shenanigans going on around him. Getting to play straight man to a murdering bandit, a gold-for-eyes posse, a bloodthirsty Apache war party, a murdering cavalry sergeant (an underused Telly Savalas), and all sorts of ancient legends coming to life is never a good thing. As reliable as anyone who's ever graced the screen, Peck is given little more to do than look out for Camilla Sparv's damsel in distress while navigating a love triangle with Julie Newmar's Apache warrior and Sparv. Yeah, you read that right. Catwoman plays an Apache warrior and looks great doing it! She even gets an odd nude swimming scene where she tries to kill both Peck and Sparv. So there's that!

So much of the rest of the cast is simply miscast. I like Sharif in just about any film he's ever done, but he's an odd choice to play our Mexican bandit, Colorado. His gang includes Keenan Wynn as a Mexican bandit named Sanchez, with Ted Cassidy (Lurch from The Addams Family), Rudy Diaz and Robert Phillips as Apache warriors. All spot-on casting! Brace for this list of appearances that amount to little more than cameos, members of a "posse" out of Hadleyburg that's looking for gold. The group includes Eli Wallach, Anthony Quayle, Lee J. Cobb, Burgess Meredith, Raymond Massey and Edward G. Robinson!!! Look at that Hollywood royalty! Unfortunately, they're introduced, given nothing to do and there basically because of their name recognition. So....yeah....there's that! Quite the cast, huh? I just wish they were given more to do. Maybe that character development was cut from the rumored 3-hour version of the film. Yeah, that's it I'm sure.
  
Just too many moving pieces that never get going in the same direction. There's virtually no story, just some character introductions and then they're off into the desert. The only detour are various ways to kill off characters in waves. Then, there's the beautiful location shooting, with a slight problem. Countless times, one after another, we see the location shots and then a quick cut to our actors in front of a rear projection shot. Nothing takes you out of the story's momentum like Peck, Sharif and Co. riding a "horse" as they tear across the desert. Throw in some odd, out of place narration (it's not Victor Jory's fault!), some painful theme ballads, and generally odd cutting and editing that is more and more jarring with each passing scene.

There's a meanness to the story that's hard to account for. Characters are introduced for the sake of dispatching them in unceremonious fashion, but the general tone of the movie itself isn't that dark. It feels like they're going for that "Greed will make you do horrible things" tone, but it's too light, fluffy and goofy to pull it off. There's some potential obviously with the all-star cast, some equally impressive camera angles and shots, and the location shooting, but there's just too much negative going on to ignore it. A stinker.

Mackenna's Gold (1969): **/****

The Wild Bunch

By 1969, director Sam Peckinpah had worked on several TV series and several film productions, including The Deadly Companions, Ride the High Country and Major Dundee. He was an incredibly talented director but one whose fiery personality and personal demons could potentially derail any film he worked on. But in 1969, it all came together, Peckinpah making his classic, his all-time great film, one of the best westerns ever and best films ever in general, 1969's The Wild Bunch.

It's 1913 in a small border town near the Rio Grande, and a gang of outlaws, led by the infamous Pike Bishop (William Holden), disguised as soldiers ride in to rob the bank of a rumored silver shipment. The robbery is an epic disaster as a posse of bounty hunters, led by Deke Thornton (Robert Ryan), a paroled outlaw who used to ride with Pike, is waiting in ambush. Many of Pike's gang is killed in the robbery that nets them NO money. The remaining members of the gang, including Dutch Engstrom (Ernest Borgnine), retreat into Mexico. They need a new job, a new robbery, a new chance to earn some money. Pike especially knows that time is running out, that times are changing, and their chances at surviving as outlaws is becoming ever more unlikely. It doesn't help that Deke and his bounty hunters have followed them into Mexico, looking to collect the bounties on these infamous outlaws. With time running out, what do they do?

What a movie. Every so often, each and EVERY thing involved in the making of a film comes together and forms that perfect symmetry. 'Bunch' is an all-timer, not just a movie I love but a great movie in terms of storytelling and in technical terms. Appropriate for the time it was released (the late 1960's), it is cynical, horrifically violent, brutally honest and generally downbeat. This is a western and film ahead of its time, helping set the tone where films would go in the coming years. This is Peckinpah at the top of his game. He would have other good to great to classic films, but this is his Great film. Just a gem.

There is little to nothing to criticize here. While the filming process sounds incredibly interesting (a film in itself), the choice to film in Mexico pays off huge dividends. Cinematographer Lucien Ballard shoots a beautiful movie with the Mexican countryside and desert as a backdrop. The locations are phenomenal. You feel like you're watching the actual settings of the Mexican Revolution to our story. Composer Jerry Fielding turns in quite the memorable score as well, appropriately epic at times and equally quiet and emotional as necessary in other scenes. Listen to a sample HERE. As for the story itself, Peckinpah and writer Walon Green turn in a screenplay that's just a gem. It isn't a movie in a rush, letting things breathe and allow the viewer to get to know the characters -- for good or bad -- over its 145-minute running time. Sit back and take it in. You shan't be disappointed!

Many westerns have dealt with the death of the old west, the end of an era, but none better than The Wild Bunch. It's 1913 and there's no place for these outlaws, killers and gunfighters anymore. The world is changing, and civilization (of sorts) is moving in to replace them. We follow a gang of those outlaws, robbers, killers/murderers as they try to pull off their one last job and step away, and it's a testament to the acting on display and screenplay that we feel any sympathy at all to these men. Like few movies I've ever seen, there is a doomed quality to these men who are working with limited time on their hands. They know the door is closing on them, more than likely a bloody death awaiting them if they don't figure out something soon.

Where Peckinpah's screenplay is so strong is in its characterization and its depth. There's a whole lot of acting talent on display in 'Bunch,' and for much of the cast, this is their all-time best performance or certainly one of their best. Holden's Pike Bishop is one of the most fascinating characters ever in my book, an aging outlaw who's outlived his time but doesn't know what else to do. Borgnine too is excellent as Dutch, his right-hand man who can also see the writing on the wall. Their scene together after the early botched robbery is essential, two men who potentially know what awaits them but go into things willingly because maybe that ending is what's supposed to happen. On the counter, Ryan's Deke Thornton is equally tragic. He's riding after his old partner, Bishop, and would much rather be riding with them than chasing them. But as the script relies on, your word is your word, and these men live by that coda.

One of the many things Peckinpah loved to touch on in his films was that bond of men under fire who come through while others don't. Holden's Pike is the mouthpiece for that concept, of giving your word and sticking by it even when it'd be far easier to tuck your tail and run. We see that again and again with the bunch, including Pike, Dutch, old, grizzled Sykes (Edmond O'Brien), the crass, unsavory Gorch brothers, Lyle (Warren Oates) and Tector (Ben Johnson), and Angel (Jaime Sanchez), the youngest of the group, a fiery Mexican. What's interesting is that though Pike and the bunch claim to live by this coda, they continue to fall short of actually living up to it. It's when they realize their faults in that department that the story takes a far more tragic turn toward the inevitable ending that you just knew was coming.

Because the already-mentioned star power wasn't enough, here's some more! Along with Ryan, look for scene-chewing Strother Martin and L.Q. Jones as two scummy bounty hunters with Albert Dekker as the railroad magnate "employing" them. Emilio Fernandez is perfectly slimy as Mapache, the Mexican general claiming to be some sort of freedom fighter but it seems it is all for show, for more power, with Jorge Russek and Alfonso Arau (El Guapo in Three Amigos) as his subordinate officers. Also look for Bo Hopkins, Dub Taylor and Chano Urueta in key (if small) supporting parts.

What 'Bunch' has become synonymous with over the years is its groundbreaking, sometimes horrifying portrayal of on-screen violence. It's not that Peckinpah lingers on the violence for the sake of shock value. Far from it, but instead he makes it into an art form. The idea of a 'dance of death' comes to mind in any portrayal of violence with three main set pieces (1. The opening robbery turned into a bloody shootout 2. A prolonged train robbery and 3. The final, bullet-riddled and blood-splattered gun battle). The editing is ridiculously fast and cut in with perfect uses of slow motion. Simply put, there is an art to Peckinpah's use of violence, both in the editing, in the overwhelming use of slow-motion blood squibs, and the impact of that violence we're seeing. If Bonnie and Clyde opened the door some for its own use of on-screen violence, Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch kicked that door wide open. Almost 50 years later, it still resonates, and it's clear the impact it had on hundreds and thousands of movies released since.

It all builds to maybe the most memorable action sequence of all-time. If it's not No. 1, it certainly belongs in the conversation. In a sequence that's been dubbed "The Battle of Bloody Porch," it all comes together in an extended sequence that has lost none of its edge since its release in 1969. This is a transfixing scene that is equal parts horrifying and startling but you just can't look away. There are too many great moments just in this scene alone to mention, including an improvised walk the Bunch takes on their way to a final showdown (maybe the movie's second-strongest sequence). It is followed by a quick, shocking death, and then an eerie moment of silence that hangs in the air. With one gunshot, it is on, bullets flying thick in the air. Obvious SPOILERS but you can watch it HERE. If you haven't seen the movie, I don't recommend watching the sequence out of context. Watch the movie and soak it all in as part of the whole product. Just a remarkable extended sequence with virtually no music. The focus is the characters, violence and death. Nothing more. Nothing less.

A classic in every sense of the word. I pick something new up with every viewing, and it never loses any of its impact. A film without a weakness.

The Wild Bunch (1969): ****/****

The Wonderful Country

Compared to the 1960's, the 1950's just doesn't stand up for me when it comes to the western genre. Movies were too much soap opera, not enough wild west. Sure, there were plenty of good to great to classic entries, but the following decade was a stretch of a genre at its best. Closing out the decade strong though was a 1957 western that's been generally forgotten over the years, The Wonderful Country.

Working for the powerful Castro family in Mexico, gunfighter and hired gun Martin Brady (Robert Mitchum) is crossing the Rio Grande and entering the United States. An incident from his past drastically changed his life, forcing him to retreat into Mexico where he developed a name for himself as quite the dangerous pistolero. Now, he's on a mission from the Castros to pick up an illegal shipment of repeating rifles and ammunition. It isn't soon after crossing the border that his horse throws him, breaking Martin's leg. He can't ride so he's forced to wait and heal in the border town, shipping the guns and ammunition back to Mexico without him. So with nothing to do but wait, Martin sits back and heals but doesn't quite know what awaits him. People from his past, new acquaintances, and those who want to see him dead, they all await in the coming weeks, especially when news reaches town that the gun shipment has been stolen. But by who?

What an interesting, genuinely odd, even offbeat movie. I watched this western from director Robert Parrish years ago and revisited it recently when it popped up on MGM-HD. I liked it a lot then, and a second viewing produced the same result...albeit with the same response. This is an odd movie, no doubt about it. There are touches of an almost art-house film sprinkled throughout. The story is disjointed to say the least, covering months (and maybe more) from beginning to end but with no real sense of the passage of time. But coursing through it all, an odd energy hangs in the air that I found appealing. A bit of a mess but a good mess to watch.

Robert Mitchum was the best. He had no rivals, a rogue in Hollywood before it was cool to be a rogue. He was one of the first anti-heroes too, the tortured hero who transitioned into bigger and better. One of his specialties? As I've mentioned before, Mitchum was drawn to Mexico including this film but also The Wrath of God, Villa Rides, 5 Card Stud, Bandido and probably several more I'm forgetting. Who better then to play an expatriate American who embraced the Mexican lifestyle almost entirely? I can't think of anyone.

Mitchum's Martin Brady is the one constant through all the craziness and winding story. Yeah, his accent is a little rough at times, but when he speaks Spanish, this isn't an actor remembering his lines. He speaks it fluently. But the character as a whole is interesting because it feels so ahead of its time. This is the somber, even doomed gunfighter running from his past but not really knowing what the future holds for him. All he's known is his pistol, but his ability with the gun has him tied down so he can't escape. From the look of the character -- the immense sombrero, the stubble, the vaquero attire -- to the potentially doomed development, it's a more than worthwhile lead performance.

The rest of the cast is more of an ensemble with a few bright spots. Julie London plays Helen Colton, the wife of the local army outpost commander, Major Stark Colton (Gary Merrill), a generally ineffective officer. Helen has a past and is drawn to Mitchum's Brady but she may have other ideas. But then things get weird in almost variety show ensemble territory, including Albert Dekker (a Texas Ranger captain), Jack Oakie (a well-meaning railroad man), scene-stealing Charles McGraw (an amiable doctor), former Negro League/MLB pitcher Satchel Paige (a cavalryman, a Buffalo Soldier), Anthony Caruso (a Mexican farmer), Mike Kellin (a Mexican pistolero), Victor Manuel Mendoza (the army officer) and his brother, the Governor (Pedro Armendariz), John Banner (the German store owner), Jay Novello (a Mexican soldier and Brady's friend) and Max Slaten (his naive visiting nephew). Enough for you? McGraw is especially good, as is Armendariz in a smaller part.

Definitely worth mentioning is the visual appeal of the movie. 'Country' filmed on-location in Mexico, making the movie look almost like a country's tour guide. Some locations are familiar from other like-minded westerns, but for the most part, you're seeing a country as it is, not done up for the sake of a movie. With a Mexican-themed score combined with that beautiful countryside serving as a backdrop, we've got a winner in the technical department. Sure, the story drifts along too much, bouncing from one character and situation to the next almost without warning, but this is a movie that's very enjoyable if you drift along with it. Not a classic, but a pretty darn good western.

The Wonderful Country (1959): ***/****