Not a bad old western, really. Incorporates a lot of conventions from the classic old west of hollywood: cavalry and covered wagons, horsemanship and hard riding on dusty trails, and plenty of shoot-em-up action. Not to mention the double-star power of leading men Randolf Scott and Errol Flynn, with Bogart in the supporting role. I'm surprised this one isn't rated higher.
shareMaybe this is heretical but I actually like it more than Dodge City. It's got an absurdly low rating - 6.6 at this writing - and it's for that reason I ended up rating it a 10 even though normally I'd probably give it a 9. But it is a great action/adventure with a little bit of moral quandary to keep things interesting. I also liked the device of depicting Lincoln as a silhouette.
What's the Spanish for drunken bum?
Some of the dialog was 1930s/40s and not 1864.
Cobby kept saying 'swell,' which didn't mean 'cool' in 1864.
Could I jump in here and ask a question?
I had this on my DVR off of TCM and the recorder apparently didn't get the times quite right. It cut off just as Miriam Hopkins is asking the shadow of President Lincoln for a pardon for Erroll Flynn. So, how the heck did it end?
I'll greatly enjoy watching this one again, but I don't have the patience to hunt down a copy right now.
Thanks to anyone who has a moment to help me out.
Joan.
I gave this an 8 rating and it is underated no question should be 7-7.5 on imbd. Maybe not a top 100 western but close. Very interesting cast that's for sure and given bogey's acting chops why not in that role?
I think the rationale for bogey in that role was that he played gangsters for Warner bros all through the 1930s so why not a bandit? He had the acting chops to pull it off.
Not quite equal to the best westerns made by Anthony Mann-Jimmy Stewart or Randolph Scott-Budd Boetticher. And not quite in the same league with the best John Wayne-John Ford westerns.
This is a pretty well-plotted western (except for the Lincoln ex machina at the end). The performances are decent and, in response to one poster who though that Hopkins was essentially too old to play the part, well, most women in the west at that time, after years of fighting the sun, the trail, and the society, were not exactly traditional beauties. She looks about the way her character should look. It would have been interesting to see one of the later masters -- Mann, Boetticher, even Clint -- remake this film with a little of the "fluff" removed.
shareI also like this film. It was nice to see Flynn co-starring with someone else instead of Dehaviland. I thought Hopkins did a good job. She was supposed to be a society type undercover in order to assist the confederacy. I did not think she looked old either.
shareI would agree that this was a better than average western with a plausible plot if one avoids being too critical. I would also take issue with those who equate the Confederate stars and bars with the Nazi
swastika. Although in recent years the former is used as an emblem by certain hate groups, ie KKK,
its original intent conveyed that of a nation of Americans with a different way of life and the movie's end
favored Lincoln's belief that our country would one day be united and stronger. I wish today's Hollywood
would portray America in a better light.
[deleted]
Yes, agree that Virginia City (1940) ought to interest many a fan who do not particularly go after the Western genre.
With its colossal star power's leading the way with fine acting and sharp appearance, Errol Flynn, Randolph Scott, Miriam Hopkins, Humphrey Bogart and the great supporting cast certainly leads the way to Nevada's booming settlement.
Wonderful idea to revisit this outstanding film one fine day rather soon if possible because, again, even if you don't rather prefer the Western genre, this one constitutes one of those rare exceptions which has a lot more to offer than standard fare.