Hacia los grandes horizontes

After seeing this version on AMC a few days ago, I took out my copy of the original from 1939. It's the difference between a classic western and a routine action film.

Director Gordon Douglas probably because there is an unwritten rule in Hollywood that no one is ever to shoot a film in Monument Valley but John Ford, shot this thing in Colorado. It's not badly photographed, but you really miss the sweeping vistas of the Arizona desert. The Apache become the Sioux here and instead we have Geronimo jumping the reservation it's Crazy Horse instead. One of the great moments of cinema westerns in the original Stagecoach is when the cavalry sweeps by the passing Stagecoach to engage the Apaches in the rescue. John Ford liked it so much he used the same gambit in Fort Apache. In this version you have to believe that the passengers fought them off themselves and then made it into Cheyenne on three wheels with less horses. No way, Jose.

Poor Alex Cord, a competent actor, is no John Wayne. Of course who is and Cord tries his best, but you can't forget the Duke. Michael Connors as Hatfield lacks fire in his portrayal. John Carradine created a real air of mystery about the gambler. Nothing like that here.

This is one of Bing Crosby's few non-singing roles and he got some deservedly good reviews for reprising Thomas Mitchell's Doc Boone. In fact some of his scenes with Red Buttons as Peacock the whiskey drummer are faintly reminiscent of Crosby's work with Bob Hope. Buttons is not Donald Meek and he plays the part differently. Meek was a man with a Dickensian name and he played mostly parts that fit that name perfectly. After the Indian attack, Buttons is a man with a few drinks under his belt ready to lick the world. It's different, but nicely done.

Another musical performer in this was Ann-Margret. For the life of me I can't figure out why with two people like Crosby and Ann-Margret, they didn't give her and him a song or two, a duet maybe. Especially since in the plot line here, Crosby takes a fatherly interest in Ann-Margret as well as in Alex Cord. Her role of Dallas is as a saloon girl so a musical number would not have been out of place.

The rest of the cast performs adequately. Bob Cummings's Gatewood is more fully developed a character here and a bigger rat. Van Heflin and Slim Pickens are able substitutes for George Bancroft and Andy Devine. Stefanie Powers as the pregnant cavalry officer's wife is adequate. The part itself is as thin as the original version with Louise Platt doing it.

The gunfight between the Plummers and Ringo is more fully developed here. You actually don't see it in the 1939 version. Keenan Wynn as Luke Plummer is also more fully developed than was Tom Tyler. Tyler with a minimum of dialog suggested the menace of Luke Plummer. But Keenan Wynn is one evil man here.

In fact whole pages of dialog are taken from the original. Interesting that 20 years later another version was done. But this Stagecoach is a perfect example of why classics should just be left alone.

Stagecoach is a remake of the 1939 Jon Wayne film. It has an all-star cast of Ann-Margret, Van Heflin, Bing Crosby, Mike Connors, Bob Cummings, Red Buttons, Slim Pickens, Stephanie Powers and Keenen Wynn. But oddly, the only cast member not well known then or now is the film's main character played by Alex Cord. As "the Ringo Kid" in 1939, John Wayne was a powerful presence, dominating the screen and making the Kid seem like the strong, feared, but ultimately good character he was intended to be. Cord seems to play the part as if he's brooding. Maybe trying to be James Dean. He mumbles and seems distracted. Makes you wonder why anyone would fear him or even why Ann-Margret's character would give him the time of day.

This film has much better production values than the 1939 version. The chase scenes and gunfights are well done. The acting is first rate by everyone except Red Buttons, who woefully overacts in a supporting role and Cord, who brings the movie down with his poor acting in the starring role. Overall, the film is worth seeing as an entertaining western. Just be prepared to cringe at Cord's performance.

The original 'Stagecoach' from 1939 was, and still is, a benchmark of the western genre, and a wonderful film in its own right too. Considering the generally dodgy track record of how remakes fare in quality, was honestly expecting this 1966 'Stagecoach' to be an insult and with no point or merits.

Expectations that were mostly proved very much wrong. Yes, it is a far inferior film to 1939's 'Stagecoach' (whereas the original is a masterpiece this is just fair), and, yes, one does question the point of it with so much of the content already seen previously and with much more impact. However, it does have a lot of merit, with it being made with competence, with respect being shown and with attempts to bring some freshness or build on what was seen previously (characters like Plummer being richer in characterisation here).

Starting with the faults, not all the casting comes off. Mike Connors sleepwalks through a role in need of so much more intensity than what actually came off. Stefanie Powers is an attractive but rabbits-in-the-headlights blank, but coming off worst is Alex Cord as a pivotal character crying out for much more charisma and personality than what was given in Cord's very wooden and vacuous take on it.

Gordon Douglas' direction is competent with a keen visual eye, but, in terms of momentum and storytelling, it's a case of everything done pleasingly and correctly with nothing offensive but with some lack of invention or oomph and with a sense of routine-ness about it all. The story is actually a good one and the characters are still interesting on the most part, but apart from a few scenes much of it has already been done before and with more excitement.

However, it's a great-looking film. While the scenery doesn't have the magnificence of Monument Valley it's still sweepingly beautiful and the cinematography is similarly striking, especially in the aerial shot and the chase sequence. Production, set and costume design register strongly too and who can't help love those paintings. Jerry Goldsmith's score is rousing, atmospheric and extraordinary in instrumentation, while the theme song is very much a memorable one.

Meanwhile, it's nicely scripted, and there are sequences that register strongly, especially the chase sequence (the highlight), the storm on the cliff and the opening massacre. Also appreciated an ending where what happens is shown with more clarity and less ambiguity. The cast are fine generally, Bing Crosby plays his boozy-doctor-with-a-heart role perfectly in his final screen appearance, while Van Heflin is similarly terrific, Slim Pickens brings some welcome humour and Keenan Wynn is frightening (even though not on screen long).

Ann-Margaret shows how to be an alluring presence while also being able to act with sass and compassion, while Robert Cummings is good enough (he has been better though) and Red Buttons shares a strong touching rapport with Crosby in a remarkably subdued performance.

Overall, inferior and maybe pointless but nowhere near as bad as expected. A lot is done right and nothing offends, but at the end of the day even whether compared to the 1939 film or out of context it just felt a little bland. 6/10 Bethany Cox

You see Bing, Red, Ann, and so forth, and you might skip this, but if you ignore the "fading star" thing and just enjoy it as a little play put on by some true pros, you'll enjoy this. It has one of the best chase scenes ever, with Indians and Helicopter shots of the racing horses and stage, it has a great performance by Bob Cummings and Kennan Wynn, and I actually felt the hair coming up on the back of my neck during the storm on the cliff, even though I knew it was just a process shot against a painting. It's not Shakespeare, but hey, it's a fun 1960's good ole American film just as TV production values and over lit sound stages were taking over film making and as the last reviewer said, just before the Anti Hero revolution.

I have also seen the 1939 version of "Stagecoach" starring John Wayne and enjoyed it as well. I have also seen a couple of other versions of "Stagecoach". I don't find it difficult to enjoy watching different versions of the same movie or story. Sometimes they are not quite as "good" as earlier or later versions, but they are still fun to watch. Each version of a story has it's own unique qualities and features. Two features that I really, really enjoyed from the 1966 version of "Stagecoach" was it's theme song, sung by Wayne Newton, and the other was the beautiful paintings that Norman Rockwell did of the cast members that were shown at the end of the film. They were magnificent (I would really like to know what was done with them). I remember when "Battlestar Galactica" aired and a lot of people were downing it as not being as good as "Star Wars" and "Star Trek". Needless to say, that upset me a great deal. I like all three of them. Each has their own unique qualities. I just wish people could enjoy each film or show as it comes along and not compare it to death with others.