In this movie, it seemed like he "phoned it in." Lines were sometimes run together when a pause would have added effect. It just seemed like he was churning out another western. Not his best effort, but watchable if you like westerns.
shareI know what you mean. It is a good western and Randolph Scott did a good job but he has done better. I thought Richard Boone and Leo Gordon outacted him here.
share[deleted]
Nahh, the problem is sometimes he had to play happy and even romantic. He's better when his character never has any reason to be happy, just grim and determined.
shareScott is credited as Assistant Producer (a Scott-Brown production) and they went to the trouble of assembling some first-rate supporting players (Boone, Weaver, Gordon, Homeir, Van Cleef), so I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt. The film's problem is that Scott's character may be the lead but he's far too placid and unconflicted; Boone's brooding jealous type is far more diverting (albeit the subject of his passion does nothing for me).
shareI didn't see the whole film but the fist fight in the end was pretty poorly done with a double pretty obviously used.
And the dynamite throwing by Scott looked kind of silly. Again not one of the better efforts in spite of a strong support cast.
Kisskiss, Bangbang
You're right. I believed the horse more.
Wisdom comes when one learns from one's mistakes (aka LEXYLADYJAX)
I have watched this film several times and found it lacking somehow. I really like most of Scott's B westerns but, this one did come up short and I cannot put my finger on exactly why. Not being as nuanced of I feel most posters are on this forum I do think there is something definitely missing in this film. I really think the screen writing is the culprit here.
share