Ten Wanted Men

This is just pure mindless Western fun. It has some big stars, including the most fun Western actor of all time, Randoph Scott. You always had to like him, even when he plays a...well, a jerk, like in this film. His character is, frankly, something that rhymes with glass hole. But he manages to pull it off with the aplomb that very few could do (Cary Grant, Morgan Freeman, people like that). There are supposedly ten wanted men, but don't go looking for them. They're never explained, but the title insinuates that these are the thugs hired by bad guy Richard Boone, who plays more of a moneybags bad guy than his usual rough neck. Still, he has a lot of guts, even trying to face down the ten wanted men at one point. The action and gun play, along with some big name stars, make this an enjoyable movie. The plot is very thin and basic. So if you're looking for depth, this isn't the time to watch the movie. It's just plain old fashioned Western fun. Not Scott's best, but has quality action.

Ten Wanted Men (the title hints at something far more dramatic than is actually in the picture) is a serviceable, but instantly forgettable Western from the Scott-Brown production company. Directed by jobber H. Bruce Humberstone, with a screenplay by Kenneth Gamet (from a story by Irving Ravetch) and filmed in Technicolor out in Old Tuscon, it feels (and is) lifeless and poor on structure and execution.

With some misplaced humour and a cobbled together plot, this ultimately ends up as a time filler for Randy Scott completists only. There's some enjoyment to be had from watching our Randy lob dynamite around, and Leo Gordon steals the movie as menacing villain Frank Scavo, but sadly it never comes together to make a worthy mark. Which when you have cast list that contains Randolph Scott, Richard Boone, Lee Van Cleef, Skip Homeier and Dennis Weaver! then that's a crime as much as it is a shame. 4/10

I think a 7 out of 10 is not a bad rating for a movie, given how many deserve a 1 or a 3. Ten Wanted Men starts off with one big thing in its favor - it is a beautiful movie to watch. The color of this film is rich and true and it makes most every scene a treat for the eyes. The story itself is reasonably good - I found myself engaged in it fairly early when Campbell gets into it with Howie Stewart. (This is the second movie of Homeier's where he played someone named Howie.) I like Randolph Scott a lot but I'm also a Homeier fan, and he had a good part in this movie. Unlike his usual bad guy roles, here he played a good guy who still had the opportunity to shoot a gun and break out of jail and such. Lee Van Cleef had only a small role, really, but was very good in it. Denver Pyle was about as nasty and evil a character as I've seen him play. As far as the story goes, I would have liked to see Scott use the dynamite to greater advantage against the bad guys; they had it coming.

So, this is not the greatest movie ever made, but I think it rates a seven at least. If you like Westerns, you won't regret watching this one. Just the great color is a selling point, but the story itself isn't bad at all.

In contrast to his usual roles as a loner or "stranger in town", Randolph Scott plays a very successful rancher, but doesn't really fit the patriarch mould, though he does get to wear a fancy waistcoat.Like other commentators, I thought that his practical joke at the beginning was foolish, and that the way the chip on bad guy Wick Campbell's shoulder grew was a bit unbelievable. And it was way into the film that I started to wonder about the "Ten Wanted Men" of the title. When the imported bad guys massed for the final shoot-out I tried to count them, and they did seem to number ten.

I wondered if the version I saw on British TV had been subject to editing, such was the jerky plot, but the original runtime of 80 minutes was accommodated by the 85-minute viewing slot (including a couple of commercial breaks). The relationship between Maria and Howie seemed to happen instantaneously, and the "ten wanted men" turned up in town almost spontaneously.

It was good to see Skip Homeier acting against type; he's nearly always a bad guy who gets killed; here he's even slow to rise to provocation from one of Campbell's heavies. I was half-expecting him to turn out bad but...

Leo Gordon stole quite a few scenes from Richard Boone, who didn't perform that well. He had the most complex role in the film, with a chip-on-the-shoulder, somewhat pathetic infatuation with a young girl, and a really mean streak.

Lee van Cleef didn't have much to do. "High Noon" apart, his filmography up to now had been unimpressive, but his day was coming.

Quite apart from his misplaced sense of humour at the beginning, Scott took a foolish risk by walking into the bad guy's saloon by himself, and where were all his ranch-hands in the final confrontation? Without them, he had an unimpressive set of allies in the siege. Earlier he had recalled how he had won his land from the Apaches despite them burning him out four time, so perhaps he had a strong sense of indestructibility. John Wayne would have carried off the role better.

Moonraker

Exceptionally fine cast from top to bottom, from Boone and Gordon at the top to Pyle and Louis-Jean Heydt in support, and of course in the starring role, the great Randolph Scott. Then too, the color photography is unusually pleasing and picturesque. And the fact that Harry Joe Brown produced suggests that this is a 1955 warm-up for the classic Boetticher-Ranown Western cycle that was soon to follow.

So, with these kinds of ingredients, why isn't the movie better than I think it is. For one thing, the direction appears pretty slack. The scenes simply follow one another without building into the kind of intensities expected from the rivalries involved. It's like Humberstone shot each scene without considering its dramatic significance to the narrative as a whole. So, for example, when gunsel Gordon takes over the town from Boone, there's no real sense of displacement, no real dramatic impact. Similarly, the dynamite sticks that act like grenades simply appear and also produce little dramatic impact. Yet both episodes are clever plot wrinkles, and with the right development could have helped lift the movie beyond the merely routine.

Also, too many times-- especially in standing conversation-- the actors speak their lines with perfect enunciation, as if they're performing from center stage. I expect that's also Humberstone's doing, but it comes across as stagey and inappropriate for a Western. And, of course, there's poor Donna Martell who looks great but is rather painfully no actress.

Still and all, it's an interesting, if somewhat convoluted, story and a treat for the eyes. And seeing all those familiar faces from other films almost looks like a reunion of sorts. I expect some good-hearted soul in production decided on a payday for a number of veteran performers. Also, it's a good chance to catch Skip Homeier in a rare sympathetic role, and Dennis Weaver shortly before his slow-talking, slow thinking deputy on the classic series Gunsmoke. Anyway, disappointing or not, no Western starring the granite-jawed Scott can afford to be overlooked.