Son of the Renegade

Son Of The Renegade is without a doubt one of the worst westerns I've ever come across. It's an independent production that somehow got inflicted on the American movie going public back in 1953. It is a throwback to the days of all those fly by night studios that gradually disappeared in the 30s and 40s.

What can I say, the plot is incoherent the direction none existent liberal use of old black and white stock footage. A cast of players none of whom you will ever have heard from so no one could be embarrassed the rest of their lives.

Pass this one by.

Red River Johnny's Pop was driven out of the Red River valley because he went renegade and outdrew Wild Bill Hicock. Will tough sheriff Bat Masters let the SON OF THE RENEGADE assume control of his father's ranch, or will he let the kid take the fall for all the bank robberies and stage robberies the evil bandit Billy is pulling off?

Some Ed Wood fan websites (yes, they exist) claim that this movie's script -- credited to the star, Johnny Carpenter, was actually written by Wood. Based on the visual evidence, it's possible, even though the Wood stock company of weirdos is nowhere to be seen. There certainly is the parade of random, unintentionally surreal incidents, that is the hallmark of Wood's movies. There is also one of those strange narrations that appear in certain Wood movies. And, on the good side of the ledger, there is the unexpected narrative energy that, somehow, keeps Wood's unintentionally funny movies from ever being boring.

So, yeah, this is could be a Wood movie. And, surprisingly, that does not mean it is much worse than any other B Western. The fight scenes are badly choreographed. The musical score sounds like it was recorded by a High School Marching Band after one rehearsal. And every available western cliché seems to find its way into the movie (though often in peculiar fashion). But, honestly, the same is true of many a B western churned out by Monogram and PRC over the years, and this one, at least, has the virtue of NOT having an endearing sidekick with more beard than teeth. Also, atypically for the genre, the hero seems to be keeping company with three girls, and actually enjoying the women more than his horse.

This isn't a good movie, by any stretch (though the final conflict between the gangs is actually pretty well staged). But it's kinda fun and I don't regret wasting an hour on it.

Currently, this film inexplicably has a score of around 7.0 on IMDb--something that might indicate some folks are playing a joke on us! This is because this might just be the worst B-western I have ever seen. I saw one reviewer that compared it to an Ed Wood film, though I wonder if maybe Wood would have done it better! Honestly, this is an abominable film--one that looks as if some untalented 8 year-olds made it! Unlike a real movie, much of the plot is explained by the narrator! Yes, instead of really showing the first 10 minutes or so of the film, the narrator just tells the audience what they missed! Perhaps the original film was cut down and that is why this occurred, but too often the narrator goes off on lengthy expositions instead of allowing the actors (I use this term broadly) to act or use dialog. Maybe this was done because so many of the actors simply couldn't deliver lines--but it sure makes the film come off cheaply and very, very antiquated and silly.

The plot involves some son of some outlaw fighting against the son of some sheriff that made the father go outlaw--but honestly, who cares?! The film is basically one fist-fight and chase after another with completely wooden unknowns playing the various roles. And, incidentally, the plot seemed to mean nothing.

This one is so bad it isn't even particularly good for bad movie buffs--it's just very, very bad. If you can think of a worse B-western, let me know--so far this is worse than any I've seen--and I've seen a lot!