MovieChat Forums > 7 Men from Now (1956) Discussion > The Good and Bad, no ugly.

The Good and Bad, no ugly.


Just finished watching this. I had never heard of this western, ran across it while running a google search for great westerns. Pleasantly surprised! I thought Boetticher could have done more with the material though. I am not sure of the budget, but cinematography could have been better. I had recently seen Scott in Ride the High Country and was rather disappointed in the acting he gave here. For someone consumed with revenge after losing his wife to a mistake he thinks he made, he does not seem particularly distraught, angry or depressed. He certainly has energy enough to verbally spar with Marvin's character and subtly lust after Gail Russell. The burgeoning romance between them to me just makes Scott's character creepy (not to mention Marvin's tale of how 'Scott' supposedly stole another man's wife previously...). It adds depth to be sure but not a believable, positive kind. Gail Russell is gorgeous and does a great job but again, Boetticher let her down by not bringing more out of her performance (though that might just be the screenplay).
Lee Marvin steals the show, hands down. I spent the whole movie itching for the next scene with him. He excels here. It's a pity that he was not the leader of the robbers (the whole gang is ignored and even the real leader is barely fleshed out) but his noble showdown with Scott at the end is the stuff of great westerns--but again, could have been better shot.
A good western, but it would not make the top ten by a good shot.

reply

If I may... The budget was quite small, and the Boetticher/Scott/Kennedy team all seemed to favour a kind of quiet, internal efficiency to anything else. You say Scott doesn't seem distraught, angry of depressed, and this could be for a number of reasons. It's possible Scott wasn't a terribly good actor. It's also possible he was a very good actor, but decided to internalize much of his angst. It's further possible the character has already done his grieving, or is so intently focused on his vengeance he refuses to submit to emotional histrionics until the job is done.

Script-wise, the entire idea was to try to say as much as possible in as few words as possible, and this meant leaving a lot of gaps and holes for audiences to fill in on their own. Exactly how much of what Marvin says is truth? Heck, even the precise nature of the relationship between Marvin and Scott's characters is barely more than hinted at.

I think much of this film is too 'vague' to fly at all with modern audiences - I'm talking VERY modern - who seem to need every emotional beat to be hit at the exact moment, no loose ends (unless a sequel is in the works), and everything spelled out with clarity. This efficient little gem of a film offers none of those, but rather says what it has to say in about 60% of the screen time of todays convoluted, overlong, and overblown cinematic fare.



Never defend crap with 'It's just a movie'
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds

reply

I never saw this one. They're Much like Camanche Sta and Ride Lonesome which would follow.
Why some of these title never were shown in my area IDK? Maybe Columbia just picked a handfull and they became the most popular titles but to me a few I've seen in recent years have been some of the best.

Kisskiss, Bangbang

reply