MovieChat Forums > The Way West (1967) Discussion > This film was so bad I could not watch

This film was so bad I could not watch

posted 17 years ago by rspear61
21 replies | jump to latest

Sorry, maybe this belongs in the critique section, but it won't be long enough to be accepted. I came into this movie about the time when the wagon train left Illinois and being a history teacher (retired)I was interested. I was immediately put off by all the happy laughing and smiling faces that the pioneers had when the wagon train pulled out. I stayed with it until the river crossing and started counting the smiling happy faces in each scene. Whoever thought that pioneers would be that joyful and carefree when on a wagon train west ought to have had his/her head examined. What with the worst acting by Mitchum and Douglass I had ever seen, and the worst plot and direction, I just couldn't watch it any more. (I mean, was it possible for Michum to do less acting in a movie than he did in this one?)

And this was made during the time when good historical westerns were possible.

And I still don't understand the scene at the river with the other wagon train? cattle drive?

God, that movie was terrible.

"We're going to need a bigger boat..."

[–] jamesbwill 17 years ago

There are some pretty ridiculous scenes in this movie. The episode where they begin their journey west singing and grinning like possums is hard to take. Even worse was the sequence where Richard Widmark and Robert Mitchum dress alike, mount similar horses, and then take turns allowing the Indians to chase them in order to tire out the Indians' horses. That was just silly. All in all, I thought the film was all right, but it is not a great movie.

[–] abrahamfromann 17 years ago

When has Hollywood ever been factual, and when has our school history books ever been factual?

I've found so many errors in my sons history book I almost decided to homeschool him.

[–] rspear61 17 years ago

I guess "factual" is probably impossible, since the most writers of screen or history book were not there to witness (and even those who may have been, may have been biased one way or another and not written their treatise on the subject "factually".)

However, what i really tried to say was that it was not "realistic". And I think there is a difference. I have seen movies where I thought the subject was treated realistically, but the movie was not in any way "factual". I don't mind a movie that does not claim to be factual, but presents its subject "realistically" (or at least as close to realistic as we might be knowledgeable of.)

I offer as an example, Robin Hood, a purely "non-factual" story, (although maybe based on some possible real person) but movies can present it with realism (clothes, customs, etc), or very unrealistic (which makes for a worse movie in my opinion.

"We're going to need a bigger boat..."

[–] Noel_MarquisDeMaynes 16 years ago

rspear61: "I came into this movie about the time when the wagon train left Illinois"

The treck goes from Independence, Missouri, to Oregon. If it went through Illinois, they should rename it "The Way East" (or "Backward Ho!").

"I was immediately put off by all the happy laughing and smiling faces that the pioneers had when the wagon train pulled out."

Why should they not be optimistic, happy and smiling at the beginning of the journey? After all, they expected to start a new, better life. A bright future seemed to lie ahead. If you had seen more than just the first 15 minutes, you would have seen that the hardships of the journey very soon wiped away the smiles.

[–] chipe 16 years ago

I hated the movie. It gives "soap opera" a bad name. I stopped watching after the Indian boy was killed by accident. The worst scene, among many, was when Kirk Douglas invited Lola Albright into his tent to sound off and proposition her. Ugh! I love westerns. This one must be the worst for the amount of money put into it. ... ...... Good discussion of "realistic" and "factual" above. This movie was neither, of course....... Scenery very nice, again of course -- the one virtue of the movie, other than giving a lot of actors work.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] onleft23 12 years ago

backward ho!
good one made me lol

[–] tramky 15 years ago

"The Way West" certainly is no gem, but it does have a number of elements that made it worth watching for me.

- The general storyline--not many of the detailed dramatics--but the general storyline, is a good one. As a representation of how such pioneers made it across the wilderness it was at times remarkable in the details and the mechanics of it.

- Sally Field was quite the sexy tart in this one, perhaps because she reminds me of a long-ago girlfriend of mine who was herself quite the sexy tart!

- The color of the DVD copy I watched recently was stunningly beautiful. I believe that it was 'Color by DeLuxe'. On a big screen with a good print and projector this must have been some bit of color work.

- Elements of this movie were surprisingly gritty, with deadly incidents peppering the trek west--shootings, a silly whipping with the unlikely image of a black man thrashing a former Senator--at the Senator's request; children dying; and even a hanging thrown in for good measure.

- A interesting speech spoken entirely in Lakota language by a Sioux chief played by Michael Lane was an unusual & compelling scene

-And let's not forget the scenery, which was beautiful and was quite representative of the terrain such pioneers did, in fact, traverse on their way to the green valleys of the far west.

But overall, as someone else wrote here, this was a turgid mess. Worth watching, but a turgid mess nonetheless.

[–] grizzledgeezer 14 years ago

This film was so bad I couldn't /stop/ watching. MST3K fodder, if ever there was any.

The way to "enjoy" this film is to view it as a kind of lame soap opera. One can then appreciate it as unintended comedy.

One particularly risible moment occurs when a wagon is lowered over the side of the cliff, and the rope breaks. You can easily see the switch from the actor in the wagon to a padded "sack of clothes". Hysterical.

It's not so much a bad film, as an overwrought one. (Of course, there's little practical diffrence.)

"Look at this... It's a city that ain't been built yet... And the children will play in the park, covered by a crystal roof."

"A city can't be built by one man, any more than a wagon train can be whipped into order by one man."

Poor A. B. Guthrie, who won the Pultizer for the novel. At least "Lonesome Dove" got made into a good, genuinely classic film.

[–] jac91604 13 years ago

I realize this is an old thread but if the OP is going to be so critical get the facts straight. The film starts off in Missouri as another poster pointed out.

Having driven across the country a few times, the first being NY to CA it impossible to head west from Missouri and end up in Illinois.

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

The Way West" certainly is no gem, but it does have a number of elements that made it worth watching for me.

Agreed! The movie doesn't totally work as a whole, but there are some really quite interesting sections to it.

As a representation of how such pioneers made it across the wilderness it was at times remarkable in the details and the mechanics of it.

The river crossings, the rafting and especially the lowering of the complete wagon train including animals, over a cliff with ropes and flying fox contraptions was fascinating. I've certainly never seen or heard of that being done before.

The color of the DVD copy I watched recently was stunningly beautiful.

The cinematography was first class and the general location scenery was often breathtaking. Check the colours of the skies over the plains during the build up to the storm.

A(n) interesting speech spoken entirely in Lakota language by a Sioux chief played by Michael Lane was an unusual & compelling scene

I thought the whole Sioux/settler incident was handled quite realistically, without an over the top shootout. (Interestingly there is hardly any gunfire in this western and I wonder whether this is one of the reasons it has seemingly caught the ire of so many.)

Tadlock's demise coming as it did near the end caught me completely by surprise. A nice twist IMO.

Some of the negatives. Quite honestly I would have liked a whole lot less of the Days of Our Lives stuff involving The Macks and Brownie & Mercy and had more focus on the Dick Summers character, who IMO was the most interesting, but least developed character. We never really find out what drives Tadbolt either, as there is so little backgrounding to his character.

The central song was just plain embarrassing, as was the "whip me" sequence.

Overall, certainly a flawed film, but an interesting one that I believe is well worth a look.

[–] Blueghost 12 years ago

by rspear61 (Thu May 10 2007 03:28:30)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Thu May 10 2007 03:29:23
Sorry, maybe this belongs in the critique section, but it won't be long enough to be accepted. I came into this movie about the time when the wagon train left Illinois and being a history teacher (retired)I was interested. I was immediately put off by all the happy laughing and smiling faces that the pioneers had when the wagon train pulled out. I stayed with it until the river crossing and started counting the smiling happy faces in each scene. Whoever thought that pioneers would be that joyful and carefree when on a wagon train west ought to have had his/her head examined. What with the worst acting by Mitchum and Douglass I had ever seen, and the worst plot and direction, I just couldn't watch it any more. (I mean, was it possible for Michum to do less acting in a movie than he did in this one?)

And this was made during the time when good historical westerns were possible.

And I still don't understand the scene at the river with the other wagon train? cattle drive?

God, that movie was terrible.

"We're going to need a bigger boat..."

Well, let's see you go and make your own big budget western. Let's see your film making skills.

[–] rspear61 12 years ago

oh give me a break, are you kidding me? do you really answer all critiques of movies that are negative with "go make your own.." how stupid is that!

"To know who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed to critize." Voltaire

[–] Blueghost 12 years ago

Well, I used to work in the industry, and if you told me the same come back fifteen years ago I might have even given it a shot.

You know, it's easy to sit on the side lines and say how awful something is, and you know, you could be right. But a lot of people, like you, just off handed label something as bad without really considering the quality of what they're looking at.

The number of extras involved, they all had to be fed, costumed, rallied at a certain time, choreographed for the big drive scenes, and paid, not to mention all of the animals that were hired, also fed, sheltered, groomed, and then getting makeup on the stars, making sure they have their trailers, making sure your ADs got their forms and camera logs, making sure the script girl is keeping time and writing down where every thing is, what everyone is wearing, making sure the photographer is taking pictures for the heads back home so investors don't think your pissing away money by partying it up... you simply have no idea.

You know, a lot of people come down on crews for being condescending, adolescent and sometimes showing a lot of negative traits to the ordinary non-industry people who either only see the end product, or gawk during a location shoot. But when I read this kind of a post, I kind of wonder if some of the jerk gaffers and DPs I worked for had just had enough of people like you just wantonly, blatantly, and off handed flipped your nose in the air and telling us our trade.

You don't see me nor any of my former colleagues laughing at an assembly line worker, doctor, accountant, burger flipper, window washer, or anything else. But you sure do see a lot of ego maniac office workers making 50K a year throwing their weight around.

Enough said.

[–] rspear61 12 years ago

Well, first of all, i appreciate the well thought out response. That said, I would hardly call writing a negative critique of a movie "throwing my weight around". I just wonder what you think of all the professional critics who make their living writing critiques. or is it just us regular office worker types that irritate you?

And by the way, i have some experience in summer stock and playhouse production so I have a little knowledge about what it takes to produce something. And a very little teensy bit in TV. So I know what goes into producing things.

But the bottom line is this--when I think something is poorly done, I don't care how hard the crews all work to produce it, I will write my critique and spell out why I thought it was poorly done.

Isn't America great? Couldn't do that in pre-WWII Poland, or todays Russia, or Cuba etc etc.

"To know who rules you, find who you are not allowed to criticize." Voltaire

[–] Blueghost 12 years ago

Take your nonsequiter reply someplace else.

Later.

[–] rspear61 12 years ago

Oh, now I see, you can pan a movie, but others can't. just noticed your little negative comment regarding Looking for Comedy in a Muslim World.

"To know who rules you, find who you are not allowed to criticize." Voltaire

[–] atlasmb 11 years ago

Let me add that even if the work of the cast and crew should be admired, assuming they were really trying to make a quality product, that does not necessarily mean that they succeeded. In my opinion, this film failed when the script was accepted. Frankly, I could not finish watching it. The scene where they were going to lower the wagons and animals over that ridiculously high cliff was too much for me. There are many other films (with hardworking crews) that are more watchable.

[–] FightingConch1970 9 years ago

The landscape scenery is fabulous, I kind of ignore the story line and enjoy the backdrops and props.

[–] rspear61 9 years ago

True, the cinematography was fantastic. and its funny, cause I am a fan of watching movies for the scenery. must have been lazy on this day.

To know who rules you, find who you are not allowed to criticize. Voltaire

[–] heyuactor 7 years ago

And I still don't understand the scene at the river with the other wagon train? cattle drive?

Yes. I turned it off at that point. Low tolerance I guess...they had a good cast, but Wow. It didn't hold my interest.

CC:https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/28/b3/81/28b3814d7598e079965170c781cf7dc8.jpg