Conquest of Cochise

Four disparate factions - Apaches, Comanches, the U. S. Cavalry, and established Mexicans - trying to figure each other out in and around Tucson on the eve of the Gadsden Purchase in 1853. Maj. Tom Burke (Robert Stack) leads the charge for the army, while Cochise (John Hodiak) must try to negotiate both the white man and his fellow natives in an effort to avert all-out war.

Fairly colourful and thoughtful western with a good performance by John Hodiak as Cochise and other cast members. It's got interesting take on the Mexican-Apache conflict. Throw a little Comanche in there too and you got a well-plotted western with some good action. The ending has a good shootout finale.

Conquest of Cochise (1953)

** (out of 4)

Another Castle Western from Columbia certainly sticks to its "B" origins but there are a few interesting ideas that make it worth sitting through, although no one should expect a classic. Set in 1953 Arizona, Maj. Tom Burke (Robert Stack) wants to avoid a war between whites and Indians but a greedy Mexican wants both sides to fight and kill each other off. Indian Cochise (John Hodiak), on the other hand, wants peace but his people begin to pressure him into fighting this war. This film certainly doesn't have enough going for it to recommend to all people but I think those who enjoy "B" Westerns might find enough entertainment in its 70-minutes to make it worth watching. The film has way too much talk during the early parts but the final fifteen-minutes really pick up and end up packing a very strong punch. We start off when Cochise is sentenced to three tortures with one being bathed in hot steam and another impressive sequence where he's tied to a pole while the other Indians ride their horses up to him and slice him up with knives. This sequence doesn't contain anything too graphic but the editing and way it was directed makes it quite effective. We fall this up with a big battle scene that has the expected gunshots, bodies falling and of course the wild horse chases. Director Castle is best known for his horror films and most of them were in B&W but these early Westerns he did at Columbia gives you the chance to see him work in color and he certainly takes advantage of it. This movie looks like a coloring book because of all the vivid colors that are constantly on display. Whenever a set is on display it's got as many colors as they could possibly put in and this is a plus as there's always something to look at. Stack is pretty good in his role as I enjoyed the laid back approach he brought the character. It seems like the majority of the budget went to painting Hodiak red but he too is good in the role and gives it a certain passion that you can feel. The rest of the cast are pretty much what you'd expect in a film like this in terms of performances and character. Sam Katzman served as producer so that should pretty much tell you everything you'd need to know. Again, there's nothing overly special here but the final fifteen-minutes are well worth watching.

I remain staggered when contemplating the inconsistency of William Castle's direction. My being boggled is seemingly rooted in Castle's implementation of two stylistic systems - malformed 'Twins' as it were. The Arnie isn't present in this outing. The "Devito" system is in full force with passive direction that features a tableau frontality dominant in the staging/blocking and camera positioning that succumbs to the idea that action should pass through it or track it in the most linear fashion. Like some of the Boston Blackie films, groups of characters are staged symmetrically creating an evenness like a Moe Howard bowl cut. Hackneyed quips and stilted performances abound. I believe the AFI archival notes on the film remark that the uniforms didn't fit historically. The stereotyping throughout Conquest of Cochise would fit adequately if you upped the action sequences in quantity and quality. The stereotyping could thus be rendered parodical cartoon or comic-strip homage, and vice-versa. The authorial voice of Castle is mute in this film and sequences are connected with sterile methodical execution. As such, the 4th Wall stands strong and the story is required to tell itself. The story itself is poor and the characterization does nothing to create spectator investment. Too much melodrama and not enough action renders a comic strip story into a tepid soap opera. Romantic subplots are developed as filler and not as focused torrid affairs. The talkiness is so overt that I have to wonder whether this churned out "B" historical Western was not produced solely to serve necking teens who needed a dark anonymous escape for a couple of hours. The ethnography of this film is bunk for a contemporary audience and perhaps outdated even at the time of its release. Were these Katzman-Castle history-drama productions simply gimmicks in service of a romantic subculture among audiences? I will admit that it would be easy to pay full attention to my lover's lips and blouse buttons with Conquest of Cochise playing - there would be no chance of a distraction.

This is an interesting film of the Indians with John Hodiak as the legendary chief of the apaches Cochise, who finds himself in a quandary, whether to make war with the white Americans or with his brothers the comanches. He chooses what he thinks is the lesser evil and gets trouble with the comanches. The diplomatic efforts to make peace between Robert Stack as the white major and Cochise encounter difficulties and lead inevitably to a violent serttlement with the comanches. John Hodiak was always interesting as a character on film, always playing personalities with great integrity, and here he is perfect as Cochise, an apache chief of superior self control. He never shows his feelings, but the audience must understand them all too well. The film is directed by William Castle, who made all the Crime Doctor films, and this is made with equal efficiency with no waste on nonsense. The film is mainly worth watching because of the insight into the apache way of life that it offers, and of course there is a lady involved (Joy Page) who also knows her own mind: she actually kills an Indian here in a raid. The colours are brilliant, they always are in films of Arizona, and that is an extra credit to the film to make it more than worth while. It is one of the first major westerns that take sides with the Indians or at least shows a deeper understanding and interest in them, which makes it important in the line of westerns. Robert Stack as the major is more standard military officer routine soldier, while it is the actions of Cochise that keep you engaged.

I don't think so, as so many Sam Katzman productions, maybe not every of them however, but most of them for sure. Watch it only as a time waster, and also only if you are a die hard movie buff. Never look for historical facts, never with Katzman, it would be foolish. Directing is always bland, actors often ridiculous but the result rather surprisingly agreeable. It is a western about Chief Cochise and it could have been about any Indian leader: Chirf Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, Geronimo.... Just non sense. Here, for the one millionth time, it is question of treacherous White dude selling booze to Indians, with predictable results.... I repeat, it is bearable. Nothing more. One thing very interesting though, the explanations that John Hodiak gives about Indians customs, for instance the water in the mouth that the Indians kids, future warriors, had to keep during a long run, without swallowing it. Thats was the only interesting thing in this tepid programmer. However I have seen far far worse and lousier. Especially from Katzman productions. Forget William Castle, the future director of som many excellent horror thrillers. He was just a yes man in this kind of films.