Le sentier de l'enfer

Paramount certainly didn't stint on the massed scenes. There are tons of extras for the battle at the river and for the many procession scenes. They're convincing as heck in their sheer numbers. Then too, the Montana locations are spectacular, even the flatlands. And for a touch of exotica, the many Indians really look like Indians, probably because they are. So given these ingredients, why is this epic-sized Western as obscure as it apparently is. In my view, the script is too cluttered—the two themes, revenge and Indian wars tend to crowd one another, and that's along with a number of subplots, like the needless romantic one. As a result, there's no suspenseful buildup to any kind of climax. Except for the river attack that should be the climax, the vignettes simply unfold. Then too, lead actor O'Brien can make you believe he's tough, but physically, he's miscast. Especially when he tangles with the towering Tucker. For sheer acting ability, he's a great one, but for star power or marquee appeal, the dynamo of DOA (1950) remains a lesser- known. Anyway, as others point out, the river battle is spectacularly staged, and that along with the vivid Technicolor photography compensate for a lot. I just wish they had sent the screenplay back for a slimming down and restructuring session.

SPOILER: A man who joins the cavalry to find 2 men he blames for the death of his fiancee finds himself in the middle of a big indian uprising. He has no idea what the 2 murderers look like, but finally he finds out their identity. However, the indians and a new love cause his plans to change somewhat. So-so.

Why would anyone watch an ordinary Western over and over? The story is hardly original. The tale of the Battle of the Little Big Horn has only been told a hundred times or more. As a matter of fact, the plot is very similar to "Bugles in the Afternoon", a better film about the same subject. The script ranges from average to dumb. The direction is uneven. However, the production has some fine moments.

The fight for their lives by star Edmund O'Brien's cavalry troop at an island in the river is outstanding. The entire scene carries an unusual degree of realism. The fighting is hand to hand as the Indians assault the troops on the island. Rifle shots and war whoops punctuate the frenetic action. You can almost smell the gunsmoke and see the sweat on the soldiers' brows. When O'Brien brings General Custer and the regiment to the rescue there is genuine celebration. In my opinion, this is one of the best action scenes in any Western. I am always sorry to see it end.

Unfortunately, the high standard set by the Battle of Nelson's Island (named after the bit character who dies early in the battle) is not maintained before or after. The movie gives us romance, fist fights, escape from Indians and two more battles, but it's all very familiar. Even the plot is transparent. John Vickers (played by O'Brien) is joins the cavalry to find his fiance's killers. It is obvious before the script mercifully reveals it that Sergeant O'Hara (played by Forrest Tucker) and Quade (played by Dean Jagger) are the culprits. Ultimately, both men redeem themselves, but their redemption is not credible. The romance between Vickers and Molly Quade (played by Polly Bergen) comes off better, but even that's predictable. A good cast is largely wasted.

Why do I like this movie? In addition to the spectacular action at the island, I enjoy Forrest Tucker. It is little wonder that we see him in similar roles in "Bugles in the Afternoon", "Sands of Iwo Jima" and "Flaming Feather". I even liked him in "F Troop". He wears that uniform well.>

The final reason I like this movie is Paul Sawtell's score. Paul Sawtell is hardly the most familiar composer in movie history, but he wrote some great tunes for Westerns. "Warpath" has one of the best cues from any Western musical score. It is used initially in the opening title and is repeated later in the wagon train sequence. When I watch this movie I use my Fast Forward button to get me to the good parts.

Paramount produced a great outdoors adventure with this story of a soldier's vengeance quest and hostilities between soldiers and Indians on the Dakota frontier. An army recruit joins the 7th Cavalry under false pretenses to track down three killers in this grim, bitter story which the cast brings off in realistic fashion. Edmond O'Brien and Forrest Tucker are the main adversaries here and their antagonism and hatred for each other is sustained throughout the picture. The film has two thrilling battles between the cavalry and Indians that are among the finest ever filmed, and are done in the spirit of the golden-age westerns of the past. The movie is also an ode to General George A. Custer and the 7th Cavalry, which lost its last battle. Ray Rennahan's camera is outstanding, as is Paul Sawtell's nostalgic music score.

I think if I hadn't already seen several better revenge-themed westerns I would have liked "Warpath" much more. Now this isn't to say it's a bad film--it's quite good. But westerns of the same time period such as "Seven Men From Now" and "The Bravados" handled similar material just a bit better. But, considering it stars Edmond O'Brien, it's still well worth your time.

"Warpath" begins with O'Brien catching up to a man he's been tracking for years. When he confronts him for an almost decade-old murder, the man tries to shoot O'Brien but is plugged by him in the process. Next, O'Brien has a run-in with an obnoxious cavalry sergeant (Forrest Tucker)--and then, inexplicably, joins up with the outfit! It seems that the trail leading to the killers of O'Brien's wife leads to the 7th Cavalry. What's next? See the film.

The film's biggest asset isn't the plot (which is decent) but the actors. O'Brien, Dean Jagger and Tucker are all quite good--as is young Harry Carey, Jr. in an interesting role as a commanding officer. Overall, you could do a lot worse and the film is interesting throughout.