Movies-TV

The other side of the showdown...

Michael Winner's "The Lawman" reveals that a sheriff - traditional officer responsible for law and order, symbol of virtue and right - is 'not' always morally excellent and virtuous or that his prey thoroughly bad...Burt Lancaster is cast as a merciless avenger, unmoved by love or pity, determined to one end: Exterminate the opposition...The criminals here are, in fact, some law breakers, drunken cowboys - who by bad luck - have killed an old man during a rough enthusiastic drinking bout...Lancaster - blind to his faults, unwilling to judge or to be less severe, and with no intention to arrest - hunts his prey down, one by one, until the last man...There is no poetic eloquence here, no tension as the two protagonists walk slowly towards their duel, no feeling that right is victorious, no good has conquered evil, no decisive clash to capture the audience's imagination... This is pure brutality: Gratuitous graphic sequences - sickening and revolting - of destroyed shoulders and collapsed faces... Uncalled details of death that may damage the sonorous knell of the 'classic Western' with its ideal behavior and precise rules traditionally observed...The Western showdown is strictly ritual, quick, clean and purely emotional... The outcome predictable... The moment of suspense exciting as anything the cinema has ever produced...The showdown in "The Lawman" is disturbing in the way of vision... It follows on in the tradition of Palance/Elisha Cook Jr. ultimate confrontation in "Shane," and excels Sam Peckinpah's commitment to an ideal of self-expression through violent death... It may well mean that a film like "Shane," "High Noon," "Vera Cruz," or "The Fastest Gun Alive," can never be made again...

A frontier sheriff with an icy heart of stone

Burt Lancaster and Robert Ryan star in this grim, hard-edged western, wherein Lancaster is a unremitting and efficiently violent lawman, who will give his all to get his man, even if he doesn't believe that justice will be served once the accused is brought to trial. Everyone butts up against his hardass attitude, and he rebuffs repeated pleas to take things easy and turn a blind eye. To Lancaster's marshall, it's not so much about right and wrong as it is about doing the job right: if you falter or give an inch, you'll probably wind up dead. The first half on this film is tautly scripted and relentless; it kind of falls apart by the end, at first in little bits and pieces, and then all at once. Overall, though, it's very good, and if you're looking for a superior western, this is definitely worth checking out.

Lawman Remake

The original release of this film starring Burt Lancaster as the relentless alpha male and Sheree North as his attractive erstwhile lover contained an explicit bedroom scene which revealed more of the latter's earthy charms than seen in the recent remake. While the latter shows better on the screen--the original film is rough and worn through aging--the deleting of such racy images detracts from the film maker's artistic intent. Perhaps the new edition's editors expect to gain a broader audience by not offending puritancal tastes, but for me it's a disappointment. Specially since it's the only film I've ever seen of Sheree North topless (fortunately the original shows occasionally on cable t.v.). While such gratuitous editing occurs frequently on network television, one wouldn't expect it to happen on a DVD. This viewer certainly wouldn't have bought it had he known it had been cut.

A total Shocker

The first time I watched this Movie I thought well it was made some years ago,it should be the same shoot or be shot kind of Movie. Was I surprised and shocked, Burt Lancaster plays one tough-Mean Marshall, and when he's out to get you, you can be sure you're Got... and most times with a bullit in you, and the way he does it, with-out a thought. & I consider the ending of the Movie a [ Complete Total Shocker ].. Ouch...

A very Good Western

Here is another great American Western that slipped under my radar.Where to start, Dircted by Michael Winner, starring Burt Lancaster in whats got to be the best Western I've seen him in so far, with Robert Ryan, Lee J. Cobb, Robert Duval, Albert Salmi, Ralph Waite, JD Cannon, John McGiver, John Hillerman, Wilford Brimley and Sheree North in whats gotta be the biggest & best role I've seen her in. Plus a great supporting cast of all good actors in realistic parts.This is sort of a psychological/action Western hybrid with an emphasis on very good action, so its got a lot of dialog but its great dialog that sounds true with a good ear for Western slang.A guy named Ray Moyer did the set design, and this is another standout of this film, a great job, he is as good as Carlo Simi, I couldn't believe how much detail was crammed into this film. Everything looks spot on, the town set is fantastic, the ranch's are great, interiors highly detailed. Roberto Silva & Herb Westbrook did the Art direction and they deserve mention too.There is a whore house set thats great it features a crippled gambler/pimp who hobbles about on crutches who is a past friend of Maddox, he has this skull clock sitting on his card table that is a nice touch. All the whores are real looking women not caricatured or dressed overly flashy.The landscape & town sets were all shot in Durango, Mexico and some of the buttes featured were just beautiful, don't remember seeing these locations before but the rock in the outcrops look similar to those seen in the Magnificent Seven.The story basically revolves around Bannock Marshall Jared Maddox (Lancaster) a "mankiller" he has the nickname "The Widowmaker". Maddox is after a bunch of drovers who shot up his town during a drunken spree killing an old man. The drovers work for big time cattleman Vincent Bronson (Cobb) near the town of Sabbath, New Mexico.Maddox has a reputation for being quick on the draw, and always getting his man, we first see him riding into Sabbath with a corpse. He ties up at the Sabbath Marshall Cotton Ryan's (Ryan) office and he tells Ryan what happened and who he's after. Ryan tells him that the men all work for Bronson, and that he'll ride out to the ranch & tell them that Maddox wants to bring them back for trial to Bannock. Bronson's men decide to tough it out and face Maddox.This film even has a love interest thats handled the just the way it should be in that it doesn't detract from or slow down the narrative one iota.The score is nothing that sticks in head and pretty forgettable, its not an Spaghetti Western , no picaresque characters or humor, but it does have some SW influenced action as do a lot of the post Leone & Peckinpah films of the 70's.The ending is worth the price of the DVD which I just ordered. Michael Winner best film, IMO.Check it out you wont go wrong.

Great film hurt badly by unsatisfying ending.

This could have been a five star movie. Burt Lancaster was terrific as the uncompromising lawman, and the supporting cast including Robert Ryan and Lee J. Cobb were first-rate. This film sports a good script that has surprisingly few cliches. This is a character-driven movie that draws you in and keeps you watching ...that is...until the final five minutes of the film. The ending jarred me, and I left shaking my head (it seemed totally out of character compared to the rest film). Even with this very unsatisfying ending, I give "Lawman" 7 out of 10. It's a film worth seeing, but it could have been one of those rare "don't miss" gems.

A wonderfully surprising film!

I will not repeat the other comments and accolades for this film although I concur with all that I read on this site. I caught it on late-night cable and was intrigued because of the cast and because I had never heard of it before that night. There were things in the movie I had never seen nor expected to see in a western movie. The first was the scene of the local town marshal (Robert Ryan) hitting a back-shooting coward in the crotch with his gun in order to disable him and take him to jail. Then, there was the exchange between Robert Duvall and Burt Lancaster where they shoot each other's horses. And, finally after the last gunfight, Burt Lancaster (the symbol of law and justice) shoots a poor, scared pawn in the back in front of his wife. Catch this movie if you can, because you will not see many like it.

Michael Winners wild west film is a winner!

Directed by an Englishman who wants to give us violent films. This is great stuff! With Burt, Lee and Robert he couldn't fail.If you dont like these kind of films and refuses to see it,you will miss the best music ever made for a wild west movie. COMPOSER (JERRY FIELDING) !

Unwavering...

One can only imagine, in this day and age, the intestinal fortitude it must've taken to "tame the West." A lawman would've been obliged to put his life on the line every minute of every day, with the almost certain knowledge that, one day, somebody'd collect. (It would be interesting to find out what the average life expectancy of a lawman in the Old West was...) Lawman Lancaster doesn't flinch: he follows through on his promise(s), regardless of the consequences- a true lawman, to the bitter end. From time to time, he finds himself striding purposefully through a gray area- but, again, he never falters; never wavers. The very end of the movie is indeed shocking, and it leaves us with much food for thought. An excellent Western.

"If I had somewhere to run to I'd run. But I don't so I'll stand."

It's the bad guys (Michael Winner, Robert Paynter and Jerry Fielding) vs the good guys (Burt Lancaster, Lee J. Cobb and Robert Ryan), fighting over the right to make Gerald Wilson's script come to some sort of life. The good guys win, but it's a hard fight, and nobody escapes without injury. Winner's a loser, mostly, though his direction here shows more insight than usual, when he's not too busy playing traffic cop (Cobb is forced to march around his hacienda like Mussolini on parade, and Ryan counters so many awkward camera moves he looks like he's afraid of being run over). Paynter's done decent work now and then, but this isn't much of it - his zooms nearly poke holes in about twenty old men's faces in this awful-looking brown movie - though I suppose we can blame Winner for much of what seems Paynter's fault; and to somebody's credit, there are more interesting shots in this than in any other Winner picture I've seen. Fielding scored some fine Westerns, but this time his strains are uninspired and intrusively applied - again, thanks, Mike.What's really worth watching is Robert Ryan's best role since "Billy Budd," and his best performance since... well, he's never bad, is he? But he gets some screen time here, which is perhaps the nicest thing I can say about Winner. Ryan's moment-to-moment work is captivating, so real and so unobtrusively organic that it makes Lancaster's Lancaster impression feel even more telegraphed than usual. This from a big Lancaster fan, though I prefer the Elmer Gantry "Teeth" version of this massively appealing cardboard performer. It's not his fault he has nothing to do here but shoot people.Altogether this is probably my favorite Michael Winner movie, which isn't saying much. He can't stay out of his own way, behaving like he's ten times the director he is, but his gunfights here are far more satisfying than in the rest of his bloody oeuvre. It's funny - "Mechanic" is an excellent movie about a killer, except when it deals with violence (!), at which points it becomes the stupidest movie on earth, with elaborate Rube Goldberg set-ups and motorcycles knocking gentry into swimming pools. The "Death Wish" horde are decent enough pictures about vigilante justice, except when Bronson shoots anybody, when they veer into tasteless, poorly executed drive-in territory.If Gerald Wilson were fifty percent better, he'd be great. His script is full of decent-to-good dialog, and the characters are consistent, but two seemingly contradictory problems downgrade the screenplay to "eh": the story wanders further than it ought, including a pointless romantic drive to nowhere, but not enough really happens on the way to a place that was sure as taxes from the opening credits. Each major character has the task of repeating himself in at least a couple of redundant scenes, apparently just to make feature length. Happily enough, the out-of-the-blue power of the performances saves what could have been a real dog.Wilson and Winner, right after this came out, presented Hollywood with the opportunity to make something called "The Johnson County War." Nobody bit, which is too bad for United Artists, which could have saved itself a suicide-by-40 million dollar flop; but I'm fine with it, because I like "Heaven's Gate" just the way it is: coherent, beautiful, elegant, graceful and long. Instead of the way these guys would have made it: nasty, brutish and short.

This is definitely not run-of-the-mill stuff.

A top-notch western with Burt Lancaster expertly cast in the title role. He is supported by an excellent group of veteran character players (Robert Ryan, Lee J Cobb, Albert Salmi). The story is very simple, but there is great character study and an emotional (and suspenseful) buildup to the plot. We get superb performances especially by Burt as a quiet but forceful man dedicated to "playing by the rules". I enjoyed this movie very much. It has the feel of a classic, and indeed it should be considered one because the story and the performances are not easily forgettable. It is a movie that leaves one asking moral (philosophical) questions at the end, and that is as it should be. By my definition, when a movie or a play does that, then it is a classic.

What the heck?!?

This movie seems to be caught between 2 generations. The old style western where the good guy does what is right and the 1960/70s westerns with the strange music.

Better than High Noon!

Discovered this priceless gem on late night TV. First must admit to being a lifetime fan of Burt Lancaster and he does not disappoint in this outstanding example of the western genre. But the real surprise is the outstanding performances by Sheree North, Lee J Cobb and particularly Robert Ryan who delivers his best ever. Cobb plays the non-stereotypical wealthy cattle baron who is not villainously evil but rather paternalistically benevolent. The dialogue is excellent and the only small disappointment for me was the reliance on the old one-on-one quick draw showdown. Nevertheless this small criticism aside, I rate it a solid 8 of 10.

Simple and unsympathetic story is carried by a solid cast.

In no way "Lawman" is an exceptional or memorable western but it still is made interesting and entertaining enough by its fine and solid acting main cast.No western ever has had a complex or complicated story but this movie is rather easy, even for normal western standards. It's a typical 'revenge' tale. Only problem this time is that the revenge tale isn't exactly a sympathetic one. I just don't see why about a dozen cowboy's have to die just because they accidentally killed an old man, in a drunk state. It really doesn't help to make this movie the most subtle or engaging western around. It also doesn't help to make the main character, the marshal played by Burt Lancaster a popular or engaging one. At times you even feel sorry and cheer for the 'villains' but this is also probably mainly due to the fact that they are played by such fine and well known actors.Lee J. Cobb and Robert Duvall are among the solid cast. together with some other famed '70's actors. The main cast is extremely solid and everyone gives one fine and effective performance. In that regard this movie still distinct itself from other genre movies from the same period and still help to make this movie an unique and recommendable one. Especially Lee J. Cobb is impressive in his role. And no matter how small his role in this movie is, Robert Duvall's talent is obviously showing in this movie. Unfortunately the supporting cast of this movie is not halve as good. It makes most of the humor feel awkward and also prevents the more dramatic and serious story lines to work out correctly.The movie is well made, if not a tad bit formulaic. The cinematography and directing is mostly good and the musical score by Jerry Fielding is surprisingly good, for such a small and insignificant production. The movie is mostly filled with action, which helps to make this movie a perfectly watchable and well paced one. The movie ends with a genre formulaic shootout, that does not disappointed.Obviously best watchable for the genre fans but everyone else will probably also still enjoy this simple movie, thanks to its solid acting and famous cast.7/10

Great Film - Sound Not So Good

I was very disapointed with this film "LAWMAN" and not because of the film itself, but because of the sound quality of this DVD. The sound was very flat, high pitched and with no depth to the sound at all and that's sad because this is a great film in itself. This is a great Western with an excellent cast, especially the great character actor William C. Watson as Choctaw Lee, the gunfighter. Richard Jordon as Crow was also great. You just don't see great films like this anymore, basically because you don't have actors like this anymore, Burt Lancaster, Lee J. Cobb, Albert Salmi, etc. If someone else purchased this DVD and the sound is great, please let me know as maybe I received a defected DVD. I hope the DVD was defected as I would love to enjoy this film once more.

An overly-focused marshall in his pursuit of "justice".

Starts out well, with a good production and photography then slides downhill, becoming tedious and overly violent. As much (if not more) zoom lens work as the average Asian Indian movie. It's as if a good film was underway when the makers decided to change horses and make it more like the Italian westerns.

Astoundingly Underrated--Brilliant, Complex--One Caution

First, the caution: the "widescreen" VHS version is a sham! It doesn't show you the actual original widescreen film, it simply chops off the top and bottom of the already reduced TV image! So just buy the regular VHS or the DVD,and make some noise on chat boards and elsewhere till they release a true widescreen version of this beautiful, beautiful film.

Okay, this is the longest review I've ever written, but here's why. I watch a LOT of movies (I'm a film and lit prof). IMHO, this is the most underrated film I've ever seen.

First off, DON'T THINK OF THIS FILM AS A WESTERN! If you do, you'll miss out on a great artistic experience, and that would be a shame. It is a film that, among several other things, bravely challenges the macho ethic while presenting characters of enormous moral ambiguity, all the while featuring a) some of my favorite direction ever, and b) simply unmatchable acting. Oh yeah, it takes place in the West :-).

Winner's directing is incredibly thought-provoking, literally second-by-second. Never, ever have I seen a more thoughtfully directed film--every once in a while he over-thinks, but it's more than forgivable. Just two of many elements: The cuts from scene to scene are ALL great, and there are no wasted moments, everything provokes thought.

Two examples: 1. Two macho guys are talking about all the land they own, and this weird flute theme slowly rises, creating an odd dissonance--suddenly we cut to a mouth playing the flute, then we realize it's Lancaster: Mr. Macho himself, out to get the other two, but differentiated from them through his flute playing--yet he then has to grab a gun because of a simple knock on the door, and we're reminded of his reality, and then we're presented with the sad irony of his throwing open the door and pointing the gun at his long-lost love...just moment after moment after moment, nothing wasted. 2. A shot of the marshal in bed with a prostitute jumpcuts to a close-up of a beautiful desert flower on a cactus, a subtle echo of both the dissipated marshal and the prostitute--but it's not a gratuitous shot, because behind the flower we then see 4 guys riding in to the climax of the film. Every symbol or image in this film is neatly tied in with the action: nothing feels cheap or forced. Virtually every scene is as thoughtfully constructed as the two moments I just described.

The moral complexity of the film. Everybody has a different reaction to this film, and that reaction tells the viewer something about him/herself--what more do you want from art? (Aside from that it entertain, which this film does.) Most of my students find themselves defending a group of men who begin the film by randomly shooting and burning a small town and are so arrogant that they then refuse to attend even a sham trial. Winner achieves these myriad reactions through his brilliant work with Lancaster, Cobb, and Ryan, all of whom are as multilayered as one could hope for in 100 minutes. For me, Lancaster's character is a near-hero, yet I understand why many of my students despise him. Rarely, very rarely, is a U.S.-studio film this morally complex and ambiguous.

The acting. The first scene between Lancaster and Ryan consists of two marshals standing around talking about a case for about four minutes, essentially giving necessary background plot--not the stuff of riveting cinema, right? Yet it's without question one of my favorite scenes in film history. That's how good the acting is in this film. Lancaster puts across sarcasm and disgust with a subtlety few others can equal, concluding, "Just good cowboy fun. (pause) They killed an old man." Ryan's weathered, cynical face takes on the slightest bit of interest as he says, "Kin?" These are two guys who have transcended the cliches of their acting generation and simply become uniquely superb actors. Don't expect Method (and I've nothing against Method!); just expect Lancaster and Ryan at their absolute peak. Same with Cobb, and the supporting cast is just about perfect, led by Richard Jordan and Sheree North. (An aside: a strong case can be made that North's character--essentially the only woman with a speaking role in the film--is the most admirable, strong, and intelligent person in the film: another thing that sets this apart from typical "Westerns," or typical anything!)

I've found in my studies that it's pretty random what gets labelled a "classic" and what gets forgotten--it has so much to do with studio politics of the time, what other films came out that week, how a film is promoted (the promo for Lawman is horrid), the personal taste of the hip critics, etc. If you like thoughtful, beautifully acted and directed films, PLEASE GIVE THIS FILM A CHANCE: I think you'll like it! Thanks for reading this whole thing :-)!

the corrosive effect of violence

I rather feel the original "review" on the database misses the point of this dark film. The notion that the community is best served by a rigid, inflexible determination to enforce the letter of the law under all circumstances is indeed the view espoused by the film's main character (played with consummate skill by Burt Lancaster) but the message of the film is surely to point out the limitations of such a view.Towards the end of the film the Marshall is offered another vision - of a life that contain more than the vendetta, the manhunt, and the inevitable killing that follows. Instead he is tempted by the possibility of a life that offers love, humanity and peace. Unable to change his spots, however, he deliberately throws all that away in a final, senseless act of violence when he shoots in the back a frightened and basically harmless man who is trying to run away - a senseless, brutal and completely unnecessary act of judicial murder. It bears a great resemblance in fact to Harry's similar cold-blooded and pointless execution of his terrorist fugitive at the end of "Harry's Game" and similarly to that, its effect is to arouse disgust at the perpetrator and to alienate our sympathies from what we had previously felt was the "right" side, and to question whether it had really been so "right" all along. The purpose, one feels, of this final killing was not because there was any need for it, but simply to demonstrate the Marshall's defiance of his critics and his determination to continue in the path he had previously followed. To my mind the film is an intelligent critique of the whole notion of the missionary self-righteousness of this attitude that can arise among self-appointed guardians of the public good, whose original high standards and pure motives are eroded by the violence and the basic inhumanity of the methods they use until they become - as Burt Lancaster actually states in specific terms during the film - just people who are good at killing other people. Siilar themes were explored earlier in "The Searchers" (1956) and "Hang 'em High" (1968) and later in "Unforgiven" (1992) but the message was best expressed to my mind by Peter Shaffer n his play "The Royal Hunt of the Sun" where the young, idealistic but inexperienced squire, Martin, tells his master the conquistador Pizzarro how he feels that a "noble reason" can make the violence of war "glorious". Pizzarro replies: "Give me one reason that stays noble once you start hacking off limbs in its name".

Andy Griffith's Opposite

This is a great movie, it's as if Andy and Barney Fife have switched roles with deadly results. The Barney-like character played by Ryan sees the big picture and is pragmatic and compromising. He's wants peace and quiet in the town even if it means overlooking the letter of the law sometimes. But he is weak.

Lancaster is the strong one, but with no concern for peace and quiet. He's myopically focused on executing the letter of the law without any regard for the surrounding circumstances.

That said the movie is full of moral questions and I think most are portrayed very well. Maddox is a good man, with many faults, as are the other characters. It really makes you think about the imperfections of the world we live in and how applying the "rules" in a very strict manner doesn't always make sense. Maddox is unwilling to make any sort of compromise until it is too late. Still, you see his resignation & compromise at the end as a maturation and humility of his character that is endearing & human.


Of course that lasts only a brief moment as the final shootout looms and he snaps back into his executioner role even gunning down the cowardly Hurd Price in the back as he flees. That is the most morally vexing moment of the film for me. It was completely unnecessary, but in the heat of the battle maybe Maddox just blew it. You're left wondering.

Anyway, the cinematography I found to be very good. Lee J. Cobb as Bronson does a great job reflecting on his difficult, costly rise to power and giving credit to those he's defeated along the way. He has no stomach at his age for further violence but when Maddox justifiably guns down his lifelong partner he feels he has no choice but to fight to the end.

The role of Duvall as Vernon Adams sort of plays out the theme of the movie in a miniature subplot. He feels he has done nothing wrong and just wants to be left alone. He is willing to shoot Maddox in the back to make hime go away. He is a villain (though a somewhat passive one), but you can sympathize with the predicament he's in. Ultimately his pride and poor decisions get him shot.

The heroic Maddox makes as many mistakes as the bad guys in this one. I don't think it's moral relativism to say Maddox could have sought justice in a less violent way. But killing, admittedly, is what he is best at, and that's how he gets the job done. Woe unto those who don't understand the way he works!

Excellent Late-Period Lancaster Western

Lawman was definitely Michael Winner's precursor to his Death Wish films. The same themes of lawfulness vs. lawlessness and justice vs. vigilantism are explored here.

Lancaster plays Jered Maddox, a town marshal looking for the cowboys who shot up his town and killed a townsperson. He finds them in the town of Sabbath, where they work for the biggest cattleman in town. Maddox wants justice, and the cattleman doesn't want to give his men up for what he sees as an accident and a misunderstanding. Bloodshed ensues.

This was one of Lancaster's last Westerns, and in each of his Westerns, he maintained either one of two personas. He was either playing a serious, sober, by-the-book lawman or soldier, or he was playing a crazy, devil-may-care adventurer who may or may not have morals or scruples. He was definitely playing the latter in Lawman. His character is earnest and thoughtful, but has no gray area when comes to the law. You are either a law keeper or a lawbreaker with nothing in between.

This is a much neglected film, and I'm glad we didn't have to wait for it to be released on DVD.