FrankiePaddo

Despite having (the always endearingly odd) Steve Railsback and Tom Berenger in supports, Danny Trejo in a cameo the whole show here is Lance Henriksen.

He is a wonderfully convincing as a former bad man, dying of natural causes and unhappy with who he has become physically and, perhaps, mentally. His solution is to exit life in a blaze of glory whilst confronting personal demons and righting past wrongs. Along the way he is joined by the ghost of a colleague and, what seems to be, Death. Cheery this isn't.

The photography is of the modern realism school (perhaps also because of the low budget) and the supporting characters aren't fleshed out. The films starts slow and is short on action but it is a "slow burn" with elegiac asides. It comes across as a cross between the masterful "The Shootist" (1976) and (the somewhat overrated but much loved) "Unforgiven" (1992).

Not magnificent but definitely one for lovers of westerns, who are familiar with the genres tropes or for lovers of Lance Henriksen, of which there should be more.

Hawken's Breed is much maligned. Those who say it is the worst film ever made clearly haven't seen many films.

This is an independent film made with a former major maverick film star (Peter Fonda), former major supporting player (Jack Elam), and former starlet (Sue Ann Langdon) supported by some solid character actors (Bill Thurman). I suspect all were working cheap or cheaper than they had in their prime.

And "cheap" is the operative word. Things are filmed on a small(er) budget. That does not diminish the film but you have to accept that what you are going to watch has that limitation. There are many films made on similar limitations that transcend them and outdo much bigger budget films but this isn't one of them. There is, however, enough here to keep one interested and enough to admire when it comes to film making on a shoe string.

At its heart this is a revenge themed frontier western. The story is simple and what is perhaps most obvious is the isolation of people in frontier times. A step the wrong way off a track or meeting up with strangers who are no good could end your life. The elements, the wild life, the Native Americans, other frontiersmen, all could leave you dead or dying in the middle of nowhere.

The director Charles Pierce (The Town That Dreaded Sundown (1976)) loved the frontier pre-wild west and post Civil war west and this film as well as Chasing the Wind (1998), The Winds of Autumn(1976), Winterhawk (1975), Sacred Ground (1983) and Grayeagle (1977) are all westerns that deal with individuals or couples against the elements or external forces, looking for a better life or seeking revenge against those who have taken that away from them. He has a rough consistency of themes, at least in his westerns.

Maybe because of budgetary constraints maybe because of temperament the action is short and sharp and a lot of scenes seem to be almost like "mood pieces". And, whether it is intentional or not, they work as a reminder that the old west wasn't all excitement and daring do.

On the negative there are some clumsy camera angles that don't show off the actors to their best, a couple of peripheral background actors that don't look authentic, and a out of place music score, which would have worked in an ironic comic 70s western but not here.

Also, through no fault of the filmmakers the video transfer is only average which is a pity as there are some great Tennessee landscapes The principal leads are all fine and Fonda's character especially fits in with his screen persona.

It may miss the mark but it is not the worst by a country mile.

6/10

At the outset I'll say I love films with some basis in historical events. The problem is of course that the more a film commits itself to historical events the more a review tends to refer to those events rather than the film.

Firstly, what I like about this film is that it doesn't try to appease any group or be politically correct. It doesn't go for the soft option as many other recent movies about recent wars do,ie: there is no good or bad, both side commit atrocities. Such liberal soppiness is misleading and directly opposed to historical fact and common sense. There are aggressors and there are victims, even though the lines of demarcation are occasionally blurred. This film in a way refers back to the films of commitment made in the 1930s in Hollywood or Latin America in the 1960s.

Similarly, people usually re-write history to suit their worldview. I note that another reviewer blamed the Yugoslav War on US and German imperialism and that the "poor" Serbians, Croatians and Bosnians were their pawns that had lived "peacefully and admirably until the West engineered the collapse of Yugoslavia". What planet did that come from? The Croatians and the Serbians have not got on in since the turn of the 20th century (as World War 1 and 2 show). Yugoslavia ( both pure and post WW2) was very much held together by force and intimidation. That's a historical fact. If the various ethnic groupings had "got on" the force of violence that erupted in the Yugoslavian War would not have occurred. That's common sense. I assume such views are based on ones internal beliefs. In this case its standard old style claptrap leftism (which unfortunately gives leftism a bad name).

History is written by the victors and in Yugoslavia after 1944 the Serbians (once again) took control of the country. Their history, which was passed out as historical fact for the next 50 years, was, they were leftists and the Croatians were all fascists, therefore you should support us in this war. The reality of course is that the Yugoslav army and irregulars in the recent war were dominated by Serbian nationalists seeking a greater Serbia and using ethnic cleansing and murder as a means to achieve this, not to mention the fact that during World War 2 (up to 1944 in any event) most of the Communist Partizans were in fact Croatian.

The beauty of course is the film is attempting to overcome the conventionally held history. It doesn't deal with past history though, but rather with what is happening now. By dealing with "history now" the film sheds light on some of the lies that have been passed out as historical fact.

The central character Chico is a man of contradictions. A child of a Hungarian Jewish father and a Spanish Catholic mother he is a child of the 1960s Latin revolutions and raised in a leftist family. So he is a Communist but a practicing Catholic, he goes to a Catholic priest for confession but prays at the weeping wall, he is a humanist but advocates war.

These supposed contradictions always existed within people. People are molded from many historical events and social forces surrounding them. The only place pure ideologies exist are in philosophical arguments between half smart raconteurs or in undergrad university assignments …. ie: you cant believe in that if you believe in that etc. This film never backs away from commitment but it does subtlety (and sometimes not so subtlety) suggest that there is another side. Accordingly, you don't get the feeling you are being preached at (whereas you might from this review).

The film takes you on Chico's journey through causes around the world like a frenzied 20th century Don Quixote looking for meaning. Chico's humanity ultimately leads him to Yugoslavia and the Croatian Homeland War in the 1990s. And even though it is not a ideologically correct war (as his father tells him) he knows within himself that he must side with the oppressed.

Chico searches and is redeemed but is he content, or is he saddened and scarred? At times it seems that Chico, like a Zelig, was at all the important late 20th century events, and the film seems to make comment on them. On that level the film is not always successful (its hard enough commenting on one situation). The film is more successful as a personal odyssey through tumultuous events.

There are some standard Hollywood war movie clichés, ie: the outnumbered and besieged forces, the sing a long etc but, but they are downplayed, and I sometimes wonder if clichés became clichés because they actually occurred in times of war. What underpins the whole film though is the upfront, "in your face" reality of it all ... like Sam Fuller with a hand-held camera. The photography is not pretty, which suits the picture perfectly although I wouldn't have minded a few more scene setting shots. The docu-drama works well at drawing you into the story whilst distracting you from the budgetary limitations of the film. The "docu" is the newsreel footage of the war whilst the "drama" is Chico's journey (both physically and spiritually) and people he meets on the way. This is a war film that deals with people rather than action … there is little action and when it does come it is over quickly.

The acting is fine, and Eduardo Rozsa Flores plays Chico effortlessly, not surprisingly as Chico is based on Flores own life in part! Flores fought, globe trotted and eventually found a cause in the Croatian Homeland War. The direction ( by Ibolya Fekete) is handled nicely and the action is gritty. The real stand out though is the directors juxtaposition (you have to love that word even if it is overused) of live action with news footage.

If you want to be confronted and challenged ... watch this.

Medium budget action film thats not as bad as made out. But I'm not saying it's good either. But it does have something.

OK the premise is a bit naff. A unnamed wealthy small town in the South-West ( the film was filmed around Scottsdale and Mesa in Arizona) is terrorized by an American Indian with a crossbow who seeking to address the injustices of the past by extorting the town rich of $5 million. Add to that the fact that all of the roles are underwritten and there are many undeveloped plot lines. Without being too picky and in no order: is the Indian really an Indian, why all the Indian mysticism, why is he extorting money, what about his Olympius career, what about the lucrative land deal the big wigs are trying to put together, why does this small community have so many rich people ...

Also everyone seems to know each other very well after just meeting. Its as if the actors are anticipating the next scene. Oliver Reed's character abuses, woos, threatens and beds a reporter in about 2 minutes of screen time ! He also forms a friendship based on mutual respect with Jim Mitchum's character in their 4 scenes together.

To top this off a lot of the action is a bit lame.

So what does the film have? A great cast of familiar faces! I can sit through any tripe if you throw enough faces from years past at me. Stuart Whitman as the millionaire is good ( the best scene in the film is where he and the Indian are playing cat and mouse in his mansion), John Ireland does not have a lot to do but is always dependable, Robert Mitchum's son Jim is vastly underrated ( where is Tarantino to revive his career) and also doesn't have much to do but I suppose he was cast as a familiar face to the 70s action movie crowd ( check him out in "Trackdown"), Paul Koslo again plays the bad guy ( he was the bad guy in so many 70s films and was always excellent) and almost lifts the ridiculous role above what it is worth! Oliver Reed and Deborah Raffin are OK.

So if you get a buzz , as I do, watching films from the 70s and 80s with great actors of years past in small leads or supports then this is the ticket for you. For my money the action is fast paced and never boring ( its just not that good). The director, Richard Compton, also directed drive-in cult classic " Macon County Line".

By the way the theme song ( for Victor the Indian) , "Shoot Him", was co-written and performed by Roger McGuinn ( of the Byrds) and its lyric explains a lot of the motivations behind the Indian's character .... which the script writers had failed to do.

A interesting western, more interesting than the criticism (ie: B western, formulaic) it gets.

Based on a story by Ernest Haycox, who wrote "Stage to Lordsburg" on which John Ford's 1939 Stagecoach was based, this film shares many of that films themes and locales (not Monument Valley here but still set in the south west).

Much like "Stagecoach" the film is about how various people handle themselves when faced with danger. Unfortunately here the writing spends too much time on the subplots - the love triangle between the station master (Robert Horton) his old flame and his new love, and the Mexican bandits' (Gilbert Roland) attempts to steel the gold shipment , at the expense of tension from how various different "types" of people act when holed up awaiting the inevitable Indian attack.

In "Stagecoach" the various types were the outlaw, the prostitute, the banker, the drunken doctor, the gambler, the upper class lady etc all "typifying" the various strata in society. Here we have a Mexican bandit, a station master trying to downplay his background, a gambling woman, a Cavalry Officer and his daughter, a woman with a checkered past, 4 cow hands ( some loyal some not ) , a Mexican Indian half breed, a employer and a Mexican cook.

In "Stagecoach" the action is as much the interaction between the people on the coach and at the stage station as is the Indian attacks, especially in the lengthy middle sequence set at a stage station. (run as in this film by Mexicans). Dudley Nicholls who wrote the screenplay for Ford (with Ford's uncredited assistance) stressed the class antagonisms, conflict and prejudices. In Ford's film ethnicity is irrelevant and class is the determinator of social standing. Here, in "Apache War Smoke", class is played down and ethnicity is played up ( but for no purpose) and the "types" don't represent class positions or even their ethnicity but rather background on which to hang the plot. Unfortunately if you take all the meaty stuff that Nicholls put into the "Stagecoach" script you are left with just another western. And we have that here, plus a lot of the scripting that is western melodrama ( the love triangle, the father vs son scenario, who do the Indian's want ?). But still some of the original themes shine through.

The writer has thrown in some mystery as well. The Indians, although not fleshed out, are genuinely aggrieved at someone in the stage station who has murdered some of their number.

What saves the day here are some nice touches; for instance for a film of the time that has a number of ethnic types as leads and supports (at least 4 people at the station are Mexican or part Mexican, and one is half Indian) race and race issues never arise. Maybe the plot could have made something of this but as it is it is neat to see that people forced together to defend themselves not thinking of it in terms of race issues. Similarly, although all underdeveloped, there are romantic interludes between Roland's Mexican bandit and 2 Caucasian women, the half Mexican station master and the officer's daughter, as well as an undeclared love between the half breed boy and the same officer's daughter, and no one thinks this as odd or worthy of a racial slur. It's refreshing to see that the American southwest at that time portrayed, as I suspect it was, a great big melting pot.

The cast are fine- Gilbert Roland's self assured, natural flamboyance is fun to watch and easy on the ear ( here he plays the Latin lover with six guns), Robert Horton is rugged and I am surprised he didn't have more major roles before he broke through with the lead on TVs "Wagon Train" ( although he doesn't look like a half Mexican), Harry Morgan is excellent ( the medium shot of him being challenged by Roland's outlaw whilst guarding the gold is great) but his scenes are very few, Robert "Bobby" Blake is the half breed and captures the "lost youth" which was popular in the 50s, while in bits we have all the usual western faces that always lend a feeling of authenticity; Hank Worden ( Searchers, Three Godfathers Sergeant Rutledge, Red River), Gene Lockhart, Myron Healey ( Cattle Queen of Montana, Rio Bravo), Douglas Dumbrille, Argentina Brunetti, Glenda Farrell (very convincing as a frontier woman), and Emmett Lynn. Patricia Tiernan and Barbara Ruick are decorative as western women always are.

The director Harold F Kress only had a few stabs at directing, being more well known as an editor, before and after this. He won Academy Awards for "Towering Inferno", "How the West was Won". However you can tell he is an editor, as the film pumps along at a brisk pace and some of the action sequences, particularly the small combat scenes rather than the big action scenes are well handled.

At only just under 70 minutes people would assume this to be a programmer. The action sequences ( although not convincingly filmed) are large scale. I don't think they have been imported from a different film....although this is a remake of MGMs 1942 "Apache Trail" so who knows, but the footage seems to match. If they are not imported then I think that maybe this was planned as a "A feature" which was cut down to this length.

There is also a curious mix of photography - there are some nice low angle shots and atmosphere shots, then shots which are static and seem to come from a different film.

Still, when you write these long reviews people think you must love the film. I don't but I do think that it has a lot going for it, within its limitations , and more importantly it was fun ( and painless) to watch. And because it was underrated it was even more enjoyable.

Made for TV movie trying to be realistic in that 70s TV way ( it plays like an episode of "Streets of San Francisco"). Having said that there is nothing new in this story about a California "mob" family with a father just out of prison and a son who wants to go straight.

The main reason to watch this is seeing Ted Danson ( with a great early 80s hair cut) and David Morse ( with longish hair !) in very early roles, and legends like Ray Milland and Vera Miles effortlessly out acting everyone else. Although only Ted Danson looks vaguely Italian.

The film has every usual mafia storyline introduced but doesn't then really go anywhere with them. The ending is abrupt also with a lot of things left up in the air. Given this it looks like a busted TV pilot.

Who loves Kristofferson films …..I do. There is no other reason to watch this film.

The premise isn't bad though …. professional rescuers have to tunnel down into a building that has sunken into the earth, after an earthquake, to find survivors. The rest is pure TV pap ( this must have been a busted TV pilot) with every cliché thrown in .... head of the team is separated with an estranged son, son's ex girl is with his brother now... the usual family squabbles against a dramatic backdrop. Although here the family squabbles are underwritten ( just alluded to) while the dramatic backdrop is killed by a small budget and no tension.

Some similarities with the "Hellfighters" where John Wayne plays a firefighter ( which had enough clichés itself) does not help the feeling of deja vu. Mind you although Kris' part is small he steps into the John Wayne shoes fine.

Ultra low budget, and not particularly good, western from the 70s. The vastly underrated Ray Danton shows what ruined his acting career... although he had been on the slide for some time. This was his third last film - he went on to direct, mainly in TV.

Still for those who enjoy watching films (as I do) made on Hollywood's fringe with former stars this is for you.

The reality is these types of films kept former leading actors (albeit some of them were second string leading men) working when they grew older and had been forgotten by the major studios. ( great actor stars like Rory Calhoun, Guy Madison, Cameron Mitchell, John Carradine and many more). It's would be quite a experience to go ( like Ray here) from "under contract to ...." to small B pictures and drive-in fair, but an actor has to pay the bills. And this fringe Hollywood can produce minor classics ( although this is not one of them) and must be an interesting place to work in. The only film to capture a bit of this fringe low budget Hollywood cinema successfully is Frank Oz and Steve Martin's comedy "Bowfinger".

As for the film itself, the direction is basic, the editing is rotten, and the acting is passable... just.( better direction could have helped). But still through it all Ray Danton shines, you can tell he is a breed apart from everyone else involved in the film.

Set in the short years after WW2 there is mystery and political intrigue as a private detective tries to discover the whereabouts of an Italian and reward him for his part in the rescue of an allied airman during the war.

This is an excellent early 50s murder mystery thriller set in Venice with some great set pieces and beautiful and at times striking on location photography...much better than the overrated Venice filmed in "Don't Look Back".

Great mood - a marrying of post war paranoia ( Venice is close to the then disputed city of Trieste - between the West and communist Yugoslavia) and political intrigue which reflected the chaotic state of Italian politics at the time.

Ralph Thomas ( brother of Gerald of Carry On fame and who edited this film) made his fame with the "Doctor" comedy films starring Dirk Bogarde and Iron Petticoat with Bob Hope and Katharine Hepburn but he also made quite a few well above average middle budget suspense / drama films - Campbell's Kingdom (1957), Checkpoint (1956), Above Us the Waves (1955), Appointment with Venus (1951), The Clouded Yellow (1951), of which this is one of the best. The climactic chase is excellent.

Good performance from the ever reliable Richard Todd and a nifty small role for Sid James.Excellent music by Nino Rota ( Godfather, La Strada, La Dolce Vita, 8 1/2) also.

A underrated gem.

Called "Fine Gold" in English. This is really awful stuff - filmed in Spain its a Spanish/US co- production. A cross between "Falcons Crest" and "Dallas" with all the highlights cut down to an hour an a half this looks like a would be TV pilot. In fact every twist and turn crammed into a couple of seasons of Mega soaps like "Dallas" are condensed into this not convincing and badly scripted ( read horribly clichéd) film.

The story is about two wine growing families (dynasties) in Spain and the search for the perfect sherry(?) called Oro Fino (Fine Gold).

The acting is bearable. I watched it because I love Stewart Granger - but he didn't have much to do. Andrew Stevens was awful as was Jane Badler and Tia Carrere ( who took off her clothes .... surprise surprise ... but it's still pretty tame). Ray Walston plays a strange little wine expert character called "Corkscrew" and it seems his character was written in because he was around the set..... although I supposes he is the conscience character and the voice of reason.... Corkscrew the voice of reason ???

Pretty bad on any level.

A well done low budget film. The things I like about the low budget independents made in Hollywood's heyday is that they stray a bit off the beaten path with sets, actors and script.

Storywise this film tells the usual story of a bad girl (Margo) with a heart of gold ( she's a stripper) who finds a child and wants to bring it up as her own. But in the meantime she has to ditch the bad man ( Lyle Talbot - yet again a fine bad man) and hook up with the good man ( Walter Abel). Will she succeed ?? She gets help from a drunken doctor ( William Collier Sr in a good humorous performance), a cranky landlady (Jane Darwell) and assorted B girls.

Where the film takes interest is in the small detail - a stripper with a heart of gold, a "single" mother, a wife leaving a husband in a matter of fact way and Afro-American and caucasian audience members at a strip club sitting side by side watching and cheering at the display.

Where the film wins out is with director Steven Sekely's tight direction and obvious sincerity. The scenes with Margo and child standing before the blessed Virgin in church are effective.

A pleasant way to spend an hour and a bit.

A Warner Brothers programmer from the early 1960s about oil drillers in Oklahoma in the 1920s. Not all that bad. A pleasant waste of time and the cast is enthusiastic. One of the things I love about programmers like this is that you get to see a cast of supporting actors getting roles that are bigger than normal, as well as whatever upcoming stars under contract at the time. Phil Carey is the hero, Claude Akins is the bad guy, James Daly ( aka Sheriff Rosco from Dukes of Hazzard) is the irresponsible one and megababe Diane McBain ( look for her in the Elvis film "Spinout" as well as "The Mini Skirt Mob" and "Thunder Alley", she was also Pink Pinkston on TVs "Batman") is the love interest. Fun, not quite an A film, but definitely above most of the similar themed TV shows of the day. Hey it is a Warner Brothers programmer.

Hey there must be fans out there of the 70s European action movies. The king of the genre is Charles Bronson but a lot of other US actors packed up and headed over to Europe to churn out some mid budget violence.

This time its Christopher Mitchum ( son of Robert), Karl Malden, and Olivia Hussey, with support from Italian Raf Vallone.

Its basically the young man seeking revenge redeemed by love plot mixed in with the old cop with a guilty conscience who wants to atone for his sins plot. And its not half bad with some nice motorbike stunts, cool sunglasses worn by Mitchum and nice location photography in Spain. And of course there is that ambience found in these 70s Euro action films where there are long pauses, meaningful angles as well as a gallery of existential or thoughtful characters. Its no classic but its fun. The only question is when is Tarantino going to get around to this sub genre?

A great film !! Not only Elvis's best film BUT a GREAT WESTERN and a GREAT film. Always overlooked by the general public, because Elvis is in it, this is one of the best westerns of the 1960s. Directed by legendary auteur director Don Siegel this film has the action and tension of his best films as well as dramatically beautiful landscapes.(I would kill to see this on the BIG screen). Based on a book by western writer Clair Huffaker ( War Wagon, Posse from Hell, The Last Warrior) who with the legendary Nunally Johnson ( Prisoner of Shark Island, Jesse James, Grapes of Wrath, Dirty Dozen) have written a small action western with a statement on racism. A white man with Indian wife and their two sons ( one white and one half breed) must try to avoid choosing sides during an Indian uprising. Interestingly most films about racism deal with the causes of racism however this film deals with the consequences of racism. Also many of the other films of the time, unlike this film, reduced racism down to nasty individuals rather than societal forces. There are no sides taken although the Indians come off as more noble and intelligent that the white man. (It won a number of awards when it came out from Indian groups for its depiction of Indians) The story of a family's disintegration and descent into violence by external forces beyond it's control is truly moving. There are great performances and bits of beauty in John McIntire's and Dolores Del Rio's performances. Elvis is great also as the half breed son full of anger. Only 2 songs in the film ( one over the credits and one at the start in a party scene). A Bit of trivia : other actors slated for the role at one time or another include James Dean and Marlon Brando. Also I've read somewhere that the film had an underground street cult in the late 1960s with Black Urban youths in the US ! A great film.

A good tight little film. The plot is obvious and creaky but William Powell is as stylish and suave, something he was to perfect later in the thin man series. The direction by Curtiz is well above average for the time ..... some beautiful angle shots, a nice fluid camera and I love the stair bit at the end .... in other words it is not as "stage bound" as a lot of other films from the time. The female lead, Margaret Lindsay,does a good job of looking pretty, and the great character actor Charles Lane turns up yet again. Its only about 67 minutes long and its a hoot .... pity the story isn't up to scratch (although they managed to sneak in a character called Whitey who is a hop head and at one stage is told to lay off the "snow") and it starts off slow otherwise it would be a mini classic ( like Powell's other film of about the same time "Jewell Robbery")

Another film from the low budget internationally funded exotic action school of the seventies. However it is a pleasant time filler, largely due to the stars and to Henry Levin's direction which keep things bouncing along. Rod Taylor and Stuart Whitman, two reliable stars who saw better times in the sixties, search for treasure in the Carribean and do he man things in a dependable and professional way. The ever beautiful Elke Sommer is background scenery as she was in many a continental film whilst Keenan Wynn plays the grizzled and gruff old veteran and Jeremy Kemp the bad guy asthey did in countless films. There is a lot of experience here, a director who had been directing since the 40s, actors who had been acting since the 50s or even longer. So what we have is a film that makes the most of it's opportunities, no classic, but fun on a cheesy level. The type of film waiting to be reinvented by Tarantino.

Known as "The Outcry" in the U.S. A wonderful if disturbing film about alienation and modern society. Not for those who like bouncy, happy films.

The great though relatively forgotten American actor Steve Cochran is near perfect as the worker who finds he cannot communicate, with those he loves, and so begins a downward spiral towards a state of mental disintegration. What is interesting are the Marxist and Freudian overtones that Antonioni puts on the character. The protagonist as the result of his economic position in a capitalist society ( he only has his labour to sell) is uprooted from his community and therefore alienated from his environment, and so becomes alienated from those he loves. The harder he tries the more he withdraws until he perceives he can suffer no more.

Cochran always was very good at playing "heavies" or "playboys", and here he manages to bring both to his underdog character who is strong, brutish and handsome. At the same time he manages to convey the loneliness and vulnerability the character lives through showing that those attributes are not enough to survive.

Antonioni directs with a sure hand a picture of a successful, postwar, industrial Italy where everything is not as easy as it seems. Needless to say the film is in black and white and photographed in grainy neo realist style. The landscapes, in true Antonioni fashion, are bleak, and the loneliness and isolation from others is reflected in the distance between buildings. The leisured pacing, adds to the feeling that life drags on without change.

Antonioni's characters normally, as his films L'eclisse and Red Desert, as with fellow Italian directors Fellini and De Sica during the same period, usually have uncertain futures, as if there is a hidden side to Italy's postwar economic miracle. Here, it's as if the protagonist has a manifest destiny from which there is no redemption.

John Ford, ever the director of the under dog creates another masterpiece of forgotten American history.

Ford, who called himself a social democrat creates another film of nobility and personal convictions, both his and his characters. It is Fords great humanity and sense of justice which makes this film so appealing.

Some of the narrative is forced and the resolution is pat. What we do have is Fords beautiful colour camera in Monument Valley, ala "The Searchers ( 1956 )", broad humour, defined characterizations and attention to detail both individual and historical.

Jeffrey Hunter, always an underrated actor, is fine as the lead, but it is Woody Strode as the title character that is a stand out. His courtroom scene defending his beliefs and humanity is truly moving as is his scene as he rides back to save his troop. A " man mountain" he is ! Through his physical presence Ford coaxes out subtle nuances of character which give the role a ring of truth. Supporting him we have Fords usual wonderful stock players. Although not as poetic or thought out as some of Fords other films this is still miles ahead of other peoples efforts.

A good, economical little b movie, with a wonderful female lead , Britton, who is stunning and a straight faced male lead, O Keefe. Enough red herrings to keep one amused, as long as you are not looking for a classic.