AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Bumpy Chip It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

cricket crockett " . . . South into the choicest slice of Enlightened Mexico, Hell-bent upon contaminating this Land of Freedom with their warped depraved horror of Racist Black Slavery" states the opening narration for THUNDER OVER THE PLAINS. "Lazy human ticks such as 'Dave Crockett' were so eager to leech great riches from the blood, sweat, and tears of those Minority Folks they claimed to 'own' that these feckless miscreants recklessly assumed that they could murder the superior forces of Santa Ana's Mexican Patriot Freedom Fighters at their shoddy make-shift hideouts such as San Antonio's 'Alamo,'" the narrator continues. "After Santa Ana bravely cleared out that Pro-Slavery vipers' nest, the underhanded 'Texicans' resorted to War Crimes (now banned by the Geneva Conventions) during the tragedy of the San Jacinto Disaster which doomed Texas Blacks to three decades of Slavery, plus 150 more years of systematic torture, Lynchings, and pick-up truck dragging deaths," concludes the opening narration for THUNDER OVER THE PLAINS. While it's hard to quibble with most of these Historic Facts, I would like to defend my Great Uncle Davy. The Disney People had beloved actor "Fess Parker" (who plays "Kirby" here) portray my uncle in their later biography of him. Since Davy "roamed in the woods till he knew every tree," he never had time to notice any of this Slavery Business going on before some mendacious swindlers sold him a fraudulent "time share" down in Texas!

LeonLouisRicci It is True that Randolph Scott Made a Few Good Westerns that were Not Directed by Budd Boetticher and This is One of Them. More Complicated than Most Silly Fifties Westerns that were Synonymous and Shallow.This is All About Carpet Baggers and Their Stealing from the Good Texan Folks. The Cavalry is On the Scene but have Little Authority Because It Seems that Most of What They Are Doing is Within the Law. But as We're Told by Hokey and Stiff 1950's Style Narration, It's Not Right.Scott is an Army Captain, a Native Texan and is Conflicted Carrying Out Orders. Lex Barker Shows Up and is Nothing but a Varmint in a Uniform. He Shoots Guys in the Back and has No Problem with Trying to Steal Scott's Wife Played by a Very Cute Phyllis Kirk.Charles McGraw Turns In His Fedora for a Cowboy Hat as an Antagonist to the Army and the Sleazy Carpet Baggers (Elisha Cook and Hugh Sanders), but Not the Locals. Pay Attention if You Want to Know What Side Everyones On.Overall, Above Average, In Color (but not Widescreen), Although the Musical Score with a Heavy Emphasis on "Deep in the Heart of Texas" is Irritating. In Fact this is So Texas Centric that a Better and More Accurate Title would have been..."Thunder Over the Texas Plains". Don't Know How They Missed That.

Robert J. Maxwell Randolph Scott plays it perfectly straight as a post-war captain in the Union Army, stationed in Texas and a Southerner himself. He and his wife, Phyllis Kirk, are uncomfortable with their duties. Scott is supposed to protect the civilian authorities from the depredations of a gang led by Charles McGraw. But the civilians -- the wide-eyed and trembling Elisha Cook, Jr., and his dominant partner, the sneering and treacherous Hugh Sanders -- are worse than the gang. They overtax the locals, buy cotton for one tenth what they sell it for after they ship it to New York. For Scott, this is known as "role conflict," when a person is caught between two non-concordant roles -- loyal Texan and loyal Army officer. For the South, this is known as "reconstruction."Nobody knows how Lincoln might have handled reconstruction since he was assassinated at the end of the war. (He'd said the Southern states would be welcomed back into the union "as if they'd never left.") His successor, Andrew Johnson, was an unregenerate racist and a barely literate ex tailor who mismanaged the deal as best he could. His earnest hope was that the white aristocrats of the South, being gentlemen, would reestablish order and the slaves, now free, would assume their accustomed place as subordinates and servants. It didn't work out. Reconstruction was a disaster and order was maintained by the presence of Army troops for years. Seven years after the year of this movie, 1869, Rutherford B. Hayes found himself in a controversy concerning the electoral college and the popular vote, and apparently made a deal to withdraw the Army from the Southern states in return for the presidency. For the next ninety years the South would remain solidly Democratic and segregated.It's in this historical context that the movie's particular interest lies. It's not just another Western with a good sheriff against a band of evil outlaws and cattle rustlers. The role conflict that Randolph Scott was in was very real and generated by political circumstances. No nonsense about who's the fastest draw around here.It's one of Scott's best performances, full of complexity. The villains are clearly identified -- Cook and Brand, that scurrilous duo of miscreants. The movie's sympathy is obviously with the native Texans, most of whom are men of principle, including the gang leader, McGraw. He holds up the shipment of that tainted cotton all right, but he doesn't keep it for himself. He evidently returns it to those who rightly own it or he burns it.Scott is joined by an arrogant officer, Lex Barker, who does everything wrong and who puts moves on Scott's wife. He's another unlikable villain. (You can always tell the villains because they have no sense of humor.) Lex Barker does not perform celluloid magic but he's stolid in the part. As Scott's wife, Phyllis Kirk must have been genuinely uncomfortable. Stuck out there on the Texas plains, with her elegant accent and aristocratic features. She must have wondered what life was all about, how to cope with it all, how to live in the unfolding moment. (Her birth name was not Kirk but Kierkegaard.) It has its Western conventions but it's an attempt at a serious movie about a serious subject and Scott handles it well.

MartinHafer I love Randolph Scott Westerns as they usually manage to rise above the many, many mediocre and derivative films in the genre. Throughout the 1930s-60s, Hollywood churned out a bazillion of cowboy films and after a while, they almost all look the same to me--with the same clichés and myths about the West and the same general story lines. Yet, due to his excellent acting and believable persona, Scott was able to make a long string of these films and they almost always managed to be a bit better--and some even went on to become classics.Sadly, THUNDER OVER THE PLAINS is no classic. Part of it has to be because the story line is so familiar and unexciting. I've seen a ton of films about the Reconstruction era and this one isn't much to speak of--especially since it is so historically inaccurate. I am an American History teacher and understand that the Reconstruction era is highly misunderstood. Starting with such films as BIRTH OF A NATION, several decades of Hollywood films followed a fictitious Southern revisionist version of history. In this revisionist world, the Southerners were all gentlemen (forget that many owned slaves) and the dreaded "dang Yankees" in the form of "Carpetbaggers" flooded the South to take advantage of everyone. In D.W. Griffith's BIRTH OF A NATION, these evil swine were only eventually put in their place by the brave men of the cloth. No, not the clergy, but the Ku Klux Klan--a hate group! While there is thankfully no Klan in this film to save the day, there certainly are the evil carpetbaggers and it's up to good Union officer Scott to save the day for the poor Southerners. Folks, this didn't happen--never did.Even if the story weren't a lot of historical hogwash, the film is tepid and ordinary throughout. The characters seem too often "black or white" and Lex Barker seemed more like a psycho than an officer (and probably would have been hanged for his actions). Please, give me a film without the one-dimensional characters AND Randolph Scott, such as RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY, RIDE LONESOME or THE TALL T--not this mediocre and tepid film.