One Foot in Hell

What ostensibly starts as a formula Western of a man who encounters tragedy on the frontier and rises above it quickly takes a darker turn in this noirish 1960 MGM release. Alan Ladd is an ex-Confederate who encounters a rude reception from townspeople when arriving in the middle of the night with a sickly pregnant wife; delays in getting a bottle of inexpensive medicine to her result in her death. The local merchants are remorseful and try to bring Ladd into the community by making him a lawman, but he instead embarks on a sociopath's trail of revenge.

By sad coincidence the role of a nihilistic man who has seen his world destroyed and is now fully detached from moral constraint is well suited to Ladd in the last few years of life; childhood trauma, alcoholism, and a suicide attempt indicate a life which demanded heavy tolls for whatever success he achieved. Made in an era partial to sunnier Westerns, the Peyton Place-atmosphere of OFIH stands out in stark contrast. The cold-blooded killing of a lawman, back-shooting betrayal. And a lethal gunfight played out solely for betting are all present in a script that seems more appropriate to a 1970's Clint Eastwood outing. Black and white filming would have added a special patina to the story.

This being the twilight of the 1950's, studio pressures might have compelled writer Aaron Spelling (yes, he of 1980's prime time soap fluff!) to shift some emphasis to the more redeemable characters played by Dolores Michaels and Barry Coe. And just for a moment, I wondered if Michaels might have been Lauren Bacall appearing under a stage name.

Western watchers might pay special attention to the covered buckboard that appears throughout; the canvas appears to have transparent plastic windows, and the late 1860's is much too early for that.

I saw this film on TV a couple of nights before and I must say that either I never heard of it or I didn't remember about it. The story is rather good and somehow original for a western: a man that blames a whole town for his wife's death and while earning their trust he plans his revenge that will be accomplished with its complete destruction aided by a group of outcasts he has selected carefully. But the result comes out as a kind of "cheap" product.

If you consider that the 50's gave us perhaps the best westerns in Hollywood history ("High Noon", "The Gunfighter", "Shane", "3:10 to Yuma", "Warlock", "The Searchers" and so many others) "One Foot in Hell" comes out as a minor product. Perhaps with a more skillful director and therefore a strongest and less standard direction the picture would have worked well.

Alan Ladd (as the patient avenger) was not at his best in the 60's and his severe alcoholism problems showed in his clearly damaged psychical appearance. Don Murray (as one of the members of the gang) overacts in most of his scenes. Perhaps the best acting piece comes from pretty Dolores Michaels as a prostitute also a member of Ladd's group.

This film could have been better qualified perhaps if it had been released in the 40's just before the western genre took a high and serious impulse in the 50's with extreme good products. It looks cheap and minor for the 60's.

Alan Ladd wasn't much of an actor. If you don't believe me just take a look at his mediocre performance in the very mediocre western "One Foot in Hell" which was directed by the little known James B Clark and also featured Don Murray, (terrible), and Dan O'Herlihy (slightly less terrible), in prominent roles. The only thing it has going for it is a plot that differs somewhat from other run-of-the-mill westerns. (It's more akin to a gangster picture). Ladd is the sheriff who plans to take revenge on the town that let his pregnant wife die, by robbing the bank. Handsomely shot in Cinemascope by William C Mellor it passes a couple of hours painlessly enough but you're not likely to remember it ten minutes after seeing it.

Alan Ladd plays Mitch Barrett, who after having his home and lands in Atlanta destroyed during the civil war heads with his pregnant wife west for a fresh start. The two make it to a western town where Mrs. Barrett and the baby die for want of medicine that cost $1.87. Simmering with hatred, Mitch never forgives the town...particularly the sheriff, general store owner and hotel owner. The three of whom he holds personally responsible for his wife's untimely death.

Cold and meticulous he plans his revenge, amassing four partners to help him with his plan. I appreciated the end...but overall thought Alan Ladd's acting lacked interest or emotion. He was so flat it made the revenge theme hard to follow. The story and plot were interesting...but Alan Ladd's flat performance ruined the film for me.

Definitely agree with the many IMDBers below who feel that the most notable thing, by far, about this psychological western is Alan Ladd's descent into darkness. Pretty sure I've never seen Ladd be this rotten. That it works is tribute to Ladd's skill as an actor, a talent often buried beneath a ton of bad to mediocre movies. Every so often, as in "Shane", "Blue Dahlia" or "Glass Key", it would rise to the surface and it's interesting that those three films also feature Ladd in a shadier hue than usual, although nothing compared to his portrayal of vengeance driven evil here. With his ridiculous derby hat and dead voice and deader eyes his character is truly creepy.

Dragging the film down is a clunky script by Aaron Spelling (yes, THAT Aaron Spelling) and Sydney Boehm that asks you to buy that a town can turn from moral corruption to redemption on a dime, based on a scolding from Larry Gates' saintly doc. And the love scenes between Don Murray and Dolores Michaels start at cloying and work their way down from there. Also, in a sure sign of bad writing, potentially interesting subsidiary characters, like Dan O'Herlihy's articulate killer and Barry Coe's sadistic killer, remain potential rather than fully developed. There is a scene that suggests these two have a shared past but, unless I missed something, we never find out what it is. (That's called a story hole, in case you're wondering).

Ladd sure lingers in the mind, though. Enough to give this film a B minus.