Bad Lands

One would think that if a reviewer that knows the name and face of an actor in a film (when he is seen), then such reviewers would not go to great lengths in adding little tidbits about that actor, in their review, when that actor...John Payne...is not in the film. John Payne did not play "Apache Jack" in this film. That role was played by a one-and-done actor named Jack Payne. Perhaps those reviewers that pointed out the fabrication John Payne is in this film would go back and edit their reviews. But, the chances are very high that, rather than delete/correct their reviews, they will just mark this with a 'don't like'. Be my guest.

It's 1875 Arizona. Sheriff Bill Cummings (Robert Barrat) leads a posse through the bad lands in search of the renegade Apache Jack. Some are more driven to find Jack who leads them into Indian territory where they find silver. Somebody takes their horses and starts shooting.

The thing that I love the most is the outdoor filming. Initially, I am almost mesmerized by the clouds in the big sky and I don't even pay attention to the characters. I do lose track of some of them. It is dusty and sweaty by definition. There is shooting and horse riding. It ends up being an interesting survival story with good isolation.

If you didn't know this was a remake of "The Lost Patrol" it might be passable, but that picture had tension, a better script and had some big Hollywood names in key roles. "Bad Lands" is a pale imitation in every respect - maybe the Foreign Legion is a better setting for the story, instead of the Old West.

The cast of character actors assembled here, especially Robert Barrat and Addison Richards, try mightily but don't have the starpower of Boris Karloff, Victor McLaglen and Reginald Denny. And Robert Coote? what is a Brit with a distinctly British accent doing in the old west? Peculiar, but not enough to offset the steady stream of talk and more talk that riddles the movie. The only repeat performer from "Lost Patrol" to "Bad Lands" is Douglas Walton, who played a young, effete British soldier in the former and here plays a young, effete cowboy - same role, different backdrop.

I am second to no one in my affection for westerns, but this might have needed a different director and screenwriter to punch it up. "The Lost Patrol" was made in 1934 - what a difference four years can make.

"Bad Lands" is one of those rare movies that features no big-name actors in the cast ("The Mask of Demetrius" comes to mind as another example). That is not to say that the cast is composed of unknown actors or amateurs. Instead, the entire cast is made up of actors with well-known faces that appeared in hundreds of films, though usually in supporting roles. However, it is probably just as well that no well-known star, such as John Wayne or Randolph Scott, was placed at the head of this cast, because their presence would only have served to overbalance things, and ruin the ensemble nature of the story.

Yes, it is granted that "Bad Lands" is a western redo of John Ford's famous 1934 film, "The Lost Patrol". The basic plot of "The Lost Patrol", which is so well known that it scarcely needs mention, seems to have been a favorite source for story-lines in Hollywood in those days, and particularly during the early days of World War II, when it was recycled in such films as "Bataan" and "Sahara". And yes, it is granted that "Bad Lands" was produced as a relatively low-budget B-picture, and was further handicapped by being limited to a running time of only a little over an hour. Nevertheless, it is definitely a very superior B-picture, and one of the better re- hashes of the now-cliché "The Lost Patrol" story, which was not yet regarded as so much of a cliché in 1939.

Like a lot of movies produced during the 1930s, "Bad Lands" would never be remade today in the same form because it would be regarded as far too politically incorrect. The "Native Americans" are depicted unequivocally as bad guys, and the only "Latino" in the cast is depicted as being off his head (although the fact that his wife had recently been raped and murdered by the bad guy does provide a plausible excuse for his madness). It is also interesting to note that there are no women in the cast, a comparative rarity even in those days, and something the producers would never be permitted to get away with today. In addition, not one of the cast is African American, something else the producers would never be permitted to get away with today.

Although "Bad Lands" is ostensibly an ensemble production, the leader of the cast is played by Robert Barrat, a veteran actor who portrayed a side variety of different types of characters in hundreds of films from the 1910s to the 1960s. Ironically, perhaps his best-remembered performance was in the titular title-role of the well-known 1936 movie version of "The Last of the Mohicans", in which he portrayed a "Native-American".

"Bad Lands" may not be the best or most famous of Western movies, but is better than most, and is still worth a look. This may have been a "B" picture, but it definitely rates as a "B-Plus".

The production certainly saves on make-up since there's not a woman in sight. It's all about a 10-man posse setting out after a bad man, but ending up mouse-trapped by Apaches in dry desert badlands. The movie plays much better if you haven't seen The Lost Patrol (1934) of which this is a virtual remake with a transposed setting. The premise is a good one as we get to know the posse members before they get picked off by the shadowy Apaches. Barrat is excellent as the stalwart sheriff, showing why he was such a fixture in movies of the 30's and 40's. Addison Richards shines too, as a tough guy, before becoming the more familiar silver- haired business executive of the 40's and 50's. And, of course, there's the lugubrious Andy Clyde, along with a rather shifty Noah Beery Jr. of Rockford Files fame.

Unfortunately, the wagon-load of tension coming from the premise is not equaled on screen since events unfold rather loosely, without the kind of tension that John Ford gets, for example, in The Lost Patrol. As a result, the movie is more interesting than riveting; at the same time, when pay-off's occur, there's not the involvement that makes for memorable viewing. And I think it a mistake for both this film and the 1934 one to show the attackers in the end. Instead, let them remain an unseen "force of nature" since that's how they're portrayed to that point. Nonetheless, this is a Western that certainly doesn't follow the formula horse operas of the day.

In passing—I don't know if it's the presence of Paul Hurst and Francis Ford or maybe the posse theme, but the movie reminds me in ways of the classic Ox-Bow Incident of 1943.