Arizona

It is true that there are parody elements in George Marshall's delightful "Destry Rides Again" but the real humor lies not so much in these sorts of antics, nor the heavily laid on inquiries of Marlene Dietrich as to the tastes of the backroom boys, but rather in James Stewart's no-gun Destry characterization…

This springs from the same source as Ford's 'characters', recognizable frontier independent-minded eccentrics, with a firm footing in American literature; characters often with a roundabout way of making a point, or pointing a moral, as with Destry's habit of prefacing each little cautionary parable with: 'I knew a fellow once who…' A habit that inevitably drew the aggrieved riposte: 'You know too many fellows, Destry…'

The other 'characters' in this film have more than a color or two of parody—Mischa Auer's improbable Slavonic cowboy, Charles Winninger's town drunk, Brian Donlevy, unprincipled boss, and Samuel S. Hinds' nicely played judge…

In retrospect, it's odd how much this movie gains from its rather touching little postscript… Stewart, the unconventional lawman, having pacified his cowtown, strolls the streets with a hero-worshiping lad at his heels, and yet also takes a little cloud of sadness along with him…

Marshall's film is considered a classic Western which manages to encompass suspense, comedy, romance, tenderness, vivid characterization, horseplay, songs and standard western excitements, without moving for more than a moment from a studio main street set… Hollywood expertise at its very best...

This movie is basically a good movie made very good by James Stewart. Most impressive is that it was made in 1939. The movie has a cast of characters that are very believable in their roles. The humor is ahead of its time. I am not quite sure why I loved this movie so much, but if you want to know why everyone seems to love Stewart's films, just watch this one! Western movie buffs must-see this movie ]

This movies had three strikes against it at Oscar time. 1)It was made in 1939 arguably the single year when more great films came out than any other year, 2) It was a western(no western had won best picture since "Cimaron" and would not again until "Dances With Wolves"and 3) It was a comedy and movie fans know how well comedy movies do at Oscar time. I know people who simply will not watch a black and white film or an old movie. Well, in my opinion, this movie has a story that is thoroughly enjoyable and stands up well even today. It has an excellent cast not only in the lead roles but also in the supporting cast. So, anyone who might not watch this film because it is not color is cheating themselves of an enjoyable film. And for any who just don't watch a film just because it is old, may I suggest that if you haven't seen a movie it is new for you. As for myself, I just did not endorse this film, but I put my money where my mouth is and forked over the greenbacks not once but twice. I got the film on VHS, and enjoyed it thoroughly. Upon finding it newly released on DVD, I got it again. The picture quality in the DVD is great. I'm a little surprised that there were no special feature extras included since these kind of bonuses are so common with DVD releases. But I suppose that would be like criticising a painting because of a lack of a fancy frame. This film certainly deserved to sweep the Oscars, and probably would have in a different year. 'Nuff sed.

Jimmy Stewart, in the title role, is a pleasure to watch and listen to. The economy he brings to the role is surpassed only by his drollness. Marlene Dietrich is magical and when she and Stewart get together, it may not be exactly sparks but there sure is some heat.

This is one of the finer westerns of the period. It holds up very well into the 90s. The supporting characters are well cast and bring a nice feel of variety to the tiny town of Bottlenck.

. . . this is what they mean.

I'm intrigued by the voting on this movie as I can't imagine any scale on which it wouldn't get top marks. Where exactly does it drop the ball? Cast - inspired; performances - stellar; script - faultless; direction - millimetre perfect; score - find me one better, ("See what the boys in the back room will have" has gone into the language).

Is it because it's not an arthouse movie? Or because of the dangerous idea that restraint, cool and smarts are more effective weapons than playground bully tactics?

As far as I am concerned, if you want to know how to put a movie together, you can start here. 10/10 is the only possible mark for a masterpiece.