Reviews

This was pure entertainment. If you want history, look at The Long Riders. But, if you want fun and excitement, this is your huckleberry. It has been years since this film rolled out, so a lot of the "extras" are now recognized as accomplished country music artists. The movie moves quickly to its conclusion, but then there is an added bonus: Bob Ford! You'll have to see it to fully appreciate it. Bravo!

Worth it just to hear "O, My Pretty Quadroon" and to see Zette run the stairs. Music was composed by Max Steiner! You can hear the similarities to his "Gone With the Wind" score. A masterpiece of a movie, in my opinion. Top notch casting.

I usually write long reviews, but having just read the other 23 reviews that are here, I am going to keep this very brief. I am in my 70s and am giving the classic TV Westerns one more go-round, before hanging it up. What impressed me about this series, and I mean really impressed me, is the quality of the writing. It is sometimes spare, but it matters. I also think that, for a 22-minute show, the direction was unusually good. There were times that I had to remind myself that John Ford wasn't directing. Look carefully, and you'll see what I mean. The series brought the best out of a lot of pedestrian actors. Lastly, I agree with everyone that McQueen was a very cool guy, but what he was doing required attention to the director and a performance that is reminiscent of the best method actors (Brando, Steiger, others). I am glad I gave this series another look. It is more enjoyable now than it was when I was a kid.

My review is not so much a review as it is a "report." I could not understand the dialogue. The dialogue was too muffled. (I resorted to closed captions, but they got in the way.) The sets were too dark. At times, the characters were indistinguishable. If there was an overarching theme, I did not see it. Disparate elements (some of the photography, some of the time, for example) deserve praise, but design elements are secondary to the story. Many reviewers seem to love the complicated story lines. That, to me, is a one-way ticket to the art house. For me, this was a handsome production, even with technical flaws (sound, for example), but mediocre storytelling.

"War is Hell." Isn't that what Gen. Sherman said? It's clear that no one associated with the making of this film has any idea of what war is. War is about killing the other guy before he kills you. And, I can assure you, it is relatively painless, in view of what the other guy has in mind for you. There is no moral dilemma. This is not My Lai (which was not war). All the pained expressions on the actors' faces, the moral dilemmas, the self-evaluations, the . . . well where do you stop? The story, itself, is overblown and is boring for long stretches of time, and the cast is woefully miscast in most of the major parts. Helen Mirren? She does not belong here. Alan Rickman? Ditto. A handful of actors do a pretty good job of playing the officious career civil servants that they are, but that's about it. Sorry, I thought this was a waste of time and a delusional interpretation of a really serious problem.

This is a wonderful show. The hosts are attractive and charming. The show is fascinating to watch. as dumps and bad designs are converted to attractive living space. My wife and I have recorded every show for all three seasons, and we enjoy re-watching them. Do not let the negative reviews here deter you from the enjoyment of kicking back and watching the advventure unfold.

I think this is one of the best episodes from Wagon Train's long run. The episode uses excellent and exciting stock footage from various films, which adds a gritty realism to the story. The acting is superb. The three featured older women (especially Beulah Bondi and Jan Clayton) had long, successful careers. The fact that none of the men broke down, in contrast with women, does not bother me at all. At that time, the men would have made the decision to pull up stakes and move west. The women had little choice in the matter, and when they (the women) said goodbye to their parents, they knew it was forever. The men took responsibility for the family decision, but had to put on a good face, as going back was unrealistic. The men are not without remorse, however. I do agree with one writer that this script was written for Ward Bond, but Robert Horton does very well with this part, and showcases his talent which, far from being wooden, is pretty solid. This is television, and for being television, this episode easily rates a TEN from me.

I am grateful that HBO made this movie. Die-hard fans of the series (like me) have been waiting for the finale, and despite its flaws, we will enjoy it at some level.

I understand that David Milch was already suffering from dementia as this story and script were still in development, and this might account for some of the differences in the series vs. the movie that others have already observed. We can only hope that Mr. Milch will continue to have good days.

My major "complaint" involves the story line: It focuses on Sen. George Hearst, who was introduced in Season 3. I did not like the story line then, and I do not like it now. It was forced. And Hearst's dialogue was contrived. No one spoke like that then, or speaks like that now.

I think it would have been far more entertaining if the producers had focused, instead, on Seth Bullock's new friendship with Teddy Roosevelt, a friendship that would last for 35 years until President's Roosevelt's death in 1919. Many story lines could have evolved out of that friendship.

Very little was said about silver mining. Without mining, Deadwood would not exist. It is unrealistic to suppose that a mining tycoon like Hearst would devote his time to the installation of telephone poles.

It strains credulity that Anna Ellsworth would actually have any plans for Charlie Utter's land. What a strange way for her to bow out of the movie.

Dan Dority has obviously aged (and gained weight) and is no longer assigned the menacing role he had in the series. He has no presence.

One or two of the scenes involving Joanie Stubbs (who is wasted in this movie) should have prompted a flashback to Powers Booth, who played one of the pivotal roles in the television series.

Doc Cochran has some screen time, but Tom Nuttall (who owns Saloon No. 10) has very little. Nuttall was one of the most interesting minor characters in the series.

E.B. Farnum, the court jester, starred in the series, but hardly has time to reintroduce his character in the finale.

Which brings me to Calamity Jane Cannary. Yes, her role in the movie was disproportionate to her "minor" role in the series. But, rather than finding fault with that, I felt that her role was indispensable in bridging relationships between characters and in bringing the series back to life. Her recital of what happened to Wild Bill in Saloon No. 10 is priceless. She is my favorite character in the movie.

I gave this a 7. That is not a bad rating. The film is enjoyable, and a lot of effort went into it. It was not possible to conclude a three-year series in two short hours. That expectation could not be met. It was too ambitious. But, it was worth the try. A "Bravo!" to all concerned.

I can think of no episode in the post-Chester years that make me miss him more than this episode. This episode perfectly illustrates my opinion that Festus brought an unfortunate dimension to Gunsmoke. There are times when he is simply unwatchable. Of course, in real life, Ken Curtis was a pleasant guy with a wonderful singing voice, which was showcased in movies and recordings. But, for some reason or reasons, the writers decided that Festus had to be a hillbilly, an annoying rube from God Knows Where, who chews the scenery whenever he is in front of the camera. There are moments in this episode that are excruciatingly painful. Marshal Dillon does show some incredulity, even disgust, for the way Festus treated the new physician (Pat Hingle), but it isn't enough. What a shame the director didn't apply a little restraint here. In other episodes, with other directors, Festus is more easily tolerated (especially when facing down bad guys). But give him some extended dialogue, and pretty soon the viewers are reaching for the remote control. I think there is a reason why there are so few DVDs available for the "Festus years": Festus.

I cannot improve on the two older reviews (which rated this episode a "10"), so I will simply say that the amount of tension, drama, and great storytelling that got squeezed into 22 minutes of airtime is nothing short of astonishing. And Clem Bevans! Listen carefully for his boast that he met Meriwether Lewis (of Lewis and Clark fame) in St. Louis after Lewis had been to the "Western" ocean. A priceless moment! If this was not the best episode in the first three years, it comes very close. Pure entertainment. Bravo!

More than fifty years after its release, I don't think this film is holding up. My main criticism, at this point, is Dustin Hoffman, who I feel was miscast, and his character, Ben, who does not seem genuine to me. Hoffman was too old (29 or 30) and too atypical in appearance, and he lacked the athletic form that a track star would have. Ben, the character Hoffman plays, for all of his academic and athletic prowess, is a complete loser. He can't even greet his parents' guests or engage in small talk. This makes no sense, in view of the cultured and socially motivated parents he has. Ben has no grace. The guests at the party, in fact almost all of the adults, are strictly stereotypes, although Murray Hamilton -- excellent as always -- has some good moments. But, even so, almost all of the adults are generally nice, and genuinely like Ben, although it is not clear why.

Why Mrs. Robinson would get mixed up with Ben remains a mystery. Her husband (Murray Hamilton) and her alcoholism are the reasons, I guess, but there is no real character development to give us an insight into her behavior. The daughter, played by Katharine Ross, delivers a stiff, one-dimensional performance She went on to become a pretty good actress.

The soundtrack is holding up fairly well, but to be honest, the songs largely deal with an individual's right to occupy the center of the universe. The music was very egocentric.

All of this is just opinion, 20/20 hindsight, if you will, so no one has to get mad. It's an enjoyable flick, tedious and predictable at times, but worth seeing once or twice, but not repeatedly. As for Hoffman, he would very soon put in a timeless performance in "Midnight Cowboy."

I remember watching this when it was first broadcast (1962-63), and I remember liking it, probably because it focused on the rodeo life. What boy wouldn't like that kind of life? On re-watching, 55 years later, I realize that this was a serious effort for television. Script and character development were good. Jack Lord was a good actor, and had a good screen presence. However, over 32 hourly episodes, I wearied of the "noirish" quality of the program, and I found myself wishing that it had been shot in color, although that would have betrayed the cheap production values. The transfer to CD was not even. And, the sound quality varied. I wish that closed captions had been added. My wife could not hear a single word. Stoney Burke is worthy of your consideration.

Like others, I am amazed by the negative reaction to this film. It is not Citizen Kane, nor does it try to be. It is pure escapism, with lots of cool visual effects and excitement. It's entertaining. Isn't that why we go to the movies?

This movie makes The Revenant look like Citizen Kane.

In a word, it is "incoherent." Was there an editor? Was there a director? Seriously, could anyone follow this film if he or she saw it in a theater? I watched the DVD at home, which gave me the benefit of the "pause" and "rewind" controls (to say nothing of the closed captions), but nothing could redeem this disaster.

Tarzan, Jane, Doctor Williams, and Rom were all miscast. Poor Samuel Jackson (the doctor). He tried, but the role did not suit him. Jackson reminded me of an aging "studio" actor trying to fulfill his contract before obtaining his release to make pictures for Republic Studios.

The story-line is so contrived that it requires no further analysis.

There is so little character development that it, too, requires no further analysis.

The computer graphics are, at times, first-rate, but they eventually accentuate the "cartoonish" quality of the film.

I do not enjoy denigrating what was obviously a serious effort to provide entertainment. But, technology has been overwhelming art for at least twenty years, and that should concern everyone.

I am giving this movie a "5" because I recognize that some serious movie-making was involved, and I want to recognize it. However, I am also giving this movie a "5" because I did not like it.

The opening scenes are exciting, but disjointed. Who are these people? Where are they? What are they doing there? Why do the Native Americans care? The bear attack is genuinely exciting and, for me, the highlight of the film. The problems is that there are two hours to go.

The film is dark. The sun surely shines under the Wyoming/Montana/Dakota sky, but rarely in this film. A lot of "squinting" is necessary.

The dream sequences are unnecessary and poorly edited.

There is some character development, but not much. Glass is obviously respected, but it isn't clear why. Fitzgerald's character seems to morph by the minute. The other characters simply pass through the scenes. And everyone looks like everyone else! It isn't clear why the Arikaras are so intent on capturing Glass. It isn't clear who, exactly, got back to Fort Kiowa. The intervention of the Pawnee who comes to Glass' aid strikes a positive note, but what does his brief involvement add to the film? And, who exactly were the Voyageurs and what were they doing there? And what did the sexual assault add to the movie? My biggest gripe is also my highest praise: The cinematography is magnificent but, oh so, languid! By the end of this long movie, I was numb. And bored.

Leonardo won the Oscar for his portrayal of Glass, but he has been better in a number of other films. But, there is no denying that he got into his role.

I bought the BluRay. I will watch it three or four more times, at full volume and with closed captions, to see if I can better understand it and appreciate it. I think, however, that it will take a "director's cut" to bring clarity to this film, if that is even possible, and it will take the patience of Job to sit through it.

In my long life, rarely have I loathed a movie like I loath this movie. I don't know where to begin, but perhaps all I really need to say is that the casting of Nigel Terry as Arthur ranks as one of the greatest casting blunders of all time. His weak face, his lack of conviction, his negligible screen presence -- it's just totally baffling. In this film, the sun never shines, and the players never smile. Ah yes, the players. They bark their lines as if they are performing in the round at the Globe Theater or, alternatively, upstaging Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn in their latest screwball comedy. Seriously, has there ever been more incoherent dialogue? And, if you hadn't read the Classic Comic back in the 1950s, would you have ever had a clue what this movie is (ostensibly) about? The direction. So stiff, so uneven, so uninspired. It's just a complete mess, and, despite the acting achievements of the players in other endeavors, I decline to get caught up in the usual momentum, where bad movies are invariably praised because they are not just bad, but astoundingly bad. This is storytelling at its very worst,and doleful, dark, and dreary only suggest how awful this movie is.

This is the second review of this episode and, to avoid repetition, I will incorporate most of what was written in that other review.

I found this to be a top notch episode from the 1972-73 season which, in my opinion, continued to reflect a general improvement in the show: better story lines, better script, and higher production values.

Newly did demonstrate that he knew how to act, and the scenes and the dialogue between Patricia and him are quite tender and quite believable.

I wish that this had been a two-part episode. The story is slightly compressed in the last fifteen minutes.

After Doc returned from his real-life heart ailment the previous season, his role began to expand, and he became a key ingredient in more episodes -- and it improved the series. I was particularly interested in hearing Doc say that he needed to take a blood sample, and seeing him examine the slide under his microscope gave us a window into the early study of hematology.

I think Sam the Bartender added much to the series over his 11-year run. I know that he is going to die in real-life in 1973, so I find myself looking at him carefully in the episodes that were filmed in the 1972-73 season. In this episode, shot most likely in late 1972, he does appear to have lost a little weight. Kudos to James Arness for keeping Glenn Strange on the payroll until Glenn could no longer go on.

It was nice to see the cast dressed in their Sunday best for the wedding.

I've bounced around in this review (see the earlier review for details). My intent here was to say that this is a very worthwhile episode, and the director did an excellent job in getting a good effort out of all the actors. Highly recommended!

For the post-Dennis Weaver era, this is one of the better episodes. The guest cast is stellar, although it hurts to see Leo Gordon reduced to such a paltry role. He appeared in Gunsmoke either the first or second season, when he was at his menacing best. Even as late as 1966, when he starred in "Night of the Grizzlies" with Clint Walker, he was still a very dangerous dude. In the five years between that film and this episode, Gordon seems to have aged 25 years, and he still had another 28 years (in real life) to go. It was evidently a sad decline. That said, the guest cast is excellent, and you wonder why Sam Groome wasn't a bigger star. Ken Curtis gets to show what a fine actor he really was, because he is given a serious, pivotal role. For the ten years he was on the show, his talents were wasted, as too much emphasis was put on his being little more than comic relief (which quickly turned into a major annoyance). As she grew older, Amanda Blake became a much better actress, and the better episodes in the last few years featured Miss Kitty, in my opinion. And any time Glenn Strange/Sam was given lines, the episode improved exponentially. The storyline in this episode meets all of my criteria for the regulars, and it creates some plot twists, some surprises, and some character development, too. Highly enjoyable. The very last scene, when they are all in the Long Branch and in the same frame is poignant. Matt, Doc, Festus, Miss Kitty, Sam -- they are all gone now, but what great memories.

My father and I went to the drive-in movies every weekend during the first half of the 1950s, and I can vividly recall seeing a number of Alan Ladd movies sitting in our '50 Ford and munching on cracker jacks while Dad smoked unfiltered Pall Malls.

Dad thought Alan Ladd was the best, and I always assumed that he based his opinion mostly on Ladd's indelible turn in "Shane." But, I can't help but think that "Branded" played no small part in forming his opinion.

What a gem of a movie! I may have seen it as a youngster and, if so, I waited more than 60 years to see it again. It was worth the wait! First, the characters, the script, and the storyline are believable. The players think like we do, talk like we do, and act like we do. That usually is enough to attract some interest in a film. But this movie offers much more.

The cinematography is breathtaking. This little film yields nothing to "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" or "Rio Grande." The scenery, the color, the lighting, are all superior.

The horsemanship is spectacular. How often can you say that about an "oater." The riders in this film gallop along narrow ridge-lines and down steep grades. And there is nothing to cushion their fall except red rock. And take a look at the camera angles, as the riders are tearing down the trail.

And the music! Again, how often do you get to praise the score in a Western? The score is taut, and adds much to the drama and the excitement.

The cast is excellent. And it gives the viewer the chance to see Alan Ladd just before he filmed "Shane." Sure, there were about four movies between "Branded" and "Shane," but "Shane" sat on the shelf for two years before it was released in 1953, so it was actually filmed right after "Branded." You could almost say that Ladd auditioned his Shane character in this film.

This small picture probably had a small budget and a limited release. But it is an "A" picture in every respect. Any retrospective on Ladd or classic Westerns should include this little gem.

For a movie that would have been seen only at the drive-in, this is a first-rate production. Gene is "Gene," and that is a good thing, but Smiley Burnette never looked or sounded better, and the lovely Gail Davis gives a hint of the luminescent "Annie Oakley" whom we (those of us old enough to remember) would come to love in just 5 years. The story is believable, the dialog is snappy, and the film moves along at a good pace. The bad guys are not just slugs; they are interesting in their own right. The scene where Smiley comes to the rescue of Gene is priceless. The songs are not exceptional, but it is easy to see why Gene was the star that he was. It's a winner.

It's a very small story, but I disagree with those that say it was poorly acted.

And, the artificial snow is fairly effective, better than "Band of Brothers," for example.

My beef with many films, especially films written by relatively young writers, is that they use expressions not in use during the period of time covered by the film.

For example, one of the characters says "No problem" instead of "thank you." This "no problem" thing did not start until the 80s. The same is true for "Whatever." I counted at least six, maybe eight, colloquialisms used in the film that no one was using in the 1945.

The story is okay, and the directing is okay, too. Worth a look! 5 out of 10.

You were warned that possibly the worst movie made since The Monolith Monsters (1957) had been unleashed on the public.

Almost all of the actors are unappealing. John Cusack, Woody Harrelson, and Danny Glover are not compelling actors. Cusack, as usual, plays the weary sad sack. Harrelson's attempt to channel Dennis Hopper's maniacal character in "Apocalypse Now" is embarrassing. And Danny Glover's role as the president of the United States is an insult. In his "real" life, he despises America and praises Hugo Chavez, the thug that runs Venezuela and its drug cartels. Putting that aside, Glover's pulse can hardly be measured.

Child actors. Oh, if only we didn't need them. They are almost invariably portrayed as rude, contrary, and sullen. And the parents put up with it. But, never fear, by the end of the film, they are cuddly little teddy bears that have brokered a reconciliation between their estranged parents.

The adult characters in this movie are not believable. They are either cads, unlikely heroes, or holy men. Adults in authority almost always have bad motives. The chief bad guy is supposed to be the president's chief of staff, Anheuser, but in reality he is the only guy that knows what he's doing and is devoted to his duty. That doesn't count much, I guess, in the prevailing culture.

The story begins with some excitement, but eventually devolves into an overlong, overwrought cartoon. It's "Earthquake," "The Towering Inferno," "Krakatoa-East of Java," "The Poseidon Adventure," "The Bible," and "Airport '75" on steroids. Too many anguished characters, too many anti-heroes, too many noble savages, too many plots and subplots, no coherence, and virtual chaos.

Such is what passes today for entertainment. Yes, this is a disaster movie alright, but probably not the kind of disaster the producers intended.

My comment is limited generally to the first season, 1959-60.

This superb series was one of the first to be televised in color, and it was highly influential in persuading Americans that they had to buy a color television set, which was about $800 in 1959, the equivalent of more than $3,000 today. How many of us would pay that much for the privilege of watching a show transmitted by a cathode ray picture tube on a 17-inch screen? I was eleven when the series began, and I watched it from the beginning.

Watching it now, 50 years later, several things come to mind. First, many of the story lines involve the Comstock Lode and the heyday of silver mining, which dates to 1859. For 1859, the weapons and clothes are, for the most part, not authentic. (The haircuts are left out of the discussion.) That's basically a nitpick.

And, it would have been impossible for Ben to have arrived in the Lake Tahoe area in 1839 and to have amassed a 100-square mile ranch in the next twenty years. Pioneers were still trying to solve the Sierra Nevada problem as late as 1847, and the Gold Rush did not even begin until two years later.

Indians are not played by Native American actors. John Ford was using Native American actors in the 1920s. The Bonanza producers could have easily done so thirty years later. That is a major nitpick for me.

There are other time-line problems. In Season 1, Mark Twain appears, and he is depicted as a middle-aged man. Mark Twain was 24 years-old in 1859. The stories also vacillate between 1859-1860 (pre-Civil War) and what was more suitable for an 1880 time-frame. There are continuity problems, over and over.

It is somewhat off-putting, too, that there is so much killing in the first season. In time, the killing was reduced.

Many of the episodes take a socially liberal slant, which would be hard to believe, given the time-line, but give the writers credit for anticipating the seismic shifts in the Nation's attitudes beginning in the 1960s.

Having said all that, the acting is good, and I have come to conclude in my latter years that Adam's character was drawn better than any other's. I don't think Pernell Roberts ever got the credit he deserved. Also, Season 1 reinforces the fact that Dan Blocker (Hoss) was a good actor.

Many of the stories trace real historical events. The guest stars were interesting.

This was great family entertainment, and the series stands up very well by any measure.

I can't say this movie is so much awful as it is unappetizing and uninteresting. Unattractive characters, contrived situations, uninspired direction, unintelligible dialog, it's all there.

Truly, awarding this movie "Best Picture" marks the end of the American Academy and any claims it had to intellectual or creative integrity. It shows that an institution as venerable as the Academy is completely capable of rotting from the inside, largely thanks to the younger members.

How pathetic that millions of viewers have been scammed by this pretentious mess.