Add a Review

  • Anyone who is expecting a word for word remake of the John Wayne classic Angel And The Badman will not be disappointed. With one glaring exception this Hallmark Channel remake sticks very close to the original story of a gunfighter reformed by a Quaker woman's love.

    The exception is that instead of an innocent young unmarried girl as Gail Russell played in the original, Deborah Kara Unger is a widow with a young boy to raise which she is doing with her parents. She's a good woman, but even good women have their needs and when Lou Diamond Phillips as Quirt Evans literally lands on her doorstep, wounded after a gun battle, he gets her mojo going good and proper.

    Wisely Lou did not opt for an imitation of John Wayne in his interpretation of the gunfighter. If he had he would have been laughed off the small screen. He's still one deadly individual and this screenplay make it clear just why Quirt Evans and Laredo Stevens as played by Luke Perry are fated to tangle.

    The role of the marshal that Harry Carey played in the original is cut down somewhat, though Winston Rekert is effective in the scenes he does have. I liked the Carey character though, wish there had been more of the marshal in this one. The Wayne family put their imprimatur on this remake with the casting of the Duke's grandson Brendan Wayne as Randy McCall the sidekick to Phillips and played in the original film by Lee Dixon.

    Probably important the Wayne family did that because the Duke's The Angel And The Badman was the very first film in which he not only worked on the production end, but also directed himself. Of the films John Wayne directed, that was far and away his best effort. So you can imagine the family had a big personal interest at stake.

    I think even the hardest and most loyal of the Duke's legion of fans will not be disappointed with this version of The Angel And The Badman.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The people who produced the made-for-television remake of the 1947 John Wayne classic "Angel and the Badman" should have heeded Michael Caine's sage advice. According to Caine, never remake a classic. No matter how good your movie is, it will never top a classic. Instead, the noted British thespian insists producers remake second-rate films. A greater possibility exists for the remake to surpass the flawed original. "Max Havoc: Ring of Fire" director Terry Ingram's "Angel and the Badman" remake isn't half as good as the original. Anybody who has not seen writer & director James Edward Grant's 1947 version of "Angel and the Badman" might actually enjoy this modest but politically-correct, romantic oater. Otherwise, carved-in-the-leather John Wayne fans might reserve it one derisive snort. This simple but powerful drama concerns the conversion of a hardened gunslinger by a peaceful Quaker woman.

    Two significant changes include the visual differences and the changes in character. Whereas the 1947 version was in lensed in glorious black & white, the Hallmark Channel Original remake exploits the advantage of color. Sadly, the photography and the sets look at best budgetary. Furthermore, whereas the heroine in the original was a virgin, the remake heroine is a single-parent mom with a son who father died. Admittedly, Lou Diamond Phillips cannot rival John Wayne, but Deborah Kara Unger gives Gail Russell a run for her money. The Bradley - Town Telegrapher (Olin Howard) constituted a major source of comic relief in the original, but actor Michael Teigen generates none of Howard's hilarity. Carson in the original is a rancher who has set off the Quaker's water supply to their farm, while in the remake he is the town mayor who reduces their rent. Setting wise, the original took place in the Southwest whereas Ingram's remake occurs in snow swept Oregon. They appeared to have shot entire sequences in freezing weather because you can see their oxygen crystallize as they utter lines of dialogue. Other than its color photography, Ingram and freshman scribes Thomas Makowski and Jack Nasser have eliminated the atheist and whittled away at the Quaker. Nevertheless, they retain most of the original dialogue. Indeed, sometimes it seems almost word-for-word. Unfortunately, the same is not true for the actual events. Budgetary constraints compelled Ingram and company to rewrite the action. For example, rather than a runaway wagon chase that ends with our hero and heroine taking a plunge into a river, the remake substitutes a fire that nearly kills the heroine.

    Each film opens with Quirt Evans killing three men, catching a slug in the chest, and then riding off to wind up in the dust in front of a Quaker homestead. The congenial Quakers attempt to help him, but Evans refuses to accommodate them. He insists that they take him to the nearest telegraph office. Initially, the telegrapher refuses to send a telegram because he has just shut down the office. When he discovers that the wounded man is Quirt Evans, he taps off the message, something about a mining claim. The Quakers take him back to their home and put him to bed. Later, the town physician arrives and fills him up of laudanum, but he watches helpless as Evans thrashes around in deliriously in the bed. The doctor complains that he cannot operate on Evans and remove the bullet unless the patient calms down. Intuitively, the Quaker patriarch fetches Evans' revolver after he has removed the cartridges. In the original, the Quaker wife is instructed to put the shells back in Evans' gun belt, while in the remake she is ordered to throw them away. Not even a mediocre made-for-television remake can mar this memorable scene. The physician operates and Evans recovers. John Wayne looks a sight funnier walking around with a blanket wrapped around his hips than Lou Diamond Phillips. Of course, Temperance (Deborah Kara Unger of "The Game") is an older woman who has been married, given birth to a son, and lives with her parents after he husband died. In the original, the Gail Russell character has not been married.

    Mind you, the "Angel and the Badman" remake is tolerable, especially if you haven't seen the original. Although Lou Diamond Phillips is a talented actor, he is sorely miscast. Worse, John Wayne casts a long shadow. The singular advantage that Phillips brings to the role is that he looks like villain, where Wayne was always heroic. It doesn't help matters that Phillips is forced to wear a truly hideous looking hat. Phillips has appeared in several westerns, and his "Young Guns" movies were minor classics, but "Angel and the Badman" lacks the spirit or the ferocity of them. Moreover, Luke Perry as outlaw Laredo Stevens is no match for perennial villain Bruce Cabot. Harry Carey virtually stole the original as the wholesome, home-spun exemplar of justice, Territorial Marshal Wistful McClintock. Suffice to say, you need to watch the original "Angel and the Badman" if you enjoy the remake.
  • This is a remake of the classic 1947 John Wayne western about an injured gunslinger who falls in with good company in the form of some Quakers. Full of comedy and broad performances, the original includes some classic bits and a grand performance by Harry Carey Sr. at the end of his career. The people at Hallmark must have been hesitant to greenlight this production, but they manage to produce a pretty good movie as a result and on its own terms.

    As with all good remakes, it takes the same material and spins it in a different direction. and the more serious tone of this version does work for the first half, when the contrast between Quirt's life and character is spoken about -- it's handled humorously in the original. Instead, the humor in this version is reserved for the section where Lou Phillips, as Quirt Evans, tries going back to his old life. The attempt to play comedy as Phillips grows more dissatisfied and disgusted with his fellow associates does not, alas, quite work.

    It does remain a good character study, and among the supporting cast, a special note should be taken of Winston Rekert who plays the Harry Carey role -- a sheriff who had hoped to hang Quirt with a new rope. His is the toughest act to follow, and he manages it very nicely.
  • Whoever decided to remake this movie, should be taken out behind the woodshed. Not for remaking it, but for doing such an awful job. Casting Lou Diamond Phillips as Quirt Evans was the first mistake. He does a good bad guy, but is totally unconvincing as the love interest of a Quaker woman. And Deborah Kara Unger isn't much better as Temperance, she just doesn't come across well as a Quaker woman. There is just no believable spark or magnetism between the two.

    You simply don't remake a John Wayne classic without putting the right actors in the right places. And in my mind, you just don't remake a John Wayne classic, period. The True Grit remake is an exception, it was well-cast and well done in every aspect. This movie just wasn't convincing. And for a color movie, it has too much of that modern mistake of trying to evoke some Hollywood-imagined atmosphere with toned-down colors. I suppose that is intended to focus us more on the characters, but all it did was focus us on the fact that the casting and acting was bad. I wouldn't recommend this sad excuse for a remake to anyone. And I am unbelievably puzzled by anyone who gives it a good review, I guess it doesn't take much to please people these days.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I am a huge fan of John Wayne and it goes without saying that I view any remake with a jaundiced eye. However, I am a big fan of Lou diamond Phillips and Jeff Bridges and feel both of them can play any Western that the Duke did. The problem with this remake in my opinion is the supporting cast. Phillips took the Quirt Evans role and made it his own and did not try to be a 2009 version of John Wayne. Alas, Deborah Kara Unger was very difficult to watch and totally unbelievable as a Quaker woman that a Bad Man would fall in love with and give up his world for. What happened to her beautiful looks anyway? In this movie she looked like a saloon tramp that has been "Rode Hard and Put Up Wet." Instead of a soft and warm woman that could melt the heart of even the hardest of men. Of all the TV actresses out there this was the best they could do? There was no chemistry even when they tried to force some in the kissing scene and it looked like a brother and sister kissing. Also, the father character wasn't too bad in his role, but the mother was not very good. I liked the Marshall and the Duke's grandson did a pretty good job as Randy, but the saloon girl Maggie left a lot to be desired and looked like she was forcing her lines. Kudos go to Luke Perry as Laredo, but those two sidekicks of his could have been portrayed by wooden statues. I laughed out loud when the Carson character uttered the line "...he had more money than he needed." when Quirt brought him to the Quaker home. Couldn't the writer(s) have come up with a better alternative to the water problem than overcharging for rent of a store? Three stars for Phillip's interpretation and one for Perry with the Duke's nephew and the Marshall character sharing one for their style.
  • Having seen both movies I would take this movie as the better one. True, John Wayne is a great actor as I am a fan,but the difference between the two movies is taking out "the Horseshit and Gun-smoke". This movie have more feelings in it. The moral of the story is what it was all about. There were many changes in this movie that made it different than the original..Lou Diamond Phillips did a great job and Deborah Kara Unger did a better job as "Temperance". T I don not agree with the critics given this movie anything below 6 stars, as a matter of fact I would give it a 9 or maybe even a 10. It was a movie that is rarely seen nowadays without all the sex,profanity. The rating is PG-13. If thay had the rating in 1947 it would have been rated "R".
  • I concur with with bkoganbing "The Wayne Family Seal Of Approval". Imitation is often the sincerest form of flattery.

    Anyone who is a fan of John Wayne and expecting a better version than his will be disappointed. But, if you are a fan of the Western Genre and of Lou Diamond Phillips, then you will be satisfied with this remake.

    Lou Diamond Phillips and Luke Perry do a good job with their parts. Additionally, while Deborah Kara Unger is not as attractive as Gail Russell in the original, she does fit the part of a Quaker more so. She does a decent job in her role.

    The standouts of this film are Lou Diamond Phillips, Winston Rekert (The Marshal), and Don Thompson as The Doc. Most of the supporting players are mediocre, but there are a few standouts, particularly, Gary Chalk as Steve Carson and Brendan Wayne as Randy. The other interesting part of this movie is the well done and fitting song sung (presumably) by Jennifer Copping (Maggie).

    The sets and the scenery also looked very good.

    I'd also recommend the remake of Red River with Bruce Boxleitner. A practical shot-for-shot remake of Wayne's original. Red River is one of my top ten favorites of Wayne's and I enjoyed this TV Remake.
  • Naturally, those who have practically deified John Wayne will not look with favor on any remake of his films, but this handsome color version has much more authentic period flavor than the original one of simple Hollywood hokum. Since I was never a great fan of Wayne's and was only favorably impressed by one performance of his (as the outright racist and sadistic bastard in "The Searchers") I can judge this film on its own merits without referring to Wayne's earlier version.

    Phillips is convincing in the role of the hard-bitten gunny who unwillingly reforms when his head is turned by the esteem of a good woman. It gradually develops that his heart is eventually turned, too. Now that he has matured he actually achieves more gravitas than in some of his better known younger roles. The supporting roles are well-drawn, especially (Sam) Winston Reckert and the nasty one-eyed piece of work (Laredo) aptly played by an almost unrecognizable Luke Perry.
  • I am giving this a 10 because the voting score is unfairly low. Just to sum up I like movies such as Se7en, Old Boy, Fight Club, and Gypy 83. And this is a good movie.

    Right away I was sucked into the atmosphere and cared about Diamond Phillips (Quirt). His acting in this movie is really good. Seriously underrated. Also the supporting actors are very good. The sheriff really sticks out in my mind when I say this. I'm am not writing about the story, you can read the description of the movie for that, but rather I decided to write about the feeling this movie gives people when they watch it. This is a hallmark film, something I am NOT used to watching, however I woke up one Saturday morn' and this was on. I saw Lou's and Luke Perry's name, and thought, "hmmm, if I don't like it in 5min I will watch ninja warrior or something", however I did not change the channel. this movie is not a sex driven, swear wording, extremely vulgar piece, but it reminds you of how a movie can be powerful and fun to watch with a little effort in iteration and translation. It is Enjoyable. I have read from others that Lou did a good job in redoing the classic in his own style, I have to say, though I did not see the original, I do not doubt that this may be better.
  • Nobody does it better. I repeat, NOBODY, does it better than The Duke. Don't bother watching this until you can see it for free. John Wayne is The Ultimate Cowboy! Nobody does it better! Nobody ever did it better! Nobody ever will do it better! To try and copy him is a fools errand.

    If you wanna watch LaBamba, Lou Diamond Phillips is the perfect choice. If you wanna see teenage cowpunks go bad and shoot up town after town, he can get the job done. If you wanna see teenage punks screw up in high school and make the teacher look like an idiot, he's pretty good at that, too.

    Remake a John Wayne film?!?!? NO WAY!
  • dakotasurfer6 September 2009
    Not only is this a bust, a grandchild of the great Duke Wayne plays the sidekick Randy in the film. By no means is this an endorsement by the Wayne family. If it was you'd be seeing an actual verbal or written endorsement by the licensing agent for John Wayne. And if you think this one is bad, wait until you see the remake of True Grit which is supposed to be in the works. It's almost like the Hollywood writers were all replaced with remake happy zombies.

    All you see these days are sequels or bad remakes of past classics. As the other commenter forgot to say it is already free to watch since it was a straight to TV release, that's how bad it was. Not even worthy of the big screen. I have to say this is the worse the Hallmark Channel has ever done.

    No one, and I repeat no one, can do a John Wayne movie other than John Wayne. I'll make a suggestion to anyone who thinks they can do a remake of any film done by Duke Wayne. Forget it... you'll lose your shirt. This is not even worth a $.99 download release.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This remake of the John Wayne-Gail Russell original is only partially successful.

    Rebecca Unger, who portrays Temperance in this film, does just that with her performance. She has tempered it down a lot. You want her to evoke some emotion despite the fact that she portrays a Quaker woman.

    Lou Diamond Philips has certainly matured and is now older from his days of La Bamba and Stand By Me.

    The story of a gunfighter who is reformed by a Quaker woman that he meets while recovering from wounds is always interesting but there still needs to be more action here. By the way, how did Temperance really get hurt in the fire? She didn't appear to be shot and was out of the house before she would inhale that much smoke.

    Kudos to Maggie, the dance hall woman who belts out "You're Not the Man I Used to Know" in a way that the late Peggy Lee would have done.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I came to watch the movie because I'm a fan of Luke Perry so I like to check out his work. It looks like most people here watched the movie because they wanted to see the new version of John Wayne's classic ... and were disappointed. Many of them opined that perhaps if someone didn't know about the incredible classic movie and just watched it on their own then they wouldn't be so let down with how the film turned out. I'm here to say that that's a wrong assumption. Yuccch. What a cliché movie. Starts off with the legendary gunslinger walking into the message carrier's office, "Hey you, I need to deliver a message." "Now, wait just a minute, you can't tell me what to do, this shop is closed." "I'm sorry Quirt, it looks like you won't get to send the message." "Uh, d-d-did you just say Quirt? As in famous Quirt?? Never mind there, friend, I'll do whatever you want, sir!" And the scenes like this just keep coming.

    The fun action does pick up toward the last ten minutes and the climax begins to pique the interest, but that doesn't make up for the previous hour of blech. Not only that, Luke Perry , although a central role, isn't in much of the film, which is why I watched it in the first place (then again, if you watching because of LDP or to watch this remake that shouldn't bother you, I guess).

    I also kept trying to figure out that in real life, who would take LDP seriously as a cowboy given his ethnicity as this movie's time was back when everyone was a racist? Wouldn't they at least mention it in the story? Would women be swooning over him back in the 1800's or whenever this was? Just curious. But it didn't take away from his acting, which was spot on.

    The ending was feel-good Hollywood, though I was really preparing myself emotionally for a proper yet depressingly tragic conclusion, the fact that I didn't get it and instead got a happily ever after gives me mixed feelings. I left the movie feeling like I really liked it because alls well that ended well, but the cinema connoisseur in me felt like they took the cheap way out. In the end I guiltfully enjoyed watching my guy Luke Perry, the movie made me feel good (but I also like drinking Coca Cola), and over the years I've been conditioned to not regret watching films like these because of those two reasons. However, the truist in me knows this movie wasn't amazing. Then again, look at the budget and the M.O.W. destination, you can't really expect a masterpiece, so there's really no reason to complain. I'm just saying, if you had the choice to watch a million amazing movies or this one...
  • movingwater19 November 2018
    Finally, a western in which they admit the indoor spaces were small and cold! I have often thought to myself that westerns invariably fail to depict what living in the "old west" may have been like without central heating. Also, other than Lou Diamond Phillips himself, they have never seen a barber. Although the clothes ad persons are far too clean.

    Production values are sufficient as is the acting and script to make watching the whole movie possible.