TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

Beanbioca As Good As It Gets

BallWubba Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

weezeralfalfa This remake of the original John Ford-directed 1939 version sticks to the same characters and mostly to the same story details, based on the 1937 short story "The Stage to Lordsburg". However, there are a number of significant differences. First, in many viewer's minds,is the replacement of John Wayne as the Ringo Kid by Alex Cord, who simply lacked the charisma of "Big John". Second, this version was shot in color, still a rare privilege in '39, not enjoyed by Ford's film. To me, this makes a huge difference, especially with the verdant scenery of the Colorado Rockies replacing the dry dusty Monument Valley scenery of the original. Although the unusual erosion remnants of that valley provide an unusual backdrop in Ford's film, they would have been much more spectacular in color, as realized in "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" and "The Searchers". Third, rather than scripted as taking place in AZ and NM, with Geronimo's bunch the main antagonists, here it is scripted as taking place in Wyoming, with Crazy Horse's bunch the main antagonist. Fourth, this longer version adds an initial massacre of a camped cavalry detachment by a Sioux war party to get the action started quickly. This makes an immediate impression that this is dangerous county for a lone stage to be traveling through vs. only hearsay that the Apache are on the warpath, in the original. The road is sometimes quite perilous, on a narrow ledge in the mountains, or a very primitive excuse for a road, more so than in the original. In both films, the stage personnel are far too efficient for realism in their shooting down pursuing Indians. This is a near universal criticism of westerns. Of course, the director knows that many in the audiences like to see antagonists fall over dead, especially from a galloping horse. Unlike the original, the stage personnel in this version don't need the help of the serendipitous arrival of a cavalry unit to beat off the remaining Indians chasing them. Also, unlike the original, the stage loses a back wheel, which makes the last leg of the journey vary precarious. I much doubt whether a stage could 'fly' in this condition.The showdown between Luke Plummer and Ringo is staged quite differently in the two films. In the original, it's a simple "High Noon" affair in the darkened street, and we don't see Luke and his sons fall. In this film, the shootout takes place in a fancy saloon. Ringo shoots down a chandelier, which starts a fire(no doubt aided by some gasoline sprinkled around). This brings out the hiding Plummers, and we see them fall.While Alex Cord was no John Wayne, Ann-Margaret is a much more cheerful woman that Claire Trevor, in the role of Dallas. That makes it a more pleasant experience, though perhaps Claire's dramatization is more realistic. Bing Crosby's Doc. Boone is more pleasant than Thomas Mitchel's brooding version. Van Heflin's portrayal of Curley, the Marshall, I prefer to George Bancroft's version. Mike Conner, as the card shark, Hatfield, is a cheerful dapper fellow, very different from John Carradine's dark menacing-looking character in the original. I prefer Donald Meek's characterization of the nervous whiskey drummer in the original over that of Red Buttons. I also prefer Andy Devine, with his unique manner of speaking and personality, in the original, over Slim Pickens, as the stage driver. However, Slim was also well cast in this role.On the whole, I prefer the remake over the original, despite the absence of a charismatic actor for Ringo. You may consider the generally darker atmosphere of the original more appropriate. I don't consider either version as among my favorite westerns. "Dark Command", Wayne's 1940 offering is more to my liking.

redwhiteandblue1776 Just a couple of observations. Pausing the film before the last big fight with the Indians chasing the stagecoach, I counted 25 Indians on horseback. During the fight, there were 41 shot off their horses. Hummm? The director must think horses lope (run) everywhere? It's a good thing they were making a movie and the horses got breaks along with the actors or they would have keeled over dead from all that running. When a gun is fired, it recoils or jumps back. Here they pretty much stay still. And guns are LOUD. Yet no one ever flinches or even reacts to the noise. Shots inside that stagecoach would be deafening. Firearms only hold a given number of bullets yet the guns in this movie never seem to run out. Firearm accuracy! I've shot a lot and even hitting a still target it hard but these movie cowboys must be the world's most accurate shooters, hitting Indians on running horses and shooting from a fast moving stagecoach. Pretty impressive! And lastly, if they had to have a floozy in the movie, I'm glad they picked Ann Margaret 'cause she had to be the hottest dance hall girl in the old west. Probably not many looked like that. Just sayin'.

TheLittleSongbird The original 'Stagecoach' from 1939 was, and still is, a benchmark of the western genre, and a wonderful film in its own right too. Considering the generally dodgy track record of how remakes fare in quality, was honestly expecting this 1966 'Stagecoach' to be an insult and with no point or merits.Expectations that were mostly proved very much wrong. Yes, it is a far inferior film to 1939's 'Stagecoach' (whereas the original is a masterpiece this is just fair), and, yes, one does question the point of it with so much of the content already seen previously and with much more impact. However, it does have a lot of merit, with it being made with competence, with respect being shown and with attempts to bring some freshness or build on what was seen previously (characters like Plummer being richer in characterisation here).Starting with the faults, not all the casting comes off. Mike Connors sleepwalks through a role in need of so much more intensity than what actually came off. Stefanie Powers is an attractive but rabbits-in-the-headlights blank, but coming off worst is Alex Cord as a pivotal character crying out for much more charisma and personality than what was given in Cord's very wooden and vacuous take on it.Gordon Douglas' direction is competent with a keen visual eye, but, in terms of momentum and storytelling, it's a case of everything done pleasingly and correctly with nothing offensive but with some lack of invention or oomph and with a sense of routine-ness about it all. The story is actually a good one and the characters are still interesting on the most part, but apart from a few scenes much of it has already been done before and with more excitement.However, it's a great-looking film. While the scenery doesn't have the magnificence of Monument Valley it's still sweepingly beautiful and the cinematography is similarly striking, especially in the aerial shot and the chase sequence. Production, set and costume design register strongly too and who can't help love those paintings. Jerry Goldsmith's score is rousing, atmospheric and extraordinary in instrumentation, while the theme song is very much a memorable one.Meanwhile, it's nicely scripted, and there are sequences that register strongly, especially the chase sequence (the highlight), the storm on the cliff and the opening massacre. Also appreciated an ending where what happens is shown with more clarity and less ambiguity. The cast are fine generally, Bing Crosby plays his boozy-doctor-with-a-heart role perfectly in his final screen appearance, while Van Heflin is similarly terrific, Slim Pickens brings some welcome humour and Keenan Wynn is frightening (even though not on screen long).Ann-Margaret shows how to be an alluring presence while also being able to act with sass and compassion, while Robert Cummings is good enough (he has been better though) and Red Buttons shares a strong touching rapport with Crosby in a remarkably subdued performance.Overall, inferior and maybe pointless but nowhere near as bad as expected. A lot is done right and nothing offends, but at the end of the day even whether compared to the 1939 film or out of context it just felt a little bland. 6/10 Bethany Cox

hdp37 I don't know what to say about the taste of those who like the 1939 version of this movie. The original version just flat SUCKS. The acting of Wayne sucks, and everyone but Andy Devine as Buck stunk it up (even John Carradine as McCoy, Mike Connors showed him how it's done in the 1966 version). There is nothing, I mean nothing, even remotely worth watching in the original, once was all I could stomach of it. The ending was gawd-awful; the Luke Plummer character was a sniveling coward. Keenan Wynn's Luke Plummer was sensational, and the ending in the 1966 version was light-years ahead of the 1939 version. All the actors and acting is infinitely better in this version. With the possible exceptions of McClintock, The Conqueror and The Green Berets, Stagecoach is hands-down the worst movie John Wayne ever made. Even the 1986 version is better than the 1939 one, and it sucks too.