Two Rode Together Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
The West's most violent story... The West's most valiant hour!
The US Army is under pressure from the desperate relatives of white prisoners of the Comanches to secure their rescue. A cynical and corrupt marshal, Guthrie McCabe, is persuaded by an army lieutenant to assist in the negotiations with the Comanches. However, just two captives are released; and their reintegration into white society proves highly problematic.
| James Stewart | Marshal Guthrie McCabe |
| Richard Widmark | First Lt. Jim Gary |
| Andy Devine | Sgt. Darius P. Posey |
| John McIntire | Maj. Frazer |
| Paul Birch | Judge Edward Purcell |
| Willis Bouchey | Mr. Harry J. Wringle |
| Henry Brandon | Chief Quanah Parker |
| Harry Carey Jr. | Ortho Clegg |
| Ken Curtis | Greeley Clegg |
| Chet Douglas | Deputy Ward Corby |
| David Kent | Running Wolf |
| John Qualen | Ole Knudsen |
| Ford Rainey | Rev. Henry Clegg |
| Woody Strode | Stone Calf |
| O.Z. Whitehead | Lt. Chase |
6.90 out of 10 (1075 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Poignant Character Study with raw emotions
posted on 07 Nov 2008James Stewart plays an amoral whore-mongering marshal who is co-opted by the cavalry to find a group of settler children who had been taken captive and raised by the Commanches. Every supporting role is perfectly cast and the emotions strike deep to the core. Stewart is surprisingly comfortable playing an archly cynical contemptible mercenary with contempt for nearly everybody and everyone. Linda Cristal is excellent as the Mexican woman who was forced to be the Chief's wife for years. All aspects of captivity and dehumanization are carefully and sincerely explored here, and the twist ending is perfection itself. This is an overlooked classic.
Two shot a ho hum movie together
posted on 04 Nov 2007I think all of John Ford's Westerns are worth seeing at least once - this is a oncer.Basically it has all the right ingredients, good cast, scenery, certainly standard good direction and the production values are fairly high - but the overall story is a yawn. It's a lower budget mix of "The Searchers" and "Rio Bravo", both of which I've seen loads of times, with a bit more nastiness thrown in. I wonder how Ford would have filmed this now, when the racial and the racial/sexual stereotypes depicted would be frowned upon. It's his usual theme of Oil and Water, without any kind of redeeming character analysis to mull over afterwards.Widmark and especially Stewart are unlikeable from start to finish, but portrayed as decent hard drinking straight talking sometimes charming grade A Americans, a view extended to all the other whites. The poor old Indians are hamstrung in that their savagery is in their blood and further inculcated in them whilst young: hopeless cases! On the other hand most of the cast appear to be hopeless cases too - what a lousy script Ford had to play with!If I'm requested to temporarily swallow for 90 odd minutes such a depressing view of humanity I would rather it be from a more studious, serious or artistic source - this ain't it. 100% better than Blazing Saddles however. The way all things are going pc, this potboiler along with lots of pre 1970 entertainment will be probably be either heavily edited or banned from sale outright within the next 50 years. The culture we have created now will not allow a return to preceding moral values, in the same way as Swing Music will never be popular again. The snowball gathers speed, so if you want to watch it while you still can!
full of anti-climaxes and near misses
posted on 17 Oct 2007Of all the John Ford films I have seen, this is among my least favorite. In many ways, I think it's because it is a big case of "been there, done that". In other words, many of the plot elements are pretty familiar but thrown together the film just never seems to work all that well. In particular, you can sure see the strong influence of the film THE SEARCHERS--though TWO RODE TOGETHER had a much lesser impact (so why not just watch THE SEARCHERS?). Also, at times, there were elements of WHAT PRICE GLORY and WINGS OF EAGLES--where comedic elements are combined with a very serious plot (probably why I am not a huge fan of those Ford films so much either). There are even aspects of the movie that remind me of the Cavalry Trilogy. I just wish this film had stuck to one mood and one major plot element.This same feeling that I have seen better also applies to Jimmy Stewart. He is one of my favorite film cowboys--especially since he is a little more human than most cowboy stars. But in this film, at times, he seems a bit lost. Some times, he seems like a self-centered money-grubber and at other times he's super brave and at other times he's the voice of reason and decency. Once again, it's like seeing Stewart from many of of his films once again mixed together.The bottom line is that this film isn't anything particularly new or compelling. Instead, it's a very good time-passer with very good production values.
Damn Good Movie
posted on 26 Sep 2007Movies were made to be entertaining and "Two Rode Together" is entertaining. It also shows how the Indian was treated and mistreated back in western times. Even if they had been captured by the Indians and raised as Indians, they were feared and mistreated. I liked the film because there were a few that saw it was wrong and tried to change the mores of the times. And as each generation moves forward until today, this continues to occur. We are further along then it was in 1960, so some would say this movie doesn't clarify racial tones as we see them today. Yet will we view the way we, today, feel about this subject, the same way fifty years from now? The answer is assuredly an emphatic "NO". Progress moves on as humanity ages. So from this we can actually see how this attitude has changed through the years and we can see what the future will bring. Perhaps because of films like this, we have the attitudes of this day.
Gone Comanche
posted on 22 Jun 2007Two Rode Together is not a sophisticated movie but it explores the relationship between kidnapped and captor which, in our more sophisticated times would be referred to as Stockholm syndrome.A Comanche tribe has been capturing "whites". After a campaign lasting many years the relatives convince the government to try and free these captives. Because a peace treaty has been signed with the Comanche it is decided this is best handled by negotiation… a deal… enter Jimmie Stewart's wheeler-dealing Marshall. As the start of the film we see Stewart sending some mean looking gamblers packing from his town so we know he is not to be messed with.Of course, after so long many of the captives have either been sold to other tribes or are dead – from battles or exhaustion after being used as slaves. The remainder have more or less developed an attachment for their captors. The reintegration into society is not going to be easy as we will see.The recent release of an Austrian girl after 8 years in captivity (Natascha Kampusch) puts this movie into some kind of relief. The anguished parents never knowing the fate of their loved ones then the return and questions – surely the hostages must have been complicit and then there are the mixed loyalties of the hostages. Two Rode Together explores these themes but spends too much time lingering on subplots and distractions while not really getting to grips fully with its core subject. Still a surprising theme for a Western.
Argh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted on 15 Mar 2007This film is not one of Ford's best. It reeks! Performances are subpar by the stars. Though Woody Strode as Stonecat is comedy at it's best, Andy Devine is pathetic as the terribly obese army sergent. It would have been a better film if some seriousness had been put into it. It is mean spirited in so many areas. Forget it.
Being a 44 year old Lieutenant was not unusual
posted on 10 Feb 2007One of the reviewers state about Richard Widmark being a 44 year First Lieutanent. Back in those days, it is was normal for guys to be stuck in one rank for a long time. In the book US Cavalry on the Plains 1850-1890,page 22, there was an analysis done in 1877 that said it would take 26 years to reach the rank of major and another 11 years to make Colonel. Many of our World War II generals were majors, lieutenant colonels, and colonels before the outbreak of World War II in 1939 Europe. Generals Bradley, Patton, and Eisenhower had to waited a long time before being promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel (11, 14, and 16 years). If it was not for World War II, those guys would have retired in the 1950s as full Colonels. They would be lucky if they have been promoted to general. In the book Mr. Kipling's Army, one British General was a subaltern for 21 years and then spend another 14 years as a Captain. It was not unusual for British officers to be stuck in one rank for a long time because they had to purchase each rank (until 1870) or get promoted to to deaths from diseases, wars, retirement by other officers, or seniority. Joseph Jocko Clark, a World War II Admiral, in his book Carrier Admiral, stated that he was a lieutenant for seven years which was considered normal by the US Navy at that time before being promoted to lieutenant commander.Finally, if you saw the movies A Thunder of Drums and Fort Apache, there were a number of officers who were still captains or lieutenants. Henry Fonda's adjutant in the movie Fort Apache was a lieutenant who look old enough to be my grandfather. In the movie She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, John Wayne was a captain after forty five years of service. One of his junior officers was a 2nd Lieutenant,and he would have to waited 8 or 9 years before becoming a first lieutenant. By today's military standards, officers would have been thrown out of the military if they did not make captain in order to qualified for a 20 year pension. Moreover, many privates, corporals, and three stripes sergeants would have been thrown out of the military if they never been promoted to staff sergeant in order to get a 20 year pension. If you look at the movie From Here to Eternity, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, A Thunder of Drums Fort Apache, many of the soldiers, corporals, and sergeants look like they were in their 30s and 40s. The company clerk in the movie From Here to Eternity was a private who look old enough to be my father. By today standards, you have to be at least a staff sergeant to be a platoon sergeant not a three stripe sergeant. In the book Old Soldiers of the Army, it stated that you had to wait a long time like 9 years to 12 years make sergeant. After World War II, the armed services adopted an up or out system promotion system. There was going to be no more people who were privates, corporals, lieutenants, and captains who were in the military with 20 to 30 years of military experience (unless you were one of the characters from the Beatle Bailey cartoon stripe). Unless you have a good understanding of the historical and social background of the time period that the movie was portraying, one should be careful about make statements.
Not One Of Jimmy Stewarts Best
posted on 22 Sep 2006John Ford attempted to recapture the essence of "The Searchers" with this look-alike film. Using a similar plot and some of the same cast from the first classic film, Ford created a distant cousin at best. Jimmy Steward's character was just too mean, and Stewart was awkward in playing it. His mannerisms seemed unnatural and his dialog was spoken with an angry tone. Richard Widmark turns in a good performance with a believable character. As a stand-alone, it's not a half bad film with some beautiful scenery (typical John Ford). However, if you are a fan of The Searchers (as I am), you'll not help but draw a comparison all during this film, with this being the weaker of the two.
A well done, thoughtful movie that moves between light comedy and drama very easily
posted on 30 Jun 2006This movie catches the viewer by surprise if all the viewer knows is that the two heroes are supposed to go out and release some captives from the indians. However from the light hearted banter of Widmark and Stewart in the beginning of the movie, it moves slowly but surely towards some pretty serious thoughtful situations. What may be just another western to some, or maybe just another Stewart vehicle, this movie actually presents the viewer with some historical dilemmas. Its all thoughtfully wrapped up in Stewart's role and it is a pleasure to watch him change through out the movie between light heartedness and seriousness.
Cynicism and noble sentimentality
posted on 16 May 2006This is not the best movie made by John Ford but a good movie anyway, dealing with the usual themes so dear to this great movie director who made the best westerns in the history of cinema: honour, loyalty, freedom, honesty, solidarity and courage. His characters are sometimes a bit stereotyped which is perhaps his main fault: the good and honourable on one side and the bad guys on the other. This movie however shows us the figure of the apparently cynical sheriff (excellently played by James Stewart) whose cynicism conceals very noble sentiments after all. The story is simple but is told in a charming atmosphere and nice sceneries of good old west. And a certain dose of fordian humour is also present to season the viewers' perception. However the movie have some extremely dramatic scenes but whose pathos is not much striking in visual terms. A very balanced movie therefore.
A good movie, but too sad for a western
posted on 10 May 2006"Two rode together" has a beautiful, poetic title, it shows the usual John Ford's art, it avails of Stewart's and Widmark's perfect acting, but it is too sad, too depressing to be really loved. There is no patent hate or war between whites and Indians, nevertheless there is no hope for anybody: to escape violence, to have back their beloved relatives, to overcome prejudice, even to find love. And to see Ford's supporting actors, we are so fond of, involved in a beastly lynch-law, this is really tough to bear; however, we respect the will of the artist. In all this sadness, let me remark a little delightful erotic touch. At the beginning of the movie they say that the pretty saloon-keeper is a tough girl, alleged to take a knife in her garter. At the end, to prevent an impending brawl, she quickly raises her skirt and draws the knife... after all it was true that she had a knife in her garter! With this little present the master John Ford improves a bit our mood.
No More Mr. Nice Guy
posted on 16 Apr 2006Why is this film so denigrated? Ford's biographer Joseph McBride says it's one of Ford's worst, but I just saw it for the 1st time in 20 years and I found it magnificent, one of Ford's greatest. I am amazed by all of the nuances in Linda Cristal's role, especially the contrast between the keening ritual she performs when her Comanche husband Stone Calf is killed and the way one sharp word from James Stewart snaps her out of it. Such a marvelously split character! And the devastating scene of the lynching of the boy recently recaptured from the Comanches, and the way that it's counterpoised with his last - minute rediscovery of his childhood music box gives me chills. It makes me think of the consultation that Freud gave composer Gustav Mahler. Mahler told Freud that his music had always been prevented from achieving real profundity because of the intrusion of commonplace melodies. When Mahler was a young boy there was a painful scene between his parents which compelled him to run out of the house. Just at that moment a hurdy-gurdy in the street was grinding out the popular Viennese air 'Ach, du lieber Augustin' ( the murder scene in Renoir's La Chienne also features this kind of contrast ). In Mahler's opinion the conjunction of high tragedy and light amusement was from then on inextricably fixed in his mind, and the one mood inevitably brought the other with it. But Mahler biographer Donald Mitchell goes on to say that "Mahler himself confused the issue by crudely over-simplifying it. His music, mercifully, is more interesting than that: the trauma assumes complex shapes."Is it that the shaping of elements of auto-derision in this film is too complex for Fordians to deal with? The many riffs and borrowings from My Darling Clementine are so cynical that they must really hurt those who still dream of a world where Henry Fonda is the sheriff, a world where good and evil are ultimately not very ambiguous. Stewart is much closer to a (Samuel) Fulleresque (anti) - hero like Tolly (Cliff Robinson) in Underworld USA who ultimately does a certain amount of good, but totally out of self-interest. Stewart may be some sort of a low-life, but his statements at the officers dance against bigotry and small-mindedness are worth a dozen noble Sergeant Rutledges. And then the famous scene of Stewart and Widmark by the river is such a strong Fordian unfolding of the non-verbal way men communicate their emotional bond.The scene is so much more profound than its language can reveal. Everything is in the ellipses, the pauses, and the sound of the river - Bressonesque! Stewart and Widmark are constantly poised in an ambiguous space between being adversaries and being allies. I'd go so far as to say that there's something that resembles the anarchy of passion in their relationship. Tag Gallagher writes that it is unclear which two rode together in this film: Stewart and Widmark or Stewart and Cristal. But this seems the point! There is a trajectory in this film - things evolve, relationships change. Outcasts arrive at some uneasy form of a common language, in a way that convinces me much more than a film like Donovan's Reef does.
Off a Cliff!!!!
posted on 17 Mar 2006The only time this film ever got interesting was when Shirley Jones showed up in it, so why they did not use her more is a complete mystery to me?I mean at the very least she could have trailed behind the two and gotten herself captured by the Dirty Injuns so she would have needed to have been rescued by the big brave boy in blue(Widmark)!
Duet Manque
posted on 18 Oct 2005this is like no other John Ford movie I've ever seen. Whilst it's true the plot resembles that of The Searchers it has none of the 'feel' of a typical Ford movie, western or otherwise. The best sequence by far is one long two-shot of Stewart and Widmark shot from the waist up as they sit, talk and throw in almost an impossible amount of 'business' so that throughout one or the other is doing something with hands or face, punctuating about ten pages of dialogue. Elsewhere we hover between comedy, farce and drama and Ford seems comfortable with none of these. Jimmy Stewart and Richard Widmark are far from a natural partnership but both are consummate actors and keep us watching.
Leisurely John Ford Western doesn't have much action, but the pleasant story makes up for it.
posted on 22 Aug 2005This is not your typical John Ford Western. The usual cast of Ford characters is on hand. Henry Brandon reprises his role as the Comanche chief Scar, which he played so well in the "Searchers". This time he plays a more sympathetic role as the real life Comanche chief Quanah Parker. The evil Clegg clan from "Wagonmaster" is also on hand. They are not quite as evil this time around. The Comanches are played by the usual Navajos recruited for countless Ford Westerns. The awesome arid scenery of Monument Valley has been appropriately replaced by rolling grass covered plains country.The two protagonists in the film are played by James Stewart and Richard Widmark. Stewart plays a gunfighter serving as sheriff of the Texas town of Tascosa. Widmark is the cavalry officer who summons him to Fort Grant to rescue Comanche captives. They ride together on this mission, which is relegated to a small part in the plot. Although they are friends, their partnership is uneasy from the start. Stewart is going on the mission for money. Widmark is ordered by the colonel (played by John McIntyre) to go. The tension between the two leads at one point to Stewart drawing, but not firing, his gun.This film contains elements of "The Searchers". Like the other film the theme is captivity by the Indians. Just as in "The Searchers" captivity is viewed as degrading. Linda Cristal plays the captive in this film. "I am not worth fighting for", she says. Ford goes one step further here. Captivity by the Indians is depicted as extremely arduous. The protagonists find few living captives to rescue. The captives they do find are shown as prematurely old and savage. Cristal is an exception. Although she has been a wife to the Comanche chief Stone Calf for five years, she retains something of her aristocratic Mexican upbringing. Perhaps her strong Catholic faith enabled her to avoid the complete degradation typical of captives. Like Debbie in "The Searchers", she has the prospect for redemption. In "The Searchers" it is the strength of the family which provides redemption. Here it is a stagecoach to a new life in California.The pace in this film differs from many Ford films. There is only one action scene. Much of the film is spent in quiet moments. In the opening scene McCabe (Stewart) is relaxing on the porch of the saloon. It is obvious that he has his law enforcement duties well in hand. In another scene he and Lieutenant Gary (Widmark) are resting on the banks of a river. There is also a significant interlude as the wagon train camps at Oak Creek. There is also a dance at the fort. At the end of the film McCabe returns to Tascosa to find someone else relaxing in his place.McCabe is an interesting character. His ethics are questionable. He owns 10% of everything in Tascosa, he says. He'll do almost anything for money. He makes it clear to the colonel that he figures that each captive he brings back is worth $500. He then makes a deal with Henry J. Wringle (played by Willis Bouchey) to bring back a boy, any boy, for $1000. Wringle wants to get on with his business and can't afford to waste more time looking for his wife's son. McCabe is more than happy to oblige him, bringing back a boy whose savagery is unquestioned.In the end there is redemption for both Stewart and Cristal. Both of their characters are interesting and well acted. It is a pity that so many other characters in this movie are wasted. Woody Strode's part as Stone Calf is particularly disappointing. The script gives him very little to say and do. He is around only long enough to go against Stewart in the film's only action sequence. Andy Devine provides much of the film's humor, but is not really credible as what McCabe calls "that hippopotamus of a sergeant".I wish the film had spent more time focusing on Stewart and Widmark's mission to the Comanche camp as the film's title suggests. Unfortunately, it's only a footnote. Despite the flaws, the leisurely pace and Stewart's portrayal of the amoral McCabe make this film a treat.
Rather good John Ford Western
posted on 09 Jan 2005It's no classic, but it is quite a good film. Jimmy Stewart plays a gruff, old, drunken sheriff who can speak Comanche and Richard Widmark plays a cavalryman assigned to accompany him on a mission to buy white captives away from the Comanches. The first half of the film can be called Searchers-lite. They buy back two captives, a young white man stolen in his youth and a Mexican woman stolen five years earlier. Other non-Comanches they find are unsalvageable. Now, The Searchers ends ambiguously. We're not sure what is going to happen with Natalie Wood's character. Two Rode Together goes into that part of the story a bit more. Stewart falls in love with the Mexican girl, but she cannot take the way other white people treat her. The boy is so far gone that he is entirely violent to everyone around him. The second half of the film is actually quite great, and the film has an extremely powerful climax. Jimmy Stewart is beyond excellent in the film. Could you ever imagine a bad performance from this man? It's rare that he plays such a cheating b**tard, but he's no villain, either. The actress who plays the Mexican girl is very good, too. The rest of the cast is more than adequate. There's a funny scene where Ford regulars Andy Devine and Ken Curtis fight in a slapstick fashion. Ford's direction is rather flat. The story goes that he did this only as a favor, not by any real choice. Frank Nugent's script is quite good, especially in the second half. The score is excellent. The photography is weak, but good sets and costumes make the visual aspect of the film decent if not great. 8/10.
Stewart and Widmark ride together
posted on 29 Sep 2004I saw this film first in 1961 at the Riviera Theatre in Rochester, New York with my cousins and I loved it. I found out later that John Ford in his cantankerous dotage dismissed all of the work he did after Wings of Eagles as junk.Well second rate John Ford is far better than first rate from 90% of directors. The film hasn't lost any charm for me even after 44 years.Army Lieutenant Richard Widmark takes a patrol into Tascosa to fetch Marshal James Stewart back to the fort where Commandant John McIntire has an assignment for Stewart. It's to negotiate with Comanche Chief Quannah Parker for the return of white captives taken during the Indian wars. The rest of the film is what happens to both our leads during that mission and after.To watch the chemistry between Stewart and Widmark is something to behold. There is a scene at the beginning of the film during the ride back to the fort where Stewart and Widmark sit on the bank of a stream while the horses are being watered. Ford has them engage in some bantering dialog where the characters are established. In the hands of these two consummate professional actors, the scene almost takes on a sublime quality. It's my favorite scene in the film.As usual Ford rounds out his cast with a lot of his stock company. I have to single out Willis Bouchey. He plays Henry J. Wringle in this film who is along on this trip very reluctantly. He has the second best scene in the film with Stewart as he makes Stewart an offer that he'll pay him a thousand dollars to bring back any white captive around the age of his wife's son by her first husband. This is so he can get back to his business. Stewart's reactions to this offer are also something to behold. Willis Bouchey did so well in so many of Ford's later films, but here and in The Horse Soldiers I think his career peaked.Second rate Ford is still good enough for me.
Uneven yet priceless
posted on 20 Sep 2004This movie still ranks as one of the best westerns despite some careless inattention to detail.Very good depiction of how things were regarding racial tensions at that time and place in history and all is packaged by Ford at a very entertaining fashion.The scene I really detested was the chhesy way Stewart killed the warrior Indian by by his campfire.I wanted better action sequencing than that.Great story and great performance by Stewart.The cinematography and direction was good.The script was very good but the screenplay was only average.This film is great for history fans,western movie fans and fans of the great James Stewart......
"From now on, we ride together..."
posted on 24 Aug 2004Five years earlier, director John Ford filmed his Western masterpiece "The Searchers". After repeated requests to helm "Two Rode Together" he did it as a favor to Columbia Pictures' Harry Cohn. With the words "OK, I'll do the damn thing", he might have given some indication as to the quality of the finished product.I do have to say though, that most of the scenes involving the principals, Jimmy Stewart and Richard Widmark are simply great. Their first conversation on the trail together is classic, and done as nonchalantly as two best friends just shooting the breeze.But then there's Marshal McCabe's (Stewart) introductory 'How!' to Chief Quanah Parker (Henry Brandon), and the film's credibility is immediately taken down a notch. And holy cow!, but what Comanche gym did Stone Calf go to for his work outs, I never realized Woody Strode had such a magnificent physique. But can you imagine an Indian with that kind of body? The other thing that doesn't really work in the story are the scenes intended for comic relief, usually involving Andy Devine as Lt. Gary's (Widmark) second, Sgt. Posey. Geez, was he wearing padding for this role?; I've never seen him more rotund. Director Ford's use of humor in other movies was more appropriately placed (Fort Apache, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon); here amid the generally more grim reality of the events taking place, I didn't feel that it helped advance the story.But if you're paying attention, the movie's underlying message comes through loud and clear, and ably presented by the character of Elena (Linda Cristal). Her speech at the dance to the curious onlookers affirmed her dignity, even after enduring her own ordeal as a captive of the Comanches and the woman of Stone Calf. Unlikely as it was that she should pair with McCabe at the end of the film, it does provide the film with it's proverbial ride into the sunset.
- 1
- 2
An interesting subject but not delivered in a particularly good film
posted on 31 Dec 2008Enjoying just one more of a steady stream of easy days in his small town, Marshal Gutherie McCabe is visited by US 1st Lt Jim Gary, an old friend. Gary has orders to bring McCabe back to his base for an unknown assignment. Arriving back at the base, McCabe is asked to go into Indian territory so that he might barter for the children (now adults) who were captured by the Comanche many years ago. Despite the chances of actually collecting recognisable (or even civilised) adults from these children, McCabe accepts the job in return for considerable financial recompense. Gary is assigned to accompany him but both men are aware that their mission is only one that will fuel the despair that many already feel.The only things I knew about this film when I sat to watch this film were that it was a western, starred James Stewart and had been pretty much dismissed it as one he made as a favour for the boss of Columbia Pictures. With this final fact in mind I wasn't too hopeful for the film to really be much cop. True to my expectations the film was average at best, but it started out better than this and offered interesting material at the same time. The film opened with such a relaxed bonhomie that it was a surprise 25 minutes in to see it become more and more edgy, dark and mean. This change in tone comes in with the hurt and anger felt by the townsfolk who hope for something that can never be (the return of their children); in a way this offers potential because the plot cuts both ways and offers a lot of raw emotion if the script can harness it. Sadly the film never really gets to grips with any of this potential and produces a fairly bland and uninvolving story with emotions too simply spelt out in characters that are mainly too basic. The only character that I really felt was semi-realistic was Gutherie who drifts between his good side and more mercenary character; outside of him nothing was done well enough to cover the many problems.The cast are also part of this potential but few of them really manage to do anything with what little they are given. Stewart does well to turn his usual character into something a bit darker and gives an interesting performance. Widmark is always watchable but he doesn't fit into the story well enough for me. Of the support cast, most are poor or average. Cristal and Jones are painted too clean and don't give good performances, while Kent goes too far the other way with a poor 'savage' performance. However my biggest 'sighs' were saved for the Ford staple comic relief character – in this case Posey who is written with a lack of humour and originally that is only matched by Devine's performance.Overall this film opened with a nice comic tone that became darker and had me interested due to the change and the potential for the story. However the simple characters, basic emotions and uninspiring acting all combine to miss the mark and produce a rather average western albeit one whose dark tone and subject matter causes it to have some aspects that are interesting and thought-provoking.