#30 and #31 The Alamo and The Alamo

The Alamo (1960)

directed by 

John Wayne

written by 

James Edward Grant

The Alamo (2004)

directed by 

John Lee Hancock

written by 

John Lee Hancock

 

We watched both of these last year, so skipped this time around. We're keeping both, as each is a solid movie, flaws and all, about a pivotal point in American history. They could both be more accurate about the root causes of the war - slavery as much as Santana's centralizing dictatorship - but there's no getting around the brutal, heroic stand of the Texican defenders.

Wayne's is the lesser of the two - it's more sentimental and rose-tineted - , but it's got gloriously epic pageantry and makes a surprising effort to honor the Mexican soldiers as brave. It's also filled with patriotic speeches, Mexican dancers, and a fun, but terribly out of place Laurence Harvey as Col. Travis. Wayne as Crockett is simply Wayne, as he too often was. Widmark is always good, but there's little sense of the shady speculator or killer in his version of Jim Bowie. Still, as big war movies go, it's solid enough (and Dmitri Tiomkin's score is excellent).

Hancock's movie strives for greater accuracy, making the three central characters more interesting through their flaws. Jason Patric is good as the drunken and increasingly debilitated Bowie, dreaming all the time of his dead wife. Patrick Wilson is solid as the wife-deserting Travis. Billy Bob Thornton is the best, though, as Crockett. He's good at portraying Crockett's effort to live up to the heroic aspect of his reputation without succumbing to its lures. Unlike Wayne's hagiographic version, Thornton's Crockett is a man caught up in a fight he definitely didn't plan on. He brought his men to Texas hoping to make a dollar and not have to fight any battles. As to Crockett's final moments, it's been a matter for debate since 1836, and it seems most likely he went down fighting, but I like how it's done here and drives home the brutality with which Santa Anna handled the rebellion. The music by Carter Burwell is alright but definitely suffers in comparison to Tiomkin's.

verdict: a pair of keepers

Widmark, Wayne, and Harvey

Wilson, Thornton, and Patric

#29 - 7 Men from Now

7 Men from Now (1956)

directed by 

Budd Boetticher

written by 

Burt Kennedy

The first of seven Westerns Boetticher made with Randolph Scott. As much as I love most of them (The Tall T and Ride Lonesome are two of the best Westerns), 7 Men from Now is a disappointment on rewatching. Scott is great as a man hunting the seven men responsible for his wife's death. Lee Marvin is very good as a man of unclear loyalties. As is true of all these movies, it's tight and economical, but unlike the others, it's saddled with a soggy love story and a poor score. The ending is soft and detracts from the hardness the film otherwise strives for.

I never "got" Randolph Scott until I saw him in Sam Peckinpah's magnificent Ride the High Country (1962). I'll write about that one down the line, but suffice it to say, Scott retired after filming it, supposedly considering it a perfect way to end his career (he was also worth a reputed $100 million).

When I discovered the Boetticher movies, I really got Scott. He's the strong, silent Western hero apotheosis. Pushing sixty and still looking like he could snap most men in half, he's got power and dignity on the screen that makes his performances as strong-willed, driven men of experience completely believable.

Walter Reed is fine as the eager Easterner making his way with his wife to California. As his wife, Gail Russell is a little too teary-eyed and comes across as way too eager to jump Scott's bones the first chance she gets. It's all very cheesy and really detracts from the rest of the film.

verdict: we're going to keep it so I have all the Scott-Boetticher films, but it is flawed.

Randolph Scott

#12 - 3:10 to Yuma

3:10 to Yuma (1957)

directed by 

Delmer Daves

 

screenplay by 

Halsted Welles

based on "Three-Ten to Yuma" by Elmore Leonard

So here we come to our first non-keeper. My memory of this was "I like it." Ah, memories, so often they let us down. The core of the story is Van Heflin, a farmer in need of money takes on the risk of keeping Glenn Ford, a bandit, under guard until he can be gotten on the titular train and on to incarceration. It's taken from a good Elmore Leonard story, and if that's all there was it might be as great as I remembered it being. Unfortunately, it's swaddled in opening and closing scenes with a terrible song called "3:10 to Yuma" sung by Frankie Laine. Then there's Leora Dana as Van Heflin's wife. It's not her, but the part's written badly, one minute ragging on her husband for being a coward and then again when he's being brave with no exploration of how she gets from one reaction to the other. Ford's instant romance with a bartender/ex-dancehall floozie played by Felicia Farr is cheesy by any era's standards.

Glenn Ford is very good playing against type as the bandit, Ben Wade. Van Heflin is excellent as farmer Dan Evans. There's a sort of damaged reserve to Heflin (also on display in Shane), that I find really intriguing. He was a star in his day, but he's not one of the ones people still rave about. I just heard some good words about Act of Violence (with Robert Ryan), so I need to track that down and see more of his work. There are some good, gripping moments on hand, and Henry Jones as the town rummy is very good. Still, the crappy and cheesy outweigh the good and away it must go.

Ah, well, the whole point of this was to cull out the unworthy, and the rest of my Western collection is damn impressive, even without this.

Verdict: to the thrift store, posthaste

Glenn Ford and Van Heflin