Except for the last 20 minutes of this film, I found the rest of it just terrible. I know John Wayne was diagnosed with lung cancer just before the filming, but when it comes to making movies, I don't find that an excuse. Replace him or expect the best from him. I just found this movie flat and lifeless.
Paula Jo
John Wayne wasn't just diagnosed with lung cancer before filming; this movie is is first after having a lung removed!
I like him fine in the role, and though it's not considered the classic other Wayne movies are, it's alot of fun, IMO. Good score, too.
I saw it when first released, and again last year after buying it on DVD - have to say, it now seems a bit long and drawn out.
But back in its day, it was quite something. Played theatres a long time, then went to drive-ins, stayed there a longer time than most, etc., etc. We kids went back and saw it two, three more times. John Wayne was just cool. So was Dean Martin.
Times change and, along with them, tastes.
I also loved "True Grit" when it came out (same star, producer, director, movie company), but nowadays I definitely prefer the Jeff Bridges version. To me, it's just better all the way around. But they would never have made it that way in 1969. They would only have made it the way they did.
Another thing about "Sons of Katie Elder" - am I the only one who thinks Michael Anderson Jr's. performance as "Bud" is terrible? Yet he was quite good in a more serious part in a more serious movie the same year (Major Dundee). What gives? Must be the difference between the ways he was directed. All I can figure out.
Decent filmn, but nothing more.
shareThe original True Grit was much better. Why remake a film, if not to cash in on the name? There have been plenty of Western novels written that have not been filmed, so why not make one of those into a film instead of remaking a film?
shareSorry, but I have to disagree. I thoroughly enjoy The Sons of Katie Elder.
shareAll in all, this is one of the Wayne films that I wind up watching, every freaking time it's on, no matter how many times I've seen it.
Looking at it objectively, it's true that not a whole lot really happens until they hit that bridge.
But with a larger than life figure like the Duke, who commands the screen even while doing very little, and with Dino backing him up again, I'm more than happy (the first time, same as now) to let the story unfold in its own casual way.
Hell, it wouldn't have bothered me if they elaborated on the chance of a romance (otherwise barely alluded to, if at all) between John Elder and the neighbor lady. At least there would have been some extra screen minutes for Martha Hyer, who did what she could with an underwritten role.
As a theatrical release the film is obviously derivative and formulaic. I absolutely hate the point at which Morgan Hastings turns into a complete psychotic nitwit. But as the film is now viewed almost solely on the television screen, it is still better BY FAR... than about ninety-five percent of what is seen on television, including most films made for TV, and a distressingly large number of sports.
share It was pretty bad. I tried not to judge it by 21 cen standards but it was lame.
One note on the ending. A G&ammo store loaded with gunpowder wouldn't just burn down there would be explosions. Like booooom.
Kisskiss, Bangbang