Les Massacreurs du Kansas

I saw this movie in a naval base movie theatre, in, I think, 1956. It was the first thing I recall seeing Lee Marvin in. This guy just absolutely fascinated me. Randolph Scott had been a "Semi-hero" of mine in the late thirties and the forties. In this movie, he was so old, and so slow drawing his gun, that they had to speed up the film to make it look like he was drawing his gun fast. Lee, on the other hand didn't need any "camera" tricks to make him look fast. Lee Marvin, as he was dying from having been shot by this amazingly slow lawman (Randolph Scott), looked down at his two hands, as if to say, "Hands -- how could you have failed me". I thought, facetiously, "Boy oscar is written oll over that!" Really a neat scene. That began a continuing admiration for Lee Marvin,, who could do bad guys, good guys, good guy-bad guy (Cat Ballou), Comedy, Drama, Action, He was a craftsman, and a master at it.

There are quite a few surprises in this film. First of all, it keeps you guessing especially as regards Randolph Scott's character, whose motivation is difficult to discern. It's hard to tell if he's a bad guy or a good guy sometimes, as he manipulates two different gangs of unsavory characters. This does not anticipate Yojimbo or A Fisftful of Dollars. Both of those films, plus this film, all derive somewhat from The Glass Key, which was filmed twice before The Stranger Wore A Gun was released in 1953. (In 1935 with George Raft and 1942 with Alan Ladd.)Those films were based on Dashiell Hammett's novel of 1931. In any case, this film has its own tale to tell, and the performances of Scott, Lee Marvin and Ernest Borgnine are solid. The film suffers somewhat from the 3-D effects which are kind of lame in the 2-D format we have to suffer on our TV sets. People who don't remember the 3-D craze will probably think the director was weird. All in all, the film's offbeat style and great ensemble cast make this well worth watching a time or two. It is by no means an ordinary run-of-the-mill Western.

'The Stranger Wore a Gun' did have a good deal of potential. The premise sounded interesting as was seeing how early 3D would fare. Randolph Scott was always well worth watching, well when his acting style matured, especially his work with one of his most prolific directors Budd Boetticher (i.e. 'Seven Men from Now'). Andre DeToth was another frequent director, with he and Scott doing six films together. Ones that were watchable at least for namely Scott but not must sees.

Which is where 'The Stranger Wore a Gun' fits under exactly, watchable but not essential. While Scott is one of the best aspects and it is a good representation of him as an actor, he did do a lot better films and performances. It is not a good representation really of DeToth, who was no stranger to good and more films himself, my first exposure to him being 'House of Wax'. Does all that mean that 'The Stranger Wore a Gun' is a bad film? No. It's not great or even good either, my feelings if anything were very mixed and a large part of me was disappointed seeing as it was an opportunity to see Scott in the film genre he was best known for.

Sure 'The Stranger Wore a Gun' has good things. Some of the production values are nice, the film is handsomely shot and the scenery is attractive regardless of whether they're authentic or not. The music is pleasant and rousing enough. The climax has fire and excitement that wasn't present enough in too much of what came before it.

Found the cast to be a very mixed bag. Scott comes off best, typically purposefully stoic but very authoritative too. Claire Trevor brings a good deal of class to her role and does a great job with what she has. Seeing Lee Marvin and Ernest Borgnine in anything is always worthwhile, and seeing both of them being menacing and fun (especially Marvin) and making the most of the too little they had was a pleasure.

Others were less successful. Worst was Alfonso Bedoya, who overdoes it and comes over as really grating. Joan Weldon is rather pallid, acting inexperience showing, and the film does too little with her character, to the point where you question why she is even there. Was not sure what to make of George MacReady, he does what he can but did think at the end of the day that he could have been more menacing and gone for it more (being almost too smooth). DeToth's direction is pretty routine and didn't seem properly engaged with the material or know what to do with it.

While some of the production values were nice, the 3D is pretty cheap looking and added nothing (almost gimmicky) and the editing in some scenes is haphazard. Lets not get started on the blatantly obvious stunt doubles. The script lacked toughness and grit, playing it too safe too often, and was very stilted and hard to take seriously. The story's action is pretty forgettable and under-utilised, shining properly only in the climax, and the soapy love triangle is just as pointless as the 3D. Not only was the story bland and silly, it felt incomplete and like things had been dropped out in editing when they should have been left as some events and character motivations are vague at best and downright beyond confusing at times.

In conclusion, definitely not something to write off but there are far better Scott, DeToth and Western films around. 5/10

I have a feeling that a lot of The Stranger Wore a Gun was left on the cutting room floor and if someone's ever interested in a director's cut it might explain some of the holes in this story.

The film opens in the middle of raid on Lawrence, Kansas by William Quantrill. Disgusted by all the killing, Randolph Scott quits the outfit, but can't outrun his reputation. Going further and further west Scott gets himself involved with another ex-Quantrill man, George MacReady who's looking to set himself up in Arizona as another version of Quantrill.

This is the last of four films Scott made with George MacReady, not counting their joint appearance in Follow the Boys. The first one they did together, Coroner Creek, is a classic among westerns. Sad to say the quality diminished as the two worked together until this one.

I couldn't follow the story nor could see what Scott's motivations were for doing what he did. It might be a case of bad editing or maybe it wasn't that good to begin with. I think it's one of the weaker Randolph Scott westerns.

Claire Trevor is yet again a saloon girl with a heart of gold and a yen for Randolph Scott and her rival is Joan Weldon, stage line owner. Doing almost a dress rehearsal for the parts they did in Bad Day at Black Rock are future Oscar winners Ernest Borgnine and Lee Marvin as a pair of MacReady gang members.

I will say if you can sit and sift through the plot you will not be disappointed in the shootout between Scott and MacReady inside a burning saloon. Would that the rest of the film was as good.

With Randolph Scott in his best outfit riding his best horse (Starlight) and looking and acting his dusty old best, and with Lee Marvin and Ernest Borgnine at their early villainous peaks, this could have been something. With Andre de Toth directing, it really should have been something. But it's not something. It's not anything, except a mess. Horrendous dialogue, terrible editing (the big gunfight in the mountains is unintelligible until the principals gather to rehash what just happened), and some really bad acting (not so much from Scott, Borgnine, or Marvin, but pretty much everybody else. Alfonso Bedoya is a joy to watch, as always, not because of his acting, which is abominable, but because it's so much fun trying to figure out what it is he's doing with his mouth to make him sound that way. George Macready, who belongs in things like "Gilda" rather than oaters like this, kept getting shoved into Randolph Scott Westerns (four of them). He's incredibly out of place in all of them. And Claire Trevor, so wonderful in "Dead End" and "Key Largo," is wasted here and one's heart goes out to the Oscar-winning actress for having to do such pot-boiling dreck as this a scant five years after winning that Oscar. The attempts at 3-D effects are pretty laughable in their earnestness, and for an action movie, an awful lot of the actual action occurs just off-screen -- saving money on stuntmen and stagecoaches, I suppose, but diluting the feel of the down-and-dirty Western this clearly wants to be taken for. I'll watch anything Randolph Scott did in the Fifties and Sixties, but this one was an absolute chore. I'd sure like to know where to get a coat like that, though.