Will anyone be offended if I say that Edward Platt was not as good a screen actor as Henry Fonda, nor John Ericson as interesting as John Wayne? I mention these startling opinions because the first half of this movie is a remake of FORT APACHE.
I'll go further with these radical insights and assert that Paul Landres was not as good a director as John Ford. While most of the actors are at least adequate, there are some wonky lines offered that didn't sound very convincing.
After the borrowed beginning, this settles down into a standard B western in which Ericson winds up fighting H.M. Wynant, the Indian chief who leads his warriors into battle by standing on a rock and raising his arms. It's an attempt to save the B Western by some serious location shooting in Deschutes National Forest in Oregon, and the camera-work of Ellis Carter is up to the job; he chooses lighting that suggests the forests of the Hudson Valley School of painting, rather than the Frederick Remington lighting that Ford lighted for his color excursion to the Southwest. However, the rest of it is standard fare.
I'll go further with these radical insights and assert that Paul Landres was not as good a director as John Ford. While most of the actors are at least adequate, there are some wonky lines offered that didn't sound very convincing.
After the borrowed beginning, this settles down into a standard B western in which Ericson winds up fighting H.M. Wynant, the Indian chief who leads his warriors into battle by standing on a rock and raising his arms. It's an attempt to save the B Western by some serious location shooting in Deschutes National Forest in Oregon, and the camera-work of Ellis Carter is up to the job; he chooses lighting that suggests the forests of the Hudson Valley School of painting, rather than the Frederick Remington lighting that Ford lighted for his color excursion to the Southwest. However, the rest of it is standard fare.