Warlock deserves a higher rating - Warlock (1959) Discussion

[–] SirSidneyRuffDiamond 15 years ago

I agree. Surprisingly complex as the story unfolds and becomes darker. I thought Fonda's acting (always very dignified) when he has shot his great friend and partner (Anthony Quinn) was as good as it gets, grimacing as he fought back tears whilst simultaneously raging at the townsfolk for their hypocrisy and lack of respect for a true 'man'... "Take your hats off"...

reply

[–] orangewarm 15 years ago

Fonda had great range, unfortunatley we never got to see it all that aften, but have a look at Once Upon the time in the West - he is truly evil in that. Also, On Golden Pond.

reply

[–] funkyfry 15 years ago

"Once Upon a Time in the West" is a great movie in my opinion, but Fonda's character in "Warlock" is actually more complex and demanding.... again IMHO. "OUTW" requires his screen presence, but Frank is really a one dimensional character who has no real development through the film.

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

reply

[–] MetalWorks 11 years ago

Not really, Frank is pretty multidimensional to me: he does change through the film. He realize that the time for gunslingers is ending, that's why he tries to be a business man, or a husband... and he fails, that's why the ending is so compelling for him and for Harmonica, both are a "ancient race" of men

Yeah, he's pretty ruthless, but the same can be said about any character in Leone's west

The way I see it, he's as multidimensional as Clay, putting some differences aside

reply

[–] b5erik 14 years ago

Warlock is my favorite Western, and I'd put it in the top 10 Westerns of all time. It's that good, IMO.

reply

[–] Adec 14 years ago

Warlock is a fantastic western, very well written and directed, and full of great characters and top notch acting, and unlike many, even most, pre-60's Westerns, is one that really hasn't aged at all, thanks in no small part to being more multi-layered and complex than most. I mean don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of a lot of those pre-60's Westerns, but most were very much a product of their time, whereas this is a film that to me seems truly timeless, at least in my opinion.

And while I've long been a fan of Henry Fonda and DeForest Kelley, and always been aware of Anthony Quinn's quality (who has seldom been better than he was here in my opinion), this is the film that really put Richard Widmark on the map for me, and made me hunt out a lot of the other films he had starred in, which as any fan of Widmark would invariably know led me to some truly classic films as a result. Being born in the 70's he just wasn't an actor who I saw that much or was all that familiar with, even as a film fan, having only seen him in To the Devil a Daughter and Coma, but I've definite become a fan since, and he gave some fantastic performances in some truly great films. It's a damn shame that his legacy in film is so often overlooked these days.

reply

[–] Errington_92 12 years ago

I like the themes to Warlock, an obvious theme being redemption. Watching Johnny change his ways to become an upholder of the law was interesting to see. Even more so was the theme of change. Once Johnny strengthened his position in law enforcement it eventually came down to Johnny against Clay. It makes their brief stand off potent. Instead of ending in the usual bloodshed Clay walked away in respect of Johnny and leaves alone. This is symbolic of the changing ways of society, the old gunslingers making way for a more law abiding style of enforcement.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

reply

[–] manage-932-700755 12 years ago

Agreed. But a 7.2 is pretty high. I have it a 9, though. It was very watchable from beginning to end. The scene in the beginning where the gang comes to town and is sent packing largely by Fonda, with Quinn wisecracking, is cool.

reply

[–] moewadle 11 years ago

Perhaps the film such an excellent, partly because the book from which it came, WARLOCK by Oakley Hall was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1958.

reply

[–] chaosdogglet 10 years ago

Thanks for the book title. I've read the book now, which is just excellent - but still love the film too!

reply

[–] bek-12 10 years ago

I really liked the beginning/middle, but it fell apart for me near the end. It was unbelievable that his friendship with Morgan dissipated so easily. I also felt that the men and woman all fell in love too quickly, and Lily forgave Clay too easily after hating him for so long.

I loved the scene with Curley challenging Clay. That was classic.

Now I'm in the mood for another great Henry Fonda western.

reply

[–] Bilwick1 10 years ago

Part of the problem was that they were abbreviating a long, complex novel, so that things that were more developed and subtle in the book were telescoped down and simplified. For example, the scene with Morgan keeping Blaisdell at gun-point from giving Gannon a hand in the showdown with the San Pablo gang does not occur in the book (where Blaisdell does help Gannon), but is used in the movie to precipitate Blaisdell's break with Morgan. In the novel, their estrangement and ultimate clash is more drawn out and realistic.

reply

[–] alan-linday 10 years ago

Totally agree, one of the most underrated movies ever. Brilliant cast, brilliant work. Extremely clever in intertwining and balancing the 'black', 'white' and the all pervading grey of the story.

reply

[–] BrandNewPoster (6769) 3 months ago

I think the rating is higher than it deserves. For me, this is not a great western.

reply