KnotMissPriceless Why so much hype?

SunnyHello Nice effects though.

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

samhill5215 Here's another little gem noteworthy for its headliners and how truly bad it is. Other reviewers have already mentioned that it is confused and not really sure of its direction or purpose and that is certainly the case. There's comedy, crime, romance and much more but it all seems just thrown in there, a hodgepodge of vignettes with barely a hint of continuity other than the central theme of a ranch in danger of foreclosure. So as I sat watching it I kept asking myself the same question: What were the producers and writers thinking? What were the headliners thinking? Both Beery and Barrymore were seasoned actors with many hits to their credits. Why would either agree to do this film? It's hard to know for sure but judging from their gusto I'd say they did it just for the fun of it. And they are fun to watch. Scene-stealers the both of them, and damn good at it. Whenever either Beery or Barrymore appeared the energy level went up and so did the fun quotient. As for the rest of the cast they had their moments but overall they were just trying to keep up. So even though my score is rather low I suggest you don't miss this funny atrocity. And just wait for the last scene. It's a doozy!

Michael Morrison Trombonehead got one thing wrong: Wallace Beery's "Mexican" accent is not the worst of all time. It's only third worst.Lafe McKee probably should have been shot for his in some small Western, the name of which I can't remember, and Marlon Brando's, in "Viva Zapata" was the second worst.Other, though, than his poor accent, Berry's characterization is pretty funny, although it doesn't seem to translate well from the stage to the screen.Lionel Barrymore was rather -- and I apologize for the cliché -- over the top, but he had some great lines and characterization.Ronald Reagan, in an unusual loan-out from Warners, looked great, and did a very good job as the hero. Laraine Day looked great, too, and was mostly quite believable.Tom Conway is another under-rated actor, and his role was rather thankless, but he looked and sounded very good.Chris-Pin Martin, on the other hand, was outstanding ... although he nearly always was. Whenever he was on screen, he drew the viewer's attention. He was a great talent.In his mini-bio, Gary Brumburgh calls Nydia Westman "adorable." That says it perfectly. She stood out in every scene she was in.Perhaps the reason so many commenters here rate this film low is that it seems to start out as a serious Western, and that it is really a comedy doesn't become apparent till later.I'll admit it took me a while to realize it, but when I found myself laughing at, especially, Barrymore's "shoot him" and other extreme comments, I finally caught on.I seriously recommend the people who didn't like this to give it another chance; and anyone who hasn't seen it, I urge you to do so.

Trombonehead After reading all the heavy reviews of this movie, I have to respond. Hey, chill out and don't be so serious, people! I had never seen it before, let alone even heard of it. So when I tuned into it one night on Turner Classics, at first I wasn't too sure what to think. But it didn't take long before I began to really like it. It doesn't pretend to be anything other than a corny, light-hearted spoof. Lionel Barrymore is great as always, and so is Wallace Beery. I really liked the fact that there is no musical soundtrack, and it's kind of a piece of theatre with long takes of dialogue and interaction between the goofy characters. All the other members of the cast like Ronald Reagan and Henry Travers simply revolve around the masterful characterizations of Barrymore and Beery. Yes, Beery has the worst Mexican accent of all time----he's doing it deliberately for laughs. And nobody can play a crusty old curmudgeon better than Lionel Barrymore, the world's greatest scene stealer. These two legendary talents have a great rapport. Don't even remotely attempt to take this movie seriously in any way, just enjoy it for what it is and appreciate the amazing talents of two of the greatest actors in movie history. Who couldn't help but laugh at the final scene of Beery galloping through the desert on his horse, pulling Barrymore in his wheelchair? Great comedic acting and a really original, funny script.

jaykay-10 A curious, inconsistent hodgepodge from the start, this picture appears for a time to be an altogether conventional, cliche-ridden Western, despite its "A" cast. What drama exists in the story is compounded by the late arrival of the film's nominal star (top billing), Wallace Beery, reprising his Pancho Villa characterization under a different name. At first a danger and a menace to the good folks, the character gradually - but none too subtly - becomes a caricature, a mercurial buffoon difficult to take seriously. After the plot is resolved by a familiar turn or two, the picture ends with a ludicrous scene of Lionel Barrymore in a wheelchair being towed at considerable speed across the prairie by Beery on horseback. As a Western, the picture is totally undistinguished. Its comic elements, such as they are, generate exceedingly feeble humor. Among the few positives: Ronald Reagan gives a winning low-key performance as a gentle cowhand, Lionel Barrymore chews every bit of scenery in sight, and Nydia Westman is impressive in a quirky minor role. But when all is said and done, it is not easy to figure out exactly what kind of picture this was supposed to be - or, for that matter, why it was made.