MovieChat Forums > The Stranger Wore a Gun Discussion > not a bad movie, but...

not a bad movie, but...

posted 17 years ago by Wakanohana
3 replies | jump to latest

Somebody had a lot of extra film that they needed to use up with stagecoach chases. And the editing was very choppy. Some of the camera angles were very awkward, with chairs and other stuff being thrown in the general direction of the camera. I guess it was supposed to be 3-D, but what was the point?

Good actors, pretty good acting, But the plot was unnecessarily complicated, and some of the action scenes made no sense, like burning down the saloon instead of having a straight-up gunfight.

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

I guess it was supposed to be 3-D, but what was the point?

Agreed! I kind of asked the same thing on another thread.

I know it was 1953, but why would you make this very average oater in 3d?

I suspect it was the stagecoach chases and the fire at the end, that were the "3d highlights".

But a very ordinary movie IMO.

[–] Jason_Radley 10 years ago

The point of 3-D then was the same as it is now - trying to get bums on seats. The goggle-box was perceived as a big a threat then as DVDs and Netflix are now.

It's easy to put the blame for the faults with this film at de Toth's door, but Kenneth Gamet's adaptation/screenplay must share the burden. I was thinking whilst watching that there's good ambiguity and a bad ambiguity in a film's structure - the first deliberately keeps us guessing awaiting effective resolution; the second is merely the product of carelessness and/or incompetence.

[–] Wuchak (8100) 2 years ago

there's good ambiguity and a bad ambiguity in a film's structure - the first deliberately keeps us guessing awaiting effective resolution; the second is merely the product of carelessness and/or incompetence.

Perfectly said!